FY07-09 proposal 200719400

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: Future O&M obligations will be assumed by staff at the WDFW's Oak Creek Wildlife Area.

Termination date: none
Comments: Termination of the project acquisition and initial habitat recovery activities is estimated to be 12/2007, but additional cooperative partnerships and habitat enhancements on the site are planned for the future.

Final deliverables: Final project report Phase II feasibility study On-line webpage Project data / salmonid surveys

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: This is both a simple acquisition of land on the middle reaches of the Naches River, plus a riparian habitat restoration effort (3.0 miles of riparian and floodplain habitat) to remove containment dikes, open side channels, plant vegetation (ponderosa pine and black cotttonwood), and modify an unused diversion dam. The administrative form has far more pertinent data regarding the objectives, work elements, and methods than the narrative, which is very weak in describing these key elements of the proposal. A response is requested to include the information from the administration portion of the form in the narrative portion of the proposal. The acquisition appears justified, but the restoration work is not adequately described. A response should also better describe the justification for the benefits of restoration work to fish and wildlife and the methods to be used. Also, a response is needed to better define project monitoring and evaluation. This may be done outside this project by others, but links to those other projects, conducting the monitoring, are needed. Other comments: Technical and scientific background: The technical background does an adequate job of describing habitat conditions at the Oak Flats site (the photographs were appreciated). Focal species using this area were mentioned but their current population status could have been better summarized. The proposal states that this is the last best chance to protect one of the last unprotected reaches of the Naches River system, and it would have been helpful to display on the map where other protected reaches were located so the spatial context of the project would have been clearer. A good case is also made for several habitat restoration actions (i.e. restore access to side channels, restore viable ponderosa pine and cottonwood populations, remove parts of old diversion dam, and increase instream flow). The current habitat problems are clearly described. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The Yakima Subbasin Plan and an Oak Creeks Management Plan are referred to, but the relationship of this project to the priorities in these plans is poorly described. The subbasin plan does indicate that protection of riparian habitat is an important objective and that some reaches on the Naches River fall into a high priority category for restoration/protection based on the EDT analysis. However, it cannot be determined from the proposal whether or not this project falls into one of the high priority reaches on the Naches. Relationships to other projects: A list of projects occurring in the vicinity of this project (and some not so close to the project location) is provided. The connection between these other projects and this project is not described in the narrative but is well done on the administrative form. A useful comment is made that this site would link WDFW wildlife areas north and south of the Naches River. This is an important consideration for wildlife habitat connectivity. Objectives: In the narrative, the proposal has just a short list of objectives, but the administrative form has good detail regarding each specific objective giving clearly defined habitat improvements. Tasks (work elements) and methods: There are one-sentence statements of work elements in Section 7 on the administrative form, but no details about habitat improvement methods were provided in the project narrative. The feasibility and biological potential of these efforts cannot be judged without considerably more information. Monitoring and evaluation: The budget request in the administrative form actually includes "environmental survey" and "population monitoring" items, but no details are given in the narrative, and monitoring is not mentioned. Facilities, equipment, and personnel appear to be adequate. Information transfer: There is a brief mention of project data being available on the WDFW website. However, it is not clear what type of data will be collected at the project site. Interpretive signs will be installed at the site. No indication of other mechanisms of public education or transfer of scientific information through more traditional channels. Benefits to focal and non-focal species: The project may provide some significant long-term benefits to spring chinook, steelhead, and bull trout by protection from development and several habitat restoration activities. However, the extent of this benefit cannot be determined from the information included in the proposal. There should be no negative effect on non-focal species and riparian wildlife species should benefit.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: The sponsors of this proposal have provided adequate responses to most ISRP review comments and recommendations. The response contains useful information about target species abundance. From the EDT analyses it does appear that Oak Flats ranks as a high priority area for salmonid restoration. Additionally, the response (as well as the revised narrative) makes a good case for acquiring the Oak Flats area to help fill in a gap -- and remove an elk fence -- that will improve wildlife connectivity between existing wildlife strongholds. It was gratifying to see a proposal address fish and wildlife issues in an integrated way. Some details of the restoration work are provided, although there are other undescribed details that could be potentially important (e.g., when will the old water diversion structures be demolished?). Heavy equipment activity in the river could cause sediment and other water quality issues for spawning, egg incubation, and early rearing life stages, so timing of instream activity will be critical. The ISRP rated this proposal as Fundable with a qualification because of the lack of details described for the monitoring and evaluation of project effects benefiting focal species (steelhead and bull trout) and their habitats. They name the groups doing fisheries monitoring in this area of the Naches River (the Yakima Nation, WDFW, and the USFS), but need to include the methods used, variables to be measured, and the links to those agencies' monitoring projects.