FY07-09 proposal 200000900

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Middle Snake / Malheur

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs: The Tribe anticipates receiving current funding levels into the forseeable future. To maintain ecosystem integrity, this particular ecosystem depends on disturbance activities. Vegetation treatments will continue and adminisrative costs and repair and maintenance of facilities and equipment necessitate this level of funding.

Termination date: None
Comments: 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.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: The logical need for the project is explained. 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. So in concept this is a supportable project, but more details are necessary. Measurable benefits to fish and wildlife should be more extensively identified. Monitoring is mentioned, but it is unclear if this is a rigorous scientific enterprise. The sponsors need to provide a response that better explains provisions for monitoring and evaluation, including details of past monitoring. This continues to be an issue identified in past ISRP reviews. Specifically, details concerning monitoring and evaluation are needed on 1) benefits to fish and wildlife, especially focal species, including an evaluation of how persistent the benefits will be; 2) possible adverse effects on non-focal species as it appears possible that some would exist; 3) the short and long-term success of habitat manipulations. Relationship and collaboration with other projects are noted but plans for information transfer should consist of more than preparation of annual reports. At the very least, some method to share successes and lessons learned with others involved in similar monitoring and restoration activities should be identified. Most objectives seem appropriate given the detail presented. The ISRP hopes to see more adaptive management as the project proceeds. Results of an irrigation study are anticipated, and this may provide information that can be useful in the future. Maintenance and repair of ranch buildings and preparation of annual reports are not appropriate biological objectives but are work elements. The presentation of work elements is not very detailed as to actual methods. Authors should provide some justification for the methods they will use. The description of facilities, equipment and personnel is well written. The facilities, equipment, and personnel are generally reasonable but it is unclear how effective the contribution of the Fisheries and Wildlife Director will be with only 0.08% (=0.0008) of time committed to the project. The personnel appear quite adequate for routine management, but the ISRP encourages the sponsors to identify additional resource personnel to assist with setting up and evaluating the monitoring program.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable

NPCC comments: 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.