Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Eastern Washington Survey for Townsend's big-eared bat |
| Proposal ID | 21032 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Howard L. Ferguson |
| Mailing address | N 8702 Division St. Spokane, WA 99218 |
| Phone / email | 5094564082 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Dinah Demers |
| Review cycle | Intermountain |
| Province / Subbasin | Intermountain / Inter-Mountain |
| Short description | This project will search and inspect all appropriate old cabins, barns, buildings for Townsend's big-eared bats. It appears these rare bats prefer these older human structures for maternity colonies. If found, efforts will be made to conserve these sites. |
| Target species | Townsend's big-eared bat |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 48.43 |
-118.12 |
Columbia Upper subbasin |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
| 1997 |
Initial Open Space Analysis of Spokane County conducted in cooperation with University of Washington |
| 1998 |
Refinement and testing of initial Open Space Plan for Spokane County |
| 1998 |
Contracted out initial phase of Spokane County's Land Use-Land Cover Analysis |
| 1998 |
Discovered a new maternity colony of the Townsen'ds big-eared bat and started conservation efforts. |
| 1998 |
Helped form the Washington Bat Working Group. |
| 1999 |
Completion of 3-year Spokane Winter Raptor Study |
| 1999 |
Paper and Presentation of the Results of the 3 year Spokane Winter Raptor Study at the Annual Urban Wildlife Conference |
| 1999 |
Paper and Presentation of the Development and Results of the Spokane County Open Space Analysis at the Annual Urban Wildlife Conference |
| 2000 |
Applied and secured grant funding (~$40,000) to save and study the Townsend's big-eared bat maternity colony. |
| 2000 |
Open Space Plan that I developed was incorporated into Spokane County's "Master Comprehensive Plan" |
| 2000 |
Completion of 2 Chapters for WDFW & ODFW new book "Wildlife Habitat and Species Associations in Oregon and Washington. Wrote Chapter on Vegetation Description of "Urban Habitats", and another Chapter on "Urban Wildlife Habitat and Species Associations". |
| 2000 |
Paper and Presentation on "Current and Future Status of Urban Birds" to the 7th Annual The Wildlife Society Conference |
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. Survey Eastern Washington for maternity colonies of Townsend's big-eared bats. |
a. Coordinate surveys and personnel with DNR, Eastern Washington University, Washington Bat Working Group, BLM, US Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service & NRCS |
2 months |
$4,000 |
|
| 1. |
b. Advertise, interview and hire temporary biologists |
1 month |
$1,000 |
|
| 1. |
c. Assign personnel to appropriate areas of the state |
2 weeks |
$500 |
|
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 |
|---|
| 1. Survey Eastern Washington for maternity colonies of Townsend's big-eared bats. |
a. Gather information, identify and select sites to survey |
2 months |
$4,000 |
|
| 1. |
b. Survey sites for Townsend's big-eared bats |
1 year |
$24,000 |
|
| 1. |
c. Enter data in central database |
2 months |
$4,000 |
|
| 1. |
d. Purchase radio transmitters and receivers for bats |
2 weeks |
$7,500 |
|
| 1. |
e. Capture and mount transmitters on bats |
2 month |
$4,000 |
|
| 1. |
f. Track bats to find hibernacula |
2 months |
$4,000 |
|
| 1. |
g. Enter any new information in database |
1 month |
$6,000 |
|
| 1. |
h. Write up reports, papers and presentations |
3 months |
$6,000 |
|
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 |
|---|
| 1. Survey Eastern Washington for maternity colonies of Townsend's big-eared bats. |
a. Travel and lodging to find appropriate structures to survey and for actual surveys |
1 year |
$8,000 |
|
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: 2.25 |
$54,000 |
| Supplies |
Lightweight transmitters, recievers and antennaes |
$7,500 |
| Travel |
Travel throughout Eastern Washington at $.32 per mile and gas for agency vehicles |
$8,000 |
| Indirect |
Advertising, hiring graduate student |
$1,000 |
| $70,500 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $70,500 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $70,500 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| WDFW |
Provide funding for initial phase of project |
$4,500 |
cash |
| WDFW |
Provide guidance and GIS help |
$8,000 |
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
Date:
Oct 6, 2000
Comment:
Do not fund. A response review is not warranted. The proposal failed to present evidence of a scientifically sound approach that would lead to benefit to fish and wildlife. The proposal does not adequately tie the work with the Fish and Wildlife Program and the survey designs and sampling methods are not presented in adequate detail.
This proposal has the worthy objective of collecting critical information on a sensitive species. The background, rationale, and objectives/tasks/methods are much too brief to support meaningful scientific review. The proposal lacks linkages to the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Plan or to other projects within the Inter-Mountain Province. It provides no explanation as to why the FWP is the appropriate funder for bat research. Sampling methods are only minimally described. It is not clear how sites are to be selected for surveys. There is not information on how many potential sites there might be, whether it is possible to check all, or how a subset to be checked would be selected. In addition to ad hoc and extensive searches for Townsend's big-eared bats, the proposal should include a valid field sampling component. For example, it might be possible to define a stratified random sample of blocks within towns and sections of land elsewhere for intensive searches. The proposal also fails to present details on how data will be analyzed. Similar concerns about sampling methods and analyses apply to the goal of locating maternity roosts. Additionally, the project does not develop any rationale for why old structures might be preferred as nesting sites: Is it because they are old? Because of their location and degree of isolation? Their proximity to food or water? The lack of an analytical approach to this subject significantly limits the utility of the findings.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Nov 15, 2000
Comment:
T1-techniques and implementations are not well described
T2-objectives are not clearly defined
T5-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.
FY01 Budget Review Comments: DNF-does not address Council Program
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Dec 1, 2000
Comment:
Do not fund. A response review was not warranted. The proposal failed to present evidence of a scientifically sound approach that would lead to benefit to fish and wildlife. The proposal does not adequately tie the work with the Fish and Wildlife Program and the survey designs and sampling methods are not presented in adequate detail.
This proposal has the worthy objective of collecting critical information on a sensitive species. The background, rationale, and objectives/tasks/methods are much too brief to support meaningful scientific review. The proposal lacks linkages to the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Plan or to other projects within the Inter-Mountain Province. It provides no explanation as to why the FWP is the appropriate funder for bat research. Sampling methods are only minimally described. It is not clear how sites are to be selected for surveys. There is not information on how many potential sites there might be, whether it is possible to check all, or how a subset to be checked would be selected. In addition to ad hoc and extensive searches for Townsend's big-eared bats, the proposal should include a valid field sampling component. For example, it might be possible to define a stratified random sample of blocks within towns and sections of land elsewhere for intensive searches. The proposal also fails to present details on how data will be analyzed. Similar concerns about sampling methods and analyses apply to the goal of locating maternity roosts. Additionally, the project does not develop any rationale for why old structures might be preferred as nesting sites: Is it because they are old? Because of their location and degree of isolation? Their proximity to food or water? The lack of an analytical approach to this subject significantly limits the utility of the findings.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jan 31, 2001
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Sep 11, 2001
Comment: