FY07-09 proposal 200735200
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Feasibility Study and Implementation of a System-wide Conservation Enforcement Web-Based Data Center |
| Proposal ID | 200735200 |
| Organization | National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) |
| Short description | Evaluate alternatives, plan the design, and implement a web-based conservation enforcement information center – that would maximize the accountability, effectiveness, and public awarenes of fish, wildlife & habitat law enforcement in the Columbia Basin. |
| Information transfer | Via a dynamic internet web site -- the prototype is www.Eco-Law.org . |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Vicki Nomura | NOAA Fisheries | vicki.nomura@noaa.gov |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| John Johnson | CRITFC | jjohnson@critfc.org |
| Vicki Nomura | NOAA Fisheries | vicki.nomura@noaa.gov |
| Steven Vigg | Steven Vigg & Company | vigg@cascadeaccess.com |
| Steven Vigg | Steven Vigg & Company | vigg@cascadeaccess.com |
| Adam Villavicencio | Nez Perce Tribe | adamv@nezperce.org |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Mainstem/Systemwide / None Selected
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|
Section 3. Focal species
primary: All Anadromous Fishsecondary: All Resident Fish
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 199202400 | Law Enforcement Depletedsalmon | Source of data and basis for inter-agency coordination. |
| BPA | 200005500 | NPT Law Enforcement | Source of data and inter-tribal coordination. |
| BPA | 200005600 | Law Enforcement Anadromous Sal | Source of data and inter-triabl coordination. |
| Other: NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement | NFFKAE50-4-0003 | Development of a Strategic Plan to Facilitate Cooperative Enforcement Efforts between NOAA Fisheries Office for Law Enforcement and Columbia Basin Tribes | Basis for coordination and rationale for the development of an inter-agency shared database. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Increase survival of focal species. | Increase survival of focal species via enhanced coordination and effectiveness of basin-wide conservation enforcement and increased public awareness. | None | Enforce existing laws and regulations designed to protect focal species. |
| Increased public awareness of enforcement issues. | Increased public awareness of key conservation enforcement issues -- via web-based information will facilitate public assistance to natural resources enforcement efforts and thus improve community based protection of fish, wildlife and habitat in the Columbia Basin. | None | Increase public awareness to create a deterrence to the violation of existing laws and regulations designed to protect focal species and their essential habitats. |
| Protect key habitats of focal species. | Increase protection of focal species' essential habitats via enhanced coordination and effectiveness of basin-wide conservation enforcement and increased public awareness. | None | Enforce existing laws and regulations designed to protect essential habitats of focal species. |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outreach and Education | Public outreach and education via the implementation and maintenance of a web-based conservation enforcement data center. | Within the past decade, the inter-net has provided scientists, policy makers, and the general public with unprecedented access to information. Likewise, in recent years the entities responsible for fish & wildlife enhancement, mitigation and conservation in the Columbia Basin have raised the standards for accountability of projects. This conservation enforcement data center will provide stakeholders and the general public with an understanding of conservation enforcement issues, actual results from ongoing actions, and a way to participate in the deterrence of violations against fish & wildlife in the Columbia Basin. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $87,120 |
|
Biological objectives Increased public awareness of enforcement issues. |
Metrics * # of general public reached: The web site will be monitored for general access. |
||||
| Create/Manage/Maintain Database | Coordinate protocols, design and implement a conservation enforcement web-based data center. | The goal of this project is to implement a conservation enforcement (CE) web-based data center. The work will be done in three phases: (1) Coordinate with relevant management and enforcement entities to develop protocols and to design the CE data center, (2) Implement the CE data center, and (3) maintain and adaptively manage the CE data center. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $270,749 |
|
Biological objectives Increase survival of focal species. Protect key habitats of focal species. |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | [blank] | $89,874 | $89,874 | $89,874 |
| Supplies | [blank] | $1,416 | $1,416 | $1,415 |
| Capital Equipment | Computer hardware | $2,200 | $2,200 | $1,200 |
| Other | Consultant -- IT specialist | $69,600 | $8,800 | $0 |
| Totals | $163,090 | $102,290 | $92,489 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $357,869 |
| Total work element budget: | $357,869 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CRITFE | data exchange | $11,500 | $11,500 | $11,500 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| Nez Perce Tribe | data exchange | $11,500 | $11,500 | $11,500 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| NOAA Fisheries OLE | Data exchange | $11,500 | $11,500 | $11,500 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| Totals | $34,500 | $34,500 | $34,500 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $59,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $59,000 |
Comments: Personnel and IT consultants to manage CE data center. |
Future O&M costs: Operation and maintenance costs would mainly be the cost of maintaining the internet services and computer hardware to keep the web-based data center in operation. After the first three years of demonstration, it could be incorporated into a larger (multi-purpose) regional data base or operated by one or more of the cooperating enforcement or management agencies.
Termination date: FY 2012
Comments: The three-year demonstration phase of the project could be terminated any time after FY2009. If the web-based data center is proven to be an effective conservation enforcement management and public outreach tool -- it could be managed by one or more of the cooperating entities for the long term.
Final deliverables: The product of this work is a functioning web-based CE data center -- that is effective in achieving the database and public outreach goals. The ongoing management of the data center could be transferred to an appropriate regional entity -- if deemed more cost-effective.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | Basinwide | Do Not Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Basinwide | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
NPCC comments: This project would address a need that has been recognized in the Basin for some time, and would re-initiate coordination efforts that existed in the 1990s. Cost-effective enforcement is the foundation on which fish and wildlife recovery will succeed, and fish and wildlife would certainly benefit from system-wide coordination of conservation enforcement data. However, the proposal would be improved by more explicit descriptions of the relationship between the data center and improvements in fish and wildlife survival. The proposal provides an extensive discussion of the history (since 1978) of efforts on regional enforcement coordination. A good interpretive discussion describes the role of BPA funding in conservation enforcement, the need for enforcement in tribal areas, and the need for an enforcement database. Past work evaluating coordinated enforcement is described. It would be helpful to also have better perspective on the magnitude and characteristics of the enforcement problem; e.g. number of violations, geographic and seasonal patterns, and type of violations. The proposal discusses the role of enforcement as the basis for accountability of fish and wildlife restoration and management. It discusses the increasing level of expectations in the Columbia Basin to demonstrate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and the importance of accounting for illegal take rather than having it embedded in "other sources" of mortality. The web-based conservation enforcement system is proposed as a way to provide regional sharing of enforcement information on a real time basis to benefit both enforcement actions and public education. The link to biological outcomes is made through having a geo-references enforcement database to better enforce biological actions. Overall, the proposal makes a good case for the importance of enforcement as the basis for conservation, and for the integrated enforcement information as a way to make enforcement more effective. The proposal’s four objectives are to coordinate with fish and wildlife entities, compile and analyze existing information, design the web-based system, develop an implementation plan, and implement the system. Tasks are listed under each objective, with methods for data protocols provided in greater detail in the introduction. Specific data and locations are identified. The number of different databases and separate data housing locations make a good case for the need for an integrated and coordinated approach. The effort involved to coordinate such a large amount of data is substantial, and may be underestimated. Effective results will depend on the goodwill of several agencies to contribute the data. An assessment of coordination will be made by metrics such as the number of agencies contributing data and web usage statistics, but to evaluate ultimate effectiveness of the project, some link to improved fish and wildlife survival will need to be made. The ISRP is not requesting a response, but the proposal would be improved by providing more specific information on the following: 1. The magnitude and nature of enforcement problems; 2. How spatially-based information sharing would address enforcement problems; 3. How the website would monitor effectiveness of enforcement; 4. How better enforcement would increase fish and wildlife survival; 5. How the project will elicit cooperation between enforcement entities and the data center.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
NPCC comments: This project would address a need that has been recognized in the Basin for some time, and would re-initiate coordination efforts that existed in the 1990s. Cost-effective enforcement is the foundation on which fish and wildlife recovery will succeed, and fish and wildlife would certainly benefit from system-wide coordination of conservation enforcement data. However, the proposal would be improved by more explicit descriptions of the relationship between the data center and improvements in fish and wildlife survival. The proposal provides an extensive discussion of the history (since 1978) of efforts on regional enforcement coordination. A good interpretive discussion describes the role of BPA funding in conservation enforcement, the need for enforcement in tribal areas, and the need for an enforcement database. Past work evaluating coordinated enforcement is described. It would be helpful to also have better perspective on the magnitude and characteristics of the enforcement problem; e.g. number of violations, geographic and seasonal patterns, and type of violations. The proposal discusses the role of enforcement as the basis for accountability of fish and wildlife restoration and management. It discusses the increasing level of expectations in the Columbia Basin to demonstrate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and the importance of accounting for illegal take rather than having it embedded in "other sources" of mortality. The web-based conservation enforcement system is proposed as a way to provide regional sharing of enforcement information on a real time basis to benefit both enforcement actions and public education. The link to biological outcomes is made through having a geo-references enforcement database to better enforce biological actions. Overall, the proposal makes a good case for the importance of enforcement as the basis for conservation, and for the integrated enforcement information as a way to make enforcement more effective. The proposal’s four objectives are to coordinate with fish and wildlife entities, compile and analyze existing information, design the web-based system, develop an implementation plan, and implement the system. Tasks are listed under each objective, with methods for data protocols provided in greater detail in the introduction. Specific data and locations are identified. The number of different databases and separate data housing locations make a good case for the need for an integrated and coordinated approach. The effort involved to coordinate such a large amount of data is substantial, and may be underestimated. Effective results will depend on the goodwill of several agencies to contribute the data. An assessment of coordination will be made by metrics such as the number of agencies contributing data and web usage statistics, but to evaluate ultimate effectiveness of the project, some link to improved fish and wildlife survival will need to be made. The ISRP is not requesting a response, but the proposal would be improved by providing more specific information on the following: 1. The magnitude and nature of enforcement problems; 2. How spatially-based information sharing would address enforcement problems; 3. How the website would monitor effectiveness of enforcement; 4. How better enforcement would increase fish and wildlife survival; 5. How the project will elicit cooperation between enforcement entities and the data center.