Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2009-010-00 - Coeur D'Alene Tribe Regional Coordination Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2009-010-00 - Coeur D'Alene Tribe Regional Coordination
Project Number:
Coeur D'Alene Tribe Regional Coordination
The Coeur d' Alene Tribe (CDAT) is a sovereign government with jurisdictional authority over their lands and equal legal and constitutional status as the State of Idaho when dealing with 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 the Regional forum, post-CBFWA 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 the CBFWA.
Proponent Orgs:
Coeur D'Alene Tribe (Tribe)
Starting FY:
Ending FY:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Province Subbasin %
Basinwide - 100.00%
Regional Coordination
Focal Species:
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 33.4%   Resident: 33.3%   Wildlife: 33.3%
BiOp Association:

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"

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

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2020 - FY2022)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2020 Expense $78,078 From: General FY20 SOY 06/05/2019
FY2021 Expense $78,078 From: General FY21 SOY 06/09/2020

Pending Budget Decision?  No

Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2021
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)


The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
76828 REL 8 SOW Coeur D'Alene Tribe 2009-010-00 EXP COEUR D' ALENE TRIBE COORDINATION Issued $78,078 4/1/2020 - 3/31/2021
CR-344402 SOW Coeur D'Alene Tribe 2009-010-00 EXP COEUR D' ALENE TRIBE COORDINATION Pending $78,078 4/1/2021 - 3/31/2022

Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):10
On time:4
Status Reports
On time:21
Avg Days Early:1

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
46108 53467, 56837, 60522, 64522, 68571, 72096, 75280, 77795, 81542, 76828 REL 8 200901000 EXP COEUR D' ALENE TRIBE COORDINAT Coeur D'Alene Tribe 04/2010 04/2010 Pending 42 44 4 0 0 48 100.00% 0
Project Totals 42 44 4 0 0 48 100.00% 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: 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

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
Final Round ISRP Comment:
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.


  • 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

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:

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Angelo Vitale Technical Contact Coeur D'Alene Tribe
Cameron Heusser Supervisor Coeur D'Alene Tribe
Anders Mikkelsen Project Lead Coeur D'Alene Tribe
Paul Krueger (Inactive) Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Carlos Matthew Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Kelly Hope Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration