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.

Overall this is a well-written proposal that provides specific detail in accomplishments, project relationships, methods, and limiting factors. The proposal provides good detail as to why coordination is needed, how it is accomplished, and the outcomes that result. However, although objectives are well stated they are not written in a form to allow measurement of specific achievements.

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. Concepts like environmental justice, conservation outcomes, “increase the values of projects or programs,” and “improved our conservation outcomes” are conditions and variables that for which trends and change can be observed. Measurement of these variables could be discussed in the section on deliverables. Can measures be proposed and can these variables be related to coordination activities that provide for achievement of tribal goals.

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

Significance to regional programs: The description is adequate. The proposal notes that although the project has no direct relation to a single regional program, its purpose is to facilitate tribal coordination with several regional plans. It specifically mentions the goals of the Intermountain Province Plan and the Pend Oreille Subbasin Plan for increased coordination among stakeholders. It references the NPCC 2007 white paper on coordination.

Problem statement: The proposal contains a brief but adequate statement of the need for coordination and existing budget arrangements. The Kalispel Tribe has chosen to represent its interests and engage in technical and policy issues with resource managers in the Upper Columbia Basin.

Objectives: The project has four objectives that link coordination activities to project implementation and conservation outcomes. Overall these are well written objectives that tie the coordination activities to regional planning documents, project implementation, education, cost-coordination, and conservation. However, they are not written in a form to allow measurement of specific achievements.

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

Explanation of Recent Financial Performance: The description is adequate.

Explanation of Financial History: The description is adequate. The Kalispel left CBFWA because of inadequate and poorly timed communication about issues in the Upper Columbia region. The project financial history goes back to 2007. The Kalispel Tribe’s “historical spending has trended toward under spending our contracted amounts.”

Performance: Most of the contract deliverables have been on time.

Accomplishments: The project lists accomplishments, with examples, in the following categories: contribution to the regional coordination white paper, participation in meetings, provision of information and recommendations on Basinwide policy issues, provision of project-related reporting and policy-level education, coordination on FCRPS mitigation related issues, and representation of Kalispel Tribal issues throughout the Basin.

Past Accomplishments are well described, with specifics provided as to what was done, how it was done, and the value added.

Response to previous reviews: general information is provided regarding the intent to meet or exceed review criteria.

Adaptive management: A general description is provided but it is not applied specifically to the implementation of the coordination project.

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

The geographic interests are regional to the Intermountain Province. The Kalispel are a member of UCUT and support its activities. They are concerned about Fish and Wildlife Program activities in the Columbia Basin.

Project relationships: Specific information is provided on relationships with other tribal coordination projects, regional monitoring and regional data projects. The proposal also notes coordination relationships to implement cost-share, conservation strategies, and project actions.

Limiting factors: These are described in terms relevant to coordination – the maintenance and support of existing relationships within the region to enable cost-effective project implementation and effective conservation outcomes.

Information is provided about efforts to reintroduce and restore native fish.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The proposal describes the breakdown of project efforts among eight tasks, with accompanying specific explanation: data management (10%); monitoring and evaluation (10%); biological objectives (10%); review of technical documents and processes (20%); project proposal review (5%); coordination of projects and programs (25%); facilitating and participating in groups and Program issues (10%); and information and education (10%).

Deliverables are worded as processes rather than evidence of outcomes; they include participate, educate and communicate, provide technical reviews, and summarize accomplishments and lessons learned. The explanation of how deliverables tie to objectives provides more detail and helpful specific examples, but still lacks a measurement link between activities and objectives.

Three work elements are identified – 99. Outreach and Education, 122. Provide Technical Review, 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.

Meetings are identified. What have been the outcomes from these meetings? How has coordination improved over the time when coordination was handled by CBFWA? The annual report for Project 2007-162-00, Contract No. 00046774, Reporting Period FY 2009, 4/1/10 - 3/31/11 gives very little detail on the results of attending meetings and the collaborations that took place. Were some meetings better organized, lead, structured than others? Does the organization of meetings affect the effectiveness of coordination?

More development of the education objective would be desirable. How has the website data dissemination project cited at www.gcs-research.net/KalispelTribe/ (site is not accessible w/o login id) been evaluated? Has it achieved its objectives? What is the primary audience? What are the key data included? Can this be placed in an adaptive management framework, where lessons learned inform the next project renewal and round of funding? The information in the annual report for Project 2007-162-00, Contract No. 00046774, Reporting Period FY 2009, 4/1/10 - 3/31/11 gives very little detail.

The proposal says, “The Kalispel Tribe's use of coordination resources are used specifically to promote the integrated implementation of all actions within our ceded lands in a manner consistent with the recovery of ESA listed species, the conservation of species at risk of listing under ESA, and the general knowledge and condition of native flora, fauna and associated habitats. We are dedicated to this end and specific opportunities to restore or reintroduce native fish to our area are covered in the various project proposals being submitted.” What is the baseline of current conditions? How can coordination improve the situation? Who needs to be involved to make progress? Were the proposals submitted coordinated with other groups, government entities, or organizations?

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.

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

The protocols for the three 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 can strengthen the science in proposals by developing metrics for the most important activities and identify methods for measurement.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/17/2012 2:50:35 PM.

This is an inadequately written proposal to perform coordination and meeting participation. The proposal provides little explanation of how the requested FTE support and other funds will be spent. Budget figures are rounded and seem excessive (e.g. .7 FTE for coordination; $10,000 to attend regional meetings). The proposal does not justify why the efforts described in this proposal, which would seem to be routine and to require minimal effort, are not a component of the eight funded Kalispel projects, or how conservation and management will be affected if the funding is not provided.

This proposal and a twin proposal submitted by the Spokane Tribe would seem to be covered under the more comprehensive (and less expensive) UCUT coordination proposal, which includes the Spokane and Kalispel.

The justification for the proposal is based in the need for regional cooperation, the MOU between BPA and the Upper Columbia United Tribes regarding consultation, coordination and participation, and the withdrawal of the Kalispel Tribe from CBFWA. The proposal does not provide specific explanation of the Tribe's withdrawal from CBFWA.

The proposal has a single objective of coordinating the Kalispel tribe fish and wildlife projects with the region. Four work elements are generally explained as participation in meetings, exchanging information, providing Kalispel information to regional reporting, and providing information to regional entities on Kalispel policies, programs and projects. Coordination is not specifically tied to improvements of fish and wildlife conservation and restoration on Kalispel lands.