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.
SOW