Proposal 200000900: Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation Site
|
1. Administrative 2. Location 3. Species 4. Past accomplishments 5. Relationships |
6. Objectives 7. Work elements 8. Budget 9. Future 10. Narrative |
Organization: Burns Paiute Tribe
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.
Contacts
| Contact name | Role | Address | Phone | |
| Jason Kesling | Contract Manager | Burns Paiute Tribe 100 Pasigo St. Burns OR 97720 |
541.573.1375 x2 | Jason.kesling@burnspaiute-nsn.gov |
Section 2. Location
Province: Middle Snake Subbasin: Malheur
Specific locations
| Lat/long | Location desc | Waterbody (lake or stream) | County/State | Subbasin | Resolution | Primary? |
| 44.1764, -118.6544 | Approximately 16 miles east of Seneca, Oregon | Big Creek, Lake Creek, McCoy Creek | Grant County Oregon | Malheur | point | Yes |
Section 3. Species
Primary: Wildlife: All Wildlife
Additional species: Antelope, Rocky Mtn. Elk, Mule Deer, Upland Sandpiper, Greater Sandhill Crane, Sage Grouse, Bull Trout, Redband Trout, Waterfowl and all bat, neotropical birds and small mammals.
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| FY | Accomplishment |
| 2000 | Property acquisition. Assisted ARC in ongoing studies regarding willow, species composition, and vegetation monitoring techniques. Initiated a fencing project with TNC to protect/enhance wildlife and fish habitat. Conducted initial HEP analysis. |
| 2001 | Produced stream evaluations on Lake and Big Creeks. Completed the first draft of the project management plan. Completed pertinent archaeological surveys. Initiated a study to understand the impacts of water management on riparian and meadow communities. |
| 2002 | Management Plan was completed and accepted by CBFWA and BPA. Irrigation study continued. Vegetation treatments began including grazing and timber thinning practices. Coordinated with ODA to introduce state endangered and federal species of concern plant. |
| 2003 | Vegetation treatments include seeding uplands, timber thinning and noxious weed control. Improved the efficiency of flood irrigation system. Aerial photos were taken to monitor vegetation trends. Irrigation study with ARS continues. |
| 2004 | Vegetation treatments continue. Additional tree thinning occurred and grazing and irrigation were again utilized. The irrigation study with ARS continued. A bridge was built coordinating with USFS. Planted 2 miles of streambank with willows. |
| 2005 | Vegetation treatments continue. Grazing and irrigation were utillized and tree thinning occurred. Corresponding slash piles were burned. Irrigation canals were repaired and head gates installed. Irrigation study continued. |
| 2006 | Grazing, fencing projects, noxious weed control, willow and aspen planting, timber tinning, irrigation, continued willow monitoring, small mammal, fish and bird surveys. Grants form USFWS and ODFW to complete fish screen on McCoy Creek. MOU with OSU. |
| 2007 | Fencing projects, noxious weed control, signed into CREP, irrigation and completions of fish screen. Surveys;bird, willow, stream, small mammal, fish and Oregon Semaphore grass. Applied for grants for fish screen on Cabin ditch funded form ODFW and USFWS. |
| 2008 | Fencing projects, noxious weed control, cattle management, controlled burns, well development, CREP plantings, irrigation activities. Surveys; small mammal, fisheries, Oregon Semaphore grass establishment, preburn forest inventory; and HEP. |
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Project ID | Project Title | Relationship |
| BPA | 200002700 | Malheur River Wildlife Mitigation Project | Co-managed by the Department, located 38 miles downstream along the Malheur River. |
| BPA | 199701900 | Stinking Water Salmonid Projec | Redband and bull trout research - study has included the Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation Site. |
Section 6. Objectives
| Objective title | Description | Relevant subbasin plan | Relevant strategy(ies) | Page number(s) |
| 1. Improve Riparian Condition and Complexity | Protect, restore, and maintain riparian conditions and functions along McCoy, Lake, and Big Creeks by; managing livestock use, planting vegetation, noxious weed control and protecting riparian vegetation from wild ungulates. | Malheur | 69-75,80-82,86-88 | |
| 2. Restore Forest, Meadow and Steppe Habitat | The uplands, forests and wet meadow habitats of the Mitigation Site are highly important for many wildlife species. Logan Valley is a known birthing area for pronghorn, elk and deer, waterfowl nesting area, sage grouse summer habitat, nesting area for upland sandpipers and serves other wildlife species in a variety of ways. The maintenance, restoration, and protection of these habitat types are crucial in maintaining the local ecosystem as well as wildlife populations throughout the subbasin. | Malheur | 82-91 | |
| 3. Restore and Protect Fish Habitat and Passage | Maintain, restore and protect fish habitat and fish passage connectivity by; managing irrigation diversion fish screens, planting riparian vegetation and livestock management. | Malheur | 69-76,78-82,86-88 | |
| 4. Conduct M&E Activities | Conduct M&E Activities to Evaluate and Adapt Management Strategies. Activities involve; bat, small mammals, amphibian, HEP, point-counts surveys, Cross section analysis, forest inventory, monitor water quantity and quality and Receive Bull/Redband Trout Management recommendations. | Malheur | 88,89 | |
| 5. Protect Cultural Resources | Work with Tribal and BPA Cultural Resources department to ensure that an Environment Compliance Documentation is produced. Staff will have to provide detailed descriptions of work performed to ensure proper protection is achieved. | Malheur | Burns Paiute Tribe Cultural Resources Porteciton and Managment Code |
Section 7. Work elements
| Work element name | Work element title | Objective(s) | Start date | End date | Estimated budget> | Sponsor performs work? |
| Manage and Administer Projects | Project Administration | 1/1/2010 | 12/31/2012 | 39,975 | Yes | |
| Description: All tasks associated with administering the Burns Paiute Wildlife Department. | ||||||
| Produce (Annual) Progress Report | Submit Annual Report | 1/1/2010 | 12/31/2012 | 15,375 | Yes | |
| Description: Submit annual report to BPA. | ||||||
| Produce Pisces Status Report | Periodic Status Reports for BPA | 1/1/2010 | 12/31/2012 | 6,150 | Yes | |
| Description: Report on the status of milestones and deliverables in Pisces. | ||||||
| Conduct Controlled Burn | Conduct a Controlled Burn in Forest Understory and in Wet Meadows. | 1. Improve Riparian Condition and Complexity<br>2. Restore Forest, Meadow and Steppe Habitat | 1/1/2010 | 12/31/2012 | 25,000 | No |
|
Description: We intend to use fire in forest habitats to restore forest structure and function. In wet meadow systems, we would like to conduct a test burn to determine if reintroducing fire as a management tool is a better alternative to grazing when vegetation treatment is needed. One forest understory was burned in the fall of 2008 treating approximately 55 acres. A test burn in the wet meadows will likely occur prior to full scale implementation. The BPT will be responsible for all pre-burn activities including thinning, low limb removal and moving debris from sites we don’t want burned. Burning activities will be contracted.
Metrics: |
||||||
| Maintain Vegetation | Livestock Management | 1. Improve Riparian Condition and Complexity<br>2. Restore Forest, Meadow and Steppe Habitat<br>3. Restore and Protect Fish Habitat and Passage | 1/1/2010 | 12/31/2012 | 77,650 | Yes |
| Description: We will address Projects limiting factors through proper livestock management. A fulltime range technician will monitor cattle status and maintain fencing to exclude cattle from riparian areas. Water will be provided to livestock through alternative water sources established outside of riparian areas. We expect riparian conditions will improve with willow re-establishment, reduced erosion and compaction in and around riparian sites. | ||||||
| Maintain Vegetation | Maintain wet meadow habitat through irrigation | 1. Improve Riparian Condition and Complexity<br>2. Restore Forest, Meadow and Steppe Habitat<br>3. Restore and Protect Fish Habitat and Passage | 1/1/2010 | 12/31/2012 | 54,200 | Yes |
| Description: Wet meadows will be irrigated from April through June during high water flows. Flood irrigation will be utilized. Multiple head gates and irrigation ditches allow movement of water across the property. A range technician will monitor irrigation needs daily and move water as deemed necessary. Historically this would have occurred naturally but due to past land uses stream channels have begun to incise, the water table has lowered, and consequently flood events occur less often (U.S. Forest Service 2000). When flows begin to decrease, water is left in-stream for fish habitat. | ||||||
| Plant Vegetation | Plant Riparian Vegetation | 1. Improve Riparian Condition and Complexity<br>2. Restore Forest, Meadow and Steppe Habitat<br>3. Restore and Protect Fish Habitat and Passage<br>5. Protect Cultural Resources | 1/1/2010 | 12/31/2012 | 30,750 | Yes |
|
Description: Between 2010 and 2018, we intend to plant riparian plants with in the CREP boundary along McCoy Creek, Big Creek and Lake Creeks. Willows will be harvested from local sites in January of each year and kept in a cold and dark environment until mid April when access to the valley becomes available and planting begins. Planting will occur by pounding a stake into the grounds and sticking the willow stalks into the ground surface to a depth that would reach water levels in late summer. All above ground branches will be removed and stalks will be cut so no more than 6 – 12 inches of stalk is visible above ground. All work will be conducted by BPT staff.
Metrics: |
||||||
| Remove vegetation | Noxious Weed Control | 1. Improve Riparian Condition and Complexity<br>2. Restore Forest, Meadow and Steppe Habitat<br>3. Restore and Protect Fish Habitat and Passage<br>5. Protect Cultural Resources | 1/1/2010 | 12/31/2012 | 50,894 | Yes |
|
Description: Noxious weed control requires the identification of sites that need treatment, developing a method in which to control the particular weed species (chemical, mechanical, etc.), ensuring environmental compliance and the control itself. In addition, documentation of the control is crucial for future success and overall control efforts. We will monitor noxious weed control using Weed Information Management System (WIMS) developed by the University of California, Davis for use by The Nature Conservancy (TNC). Control will continue through 2018.
Metrics: |
||||||
| Install Fence | Install Fencing around Willow and Aspen Plantings | 1. Improve Riparian Condition and Complexity<br>2. Restore Forest, Meadow and Steppe Habitat<br>3. Restore and Protect Fish Habitat and Passage<br>5. Protect Cultural Resources | 1/1/2010 | 12/31/2012 | 27,675 | Yes |
|
Description: We will try to reestablish aspen and willow stands. Wildlife fences will be installed to prevent herbivory. Enclosures will be approximately 400 square feet. We anticipate developing 20 enclosures per year. Fencing will be removed once vegetation grows beyond the herbivory line. The intent is to reestablish aspen and willow stands which are beneficial to an array of wildlife species.
Metrics: |
||||||
| Remove vegetation | Tree Thinning | 2. Restore Forest, Meadow and Steppe Habitat | 1/1/2010 | 12/31/2012 | 34,928 | Yes |
|
Description: Cull species are prioritized as 1) lodgepole pine, 2) Douglas fir and 3) ponderosa pine. Ponderosa pine will only be cut when all other species are removed and additional thinning is still needed. The resulting tree stand should include a variety of age classes. Project staff will perform all work with chainsaws. Within the thinning process, not all trees will be felled but some will be cut to create snags for the benefit of many avian species including the Pileated Woodpecker, a terrestrial focal species identified in the Malheur River Subbasin Assessment and Management Plan (pg. 48). Approximately 10 snags per acre will be created.
Metrics: |
||||||
| Investigate Trespass | Control Access | 2. Restore Forest, Meadow and Steppe Habitat<br>3. Restore and Protect Fish Habitat and Passage<br>5. Protect Cultural Resources | 1/1/2010 | 12/31/2012 | 12,300 | Yes |
| Description: Access and public activities will be controlled by access permits issued by the BPT staff. | ||||||
| Install Fish Screen | Install Fish Screen on Lake Creek | 3. Restore and Protect Fish Habitat and Passage<br>5. Protect Cultural Resources | 1/1/2010 | 12/31/2012 | 5,000 | Yes |
|
Description: An unscreened irrigation diversion exists on Lake Creek, east of the cabin on the Mitigation Site. To reinitiate the use of water, the irrigation ditch must be screened. The Tribe will coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to design and construct an appropriate fish screen eliminating fish loss. Coordination has begun in 2007 with construction in either 2009 or 2010.
Metrics: |
||||||
| Operate and Maintain Habitat/Passage/Structure | Maintain Fish Screen on McCoy Creek and Big Creek Diversion Ditch | 3. Restore and Protect Fish Habitat and Passage<br>5. Protect Cultural Resources | 1/1/2010 | 12/31/2012 | 31,000 | Yes |
| Description: A fish screen was built in 2007 by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to eliminate fish loss due to irrigation practices. The project staff will perform minor maintenance for the life of the fish screen. Minor maintenance includes; winterizing fish screens, grease wheels, making sure the screens are working properly and free of debris. Minor maintenance activities will continue through 2018. | ||||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Bird Point Counts | 4. Conduct M&E Activities | 1/1/2010 | 12/31/2012 | 3,075 | Yes |
|
Description: Performing population estimates will provide us with the ability to analyze population response to habitat manipulations. Population estimates will be determined utilizing methods outlined in Research and Management Techniques for Wildlife and Habitats (Lancia et al. 1996).
Metrics: |
||||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Small Mammal Surveys | 4. Conduct M&E Activities | 1/1/2010 | 12/31/2012 | 3,075 | Yes |
|
Description: Small mammal surveys will be performed annually using Sherman live traps. A population analysis will be conducted utilizing trapping and analysis methods outlined in Research and Management Techniques for Wildlife and Habitats (Lancia et al. 1996).
Metrics: |
||||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Bat Surveys | 4. Conduct M&E Activities | 1/1/2010 | 12/31/2012 | 3,075 | Yes |
| Description: BPT staff, US Forest Service and BLM will perform different methods to inventory the presence of bat species using a standardized survey effort and sample unit developed by U.S. Forest Service, (Ormsbee 2008). Methods include; mist netting, harp trapping, acoustic sampling and roost surveys. Project staff involved in capturing bats must have a current rabies vaccination and attend bat survey training. Coordination will be done through 2010-2018. | ||||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Conduct Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) | 4. Conduct M&E Activities | 1/1/2010 | 12/31/2012 | 3,075 | Yes |
| Description: To attain credits for wildlife land purchases, BPA chose to utilize HEP which provides an index to the quality of land for a particular target species. The Mitigation Site received a HEP to determine baseline conditions in 2000. An additional HEP will be conducted in 2014 to determine vegetation trends and evaluate whether the habitat needs of each target species are improving. | ||||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Amphibian Surveys | 4. Conduct M&E Activities | 1/1/2010 | 12/31/2012 | 3,075 | Yes |
|
Description: Information on amphibian abundance and diversity helps determine the relative health of ecosystems and the success of wetland habitat improvements. Amphibian studies will be conducted annually to yield species occurrences. Both active and passive sampling methods will be utilized. The active method will be a pitfall and drift fence trap design on the immediate edge of water bodies for data on relative abundance and estimations of species catch based on one thousand trap nights. Passive methods will include searching for egg masses and listening for spawning calls to document species presence. Egg mass counts and call surveys will be conducted when pitfall traps are checked.
Metrics: |
||||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Forest Inventory | 4. Conduct M&E Activities | 1/1/2010 | 12/31/2012 | 3,075 | Yes |
|
Description: Fifteen permanent plots were established along two parallel transect lines prior to the prescribed burn to 55 forested acres. Plots 1-10 ran through the section of forest previously thinned (transect 1). Plots 11-15 ran through the section of forest where no known forest management activities have taken place in recent history (transect 2). Our management objectives for the controlled burn were to reduce the mean total fuel load by 50-80% one year postburn; open woodland stand and improve native grass, shrub and forb populations for wildlife by reducing the density of live pole-size trees one year postburn; and reduce understory sapling density by at least 25%. The forest inventory was conducted preburn to help us quantify if management objectives were met. A second inventory will be conducted one year postburn (2009) and three years postburn.
Metrics: |
||||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Aquatic Habitat and Population Assessment | 4. Conduct M&E Activities | 1/1/2010 | 12/31/2012 | 3,075 | Yes |
|
Description: Conduct periodic aquatic habitat and population assessments on drainages associated with the management of the Logan Valley Mitigation Site. Aquatic assessments include: 1) Aquatic Habitat Assessments on critical drainages every 5 years; 2) Annual Stream Temperature Monitoring; 3) scheduled multiple-pass removal (depletion) estimates for redband trout; 4) stream discharge monitoring; 5) stream channel cross section monitoring; and 6) annual bull trout spawning surveys.
Metrics: |
||||||
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Cultural Resources | 5. Protect Cultural Resources | 1/1/2010 | 12/31/2012 | 18,450 | Yes |
|
Description: Work with Tribal and BPA Cultural Resources department to ensure that an Environment Compliance Documentation is produced. Staff will have to provide detailed descriptions of work performed to ensure proper protection is achieved.
Metrics: |
||||||
| Outreach and Education | Tribal Community and Public Education | 5. Protect Cultural Resources | 1/1/2010 | 12/31/2012 | 12,044 | Yes |
|
Description: Attend public meeting (watershed, county court, SWCD, etc.) host tribal field trips, attend elder gathering and other tribal functions. Attend Oregon Chapter Wildlife Society Meeting.
Metrics: |
||||||
| work element budget total: | 462,916 | |||||
Section 8. Budget
| Item | Note | FY 2010 cost ($) | FY 2011 cost ($) | FY 2012 cost ($) | |
| Personnel | 3 permanent staff, 1 technician | 58,860 | 60,331 | 61,839 | |
| Fringe Benefits | 3 permanent staff, 1 technician | 15,931 | 16,329 | 16,737 | |
| Travel | Travel, Seminars and Training | 5,996 | 6,146 | 6,300 | |
| Supplies | Fuel, Herbicide, Fencing Supplies, Vehicle Maintenance and Facilities Maintenance. | 14,423 | 14,783 | 15,153 | |
| Other | Rent/Utilities | 6,088 | 6,240 | 6,396 | |
| Other | Subcontracts | 9,585 | 9,827 | 10,073 | |
| Overhead | Calculated on 39.12% indirect rate | 39,628 | 40,618 | 41,633 | |
| Itemized budget totals: | 150,511 | 154,274 | 158,131 | ||
| Type of funding source | Funding source or organization | Item or service provided | FY 2010 est value ($) | FY 2011 est value ($) | FY 2012 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
| federal | Farm Service Agency (FSA) | CREP Payment | 25,596 | 25,596 | 25,596 | Cash | Confirmed |
| state | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) | Management and coordination | 5,000 | 5,000 | 5,000 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| other | Oregon State Univeristy (OSU) | Research, monitoring, coordination | 5,000 | 5,000 | 5,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| private | Grazing | Grazing | 0 | 2,600 | 0 | Cash | Under Development |
| federal | U.S. Forest Service | Management and coordination | 5,000 | 5,000 | 5,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| Cost share estimate totals: | 40,596 | 43,196 | 40,596 | ||||
FY 2010-12 total cost share estimate: 124,388
Section 9. Project future
| Outyear budgets | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 |
| 162,084 | 166,136 | 170,289 | 174,546 | 178,909 | 183,382 |
Note
Continued current year funding with 2.5% cost of living.
Likely project termination/end date: None
Termination notes:
This is a wildlife acquisition project that includes land acquisition. Funding should continue indefinitely if designated as a project for funding priority with NPCC.
Final deliverables:
Improved fish and wildlife habitat and the ability to provide tribal hunting opportunities as mitigation for the loss of fish and wildlife resources.
Reviews
ISRP final recommendation: Meets Scientific criteria? Yes
The project is well described, justified, described, planned, and documented. The location of this project makes it likely that fish and wildlife will benefit from the actions taken. The monitoring and evaluation plan is good. The sponsors are encouraged to effectively summarize their quantitative and qualitative results to provide further evidence of the value of the project. The long-term grazing allotment and grazing issues will be important issues affecting the landscape. Institutional policy decisions concerning grazing should be clearly articulated.
1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships
The technical justification of the project is written clearly and is compelling. This ongoing work is in a good geographic position to improve water and riparian conditions downstream as well as in the immediate area. The logical need for the project is clearly explained. The restoration activities are likely to benefit several fish and wildlife species. The proposal identifies the importance of the project to the Malheur subbasin. Focal species were identified and related to both the Malheur subbasin plan and to ODFW's wildlife species of concern. Relationships to other restoration efforts in the region were given in general terms.
2. Project History and Results
The history of the project is clearly reported and provides context that includes cultural justification to complement the biological justification. Partial results from 2006-2008 are presented in the proposal, but the short time series and lack of effective interpretation make evaluation of project success difficult. It would have been helpful to include monitoring data, even though preliminary, on upland and riparian vegetative recovery since grazing exclusion.
3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods
The objectives, work elements, and methods are described in a coherent manner. Several work elements involving alternative strategies are used to address the same objective. It is likely that such a strategy will result in useful information to share with others concerning successes and lessons learned. A map of the area showing where different actions would occur (fencing, controlled burning, and noxious weed control) for each biological objective would help. In general the work description and methods were adequately detailed.
4. M&E
Similar to the ISRP FY 2007-09 review, the monitoring and evaluation includes vegetative monitoring through four different methods: photo monitoring, noxious weed monitoring, HEP and forest inventory monitoring. The sponsors note that HEP provides an additional source of information that can be used to assess vegetative changes specifically for the focal species used in the baseline HEP, even though the ISRP does not recommend HEP as a monitoring tool. We note once again that field observations complement photography in understanding mechanisms involved and in developing any needed modifications or replicating success. More information should have been provided on how the data would be analyzed and archived.
from May 19, 2009 ISRP 2009-17 report
ISRP preliminary recommendation: Meets scientific criteria? Yes
The project is well described, justified, described, planned, and documented. The location of this project makes it likely that fish and wildlife will benefit from the actions taken. The monitoring and evaluation plan is good. The sponsors are encouraged to effectively summarize their quantitative and qualitative results to provide further evidence of the value of the project. The long-term grazing allotment and grazing issues will be important issues affecting the landscape. Institutional policy decisions concerning grazing should be clearly articulated.
1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships
The technical justification of the project is written clearly and is compelling. This ongoing work is in a good geographic position to improve water and riparian conditions downstream as well as in the immediate area. The logical need for the project is clearly explained. The restoration activities are likely to benefit several fish and wildlife species. The proposal identifies the importance of the project to the Malheur subbasin. Focal species were identified and related to both the Malheur subbasin plan and to ODFW's wildlife species of concern. Relationships to other restoration efforts in the region were given in general terms.
2. Project History and Results
The history of the project is clearly reported and provides context that includes cultural justification to complement the biological justification. Partial results from 2006-2008 are presented in the proposal, but the short time series and lack of effective interpretation make evaluation of project success difficult. It would have been helpful to include monitoring data, even though preliminary, on upland and riparian vegetative recovery since grazing exclusion.
3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods
The objectives, work elements, and methods are described in a coherent manner. Several work elements involving alternative strategies are used to address the same objective. It is likely that such a strategy will result in useful information to share with others concerning successes and lessons learned. A map of the area showing where different actions would occur (fencing, controlled burning, noxious weed control) for each biological objective would help. In general the work description and methods were adequately detailed.
4. M&E
Similar to the ISRP FY 2007-09 review, the monitoring and evaluation includes vegetative monitoring through four different methods: photo monitoring, noxious weed monitoring, HEP and forest inventory monitoring. The sponsors note that HEP provides an additional source of information that can be used to assess vegetative changes specifically for the focal species used in the baseline HEP, even though the ISRP does not recommend HEP as a monitoring tool. We note once again that field observations complement photography in understanding mechanisms involved and in developing any needed modifications or replicating success. More information should have been provided on how the data would be analyzed and archived.
from Mar 26, 2009 ISRP 2009-7 report