FY 2000 proposal 199106100
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 |
|---|---|
| 199106100 Narrative | Narrative |
| 199106100 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area |
| Proposal ID | 199106100 |
| 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 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Inter-Mountain / 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
| 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 |
|---|---|
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 9694 | Habitat Unit Acquisition - Scotch Creek Wildlife Area, Shrub-steppe acquisi | 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 | $95,000 | |
| Fringe | $25,000 | |
| Supplies | $0 | |
| Operating | $87,500 | |
| Travel | $1,000 | |
| Indirect | $39,000 | |
| Other | $247,500 | |
| $495,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 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% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
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.
Comment:
Technically Sound? Yes
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Explain how this project fits into a watershed context.Include more restoration work
Comment:
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.Comment:
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 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: |
| $0 | $265,137 | $265,137 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website