The response includes a detailed description of the types of coordination and facilitation services that CBFWA is or could be providing. It adds information that was missing from the proposal regarding the operational meaning of general coordination terms. The response states that without CBFWA, the BPA, NPCC and the ISRP would find it difficult to staff activities such as holding meetings and providing website services. In addition, the response states that the "Columbia River Basin is dependent on the coordination, administration, and technical services that the CBFWA provides" for two monitoring and evaluation coordination partnerships (PNAMP and CSMEP). CBFWA activities in this regard include subcontracting services, participation in meetings, and website services. In 2005 CBFWA began to further expand its role to data inventory and reporting services. The response further states that the CBFWA role extends beyond coordination of its members to services for non-member entities.



Overall, a better demonstration is needed that CBFWA's services are provided in the most cost-effective manner. The response provides a better description of the association of the $900k budget line to the "annual report", including good detail on the range of products associated with the report. However, questions remain as to whether the costs are reasonable, especially given that a template of the website is already up and running.



The response also provides a description of the withdrawal of the Kalispel and Spokane tribes from membership. It appears that the interests of these two entities were not being addressed at the policy level; however, little explanation is provided as to why this situation exists. Does CBFWA have mechanisms to cope with "under-represented" groups?



The description of performance metrics is useful. As the sponsors indicate, existing performance metrics measure output (e.g. number of meetings, number of participants) but not impact (changes in behavior, value to the members). The table of number of meetings is interesting, particularly the very low number of PNAMP meetings (n=1) relative to other kinds of meeting such as "member meetings." However, evaluating performance on the basis of the number of meetings held, average number of participants, and reports produced is not, as the sponsors acknowledge, sufficient to assess impacts.



As recommended by ISRP, the sponsors conducted a literature review of metrics to assess coordination effectiveness. Review results were not provided but apparently were not considered applicable: "Results from coordination-oriented literature searches provide a broad set of techniques and metrics that are not consistent for coordination efforts, a situation that is comparable to differences that exist among monitoring and evaluation efforts for physical and biological projects."



Regardless of the range of approaches, the ISRP maintains that coordination efforts such as these can be evaluated. The response provides a vigorous defense of the need for the CBFWA, asserting that more coordination will result in better survival and recovery of fish and wildlife populations. However, no quantitative measures are developed for determining the degree to which this is the case. The Status of the Resource Project should provide useful information on key variables such as escapements, but the response does not give much information on project status or data QA/QC. Will Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife agencies rely on the Project for data or will the project duplicate agency data?



The recommended qualification to funding is that the project should develop an approach to monitor its impact in terms of changes in behavior and value to the members. In addition to the PISCES metrics, it would be useful to have CBFWA develop member-feedback instruments to evaluate member assessment of effectiveness and impact. In addition, the new cluster of products included under the Status of the Resource report provides an opportunity for user evaluation of product utility.