Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2008-007-00 - Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT) Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Program Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2008-007-00 - Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT) Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Program
Project Number:
2008-007-00
Title:
Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT) Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Program
Summary:
The Upper Columbia Untied Tribes have identified the need to continue to implement wildlife monitoring and evaluation (M&E). Using the Albeni Falls Dam Wildlife Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, the Tribes have pooled 5% of their individual contract resources to initiate a regional perspective to M&E. This approach has been reviewed and endorsed by the ISRP and will be closely linked to work completed between 2001 and 2006 by the Kalispel Tribe. This approach uses a habitat based approach comparing species guild and vegetation data to determine habitat quality based upon a reference site or desired future condition. Small mammal, breeding bird, amphibian, and vegetation are the four areas of data collection used to build a description of the reference site over a three year period. Once the baseline is completed, permanent sites are selected on each of the managed parcels and data from them is compared against the reference to describe each habitat types' similarity to the reference site. Each permanent sample point is generated randomly and revisited on varying time frames to track changes toward the reference site. Once restoration or passive management is complete and habitat types are showing strong similarity to the reference condition, the active portion of mitigation would be considered completed and the actions a success. Information from this analysis will be stored in a common database and developed to be accessed via a web interface. This information will be used to adaptively manage each project and techniques used to restore, enhance, or manage each area and habitat type. This approach will reduce costs, increase continuity of data collection, data interpretation, data presentation, and data collection methods.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT) (Tribe)
Starting FY:
2008
Ending FY:
2019
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Basinwide - 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 0.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 100.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
None

No photos have been uploaded yet for this project.

Summary of Budgets

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

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2018 (Previous) $231,273 $231,273 $231,273 $231,273 $230,344

General $231,273 $231,273 $231,273 $230,344
FY2019 (Current) $231,273 $231,273 $231,273 $231,273 $18,108

General $231,273 $231,273 $231,273 $18,108
FY2020 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Oct-2018

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2018 - FY2020)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2018 Expense $231,273 From: General FY18 SOY Budgets 07/17/2017
FY2019 Expense $231,273 From: General FY19 Q1 Flat 07/30/2018

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2019
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
2016 (Draft)
2015 $47,500 17 %
2014 $47,500 17 %
2013 $47,500 17 %
2012 $71,000 23 %
2011 $48,500 17 %
2010 $48,500 18 %
2009 $48,500 18 %
2008 $48,500 25 %

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
77241 SOW Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT) 2008-007-00 EXP UCUT M&E PROGRAM Issued $231,273 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
80221 SOW Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT) 2008-007-00 EXP UCUT M&E PROGRAM Issued $231,273 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):11
Completed:11
On time:11
Status Reports
Completed:41
On time:30
Avg Days Late:17

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
37820 42527, 46819, 52500, 57297, 60745, 64569, 68392, 72144, 75718, 77241, 80221 2008-007-00 EXP UCUT M&E PROGRAM Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT) 06/2008 06/2008 Issued 41 91 0 0 0 91 100.00% 0
Project Totals 41 91 0 0 0 91 100.00% 0


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: Wildlife Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2008-007-00-NPCC-20091217
Project: 2008-007-00 - Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT) Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Program
Review: Wildlife Category Review
Approved Date: 5/31/2009
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications regarding preliminary data analysis by FY2013. See ISRP recommendations. See project-specific comments for Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2008-007-00-ISRP-20090618
Project: 2008-007-00 - Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT) Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Program
Review: Wildlife Category Review
Completed Date: 5/19/2009
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The ISRP thanks the authors for their responses, but the ISRP requests that the following Qualifications be resolved.

Qualification 1. The ISRP remains concerned about the number of reference sites, frequency of surveys, and characteristics of sites. The ISRP recommends that three reference sites would be used, rather than the proposed two sites. The ISRP recommends that reference sites be monitored in perpetuity, in subsequent years, for the M&E program's duration. This approach would allow the ability to use other statistical methods. The authors should also draft a plan for monitoring after a major disturbance. If resources are extremely limited, the ISRP emphasizes three or more reference sites be surveyed periodically, rather than two sites surveyed three years in a row.

The ISRP requests that the authors more fully define their use of “intact” - what about natural disturbances? Would it still be a reference cite with a massive disturbance such as a wildfire, while the managed site did not have the disturbance? The disturbed reference site can still be useful. Some disturbances such as agricultural/subdivision conversion do make the site lose the value as a reference site. Because of this threat, the reference site criteria should include a requirement (or preference) that the land is protected through a conservation easement or the like, likely public land.

The ISRP found the goal of reference sites as pristine habitat and managing treatment sites to move toward the conditions of the reference site – managing for the future desired condition based on the pristine reference site – an interesting choice. The ISRP requests that a more heuristic approach would be to select reference sites with the goals of the managed sites in mind. The ISRP requests that the authors seek guidance from the management agencies on selecting reference sites.

The ISRP is concerned that three years in a row is not enough for a robust estimate of interannual variation. For example, rodent populations vary greatly with changes in snow conditions. This issue becomes less important if the authors survey reference sites as well as the restored sites every five years. The more regularly sites are monitored, the better the authors will understand variation.

The ISRP acknowledges that this approach could document changes between reference and management sites and this approach will not necessarily get at the "why" behind the changes.

Qualification 2. The ISRP requests a preliminary analysis of data to better assess statistical procedures, analytical approaches, and results in two years.
First Round ISRP Date: 3/26/2009
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:
The ISRP wants to acknowledge and applaud this consortium’s unique, regional approach to M&E. The technical background generally describes the inability to evaluate the effectiveness of acquisition and subsequent active and passive management of lands to mitigate for the loss of various habitats now inundated by reservoirs. More successful management decisions are likely because of the coordinated effort across subbasins and habitat types. The consistency with the Fish and Wildlife Program and subbasin plans is adequately outlined. The relationship of this coordinated project with the projects acquiring, managing, and restoring tracts of land is sufficient. Clearly integration of monitoring, consistency with protocols, and open access to evaluations are needed and this proposal begins that process in one region.

Several questions or requests need to be addressed in the response:

1. include the statistical information from the presentation in the proposal;
2. include a detailed list of criteria used for selection of reference sites;
3. could reference sites include post-disturbance successional states (e.g. post fire)?
4. regarding the choice of indicator species, amphibians, mammals, and birds, will these same indicator species be used on dry upland sites?
5. give more details of how the data will be analyzed, including an expansion of how the species metric will be analyzed with an example data summary; the test statistics suggested for analyzing response of the metric; and the statistical power and probability levels they anticipate using;
6. what is the rationale for sampling reference sites for 3 years at the beginning but not revisiting these sites? Or will reference and mitigation sites be sampled simultaneously? A timeline (e.g. 20 years) might help reviewers interpret the sampling strategy;
7. the scale and duration of the project present obstacles for sampling
Documentation Links:

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Virgil Watts III Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Ray Entz Interested Party Kalispel Tribe
Matt Berger (Inactive) Technical Contact Colville Confederated Tribes
Lori Rothrock Administrative Contact Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT)
Paul Krueger (Inactive) Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Richard Whitney Interested Party Colville Confederated Tribes
Kelly Singer Interested Party Colville Confederated Tribes
Samuel Rushing Interested Party Colville Confederated Tribes
Scott Soults Interested Party Kootenai Tribe
Norm Merz Interested Party Kootenai Tribe
Cameron Heusser Interested Party Coeur D'Alene Tribe
Gerald Green Interested Party Coeur D'Alene Tribe
Katie Eaton (Inactive) Interested Party Spokane Tribe
Matthew Berger Interested Party Kalispel Tribe
Keith Kutchins Project Lead Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT)
Marc Gauthier Technical Contact Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT)
Luca De Stefanis Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration