Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199106100

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

Section 1. General Administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Objectives, tasks and schedules
Section 5. Budget
Section 6. References
Section 7. Abstract

Reviews and Recommendations
Title Type File Size File Date


Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area
BPA Project Proposal Number 199106100
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Business acronym (if appropriate) WDFW
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Jenene Ratassepp
Mailing Address 600 Capitol Way N
City, State, Zip Olympia, WA 98501-1091
Phone 3607531690
Fax 3605862481
E-mail ratasjmr@dfw.wa.gov
 
Manager of program authorizing this project
 
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Inter-Mountain
Subbasin Columbia Upper
 
Short Description This project request is for the third year operation and maintenance funding for the Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area covering over 19,000 acres in Lincoln County.
Target Species Sharp-tailed Grouse, Sage Grouse, Mule Deer


Project Location

[No information]


Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

Sponsor listed no RPAs for this project proposal

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal


NPPC Program Measure Number(s) which this project addresses: 11.3D.6 and 11.3E
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: N/A
Other Planning Document References Swanson Lakes Mitigation Management Plan Washington State Management Plan for Sharp-Tailed Grouse


CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: None
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): wildlife


Section 2. Past Accomplishments

Year Accomplishment
1993 Acquisition of 10,399 acre Roloff property
1995 Acquisition of 5,060 acre Welch property
1995 Finch Management Unit - 240 acres permanently planted to small grains, 520 acres planted in native grass/forbs and 18,400 shrubs and trees planted.
1997 Roloff Management Unit - 15 acres permanently planted to small grains, 30 acres planted in native grass/forbs and 23,500 shrubs and trees planted.
1996 Roloff East Management Unit - 24,500 shrubs and trees planted
1997 Roloff West Management Unit - 40 acres planted to native grass/forbs and 15,000 shrubs and trees planted.
1997 Welch/Anderson Management Unit - 2,100 shrubs and trees planted.
1997 Tracy Rock Management Unit - 17,100 shrubs and trees planted.
1997 Established permanent monitoring and evaluation transects.
1996 Approximately 25 miles of new fence was constructed and major repair was completed for approximately 15 miles of fence.
1998 Cultural Resource Survey completed
1998 Fire protection contracts obtained


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
9694 Habitat Unit Acquisition - Scotch Creek Wildlife Area, Shrub-steppe acquisi Sharp-tailed Grouse Recovery No


Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Operation and Maintenance a. Project Administration
1. b. Maintain Infrastructure
1. c. Maintain Habitat Enhancements and weed control
1. d. Fence Maintenance
1. e. Fire Control
1. f. Recreational access
1. g. Monitoring and Evaluation
1. h. Administrative Overhead
1. i. Equipment Maintenance, Replacement, Rental, Fuel

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 10/01/96 a 50.5%
1 10/01/96 b 7.3%
1 10/01/96 c 6.1%
1 10/01/96 d 10.1%
1 10/01/96 e 1.2%
1 10/01/96 f 40.0%
1 10/01/96 g 40.0%
1 10/01/96 h 15.7%
1 10/01/96 I 8.3%


Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel $ 95,000
Fringe $ 25,000
Supplies $ 0
Operating $ 87,500
Travel $ 1,000
Indirect $ 39,000
Other $247,500
Total Itemized Budget $495,000


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $495,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $495,000
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 $ 0
% change from forecast 0.0%


Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable


Reason for change in scope

Not applicable


Cost Sharing

Not applicable
 

Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000
Total Outyear Budgets $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000
 

Other Budget Explanation

Not applicable


Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Tracy Rock Sharp-Tailed Grouse Project and Douglas County Pygmy Rabbit Projects Environmental Assessment (DOE/EA-0791) with a finding of No Significant Impact, Bonneville Power Administration, 1992. No
Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area Mitigation Management Plan, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1997. No
Washington State Management Plan for Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, October 1995. No
Grand Coulee Dam Wildlife Mitigation Program Implementation, Sharp-tailed Grouse Programmatic Managment Plan, Tracy Rock Vicinity, Lincoln County, Washington. Washington Department Wildlife and Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration, Olympi No
Tracy Rock Sharp-tailed Grouse and Douglas County Pygmy Rabbit Site Specific Management Plan, Project Report 1992. Washington Department of Wildlife and Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration, Olympia. No
Miller, G.C. and W.D. Graul. 1980. Status of Sharp-tailed Grouse in North America. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater. No
Schroeder, M.A. 1992. Productivity and Habitat Use of Columbian Sharp-Tailed Grouse in Eastern Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Yakima. No
Management Recommendations for Washington Priority Habitat and Species, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, May 1991. No


Section 7. Abstract

Abstract


Reviews and Recommendations

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

ISRP Preliminary Review , ISRP 99-2 Recommendation:
Delay Funding
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Recommendation: Delay funding until proposers report biologically measurable results-to-date in relationship to benefits to the target species and develop biologically measurable objectives for sharp-tailed grouse.

Comments: This is O&M for wildlife area mitigation for Grand Coulee dam, to be managed for the recovery of sharp-tailed grouse. Objectives are presented, but all are tasks. Very little detail is presented about the specific activities to enhance and monitor. All is to be done in the future. How does this activity fit into the overall picture for sharp-tailed grouse? The proposal needs to be put into perspective about what is being done, what needs to be done, what progress is being made, and how.

There is no doubt that this is a worthy project. The budget, however, seems to be extremely lopsided to salaries with little or no direct ties to specific tasks. Thus, one cannot objectively assess whether the budget is appropriate or excessive. Another drawback of the project is the small emphasis, in terms of budget, placed on monitoring. It is not evident that this effort will allow a reliable assessment of attaining project objectives in terms of sharp-tailed grouse abundance.

The proposal quality is below average. The FWP is referenced, as well as management plans for the area and target species. The project purpose is stated to involve land purchase and habitat management for wildlife, especially sharp-tailed grouse. However, the objective statements seem poor for the relatively high cost of the project. The proposal has an especially good background section, except that the reasoning is not clear for using Grand Coulee mitigation when the main decline in habitat for the target bird species is for other reasons. Good relationships with other projects are given. How this project fits in with a comprehensive plan to protect sharp-tailed grouse was never made clear. The ESA status and placement of the Swanson Lakes site in relation to the range of the species (periphery? core?) was not made clear. This may be an important wildlife project, but the proposal does not adequately describe benefits to wildlife. After several years of the project, there should be some indication whether there have been population increases. The fire protection element of the proposal needs to be better described; it may be counter to the biological needs of the grouse. The proposal should identify species-related objectives. The group would like to have seen information on the carrying capacity of the habitat. There was no indication of benefits for other species. There are no resumes given for staff, and no results for the target species. This makes an unpersuasive proposal.


CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Explain how this project fits into a watershed context.

Include more restoration work


CBFWA: Wildlife Committee Comments Recommendation:
Fundable
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:

CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
2000
$248,000
Comment:

ISRP Final Review , ISRP 99-4 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Oct 29, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Fund. The responses adequately addressed the ISRP's concerns. The proposers describe the WDFW's management plans, the status of sharptailed grouse populations, and the role of the Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area in the biological requirements of the species. Species-specific objectives are given. Questions of fire protection were addressed adequately. The reasoning for Grand Coulee mitigation is provided. The objectives were expanded, although still were largely task statements. The responses made clear what was actually being done and what was projected for the future. Questions about the reliability of population estimates remain. Although the responses assured the ISRP that the staff are qualified, no resumes were provided as required in the initial request for proposals.

NWPPC Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Nov 8, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
2000
$247,500
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$ 0
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$265,137
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$265,137
Sponsor (WDFW - Olympia) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page