< Back to list of FY 2007-2009 projects

199803100 - Implement Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit

Sponsor: Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC)

Budgets: FY07: $234,205 | FY08: $234,205 | FY09: $234,205

Short description: This project will provide effective and efficient watershed restoration through coordination and support of tribal restoration planning and project implementation consistent with Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit and the NWPCC Fish and Wildlife Program.

view full proposal

Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)

Funding category: Expense

Recommended budgets: FY07: $210,000 | FY08: $0 | FY09: $0

Comment: Funding recommendation for FY08 and 09 dependent on further review and decision by the Council. See 'regional coordination placeholder' below and see discussion of regional coordination funding in the programmatic recommendations.

ISRP final recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)


CRITFC provided helpful answers to many ISRP comments. The response concerning outreach was well done. The list of over 150 completed or ongoing projects is impressive. However, no lists of technical reports or data resulting from these projects could be provided because of the "limited time frame." It is surprising that CRITFC does not routinely have this information available. Better evaluation and documentation of the effectiveness of previous coordination efforts and project implementation in the form of feedback from the four Tribes and other agencies could help CRITFC to identify those activities that have been most effective and to prioritize future efforts. But overall, the response misses the point and does not address the ISRP’s comments on the need for better self-evaluation and monitoring of CRITFC activities. The statement: "It is impossible to clearly state what the most effective activities are" is disconcerting in a coordination project, and can only true if no attempts to evaluate effectiveness are made. Approval of projects by the CRITFC Commission does not constitute an evaluation. The sponsors need to take a more proactive approach to learn how to conduct an effectiveness evaluation and to conduct it. At present, effectiveness is asserted rather than documented. Responses #12 and 16 address some potential indicators of effectiveness, but these remain assertions rather than demonstrations of effectiveness. If it is the case (response #12) that "Effectiveness may well be measured by the success of preserving the tribal institutional capacity and leadership to deliver on-the-ground projects, collaboration to make shared decisions with state and federal co-managers on key policy issues, participation in forums that shape future actions by BPA and other federal entities that oversee the operation of the hydrosystem, and education and outreach to build and sustain partnerships," the elements of this statement provide guidance as to the types of indicators that would be appropriate to assess performance. Response 17 also addresses the effectiveness evaluation issue. Stating, "As already agreed to by the ISRP, monitoring of coordination effectiveness is difficult to evaluate quantitatively" is again missing the point. Although it is difficult, it is both desirable and possible. The point is that careful thought should be given to what effectiveness would look like and how it can be measured, then develop a plan to measure it and evaluate it. Agreeing to "document any incidences of overlap or redundancy with CRITFC and individual tribal projects if they occur as a measure of effectiveness" is not sufficient and does not address the central question of effectiveness. The response provides no indication of a prioritized approach to planning. Planning is apparently entirely reactive to short-term priorities expressed by CRITFC members. Response 15 describes some of the elements of consideration in coordination but does not explain the process of prioritization. The recommended qualification to funding is that the sponsors be required to develop an effectiveness evaluation plan.

Response loop edit

See the sponsor's revised proposal from the response loop. You'll be taken to CBFWA's proposal system in Section 10 where most sponsors uploaded revised narratives or other responses to the ISRP comments.

State/province recommendation: MS: Review as a group

Review group: MSRT

Recommended budgets: FY07: $210,000 | FY08: $210,000 | FY09: $210,000

Comment: The portion of this project that addresses support for regional coordination of the fish and wildlife managers should be discussed in relation to other projects proposing similar work. This project coordinates tribal members at the project level to insure consistency between projects and among funding processes. One member expressed concern that funding for this program should be concomitant with upriver and Snake River tribal recovery plans such as the Okanogan Initiative. Performance standards and benchmarks should be clearly articulated and reported to the region.