FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29011

Additional documents

TitleType
29011 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleSharp-tailed Grouse and Mule Deer Habitat Restoration and Enhancement on Sinlahekin Wildlife Area
Proposal ID29011
OrganizationWashington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameDale Swedberg
Mailing addressP.O. Box C Loomis, WA 98827
Phone / email5092233358 / swedbdas@dfw.wa.gov
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleColumbia Cascade
Province / SubbasinColumbia Cascade / Okanogan
Short descriptionPublic ownership of lands to protect Mule deer and Sharp-tailed grouse habitat is inadequate by itself. Such lands need to be evaluated and managed in a manner mimicing pre-settlement to maximize habitat conditions, e.g., increased fire frequency.
Target speciesSharp-tailed grouse, Mule deer
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
48.8777 -119.6248 The wildlife area lies 15 miles west of the town of Tonasket and contains 13,814 acres of land. It is located in the Sinlahekin Valley
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Action 152

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
1939- 92 Acquired lands for Mule Deer winter range and Sharp-tailed grouse habitat
1990 Acquired Scotch Creek Wildlife Area for Sharp-tailed grouse habitat
1991 Acquired Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area for Sharp-tailed grouse habitat

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
199609400 Scotch Creek Wildlife Area ongoing Supports this project and WDFW goals and objectives direct and data sharing
21029 Co-op mule deer study. Supports this project and WDFW goals and objectives direct and data sharing
21034 Colville Tribes restore habitat for sharp-tailed grouse. Supports Tribal (CCT/STOI) and WDFW goals and objectives direct and data sharing
199106100 Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area Supports this project and WDFW goals and objectives direct and data sharing

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Determine the baseline current and historical biological data and fire history for the project area. a. Complete a detailed quantitative and spatial assessment of existing and historical plant communities from current and old aerial photos. 1 $10,000 Yes
b. Complete a quantitative assessment of potential native shrub steppe and riparian/deciduous habitat and areas of exotic species that may be restored and/or treated by prescribed burning within the project site. 1 $15,000 Yes
c. Develop GIS data layers to describe and spatially and temporally model historical, existing and potential plant communities as they are correlated to sharp-tailed grouse breeding, brood rearing and wintering habitat and Mule deer spring, summer and win 1 $10,000 Yes
d. Determine historical fire frequencies in the project area based on an analysis of fire scars on old growth Ponderosa Pine trees and Douglas fir trees in the area 1 $16,000 Yes
e. Develop GIS layers showing area and extent of historical fires in the project area. 1 $6,900 Yes
f. Complete an intensive survey of project area to assess use by sharp-tailed grouse during lekking season and winter.. 1 $22,617
g. Complete surveys of project area to assess mule deer use in the winter, spring, summer and fall. Methods: Using aerial counting techniques, deer pellet group transects and browsing survey transects, Mule deer use data will be collected. 1 $22,500
h. Coordination of planning and design 1 $32,475
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Objective 1. Determine the baseline current and historical biological data and fire history for the project area. 2004 2004 $180,000
Objective 2. Expert scientific panel will oversee design and implementation of an experiment to test hypothesis that fire and prescribed burning can be used to restore and enhance sharp-tailed grouse and mule deer habitat. 2005 2007 $470,000
. $0
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
$180,000$260,000$150,000$60,000

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Objective 3. Implement comprehensive management plan for incorporating prescribed burning to enhance and restore sharp-tailed grouse habitat on the Sinlahekin. a. Initiate and complete prescribed burning 3 $0 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Objective 3. Implement comprehensive management plan for incorporating prescribed burning to enhance and restore sharp-tailed grouse habitat on the Sinlahekin. 2005 2007 $195,000
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
$65,000$65,000$65,000

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Objective 4. Monitor and evaluate effectiveness of comprehensive management plan for sharp-tailed grouse and mule deer habitat on the Sinlahekin Wildlife Area a. Implement monitoring and evaluation based on protocol developed from experiment 3 $0
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Objective 4. Monitor and evaluate effectiveness of comprehensive management plan for sharp-tailed grouse and mule deer habitat on the Sinlahekin Wildlife Area 2005 2007 $51,000
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
$17,000$17,000$17,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2003 cost
Personnel FTE: .75 $35,000
Fringe @ 30% $9,000
Supplies Misc small equipment and software $10,000
Travel $2,000
Indirect @25.5% $11,592
Subcontractor Assessment and GIS $67,900
$135,492
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2003 cost$135,492
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2003 budget request$135,492
FY 2003 forecast from 2002$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
withdrawn
Date:
Mar 1, 2002

Comment:

withdrawn
Recommendation:
withdrawn
Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

proposal withdrawn
Recommendation:
Withdrawn
Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Proposal Withdrawn
Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 19, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU

Comments
Project withdrawn

Already ESA Req?

Biop?


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment: