2010 Wildlife project review

The sponsors’ response addressed the ISRP’s concerns. The sponsors provided a point-by-point response to ISRP comments, most of which were related to monitoring the effectiveness of the riparian habitat restoration measures that are being implemented at this site. The response explains that the primary focus of the Iskuulpa Watershed Project is terrestrial habitat-based, and aquatic habitat and fish monitoring are not a responsibility directly associated with this project. However, these elements are being monitored by other organizations. Monitoring fish populations is conducted by the Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project. Aquatic habitat methods developed by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife were used to inventory aquatic habitat as part of the Umatilla Anadromous Fisheries Habitat Project. Coordination of the Iskuulpa Watershed Project with the natural production monitoring project and the fish habitat project is clearly explained in the response. The project sponsors are to be commended for the close coordination between their project and those teams that are conducting the riparian and aquatic work. Trends in vegetation since the inception of this project have been monitored using only qualitative information including riparian photo points and observations of project staff. This information suggests that riparian vegetation is improving. Quantitative vegetative trend data are not available but are necessary to evaluate project effectiveness and inform adaptive management. Some remote-methods are available that can provide quantitative data on riparian vegetation. Infra-red aerial photography could be useful in monitoring shrub recovery in riparian areas with minimal field verification. Information also can be obtained from regular color aerial photography. The sponsors note that HEP data collection is scheduled to be repeated in 2012, enabling evaluation of long-term trends in vegetation on transects established in 1999 and 2000. To be clear, the ISRP does not view HEP as a monitoring tool; HEP is an accounting tool for estimating mitigation credits. However, supplementary analysis of the field data collected for the HEP models can provide an indication of changes in some habitat conditions over time. Such may be the case with the vegetation transect data to be collected in 2012 for Iskuulpa. It is not clear if the established HEP transects are fully representative of the conditions occurring in the Iskuulpa watershed. If not, this deficiency could easily be addressed by establishing additional vegetation transects. These transects should be re-measured more frequently in the future. In particular, grassland transects can vary greatly year-to year with changes in precipitation. These changes can be orders of magnitude greater than any response to a management action. Therefore, determining effectiveness of a management action will require an understanding of the influence of precipitation. Once data has been collected over a range of precipitation levels (particularly spring precipitation), it will be possible to differentiate the response to project actions from those related to variation in climate. Although a more rigorous scheme of vegetation monitoring will greatly enhance the ability of the project sponsors to determine project effectiveness, the ultimate measure is the response of the wildlife species that the project is intended to enhance. The ISRP encourages the project sponsors to consider including wildlife population evaluation of wildlife responses to the Iskuulpa project. Because of the expense of such an effort, it might be best accomplished by partnering across several projects in the region that are attempting to restore habitats comparable to those at Iskuulpa. The monitoring of wildlife population responses would be conducted at a subset of these sites, but all sites would apply similar treatments and vegetation/habitat monitoring. For example, such collaboration could be a very efficient way to begin to quantitatively address the broader issues of grazing effects on wildlife and restoration of terrestrial and aquatic habitats damaged by livestock.

This project is especially significant in that this watershed contains habitats of considerable significance for several species, including summer steelhead. Results from M&E efforts in the watershed should be reported, including: 1. a summary of vegetative trends; 2. more detail on survey methods for monitoring fish habitat to determine how sensitive to habitat change these surveys may be; 3. more detail on spawner or redd surveys of the fish spawning in Iskuulpa Creek; 4. more explanation of coordination with other projects doing M&E is needed. For example, relationship to the Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project 1990-005-01, could be expanded, e.g., explain the M&E plan and how benefits of activities accomplished by the Iskuulpa project will be quantified, and how the results of M & E are used to adapt to new, innovative habitat maintenance and restoration procedures. 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships The justification, significance and relationship to other restoration projects in the Umatilla/Willow Subbasin are appropriate for this project. The proposal asks for ongoing support to continue the implementation of a restoration effort being implemented at a watershed scale. This project is especially significant in that this watershed contains habitats of considerable significance for several species, including summer steelhead. However, the proposal did not present the results of their M&E efforts in the watershed. The justification for the project would be much stronger if this was provided. 2. Project History and Results This project was initiated in 1994, and considerable progress has been made since then both in terms of extending protection to additional lands through acquisition or lease and enhancing the quality of habitat on lands previously secured. Although the project sponsors do not have the budget to conduct a comprehensive assessment of project results, they have used the monitoring resources at their disposal to implement an effective program to evaluate the results of their restoration efforts in the watershed (see comments below related to the monitoring elements of the project). 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods In general the objectives, work elements, and methods are appropriate for this project. Many of the activities for which the project sponsors are seeking funding involve the continuation of activities that are intended to maintain and improve project elements previously implemented. Continuing these activities is critical to the long-term success of the project. Maintaining fences, ensuring that noxious weeds are controlled and controlling recreational activities within the watershed are all necessary actions to ensure continued improvement of watershed conditions. The sponsors are encouraged to continue investigating new techniques to accomplish, reduce, or eliminate maintenance and operations tasks over the long term. The review team applauds the use of integrated pest management strategies and the use of local sources of plant materials for restoration activities. 4. M&E The M&E effort is very commendable, given the relatively low level of funding dedicated to this activity. Most monitoring of riparian and upland vegetation work is provided by fixed photopoints. This technique is appropriate for providing a qualitative indication of plant response. There also appears to be some quantitative data available on the vegetation from the ecological reconnaissance plots. A summary of vegetative trends should be provided in a response. The monitoring of fish habitat is based on results of surveys conducted in 1994 and 2008. Not enough detail was provided on survey methods to determine how sensitive to habitat change these surveys may be. More detail on survey methods and results should be provided in a response. More frequent re-surveys would be valuable to provide a better indication of how rapidly stream habitat responds to the application of a given restoration action. As one of the objectives of the watershed restoration project is the reduction of fine sediment and water temperature, it was surprising that some monitoring of these parameters has not been included. Determining temporal changes in temperatures and sediment levels can require significant effort, which may be beyond the monitoring resources for this project, but would be very valuable additions to the monitoring plan for the Iskuulpa Creek watershed. Spawner or redd surveys on the creek were mentioned only very briefly in the section on relationships with other projects. More detail on what these surveys have found regarding the fish spawning in Iskuulpa Creek should be provided in a response. More explanation of coordination with other projects doing M&E is needed. For example, relationship to the Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project 1990-005-01, could be expanded; e.g., explain the M&E plan and how benefits of activities accomplished by the Iskuulpa project will be quantified, and how the results of M & E are used to adapt to new, innovative habitat maintenance and restoration procedures.