Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship in Sensitive Habitats in the Upper Closed Basin |
| Proposal ID | 33005 |
| Organization | TREC, Inc. (TREC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Timothy D. Reynolds |
| Mailing address | 101 S. Park Ave., Suite 5 Idaho Falls, ID 83402 |
| Phone / email | 2085350189 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Timothy D. Reynolds |
| Review cycle | Upper Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Upper Snake / Upper Closed Basin |
| Short description | implement an intensive capture and banding program to use birds as a measure of habitat quality and change |
| Target species | Neotropical Migrant Birds |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 44.137 |
-113.923 |
Chilly Slough/Thousand Springs |
| 44.306 |
-113.508 |
Summit Creek & Reservoir |
| 43.864 |
-112.765 |
Shrub-steppe Ecosystem Reserve |
| 43.873 |
-112.407 |
Mud Lake WMA |
| 44.202 |
-112.706 |
Rick's Ranch (TNC) |
| 43.947 |
-112.245 |
Camas NWR |
| 44.452 |
-112.698 |
Divide Creek Springs (Medicine Lodge) |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
|
Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship on Mitigation Lands and Sensitive Habitats in the Upper Snake Headwaters |
Same Protocol; Shared staff and some equipment |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Locate MAPS stations |
a. Identify Specific MAPS Sites |
0.03 |
$5,992 |
|
|
b. Enter into GIS |
0.002 |
$260 |
|
| 2. NEPA |
a. Contact Agencies |
0.004 |
$364 |
|
|
b. Prepare CX |
0.015 |
$1,455 |
|
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 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Establish Maps Stations |
a. Develop Materiuals List & Purchase |
0.004 |
$6,637 |
|
|
b. Establish Net Lanes & anchor Poles |
0.08 |
$5,308 |
|
|
c. Vehicle Rent |
|
$3,000 |
|
| 2. Collect Habitat Data |
a. Collect Habitat Data |
0.1 |
$8,885 |
|
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 |
|---|
| 1. Band Birds |
a. Tech Training |
0.039 |
$5,123 |
Yes |
|
b. Band Birds |
0..5 |
$33,909 |
|
|
. |
|
$0 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 1. Purchase replacements for damaged mist nets |
2004 |
2007 |
$1,000 |
| 2. Refurbish Net Lanes |
2004 |
2007 |
$11,604 |
| 3. Band Birds |
2004 |
2007 |
$147,907 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|
| $37,722 | $39,292 | $40,917 | $42,600 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Data Entry |
a. Digitize field forms |
0.08 |
$4,565 |
|
|
b. Data QA |
0.003 |
$735 |
|
| 2. Data Analysis |
|
|
$0 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| Data Entry |
2004 |
2007 |
$23,119 |
| Data Analysis |
2007 |
2007 |
$6,216 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|
| $5,485 | $5,677 | $5,876 | $12,297 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: 0.90 |
$28,777 |
| Fringe |
|
$4,921 |
| Supplies |
|
$5,623 |
| Travel |
|
$5,969 |
| Indirect |
|
$25,143 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$2,500 |
| Other |
|
$3,300 |
| $76,233 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $76,233 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $76,233 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| TREC, Inc. |
Materials |
$3,000 |
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:
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
Not fundable, a response is not needed. The methods and tasks are not appropriate to meet the objectives stated. The purpose of project is to set up a long-term monitoring program to assess long-term health of the habitats in the Upper Snake River subbasins using abundance, diversity, productivity, and survivorship measures of breeding bird populations as the monitoring index. The proposal does not effectively make the case that the proposed bird-monitoring program will effectively monitor long-term environmental conditions or that the bird-monitoring program is the best method (among unstated alternative methods) for achieving the stated purpose of providing a long-term program with consistent and comparable methods for monitoring the environmental health (?) of the subbasin habitats.
The proposal is not linked to the Upper Snake Subbasins Summary or to the Council's FWP. The proposal is quite deficient in details of methods, analysis, and inference to habitat conditions and long-term habitat assessment. Proposed study sites may be the best sites for monitoring bird populations in the Closed and Snake subbasins, but there is a serious concern about how representative those study sites are and how that might limit (or skew) inferences from the project relative to its stated goals.
The MAPS protocol appears to provide a consistent protocol so that data collected here would fit into a larger regional or national database, which is a plus for the project.
Recommendation:
withdrawn
Date:
May 17, 2002
Comment:
proposal withdrawn
Recommendation:
Withdrawn
Date:
Jun 7, 2002
Comment:
Proposal Withdrawn
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002
Comment: