Fill and Sign the Winegrower Tax Return Boe 501 Wg Form

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southwestern Region August 2010 Project Funding Recommendations and Proposed Evaluation Comments 2010 Technical Advisory Panel Collaborative Forest Restoration Program The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. June 2009 Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1 Proposal Review Process ............................................................................................................... 3 Proposals ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations........................................................................... 9 Evaluation Matrix ....................................................................................................................... 53 Appendix A. Technical Advisory Panel Bylaws......................................................................... 55 Appendix B. Technical Advisory Panel Members (2010-2012)................................................ 59 Appendix C: Common Proposal Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations ................ 61 Executive Summary The Collaborative Forest Restoration Program (CFRP) Technical Advisory Panel met in Albuquerque, New Mexico, July 19-23, 2010, to provide the USDA Forest Service with recommendations on which project proposals submitted for funding under the CFRP best met the objectives of the program. The Panel was chartered for two years as a Federal Advisory Committee on May 4, 2010 (DR 1042-138) pursuant to the Community Forest Restoration Act of 2000 (Title VI, Pub. L. No. 106-393). Twelve of the 15 Panel members attended the meeting. Danny Gomez, Lawrence Vincent, and Daniel Barrone were not available to attend due to prior commitments. The Panel reviewed their responsibilities as a Federal Advisory Committee, approved Bylaws, reviewed 34 proposals requesting $10,607,267 in Federal funding, provided recommendations for improving the Panel review process and Request for Applications (RFA), and outlined tasks for the CFRP Technical Advisory Panel Subcommittee for the review of Completed Multi-Party Assessments. The Panel recommended 14 of the 34 proposals for funding, totaling $4,070,037, which corresponds with the funding available for CFRP grants in 2010. Pursuant to the Panel Bylaws, if a Panel Member or any member of their immediate family, or the organization employing them, would financially benefit from a CFRP grant proposal being evaluated, or if a Panel Member was directly involved in the development of the proposal, that Panel member left the room during the discussion of that proposal and recused themselves from the Panel’s decision to avoid a conflict of interest. This report includes: Strengths, weaknesses, and funding recommendations for each 2010 CFRP grant application; Recommendations for improving the proposal review process and the Request for Applications (RFA); and Tasks for the CFRP Technical Advisory Panel Subcommittee for the Review of Completed Multi-Party Assessments. This report, the Meeting Minutes (including the meeting agenda), and the Panel Charter can be obtained on the CFRP website (http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/spf/cfrp) or by contacting Walter Dunn, USDA Forest Service, 333 Broadway Blvd. SE, Albuquerque, NM 87102, telephone (506) 842-3425. /s/Walter Dunn WALTER DUNN Chairman and Designated Federal Official U.S. Forest Service, Southwestern Region 08/06/2000 Date 2010 CFRP Project Funding Recommendations & Proposal Evaluation Comments 1 Proposal Review Process Evaluation Criteria The Panel evaluated each project proposal using the following criteria: 1. Does the proposed project meet the eligibility requirements of the program in Section III and follow the format described in Section IV of the Request for Proposals? 2. Will the proposed project reduce the threat of large, high intensity wildfires and the negative effects of excessive competition between trees by restoring ecosystem functions (including healthy watersheds), structures, and species composition, including the reduction of non-native species populations on Federal, Tribal, State, eligible Land Grant, County, and Municipal forest lands? 3. Will the proposed project re-establish fire regimes approximating those that shaped forest ecosystems prior to fire suppression? 4. Will the proposed project replant trees in deforested areas, if they exist, in the proposed project area? 5. How will the proposed project improve the use of, or add value to, small diameter trees? What kinds of markets are available to support the project? Where is the resource base? How much material will the project need to fulfill the project needs? 6. Will the proposed project include a diverse and balanced group of stakeholders as well as appropriate Federal, Tribal, State, County, Land Grant, and Municipal government representatives in the design and implementation of the project? 7. Does the proposal include a plan for a multiparty assessment that will: a. Identify both the existing ecological condition of the proposed project area and the desired future condition; and b. Monitor and report on the positive or negative impact and effectiveness of the project including improvements in local management skills and on the ground results? 8. Does the project proposal incorporate current scientific forest restoration information? 9. Will the proposed project preserve old and large trees? If so, how? 10. Will the proposed project create local employment or training opportunities within the context of accomplishing restoration objectives? Are these opportunities consistent with the purposes of the program? Are summer youth job programs, such as the Youth Conservation Corps, included where appropriate? 11. Have the proponents demonstrated the capability to successfully implement the proposed project? a. Does the proponent have a viable business plan (if applicable)? b. How has the proponent performed on past grant awards? 12. Does the proposal facilitate landscape-scale, multi-jurisdictional effort(s) (i.e., a landscape assessment or Community Wildfire Protection Plan)? 13. What would be the effect of the proposed project on long-term forest management? 14. Is the proposed activity in a priority area for hazardous fuel reduction? 15. Is the cost of the project reasonable and within the range of the fair market value for similar work? 2010 CFRP Project Funding Recommendations & Proposal Evaluation Comments 3 Proposal Review Process Categories of Decision The Panel identified strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations for each proposal based on the criteria above. In addition to noting the unique characteristics of each proposal, the Panel also drew from a list of common strengths, weaknesses and recommendations (Appendix C). The Panel then referred to the strengths and weaknesses to assign a category of decision to each proposal. The categories of decision were: 1. The proposal is an excellent match with the purposes and objectives of the Act and the panel recommends funding. The proposal may have minor administrative weaknesses. 2. The proposal is an excellent match with the purposes and objectives of the Act. The proposal has some substantive weaknesses, but it is eligible for funding. 3. The proposal is a good fit to the purposes and the objectives of the Act, but the weaknesses identified in the work plan, budget, and/or monitoring plan must be addressed before the project can be recommended for funding. 4. The proposal does not clearly address the objectives of the Act and/or successful implementation is doubtful. After reviewing all 34 proposals the Panel reexamined the category assigned to each one to assure consistency in their review and to respond, if necessary, to issues raised during the public comment periods. The Panel determined that 18 of the 34 proposals were in Category 1. The total federal request for all 18 proposals exceeded the funding available in 2010, so the Panel used a matrix to identify 14 of them which best met the program objectives within the available funding. The matrix criteria were: 1. Is the project part of a longer term and/or landscape level comprehensive, collaborative forest restoration effort? 2. Does the project include an activity that is new and adds value to the CFRP? 3. Will the project generate benefits after the grant period? 4. Are there diverse partners with clearly defined contributions? 5. Would the project add significant capacity for forest restoration? 4 2010 CFRP Project Funding Recommendations & Proposal Evaluation Comments Proposals Proposal # CFRP 01-10 CFRP 02-10 Rev. 1 CFRP 03-10 CFRP 04-10 Rev. 1 CFRP 05-10 CFRP 06-10 CFRP 07-10, Rev. 1 CFRP 08-10, Rev. 1 CFRP 09-10, Rev. 1 CFRP 10-10, Rev. 1 CFRP 11-10 CFRP 12-10, Rev. 1 CFRP 13-10 CFRP 14-10 CFRP 15-10 CFRP 16-10, Rev. 1 Project Title Cemetery Pines Forest Restoration Chimayo Conservation Corps Training Local Young Adults in Three Forest Types Planning to Reduce Wildfire Risk in Taos Ski Valley and the Upper Rio Hondo Watershed Cejita Restoration Questa/Lama WUI Multi-jurisdictional Forest Restoration Forest Restoration and Capacity Building in Black Lake, New Mexico Quality Environment and Economic Sustainability Project Multi-jurisdictional Water Supply Protection and Public and Youth Education Through Forest Restoration in the City of Raton Municipal Watershed Forest Business Establishment and Restoration in the El Ritito Area Navajo Dam Hazardous Fuel Reductio and Restoration Project Increased Forest Restoration and Utilization in the Cibola San Antonio de las Huertas Collaborative Forest Restoration Planning Project Multi-jurisdictional Collaborative Landscape Analysis Resource and Restoration Management in the Albuquerque Bosque Cebollita Mesa Forest Restoration Project Gavilan Ridge Conservation and Forest Restoration Lead Organization Picuris Pueblo Chimayo Conservation Corps. Village of Taos Ski Valley El Greco Restoration Rocky Mountain Youth Corps Fed. Req Match Recommended Funding Approved Funding $240,000 $60,000 $0 $0 $360,000 $90,000 $360,000 $360,000 $203,711 $50,994 $0 $0 $360,000 $90,000 $0 $0 $360,000 $90,000 $0 $0 HR Vigil Small Products $182,815 $45,703 $182,815 Jaramillo & Sons Forest Products $360,000 $90,000 $177,182 $177,182 Raton Water Works $360,000 $90,000 $0 $0 $360,000 $90,000 $360,000 $360,000 $330,735 $88,374 $0 $0 $360,000 $90,000 $360,000 $360,000 $108,845 $27,211 $0 $0 $344,096 $86,024 $0 $0 Tree New Mexico $360,000 $90,000 $0 $0 Pueblo of Acoma National Wild Turkey Federation $300,840 $75,210 $0 $0 $290,290 $72,552 $0 $0 Andy Chacon Forest Restoration Company Cedar Valley Field Services Mt. Taylor Machine, LLC San Antonio de las Huertas Land Grant Alamo Navajo School Board, Inc. 2010 CFRP Project Funding Recommendations & Proposal Evaluation Comments 182815 5 Proposals Proposal # CFRP 17-10 Restoration Strategy and Payment for Ecosystem Services in the Rio Ruidoso Watershed South Central Mountain Resource Conservation and Development Council, Inc. $176,305 $44,077 $176,305 $176,305 CFRP 18-10 Integrating Woody Biomass with Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic Energy Systems Murray Hotel, LLC $197,269 $50,385 $0 $0 CFRP 19-10 The Wellness Coalition/Youth Conservation Corps Forest Restoration, Community Education, Member Development and the Forest as a Learning Laboratory Project The Wellness Coalition $360,000 $90,000 $0 $0 CFRP 20-10, Rev. 1 Demonstration Site Development of Zerosion, an Engineered Composite Biomass Erosion Control Material, Using Low Value biomass Generated from Forest Treatment in Grant County, NM Restoration Technologies, LLC $360,000 $90,000 $0 $0 CFRP 21-10 Collaborative Landscape NEPA Analysis for Forest Restoration in the Upper Mimbres Watershed The Nature Conservancy $161,119 $40,465 $161,119 $161,119 CFRP 22-10, Rev. 1 Non-Native Phreatophtye Gasification Feasibility Sierra Soil and Water Conservation District $119,983 $29,998 $0 $0 CFRP 23-10 Creating and Expanding Markets for Traditionally Non-Commercial Material Sustainably Harvested from Forest Restoration Strain Firewood $360,000 $90,000 $0 $0 CFRP 24-10 Sheep Basin Revisited: Demonstrating the Benefits of Government Investment in Infrastructure Kellar Logging, Inc. $360,000 $90,000 $360,000 $360,000 CFRP 25-10 Advanced Manufacturing of Flooring from Small Diameter Timber Old Wood LLC $360,000 $90,000 $0 $0 CFRP 27-10 Developing Reference Conditions for Jemez Mixed Conifer Forests and Habitat for the Jemez Mountains Salamander The Nature Conservancy $274,382 $78,174 $274,382 $274,382 Griegos Logging LLC $360,000 $90,000 $360,000 $360,000 Pueblo of Tesuque $360,000 $90,000 $0 $0 CFRP 29-10 6 Las Vegas (Gallinas) Municipal Watershed WUI Fuels Reduction Project Box Canyon Grassland and Wildlife Restoration Match Approved Funding Lead Organization CFRP 28-10 Fed. Req Recommended Funding Project Title 2010 CFRP Project Funding Recommendations & Proposal Evaluation Comments Proposals Proposal # CFRP 30-10, Rev. 1 CFRP 31-10, Rev. 1 CFRP 32-10 CFRP 33-10, Rev. 1 Project Title Engaging Communities in Wildfire Prevention Walker Flats Watershed Improvement Project Final Phase Borrego Mesa Restoration Project and Documentary Video Merced del Pueblo Abiquiu Collaborative Forest Restoration Planning Project CFRP 34-10 Rowe Mesa Landscape-Scale Assessment Planning for Fire-Focused Forest Restoration CFRP 36-10 Caja del Rio Majada Coop Santa Fe River Restoration Lead Organization Santa Fe County Fire Department Southwest Wood Products & Thinning Fed. Req Match Recommended Funding Approved Funding $342,514 $91,608 $342,514 $342,514 $360,000 $90,000 $360,000 $360,000 Aspen Forest Products $360,000 $90,000 $360,000 $360,000 Merced del Pueblo Abiquiu $92,514 $23,129 $0 $0 Arizona Board of Regents, University of Arizona $235,720 $58,930 $235,720 $235,720 $360,000 $90,000 $0 $0 $10,081,138 $2,542,834 $4,070,037 $4,070,037 Caja del Rio Majada Coop TOTAL: 2010 CFRP Project Funding Recommendations & Proposal Evaluation Comments 7 Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations PROJECT NUMBER: CFRP 01-10 ORGANIZATION: FOREST: PROJECT TITLE: FUNDING REQUESTED: MATCHING FUNDS: TOTAL BUDGET: EVALUATION CATEGORY: Picuris Pueblo Carson Cemetery Pines Forest Restoration $240,000 $60,000 $300,000 3 STRENGTHS 1. Charcoal production is an innovative use for the residue coming off restoration treatments. Charcoal production could become a means of financing for the Pueblo Forestry Department. 2. The outreach by Picuris Pueblo to local communities demonstrates intent to collaborate on a larger scale. 3. The Pueblo land proposed for treatment borders the Forest Service Camino Real Ranger District where additional restoration treatments may occur. 4. The Table on page 10 shows how many people will be trained and what they will be trained in. 5. NEPA is complete. 6. The project includes field trips for students and training for teachers. 7. The project integrates treatment with existing utilization industries in the area. 8. The project will reduce the risk of high-intensity wildfire. 9. The monitoring plan includes current scientific information. 10. The project supplies materials for biomass-to-heat or other bio-energy efforts. 11. The proposal includes a diverse array of products that could potentially address 100% utilization of the generated by-product. 12. The proposal includes a detailed monitoring plan, with indicators and how they will be measured. 13. The proponent has extensive expertise in the proposed activities. 14. The project builds on past CFRP accomplishments. 15. The proposal demonstrates a commitment to a longer-term comprehensive program of collaborative forest restoration. 16. The tribe has a business plan approved by their Council. 17. Page 2 and 3 identifies the roles of the partners and their collaborators. 18. The proposal will fund jobs including 4 sawyers, a charcoal technician, and a forestry director. 19. The proposal leverages other funding sources. WEAKNESSES 1. Existing conditions are not adequately described. Since NEPA is complete on this project, the NEPA document would be a source to find such information. 2010 CFRP Project Funding Recommendations & Proposal Evaluation Comments 9 Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations 2. There are no definitive estimates of volumes to be removed or products to be developed. 3. Given 2007 CFRP experience and business plan, proposal does not state the expected amount of charcoal produced per acre from this thinning project and associated sales revenue. 4. It is not clear if the 33,000 lbs/year is an estimate from only this proposal. 5. Proponent did not demonstrate collaboration with a conservation group. 6. The monitoring plan is not multi-party. 7. The Forest Development Program on page 2 is not described in detail. 8. Soil sampling is not justified based on the objectives described in the project. 9. The social and economic information does not describe impact or benefits to the local community. 10. The letters of support do not describe the partners’ roles in multi-party monitoring. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Show prior projects and future proposed project areas on maps. 2. The project could have been strengthened by describing how the project supports the business plan. 3. Provide greater detail on youth component. ADMINISTRATIVE OBSERVATIONS: • • • • • 424 incorrect, page 2 is incomplete. Budget unit costs lack detail. Move sawyers to Contracts if appropriate. Latest indirect rate info should be provided and clarified in the budget. No NEPA decision attached. PROJECT NUMBER: CFRP 02-10, Rev. 1 ORGANIZATION: FOREST: PROJECT TITLE: Chimayo Conservation Corps Carson Chimayo Conservation Corps Training Local Young Adults in Three Forest Types $360,000 $90,000 $450,000 1 FUNDING REQUESTED: MATCHING FUNDS: TOTAL BUDGET: EVALUATION CATEGORY: STRENGTHS 1. The youth component engages youth for a period of time that is long enough to actually impact their lives, as it provides training and employment. 2. The youth component exposes Corps members to treatments in three different forest types 3. NEPA has been done on the FS and BLM, and there is strong commitment from the pueblo to complete NEPA on the 34 tribal land acres. 10 2010 CFRP Project Funding Recommendations & Pro Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations 4. The project will complete cross-jurisdictional restoration across BLM, FS and Pueblo lands. 5. The proposal includes strong letters of support from collaborators that commit to matching funds, roles, and responsibilities as described in the proposal. 6. The proposal demonstrates strong collaboration prior to submission of proposal. 7. The project is part of an integrated landscape restoration effort. 8. The proposal includes collaborator interest forms. 9. The project implements a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). 10. The applicant has adequately addressed the prior weaknesses & recommendations. 11. The proponent has extensive expertise in the proposed activities. 12. Good budget detail and/or work plan. 13. The proposal is clear, concise, and well organized. 14. The project builds on past CFRP accomplishments. 15. The project incorporates current scientific restoration information. 16. The project will reduce fire risk in a community on the New Mexico Communities at Risk List. 17. The project will reduce the risk of high-intensity wildfire. 18. The project will add significant capacity to restoration efforts. 19. The project could lead to re-establishment of natural fire regimes. 20. The project will increase the use of wildland fire use and/or prescribed fire. 21. Cost per acre is one of the lowest compared to other proposals. 22. Excellent utilization of the material harvested. 23. Project describes the definitive conditions for both pre and post treatment. 24. The proposal includes a diverse and balanced group of partners. 25. The project will hire 16 young people. 26. As part of a utilization plan, the project stores, splits and distributes firewood to elderly and disabled residents of nearby communities. 27. The proposal and the monitoring plan discuss wildlife and their habitat requirements as well as management history, e.g. fire suppression. 28. They have a commitment from the Forest Service to follow up with prescribed burning in the treatment areas “within a reasonable timeframe”. 29. Provides local forestry-based employment and skills training opportunities for youth in a rural, economically depressed area of the State that has a high concentration of federal public lands. 30. Applicant treats and monitors non-native species in the Bosque Salt Cedar and Russian Olive. 31. The Scope of Work, including treatment and education, is well defined and achievable. 32. The executive summary follows the example in the Request for Applications (RFA). WEAKNESSES 2010 CFRP Project Funding Recommendations & Proposal Evaluation Comments Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Include township, range and section on the maps. 2. References for scientific assertions regarding p-j fire ecology would be helpful. ADMINISTRATIVE OBSERVATIONS: • • • • 424, Section E, 3rd year incorrect. Local Forest should request applicant’s documents to determine indirect costs. Fringe benefits vary; they should be consistent. Determine whether personnel are sub recipients or contractors. PROJECT NUMBER: CFRP 03-10, Rev. 1 ORGANIZATION: FOREST: PROJECT TITLE: Village of Taos Ski Valley Carson Planning to Reduce Wildfire Risk in Taos Ski Valley and the Upper Rio Hondo Watershed $203,711 $50,994 $254,705 1 FUNDING REQUESTED: MATCHING FUNDS: TOTAL BUDGET: EVALUTATION CATEGORY: STRENGTHS 1. Proposal incorporates use of Firewise community wildfire risk assessment and community mitigation information and education. 2. Proposal incorporates planning for protection of a community water source. 3. The proposal demonstrates strong collaboration prior to submission of proposal. 4. The project is part of an integrated landscape restoration effort. 5. Youth will assist in collecting monitoring data and doing Firewise education. 6. The project will identify fire risk in a community on the New Mexico Communities at Risk List. 7. Good budget detail and/or work plan. 8. The proposal includes strong letters of support. 9. The proposal includes strong letters of support from collaborators that commit to matching funds, roles, and responsibilities as described in the proposal. 10. SWCA and RMYC have extensive expertise in the proposed activities. 11. The proposal is clear, concise, and well organized. 12. The applicant has adequately addressed the prior weaknesses & recommendations. 13. The project will complete a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). 14. Amigos Bravos letter of commitment to participate in the process is commendable. 15. Since NEPA is not done, this project offers a good opportunity for collaboration. WEAKNESSES 12 2010 CFRP Project Funding Recommendations & Pro Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Given 250,000 visits annually to the area, the project should fully consider the socioeconomic issues in the CWPP (e.g. Will socio-economics be included in the NEPA? Are there special evacuation concerns? Are there special human-caused ignition concerns? How does fire-risk information get distributed to the recreationists/visitors? Etc.) 2. Given that identifying “specific treatment areas on private lands” is listed as a “primary benefit” (page 6) for Patterson Trust and Taos Holdings (2 large landowners in the area), then proposal could be enhanced by more specific commitment to private mitigation efforts, matching efforts, etc. 3. Proponent should consider inviting Arroyo Hondo Arriba Land Grant and the grazing permitees in the area to participate in CWPP. 4. Include township, range and section in the maps to better identify project area. ADMINISTRATIVE OBSERVATIONS: • • SF 424 Sections D and E incorrect The relationship between the proponent, SWCA and RMYC needs to be clarified; it appears to be a subrecipient instead of a contract. Review OMB Circular A-133. PROJECT NUMBER: CFRP 04-10, Rev.1 ORGANIZATION: FOREST: PROJECT TITLE: FUNDING REQUESTED: MATCHING FUNDS: TOTAL BUDGET: EVALUATION CATEGORY: El Greco Restoration Carson Cejita Restoration Treatment $360,000 $90,000 $450,000 3 STRENGTHS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. The proposal includes a diverse and balanced group of partners. The proposal demonstrates strong collaboration prior to submission of proposal. NEPA is complete. The proposal demonstrates a commitment to a longer-term comprehensive program of collaborative forest restoration. The project includes a good youth component. The project will reduce fire risk in a community on the New Mexico Communities at Risk List. The project will increase the use of wildland fire and/or prescribed fire. The proposal will preserve old and large trees. The project is part of an integrated landscape restoration effort. The project blends a restoration treatment with a utilization plan. The project integrates treatment with existing utilization industries in the area. The proponent has extensive expertise in the proposed activities. 2010 CFRP Project Funding Recommendations & Proposal Evaluation Comments Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations 13. The applicant has adequately addressed the prior weaknesses & recommendations. 14. The project will create new jobs. 15. Proponent has a history of successful completion of CFRP projects. 16. There is a discussion of past management history including overgrazing and fire suppression, and prescribed burning is included as an outcome. 17. Provides local forestry-based employment and opportunities in a rural economically depressed area of the state that has a high concentration of federal public lands. 18. The proposal includes a diverse array of products that could potentially address 100% utilization of the generated by-product. 19. Application includes revegetation in the proposed area. 20. The applicant has adequately addressed the prior weaknesses & recommendations, especially with respect to volume and value of estimated byproducts. WEAKNESSES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. The detailed budget does not follow RFP budget format. The budget does not appear to adequately support the work plan. Unit costs in the budget do not add correctly. The 424 budget includes construction costs which are not an allowable cost and are not listed in the detailed budget. The entity responsible for collection of monitoring data was not identified. Advisors for monitoring are identified in the text, a consultant is listed, but it is not clear what the roles of these partners/contractors will be. Letters of support do not clearly describe the roles of project partners in monitoring. There is a contractor for monitoring in the budget, but who that will be is not identified. What species would be replanted is not identified, and where the planting would take place is not identified. Some of the letters of support reference a different project name. The federal portion of the budget exceeds the allowable $360,000. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Applicant is encouraged to include the grazing permitee as a partner in the application. 2. The proposal could be strengthened if the cattle grazing entity is committed to management to allow for controlled burns. 3. If the site is going to carry a fire, then the grazing permitee would need to agree to allow grass to grow high enough to carry fire. 4. Applicants need to address land use of the project area such as grazing. 5. The project could have been strengthened by describing how the project supports the business plan. 6. Piñon-juniper restoration objectives could be better addressed in the proposal. 7. Historic piñon-juniper conditions could be better described and justified. 8. In the letter of support from the Community Alliance, their mission statement should be explicitly stated. 14 2010 CFRP Project Funding Recommendations & Pro Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations ADMINISTRATIVE OBSERVATIONS: • • • • • 424A Section B (g) incorrect. Budget lacks detail on unit costs. CCR info not provided on SF 424. Pojoaque Pueblo should be listed in the budget instead of Picuris Pueblo. El Greco will provide the cost share match listed to Picuris and Santa Clara Pueblos. PROJECT NUMBER: CFRP 05-10 ORGANIZATION: FOREST: PROJECT TITLE: Rocky Mountain Youth Corps Carson Questa/Lama WUI Multi-jurisdictional Forest Restoration $360,000 $90,000 $450,000 1 FUNDING REQUESTED: MATCHING FUNDS: TOTAL BUDGET: EVALUATION CATEGORY: STRENGTHS 1. The youth component of this application provides a meaningful and potentially life changing experience for participants. 2. The proposal includes a diverse and balanced group of partners. 3. The proposal demonstrates strong collaboration prior to submission of proposal. 4. The proposal includes strong letters of support. 5. Since NEPA is not done on the fish hatchery portion of the project, this offers a good opportunity for collaboration. 6. NEPA is complete on the Forest Service portion of the project. 7. The proposal demonstrates a commitment to a longer-term comprehensive program of collaborative forest restoration. 8. The project will reduce the risk of high-intensity wildfire. 9. The project incorporates current scientific restoration information. 10. The project is part of an integrated landscape restoration effort. 11. The proponent has extensive expertise in the proposed activities. 12. Good budget detail and/or work plan. 13. The proposal is clear, concise, and well organized. 14. Provides local forestry-based employment and skills training opportunities for youth in a rural, economically depressed area of the State that has a high concentration of federal public lands. 15. The RMYC is trained to conduct monitoring. 16. The project builds on past CFRP accomplishments. 17. The executive summary follows the example in the Request for Applications (RFA). 18. Benefits for wildlife are described on the top of page 5. 19. Proponent will utilize material to provide firewood to the elderly in the community. 2010 CFRP Project Funding Recommendations & Proposal Evaluation Comments Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations 20. The project helps to implement the Taos County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. WEAKNESSES RECOMMENDATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE OBSERVATIONS: • • Budget lacks detail on unit costs for benefits and travel. Indirect cost is off; it should be $40,500, which would change the total amount for federal and non-federal. 10% was taken off the project total rather than the direct costs. PROJECT NUMBER: CFRP 06-10 ORGANIZATION: FOREST: PROJECT TITLE: HR Vigil Small Products Carson Forest Restoration and Capacity Building in Black Lake, New Mexico $182,815 $45,703 $228,518 1 FUNDING REQUESTED: MATCHING FUNDS: TOTAL BUDGET: EVALUATION CATEGORY: STRENGTHS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 16 The proposal includes a diverse and balanced group of partners. The proposal demonstrates strong collaboration prior to submission of proposal. The proposal includes strong letters of support. The proposal includes strong letters of support from collaborators that commit to matching funds, roles, and responsibilities as described in the proposal. Since NEPA is not done on 5,000 acres, this project offers a good opportunity for collaboration. NEPA is complete on 40 acres. The proposal demonstrates a commitment to a longer-term comprehensive program of collaborative forest restoration. The project will increase the use of wildland fire use and/or prescribed fire. The proposal will preserve old and large trees. The project is part of an integrated landscape restoration effort. The project blends a restoration treatment with a utilization plan. The project supplies materials for biomass-to-heat or other bio-energy efforts. The project builds on past CFRP accomplishments and prior treatment projects completed in the area. The proposal includes a detailed monitoring plan, with indicators and how they will be measured. The proponent has extensive expertise in the proposed activities. Good budget detail and/or work plan. 2010 CFRP Project Funding Recommendations & Pro Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations 17. The proposal is clear, concise, and well organized. 18. The youth component will engage young people in collection of monitoring data and provide mentoring by university students. 19. Project will donate 75 cords of firewood to the elderly in Mora. 20. A strong letter of support from the Carson National Forest Supervisor is provided that commends the support of collaborators. 21. The project will build on partnerships with other local businesses, and the utilization plan builds on those partnerships. 22. Jim Norwick’s letter clearly describes support from State Land Office for project. 23. A clear and concise budget was provided. 24. The proposal includes a clear and concise discussion of past management including fire suppression and overgrazing, and the scientific basis is well referenced. 25. The proposal has a clear commitment to prescribed burning. 26. The proposal addresses utilization, treatment, a fire plan and NEPA compliance. 27. The project maintains tree species diversity and removes dwarf mistletoe. WEAKNESSES RECOMMENDATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE OBSERVATIONS: • • • Excellent budget. Program income listed should be moved to other. The sub award costs provided to the Forest Guild should follow established rates. PROJECT NUMBER: CFRP 07-10, Rev. 1 ORGANIZATION: FOREST: PROJECT TITLE: Jaramillo & Sons Forest Products Carson Quality Environment and Economic Sustainability Project $360,000 $90,000 $450,000 1 FUNDING REQUESTED: MATCHING FUNDS: TOTAL BUDGET: EVALUATION CATEGORY: STRENGTHS 28. 29. 30. 31. The proposal includes a diverse and balanced group of partners. The proposal demonstrates strong collaboration prior to submission of proposal. The proposal includes strong letters of support. The proposal includes strong letters of support from collaborators that commit to matching funds, roles, and responsibilities as described in the proposal. 32. NEPA is complete. 2010 CFRP Project Funding Recommendations & Proposal Evaluation Comments Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations 33. The proposal demonstrates a commitment to a longer-term comprehensive program of collaborative forest restoration. 34. The project will reduce fire risk in a community on the New Mexico Communities at Risk List. 35. The project will reduce the risk of high-intensity wildfire. 36. The project incorporates current scientific restoration information. 37. The project will add significant capacity to restoration efforts. 38. The project will lead to re-establishment of natural fire regimes. 39. The project will increase the use of wildland fire and/or prescribed fire. 40. The proposal will preserve old and large trees. 41. The project is part of an integrated landscape restoration effort. 42. The project blends a restoration treatment with a utilization plan. 43. The project integrates treatment with existing utilization industries in the area. 44. The project supplies materials for biomass-to-heat or other bio-energy efforts. 45. The proposal includes a diverse array of products that could potentially address 100% utilization of the generated by-product. 46. The proposal includes a detailed monitoring plan, with indicators and how they will be measured. 47. The proponent has extensive expertise in the proposed activities. 48. The applicant has adequately addressed the prior weaknesses & recommendations. 49. The project will create new jobs. 50. The project builds on past CFRP accomplishments. 51. The project will make road improvements to benefit the adjacent stream. 52. The application is in the Vallecitos Sustained Yield Unit created to benefit the local community and other industries within the unit. 53. Provides local forestry-based employment and opportunities in a rural economically depressed area of the state that has a high concentration of federal public lands. 54. The project includes a good youth component. High school students will assist in collection of monitoring data and integrate project into curriculum. 55. Letters of support are submitted by area grazing associations. 56. The proposal clearly states that it will prepare areas for prescribed fire and has the explicit support of the forest District Ranger. 57. Encourages increased watershed capacity around the drinking water and the high quality cold water fishery. 58. Map shows previous, current and proposed treatment areas on a landscape scale. WEAKNESSES RECOMMENDATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE OBSERVATIONS: • • 18 424A, page 2 missing. Budget lacks detail. 2010 CFRP Project Funding Recommendations & Pro Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations PROJECT NUMBER: CFRP 08-10, Rev. 1 ORGANIZATION: FOREST: PROJECT TITLE: Raton Water Works Carson Multi-jurisdictional Water Supply Protection and Public and Youth Education through Forest Restoration in the City of Raton Municipal Watershed $360,000 $90,000 $450,000 2 FUNDING REQUESTED: MATCHING FUNDS: TOTAL BUDGET: EVALUATION CATEGORY: STRENGTHS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. The proposal includes a diverse and balanced group of partners. The proposal demonstrates strong collaboration prior to submission of proposal. The proposal includes strong letters of support. NEPA is complete. The proposal demonstrates a commitment to a longer-term comprehensive program of collaborative forest restoration. The project includes a good youth component that includes hands on monitoring of how forest thinning will affect Red and Aberts Squirrel habitat. The project will reduce fire risk in a community on the New Mexico Communities at Risk List. The proposal will preserve old and large trees. The proposal includes collaborator interest forms. The project builds on past CFRP accomplishments. The specific goals of the prescription include reintroduction of natural fire as well as provisions for returning the natural grass and forb understory. The prescription also promulgates wildlife travel corridors and addresses the need of an individual vulnerable species (NM Jumping Mouse). The applicant has clearly addressed the prior weaknesses & recommendations. The city is adding additional surveys for wild life species beyond the initial Biological Assessment. Hands-on activities for students in Raton about fire triangle is a plus. WEAKNESSES 1. There should be a letter of commitment from Dr. Cartron because he has a described role in project implementation (page 5 of proposal and budget narrative). RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The proposal could be strengthened by a reference to safety of forest workers who will implement project. 2. Be clear and specific about water quality sampling and costs 2010 CFRP Project Funding Recommendations & Proposal Evaluation Comments Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations ADMINISTRATIVE OBSERVATIONS: • • • Budget lacks detail. Clarify that the city will provide administration cost as part of match not shown in grant Indirect costs of the subrecipient should be included in consultation costs. PROJECT NUMBER: CFRP 09-10 Rev. 1 ORGANIZATION: FOREST: PROJECT TITLE: Andy Chacon Forest Restoration Company Carson Forest Business Establishment and Restoration in the El Ritito Area $360,000 $90,000 $450,000 1 FUNDING REQUESTED: MATCHING FUNDS: TOTAL BUDGET: EVALUATION CATEGORY: STRENGTHS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 20 The proposal includes a diverse and balanced group of partners. The proposal demonstrates strong collaboration prior to submission of proposal. The proposal includes strong letters of support. The proposal includes strong letters of support from collaborators that commit to matching funds, roles, and responsibilities as described in the proposal. NEPA is complete. The proposal demonstrates a commitment to a longer-term comprehensive program of collaborative forest restoration. The project includes a good youth component using Mesa Vista School students to gather and analyze data. The project will reduce fire risk in a community on the New Mexico Communities at Risk List. The project will reduce the risk of high-intensity wildfire. The proposal includes grazing associations as collaborators and commits to working with those collaborators on coordinating grazing with fire return. The prescription specifically addresses the needs of a sensitive wildlife species associated with the forest type (Aberts Squirrel). Treatment fills in the gaps between isolated previously treated blocks in the area, and may aid in the implementation of a prescribed broadcast burn by the Carson National Forest. Proponent references monitoring data from two previous CFRP projects to come up with their new prescription. The proposal will preserve old and large trees. The project is part of an integrated landscape restoration effort. The project blends a restoration treatment with a utilization plan. The project integrates treatment with existing utilization industries in the area. The project supplies materials for biomass-to-heat or other bio-energy efforts. 2010 CFRP Project Funding Recommendations & Pro Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations 19. The proposal includes a detailed monitoring plan, with indicators and how they will be measured. 20. The proponent has extensive expertise in the proposed activities. 21. The proposal offers an opportunity to address the interaction between grazing and the re-establishment of natural fire regimes. 22. Provides local forestry-based employment and opportunities in a rural economically depressed area of the state that has a high concentration of federal public lands. 23. The project builds on past CFRP accomplishments. 24. The application in the treatment discussion addresses Aspen regeneration. 25. The project implements a Community Wildfire Protection Plan and incorporates modeling data. 26. Letters of commitment for utilization of products from the CFRP project area are included in the proposal. WEAKNESSES RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Verify that the log trailer to be purchased is adequate for work to be performed. ADMINISTRATIVE OBSERVATIONS • • • • Budget lacks details and some math errors. Fringe benefits show Workers Comp insurance as a separate line item; it should be shown as a separate other direct cost. Forest Guild rates should be consistent with the established rates. Clarify non-federal match related to student travel. PROJECT NUMBER: CFRP 10-10 Rev. 1 ORGANIZATION: FOREST: PROJECT TITLE: Cedar Valley Field Services LLC Carson Navajo Dam Hazardous Fuel Reduction & Restoration Project $330,735.04 $88,374.40 $419,109.44 2 FUNDING REQUESTED: MATCHING FUNDS: TOTAL BUDGET: EVALUATION CATEGORY: STRENGTHS 1. The proposal treats non-native invasive species along with hazardous fuels, improves threatened and endangered species habitat. 2. The proposal ensures the safe application of herbicides. 3. The proposal describes the restoration of the project area in great detail. 4. The proposal includes a youth component to implement the project restoration. 5. The proposal is clear, concise and well organized. 2010 CFRP Project Funding Recommendations & Proposal Evaluation Comments Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations 6. The proposal included good budget detail with clear unit costs itemized. 7. The BLM has extensive experience in the proposed activities. 8. The applicant has adequately addressed the prior weaknesses & recommendations, especially with respect to the socio-economic monitoring. 9. The post-project monitoring to be done by the BLM, as described in the Environmental 10. Assessment exceeds program requirements. WEAKNESSES 1. The acreage figures in the proposal are inconsistent between the budget, the map, the text and the letters to tribes. RECOMMENDATIONS 2. Return of hydrologic integrity or mimicking natural hydrologic regime through management would be necessary for long-term restoration. 3. The proponent should ensure that any surveys either, (1) meet US Office of Management and Budget guidelines, or (2) do not use Federal dollars. 4. The Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Reclamation should consider including this as one of the long-term CFRP monitoring sites to determine the success of non-native invasive eradication. 5. The proponent should clarify the number of acres to be treated before award. 6. The proponent should resend letters to the tribes with the correct number of acres. ADMINISTRATIVE OBSERVATIONS: • • Non-Federal match is over 20%. Documentation that the outstanding federal debt is resolved should be provided to the agency. PROJECT NUMBER: CFRP 11-10 ORGANIZATION: FOREST: PROJECT TITLE: Mt. Taylor Machine, LLC Cibola Increased Forest Restoration and Utilization in the Cibola $360,000 $90,000 $450,000 1 FUNDING REQUESTED: MATCHING FUNDS: TOTAL BUDGET: EVALUATION CATEGORY: STRENGTHS 1. The project will substantially increase capacity for small diameter utilization in the Cibola National Forest as well as private lands. 2. The focus on the marketing will increase the value of locally produced wood pellets. 3. The application tries to address the issue of transportation as it relates to a cost impeding successful utilization efforts and recognizes the distributed geography of the Cibola National Forest. 22 2010 CFRP Project Funding Recommendations & Pro Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations 4. The proposal would use CFRP funds as seed money to create a market to sustain viable utilization industries. 5. The proposal will put the infrastructure in place to support future restoration projects in the area. 6. Application presents a unique opportunity for expansion of manufacturing capacity closer to a raw material source and a potentially large market. WEAKNESSES RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The letters of support should confirm their role in multiparty monitoring team. 2. The proponent should remove the ecological monitoring component since the project does not involve treatment. The applicant is encouraged to work with other partners to improve the socio-economic monitoring plan. 3. Discussion should distinguish between providers of data and multiparty review of data. 4. Application should consider removing statements on page 1 and page 8 regarding education and outreach and monitoring that are not supported elsewhere in the proposal or in the budget. ADMINISTRATIVE OBSERVATIONS: • • • The totals for personnel, fringe benefits, and equipment expense in the budget category have math errors. Labor burden mentioned in travel per diem should be in personnel cost. Federal and non-federal costs should be evident in budget. PROJECT NUMBER: CFRP 12-10 Rev. 1 ORGANIZATION: FOREST: PROJECT TITLE: San Antonio de Las Huertas Land Grant Cibola San Antonio de Las Huertas Collaborative Forest Restoration Planning Project $108,845 $27,211 $136,056 2 FUNDING REQUESTED: MATCHING FUNDS: TOTAL BUDGET: EVALUATION CATEGORY: STRENGTHS 1. The multi party monitoring participants are identified clearly in the text and in the letters of support. 2. Since NEPA is not done, this project offers a unique opportunity for collaboration. 3. The text on pages 2-4 has a good breakdown of the roles and responsibilities of each coordinator/partner. 4. The proposal includes a diverse and balanced group of partners. 5. The proposal demonstrates strong collaboration prior to submission of proposal. 6. The proposal includes strong letters of support. 2010 CFRP Project Funding Recommendations & Proposal Evaluation Comments Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations 7. The proposal includes strong letters of support from collaborators that commit to matching funds, roles, and responsibilities as described in the proposal. 8. The project incorporates current scientific restoration information. 9. The project will add significant capacity to restoration efforts. 10. The sub recipient Parametrix has extensive expertise in the proposed activities. 11. The proposal is clear, concise, and well organized. 12. The project includes cross-jurisdictional activities. On page 6 the land grant expresses an interest in partnering with outside entities and experts in the field of forestry to promote joint learning. 13. Planning focus includes consideration of community drinking water supply. 14. The applicant has adequately addressed the prior weaknesses and recommendations. 15. The project will lead to a potential reduction in the risk of high-intensity wildfire. 16. The NEPA compliance costs are well described in the Parametrix budget provided. 17. This project has potential in that it bridges the gap within the land grant community to acquire technical information to manage their land. WEAKNESSES 1. The socio-economic monitoring plan on page 10 does not address the specific objectives on page 4 and 5. The monitoring plan appears to be designed to measure the eventual implementation of future treatments and utilization. 2. There is no letter of support from Bernalillo High School committing to participating in collection of baseline data. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The work plan could break out the tasks of NEPA compliance, e.g. timing of biological and cultural resource surveys, completion of draft Environmental Assessment, and public scoping period. ADMINISTRATIVE OBSERVATIONS: • No DUNS number, in process. PROJECT NUMBER: CFRP 13-10 ORGANIZATION: FOREST: PROJECT TITLE: FUNDING REQUESTED: MATCHING FUNDS: TOTAL BUDGET: EVALUATION CATEGORY: Alamo Navajo School Board, Inc. Cibola Multi-jurisdictional Collaborative Landscape Analysis $344,096.07 $86,024.01 $430,120.08 1 STRENGTHS 1. The initial analysis and monitoring will include threatened and endangered species as an important piece of the youth involvement. 24 2010 CFRP Project Funding Recommendations & Pro Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations 2. The community work force youth will be trained in biological stand exam surveys. 3. The project includes cross-jurisdictional landscape scale activities including Forest Service, BLM and State Land Office lands. 4. The appendix describes outreach to private landowners to facilitate a larger landscape scale approach. 5. Strong collaboration prior to submission of proposal. 6. The youth component is described in the letter from the Alamo School Board. 7. Table 3 timeline outlines the Scope of Work clearly. 8. The project incorporates current scientific information outlined on page 5. 9. Since NEPA is not done, this project offers a good opportunity for collaboration. 10. The project will lead to a reduction in the risk of high-intensity wildfire. 11. The proposal will preserve old and large trees. 12. The project is part of an integrated landscape restoration effort. 13. The project implements a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). 14. The proposal monitoring goes beyond the core CFRP ecological indicators. 15. The application monitoring goes beyond the core CFRP ecological indicators. 16. The proposal includes strong letters of support. 17. The proposal includes strong letters of support from collaborators that commit to matching funds, roles, and responsibilities as described in the proposal. 18. The project integrates treatment with existing utilization industries in the area. 19. The proposal is clear, concise, and well organized. 20. The proposal includes collaborator interest forms. 21. The proposal mentions the use of prescribed fire as a fuel reduction treatment and is supported by the BLM letter. 22. The applicant is only charging indirect costs at the 10% rate on their part of the grant. 23. Strong collaboration occurred beginning in 2006 well in advance of the submission of the application. 24. The project includes an adaptive approach to restoration in an annual evaluation of monitoring data which is used to collaboratively refine prescriptions. WEAKNESSES RECOMMENDATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE OBSERVATIONS: • • SWCA is really a subrecipient and subject to Cost Principles and Uniform Requirements. Indirect cost rate should be updated with the most current rate. PROJECT NUMBER: CFRP 14-10 ORGANIZATION: FOREST: Tree New Mexico Cibola 2010 CFRP Project Funding Recommendations & Proposal Evaluation Comments Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations PROJECT TITLE: FUNDING REQUESTED: MATCHING FUNDS: TOTAL BUDGET: EVALUATION CATEGORY: Resource & Restoration Management in the Albuquerque Bosque $360,000 $90,000 $450,000 3 STRENGTHS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The proposal includes a diverse and balanced group of partners. The proposal includes strong letters of support. NEPA is complete. The project includes a good youth component. The project blends a restoration treatment with a utilization plan. The project will create new jobs. Proposal creates a partnership fund managed by Tree New Mexico and Albuquerque Open Space Division with proceeds from sale of harvested wood to go directly to operating the nursery and restoring the Bosque. 8. The proponent has extensive expertise in the proposed activities. WEAKNESSES 9. Ground water monitoring to show a static level would be nice to see prior to planting, such as the information included by the BEMP program. 10. It is unclear what types of treatments will take place within the project areas. The areas are mapped, but specific restoration design is not provided. 11. It is not clear why acres included in the 2007 CFRP are being retreated. 12. The RFA format was not followed, e.g. information on project history is included the executive summary. 13. The project was difficult to read due to organization. 14. The NEPA Decision document is not attached to the application. 15. The maps lack specificity of treatment and don’t include township, range and section. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. On page 11, 7 areas are identified; the type of treatment should have been included for each area. 2. Proponent should follow RFA format for project narrative. 3. Return of hydrologic integrity or mimicking natural hydrologic regime through management would be necessary for long-term restoration. 4. The proposal should specify which of the specific 513 acres will have treatment, harvesting, monitoring and restoration activities. ADMINISTRATIVE OBSERVATIONS: 26 2010 CFRP Project Funding Recommendations & Pro Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations • • Some of the costs are in the wrong category. (Accounting is shown under personnel and should be described as either subrecipient or contractor. Rico Designs is described as personnel – either they are employees or contractors.) Travel to CFRP workshops $4500 for three people appears excessive. Verify that all costs provided are reasonable. PROJECT NUMBER: CFRP 15-10 ORGANIZATION: FOREST: PROJECT TITLE: FUNDING REQUESTED: MATCHING FUNDS: TOTAL BUDGET: EVALUATION CATEGORY: Pueblo of Acoma Cibola Cebollita Mesa Forest Restoration Project $300,840 $75,210 $376,050 4 STRENGTHS 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. The project will lead to re-establishment of natural fire regimes. The project will increase the use of wildland fire and/or prescribed fire. The proposal will preserve old and large trees. The project will hire 4 tribal members as crew to do thinning. The project blends a restoration treatment with a utilization plan. The budget is very detailed, unit costs are clear. WEAKNESSES 1. No documentation of letter to adjacent tribes. 2. The prescription does not reflect scientific restoration such as the piñon-juniper restoration guidelines. 3. The treatment areas are unclear in the maps provided. Maps are hard to read. 4. The proponents did not demonstrate collaboration with conservation groups in design, implementation, and monitoring. 5. The youth component lacks detail. 6. Monitoring plan lacks detail and does not include the core CFRP ecological indicators. 7. The executive summary is not consistent with the body of the proposal. The exec summary states that 100 acres will be treated but later references 120 acres. 100 cords of removal is estimated in exec summary and 400 cords is estimated later in the text. 8. The work plan does not flow with the project details and there is redundancy in the work plan. 9. There is no multiparty monitoring. 10. To understand proposal’s effectiveness, more information is needed on the sitespecific existing conditions and proposed activities. 11. 30 x30 or 9x9 spacing is not a restoration treatment, which would normally include clumps for wildlife. 2010 CFRP Project Funding Recommendations & Proposal Evaluation Comments Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations 12. Timber stand improvement, range improvement and enhancing forage for livestock are not CFRP program objectives. 13. The educational component is vague. 14. Costs for lop and scatter of slash appear excessive. 15. There was no mention of attending the CFRP workshop. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Project could be improved by consultation or collaboration with area businesses. ADMINISTRATIVE OBSERVATIONS: • • No NEPA attached; but it is referenced in BIA letter Program income must be used to further the project’s objectives or be used as non-federal match. PROJECT NUMBER: CFRP 16-10 ORGANIZATION: FOREST: PROJECT TITLE: FUNDING REQUESTED: MATCHING FUNDS: TOTAL BUDGET: EVALUATION CATEGORY: National Wild Turkey Federation Lincoln Gavilan Ridge Conservation and Forest Restoration $290,290 $72,552 $362,842 3 STRENGTHS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 28 The proposal includes a diverse and balanced group of partners. The proposal demonstrates strong collaboration prior to submission of proposal. NEPA is complete. The proposal demonstrates a commitment to a longer-term comprehensive program of collaborative forest restoration. The project includes a good youth component. The project will reduce fire risk in a community on the New Mexico Communities at Risk List. The project will reduce the risk of high-intensity wildfire. The project incorporates current scientific restoration information. The project will add significant capacity to restoration efforts. The project will lead to re-establishment of natural fire regimes. The project may lead to the use of prescribed fire, in particular broadcast burns. The proposal will preserve old and large trees. The project is part of an integrated landscape restoration effort. The proposal discusses grazing in relation to restoration and wildlife, page 2. The proposal monitoring goes beyond the core CFRP ecological indicators looking at bird, elk and deer populations. 2010 CFRP Project Funding Recommendations & Pro Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations 16. The proposal is supported by the Greater Ruidoso CWPP and is part of a greater landscape plan. 17. The proposal includes a detailed monitoring plan, with indicators and how they will be measured. 18. The proponent has extensive expertise in the proposed activities. 19. Good detailed work plan. 20. The proposal is clear, concise, and well organized. 21. The Lincoln National Forest Supervisor’s letter allows all material to be hauled off site at no cost to the contractor. 22. The project builds on past CFRP accomplishments and collaboration in the area. 23. The project blends a restoration treatment with a utilization plan. 24. The project integrates treatment with existing utilization industries in the area. WEAKNESSES 1. Program income reported in the SF424 is not reflected in the total budget detail or the project narrative. 2. No documentation of letter to Pueblo of Isleta and Ysleta del Sur Pueblo. 3. A letter of collaboration from EcoServants that verifies the non-federal match in the budget is not included. 4. The panel’s prior weaknesses and recommendations were not addressed. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The proposal maps would be enhanced by identification of the interpretative trail and check dam locations. ADMINISTRATIVE OBSERVATIONS: • • Provide more description of Project Coordinator cost, indirect costs and benefits. Validate program income. PROJECT NUMBER: CFRP 17-10 ORGANIZATION: South Central Mountain Resource Conservation and Development Council, Inc. Lincoln Restoration Strategy & Payment for Ecosystem Services in the Rio Ruidoso Watershed $176,305 $44,077 $220,382 1 FOREST: PROJECT TITLE: FUNDING REQUESTED: MATCHING FUNDS: TOTAL BUDGET: EVALUATION CATEGORY: STRENGTHS 1. Collaboration for the proposal began more than a year prior to project submission 2010 CFRP Project Funding Recommendations & Proposal Evaluation Comments Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations 2. Unique attempt to sustain watershed restoration efforts through a collaborative design for payment for ecosystem services funding mechanism. 3. Innovative approach to building support for watershed restoration. 4. The proposal includes a diverse and balanced group of partners. 5. The proposal includes strong letters of support. 6. The proposal includes strong letters of support from collaborators that commit to matching funds, roles, and responsibilities as described in the proposal. 7. The proposal demonstrates a commitment to a longer-term comprehensive program of collaborative forest restoration. 8. The project incorporates current scientific restoration information. 9. The project will lead to re-establishment of natural fire regimes. 10. The project is part of an integrated landscape restoration effort. 11. The project builds on past CFRP accomplishments. 12. $30,000 cash match provided by the Village of Ruidoso demonstrates confidence. 13. Since NEPA is not done, this project offers a good opportunity for additional collaboration. 14. The results of technical approaches listed in the proposal have long term benefits to various entities. 15. The project implements a Community Wildfire Protection Plan. 16. Proposal has potential for sustaining restoration efforts post project within the watershed 17. Proposal incorporates current environmental economic information, e.g. calibrating the willingness to pay function with varying ecosystem service levels. 18. The proponent has extensive expertise in the proposed activities. 19. The project includes cross-jurisdictional activities on Forest Service, Tribal and Municipal forest land. WEAKNESSES RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The connection between the project and ENMU Natural Resources Program could be better described. 2. The proponent should ensure that any surveys either, (1) meet US Office of Management and Budget guidelines, or (2) do not use Federal dollars. ADMINISTRATIVE OBSERVATIONS • • Budget does not show calculations for travel or supplies. Parametrix should be identified as lead technical collaborator. PROJECT NUMBER: CFRP 18-10 ORGANIZATION: FOREST: PROJECT TITLE: Murray Hotel, LLC Gila Integrating Woody Biomass with Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic Systems 30 2010 CFRP Project Funding Recommendations & Pro Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations FUNDING REQUESTED: MATCHING FUNDS: TOTAL BUDGET: EVALUATION CATEGORY: $197,269 $50,385 $247,654 4 STRENGTHS 1. Creative plan to evaluate feasibility of available technology on biomass boilers to commercial and residential scales. 2. Advance focus of BTU content of firewood (as opposed to volume or weight) for extending market demand. WEAKNESSES 1. There was no letter of endorsement from the relevant land management agency. 2. The letter from the District Ranger, which was read as public comment, does not demonstrate collaboration with the Agency. 3. The breadth of collaboration and the feasibility/monitoring component could be strengthened. 4. Entities such as Forest Products Laboratory, Town of Silver City, and SW New Mexico Home builders have been mentioned, but have not been actively incorporated into the collaboration. 5. The wood supply is not described in the proposal. 6. There is a conflict of inte