cbfish.org - Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Program - Proposal RESCAT-2009-010-00

Proposal RESCAT-2009-010-00 - Coeur D'Alene Tribe Coordination

View the dynamic Proposal Summary

This Proposal Summary page updates dynamically to always display the latest data from the associated project and contracts. This means changes, like updating the Project Lead or other contacts, will be immediately reflected here.

Download a snapshot PDF

To view a point-in-time PDF snapshot of this page, select one of the Download links in the Proposal History section. These PDFs are created automatically by important events like submitting your proposal or responding to the ISRP. You can also create one at any time by using the PDF button, located next to the Expand All and Collapse All buttons.

Proposal History

Archive	Date	Time	Type	From	To	By
	9/2/2011	10:02 AM	Status		Draft	<System>
Download	11/22/2011	2:52 PM	Status	Draft	ISRP - Pending First Review	<System>
	2/16/2012	3:47 PM	Status	ISRP - Pending First Review	ISRP - Pending Final Review	<System>
	4/17/2012	2:59 PM	Status	ISRP - Pending Final Review	Pending Council Recommendation	<System>
	2/26/2014	11:08 AM	Status	Pending Council Recommendation	Pending BPA Response	<System>

This online form is dynamically updated with the most recent information. To view the content as reviewed by the ISRP and Council for this review cycle, download an archived PDF version using the Download link(s) above.

Basics

Proposal Number:		RESCAT-2009-010-00
Proposal Status:		Pending BPA Response
Proposal Version:		Proposal Version 1
Review:		Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Portfolio:		Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Categorical Review
Type:		Existing Project: 2009-010-00
Primary Contact:		Anders Mikkelsen (Inactive)
Created:		9/2/2011 by (Not yet saved)
Proponent Organizations:		Coeur D'Alene Tribe

Project Title:		Coeur D'Alene Tribe Coordination

Proposal Short Description:		To provide consistent access for Tribal policy, technical input and public outreach in the implementation of the Regional Fish and Wildlife Program. Tribal coordination through the Upper Columbia United Tribes venue, enables a proactive voice in the Regional forums that may determine various outcomes at the programmatic and project level. Public outreach provides an informational awareness and support network that benefits resource programs sustained by the Regional process.

Proposal Executive Summary:		The Coeur d' Alene Tribe (CDAT) is a sovereign government with jurisdictional authority over their lands and legal and constitutional status recognized by the Federal Government. The Indian Reorganization Act points out that tribal Sovereignty is inherent and therefore even farther reaching that the Act itself. The CDAT has reserved rights in natural resources with regulatory authority and management directives within the ceded boundaries. Directives are based on Tribal policy (resolution), Federal law, and compacts or agreements with State agencies. In late 2009, the CDAT reviewed the existing relationship with the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA) and concluded that its interests locally, and in a Regional context, were better served by CDAT staff and through the Upper Columbia United Tribes organization. This project is intended to continue the CDATs involvement in Regional forums and in a Provincial as well as local context. Coordination practices include communication and collaboration on Regional issues specific to the Northwest Power Act through the interaction with the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC), Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and various Agencies. Primary coordination goals involve consistent interaction with UCUT members on program and project development with regards to technical protocol and policy position. Annual collaboration with Council and Council staff, BPA policy and technical staff, and various agencies provide value in maintaining equable status with regards to sustaining Fish and Wildlife Programs under the Power Act. Issue response increases in a favorable manner through the development of professional inter-tribal and agency venues that foster dynamic resource related solutions. Primary to these efforts will be the wildlife program manager and the wildlife projects manager. Council staff and BPA staff interactions, if required, will occur in Portland, OR and other Regional multi-state venues. UCUT meetings take place in Spokane, WA but can occur at various locations proximal to UCUT member Tribal Reservations in the Inter-Mountain region. Effectiveness monitoring requires providing reports of meetings attended in the Region or at UCUT in order to provide milestone status reports to relevant work element requirements within PISCES. Public outreach involves the development of informational access processes whereby venues are established to further the public’s awareness ,and subsequent support, of existing and ongoing projects that are evident as either cultural or social markers. Brochures iterate and display the programmatic over-view, mitigation priorities, current projects, and ongoing management practices through visual contexts. Open house venues are created to provide direct access to managers and technical staff in order to increase the effectiveness of mitigation activities and increase public awareness of the program. These venues provide dual purpose with regards to satisfying NEPA requirements under BPA’s process for management plan completion. Poster boards detail location, current and proposed management actions, as well as restoration and enhancement alternatives of specific mitigation properties. Field trips provide developmental opportunities for native youth with direct involvement in land management practices with management and technical staff. Information kiosks placed at all the mitigation properties iterate the Regional program that enabled the properties to be acquired, habitat descriptions, relevant fish and wildlife species, current restoration activities and the modes of acceptable access and use by the public. Focal participants to these efforts are the wildlife project manager, wildlife habitat manager and wildlife technicians. These actions will occur throughout the year in Plummer, ID and mitigation properties within the Coeur d’Alene and Spokane sub basins. Effectiveness monitoring requires providing numerical attendance at open house meetings, brochure distribution point documentation and number and frequency of field trips conducted. This information is input as milestone status reports to relevant work element requirements within PISCES.

Purpose:		Programmatic
Emphasis:		Regional Coordination
Species Benefit:		Anadromous: 0.0% Resident: 50.0% Wildlife: 50.0%
Supports 2009 NPCC Program:		Yes
Subbasin Plan:
Fish Accords:		None
Biological Opinions:		None

Contacts

Contacts:

Project Significance & Problem Statement

Project Significance to Regional Programs:

Specific to the Coordination project's design, coordination parameters were documented in the Council's 2009 Fish and Wildlife Program, Draft MERR plan, NPCC Coordination white paper (2007) and the 2003 Columbia River Basin Research Plan. 
On page 24 of the Council's 2009 Fish and Wildlife Program, Council recognized the need to coordinate current objectives and strategies with regards to research, monitoring and evaluation. Of critical importance was the continuance of collaborative partnerships that had been developed by a wide range of parties in the region. These parties will establish, oversee and periodically adjust guidelines for RM&E efforts coordinated through the Program. 
In the Executive summary of the draft MERR Plan on how RME and reporting are conducted, the plan calls for; Increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of RME efforts by facilitating communication and coordination among project proponents and funding agencies within the Basin, providing sufficient information to guide Council decisions and enhancing timeliness, quality and quantity of information for a given level of effort by encouraging collaboration and more efficient coordination among entities in the Basin, Ensuring implemented projects comply with contractual agreements and meet implementation criteria, Facilitating sharing and reporting of RME information with the public in an easily accessible and understandable manner.
The Columbia River Basin Research Plan (2003) calls to improve input from independent scientists, fish and wildlife agencies and tribes, and other interested parties in the region, improve coordination among mainstem research programs; improve access to the information generated by the research and restoration projects of the program. Additionally it states, “The research plan is intended to improve communication among scientists, cooperation among institutions, and better coordination of long-term biological monitoring……” 
In 2009 the Upper Columbia United Tribes adopted a system-wide coordination strategy to better assist member Tribes in facilitating fish and wildlife program priorities in a regional context. Under the UCUT fish and wildlife coordination project, collective venues were created to address and implement coordinated RM&E efforts in the region and the inter-mountain province, as well as Council representation, inter-governmental contractual administration with BPA and inter-agency coordination efforts.  
The UCUT began to implement the wildlife monitoring and evaluation plan in 2008, utilizing the Albeni Falls Dam Wildlife Monitoring and Evaluation Plan as a template. This regional approach was reviewed and endorsed by the ISRP. 
As part of the CDAT Coordination project and the UCUT M&E program, a direct inter-face between member tribes and sub-contractors was implemented to address the objectives of the regional RM&E program. Member tribes have direct access and input into the development of program objectives and subsequent use of data to implement restoration measures based on adaptive management strategies with regard to reference site baseline criteria. Collective discernment of data collection methods, data interpretation and data presentation by CDAT/member technical personnel provides inter-dependent  consensus based decisions. Regional recommendations evolve from a consensus based platform whereby support for real-time adjustments that accurately reflect changes in regional RM&E needs is realized.

Problem Statement:

Effectively meet the coordination needs of the Tribe with regard to the interests in the Regional process with other Upper Columbia Tribes, through a central representative organization (UCUT). The myriad processes entertain RM&E development and implementation, funding allocations and agreements, mitigation efforts, collaborative support on disparate projects, and effecting change in regional fish and wildlife venues while supporting tribal values. Develop outreach and educational processes that express the Tribes management and policy roles within the fish and wildlife program; to the public, tribal membership and various agencies.

Objectives

Objectives:

Changes in behavior (OBJ-1)

Increase public awareness and stimulate the pursuit of information. Increase informational pathways to heighten collaborative efforts.

Value to members (OBJ-2)

Enhance coordination efforts with the region, provincial partners and UCUT members.

User evaluation of product utility (OBJ-3)

Increase effectiveness of outreach/education effort and end-user valuation access.

Lack of redundancy (OBJ-4)

Increase product effectiveness through enhanced coordination effort.

Member assessment of effectiveness and impact (OBJ-5)

Increase effectiveness of outreach effort and regional coordination efforts through member valuation processes.

Benefits to fish and wildlife of enhanced coordination activities (OBJ-6)

Increase effectiveness of coordination to realize benefits to fish and wildlife.

Specific projects or resources benefited by the project (OBJ-7)

Specific to the CDAT involvement with UCUT in the coordination process, projects benefited in the collaborative process are: 1992-061-06, Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation; 2008-007-00, UCUT M&E Program; 2001-033-00, Hangman Creek Wildlife Restoration; 2001-032-00, Fisheries Enhancement-Hangman Creek; 1990-044-00, Coeur d’Alene Reservation Fisheries Habitat; 2007-024-00, Coeur d’Alene Trout Ponds; 2007-108-00, UCUT Regional Coordination.

Specific effect of coordination on conservation and management (OBJ-8)

Increase effectiveness of coordination efforts to advance conservation and management efforts.

Project History

Financials

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

Summary of Budgets

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

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Expense	SOY Budget	Working Budget	Expenditures *
FY2019		$78,078	$67,687

General		$78,078	$67,687

FY2020	$78,078	$78,078	$62,148

General		$78,078	$62,148

FY2021	$78,078	$78,078	$73,581

General		$78,078	$73,581

FY2022	$78,078	$78,078	$81,461

General		$78,078	$81,461

FY2023	$78,078	$78,078	$59,186

General		$78,078	$59,186

FY2024	$81,513	$444,729	$121,388

Fish Accord - Coeur d'Alene		$444,729	$121,388
General		$0	$0

FY2025	$730,063	$730,063	$391,594

Fish Accord - Coeur d'Alene		$730,063	$391,594

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Mar-2025

Actual Project Cost Share

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

Current Fiscal Year — 2025

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
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011

Explanation of Recent Financial Performance:

In FY2009/FY2010 full contractual administration was deferred until in-house personnel could be tasked to implement the project. Personnel additions (new hires) were considered but rejected due to diminishing returns on the budget for the targeted goals and directives of the contract. In FY 2011 full contracting commenced as existing personnel were identified to administer the Coordination contract as part of their existing duties.

Explanation of Financial History:

None

Reporting & Contracted Deliverables Performance

Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):	14
Completed:	14
On time:	14

Status Reports
Completed:	60
On time:	33
Avg Days Early:	1

								Count of Contract Deliverables
Earliest Contract	Subsequent Contracts	Title	Contractor	Earliest Start	Latest End	Latest Status	Accepted Reports	Complete	Green	Yellow	Red	Total	% Green and Complete	Canceled
46108	53467, 56837, 60522, 64522, 68571, 72096, 75280, 77795, 81542, 76828 REL 8, 76828 REL 14, 76828 REL 20, 84053 REL 1, 84053 REL 7	2009-010-00 EXP COEUR D' ALENE TRIBE COORDINATION	Coeur D'Alene Tribe	04/01/2010	03/31/2026	Issued	60	60	4	0	0	64	100.00%	0
Project Totals							60	60	4	0	0	64	100.00%	0

Selected Contracted Deliverables in CBFish (2004 to present)

The contracted deliverables listed below have been selected by the proponent as demonstrative of this project's major accomplishments.

Contract	WE Ref	Contracted Deliverable Title	Due	Completed
46108	C: 99	Documentation of outreach efforts and their outcomes	3/31/2011	3/31/2011
46108	B: 189	Participation in Regional Fish and Wildlife Activities	3/31/2011	3/31/2011
46108	D: 122	Provide comments on technical issues	3/31/2011	3/31/2011

View full Project Summary report (lists all Contracted Deliverables and Quantitative Metrics)

Explanation of Performance:

This project’s performance, based on deliverables, reflects a budgeting process that is not excessive as to require multiple work elements, milestones and descriptions as other regional fish and wildlife projects.  This in no way diminishes the value of this project in scalable efforts but reflects the confines of the amount allotted.

Results: Reporting, Accomplishments, and Impact

Please do the following to help the ISRP and Council assess project performance:
List important activities and then report results.
List each objective and summarize accomplishments and results for each one, including the projects previous objectives. If the objectives were not met, were changed, or dropped, please explain why. For research projects, list hypotheses that have been and will be tested.
Whenever possible, describe results in terms of the quantifiable biological and physical habitat objectives of the Fish and Wildlife Program, i.e., benefit to fish and wildlife or to the ecosystems that sustain them. Include summary tables and graphs of key metrics showing trends. Summarize and cite (with links when available) your annual reports, peer reviewed papers, and other technical documents. If another project tracks physical habitat or biological information related to your project’s actions please summarize and expand on, as necessary, the results and evaluation conducted under that project that apply to your project, and cite that project briefly here and fully in the Relationships section below. Research or M&E projects that have existed for a significant period should, besides showing accumulated data, also present statistical analyses and conclusions based on those data. Also, summarize the project’s influence on resource management and other economic or social benefits. Expand as needed in the Adaptive Management section below. The ISRP will use this information in its Retrospective Review of prior year results. If your proposal is for continuation of work, your proposal should focus on updating this section. If yours is an umbrella project, click here for additional instructions. Clearly report the impacts of your project, what you have learned, not just what you did.

All Proposals:

Umbrella Proposals:

UCUT/BPA MOA

The MOA between UCUT and BPA was renewed in 2010. The revisions were reviewed and approved by each member Tribe after several rounds of comments went back and forth.

BPA/CDA Tribe ten year Memorandum of Agreement

Staff has been working on developing language for a ten year MOA with BPA that would guarantee funding for fish and wildlife projects as well as fulfill BPA’s mitigation obligation for the remaining credits at Albeni Falls Dam.

NPCC Communication

Many discussions were held on how to improve communication with the NPCC. Staff met with both NPCC central staff and members to provide input on methods to increase the frequency of and improve timing of communication.

NPCC Project Review

Tribal Staff tracked the project proposal process and discussed it with NPCC staff, as well as UCUT staff. Spoke with Lynn Palensky by phone at the UCUT meeting on July 18^th to get more information on the review timeline. A letter from UCUT was composed and reviewed that commented on the process and requested additional review time for specific projects. Staff also spoke with Bill Maslen, BPA by phone regarding his thoughts on issues specific to some of the Tribe’s projects. Staff helped prepare for and attended the ISRP site visit for the Hangman Creek Wildlife Restoration, Coeur d’Alene Fisheries Habitat Restoration and Hangman Creek Fisheries Projects.

NPCC Monitoring, Evaluation, Research and Reporting document (MERR)

The MERR pilot document that was released in early 2010 was reviewed and comments were developed. NPCC staff members were contacted and a meeting was held in May of 2010 to relay concerns from individual Tribes as well as UCUT as a whole. After NPCC reviewed the comments they had received, revisions were reviewed and UCUT discussed how best to respond to the latest draft.

UCUT 25 Year Plan

Discussions were held on how to best structure the UCUT’s operations and focus. Past accomplishments and the issues of concern for the future were summarized into a draft format. This concept will continue to be explored.

UCUT Wildlife Monitoring, Evaluation Program

Staff reviewed scopes of work, budgets, and the hiring process for field technicians. Staff also volunteered to help with the development of a protocol for hiring, and to sit in on hiring committee for field technicians.

Wildlife Crediting

Staff participated intermittently in the Regional Wildlife Crediting Forum conference calls. Discussions were held in late 2010 to investigate the potential of a UCUT wildlife settlement for Albeni Falls. Some progress was made, but these talks eventually broke down.

Columbia River Treaty

Staff have tracked UCUT updates of meeting notes, Reservoir and Flow Effect Alternatives, Draft Ecosystem Analysis Work Plan, and Preliminary Evaluation Criteria and Available Models. Steve Smith was hired as a consultant to UCUT to engage in the process.

Outreach

University of Idaho

A presentation was given to a University of Idaho class in September of 2011 that focused on the Wildlife Program’s mission and objectives, and also covered the Albeni Falls Mitigation project. The presentation was well received, and many questions were addressed regarding wolves, big game monitoring, and waterfowl production on wetland mitigation sites.

UCUT

Staff met with a new member of UCUT’s staff in August of 2011 and provided him with an overview of the Wildlife Program’s projects and accomplishments. He was very impressed with the work that we accomplish with a limited staff. He volunteered to share his expertise with video production to help showcase some of our habitat restoration projects.

Past Council Recommendations and ISRP Reviews

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: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number:	2009-010-00-NPCC-20130807
Project:	2009-010-00 - Coeur D'Alene Tribe Regional Coordination
Review:	Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal:	RESCAT-2009-010-00
Proposal State:	Pending BPA Response
Approved Date:	2/26/2014
Recommendation:	Other
Comments:	See Regional Coordination Review and Recommendations - Part 4.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Final Round ISRP Comment:
Assessment Number:	2009-010-00-ISRP-20120215
Project:	2009-010-00 - Coeur D'Alene Tribe Regional Coordination
Review:	Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal Number:	RESCAT-2009-010-00
Completed Date:	4/17/2012
Final Round ISRP Date:	4/3/2012
Final Round ISRP Rating:	Qualified

	Qualification #1 - Qualification #1 See programmatic comments on coordination projects. A sound scientific proposal should respond to the six questions and related material at the beginning of the regional coordination section.
First Round ISRP Date:	2/8/2012
First Round ISRP Rating:	Qualified
First Round ISRP Comment:
Several thoughtful ideas are presented in the proposal. These could become the basis for a scientific component for the coordination activities discussed. Proposal strengths: Objectives are written as desired outcomes Good examples of the specific work conducted are provided for each category. Weaknesses: The problem statement does not directly address the problem to be addressed, but rather lists the activities to be undertaken. It is difficult to directly relate the list of accomplishments to the project's objectives. No project relationships are provided No emerging limiting factors are identified 1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The Coeur d'Alene Tribe (CDT) has chosen to represent its interests and engage in technical and policy issues with resource managers in the Upper Columbia Basin. “Tribal coordination through the Upper Columbia United Tribes venue enables a proactive voice in the Regional forums that may determine various outcomes at the programmatic and project level.” Significance to Regional Programs: The proposal relates the need for coordination to the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program, MERR Plan, Research Plan, and coordination white paper. It also relates to the need addressed by the UCUT Coordination Project. The "significance" statement includes a description of benefits of the coordination entities that could have been listed in the problem statement: input into the development of data program objectives, data collection methods, data interpretation, data presentation, use of data to implement restoration measures, and the development of consensus approaches to research, monitoring and evaluation. Problem statement: The problem statement does not directly address the problem to be addressed, but rather lists the activities to be undertaken. Objectives: The project has eight objectives written as desired outcomes. A deliverable is associated with all but one of the objectives. Deliverables include implemented projects and regional coordination, user evaluation of outreach and member assessment of effectiveness and impact, and gain benefits for fish and wildlife. With the exception of deliverable 5, none of the deliverables includes metrics with which to assess progress toward meeting the objectives. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (ISRP Review of Results) The Coeur d'Alene Tribe left CBFWA because of inadequate and poorly timed communication about issues in the Upper Columbia region. A budget history since 2009 is provided, with a brief explanation of budgets, personnel and their effect on recent financial performance. No explanation of the project's financial history is provided. Reports and deliverables have been completed either on time or ahead of schedule. Reports in Pisces were mentioned, but none were available for review. Major accomplishments are listed as a number of different activities, without any assessment of the outcome or evaluation of benefit of those activities in contributing to the objectives. Most of the activities described pertain to monitoring the actions of other entities, primarily UCUT and NPCC. It is difficult to directly relate this list of accomplishments to the project's objectives. However, later in the proposal in the "Past Accomplishments" and "Value Added" sections the sponsors provide a good history of project accomplishments and value added. Past accomplishments are tied to outcomes beneficial to the Tribe. The value-added section describes specific projects that have benefited from increased coordination among UCUT members. It also describes a situation of more effective tribal participation in regional fora, better communication and coordination, and the avoidance of redundancy within and across tribal projects. Adaptive management: No management changes planned. However a later section of the proposal on assessment of effectiveness describes annual evaluation against objectives and planning adaptation to changing conditions with specific examples of strategies employed. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (hatchery, RME, tagging) The geographic interests are with agencies and stakeholders at the subbasin and provincial levels. The CDAT are a member of UCUT and support its activities. No emerging limiting factors are listed. What were the outcomes of “a regional funding allocation strategy to redistribute funds in a way that was more aligned to the environmental impacts within the region and its power benefits?” Were Fish and Wildlife Program objectives more effectively and efficiently achieved? Were funds saved, more efficiently used? Was the prioritization of projects better? How was there alignment made to environmental impacts? Mention is made, “Coordinated efforts involve trend forecasting for multiple projects across UCUT member Tribes with sometimes divergent goals with regard to resource management.” This sounds like a very innovative process. Can it be described? Has it been assessed in terms of meeting UCUT goals, Fish and Wildlife Program objectives? What coordination processes work to resolve divergent goals? Would the coordination process for an “assessment phase that evaluates the entities participation” work in other regions. What is the assessment that is conducted? What were the outcomes? What are some of the specifics of “assessment of regional policies and directives that are consummate with Tribal cultural and policy values through the coordination with Tribal Council and policy representatives?” How do coordination activities figure into these assessments? 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 and how coordination procedures might be improved. This could be framed in an adaptive management context where the lessons learned from this project inform the next. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods Program Coordination: The proposal lists eight categories of work to be undertaken, with proportional shares that don't sum to 100%. Two categories are each listed twice with slightly different texts. Shares don't sum to 100. The categories are coordination of projects and programs (25%), facilitating and participating (10%), data management (10%), information and education (10%), monitoring and evaluation (10%), biological objectives (10%), and project proposal reviews (5%). Good examples of the specific work conducted are provided for each category. Four work elements are identified – 99. Outreach and Education, 122. Provide Technical Review, 174. Produce Plan, and 189. Coordination-Columbia Basinwide. Only 99 has metrics, but they are more inputs rather than outcomes. Can output metrics be identified to go with these work elements? 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. 4a. Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org The protocols for the four work elements are published but do not provide adequate guidance on the methods and metrics. Guidance is available from ISRP (2007-14:2). Project sponsors should design the metrics into their proposal and identify methods for measurement. Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/17/2012 2:59:22 PM.
Documentation Links:

Response to past ISRP and Council comments and recommendations:

None

Adaptive Management

Management Changes:

No current management changes planned or forcasted.

Project Documents & Reports

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

Public Attachments in CBFish

ID	Title	Type	Period	Contract	Uploaded
P126923	CDAT Coordination Annual Report April 2011 - March 2012	Progress (Annual) Report	04/2011 - 03/2012	53467	6/11/2012 2:38:55 PM

Project Relationships

The Project Relationships tracked automatically in CBFish provide a history of how work and budgets move between projects. The terms "Merged" and "Split" describe the transfer of some or all of the Work and budgets from one or more source projects to one or more target projects. For example, some of one project's budget may be split from it and merged into a different project. Project relationships change for a variety of reasons including the creation of efficiency gains.

Project Relationships:	None

Additional Relationships Explanation:

Focal Species

Primary Focal Species

Cutthroat Trout, Westslope (O. c. lewisi)

Trout, Interior Redband (O. mykiss gairdnerii)

Wildlife

Secondary Focal Species

None

Threats to program investments and project success:

Types of Work

Work Classes

Work Elements

Planning and Coordination:

99. Outreach and Education
122. Provide Technical Review and Recommendation
174. Produce Plan
189. Coordination-Columbia Basinwide

Resident Fish

Please describe which opportunities have been explored to restore or reintroduce resident native fish and their habitats?

The CDAT and UCUT coordination efforts seek to bolster the resident fish restoration programs through Regional and local processes specific to: enhancing regional coordination, establishing and maintaining relationships that benefit the programs and the resource, and administering policy decisions and biological objectives into programmatic actions. CDAT resident fish related projects are; Hangman Creek Wildlife Restoration; 2001-032-00, Fisheries Enhancement-Hangman Creek; 1990-044-00, Coeur d’Alene Reservation Fisheries Habitat; 2007-024-00, Coeur d’Alene Trout Ponds.

Has a loss assessment been completed for your particular subbasin/or province?

Describe how the project addresses the loss assessment. If a loss assessment is in progress or being proposed, describe the status and scope of that work.

NA

If you are using non-native fish species to achieve mitigation, have you completed an environmental risk assessment of potential negative impacts to native resident fish?

Please describe: for the production of non-native fish, what are the potential impacts on native fish populations, including predation, competition, genetic impacts, and food web implications?

NA

Does your proposed work support or implement a production goal identified in a USFWS Bull Trout Recovery Plan?

Program Coordination

Proposed Work

Facilitating and participating in groups and Program issues - 10%   Relevant to Tribal participation in regional processes that impact and or advance the Tribes interests in programmatic resource management goals and objectives.  Effecting positive outcomes with agencies and stakeholders at the subbasin and provincial levels in order to modify the Tribes role in resource management practices, consistent with the Program.

Data management- (10%) The CDAT coordination project works in concert with the UCUT  policy coordination effort in a Regional context; to ascertain policy shifts with regard to data management. While this project does not directly perform data management, participation in various data management projects (StreamNet,MERR) creates an ongoing developmental process to further clarify data and meta-data management directional focus for the Tribe from a subbasin to provincial level.

Monitoring and Evaluation-10% Development of the monitoring and evaluation strategies are specific to policy level directives that are coordinated through the UCUT. The UCUT Wildlife Monitoring and Evaluation Project have been adopted at the subbasin and provincial levels as a viable planning strategy.  Regional policy level coordination efforts are still ongoing to utilize the UCUT M&E project in developing basin-wide management planning consistency.

Biological objectives- 10%   Objectives were developed as part of the sub basin planning process in 2005-06 (Inter-mountain). Ongoing development of biological objectives is based upon the assessment of project specific data, generated by the Monitoring and Evaluation program.  Coordination goals encompass the involvement of UCUT member tribal staff at the management level, to valuate current trending M&E recommendations and assess the viability of planned actions at the project level.

Project proposal review - 5%   Coordination within the Coeur d’Alene Tribes’ Natural Resource department staff, Tribal policy and UCUT member staff are tasked to develop a regionally consistent project proposal that reflects a concerted review of the goals and objectives.   

Coordination of projects and programs - 25%   Long-term program development is sustained by a high-level coordinated effort between various agencies and stakeholders within the Regional structure. Coordinated actions involve the partnering of state natural resource agencies, Avista (FERC), UCUT member tribes, Regional partners (NPCC, BPA), Federal and County agencies.  The Tribe seeks to substantiate resource management, as a sovereign entity, through the continued growth and development of integrated coordination. Through the coordinated process, the Tribe integrates Regional Fish and wildlife guidelines and policy; tribal policy, cultural and resource values; political processes, to realize effective planned actions with gains in resource valuation. (cite examples of projects). 

Coordination of projects and programs - 25%   Long-term program development is sustained by a high-level coordinated effort between various agencies and stakeholders within the Regional structure. Coordinated actions involve the partnering of state natural resource agencies, Avista (FERC), UCUT member tribes, Regional partners (NPCC, BPA), Federal and County agencies.  The Tribe seeks to substantiate resource management, as a sovereign entity, through the continued growth and development of integrated coordination. Through the coordinated process, the Tribe integrates Regional Fish and wildlife guidelines and policy; tribal policy, cultural and resource values; political processes, to realize effective planned actions with gains in resource valuation at the provincial and subbasin level.  Specific to the CDAT involvement with UCUT in the coordination process, projects benefited in the collaborative process are: 1992-061-06, Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation; 2008-007-00, UCUT M&E Program; 2001-033-00, Hangman Creek Wildlife Restoration; 2001-032-00, Fisheries Enhancement-Hangman Creek; 1990-044-00, Coeur d’Alene Reservation Fisheries Habitat; 2007-024-00, Coeur d’Alene Trout Ponds; 2007-108-00, UCUT Regional Coordination.

Facilitating and participating in groups and Program issues - 10%   The Tribe seeks to expedite and expand their role in regional processes that impact and or advance the Tribes interests in programmatic resource management goals and objectives.  With principal efforts devoted to open communicative pathways, effective change with regard to the Tribes role in resource management practices and the Program, is realized.  
Information and education - 10%   The Tribe seeks to expand existing venues and broaden public participation and understanding of Tribal resources, cultural and policy values. Outreach goals reflect an initial process for the public to gain an understanding of the existing projects through increased informational awareness (project flyers, kiosks, website development etc.). Cultural venues (water awareness week) continue to increase awareness of Tribal values and presence as a sovereign. Other examples include; school presentations (college, high school and grade school) and ongoing management efforts (elk radio telemetry, population surveys, forest carnivore research etc.) that reflect the Tribe's commitment to the resource.

Past Accomplishments

a. Describe the Work

The co-development and subsequent renewal (FY2005, 2010) of the UCUT/BPA Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) led to improved prioritized resource management actions in the upper Columbia River.  This high-level coordination effort produced agreements that were markedly beneficial to both parties in realizing a product that continues to serve as a benchmark for sound resource mitigation planning and implementation.

We developed and strategized on a capital expenditure plan with BPA and others within the region.

We worked on developing a regional funding allocation strategy to redistribute funds in a way that was more aligned to the environmental impacts within the region and its power benefits. 

We co-developed the Albeni Falls Wildlife Monitoring and Evaluation Plan with the Kalispel Tribe,Kootenai Tribe and IDFG. This coordinated effort was further developed and refined into the UCUT Wildlife Monitoring and Evaluation Program (#2008-007-00), where wildlife monitoring efforts encompassed the five UCUT members and their Reservations, with regard to BPA wildlife mitigation lands.  Through these actions, M&E monitoring standardized land management planned actions coupled with a central data management entity that conducts data analysis, collection, and storage while delivering land management recommendations based on established reference sites.

We have conducted timely integration of coordinated comments on NPCC material relevant to the Program. Examples include; Subbasin planning efforts, NPCC documents and plans, MERR, Amendment processes etc.

We were successful in coordinating resource objectives (mitigation acquisitions) with current BPA fiscal policies (Capital budget), to continue an effective effort at realizing a land replacement strategy.

b. Describe the value-added for the Program and region

Specific effects of coordination on conservation and management involve a tiered process of identified actions by the agencies seeking an effective outcome. Desired endpoints are reflective of the players’ willingness to discern and weigh the exigent interests, and incorporate those values into flexible agreements.  Coordinated efforts involve trend forecasting for multiple projects across UCUT member Tribes with sometimes divergent goals with regard to resource management. Coordination broadens an acceptable range of co-developed agreements in a local and Regional context. Specific projects directly benefited by increased coordination activities are: 1992-061-06, Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation; 2008-007-00, UCUT M&E Program; 2001-033-00, Hangman Creek Wildlife Restoration; 2001-032-00, Fisheries Enhancement-Hangman Creek; 1990-044-00, Coeur d’Alene Reservation Fisheries Habitat; 2007-024-00, Coeur d’Alene Trout Ponds; 2007-108-00, UCUT Regional Coordination.

Current relationships with the region under the Program have seen a marked increase in the valuation of programmatic resource issues, funding allocations, Tribes as effective resource managers and policy development from initial Program startup.  Resource managers are able to garner immediate support for planned actions with a viable tenure of project success.  Regional awareness of the Tribes as effective program and policy developers has shaped the Program into a reciprocal coordinated process, where various agencies involved in the Program are aware of the existing policies that guide their respective agencies and create accountable relationships that elevate above crisis management.

UCUT member coordinated efforts craft policies that reflect the Program objectives and Tribal resource values. Offset management perspectives play a key role in discerning where policy shifts are occurring in the region with respect to Tribal policy directives. This process identifies where the divergent shifts occur during the development phase of the agreements. Implementation of agreements by both parties allows for an assessment phase that evaluates the entities participation in the agreement(s), the strength of the structured agreement, the adaptability of the users to craft changes to the agreements as temporal shifts occur and the ability to assess current needs to develop agreements in the future that best reflect the needs of the Program. Values are expressed at various levels (policy, management, cultural etc.) between the agencies to ascertain developmental ideals.

Tribal staff tasked with coordinating efforts with UCUT membership and regional entities reduce replicate and/or redundant products with timely access to current processes and the immediate internal valuation of the information.  Reduction of overlapping decisions is maintained through open discourse with the entities involved.  As the coordination process matures, output is refined and positive relationships are developed that adhere to further developmental structures.

Has there been user/member assessment of effectiveness and impact of the work accomplished? If so, describe the outcome and how the results have modified previous and proposed activities over time to increase value of this work.

Current strategies that are used to gain desired end-results during the process, with regards to resource management objectives under the Program are: effective participation and the assessment of participant’s roles in the process; content assessment of material and information purveyed; goal adjustments that reflect either constraints and/or benefits of the process to gain the desired endpoint; re-development of ideas that encompass ongoing assessments; final decision on member assessed output. Strategies employed to assess the effectiveness of ongoing processes that are project based are:  assessment of final decisions with regard to regional policy directives and the Program and their impacts on funding; assessment of regional policies and directives that are consummate with Tribal cultural and policy values through the coordination with Tribal Council and policy representatives; annual assessment of desired outcomes for resource management and the Program’s objectives.

Location

Loading ...

Layers

Legend

Name (Identifier)	Area Type	Source for Limiting Factor Information
Name (Identifier)	Area Type	Type of Location	Count
Columbia River	Basin		None

Project Deliverables

Project Deliverables:

(Implement outreach projects) Changes in behavior (DELV-1)

Produce brochures for the projects that detail the existing implementation efforts, project history and desired future outcomes of the implementation strategies. Project managers are tasked with providing the information necessary to the development of the project brochures as well as making any changes that reflect year to year implementation variances from the initial product. Project managers are tasked with monitoring the feedback from users to ascertain the level of success/impact that the outreach venue has. Success is limited by the level of collaboration between project managers and contract manager with regard to the initial and continued development of the outreach program.
Informational kiosks at selected project sites will detail the implementation efforts that are either proposed or current. This can include pictorial renderings of engineering designs that are tied into the actual work completed under the design criteria. Kiosks on projects that are protected will be purely informational with regard to program outline and project specific descriptors (acres, species, habitat type, contact information, access limitations etc.). Success is limited by the amount of vandalism that may occur.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Planning and Coordination

99. Outreach and Education

(Implement regional coordination efforts) Value to members (DELV-2)

Program managers are tasked with the participation in regional and provincial fish and wildlife program meetings with specific intent to shape technical and policy level agreements/decisions. Managers coordinate efforts with UCUT membership on RM&E, regional and provincial issues, BPA funding, NWPCC policy decisions and general administrative duties. Success is limited by attendance and level of coordinated interaction.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Planning and Coordination

122. Provide Technical Review and Recommendation
174. Produce Plan
189. Coordination-Columbia Basinwide

(Provide user access to outreach valuation) User evaluation of product utility (DELV-3)

Project managers are tasked with monitoring the feedback from the collective outreach efforts. Establishing the effectiveness of distribution points and content of the brochures /kiosks will enable managers to adjust access, layouts and project information to better serve the user. Limitations to success are the users’ willingness to further explore the projects details by contacting managers.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Planning and Coordination

99. Outreach and Education

(Evaluate coordination effort) Lack of redundancy (DELV-4)

Program managers tasked with coordinating efforts with UCUT membership and regional entities require the attendance at principal meetings as well as effecting collective input on current issues for due consideration. Replicate efforts are minimized with timely access to current processes and the subsequent valuation of the information. Limitations to success are the manager’s level of coordinated effort.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Planning and Coordination

99. Outreach and Education
122. Provide Technical Review and Recommendation
174. Produce Plan
189. Coordination-Columbia Basinwide

(Assess effectiveness of outreach and coordination efforts) Member assessment of effectiveness and impact (DELV-5)

Project managers are tasked to track the effectiveness of outreach efforts through the use of feedback from user groups. Questions related to the direct implementation of projects from user groups are tracked along with answers as to the quality of information relayed in the material. Managers can track if changes are warranted based on a consistent response to standardized questions. Success is limited to the amount of feedback obtained throughout the fiscal cycle.
Program managers are tasked with coordinating with UCUT membership in the administration of technical and policy level responses to a variety of fish and wildlife program efforts across the region. Direct attendance to UCUT and regional level meetings is required.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Planning and Coordination

99. Outreach and Education

(Coordinate with UCUT members) Benefits to fish and wildlife of enhanced coordination activities (DELV-6)

Program managers are tasked with the coordinated effort of UCUT members to collectively respond to changes in the fish and wildlife program. Meeting attendance (Travel, conference calls) and direct input into document development is required. Managers are also tasked with responding to provincial as well as local policy and technical level issues that have bearing on the regional fish and wildlife program. Coordination with funding sources on contractual issues is also required.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Planning and Coordination

122. Provide Technical Review and Recommendation
174. Produce Plan
189. Coordination-Columbia Basinwide

Objectives & Project Deliverables

Objective: Changes in behavior (OBJ-1)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


(Implement outreach projects) Changes in behavior (DELV-1)	A successful outcome to consistent implementation of outreach efforts effects or stimulates behavioral shifts with regard to the public. Increased awareness of projects creates a social dynamic, through discussion, creating positive awareness and reversing entrenched negative perspectives. Networking and collaboration between agencies and public is increased or newly realized.

Objective: Value to members (OBJ-2)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


(Implement regional coordination efforts) Value to members (DELV-2)	Enhance relationships with UCUT members in coordinating RM&E efforts in a pooled interdependent modality; whereas each Tribe performs separate functions for its organization, the pooled inter-dependent effort contributes coordinated values to the collective RM&E project. Sub-contractors benefit with this enhanced model as they rely on the output by UCUT staff for direction, funding and compliance (sequential inter- dependence). Desired outcomes are the culmination of a reciprocal model whereby the output and input of each organization and sub-contractor flows in both directions. Direct management elevates to continual information sharing with integrated adjustments that are mutual and reflect subsequent temporal changes in either the region or at a local project implementation level.

Objective: User evaluation of product utility (OBJ-3)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


(Provide user access to outreach valuation) User evaluation of product utility (DELV-3)	Outreach efforts, when limited in funding; seek to provide informational awareness which can generate interest in the projects. Desired outcomes of this process are enhanced relationships with the public and other agencies that may lead to bridge funding or collaborative efforts. Outreach efforts are aimed primarily to educate but may lead to social marketing (behavior shifts) where “desire for action” and “action” create real on the ground involvement in the projects. At this point the evaluation of the products utility with the user is indeterminate and relies on passive action with regards to feedback from brochures, kiosks etc.

Objective: Lack of redundancy (OBJ-4)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


(Evaluate coordination effort) Lack of redundancy (DELV-4)	Coordinating RM&E, Regional and provincial projects through UCUT provides a soluble input source. Each member tribe contributes to the effectiveness of technical and policy decisions. Product has been vetted and collectively agreed upon, prior to disbursement. Effective reciprocity in terms of communicative interactions to the product from the region is desired as real-time issues tend to languish and the re-development of product is warranted. This can create either non-participation or increased time and effort expenditures to realize an acceptable solution or agreement.

Objective: Member assessment of effectiveness and impact (OBJ-5)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


(Assess effectiveness of outreach and coordination efforts) Member assessment of effectiveness and impact (DELV-5)	The ability to track the effectiveness and subsequent impact of outreach efforts is constrained by funding resources. Contact information on brochures and kiosks rely on user groups to take the initiative if their awareness and interest is heightened. Agencies may see an enhanced relationship that benefits both parties. Regional coordination efforts are assessed and monitored with regards to the measureable input and feedback on various issues/topics. Desired outcomes are reciprocal positive communications between UCUT members and the region. Tracking the output of these interactions is a successful way to interpret and develop a productive organizational structure.

Objective: Benefits to fish and wildlife of enhanced coordination activities (OBJ-6)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


(Coordinate with UCUT members) Benefits to fish and wildlife of enhanced coordination activities (DELV-6)	High level coordination efforts, which value the appropriate use of information amongst disparate entities, seeks to achieve a measure of cooperation while valuing divergence as a mode to non-normative ideas and / or creative pathways. UCUT utilizes those divergent ideas, through the voice of its members, to balance the objectives of the regional fish and wildlife program with tribal cultural values with specific regard to the resource. Socio-political as well as geo-political ideals are sometimes valued as a constraint to effectively managing the resource, but ultimately must be accounted for to realize an effective course of action. Optimal action blends divergent ideas and regional needs into a palatable agreement. The goals for the resource (benefits for fish and wildlife) must remain elevated to all others during this process (specific result) in order to shape long-term policy and craft agreements that support each ideal, which summarily, bolsters the resource(s).

Objective: Specific projects or resources benefited by the project (OBJ-7)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*

Objective: Specific effect of coordination on conservation and management (OBJ-8)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


(Coordinate with UCUT members) Benefits to fish and wildlife of enhanced coordination activities (DELV-6)	Coordination, expressed in terms of results, with adequate creative cooperation has moved the management process from a static and reactionary invective, into a collaborative process of intended goals that are consummate with the provincial and regional objectives. Consensus agreement, patterns a definitive resolution that fosters direct and immediate implementation of the various projects. Programs that are built through regional consensus in a collaborative atmosphere garner support for changes at the project level (focus shifts, funding allocations etc.) that directly benefit resource management actions. Tribal resource managers are tasked with converting or translating regional objectives and program elements into assessments of future impacts to tribal cultural values and resource perspectives that not often align with proposed and/or existing fish and wildlife program policies. Within this framework, managers seek to compensate by utilizing tribal values as an over-arching policy that guides the development of regional agreements. Resource directives are shaped with sometimes disparate policies to reach an acceptable level of resource conservation. The end result, by limits of the existing process, grants continued resource management and conservation, yet not at optimal levels. By continuing the process of collaboration and understanding of tribal resource values and policy, support for expanded resource conservation within the bounds of the program will continue to be realized.

*This section was not available on proposals submitted prior to 9/1/2011

RM&E Protocols and Methods

There are no RM&E protocols identified for this proposal.

Project Deliverables & Budget

Project Deliverable	Start	End	Budget
(Implement outreach projects) Changes in behavior (DELV-1)	2013	2017	$71,863
(Implement regional coordination efforts) Value to members (DELV-2)	2013	2017	$71,863
(Provide user access to outreach valuation) User evaluation of product utility (DELV-3)	2013	2017	$71,863
(Evaluate coordination effort) Lack of redundancy (DELV-4)	2013	2017	$71,863
(Assess effectiveness of outreach and coordination efforts) Member assessment of effectiveness and impact (DELV-5)	2013	2017	$71,863
(Coordinate with UCUT members) Benefits to fish and wildlife of enhanced coordination activities (DELV-6)	2013	2017	$71,863
		Total	$431,178

Requested Budget by Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year	Proposal Budget Limit	Actual Request	Explanation of amount above FY2012
2013		$82,030	FY12 with .9% increase is $78,781 and FY13 estimated need should begin with $79,490.
2014		$84,081
2015		$86,183
2016		$88,338
2017		$90,546
Total	$0	$431,178

Item	Notes	FY 2013	FY 2014	FY 2015	FY 2016	FY 2017
Personnel	configured with annual 3% increase	$43,981	$45,301	$46,655	$48,063	$49,505
Travel		$4,240	$4,240	$4,240	$4,240	$4,240
Prof. Meetings & Training		$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
Vehicles	Assumes an annual 2.5% increase	$10,200	$10,464	$10,728	$10,992	$11,267
Facilities/Equipment	(See explanation below)	$7,705	$7,775	$7,851	$7,917	$7,979
Rent/Utilities		$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
Capital Equipment		$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
Overhead/Indirect	With indirect at constant rate of 24.05%	$15,904	$16,301	$16,709	$17,126	$17,555
Other		$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
PIT Tags		$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
Total		$82,030	$84,081	$86,183	$88,338	$90,546

Major Facilities and Equipment explanation:
Office space for program and project managers as well as support personnel. Copier lease, office materials, sub-contractual services for brochure printing and kiosk development, internet fiber optic services, cell phone(s), office phones, computer costs, GSA vehicle lease, fax lines, controlled access signs.

Cost Share

None

Project References or Citations

NA

Notes

None

Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review Assessments

Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Final Round ISRP Comment:
Assessment Number:	2009-010-00-ISRP-20120215
Project:	2009-010-00 - Coeur D'Alene Tribe Regional Coordination
Review:	Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal Number:	RESCAT-2009-010-00
Completed Date:	4/17/2012
Final Round ISRP Date:	4/3/2012
Final Round ISRP Rating:	Qualified

	Qualification #1 - Qualification #1 See programmatic comments on coordination projects. A sound scientific proposal should respond to the six questions and related material at the beginning of the regional coordination section.
First Round ISRP Date:	2/8/2012
First Round ISRP Rating:	Qualified
First Round ISRP Comment:
Several thoughtful ideas are presented in the proposal. These could become the basis for a scientific component for the coordination activities discussed. Proposal strengths: Objectives are written as desired outcomes Good examples of the specific work conducted are provided for each category. Weaknesses: The problem statement does not directly address the problem to be addressed, but rather lists the activities to be undertaken. It is difficult to directly relate the list of accomplishments to the project's objectives. No project relationships are provided No emerging limiting factors are identified 1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The Coeur d'Alene Tribe (CDT) has chosen to represent its interests and engage in technical and policy issues with resource managers in the Upper Columbia Basin. “Tribal coordination through the Upper Columbia United Tribes venue enables a proactive voice in the Regional forums that may determine various outcomes at the programmatic and project level.” Significance to Regional Programs: The proposal relates the need for coordination to the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program, MERR Plan, Research Plan, and coordination white paper. It also relates to the need addressed by the UCUT Coordination Project. The "significance" statement includes a description of benefits of the coordination entities that could have been listed in the problem statement: input into the development of data program objectives, data collection methods, data interpretation, data presentation, use of data to implement restoration measures, and the development of consensus approaches to research, monitoring and evaluation. Problem statement: The problem statement does not directly address the problem to be addressed, but rather lists the activities to be undertaken. Objectives: The project has eight objectives written as desired outcomes. A deliverable is associated with all but one of the objectives. Deliverables include implemented projects and regional coordination, user evaluation of outreach and member assessment of effectiveness and impact, and gain benefits for fish and wildlife. With the exception of deliverable 5, none of the deliverables includes metrics with which to assess progress toward meeting the objectives. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (ISRP Review of Results) The Coeur d'Alene Tribe left CBFWA because of inadequate and poorly timed communication about issues in the Upper Columbia region. A budget history since 2009 is provided, with a brief explanation of budgets, personnel and their effect on recent financial performance. No explanation of the project's financial history is provided. Reports and deliverables have been completed either on time or ahead of schedule. Reports in Pisces were mentioned, but none were available for review. Major accomplishments are listed as a number of different activities, without any assessment of the outcome or evaluation of benefit of those activities in contributing to the objectives. Most of the activities described pertain to monitoring the actions of other entities, primarily UCUT and NPCC. It is difficult to directly relate this list of accomplishments to the project's objectives. However, later in the proposal in the "Past Accomplishments" and "Value Added" sections the sponsors provide a good history of project accomplishments and value added. Past accomplishments are tied to outcomes beneficial to the Tribe. The value-added section describes specific projects that have benefited from increased coordination among UCUT members. It also describes a situation of more effective tribal participation in regional fora, better communication and coordination, and the avoidance of redundancy within and across tribal projects. Adaptive management: No management changes planned. However a later section of the proposal on assessment of effectiveness describes annual evaluation against objectives and planning adaptation to changing conditions with specific examples of strategies employed. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (hatchery, RME, tagging) The geographic interests are with agencies and stakeholders at the subbasin and provincial levels. The CDAT are a member of UCUT and support its activities. No emerging limiting factors are listed. What were the outcomes of “a regional funding allocation strategy to redistribute funds in a way that was more aligned to the environmental impacts within the region and its power benefits?” Were Fish and Wildlife Program objectives more effectively and efficiently achieved? Were funds saved, more efficiently used? Was the prioritization of projects better? How was there alignment made to environmental impacts? Mention is made, “Coordinated efforts involve trend forecasting for multiple projects across UCUT member Tribes with sometimes divergent goals with regard to resource management.” This sounds like a very innovative process. Can it be described? Has it been assessed in terms of meeting UCUT goals, Fish and Wildlife Program objectives? What coordination processes work to resolve divergent goals? Would the coordination process for an “assessment phase that evaluates the entities participation” work in other regions. What is the assessment that is conducted? What were the outcomes? What are some of the specifics of “assessment of regional policies and directives that are consummate with Tribal cultural and policy values through the coordination with Tribal Council and policy representatives?” How do coordination activities figure into these assessments? 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 and how coordination procedures might be improved. This could be framed in an adaptive management context where the lessons learned from this project inform the next. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods Program Coordination: The proposal lists eight categories of work to be undertaken, with proportional shares that don't sum to 100%. Two categories are each listed twice with slightly different texts. Shares don't sum to 100. The categories are coordination of projects and programs (25%), facilitating and participating (10%), data management (10%), information and education (10%), monitoring and evaluation (10%), biological objectives (10%), and project proposal reviews (5%). Good examples of the specific work conducted are provided for each category. Four work elements are identified – 99. Outreach and Education, 122. Provide Technical Review, 174. Produce Plan, and 189. Coordination-Columbia Basinwide. Only 99 has metrics, but they are more inputs rather than outcomes. Can output metrics be identified to go with these work elements? 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. 4a. Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org The protocols for the four work elements are published but do not provide adequate guidance on the methods and metrics. Guidance is available from ISRP (2007-14:2). Project sponsors should design the metrics into their proposal and identify methods for measurement. Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/17/2012 2:59:22 PM.
Documentation Links:
Proponent Response:

Proposal Summary

Please correct the errors noted below.

View the dynamic Proposal Summary

Download a snapshot PDF

Proposal History

Basics

Contacts

Project Significance & Problem Statement

Objectives

Project History

Financials

Summary of Budgets

Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2025

Previous Fiscal Years

Reporting & Contracted Deliverables Performance

Selected Contracted Deliverables in CBFish (2004 to present)

Results: Reporting, Accomplishments, and Impact

Past Council Recommendations and ISRP Reviews

Council Recommendation

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Adaptive Management

Project Documents & Reports

Public Attachments in CBFish

Other Project Documents on the Web

Project Relationships

Focal Species

Types of Work

Resident Fish

Program Coordination

Location

Project Deliverables

Objectives & Project Deliverables

RM&E Protocols and Methods

Project Deliverables & Budget

Cost Share

Project References or Citations

Notes

Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review Assessments

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Map Visibility:
Map Name:
Description: