200600300 - Desert Wildlife Area O&M (Wetland Enhancement)
Sponsor: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Budgets: FY07: $320,138 | FY08: $365,205 | FY09: $222,705
Short description: Completion of, and operation/maintenance for, six wetland enhancement construction projects initiated with BPA funding (MOA and FY06 contract) on the Desert Wildlife Area.
Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)
Funding category: Expense
Recommended budgets: FY07: $0 | FY08: $0 | FY09: $0
ISRP final recommendation: Not fundable
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.
Response loop edit
See the sponsor's revised proposal from the response loop. You'll be taken to CBFWA's proposal system in Section 10 where most sponsors uploaded revised narratives or other responses to the ISRP comments.
State/province recommendation: Washington
Review group: Washington list
Recommended budgets: FY07: (n/a) | FY08: (n/a) | FY09: (n/a)
Comment: See Washington guidance