The ISRP found the responses adequate. The ISRP would encourage the use of another HEP evaluation within the next five years and/or the agency use vegetation sampling of their own design.

We are very interested in ensuring that the agency understand as much as possible about management and recovery of sharp-tailed grouse on project lands and have several questions about this process. There are grouse populations that are somewhat similar (relict populations, few leks, supplemented with translocated birds) that are responding/performing differently. We wonder if there are empirical data that can be used to understand differences among grouse populations on various projects.

A response is requested to address the following questions/recommendations:

1. Can you summarize vegetation differences (and other differences) between Swanson and Scotch Creek that may be used to explain differences in sharp-tail grouse numerical responses? Vegetation data could be micro-site information or landscape scale mapping data. Are there vegetation differences (i.e. structural? pattern?) between Swanson Lake and Scotch Creek? The presentation by the Swanson Lake site manager raised some hypothetical reasons for the difference in sharp-tailed grouse population dynamics.

2. The sponsors should identify how they will evaluate grouse supplementations.

3. Are there objectives for vegetation management on the project? If not, the reviewers request some objectives for structural features of vegetation (height, Robel pole) and vegetation types. The authors should summarize the riparian habitat restoration including acres impacted and some measure of survival of the shrubs planted.

4. Regarding the HEP vegetation data presented in Appendix B, Table 1, how is herbaceous cover defined? Please add a footnote in this table to give readers the definition of herbaceous cover. The differences in herbaceous cover (%) in shrub-steppe in the two survey periods caught our attention.

5. How might this project move forward based on vegetation data?

6. Can you report long-term (10-15 years) data on deer numbers and harvest on or in the Game Management Unit that encompasses the project?

7. Could this project be linked with the UMWEP project, or are the data incompatible?

The proposal clearly relates the need for intervention to increase and maintain sharp-tailed grouse populations on SLWA. The proposal adequately describes the relationship between the objectives in the project and the Crab Subbasin Plan. However, because of the continuing decline in sharp-tailed grouse numbers, it is not clear if the facilities and personnel are appropriate to achieve restoration.

The history of the project is effectively documented. Some evaluation of results is included but more indication of possible reasons for the continuing decline of sharp-tailed grouse populations despite intensive intervention efforts is recommended. While results to date are not promising it may be that habitat enhancement activities that are in place, coupled with protection and supplementation, will show signs of success in the near future.

The ambitious monitoring and evaluation component may serve as an example for others if conducted, documented, and distributed effectively. The ISRP was pleased to see plans for monitoring vegetation, planted shrubs, and marking supplemental birds from Idaho and British Columbia. A few additional considerations could improve the monitoring and evaluation component of the proposal. Participants should monitor livestock trespass to ensure the adequacy of smooth wire bottom strand of new fencing. The proposal could include some analysis of genetic composition of individuals on the area as well as samples from birds added annually. These data could serve as baseline information and allow a critical evaluation of the importance of genetics in recovery of these birds.

Measurable objectives in terms of sharp-tailed grouse numbers as well as habitat alterations are clearly stated. The proposal, however, should better present support for the importance of fragmentation of habitats for this population. The sponsors do a good job of clearly indicating the relationship of this project with other projects and identifying cooperative efforts for sharing information on sharp-tailed grouse with other projects.