Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Protect Fish Habitat Through Education and Enforcement |
| Proposal ID | 23082 |
| Organization | Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Paul Lumley |
| Mailing address | 729 NE Oregon #200 Portland, OR 97232 |
| Phone / email | 5032380667 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Paul Lumley |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 High Priority |
| Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Protect salmon habitat by improving and coordinating enforcement activities, educating law enforcement administrators, local volunteers and the regulated community, and monitoring and tracking issues, reports and citations. |
| Target species | ESA-listed salmon and steelhead (multiple) |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
|
|
|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 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 2001 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 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 |
|---|
| $300,000 | $150,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 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 2001 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: 1 |
$45,000 |
| Fringe |
@ 31.5% |
$14,175 |
| Supplies |
|
$2,000 |
| Travel |
20 trips @ $250/trip |
$4,000 |
| Indirect |
@ 36.9% |
$24,050 |
| Subcontractor |
$53,588/per tribe |
$214,350 |
| $303,575 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $303,575 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $303,575 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Educational Foundation of America |
Media consulting/public outreeach |
$14,000 |
in-kind |
| Pew Charitable Trust (projected) |
Media consulting/public outreach |
$11,000 |
in-kind |
| EPA General Assistance Grant |
Personnel, travel |
$20,000 |
in-kind |
| Bureau of Indian Affairs 638 Funding |
Personnel, Travel, supplies |
$40,000 |
in-kind |
| Flintridge Foundation |
Personnel |
$5,000 |
in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
N/A
Date:
Feb 1, 2001
Comment:
This proposal does not address imminent risks to ESA stocks by offering direct on-the-ground benefits with one-time funding. It is for infrastructure to support coordination, education, and enforcement that to be successful will need to be ongoing.
Recommendation:
Not Rated Yet
Date:
Feb 1, 2001
Comment:
Enforcement portion of this proposal meets the high priority criteria. The education portion of the proposal is not urgent but would provide benefits to the region. Project should only be funded if well coordinated with Oregon State Patrol to avoid duplication of effort.
Recommendation:
Date:
Feb 15, 2001
Comment:
ISRP Comment: This proposal does not address imminent risks to ESA stocks by offering direct on-the-ground benefits with one-time funding.
Response: The proposal is designed to specifically address ESA stocks through immediate improvements to habitat by stopping illegal water diversions, illegal spawning ground destruction from un-permitted construction, and other illicit activities. Halting unlawful activities will have immediate effects. Page six of our proposal identifies the listed species in seven subbasins that will be directly protected by this proposal including steelhead, fall chinook, summer chinook, and sockeye. Three of the seven subbasins identified in the CRITFC proposal are the same three subbasins identified in the 2000 FCRPS Biological Opinion as requiring the highest priority (Methow, John Day and Salmon subbasins).
The project will have immediate on-the-ground benefits to critical habitat needs of endangered species. For example, if a person drives an All Terrain Vehicle through the middle of endangered salmon redds, and an enforcement officer stops them as a result of this program, this action would provide an immediate benefit for survival rates to an endangered salmon. Another example would be a construction site in violation of regulations that would cause sedimentation of spawning gravels, which if forced to comply with the law would provide immediate benefits to the habitat. Enforcement of habitat protection measures directly results in enforcement of reduced take of ESA listed species.
ISRP Comment: It is for infrastructure to support coordination, education, and enforcement that to be successful will need to be ongoing.
Response: On November 13, 2000, NWPPC and BPA issued a letter requesting proposals for "High Priority" project proposals for BPA funding and included criteria for project selection. One of the criteria stated,
"The proposed project would address a habitat enforcement issue and result in the protection of listed, anadromous fish habitat including marine habitat."
This type of project proposal (habitat enforcement) was specifically requested in the NWPPC and BPA criteria for a high-priority project. Therefore, this proposal meets the criteria set out by the NWPPC and BPA.
Furthermore, the benefits of education will last for several years, even if the project ends after one year. This proposal largely focuses on training volunteers and enforcement agents. Once they are trained to understand how to spot ESA violations, they will retain this knowledge, and this will provide for continuing and residual improved habitat management that protect ESA-listed species.
CBFWA Comment: Enforcement portion of this proposal meets the high priority criteria. The education portion of the proposal is not urgent but would provide benefits to the region. Project should only be funded if well coordinated with Oregon State Patrol (OSP) to avoid duplication of effort.
Response: On February 13, 2001, the objection from ODFW was eliminated. A consensus within CBFWA has been reached regarding this project. The implementation of this project is intended to compliment, not complicate, the Oregon Plan. In Oregon, all components of this proposal are directed towards tribal members and reservation lands only. This includes the education component.