Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1991-061-00 - Swanson Lake Wildlife Mitigation Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1991-061-00 - Swanson Lake Wildlife Mitigation
Project Number:
1991-061-00
Title:
Swanson Lake Wildlife Mitigation
Summary:
The Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area (SLWA) was initially approved as a wildlife mitigation project in 1992 and was re-approved for operations and maintenance (O&M) funding in 2002 under the Sub-basin Planning Process for the Columbia Plateau Province. This project partially addresses adverse impacts caused by the construction of Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee hydroelectric dams. On the Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area, wildlife habitat enhancement efforts to meet mitigation objectives have been performed between 1993 and 2006, with enhancements completed as of 2006. Continued operation and maintenance activities funded by BPA are necessary to maintain wildlife habitat benefits and to ensure BPA's mitigation obligation is met. These activities are essential to further the goal of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to protect shrubsteppe and other habitats necessary to recover and sustain local and region-wide populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
1992
Ending FY:
2022
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Plateau Crab 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 0.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 100.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
None

No photos have been uploaded yet for this Project.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2020 - FY2022)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2020 Expense $18,063 From: General Cloned from: Wildlife O&M 06/05/2019
FY2020 Expense $252,672 From: General FY20 SOY 06/05/2019
FY2020 Expense $31,171 From: General Wildlife Agreement Transfers 01/20/2021
FY2021 Expense $270,735 From: General FY21 SOY 06/09/2020
FY2021 Expense $71,285 From: General WDFW Wildlife budget adjustments (FY21 increases) - 4/13/2021 04/13/2021
FY2021 Expense $31,171 From: General WDFW Wildlife budget adjustments (to FY21 SOY) - 4/13/2021 04/14/2021
FY2022 Expense $270,735 From: General SOY FY22 Project Upload 05/18/2021
FY2022 Expense $102,456 From: General WDFW Adjusted Value 05/26/2021

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2021   DRAFT
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2020 $29,100 9%
2019 $29,100 10%
2018 $29,100 10%
2017 $29,100 11%
2016 $28,300 6%
2015 $34,800 13%
2014 $47,300 17%
2013 $48,100 18%
2012 $46,600 17%
2011 $46,600 17%
2010 $46,600 18%
2009 $46,600 18%
2008
2007

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Closed, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
BPA-011111 Bonneville Power Administration FY92 land Acquisition Active $2,000,000 10/1/1991 - 9/30/1992
514 REL 3 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1991-061-00 SWANSON LAKE MITIGATION WILDLIFE AREA Terminated $399,005 10/1/2000 - 9/30/2001
4113 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1991-061-00 SWANSON LAKE SHARP-TAILED GROUSE MGMT. ACTIVITIES Closed $331,611 3/23/2001 - 9/30/2002
25027 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1991-061-00 EXP SWANSON LAKES WILDLIFE AREA O&M Closed $214,249 10/1/2005 - 9/30/2006
29455 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1991-061-00 EXP SWANSON LAKES WILDLIFE AREA O&M Closed $210,895 10/1/2006 - 9/30/2007
34925 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1991-061-00 EXP SWANSON LAKES WILDLIFE AREA O&M Closed $204,830 10/1/2007 - 9/30/2008
39392 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1991-061-00 EXP SWANSON LAKES WILDLIFE AREA O&M Closed $205,725 10/1/2008 - 9/30/2009
44566 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1991-061-00 EXP SWANSON LAKES WILDLIFE AREA O&M Closed $219,544 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
50472 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1991-061-00 EXP SWANSON LAKES WILDLIFE AREA O&M Closed $221,034 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
54461 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1991-061-00 EXP SWANSON LAKES WILDLIFE AREA O&M Closed $220,754 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
59964 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1991-061-00 EXP SWANSON LAKES WILDLIFE AREA O&M Closed $214,125 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
63047 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1991-061-00 EXP SWANSON LAKES WILDLIFE AREA O&M Closed $225,033 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
66989 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1991-061-00 EXP SWANSON LAKES O&M PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Closed $222,763 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
70557 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1991-061-00 EXP SWANSON LAKES WILDLIFE MITIGATION Closed $381,324 10/1/2015 - 6/30/2017
74314 REL 2 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1991-061-00 EXP SWANSON LAKES WILDLIFE MITIGATION Closed $228,195 7/1/2017 - 6/30/2018
74314 REL 37 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1991-061-00 EXP SWANSON LAKES WILDLIFE MITIGATION Closed $241,567 7/1/2018 - 6/30/2019
74314 REL 69 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1991-061-00 EXP SWANSON LAKES WILDLIFE MITIGATION Closed $268,656 7/1/2019 - 6/30/2020
74314 REL 108 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1991-061-00 EXP SWANSON LAKES WILDLIFE MITIGATION Issued $301,906 7/1/2020 - 6/30/2021
74314 REL 135 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1991-061-00 EXP SWANSON LAKES WILDLIFE MITIGATION Review $373,191 7/1/2021 - 6/30/2022
CR-347550 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1991-061-00 EXP SWANSON LAKES WILDLIFE MITIGATION Pending $0 7/1/2022 - 6/30/2023



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):15
Completed:14
On time:14
Status Reports
Completed:62
On time:42
Avg Days Late:0

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
BPA-011111 FY92 land Acquisition Bonneville Power Administration 10/1991 10/1991 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25027 29455, 34925, 39392, 44566, 50472, 54461, 59964, 63047, 66989, 70557, 74314 REL 2, 74314 REL 37, 74314 REL 69, 74314 REL 108, 74314 REL 135 1991-061-00 EXP SWANSON LAKES WILDLIFE AREA O&M Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 10/2005 10/2005 Review 62 141 7 0 3 151 98.01% 0
Project Totals 62 141 7 0 3 151 98.01% 0


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2017 Wildlife Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1991-061-00-NPCC-20210312
Project: 1991-061-00 - Swanson Lake Wildlife Mitigation
Review: 2017 Wildlife Category Review
Approved Date: 10/13/2017
Recommendation: Implement
Comments: Recommendation: Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications in updated management plan and 2018 annual report (per programmatic issue recommendations in this Decision Document Part 1).

[Background: See https://www.nwcouncil.org/fish-and-wildlife/project-reviews-and-recommendations/2017-wildlife-project-review]

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1991-061-00-ISRP-20201118
Project: 1991-061-00 - Swanson Lake Wildlife Mitigation
Review: 2017 Wildlife Category Review
Completed Date: 11/18/2020
Final Round ISRP Date: 6/28/2017
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

Swanson Lake sharp-tailed grouse appear to be isolated from other sharp-tailed grouse populations in the state. Consequently, an important goal for the project is to work cooperatively with public and private land owners adjacent to Swanson Lake to better understand and manage connectivity among parcels or between properties. 

1. Objectives and outcomes 

According to the proponent's Summary Report, the primary objective of this project is protection and enhancement of existing shrub-steppe and riparian habitats, and restoration of former agricultural fields and degraded areas to native habitat. The focal wildlife species are Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, greater sage grouse, and mule deer. 

The objectives and current status of the project, as presented in the Summary Report, do not readily support a scientific review. According to the report, the main enhancement goal (returning several hundred acres of disturbed sites to native habitat per BPA’s mitigation objectives) was completed by 2006. This project currently involves management of this wildlife area by maintaining vegetation (planting seeds and riparian shrubs) and controlling invasive weeds. Accordingly, the Project annually treats between 100 and 1,000 acres for noxious weeds using an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach, and it maintains and repairs infrastructure need to support land management. 

No quantitative objectives were presented. Ideally, the project could have stated quantitative objectives or performance measures related to activities and accomplishments listed in the summary report. These objectives should have been in the proposal to BPA. Here are some example quantitative objectives or performance measures that could have been identified, based on their reported accomplishments. Maintain XX miles of boundary fence, XX gates, and XX signs each year. Inspect and control XX acres of land for noxious weeds each year. Plant XX acres of land (or XX plants of XX species) each year. Increase connectivity of sharp-tailed grouse habitats by XX% by working cooperatively with public and private land owners adjacent to Swanson Lake. Monitor the status and movement of focal wildlife species in relation to target densities that describe a "healthy" population (note: one of the lessons learned mentioned "mitigation goals for focal species"; these should be presented as objectives). Monitor shrubsteppe habitat and compare plant composition and densities relative to desired conditions. 

The reason for developing quantitative objectives, even for basic habitat monitoring, is that it helps proponents identify specific objectives for the project, provides a target for evaluating success or failure, and facilitates adaptive management. 

2. Scientific principles and methods 

Given past work on the value of connectivity – e.g., Robb and Schroeder (2010) and Plumley (2014) – and earlier identification of the value of habitat connections among populations, we would encourage the proponents to explore the idea of forming cooperative arrangements between agencies, e.g. Swanson Lake and Crab Creek, and adjacent BLM land holdings to create a network of interconnected sharp-tailed grouse habitats. On a smaller spatial scale, we wonder if land management actions (e.g. restoration of agricultural fields, U.S. Department of Agriculture Conservation Reserve Program contracts) could be prioritized to facilitate linkages among extant leks, lek clusters, or dispersed sharp tailed grouse clusters. The Figure (e.g. Figure 7, Re-establishment of Viable Populations of Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse in Washington: Progress Report) used in several presentations during the review shows the locations of radiotagged birds that could be useful when selecting areas for connectivity. The spatial scale of this figure makes it difficult to evaluate locations and land management opportunities. However, if the scale was modified, it could provide important insights into where future work could take place. 

There is a considerable amount of local and recent research outcomes in the literature cited sections of the various submitted reports (e.g. Whitney, Stonehouse, multiple sharp-tailed grouse status updates, connectivity (e.g. http://waconnected.org/), evaluation of shrub steppe cover types). This information could be used to develop objectives for sharp-tailed grouse in project areas (i.e., Colville tribal lands, Swanson Lake, Scotch Creek, Wenas, Okanagan properties) and help guide the recovery of this bird. 

Citations for the referenced reports are: 

Robb, L., and M.A. Schroeder. 2010. Appendix A.1: Habitat connectivity for sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) in the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion. Pages A.1-1 – A.1- 27 in Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group (WHCWG). Washington connected landscapes project: Statewide analysis. Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife and Transportation, Olympia Washington 

Plumley, S. 2014. Modeling Columbian sharp-tailed grouse lek occupancy to guide site selection for on-going translocations and species population recovery. Master of Environmental Studies. The Evergreen State College, 104 pp. 

3. Monitoring and evaluation of results 

Because lek attendance counts are often a source of population estimation, we suggest that future progress reports and management plans present lek survey results by year for the WDFW properties, adjacent properties, and regions. The ISRP believes presentation of information in this way may be helpful in assessment of land management and population trajectories. 

4. Results: benefits to fish and wildlife and adaptive management 

The proponents are urged to develop a formal adaptive management plan. Once quantitative objectives are identified with timelines, an adaptive management cycle can guide future management activities.

Qualification #1 - Additional information needed in Annual Report and Management Plans
The ISRP recommends that the proponents develop quantitative objectives with timelines and an adaptive management plan for this project and include in the project’s 2018 progress reports and management plans.
Documentation Links:
Review: Wildlife Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1991-061-00-NPCC-20091217
Project: 1991-061-00 - Swanson Lake Wildlife Mitigation
Review: Wildlife Category Review
Approved Date: 5/31/2009
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Programmatic issue # 7 and # 9
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: Management Plans - Multiple uses of wildlife conservation lands
Council Condition #2 Programmatic Issue: Equipment/facilities purchase and replacement

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1991-061-00-ISRP-20090618
Project: 1991-061-00 - Swanson Lake Wildlife Mitigation
Review: Wildlife Category Review
Completed Date: 5/19/2009
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The ISRP found the responses adequate. The ISRP would encourage the use of another HEP evaluation within the next five years and/or the agency use vegetation sampling of their own design.
First Round ISRP Date: 3/26/2009
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:
We are very interested in ensuring that the agency understand as much as possible about management and recovery of sharp-tailed grouse on project lands and have several questions about this process. There are grouse populations that are somewhat similar (relict populations, few leks, supplemented with translocated birds) that are responding/performing differently. We wonder if there are empirical data that can be used to understand differences among grouse populations on various projects.

A response is requested to address the following questions/recommendations:

1. Can you summarize vegetation differences (and other differences) between Swanson and Scotch Creek that may be used to explain differences in sharp-tail grouse numerical responses? Vegetation data could be micro-site information or landscape scale mapping data. Are there vegetation differences (i.e. structural? pattern?) between Swanson Lake and Scotch Creek? The presentation by the Swanson Lake site manager raised some hypothetical reasons for the difference in sharp-tailed grouse population dynamics.

2. The sponsors should identify how they will evaluate grouse supplementations.

3. Are there objectives for vegetation management on the project? If not, the reviewers request some objectives for structural features of vegetation (height, Robel pole) and vegetation types. The authors should summarize the riparian habitat restoration including acres impacted and some measure of survival of the shrubs planted.

4. Regarding the HEP vegetation data presented in Appendix B, Table 1, how is herbaceous cover defined? Please add a footnote in this table to give readers the definition of herbaceous cover. The differences in herbaceous cover (%) in shrub-steppe in the two survey periods caught our attention.

5. How might this project move forward based on vegetation data?

6. Can you report long-term (10-15 years) data on deer numbers and harvest on or in the Game Management Unit that encompasses the project?

7. Could this project be linked with the UMWEP project, or are the data incompatible?
Documentation Links:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1991-061-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1991-061-00 - Swanson Lake Wildlife Mitigation
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Interim funding pending wildlife o&m review.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1991-061-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1991-061-00 - Swanson Lake Wildlife Mitigation
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The proposal clearly relates the need for intervention to increase and maintain sharp-tailed grouse populations on SLWA. The proposal adequately describes the relationship between the objectives in the project and the Crab Subbasin Plan. However, because of the continuing decline in sharp-tailed grouse numbers, it is not clear if the facilities and personnel are appropriate to achieve restoration.

The history of the project is effectively documented. Some evaluation of results is included but more indication of possible reasons for the continuing decline of sharp-tailed grouse populations despite intensive intervention efforts is recommended. While results to date are not promising it may be that habitat enhancement activities that are in place, coupled with protection and supplementation, will show signs of success in the near future.

The ambitious monitoring and evaluation component may serve as an example for others if conducted, documented, and distributed effectively. The ISRP was pleased to see plans for monitoring vegetation, planted shrubs, and marking supplemental birds from Idaho and British Columbia. A few additional considerations could improve the monitoring and evaluation component of the proposal. Participants should monitor livestock trespass to ensure the adequacy of smooth wire bottom strand of new fencing. The proposal could include some analysis of genetic composition of individuals on the area as well as samples from birds added annually. These data could serve as baseline information and allow a critical evaluation of the importance of genetics in recovery of these birds.

Measurable objectives in terms of sharp-tailed grouse numbers as well as habitat alterations are clearly stated. The proposal, however, should better present support for the importance of fragmentation of habitats for this population. The sponsors do a good job of clearly indicating the relationship of this project with other projects and identifying cooperative efforts for sharing information on sharp-tailed grouse with other projects.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1991-061-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1991-061-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: O&M and enhancement on wildlife habitat mitigating for Grand Coulee, assume requested funds consistent with terms of MOA; upon further review, BPA has concerns that sponsor has been applying BPA funds in lieu of state funds; will need cost share or other resolution. Rating changed from "1" to a "3."

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1991-061-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1991-061-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Paul Dahmer Administrative Contact Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Juli Anderson Project Lead Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Peter Lofy Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Mike Finch (Inactive) Interested Party Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Paul Ashley (Inactive) Technical Contact Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
Kevin Robinette Supervisor Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Jamie Cleveland Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Brenda Aguirre Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration