FY 2000 proposal 199204800

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: None

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: Although the review team included staunch advocates of acquisition as mitigation for loss of wildlife habitat, the group could not recommend this project for funding. The project is described as a means to "provide increased bio-diversity" but how this would be accomplished is not explained. There is no clear relationship established between habitat acquisition and the species that will benefit, i.e. conservation status of species, seasonal distributions, limiting factors, etc. In addition, the proposal states "This project is not directly linked to projects being carried out by other entities in the basin." The team found that statement incredible and failed to see how any acquisition program can be effective without coordination with other such programs in the area.

The proposal is not a stand-alone document and it should be. It refers to a draft document but they do not summarize the document. The existence of a BPA statement of work is not sufficient. Proponents should describe their restoration methods and not just the tasks, as noted last year (see ISRP FY99 report, Appendix A page 65).

The proposal is quite vague in explaining what tasks are required for specific sites and why. A reviewer cannot tell what specifically needs to be done in particular areas to meet specific objectives. Thus, one cannot begin to assess the appropriateness of the budget. Too little information is provided on objectives, methods, enhancement goals, and measurable milestones, although the proposal says that its purpose is to "protect, enhance and evaluate habitats and species." The group noted that the proponents were advised in the ISRP's FY99 comments to better justify their project.

Comment:

Comment:

Explain how this project fits into a watershed context.

Comment:

Comment:

The responses adequately address many of the ISRP's concerns. However, several key elements remain unavailable for scientific review. The response states existence of a draft site-specific management plan, but its key elements (target management units, management goals, methods, and evaluation procedures for each) are not provided. This is the central information needed for scientific evaluation of a proposal for management and operations of land to benefit wildlife. Further, the responses do not provide a scientifically sound monitoring and evaluation plan. The ISRP accepts that goals of land management to benefit wildlife are long-term and may be realized only over many years; they accept that active enhancement need not be a part of effective land management. Nevertheless, monitoring for benefits to wildlife, measured at the level of at least some well-chosen species, is a necessary element of evaluation of this sort of project. HEP alone is an indirect measure of habitat attributes, does not necessarily generalize from site-to-site well or translate into wildlife abundance, and thus does not meet scientific standards for evaluation of benefit to wildlife. The respondents greatly overstate the information provided by HEP. Also, they seem to rely on habitat-typing for assessment of site potential to determine management goals; this approach has many scientific shortcomings and can result in management goals that are poorly suited to a site and difficult or expensive to attain. The project managers should at least be aware of the potential shortcomings of this method of habitat evaluation.

The responses adequately described what was meant by increasing biodiversity by letting agricultural and grazing lands revert to natural conditions. The "letting nature heal itself" approach is a good strategy that should often be cost-effective. The responses adequately described the species intended to be supported. Linkages among projects by way of coordination are fine. The summarization of the site-specific management plan was helpful, though too limited for full evaluation. Ideally, the respondents could supply a summary of the management plan that more fully developed their management goals and, especially, how progress toward them is assessed and evaluated. Although the philosophical approach of the group is now much more clear, it is not clear how decisions to adopt active management are reached or how the outcome of such active management is judged.

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website