Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2007-390-00 - Tribal Conservation Enforcement-Umatilla Tribe Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2007-390-00 - Tribal Conservation Enforcement-Umatilla Tribe
Project Number:
2007-390-00
Title:
Tribal Conservation Enforcement-Umatilla Tribe
Summary:
Implementation of Tribal and Inter-Tribal harvest and habitat law enforcement within the Nez Perce tribe 1855 Treaty Area, Zone 6 of the mainstem Columbia River and Usual and Accustomed fishing areas to reduce the illegal take of salmon, steelhead and resident fish and aid in the rebuilding of native fish populations.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) (Tribe)
Starting FY:
2007
Ending FY:
2032
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Basinwide - 100.00%
Purpose:
Harvest
Emphasis:
Law Enforcement
Focal Species:
All Anadromous Fish
All Anadromous Salmonids
Bass, Largemouth
Bass, Smallmouth
Carp, Common
Catfish
Chinook - All Populations
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Chum - Columbia River ESU
Coho - Lower Columbia River ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Crappie, Black
Crappie, White
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - All Anadromous Populations
Freshwater Mussels
Lamprey, Pacific
Lamprey, River
Lamprey, Western Brook
Perch, Yellow
Pikeminnow, Northern
Sockeye - All Populations
Steelhead - All Populations
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS
Sturgeon, White - All Populations except Kootenai R. DPS
Sturgeon, White - Lower Columbia River
Trout, Bull
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Walleye
Whitefish, Mountain
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
None

No photos have been uploaded yet for this project.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2018 (Previous) $267,556 $257,404 $257,404 $257,404 $238,415

Post 2018 – Umatilla $165,298 $165,298 $165,298 $153,104
Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla $92,106 $92,106 $92,106 $85,311
FY2019 (Current) $182,760 $182,760 $182,760 $13,254

Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla $182,760 $182,760 $182,760 $13,254
FY2020 (Next) $182,760 $182,760 $0 $0 $0

Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla $182,760 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Oct-2018

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2018 - FY2020)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2018 Expense $182,760 From: Post 2018 – Umatilla FY18 Initial Planning Budgets (WS, CTUIR, YN, CRITFC, CCT, ID) 2/10/2017 02/13/2017
FY2018 Expense $47,928 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Budget Transfers (CTUIR) 8/7/17 08/07/2017
FY2018 Expense $44,178 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Budget Transfers (CTUIR) 8/7/17 08/07/2017
FY2018 Expense $7,310 To: Post 2018 – Umatilla CTUIR Establish FY18 budget for 2012-010-00 Accord Administration 08/21/2017
FY2018 Expense $10,152 To: Post 2018 – Umatilla Accord Budget Transfer (CTUIR, CCT) 7/30/2018 07/30/2018
FY2019 Expense $182,760 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Extensions (Umatilla Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2020 Expense $182,760 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Extensions (Umatilla Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2019
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2016 (Draft)
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007 $15,000 13 %

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
32577 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 2007-390-00 EXP CTUIR CONSERVATION ENFORCEMENT History $82,604 3/1/2007 - 9/30/2007
35171 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 200739000 EXP CTUIR TRIBAL CONSERVATION ENFORCEMENT History $139,078 10/1/2007 - 9/30/2008
39695 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 2007-390-00 EXP CTUIR CONSERVATION ENFORCEMENT 09 History $108,878 10/1/2008 - 9/30/2009
44647 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 200739000 EXP CTUIR CONSERVATION ENFORCEMENT 2010 History $119,098 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
50072 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 2007-390-00 EXP CTUIR CONSERVATION ENFORCEMENT 2011 History $159,181 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
73982 REL 23 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 2007-390-00 EXP CTUIR CONSERVATION ENFORCEMENT Issued $257,404 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
73982 REL 53 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 2007-390-00 EXP CONSERVATION ENFORCEMENT (CTUIR) Issued $182,760 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):12
Completed:12
On time:12
Status Reports
Completed:46
On time:26
Avg Days Late:0

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
32577 35171, 39695, 44647, 50072, 55103, 58715, 63330, 66328, 70594, 73873, 73982 REL 23, 73982 REL 53 2007-390-00 EXP CTUIR CONSERVATION ENFORCEMENT Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 03/2007 03/2007 Issued 46 114 0 0 0 114 100.00% 2
Project Totals 46 114 0 0 0 114 100.00% 2


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: RME / AP Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2007-390-00-NPCC-20110106
Project: 2007-390-00 - Tribal Conservation Enforcement-Umatilla Tribe
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-2007-390-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (Qualified)
Comments: Implement with condition through FY 2016: Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications in 2012 contract.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Qualifications: Address ISRP comments on data development and summary analysis through a progress report as the database is developed. Address ISRP comments on the need for a more synthetic approach to the mapping and analysis of enforcement issues through a progress report summarizing actions taken in mapping and data analysis.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-390-00-ISRP-20101015
Project: 2007-390-00 - Tribal Conservation Enforcement-Umatilla Tribe
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2007-390-00
Completed Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
This proposal adequately describes the type of enforcement support needed and the legal-geographic context, but is weak in providing a summary of activities or an assessment of limiting factors. The September 2010 oral presentation to the ISRP in Portland provided more detail about limiting factors challenging enforcement actions: the lack of a boat suitable to night patrol and high-wave conditions, the large size of the enforcement area, and the need for more public education about fish and wildlife conservation.

The proposal would be more informative if it described the enforcement challenges, discussed adaptive changes in approach as a result of operational learning, and included an assessment of the educational needs and the project approach to meet these. Major compliance issues could be described. In common with other enforcement projects, useful lessons could be learned by taking a more analytical approach to evaluate the overall picture of compliance. The ISRP encourages the recording and mapping of information on illegal activities.

The presentation made it clear that the project is working toward a more synthetic approach and is developing a database.

Qualification 1: Address ISRP comments on data development and summary analysis through a progress report as the database is developed.

Qualification 2: Address ISRP comments on the need for a more synthetic approach to the mapping and analysis of enforcement issues through a progress report summarizing actions taken in mapping and data analysis.


1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The proposal describes CTUIR enforcement and compliance education efforts that are a significant component of regional programs related to treaty rights for fish and wildlife.

The project has a single objective of enforcing tribal, state, and federal fish and wildlife laws. This is a reasonable objective. However, the proposal and presentation make clear that the project has other objectives that contribute to the overall enforcement objective. Public education of tribal and non-tribal members on the various fish and wildlife codes is mentioned in the project statement of purpose but is not listed as an objective. Data collection, management, and analysis, described as a work element, are also not listed as objectives, but could be.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

The project history focuses on financial expenditures. Previous under-expenditure of funds have provided some reserves which the proponents propose to enhance with additional funds to buy a new boat and motor that is capable of operating at night and in high-wave river conditions.

Although the proposal provides a summary of progress reports and a list of work deliverables completed, the key findings of these reports and work tasks are not summarized, nor are results of previous project compliance monitoring provided. Neither enforcement nor compliance statistics are provided. The proposal indicates that data collected are not electronically available. This data situation was discussed during the presentation, with information presented on current efforts to develop a database.

Monthly and annual progress reports, provided through links, do list numbers of enforcement actions, such as license checks or incidents investigated, as well as the area covered.

The project history indicates a change in personnel and efforts to learn desired content of annual reports and deliverables. “Adaptive management” is described as continuing to work with other agencies, but does not include a description of how operations have been adjusted based on what is learned from project actions. The project has an education program to educate tribal and non-tribal members about state fish and wildlife laws.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging)

Project personnel have been working on building working relationship with county, inter-tribal and state agencies. Details of how this is being done are not provided in the proposal. However, the annual report does provide more detailed description of joint enforcement efforts between agencies.

Monthly and annual enforcement reports describe activities but do not address any limiting factors that may be in operation, other than to describe the function and scope of the CTUIR enforcement officer. However, the proposal does note that the project has been working with other agencies to solve enforcement problems. Lack of a suitable boat prevents enforcement activities on the river in adverse water conditions.

The presentation led to a good discussion of challenges and compliance issues facing the enforcement project. The biggest challenges facing the project are the lack of a seaworthy boat and public education on fishing regulations (for tribal members) and restricted access areas (for nontribal members.) The biggest compliance issues are illegal nets and poaching of salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon. During the latest recession there has been an increase in unlicensed fishing by non-tribal fishers.

Since the start of 2010, enforcement officers have had 500 contacts with fishers, with numerous citations and warnings. They will input their information into a database to track these contacts.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The proposal lists a single deliverable as “Conservation Enforcement Officer.”

The proposal lists four work elements, although these are not tied to metrics or methods: 1. Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results; 2. Investigate Trespass; 3. Law Enforcement; 4. Outreach and Education

There are no metrics or methods described. However, the presentation did provide some detail on enforcement methods. Patrolling is done using a pickup equipped with police lights, radios, and siren. A laptop is used to record enforcement actions. Patrolling on the river is done using a boat equipped with police lights, radios, and siren. Radar, sonar, and night vision are used for river patrol day and night during fishing seasons, as well as for search and rescue.

The project is requesting a new boat so that greater enforcement efforts can be made on the river. The existing boat is old and not suitable for the river during stormy weather or at night. The frequency of patrols and the amount of area covered each day was not described.

Columbia River Basin enforcement projects coordinate their activities through an annual meeting.
First Round ISRP Date: 10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:
This proposal adequately describes the type of enforcement support needed and the legal-geographic context, but is weak in providing a summary of activities or an assessment of limiting factors. The September 2010 oral presentation to the ISRP in Portland provided more detail about limiting factors challenging enforcement actions: the lack of a boat suitable to night patrol and high-wave conditions, the large size of the enforcement area, and the need for more public education about fish and wildlife conservation.

The proposal would be more informative if it described the enforcement challenges, discussed adaptive changes in approach as a result of operational learning, and included an assessment of the educational needs and the project approach to meet these. Major compliance issues could be described. In common with other enforcement projects, useful lessons could be learned by taking a more analytical approach to evaluate the overall picture of compliance. The ISRP encourages the recording and mapping of information on illegal activities.

The presentation made it clear that the project is working toward a more synthetic approach and is developing a database.

Qualification 1: Address ISRP comments on data development and summary analysis through a progress report as the database is developed.

Qualification 2: Address ISRP comments on the need for a more synthetic approach to the mapping and analysis of enforcement issues through a progress report summarizing actions taken in mapping and data analysis.


1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The proposal describes CTUIR enforcement and compliance education efforts that are a significant component of regional programs related to treaty rights for fish and wildlife.

The project has a single objective of enforcing tribal, state, and federal fish and wildlife laws. This is a reasonable objective. However, the proposal and presentation make clear that the project has other objectives that contribute to the overall enforcement objective. Public education of tribal and non-tribal members on the various fish and wildlife codes is mentioned in the project statement of purpose but is not listed as an objective. Data collection, management, and analysis, described as a work element, are also not listed as objectives, but could be.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

The project history focuses on financial expenditures. Previous under-expenditure of funds have provided some reserves which the proponents propose to enhance with additional funds to buy a new boat and motor that is capable of operating at night and in high-wave river conditions.

Although the proposal provides a summary of progress reports and a list of work deliverables completed, the key findings of these reports and work tasks are not summarized, nor are results of previous project compliance monitoring provided. Neither enforcement nor compliance statistics are provided. The proposal indicates that data collected are not electronically available. This data situation was discussed during the presentation, with information presented on current efforts to develop a database.

Monthly and annual progress reports, provided through links, do list numbers of enforcement actions, such as license checks or incidents investigated, as well as the area covered.

The project history indicates a change in personnel and efforts to learn desired content of annual reports and deliverables. “Adaptive management” is described as continuing to work with other agencies, but does not include a description of how operations have been adjusted based on what is learned from project actions. The project has an education program to educate tribal and non-tribal members about state fish and wildlife laws.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging)

Project personnel have been working on building working relationship with county, inter-tribal and state agencies. Details of how this is being done are not provided in the proposal. However, the annual report does provide more detailed description of joint enforcement efforts between agencies.

Monthly and annual enforcement reports describe activities but do not address any limiting factors that may be in operation, other than to describe the function and scope of the CTUIR enforcement officer. However, the proposal does note that the project has been working with other agencies to solve enforcement problems. Lack of a suitable boat prevents enforcement activities on the river in adverse water conditions.

The presentation led to a good discussion of challenges and compliance issues facing the enforcement project. The biggest challenges facing the project are the lack of a seaworthy boat and public education on fishing regulations (for tribal members) and restricted access areas (for nontribal members.) The biggest compliance issues are illegal nets and poaching of salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon. During the latest recession there has been an increase in unlicensed fishing by non-tribal fishers.

Since the start of 2010, enforcement officers have had 500 contacts with fishers, with numerous citations and warnings. They will input their information into a database to track these contacts.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The proposal lists a single deliverable as “Conservation Enforcement Officer.”

The proposal lists four work elements, although these are not tied to metrics or methods: 1. Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results; 2. Investigate Trespass; 3. Law Enforcement; 4. Outreach and Education

There are no metrics or methods described. However, the presentation did provide some detail on enforcement methods. Patrolling is done using a pickup equipped with police lights, radios, and siren. A laptop is used to record enforcement actions. Patrolling on the river is done using a boat equipped with police lights, radios, and siren. Radar, sonar, and night vision are used for river patrol day and night during fishing seasons, as well as for search and rescue.

The project is requesting a new boat so that greater enforcement efforts can be made on the river. The existing boat is old and not suitable for the river during stormy weather or at night. The frequency of patrols and the amount of area covered each day was not described.

Columbia River Basin enforcement projects coordinate their activities through an annual meeting.
Documentation Links:

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-390-00-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 2007-390-00
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2007-390-00
Completed Date: None
2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: Supports 2008 FCRPS BiOp
Comments: BiOp Workgroup Comments: No BiOp Workgroup Comments

The BiOp RM&E Workgroups made the following determinations regarding the proposal's ability or need to support BiOp Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) RPAs. If you have questions regarding these RPA association conclusions, please contact your BPA COTR and they will help clarify, or they will arrange further discussion with the appropriate RM&E Workgroup Leads. BiOp RPA associations for the proposed work are: ()
All Questionable RPA Associations () and
All Deleted RPA Associations ()
Proponent Response:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-390-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2007-390-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Gary James Technical Contact Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Paul Rabb Administrative Contact Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Julie Burke Administrative Contact Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Tim Addleman Supervisor Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Anne Creason Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
John Skidmore Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Dick Bobbitt Project Lead Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)