FY 2000 proposal 199505700

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: Appraisals, Level I environmental surveys, cultural resource surveys, and property boundary surveys cannot be completed when the ground is snow-covered. Most habitat enhancements occur in the spring and summer as well. Closing acquisition deals take time -- it is very difficult to predict how long negotiations will take.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This appears to be a successful habitat mitigation program that fits most of the proposal evaluation criteria. The proposed land purchase is well justified and should benefit a variety of fish and wildlife. However the management plan and the monitoring and evaluation component are not well developed. A clear management plan needs to be developed. Reasons for continuing enhancement should be given. Are these directly beneficial to wildlife? Enhancement and other management activities are the long-term costs of the project. They are substantial, and they should be clearly justified as needed and should not inhibit development of a self-sustaining system. Data supporting the long-term benefits of particular plantings, weed control, etc., should be taken and presented. Such techniques as large-scale spraying and removal of Russian olives require explanation. There are likely ecosystem-level effects of these activities, and they likely would create conditions favorable to weedy growth. If such large-scale, hard restoration is done, then it should be done under an experimental design that will allow clear evaluation of effectiveness and costs/benefits of the removal and of the techniques used. The monitoring and evaluation plans lack detail. What populations will be monitored? Will a survey design be used that could detect value of enhancements or other active management techniques versus passive restoration? What does it mean to manage for maximum benefit to wildlife? Objective 4 of this proposal refers to monitoring in perpetuity to "maximize benefit to wildlife." But "maximum benefit" is not defined, nor are measurements for monitoring and evaluating it specified. It is also not clear why 11 more years are needed to achieve the remaining 25% HUs. It would be helpful to keep active reference to the final objective: "achieve and sustain levels of habitat and species productivity" and to try to develop quantified indicators of this productivity. How else will success be evaluated?

Comment:

Comment:

Explain how this project fits into a watershed context.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website