The response addressed the key ISRP concerns. The scoring system for habitat and cost are simple and relatively comprehensive, and with review from biologists during a site visit, should allow ranking parcels by their benefits to fish and the relative costs to achieve these benefits. 

Likewise, with regard to climate change, the ISRP agreed that selecting properties that have features making them resilient to increased temperatures, and increased variability of temperature, flow, and other disturbances, will make them as resistant to climate change as possible. 

A few comments about the criteria should be considered as the sponsors move forward. The numbers below refer to the criteria.

Biological Criteria

1. Is overwinter habitat not often limiting for the resident fish? If so, should its importance be scored higher?

3. This is apparently a new criterion, and groundwater is an important consideration. However, if the depth to groundwater is not known, then some of the categories are not mutually exclusive. Also, is groundwater measured next to the stream,at the boundary between floodplain and uplands, or where?

5d. This criterion seems to contradict the statement above it that all parcels must include at least one river bank. That is, if they don't then they aren't even considered for scoring.

Cost Criteria - If the minimum score for each of the four criteria is 1.0, then is the minimum total score not 4.0, instead of 4.5?

The ISRP also felt that connectivity and adjacency could be given more weight in the criteria, and in ranking parcels. For example, the targeted resident fish generally need multiple habitats that are dispersed throughout watersheds, so the importance of any one segment of stream or river may depend on whether native species can reach it. Likewise, the benefits of one parcel may be greatly increased if it provides suitable summer habitat but is also adjacent to another protected parcel with winter habitat. 

In contrast, it may also be important to know whether nonnative species can reach the site or whether they are limited by barriers to connectivity. That is, sometimes lack of connectivity can be a good thing. This is partly addressed in Biological Criterion 1d but probably deserves its own criterion.

ISRP Retrospective Evaluation of Results 

The ISRP is pleased with efforts by the two sponsors to collaborate actively on this project. This level of cooperation and collaboration is rare in the Columbia River Basin. The project has so far protected 35 km of streams since 2002 using about $27.5 million, including 6000 acres of riparian habitat. Some of the parcels are key components of the Jocko River restoration effort (see the Jocko River Master Plan) and others link to the River to Lake Initiative on the Flathead River mainstem upstream from Flathead Lake. Overall, ISRP members were especially impressed with the ongoing acquisitions in the Jocko River basin as contributing important fish habitat.

 

This joint ongoing project between MFWP and CSKT requests $24 million to continue acquiring lands by fee title or conservation easement to protect forever habitat for adfluvial and resident bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout in the Flathead River basin, Montana. This work is mitigation for habitat lost owing to Hungry Horse Dam. 

First, the ISRP applauds the two sponsors on their efforts to collaborate actively on this project. This level of cooperation and collaboration is rare in the Columbia Basin. The project has so far protected 35 km of streams since 2002, including 6000 acres of riparian habitat. Some of the parcels are key components of the Jocko River restoration effort (see the Jocko River Master Plan) and others link to the River to Lake Initiative on the Flathead River mainstem upstream from Flathead Lake. Overall, ISRP members were especially impressed with the ongoing acquisitions in the Jocko River basin as contributing important fish habitat. The presentation to the ISRP showed several properties acquired, and presented a brief list of the criteria used to select lands for acquisition. However, these criteria, both for the 1) ecological/mitigation value and 2) the cost/benefit value, were not presented in the proposal. Moreover, this same request has apparently been made repeatedly by ISRP, yet no information has been forthcoming. In the “Response to past ISRP and Council comments and recommendations” the sponsors indicate that they have developed the criteria and a scoring system.

The ISRP is excited about the opportunity for the program to continue to purchase lands, or conservation easements, as one of the most effective ways to protect habitat to help recover the threatened salmonids in this basin. The ISRP also understands that much of work depends on opportunity to purchase parcels, and that this is sensitive to both the release of information and timing. However, the ISRP requires a response on four key points:

1. What are the specific qualitative and quantitative criteria that provide the template against which different properties are compared, both for ecological/mitigation and cost/benefit purposes?
   
   
2. How are these criteria scored? The ISRP needs to see the explicit criteria and scoring metrics used.

1. How are two key emerging limiting factors, increased climate change and variability, and exotic species, considered in this scoring system?

For example, future climate change and variability, or invasions by a non-native plant or fish, may make a property that is currently valuable no longer a high priority for acquisition. Much trout habitat will be lost as water warms, and fish assemblages will likely shift to species like smallmouth bass in the next 70 years (Wenger et al. 2011, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci). Although the ISRP agrees that much can be done to decrease these effects with riparian habitat protection and watershed restoration, it will be important to develop basic predictions of what habitats will remain suitable into the future. How does the scoring system account for these factors?

1. It was unclear how the budget was planned and the total cost determined. The ISRP understands that many acquisitions are opportunistic, but more information is needed here.

ISRP Retrospective Evaluation of Results 

As described above, the ISRP is pleased with efforts by the two sponsors to collaborate actively on this project. This level of cooperation and collaboration is rare in the Columbia basin. The project has so far protected 35 km of streams since 2002 using about $27.5 million, including 6000 acres of riparian habitat. Some of the parcels are key components of the Jocko River restoration effort (see the Jocko River Master Plan) and others link to the River to Lake Initiative on the Flathead River mainstem upstream from Flathead Lake. Overall, ISRP members were especially impressed with the ongoing acquisitions in the Jocko River basin as contributing important fish habitat.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/17/2012 1:25:38 PM.

The response is not adequate. The sponsors do not seem to understand the nature of a funding proposal. They are defensive about having to supply needed information for a technical evaluation of their project. Reviewers suggest that if their proposal is "substantiated by the science," as the authors say, then it is the obligation to outline that science, as they understand it. Apparently there have been no results from the 2002 funding. Their strategy of land acquisition for ecosystem protection is fine, but the proposal must go beyond that. The response gives statements about what they intend, but these are not given as measurable objectives. It is understandable that they do not want to show their hand on specific properties, but the objectives for a generic property can be given (in the context of the paper cited in the ISRP review, which was intended to be helpful for formulating a response). Development of criteria for selecting properties ought to have been the first objective for the 2002 funding, and given as results in this proposal. Ironically, many of the comments in the response, if presented in proposal format and not as a criticism of the ISRP and its reviewers, could have constituted several elements in a logical proposal and useful response.

As the ISRP commented, this project has elements that make it a very worthwhile. The problem is that the sponsors have inadequately presented it and have shown no progress from the previous funding. These deficiencies give a technical reviewer no justification for recommending it. A defensive response criticizing the ISRP reviewers is not helpful. Sponsors of this proposal need to organize their approach and thoughts regarding this process and develop a sound, science-based proposal.

Other issues include the lack of justification for acquiring properties based on limiting factors. They need to come with criteria for future acquisitions. What criteria did they use for the 2.36 km of credited property they have already purchased?