Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2012-008-00 - Montana Regional Coordination Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2012-008-00 - Montana Regional Coordination
Project Number:
Montana Regional Coordination
In April 2012 Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) ended participation with the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA) at which point funds formerly given to CBFWA by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) were made available to MFWP to continue critical regional coordination with other conservation partners throughout the Columbia Basin. This Project implements that continued coordination, providing staff and resources to attend and participate in essential planning, overview, and strategy sessions concerning resident fish mitigation throughout the region Exchange of information remains a critical obligation for all parties involved with effectively ameliorating harm to fisheries caused by hydro-electric facilities. Especially critical is the newly developed need to coordinate and communicate with a larger number of conservation partners, that, like MFWP just recently left CBFWA membership. This project provides for continuing MFWP involvement in regionally important processes and programs at all levels to help inform regional decision making and to improve favorable outcomes for resident fish while retaining cost efficiencies..
Proponent Orgs:
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
Ending FY:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Province Subbasin %
Mountain Columbia Flathead 100.00%
Regional Coordination
Focal Species:
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 0.0%   Resident: 100.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
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 $130,711 From: Fish Accord - Montana Accord Extensions (State of Montana) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2021 Expense $130,711 From: Fish Accord - Montana Accord Extensions (State of Montana) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2022 Expense $130,711 From: Fish Accord - Montana Accord Extensions (State of Montana) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018

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
2020 (Draft)
2017 (Draft)
2016 (Draft)
2015 (Draft)
2014 (Draft)
2013 (Draft)
2012 (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
76916 REL 14 SOW Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) 2012-008-00 EXP MONTANA REGIONAL COORDINATION Issued $130,711 7/1/2020 - 6/30/2021

Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):8
On time:1
Status Reports
On time:30
Avg Days Early:5

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
56781 61840, 65610, 69683, 72905, 76686, 76916 REL 2, 76916 REL 8, 76916 REL 14 2012-008-00 EXP MONTANA REGIONAL COORDINATION Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) 04/2012 04/2012 Issued 34 33 4 0 0 37 100.00% 0
Project Totals 34 33 4 0 0 37 100.00% 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: 2012-008-00-NPCC-20130807
Project: 2012-008-00 - Montana Regional Coordination
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal: RESCAT-2012-008-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 3/5/2014
Recommendation: Other
Comments: See Regional Coordination Review and Recommendations - Part 4.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2012-008-00-ISRP-20120215
Project: 2012-008-00 - Montana Regional Coordination
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal Number: RESCAT-2012-008-00
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:

The proposal contains very little specific detail on what MFWP is trying to accomplish with the proposed coordination. It is missing an opportunity to take a more systematic approach to coordination: to think about what the sponsors are really trying to achieve, how they will go about it, how they will know if they are achieving their objectives, and how they will adapt to changing circumstances or proactively test new approaches and learn from the outcomes.

“Montana proposes to shift the emphasis of regional coordination funding to supporting specific forums and efficient processes that facilitate implementation of tangible benefits to fish, wildlife, and their habitat.” The Montana proposal raises an important issue about the value of coordination in relation to completion of projects. The cost reduction theme and the relation between coordination and project effectiveness would be very useful themes to put into a research plan.

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

Proposed work includes coordination of projects, programs, and funding sources within subbasins (75%); review of technical documents and processes (10%); facilitating and participating in workgroups (7%); information dissemination (3%); and project proposal reviews (5%).

Significance to regional programs: A summary statement describing the regional programs and fora that relate to fish and wildlife issues in Montana and in which regional coordination funds MFWP participation.

Problem statement: The statement emphasizes the current cost of the process in the Fish and Wildlife Program and BPA's goal to reduce the proportion of direct spending on process activities. A link is made to the cost reduction potential of Montana's coordination project.

Objectives: The project has five objectives, each with a brief description. The objectives are written as tasks and desired outcomes are not identified.

OBJ 1: "Reduce the percentage of project funding that is spent on planning and process." Good, written as a measurable hypothesis. But, this is not developed in the deliverables. The proposal calls attention to the tension between coordination funding and project funding. This implies that coordination activities need to be evaluated for their efficiency and effectiveness.

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

Major accomplishments: The statement refers back to accomplishments under the CBFWA coordination and the present entities who are Montana's major collaborators.

Adaptive management: The statement notes that regional coordination benefits from adaptive management, notable in efforts to reduce costs by streamlining processes to eliminate redundancies and sharing effective mitigation tools. Putting these questions into an adaptive management framework and designing a research plan would make this proposal much stronger and help achieve the objectives of the proposal sponsors.

ISRP Retrospective Evaluation of Results

“Montana will formally withdraw from the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority at the end of the contract period in April 2012.” This project has no financial history or review of progress. Previous work was completed under the management of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

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.”

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

Project relationships: The proposal provides a general list of regional entities with which the MFWP coordinates.

Geographic focus: The geographic interests are stated as, “Montana proposes to shift the emphasis of regional coordination funding to supporting specific forums and efficient processes that facilitate implementation of tangible benefits to fish, wildlife and their habitat. …Montana's regional coordination facilitates implementation of the Flathead and Kootenai Subbasin Plans.” This is a desirable goal, but does it reflect regional coordination? Is it affected by regional coordination?

Emerging limiting factors: The proposal states that the coordination project will not directly address limiting factors. However, it notes that for agencies, states and tribes to address limiting factors in a cost-effective way, coordination is required. Some examples of limiting factors requiring coordination are briefly described and could be developed as research questions.

Under adaptive management, the proposal emphasizes, “The most significant change planned for Montana's regional coordination funding is to streamline processes, so that a larger percentage of Fish and Wildlife Program funding is directed toward on-the-ground actions.” Thus, a deliverable might be a reduction in the ratio funds going to coordination and an increase in the ratio going to projects.

The emphasis on "trust" as a variable affected by personal contact is insightful and important. Building a research plan on the dimensions of this insight would be valuable.

The proposed plan of work is mainly about inputs. What outcomes and relationships might be observed that relate to coordination? Measures for the primary goal of shifting funding from coordination to projects would be a desirable indicator of achieving the proposal’s major concern.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Deliverables: The proposal lists a single deliverable - Montana Regional Coordination - that relates to each of the objectives. How does “Montana Regional Coordination” meet all the objectives? How does this deliver anything or meet any objective? The deliverable is a general task statement and should focus on outcomes; the objectives are more specific task statements.

Work elements: One work element is identified: 189. Coordination-Columbia Basinwide. This work element has no metrics associated with it. Can output metrics and methods be identified to go with this work element? 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: These would be developed in a scientific regional coordination research plan.

Value-added: The hypothesis is offered that less funding should go to coordination and more to projects. This is an important issue. Can it be documented? One might offer the alternative hypothesis that without regional coordination project funds are wasted on duplicative and low priority projects. How is it that describing the value-added is not applicable?

Assessment of effectiveness: What are the measures that demonstrate this effectiveness? What are the expected outcomes from providing “records of attendance for all meetings and events, as well as any materials published for the purposes of coordination as well as document the outcomes of coordination?” Can more specifics on the deliverables be included? What are the appropriate outcome measures?

4a. Specific comments on protocols and methods described in

The protocols for the work element are published but do not provide adequate guidance on the methods and metrics. Guidance is available from ISRP (2007-14:2). Project sponsors can strengthen the science in proposals by developing methods and metrics for the most important project objectives.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/17/2012 3:08:14 PM.
Documentation Links:

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Cecilia Brown Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Brian Marotz (Inactive) Technical Contact Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP)
Matt Boyer Project Lead Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP)
Jannice Richardson Administrative Contact Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP)