Several parts of this proposal provide excellent detail. The out-of-basin emphasis of this proposal is a valuable idea and coordination is a very important part of addressing this issue. Development of the proposal to strengthen this insight would be very useful. Proposal sponsors should be able to add greater detail about methods, the approach they will take to adaptive management, the project's relationship to other projects, and how effectiveness will be assessed (see Qualifications).

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

The Nez Perce Tribe has chosen to represent its interests and engage in technical and policy issues with resource managers in the Upper Columbia Basin. “The primary programmatic goal of Nez Perce Tribe regional coordination is to support effective protection, mitigation and enhancement of Columbia Basin fish and wildlife resources by actively engaging in and contributing to key regional forums, processes and initiatives.”

Significance to regional programs: The sponsors relate the project to the subbasin plan, coordination to address out of subbasin effects, lamprey restoration, MERR, the FCRPS BiOp, and other regional fora and processes.

Problem statement: The statement makes the point of the complexity of implementing the 2009 Fish and Wildlife Program, given the many competing interests, and how this complexity requires good coordination among the many interests. The proposal describes the Nez Perce interests in effective Fish and Wildlife Program implementation, especially as it pertains to salmon and lamprey.

Objectives: The proposal lists four objectives. The objectives are worded as desired process outcomes. The sponsors could consider working some of their explanatory text into their statements of objectives to explain desirable achievements beyond process.

Deliverables include participation in meetings and other communications, coordinated planning and implementation forums for Pacific lamprey restoration, recommendations to amend the Fish and Wildlife Program, and coordinated assessments for salmon and steelhead. These are mainly inputs to coordination. What were the outcomes from meetings, communications, forums, and recommendations?

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

Although the Nez Perce Tribe has been a member of CBFWA, 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.”

Reference is made to the Nez Perce contribution to adaptive management through CBFWA. The proposal would benefit from adopting an adaptive management framework.

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

The geographic interests are regional to all out-of-basin areas affecting returns of salmon, steelhead, and lamprey to the Upper Snake River basin.

Project relationships: Reference is made to the previous relationship to the CBFWA coordination project. No additional projects are listed as related to this project

Emerging limiting factors: This is a good summary that includes climate change effects on precipitation, predation dynamics and alterations in food webs.

Tailored questions: The section on data sharing is excellent. The Nez Perce Tribe has data that Upper Snake River runs cannot be restored to upriver basins unless out-of-basin factors are addressed. These include “estuarine and ocean conditions, hydropower impacts such as water quality and fish passage, mainstem Snake/Columbia river water quality and quantity conditions, and downriver and oceanic fisheries—are key factors limiting recruitment of anadromous spawners to the upper Snake River basins.” This is a very valuable systems perspective on the difficulties facing salmon, steelhead, and lamprey restoration. Relating out-of-basin issues to the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness in coordination could provide valuable insights to the Fish and Wildlife Program.

The restoration of lamprey is of special concern.

Meetings are identified. What have been the outcomes from these meeting? How does coordination differ from that handled by CBFWA? In what ways is it more effective and efficient?

More development of the information dissemination work element would be desirable. The primary audience appears to be local schools and universities. What are the key messages to be emphasized? What education styles or media will be used? How will effectiveness of understanding the message be monitored. Can this be placed in an adaptive management framework, where on project renewal lessons learned inform the next round of funding. The information in the annual report for Contract # 48252, Project # 207-106-00, Contract Period 08/15/2010 – 08/14/2011 gives very little detail.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Deliverables: Four deliverables are identical to the objectives. Adequate detail is provided for each.

Regional coordination components: There are eight project components: Data management (10%); participating in Basinwide Data Sharing Strategy (10%); participating in the Anadromous Salmonid Monitoring Strategy (10%); participation in forums (40%); Project proposal review (10%); Coordination within subbasins (5%); Focus workgroups on Program issues (10%); and Information dissemination (5%). Good examples are provided for each component.

Work elements: Six work elements are identified – 99. Outreach and Education, 114. Identify and Select Projects, 122. Provide Technical Review, 159. Transfer/Consolidate Regionally Standardized Data, 160. Create/Manage/Maintain Database, 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.

Methods and metrics: Some information is provided in the descriptions of work components and deliverables. As a new project, no information is provided regarding value added or assessment of effectiveness.

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

The protocols for the six 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 have to design the metrics into their proposal and no rely on the definitions for Work Elements.