200201400 - Sunnyside Wildlife Mitigation
Sponsor: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Budgets: FY07: $375,540 | FY08: $363,884 | FY09: $316,590
Short description: Maintain funding for ongoing O&M and enhancement of floodplain and shrub-steppe focal habitats on the Sunnyside Wildlife Area. These subbasin plan priorities will partially meet BPA's Columbia River mitigation obligations.
Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)
Funding category: Expense
Recommended budgets: FY07: $90,000 | FY08: $90,000 | FY09: $90,000
Comment: ISRP fund in part: in response, fund only O&M. Interim funding pending wildlife O&M review.
ISRP final recommendation: Fundable in part
The response on the monitoring, although generic, did indicate that they had a plan. Sponsors provided information about monitoring and evaluation such as noting that they currently incorporate standard Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) and Habitat Suitability Indices (HSIs). See general ISRP programmatic comments on HEP; this shouldn't be emphasized as a management tool. In addition, for operation and maintenance projects before and after photographs document the progress and completion of the project. They also provide some general information about monitoring of various mammal and bird species of interest. They should be more specific on the site designs. In the future, ISRP wants to see the number, length, and location of the transects they used for monitoring and the results obtained from these surveys. Also in the future, the ISRP would like more specific information included in proposals or linkages to readily available documents that specify monitoring and evaluation information. For Giffen Lake, they identify the problems with their first effort but don't describe how they will get around the problems. Thus, Giffen Lake is not scientifically justified at this time. Not enough information is provided to determine if the restoration work planned for Giffen Lake is likely to be effective. Even with the fuller historical review of Giffen Lake, the ISRP was not able to determine if the sponsors will be able to dredge the lake with the current, proposed project. For instance, the ISRP understands that the springs on the north side of the lake may preclude using heavy equipment there and impact the ability to dredge the lake. The authors did not address how they will plan to proceed with dredging given springs on the north side. Re-reading the initial proposal and the "fix-it" edits, the ISRP understands that there is a pump in the lake (used to move water for moist soil management), but the sponsors do not identify the importance of this pump for dredging. Will the lake be pumped dry to allow dredge equipment access to the lakebed? The ISRP believes sponsors need to prepare a clear, detailed, thoughtful action plan for dredging this lake that includes a time table, equipment necessary, and where the equipment will be stationed at Giffen Lake to dredge. Sponsors should consider the sediment source and evaluate the possibility of managing sediment input first, before dredging -- e.g., a sediment pond at the intake.
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