The ISRP commends the proponents for their efforts to involve the local community and recognizes that the Sunnyside Wildlife Area was originally acquired for recreation rather than habitat mitigation. However, we believe the project could be improved by developing quantitative objectives with timelines, and by conducting more basic monitoring and evaluation to track progress. It is difficult to evaluate the overall benefits of this project based on the mix of objectives and background information provided, in part because monitoring is not clearly focused on tracking the success of management actions. A process for prioritizing tasks is also needed given limitations on staff and funding. 

1. Objectives and outcomes 

The objectives for habitat restoration are very general and do not quantitatively describe expected outcomes. Objectives for focal species are not identified. 

The 2017 Summary Report describes the current objectives as: infrastructure maintenance for habitat protection and regulated access for public recreation; and vegetation management to protect quality wildlife habitat by reducing the presence of invasive weeds and adjusting species composition as needed in pre-existing and enhanced sites. These are clear statements of intention, and they seem adequately justified by background information in the 2006 Management Plan. However, because these objectives are not stated quantitatively and lack timelines, they cannot be used to track progress or re-evaluate assumptions as part of adaptive management. 

The 2006 Sunnyside/Snake River Wildlife Area Management Plan does include a more extensive set of performance measures, some of which are expressed quantitatively with timelines. The ISRP understands that the management plan is being revised in 2017, and we urge the proponents to take this opportunity to fully develop quantitative objectives with timelines. For example, objectives could include targets for: acres of habitat to be treated for invasive weeds, the acceptable density of invasive weeds, specifications for water control structures, and number of people visiting the property. For properties with multiple management units, objectives should be identified for each unit. 

2. Scientific principles and methods 

Background information in the 2006 Management Plan and associated documents describes generally how habitat restoration actions might support goals in the management plan. However, the justifications and expected outcomes are not described adequately for us to evaluate the scientific merit of the restoration actions undertaken. Moreover, the process for prioritizing restoration actions is not described. 

The Summary Report does not address the scientific principles of the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program. The 2006 Management Plan states that a statewide planning process was followed to ensure consistency in wildlife area management and policy implementation, and that this process included review by a Citizens Advisory Group and a District Team familiar with regional concerns. However, the ISRP understands that the Citizens Advisory Group no longer exists for Sunnyside, although one may be re-established in the near future. 

In particular, it is not clear how the proponents prioritize activities given their concerns about insufficient funding and staff time. For example, why is grain being grown for waterfowl -- does this address a limiting factor? It is difficult to evaluate a funding shortfall without quantitative performance measures and monitoring and evaluation of those measures. 

No information or discussion is provided about how this project might be affected by expected changes in climate. Will the project still be viable if climate changes in this region as predicted?

3. Monitoring and evaluation 

The Summary Report does not provide a systematic review of monitoring and evaluation. Some monitoring and evaluation of results are evident in the bird and elk surveys and scientific reports cited, but that work was funded by organizations other than BPA, primarily WDFW and USFWS. It is not clear why elk are surveyed given that they are not listed as a focal species. The data collected from bird surveys have not been analyzed or published. 

The Summary Report lists various actions such as "Over 480 acres of moist-soil wetlands and 200 acres of semi-permanent wetlands are managed annually. Russian olives are controlled on average of 40 acres annually." However it is not clear what actions are used to manage moistsoil wetlands, how management is monitored and evaluated, or how many more acres of Russian olives need treatment. Similarly 250 acres were planted with native grasses and shrubs after two wild fires in 2014. Did the grasses prevent water and wind erosion of the soils? Did 100% of the planted shrubs survive? Is current shrub density equal to that prior to the wild fire? 

The Summary Report lists monitoring activities but then indicates that no data are available for three of the seven activities. There is no discussion of any monitoring results. Links are provided to several state-wide reports but some of the links did not work. Results should be presented for this particular project. 

There is no discussion of how well weed eradication is working, and whether weed prevalence is increasing or decreasing. Basic monitoring is needed to track accomplishments. 

4. Results: benefits to fish and wildlife and adaptive management 

The project appears to be maintaining improvements to habitat as proposed in the original management plan. Even so, it is difficult to evaluate the overall benefits based on the mix of objectives and background information provided. Monitoring is not clearly focused on tracking progress. In short, no adaptive management is evident from the information provided, and it remains unclear whether the work done is having an impact. 

The Summary Report includes a list of lessons learned about three administrative issues. The first issue is a regulation that slows the work effort, the second issue is decreased funding for operations and maintenance after wild fires, and the third issue is insufficient staffing to complete projects. The recommendations for changes seem reasonable but are not well supported by evidence or references to analyses in other documents. A more compelling case for budget and staff shortfalls could be made by quantitatively documenting what needs to be accomplished versus what can be achieved. 

A plan is needed to schedule replacement and refurbishment of equipment. It might be helpful to create a chart to show the expected lifetime of equipment, the risks to infrastructure (e.g., wild fire), and options for mitigating the risks. The response to wild fire damage is an important task that undoubtedly requires considerable effort. To what degree were planned projects postponed in order to respond to wild fire damage? 

Given concerns about limits to funding and staff time, some sort of prioritization scheme is needed to do the most important tasks first, rather than starting many tasks but being unable to finish them. Perhaps volunteers can do some of the work such as weed control, litter control, etc. 

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.