Asotin Creek Wildlife Area O&M (Schlee Acquisitions) proposal 200600500

FY07-09 proposal 200600500

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Asotin Creek Wildlife Area O&M (Schlee Acquisitions)
Proposal ID	200600500
Organization	Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Short description	The Asotin Creek Wildlife Area (Schlee Acquisitions) provide habitat for salmonid species residing in George Ck and Asotin Creek as well as upland wildlife as mitigation for losses of wildlife habitat due to dams on the lower Snake and Columbia rivers.
Information transfer	It will be available in a variety of forms including printed reports, maps, and reports available on the WDFW website or through the BPA managed PICES system.
Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Contacts

Contact	Organization	Email
Form submitter
Robert Dice	Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife	[email protected]
All assigned contacts
Robert Dice	Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife	[email protected]

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Blue Mountain / Asotin

Latitude	Longitude	Waterbody	Description
46 deg 16' 51.21	117 deg 08' 55.08	George Creek	6 miles SW of Asotin in George and Rockpile creeks
46 deg 13' 29.45	117 deg 20' 17.22	Smoothing Iron Ridge	16 miles SW of Asotin at Smoothing Iron Ridge.

Section 3. Focal species

primary: All Wildlife
Additional: Elk, Mule Deer, Whit-tailed Deer, Sharp-tailed Grouse, Gray Wolf

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishments
2005	Continued boundary fence maintenance, controlled noxious weeds, completed endangered plant survey, maintained physical improvements.
2004	Maintained boundary fences, maintained physical improvements, controlled noxious weeds, conducted breeding bird point surveys, completed endangered plant survey, improved and repaired water system on Smmothing Iron Ridge.
2003	Project began 10/1/03 - Construction of 1.3 miles boundary fence in Rockpile Creek. - Repaired and repainted an equipment trailer - Maintained physical improvements including buildings and water systems - Maintained boundary fences - Controlled Weeds

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Funding source	Related ID	Related title	Relationship
BPA	200205300	Assess Salmonids Asotin Cr Ws	Study assessing salmonids in project lands - South Fork of Asotin Creek
BPA	200205400	Protect & Restore Asotin Cr Ws	Road obliteration projects in the drainage reduce sediments deposited on project lands in South Fork of Asotin Creek.
PCSRF - WSRFB	01-1233	Asotin Creek Six-Year Seed Pro	Project administered through Asotin County Conservation District to reduce sediment in Asotin Creek among others.
BPA	199106100	Swanson Lake Wildlife Mitigati	Sharp-tailed grouse/habitat restoration. Supports this project and WDFW goals and objectives.
BPA	199609401	Scotch Creek Wildlife Area	Sharp-tailed grouse/habitat restoration. Supports this project and WDFW goals and objectives
BPA	200600400	Wemas Wildlife Area O&M	Potential sharp-tailed grouse/habitat restoration. Supports this project and WDFW goals and objectives.

Section 6. Biological objectives

Biological objectives	Full description	Associated subbasin plan	Strategy
Control noxious weeds	Control noxious weeds on BPA funded lands on the Asotin Creek Wildlife Area with an emphasis on riparian areas. Mainly South Fork of Asotin Creek and George Creek.	Asotin	Control noxious weeds to restore upland and riparian habitat areas[Strategy left blank]
Implement management activities and schedules	Maintain boundary fences annually to protect habitat from trespass livestock grazing and vehicle encroachment. Maintain project infrastructure, buildings, and water systems	Asotin	Maintain fences each year on a timely basis. Maintain buildings
Maintain and enhance habitat for big game animals	Maintain vegetation on both units to hold big game animals on agency land. Enhance agricultural fields on Smoothing Iron ridge for elk retention. Treat 300 acres.	Asotin	Work cooperatively with RMEF and local sportsmen organizations to enhance habitat for big game
Restore Riparian Areas	Restore riparian areas through weed control and tree and shrub plantings	Asotin	Plant trees and shrubs to restore riparian habitat in George, Rockpile and S. Fork of Asotin Creeks

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Work element name	Work element title	Description	Start date	End date	Est budget
Develop Terrestrial Habitat Features	Maintain and enhance habitat for big game animals	Maintain optimal forage for big game animals by planting high qualitiy forage plots and converting introduced grass ag fields to native vegetation	10/1/2006	9/30/2009	$136,816
Biological objectives Maintain and enhance habitat for big game animals			Metrics * # of features: 300 acres
Plant Vegetation	Restore riparian areas	Restore riparian habitat areas by planting trees and shrubs along George Creek, Rockpile Creek, and S. Fork of Asotin Creek.	10/1/2006	9/30/2009	$30,000
Biological objectives Restore Riparian Areas			Metrics * # of acres of planted: 50
Maintain Vegetation	Control Noxious Weeds	Control noxious weeds on upper and lower units with emphasis on riparian areas.	10/1/2006	9/30/2009	$81,366
Biological objectives			Metrics
Operate and Maintain Habitat/Passage	Implement management activities and schedules	Repair/maintain boundary fence, maintain facilities and infrastructure, maintain water system on Smoothing Iron Ridge.	10/1/2006	9/30/2009	$117,546
Biological objectives Implement management activities and schedules			Metrics

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Item	Note	FY07	FY08	FY09
Personnel	Includes benefits and overall increase of 2% per year for salary increases over the period (COLA).	$88,792	$90,568	$92,379
Supplies	native grass/forb seed mix for 300 acres @ $100/acre.	$10,000	$11,000	$12,000
Capital Equipment	Native Grass/forb seed drill, cultivator and harrow	$45,000	$0	$0
Other	Monitoring and evaluation	$6,740	$4,579	$4,670
Totals		$150,532	$106,147	$109,049

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Total itemized budget:	$365,728
Total work element budget:	$365,728

Cost sharing

Funding source/org	Item or service provided	FY 07 est value ($)	FY 08 est value ($)	FY 09 est value ($)	Cash or in-kind?	Status
RMEF	project cost-share funding, volunteer help	$5,000	$5,000	$5,000	Cash	Under Development
WDFW	Vehicles, tractors, implements, monitoring equipment, powertools, office space, shop support	$20,000	$20,000	$20,000	In-Kind	Confirmed
Totals		$25,000	$25,000	$25,000

Section 9. Project future

FY 2010 estimated budget: $100,000
FY 2011 estimated budget: $100,000

Comments: 3% was added for 2011 to account for inflation

Future O&M costs: There will always be a maintenance cost associated with maintaining boundary fences and control of noxious weeds. There will also be additional costs associated with initial efforts to establish trees and shrubs in degraded riparian areas. Some of the plants will experience mortality and will have to be replaced. Ongoing maintenance will also have to be conducted on facilities, buildings and water systems to keep them operational and useable. Conversion of agricultural fields to native species or species conducive to retaining elk is costly and should be approached as fields are taken out of agricultural production and released to WDFW under terms on the current agricultural lease. Converting around 100 acres a year is a huge task that will ultimately have tremendous benefits for upland wildlife. As fields are converted, there will be an ongoing maintenance cost for a few years after initial seeding.

Termination date:
Comments:

Final deliverables:

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

FY07 budget	FY08 budget	FY09 budget	Total budget	Type	Category	Recommendation
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs]
$77,000	$77,000	$77,000	$231,000	Expense	ProvinceExpense	Fund
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs]
$77,000	$77,000	$77,000	$0		ProvinceExpense

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable

NPCC comments: This proposal meets the ISRP review criteria and benefits wildlife. However, the ISRP suggests that the sponsor address the following comments to improve the project. The ISRP does not need to see a response to these comments but suggests them as material that could improve the proposal for implementation and subsequent review. The proposal could be improved by a fuller treatment of biological objectives, and monitoring and evaluation of these objectives. In the future, the authors could improve their proposal by showing data in tables or figures. Photographs can be a powerful tool for showing progress on habitat changes (riparian, upland, crop fields). The ISRP suggests that upland habitats be monitored for vegetation and bird responses; this will likely require survey sites independent of the BBS route used currently. Weed control efforts present an opportunity to monitor and evaluate management activities. The ISRP also suggests that the authors include more background information about big game target populations. The ISRP has additional reservations about the conversion of the smooth brome fields on the Smoothing Iron Ridge parcel as sharp-tailed grouse habitat management. This conversion will be very expensive. The ISRP believes it may be less costly and more beneficial to manage this parcel as big game wintering habitat. Managing these fields as sharp-tail habitat is risky given that no sharp-tails have been seen in the area for decades, and it is a relatively small field.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable

NPCC comments: This proposal meets the ISRP review criteria and benefits wildlife. However, the ISRP suggests that the sponsor address the following comments to improve the project. The ISRP does not need to see a response to these comments but suggests them as material that could improve the proposal for implementation and subsequent review. The proposal could be improved by a fuller treatment of biological objectives, and monitoring and evaluation of these objectives. In the future, the authors could improve their proposal by showing data in tables or figures. Photographs can be powerful tools for showing progress on habitat changes (riparian, upland, crop fields). The ISRP suggests that upland habitats be monitored for vegetation and bird responses; this will likely require survey sites independent of the BBS route used currently. Weed control efforts present an opportunity to monitor and evaluate management activities. The ISRP also suggests that the authors include more background information about big game target populations. The ISRP has additional reservations about the conversion of the smooth brome fields on the Smoothing Iron Ridge parcel as sharp-tailed grouse habitat management. This conversion will be very expensive. The ISRP believes it may be less costly and more beneficial to manage this parcel as big game wintering habitat. Managing these fields as sharp-tail habitat is risky given that no sharp-tails have been seen in the area for decades, and it is a relatively small field.