FY07-09 proposal 200710800

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs:

Termination date: Ongoing
Comments:

Final deliverables: Annual reports of coordination activities; work product from individual efforts within coordination umbrella; proposals and position papers for improved regional F&W management.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Admin (see comments)

NPCC comments: This proposal describes coordination and information provision for the Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT) that seems quite useful and productive. A brief but clear section describes the role of the UCUT in coordinating its five member tribes with the Fish and Wildlife Program and with CBFWA. It describes meetings coordinated and information provided to its members, as well as its function in communicating UCUT member positions within the Basin decision arenas. The proposal provides specific examples of UCUT's role in enabling coordination, communication and participation of its members in regional processes. It makes a good case for the relation of UCUT coordination support to the participation of the upriver tribes in fish and wildlife activities. It describes decreasing levels of UCUT funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), relates the funding declines to a decline in coordination activities, and states that project funding is necessary to maintain UCUT central office functions. The proposal would be strengthened by including more detail on the benefits to fish and wildlife of enhanced coordination activities. For example, what specific projects or resources are threatened if funding is not provided? How will conservation and management be affected if the funding is not provided? The proposal has five objectives describing various aspects of coordination, participation, and long-term planning. Work elements are listed for each objective; all are activities that facilitate member tribes' participation in the Fish and Wildlife Program. Work elements are specific and relate well to the objectives. One set of work elements relates to the informing of and involvement in national legislation and international agreements that affect the tribes with regard to salmon and habitat issues and treaty storage water. This seems quite useful and forward-looking. To strengthen the justification for the proposal, the sponsors should provide specific information on the basis for the following statement made in the proposal: "The upriver Tribes have been innovative leaders in proposing strategies for watershed-based Program management, equitable allocation of fish and wildlife funding, and multiple-purpose river operations." In addition, because the objective of this project is coordination, the sponsors need to provide some measures by which the effectiveness of this coordination can be monitored and evaluated.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Admin (see comments)

NPCC comments: This proposal describes coordination and information provision for the Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT) that seems quite useful and productive. A brief but clear section describes the role of the UCUT in coordinating its five member tribes with the Fish and Wildlife Program and with CBFWA. It describes meetings coordinated and information provided to its members, as well as its function in communicating UCUT member positions within the Basin decision arenas. The proposal provides specific examples of UCUT's role in enabling coordination, communication and participation of its members in regional processes. It makes a good case for the relation of UCUT coordination support to the participation of the upriver tribes in fish and wildlife activities. It describes decreasing levels of UCUT funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), relates the funding declines to a decline in coordination activities, and states that project funding is necessary to maintain UCUT central office functions. The proposal would be strengthened by including more detail on the benefits to fish and wildlife of enhanced coordination activities. For example, what specific projects or resources are threatened if funding is not provided? How will conservation and management be affected if the funding is not provided? The proposal has five objectives describing various aspects of coordination, participation, and long-term planning. Work elements are listed for each objective; all are activities that facilitate member tribes' participation in the Fish and Wildlife Program. Work elements are specific and relate well to the objectives. One set of work elements relates to the informing of and involvement in national legislation and international agreements that affect the tribes with regard to salmon and habitat issues and treaty storage water. This seems quite useful and forward-looking. To strengthen the justification for the proposal, the sponsors should provide specific information on the basis for the following statement made in the proposal: "The upriver Tribes have been innovative leaders in proposing strategies for watershed-based Program management, equitable allocation of fish and wildlife funding, and multiple-purpose river operations." In addition, because the objective of this project is coordination, the sponsors need to provide some measures by which the effectiveness of this coordination can be monitored and evaluated.