WDFW LogoWashington Department of Fish & Wildlife
  HELP | EMPLOYMENT | NEWS | CONTACT  
WDFW LogoPublications

You will need Adobe Reader to view and print publications.

Get Adobe Reader
Get Adobe® Reader

Archived Publications
contain dated information
that do not reflect current
WDFW regulations or policy.
These documents are provided
for archival purposes only.


 

    Advanced Search
  Search Tips

ARCHIVED PUBLICATION
This document is provided for archival purposes only.
Archived documents do not reflect current WDFW regulations or policy and may contain factual inaccuracies.

 
Download PDF Download Document

Get Adobe® Reader

Peer Review of White Papers Prepared in 2007 for the Hydraulic Project Approval Habitat Conservation Plan: Channel Modifications, Fish Passage, Flow Control Structures, Habitat Modifications, Fish Screens, Marinas And Shipping/Ferry Terminals, and Shoreline Modifications

Category: Habitat - Habitat Conservation Plans

Date Published:  2008

Number of Pages: 77

Author(s): Duane E. Phinney, PH2 Consulting Services LLC

DESCRIPTION:

In 2006 and 2007, WDFW contracted with Anchor Environmental, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Jones & Stokes Associates, and R2 Resource Consultants to develop a series of “white papers” documenting the state of the science on a range of topics related to HPAs. The original white papers were peer-reviewed by a panel of experts outside of WDFW.

In developing the white papers, the consultants were working under specific time, scope, and cost constraints established by WDFW. These constraints were designed to further WDFW's specific goal of building a scientific foundation for a Habitat Conservation Plan for hydraulic projects that receive HPAs.

The white papers provide a solid scientific foundation upon which to build conservation measures for avoiding potential impacts, but they are not an exhaustive review of every potential impact of hydraulic projects. Rather, they reflect WDFW’s goal of establishing a solid scientific foundation for the HCP with limited time and financial resources.

Despite these constraints, WDFW is confident that a large proportion of the current scientific literature has been incorporated into the white papers. As WDFW continues to develop the Habitat Conservation Plan, we will also continue to assess new science, fill data gaps, and listen to the advice of scientists and hydraulic project construction specialists.

Subsequent to receiving the white papers, WDFW worked with another consultant and 31 peer reviewers to evaluate the thoroughness of the literature review and recommendations that the white papers provided. The reviewers were drawn from federal agencies, other state agencies, tribes, and businesses. Each reviewer had expertise in the type of construction project that was discussed in the white paper being reviewed. Peer reviewers were informed that the reason for developing the white papers was to ensure that WDFW uses best available science in developing the HCP, but reviewers were not involved in developing the scope of work or the contract for the white papers. As a result, many peer reviewers’ comments reflected an incomplete knowledge of the constraints under which the consultants were working, and were therefore not necessary valid criticisms of the work. Peer review summary reports were developed by an independent consultant, and are available below. These reports include a synopsis of the review, reviewers’ written comments, and the outcome of discussions with peer reviewers.

WDFW did not exercise any editorial control over the content of the peer review reports, and made no attempt to exclude any comments from the reports available below based on their validity with respect to the constraints under which the consultants were working.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has the legislated responsibility to ¡§preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage¡¨ the fish, wildlife, and shellfish resources of the state, including their habitat. The state Hydraulic Code (RCW 77.55), administered by WDFW, is the primary tool for protecting and managing fish and shellfish habitat. The Hydraulic Code requires that any work that will ¡§use, obstruct, divert, or change the natural flow or bed¡¨ of the salt or freshwaters of the state must be conducted under the terms of a permit (Hydraulic Project Approval or HPA) issued by WDFW.

In order to assure the HPA program is in compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) WDFW is developing a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) as provided in Section 10 ESA.

In 2007 WDFW contracted with Herrerra Environmental Consultants, Inc. to prepare white papers on seven activities subject to HPA regulation: Channel Modifications, Fish Passage, Flow Control Structures, Habitat Modifications, Fish Screens, Marinas and Shipping/Ferry Terminals, and Shoreline Modifications. WDFW commissioned PH2 Consulting Services LLC to coordinate a peer review of the papers and prepare this report.

Three to five experts reviewed individual white papers. (Two to four Washington Department of Transportation experts reviewed five of the white papers. This is considered as one review.) Upon receipt of all comments, those for each white paper were combined by white paper section and provided to each reviewer of that white paper. The Peer Review Coordinator subsequently convened a post-review meeting for each white paper. Participants were the reviewers, appropriate WDFW staff, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service lead person for the HCP. Discussion of white papers at these post-review meetings elicited additional comments.

Major issues the reviewers raised for the white papers are:

  • Lack of a clear link between the subject activity of each paper and effects on potentially covered species.
  • Lack of definition and inconsistent use of key terms.
  • Lack of definition and inconsistent and inadequate treatment of cumulative effects.
  • Haphazard treatment of data gaps.
  • White papers are "salmon centric."
  • Risk of take presentation was not well understood and deemed not very helpful.
  • Inadequate presentation of mitigation measures.
  • Improper use of the conceptual model of Williams and Thom (2001)