The proponents are to be commended for submitting a concise, easy-to-understand proposal. The primary goal of the Lower Yakima Valley Riparian Wetlands Restoration Project is to permanently protect 27,000 acres of on-reservation floodplain lands along Toppenish and Status creeks and along the lower Yakima River, primarily for wildlife benefits. To date, 21,630 acres (80%) have been protected through land purchase or lease agreements. However, it was not clear if the goal of 27,000 acres of floodplain habitat is still logistically reasonable or sufficient. Other project goals involve habitat restoration and wildlife monitoring.

Although the project seems to be highly successful in terms of protecting 21,630 acres of floodplain habitat, it is not clear how land was prioritized for this protection or what percentage of the total floodplain habitat this represents. But the proponent clearly described what they do and how they do it. The proposal includes an excellent discussion of how they implement their projects.

Goals of the project are presented and have not changed since the last review in 2013. A set of SMART Objectives should be developed for the project. To qualify as SMART Objectives, the proponent should include specific targets per year of the project (e.g., acres of riparian plantings, number, and extent of surveys) and should be accompanied by implementation objectives that describe the intended activities, followed by a description of the appropriate methods to be used under each Implementation Objective. In that most of the information already exists in the proposal, this reorganization is not expected to take a large amount of time.

A list of projects to be completed under this funding cycle is provided in a table. There is no formal project adjustment process for restoration projects, rather the project seems to rely upon experience of the staff to make decisions about project selection and restoration approaches. The lack of a formal adjustment process seems to reflect the project target of simply achieving a net increase in habitat value. 

This project mostly meets scientific review criteria, but additional information needs to be provided in a subsequent annual report to satisfy science integrity requirements and to ensure that this project is based on sound scientific principles. The focus of the project is clearly shifting, from land acquisition to land management. So too must the objectives, methods, and monitoring change to adequately depict the new directions that this project is undertaking.

The ISRP’s recommended Conditions are listed below. The proponents need to assist with development of an M&E Matrix during the response loop (September 24 to November 22, 2021) and to provide information to address the other following Conditions in future annual reports and work plans. Because of the importance of the proposal as a guiding document for the project, we encourage the proponents to revise their proposal to reflect these additions, but the ISRP does not need to review the revised proposal.

1. SMART objectives. The proponent should develop a complete set of SMART (see proposal instructions) objectives for this project and incorporate and submit them in a revised proposal, which will provide complete project documentation for future reference on reporting project progress. Based on the overall quality of the proposal and the project’s track record, the ISRP does not need to review the revised proposal.
2. M&E matrix - support. As habitat projects and monitoring projects are not presented as part of an integrated proposal or plan, the need for a crosswalk to identify the linkages between implementation and monitoring is extremely important for basins or geographic areas. The ISRP is requesting a response from the Yakima Basin Habitat Project (199705100) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the Yakima River basin. During the response loop, we ask this project to assist them in creating the summary and provide information to them about what is being monitored for this implementation project and where and when the monitoring occurs. A map or maps of locations of monitoring actions would be helpful in this regard.
3. Project prioritization. Develop and follow formal project prioritization criteria and project selection methodology. These criteria and methods should help maximize efficiency of actions.
4. Benefits for fish and wildlife. Identify benefits for fish, wildlife, ecological function, and cultural aspects. These benefits should be quantified as much as possible. This will require a definitive monitoring effort that is robust enough to track progress on an annual basis. The relevant fish monitoring may largely be satisfied by coordination with monitoring efforts already being done by other Yakima subbasin projects (e.g., 199506325 and 199603501). 

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The primary goal of the Lower Yakima Valley Riparian Wetlands Restoration Project is to permanently protect 27,000 acres of on-reservation floodplain lands along the Yakima River, and along Toppenish and Satus creeks. The project also seeks to monitor, adaptively manage, and enhance those lands to realize a net increase in native fish and wildlife habitat values. Another key criterion for project success is that the properties acquired and managed are accessible to Yakama Nation tribal members for traditional hunting, fishing, and gathering practices, and that healthy populations of culturally important species are maintained.

Goals of the project are presented and have not changed since the last review in 2013. No timeline for achieving the primary goal of protecting 27,000 acres is mentioned, though achievement would primarily depend on funding. Other objectives are noted, such as a net increase in habitat values, but the amount of increase was not specified, suggesting a vague low target.

The proposal needs SMART objectives. The information is largely presented in a table, but the use of SMART objective format will help organize the material and help with tracking progress on an annual basis. The SMART objectives should be explicit about targets and desired outcomes for each of the next five years.

Q2: Methods

The operations and activities proposed for this project fall into three categories: acquisition, restoration/enhancement, and management. The proponent states that "Acquisition activities occur when new properties are purchased or leased, and when existing property leases are renewed." The approach for prioritizing areas to purchase or lease is not described, other than stating: "This land is selected for its high value to fish and wildlife populations.” The last two categories are not mutually exclusive, as restoration actions may require new management practices for continued benefit. The methods are generally well described, but the methods need to be organized within SMART objectives (see above). Metrics and targets need to be developed and presented. The timeline and schedules lack the detail necessary to assess progress towards targets.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

A formal adaptive management and project adjustment process is not described. While a description of how projects are reviewed suggests that internal and external review have been an integral part of the process, the review process appears to have a loose and optional structure rather than a formal, structured review process. As is, the decision as to when more extensive internal or external review is conducted is not clear.

The project has a systematic approach to compliance monitoring based on aerial photos, habitat cover, and bird density. The project’s 2007 proposal indicated that a website would be available that will include all monitoring relevant to their project (mostly project compliance monitoring). The ISRP could not find any information about such a website in this proposal or recent annual reports. It is not clear if any fish or wildlife monitoring, regardless of who conducts it, is available on a Yakama Nation website.

Project monitoring work has focused on both clarifying the outcomes of specific projects and on long-term trend monitoring for wildlife populations. The former is accomplished using photopoint surveys and vegetation monitoring, as well as taking individual counts and qualitative notes at planted sites. Pre-and post-project monitoring reportedly takes place. The proposal states "During the implementation phase, wildlife program staff are on hand both to ensure that the project design and environmental protection measures are followed, and to observe which design components are easy to implement and which may require adjustment."

Habitat restoration activities are monitored on selected projects using standard vegetation monitoring techniques (transect/quadrat surveys, etc.). Baseline surveys take place prior to implementation, with follow-up monitoring after restoration activities to document and evaluate their effects. Other monitoring work has included groundwater hydrology surveys undertaken by a collaborating graduate student from Central Washington University, and periodic surveys for rare plant species.

Wildlife monitoring for the project includes waterfowl, sage grouse, upland game birds, and non-game birds. Waterfowl banding activities are conducted during the summer by trained personnel to determine survival rates and migration areas for locally produced ducks. Migration and wintering surveys are conducted using fixed-wing aircraft monthly from October through February. Counts of sage grouse, upland game birds, and non-game birds are conducted seasonally. Hunter effort and success surveys are conducted during hunting seasons, which helps to gauge both use and population levels for waterfowl and upland game birds. However, the relationship of these monitoring efforts to the project acquisition and restoration efforts is not so direct, for they generally appear to be designed to serve a broader purpose (e.g., information for a public hunting program).

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

Overall, this project has done an admirable job providing a significant amount of conservation. The main benefits are conservation of land and preservation of cultural traditions. Cultural benefits include providing habitat for native plants used for basketry and first-foods harvesting. Tribal access for traditional cultural activity is an important part of this project.

To date, the Yakama Nation has used Project funding to protect 21,630 acres of habitat (goal is 27,000 acres), including 4,530 acres of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) wetlands, through a combination of land purchases and long-term leases. The YN Wildlife program has completed numerous enhancement projects on its properties, to restore them to a natural state or to enable flexible and impactful management options in areas where larger trends (e.g., Yakima River flow regulation) prevent a return to a truly natural condition. Project funding has been used for many of these activities, typically combined with other funding sources. Restoration actions have ranged from small riparian plantings, to reconnecting long side channels, to large water control infrastructure projects.

Benefits to wildlife such as waterfowl are likely, but the benefits to fish are less clear. While the actual monitoring of Middle Columbia steelhead “is ‘outsourced’ to cooperating organizations such as YN Fisheries,” the information collected is not presented by the proponent. The monitoring information should be used by the proponent to help track the usefulness and progress of the project. The information should also provide a feedback loop for future adaptive changes in the project approach.

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.

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.