Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2007-224-00 - Okanogan Subbasin Habitat Implementation Program (OSHIP) Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2007-224-00 - Okanogan Subbasin Habitat Implementation Program (OSHIP)
Project Number:
2007-224-00
Title:
Okanogan Subbasin Habitat Implementation Program (OSHIP)
Summary:
This plan is supported by no less than twenty-seven published reports, five contemporary plans, broad public acceptance and profuse scientific conclusions. Consequently, this plan stipulates and provides a biological roadmap based on ecosystem principles and ecology to guide strategic and logically-sequenced actions. Hence, after 60 years of delay and planning, the time to talk is over; the time to act and execute these plans and actions is now. (From Proposal Narrative, Summary)
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Colville Confederated Tribes (Tribe)
Starting FY:
2007
Ending FY:
2024
Stage:
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Cascade Okanogan 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Lamprey, Pacific
Sockeye - Lake Wenatchee ESU
Sockeye - Okanogan River ESU
Sockeye - Snake River ESU
Steelhead - Upper Columbia River DPS
Trout, Bull
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

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  (FY2023 - FY2025)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2023 Expense $1,040 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Transfers (CCT) 8/14/2023 08/14/2023
FY2023 Expense $1,040 To: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Transfers (CCT) 8/14/2023 08/14/2023
FY2024 Expense $500,000 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Transfers (CCT) 8/14/2023 08/14/2023
FY2024 Expense $500,000 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Transfers (CCT) 8/14/2023 08/14/2023
FY2024 Expense $212,981 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Transfers (CCT) 8/14/2023 08/14/2023
FY2024 Expense $487,018 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Transfers (CCT) 8/14/2023 08/14/2023
FY2024 Expense $142,389 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Transfers (CCT) 8/14/2023 08/14/2023
FY2024 Expense $182,579 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Transfers (CCT) 8/14/2023 08/14/2023
FY2024 Expense $594,673 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Transfers (CCT) 8/14/2023 08/14/2023
FY2024 Expense $308,960 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Transfers (CCT) 8/14/2023 08/14/2023
FY2024 Expense $117,892 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Transfers (CCT) 8/14/2023 08/14/2023
FY2024 Expense $500,000 To: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Transfers (CCT) 8/14/2023 08/14/2023
FY2024 Expense $117,892 To: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Transfers (CCT) 8/14/2023 08/14/2023
FY2024 Expense $308,960 To: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Transfers (CCT) 8/14/2023 08/14/2023
FY2024 Expense $594,673 To: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Transfers (CCT) 8/14/2023 08/14/2023
FY2024 Expense $182,579 To: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Transfers (CCT) 8/14/2023 08/14/2023
FY2024 Expense $142,389 To: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Transfers (CCT) 8/14/2023 08/14/2023
FY2024 Expense $487,018 To: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Transfers (CCT) 8/14/2023 08/14/2023
FY2024 Expense $212,981 To: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Transfers (CCT) 8/14/2023 08/14/2023
FY2024 Expense $500,000 To: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Transfers (CCT) 8/14/2023 08/14/2023

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2024   DRAFT
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
2023 $200,000 100%
2022 $470,000 19%
2021 $45,000 2%
2020 $45,000 2%
2019 $18,866 1%
2018
2017
2016 $100,000 5%
2015
2014 $20,000 1%
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009 $8,300 2%
2008 $67,413 15%
2007 $0 0%

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Closed, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Capital Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
61162 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2007-224-00 CAP IMPLEMENT OKANOGAN SUBBASIN PLAN Closed $461,958 5/1/2013 - 4/30/2014
64895 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2007-224-00 CAP IMPLEMENT OKANOGAN SUBBASIN PLAN Closed $189,633 5/1/2014 - 6/30/2015
69226 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2007-224-00 CAP OKANOGAN SUBBASIN HABITAT IMPL Closed $206,612 7/1/2015 - 6/30/2016
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
36825 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2007-224-00 EXP IMPLMNT OKANOGAN SUBBASIN PLAN Closed $396,232 2/1/2008 - 1/31/2009
BPA-004317 Bonneville Power Administration Okanogan Subbasin Plan (TBL work for implementation) Active $13,934 10/1/2008 - 9/30/2009
41542 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2007-224-00 EXP IMPLEMENT OKANOGAN SUBBASIN PLAN Closed $510,187 2/1/2009 - 1/31/2010
39817 REL 2 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes OKANOGAN SUB-BASIN CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEYS Closed $2,308 5/28/2009 - 7/30/2009
39817 REL 3 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes CR INVENTORY FOR WORK ELEMENTS - 2009 OMAK CREEK CULVERT Closed $5,086 7/20/2009 - 8/31/2009
BPA-004992 Bonneville Power Administration Okanogan Subbasin Plan (TBL work for land acquisitions) Active $87,249 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
45887 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 200722400 EXP IMPLEMENT OKANOGAN SUBBASIN PLAN Closed $1,504,461 2/1/2010 - 1/31/2011
39817 REL 7 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes CR INVENTORY OF 2010 OKANOGAN SUBBASIN PROJECT Closed $18,906 5/28/2010 - 12/31/2010
BPA-005435 Bonneville Power Administration Okanogan Subbasin Plan (TBL work for land & water acquisitions) Active $43,058 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
50974 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2007-224-00 EXP IMPLEMENT OKANOGAN SUBBASIN PLAN Closed $2,288,791 2/1/2011 - 4/30/2012
39817 REL 12 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes CR INVENTORY 2011 OKANOGAN SUBBASIN PROJECT Closed $20,140 6/9/2011 - 11/15/2011
BPA-006194 Bonneville Power Administration Okanogan Subbasin Plan Active $58,489 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
56701 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2007-224-00 EXP IMPLMNT OKANOGAN SUBBASIN PLAN Closed $1,966,187 5/1/2012 - 4/30/2013
BPA-006850 Bonneville Power Administration Okanogan Subbasin Plan Active $33,729 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
39817 REL 16 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes OKANOGAN SUBBASIN HABITAT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Closed $3,494 10/18/2012 - 1/31/2013
61158 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2007-224-00 EXP IMPLMNT OKANOGAN SUBBASIN PLAN Closed $1,557,498 5/1/2013 - 5/31/2014
BPA-007580 Bonneville Power Administration Okanogan Subbasin Plan Active $26,944 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
64894 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2007-224-00 EXP IMPLMNT OKANOGAN SUBBASIN PLAN Closed $1,750,718 5/1/2014 - 6/30/2015
BPA-008229 Bonneville Power Administration Okanogan Subbasin Plan - TBL work Active $26,996 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
69214 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2007-224-00 EXP IMPLMNT OKANOGAN SUBBASIN PLAN Closed $1,038,356 7/1/2015 - 6/30/2016
69004 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2007-224-00 EXP CCT METHOW RESTORATION Closed $333,771 7/1/2015 - 6/30/2016
BPA-008796 Bonneville Power Administration FY16 TBL Realty Services Active $27,110 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
72866 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2007-224-00 EXP IMPLMNT OKANOGAN SUBBASIN PLAN Closed $1,444,875 7/1/2016 - 6/30/2017
73139 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2007-224-00 EXP CCT METHOW RESTORATION Closed $364,556 7/1/2016 - 6/30/2017
BPA-009465 Bonneville Power Administration FY17 TBL Task Orders Active $84,080 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
73548 REL 11 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2007-224-00 EXP CCT METHOW RESTORATION Closed $1,762,359 7/1/2017 - 6/30/2018
73548 REL 12 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2007-224-00 EXP IMPLEMENT OKANOGAN SUBBASIN PLAN Closed $1,567,484 7/1/2017 - 6/30/2018
BPA-010266 Bonneville Power Administration FY18 TBL Task Orders Active $5,412 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
73548 REL 36 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2007-224-00 EXP IMPLEMENT OKANOGAN SUBBASIN PLAN Closed $1,214,300 7/1/2018 - 6/30/2019
73548 REL 34 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2007-224-00 EXP CCT METHOW RESTORATION Closed $285,523 7/1/2018 - 6/30/2019
BPA-010606 Bonneville Power Administration FY19 Land Aquisitions/other Active $0 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
73548 REL 65 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2007-224-00 EXP CCT METHOW RESTORATION Closed $304,848 7/1/2019 - 6/30/2020
73548 REL 61 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2007-224-00 EXP IMPLEMENT OKANOGAN SUBBASIN PLAN Closed $987,426 7/1/2019 - 6/30/2020
73548 REL 90 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2007-224-00 EXP IMPLMNT OKANOGAN SUBBASIN PLAN Closed $919,105 7/1/2020 - 6/30/2021
73548 REL 91 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2007-224-00 EXP CCT METHOW RESTORATION Closed $991,767 7/1/2020 - 10/31/2021
73548 REL 119 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2007-224-00 EXP IMPLMNT OKANOGAN SUBBASIN PLAN Closed $1,122,180 7/1/2021 - 10/31/2022
73548 REL 127 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2007-224-00 EXP CCT METHOW RESTORATION Closed $1,002,178 11/1/2021 - 10/31/2022
90345 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2007-224-00 EXP TWISP RIVER LARGE WOOD AIRCRAFT SERVICES Closed $327,300 6/1/2022 - 5/31/2023



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):28
Completed:27
On time:25
Status Reports
Completed:112
On time:42
Avg Days Late:6

                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
36825 41542, 45887, 50974, 56701, 61158, 64894, 69214, 72866, 73548 REL 12, 73548 REL 36, 73548 REL 61, 73548 REL 90, 73548 REL 119, 73548 REL 152, 84051 REL 1 2023-001-00 EXP CCT OKANOGAN RESTORATION Colville Confederated Tribes 02/01/2008 10/31/2024 Issued 70 287 15 0 69 371 81.40% 92
BPA-4317 Okanogan Subbasin Plan (TBL work for implementation) Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2008 09/30/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-4992 Okanogan Subbasin Plan (TBL work for land acquisitions) Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2009 09/30/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-5435 Okanogan Subbasin Plan (TBL work for land & water acquisitions) Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2010 09/30/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-6194 Okanogan Subbasin Plan Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2011 09/30/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-6850 Okanogan Subbasin Plan Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2012 09/30/2013 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
61162 64895, 69226 2007-224-00 CAP OKANOGAN SUBBASIN HABITAT IMPL Colville Confederated Tribes 05/01/2013 06/30/2016 Closed 14 42 0 0 2 44 95.45% 10
BPA-7580 Okanogan Subbasin Plan Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2013 09/30/2014 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-8229 Okanogan Subbasin Plan - TBL work Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2014 09/30/2015 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
69004 73139, 73548 REL 11, 73548 REL 34, 73548 REL 65, 73548 REL 91, 73548 REL 127, 90345, 73548 REL 151, 93495 2023-001-00 EXP CCT METHOW RESTORATION Colville Confederated Tribes 07/01/2015 10/31/2024 Issued 42 77 12 0 33 122 72.95% 13
BPA-8796 FY16 TBL Realty Services Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2015 09/30/2016 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-9465 FY17 TBL Task Orders Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2016 09/30/2017 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-10266 FY18 TBL Task Orders Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2017 09/30/2018 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 126 406 27 0 104 537 80.63% 115


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: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2007-224-00-NPCC-20230314
Project: 2007-224-00 - Okanogan Subbasin Habitat Implementation Program (OSHIP)
Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Approved Date: 4/15/2022
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Project will subsume Project #1996-042-00, as proposed by CCT and supported by Bonneville, and be implemented as reviewed. Bonneville and Sponsor to address conditions for Project #1996-042-00: #1 (objectives), #2 (evaluation and adjustment), and #3 (outcomes) in project documentation, and consider other condition and address if appropriate. For Project #2007-224-00: Bonneville and Sponsor to consider conditions and address in project documentation if appropriate. As per agreement between CCT and Bonneville, new project number will be assigned. See Policy Issue 1.a.

[Background: See https://www.nwcouncil.org/2021-2022-anadromous-habitat-and-hatchery-review/]

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-224-00-ISRP-20230407
Project: 2007-224-00 - Okanogan Subbasin Habitat Implementation Program (OSHIP)
Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Completed Date: 4/7/2023
Final Round ISRP Date: 2/10/2022
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

The proposal is well written, and the goals and objectives are well stated. The primary purpose of the project is to engage in habitat improvement actions that address prioritized limiting factors in specific watersheds. Initially this approach was implemented in the Okanogan subbasin and subsequently enlarged to the Methow subbasin. The current proposal has expanded the coverage of the project to also include the Wenatchee and Entiat subbasins. The proponents’ state that many of the actions needed to recover salmonids (e.g., floodplain and side channel reconnection, and increasing river sinuosity) require large land areas. It is acknowledged that such projects often face two obstacles. One is to obtain permission from landowners to conduct interventions at this scale. Reconnection to side channels and floodplains often takes farmlands out of production. Secondly, the effectiveness of these projects may be affected by the actions of nearby landowners, a process referred to as fragmentation. Consequently, willing landowners with large property holdings are needed for such projects to go forward. A companion CTCR project (200810400) has acquired large properties that can accommodate such improvements in all the above subbasins. Having a common owner and implementer (CTCR) enhances the likelihood that largescale restoration actions can be successfully carried out by the proponents.

The proposal does not explicitly state how restoration projects are prioritized. However, it appears that prioritization is based on the 2020 report on Habitat Action Prioritization within the Upper Columbia River Basin that was developed by the Regional Technical team (RTT), which was cited in the OBMEP proposal (page 20). The proponents should clarify this explicitly in the future.

The proponents are proposing that this project subsume two other projects (Restore Salmon Creek Anadromous Fish 199604200 and Land & Water Acquisition 200810400) and become the Upper Columbia Habitat Implementation Project (UCHIP). The ISRP agrees that this combination makes sense as those projects are also conducted by the CTCR, many of the staff work on all projects, and the objectives are much the same.

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:

  1. Documentation of methods. The ISRP would appreciate knowing where the methods have been documented and if there is a summary document that describes the project’s methods in detail.
  2. Guidance for Okanogan Habitat Acquisition and Restoration Implementation Project. The ISRP believes that the new UCHIP should also subsume Project 200810200 (Okanogan Habitat Acquisition and Restoration Implementation). UCHIP should provide this project with guidance to identify ecological objectives and endpoints by the next annual report.
  3. Strategy for working with landowners. Does the UCHIP have an established strategy for working with landowners based on existing relationships? Please provide this as part of your next annual report.
  4. M&E matrix - support. As habitat projects and monitoring projects are not presented as part of an integrated proposal or plan, the need for a crosswalk to identify the linkages between implementation and monitoring is extremely important for basins or geographic areas. The ISRP is requesting a response from the Upper Columbia River Programmatic Habitat Project (201000100) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, and Okanogan subbasins. During the response loop, we ask this project to assist them in creating the summary and provide information to them about what is being monitored for this implementation project and where and when the monitoring occurs. A map or maps of locations of monitoring actions would be helpful in this regard.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The overall purpose of the project, to assist in the recovery of upper Columbia spring Chinook and summer steelhead in the Okanogan, Methow, Entiat, and Wenatchee subbasins by implementing habitat restoration actions is well described. The proposal’s Timeline provides additional information on when implementation tasks associated with each objective are expected to occur by subbasin. Expected results are shown in both the project’s objectives and Timeline chart.

The proposal includes SMART objectives for most of its goals. Most of the objectives are implementation objectives for habitat restoration actions (e.g., numbers of pieces of wood, acres of floodplain reconnected, mile of stream with riparian planting and fencing, miles of side channel created or reconnected, numbers of barriers removed). The ISRP commends the proponents for developing quantitative objectives with explicit time frames. The objectives do not, however, identify the intended biological outcomes (e.g., juvenile abundance of salmon and steelhead, numbers of outmigrating smolts, numbers of returning adults, numbers of redds, proportions of natural-origin adult salmon and steelhead). Do the proponents have explicit outcomes that can be developed and evaluated in coordination with OBMEP? Does the project assume that designing and implementing its restoration actions based on up-to-date landscape assessments, subbasin planning, regional recovery strategies and priorities, regional prioritization processes that have been reviewed extensively, and best management practices, make it unnecessary to develop quantitative biological and physical objectives? The ISRP also commends the proponents’ development of a sound landscape framework for their restoration actions, but we encourage the proponents to develop explicit physical and biological objectives for specific projects where the intended outcomes have been identified during planning and design. This will be especially true as OSHIP becomes UCHIP with newly subsumed projects and expands into two new subbasins.

Q2: Methods

Project restoration actions are based on information and prioritization processes that are part of the Okanogan Subbasin Plan, Methow Subbasin Plan, Upper Columbia Regional Technical Team Biological Strategy, UCSRB Prioritization Web Map, Habitat Action Prioritization, and Okanogan and Methow Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment tools. The proposal refers to the Biological Strategy from 2017, but the most recent update is from 2019. It is not clear if the project is using the most recent version of the Biological Strategy, but we assume they are doing so based on their participation in the RTT.

RTT (Regional Technical Team). 2019. A biological strategy to protect and restore salmonid habitat in the upper Columbia region. A report to the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board. Previous versions in 2000, 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2019. https://www.ucsrb.org/science-resources/reports-plans/recovery-plan/#

The proposal describes overall methods and types of actions but does not describe the methods used or cite a document where the methods have been documented. If the methods have not been summarized in a document, we encourage the project to create a compendium of its most used methods as a basis for training future employees, collaborating with other groups, preparing future proposals, and recording the history of the project’s action and evolution.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The proposal indicates that projects have been evaluated using habitat analysis in EDT and biological evaluation of juvenile production and adult returns through OBMEP. The proponents indicate that future projects will be evaluated using results from OBMEP, but do not explain which projects, quantitative objectives or physical and biological outcomes will be monitored. The ISRP is asking the Upper Columbia Programmatic Habitat Project (201000100) to work with other projects like OBMEP and OSHIP to create an overview of the specific monitoring provided for each habitat restoration project. We ask the proponents of this project to work with Upper Columbia Programmatic Habitat Project and OBMEP to create this matrix and crosswalk of restoration actions and monitoring methods.

Under lessons learned, the project indicates it will reestablish side channels to be inundated seasonally during emigration (April thru July) only to reduce the amount of habitat for non-native species while maintaining some benefit to native salmonids of off channel habitat improvement. Would this negate the refuge benefit of floodplain reconnections and side channel creation during earlier winter floods? Are rain-dominated or rain-on-snow floods in winter substantial events under the hydrologic regimes of these streams? Is flood refuge during winter floods in these streams an important habitat function for native species, including anadromous salmonids?

Given that the project proposes to expand its geographical scope, it would be useful to describe how the project intends to coordinate with other major restoration projects in the Okanogan, Methow, Entiat, and Wenatchee basins. In particular, the proponents should describe their plans to coordinate with the Upper Columbia Programmatic Habitat Project and the Upper Columbia Habitat Restoration Project.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The proposal lists nine selected projects completed since 2007 but does not indicate how many projects have been completed in total or what was accomplished overall. It provides some quantification of the area, length of channel, changes in road density, numbers of screens, and barriers removed as part of some of the selected projects but describes other outcomes only generally. Biological outcomes are reported only as anecdotal observations of the presence of fish. Given the abundance of landscape-level habitat information, monitoring results, and body of scientific studies in the basins, the project should be able to describe the overall projected benefits to fish and wildlife based on its past actions and intended outcomes. The ISRP encourages the proponents to develop such a comprehensive assessment of their contribution to fish and wildlife to document the successes of the project and serve as a model for other projects and geographic areas.

Documentation Links:
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2007-224-00-NPCC-20131126
Project: 2007-224-00 - Okanogan Subbasin Habitat Implementation Program (OSHIP)
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-2007-224-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement with condition through FY 2018: Sponsor to submit report regarding flows (ISRP qualification), by June 1, 2014 for ISRP review.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 ISRP Qualification: A short report should be submitted within 6 months for review by the ISRP—Sponsor to submit report regarding flows (ISRP qualification), by June 1, 2014 for ISRP review.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-224-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 2007-224-00 - Okanogan Subbasin Habitat Implementation Program (OSHIP)
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-2007-224-00
Completed Date: 9/27/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 8/15/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

The sponsors have made a creditable effort to respond to the ISRP's requests and concerns. Many of the ISRP's concerns had to do with coordination among the various organizations involved in habitat restoration in this watershed and the relationship between RM&E activities and the projects implementing habitat projects. These concerns were adequately addressed. The responses and the links to relevant documents provided reassurance that OSHIP has well reasoned and methodical approaches for setting goals relevant to ESU viability parameters (e.g., EDT life history models and spawner targets by stream) and for selecting projects based on limiting factors and feasibility. In particular, the response clarified the complementary roles of UCSRB and OBMEP in setting objectives and in monitoring results, respectively.

One area where the project sponsors could profitably direct some attention is the development of quantitative habitat objectives. The current objective is expressed as a desired percentage improvement in habitat quality, but the specifics of what this level of improvement actually means on the ground were not specified. Given the data being collected under the OBMEP program and the availability of the EDT model for this watershed, more specific habitat objectives could be produced. These quantitative objectives would be useful for evaluating progress against broader-scale objectives, evaluating the relationship of habitat condition to biological response, and updating the project prioritization lists. Specific habitat objectives also are essential for adaptive management.

The sponsors also might consider working with OBMEP to ensure that enough project-scale monitoring is occurring to evaluate the relative effectiveness of different restoration options. It is not clear to what extent the habitat response to individual projects is being assessed, but this information could be critically important for improving the efficiency of the restoration program moving forward.

Qualification #1 - A short report should be submitted within 6 months for review by the ISRP
The adequacy of specific strategies for improving water quantity and temperature should be considered (or modeled) under a range of plausible future scenarios (as per ISRP request #5). In general, the response was fine concerning the expected directions of climate change. However, the ISRP would like to better understand specific actions/strategies being considered or implemented to maintain biologically meaningful in-stream flow. A short report should be submitted within 6 months for review by the ISRP. This report should address the mechanics of obtaining the water as well as a frank assessment of the willingness of those controlling the water sources to make suitable arrangements so that OSHIP can maintain adequate in-stream flows. For example, over the period covered by this proposal, how much water is needed, where will the needed water be obtained, and what is the potential contribution from each source? What plans or strategies are in place to obtain this water? How much of the needed water is projected to come from conservation agreements, how much from sealing stream substrates, and how much from other potential sources?
First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:

A response is requested to:

1) Clarify the problem to be solved and present evidence to support or rank hypotheses about the stated limiting factors.

2) Quantify the objectives and explain the choice and sequence of actions being proposed to achieve the objectives.

3) Quantify the deliverables so that it would be possible, in principle, to demonstrate success or failure of implementation and compliance.

4) Explain how this project would monitor and evaluate or link with other projects to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of its actions, and the outcomes for fish status.

5) Evaluate how proposed actions to secure more cool water for juvenile rearing might succeed or fail under a range of plausible climate change scenarios.

6) Justify the proposed budget of $100,000 per year for vehicles. Although not a scientific issue, this cost ($500,000 over five years) seems large and warrants explanation.

The proposal should also be revised to include the information requested above and to address other issues outlined below.

This proposal fails to provide a coherent description of current status and factors limiting population viability of anadromous salmonids in the Okanogan Subbasin. The problem statement should establish the relevance of the selected restoration sites to Viable Salmon Population (VSP) parameters of abundance, productivity, diversity, and distribution for the endangered steelhead ESU and other species as appropriate. It should indicate how restoration at these specific locations will help to meet the RPA 35 obligations and goals identified in the Subbasin Plan. As it is, the proposal does not demonstrate that the tributaries to be restored would contribute much in terms of ESA recovery for steelhead or restoration of fisheries for summer/fall Chinook and other species.

This project includes a very ambitious set of restoration activities. Most of the proposed activities appear to address some of the generic limiting factors identified in the Subbasin Plan, for example temperature, sediment, and habitat complexity. But reasons for addressing these problems at the specific project sites are not provided. Additional detail on the project prioritization process being used by OSHIP should be included in the proposal. 

This proposal should explain the relationships among the multiple habitat programs including the Upper Columbia Habitat Program and the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Funding Board Program that are identifying and implementing restoration projects in the Okanogan River watershed. Even if other programs access funds from different sources, all restoration programs in the watershed should be fully coordinated, with compatible processes for prioritization, so that complementary projects are selected.

In addition, the relationship between OSHIP and Okanogan Basin Monitoring and Evaluation Program (OBMEP) should be described. The proposal indicated that OSHIP was conducting some project-scale effectiveness monitoring. The design and methods being used for this task were not described. The proposal also should describe how the project-scale monitoring is aligned with the OBMEP efforts.

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

The proposal does not adequately explain its significance to regional programs. The Okanogan Subbasin plan and the Upper Columbia Spring Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan are cited, but the linkage is not clearly summarized in a way that can be reviewed easily. The executive summary states that the purpose of OSHIP is "to implement a sequenced set of key habitat and protective actions." This sequence is not described or justified in the body of the proposal.

The problem statement is inadequately developed. Background should be provided about the current status and abundance of the target species in the project area to support inferences about what factors currently limit salmonid viability and production.

The proposal does not explain the extent to which this project will be coordinated with the Upper Columbia Habitat Programmatic or the Upper Columbia SRFB, both of which are identifying and funding projects in the Okanogan River watershed. Restoration of anadromous fishes in the Okanogan system would be most efficient if all these oversight programs were well aligned.

The objectives are clear, but they are not quantitative because they lack criteria for success or time lines for achievement. The objectives are not presented as part of an overall strategy that indicates an appropriate sequence of actions. Given the wealth of information that has been collected on this watershed, especially over the last few years with the initiation of the Okanogan monitoring program, these objectives could be site specific and quantitative.

Based on resumes provided in the proposal, the ISRP wonders whether CCTAFD personnel have the overall expertise to oversee and successfully complete many of the actions proposed, and whether advisory teams will be assembled to assist the technical and managerial staff. That said, the sizeable budget for professional meetings and training seems appropriate.

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

The proposal includes a long list of activities undertaken through this project since 2008. These activities appear to have been identified by habitat assessment based on data collected by the OBMEP project. It would have been useful if results of this assessment had been summarized in the proposal. As it stands, the results section contains too little detail to evaluate the extent of accomplishments or their impact. Many of these projects are still underway such that evaluation might be premature. Even so, no data or evidence of monitoring are presented to instill confidence that the efforts are producing useful results.

The proposal section on adaptive management simply states that the project sponsors have been identifying stream reaches where additional flow would be beneficial to steelhead. No plan for adaptive management is articulated, and this omission needs to be corrected. Given the potential availability of habitat and fish data in this system, this project could implement a very powerful adaptive management process. Project priorities should be reviewed annually using new information on the effectiveness of projects implemented previously.

Evaluation of Results

OSHIP was authorized in 2007 but did not begin until 2008 in conjunction with the Fish Accords.

Research conducted by the CCTAFD indicates that water flow in most tributaries of the Okanogan River that support steelhead is over allocated for irrigation, such that water is now a principal limiting factor. Accordingly, the goals of OSHIP have shifted to acquiring more water flow for juvenile rearing. Even so, the proposal contains no explicit plan for adaptive management. 

Too little detail is provided in the proposal about fish or environmental monitoring to evaluate the extent of accomplishments or their impact. No fish response data are provided.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

Project relationships are described only briefly. At a minimum, some description of the relationship between this project and other habitat funding programs operating in the Okanogan River watershed should be provided. How does each entity interface with the proposed project? What are the details of the relationships for specific restoration actions and goals? One would hope that these various efforts are closely coordinated to avoid duplication of effort and to ensure activities are complementary. 

It seems that OSHIP is the main driver of steelhead habitat restoration in the United States portion of the Okanogan River but works with other partners including Trout Unlimited, The Okanogan Conservation District, Washington Water Trust, and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. In addition, OSHIP also funds planning and design for projects in the Canadian portion of the Okanagan River while Chelan, Douglas and Grant Count PUDs provide implementation funding.

The proposal states that limited effectiveness monitoring is done by OSHIP, and that status and trend monitoring and evaluation of changes in habitat conditions is covered by the Okanogan Basin Monitoring and Evaluation Program. Details of this monitoring are inadequately described in this proposal. Project-scale evaluations should be fully integrated with the OBMEP program to ensure maximum benefit from the results.

Discussion of emerging limiting factors is scant and the meaning of the term may have been misinterpreted. OSHIP is focusing on opportunities for accessing water and habitats that are cooler than the mainstem Okanogan River, presumably in recognition of current limiting factors and predictions for climate change. However, potential climate change impacts on system hydrology are not addressed. What is needed is a discussion of (or some explicit modeling to determine) whether enough cool water can be secured under a plausible climate change scenario to provide reassurance that the odds of success are reasonable. Approaches to gain insights into future flows do exist, and these insights can help shape restoration strategies and actions. Scenario analyses have been used to inform and improve existing flow restoration and habitat projects (see Donley et al. 2012. Global Change Biology (2012), doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02773.x). As one example, it is ecologically advantageous to assess through simulations the sensitivity of late summer (July, August, and September) flows to various scenarios involving changes in the following variables, singly or in combination: climate, the quantity of water used for irrigation, and water resource policy. Flows can be modeled using the Water Evaluation and Planning system (WEAP; as well as other modeling platforms) under historical and projected conditions (for example, 2020 and 2040) for each scenario.

The proposal does not include consideration of other important factors, for example toxic agricultural chemicals, future water withdrawals for agriculture, hatchery impacts, and non-native species invasions and predation. Each of these factors is important, and has the potential to undermine costly restoration efforts. Accordingly, some consideration of these factors should be incorporated into the project selection process.

The list of focal species is surprisingly short given the scope of the proposed restoration work. Lamprey, other trout, mussels and riparian birds are not mentioned. Are there other species or ecological groups to be concerned about or which could benefit from the proposed actions?

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The 19 deliverables listed in the proposal all address issues relevant to the primary limiting factors identified in the Subbasin Plan and consistent with the stated objectives. However, the deliverables are not quantitative and seem more like goals than deliverables. Without more detail, it would be impossible to determine later, whether a project component had succeeded or failed. 

Some additional explanation of the project prioritization process would have been helpful in reviewing the proposal, especially given the sizable funding request. Why were these actions chosen as top priorities? What are the expected outcomes in terms of fish recovery? These expectations should be included as criteria, along with timelines for achieving them. The lack of detail and prioritization diminishes confidence that useful outcomes can or will be achieved.

Further, without any direct monitoring for effectiveness, it will not be possible to determine if specific work elements and metrics are the best for specific situations, or if the work elements and metrics need to be modified in any way. The lack of effectiveness monitoring is a major oversight.

Note that none of the 19 deliverables are listed as supporting Objective 6 (Habitat Protection).

A large proportion of the budget is for land and water acquisitions, but no details or justification are provided on what properties or rights will be purchased or leased, the priorities and rationale for acquisition, or how these actions relate to specific fish or wildlife goals. Further, in the budget, rent/utilities are traditionally overhead costs and no justification is provided for the large annual expenditures on vehicles.

Professional publications in a refereed journal should be listed as a deliverable. It is important for large scale projects, like this one, to provide leadership in the broader restoration community.

Two resumes are missing.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/27/2013 9:45:09 AM.
Documentation Links:
  • Proponent Response (7/10/2013)
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2007-224-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2007-224-00 - Okanogan Subbasin Habitat Implementation Program (OSHIP)
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund Pending Available Funds
Comments: Tier 2. Fund at a level consistent with ISRP comments, as funds become available.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-224-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2007-224-00 - Okanogan Subbasin Habitat Implementation Program (OSHIP)
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 is a proposal to fund the Colville Confederated Tribes to implement restoration and protection actions in the Okanogan Subbasin Plan. The implementation of this plan is a high priority. This proposal may require clarifications and adjustments by the sponsor in consultation with the Council and BPA. The broad scope of the proposal made it difficult for the ISRP to assess the potential impact of particular Assessment Unit (AU) Actions, or their combined effect. The proponents might have made some effort to rank the likely relative magnitudes of effects on fish and wildlife of particular AU actions. That would help determine which of the proposed AU Actions might be most worth saving in the event that budgets are reduced. The proposal narrative would have been improved by inclusion of Tasks (work elements) and methods provided on the administrative forms.

A short summary of monitoring and evaluation (M&E), which are to be covered by Colville project 200302200, should be included in the final proposal narrative or statement of work. Resumes are provided for only two of the proposed key personnel. No FTEs are provided. The majority of the work will be performed by contractors under the supervision of the project proponents. The administrative form provides details on an excellent plan for information transfer, but this is mentioned only in a very general way in the proposal narrative. The proposal narrative would have been improved by a discussion of potential adverse effects and precautions regarding non-focal species.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 2007-224-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2007-224-00
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: Multiple restoration activities, multiple other entities may be authorized/required.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-224-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2007-224-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Project Relationships: This project Merged To 2023-001-00 effective on 10/1/2022
Relationship Description: Starting in FY23, all work/$ from 2007-224-00 OSHIP and 1996-042-00 Salmon Creek is moved to new project # 2023-001-00 and renamed Upper Columbia Habitat Improvement Project (UCHIP).


Name Role Organization
John Arterburn Interested Party Colville Confederated Tribes
Peter Lofy Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Edward Gresh Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Matt Young Project Lead Colville Confederated Tribes
Chris Fisher Supervisor Colville Confederated Tribes
Jeannette Finley Administrative Contact Colville Confederated Tribes
Jody Lando Project SME Bonneville Power Administration
Michelle O'Malley Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration