Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2003-022-00 - Okanogan Basin Monitoring & Evaluation Program (OBMEP) Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2003-022-00 - Okanogan Basin Monitoring & Evaluation Program (OBMEP)
Project Number:
2003-022-00
Title:
Okanogan Basin Monitoring & Evaluation Program (OBMEP)
Summary:
The creation of the Okanogan Basin Monitoring and Evaluation Program (OBMEP) was specifically called for in the Okanogan Subbasin Plan and the Action Agencies/NOAA Fisheries RME Plan. OBMEP operates concurrently within Bonneville’s pilot studies in the Okanogan, Wenatchee, John Day and Salmon River systems with guidance provided by PNAMP and CSMEP. The OBMEP program, developed in consultation with Canadian officials, various federal, state and tribal monitoring programs and experts at the local level, will support decision-making and provide the necessary implementation and resource management infrastructure for the Upper Columbia, the Colville Tribes, the public, and our resource management partners. This fundamental monitoring and evaluation program will provide status and trend data for all anadromous fish species in the Okanogan River basin for the next 20+ years and will include monitoring, status, trend, effectiveness of plans, programs and restoration actions, now, and well into the future. OBMEP monitors key components of juvenile fish production, habitat condition, water quality, and adult enumeration. Data will be collected in a format compatible with other regional monitoring efforts and the EDT process (the assessment tool used in the Okanogan Subbasin Plan). OBMEP will also fill identified data gaps, and guide future research needs.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Colville Confederated Tribes (Tribe)
Starting FY:
2003
Ending FY:
2032
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Cascade Okanogan 100.00%
Purpose:
Programmatic
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
All Anadromous Fish
All Anadromous Salmonids
Bass, Largemouth
Bass, Smallmouth
Burbot
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Spring ESU (endangered)
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Freshwater Mussels
Kokanee
Lamprey, Pacific
Lamprey, River
OBSOLETE-Carp, Common
OBSOLETE-Catfish
OBSOLETE-Crappie, Black
OBSOLETE-Crappie, White
OBSOLETE-Perch, Yellow
OBSOLETE-Pikeminnow, Northern
OBSOLETE-Trout, Brown
OBSOLETE-Walleye
Other Anadromous
Other Resident
Sockeye - Okanogan River ESU
Steelhead - Upper Columbia River DPS (threatened)
Sturgeon, White - All Populations except Kootenai R. DPS
Sturgeon, White - Lower Columbia River
Trout, Brook
Trout, Bull (threatened)
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

The extent of historic habitat in the Okanogan River basin accessible to anadromous fish.

Figure Name: Figure 1

Document ID: P122798

Document: 2010 OBMEP Annual Report

Page Number: 34

Project: 2003-022-00

Contract: 46597

Semi-permanent floating weir trap located on Omak Creek.

Figure Name: Figure 2

Document ID: P122798

Document: 2010 OBMEP Annual Report

Page Number: 35

Project: 2003-022-00

Contract: 46597

Seasonal picket weir trap located on Bonaparte Creek.

Figure Name: Figure 3

Document ID: P122798

Document: 2010 OBMEP Annual Report

Page Number: 35

Project: 2003-022-00

Contract: 46597

Photographs of Zosel Dam west bank video chute array prior to deployment.

Figure Name: Figure 4a

Document ID: P122798

Document: 2010 OBMEP Annual Report

Page Number: 36

Project: 2003-022-00

Contract: 46597

Photograph of Zosel Dam west bank video chute array during deployment.

Figure Name: Figure 4b

Document ID: P122798

Document: 2010 OBMEP Annual Report

Page Number: 36

Project: 2003-022-00

Contract: 46597

Redd distribution observed in 2010 for Okanogan River reach O1 from the confluence of Salmon Creek downstream to south of Loup Loup Creek.

Figure Name: Figure 6

Document ID: P122798

Document: 2010 OBMEP Annual Report

Page Number: 40

Project: 2003-022-00

Contract: 46597

Redd distribution observed in 2010 for Okanogan River reach O2 from the confluence of Omak Creek in Omak, WA downstream to Salmon Creek. Estimated redds from third survey not included on map.

Figure Name: Figure 7

Document ID: P122798

Document: 2010 OBMEP Annual Report

Page Number: 41

Project: 2003-022-00

Contract: 46597

Redd distribution observed in 2010 for Okanogan River reach O3 from the town of Riverside, WA downstream to the confluence with Omak Creek in Omak, WA.

Figure Name: Figure 8

Document ID: P122798

Document: 2010 OBMEP Annual Report

Page Number: 42

Project: 2003-022-00

Contract: 46597

Redd distribution observed in 2010 for Okanogan River reach O4 from Janis Bridge downstream to the town of Riverside, WA.

Figure Name: Figure 9

Document ID: P122798

Document: 2010 OBMEP Annual Report

Page Number: 43

Project: 2003-022-00

Contract: 46597

Okanogan River redd distribution observed in 2010 within reach O5 from the Chief Tonasket Park located in the town of Tonasket, WA downstream to the Highway 97 Bridge at Janis, WA.

Figure Name: Figure 10

Document ID: P122798

Document: 2010 OBMEP Annual Report

Page Number: 44

Project: 2003-022-00

Contract: 46597

Redd distribution observed in 2010 within reach O6, from the confluence of the Okanogan and Similkameen Rivers to Horseshoe Lake.

Figure Name: Figure 11

Document ID: P122798

Document: 2010 OBMEP Annual Report

Page Number: 45

Project: 2003-022-00

Contract: 46597

Redd distribution observed in 2010 for Okanogan River reach O7 which extends from Zosel Dam downstream to the confluence with the Similkameen River.

Figure Name: Figure 12

Document ID: P122798

Document: 2010 OBMEP Annual Report

Page Number: 46

Project: 2003-022-00

Contract: 46597

Redd distribution observed in 2010 for Similkameen River reach S1, from first and second survey pass only. Reach S1 extends from the base of Enloe Dam downstream to the water treatment plant in Oroville, WA.

Figure Name: Figure 13

Document ID: P122798

Document: 2010 OBMEP Annual Report

Page Number: 47

Project: 2003-022-00

Contract: 46597

Redd distribution observed in 2010 for Similkameen River reach S2, first round of surveys only. Reach S2 extends from the end of Reach S1 to the confluence with the Okanogan River. Any redds observed within the cross-channel are considered a part of S2.

Figure Name: Figure 14

Document ID: P122798

Document: 2010 OBMEP Annual Report

Page Number: 48

Project: 2003-022-00

Contract: 46597

Redd distribution observed in 2010 for Ninemile Creek, extending from the mouth at Lake Osoyoos to the video weir.

Figure Name: Figure 16

Document ID: P122798

Document: 2010 OBMEP Annual Report

Page Number: 50

Project: 2003-022-00

Contract: 46597

Redd distribution observed in 2010 for Tonasket Creek, from the confluence with the Okanogan River upstream to the anadromous barrier.

Figure Name: Figure 17

Document ID: P122798

Document: 2010 OBMEP Annual Report

Page Number: 51

Project: 2003-022-00

Contract: 46597

Redd distribution observed in 2010 for Wild Horse Spring Creek from the confluence with the Okanogan River upstream to the anadromous barrier.

Figure Name: Figure 18

Document ID: P122798

Document: 2010 OBMEP Annual Report

Page Number: 52

Project: 2003-022-00

Contract: 46597

Distribution of redds observed in Bonaparte Creek during 2010 from the confluence with the Okanogan River upstream to the Bonaparte weir trap.

Figure Name: Figure 20

Document ID: P122798

Document: 2010 OBMEP Annual Report

Page Number: 55

Project: 2003-022-00

Contract: 46597

The distribution of redds observed in Tunk Creek during 2010, from the confluence with the Okanogan River upstream to Tunk Falls (anadromous barrier).

Figure Name: Figure 21

Document ID: P122798

Document: 2010 OBMEP Annual Report

Page Number: 56

Project: 2003-022-00

Contract: 46597

Map of summer steelhead redds observed below the Omak Creek trap during the spring of 2010.

Figure Name: Figure 24

Document ID: P122798

Document: 2010 OBMEP Annual Report

Page Number: 59

Project: 2003-022-00

Contract: 46597

Map of summer steelhead redds observed below the Salmon Creek trap during the spring of 2010.

Figure Name: Figure 27

Document ID: P122798

Document: 2010 OBMEP Annual Report

Page Number: 62

Project: 2003-022-00

Contract: 46597

Map of summer steelhead redds observed in Loup Loup Creek, from the confluence with the Okanogan River to the irrigation diversion (barrier), during the spring of 2010. One section of the creek was not surveyed due to access related issues.

Figure Name: Figure 28

Document ID: P122798

Document: 2010 OBMEP Annual Report

Page Number: 63

Project: 2003-022-00

Contract: 46597


Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2017 (Previous) $1,780,853 $1,780,853 $17,170 $1,625,659 $1,374,074

Fish Accord - Colville $1,780,853 $17,170 $1,625,659 $1,374,074
FY2018 (Current) $1,516,912 $1,516,912 $1,520,732 $1,520,732 $0

Post 2018 - Colville $1,516,912 $1,520,732 $1,520,732 $0
FY2019 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

Post 2018 - Colville $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 30-Sep-2017

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2017 - FY2019)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2017 Expense $1,245,000 From: Fish Accord - Colville Fish Accord Review 05/02/2008
FY2017 Expense $271,912 From: Fish Accord - Colville Fish Accord project COLA 11/21/2008
FY2017 Expense $362 To: Fish Accord - Colville CCT Accord budget transfers (cleanup of FY08/09/10/11) 5/12/2011 05/13/2011
FY2017 Expense $197,199 To: Fish Accord - Colville CCT (2009-007-00) establish FY13-17 budget 03/08/2012
FY2017 Expense $84,706 To: Fish Accord - Colville CCT adjustments (from May 2012 cleanup efforts) 05/14/2012
FY2017 Expense $197,199 From: Fish Accord - Colville CCT (2009-007-00) un-do FY16-FY17 project adjustments 09/10/2012
FY2017 Expense $28,000 To: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Budget Transfers (CCT, WS, YN, CRITFC) 05/08/2013
FY2017 Expense $197,199 To: Fish Accord - Colville CCT (2009-007-00) establish FY16-17 budget 07/29/2013
FY2017 Expense $156,180 From: Fish Accord - Colville CCT Budget Adjustments (10/28/2014) 10/29/2014
FY2017 Expense $418,028 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Budget Transfers (CCT, Id, CRITFC) 9/7/2016 09/08/2016
FY2018 Expense $1,516,912 From: Post 2018 - Colville FY18 Initial Planning Budgets (WS, CTUIR, YN, CRITFC, CCT, ID) 2/10/2017 02/13/2017

Pending Budget Decision?  No


No Project Cost Share

FY2017 0 %
FY2016 0 %
FY2015 28 %
FY2014 18 %
FY2013 16 %
FY2012 21 %
FY2011 25 %
FY2010 26 %
FY2009 28 %
FY2008 31 %
FY2007 39 %
Fiscal Year Cost Share Partner Total Proposed
Contribution
Total Confirmed
Contribution

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
21588 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2003-022-00 MONITOR/EVAL OKANOGAN BASIN NATURAL PRODUCTION History $755,553 3/1/2005 - 6/30/2006
26654 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2003-022-00 EXP MONITOR/EVAL OKANOGAN BASIN NATURAL PRODUCTION History $742,627 3/1/2006 - 2/28/2007
BPA-006604 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Okanogan Basin M&E Active $13,082 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
BPA-007028 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Okanogan Basin M&E Active $1,867 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
BPA-007737 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Okanogan Basin M&E Active $1,852 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
BPA-008449 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Okanogan Basin M&E Active $4,693 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
71571 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2003-022-00 EXP MONITOR/EVAL OKANOGAN BASIN PROGRAM Issued $3,216,977 3/1/2016 - 2/28/2018
BPA-009584 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Okanogan Basin M&E Active $17,170 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
BPA-010188 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Okanogan Basin M&E Active $3,820 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):10
Completed:10
On time:10
Status Reports
Completed:51
On time:31
Avg Days Late:0

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
17421 21588, 26654, 31582, 37004, 41801, 46597, 55926, 63963, 71571 2003-022-00 M&E FOR OKANOGAN BASIN NATURAL PRODUCTION Colville Confederated Tribes 03/2004 03/2004 Pending 51 127 13 0 5 145 96.55% 1
BPA-006604 PIT Tags - Okanogan Basin M&E Bonneville Power Administration 10/2011 10/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-007028 PIT Tags - Okanogan Basin M&E Bonneville Power Administration 10/2012 10/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-007737 PIT Tags - Okanogan Basin M&E Bonneville Power Administration 10/2013 10/2013 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008449 PIT Tags - Okanogan Basin M&E Bonneville Power Administration 10/2014 10/2014 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-009584 PIT Tags - Okanogan Basin M&E Bonneville Power Administration 10/2016 10/2016 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-010188 PIT Tags - Okanogan Basin M&E Bonneville Power Administration 10/2017 10/2017 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 51 127 13 0 5 145 96.55% 1


Review: RME / AP Category Review

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 2003-022-00-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 2003-022-00
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2003-022-00
Completed Date: None
2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: Supports 2008 FCRPS BiOp
Comments: BiOp Workgroup Comments: No BiOp Workgroup comments

The BiOp RM&E Workgroups made the following determinations regarding the proposal's ability or need to support BiOp Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) RPAs. If you have questions regarding these RPA association conclusions, please contact your BPA COTR and they will help clarify, or they will arrange further discussion with the appropriate RM&E Workgroup Leads. BiOp RPA associations for the proposed work are: ( 50.6 56.3 71.4 72.1)
All Questionable RPA Associations ( ) and
All Deleted RPA Associations (50.4 52.7 56.1 56.2 )
Proponent Response:

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2003-022-00-ISRP-20101015
Project: 2003-022-00 - Okanogan Basin Monitoring & Evaluation Program (OBMEP)
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2003-022-00
Completed Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
Qualification: The proponent should incorporate suggestions generated during the upcoming 2011 CHaMP/ISEMP workshop.

The proponents’ response clarifies that the OBMEP Colville Tribes Fish Accord project will continue much as it has since 2005 with some modification for consistency with the CHaMP protocols. A strength of this proposal is the plan to collect data for a period of time using historical protocols and the new CHaMP protocols simultaneously. This procedure will provide a comparison of results using the two protocols and enable modification of the historical data, if required, to make it compatible with data collected using the new methods.

The response made it clear that OBMEP will not be responsible for analyses of the data they collect; their objective is to collect the information and pass it on to the organizations (CHaMP, ISEMP) that will conduct the analyses. Therefore, the ISRP suggestion in the review of the initial proposal that hypotheses to be tested be clearly stated may not be appropriate for the OBEMP project. Rather development of these objectives should be the responsibility of the CHaMP and ISEMP scientists. The ISRP has proposed a workshop be held in 2011 for CHaMP/ISEMP collaborators to clarify objectives and roles. OBEMP should participate in this meeting and adjust their project accordingly.

The response from the proponents clarified the relationship between OBEMP and CHaMP and linkages with other monitoring programs in the basin. The proponents also provided some useful diagrams depicting the complex scheme of the UCR adaptive management program and OBEMP’s role in this scheme. The relationship between OBMEP and CHaMP is still developing, so not all methodological decisions have been made. However, it is clear that OBMEP will serve as one provider of raw data to CHaMP and ISEMP with PNAMP providing data management and analytical tool support. OBMEP data will be linked to CHaMP data through the STEM database (data entry is a two-year process). The OBEMP data also will be used to improve the EDT model. It is envisioned that this consistent, collaborative effort will provide answers to key questions of interest in the region.
First Round ISRP Date: 10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:
A coordinated monitoring program for habitat and fish has been needed in the Columbia Basin for a long time. The proposal for implementing the Okanogan component of this program is headed in the right direction but some additional information is required to provide a thorough technical review. In particular, the following should be addressed:

1. the relationship between OBEMP and CHaMP
2. linkages with other monitoring programs in the basin
3. data analysis techniques and who will be responsible for this task
4. the process to be used for linking historical data and CHaMP data
5. a better description of the adaptive management program, and
6. use of these data to improve analytical tools, like EDT, also should be a key objective of this project

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

A more complete understanding of the current condition of habitat and fish populations and how they respond to restoration measures is critical to the development of an effective salmon recovery program for the Columbia Basin. This project proposes to modify an existing monitoring program in the Okanogan Subbasin to make it compatible with a basinwide effort to coordinate habitat and fish monitoring programs (CHaMP), a very worthwhile goal. More consistency among monitoring programs in the basin should help provide a much more comprehensive picture of the status and trends in habitat and fish populations and accelerate the accumulation of information regarding the effectiveness of various restoration techniques.

The current project in the Okanogan Basin has monitored anadromous fish at the population scale over the last five years. This proposal hopes to link these population data to habitat restoration actions. The enhanced monitoring program envisioned by this proposal (OBMEP) would continue to monitor key components of juvenile fish production, habitat condition, water quality, and adult abundance. However, the habitat parameters being monitored would be considerably expanded and methods would be modified to be consistent with those specified by CHaMP. The modification of the methodologies that have been used previously raises concerns about (1) compatibility of data from previous years and new data, and (2) usefulness of new data when using old models (e.g., EDT). These are proper concerns, but consistency of data collected across the basin is also important.

The technical background for this project was satisfactory. However, objectives for this project were somewhat incomplete. The overarching objective for this project is to continue to collect data to assess progress towards recovery goals – certainly an appropriate objective. But the more specific objectives were often not very informative. For example, rather than simply stating that an objective is to participate in a basinwide monitoring program, specify the hypotheses or questions that the collected data will be used to address and indicate how answers to these questions will influence management decisions. The ultimate goal of any of the monitoring plans in the basin is to develop more effective restoration methods. Thus, project objectives should always clearly link back to this goal.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

The history, accomplishments and results of the project to date are not presented in the proposal, but links are provided to numerous reports that do detail some aspects of the work that has occurred since 2005. Summaries of some preliminary data also are presented on their web site. In general, the data set is too short at the present time to reach many conclusions, and data analysis has not proceeded very far.

The relevance of this work to management of habitat and fish in the Okanogan Subbasin is less clearly presented. Although there was an outline of an adaptive management program provided, much more detail is required in order to review this aspect of the monitoring program. A detailed discussion about adaptive management associated with this project, both historically (i.e., how have results to date been used to inform management decisions) and in the future, as the project integrates with CHaMP should be included in the proposal. This discussion should specifically focus on how changes in the understanding of habitat effects on fish population dynamics will be incorporated into prioritization of restoration projects or decisions of fisheries management.

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

The relationship between this project, ISEMP, and CHaMP is discussed briefly in the proposal, but insufficient detail is provided to judge the degree of coordination among these efforts. The OBEMP program will become a component of the basinwide CHaMP program under this proposal. The role of OBEMP and CHaMP in data analysis, producing reports and communicating results should be clearly defined in the proposal.

It appears as if the primary tool that will be used for linking habitat results to fish population response is a new version of EDT. These EDT runs will then be used to update restoration plans. Use of this model has plenty of precedent in the Columbia Basin, and it is certainly a legitimate method for conducting this sort of analysis. However, this project will collect empirical information on both habitat conditions and fish population performance. These data could be used to evaluate some of the assumptions about fish-habitat relationships that are the foundation of the EDT model. In fact, using field data to test and then modify the EDT relationships represents an important adaptive management linkage, if this model is to be used to inform fish and habitat management decisions in the subbasin. It may be more appropriate for this type of evaluation to be done with a more integrated data set (the full CHaMP data or some combination of CHaMP and ISEMP data?). Some discussion of this issue should be incorporated into the proposal.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods were primarily addressed by providing lists of the parameters that will be measured coupled with references to documents that detail the actual sampling protocols (e.g., ISEMP sampling methods). Referencing external documents for methods is certainly an efficient manner of presenting this information and the methods cited are generally very appropriate. There were several items, however, that require some clarification.

The rationale for number and type of sample locations was not clearly presented. The use of GRTS for sample site selection is a widely accepted method. But it was unclear in the proposal whether all 50 sample sites would be selected by this method or if 25 new sites would be selected each year using GRTS to augment 25 sites that were included in the monitoring initiated in 2005. Has any analysis been done to evaluate whether 50 sites are sufficient to adequately capture trends in habitat condition in the Okanogan Subbasin? What is the rationale behind sampling 25 new sites each year and 25 old sites sampled every 5 years in a rotating panel? Some additional explanation of this aspect of the project design should be included in the proposal.

A primary concern with this section of the proposal is a lack of specificity about how past monitoring protocols will be coordinated with the new methods used in CHaMP. The proposal does state that there are three precautions that will be followed in modifying sampling protocols, one of which is “entirely new data or incompatible data is collected in addition to new data being collected.” This statement is unclear but seems to imply that data for certain parameters will be collected using both the new CHaMP protocols and the methods that have been used since 2005. If this interpretation is correct, it implies that data collected using these two protocols will be used to determine how comparable the results are and to develop a method for converting the historical data, if required. The extra effort necessitated by the change in methods is unfortunate, but collecting using both the old and new method is necessary to ensure that data collected under the old sampling regime and that collected under CHaMP are compatible. But no mention is made regarding such a comparison of data collected under the old and new protocols. More detail about the variables that will be impacted by changes in methods and some discussion as to how this issue will be addressed should be included in the proposal.

The proposal also would have benefited from some additional information about the location where fish population data will be collected. It was not clear where the smolt trap is located or where redd surveys will be conducted. Inclusion of a map indicating location would have been helpful.

There was very little information provided regarding the methods that will be used to analyze the data or who will be responsible for this task. Will OBEMP conduct the analyses or will analytical responsibility fall to CHaMP? Regardless of who conducts the analyses, some description of how this would be accomplished should be in the proposal. Assessing trends in habitat conditions is relatively straightforward. But the methods that will be used to analyze some of the fish data were less clear. For example, it appears as if adult salmon abundance will be assessed using three different methods: redd counts, adult enumeration, and underwater video. How will these three data sources be used in developing an estimate of spawner abundance? Also some discussion of the process by which habitat and fish population data will be related should be included. The proposal does indicate that EDT will be one of the tools used for this purpose, but as indicated above, these data could be used to progressively improve models like EDT. Developing better assessment tools should be one of the key objectives of a program like this.
Documentation Links:
  • Proponent Response (11/15/2010)

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2003-022-00-NPCC-20110106
Project: 2003-022-00 - Okanogan Basin Monitoring & Evaluation Program (OBMEP)
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-2003-022-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (Qualified)
Comments: See programmatic issue #2.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #2 Habitat effectiveness monitoring and evaluation—.
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 2003-022-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2003-022-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 3 - Does not appear reasonable
Comment: M&E for long-term status/trend for anadromous fish in Okanogan; fishery managers authorized/required as well; need confirmation that cost share sufficient.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2003-022-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2003-022-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2003-022-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2003-022-00 - Okanogan Basin Monitoring & Evaluation Program (OBMEP)
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
This continues to be a fine example of a monitoring project, which the ISRP supports wholeheartedly.

There is a good description of the ongoing program, experimental design protocols, etc. The project was begun in 2004 with EMAP site selection, development of protocols, etc. There is a nice report of what was done, faulted only by not giving a summary of results. The proposal clearly places the work in the regional monitoring framework. This program is an important part of implementing the subbasin plan. There are excellent details on other related projects in the area. This project is providing M&E for a number of related BPA projects.

The M&E objectives are clearly explained and methods are clearly outlined and stated, with references to the standard protocols. One technical caution: The proposal claims, "The health of a stream can be determined from the species of macroinvertebrates present." It goes on to say that "Benthic macroinvertebrate samples will be collected annually from each of the EMAP sites." Consideration needs to be given to the time of year when those samples might be taken. Life cycles of many aquatic invertebrates remove them from the stream environment seasonally, and/or render them difficult to sample at other times. There is no discussion of this point and its effects on the sampling protocol.

Only a brief narrative is given on facilities. Personnel are excellent. There are specific information transfer work elements (coordination, outreach). The proposal emphasizes this aspect as a major part of its effort.

This project is a critical link to evaluate the management efforts in the Okanogan basin. Benefits are expected to accrue in time as information gathered accumulates and is interpreted and acted upon. The thorough monitoring system will undoubtedly benefit the focal species in the long run, depending on actions taken to correct any problems.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2003-022-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2003-022-00 - Okanogan Basin Monitoring & Evaluation Program (OBMEP)
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Project to be implemented with reduced scope. As funds become available, restore $300,000 to be sure smolt counts with screw traps continue and determination of escapement and redd counts are maintained.

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
John Arterburn Project Lead Colville Confederated Tribes
Peter Lofy Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Peter N. Johnson Interested Party <Interested Party>
Kary Nichols Interested Party Colville Confederated Tribes
Ted Gresh Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Randy Friedlander Supervisor Colville Confederated Tribes
Maureen Kavanagh Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration