Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2010-001-00 - Upper Columbia Programmatic Habitat Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2010-001-00 - Upper Columbia Programmatic Habitat
Project Number:
2010-001-00
Title:
Upper Columbia Programmatic Habitat
Summary:
This project sustains BPA's BiOp non-Accord habitat effort in the Wenatchee, Entiat, Okanogan, and Methow subbasins from FY2010 through the term of the FCRPS BiOp. It provides a programmatic approach for planning, funding, and implementing BPA's effort in close cooperation with other funding sources and initiatives while helping ensure that BPA's resources are applied where they can accomplish the greatest improvements to the primary limiting factors for ESA-Endangered UCR Spring Chinook and UCR Summer Steelhead.
Proposer:
Proponent Orgs:
Bonneville Power Administration (Govt - Federal)
Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board (Non-Profit)
Starting FY:
2010
Ending FY:
2023
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Cascade Entiat 25.00%
Methow 25.00%
Okanogan 25.00%
Wenatchee 25.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Chinook - All Populations
Chinook - Deschutes River Summer/Fall ESU
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - Southwest Washington/Columbia River ESU
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Lamprey, Pacific
Lamprey, River
Other Anadromous
Sockeye - Lake Wenatchee ESU
Sockeye - Okanogan River ESU
Steelhead - All Populations
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS
Steelhead - Upper Columbia River DPS
Trout, Bull
Whitefish, Mountain
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

Contract: 85716

Dimensions: 1280 x 960

Contract: 85716

Dimensions: 1024 x 768


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  (FY2020 - FY2022)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2020 Expense $2,000,000 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY20 SOY 06/05/2019
FY2021 Expense $2,000,000 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY21 SOY 06/09/2020

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2021
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
2019 $1,209,408 (Draft) 26% (Draft)
2018 $499,492 (Draft) 11% (Draft)

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, 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
83222 SOW Washington Water Trust 2010-001-00 CAP COIC ICICLE CREEK FLOW RESTORATION PROJECT Issued $1,376,269 9/21/2019 - 9/20/2020
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
BPA-007232 Bonneville Power Administration LWP Mitigation to BNSF Active $950,000 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
BPA-008524 Bonneville Power Administration Crop Damage Payment Active $14,555 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
74314 REL 79 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-001-00 EXP IPID & CITY OF LEAVENWORTH FISH SCREEN UPGRADE Issued $85,000 8/1/2019 - 7/31/2020
82854 SOW Chelan County 2010-001-00 EXP UPPER WENATCHEE FLOODPLAIN RECONNECT - CONCEPT Issued $132,375 8/19/2019 - 11/19/2020
83074 SOW Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation 2010-001-00 EXP BARKLEY BEAR IMPLEMENTATION Issued $674,338 9/1/2019 - 8/31/2020
83002 SOW Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation 2010-001-00 EXP TWISP PONDS: DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION Issued $199,670 9/1/2019 - 8/31/2020
83892 SOW Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board 2010-001-00 EXP UPPER COLUMBIA PROGRAMMATIC HABITAT-ADMIN Issued $320,307 12/1/2019 - 2/28/2021
84079 SOW Cascade Columbia Fisheries Enhancement Group 2010-001-00 EXP LOWER PESHASTIN CONFLUENCE DESIGN Issued $79,739 3/1/2020 - 2/28/2021
85690 SOW Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation 2010-001-00 EXP M2 SUGAR CONCEPTS Issued $40,500 9/1/2020 - 8/31/2021
85728 SOW Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation 2010-001-00 EXP LOWER METHOW HABITAT FEASIBILITY Issued $29,096 9/1/2020 - 8/31/2021
85716 SOW Trout Unlimited (TU) 2010-001-00 EXP ICICLE BOULDER FIELD Issued $325,000 9/1/2020 - 8/31/2021
85755 SOW Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation 2010-001-00 EXP TWISP PONDS: DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION Issued $83,944 9/1/2020 - 8/31/2021
85844 SOW Cascade Columbia Fisheries Enhancement Group 2010-001-00 EXP BIG MEADOW CREEK FISH PASSAGE RESTORATION Issued $62,000 9/15/2020 - 9/14/2021
85739 SOW Trout Unlimited (TU) 2010-001-00 EXP STONEWATER RANCH FLOW AND PASSSAGE IMPROVEMENT Issued $71,353 9/15/2020 - 9/14/2021
85957 SOW Chelan County 2010-001-00 EXP LOWER NASON CREEK FLOODPLAIN DESIGN Issued $124,541 9/15/2020 - 9/14/2021
85980 SOW Chelan County 2010-001-00 EXP LOWER CLEAR CREEK RESTORATION DESIGN Issued $50,776 9/15/2020 - 9/14/2021
86023 SOW Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation 2010-001-00 EXP BARKLEY BEAR IMPLEMENTATION - PHASE 2 Issued $541,306 9/15/2020 - 9/14/2021
85994 SOW Cascade Columbia Fisheries Enhancement Group 2010-001-00 EXP MERRITT OXBOW DESIGN Issued $49,927 9/28/2020 - 9/27/2021
CR-341772 SOW Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board 2010-001-00 EXP UPPER COLUMBIA PROGRAMMATIC HABITAT-ADMIN Approved $135,935 12/1/2020 - 11/30/2021
CR-343260 SOW Chelan County 2010-001-00 EXP UPPER WENATCHEE FLOODPLAIN 30% DESIGN Pending $134,590 1/1/2021 - 12/31/2021



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):62
Completed:49
On time:46
Status Reports
Completed:286
On time:124
Avg Days Late:4

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
44972 50379, 55221, 59600, 63472, 67313, 70930, 74470, 77842, 80732, 83892 2010-001-00 EXP UPPER COLUMBIA PROGRAMMATIC HABITAT Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board 11/2009 11/2009 Approved 43 87 8 0 3 98 96.94% 0
51530 56586 2010-001-00 EXP DILLWATER ELJ AND SIDE CHANNEL ENHANCEMENT Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board 02/2011 02/2011 Closed 8 10 0 0 0 10 100.00% 0
51398 2010-001-00 EXP LOUP LOUP CREEK Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board 02/2011 02/2011 Closed 4 4 0 0 0 4 100.00% 0
51399 56585 2010-001-00 EXP LOWER WENATCHEE INSTREAM FLOW ENHANCEMENT Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board 02/2011 02/2011 Closed 8 6 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0
53025 59682 2010-001-00 EXP TYEE RANCH FLOODPLAIN ENHANCEMENT AND COMPLEXITY Cascadia Conservation District 06/2011 06/2011 Closed 10 29 0 0 6 35 82.86% 0
54643 59451 2010-001-00 EXP OKANOGAN RIVER BASIN FISH SCREEN REPLACEMENTS Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board 09/2011 09/2011 Closed 8 18 0 0 1 19 94.74% 0
54517 2010-001-00 EXP M2 LARGE WOOD APPLICATION Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board 09/2011 09/2011 Closed 4 4 0 0 0 4 100.00% 0
55349 2010-001-00 EXP ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE M2 PRE-IMPLEMENTATION Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board 12/2011 12/2011 Closed 4 2 0 0 1 3 66.67% 0
56835 63007 2010-001-00 EXP UPR COLUMBIA RESTORATION DESIGN & DEVELOP - USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 04/2012 04/2012 Closed 10 11 0 0 0 11 100.00% 1
57327 2010-001-00 EXP M2 IMPLEMENTATION Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation 05/2012 05/2012 Closed 6 14 0 0 3 17 82.35% 0
56662 REL 8 2010-001-00 EXP LWR ENTIAT RM 2.6-3.5 DESIGN Yakama Confederated Tribes 09/2012 09/2012 Closed 4 2 0 0 0 2 100.00% 0
58734 64314 201000100 EXP LOWER ENTIAT RM 0.8 - 2.3 RESTORATION Cascadia Conservation District 09/2012 09/2012 Closed 9 15 0 0 3 18 83.33% 1
58682 2010-001-00 EXP TWISP R ELBOW COULEE PHASE II RT/LF BANK RESTOR Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation 09/2012 09/2012 Closed 5 4 0 0 1 5 80.00% 0
58733 64315 2010-001-00 EXP LOWER ENTIAT RM 1.9 CHANNEL DESIGN Chelan County 09/2012 09/2012 Closed 9 10 0 0 3 13 76.92% 2
58681 2010-001-00 EXP UPPER BEAVER HABITAT IMPROVEMENT CHANNEL RESTOR Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation 09/2012 09/2012 Closed 5 5 0 0 1 6 83.33% 0
BPA-007232 LWP Mitigation to BNSF Bonneville Power Administration 10/2012 10/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
61917 2010-001-00 LWP LOWER CONNECTION Chelan County 06/2013 06/2013 Closed 4 6 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0
62758 66397 2010-001-00 EXP TWISP RIVER FLOODPLAIN Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation 09/2013 09/2013 Closed 8 16 0 0 1 17 94.12% 0
62793 2010-001-00 EXP M2 3R FLOODPLAIN AND SIDE CHANNEL RESTORATION Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation 09/2013 09/2013 Closed 5 7 0 0 0 7 100.00% 0
56662 REL 33 2010-001-00 EXP YN LOWER ENTIAT LARGE WOOD & BOULDER APPLICATION Yakama Confederated Tribes 09/2013 09/2013 Closed 4 3 0 0 0 3 100.00% 0
56662 REL 37 2010-001-00 EXP LWR ENTIAT RM 2.6-3.5 Yakama Confederated Tribes 12/2013 12/2013 Closed 4 5 0 0 0 5 100.00% 0
65827 69953 2010-001-00 EXP UC PROGRAMMATIC - BUREAU DESIGN MID-ENTIAT US Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) 07/2014 07/2014 Closed 8 7 0 0 0 7 100.00% 0
BPA-008524 Crop Damage Payment Bonneville Power Administration 10/2014 10/2014 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
69716 2010-001-00 EXP CCNRD ENTIAT LW PROCUREMENT Chelan County 08/2015 08/2015 Closed 6 0 4 0 0 4 100.00% 4
69930 2010-001-00 EXP TWISP RIVER FLOODPLAIN IMPLEMENTATION Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation 09/2015 09/2015 Closed 5 11 0 0 0 11 100.00% 0
70143 76789, 78279 2010-001-00 CAP BARKLEY IRRIGATION - MVID Trout Unlimited (TU) 09/2015 09/2015 Closed 14 10 0 0 4 14 71.43% 0
71355 74958, 78044, 79769, 83074, 86023 2010-001-00 EXP BARKLEY BEAR PRE-IMPLEMENTATION Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation 02/2016 02/2016 Issued 17 22 5 0 16 43 62.79% 0
73526 76637, 79758 2010-001-00 EXP TWISP RIVER FLOODPLAIN PHASE II - PRE-IMPLEMENT Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation 09/2016 09/2016 Closed 12 14 0 0 6 20 70.00% 0
76427 84079 2010-001-00 EXP LOWER PESHASTIN CREEK DESIGN Cascade Columbia Fisheries Enhancement Group 08/2017 08/2017 Issued 5 0 4 0 4 8 50.00% 0
76478 79525 2010-001-00 EXP LOWER METHOW RIVER REACH ASSESSMENT PHASE 1 Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation 08/2017 08/2017 Closed 8 10 0 0 0 10 100.00% 0
74314 REL 13 74314 REL 79 2010-001-00 EXP IPID & CITY OF LEAVENWORTH FISH SCREEN UPGRADE Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 08/2017 08/2017 Issued 9 10 0 0 0 10 100.00% 0
76629 2010-001-00 EXP NASON CREEK RM 4.6 SIDE CHANNEL CONNECTION Chelan County 09/2017 09/2017 Closed 4 3 0 0 3 6 50.00% 0
76713 2010-001-00 EXP NASON CREEK RM 2.3 SIDE CHANNEL CONNECTION Chelan County 09/2017 09/2017 Closed 5 6 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0
76808 83222 2010-001-00 EXP COIC ICICLE CREEK FLOW RESTORATION PROJECT Washington Water Trust 09/2017 09/2017 Issued 11 10 7 0 2 19 89.47% 2
77007 2010-001-00 EXP M2 REACH WDFW FLOW CONNECTION Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation 09/2017 09/2017 Closed 4 7 0 0 0 7 100.00% 0
80203 2010-001-00 EXP BURNS GARRITY SIDE CHANNEL Cascade Columbia Fisheries Enhancement Group 09/2018 09/2018 Closed 2 0 0 0 0 0 8
82827 2010-001-00 EXP METHOW R SUNGATE LN - PROJECT EXPLORATION/CONCEPT Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation 08/2019 08/2019 Closed 3 4 0 0 0 4 100.00% 1
82854 2010-001-00 EXP UPPER WENATCHEE FLOODPLAIN RECONNECT - CONCEPT Chelan County 08/2019 08/2019 Pending 4 0 6 0 0 6 100.00% 0
83002 85755 2010-001-00 EXP TWISP PONDS: DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation 09/2019 09/2019 Issued 3 0 2 0 4 6 33.33% 0
85690 2010-001-00 EXP M2 SUGAR CONCEPTS Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation 09/2020 09/2020 Issued 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
85728 2010-001-00 EXP LOWER METHOW HABITAT FEASIBILITY Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation 09/2020 09/2020 Issued 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
85716 2010-001-00 EXP ICICLE BOULDER FIELD Trout Unlimited (TU) 09/2020 09/2020 Issued 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
85844 2010-001-00 EXP BIG MEADOW CREEK FISH PASSAGE RESTORATION Cascade Columbia Fisheries Enhancement Group 09/2020 09/2020 Issued 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
85739 2010-001-00 EXP STONEWATER RANCH FLOW AND PASSSAGE IMPROVEMENT Trout Unlimited (TU) 09/2020 09/2020 Issued 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
85957 2010-001-00 EXP LOWER NASON CREEK FLOODPLAIN DESIGN Chelan County 09/2020 09/2020 Issued 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
85980 2010-001-00 EXP LOWER CLEAR CREEK RESTORATION DESIGN Chelan County 09/2020 09/2020 Issued 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
85994 2010-001-00 EXP MERRITT OXBOW DESIGN Cascade Columbia Fisheries Enhancement Group 09/2020 09/2020 Issued 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 282 372 36 0 62 470 86.81% 19


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: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2010-001-00-NPCC-20131126
Project: 2010-001-00 - Upper Columbia Programmatic Habitat
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-2010-001-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement with conditions through FY 2014: 1) Sponsor to submit monitoring progress report for ISRP review by March 1, 2014. Funding recommendation for FY2015 and beyond, depending on favorable review of the monitoring progress report; 2) Bonneville and sponsor to administer project based on principles described in Programmatic Issue and Recommendation B for umbrella projects; 3) See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 ISRP Qualification: Submit a comprehensive report—Sponsor to submit monitoring progress report for ISRP review by March 1, 2014. Funding recommendation for FY2015 and beyond, depending on favorable review of the monitoring progress report
Council Condition #2 Programmatic Issue: B. Evaluate and Improve Umbrella Projects—Bonneville and sponsor to administer project based on principles described in Programmatic Issue and Recommendation B for umbrella projects
Council Condition #3 Programmatic Issue: A. Implement Monitoring, and Evaluation at a Regional Scale—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2010-001-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 2010-001-00 - Upper Columbia Programmatic Habitat
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-2010-001-00
Completed Date: 9/26/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 8/15/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

The UCSRB response to the ISRP’s questions and requests for clarification were reasonably complete in some areas but did not address all of our concerns. In particular, stating that the proposal had been revised without providing full details in the response itself made it difficult for us to determine whether a question had been adequately answered without referring to the complete proposal. The project prioritization process is still unclear. We look forward to learning more about it when the promised check-in report is submitted for ISRP review.

Although we realize that biological effectiveness monitoring cannot be carried out at every restoration site, further explanation is needed on the relationship between this project, which supports on-the-ground habitat improvement actions, and regional population and habitat status and trend monitoring efforts such as ISEMP and CHaMP. The response is somewhat vague on this matter. A project of this scope must be coupled to an equally ambitious monitoring program in order for adequate learning to occur. Therefore, we ask that past and anticipated future monitoring results also be highlighted in the check-in report. This summary should go beyond the organizational flow diagram (Figure 1) and identify key monitoring metrics that will be used to determine if VSP parameters of focal species are improving, how these metrics will be obtained (and by whom), and how will they be interpreted in terms of population status and trends. It is stated that "this project will continue to work with BPA and Council staff to identity whether restoration actions proposed under this project may be candidates for use in the AEM program." We feel that a plan to incorporate restoration actions into the AEM program should be included in the check-in report. The summary of the Twisp Elbow Coulee Project in the response was helpful, and we hope to see more examples using specific references to VSP parameters in the report.

The overall philosophical view that local experts and communities need to be engaged and involved in developing habitat restoration for salmon and steelhead is consistent with the ISAB Landscape Report and other socioeconomic considerations regarding conservation practice. Using the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board as a vehicle to link the Council Fish and Wildlife Program and BPA/NOAA/Reclamation’s non-Accord BiOp obligations is reasonable. The questions for ISRP review is whether sufficient progress in implementation is being made and whether the organization and governance structure is able to achieve the improvements in habitat and salmon survival and abundance in an efficient manner.

At this time it appears the targeted work is somewhat weakly linked to an understanding of habitat forming processes in the subbasins. From the tour, it appeared that knowledge could be better incorporated in the project regarding the status of salmon and steelhead and the improvement needed to achieve (1) viability status goals in the near and medium terms and (2) desired gains in salmon survival sufficient for recovery. It also appears the pace of implementation could be improved. At this time, the UCRSRB has executed only one targeted solicitation, and the RTT did not generate estimates of fish benefits associated with these initial actions.

Connections between the selected actions and habitat forming processes for salmon and steelhead population improvements need to be better reflected in the proposal and reports. In some cases, monitoring and evaluation seems to be underappreciated and misunderstood. The proposal, conversations during the site visit, and the response (both in this programmatic project and other organizations) seem to be focused on monitoring and evaluation of fish use of individual structures constructed by restoration partners – a narrow perspective and not very informative unless these project-scale assessments can be linked to basinwide fish population performance measures. The more relevant questions are: how are these projects affecting subbasin-scale habitat quality and habitat forming processes, and how are these changes in habitat affecting salmon and steelhead viability? These questions will be appropriately addressed by modeling ISEMP/CHaMP habitat and fish-in/fish-out data. Finally, if the projects actually conducting habitat and fish monitoring are not incorporating knowledge of existing restoration sites into their sampling panels and analysis design, the resulting interpretations may be misinformed.

The format in which the project sponsors provided responses to ISRP comments made it difficult to distinguish the material added in the review loop. It did appear that some information was added to address ISRP concerns, but several of the issues we raised were not addressed. The overview of the program provided during the field tour did partially address concerns about relationships among the restoration programs involved in implementation of habitat projects in the Upper Columbia. This program will prioritize and help implement projects funded through this proposal, the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board, the Bureau of Reclamation, and PUDs. These funding sources represent a significant proportion of the habitat restoration funding in this region. There are some other restoration projects in the Upper Columbia region, like OSHIP, that are not discussed in the revised proposal but it would seem some coordination with these programs also would be worthwhile to ensure the most efficient use of restoration resources. The relationships among RM&E programs and how information being generated through these efforts will be used to modify program processes and project prioritization was not fully addressed. Much of the additional information the ISRP requested about the specifics of procedures being used to prioritize projects also was not provided. Nonetheless, the program clearly plays a critical coordinating role for habitat restoration efforts in this region and should be supported. A program status report is proposed for 2013. This report should include a very complete description of program progress since inception; RM&E results and their application to program priorities and processes; and an indication of the extent to which the AEM program will provide RM&E coverage for watersheds without IMW efforts.

Questions for which the ISRP requested a response included:

1) Describe the restoration project review and prioritization process in more detail including the scoring sheet and criteria.

Some additional information on the prioritization process appears to have been added to version of the proposal submitted in response to the ISRP review. Discussions during the field tour also helped to clarify this issue. However, details of the scoring system were only included as a partially complete Excel spreadsheet (in the project description) for one of the restoration areas, and we were unable to conduct a thorough review of the technical merits of the prioritization system being used. The forthcoming check-in report should remedy this.

2) Describe the connection between the implementation project and the RM&E project in more detail and explain how monitoring results are incorporated into restoration decisions.

Description of the RM&E process being used to evaluate projects implemented under this program was expanded somewhat in the response. IMW efforts are being used to evaluate program effectiveness in the Entiat and Methow, and it is anticipated that the NPCC/BPA action effectiveness monitoring (AEM) program will assess a subset of the projects in the non-IMW watersheds. The extent to which the AEM program meets RM&E needs for this program should be carefully assessed as AEM is implemented.

3) Explain the relationships between this project and the other RM&E efforts ongoing in the basin.

The relationships between the IMW programs (Entiat and Methow) and the anticipated coverage provided by the AEM program were discussed briefly. As noted above, the extent to which AEM will meet the RM&E needs of this program remains to be seen. In addition, it was indicated that the Methow IMW effort, supported by the Bureau of Reclamation, may not be well coordinated with the RM&E efforts under the Council’s Program. In addition, no mention of OBMEP or RM&E activities in the Wenatchee was included in the response. This program would be a logical choice as the sponsor of a more formal process to ensure that coordination among all these RM&E projects occurs.

4) Describe how projects selected for funding address some parts of the VSP criteria for viability.

There was very limited discussion of the expected effect of program projects on VSP parameters. Given the availability of IMW information for two of the watersheds in the program area, some estimate of the response of the fish to the implemented and planned projects should be possible.

5) Describe how conflicts of interest are avoided during the RTT review process.

The response to the question about avoiding conflicts of interest in the project selection process was adequate.

Evaluation of Results

This large umbrella-type project has had a lengthy birth and so far only one entirely new restoration solicitation has been implemented. Thus, it is premature to judge whether the Upper Columbia Programmatic Habitat Project is meeting expectations. The project deserves an in-depth ISRP review that should focus on inter-organizational relationships, the habitat restoration prioritization process, and most importantly, a thorough look at the monitoring programs that are being carried out by other organizations, and how population and habitat data will be used to determine the effects of this project on VSP parameters of focal species. Completion of the check-in report in late 2013 or early 2014, coupled with possibly an on-site ISRP visit with project staff, should help ensure that satisfactory progress is being made.

Qualification #1 - Submit a comprehensive report
This project covers a very large area of the Upper Columbia Basin and includes an array of restoration activities that have been reviewed and prioritized by a team of regional experts. The administrative structure differs from the traditional BPA funding approach in which the project sponsor is usually a single organization, but instead this project employs a group of partner organizations. Because of this structure the ISRP has had questions about whether the new approach would deliver the administrative efficiencies promised and whether it would lead to better planned and more effective habitat restoration actions in the Upper Columbia. The qualification to this proposal is that project staff should submit a comprehensive report summarizing their progress to date, including areas where they have experienced difficulties and areas where they have clearly achieved their objectives. This check-in report should describe the cooperative activities taking place between the project and other regional restoration efforts such as OSHIP, which was not clearly identified in the proposal. The report should be completed for ISRP review in late 2013 or early 2014. In addition, the ISRP may request a follow-up site visit to better understand the project selection process, the monitoring program, and how results will be used adaptively to plan and prioritize future projects.
First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:

This project has made progress in the short time since its inception, but additional information is needed for the ISRP to complete an assessment of its scientific soundness. The proposal lacked sufficient detail in some key places for an evaluation, and so we are requesting responses to the following queries that are listed below. In the presentation and site visits, many of the ISRP's questions were partially clarified, but the proposal needs to be revised to include, document, and update this information. We appreciate the forwarding of the Parrish and Jenkins report on log jams in the White River subsequent to the site visits and presentation, and we are looking forward to receiving additional information relative to the following suggestions and questions. The proposal has distinct administrative and scientific/implementation components, and both require further elaboration.

The restoration project review and prioritization process needs to be more fully described. The scoring sheet and criteria should be provided. The ISRP does not need reviewer names or the project name, but an example of how the selection process takes place is needed.

The linkage between this implementation project and the RME project also needs to be more explicitly described. The adaptive management loop concerning how monitoring results are incorporated into restoration decisions was not sufficiently transparent. Please see our comments on the M&E component of this project in our RME and AP review 2010-44b www.nwcouncil.org/media/33226/isrp2010_44b.pdf.

The relationships between this project and the various RM&E efforts ongoing in the basin should be described. How will project effectiveness monitoring be conducted besides the ISEMP effort on the Entiat? How are projects supported by this project integrated with the large habitat and fish monitoring programs such as ISEMP and CHaMP that have been established in the region?

Some of the ISRP’s questions can be addressed during the response loop, but a thorough examination of the project is beyond the scope of proposal evaluation. The ISRP originally suggested a check-in report in 2013, which will give us an opportunity to review the project in greater detail.

Questions for which the ISRP requests a response include:

1) Describe the restoration project review and prioritization process in more detail including the scoring sheet and criteria.

2) Describe the connection between the implementation project and the RME project in more detail and explain how monitoring results are incorporated into restoration decisions.

3) Explain the relationships between this project and the other RM&E efforts ongoing in the basin.

4) Describe how projects selected for funding address some parts of the VSP criteria for viability.

5) Describe how conflicts of interest are avoided during the RTT review process.

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

The purpose of the UC Programmatic Habitat Project is to implement habitat restoration projects in high biological priority areas in the Upper Columbia Region (Columbia Cascade Province). It thereby helps satisfy the Action Agencies' obligations under the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion, while complementing and benefitting from the Upper Columbia Spring Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan and its recovery infrastructure. This project is still new, having been initiated in 2010 to replace 14 separate BiOp-serving habitat projects from the FY07-09 Fish and Wildlife Program solicitation. Annual budgets are approximately $3.7M, equal to the total FY09 budgets of the 14 projects being replaced. The project is central to the regional program.

This project is relatively new but has been thoroughly reviewed by the ISRP in the past. It is one of the first attempts in the upper Columbia River to create an umbrella project that oversees a suite of habitat restoration actions instead of the more piecemeal approach of submitting a collection of standalone projects. When first reviewed, the ISRP was cautious about endorsing this approach until the technical procedures for prioritizing and selecting individual restoration projects, as well coordinating with ongoing monitoring projects, were sufficiently explained. The Columbia Cascade region holds several fish species that are ESA-listed including spring Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout, although this project is clearly focused on improving habitat for Chinook and steelhead.

There are two levels of technical background to consider: administrative and on-the-ground applications. Since the details of specific on-the-ground actions were understandably general, we assume that the expertise needed to carry out the restoration actions is adequate. As for the administrative technical background, we are somewhat concerned by the number and type of issues have been encountered during the first year of the new programmatic format. Many of the specific problems encountered, for example see section on Adaptive Management, might have been avoided if project staff employed general administrative principles that have emerged from managing and implementing many other large and similar complex restoration projects.

This project is consistent with the objectives articulated in various habitat restoration and salmon recovery plans that have been developed for the Upper Columbia region. This project reviews, selects, and supports projects funded with non-accord BPA project funding. The objectives provided in the proposal are relatively generic; the goal of this effort is to improve habitat sufficiently to meet VSP recovery goals for steelhead and spring Chinook. These are appropriate objectives for this project. The technical background for this project was generally sufficient. A thorough description of the project selection process was provided. One element of the background that was deficient was the description of the relationships among the various habitat restoration and RM&E programs in this region. Habitat projects in this region are supported through this project, Accord funding, Bureau of Reclamation funding, PUD funding and SRFB funding. The extent to which these various habitat programs are coordinated was not clear.

A repeated concern was expressed by project sponsors about two aspects of BPA contract requirements: 1) inability to carry unspent funds into the next year, and 2) change from two-year contracts to one-year contracts. The sponsors claim that these restrictions reduce flexibility to the point where some important habitat projects may not be completed due to unforeseen delays. Are there any alternatives other than changes in BPA's contracting policies that would help to address these problems?

With regard to the technical background, the biological objective is improvement in VSP parameters in specific salmon species in particular watersheds through habitat restoration. The Recovery Plan and the BiOp RPA 35 call for specific improvements in the state of both VSP and habitat required during specific time periods. These need to be included in the proposal. Then the technical background should provide sufficient information so the ISRP can conclude that the project has a reasonable likelihood of completing the actions (assessments, planning, project selection, project implementation) within the time frame required in the BiOp. The accomplishments section of the proposal identifies an administration function that updates MYAPs, develops a targeted solicitation that is funded based on fulfilling the Recovery Plan and BiOp mandates. The time frame for bringing the process to full functioning and the relationship of the many parts of the process should be succinctly outlined in this proposal section. The work elements portion of the proposal summarizes the activities involved in administrative, targeted, and open solicitations. Other sections of the proposal suggest that it takes 3 to 4 years to bring a project to fruition. If this time frame is from project submission to final implementation, only activities from the first solicitation will be completed by 2018 when this project sunsets.

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

Because the project has been in place for only about two years the accomplishments to date have been to undertake the first round of restoration action selection and implement some of their prioritized habitat improvements. Results have therefore been limited to demonstrating that the technical review process can function as anticipated and that at least some of the actions can be implemented. As stated in the proposal, one major hurdle was an unusually high flow event that took place in 2011 that delayed the implementation of certain actions by a year. Fortunately, BPA funds were able to be carried over into the next year so the improvements could be initiated; however, the new administrative rules require annual funding with no carryover and the project now faces the difficult task of balancing investments in new restoration with maintaining a contingency fund in the event that unforeseen circumstances delay or prevent implementation. In general, the project sponsors have done a good job of planning for the unanticipated.

The proposal made clear that the long-term goal was to fund targeted restoration activities that involved substantial planning and resources, and gradually reduce the investment in the smaller budget projects submitted through the Open Solicitation process. While this is understandable, we suggest that some project funds be reserved so that there will be room for new restoration ideas.

A previous review of this project in 2010 (ISRP 2010-28) asked that the project sponsors prepare retrospective reports for ISRP review in years 3 and 6 of this 7-year project in order to verify that assumptions about administrative streamlining, project selection efficiency, and action effectiveness are proceeding as anticipated. Specifically, the ISRP asked that the retrospective summary report in year 3 address actions outlined in Figure F-1 (page 52): Watershed Action Team(s) developing Multiyear Action Plans with the Regional Technical Team and Implementation Team subsequently developing targeted solicitations. As well, the retrospective report in year 6 should summarize the implementation of restoration activities following the targeted solicitation, and update the ISRP on monitoring and effectiveness evaluation of restoration actions. Given the dependence on other RM&E efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of this process, these retrospective reports the ISRP requested will allow the sponsors to summarize results from research efforts in the project area that are relevant to project restoration plans, as well as indicate how these results have been incorporated into the project prioritization process. Retrospective reports should clearly present the processes for Open and Targeted Solicitations, the updating of MYAPs, linkages between the WATs, RTT, and project development, and benefits accorded to BiOp and Recovery Plan obligations.

Since this project is now assisting in coordinating restoration actions in the Entiat subbasin, which comprise an IMW, some discussion of the current state of IMW evaluation and what is being learned should be included in the results section of the proposal. The ISRP would anticipate that the RTT is using monitoring information from the Entiat IMW to guide development of other targeted projects in the Entiat and other subbasins.

Evaluation of Results

Rather than provide an evaluation of results specific to this project, the ISRP chooses to identify what these umbrella type projects should be doing in the basin. The Upper Columbia Programmatic Habitat Project constitutes one of a handful of umbrella habitat projects in the Columbia River Basin that aim to adopt a landscape approach to restoration actions, that is addressing the most important restoration priorities in the right place and in the right order over a large area. Such efforts require thoughtful and comprehensive coordination and a willingness to learn from existing monitoring programs. These projects need to be documented with periodic retrospective reports that synthesize the science involved and chronicle whether desired outcomes of this approach are being achieved.

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

The relationships between this project and the other habitat efforts in the project area are described briefly, but a more thorough discussion of the interaction among these efforts would have been beneficial in reviewing the proposal.

ISEMP, CHaMP, and other assessment efforts are occurring in this region. ISEMP is focused on assessing the effectiveness of a suite of restoration projects being implemented on the Entiat River. It is not clear to what extent the monitoring programs are assessing the effectiveness of other program projects. The description of the adaptive management approach indicates that project-scale effectiveness evaluations are occurring but who is doing these assessments and how they are integrated with the ISEMP, CHaMP and other RM&E efforts in this region was not explained. Relationships among organizations performing RM&E in the region also should be better described.

Some emerging limiting factors were addressed in the proposal. A climate change assessment has been completed for the Methow and this information will be used by the UCRTT in proposal evaluations. Presumably, the Methow assessment contains information that also will shed some light on the threats from climate change to other watersheds in the project area. The proposal does not mention impacts from chemical pollution, non-native species or increasing human population and consequent development. These factors also should be considered by the UCRT when evaluating project proposals. As the project moves forward it will be important to be alert to such changes, and this is one reason why reserving some funds for the open solicitation may be prudent by facilitating novel restoration actions that address emerging problems. There are approaches in use to gain insights into future streamflows, and these insights can help shape restoration strategies and actions. These include scenario analyses 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 important to assess, in simulated scenarios, the sensitivity of late summer (July, August, and September) flows to the following variables, both singly and in combination: climate change, changes in the quantity of water used for irrigation, and possible changes to existing 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.

A question of contracting was raised in the proposal that could benefit from discussion between the Council, BPA, and the sponsor. More than once in the proposal it was stated that “BPA no longer allows two important types of flexibility that would allow us to respond to the inevitable risks of implementing habitat projects and to reuse funds. The first is the ability to carry forward funds that are not obligated to contracts within the budget FY. In good years, unobligated funds will be only the small % retained for contingency. However, if a big project falls through at the last minute (e.g., failure to reach agreement with an infrastructure owner or another funding source stepping in to pay for construction) then we must scramble to find good alternative work to fund.”

Additionally, the ISRP has other specific concerns:

1) How will colonization by beaver and herbivory by native ungulates be addressed? Is there an overarching beaver and ungulate management philosophy for all the projects?

2) Should mussels be included under focal species?

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The deliverables are described in considerable detail and are generally appropriate for the objectives of the project. The descriptions for several of the deliverables include multiple, undefined acronyms (AC, ED, PM, AD, WE). It is unclear who these individuals or organizations are, making it difficult to understand how these deliverables are to be accomplished.

In the type of work section, the explanation of the nearly completed targeted solicitation is provided. Much of this text belongs in the results and accomplishments section. It describes the process used to develop the targeted projects, and the status of the first full solicitation under 2010-001-00.

The project relationships section of the proposal states:

"The Upper Columbia Region uses a reach-based action approach to ensure priority habitat projects are implemented with a clear understanding of the existing physical processes. This reach-based approach to project development incorporates information from Tributary Assessments (TA) and Reach Assessments (RA) completed by the Bureau of Reclamation, Yakama Nation, and Colville Confederated Tribes, which ensures restoration actions are based on a sound scientific assessment of channel processes. As reach-level degradations and processes are defined, alternatives development occurs in order to identify, sequence, and prioritize specific actions to restore channel and floodplain connectivity and complexity. In concert with this reach-based approach, the Entiat and Methow subbasins are implementing an IMW approach (ISEMP and Bureau of Reclamation/USGS, respectively), which pairs reach-based actions with Level 3 effectiveness monitoring in order to assess the effectiveness of actions implemented within an experimental framework. The Upper Columbia Region is progressing from a reach-based approach to a landscape-level approach to recovery."

The ISRP needs information sufficient to conclude that the assessments are using appropriate methods, that channel processes and extent of degradation are reasonably interpreted from the assessments, and that restoration alternatives are consistent with best practices.

The collection of restoration actions endorsed by the Upper Columbia Regional Technical Team is typical of those being implemented elsewhere in the interior Columbia River. Emphasis is on improving habitat complexity, fixing faulty fish screens, re-establishing floodplain connections, and adding structure (large wood) to stream channels. The entries in the objectives and project deliverables section of the proposal used the same boilerplate response to each objective; however, a description of how the selected restoration actions address the objectives would have helped. The ISRP does not need an exhaustive description of how anticipated outcomes improve VSP parameters for every action, but a few examples would have been instructive.

Additionally, the proposal did not discuss a concern raised by the ISRP in an earlier review and that is how to avoid the potential for conflict of interest during the review process. We would like some assurance that members of the review team do not play a role in ranking proposals in which they have a vested interest.

The deliverables are sometimes not well related to individual objectives. As written, the deliverables are so vague that they cannot be linked to any one objective. Importantly, the deliverables need to be quantitative so that they can be accurately evaluated for success (or not) at the next program review. Further, the deliverables are mostly about using appropriated funds; they should really address quantitative fish recovery targets, habitat goals, and environmental protections – with timelines for being attained. Otherwise, how will one know if the actions are having their intended effects?

A professional publication, or two, 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. For example, the Parrish and Jenkins report that was forwarded to us was well written and represents a potential publication of general interest.

CVs, of a reasonable length, should be provided for key personnel.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

This project does not involve monitoring but claims to be well integrated into existing monitoring programs. In the Entiat River, and likely the Wenatchee River, this appears to be the case. The specific connection between this project and monitoring efforts in the Methow and Okanagan Rivers was a little less clear and deserves additional description.

In general, a description of which monitoring programs are associated with the selected projects would be helpful. The description should include what will be monitored (for example, CHaMP habitat parameters) and how monitoring results will be used to evaluate whether actions met expectations.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/26/2013 3:38:50 PM.
Documentation Links:
  • Proponent Response (7/18/2013)

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Edward Gresh Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Greer Maier Technical Contact Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board
Melody Kreimes Supervisor Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board
Sarah Walker Project Lead Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board
David Kaplowe Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Peter Lofy Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Joseph Connor Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration