< Back to list of FY 2007-2009 projects

200000900 - Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation Site

Sponsor: Burns Paiute Tribe

Budgets: FY07: $146,840 | FY08: $146,840 | FY09: $146,840

Short description: Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation Site is an ongoing project allowing the Tribe to manage 1760 acres of wet meadow, wetland, forest and sagebrush steppe habitats at the headwaters of the Malheur River while addressing multiple goals for fish and wildlife.

view full proposal

Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)

Funding category: Expense

Recommended budgets: FY07: $151,245 | FY08: $155,782 | FY09: $160,455

Comment: Interim funding pending wildlife o&m review.

ISRP final recommendation: Fundable

Comment:

The logical need for the project is explained in the proposal. Multiple fish and wildlife species could possibly benefit from these restoration activities. The proposal demonstrates the significance of the project to the Malheur subbasin. The history of the project is clearly reported. The context includes cultural justification that complements the biological justification. This project is in a good topographic position to influence water and riparian conditions downstream as well the proximate area. The monitoring and evaluation includes vegetative monitoring through four different methods: aerial photos, willow monitoring, vegetation transects and HEP. The sponsors note that the ISRP does not recommend HEP as a vegetation monitoring tool but assert that it is a source of additional information that can be used to assess vegetative changes specifically for the focal species used in the baseline HEP. Statements of desired conditions are very useful starting points. A few comments on vegetation monitoring: aerial photos will provide useful information on overstory species change, but will tell little about the reasons, e.g., recruitment or development of existing plants. Some field observation to complement photography will aid in understanding mechanisms involved and in developing any needed modifications or replicating success. It is noted that elk browsing appears to be limiting willow recovery. Is any management change indicated to assure meeting project objectives? It appears that vegetation frequency data may be incorrectly understood as more than just occurrence of a species in a proportion of plots examined. The sponsors should verify that this will give them what they are seeking. As far as transects: 1 per vegetation type will not allow very robust interpretation, regardless of the number of subsamples associated with the location. The ISRP appreciates that wildlife monitoring is also described in the response. Relationship and collaboration with other projects are noted. Publications and other methods of sharing results were identified in the response. Methods to share successes and lessons learned with others involved in similar monitoring and restoration activities should be utilized. Most objectives seem appropriate given the detail presented. The ISRP hopes to see more adaptive management as the project proceeds. Adaptive management means a systematic evaluation of monitoring results by the team to be used to verify successes, identify unanticipated opportunities, and change management when needed. The description of facilities, equipment, and personnel is well written. The facilities, equipment, and personnel are generally appropriate. The sponsors have identified a consulting biometrician to provide statistical support as necessary.

Response loop edit

See the sponsor's revised proposal from the response loop. You'll be taken to CBFWA's proposal system in Section 10 where most sponsors uploaded revised narratives or other responses to the ISRP comments.

State/province recommendation: Fundable

Review group: Snake

Recommended budgets: FY07: $151,245 | FY08: $155,782 | FY09: $160,455

Comment: Proposed budgets increased to reflect 3% cost of living increase.