Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2000-009-00 - Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2000-009-00 - Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation
Project Number:
2000-009-00
Title:
Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation
Summary:
The Logan Valley was purchased in April 2000 to compensate, in part, for the loss of fish and wildlife resources in the Columbia and Snake River Basins. The project allows the Tribe to manage 1,760 acres of meadow, wetland, and sagebrush steppe habitats within the headwaters of the Malheur River. The property includes significant stretches of Big and Lake Creeks and hosts key habitat for bull trout. The project is also benefiting other populations of fish, wildlife, and plant species. General objectives include reviving and improving critical habitat for fish and wildlife populations, controlling/ eradicating weed populations, improving water quality, and preserving cultural resources.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Burns-Paiute Tribe (Tribe)
Starting FY:
2000
Ending FY:
2021
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Middle Snake Malheur 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Bass, Largemouth
Bass, Smallmouth
Catfish
Crappie, Black
Crappie, White
Freshwater Mussels
Other Resident
Perch, Yellow
Pikeminnow, Northern
Trout, Brook
Trout, Bull
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 0.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 100.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
None

Description: Page: Cover: Cover photo

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 1088 x 1408

Description: Page: 6 Figure 2: Fencing (Green) and Willow Planting (Pink).

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 858 x 523

Description: Page: 7 Figure 3: Known weed infestations.

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 1056 x 816

Description: Page: 9 Figure 4: Thinning Location.

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 858 x 523

Description: Page: 17 Figure 8: Picture of Oregon semaphore grass.

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 975 x 739

Description: Page: 19 Figure 9: Proposed fence locations.

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 858 x 523

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8: Stream Photo Locations

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 650 x 551

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8a: BC #1 Upstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 506 x 338

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8b: BC #1 Downstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 506 x 338

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8c: BC #2 Upstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 506 x 338

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8d: BC #2 Downstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 506 x 338

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8e: BC #3 Upstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 506 x 338

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8f: BC #3 Downstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 506 x 338

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8g: BC #4 Upstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 506 x 336

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8h: BC #4 Downstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 506 x 338

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8i: BC #5 Upstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 506 x 338

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8j: BC #5 Downstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 506 x 338

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8k: MR #1 Upstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 506 x 338

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8l: MR #1 Downstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 506 x 338

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8m: MCC #1 Upstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 506 x 338

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8n: MCC #1 Downstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 506 x 338

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8o: MCC #2 Upstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 506 x 338

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8p: MCC #2 Downstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 506 x 338

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8q: LC #1 Upstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 506 x 338

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8r: LC #1 Downstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 506 x 338

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8s: LC #2 Upstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 506 x 338

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8t: LC #2 Downstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 506 x 338

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8u: LC #3 Upstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 506 x 338

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8v: LC #3 Downstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 506 x 338

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8w: LC #4 Upstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 506 x 338

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8x: LC #4 Downstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 506 x 338

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8y: LC #5 Upstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 506 x 338

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8z: LC #5 Downstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 506 x 338

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8aa: LC #6 Upstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 506 x 338

Description: Page: Appendix B, Figure 8ab: LC #6 Downstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P119238

Dimensions: 506 x 338

Description: Page: 7 Figure 2: Area of Small Exclosure Fencing.

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 692 x 783

Description: Page: 8 Figure 3: Location of Aspen Plantings and Associated Exclosures.

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 684 x 886

Description: Page: 9 Figure 4: Known weed infestations.

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 1056 x 816

Description: Page: 10 Figure 5: Burn Location.

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 858 x 523

Description: Page: 16 Figure 6: Picture of Oregon Semaphore grass.

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 763 x 578

Description: Page: 16 Figure 7: Oregon Semaphore grass ouplantings with latitude and longitude.

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 660 x 751

Description: Page: 31 Appendix B-Figure 1: Stream Photo Locations

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 650 x 551

Description: Page: 32 Appendix B-Photo 1: BC #1 Upstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 380 x 507

Description: Page: 32 Appendix B-Photo 2: BC #1 Downstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 380 x 507

Description: Page: 32 Appendix B-Photo 3: BC #2 Upstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 380 x 507

Description: Page: 32 Appendix B-Photo 4: BC #2 Downstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 338 x 450

Description: Page: 33 Appendix B-Photo 5: BC #3 Upstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 338 x 450

Description: Page: 33 Appendix B-Photo 6: BC #3 Downstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 338 x 450

Description: Page: 33 Appendix B-Photo 7: BC #4 Upstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 338 x 450

Description: Page: 33 Appendix B-Photo 8: BC #4 Downstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 338 x 450

Description: Page: 34 Appendix B-Photo 9: BC #5 Upstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 338 x 450

Description: Page: 34 Appendix B-Photo 10: BC #5 Downstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 338 x 450

Description: Page: 34 Appendix B-Photo 11: MR #1 Upstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 338 x 450

Description: Page: 34 Appendix B-Photo 12: MR #1 Downstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 338 x 450

Description: Page: 35 Appendix B-Photo 13: MCC #1 Upstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 338 x 450

Description: Page: 35 Appendix B-Photo 14: MCC #1 Downstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 338 x 450

Description: Page: 35 Appendix B-Photo 15: MCC #2 Upstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 338 x 450

Description: Page: 35 Appendix B-Photo 16: MCC #2 Downstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 338 x 450

Description: Page: 36 Appendix B-Photo 17: LC #1 Upstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 338 x 450

Description: Page: 36 Appendix B-Photo 18: LC #1 Downstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 338 x 450

Description: Page: 36 Appendix B-Photo 19: LC #2 Upstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 338 x 450

Description: Page: 36 Appendix B-Photo 20: LC #2 Downstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 338 x 450

Description: Page: 37 Appendix B-Photo 21: LC #3 Upstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 338 x 450

Description: Page: 37 Appendix B-Photo 22: LC #3 Downstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 338 x 450

Description: Page: 37 Appendix B-Photo 23: LC #4 Upstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 338 x 450

Description: Page: 37 Appendix B-Photo 24: LC #4 Downstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 338 x 450

Description: Page: 38 Appendix B-Photo 25: LC #6 Upstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 338 x 450

Description: Page: 38 Appendix B-Photo 26: LC #6 Downstream

Project: 2000-009-00

Document: P124456

Dimensions: 338 x 450


Summary of Budgets

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

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2019 - FY2021)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2019 Expense $161,434 From: General Q2 FY19 Flat Budgets 09/07/2018
FY2020 Expense $161,434 From: General FY20 SOY 06/05/2019
FY2020 Expense $13,760 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) Burns Paiute Tribe FY20 Increase 04/23/2020

Pending Budget Decision?  Yes


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2020   DRAFT
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
The Oregon Chapter of the Wildlife Society $850
Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA) $1,500
Total $0 $2,350
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2019 $65,447 29%
2018 $115,141 42%
2017 $56,752 26%
2016 $57,542 24%
2015 $57,306 27%
2014 $35,596 19%
2013 $60,596 28%
2012 $50,596 25%
2011 $50,596 25%
2010 $50,596 25%
2009 $236,390 62%
2008 $546,673 79%
2007 $147,397 50%

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Expense Contracts:
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
81048 SOW Burns-Paiute Tribe 2000-009-00 EXP LOGAN VALLEY WILDLIFE MITIGATION BPT Issued $161,434 1/1/2019 - 12/31/2019
84117 SOW Burns-Paiute Tribe 2000-009-00 EXP LOGAN VALLEY WILDLIFE MITIGATION BPT Issued $161,434 1/1/2020 - 12/31/2020



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):23
Completed:21
On time:21
Status Reports
Completed:59
On time:48
Avg Days Early:6

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status 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 2000-009-00 LOGAN VALLEY WILDLIFE MITIGATION Burns-Paiute Tribe 05/2001 05/2001 Issued 59 229 16 0 20 265 92.45% 1
Project Totals 59 229 16 0 20 265 92.45% 1


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: Wildlife Category Review

Council Recommendation

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

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

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:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

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.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

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:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

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.

Capital Assessment

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

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Deborah Arntz Administrative Contact Burns-Paiute Tribe
Siena Lopez-Johnston Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Erica Maltz (Inactive) Interested Party Burns-Paiute Tribe
Zachary Gustafson Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Calla Hagle Project Lead Burns-Paiute Tribe
David Kaplowe Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Carter Crouch Project Lead Burns-Paiute Tribe
Jody Lando Project SME Bonneville Power Administration