FY 2000 proposal 199609400
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
Title | Type |
---|---|
199609400 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | WDFW Habitat Unit Acquisition |
Proposal ID | 199609400 |
Organization | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Jenene Ratassepp |
Mailing address | 600 Capitol Way N Olympia, WA 98501-1091 |
Phone / email | 3607531690 / ratasjmr@dfw.wa.gov |
Manager authorizing this project | |
Review cycle | FY 2000 |
Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / 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
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
RPA |
---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|
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 |
---|---|---|
Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area | Sharp-tailed grouse recovery |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. 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 |
$1,912,335 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 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% |
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 |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
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.
Comment:
Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999
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.
Comment:
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
$289,225 | $289,225 | $289,225 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website