FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22021

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
22021 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Develop Innovative Approaches for Monitoring Bats in the Clearwater Region of Idaho
Proposal ID	22021
Organization	Idaho Department of Fish & Game (IDFG)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Rita Dixon
Mailing address	Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, 1540 Warner Ave. Lewiston, ID 83501
Phone / email	2087995010 / rdixon@idfg.state.id.us
Manager authorizing this project	Gregg Servheen
Review cycle	FY 2001 Innovative
Province / Subbasin	Mountain Snake / Clearwater
Short description	The intent of this project is to develop innovative approaches and techniques for monitoring bats in the Clearwater Region of Idaho as well as to obtain the requisite life history information necessary for constructing predictive models.
Target species	Little brown bat, Yuma myotis, long-eared myotis, fringed myotis, long-legged myotis, California myotis, western small-footed myotis, silver-haired bat, western pipistrelle, big brown bat, hoary bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, and pallid bat.

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
46.4	-115.66	Clearwater 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

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

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 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	FTE: $31,978.00	$31,978
Fringe	$3,248.00	$3,248
Supplies	$27,801.00	$27,801
Travel	$24,002.00	$24,002
Indirect	$18,271.50	$18,271
PIT tags	180	$420
Subcontractor	# of tags: $34,710.00	$34,710
		$140,430

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2001 cost	$140,430
Total FY 2001 budget request	$140,430

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
University of Idaho	Co-PI's consulting	$2,686	in-kind
Nez Perce National Historical Park	Co-PI's time	$2,686	in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Review (ISRP 2000-10)

Recommendation:
Yes - C

Date:
Dec 15, 2000

Comment:

The PIT tag portion of this proposal, representing 1/6 of its budget, was innovative in that the writers propose the use of an existing technology in what seems to be a new application to the region on bats. There was no apparent mention of how a similar portion of the budget might indeed be used for "infrared or other new technology". The proposal did not convince reviewers of its potential benefit to wildlife relative to perceived needs.