Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2006-003-00 - Desert Wildlife Mitigation Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2006-003-00 - Desert Wildlife Mitigation
Project Number:
2006-003-00
Title:
Desert Wildlife Mitigation
Summary:
Complete two wetland enhancement projects on the Desert Wildlife Area that have been funded, in part, by BPA. In addition to completing enhancement modifications, the contract will provide funding to operate and maintain the enhanced wetlands for one year to insure that they remain functional. The TD-1 project, if completed, operated, and maintained will restore 7 former wetland basins (now dry or drying) by diverting surface water from the Frenchman Hills wasteway into the former wetland basins. Enhancement at the TD-1 project will include designing and installing a fish screen, excavating cell #2, armoring dikes, seeding disturbed soil resulting from construction activities, and tilling wetland cells. Operation and maintenance at TD-1 will include coordination with BOR and Quincy Irrigation District, inspecting/reparing enhancements, controlling undesirable vegetation, operating water control structures, producing required BPA reports, and administering the contract. The TD-2 project, if completed and maintained, will enhance 19 late-succession stage wetlands adjacent to the Winchester Wasteway by removing accumulated organic material from them and eliminating surface water connection to the wasteway which will allow management of fish populations in the project ponds/wetlands. Enhancement at the TD-2 project will include armoring dikes, removing fish from project ponds, and seeding disturbed soil resulting from construction activities. Operation and maintenance at TD-2 will include inspecting/reparing enhancements, controlling undesirable vegetation, developing and implementing methods to survey submerged aquatic vegetation, producing required BPA reports, and administering the contract. Management of the project wetlands will be used to maximize habitat quality for wetland obligate birds.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
2006
Ending FY:
2018
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Plateau Crab 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 0.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 100.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
None

Desert Wildlife Area and Location of Project Areas.

Figure Name: Figure 1

Document ID: P121754

Document: The Desert Wildlife Area Wetland Enhancement Project Frenchman and Desert Ponds

Page Number: 3

Project: 2006-003-00

Contract: 46876


Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2017 (Previous) $146,771 $146,771 $134,726 $134,726 $115,312

General $146,771 $134,726 $134,726 $115,312
FY2018 (Current) $156,857 $156,857 $156,857 $156,857 $123,403

General $156,857 $156,857 $156,857 $123,403
FY2019 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

General $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Aug-2018

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2017 - FY2019)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2017 Expense $146,771 From: General FY17 SOY Budgets 06/02/2016
FY2018 Expense $146,771 From: General FY18 SOY Budgets 07/17/2017
FY2018 Expense $10,086 From: General July 25th 2017 Transfers 07/25/2017

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2018
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2016 (Draft)
2015 $35,741 20 %
2014 $34,003 20 %
2013 $36,475 21 %
2012 $33,675 16 %
2011 $31,686 15 %
2010 $34,390 17 %
2009 $30,247 15 %
2008 $37,145 18 %
2007 $247,112 60 %

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
74966 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2006-003-00 EXP DESERT WILDLIFE AREA O&M Issued $146,771 2/1/2017 - 1/31/2018
74314 REL 27 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2006-003-00 EXP DESERT WILDLIFE AREA O&M Issued $156,857 2/1/2018 - 1/31/2019



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):16
Completed:11
On time:11
Status Reports
Completed:53
On time:12
Avg Days Late:25

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
25457 30303, 34927, 40094, 46876, 51887, 56238, 60686, 64562, 68241, 71823, 74966, 74314 REL 27 2006-003-00 PL DESERT WILDLIFE AREA O&M Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 10/2005 10/2005 Issued 53 168 14 0 19 201 90.55% 0
Project Totals 53 168 14 0 19 201 90.55% 0


Review: Wildlife Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2006-003-00-ISRP-20090618
Project: 2006-003-00 - Desert Wildlife Mitigation
Review: Wildlife Category Review
Completed Date: 5/19/2009
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The qualification is that project sponsors should complete a progress report summarizing the results of this 10-year effort and describe how (if) their findings have been incorporated into revised management activities in the Desert Wildlife Area.

Because the Desert Wildlife Area wetlands are in part caused by human activity (agricultural surface water returns and elevated groundwater), it is likely that these nutrient-rich wetlands will undergo rapid vegetation succession and be vulnerable to exotic weed and fish invasions. This is likely to result in the need for frequent habitat restoration to maintain conditions suitable for target waterfowl species. This project will require considerable O&M to achieve its goals. Therefore it is important that a reasonable monitoring program be implemented to track the project's success. Currently there appears to be no plan to monitor the effectiveness of many of the restoration actions. We also strongly encourage the sponsors to initiate an appropriate water quality testing program.

1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships
This proposal is for continued funding of O&M operations for seasonal wetlands in the Crab Creek subbasin, and for completion of the construction of two wetland enhancement projects. The technical justification and program significance were explained, but other wetlands creation or enhancement programs in the area were simply listed without explaining how their actions have influenced the O&M actions that are being used at this site. However, the project sponsors did a good job of laying out the problem of wetland succession reducing waterfowl abundance in the Desert Wildlife Area (DWA), threats from the expansion of non-native plant species, and continued harm caused by the spread of carp to some of the DWA wetland sites.

2. Project History and Results
Restoration actions implemented at DWA from 1998 to 2009 are summarized in bullet form. It was somewhat disappointing to read that the response to requests for information on both Project Reports and Adaptive Management Implications was "None to date", as this project has been underway for a decade and some evidence that the restoration is having the desired effect, or is being improved, would be very helpful. Although the project description is somewhat vague on this point, some implementation and effectiveness monitoring has apparently taken place at the TD1 and TD2 sites, but no results are presented.

3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods
The goals, objectives, and methods were reasonably described. Most of the activities, except fish poisoning, will occur during the season when the wetlands are dry. This project has very explicit vegetation and waterfowl targets, and it would be helpful to know how year-to-year variation in weather, surface and groundwater hydrology, and other factors, can affect these targets. Invasive plant and fish species will be heavily managed both physically and chemically. Because the DWA wetland enhancement efforts are focused primarily on waterfowl, potential effects of project actions on other wildlife were not predicted.

4. M&E
M&E activities were described in moderate detail. The ISRP recommends that project sponsors perform a post-treatment fish survey of the site(s) that will be treated in 2009 with rotenone to control carp. Because elimination of carp is one of the three main goals of the project, there should be some monitoring to verify that removal efforts were successful. At the review meeting, the sponsors told the ISRP that they would check the sites for carp removal success.

Because wetlands in the DWA can be strongly influenced by agricultural activities in the surrounding landscape, water quality should be monitored for chemical contaminants. Although it is possible this is already being done through some other agency program (e.g., WDOE), we note that contaminants have been identified as a significant threat to both birds and fish in this area.

The ISRP requests that sponsors complete a report summarizing the results to date. The report should contain a description of the wetland restoration actions undertaken, the results of any monitoring, a summary of how the data are being archived and made available to others, and an explanation of how lessons learned from the project thus far have been used to improve current O&M activities.
First Round ISRP Date: 3/26/2009
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:
The ISRP finds that this project Meets Scientific Criteria (Qualified). The qualification is that project sponsors should complete a progress report summarizing the results of this 10-year effort and describe how (if) their findings have been incorporated into revised management activities in the Desert Wildlife Area (DWA).

Because the DWA wetlands are in part caused by human activity (agricultural surface water returns and elevated groundwater), it is likely that these nutrient-rich wetlands will undergo rapid vegetation succession and be vulnerable to exotic weed and fish invasions. This is likely to result in the need for frequent habitat restoration to maintain conditions suitable for target waterfowl species. This project will require considerable O&M to achieve its goals. Therefore it is important that a reasonable monitoring program be implemented to track the project's success. Currently there appears to be no plan to monitor the effectiveness of many of the restoration actions. We also strongly encourage the sponsors to initiate an appropriate water quality testing program.


1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships
This proposal is for continued funding of O&M operations for seasonal wetlands in the Crab Creek subbasin, and for completion of the construction of two wetland enhancement projects. The technical justification and program significance were explained, but other wetlands creation or enhancement programs in the area were simply listed without explaining how their actions have influenced the O&M actions that are being used at this site. However, the project sponsors did a good job of laying out the problem of wetland succession reducing waterfowl abundance in the Desert Wildlife Area (DWA), threats from the expansion of non-native plant species, and continued harm caused by the spread of carp to some of the DWA wetland sites.


2. Project History and Results
Restoration actions implemented at DWA from 1998 to 2009 are summarized in bullet form. It was somewhat disappointing to read that the response to requests for information on both Project Reports and Adaptive Management Implications was "None to date", as this project has been underway for a decade and some evidence that the restoration is having the desired effect, or is being improved, would be very helpful. Although the project description is somewhat vague on this point, some implementation and effectiveness monitoring has apparently taken place at the TD1 and TD2 sites, but no results are presented.

3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods
The goals, objectives, and methods were reasonably described. Most of the activities, except fish poisoning, will occur during the season when the wetlands are dry. This project has very explicit vegetation and waterfowl targets, and it would be helpful to know how year-to-year variation in weather, surface and groundwater hydrology, and other factors, can affect these targets. Invasive plant and fish species will be heavily managed both physically and chemically. Because the DWA wetland enhancement efforts are focused primarily on waterfowl, potential effects of project actions on other wildlife were not predicted.

4. M&E
M&E activities were described in moderate detail. The ISRP recommends that project sponsors perform a post-treatment fish survey of the site(s) that will be treated in 2009 with rotenone to control carp. Because elimination of carp is one of the three main goals of the project, there should be some monitoring to verify that removal efforts were successful. At the review meeting, the sponsors told the ISRP that they would check the sites for carp removal success.

Because wetlands in the DWA can be strongly influenced by agricultural activities in the surrounding landscape, water quality should be monitored for chemical contaminants. Although it is possible this is already being done through some other agency program (e.g., WDOE), we note that contaminants have been identified as a significant threat to both birds and fish in this area.

The ISRP requests that sponsors complete a report summarizing the results to date. The report should contain a description of the wetland restoration actions undertaken, the results of any monitoring, a summary of how the data are being archived and made available to others, and an explanation of how lessons learned from the project thus far have been used to improve current O&M activities.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2006-003-00-NPCC-20091217
Project: 2006-003-00 - Desert Wildlife Mitigation
Review: Wildlife Category Review
Approved Date: 5/31/2009
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Sponsor to complete summary report of results to date by FY2011 for ISRP review. See ISRP recommendations.
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 2006-003-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2006-003-00
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: Wetland enhancement on BPA-funded mitigation lands; assume costs consistent with MOA requirements. Upon review, BPA concerned that funding is being applied in lieu of state funding; will need additional cost share or other resolution. Rating changed from a "1" to a "2.3."

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2006-003-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2006-003-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2006-003-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2006-003-00 - Desert Wildlife Mitigation
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Does Not Meet Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The project focuses on completion of six wetland enhancement construction projects designed to increase the area of submerged aquatic vegetation and area of open water in project wetlands. The proposed project is designed to benefit waterfowl, but results will not persist over the long-term without continued monitoring and remedial action. It is likely that the nature of the methods used (excavation, burning, mowing) will have an effect on non-focal species that could be adverse. The response did address the issue of possible adverse effects of the restoration activities on non-focal species and the timing of excavation and burning. The project is not linked to a subbasin plan because the Crab subbasin was not complete at the time of proposal writing.

The proposal has a strong section on objectives and associated monitoring and evaluation plans. Methods for restoration are described but more justification that the best scientific techniques will be used is necessary. There is little evidence that results have been obtained. It appears that there has been much planning and few accomplishments for this ongoing project, perhaps because of the short history for the project. In the response the sponsors addressed the issue of little on-the-ground restoration to date due to the time needed for project planning and securing environmental compliance.

Not all key personnel are identified so it is unclear if the proposed work elements can be accomplished. Some additional general information concerning project personnel was provided in the response, but it is not clear how much effort will be allocated to the project.

The proposal refers to other similar restoration projects but no collaborative efforts are identified with other work funded in the Fish and Wildlife Program. Plans for information transfer beyond WDFW sites should be provided to demonstrate a wider distribution of successes and lessons learned to benefit others involved in similar activities.

Not enough information was provided in the proposal or response to justify that the proposed restoration methods are scientifically based or adequate to benefit target species.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2006-003-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2006-003-00 - Desert Wildlife Mitigation
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Do Not Fund
Comments:

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Paul Dahmer Administrative Contact Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Peter Lofy Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Paul Ashley (Inactive) Technical Contact Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
Jennifer Snyder Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
James Cole Project Lead Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Richard Finger Supervisor Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Chad Eidson Supervisor Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Sean Dougherty Technical Contact Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Steven Gagnon Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration