Based on your permissions you can access the following related pages:
Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?
View and print project details including project summary, purpose, associations to Biological Opinions, and area. To learn more about any of the project properties, hold your mouse cursor over the field label.
| Province | Subbasin | % |
|---|---|---|
| Middle Snake | Malheur | 100.00% |
|
|
Description: Page: Cover: Cover photo Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 1088 x 1408 Description: Page: 6 Figure 2: Fencing (Green) and Willow Planting (Pink). Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 858 x 523 Description: Page: 7 Figure 3: Known weed infestations. Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 1056 x 816 Description: Page: 9 Figure 4: Thinning Location. Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 858 x 523 Description: Page: 17 Figure 8: Picture of Oregon semaphore grass. Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 975 x 739 Description: Page: 19 Figure 9: Proposed fence locations. Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 858 x 523 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8: Stream Photo Locations Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 650 x 551 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8a: BC #1 Upstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 506 x 338 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8b: BC #1 Downstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 506 x 338 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8c: BC #2 Upstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 506 x 338 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8d: BC #2 Downstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 506 x 338 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8e: BC #3 Upstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 506 x 338 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8f: BC #3 Downstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 506 x 338 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8g: BC #4 Upstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 506 x 336 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8h: BC #4 Downstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 506 x 338 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8i: BC #5 Upstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 506 x 338 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8j: BC #5 Downstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 506 x 338 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8k: MR #1 Upstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 506 x 338 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8l: MR #1 Downstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 506 x 338 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8m: MCC #1 Upstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 506 x 338 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8n: MCC #1 Downstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 506 x 338 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8o: MCC #2 Upstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 506 x 338 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8p: MCC #2 Downstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 506 x 338 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8q: LC #1 Upstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 506 x 338 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8r: LC #1 Downstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 506 x 338 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8s: LC #2 Upstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 506 x 338 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8t: LC #2 Downstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 506 x 338 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8u: LC #3 Upstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 506 x 338 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8v: LC #3 Downstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 506 x 338 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8w: LC #4 Upstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 506 x 338 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8x: LC #4 Downstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 506 x 338 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8y: LC #5 Upstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 506 x 338 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8z: LC #5 Downstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 506 x 338 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8aa: LC #6 Upstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 506 x 338 Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8ab: LC #6 Downstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P119238 Dimensions: 506 x 338 Description: Page: 7 Figure 2: Area of Small Exclosure Fencing. Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 692 x 783 Description: Page: 8 Figure 3: Location of Aspen Plantings and Associated Exclosures. Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 684 x 886 Description: Page: 9 Figure 4: Known weed infestations. Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 1056 x 816 Description: Page: 10 Figure 5: Burn Location. Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 858 x 523 Description: Page: 16 Figure 6: Picture of Oregon Semaphore grass. Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 763 x 578 Description: Page: 16 Figure 7: Oregon Semaphore grass ouplantings with latitude and longitude. Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 660 x 751 Description: Page: 31 Appendix B-Figure 1: Stream Photo Locations Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 650 x 551 Description: Page: 32 Appendix B-Photo 1: BC #1 Upstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 380 x 507 Description: Page: 32 Appendix B-Photo 2: BC #1 Downstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 380 x 507 Description: Page: 32 Appendix B-Photo 3: BC #2 Upstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 380 x 507 Description: Page: 32 Appendix B-Photo 4: BC #2 Downstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 338 x 450 Description: Page: 33 Appendix B-Photo 5: BC #3 Upstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 338 x 450 Description: Page: 33 Appendix B-Photo 6: BC #3 Downstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 338 x 450 Description: Page: 33 Appendix B-Photo 7: BC #4 Upstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 338 x 450 Description: Page: 33 Appendix B-Photo 8: BC #4 Downstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 338 x 450 Description: Page: 34 Appendix B-Photo 9: BC #5 Upstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 338 x 450 Description: Page: 34 Appendix B-Photo 10: BC #5 Downstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 338 x 450 Description: Page: 34 Appendix B-Photo 11: MR #1 Upstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 338 x 450 Description: Page: 34 Appendix B-Photo 12: MR #1 Downstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 338 x 450 Description: Page: 35 Appendix B-Photo 13: MCC #1 Upstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 338 x 450 Description: Page: 35 Appendix B-Photo 14: MCC #1 Downstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 338 x 450 Description: Page: 35 Appendix B-Photo 15: MCC #2 Upstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 338 x 450 Description: Page: 35 Appendix B-Photo 16: MCC #2 Downstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 338 x 450 Description: Page: 36 Appendix B-Photo 17: LC #1 Upstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 338 x 450 Description: Page: 36 Appendix B-Photo 18: LC #1 Downstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 338 x 450 Description: Page: 36 Appendix B-Photo 19: LC #2 Upstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 338 x 450 Description: Page: 36 Appendix B-Photo 20: LC #2 Downstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 338 x 450 Description: Page: 37 Appendix B-Photo 21: LC #3 Upstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 338 x 450 Description: Page: 37 Appendix B-Photo 22: LC #3 Downstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 338 x 450 Description: Page: 37 Appendix B-Photo 23: LC #4 Upstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 338 x 450 Description: Page: 37 Appendix B-Photo 24: LC #4 Downstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 338 x 450 Description: Page: 38 Appendix B-Photo 25: LC #6 Upstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 338 x 450 Description: Page: 38 Appendix B-Photo 26: LC #6 Downstream Project(s): 2000-009-00 Document: P124456 Dimensions: 338 x 450 |
To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"
To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page
| Acct FY | Acct Type | Amount | Fund | Budget Decision | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY2023 | Expense | $161,434 | From: General | FY23 SOY Budget Upload | 06/01/2022 |
| FY2024 | Expense | $168,537 | From: General | FY24 SOY Budget Upload | 06/01/2023 |
| Number | Contractor Name | Title | Status | Total Contracted Amount | Dates |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
106 REL 2
 SOW
|
Burns-Paiute Tribe | 2000-009-00 LOGAN VALLEY WILDLIFE MITIGATION | Terminated | $190,819 | 11/1/2000 - 10/31/2001 |
|
4855
SOW
|
Burns-Paiute Tribe | 2000-009-00 LOGAN VALLEY WILDLIFE MITIGATION | Closed | $582,611 | 5/2/2001 - 12/31/2004 |
|
20865
SOW
|
Burns-Paiute Tribe | PI 200000900 LOGAN VALLEY WILDLIFE MITIGATION | Closed | $131,689 | 1/1/2005 - 12/31/2005 |
|
25876
SOW
|
Burns-Paiute Tribe | 2000-009-00 LOGAN VALLEY WILDLIFE MITIGATION | Closed | $138,487 | 1/1/2006 - 12/31/2006 |
|
30989
SOW
|
Burns-Paiute Tribe | 2000-009-00 LOGAN VALLEY WILDLIFE MITIGATION | Closed | $121,178 | 1/1/2007 - 12/31/2007 |
|
36160
SOW
|
Burns-Paiute Tribe | 200000900 LOGAN VALLEY WILDLIFE MITIGATION | Closed | $146,840 | 1/1/2008 - 12/31/2008 |
|
40840
SOW
|
Burns-Paiute Tribe | 200000900 EXP LOGAN VALLEY WILDLIFE MITIGATION | Closed | $141,559 | 1/1/2009 - 12/31/2009 |
|
45459
SOW
|
Burns-Paiute Tribe | 200000900 EXP LOGAN VALLEY WILDLIFE MITIGATION | Closed | $149,681 | 1/1/2010 - 12/31/2010 |
|
50548
SOW
|
Burns-Paiute Tribe | 200000900 EXP LOGAN VALLEY WILDLIFE MITIGATION | Closed | $154,151 | 1/1/2011 - 12/31/2011 |
|
55165
SOW
|
Burns-Paiute Tribe | 2000-009-00 EXP LOGAN VALLEY WILDLIFE MITIGATION | Closed | $154,274 | 1/1/2012 - 12/31/2012 |
|
59432
SOW
|
Burns-Paiute Tribe | 2000-009-00 EXP LOGAN VALLEY WILDLIFE MITIGATION | Closed | $151,945 | 1/1/2013 - 12/31/2013 |
|
63745
SOW
|
Burns-Paiute Tribe | 2000-009-00 EXP LOGAN VALLEY WILDLIFE MITIGATION | Closed | $154,274 | 1/1/2014 - 12/31/2014 |
|
67694
SOW
|
Burns-Paiute Tribe | 2000-009-00 EXP LOGAN VALLEY WILDLIFE MITIGATION | Closed | $158,131 | 1/1/2015 - 12/31/2015 |
|
71116
SOW
|
Burns-Paiute Tribe | 2000-009-00 EXP LOGAN VALLEY WILDLIFE MITIGATION | Closed | $182,674 | 1/1/2016 - 12/31/2016 |
|
74622
SOW
|
Burns-Paiute Tribe | 2000-009-00 EXP LOGAN VALLEY WILDLIFE MITIGATION | Closed | $162,084 | 1/1/2017 - 12/31/2017 |
|
77964
SOW
|
Burns-Paiute Tribe | 2000-009-00 EXP LOGAN VALLEY WILDLIFE MITIGATION BPT | Closed | $161,434 | 1/1/2018 - 12/31/2018 |
|
81048
SOW
|
Burns-Paiute Tribe | 2000-009-00 EXP LOGAN VALLEY WILDLIFE MITIGATION BPT | Closed | $146,955 | 1/1/2019 - 12/31/2019 |
|
84117
SOW
|
Burns-Paiute Tribe | 2000-009-00 EXP LOGAN VALLEY WILDLIFE MITIGATION BPT | Closed | $166,200 | 1/1/2020 - 12/31/2020 |
|
86963
SOW
|
Burns-Paiute Tribe | 2000-009-00 EXP LOGAN VALLEY WILDLIFE MITIGATION BPT | Closed | $161,433 | 1/1/2021 - 12/31/2021 |
|
89444
SOW
|
Burns-Paiute Tribe | 2000-009-00 EXP LOGAN VALLEY WILDLIFE MITIGATION | Closed | $160,406 | 1/1/2022 - 12/31/2022 |
|
91563
SOW
|
Burns-Paiute Tribe | 2000-009-00 EXP LOGAN VALLEY WILDLIFE MITIGATION | Issued | $161,434 | 1/1/2023 - 12/31/2023 |
|
93912
SOW
|
Burns-Paiute Tribe | 2000-009-00 EXP LOGAN VALLEY WILDLIFE MITIGATION | Issued | $168,537 | 1/1/2024 - 12/31/2024 |
| Annual Progress Reports | |
|---|---|
| Expected (since FY2004): | 31 |
| Completed: | 28 |
| On time: | 28 |
| Status Reports | |
|---|---|
| Completed: | 74 |
| On time: | 56 |
| Avg Days Early: | 2 |
| Count of Contract Deliverables | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earliest Contract | Subsequent Contracts | Title | Contractor | Earliest Start | Latest End | Latest Status | Accepted Reports | Complete | Green | Yellow | Red | Total | % Green and Complete | Canceled |
| 4855 | 20865, 25876, 30989, 36160, 40840, 45459, 50548, 55165, 59432, 63745, 67694, 71116, 74622, 77964, 81048, 84117, 86963, 89444, 91563, 93912 | 2000-009-00 EXP LOGAN VALLEY WILDLIFE MITIGATION | Burns-Paiute Tribe | 05/02/2001 | 12/31/2024 | Issued | 74 | 292 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 315 | 92.70% | 1 |
| Project Totals | 74 | 292 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 315 | 92.70% | 1 | ||||||
| Assessment Number: | 2000-009-00-NPCC-20210312 |
|---|---|
| Project: | 2000-009-00 - Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation |
| Review: | 2017 Wildlife Category Review |
| Approved Date: | 10/13/2017 |
| Recommendation: | Implement |
| Comments: |
Recommendation: Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications 1-3 in 2018 annual report and future management plan (per programmatic issue recommendations in this Decision Document Part 1). [Background: See https://www.nwcouncil.org/fish-and-wildlife/project-reviews-and-recommendations/2017-wildlife-project-review] |
| Assessment Number: | 2000-009-00-ISRP-20201105 |
|---|---|
| Project: | 2000-009-00 - Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation |
| Review: | 2017 Wildlife Category Review |
| Completed Date: | None |
| Documentation Links: |
|
| Assessment Number: | 2000-009-00-NPCC-20091217 |
|---|---|
| Project: | 2000-009-00 - Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation |
| Review: | Wildlife Category Review |
| Approved Date: | 5/31/2009 |
| Recommendation: | Fund |
| Comments: | Programmatic issue # 2-3 and # 7 |
| Conditions: | |
| Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) - interaction between wildlife crediting and monitoring | |
| Council Condition #2 Programmatic Issue: Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) participation funding | |
| Council Condition #3 Programmatic Issue: Management Plans - Multiple uses of wildlife conservation lands |
| Assessment Number: | 2000-009-00-ISRP-20090618 |
|---|---|
| Project: | 2000-009-00 - Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation |
| Review: | Wildlife Category Review |
| Completed Date: | 5/19/2009 |
| Final Round ISRP Date: | None |
| Final Round ISRP Rating: | Meets Scientific Review Criteria |
| Final Round ISRP Comment: | |
|
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. |
|
| First Round ISRP Date: | 3/26/2009 |
| First Round ISRP Rating: | Meets Scientific Review Criteria |
| First Round ISRP Comment: | |
|
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. |
|
| Documentation Links: |
|
| Assessment Number: | 2000-009-00-NPCC-20090924 |
|---|---|
| Project: | 2000-009-00 - Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation |
| Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
| Approved Date: | 10/23/2006 |
| Recommendation: | Fund |
| Comments: | Interim funding pending wildlife o&m review. |
| Assessment Number: | 2000-009-00-ISRP-20060831 |
|---|---|
| Project: | 2000-009-00 - Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation |
| Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
| Completed Date: | 8/31/2006 |
| Final Round ISRP Date: | None |
| Final Round ISRP Rating: | Meets Scientific Review Criteria |
| Final Round ISRP 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. |
|
| Documentation Links: |
|
| Assessment Number: | 2000-009-00-INLIEU-20090521 |
|---|---|
| Project Number: | 2000-009-00 |
| Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
| Completed Date: | 10/6/2006 |
| In Lieu Rating: | No Problems Exist |
| Cost Share Rating: | None |
| Comment: | O&M on BPA-funded wildlife mitigation site; assume requested funds consistent with terms of MOA. |
| Assessment Number: | 2000-009-00-CAPITAL-20090618 |
|---|---|
| Project Number: | 2000-009-00 |
| Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
| Completed Date: | 2/27/2007 |
| Capital Rating: | Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding |
| Capital Asset Category: | None |
| Comment: | None |
| Name | Role | Organization |
|---|---|---|
| Erica Maltz (Inactive) | Interested Party | Burns-Paiute Tribe |
| David Kaplowe | Supervisor | Bonneville Power Administration |
| Jody Lando | Project SME | Bonneville Power Administration |
| Clay Guetling (Inactive) | Administrative Contact | Burns-Paiute Tribe |
| Virginia Preiss | Project Manager | Bonneville Power Administration |
| Trey Wall | Supervisor | Burns-Paiute Tribe |
| Israel Duran | Env. Compliance Lead | Bonneville Power Administration |
| Matt Hanneman | Project Lead | Burns-Paiute Tribe |
