1. Objectives and outcomes 

General objectives or overarching goals were presented in the Summary Report. Quantitative objectives with timelines, however, should now be developed and used to guide future work and help formulate the project’s adaptive management plan. The proponents may also wish to establish a depreciation schedule to see if the critical infrastructure needs replacement. This schedule would also allow the proponents to assess and prepare for risks, such as fires. 

The 2017 Summary lists the primary objective as “vegetation management to protect and enhance the existing shrub-steppe and riparian habitats and restore former agricultural fields and degraded areas to native habitat” and the secondary objective as “infrastructure maintenance.” These are clear statements of intention that can be justified as supporting recovery plans for imperiled focal species. However, they lack timelines and are not quantitative, and consequently, cannot be used to evaluate success or track progress. Quantitative objectives and timelines need to be developed for pygmy rabbits, vegetation, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, greater sage grouse, including genetic diversity of grouse populations. They could be used to justify supporting recovery plans for imperiled focal species. As another example, without quantitative objectives for vegetation management (e.g. enhancement of shrub-steppe, weed control) it is difficult to determine outcomes. Acres under management, road miles treated for weed control, and measuring success of vegetation conversion could act as quantitative objectives. 

The proponents identify that shrub-steppe habitat protection and enhancement are key objectives. ISRP wonders what quantitative objectives guide this work. For instance, are there objectives for species richness, coverage, distribution, and/or species composition? 

2. Scientific principles and methods 

An extensive series of recovery plans, research reports, and published scientific papers is provided to justify habitat restoration actions in support of three imperiled focal species (pygmy rabbit, Columbia sharp tailed grouse and greater sage grouse). The research (and monitoring) is mostly convincing that appropriate scientific principles and methods are being applied. Much of the work was conducted in the Sagebrush Flat Wildlife Area (SWFA).

The ISRP suggests photo plots be considered as a technique for monitoring vegetation management outcomes. For this monitoring method to be useful photos should be taken from the same spots at the same time of year. 

3. Monitoring and evaluation 

Monitoring and evaluation of results is evident in the reports cited, but that work was funded by organizations other than BPA, primarily WDFW and USFWS. WDFW is also planning to implement a Citizen Science based monitoring program on the SFWA. Proponents should be aware of the difficulties of using citizen science in remote areas. 

The ISRP was pleased to see links provided for grouse translocation projects included in the Summary Report (e.g. Re-establishment of Viable Populations of Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse in Washington: 2010 Progress Report [Schroeder et al. 2010] Link). The ISRP suggests lek counts from the project areas and surrounding sites be included in future progress reports instead of just attaching the status and trends report for the entire state. 

4. Results: benefits to fish and wildlife and adaptive management 

The proponents reported results of the grouse translocation project (2009-2013), and the ISRP anticipates that the results will inform other projects (e.g. Swanson Lake, Scotch Creek).

Overall, the project is maintaining various improvements to habitat that benefits imperiled focal species. The Summary Report includes a useful summary of lessons learned about specific habitat restoration actions and administrative policies. The decisions or recommendations for changes are described clearly, but they are not well supported by evidence or references to analyses in other documents.  

The ISRP requests that in the next revision of the management plan, the proponents develop quantitative objectives, timelines, and an adaptive management approach for tracking how the project’s focal species are responding to management actions. Grouse and pygmy rabbits are being monitored, but additional monitoring should be directed toward how vegetation (shrubsteppe habitat, water birch) is responding to the project’s activities.

The sponsors have presented many useful data and analyses. Graphs and mapped data are well presented and clearly show the decline of focal species (pygmy rabbit, sage grouse, etc.) as well as efforts to restore those populations and their habitats. Land-use changes are described in detail. Work elements are linked to objectives, which are reasonable and use standard methods.

The project is on track, with a few exceptions noted below. These issues should be addressed in future annual reports and proposals.

1) The appendices include results and elements of project history.
a) It would be useful to analyze existing data so they may be used in an adaptive management strategy. For example p. 49 "Although the Sagebrush Flat Unit is monitored annually for breeding birds, the data is not yet available. Because the data has been collected over a longer time interval than the breeding bird surveys conducted as part of the shrub steppe restoration study, it should be useful for examining trends." In other instances clarification of statistical methodology would improve the proposal (e.g., p. 49 re western meadowlark "None of the data illustrated significant long-term trends, although the western meadowlark was close (slope of -0.0165, P = 0.0551)." The statement is equivocal.
b) WDFW biologists will monitor the progress of the recovery program and evaluate additional release sites including the Dormaier and Chester Butte Units (p. 11 - what methods?).
c) Generally, wildlife species were not monitored with much intensity, although radio-marked sage grouse and sharptails were released; any relocation of these individuals? If so, please summarize with survival rates for radio-marked birds and size of area used by marked birds.

2) The reduction in Conservation Reserve Program acres is of concern and the proposal would be improved by further explanation of how serious this issue is relative to overall progress of the project. Scientific guidance for restoration/enhancement and M&E comes from WDFW scientists. The sponsors should be complimented for bringing the researchers into their project as the publications resulting from the work are applicable to other WDFW Areas. However, the scientists must be stretched thinly to cover all M&E concerns at this area as well as the others in the state.

3) Could the authors present a citation for the statement in their presentation that 2 million sharp-tailed grouse were harvested in one year (1880's) in the Palouse alone and sent back East?

The sponsors have presented many useful data and analyses. Graphs and mapped data are well presented and clearly show the decline of focal species (pygmy rabbit, sage grouse, etc.) as well as efforts to restore those populations and their habitats. Land-use changes are described in detail. Work elements are linked to objectives, which are reasonable and use standard methods. The project is on track, with a few exceptions noted below. These issues should be addressed in future annual reports and proposals. 1) The appendices include results and elements of project history. a) It would be useful to analyze existing data so they may be used in an adaptive management strategy. For example p. 49 "Although the Sagebrush Flat Unit is monitored annually for breeding birds, the data is not yet available. Because the data has been collected over a longer time interval than the breeding bird surveys conducted as part of the shrub steppe restoration study, it should be useful for examining trends." In other instances clarification of statistical methodology would improve the proposal (e.g., p. 49 re western meadowlark "None of the data illustrated significant long-term trends, although the western meadowlark was close (slope of -0.0165, P = 0.0551)." The statement is equivocal. b) WDFW biologists will monitor the progress of the recovery program and evaluate additional release sites including the Dormaier and Chester Butte Units (p. 11 - what methods?). c) Generally, wildlife species were not monitored with much intensity, although radio-marked sage grouse and sharptails were released; any relocation of these individuals? If so, please summarize with survival rates for radio-marked birds and size of area used by marked birds. 2) The reduction in Conservation Reserve Program acres is of concern and the proposal would be improved by further explanation of how serious this issue is relative to overall progress of the project. Scientific guidance for restoration/enhancement and M&E comes from WDFW scientists. The sponsors should be complimented for bringing the researchers into their project as the publications resulting from the work are applicable to other WDFW Areas. However, the scientists must be stretched thinly to cover all M&E concerns at this area as well as the others in the state. 3) Could the authors present a citation for the statement in their presentation that 2 million sharp-tailed grouse were harvested in one year (1880's) in the Palouse alone and sent back East?

This is continuing project is tied to protection and restoration of pygmy rabbits, sage grouse, and sharp-tailed grouse. These activities are related to a number of regional programs. However, the priority of this project does not appear urgent.

The proposal includes a good description of project history and tasks accomplished. Some small descriptions of biological benefits achieved are described, but authors should better develop this description, particularly given the amount of time and work that has transpired over the project history.

Data have been collected from all four units of the SFWA. In many instances, these dataset represent more than a decade of work. A consistent ISRP recommendation for a number of years has been the need to relate HEP survey data to actual on-the-ground wildlife responses. It is a disappointment and a serious concern that those results are not yet available for this project. They should receive much higher priority. Given the large, ongoing investment in this project, the ISRP believes it is important to know whether wildlife (particularly ESA-listed species) are responding to the habitat work. The project sponsors seem on track to providing this evaluation, and this type of reporting should be included in annual reports and subsequent proposals.

Technical and scientific background: The rationale for this project is tied to protection and restoration of pygmy rabbits, sage grouse, and sharp-tailed grouse. Similar to previous ISRP reviews of this long-standing project, the proposal provides much detail for monitoring and evaluation indicating awareness of issues missing from many proposals.

Additionally, the ISRP recommends that terrestrial sampling on Fish and Wildlife Program lands follow common sampling methods and some common data collection protocols across the four States involved to enhance monitoring and evaluation of terrestrial systems on subbasin and basin scales. Perhaps the recent PNAMP and CSMEP efforts and the National Resources Inventory sampling procedures and data collection protocols could serve the region.

The proposal included extensive description of budget items, with individual items seemingly having appropriate costs, but the overall project cost still seems high compared to other projects.

Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The proposed work fits in well with wildlife objectives of the subbasins plan, the Fish and Wildlife Program, and ESA mandated concerns on pygmy rabbits, sharp-tail and sage grouse.

Relationships to other projects are well described in the proposal.

Project history: The proposal includes a good description of project history and tasks accomplished. Some small descriptions are provide of biological benefits achieved - more emphasis needs to be placed here, particularly given the amount of time and work that has transpired over the project history.

For example, the following is from page 15 of the proposal under Monitoring: "Baseline HEP work has been conducted on all 4 units of the SFWA, including the Sagebrush Flat, Dormaier, Chester Butte, and Bridgeport units. Although the HEP results have been examined in relation to standard Habitat Suitability Indices for focal species, the habitat data has as yet not been linked directly to the results of wildlife surveys. These surveys include, but are not limited to, aerial surveys of mule deer populations, surveys of greater sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse display sites (leks), pellet surveys of deer, grouse, and jackrabbits, breeding surveys of songbirds, searches for songbird nests, winter surveys of birds, trapping surveys of small mammals, and standardized searches for reptiles and amphibians (Schroeder and Almack 2006). Some of these data sets have been collected every year since at least 1994 and some have been stratified by management history and focal habitat."