FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25046

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
25046 Narrative	Narrative
25046 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response
25046 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	A cooperative approach to evaluating avian and mammalian responses to shrubsteppe restoration in the Crab Creek Subbasin
Proposal ID	25046
Organization	Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Michael A. Schroeder
Mailing address	P.O. Box 1077 Bridgeport, WA 98813
Phone / email	5096862692 / schromas@dfw.wa.gov
Manager authorizing this project	John Pierce, WDFW Chief Wildlife Scientist
Review cycle	Columbia Plateau
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Plateau / Crab Creek
Short description	We are proposing a cooperative, four-year research investigation involving the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the University of Washington, to evaluate the effectiveness of various restoration strategies in producing necessary habitat for
Target species	Shrubsteppe-associated species including sage grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, ferruginous hawk, prairie falcon, golden eagle, burrowing owl, sage thrasher, loggerhead shrike, sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, lark sparrow, savannah sparrow

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
47.39	-118.95	Crab subbasin

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
2000	Development of a population viability assessments for sage grouse and sharp-tailed grouse in Washington
	Completion of 8 years of preliminary breeding bird assessments on wildlife areas in north-central Washington
	Development of habitat management guidelines for sage grouse in North America
1999	Completion of field research on movement and habitat use of sage grouse and sharp-tailed grouse in Washington

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
	Effects of agricultural conversion and associated habitat fragmentation on shrubsteppe associated wildlife and the condition of extant shrubsteppe in the Columbia Pateau Province	This 'agricultural conversion' project is related to this proposal because it is focused on the remaining shrubsteppe habitat. Consequently, the two projects will benefit from the combined results.
	Winter habitat use, migration, and survival of ferruginous hawks (Watson and Pierce 2000).	Research on behavior of ferrugionous hawks in relation to restoration activities will provide additional insight.
	Breeding bird diversity and density in relation to restoration efforts for sharp-tailed grouse on wildlife areas in north-central Washington (Schroeder 2000).	The preliminary research on breeding bird density will provide insights into study design for this proposed project.
	Recovery of pygmy rabbit populations (Musser and McCall 2000).	Research on behavior and population dynamics of pygmy rabbits will provide insight into the potential benefits of habitat restoration.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
Not applicable			$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
Not applicable			$0

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
Objective 1: Determine the relationship between diversity and density of wildlife in relation to general types of habitat restoration efforts in Crab Creek Subbasin by May 2005	Task 1: Select experimental restoration plots that represent a cross-section of habitats and administrations	1	$7,059	Yes
Objective 1: See above.	Task 2: Breeding bird surveys will be conducted twice on each of 48 different areas identified in task 1.	3	$49,414	Yes
Objective 1: See above.	Task 3: Small mammal surveys will be conducted on each of 48 different areas.	3	$49,414	Yes
Objective 1: See above.	Task 4: Results for breeding bird and small mammal surveys in relation to habitat type and administration will be analyzed in a general linear model in autumn-winter 2004-2005.	2	$0
Objective 2: The relationship between specific habitat parameters and the presence of wildlife species will be evaluated for habitat restoration plots in the Crab Creek Subbasin by May 2005.	Task 1: Specific characteristics of habitat will be evaluated for each habitat restoration plot.	2	$28,238	Yes
Objective 2: See above.	Task 2: The presence or absence of bird and mammal species at each point will be analyzed in relation to characteristics of habitat in autumn-winter 2004-2005.	2	$0
Objective 3: Habitat characteristics and the associated wildlife will be examined in relation to the underlying management protocol by May 2005.	Task 1: Specific protocol for past management of shrubsteppe restoration areas will be determined by winter 2003.	2	$7,059	Yes
Objective 3: See above.	Task 2: Specific characteristics of habitat will be examined in a general linear model in autumn-winter 2004-2005.	2	$0
Objective 4: Compile information into a form in which it can be used for future management and research purposes by May 2005.	Task 1: Prepare publications for peer-reviewed scientific journals.	2	$0
Objective 4: See above.	Task 2: Prepare and disseminate reports to all people and agencies with an interest in shrubsteppe restoration in the region.	2	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
Objective 1: Determine the relationship between diversity and density of wildlife in relation to general types of habitat restoration efforts in Crab Creek Subbasin by May 2005.	2003	2005	$243,843
Objective 2: The relationship between specific habitat parameters and the presence of wildlife species will be evaluated for habitat restoration plots in the Crab Creek Subbasin by May 2005.	2003	2005	$41,851
Objective 3: Habitat characteristics and the associated wildlife will be examined in relation to the underlying management protocol by May 2005.	2003	2005	$27,921
Objective 4: Compile information into a form in which it can be used for future management and research purposes by May 2005.	2004	2005	$20,954

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005
$139,306	$139,306	$55,957

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
Not applicable			$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
Not applicable			$0

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
Not applicable			$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
Not applicable			$0

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2002 cost
Personnel	FTE: 2 temporary biologists @ $2,689/mo for 4.5 months; 1 research biologist @ $4,601/mo for 2 months	$33,403
Fringe	11 months	$6,991
Supplies	Traps, etc.	$3,000
Travel	Field travel	$11,000
Indirect	Overhead	$28,417
Subcontractor	Dr. John Skalski (1 month), Ph.D. student (12 months), miscellaneous expenses	$58,373
		$141,184

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$141,184
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$141,184
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$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
Not applicable		$0	cash

Other budget explanation

Not applicable

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2001-6)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Jun 15, 2001

Comment:

Fundable if adequate responses are given to ISRP concerns. While the ISRP supports monitoring projects to collectively monitor subbasin habitat improvements, the scope for applicability of the results from this project is not clear. What limits does this particular combination of six habitat/administration types put on transferring results? What is the inference space? That is, what justification is there that these inferences will apply to the entire subbasin rather than only to the sampled units?

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Recommended Action

Date:
Aug 3, 2001

Comment:

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2001-8)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Aug 10, 2001

Comment:

Fundable with low priority. The purpose of this proposed research is to evaluate the effectiveness of shrubsteppe restoration activities. The response addresses the concern about how representative the particular combination of six habitat/administrative types are of the subbasin. While it could be argued that at least some of the eight replicates within habitat/administrative types constitute pseudo-replication, this situation may be unavoidable. While the ISRP supports monitoring projects to collectively monitor subbasin habitat improvements, it is surprising that this research "designed to obtain information on the most fundamental aspects of shrubsteppe restoration ecology" is necessary.

The ISRP recommends that terrestrial sampling on Fish and Wildlife Program lands follow a common sampling method and some common data collection protocols across the four States involved to enhance monitoring and evaluation of terrestrial systems on subbasin and basin scales. Perhaps the National Resources Inventory sampling procedures and data collection protocols would serve the region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Oct 1, 2001

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
N/A

Comments

Already ESA Req? N/A

Biop? no

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Jan 3, 2002

Comment: