The project proponents indicate that next year’s progress report will provide a fuller response to our questions. In particular, the proponents plan to develop quantitative biological objectives and update management plans with the new quantitative biological objectives. An objective of 0.75 for similarity of restored habitat with reference conditions is proposed – it would be helpful to describe what such a restored habitat looks like relative to the reference conditions with some qualitative descriptions. For example, does a similarity of 0.75 indicate “most key species are present but some species are underrepresented?” Some general statements such as these would be helpful.

The project appears to have the potential to be a scientifically sound and regionally based monitoring system, and the ISRP awaits the next year’s progress report.

Modified by Sharon Grant on 11/4/2020 3:17:41 PM.

The project proponents agreed to submit a progress report for ISRP review in 2018. The report should: * provide detailed responses to the ISRP’s eight questions from the preliminary review * describe the status of updating management plans to include quantitative biological objectives for each representative cover type, and * describe what a restored habitat looks like relative to the reference conditions.

The ISRP thanks the authors for their responses, but the ISRP requests that the following Qualifications be resolved.

Qualification 1. The ISRP remains concerned about the number of reference sites, frequency of surveys, and characteristics of sites. The ISRP recommends that three reference sites would be used, rather than the proposed two sites. The ISRP recommends that reference sites be monitored in perpetuity, in subsequent years, for the M&E program's duration. This approach would allow the ability to use other statistical methods. The authors should also draft a plan for monitoring after a major disturbance. If resources are extremely limited, the ISRP emphasizes three or more reference sites be surveyed periodically, rather than two sites surveyed three years in a row.

The ISRP requests that the authors more fully define their use of “intact” - what about natural disturbances? Would it still be a reference cite with a massive disturbance such as a wildfire, while the managed site did not have the disturbance? The disturbed reference site can still be useful. Some disturbances such as agricultural/subdivision conversion do make the site lose the value as a reference site. Because of this threat, the reference site criteria should include a requirement (or preference) that the land is protected through a conservation easement or the like, likely public land.

The ISRP found the goal of reference sites as pristine habitat and managing treatment sites to move toward the conditions of the reference site – managing for the future desired condition based on the pristine reference site – an interesting choice. The ISRP requests that a more heuristic approach would be to select reference sites with the goals of the managed sites in mind. The ISRP requests that the authors seek guidance from the management agencies on selecting reference sites.

The ISRP is concerned that three years in a row is not enough for a robust estimate of interannual variation. For example, rodent populations vary greatly with changes in snow conditions. This issue becomes less important if the authors survey reference sites as well as the restored sites every five years. The more regularly sites are monitored, the better the authors will understand variation.

The ISRP acknowledges that this approach could document changes between reference and management sites and this approach will not necessarily get at the "why" behind the changes.

Qualification 2. The ISRP requests a preliminary analysis of data to better assess statistical procedures, analytical approaches, and results in two years.

The ISRP wants to acknowledge and applaud this consortium’s unique, regional approach to M&E. The technical background generally describes the inability to evaluate the effectiveness of acquisition and subsequent active and passive management of lands to mitigate for the loss of various habitats now inundated by reservoirs. More successful management decisions are likely because of the coordinated effort across subbasins and habitat types. The consistency with the Fish and Wildlife Program and subbasin plans is adequately outlined. The relationship of this coordinated project with the projects acquiring, managing, and restoring tracts of land is sufficient. Clearly integration of monitoring, consistency with protocols, and open access to evaluations are needed and this proposal begins that process in one region. Several questions or requests need to be addressed in the response: 1. include the statistical information from the presentation in the proposal; 2. include a detailed list of criteria used for selection of reference sites; 3. could reference sites include post-disturbance successional states (e.g. post fire)? 4. regarding the choice of indicator species, amphibians, mammals, and birds, will these same indicator species be used on dry upland sites? 5. give more details of how the data will be analyzed, including an expansion of how the species metric will be analyzed with an example data summary; the test statistics suggested for analyzing response of the metric; and the statistical power and probability levels they anticipate using; 6. what is the rationale for sampling reference sites for 3 years at the beginning but not revisiting these sites? Or will reference and mitigation sites be sampled simultaneously? A timeline (e.g. 20 years) might help reviewers interpret the sampling strategy; 7. the scale and duration of the project present obstacles for sampling