2010 Wildlife project review

The sponsors have provided most of the detail to support approval of the scientific merit of the proposal. The material provides a better understanding of the management objectives of the Burns Paiute Tribe for this land parcel. Consistency in staffing will contribute to effective adaptive management in this challenging environment. The ISRP qualifies the recommendation with the suggestion that in two to three years there is a review of monitoring progress. For the most part, the response was helpful in framing the various work elements. One answer that is lacking is to the question concerning what proportion of funds is for O&M and what is for future acquisition. The four-year rotation is an excellent plan, but it is also important to consider when in the year grazing occurs and for how long. To shift plant populations and create patchiness with grazing will probably result in overuse of key perennial forage species and may also be detrimental to livestock gain. If possible, yearlings would do a better job of this than pairs. Small burns could give these same results faster. With off-stream water and salt, most cattle should be discouraged from loafing in riparian areas unless the weather is hot and this is the only shade. Wet meadows and hayfields would be easier and less costly to manage if they are in native grasses that do not require regular haying or periodic replanting. Grazing will keep these plants in a vegetative stage that produces good quality winter forage. Vegetation data taken during the HEP survey can be statistically analyzed independently from the HEP analysis and used to monitor vegetation changes, if enough sites are sampled and they are measured more frequently than the five-year HEP interval. Line intercepts and plots are preferred over step point sampling for less common species. These are quick methods amenable to statistical analysis, as is the ISRP recommendation for more photo-points that could be accomplished with very minor budget increases. The ISRP suggests that a review occurs in the next two to three years to evaluate monitoring progress.

The project has good potential for benefiting fish and wildlife but does not adequately describe activities or present a convincing case that objectives can be accomplished. The relationship between O&M and acquisition should be stated. The response should better organize objectives and justify and explain work element and methods. Using livestock grazing and haying to improve fish and wildlife habitat should be explained in more detail. Monitoring efforts are commendable, although some suggestions are offered below. Lessons learned from events such as “failed” seedings should be related, so that others might benefit from your experience. The ISRP requests a response that includes more data summaries and descriptions of activities to evaluate mitigation activities (e.g., weed management). HEP is appropriate for crediting, but the science is outdated for effectiveness monitoring. Metrics for M&E should be provided and justified in a response. 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships As noted in a previous review, the logic for the project is that multiple fish and wildlife species could benefit from these restoration activities. The proposal includes cultural justification that complements the biological justification. The project has good potential for benefiting fish and wildlife but does not adequately describe activities or present a convincing case that objectives can be accomplished. A response that better justifies work elements and monitoring and evaluation is needed. More details are provided below. The proposal states that this is an ongoing project to manage 6385 deeded acres of various habitats along the Malheur River. Later the proposal states that this is an acquisition project. The sponsors should clearly state what type of project is proposed and if both, make that connection obvious. 2. Project History and Results The proposal provides an interesting chronological history summarizing work activities and cost for the restoration actions that have taken place over the last eight years. The results are explained in qualitative terms. It would be helpful to explain which efforts have been perceived as most successful and why, and which have required the most maintenance or adaptive management. It was useful to see the results of the 2006-2008 wildlife surveys, although there are insufficient results yet to be able to determine whether the restoration actions are having the desired effects. Evaluations of lessons learned from past events such as plantings failing, haying not completed, and no amphibians trapped despite activities such as irrigating to keep wetlands full, should be provided. Some objectives are repeated in number or in repeated wording. It is not clear that using salt to attract cattle away from riparian areas without fences will be adequate to protect the riparian habitat. Opportunities for off-stream watering should be explored. Using livestock grazing and haying as management tools where the goal is to improve fish and wildlife habitat should be explained in more detail in a response. Establishment of a long-term grazing policy as part of a management plan should be a priority. It was not clear why only nine photopoints were selected for long-term photo documentation of stream and riparian condition. Justification should be provided in a response. The 5-year aquatic habitat surveys in "critical streams" and 10-year surveys in secondary priority streams are probably too infrequent to document restoration-associated changes. The ISRP recommends at least 3-year survey intervals or more frequent surveys in case a large natural disturbance event (wildfire, flood, or multi-year drought) occurs. The annual temperature monitoring and fish survey plans appear adequate. The wildlife surveys, also conducted yearly, are well described, and project personnel are qualified for the work. We applaud the use of the Weed Information Management System as part of the weed control activity. The ISRP discourages use of HEP to determine vegetation trends or to evaluate if habitat needs of each target species are improving. HEP is appropriate for crediting, but the science is outdated for effectiveness monitoring. Metrics for M&E should be provided and justified in a response.