FY 2001 Intermountain proposal 200103000
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 |
|---|---|
| 21034 Narrative | Narrative |
| 21034 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| Intermountain: Sanpoil Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Intermountain: Sanpoil Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Colville Tribes Restore Habitat for Sharp-tailed Grouse |
| Proposal ID | 200103000 |
| Organization | Colville Confederated Tribes, Fish & Wildlife Department (CCT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Matt Berger |
| Mailing address | PO Box 150 Nespelem, WA 99155 |
| Phone / email | 5096342117 / matt.berger@colvilletribes.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | Joe Peone, Director, Tribal F&WD |
| Review cycle | Intermountain |
| Province / Subbasin | Intermountain / Lake Roosevelt |
| Short description | Conduct a population viability analysis for a comphrenhensive, adaptive management plan to restore critical shrub-steppe and riparian deciduous habitat to secure a viable metapopulation of sheap-tailed grouse on the Intermountain Province region. |
| Target species | Sharp-tailed grouse |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 48.31 | -118.71 | Sanpoil 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 |
|---|---|
| 1999 | Preliminary surveys of sharp-tailed grouse population and habitat issues on the Colville and Spokane Indian Reservations and WDFW continue as in previous years by these entities . |
| 1999 | Intensive studies initiated by Washington State University (R. Saylor) for another critical shrub-steppe wildlife species (pygmy rabbits) at sagebrush Flat, WA. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Collect data to develop restoration plan | a. Conduct spatial analysis of habitat and bird behavior within zones centering around leks. | 2 | $75,000 | Yes |
| b. Conduct quantitative assessment of lands suitable for native shrub-steppe and riparian vegetation establishment. | 2 | $66,400 | Yes | |
| c. Develop GIS data layers for models. | 1 | $12,000 | ||
| 2. Conduct population viability analysis | a. Use field data and PVA analysis to generate metapopulation and habitat restoration plans, including risk analysis for the Intermountain Province. | 3 | $16,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $169,400 | $169,400 | $160,000 | $120,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | $34,000 | |
| Fringe | $9,000 | |
| Supplies | $10,000 | |
| Travel | 3,000 | $3,000 |
| Indirect | $13,400 | |
| Capital | $0 | |
| NEPA | $0 | |
| PIT tags | $0 | |
| Subcontractor | $100,000 | |
| Other | $0 | |
| $169,400 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $169,400 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $169,400 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $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.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Oct 6, 2000
Comment:
Fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP's concerns. Although the proposal ranks high on most counts, more detail should be provided on sampling design, on specific research methods, and on data analysis. The Panel was impressed with and enthusiastic about the opportunity of this project to significantly extend understanding of sharp-tailed grouse ecology and to provide direct benefit to both grouse and other species associated with its habitat. The Panel believes that the omissions of detail in methods that are in the original proposal can be addressed effectively in a proposal revision or addendum.This proposal takes advantage of the presence of a stable local population of sharp-tailed grouse, a rarity and well worth protection and study in the interest of supporting other such populations. The proposal presents a reasonable case for restoring grouse habitat but fails to provide sufficient detail as to how the project will be conducted. The sampling and analytical methods are described in general terms, but without specific information on sample design, types of analysis to be done, or the rationale for choosing particular types of analysis. The analysis is given too little attention. The proposal is weak in explaining how the data are going to be used to obtain the objectives, and $16k per year may not be enough for that. The proposal is vague about analyses to be used. Cluster analysis is mentioned, as are several computer programs, but it is not clear how these will provide a predictive management model, and no relevant references are provided. It may be that this project needs more funding for analysis, including the development of a specific simulation model, and less money for data collection. The investigators may want to involve someone with more experience in development and analysis of population models as an advisor or subcontractor.
Comment:
T1- methods and analysis section too generalT5-The proposed work is research/assessment oriented thus target species/indicator populations would not benefit from the work. However, results from the studies could lead to the development of M&E plans from which the species/populations could benefit
T6-The proposed work is research/assessment oriented. Until results are obtained through the assessment and an M&E plan is developed and implemented, it is unknown whether the long-term benefits will be realized.
Comment:
Fundable. The response resolved the initial concerns of the ISRP. There are still questions about what exactly will be done in some areas, but that is to be expected at this stage of the project. The general approach is good, the response is thorough, and the expanded project team has the collective expertise to make this project work. This is an important project that should be done now.Comment:
Comment:
Comment:
One year delay in project implementation, sponsor says planned as a four year study, subcontract delay with WSU.Comment:
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: |
| $169,400 | $0 | $0 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website