2010 Wildlife project review

The proponents provided a nice summary of annual activities (restoration, enhancement, weed control, etc.). The choice of subprojects was adequately addressed and noted both scientific and opportunistic drivers, although wildlife management concepts such as connectivity and carrying capacity are also very important. The concern about salmonids seemed to be adequately addressed (both adults and young). Giffen Lake and possible dredging was shelved because of inadequate funds, which still leaves the issue unresolved and possibly getting worse. The ISRP agrees with the manager who rightfully states that the way to monitor wildlife responses is with a team that is specially trained to collect and analyze data. This would be more efficient and produce more accurate results. The response seems to indicate that WDFW "will be" putting together a monitoring team for multiple species on their BPA mitigation projects. It was noted by the sponsor that when a habitat project was monitored for success, he apparently makes a qualitative determination of, e.g., "sparse stand." Hopefully, the activity, specific field observation and response are recorded so that a learning process occurs about what works at each site. The quality of water entering the system was a concern to the ISRP and contacts have been made to evaluate the quality of water entering the system and leaving the system. The responses to the questions are positive and informative. Schroeder et al. 2008, WDFW - Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat Assessment on Bonneville Power Administration-Funded Wildlife Areas in Washington: Monitoring and Evaluation Activities, includes some coverage of Sunnyside M&E. Future proposals and annual reports should incorporate this information.

This project is an important program with elements of major riparian and wetland habitats along the Yakima River with potential to benefit numerous focal species in terrestrial, semi-aquatic and aquatic ecosystems. A response is requested on the following: 1. a summary table of how many acres (using current 10,538 acres), have been restored, purchased, treated for weeds, etc… arrayed by time. 2. is a scientific rationale for choosing subprojects - any kind of a habitat network plan or are they chosen on availability/opportunity? 3. are there conflicts between oxbow lake objectives and river reconnection goals for specific fish objectives? 4. original plans to dredge Giffen Lake have not been addressed, it is not clear if the Giffen Lake issue is resolvable by dredging, what will the "renewed attempts" involve? 5. M&E is extremely limited. As stated on p.26-28, several miscellaneous past surveys describe incomplete M&E and need attention, e.g., neotropical birds (only one year of data collected and exists in rough form). Establishment of breeding bird surveys is an important first step as baseline information which is key to gauging success of the habitat work and for linking wildlife population responses to restoration and enhancement. It would be useful to include the "secretive marsh bird" data in the proposal. 6. The statement on p.28 that "Habitat restoration projects are monitored for success, but not formally through the actual vegetative sampling process" needs some clarification as elsewhere in the proposal vegetation sampling is proposed (p.26). 7. The ISRP is concerned about the quality of water being placed on wetlands (it may or may not be a problem). Can this be addressed? 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships The sponsors have been consistent in their efforts to restore and enhance and are commended for their efforts to win back habitat values. The project has reached out to partners and co-sponsors to achieve results or resolve problems. The neighboring Yakama Nation projects have similar goals to the Sunnyside work although the Yakama Nation is depending on natural processes over large areas of the landscape for restoration processes whereas the Sunnyside Project relies more on expensive pumps and pipes to reintroduce and maintain hydrological processes. There may be a potential for more interactions between the two projects. They both face onto Yakima River and a common "reach plan" might be worthwhile. 2. Project History and Results The sponsors present a history of the project on a land unit by land unit basis which helps the reviewers understand progress over the years. However, a summary table of how many acres (using current area of 10,538 acres), have been restored, purchased, treated for weeds, etc… arrayed by time would be a very useful addition to the proposal. It would also be useful to learn if there is any scientific rationale for choosing subprojects - is any kind of a habitat network in their sights or are they chosen on availability/opportunism? Are there conflicting objectives between oxbow lake work and goals to reconnect with the river for specific fish objectives? In general, progress towards objectives has been satisfactory, with a few notable exceptions: (1) Giffen Lake project was originally designed to control aquatic vegetation, reduce the amount of pesticide/sediment laden water flowing from agriculture drains, increase waterfowl production, and recover the resident fishery within Giffen Lake. BPA mitigation funds were originally planned to dredge Giffen Lake which has not occurred. It is not clear if the Giffen Lake issue is resolvable by dredging. No details are given on what the "renewed attempts" will involve. Perhaps it might be more ecologically responsible to let the lake fill-in and become terrestrial habitat. Based upon limited field trip observations, the lake now has low fish and wildlife values. (2) Weed and Russian Olive control. The sponsors have a realistic view of invasive vegetation control and note it is a never-ending battle with present technology. Seventeen projects are listed which is a good explanation of accomplishments, but it would be useful to learn how many are specifically related to BPA funding. 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods No specific comments. 4. M&E The ISRP in 2007 was concerned about using HEP and HSI for M&E rather than effectiveness monitoring. Although some before and after photos and general observations of various birds and mammals were presented, M&E is extremely limited. As stated on p.26-28, several miscellaneous past surveys describe incomplete M&E and need attention, e.g., neotropical birds (only one year of data collected and exists in rough form). The sponsors note that there are no established breeding bird surveys on and near the wildlife area, and recognize that the establishment of breeding bird surveys is an important first step for obtaining baseline information. This task is a high priority for M&E since baseline data are key to gauging success of the habitat work and for linking wildlife population responses to restoration and enhancement. It would be useful to include the "secretive marsh bird" data in the proposal which was collected over several years by a volunteer. The statement on p.28 that "Habitat restoration projects are monitored for success, but not formally through the actual vegetative sampling process" need some clarification as elsewhere in the proposal vegetation sampling is proposed (p.26). There is recognition that contaminant concentrations of pesticides and herbicides in water in the region often exceed allowable concentrations, but apparently no evaluation has been made of water coming out of the agricultural drain pipe and flowing into their wetland areas. The ISRP is concerned about the quality of water being placed on wetlands (it may or may not be a problem). This project has included construction of ponds and associated wetlands, construction of catch basins and culverts, installation of a lift pump, and installation of a pump to have moist soil management on 114 acres. The ISRP believes it is critical to first analyze the water coming out of the pipe from the agricultural lands for a series of contaminants used on the agricultural lands. Then, as a further evaluation, sample the water after it goes through the ponds and wetlands to determine any improvements in water quality (this could become a classic study). Washington Department of Ecology (perhaps Chad Furl) would be a good contact regarding water quality tests. This could also become a great thesis study at a university, which could perhaps also evaluate movement of various contaminants that bio-concentrate through the food web in the various ponds and marshes. A recent review of monitoring and assessing organic chemical removal in constructed wetlands is available in the journal Chemosphere 74(2009):349-362 and includes sampling designs and techniques. But, the most important phase is to determine what is coming out of the pipe.