This proposal provides for coordination and administrative activities and does not lend itself to scientific review.

In general, the project is providing a valuable service to the region by helping sponsors obtain funding for habitat restoration. This is done in a number of ways, for example by coordinating and targeting proposals to meet differing criteria for three major funding sources (Fish and Wildlife Program, Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund PCSRF, and the Snake River Basin Adjudication SRBA), writing and reviewing proposals, working with funding agencies, and participating in proposal solicitation and review. However, none of its activities are directly linked to on-the-ground results. The project appears to have provided benefits to the overall Clearwater restoration effort. Weak points in the proposal include limited discussion of tangible results and the lack of a thoughtful and strategic assessment of future priorities for the program.

The projects sponsor should look at the ISRP's report on metrics for regional coordination projects, some of which apply to this project (ISRP 2007-14).

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

The project’s goal is to facilitate and coordinate salmonid habitat restoration in the Clearwater and lower Salmon River subbasins. The project was created under the NPCC’s 1994 program that directed states to develop coordinated watershed restoration programs. It does not directly engage in actions that achieve biological or environmental objectives, instead its goal is to assist project sponsors in obtaining technical and financial support to carry out such activities.

The project is a commendable effort to coordinate the actions of a variety of programs, each with very similar goals. Coordinating information and actions of a diverse group of participants is an important role in achieving an integrated program of work and for sharing information and knowledge. The fact this program is still in place may be a testament to its value to the various players. However, the description of actual accomplishments, yearly or in total, is still quite vague and limited to describing accomplishments including number of meetings held and number of projects reviewed. It would be very useful to see a thoughtful discussion of actual outcomes of the work as well as some discussion of how the roles and priorities of the project have changed over time and, based on past experience, what the future direction should be to ensure the most value added contributions. An example might be that training and sharing of adaptive management findings/lessons learned could now be a real focus. This information was generally lacking in the proposal.

Another area, that was not discussed, is how the function of the Idaho Office of Species Conservation project has been coordinated with the Nez Perce Tribe Focus project. Given that 2/3 of the subbasin is in federal ownership, it seems that this is absolutely critical to the long term success of the overall program. There was virtually no discussion of this important linkage or how it has evolved over time.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

A number of accomplishments were described in general terms. There is little discussion of actual results of the Focus program as related to the goals and objectives of the proposal. It is stated that the facilitation will increase the efficiency of program delivery and increase the capacity and funding for restoration. It is unfortunate that accomplishments, linked to these specific goals and objectives, were not specifically discussed.

The activities of the project have changed over the years. When it first began it was mainly concerned with developing subbasin plans and commonly interacted with the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority. Now, it is mainly focused on helping sponsors obtain support for restoration projects. This shift from one type of activity to another is not so much the result of adaptive management as much as a logical transition into new work as the overall program has grown and matured. The proposal does not offer any insights into lessons learned and their application at either the program or project scales. This is unfortunate given the long term of the program and the challenges of synthesizing numerous plans and coordinating their implementation with a variety of active participants.

In sum, there is limited description of tangible results of the program over time although there is solid rationale provided to describe the need for such a position.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

 

There is some discussion that acknowledges the importance of climate change and its consideration in project design and selection. A reference and a flow chart are provided. Warmer air and water temperatures; changes in precipitation type and timing; lower stream flows in summer and fall; and increases in the length of the summer drought are listed as expected outcomes of this change. The sponsors suggest that the protection of high quality habitat and re-establishing floodplain connectivity and hydrologic processes will help moderate climate change effects. There is no discussion of how this is incorporated into the overall program or into individual project location, design, or selection. Given the importance of water to the area, especially the western portion of the subbasin, it seems like there is a major need to discuss future strategies for restoration given a future with potentially less available water, as well as potential implications of this to the 70 dams, and their operation in the future.

 

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

There are 11 deliverables described in very qualitative terms. They include increasing the effectiveness of the Clearwater Technical Group and Columbia Review Team, preparing and reviewing proposals for restoration partners, developing Idaho’s annual PCSRF budget, helping PCSRF and SRBA staff prepare contracts and scopes of work, investigating new funding opportunities for restoration actions, and participating in local restoration committees. All are administrative tasks and are appropriate for this project. This seems a large number of deliverable for one person, and it’s also difficult to actually track performance or delivery given their very qualitative nature.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

No RM&E protocols were listed. There was no discussion about possible roles for this proposal in coordinating numerous monitoring programs or in providing information and guidance on the integration of ISEMP/CHAMP or AEM into ongoing project work.

This proposal provides for coordination and administrative activities and does not lend itself to scientific review.

In general, the project is providing a valuable service to the region by helping sponsors obtain funding for habitat restoration. This is done in a number of ways, for example by coordinating and targeting proposals to meet differing criteria for three major funding sources (Fish and Wildlife Program, Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund PCSRF, and the Snake River Basin Adjudication SRBA), writing and reviewing proposals, working with funding agencies, and participating in proposal solicitation and review. However, none of its activities are directly linked to on-the-ground results. The project appears to have provided benefits to the overall Clearwater restoration effort. Weak points in the proposal include limited discussion of tangible results and the lack of a thoughtful and strategic assessment of future priorities for the program.

The projects sponsor should look at the ISRP's report on metrics for regional coordination projects, some of which apply to this project (ISRP 2007-14).

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

The project’s goal is to facilitate and coordinate salmonid habitat restoration in the Clearwater and lower Salmon River subbasins. The project was created under the NPCC’s 1994 program that directed states to develop coordinated watershed restoration programs. It does not directly engage in actions that achieve biological or environmental objectives, instead its goal is to assist project sponsors in obtaining technical and financial support to carry out such activities.

The project is a commendable effort to coordinate the actions of a variety of programs, each with very similar goals. Coordinating information and actions of a diverse group of participants is an important role in achieving an integrated program of work and for sharing information and knowledge. The fact this program is still in place may be a testament to its value to the various players. However, the description of actual accomplishments, yearly or in total, is still quite vague and limited to describing accomplishments including number of meetings held and number of projects reviewed. It would be very useful to see a thoughtful discussion of actual outcomes of the work as well as some discussion of how the roles and priorities of the project have changed over time and, based on past experience, what the future direction should be to ensure the most value added contributions. An example might be that training and sharing of adaptive management findings/lessons learned could now be a real focus. This information was generally lacking in the proposal.

Another area, that was not discussed, is how the function of the Idaho Office of Species Conservation project has been coordinated with the Nez Perce Tribe Focus project. Given that 2/3 of the subbasin is in federal ownership, it seems that this is absolutely critical to the long term success of the overall program. There was virtually no discussion of this important linkage or how it has evolved over time.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

A number of accomplishments were described in general terms. There is little discussion of actual results of the Focus program as related to the goals and objectives of the proposal. It is stated that the facilitation will increase the efficiency of program delivery and increase the capacity and funding for restoration. It is unfortunate that accomplishments, linked to these specific goals and objectives, were not specifically discussed.

The activities of the project have changed over the years. When it first began it was mainly concerned with developing subbasin plans and commonly interacted with the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority. Now, it is mainly focused on helping sponsors obtain support for restoration projects. This shift from one type of activity to another is not so much the result of adaptive management as much as a logical transition into new work as the overall program has grown and matured. The proposal does not offer any insights into lessons learned and their application at either the program or project scales. This is unfortunate given the long term of the program and the challenges of synthesizing numerous plans and coordinating their implementation with a variety of active participants.

In sum, there is limited description of tangible results of the program over time although there is solid rationale provided to describe the need for such a position.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

 

There is some discussion that acknowledges the importance of climate change and its consideration in project design and selection. A reference and a flow chart are provided. Warmer air and water temperatures; changes in precipitation type and timing; lower stream flows in summer and fall; and increases in the length of the summer drought are listed as expected outcomes of this change. The sponsors suggest that the protection of high quality habitat and re-establishing floodplain connectivity and hydrologic processes will help moderate climate change effects. There is no discussion of how this is incorporated into the overall program or into individual project location, design, or selection. Given the importance of water to the area, especially the western portion of the subbasin, it seems like there is a major need to discuss future strategies for restoration given a future with potentially less available water, as well as potential implications of this to the 70 dams, and their operation in the future.

 

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

There are 11 deliverables described in very qualitative terms. They include increasing the effectiveness of the Clearwater Technical Group and Columbia Review Team, preparing and reviewing proposals for restoration partners, developing Idaho’s annual PCSRF budget, helping PCSRF and SRBA staff prepare contracts and scopes of work, investigating new funding opportunities for restoration actions, and participating in local restoration committees. All are administrative tasks and are appropriate for this project. This seems a large number of deliverable for one person, and it’s also difficult to actually track performance or delivery given their very qualitative nature.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

No RM&E protocols were listed. There was no discussion about possible roles for this proposal in coordinating numerous monitoring programs or in providing information and guidance on the integration of ISEMP/CHAMP or AEM into ongoing project work.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 2:03:40 PM.

This proposal is to provide a coordinator to integrate activities by Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Nez Perce Tribe, and others with the priorities in the Clearwater subbasin plan. The funding request is for a single FTE. Although the ISRP placed this proposal in the administrative category, the proposal is not justified as presented. This position may be an essential element of stewardship for the subbasin. But based on the proposal, it is not clear that this project is showing results in the basin for restoration and evaluation. This project is supposed to provide vital services, but it is not clear what essential functions this individual provides, and what would happen regarding subbasin integration and facilitation of other Council Fish and Wildlife Program proposals if this coordinator was not available.

The list of tasks for the Focus Coordinator are extensive, leading reviewers to be skeptical of whether this position covers these tasks, for example, "Maintain subbasin inventory database and maps" (page 10 #3) and "Provide contract engineering or legal assistance to Bonneville project sponsors" (page 11 #3). These are disparate tasks for a single person, thus it is not clear what the coordinator actually does. The focus of this proposal seems to be facilitating meetings.

The ISRP's province review recommendation included the statement: "This project should demonstrate performance by the next review cycle otherwise it should be terminated." The coordinator clearly played a role in completion of the subbasin plan, but the continued value of the coordination is not persuasively presented. Past ISRP reviews indicated a need to increase activity in coordinating M&E in the subbasin. From this proposal it is clear that there is no intent to do that. The project began in 1996, but there is an inadequate summary of the assignments actually performed by the Focus Coordinator. There is a list of the meetings that the coordinator facilitated, but it is not clear that this facilitation improved the coordination of activities in the subbasin.

Four projects are identified as Clearwater focus projects, and there is connection to two other through the NPT Focus coordinator. This seems to be minimal rationale to justify a coordinator to link these projects. Moreover, the proposals from the focus projects need significant improvement, so there is no evidence that this position is critical to the SWCDs being able to connect with each other, BPA, and Idaho PCSRF. In other words, the results of the ongoing efforts and how this project improved those efforts through coordination and support are not evident, and based on the other proposals submitted are not promising. In sum, there is not a clear demonstration that this coordinator is essential to execute proposals to BPA and PCSRF.

As with other watershed coordinator proposals, the proposed effort would be better integrated into a proposal that is directed toward management based on science including on-the-ground work and monitoring.