FY 2000 proposal 199206100

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: Critical constraints include the willingness of landowners to sell land for appraised value; increases in land values; listed properties being sold prior to the Work Group acquiring BPA funding; subcontractors behind schedule; and equipment failure.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This is a proposal to acquire either through purchase or conservation agreements additional wetlands for wildlife conservation purposes in the Pend Oreille drainage, enhancement of already protected lands, routine maintenance of already protected lands, and monitoring and evaluation of protection and enhancement measures. Potential acquisition sites are selected through a prioritization process including an initial habitat evaluation and identification of potential enhancement requirements or opportunities, enhancement activities are performed using somewhat standardized techniques to improve habitat quality and wildlife abundance, and monitoring and evaluation conducted by subsequent habitat evaluation. This is a very logical and rational approach. The only drawback of this approach is that it does not consider potential conflicts between expansion of wetland habitats (e.g., lake level) and fisheries mitigation issues. These are probably best resolved, however, on a case by case basis.

The proposal is for a 5-year time frame, having assumed its qualification for multi-year funding. It has been in operation since 1990. The proposal references the FWP and 4 other plans. The work is related to two other BPA projects and one non-BPA one. It follows the mitigation status and management plan established early in the project (1995-96). There have been good accomplishments (planning first then habitat unit protection). The objectives and tasks are good: obtain, enhance, maintain, monitor. Most of the expensive project is for possible land acquisitions. There is a small amount of cost sharing. There is a good (if long) abstract, good background, and good rationale. There are clear relationships to other projects. The project history, however, is not focused on the project, which gets just one paragraph. Although the multi-year costing may seem presumptuous, it is a good approach. The project might qualify. Objectives and methods are good. No resumes for staff are provided but are needed.

As the ISRP commented in its FY99 review (page 65-66), the description of methods for maintenance and monitoring continue to be inadequate. This proposal could still use more detail on planned maintenance and monitoring. The proposed budget is high and should be examined to determine if costs are reasonable. There is unspecified subcontractor activity.

Comment:

Comment:

Explain how this project fits into a watershed context.

Enhancement activities described are very general.

Provide more discrete milestones. Align the proposal with what can realistically be accomplished.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website