FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200310000

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

Reason for change in estimated budget

New 2003 Project

Reason for change in scope

New 2003 Project

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

N/A

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

However, it is not clear from the proposal what the web-based data center would provide over what is provided by the existing Eco-Law site. Could the Eco-Law website be expanded to meet enforcement coordination needs? How does this proposal relate to the tribal enforcement proposals in terms of the www-based tasks?

The PIs experience with enforcement monitoring and participation in several related tribal enforcement projects make it likely that this proposal will achieve its stated objectives. The enforcement data center offers potential benefits to fish and wildlife at low cost.

The proposal lacks specifics about the data to be collected and its purpose. The effort seems primarily to place existing data and databases in a web accessible format. Large sums of money were expended during the 1990's for a law enforcement database. Much of that effort is no longer funded. Two projects remain related to tribal efforts on mainstem and tributaries. Peters et al. (1997) analyzed the previous databases and were generally supportive that law enforcement was a valuable tool in ESA recovery efforts. However, that report suggested significant inadequacies of the database to determine whether the efforts of law enforcement were being efficient and effective. That was because there was no direct link between cause and effect variables being collected. For example, if large numbers of hours of law enforcement resulted in high numbers of enforcement actions (positive correlation) then justification for the effort was deduced in high citation rates. If the opposite occurred with high enforcement hours and low citation rate (negative correlation) then law enforcement could take credit for lower numbers of violations because there was the "deterrent" factor. Such data make it impossible to "objectively" evaluate and manage law enforcement effort via statistics.

There is no doubt that law enforcement is needed and has both deterrence and a punitive effect. Logic tells us that without law enforcement (or the threat of it), poaching and illegal harvest commercial or sport, would likely get worse. "Community Policing" was offered as an alternative means to involve the public and fishers (Peters et al., op.cit.). The proposal suggests such data would be useful and valuable to educating the public. The proposal should clarify how the data would be used in public education. How will outreach be conducted to ensure that the existence of the web-based data center achieves greater public awareness?

The proposal suggests coordination with radio-tag efforts of University of Idaho. Unfortunately, unless specific hypotheses about illegal harvest, and experiments are designed to test those hypotheses, determining the loss rate of salmon as they migrate mixes all of the causes of mortality because the fate of missing salmon are generally unaccounted. Until a specific set of hypotheses outlining exactly what data should be collected, how it will test or evaluate law enforcement effectiveness, this effort proposed herein will be simply an extension of a old database that tracked effort, tracked crime rate, number of fish lost to poaching in illegal nets, expenditures, and total violations rates. But it will not tell us whether we need more, less or different forms of law enforcement actions.

Other concerns include the following: The level of future effort to populate, analyze and report on the database collection will be far greater than designing the pot in which to put the data. Thus, implied in this web database effort are large future investment costs. Those investments, to be worthwhile, must have a better handle on exactly why specific data will be collected, how it will be used. There is a high degree of value in law enforcement data if we design the proper framework for that data. Thus the key question for the researchers focuses on the findings of Peters et al. A future proposal should carefully weigh those recommendations and incorporate them into the "new" law enforcement database.

General Comments on Conservation Enforcement Proposals: 35051, 35052, 200005500, 20005600, and 195505500

A response is needed for this set of law enforcement proposals. The set of law enforcement proposals stresses the interdependency between public education and effective law enforcement. A basic question these proposals should address is how to determine the best mix of enforcement personnel and education to produce the greatest net enforcement benefits.

The sponsors should also address concerns from the earlier BPA/Council review of the law enforcement program. Each proposal should justify the size of a core staff necessary for effective enforcement and place the current request in the context of core staffing needs. The Umatilla enforcement staffing level at .5 FTE appears to be the most deficient. The proposals should also describe the potential for matching effort; e.g. the Colvilles propose to train two officers from the existing force. Officers should be trained in fish and wildlife (as with the NPT).

More thought should be given as to how the impact of public education - e.g . changes in public awareness or increases in enforcement effectiveness - will be measured. Metrics to measure success and evaluate program performance need to be identified. These metrics and the monitoring program they enable should be described in advance of program enhancement.

Comment:

Comment:

This group of responses addresses the review comments adequately. Responses include justifications of core staff and acknowledgement of how the size of a "core" changes as legal restrictions influence the demand for enforcement and funding changes affect the supply of enforcement. The responses provide thoughtful discussions of the interaction of enforcement and education as well as issues surrounding measuring the effectiveness of each. The enforcement proposals as a group and the responses provided to address ISRP review comments give a good impression of an evaluative approach to the performance of both enforcement and education. There is overlap in the responses of the individual proposals that derives from their coordination. The coordination among these proposals and responses is a positive factor that is likely to lead to collection of integrated data that will be useful for systemwide analysis of enforcement effectiveness.

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable, agree with CBFWA that it is fundable - CBFWA "recommended action." The existence of the web-based data center would probably increase the efficiency of interagency enforcement coordination and would most certainly improve the monitoring and evaluation within and across enforcement programs. The communication link could be valuable and could include an email alerting system. The response does a good job outlining the additional services that would be provided by the Conservation Enforcement Data Center. The description of the data to be collected is adequate. Typical law enforcement data will be enhanced by GPS coordinates, which should greatly increase their utility to monitoring and evaluation. The database could be layered with "at risk" habitat sites.

Hypotheses are presented to test the effectiveness of enforcement activities in reducing illegal take. The project will include in its feasibility assessment an evaluation of alternative approaches to populate the database once established. The feasibility assessment done by this project has the potential to lead to value-added to systemwide enforcement.

The ISRP suggests that the data center explicitly consider in its feasibility assessment the limitations of the data to be collected, the use of the University of Idaho data to better partition mortality, and mechanisms to provide continuing motivation for enforcement interests to participate in the data center.

Comment:

Comments
This is a law enforcement proposal. Although potentially valuable, the proposal does not address a specific RPA action.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
No

Comment:

Comments: