View and print project details including project summary, purpose, associations to Biological Opinions, and area. To learn more about any of the project properties, hold your mouse cursor over the field label.
Province | Subbasin | % |
---|---|---|
Columbia Cascade | Okanogan | 100.00% |
Description: Page: 34 Figure 1: The extent of historic habitat in the Okanogan River basin accessible to anadromous fish. Project(s): 2003-022-00 Document: P122798 Dimensions: 672 x 480 Description: Page: 35 Figure 2: Semi-permanent floating weir trap located on Omak Creek. Project(s): 2003-022-00 Document: P122798 Dimensions: 1024 x 768 Description: Page: 35 Figure 3: Seasonal picket weir trap located on Bonaparte Creek. Project(s): 2003-022-00 Document: P122798 Dimensions: 1068 x 810 Description: Page: 36 Figure 4a: Photographs of Zosel Dam west bank video chute array prior to deployment. Project(s): 2003-022-00 Document: P122798 Dimensions: 275 x 367 Description: Page: 36 Figure 4b: Photograph of Zosel Dam west bank video chute array during deployment. Project(s): 2003-022-00 Document: P122798 Dimensions: 274 x 366 Description: Page: 40 Figure 6: Redd distribution observed in 2010 for Okanogan River reach O1 from the confluence of Salmon Creek downstream to south of Loup Loup Creek. Project(s): 2003-022-00 Document: P122798 Dimensions: 624 x 768 Description: Page: 41 Figure 7: 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. Project(s): 2003-022-00 Document: P122798 Dimensions: 624 x 768 Description: Page: 42 Figure 8: 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. Project(s): 2003-022-00 Document: P122798 Dimensions: 624 x 768 Description: Page: 43 Figure 9: Redd distribution observed in 2010 for Okanogan River reach O4 from Janis Bridge downstream to the town of Riverside, WA. Project(s): 2003-022-00 Document: P122798 Dimensions: 624 x 768 Description: Page: 44 Figure 10: 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. Project(s): 2003-022-00 Document: P122798 Dimensions: 624 x 768 Description: Page: 45 Figure 11: Redd distribution observed in 2010 within reach O6, from the confluence of the Okanogan and Similkameen Rivers to Horseshoe Lake. Project(s): 2003-022-00 Document: P122798 Dimensions: 624 x 768 Description: Page: 46 Figure 12: Redd distribution observed in 2010 for Okanogan River reach O7 which extends from Zosel Dam downstream to the confluence with the Similkameen River. Project(s): 2003-022-00 Document: P122798 Dimensions: 624 x 768 Description: Page: 47 Figure 13: 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. Project(s): 2003-022-00 Document: P122798 Dimensions: 624 x 768 Description: Page: 48 Figure 14: 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. Project(s): 2003-022-00 Document: P122798 Dimensions: 624 x 768 Description: Page: 50 Figure 16: Redd distribution observed in 2010 for Ninemile Creek, extending from the mouth at Lake Osoyoos to the video weir. Project(s): 2003-022-00 Document: P122798 Dimensions: 624 x 768 Description: Page: 51 Figure 17: Redd distribution observed in 2010 for Tonasket Creek, from the confluence with the Okanogan River upstream to the anadromous barrier. Project(s): 2003-022-00 Document: P122798 Dimensions: 624 x 768 Description: Page: 52 Figure 18: Redd distribution observed in 2010 for Wild Horse Spring Creek from the confluence with the Okanogan River upstream to the anadromous barrier. Project(s): 2003-022-00 Document: P122798 Dimensions: 624 x 768 Description: Page: 55 Figure 20: Distribution of redds observed in Bonaparte Creek during 2010 from the confluence with the Okanogan River upstream to the Bonaparte weir trap. Project(s): 2003-022-00 Document: P122798 Dimensions: 624 x 768 Description: Page: 56 Figure 21: The distribution of redds observed in Tunk Creek during 2010, from the confluence with the Okanogan River upstream to Tunk Falls (anadromous barrier). Project(s): 2003-022-00 Document: P122798 Dimensions: 624 x 768 Description: Page: 59 Figure 24: Map of summer steelhead redds observed below the Omak Creek trap during the spring of 2010. Project(s): 2003-022-00 Document: P122798 Dimensions: 624 x 768 Description: Page: 62 Figure 27: Map of summer steelhead redds observed below the Salmon Creek trap during the spring of 2010. Project(s): 2003-022-00 Document: P122798 Dimensions: 624 x 768 Description: Page: 63 Figure 28: 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. Project(s): 2003-022-00 Document: P122798 Dimensions: 624 x 768 |
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
Acct FY | Acct Type | Amount | Fund | Budget Decision | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
FY2024 | Expense | $1,290,507 | From: Fish Accord - Colville | Colville Tribe (CCT) 2023-2025 Accord Extension | 09/30/2022 |
FY2024 | Expense | $25,527 | From: Fish Accord - Colville | Accord Transfers (CCT) 12/1/2022 | 12/01/2022 |
FY2024 | Expense | $44,361 | From: Fish Accord - Colville | Accord Transfers (CCT) 8/14/2023 | 08/14/2023 |
FY2024 | Expense | $135,133 | From: Fish Accord - Colville | Colville Transfer Dec FY24 | 12/19/2023 |
FY2025 | Expense | $1,322,770 | From: Fish Accord - Colville | Colville Tribe (CCT) 2023-2025 Accord Extension | 09/30/2022 |
Number | Contractor Name | Title | Status | Total Contracted Amount | Dates |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
17421 SOW | Colville Confederated Tribes | 2003-022-00 M&E FOR OKANOGAN BASIN NATURAL PRODUCTION | Closed | $414,387 | 3/26/2004 - 2/28/2005 |
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 |
31582 SOW | Colville Confederated Tribes | 2003-022-00 EXP MONITOR/EVALUATE OKANOGAN BASIN PRODUCTION | Closed | $522,550 | 3/1/2007 - 2/29/2008 |
37004 SOW | Colville Confederated Tribes | 2003-022-00 EXP MONITOR/EVAL OKANOGAN BASIN PRODUCTION | Closed | $796,517 | 3/1/2008 - 3/31/2009 |
41801 SOW | Colville Confederated Tribes | 2003-022-00 EXP MONITOR/EVAL OKANOGAN BASIN PRODUCTION | Closed | $1,077,758 | 3/1/2009 - 2/28/2010 |
46597 SOW | Colville Confederated Tribes | 2003-022-00 EXP MONITOR/EVAL OKANOGAN BASIN PR | Closed | $2,232,589 | 3/1/2010 - 2/29/2012 |
BPA-006604 | Bonneville Power Administration | PIT Tags - Okanogan Basin M&E | Active | $13,082 | 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012 |
55926 SOW | Colville Confederated Tribes | 2003-022-00 EXP MONITOR/EVAL OKANOGAN BASIN PRODUCTION | Closed | $2,397,414 | 3/1/2012 - 2/28/2014 |
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 |
63963 SOW | Colville Confederated Tribes | 2003-022-00 EXP MONITOR/EVAL OKANOGAN BASIN (OBMEP) | Closed | $2,334,130 | 3/1/2014 - 2/29/2016 |
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 | Closed | $2,889,394 | 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 | $3,816 | 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018 |
73548 REL 23 SOW | Colville Confederated Tribes | 2003-022-00 EXP MONITOR/EVAL OKANOGAN BASIN PROGRAM | Closed | $1,197,629 | 3/1/2018 - 2/28/2019 |
BPA-010732 | Bonneville Power Administration | PIT Tags - Okanogan Basin M&E | Active | $702 | 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019 |
73548 REL 53 SOW | Colville Confederated Tribes | 2003-022-00 EXP MONITOR/EVAL OKANOGAN BASIN PROGRAM | Closed | $1,207,506 | 3/1/2019 - 2/29/2020 |
BPA-011600 | Bonneville Power Administration | FY20 Internal Services/PIT tags | Active | $13,863 | 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020 |
73548 REL 82 SOW | Colville Confederated Tribes | 2003-022-00 EXP MONITOR/EVAL OKANOGAN BASIN PROGRAM | Closed | $1,197,120 | 3/1/2020 - 2/28/2021 |
BPA-012081 | Bonneville Power Administration | FY21 Pit Tags | Active | $11,880 | 10/1/2020 - 9/30/2021 |
73548 REL 107 SOW | Colville Confederated Tribes | 2003-022-00 EXP MONITOR/EVAL OKANOGAN BASIN PROGRAM | Closed | $1,341,081 | 3/1/2021 - 2/28/2022 |
BPA-012744 | Bonneville Power Administration | FY22 PIT tags | Active | $14,280 | 10/1/2021 - 9/30/2022 |
73548 REL 138 SOW | Colville Confederated Tribes | 2003-022-00 EXP MONITOR/EVAL OKANOGAN BASIN PROGRAM | Closed | $1,295,288 | 3/1/2022 - 2/28/2023 |
BPA-013295 | Bonneville Power Administration | FY23 PIT Tags | Active | $14,280 | 10/1/2022 - 9/30/2023 |
91895 SOW | Colville Confederated Tribes | 2003-022-00 EXP MONITOR/EVAL OKANOGAN BASIN PROGRAM | Closed | $1,295,461 | 3/1/2023 - 2/29/2024 |
BPA-013819 | Bonneville Power Administration | FY24 PIT tags | Active | $4,080 | 10/1/2023 - 9/30/2024 |
84051 REL 9 SOW | Colville Confederated Tribes | 2003-022-00 EXP MONITOR/EVAL OKANOGAN BASIN PROGRAM | Issued | $1,486,034 | 3/1/2024 - 2/28/2025 |
Annual Progress Reports | |
---|---|
Expected (since FY2004): | 17 |
Completed: | 17 |
On time: | 17 |
Status Reports | |
---|---|
Completed: | 79 |
On time: | 47 |
Avg Days Early: | 1 |
Count of Contract Deliverables | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Earliest Contract | Subsequent Contracts | Title | Contractor | Earliest Start | Latest End | Latest Status | Accepted Reports | Complete | Green | Yellow | Red | Total | % Green and Complete | Canceled |
17421 | 21588, 26654, 31582, 37004, 41801, 46597, 55926, 63963, 71571, 73548 REL 23, 73548 REL 53, 73548 REL 82, 73548 REL 107, 73548 REL 138, 91895, 84051 REL 9 | 2003-022-00 EXP MONITOR/EVAL OKANOGAN BASIN PROGRAM | Colville Confederated Tribes | 03/26/2004 | 02/28/2025 | Issued | 79 | 216 | 16 | 0 | 7 | 239 | 97.07% | 1 |
BPA-6604 | PIT Tags - Okanogan Basin M&E | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2011 | 09/30/2012 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
BPA-7028 | PIT Tags - Okanogan Basin M&E | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2012 | 09/30/2013 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
BPA-7737 | PIT Tags - Okanogan Basin M&E | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2013 | 09/30/2014 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
BPA-8449 | PIT Tags - Okanogan Basin M&E | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2014 | 09/30/2015 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
BPA-9584 | PIT Tags - Okanogan Basin M&E | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2016 | 09/30/2017 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
BPA-10188 | PIT Tags - Okanogan Basin M&E | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2017 | 09/30/2018 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
BPA-10732 | PIT Tags - Okanogan Basin M&E | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2018 | 09/30/2019 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
BPA-11600 | FY20 Internal Services/PIT tags | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2019 | 09/30/2020 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
BPA-12081 | FY21 Pit Tags | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2020 | 09/30/2021 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
BPA-12744 | FY22 PIT tags | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2021 | 09/30/2022 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
BPA-13295 | FY23 PIT Tags | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2022 | 09/30/2023 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
BPA-13819 | FY24 PIT tags | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2023 | 09/30/2024 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Project Totals | 79 | 216 | 16 | 0 | 7 | 239 | 97.07% | 1 |
Assessment Number: | 2003-022-00-NPCC-20230310 |
---|---|
Project: | 2003-022-00 - Okanogan Basin Monitoring & Evaluation Program (OBMEP) |
Review: | 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review |
Approved Date: | 4/15/2022 |
Recommendation: | Implement with Conditions |
Comments: |
Bonneville and Sponsor to address condition #1 (data sharing) and condition #2 (objectives) in project documentation. Bonneville and Sponsor to confirm Sponsor-proposed name change: Okanogan/Methow Basin Monitoring & Evaluation Program (OBMEP). [Background: See https://www.nwcouncil.org/2021-2022-anadromous-habitat-and-hatchery-review/] |
Assessment Number: | 2003-022-00-ISRP-20230324 |
---|---|
Project: | 2003-022-00 - Okanogan Basin Monitoring & Evaluation Program (OBMEP) |
Review: | 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review |
Completed Date: | 3/24/2023 |
Final Round ISRP Date: | 2/10/2022 |
Final Round ISRP Rating: | Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified) |
Final Round ISRP Comment: | |
This long-running, successful, and adaptive project is integral to several other projects (Restore Salmon Creek Anadromous Fish 199604200, Chief Joseph Hatchery Program 2003023, Okanogan Subbasin Habitat Program 200722400, Okanogan Habitat Acquisition and Restoration 200810200, Land and Water Acquisition 200810400, Upper Columbia Programmatic Habitat 201000100, Upper Columbia Spring Chinook and Steelhead Juvenile and Adult Abundance 201003400) in the upper Columbia River basin and most are conducted by the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (CTCR) . The project has four broad objectives; three are directed toward monitoring and evaluating annual changes in: 1) listed salmonid fish populations, 2) a suite of habitat variables, and 3) VSP parameters in summer steelhead. The fourth objective is to fill recognized data gaps in the status and trends of habitat variables. The proponents use EDT models specific to the Okanogan and Methow subbasins to address information needs. One of the major strengths of the project is its data management system and publicly accessible dashboards for understanding status and trends of listed salmonids and habitat conditions in the subbasins of the Okanogan and Methow basins. The project is a major contributor to monitoring and landscape evaluation in the upper Columbia River basin. While reviewing another upper Columbia project, the ISRP became aware of Yakama Action Effectiveness Monitoring (BPA # 201700300), which is a pilot project through 2022 being conducted by the Yakama Nation (YN). The project description in cbfish.org in part states: “The contract will cover work involved in the creation of an Upper Columbia Habitat Action Effectiveness Monitoring Plan….The contract will include development of clearly defined goals and objectives for habitat action effectiveness monitoring, the selection of habitat action sites and available control sites, the development of at least one testable monitoring question and hypothesis for each project objective, and the selection of metrics and variable that will be used to measure fish response and test hypotheses.” If UCHIP is doing habitat restoration in the Okanogan, Methow, Entiat and Wenatchee subbasins and OBMEP is providing monitoring and evaluation, the results of the YN AEM project would be of value and should be explored. The ISRP’s recommended Conditions are listed below. The proponents need to assist with development of an M&E Matrix during the response loop (September 24 to November 22, 2021) and to provide information to address the other following Conditions in future annual reports and work plans.
The ISRP suggests that future proposals should be edited to reduce length and redundancy. Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes The overarching goals of this long-running monitoring and evaluation project are to continue to monitor the status and trends of habitat and biological parameters in the Okanogan and Methow subbasins and provide that information to other projects (e.g., OSHIP 200722400). Other projects use the monitoring information to prioritize and evaluate habitat restoration actions. As the ISRP found for other monitoring projects, some of the objectives stated in the proposal tend toward SMART objectives (i.e., 1, 2, & 3; pages 56-57), but lack quantification such as stating how many reaches of each subbasin will be monitored each year. Other objectives (e.g., 4 through 7; pages 57-59) are actions that the proponents will take to meet their objectives. The proposal does not include quantitative objectives for the biological performance of Chinook and steelhead in these basins, which are the objectives of the CTCR, Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board, and WDFW. The objectives stated in this project, therefore, are implementation objectives related to obtaining and analyzing the data. As such, the objectives identify the required actions but do not provide quantitative measures related to the implementation of actions. The objective statements could be improved by including the necessary or desired statistical requirements for the analyses (e.g., variance and error requirements, model fitting requirements, model performance) or the operational performance requirements of the detection sites (e.g., intended proportion of the sampling period when detection sites are operating, tagging rates, detection efficiencies for PIT tag arrays and smolt traps), which could be used to evaluate the performance of the project. Several of these performance measures are reported in the Methods section or Progress to Date section and could be incorporated explicitly into the project objectives. Q2: Methods The methods are well described and have been refined or changed when needed to meet project objectives. One of the strengths of the project has been the proponents’ practice to overlap new methods with the procedures they are replacing, often for multiple years to ensure that the new procedures meet expectations. From its inception, the project has relied upon the EDT model as an analytical tool to integrate its data, and it has successfully used the model to identify habitat constraints on summer-run steelhead. As the OBMEP project has proceeded, its empirical data have been used to adjust some species-habitat rules of the Okanogan EDT model. The project’s methods are scientifically sound and often innovative. Project information is quickly made available for project review, use by other projects and management agencies, and recovery programs. The proposal does not indicate how coordination with overlapping projects in the same geographic areas occurs, such as the Upper Columbia Spring Chinook and Steelhead Monitoring Project of WDFW (201003400). Do these projects share independently generated data? Do they incorporate collective data into their modeling and data analyses? Do they compare estimates for the same reaches or sub basins developed by different monitoring entities? Such collaboration and cross comparison will be extremely important for assessing information on salmon and steelhead in the upper Columbia River Basin. The proponents identify climate change and changing regulatory conditions as potentially confounding factors. The CTCR and their EDT consultants created scenarios of future climate change. It is not clear whether they will consider these and other future climate scenarios in their analyses, and the proposal did not indicate how such projections factor into land management, hatchery operations, and Tribal decisions. Are there major examples where future climate conditions depicted by OBMEP and the EDT analysis have altered and improved the prioritization, design, and implementation of habitat or hatchery projects? The proponents criticized the CHaMP and ISEMP monitoring programs in several sections of the proposal and indicated that the review by Rosgen et al. (2018) “highlighted numerous concerns including the appropriateness of GRTS random site selection and ‘upscaling’ site level indicators to the watershed level.” In his presentation to the Council, Dave Rosgen noted that the measurements for temperature, large wood, sediment, and riparian vegetation in the CHaMP protocol were scientifically sound. In addition, there are valid statistical justifications for the GRTS random site selection approach for habitat monitoring at the scale of the Columbia River Basin. The ISRP mentions this to clarify the weaknesses and strengths of the CHaMP and ISEMP programs and ensure that the data from those efforts are preserved and used. The ISRP appreciates the experience and participation of the CTCR in developing future regional habitat monitoring. Q3: Provisions for M&E The project has a well-developed adaptive management process. The project uses an iterative review process to ensure that the EDT model’s environmental attribute ratings are credible. If they do not, changes are made on how information is gathered. They found, for example, that the field-based methods used to conduct riparian surveys were not obtaining the data needed to parameterize this attribute in their EDT model. A new approach that uses high resolution images and LiDAR plus field verification is now being used to collect this information. The proposal describes how the OBMEP works with its management hierarchy (Fish and Wildlife Director, Anadromous Division Lead, a Senior Research Scientist, and Subdivision Leads). It does not, however, clearly state how decisions are documented for future reference. It is assumed that adaptive evaluation is recorded in annual reports, and the ISRP encourages the proponents to state this portion of the process clearly. We commend the OBMEP for convening an annual adult steelhead project meeting for decision-making. Does it have a similar process for its Chinook salmon measurements and analyses? Given the large number of BPA-funded projects of the CTCR, would it be appropriate to have an annual science meeting of the CTCR projects to present, discuss, and evaluate outcomes and make future management decisions or does the Upper Columbia Science Conference serve this function? One critical aspect that requires additional information is how the OBMEP monitors specific outcomes for habitat projects (OSHIP and Restore Salmon Creek) and the land acquisition projects (Land & Water Acquisition and Okanogan Habitat Acquisition and Restoration). These other projects point to OBMEP as one of their primary sources of project monitoring information. The ISRP needs a collective description of the specific monitoring information that is provided to habitat restoration projects, land acquisition projects, and hatchery projects. This comprehensive monitoring documentation should provide a matrix of project-specific monitoring functions and crosswalk of monitoring methods across different projects. Because OBMEP is the primary monitoring project of the CTCR, it is appropriate that this project and all other relevant monitoring, habitat, and hatchery projects in the upper Columbia River basin assist such an effort with the UCSRB as lead. Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife The proposal provides a comprehensive overview of the project and how outputs from its EDT model have been used to identify priority habitat restoration opportunities. The project’s data on juvenile and adult abundance and distribution patterns along with its measurements of the cumulative effects of the habitat restoration actions that have occurred in the Okanogan Subbasin allow it to track changes in VSP parameters. This type of feedback is critical for fish recovery scientists and habitat restoration practitioners. The proponents’ data management system and publicly accessible database provide excellent analyses of status and trends of listed salmon and steelhead in relationship to habitat conditions. In particular, the ISRP commends the project for its rapid synthesis and public availability of landscape level data. |
|
Documentation Links: |
|
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—. |
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: |
|
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: | |
|
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. |
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: |
|
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. |
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 |
Name | Role | Organization |
---|---|---|
John Arterburn | Project Lead | Colville Confederated Tribes |
Peter N. Johnson | Interested Party | <Interested Party> |
Edward Gresh | Env. Compliance Lead | Bonneville Power Administration |
Maureen Kavanagh | Project Manager | Bonneville Power Administration |
Peter Lofy | Supervisor | Bonneville Power Administration |
Jody Lando | Project SME | Bonneville Power Administration |
Jeannette Finley | Supervisor | Colville Confederated Tribes |