Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199609400

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 WDFW Habitat Unit Acquisition
BPA Project Proposal Number 199609400
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 Columbia Plateau
Subbasin Yakima
 
Short Description Restore and enhance 27,600 acres of wildlife habitat in Washington to mitigate for losses associated with the construction of Grand Coulee, Chief Joseph, McNary, and John Day dams. By funding this project, BPA will receive an estimated minimum 17,500 Hab
Target Species Sharp-tailed Grouse, Mule Deer, White-tailed Deer, Lewis Woodpecker, Mink, Sage Grouse, Morning Dove, Mallard (nesting), Western Meadowlark, Canada Goose, Yellow Warbler, Downy Woodpecker, California Quail, Great Blue Heron, and Black-capped Chickadee.


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 Washington Wildlife Mitigation Projects Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment (DOE/EA-1096) and Finding of No Significant Impact. Scotch Creek Wildlife Area Mitigation Management Plan, 1997. Sunnyside Wildlife Area Implementation Work Plan, 1998.


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
Scotch Creek Wildlife Area
1997 A five year Mitigation Management Plan was developed and approved by BPA
1997 Project Staff hired April 1997
1997 Cultural Resource Survey was completed
1997 Twelve miles of fence was repaired on the Chesaw Unit to protect property from trespass livestock.
1997 Planted 5,000 shrubs.
1997 Completed the Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) to determine baseline habitat units. HEP report was published.
1998 Completed range weed control (400 acres)
1998 Planted 17,000 shrubs.
1998 Shrub pruning and fertilization on Scotch Creek, Pogue Mountain and Chesaw management units was completed for deer winter range enhancement.
1998 Completed 4.5 miles fence replacement. Completed 12 miles fence repair.
1998 Conducted sharp-tailed grouse surveys on Scotch Creek and Happy Hill management units.
Sunnyside Wildlife Area:
1997 Conducted HEP and tabulated results.
1997 Planted 662 acres to native grasses on the Thornton Unit under the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).
1997 Weed control.
1998 At BPA's request the Sunnyside Wildlife Area Mitigation Management Plan was reformatted and submitted to BPA for approval. BPA approved the Management Plan in April, 1998.
1998 Converted expiring CRP contracts to Production Flexibility Contracts and started the CRP enrollment of another 683 acres on the Thornton Unit.
1998 Began shrub/tree planting on the Sunnyside Management Unit.
1998 Completed a Cultural Resource Survey


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area Sharp-tailed grouse recovery No


Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
7. Scotch Creek Wildlife Area: .
1. Operation and Maintenance .
1. a. Project Administration
1. b. Infrastructure Maintenance
1. c. Administrative Supplies
1. d. Fixed Costs and Utilities
1. e. Vehicle Expenses
1. f. Maintenance of Enhancements/Weed Control - Scotch Creek Management Unit
1. g. Equipment Maintenance
1. h. Fire Control Contract - Scotch Creek Management Unit
1. i. Fence Maintenance - Tunk Valley Management Unit
1. j. Maintenance of Enhancements/Weed Control - Tunk Valley Management Unit
1. k. Fire Control Contract - Chesaw Management Unit
1. l. Fence Maintenance - Chesaw Management Unit
1. m. Maintenance of Enhancement/Weed Control - Chesaw Management Unit
2. Enhancement .
2. a. Scotch Creek - Sharp-tailed Grouse - Grassland Seedings
2. b. Scotch Creek - Sharp-tailed Grouse - Shrub/Tree Planting
2. c. Scotch Creek - Mule Deer - Grassland Seedings
2. d. Scotch Creek - Mule Deer - Pruning, Fertilization
2. e. Tunk Valley - Sharp-tailed Grouse - Grassland Seeding
2. f. Chesaw - Sharp-tailed Grouse - Grassland Seeding
2. g. Chesaw - Deer Winter Range - Shrub Pruning/Fertilization
3. Monitoring and Evaluation .
4. Administrative Overhead .
4. Sunnyside Wildlife Area .
5. Operation and Maintenance .
5. a. Project Administration
5. b. Water Delivery Operation and Maintenance
5. c. Fire Control
5. d. Herbicide Training
5. e. Administrative Supplies
5. f. Equipment Maintenance
5. g. Infrastructure Maintenance and Utilities
5. h. Maintenance of Roads, Signs, Grass/Shrub Plantings
5. i. Vehicle Costs and Bulk Fuel
5. j. DNR Lease - Thornton Unit
5. k. Fence Maintenance
5. l. Miscellaneous Tools
5. m. WA State Patrol Radio Fees
6. Enhancement .
6. a. Giffin/Morgan Lake - Aquatic Vegetation Control
6. b. Grass Seeding
6. c. Fencing
6. d. Wood Duck Nest Boxes
6. e. Weed Control
6. f. Temporary Food Plots
7. Monitoring and Evaluation .
8. Administrative Overhead .
9. Shrub-steppe Acquisition .

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 01/01/97 9.7%
2 05/01/97 09/01/01 6.3%
3 09/01/97 0.1%
4 01/01/97 3.0%
5 09/01/97 8.6%
6 09/01/97 09/01/01 5.1%
7 09/01/98 0.1%
8 09/01/97 2.7%
9 10/01/99 10/01/00 64.4%


Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel $181,800
Fringe $ 47,200
Supplies $ 0
Operating $120,650
Capital $1,231,335
Travel $ 1,200
Indirect $108,908
Other Monitoring and Evaluation $ 3,200
Subcontractor Habitat Enhancement $218,042
Total Itemized Budget $1,912,335


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $1,912,335
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $1,912,335
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

Organization Item or service provided Amount Cash or In-Kind
US Fish and Wildlife Service North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grant - funding for aquatic vegetation control $364,000 unknown
Pheasants Forever and the South Yakima Conservation District Funding for aquatic vegetation control $ 17,600 unknown

 

Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $2,400,000 $2,400,000 $2,400,000 $2,400,000
Total Outyear Budgets $2,400,000 $2,400,000 $2,400,000 $2,400,000
 

Other Budget Explanation

Not applicable


Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
House Bill 1309, Ecosystems Standards for State-Owned Agricultural and Grazing Land, December 1994. No
Management Recommendations for Washington Priority Habitats and Species, Washingotn Department of Fish and Wildlife, May 1991. No
Tirhi, M.I. 1995. Washington State Management Plan for Sage Grouse, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia No
Ashley, P.A. 1992, Grand Coulee Dam Wildlife Mitigation Program Implementation, Sharp-tailed Grouse Programmatic Managment Plan, Tracy Rock Vicinity, Lincoln County, Washington. Washington Department of Wildlife and Department of Energy Bonneville Power No
Miller, G.C. and W.D. Graul, 1980. Status of Sharp-tailed Grouse in North America, Prairie Grouse Symp. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater. No
Tirhi, M.I. 1995. Managment of Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus) in Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. No
Sunnyside Wildlife Area Mitigation Management Plan, 1997. No
Sunnyside Wildlife Area Mitigation Management Plan, 1998. No
Scotch Creek Wildlife Area Mitigation Management Plan, 1997. No
Washington Wildlife Mitigation Projects, Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment (DOE/EA1096) and Finding of No Significant Impact. Bonneville Power Administration. 1996 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:
Fund for one year
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund for one year. Subsequent funding contingent on addressing deficiencies.

Comments: The proposal clearly indicates the planned activities, but contains very little discussion of the management context, little detail on methods, justification, or overall objectives. It's not clear how it all fits together. The proposal places heavy emphasis on doing things because they are required, but there is little information on what specifically will be done to implement the Washington mitigation program. There is insufficient information presented to reviewers to explain why the properties they select for acquisition are the priority areas for protection and what will be gained from their acquisition. Future plans for monitoring are mentioned but plans for assessing impacts are not provided. This proposal should be formatted in a similar manner to the Oregon umbrella, with the specific mitigation sites and restoration efforts submitted as sub-proposals that contain sufficient information for technical review. Proposal authors need to provide interpretive detail on their proposed activities.


CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
2000
$1,912,000
Comment:

CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Poorly written and edited proposal (many spelling errors) that lacks measurable biological objectives and milestones.

No specific detail on the methods or what the sponsor intends to accomplish.


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

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
2000
$1,912,335
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$289,225
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$289,225
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$289,225
Sponsor (WDFW - Olympia) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page