FY07-09 proposal 200707000

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Yakima

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs:

Termination date:
Comments:

Final deliverables: Final design and environmental permits, fish passage facility

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: If done, this project will open up 14 miles of potentially good habitat for bull trout in the upper North Fork Tieton River and in Clear Creek and should be highly beneficial to the bull trout population in the affected area. The one factor potentially reducing the effectiveness of the project is the difficulty of implementing measures to control brook trout. The failure to reduce or eradicate brook trout from the areas made accessible by the ladder may negate some of the project benefits. Efforts to address this problem prior to completion of the ladder should be continued. A mention that other resident trout species and mountain whitefish may benefit from the ladder was made, but no information was presented to indicate the extent to which these populations would benefit from the project. This proposal requests no funding in 2007 and 2008, and then in 2009, requests $1,930,000 for construction of a fish ladder and temperature control curtain. The proponents need to provide some details regarding the designs of the fish ladder and temperature control curtain for justification. A response is also requested to summarize the pre-design report (BOR 2005a and 2005b) with specific details of the fish ladder and temperature curtain. It's hard to visualize the design of the temperature curtain and whether it would be effective. The response should provide illustrations and/or better descriptions. A response should also describe plans for bull trout population M&E of ladder and habitat use. Other comments: Technical and scientific background: The background information for this proposal is very complete. A significant amount of pre-project investigation has been conducted. The problem regarding the barrier (Clear Lake Dam) for bull trout access to 14 miles of high quality habitat is adequately identified, and the current status of bull trout population which may benefit by this project if implemented, is described in detail and the proposal provides a convincing rationale for reconnecting the very small headwater population with the population that resides below the dam. The risk from hybridization with brook trout is briefly mentioned, but some additional assessment of brook trout / bull trout interactions in the North Fork Tieton drainage is the only information lacking. The authors acknowledged this deficiency. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: This section was also well documented, with references to the importance of providing adequate fish passage to federal bull trout recovery plans and tribal fisheries and habitat improvement plans: Bull Trout Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002), Yakima Subbasin Recovery Plan (2005), and the Yakima Subbasin Plan (2004). Relationships to other projects: The proposal states that there are no other related projects, yet it seems that any habitat improvement projects in the upper Tieton watershed that would benefit bull trout (e.g., road decommissioning, in-stream habitat restoration, or reduction of recreational impacts to riparian areas) ought to be mentioned. Earlier, the proposal simply states that the upper watershed is in good condition, but much of this area is not designated wilderness, and there are surely a variety of human impacts. If almost $3 million is to be spent on a functional fish ladder at Clear Lake Dam, a more detailed description of the upper watershed and other projects that lessen anthropogenic impacts on bull trout is needed. Objectives: The biological objectives are explicit, quantitative, and tied to the Yakima Subbasin Recovery Plan. The timeline for completing this task, from Section 7 of the summary pages, is 2008-2009. Part of the biological objectives include a controversial brook trout removal effort for which funding is apparently not requested. Some of the material in the beginning of the proposal should have been shifted to this section in order to better understand the objectives. Tasks (work elements) and methods: No methods were described. Monitoring and evaluation: The population status of bull trout will be determined by redd surveys and snorkel surveys annually, post project completion. The proposal provided no detail of what criteria that the project would need to meet to reach passage objectives. Facilities, equipment, and personnel: According to the proposal, the Bureau of Reclamation will provide office space for project management, the fish ladder construction itself will be contracted out, and the project will be overseen by WDFW. The project personnel appear well qualified. Information transfer: The form indicates that project results will be shared with interested agencies and through conferences and in written form.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: The sponsors of this proposal provided adequate responses to most ISRP comments and recommendations. The details regarding the snorkeling surveys and the habitat descriptions from the USFS were welcome additions. The ISRP rates this proposal as Fundable with two qualifications. 1) One outstanding issue is the assumption that brook trout populations in the upper Tieton River won't hinder establishment of bull trout above the dam. This should be viewed as a hypothesis to be tested. There are cases from elsewhere that indicate brook trout can have a major, negative effect on bull trout. The collection of samples for genetic analysis partly addresses this question (hybridization), but competitive interactions will not be directly assessed. Inclusion of an element in the M&E to address bull-brook trout interactions other than hybridization would strengthen this component of the project. 2) In response to the ISRP's request for a description of plans for bull trout population M&E of fish ladder use, the sponsors did indicate that an interagency work group, the Yakima Fish Passage Work Group, will develop a passage evaluation project if funding is available. However, this monitoring and evaluation plan of ladder use and passage effectiveness (including fallback rates) is critical in determining the success of the project and should be an integral part of this proposal.