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. As this project gets more history it will be desirable to provide specifics of what is being done and how it contributes to project objectives and to value-added for fish and wildlife. At present many of the statements are general and presented in conditional future tense, rather than specific examples of accomplishments.

The proposal sponsors refer to a number of procedures and processes that would be useful for coordination evaluations. These are referred to in a general way. References, reports, or descriptions of these procedures and processes would be helpful. Further, any data collected as a result of these activities would be valuable to report.

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

The Colville Confederated Tribes (CCT) have chosen to represent their interests and engage in technical and policy issues with resource managers in the Columbia Basin. The project will allow the Colville Tribes “involvement in regionally important processes and programs related to fish and wildlife management issues within the Columbia River Basin.”

Significance to regional programs: The proposal places the project within the context of the Fish Accords, US Salmon Recovery Plan, the subbasin and provincial plans, the Fish and Wildlife Program.

Problem statement: The statement describes a need for the CCT to better represent itself in regional issues and coordination. It cites the conceptual foundation provided in the NPCC coordination white paper as well as the example provided by the Kalispell Tribe in managing its own coordination rather than working through a regional body. Funding for the CCT to conduct its own coordination activities began in 2010.

Objectives: The proposal lists three objectives. The objectives are worded as desired outcomes and are generally described.

Deliverables include “participate in Regional Fish and Wildlife Integrated Program related activities,” “educate and communicate with public and relevant stakeholders,” “provide for technical reviews of Fish and Wildlife Program projects and/or issues,” and report on milestones and deliverables.

Limiting factors: None are listed.

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

The Colville Tribes initially participated in UCUT. When the Kalispel Tribe left CBFWA in 2007, the Colville Tribes decided “that the traditional regional coordination funding could be better utilized through direct contracting with the BPA.” The first funding to the Colville Tribes was awarded in 2010, but no funds were expended until 2011. No progress reports are available for review. One is pending.

Recent financial performance: A brief description of the project's activities. A statement about the multiple sources of cost share is included, although directly above this section is a statement saying there are no cost shares.

Accomplishments: These are described as various interactions, reporting and presentations for education. They are not directly tied to the project's objectives. This is a new project, so technically there are no results to evaluate. In the historical accomplishments section the
proposal describes the realized accomplishments of meaningful engagement in regional processes and the development of products used in various policy processes. Historical data on performance is available with the project, “Proposal RESCAT-1989-062-01 - Program Coordination and Facilitation Services provided through the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Foundation.” See the section, “Reporting & Contracted Deliverables Performance.”

Adaptive management: A brief statement of the intent to adaptively manage coordination to maximize efficiency and effectiveness.

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

The main geographic interest is “Colville Fish Accords and the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Plan.” The coordination proposal is intended to “to allow the Tribe to represent its policies and issues regarding all regional plans and documents.”

Project relationships: The project is related to other tribes' coordination projects, regional projects and programs.

While this is a new proposal, thinking about scientific contributions that might be made during the current funding period is desirable. More specific attention to identifying a scientific component to the proposal help plan for future success. Under management the proposal says, “The project, through time, will adaptively manage the tools, strategies, and efforts to maximize efficiencies and effectiveness of coordination.” Specifics on the adaptive management process, monitoring protocols, methods for capturing and applying lessons learned, and metrics for effective coordination and efficiency would be very helpful in evaluating and justifying this program. Several important processes and concepts are identified in this statement.

The proposal emphasizes, “engage, in a meaningful way.” Can his be measured or observed? Do other coordination entities reflect understanding of tribal principles? Does meaningful engagement increase trust; change the selection of projects, the text in plans, the patterns of collaboration; or results seen on-the-ground?

The proposal sponsors state “as a matter of practice, routinely re-evaluates our engagement in activities and processes within the Columbia River Basin.” Are there reports that might be referenced on this evaluation? Are there examples of changes made due to evaluation? Would this evaluation be a protocol that might be included in “Work Elements, Metrics, and Measures?” Having such a process might be valuable to others.

Meetings are identified. What have been the outcomes from these meeting? How has coordination improved over the time when coordination was handled by CBFWA? Does the structure of the meeting setting, meeting leadership, and seating of participants affect meeting outcomes?

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Deliverables: Four deliverables are generally described and are tied to the objectives.

Regional coordination activities: The proposal lists eight types of activities as methods of implementation. Data Management (10%)- Monitoring and Evaluation (20%)- Biological Objectives (5%)- Review of Technical Documents (5%)- Project Proposal Review (5%)- Coordination of Projects, Programs and Funding Sources within Subbasins (25%)- Facilitating and Participating in focus workgroups on Program issues (10%)- Information Dissemination (20%). These are generally described, without metrics. Other than a list of bullet points little else is provided.

Work elements: Two work elements identified are 99. Outreach and Education and 189. Coordination-Columbia. 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 two 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.