TX PEER
Navigation Bar

Final Results of LIP Applications (Jan 1998 review period)

LIP Project Reviews 1998

Above is a photo copy of a TPWD LIP program review. The text of the review is detailed below. Below are links to the scanned images of the original program review which are readable.

Page 1, Page 2.

The jpg images of each page are about 109kb each.


Final Results of LIP Applications
(Jan 1998 review period)
Lesser Prairie Chicken - Blackwell project FUND WITH MINOR CONSIDERATIONS
 
Lesser Prairie Chicken – Coop Project FUND WITH MINOR CONSIDERATIONS
 
Lesser Prairie Chicken – Beasley Project FUND WITH MINOR CONSIDERATIONS
 
Black Hawk Project FUND WITH SOME ADDITIONAL CHANGES
 
Ocelot Project DO NOT FUND UNLESS CHANGES ARE MADE TO ENSURE LONG TERM PROTECTION

Reviewer Member LPC 1 LPC 2 LPC 3 BHP OP
1 Don Petty Y Y Y Y Y
2 David Bamberger Y(1) Y Y Y(2) N(3)
3 Don Steinback Y Y Y Y N(4)
4 Gary Valentine Y(5) Y(5) Y Y N(6)
5 David Langford Y Y Y Y Y
6 Mkie McMurray Y Y Y Y(7) N(8)
7 Gary Graham Y(9) Y(9) Y Y(10) N(11)
8 Kirby Brown Y(12) Y(12) Y(12) Y Y
9 Bill Sewell Y(13) Y(13) Y(13) ?(14) N(15)
10 Ted Eubanks Y Y Y Y Y
(Yes/No vote along with comments detailed below)

 
  1. Reviewer was concerned that we are placing too much emphasis/money on one participant. When I explained that the proposal that was submitted last year was really one year out of five year project, he agreed to funding.

  2. How many trees will be planted for $2000? What is the age of the trees? Instead of fencing off the area, each tree should have a 6 ft corral around it using Elwood wire. This would protect the trees from deer, rabbits and cattle, the landowner then allow grazing in the area, and the cost of overall fencing would be reduced. Reviewer also suggested a sign be put up for public awareness.

  3. Does not like the proposal as written because there is no long term assurance that the land will be protected for the ocelot. Reviewer agrees the LIP should fund the $400 restoration portion. Suggests a conservation easement, more land restored, or payment for an increase number of ocelots on his property. Wants to XXXX XXXXX with this landowner for other options and opportunities.

  4. Reviewer states that the property may be the politically right thing to do, BUT suggests we be careful as to not setting a precedent… are we starting down a road in south Texas that we can not follow?

  5. Reviewer suggest that we confirm status of CRP contract; if being renewed, probably native grasses and forbs are being added as part of the contract. If existing CRP contract, landowner must coordinate with FSA for approval of modifications. Need to know extent of CRP field restorations…may not need to restore entire field if done in a beneficial pattern..will save money and stretch seed; CRP is using all native grass and forb seed from commercial sources in Texas, so seed may not be available for LIP in next 4 years; More that burning and seeding will be needed to establish habitat…chemical and mechanical control of CRP grass (assuming weeping lovegrass) will be needed to increase likelihood of success

  6. Too much spent on evaluation and compensation; not enough restoration.

  7. Reviewer is concerned that ponderosa pine may not be suitable in rocky bottom creeks…cottonwoods are preferred, and maybe pinyon pine? Also, how many trees for $2000…what size? Reviewer is uncertain what "management and care" entails. Landowner need to protect seedlings from rabbit, deer, and rodent damage too; Reveiwer strongly suggests that old trees NOT be removed since undergrowth may attract hawk prey…why does the area need to be cleaned up with a bulldozer?

  8. LIP is not in the subsidy business

  9. Reviewer suggests we combine the XXXXX project as one, including the extract $10,000 into the XXXX project and designating it just for XXX

  10. Reviewer is concerned that we will not see an increase in number of black hawks or nests due to this management action. Area is not big enough for more than one nest. However, there is value to maintaining and restoring the habitat to increase their long-term use of the area and will provide awareness for the black hawk. Reviewer suggests putting a sign up for public outreach and documenting how many people visit the area.

  11. Reviewer will only agree to fund this project if there is a conservation easement (paid for by LIP) or long-term conservation lease place on this property.

  12. Reviewer is concerned that too much money is going to LPC in the panhandle. Is there anyway we can reduce our funding expenditures by cost-sharing with CRP and WHIP?

  13. Although the LPC is not federally listed nor a candidate species, it probably will very soon be a candidate, so will be eligible for funding.

  14. Reviewer does not think this species is eligible for Section 6 or LIP money because it is not federally listed or a candidate species (and never likely to be)

  15. Because this is not a long-term project, it is not cost-effective.

Summary of reviewer comments by project

Lessee Prarie Chicken XXXXXX

Reviewer was concerned that we are placing too much emphasis/money on one participant. When I explained that the proposalthat was submitted last year was really one year out of five year project, he agreed to funding.

Reviewer suggest that we confirm status of CRP contract; if being renewed, probably native grasses and forbs are being added as part of the contract. If existing CRP contract, landowner must coordinate with FSA for approval of modifications. Need to know extent of CRP field restorations…may not need to restore entire field if done in a beneficial pattern..will save money and stretch seed; CRP is using all native grass and forb seed from commercial sources in Texas, so seed may not be available for LIP in next 4 years; More that burning and seeding will be needed to establish habitat…chemical and mechanical control of CRP grass (assuming weeping lovegrass) will be needed to increase likelihood of success.

Reviewer suggests we combine the XXXXX project as one, including the extract $10,000 into the Coop project and designating it just for XXX

Reviewer is concerned that too much money is going to LPC in the panhandle. Is there anyway we can reduce our funding expenditures by cost-sharing with CRP and WHIP?

Although the LPC is not federally listed nor a candidate species, it probably will very soon be a candidate, so will be eligible for funding.

Lesser Prarie Chicken XXXXXX
Reviewer suggest that we confirm status of CRP contract; if being renewed, probably native grasses and forbs are being added as part of the contract. If existing CRP contract, landowner must coordinate with FSA for approval of modifications. Need to know extent of CRP field restorations…may not need to restore entire field if done in a beneficial pattern..will save money and stretch seed

Limpia Creek Supporting Documents

Return to Limpia Creek Main Story


Home | About | National |
| PEER PRESSure | Feedback | Search |
 
TX PEER · P.O. Box 1522; Austin TX · 78767-1522
Tel: (512) 441-4941 · txpeer@PEER.org 
TX PEER
Go to TXPEERs homepage Click to jump to the top of the page