FY 2000 proposal 199202409

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

Cost sharing

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:

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:

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:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

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:

Comment:

Comment: