BPA Fish and Wildlife FY 1997 Proposal

Section 1. Administrative
Section 2. Narrative
Section 3. Budget

see CBFWA and BPA funding recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Title of project
Monitoring and Evaluation of the Columbia Basin Law Enforcement Program

BPA project number   5502600

Business name of agency, institution or organization requesting funding
S.P. Cramer & Associates

Sponsor type   OR-Consultant

Proposal contact person or principal investigator
 NameSteven Vigg
 Mailing addressS.P. Cramer & Associates, Inc.
300 S.E. Arrow Creek Lane
Gresham, Oregon 97080
 Phone503/695-3433

BPA technical contact   , EWN

Biological opinion ID   

NWPPC Program number   8.5C

Short description
The proposed M&E of the Law Enforcement Program includes the following elements: (1) Demonstrate a clear understanding of the overall program goals, objectives, tasks as stated in the performance grants-- relative to work performed during 1992 to 1996. (2) Identify the major program areas for evaluation, and their linkage with biological performance measures. (3) Organize comparison of desired/actual achievements in terms of: Input, Output, and Outcome. The focus is on Outcomes, i.e., biological benefits from (a) field enforcement efforts, and (b) public awareness. (4) Develop results-oriented performance criteria and corresponding biologically based null hypotheses for testing -- incorporating the scientific method. (5) Identify appropriate metrics for measurement of performance criteria and develop an analytical system. (6) Conduct the data analysis, on metrics for each performance criterion, using statistically valid methodology and summarize results. (7) Interpret statistical data analysis using existing knowledge base and scientific literature on fish & wildlife police science, political science, and biological science. (8) Report M&E results to LE project leaders, fishery managers, and regional planners via oral presentations and written documents. (9) Ensure technology transfer of M&E results to responsible fish and wildlife managers through continued dialog and annual iterations the M&E cycle of learning by doing. (10) Practice adaptive management, i.e., improve program effectiveness and efficiency by implementing programmatic adjustments indicated by M&E results.

Project start year   1996    End year   2001

Start of operation and/or maintenance   0

Project development phase   Implementation

Section 2. Narrative

Related projects
The M&E will be performed on BPA Project 92-024

Project history
In the fall of 1991, the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) initiated funding for an enhanced fisheries and habitat law enforcement (LE) program (92-024) -- targeted on depleted fish stocks proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. The BPA-funded enhanced LE program was designed with Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) as an integral part. As of January 1996, however, an independent scientific assessment of the efficacy of this LE program has not been conducted, nor has specific funding yet been allocated for FY96. BPA has spent over $19 million on implementation of the LE program during 1992-96 -- doubling the enforcement effort throughout the Columbia Basin. The inter-agency Columbia Basin Law Enforcement Council (CBLEC) coordinates the LE program, and beginning in 1996, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers the LE Program. All participating agencies understand the importance of a comprehensive “third party” M&E component -- that is needed to be accountable for funds expended, to assess the efficacy of the LE program in terms of biological benefits, and to improve its effectiveness in the future via adaptive management.

Biological results achieved
None -- Project has been planned, but has not been initiated as of January 1996

Annual reports and technical papers
None -- Project has been planned, but has not been initiated as of January 1996

Management implications
A comprehensive M&E is needed to adaptively manage the enhanced fisheries and habitat law enforcement program in the Columbia Basin. Adaptive management is based on the feedback loop of -- learning through M&E -- to continually shape the LE program for accountability, inter-agency efficiency, biological benefits, and cost-effectiveness. At this time, a comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy of the LE program in achieving its specific objectives and the overall goal of enhancement of depleted fish stocks is required -- in order assess results to date and improve future performance.

Specific measureable objectives
1. Increased adult salmon passage survival through the migration corridor via reductions in illegal take.
2. Protection of critical spawning and rearing habitat of anadromous salmonids via enhanced compliance with existing habitat and environmental regulations.
3. Increased juvenile salmonid out-migration survival through the migration corridor via compliance with fishing and habitat (e.g., screening and diversion) regulations.
4. Increased cost-effectiveness of the law enforcement efforts via inter-agency coordination and public participation.
5. Increased life cycle survival of depleted resident fish populations via enhanced harvest and habitat enforcement.

Testable hypothesis
H(1): A 100% increase in the level of enforcement in the mainstem Columbia River does not improve adult salmon survival. Metric: Inter-dam conversion rates, Bonneville to Lower Granite dams.
H(2): Enforcement of habitat regulations in tributary areas does not increase natural production success or improve the integrity of critical habitat. Metric: Compliance rates with laws and rules for the protection of stream habitat, riparian zones, watersheds and ecosystems.
H(3): Enforcement of water diversion and screening regulations does not increase juvenile salmonid survival tributaries and mainstem. Metric: Compliance rates with screening regulations on mainstem pump and tributary diversions.
H(4): Enhanced inter-agency coordination and resource sharing does not improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness of LE efforts. Metric: Contacts, enforcement statistics, habitat protected, and fish saved via inter-agency task forces per cost level.
H(5): Improved public education and awareness does not enhance LE efforts via public support and involvement. Metric: Public opinion polls, public volunteer work, voluntary compliance with laws and rules, “poacher hotline” information on violations.
H(6): Increased levels of law enforcement for Columbia Basin resident fish species and their critical habitats does not improve the species’ life cycle survival and population levels. Metric: Enforcement statistics; compliance rates with laws and rules; fisheries statistics; public awareness.

Underlying assumptions or critical constraints
Cooperation from all entities participating in BPA Project 92-024 -- especially in regard to access to key personnel, information, and data management systems.

Methods

Brief schedule of activities
`

Biological need
To better understand the biological benefits of a major multi-agency salmon and resident fish enhancement program that has cost the region over $19 million during 1992-1996. Adaptive management of the LE program will increase the knowledge of biological benefits of fisheries and habitat law enforcement, and improve the overall cost-effectiveness of the program (BPA Project 92-024).

Critical uncertainties
Willingness of fisheries management agencies and regional planning entities to fund long-term M&E activities and practice adaptive management of the BPA-funded LE program. Commitment to a systematic collection and analysis of an adequate time series of monitoring data to adequately assess the ongoing LE program.

Summary of expected outcome
1. Quantitative and qualitative assessment of the biological benefits of the BPA-funded LE program to date.
2. Adaptive management of the LE Program in 1997 and beyond.
3. Increased effectiveness and biological benefits of the LE program through recovery of ESA listed species.
4. Enhanced integration of enforcement with other aspects of fisheries management.

Dependencies/opportunities for cooperation
The law enforcement divisions of the following entities currently comprise the members and cooperators of the Columbia Basin Law Enforcement Council (CBLEC): the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Columbia River Treaty Tribes (Yakama, Nez Perce, Umatilla, and Warm Springs), the Shoshone-Bannock Indian Tribes, Oregon Department of State Police, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Coast Guard. The cooperation of all the above fishery agencies and tribes would be essential to conduct an M&E of the Columbia Basin LE Program.

Risks
If adaptive management is practiced, funding for various components of BPA project 92-024 could be increased, decreased, or eliminated -- depending on the results of the M&E. Therefore, a sufficient time series of M&E would be needed to evaluate uncertainties and reliability of results and conclusions.

Monitoring activity
The entire project is based on monitoring and evaluation of the enhanced LE program. The measurement of the success of this M&E project will be the extent that adaptive management is actually practiced to effect future changes in the funding levels, strategic planning, field operations, and effectiveness of the ongoing LE Program.

Section 3. Budget

Data shown are the total of expense and capital obligations by fiscal year. Obligations for any given year may not equal actual expenditures or accruals within the year, due to carryover, pre-funding, capitalization and difference between operating year and BPA fiscal year.

Historic costsFY 1996 budget data*Current and future funding needs
(none) New project - no FY96 data available 1997: 250,000
1998: 250,000
1999: 250,000
2000: 250,000
2001: 250,000

* For most projects, Authorized is the amount recommended by CBFWA and the Council. Planned is amount currently allocated. Contracted is the amount obligated to date of printout.

Funding recommendations

CBFWA funding review group   System Policy

Recommendation    Tier 3 - do not fund