Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2008-102-00 - Upper Columbia Land Operation and Maintenance Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2008-102-00 - Upper Columbia Land Operation and Maintenance
Project Number:
Upper Columbia Land Operation and Maintenance
Funds from this project will be used by the Colville Tribes fund land and water acquisitions for habitat enhancement and protection purposes, as well as to fund other types of habitat restoration work, all within the Okanogan River subbasin. ESA listed species will be the focus of activities to improve habitat, with the goal of allowing steelhead and spring chinook to trend toward recovery. Projects will address limiting factors as outlined in the Recovery Plan and in the Okanogan Initiative. Up to $75,000 of this funding will be available to investigate and plan for cost-effective and needed habitat enhancements in the Canadian Okanogan watershed for the benefit of chinook salmon and steelhead trout; habitat enhancements identified in the Canadian Okanogan would be implemented with funds other than those provided by BPA.

In all likelihood, no contracts will be issued under this project. Project funds will be transferred on an as-needed basis to projects 2007-224-00 (Okanogan Subbasin Habitat Improvement Program), 2008-104-00 (Land & Water Acquisition), 2000-001-00 (Omak Creek Habitat & Passage) and 1996-042-00 (Restore Salmon Creek Anadromous Fish).
Proponent Orgs:
Colville Confederated Tribes (Tribe)
Starting FY:
Ending FY:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Cascade Okanogan 100.00%
Focal Species:
Chinook - All Populations
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESU
Sockeye - Okanogan River ESU
Steelhead - Upper Columbia River DPS
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
BiOp Association:
FCRPS 2008 – view list of FCRPS 2008 BiOp Actions

Tributary Habitat Implementation 2010 to 2018

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  (FY2022 - FY2024)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2022 Expense $429,597 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Extensions (Colville Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2023 Expense $429,597 From: Fish Accord - Colville Colville Tribe (CCT) 2023-2025 Accord Extension 09/30/2022
FY2024 Expense $440,337 From: Fish Accord - Colville Colville Tribe (CCT) 2023-2025 Accord Extension 09/30/2022

Pending Budget Decision?  No

Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2023
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
2022 (Draft)


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.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
69348 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2008-102-00 EXP CCT PROPERTY MGMT AND MAINTENANCE Closed $323,108 7/1/2015 - 8/31/2016
72844 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2008-102-00 EXP CCT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE Closed $384,464 7/1/2016 - 6/30/2017
73548 REL 13 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2008-102-00 EXP CCT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE Closed $244,336 7/1/2017 - 6/30/2018
73548 REL 39 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2008-102-00 EXP CCT OKANOGAN PROPERTY O&M Closed $224,455 7/1/2018 - 6/30/2019
73548 REL 62 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2008-102-00 EXP OKANOGAN HABITAT Closed $290,667 7/1/2019 - 11/30/2020
73548 REL 98 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2008-102-00 EXP OKANOGAN HABITAT Issued $424,293 12/1/2020 - 11/30/2021
73548 REL 128 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2008-102-00 EXP CCT OKANOGAN PROPERTY O&M Issued $429,597 12/1/2021 - 11/30/2022
73548 REL 156 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2008-102-00 EXP UP COL LAND OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE Issued $429,497 12/1/2022 - 11/30/2023

Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):7
On time:1
Status Reports
On time:13
Avg Days Late:10

                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
69348 72844, 73548 REL 13, 73548 REL 39, 73548 REL 62, 73548 REL 98, 73548 REL 128, 73548 REL 156 2008-102-00 EXP UP COL LAND OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE Colville Confederated Tribes 07/01/2015 11/30/2023 Issued 32 151 17 0 21 189 88.89% 4
Project Totals 32 151 17 0 21 189 88.89% 4

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: 2008-102-00-NPCC-20230316
Project: 2008-102-00 - Upper Columbia Land Operation and Maintenance
Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Approved Date: 4/15/2022
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Bonneville and Sponsor to confirm that the role of this project is for O&M, and not a habitat implementation project, and confirm project title (Upper Columbia Land Operations and Maintenance). Bonneville and Sponsor to consider condition #1 (coordination) and address in project documentation if appropriate.

[Background: See]

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2008-102-00-ISRP-20230407
Project: 2008-102-00 - Upper Columbia Land Operation and Maintenance
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 Okanogan Habitat Acquisition and Restoration project is an Operation and Maintenance project that maintains properties acquired by the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (CTCR) until they are incorporated into restoration and land management projects. Primarily, the project controls native vegetation or converts previous non-native plant communities to native vegetation and constructs/maintains fencing to protect lands until the CTCR incorporates the lands into their overall land management. As a result, it tends to fall between the CTCR Land & Water Acquisition Project and the Okanogan Subbasin Habitat Implementation Program (OSHIP or soon to be UCHIP). These lands and stream reaches might also be monitored by the Okanogan Basin Monitoring & Evaluation Program (OBMEP).

Currently, the project tends to convert and maintain the plant communities to native grass and herbaceous vegetation to reduce erosion, reduce or prevent invasion of non-native weedy plants, and fence properties and riparian areas. The project does not identify future ecological conditions for the sites and does not manage the property to move toward a desired ecological outcome for fish or wildlife. It uses agronomic practices and NRCS plant community types but does not implement long-term restoration of the properties.

The proposal provided by the proponents appeared to be in the midst of review, had not been well edited, and still included track-changes and numerous typos and grammatical errors.

The ISRP recommends that the project be subsumed within the OSHIP project to integrate the acquisition, maintenance, and restoration of acquired properties to meet the conservation goals of the CTCR. As such, it could continue to manage lands with BPA easements and transition their acquired conditions to long-term desired future conditions. OSHIP could provide an ecological framework for their management based on the habitat evaluation and prioritization framework it has developed for these basins. Furthermore, as with other OSHIP actions, the ecological outcomes of actions by this project should be evaluated by OBMEP.

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. Integrate with OSHIP. Coordinate with the Land & Water Acquisition Project and OSHIP to integrate this project with OSHIP and create efficient coordination between land acquisition and incorporation into CTCR conservation programs.
  2. 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 ISRP wonders why the proponents have not proposed ecological objectives, either physical or biological, for the specific properties? While the overriding goal of the project is to replace invasive plant species with native plants to benefit native wildlife on lands acquired by the CTCR, how, where and when the proponents will accomplish that is much less clear. The objectives for the project simply are statements of actions and are not stated in the SMART objective format (see proposal instructions). For example, “Objective 1a Identify nonnative vegetative (sic) presents (sic) and how best to begin removal” (Proposal table page 3). As SMART objectives, this might be stated as:

  • Obj. 1a. By May 2021 identify the presence of nonnative vegetation on 5 acres of land and determine the best method to remove the nonnative plants.
  • Obj. 1b. Remove the nonnative vegetation on 5 acres and begin the reintroduction of native plants by September 2021.
  • Obj. 1c. Complete the reintroduction of native plants and evaluate the success of the selected methods by July 2023.

These dates and specific actions are just examples and may not be reasonable for the project. Again, additional objectives with biological outcomes for the lands being managed are needed.

In the text, the proponents mention construction and maintenance of fencing and miles of fencing is shown in the table of results, but there is no mention of fencing in the objectives table.

Q2: Methods

The methods to remove nonnative plants and reintroduce native plants appear to be based on sound agricultural (scientific) methods. The photos in Appendix C (Proposal pages 15 - 20) illustrate how a specific project proceeded and required five years to complete successfully. Other methods that should be described are such things as: 1) How are parcels (Proposal, Appendix D) prioritized for action? 2) How is the decision made to use mechanical or chemical removal on a given plot? The ISRP is concerned that the description of herbicide applications simply indicates that the proponents are using poisons permitted by the BPA herbicide handbook. It does not describe any criteria for application based on pest management principles and determination of risks to native plant communities. Likewise, there is no description of how they develop the plan for the intended ecological outcomes. What are they trying to attain and how did they determine their intended outcome? What species are they planting and why? Are they intended to provide specific ecological roles for nutrients, erosion control, soil formation, water efficiency, fire resistance, food for wildlife or aquatic communities? No information is provided other than they plant native plants and use techniques to make the planting successful in terms of survival.

Several BPA-funded projects implement similar actions to improve lands acquired as part of fish and wildlife mitigation. Coordination and interaction among these projects is encouraged as it would promote sharing of methods and lessons learned making each project more effective. Please see the report for other projects (ISRP 2017-7).

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The proposal does not include methods for monitoring and evaluating the work. The proponents state: “An evaluation of the project’s management strategies is continuous throughout the year of the contract cycle.” (Proposal page 5). This evaluation appears to be at the project management level as opposed to evaluating the outcome of on-the-ground actions to determine how successful the actions have been, but no information is presented to describe past implementation success. The photos in Appendix C show a successful project completed in 2017, but what has become of the land over the last three years? Have the native plants continued to thrive? Perhaps more importantly, has there been an increase in wildlife use of the area? Are the plant communities providing the intended ecological functions? The answer to this last question would require monitoring wildlife use before and after actions. Several years of before and after treatment actions would be needed for statistical validity. The proponents should describe their implementation monitoring methods, evaluation process, and reporting process for implementation success.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The proposal does not summarize the overall benefit to fish and wildlife. It lists acres of chemical application, acres of mowing, miles of fence maintenance, miles of fence construction, and vegetation planting. These actions likely benefit fish and wildlife, but the proponents should describe the benefits in terms of functional or restored habitat and the likely response of fish and wildlife to those improved landscape conditions. Perhaps their collaborating partners could assist in preparing this overall summary of the benefits to fish and wildlife.

Documentation Links:

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Charles Brushwood Interested Party Colville Confederated Tribes
Jeannette Finley Administrative Contact Colville Confederated Tribes
Justin Wilson Project Lead Colville Confederated Tribes
Virgil Watts III Project SME Bonneville Power Administration
David Kaplowe Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Virgil Watts III Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration