FY 2000 proposal 199202409
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
Title | Type |
---|---|
199202409 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Enhance Conser. Enforcement for Fish & Wildlife,Watersheds of the Nez Perce |
Proposal ID | 199202409 |
Organization | Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Conservation Enforcement (NPT) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Captain Adam A. Villavicencio |
Mailing address | P.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540 |
Phone / email | 2088437320 / adamv@nezperce.org |
Manager authorizing this project | |
Review cycle | FY 2000 |
Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Clearwater |
Short description | Increase law enforcement (LE) protection of fish, wildlife, their critical habitats and other essential natural resources within watersheds managed by the Tribe. The LE program will be coordinated with all other resource enhancement projects of the NPT. |
Target species | Anadromous Fish (Salmon, Steelhead, etc.), Resident Fish, and Wildlife. |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
RPA |
---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishment |
---|---|
1996 | Successful formation of fisheries enforcement program, fielded uniformed tribal officers for the first time in tribal history. |
1997 | Fisheries Enforcement Program now offically providing enforcement of tribal regs on the protection of resident fish, wildlife, and their habitats |
1998 | Provided required basic training of all programs sworn personnel. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
See Section 8(c)… |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
Item | Note | FY 2000 cost |
---|---|---|
Personnel | $136,356 | |
Fringe | $20,453 | |
Supplies | $45,004 | |
Operating | $80,165 | |
Travel | $15,000 | |
Indirect | $93,258 | |
Subcontractor | $35,000 | |
$425,236 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost | $425,236 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2000 budget request | $425,236 |
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|---|---|---|
Nez Perce Tribe | Personnel-Captain | $29,328 | unknown |
Nez Perce Tribe | Personnel-Officer | $22,027 | unknown |
Nez Perce Tribe | 1-Officer Equipment | $2,159 | unknown |
Nez Perce Tribe | 1-GSA Vehicle Lease | $8,568 | unknown |
Nez Perce Tribe | 5-Internet Phone Service | $1,250 | unknown |
Nez Perce Tribe | 1-Cell Phone Service | $500 | unknown |
Nez Perce Tribe | Dispatch Services-Forestry | $25,000 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Funding available Jan. 1, 2000; retention of qualified officers on staff; academy training schedules; cooperation of co-management entities. Milestones: hiring of personnel; requisite office training completion; equipment procurement.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund for one year. Subsequent funding contingent on more complete background information on the magnitude of the illegal harvest problem and the expected benefits to fish and wildlife.Comments: This is a proposal for support of enforcement of fisheries and related habitat regulations on the Nez Perce reservation, in the amount of about $400k per year. This proposal cannot be evaluated in the same manner as a study proposal. There is a scientific basis for law enforcement and protection of returning adults, particularly from weak stocks. However, the proposal would benefit from more complete background information on the magnitude of the illegal harvest problem and the expected benefits to fish and wildlife.
Comment:
Comment:
Technical Criteria 1: Met? yes - But need more detail in budget (e.g.. major equipment should be specifically - 56k)Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? NA - Criterion doesn't fit this proposal.
Milestone Criteria 3: Met? NA - Objectives are too general, need to be more clearly defined. List the objectives of the Nez Perce Tribe's Fisheries Resource Mgt. Program and how enforcement objectives support those objectives.
Resource Criteria 4: Met? NA - Same as above.
Comment:
This project is being reviewed under a separate conservation enforcement forum.Comment:
Rank Comments: In general there is a biological context for law enforcement and ISRP notes that a certain level of law enforcement is necessary. Law enforcement is a mix of scientific and social issues that is difficult for the ISRP to review. On a purely scientific basis the ISRP ranks this proposal in the low middle of the set of 42.Comment:
In general there is a biological context for law enforcement and ISRP notes that a certain level of law enforcement is necessary. Law enforcement is a mix of scientific and social issues that is difficult for the ISRP to review. On a purely scientific basis the ISRP ranks this proposal in the low middle of the set of 42.Comment:
(a) conservation enforcement - funding requested for two projects, (9202400, 9202409 -CRITFC, NPT), approx. $814,000.Issue: The ISRP recommended that funding be provided for two law enforcement projects. CBFWA did not reach a consensus funding recommendation on these projects. The Council was required to decide if it would: (1) continue to apply the standards developed and employed in the FY 1998 and 1999 processes regarding the funding of law enforcement projects, or, (2) defer to the ISRP's recommendation to fund the projects without further inquiry.
Past Council Treatment: In its Fiscal Year 1998 recommendations the Council recommended that Bonneville funding of law enforcement projects be discontinued. This was in response to a request for funding from CBFWA for $4 million for these projects. Law enforcement activities have been funded as part of the program since the early 1990's. The Council made the recommendation to discontinue funding for such projects on the basis that the law enforcement portion of the program had expanded beyond its originally intended scope and duration, and because funding what were largely harvest-enforcement activities seemed to the Council to be an area peripheral to the Act's focus on mitigating for the effects of the hydrosystem on fish and wildlife and their habitat. In addition, the Council was concerned that because law enforcement activities are of the nature traditionally funded by state and tribal governments, Bonneville funding of such activities may simply be replacing traditional state and tribal funding for such activities. This would present an "in lieu" issue under the Act. For all of these reasons, the Council decided that funding law enforcement activities should be a low priority in a constrained budget. Notwithstanding the general recommendation to discontinue funding of these projects, after further deliberation, review of comments, and public discussion, the Council advised that it would consider "proposals to fund specific law enforcement tasks that are tied to the core purposes of the Act, do not present an 'in lieu' issue under the Act, and are associated with activities funded under the Council's program, such as protecting habitat investments."
In its Fiscal Year 1999 recommendations, the Council reaffirmed the policy and approach for treatment of law enforcement projects that it established in the Fiscal Year 1998 process. In that year, four law enforcement projects were recommended (totaling about $1.7 million). However, these projects were not part of a consensus CBFWA recommendation because the managers were unable to agree upon criteria to apply to law enforcement projects. In the end, the Council recommendation stated that if CBFWA were to ultimately present a funding recommendation for law enforcement activities, that it would review such a proposal, in consultation with the project sponsors and Bonneville, to determine if they are consistent with the standards established by the Council in the Fiscal Year 1998 process.
Council Recommendation: As last year, the Council is faced with project proposals for enforcement without a CBFWA consensus recommendation. The difference is that the ISRP recommended these projects favorably. At the September 1 work session meeting, CBFWA representatives stated that CBFWA had not taken a consensus position on the funding of two law enforcement proposals. The CBFWA work plan assigned the Nez Perce proposal a "tier 1" ranking, but it did not go on to recommend funds for the project as it did with all other tier 1 proposals in its proposed work plan. CBFWA did not assign the CRITFC proposal a tier rating. Thus, the cost of these projects was not included in the total CBFWA workplan budget.
These projects were rated as "fund" by the ISRP, but did not come with a funding recommendation from CBFWA. With this treatment, these two projects were very much like the 40 projects that were rated as "fund" by the ISRP, but did not receive a recommendation for funding from CBFWA (often because they were rated as "tier 2" or lower). Therefore, the Council decided to include the two conservation enforcement projects in that group of 40 projects treated more favorably by the ISRP than CBFWA, and asked the ISRP to rank that group of projects, considering specific criteria provided by the Council and using the process explained in Part 1(b) above. The ISRP provided its report and rankings for the 42 projects at the October 13th Council work session. The CRITFC proposal was ranked number 22 and the Nez Perce proposal ranked number 28.
The Council dedicated $2 million to funding projects that were treated more favorably by the ISRP than CBFWA. The Council chose to focus these limited funds on new and innovative research oriented projects that were on the list of 42. The two conservation enforcement projects are implementation rather than research oriented, and were well down the ISRP's overall list of 42 projects in any event.
The Council believes that these two projects were properly included in the category of projects rated as "fund" by the ISRP, but not receiving a funding recommendation from CBFWA. If the projects were not included on this list, they would have been dismissed for funding consideration under the general rule in all other project categories which required that projects receive a CBFWA funding recommendation to be eligible for a positive Council recommendation. Moreover, neither the sponsors nor CBFWA have taken a position that the Council should dedicate a larger sum to the projects treated more favorably by the ISRP than CBFWA this year, which may have increased the likelihood that these projects would be funded. Notwithstanding these facts, the Council is considering these two projects on their own merits, without regard for being included in this category. The Council will continue to meet with the sponsors and CBFWA representatives, and consider information provided by the sponsors in a package dated January 10, 1999, and assess remaining available funds, and make a final recommendation on these projects in the near future.
The Council will provide Bonneville with its recommendation on this project under separate cover after discussions and Council consideration concludes.
Comment:
[Decision made in 2-16-00 Council Meeting]; Not in start of year budgetComment:
Comment: