1 / 7

BPA Fish and Wildlife Division Wildlife Management Costs:

This presentation explores the costs associated with wildlife projects, using data from the Pisces system. It discusses the methods, data analysis, conclusions, and next steps. The goal is to support the selection process for FY07-09 projects.

mjaime
Télécharger la présentation

BPA Fish and Wildlife Division Wildlife Management Costs:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. BPA Fish and Wildlife DivisionWildlife Management Costs: An Analysis Using Pisces DataNovember 2006 Council Update Coeur d’Alene, Idaho

  2. Introduction • Tom Karier asked BPA to provide an analysis of the costs associated with the operations and maintenance (O&M) of wildlife projects. • This presentation will discuss our efforts to date to meet Dr. Karier’s request, including a brief discussion of our methods, our data, conclusions, and next steps. • This was initially an informal exercise designed to provide information to support the FY07-09 selection process.

  3. Methods • The analysis was performed at the project level. • The analysis used Pisces data to describe the work and its costs. • Each work element was designated to a specific work category. • Work category budgets are based on work element budget estimates from Pisces. • The analysis also used data from the Wildlife Crediting database to determine the number of acres managed.

  4. Methods • The cost/acre calculations combined all post-acquisition costs into what we refer to as “wildlife management costs.” • To provide a flavor of the relative amount of funding amongst the different work categories, we calculated the percent of each project’s budget that goes towards O&M, enhancement, etc…

  5. AnalysisData • Go to Wildlife Management Costs Table

  6. Discussion/Conclusions • This analysis is not intended to provide a definitive answer to any specific management question. It is an exploration of potential uses of Pisces data to support management of the wildlife program. • There is substantial variation amongst wildlife projects with respect to: • wildlife management costs/acre and • the distribution of funding amongst the work categories. • Additional analysis is required to determine if this variation is due to funding inconsistencies or some other factor such as life cycle (phase) of the project, differences in habitat quality, etc. • Also, there is currently overlap between the habitat enhancement and habitat O&M work categories. Work elements in their current form are focused on what the work is and not why we are doing the work. 

  7. Next Steps • Get feedback from the Council. Is this information useful? Should this type of information be incorporated into a standardized report? • Plans are underway to expand and improve our wildlife project information in Pisces in FY07: • Our ability to track work at the acquisition level will be enhanced. • Pisces will become the system of record for wildlife crediting. The collection of wildlife metrics (HUs) will be integrated into the project management process currently supported within Pisces. Our ability to combine work element data and wildlife metrics will be enhanced. • Finally, Pisces could be optimized in order to better differentiate between O&M activities and enhancement activities. • Discuss our approach and findings with other interested parties such as wildlife managers and the IEAB.

More Related