1992-062-00 - Lower Yakima Valley Riparian Wetlands Restoration

Project 1992-062-00 - Lower Yakima Valley Riparian Wetlands Restoration

General

Project Number:

1992-062-00

Title:

Lower Yakima Valley Riparian Wetlands Restoration

Summary:

The purpose of this project is to continue implementation of the YN Lower Yakima Valley Wetlands and Riparian Wildlife Mitigation work that began in 1991 (Contract Number 94BI12521). The advance design work and implementation protocols were completed in 1991-93 as Project Number 92-062. An Environmental Assessment (EA) and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), based on these implementation plans, were developed in 1994 (DOE No. 0941). Project implementation began immediately after the FONSI was signed.

The guiding documents mentioned above are cited below. These plans, assessments and agreements (totaling over 300 pages) are very extensive and provide the basis for this Statement of Work. The reader is encouraged to refer to these documents for detailed information pertaining to the objectives and tasks outlined below.

The goals of this Project are as follows:

1) To permanently protect 27,000 acres of floodplain lands along the Yakima River, Toppenish and Satus Creeks within the agricultural portion of the Yakama Reservation.

2) To enhance those lands to realize a net increase in native fish and wildlife habitat values.

3) To adaptively manage those lands to ensure permanent fish and wildlife value.

4) To monitor the habitat conditions to ensure the desired habitat value is reached and maintained.

This project is being undertaken pursuant to Section 1003(b)(7) of the Wildlife Mitigation Rule promulgated by the Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC). The Lower Yakima Valley Wetlands and Riparian Project is consistent with subbasin fish and wildlife mitigation priorities established by the NPPC. This project also reflects and supports the fish and wildlife mitigation objectives developed for the Lower Columbia River Dams resulting from the Power Council-mandated public revue process outlined in Section 1003(b)(4)(B) &(D) for the Columbia River Fish and Wildlife Program.

National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion of the Federal Columbia River Power System - Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPA)

This project addresses the following RPAs:

Action 150: This project protects currently productive non-federal habitat along streams with listed steelhead. Toppenish and Satus Creeks are responsible for >60% of the total steelhead production in the Yakima Subbasin.

Action 151: This project is directly involved in increasing instream flows within Toppenish and Satus Creeks by purchasing lands currently served by creek diversions.

Actions 152, 153: This project is utilizing and pursuing funding from many sources for restoration cost-share. These include USDA (WHIP, CREP, WRP), North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA), BOR, BIA, Pheasants Forever, and many other sources as they are appropriate. The project seeks to go beyond a simple buffer system along these important waterways. Instead, total floodplain restoration is the goal.

Action 154: Planning activities related to this project are incorporated directly into Yakima Subbasin summaries, assessments and plans. The methods and successes of this project are important to these future subbasin planning activities.

Project Guiding Documents

Bich, J., T. Hames, S. McCorquodale, J. Reichel, and W. Bradley. 1991. The Yakama Nation Wildlife Mitigation Plan. Prepared for the Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, OR. 62pp.

Washington Wildlife Coalition, and Bonneville Power Administration. 1993. Washington Wildlife Mitigation Agreement. 22pp.

Yakama Nation. 1994. Yakama Nation Lower Yakima Valley Wetlands and Riparian Restoration Plan - Predesign Management Plan. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration. Portland, OR. 164pp.

Bonneville Power Administration, Yakama Nation, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. 1994. Lower Yakima Valley Wetlands and Riparian Restoration Project - Final Environmental Assessment. DOE No. 0941. Portland, OR 58pp.

Bonneville Power Administration, and Yakama Nation. 1996. Memorandum of Agreement for the Implementation of the Lower Yakima Valley Wetlands and Riparian Restoration Project. Portland, OR

Supporting Documents Providing Further Implementation Methods and Protocols

Yakama Nation. 1984. Current Status of the Yakama Nation's Public Hunting and Fishing Program with Planning Recommendations for future Management. Yakama Tribal Council, Toppenish, WA. 12pp.

_____. 1987. Land and Natural Resource Policy Plan (T-92-87). Yakama Tribal Council, Toppenish, WA. 26pp.

Meuth, J. 1989. Yakama Nation Waterfowl Management Plan. Prepared by U. S. Fish and Wildlife Servic

Proposer:

None

Proponent Orgs:

Yakama Confederated Tribes (Tribe)

Starting FY:

1992

Ending FY:

2032

BPA PM:

Michelle O'Malley

Stage:

Implementation - Project Status Report

Area:

Province	Subbasin	%
Columbia Plateau	Yakima	100.00%

Purpose:

Habitat

Emphasis:

Restoration/Protection

Focal Species:

All Anadromous Fish
Other Anadromous
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS
Wildlife

Species Benefit:

Anadromous: 75.0% Resident: 25.0% Wildlife: 0.0%

Tags:

Interim Operations Agreement (IOA) (Public Tags)
WA - by WE Location Expenditure (Public Tags)
2012/13 Geographic Categorical Review (Public Tags)

Special:

None

BiOp Association:

FCRPS 2008 – view list of FCRPS 2008 BiOp Actions

Tributary Habitat Implementation 2007 to 2009,
Tributary Habitat Implementation 2010 to 2018

Photos

Hen Mallard at the South Lateral A Wildlife Area

Figure Name: Cover

Document ID: P113829

Document: FY2008 Annual Report Pt 1

Page Number: 1

Project: 1992-062-00

Contract: 42837

Graves Property outlined in orange.

Figure Name: Land-Photo 1

Document ID: P113829

Document: FY2008 Annual Report Pt 1

Page Number: 3

Project: 1992-062-00

Contract: 42837

Washington Waterfowl Association volunteers.

Figure Name: Outreach-Photo 1

Document ID: P113829

Document: FY2008 Annual Report Pt 1

Page Number: 5

Project: 1992-062-00

Contract: 42837

Fire Modified Rock

Figure Name: Cultural-Photo 1

Document ID: P113829

Document: FY2008 Annual Report Pt 1

Page Number: 33

Project: 1992-062-00

Contract: 42837

1930s Gum Machine

Figure Name: Cultural-Photo 2

Document ID: P113829

Document: FY2008 Annual Report Pt 1

Page Number: 34

Project: 1992-062-00

Contract: 42837

Projectile Point

Figure Name: Cultural-Photo 3

Document ID: P113829

Document: FY2008 Annual Report Pt 1

Page Number: 35

Project: 1992-062-00

Contract: 42837

Fire hearth

Figure Name: Cultural-Photo 4

Document ID: P113829

Document: FY2008 Annual Report Pt 1

Page Number: 35

Project: 1992-062-00

Contract: 42837

Housepit feature

Figure Name: Cultural-Photo 5

Document ID: P113829

Document: FY2008 Annual Report Pt 1

Page Number: 36

Project: 1992-062-00

Contract: 42837

Parker property

Figure Name: Cultural-Photo 6

Document ID: P113829

Document: FY2008 Annual Report Pt 1

Page Number: 37

Project: 1992-062-00

Contract: 42837

Photograph of Tule Road restoration before treatment in spring 2006.

Figure Name: Floodplain-Figure 1

Document ID: P113829

Document: FY2008 Annual Report Pt 1

Page Number: 42

Project: 1992-062-00

Contract: 42837

Photograph of Tule Road restoration in spring 2008 following two years of invasive plant treatment and direct seeding of native bunchgrasses. Small plants are one-year old basin wildrye (Leymus cinereus), approximately 18 months after planting.

Figure Name: Floodplain-Figure 2

Document ID: P113829

Document: FY2008 Annual Report Pt 1

Page Number: 43

Project: 1992-062-00

Contract: 42837

Seeding in October 2008 at the Buena property using a no-till drill seeder.

Figure Name: Floodplain-Figure 4

Document ID: P113829

Document: FY2008 Annual Report Pt 1

Page Number: 45

Project: 1992-062-00

Contract: 42837

Approximately 500 shrubs were planted at the South Lateral A and Campbell Road properties in April 2008. Species included sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata), golden currant (Ribes aureum), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), and mock-orange (Philadelphus lewisii). Survival estimates are presented in the “Monitoring Vegetation Restoration” section.

Figure Name: Floodplain-Figure 5

Document ID: P113829

Document: FY2008 Annual Report Pt 1

Page Number: 45

Project: 1992-062-00

Contract: 42837

Transplants were planted as bare root seedlings. After transplanting, a wood chip mulch (oak and pine) was applied to a 2-foot radius around the plant. Plants were irrigated with 1-2 gallons of water every 2-3 weeks during the summer drought. Plants were tagged at the time of planting for survival monitoring the following spring. For estimates of survival, see the “Monitoring Vegetation Restoration” section.

Figure Name: Floodplain-Figure 6

Document ID: P113829

Document: FY2008 Annual Report Pt 1

Page Number: 46

Project: 1992-062-00

Contract: 42837

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Monitoring-Photo 1

Document ID: P113829

Document: FY2008 Annual Report Pt 1

Page Number: 47

Project: 1992-062-00

Contract: 42837

Buena property, July 2005, prior to beginning restoration activities. Invasive plants including prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum) and tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum) are visible in the frame.

Figure Name: Monitoring-Figure 1

Document ID: P113829

Document: FY2008 Annual Report Pt 1

Page Number: 48

Project: 1992-062-00

Contract: 42837

Buena property, May 2008, following nearly three years of weed control. The site was planted in October 2008.

Figure Name: Monitoring-Figure 2

Document ID: P113829

Document: FY2008 Annual Report Pt 1

Page Number: 48

Project: 1992-062-00

Contract: 42837

North White Swan property during weed control activities, but prior to fencing and revegetation, in June 2006.

Figure Name: Monitoring-Figure 3

Document ID: P113829

Document: FY2008 Annual Report Pt 1

Page Number: 49

Project: 1992-062-00

Contract: 42837

North White Swan property, September 2008, 10 months following planting of native grasses. Bunchgrasses are visible in the foreground and background.

Figure Name: Monitoring-Figure 4

Document ID: P113829

Document: FY2008 Annual Report Pt 1

Page Number: 49

Project: 1992-062-00

Contract: 42837

Old Goldendale (Pumphouse Road) property in July 2005, prior to restoration activities. The site was dominated by Kochia scoparia, whitetop (Cardaria draba), and perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium).

Figure Name: Monitoring-Figure 5

Document ID: P113829

Document: FY2008 Annual Report Pt 1

Page Number: 50

Project: 1992-062-00

Contract: 42837

Old Goldendale (Pumphouse Road) property in August 2006 following 12 months of weed control. Practices included mechanical and chemical weed control.

Figure Name: Monitoring-Figure 6

Document ID: P113829

Document: FY2008 Annual Report Pt 1

Page Number: 50

Project: 1992-062-00

Contract: 42837

Old Goldendale (Pumphouse Road) property in September 2008, nearly two years following revegetation with native bunchgrasses. Basin wildrye plants are visible in foreground and background.

Figure Name: Monitoring-Figure 7

Document ID: P113829

Document: FY2008 Annual Report Pt 1

Page Number: 51

Project: 1992-062-00

Contract: 42837

Study sites on the Meninick Wildlife Area. CSB = connected spring brook, DSC = disconnected side channel, DP = disconnected pond.

Figure Name: Ecological-Figure 1

Document ID: P113830

Expense	SOY Budget	Working Budget	Contracted Amount	Modified Contract Amount	Expenditures *
FY2018 (Previous)	$1,845,326	$1,845,326	$1,845,326	$2,054,907	$1,602,503

Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama		$1,845,326	$1,845,326	$2,054,907	$1,602,503

FY2019 (Current)		$1,789,966	$1,789,966	$1,999,547	$644,367

Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama		$1,789,966	$1,789,966	$1,999,547	$644,367

FY2020 (Next)	$1,789,966	$1,789,966	$0	$209,581	$0

Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama		$1,789,966	$0	$209,581	$0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Mar-2019

Acct FY	Acct Type	Amount	Fund	Budget Decision	Date
FY2018	Expense	$1,845,326	From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama	FY18 Initial Planning Budgets (WS, CTUIR, YN, CRITFC) 7/18/2017	07/18/2017
FY2019	Expense	$1,789,966	From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama	Accord Extensions (Yakama Tribe) 10/1/2018	10/01/2018
FY2020	Expense	$1,789,966	From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama	Accord Extensions (Yakama Tribe) 10/1/2018	10/01/2018

Fiscal Year	Total Contributions	% of Budget
2016			(Draft)
2015	$97,000	6 %
2014	$20,000	1 %
2013	$476,267	21 %
2012	$178,600	8 %
2011	$320,600	18 %
2010	$614,700	31 %
2009	$1,183,184	51 %
2008	$795,026	34 %
2007	$2,204,227	74 %

Number	Contractor Name	Title	Status	Total Contracted Amount	Dates
297 REL 1 SOW	Yakama Confederated Tribes	1992-062-00 LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY HABITAT UNIT ACQUISITION	History	$0	5/21/2000 - 9/30/2001
9018 SOW	Yakama Confederated Tribes	1992-062-00 LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY HABITAT UNIT ACQUISITION	History	$3,947,830	10/1/2000 - 3/31/2004
17433 SOW	Yakama Confederated Tribes	1992-062-00 LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY HABITAT UNIT ACQUISITION	History	$1,384,448	4/1/2004 - 3/31/2005
23505 SOW	Yakama Confederated Tribes	1992-062-00 EXP LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY HABITAT UNIT ACQ	History	$1,186,390	4/1/2005 - 3/31/2006
28163 SOW	Yakama Confederated Tribes	1992-062-00 EXP LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY HABITAT UNIT ACQ	History	$1,514,545	4/1/2006 - 3/31/2007
BPA-004431	Bonneville Power Administration	TBL support for Land acquisitions	Active	$8,254	4/1/2009 - 9/30/2009
BPA-005056	Bonneville Power Administration	FY10 TBL Land Acq Support for Lower Yakima Vly Riparian Wetlands Restoration	Active	$7,709	10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
BPA-005424	Bonneville Power Administration	TBL Land Support	Active	$297	10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
BPA-006206	Bonneville Power Administration	TBL Land Acquisition Support for Lower Yakima Valley	Active	$674	10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
BPA-006855	Bonneville Power Administration	Lower Yakima Valley	Active	$0	10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
BPA-007582	Bonneville Power Administration	Lower Yakima Valley	Active	$0	10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
56662 REL 104 SOW	Yakama Confederated Tribes	1992-062-00 EXP LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY RIPARIAN WETLANDS REST.	Issued	$1,931,558	4/1/2016 - 6/30/2017
56662 REL 130 SOW	Yakama Confederated Tribes	1992-062-00 EXP LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY RIPARIAN WETLANDS REST.	Issued	$1,888,923	4/1/2017 - 3/31/2018
56662 REL 159 SOW	Yakama Confederated Tribes	1992-062-00 EXP LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY RIPARIAN WETLANDS REST.	Issued	$1,845,326	4/1/2018 - 3/31/2019
81732 SOW	Yakama Confederated Tribes	1992-062-00 EXP LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY RIPARIAN WETLANDS REST.	Issued	$1,789,966	4/1/2019 - 3/31/2020

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
9018	17433, 23505, 28163, 32924, 37633, 42837, 48417, 53251, 56662 REL 1, 56662 REL 24, 56662 REL 60, 56662 REL 83, 56662 REL 104, 56662 REL 130, 56662 REL 159, 81732	1992-062-00 LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY HABITAT UNIT ACQUISITION	Yakama Confederated Tribes	10/2000	10/2000	Issued	56	273	1	0	84	358	76.54%	8
BPA-004431		TBL support for Land acquisitions	Bonneville Power Administration	04/2009	04/2009	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-005056		FY10 TBL Land Acq Support for Lower Yakima Vly Riparian Wetlands Restoration	Bonneville Power Administration	10/2009	10/2009	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-005424		TBL Land Support	Bonneville Power Administration	10/2010	10/2010	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-006206		TBL Land Acquisition Support for Lower Yakima Valley	Bonneville Power Administration	10/2011	10/2011	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-006855		Lower Yakima Valley	Bonneville Power Administration	10/2012	10/2012	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-007582		Lower Yakima Valley	Bonneville Power Administration	10/2013	10/2013	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
Project Totals							56	273	1	0	84	358	76.54%	8

Assessment Number:	1992-062-00-NPCC-20131125
Project:	1992-062-00 - Lower Yakima Valley Riparian Wetlands Restoration
Review:	2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal:	GEOREV-1992-062-00
Proposal State:	Pending BPA Response
Approved Date:	11/5/2013
Recommendation:	Implement with Conditions
Comments:	Implement through FY 2018. Also see Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.
Conditions:
	Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: A. Implement Monitoring, and Evaluation at a Regional Scale—Also see Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.

Final Round ISRP Comment:
Assessment Number:	1992-062-00-ISRP-20130610
Project:	1992-062-00 - Lower Yakima Valley Riparian Wetlands Restoration
Review:	2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number:	GEOREV-1992-062-00
Completed Date:	9/26/2013
Final Round ISRP Date:	8/15/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating:	Meets Scientific Review Criteria
The response was helpful in better framing objectives and deliverables in quantitative terms, while appropriately pointing out the inherent constraints and the need for flexibility. Additional material was provided that also helped clarify other aspects of the project. The physical setting was more completely described. The response describes the need to lease rather than purchase land for protection. Reviewers do not completely understand the dispute the sponsors have with BPA over land easements and whether or not this continues to constrain progress. Hopefully the issue can be resolved so that key habitat can be protected. Evaluation of Results This project works in the floodplains of the Yakima River from Union Gap to Mabton (the “Wapato Reach” and areas below) and the lower elevation areas (below 2,000 feet) of Toppenish and Satus Creeks, to preserve and restore Reservation lands as mitigation for hydrosystem impacts. Since its inception in 1991, over 20,000 acres of floodplain lands have been protected through purchase or lease. These lands include 75 main channel stream miles (117 miles of stream bank), 4,000 acres of National Wetland Inventory wetlands, and 1,400 acres of riparian forest. The program has also, since 2007, restored or enhanced over 25 miles of main and side channels, and over 1400 acres of wetlands. The sponsors are in the process of compiling a history of project actions, including maps of project locations, to be finished by October 2013.
First Round ISRP Date:	6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating:	Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:
A response is needed that identifies quantitative objectives and deliverables to the greatest extent possible. Deliverables should also include project reports that document progress. A number of other comments found below are intended as feedback to aide future proposal preparation. The proposal mentions a dispute with BPA over land easements. The ISRP notes that it is important that this dispute be resolved so that conservation efforts can continue to expand. Because one of the objectives of the work is to provide natural resources for Yakama members, documentation of progress toward this end should be included in future proposals. Progress could take many different forms such as documentation of plants and animals used, measures of use such as resource use days, or as culturally appropriate, map the distribution of culturally valuable resources that are reappearing due to their management actions. When the ISRP visited the Zimmermann Tract, our hosts gave a demonstration of wapato harvesting and were very pleased that this plant had appeared in the Tract. 1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The significance of the project to regional programs is adequately described. The ISRP appreciates when objectives and deliverables are presented quantitatively, for example secure 1,000 to 3,000 acres of floodplain habitat per year. However, some objectives were not quantitative, for example amount of habitat restored. The goals of this project are to permanently protect 27,000 acres of floodplain lands along the Yakima River, Toppenish, and Satus Creeks within the agricultural portion of the Yakama Reservation, to enhance those lands to realize a net increase in native fish and wildlife habitat values, to adaptively manage those lands to ensure permanent fish and wildlife value, and to monitor the habitat conditions to ensure the desired habitat value is reached and maintained. A description of the physical setting would have been helpful, including a map and brief overviews covering physical setting and land ownership. It is noted that while steelhead spawn mostly in Toppenish Creek reaches above the project area, much spawning occurs in Satus Creek within the project area. The project area is especially important for winter rearing. Approximately 66% of the subbasin’s juvenile steelhead typically enter the project area in December-January each year and do not migrate downstream until the spring. Future reports should discuss how project efforts protect or enhance that winter rearing habitat. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results) It is noted that 21,000 acres of the 27,000 acre floodplain goal has been achieved, but 18,600 of these acres are leased. Reviewers are uncertain whether leased lands are fully protected in perpetuity, as suggested. The proposal mentions a dispute with BPA over land easements. The ISRP notes that it is important that this dispute be resolved so that successful conservation efforts can continue to expand. The proposal notes that it is behind schedule in annual reports. The report for 2009 is 75% complete and the 2010 report is 30% complete. The proposal states that sponsors will improve the amount of timely reporting. The project monitors its habitat acquisitions. Some information is reportedly presented on the webpage, which will be reportedly updated in FY 2013 but it is not clear when in FY 2013 the update will occur. The last report to integrate population monitoring with habitat restoration actions was completed in FY 1999 (Millspaugh and Skalski 1999). More effort is needed to document acquisitions and monitoring results. Monitoring plans, management plans, and habitat surveys are specific deliverables but reviewers did not see references to documents that have been produced, so it is difficult to evaluate what has been accomplished in addition to stated overall land acquisitions. A map is needed as well as photos of selected sites. During our visit, the tour hosts referenced using photo plots to record changes occurring on Project lands. We encourage this as a basic monitoring activity. Also missing was a description of locations of activities to determine whether they scattered or clumped. Better discussion of geographical specifics would have been helpful. Prioritization of land acquisition was briefly described in the proposal and should be presented in more detail in future proposals. There is evidence of good partnering with USFWS, NRCS, and conservation groups. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods A number of deliverables are listed. Many of these imply that a report would be produced, for example complete a wildlife survey and a complete management plan for new land. A key deliverable should be brief reports that document the activity given that the budgets for these efforts seem to be quite robust. *Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org* A number of references are cited for habitat monitoring methods at MonitoringMethods.org. It is not clear to what extent these specific methodologies are actually used because a recent report on monitoring was not readily available. Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/26/2013 2:45:35 PM.
Documentation Links:

Assessment Number:	1992-062-00-NPCC-20090924
Project:	1992-062-00 - Lower Yakima Valley Riparian Wetlands Restoration
Review:	FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date:	10/23/2006
Recommendation:	Fund Pending Available Funds
Comments:	Tier 2. Fund at a level consistent with ISRP comment during contracting when funds become available.

Final Round ISRP Comment:
Assessment Number:	1992-062-00-ISRP-20060831
Project:	1992-062-00 - Lower Yakima Valley Riparian Wetlands Restoration
Review:	FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date:	8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date:	None
Final Round ISRP Rating:	Meets Scientific Review Criteria
This is an important project working toward habitat conservation goals in some critical areas of the Yakima basin. Missing from the proposal was evidence of a strong biological monitoring component. The proposal stated that their website will be updated in FY 07 to include all the biological monitoring results, but reviewers requested an interim synthesis to show benefits to focal species and demonstrate restoration is working. The proponents have gone to a lot of effort to provide a detailed response. The response effectively provided detail on M&E procedure and results of management activities on one management unit encompassing 440 acres (of a total of 20,000 acres in the project). The monitoring protocol described is that used on all management units. Impressive changes were shown in the time-series of aerial photos, photopoints, habitat cover type data, and bird density/diversity summaries. Those M&E methods seem appropriate and the data resulting indicates the project is achieving its wetland-related goals. If this is representative of what has been done and is planned for other management units, this portion of project could serve as a model for riparian/wetlands restoration. Unfortunately only one table gave data on fish use of the restored habitat. On the other hand only one goal is directly concerned with anadromous fish. The Yakama Nation Fisheries Program has a fish-monitoring program underway, and it would be in the proponent's best interest to include more fisheries information, although reviewers appreciate there are often indirect (but important) ties to fish that can be assessed using habitat measures. They are encouraged include more fisheries information for their next submission.
Documentation Links:

Assessment Number:	1992-062-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number:	1992-062-00
Review:	FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date:	10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating:	Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating:	3 - Does not appear reasonable
Comment:	Multiple restoration, RM&E, coordination activities; need confirmation that screening or other criteria to ensure BPA is not funding activities others already required to perform; need confirmation that cost share is adequate.

Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):	30
Completed:	9
On time:	9

Status Reports
Completed:	56
On time:	13
Avg Days Late:	38

Name	Role	Organization
Kenneth Raedeke	Interested Party	<Known but not in list>
Peter Lofy	Supervisor	Bonneville Power Administration
John Tyler	Interested Party	Bonneville Power Administration
Michael Milstein (Inactive)	Interested Party	Bonneville Power Administration
Edward Gresh	Env. Compliance Lead	Bonneville Power Administration
Katie Mcdonald	Interested Party	Bonneville Power Administration
Tom Elliott	Project Lead	Yakama Confederated Tribes
Paul Ashley (Inactive)	Technical Contact	Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
Michelle O'Malley	Project Manager	Bonneville Power Administration

Assessment Number:	1992-062-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number:	1992-062-00
Review:	FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date:	2/27/2007
Capital Rating:	Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category:	None
Comment:	None

Please correct the errors noted below.

Summary of Budgets

Decided Budget Transfers (FY2018 - FY2020)

Pending Budget Decision? No

Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2019

Previous Fiscal Years

Council Recommendation

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Council Recommendation

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Capital Assessment