FY07-09 proposal 200717100

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: An annual base budget is $220,000. The maintence of the property shall occur until the sucessful reintroduction of anadromous fish into the Malheur River Subbasin.

Termination date: none
Comments: This project is to increase harvest opportunities and mitigate in part for the continued loss of the harvest of anadromous fish.

Final deliverables: Through restoration and protection of native species and associated habitats along with a feasible fishery in the reservoir, the project is expected to sustain an optimum Tribal Harvest of 2563kg (5652lbs) annually that shall be considered part mitigation for the loss of anadromous fish in the Malheur River Subbasin.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Not fundable

NPCC comments: This proposal does not justify land acquisition in terms of benefits to fish and wildlife. The problem is defined as mitigation and acquiring this property is aimed at providing harvestable fish and wildlife until native salmonid runs are restored in the undetermined future. A put-and-take fishery is contemplated for subsistence/cultural foods. Very specific food production objectives, or outcomes are described. Why is this particular parcel important relative to other land in the area? Is there other tribal ownership nearby, or is it because the land is available - a point which the proposal never establishes. If a monitoring project has been going on somewhere in this watershed since 1997, what has been learned? How might these results support the proposed action? Where is the monitoring occurring relative to the subject property? Does BLM have any work going on that would complement the Tribe's objectives: juniper control, range survey, etc? What about ODFW or neighboring land managers? This parcel is not placed into a larger landscape context that might bolster the justification for acquisition. The presumed eventual restoration of anadromous fish would - by this argument- preclude future need for these lands. Another goal is "restoration" of redband trout habitat. It is unclear if redband live above or below the reservoir, but the presence of potential predators in the reservoir might be counterproductive to efforts to restore the redband. The reservoir has been stocked with trout and bass, is that what the future plan would be? An intent is stated to do restoration work but insufficient detail is presented to evaluate. General tasks are identified and put into sequence, but actual methods are not described or cited. Some goals mentioned earlier are not included in the objectives, such as increasing in-stream flow or improving grazing management. Perhaps this is not appropriate until baseline data and a management plan are in place, but it would be useful to outline the type of approach envisioned. Developing a monitoring plan is included, but not what will be monitored: habitat conditions, harvest, or compliance. Lack of results presented or reference to techniques from previous monitoring is worrisome. Legal or realty expertise will be needed, but is not mentioned, nor is any terrestrial expertise noted for management of upland species or manipulation of rangelands. Information transfer plan is missing.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Not fundable

NPCC comments: Even after a response, this proposal does not justify land acquisition in terms of benefits to fish and wildlife. The problem is defined as mitigation and acquiring this property is aimed at providing harvestable fish and wildlife until native salmonid runs are restored in the undetermined future. A put-and-take fishery is contemplated for subsistence/cultural foods. The original review noted: General tasks are identified and put into sequence, but actual methods are not described or cited. Some goals mentioned earlier are not included in the objectives, such as increasing instream flow or improving grazing management. Perhaps this is not appropriate until baseline data and a management plan are in place, but it would be useful to outline the type of approach envisioned. Developing a monitoring plan is included, but not what will be monitored: habitat conditions, harvest, or compliance. Lack of results presented or reference to techniques from previous monitoring is worrisome. Including the response, much of the preliminary data that the ISRP would expect to see that justifies a large proposal is absent from this proposal. Methods appear to be primarily of the “we’ll consult with local and other experts” variety rather than having specific detailed methods already identified. Examples include plans to test the water chemistry of the reservoir to see if it is suitable for the planned rainbow / redband (?) trout fishery that is one of the project’s objectives and the speculation that the reservoir COULD be drained to run of the river for two years in order to control non-native species. These approaches are unacceptably speculative to support purchasing the property. The objectives for riparian improvement may be more achievable, although details are again missing.