The proposal makes the very profound statement, “Regional coordination is an activity that will be required in perpetuity.” This likely is true, but it also carries the obligation to do coordination in the most effective and efficient way possible. Metrics for effectiveness and efficiency would seem to be very valuable for continuing coordination activities. The proposal says, “Regional coordination has two aspects that are pertinent to this project. First, coordination is a function that can be accomplished using phone calls, emails, postal services, and face-to-face meetings and briefings. Coordination also includes the instrument used to coordinate which includes oral communication and written materials. It is anticipated that all of these in various combinations will be used to accomplish this project. Second, the regional nature of this coordination will require travel at times to accomplish the work.” What are the best approaches given the decisions being considered? When does a teleconference work as effectively as a face-to-face meeting? Are videotaped briefings as effective as fact-to-face ones. Can new techniques and technologies improve coordination outcomes?

A strength of the proposal is the explicit recognition of the need to evaluate coordination effectiveness. However, much more detail is needed throughout this proposal.

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

The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation (CSKT) have chosen to directly represent their interests and engage in technical and policy issues with resource managers in the Upper Columbia Basin. The CSKT is “as a sovereign nation with jurisdiction, management authority and reserved rights for fish, wildlife, water, and other resources.”

Significance to regional programs: The statement lists the major regional plans and programs, the Salish and Kootenai Subbasin Plans, and related BiOps for which the Salish-Kootenai coordination is significant.

Problem statement: The statement references the Northwest Power Act requirements for coordination as well as the NPCC coordination plan and the Fish and Wildlife Program, and states that the project will assist the CSKT in meeting the regional coordination activities as outlines in these documents.

Objectives: The proposal has a single objective: To coordinate and facilitate efforts of the CSKT with other regional fish and wildlife managers, the NPCC and BPA. The objective is worded as a task rather than a desired outcome. A better statement of objective is found in the sentence accompanying the objective: “to maintain and enhance the functions of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation (CSKT) related to regional coordination capability and implementation."

Deliverables include regional coordination activities and annual reports.

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

The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation (CSKT) left CBFWA in 2011 “to protect its rights, interests, and sovereignty.” The tribes prefer to use their own expertise and to communicate directly on coordination processes and issues.

Project performance, financial performance, and major accomplishments: This is a new project, so technically there are no results to evaluate. Historical data on performance is available with the project, “Proposal RESCAT-1989-062-01 - Program Coordination and Facilitation Services provided through the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Foundation.” See the section, “Reporting & Contracted Deliverables Performance.”

Adaptive management: No information is provided

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (hatchery, RME, tagging)
The geographic interests are the “CSKT reservation in western Montana and Portland, Oregon where the headquarters of the NPCC, BPA, CBFWA, and other organizations requiring coordination are located.

Project relationships: The proposal lists the project numbers of other regional coordination projects without further explanation.

Emerging limiting factors: The proposal states that this does not apply to coordination projects.

While this is a new proposal, thinking about scientific contributions that might be made during the current funding period is desirable. More specific attention to identifying a scientific component in the proposal would be desirable. Can a scientific research design list important activities and identify ways to report results? Can evaluation of results in terms of the project objectives be discussed? Could insights be included that summarize how hypotheses and methods may be changed or improved compared to what is done now? Is there a plan for how the proposed work could “contribute to or inform Program policy development; lead to broad-scale implementation; and be reported back to the Council.”

The vision of CSKT is that their participation will “improve and enhance exchanging information, finding consensus on difficult issues, the quality of decision-making, and the process of informing other regional decision-makers.” Several important concepts are identified here such as improve information, decision making, and process. The proposal sponsors go on to say, “Quantitative benefits cannot be readily estimated for these results, but it has been demonstrated that effective and efficient coordination provides for cost savings in highly controversial situations such as the Columbia River Basin that have conflicting rights and interests among a multitude of sovereigns and stakeholders.” A sound scientific approach should make an effort to provide evidence for the very valuable and important claims, especially the hypothesis that “coordination provides for cost savings in highly controversial situations.” For some this outcome may be obvious, but some evidence for cost savings would be very beneficial in arguing for coordination funding.

What are the coordination issues in the negotiations regarding the Columbia River Treaty? What are the implications for the Fish and Wildlife Program, especially projects in the Upper Columbia.

Meetings are identified. What have been the outcomes from these meeting? How has coordination improved over the time when coordination was handled by CBFWA?

This proposal identifies a number of very important issues that could be framed into one or more hypotheses that would show the value of coordination. Monitoring of these relationships would be very valuable in showing the value of coordination.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Deliverables: the proposal lists two deliverables: 1. regional coordination activities; 2. annual progress report. A brief description of work to be performed is provided with each.

Regional coordination components: The project has five components: Review of technical documents and processes (10%); Project proposal review (5%); Coordination of projects, programs and funding sources within subbasins (75%); Facilitating and participating in focus workgroups (7%); and Information dissemination (3%). Other than a list of bullet points little research design for sound science is provided.

Work elements: One work element is identified – 189. Coordination-Columbia Basinwide. Can output metrics be identified to go with this work element? More development of the work elements, hypotheses related to objectives, research methods to observe outcomes, metrics to quantify outcomes, and reporting lessons learned would strengthen the scientific dimensions of the proposal. Ideally, the hypothesis(es) developed in the proposal would be measured during the course of the coordination activities and results presented in the report on this project. There are many ideas discussed in the proposal that are amenable to this approach. Selecting a few of the most important questions, concerns, or hypotheses and monitoring them is recommended.

Methods and metrics: Brief descriptions of methods are presented as part of the deliverables section. Specific explanations of methods and identification of metrics to be used to measure effectiveness are not provided.

4a. Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

A protocol for the one work element is published but does not provide adequate guidance on the methods and metrics. Guidance is available from ISRP (2007-14:2). Project sponsors have to design the metrics into their proposal and not rely on the definitions for Work Elements.