Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2011-012-00 - Cowlitz Tribe Regional Coordination Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2011-012-00 - Cowlitz Tribe Regional Coordination
Project Number:
2011-012-00
Title:
Cowlitz Tribe Regional Coordination
Summary:
The Northwest Power Act directs the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) to consult with the region’s appropriate Indian Tribes in the development and implementation of the Fish and Wildlife Program. The Power Act also calls for fish and wildlife management coordination to assist protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources in the Columbia River Basin. The Cowlitz Indian Tribe is a federally recognized Indian tribe whose area of influence extends from the crest of the Cascade Mountains to Pacific County in Washington and Clatsop County in Oregon. The northern area of influence extends to Thurston County in Washington and is bounded on the south inside Columbia, Washington, Multnomah, and Hood River Counties in Oregon. Many culturally important landscapes and species to the Cowlitz People within its areas of influence are affected by the operations of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS). The development of the FCRPS has adversely affected wildlife, resident fish, and anadromous fish resources along the entirety of the ancestral Cowlitz landscape including, but not limited to: The Lewis River and its tributaries, the Cowlitz River and its tributaries, the Kalama River and its tributaries, as well as the Columbia River Estuary from Bonneville Dam to the Plume.
Proposer:
Proponent Orgs:
Cowlitz Indian Tribe (Tribe)
Starting FY:
2011
Ending FY:
2021
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia River Estuary Cowlitz 50.00%
Elochoman 50.00%
Purpose:
Programmatic
Emphasis:
Regional Coordination
Focal Species:
Chinook - All Populations
Chum - Columbia River ESU
Coho - Lower Columbia River ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Sockeye - All Populations
Steelhead - All Populations
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
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"

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 $132,711 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY20 SOY 06/05/2019
FY2021 Expense $132,711 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) 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)
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011

Contracts

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
78933 SOW Cowlitz Indian Tribe 2011-012-00 EXP COWLITZ TRIBE COORDINATION Issued $132,711 4/1/2018 - 3/31/2019
85014 SOW Cowlitz Indian Tribe 2011-012-00 EXP COWLITZ TRIBE COORDINATION Issued $132,711 4/1/2020 - 3/31/2021



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):8
Completed:3
On time:3
Status Reports
Completed:37
On time:15
Avg Days Late:3

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
53344 61545, 63931, 67099, 71990, 75469, 78933, 81923, 85014 2011-012-00 EXP COWLITZ TRIBE COORDINATION & PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Cowlitz Indian Tribe 07/2011 07/2011 Issued 37 36 4 0 0 40 100.00% 0
Project Totals 37 36 4 0 0 40 100.00% 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

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2011-012-00-ISRP-20120215
Project: 2011-012-00 - Cowlitz Tribe Regional Coordination
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal Number: RESCAT-2011-012-00
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:

This is a new project so it is reasonable that it does not have a lot to report by way of accomplishments. However, it describes a wide array of tasks that will allow it in future to report progress toward meeting objectives and to include assessment of project performance and an evaluation of project effectiveness. Objectives are appropriately worded as desired outcomes. The sponsors are encouraged to take this evaluative approach to its interactions with other entities for the benefit of adaptive management.

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.

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

Purpose: The Cowlitz Indian Tribe has chosen to represent its interests and engage in technical and policy issues with resource managers in the Willamette/Lower Columbia Basin. For the Cowlitz Indian Tribe habitat is a primary concern.

Significance to Regional Programs: Significance is placed within the context of the resource history of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT), its culture, and present legal status. The proposal mentions the adverse effect of the FCRPS on resources and the critical importance of Cowlitz County habitat. This project enables the CIT to coordinate with the NPCC, Action Agencies and other entities in advancing the objectives of the subbasin plan and implementing habitat restoration projects.

Problem statement: The statement emphasizes the importance of the CIT's cultural knowledge for the restoration of Lower Columbia resources. It emphasizes habitat actions that the CIT is taking in coordination with other entities and the need for the coordination funding to enable full participation and coordination.

Objectives: The project has two objectives worded in terms of desired outcomes: 1. Support Tribal Participation; 2. Develop and Implement Habitat Restoration. The project objectives include enabling the Tribe to better coordinate and participate with many Lower Columbia partners and to implement habitat restoration in the Lower Columbia region. Deliverables include basin wide coordination, technical reviews, habitat restoration projects, project management, and outreach and education.

Limiting factors: Climate change and its potential effect on priorities for habitat restoration are discussed.

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

Financial performance and financial history: The project is very new, so no financial history exists. The Cowlitz Indian Tribe feels that its input is a “necessary part of finding solutions to the negative impacts of contemporary society.”

The proposal states that the project is on schedule in performing its tasks.

Accomplishments: This is a new project, so technically there are no results to evaluate. 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.” The project has delivered its first report in advance of deadline.

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

The geographic interest is primarily Cowlitz County and the Lower Columbia region. In addition, the Cowlitz Indian Tribe works at a range of scales with Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership's (LCREP) Science Work Group, coordination meetings with the Columbia Land Trust (CLT), Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), the Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST) and the Action Agencies (BPA, USACoE), Watershed Councils, diking districts and individual landowners.

Project relationships: The proposal states that because of its Lower Columbia location, the project is related to all CRB projects. More specifically, the project focuses on working with Action Agencies to meet FCRPS BiOp obligations.

Limiting factors: Climate change and its potential effect on priorities for habitat restoration are discussed.

Proposed work includes coordination of projects and programs (50%), facilitating and participating (20%), data management review of technical documents and processes (10%), project proposal review (10%), and information dissemination (10%).

While this is a new proposal, thinking about scientific contributions that might be made during the coming funding period is desirable. More specific attention to identifying a scientific component in the proposal is needed. Can a scientific research design list important activities and identify ways to report results? Can evaluation of results in terms of the project objectives be discussed? Could insights be included that summarize how hypotheses and methods may be changed or improved compared to what is done now? Is there a plan for how the proposed work could “contribute to or inform Program policy development; lead to broad-scale implementation; and be reported back to the Council” (see Qualifications).

What are 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?” What fish and wildlife objectives were better achieved? Were funds saved, more efficiently used? Was the prioritization of projects better? How was the alignment made to environmental impacts? Does this suggest modifications to Fish and Wildlife Program objectives?

Would the coordination process for an “assessment phase that evaluates the entities participation” work in other regions? What is the assessment that should be conducted? Is there a report on outcomes? Does this improve achievement of fish and wildlife objectives?
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?

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The project has five components: Reviewing and evaluating technical documents (10%); Reviewing project proposals (10%); Coordination of projects, programs and funding sources (50%); Facilitating and participating in focus workgroups (20%); and Information dissemination (technical, policy, and outreach) (10%). Tracking biological objectives and data management are not part of this project.
Deliverables: The project has five deliverables. These are adequately described and are related to project objectives.

Work elements: Seven work elements are identified – 99. Outreach and Education, 114. Identify and Select Projects, 115. Produce Inventory or Assessment, 122. Provide Technical Review, 189. Coordination-Columbia Basinwide, 191. Watershed Coordination, and 193. Produce Land Management Plan. 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 seven 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 are encouraged to design of metrics into their proposal and not to rely solely on the definitions for Work Elements.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/17/2012 3:02:24 PM.
Documentation Links:

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Rudy Salakory Project Lead Cowlitz Indian Tribe
Taylor Aalvik Supervisor Cowlitz Indian Tribe
Jeffrey Stier (Inactive) Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Mickey Carter (Inactive) Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Jenna Peterson Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Jason Karnezis Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration