FY 2003 Upper Snake proposal 33003
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 |
|---|---|
| 33003 Narrative | Narrative |
| 33003 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Sage Grouse Distribution and Habitat Use in the Upper Snake River Basin, Blackfoot and Willow Creek Drainages. |
| Proposal ID | 33003 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Daryl R. Meints |
| Mailing address | 1345 Barton Road Pocatello, ID 83204 |
| Phone / email | 2082324703 / dmeints@idfg.state.id.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Jim Mende |
| Review cycle | Upper Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Upper Snake / Upper Snake |
| Short description | Document sage grouse trends, movements, habitat use and survival to develope recovery plan. |
| Target species | Sage Grouse |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 43.0022 | -111.7097 | The area surrounding Blackfoot Reservior and north including the upper end of the Willow Creek drainage. |
| 43.602 | -111.8017 | Willow Creek |
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 | not applicable because it is a new project Helicopter Surveys for Sage Grouse Leks - 8 Leks with 71 Males |
| 2001 | Helicopter Surveys for Sage Grouse Leks - 2 Leks with 9 Males |
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 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.Document lek distribution and establish population estimates. | Use helicopter lek searches to identify distribution, trend routes and estimates. | 3 | $3,500 | |
| 2.Document sage grouse movements, nesting success, nesting, brood rearing and winter habitat use. | Radio-collar 30 female sage grouse. | 3 | $5,250 | |
| 3.Document sage grouse chick movements, habitat use and survival. | Radio-collar 40 sage grouse chicks. | 3 | $6,400 | |
| 4.Develop recovery plan. | Use information gathered to develop a recovery plan to benefit both sage grouse and livestock interests in the basin. | 3 | $196,566 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 2005 | $168,300 | |
| 2005 | 2006 | $168,300 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|
| $168,300 | $168,300 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 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 2003 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 2003 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 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: Limited Service Research Biologist and (2) 8-month tech's. | $63,658 |
| Fringe | 41.7% of salary | $26,545 |
| Supplies | Radio Collars, Receivers, Computers, Printers, Software, GPS Units, etc. | $28,150 |
| Travel | Meetings | $2,000 |
| Indirect | 20.6% Overhead | $36,163 |
| Other | Helicopter Flight Time, Fixed-Wing Flight Time, Vehicle Rentals, Snow machine and 4-Wheeler Purchase | $55,200 |
| $211,716 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $211,716 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $211,716 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $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.
Recommendation:
Do not fund - no response required
Do not fund - no response required
Date:
Mar 1, 2002
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
Not fundable. Although the presentation was informative, the proposal was inadequate to justify further response. The tasks and methods for the planned research in objectives 1, 2, and 3 are too brief to allow a through scientific review. The specific sample areas, methods, sampling frequency and intensity (i.e., how many samples of what type where and when), and data collection procedures need to be specified in detail. In addition, the ISRP believes that sufficient information may be available in the literature to develop a recovery plan for sage grouse in these areas. We suggest that a comprehensive assessment of sage grouse habitat be made by the working groups across southern Idaho, including a working group for this area, and that a proposal be prepared for protection and rehabilitation of wildlife habitat that would benefit not only sage grouse but multiple species as in proposals 199505700 and 199505701.Comment:
Comment:
Not fundable. Although the presentation was informative, the proposal was inadequate to justify a response and further review. The tasks and methods for the planned research in objectives 1, 2, and 3 are too brief to allow a through scientific review. The specific sample areas, methods, sampling frequency and intensity (i.e., how many samples of what type where and when), and data collection procedures need to be specified in detail. In addition, the ISRP believes that sufficient information may be available in the literature to develop a recovery plan for sage grouse in these areas. We suggest that a comprehensive assessment of sage grouse habitat be made by the working groups across southern Idaho, including a working group for this area, and that a proposal be prepared for protection and rehabilitation of wildlife habitat that would benefit not only sage grouse but multiple species as in proposals 199505700 and 199505701.Comment: