Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation Project (BPA Project #200000900)

0

Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation Site (BPA Project# 200000900)

2011 Annual Report Covering Activities from 1/1/11 – 12/31/11

Created for:

Bonneville Power Administration

Submitted By:

Burns Paiute Natural Resources Department

Primary Authors:

Jason Kesling Natural Resources Director/Wildlife Program Manager

Kyle Heinrick Wildlife Biologist

DJ Brown Fisheries Lead Technician

Sara Hawley

Biological Technician

1

Table of Contents

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 2

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 2

List of Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 2

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 3

Wildlife Value ............................................................................................................................. 4

Cultural Relationship .................................................................................................................. 5

ACTIVITIES................................................................................................................................... 6

Fencing ........................................................................................................................................ 6

Willow Cuttings .......................................................................................................................... 7

Planting Aspens .......................................................................................................................... 7

Weed Control .............................................................................................................................. 8

CREP Maintenance ..................................................................................................................... 8

Irrigation ..................................................................................................................................... 9

Controlled Burn .......................................................................................................................... 9

Monitoring ................................................................................................................................ 10

Bird Surveys.......................................................................................................................... 10

Stream Photos ....................................................................................................................... 11

Small Mammal Trapping ...................................................................................................... 11

CREP Survival Survey .......................................................................................................... 12

Fisheries Research ................................................................................................................ 12

Oregon Semaphore Grass ..................................................................................................... 14

Administration .......................................................................................................................... 16

Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 16

Grants .................................................................................................................................... 16

Outreach and Education ........................................................................................................ 16

Access ................................................................................................................................... 16

Project Income ...................................................................................................................... 17

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 18

2

List of Tables

List of Figures

List of Appendices Appendix A: Bird Survey Data Appendix B: Stream Photos

Table 1: Special Status Wildlife Species of the Blue Mountain Ecoregion .................................. 4 Table 2: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Small Mammal Catch ............................................. 12 Table 3: Native Fish Monitoring Sites Associated with the Management of Logan Valley ........ 13 Wildlife Mitigation Site (NAD 27) Table 4. Temperature Sites Monitored by BPT. ........................................................................... 14 Table 5: Project Generated Income and Expenses Covered ........................................................ 17

Figure 1: Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation Site. .......................................................................... 3 Figure 2: Area of Small Exclosure Fencing. .................................................................................. 6 Figure 3: Location of Aspen Planting and Associated Exlosures. ................................................. 7 Figure 4: Known Weed Infestations. ............................................................................................. 8 Figure 5: Burn Location………………………………………………………………...…….…..9 Figure 6: Picture of Oregon Semaphore grass. ............................................................................ 15 Figure 7: Oregon Semaphore Grass Outplanting with Latitude and Longitude. ......................... 15

3

INTRODUCTION The Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation Site (Project) is located south of the Strawberry Wilderness in Grant County, Oregon. The Project consists of 1,760 deeded acres in which Lake Creek, Big Creek and McCoy Creek combine to form the Malheur River (Figure 1). In 1998, the Burns Paiute Tribe submitted a land acquisition proposal to Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) to acquire the Project. In February 2000, the Tribe and BPA entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to fund the acquisition and management of the Project. The MOA requires the Tribe to dedicate the Project to wildlife habitat protection.

Lake CreekMcCoy Creek

Big Creek

16rd

WildernessBoundary

0 1 20.5Miles Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation Site

Study Area

OREGON

Figure 1: Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation Site.

4

Wildlife Value The 1986 Oregon Natural Heritage Program assessed Logan Valley as one of the best examples of mountain meadows in the Blue Mountain Ecoregion. The Project’s unique assemblage of habitat types includes upland forest, wet meadow, aspen stands, bottomland forest, wetlands and sagebrush steppe. Table 1 outlines species in the ecoregion designated as sensitive, threatened, endangered, or of special concern by state and federal listings. A number of the species listed are known to occur on Project lands.

Adapted from the Oregon Conservation Strategy (ODFW 2006).

Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status State Status Amphibians and Reptiles Ascaphus montanus Inland Tailed Frog species of concern sensitive Bufo boreas Western Toad sensitive Chrysemys picta belli Western Painted Turtle critically sensitive Rana luteiventris Columbia Spotted Frog candidate for listing sensitive Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog ecoregion extirpation Birds Bartramia longicauda Upland Sandpiper species of concern critically sensitive Buteo regalis Ferruginous Hawk species of concern critically sensitive Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-grouse species of concern sensitive Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink sensitive Dryocopus pileatus Pileated Woodpecker sensitive Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike sensitive Melanerpes lewis Lewis' Woodpecker species of concern critically sensitive Otus flammeolus Flammulated owl species of concern Picoides albolarvatus White-headed Woodpecker species of concern critically sensitive Picoides arcticus Black-backed Woodpecker critically sensitive Picoides dorsalis Three-toed Woodpecker critically sensitive Strix nebulosa Great Gray Owl sensitive Fish Cottus bendirei Malheur mottled Sculpin species of concern sensitive Cottus marginatus Margined Sculpin species of concern sensitive Oncorhynchus kisutch Coho Salmon species of concern local extirpation Oncorhynchus mykiss Redband Trout species of concern sensitive Oncorhynchus mykiss Steelhead threatened local extirpation Salvelinus confluentus Bull Trout threatened sensitive Mammals Antrozous pallidus Pallid Bat species of concern sensitive Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's Big-eared Bat species of concern critically sensitive Euderma maculatum Spotted Bat species of concern Lasionycteris noctivagans Silver-haired Bat species of concern sensitive Martes pennanti Fisher candidate for listing ecoregion extirpation Myotis californicus California Myotis sensitive Myotis thysanodes Fringed Myotis species of concern sensitive Myotis volans Long-legged Myotis species of concern sensitive

Table 1: Special Status Wildlife Species of the Blue Mountain Ecoregion

5

Bird surveys have detected the state and federally listed Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis). Two species, state listed as sensitive in other ecoregions, are the greater sandhill crane (Grus Canadensis tabida) and the willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii adastus), have likewise been documented since 2006. Upland sandpipers (Bartramia longicauda) breed on the Project; one of only four known areas in Oregon. The Project also serves as both a waterfowl nesting area and as important summer habitat for the state and federally designated greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). The threatened bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) resides on the Project and spawns a short distance upstream (Schwabe et al. 2008). The redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), designated as sensitive and as a species of concern, inhabits the same Project streams (Schwabe et al. 2008). The Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventis) has been identified by tribal biologists on several occasions. The Project is a known birthing area for pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus).

Cultural Relationship The Burns Paiute Tribe (BPT) has significant cultural ties to Logan Valley and the surrounding environs. Prior to contact by white explorers in the mid-nineteenth century, the Northern Paiute people occupied a vast area as far west as the Cascades and as far east as Montana. The tribe ventured as far south as inter-mountain Nevada and as far north as the areas surrounding the Strawberry Mountains. The Wadatika people, the ancestors of the Burns Paiute, utilized this extended area, but maintained a primary traditional use area around the Strawberry Mountains, the main stem and tributaries of Malheur River, Malheur and Harney Lakes, Steens Mountain, and areas in-between. Within this traditional aboriginal area of primary and extended use, numerous areas were of great importance to the tribe. Logan Valley was one such area of importance. Post-white contact, a “Snake Indian” or Paiute tribal reservation was created by Presidential Executive Order. The President signed the Executive Order on September 12, 1872 for the 1.8 million acre reservation. Central within this described reservation area was Logan Valley, a key area of traditional use. The Logan Valley area is known through oral histories and traditions as a seasonally utilized area for such activities as hunting of terrestrial and avian species, fishing primarily for salmon, gathering of food, medicinal, and daily use/craft fiber, and other secular and sacred activities (Peck 2008, pers. comm.). Some histories describe pre-white contact Logan Valley as a common meeting place between the Paiutes and non-Paiute Indians for trade, gaming, and other activities (Peck 2008, pers. comm.). The loss of the Logan Valley area at the time the Reservation was removed from Paiute control and use has precluded much of the traditional activities within the valley for decades, although numerous Paiute descendants continue to return to the Logan Valley area (Peck 2008, pers. comm.). The purchase and continued operation of the Project offers the Tribal members a unique opportunity to resume traditional practices and to utilize the unique resources found within the area.

6

ACTIVITIES During 2011, many activities occurred on the Project to improve and/or maintain the vegetation communities for the benefit of wildlife populations. These include: fencing projects, grass plug plantings, cutting willows, planting aspens, noxious weed control, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) maintenance, irrigation activities, controlled burning, wildlife monitoring and research, education and outreach, and administrative duties.

Fencing A variety of fencing activities occurred which included: maintaining the perimeter fence and fencing willows and aspens. Cattle panels were installed at stream intersections with property boundaries and let-down fences were utilized during the grazing season (June-October) to reduce cattle trespass. The entire 14.5 miles of perimeter fence was checked for damage and repaired where necessary. Small exclusion fences were created around aspens and willow stands with a mix of naturally established plants and CREP planted plants (Figure 2). The main objective is to prevent/deter wild ungulates and trespass cattle from grazing on establishing riparian plants allowing the plants to surpass the graze line. Fencing plots will be assessed annually for effectiveness and if plants have surpassed the graze line and appear “vigorous” then the fence will be removed. Cattle trespass was a continuous problem, not in intensity, but it occurred constantly. A staff member would remove trespass cattle as soon as possible. It is recommended to keep a staff member present until the forest service allotments remove cattle (October 15th) to reduce trespass events.

Figure 2: Area of Small Exclosure Fencing

7

Willow Cuttings Roughly 2,000 willows were cut and stored in plastic tubs at the mitigation headquarters. In 2012 willow cuttings will be planted along the stream bank starting at the middle section of Lake Creek and working downstream.

Planting Aspens Fifty aspen trees were scheduled to be planted throughout the montane meadow complex on the Project in 2010, but due to multiple factors we were unable to complete the work. We were able to purchase 3 gallon container aspen trees from the Tribal Native Plant Nursery of the Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Reservation at the 1 gallon container price. One gallon aspens trees were transplanted to 3 gallon containers last winter and were allowed to complete one more growing season before being transplanted in the ground. The added growing season is projected to decrease the mortality associated with transplanting the aspens. With the reduced price BPT purchased 127 aspen trees and planted them in October of 2011. Aspens were delivered to Logan Valley on July 20th and staff tended them in their containers until their leaves fell off indicating they were dormant for the winter. This should reduce the stress and is the recommended method for planting aspens. Trees were planted in groups ranging from 4-5 individuals and fenced to prevent herbivory from deer and elk (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Location of Aspen Plantings and Associated Exclosures.

8

Weed Control The property is in fairly good ecological condition, so introduced weeds have difficulty becoming established. We spent a considerable amount of time searching for newly established weeds and managing existing weed populations. The border of the property was searched, looking for the potential for weed invasions. We found eight weed species of considerable concern in 2007 (Speten 2007): spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), dalmatian toadflax (Linaria genistifolia ssp.), scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium), hounds tongue (Cynoglossum officinal), field pennycress (Thlaspi arvense), coast tarweed (Madia sativa), bulbous bluegrass (Poa bulbosa) and Dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria). All eight of these species were present along Forest Service Road 16, the main access point to the property (Figure 4). Other weed infestations were not monitored because there were no plants found in 2011. It is recommended that a more intensive investigation of know weed establishments be performed in 2012.

Figure 4: Known weed infestations.

CREP Maintenance The summer of 2011 was the CREP’s third growing season, requiring low maintenance activities on the tree protectors and mulch fabric, an important protection measure from wild ungulate herbivory and trespass cattle. The entire CREP planting was checked multiple times throughout

9

the summer, replacing tree protectors and mulch fabric that was altered from wind, snow, elk, etc. If an elk pulled up a young tree and it was a clear mortality; then the tree protector and mulch fabric were collected and stored at the property’s cabin for later use or disposal. The project experienced higher mortality in the middle section of Lake Creek due to high spring runoff and extensive use by summering elk. This section of stream might be a strong candidate for replanting in the future.

Irrigation A staff member would set tarp dams on a weekly basis and irrigate for 4-10 days, then establish another set. Lake Creek irrigation was shut off the first week of July. The Big Creek irrigation ditch was not cleaned because Alan Jacobs (local grazer) asked the Tribe to keep water within our ditch for cattle use until October. The water within our ditch is the only water in the USFS grazing allotment. USFS is currently setting up an alternative water source allowing the Project to turn off irrigation and leave remaining water instream.

Controlled Burn In 2006 lodgepole pine trees were thinned within the forested area located on the northwest boundary of the property. The trees were cut and left in place, creating a dense crisscross mat of less than 5” DBH lodgepole pine. To alleviate the ladder fuels created in 2006, a 13” wood chipper was rented for one week in October 2009. About 80% of cut lodgepole pines were chipped. Wood chips were distributed evenly in areas where the chipper could be navigated within the treatment area. Furthering the efforts to reduce ladder fuels prior to a controlled burn, BPT staff spent one week thinning small lodgepole pine in 2010; <6” (Figure 5). The thinning operation treated ~25 acres of mixed coniferous forest and focused on felling lodgepole pines. Felled trees where then bucked into ~ 4 ft. lengths and were stacked into a slash pile. Slash piles were built to be approximately 8’ X 10’ X 4’. Slash piles were covered with 3mm black or clear plastic. The plastic is used to prevent moisture penetrating the pile and to keep a dry area for ignition. Over 40 slash piles were built and covered on the treatment. These slash piles were burnt on November 14th and 15th. A follow up controlled burn will occur in the fall of 2012 to remove any unburned material.

Figure 5: Burn Location.

10

Monitoring Several studies and monitoring projects continued or began in 2011. Projects included bird surveys; stream photos; small mammal population analysis; CREP survival survey; fisheries research; and Oregon Semaphore grass establishment.

Bird Surveys Bird surveys were conducted on seven occasions: May 20th, May 21st, June 4th, June 5th, June 9th, June 10th, and June 16th. We utilized protocols developed by Huff et al. (2000). All 2011 data was provided to the Interactive Habitat and Biodiversity Information System for the Columbia Basin (IBIS) for inclusion in their database. Four transects were monitored based on the 4 different habitat types identified. The four transects were divided between day 1 and day 2 surveys so only two transects were completed in a survey day. (Due to adverse weather multiple on occasions in 2011, only one habitat was surveyed.) This enabled us to complete surveys within the assigned time period relating to early morning bird activity. Within each transect, 5 locations were established as points to conduct the counts. Individual birds detected by sight or sound during the 5 minutes at each survey point were counted only once. Detections were classified as a Typical Detection or as a Flyover Detection. Weather prevented all transects from being monitored three times. Two visits occurred on all transects except one. The Forested habitat was the only transect that was monitored three times. Typical Detections were further classified by distance from the survey point (0-50m or >50m) and by the timeframe the detection was recorded (during minutes 0-3 at the survey point or during minutes 3-5). Flyover Detections were further classified by the timeframe the detection was recorded (similar to a Typical Detection) and then as an Associated Flyover or Independent Flyover. By definition an Associated Flyover occurred when a bird was detected in flight that could be found utilizing the habitat the survey was taking place in. Conversely, Independent Flyover was a bird detected in flight that was likely just passing through, i.e. the species had no known affinity to the habitat type being surveyed. Independent Flyovers could also be a bird seen far in the distance, like a soaring raptor, that were not currently using the habitat but potentially could. Birds heard that were suspected of being within earshot only from an adjacent habitat were not counted in the survey. For instance, the calls of a sandhill crane from a riparian area that could be heard while surveying in the forest habitat was not counted as a detection. We further classified detections of birds into foraging guilds for cross year comparisons by habitat type using data from years 2006 through 2011 (Appendix A). Foraging guilds were classified by the major food component, feeding substrate, and foraging technique(DeGraaf et al.1985). Food type only included items that constitute ≥ 20% of their diet during the breeding period. With this classification based on avian feeding behavior, we could compile trend data through various year for a given habitat for various functional groups or guilds. There were 8 guilds total with one broken down into two parts; the Insectivores were broken down to ground insect eaters and air insect eaters. Carnivores are avian species with ≥ 20% of their diet derived from other vertebrates, Frugivores eat fruit, Granivores are species that eat nuts and grains, Herbivores prefer plants (leaves, stems, & roots), Omnivores eat a variety of foods including both animal & plant foods, Piscivores are fish eaters, and the last guild we used was a

11

Vermivore which consumes foods such as sandworms or earthworms. Once detections were sorted by guild the relative frequency was determined for each guild for each year within each habitat type.

Stream Photos Stream photos were taken at 14 established points on the Project to monitor vegetative components and changes in stream structure (Appendix B). An upstream and downstream azimuth was used to make the photograph repeatable. Stream photos were not taken to quantify changes; rather the photos will be used as a qualitative analysis tool for visual historic reference.

Small Mammal Trapping An assessment of small mammal populations was conducted for the fifth consecutive year. Trapping protocol was adapted from the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation Project (2002). Capture was accomplished using Sherman live traps and a rolled oat and peanut butter bait within two distinct habitat types, i.e. forest and riparian. For each habitat type, 100 Sherman live traps were spaced 10m apart in a 100m x 100m area. The origin for the trap area in the riparian was at UTM E367459 N4892363 (NAD 83). The first trap was set at the origin. From the origin, traps were set every 10m along two perpendicular lines running to the southeast and to the northeast, in each direction 100m. Traps were then set within the right angle of the two lines created to make a 100 trap grid design. With the trap area origin of UTM E366847 N4892340 (NAD 83), an identical trap design was employed in the forest habitat. However from the origin in the forest habitat the perpendicular trap lines were run to the south and to the east. Six individuals of two different species were captured during a total of 400 trap nights (100 traps x 4 days). In the forest habitat, 200 trap nights (100 traps x 2 days) yielded one species, deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) (n=2). In the riparian habitat, 200 trap nights (100 traps x 2 days) yielded a total of four water shrews (Sorex palustris) (n=4). Upon capture, individuals were weighed, sexed and aged. Individuals trapped during the first capture event were marked for potential recapture by shaving a small patch of fur from the rump. The assessment methodology involves extrapolating on the catch with the actual number of traps set to find the estimated number of individuals that would be caught if 1000 traps were placed. The output is derived in the following manner:

N/actual trap nights = catch per unit effort N is equal to the number of individuals of each species caught in the habitat type over the two night period. N is then divided by actual trap nights for the habitat type (in our case 200 or 100 traps x 2 days) to derive the catch per unit effort. Next:

catch per unit effort x 1000 = estimated catch per 1000 traps Estimated catch for 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 is summarized in Table 2.

12

Individuals will still be marked on the first night of capture so we can continue to record recapture data as a potential secondary analysis tool in the future. Individuals caught twice under the new system will be counted twice.

Great Basin Pocket Mouse

Short Tail Weasel

Western Jumping Mouse

Year 2007 2008 2010 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2007 2008 2010 2008 2010 2011 2008 2009 2009Forest 15 10 20 10 10 30 10 10 - - - - - - - - -

Riparian - - - 10 - - 10 - 10 10 15 10 10 20 10 5 5Total 15 10 20 20 10 30 20 10 10 10 15 10 10 20 10 5 5

Water Shew

Estimated Catch Per 1000 TrapsDeer Mouse Montane VoleLeast

Chipmunk

CREP Survival Survey Vegetation survival surveys were conducted on the 2008 CREP planting. Due to a limited amount of staff time only a portion of the total plants planted were counted (1,965 out of 14,332) The total number of alive plants counted was 242, resulting in a 12.3% survival rate. Due to such a small sample size this percentage represents a small portion of the CREP planting and might be an area that suffered higher mortality than the rest of the project. In 2012 a larger portion of the CREP project will be sampled to ensure that survivability is accurately reflected.

Fisheries Research The BPT Fisheries Division continued bull trout and redband trout life history studies in the Upper Malheur in 2011. The aquatic habitats of the Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation Property are commonly utilized by both species. Objectives for 2011 were: 1) Continue bull trout and redband trout population trend monitoring, 2) Implement Phase I of the Tribe’s Brook Trout Suppression Plan, and 3) Continue stream temperature monitoring at established monitoring sites on Logan Valley tribal property. Research efforts are funded through the project entitled Evaluation of the Life History of Native Salmonids in the Malheur River Subbasin (BPA #199701900). Bull trout population trends are monitored utilizing adult redd count methodologies. ODFW has been conducting Malheur River redd surveys since 1992 and, because of staffing needs, the agency relies heavily on inter-agency participation. BPT has been assisting in these surveys since 1997. Bull trout that utilize the mitigation property spawn in the upper reaches of Lake Creek, Big Creek, Meadow Fork and Snowshoe Creek. Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) plantings of woody riparian species at Logan Valley in 2008 should improve bull trout abundance over the long-term by stabilizing stream banks, creating shade to moderate stream temperatures, and encouraging beaver recolonization. Redd counts in the Upper Malheur are muddled by concurrent spawning activities of nonnative brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Brook trout were introduced into the Upper Malheur in the 1930’s and pose a serious threat to the local bull trout population through resource competition and inter-species hybridization. Genetic research conducted by BPT in conjunction with USFWS has documented hybridization occurring between the two species in the Upper Malheur

Table 2: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 Small Mammal Catch

13

(DeHaan et al. 2009). In random samples of approximately 100 fish from each of three creeks (Big, Lake and Meadow Fork) 181 brook trout, 112 bull trout and 14 hybrids were identified (DeHaan et al. 2009). Of the hybrids collected, some post-F1 hybrids were identified suggesting that hybrids are reproducing in the Malheur River Basin (DeHaan et al. 2009). BPT Fisheries Department, BPT Tribal Council and the Malheur Recovery Unit Team recognize that brook trout may be the preeminent threat to the long-term viability of bull trout in the Upper Malheur. To address this threat, the Tribe has developed and implemented a multi-year plan to suppress the brook trout population in the Upper Malheur watershed. Phase I of the plan continued in 2011, and included a two week trapping effort at High Lake, the headwater source of Lake Creek, and an intensive electrofishing removal effort in Lake Creek below High Lake. It is believed that the introduced brook trout in High Lake serve as a seed source for the Upper Malheur, and that their suppression is a vital tool in recovering the bull trout population. Electrofishing removal efforts in Lake Creek in 2011 yielded 535 brook trout, and gillnetting in High Lake resulted in the removal of an additional 730 brook trout. Additionally in 2011, a seasonal weir was operated on Lake Creek to exclude brook trout from accessing spawning habitat from downstream. Redband trout populations in the basin had only periodic inventory assessments prior to 2007. In 2007, BPT and ODFW conducted a basin wide population estimate utilizing backpack electrofishing methodologies and determined the population of 1+ redband trout (>60mm fork length) to be approximately 156,200 (Bangs et al. 2008). Trend data is needed to track population response to environmental conditions versus management actions. To address this need, the Fisheries Division is continuing trend monitoring of the 108 sites on public or tribal lands from the 2007 pilot study over the course of a five year cyclic sampling regime. Table 3 outlines monitoring sites associated with the tribe’s Logan Valley property. Returning to the 2007 sampling sites will provide trend data on bull trout and mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) as well in areas where the species occur.

Sample Year

Population Site ID

Stream Zone Start UTM Easting

Start UTM Northing

1 (2008) MalRiv-0003 Big Creek 11 371066 4893543 1 MalRiv-0019 Lake Creek 11 368082 4900645 1 MalRiv-0023 Summit Creek 11 373296 4885184 1 MalRiv-0035 Big Creek 11 372102 4902704 2 (2009) MalRiv-0055 Crooked Creek 11 365642 4891463 2 MalRiv-0067 Bosonberg Creek 11 374088 4896954 2 MalRiv-0071 Malheur River 11 370637 4887612 3 (2010) MalRiv-0087 Big Creek 11 370130 4889140 3 MalRiv-0099 Big/Lake Canal 11 368854 4894214 3 MalRiv-0103 Crooked Creek 11 364921 4888527 3 MalRiv-0107 Crooked Creek 11 364103 4890801

Table 3: Native Fish Monitoring Sites Associated with the Management of Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation Site (NAD 27)

14

4 (2011) MalRiv-0126 Summit Creek 11 377264 4894230 4 MalRiv-0131 Deardorf Ditch 11 370776 4896029 4 MalRiv-0139 Summit Creek 11 375160 4892692 4 MalRiv-0147 Corral Basin Creek 11 373781 4899206 4 MalRiv-0151 Big Creek 11 370783 4890882 5 (2012) MalRiv-0167 Lake Creek 11 368596 4890706 5 MalRiv-0195 Lake Creek 11 365665 4903915

Since 2000, the Fisheries Division has systematically monitored seasonal stream temperatures at 5 monitoring sites on the Logan Valley property. In 2007, 2 additional monitoring sites were added, followed by the addition of 1 more site in 2008 and 2 more sites in 2009. Table 4 reveals the monitoring site locations.

Site Location Year Initiated 1 Lake Creek below McCoy Creek “upper Lake” 2000 2 Lake Creek below Crooked Creek “lower Lake” 2000 3 Malheur River below Big and Lake Creek “Malheur” 2000 4 Big Creek 1 Mile below 16 Road “lower Big” 2000 5 Big Creek below 16 Road “upper Big” 2000 6 Lake Creek below 16 Road 2007 7 McCoy Creek above Lake Creek 2007 8 Lake Creek at Cabin Bridge 2008 9 McCoy Creek below 16 Road 2009 10 Lake Creek Ditch below 16 Road 2009

A synopsis of 2000 – 2009 stream temperature monitoring was completed in 2010. Data reveals that monitoring sites on Big and Lake Creeks consistently surpass DEQ Stream Temperature Standard of 12º C for bull trout during the summer period (Abel 2009). Lake Creek sites surpass the Incipient Lethal Temperature of bull trout (20.9 º C) by 6 July on average, whereas Big Creek sites do not reach such critical temperature maximums (Abel 2009). Lake Creek also warms earlier than Big Creek, creating a thermal barrier before the start of bull trout migration, and this may explain why no radio tagged fluvial bull trout were found to have migrated into the Lake Creek drainage during past tracking efforts. The Fisheries Division will continue to focus on ways to reduce stream temperatures in Lake Creek in the coming years. Working with the upstream landowner will be the primary focus of these efforts.

Oregon Semaphore Grass Oregon State University and Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) introduced Oregon semaphore grass (Pleuropogon oregonus) (Figure 6), a state threatened and federal species of concern, onto the Project in 2002. A review and planting of 2,000 plants occurred on September 19, 2011. A map with latitude and longitude in decimal degrees for the six plots are found in figure 7. Jordan Brown with ODA provided a summary of the actions that were taken in Appendix C.

Table 4. Temperature Sites Monitored by BPT.

15

Figure 6: Picture of Oregon semaphore grass.

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

16

Administration

Cultural Resources Federally funded projects require an environmental review of all ground disturbing activities before project implementation can begin. This often entails a cultural resources survey with Tribal and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) consultation. The 2011 cultural survey report was received in June, available for review within Tribal and SHPO records. All ground disturbing activities were monitored by Tribal Staff under the Cultural Department.

Grants No grants were applied for in 2011.

Outreach and Education The NRD held two dinners for the community, the first one was the outreach for Chronic Wasting Disease which had a result of about 30 people enjoying a nice BBQ, and the second was the Mule Deer Presentation which had a turn out of about 16 participants and we served spaghetti. The NRD took two damage control elk that ODFW gave to the Burns Paiute Tribe. NRD took the lead, skinning and quartering it for the community, then we handed it out door to door. We donated brains to the community members on a first come basis. The brains came from our CWD samples. We also handed out flyers, submitted articles in the Reservation Newsletter and took the tribal youth on a short hike to the Malheur Ford. Two youth were taught how to use the telemetry equipment to track deer collars. The NRD involved the community in gutting 1500lbs. of salmon for ceremonial purposes. The NRD is starting a pelt collection for educational purposes. The NRD set up a booth on free fishing day for the children; it was a casting game and had a great turn out. Lastly, we took a small group of elders and youth to Fish Lake to go fishing and took them to view the top of Kiger Gorge on Steens Mountain.

Access Five access permits and two retrieval permits were issued in 2011 on the Project. One hunter harvest report was returned, resulting in no harvest with 5 hours of effort. Future access permits will not be issued to permit holders that don’t report harvest.

17

Project Income The Project’s MOA requires the reporting of all project generated income and the expenditures covered by the income. A summary of all activities is included (Table 5).

Staff

The Project’s success can be attributed to the following staff members: Jason Kesling – Wildlife Program Manager/ Director Neil Lunt – Ranch Manager Kyle Heinrick – Wildlife Biologist Dave Watson – Technician Lucas Samor – Technician Sara Hawley – Wildlife Tech. Derek Hawley – Fisheries Technician Drew Harper – Fisheries Bio. Erica Maltz – Fisheries Program Manager Lyle Hoodie – Technician Jason Fenton – Environmental Program Manager DJ Brown- Lead Fisheries Tech. Keith Kennedy – Fisheries Technician/Summer Intern Theresa Peck – Cultural Monitor Dyron Clark – Summer Intern Adina Thomas – Summer Intern Robert Tooke – Environmental Tech. Dean Adams – Environmental Tech.

Table 5: Project Generated Income and Expenses Covered

18

REFERENCES Abel, Chad. 2009. Synopsis of 2000 – 2008 stream temperature monitoring with implications

for bull trout recovery in the Upper Malheur. Burns Paiute Tribe Natural Resources Department. Burns, OR.

Albeni Falls Interagency Work Group. 2002. Monitoring and evaluation plan for the Albeni

Falls Wildlife Mitigation Project. Bangs, B., S. Gunckel, S. Jacobs. 2008. Distribution and abundance of redband trout in the

Malheur River Basin, 2007. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Corvallis, OR.

DeGraaf, R.M., N.G. Tilghman, S.H. Anderson. 1985 Research Foraging Guilds of North American Birds. Enviormental Management Vol. 9, No. 6, pp.493-636

DeHaan, P.W., L.T. Schwabe, W.R. Arden. 2009. Spatial patterns of hybridization between bull trout and brook trout in an Oregon stream network. Conservation Genetics, 2009.

Huff, Mark H., Kelly A. Bettinger, Howard L. Ferguson, Martin J. Brown, Bob Altman. 2000.

A habitat-based point-count protocol for terrestrial birds, emphasizing Washington and Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-501. Portland, OR: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 39p.

Peck, Theresa. 2008. Burns Paiute Tribe Cultural Specialist. Communicated from tribal

records. Schwabe, L., D. Brown, R. Perkins, B. Bangs, S. Gunkel, S. Jacobs, and D. Hawkins. 2008.

Evaluate the Life History of Native Salmonids in the Malheur Subbasin. FY 2007 Annual Report. Burns Paiute Tribe. Burns, OR. 167p.

Speten, D., J. Kesling. 2007. Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation Project Annual Report. Burns Paiute Tribe. Burns, OR.

Appendix A - 1

Appendix A

Bird Survey Data

Appendix A - 2

Table 1: Point Count Locations (NAD 27 CONUS)

Figure 1: Survey Locations

Day 1 Day 2

Transect #1 - Woods Transect #3 - Uplands Easting Northing Easting Northing

a. 366816 4892554 a. 369605 4889331 b. 366867 4892396 b. 369610 4889188 c. 367004 4892223 c. 369682 4889025 d. 367081 4892090 d. 369789 4888877 e. 367224 4891894 e. 369794 4888699

Transect #2 - Meadow Transect #4 - Riparian

Easting Northing Easting Northing a. 367667 4891453 a. 370930 4892612 b. 367734 4891300 b. 370944 4892463 c. 367774 4891157 c. 370880 4892284 d. 368121 4890929 d. 370821 4892123 e. 367176 4890688 e. 370789 4891942

Appendix A - 3

Forage Guild’s by Species

Omnivore Foraging Guild

Species Abbreviation Common Name AMCO American Coot AMGO American Goldfinch AMRO American Robin BHCO Brown-Headed Cowbird BUGR Blue Grouse CAFI Cassin’s Finch CHSP Chipping Sparrow CITE Cinnamon Teal CLNU Clark’s Nutcracker COGO Common Goldeneye DEJU Dark-Eyed Junco EUST European Starling LABU Lazuli Bunting LASP Lark Sparrow LBCU Long-Billed Curlew NOSH Northern Shoveler RUGR Ruffed Grouse RWBL Red-Winged Blackbird SACR Sandhill Crane SOSP Song Sparrow VESP Vesper Sparrow WETA Western Tanager

Appendix A - 4

Ground Insectivore Foraging Guild Species Abbreviation Common Name AMKE American Kestrel BBMA Black-Billed Magpie BCCH Black-Capped Chickadee BNST Black-Necked Stilt BRBL Brewer’s Blackbird BRSP Brewer’s Sparrow CAEG Cattle Egret CORA Common Raven EAGR Eared Grebe GRCA Gray Catbird KILL Killdeer MAWA Magnolia Warbler MAWR Marsh Wren MOBL Mountain Bluebird NOFL Northern Flicker PBGR Pied-Billed Grebe RBNU Red-Breasted Nuthatch SPSA Spotted Sandpiper WEBL Western Bluebird WEME Western Meadolark WFIB White-Faced Ibis WIPH Wilson’s Phalarope YEWA Yellow Warbler YHBL Yellow-Headed Blackbird YRWA Yellow-Rumped Warbler

Appendix A - 5

Air Foraging Insectivore Guild

Species Abbreviation Common Name BASW Barn Swallow BUOR Bullock’s Oriole CLSW Cliff Swallow CONI Common Nighthawk COYE Common Yellowthroat DUFL Dusky Flycatcher EAKI Eastern Kingbird GRFL Gray Flycatcher LEWO Lewis’ Woodpecker MGWA Macgillivray’s Warbler RCKI Ruby-Crowned Kinglet RNSA Red-Naped Sapsucker SAPH Say’s Phoebe TRSW Tree Swallow WBNU White-Breasted Nuthatch WEKI Western Kingbird WEWP Western Wood-Peewee WIFL Willow Flycatcher

Piscivore Foraging Guild

Species Abbreviation Common Name AWPE American White Pelican BCNH Black-Crowned Night-Heron CATE Caspian Tern COME Common Merganser DCCO Double-Crested Cormorant FOTE Forster’s Tern GBHE Great Blue Heron HOME Hooded Merganser

Carnivore Foraging Guild

Species Abbreviation Common Name BNOW Barn Owl GHOW Great Horned Owl GREG Great Egret NOHA Northern Harrier PRFA Prairie Falcon RTHA Red-Tailed Hawk

Appendix A - 6

Granivore Foraging Guild

Species Abbreviation Common Name BWTE Blue-Winged Teal CHUCK Chukar EUCD Eurasian Collared-Dove GWTE Green-Winged Teal MALL Mallard SORA Sora Rail

Herbivore Foraging Guild

Species Abbreviation Common Name AMWI American Wigeon CAGO Canada Goose CAQU California Quail GADW Gadwall

Frugivore Foraging Guild

Species Abbreviation Common Name HAWO Hairy Woodpecker MODO Mourning Dove

Vermivore Foraging Guild

Species Abbreviation Common Name COSN Common Snipe

Appendix A - 7

Logan Valley

Relative Frequency of Foraging Guilds between Year and Habitat Type

Relative Frequency of Avain Guilds Logan Meadow

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Years

Rel

ativ

e Fr

eque

ncy

CarnivoreGranivoreHerbivoreAir Insect.Grnd Inse.OmnivorePiscivoreVermivore

Figure 1: Trends of Relative Frequency of Avian Foraging Guilds During Breeding Season for Logan Valley Meadow Habitat From 2006-2011.

Appendix A - 8

Relative Frequency of Avian Guilds Logan Riparian

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Years

Rel

ativ

e Fr

eque

ncy

CarnivoreGranivoreAir InsectivoreGround InsectivoreOmnivoreVermivore

Figure 2: Trends of Relative Frequency of Avian Foraging Guilds During Breeding Season for Logan Valley Riparian Habitat From 2006-2011.

Appendix A - 9

Relative Frequency of Avian Guilds Logan Upland

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Years

Rel

ativ

e Fr

eque

ncy

Carnivore

Frugivore

Granivore

Herbivore

Air Insectivore

GroundInsectivoreOmnivore

Piscivore

Vermivore

Figure 3: Trends of Relative Frequency of Avian Foraging Guilds During Breeding Season for Logan Valley Upland Habitat From 2006-2011.

Appendix A - 10

Relative Frequency of Avian Guilds Logan Forest

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Years

Rel

ativ

e fre

quen

cy

CarnivoreAir InsectivoreGround InsectivoreOmnivore

Figure 4: Trends of Relative Frequency of Avian Foraging Guilds During Breeding Season for Logan Valley Forest Habitat From 2006-2011.

LOGAN VALLEY

Appendix B-1

Appendix B

Stream Photos

Appendix B-2

Photopoint Easting Northing Photopoint Easting NorthingBC 1 370839 4892842 LC 2 367750 4892052BC 2 370637 4892054 LC 3 367920 4891729BC 3 370731 4891252 LC 4 369395 4889940BC 4 370557 4890648 LC 5 368843 4890395BC 5 370303 4889968 LC 6 368318 4891038MR 1 370010 4889179 MCC 1 367366 4892446LC 1 368019 4892915 MCC 2 367069 4892876

Map Datum: WGS 84

Figure 1: Stream Photo Locations

Table 1: Stream Photo Locations

Appendix B-3

BC #1 Upstream BC #1 Downstream

BC #2 Upstream BC #2 Downstream

Appendix B-4

BC #3 Upstream BC #3 Downstream

BC #4 Upstream BC #4 Downstream

Appendix B-5

BC #5 Upstream BC #5 Downstream

MR #1 Upstream MR #1 Downstream

Appendix B-6

MCC #1 Upstream MCC #1 Downstream

MCC #2 Upstream MCC #2 Downstream

Appendix B-7

LC #1 Upstream LC #1 Downstream

LC #2 Upstream LC #2 Downstream

Appendix B-8

LC #3 Upstream LC #3 Downstream

LC #4 Upstream LC #4 Downstream LC #5 Upstream LC #5 Downstream

No Picture 2011

No Picture 2011

Appendix B-9

LC #6 Upstream LC #6 Downstream