Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2023-001-00 - Upper Columbia Habitat Improvement Project (UCHIP) Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2023-001-00 - Upper Columbia Habitat Improvement Project (UCHIP)

Please Note: This project is the product of one or more merges and/or splits from other projects. Historical data automatically included here are limited to the current project and previous generation (the “parent” projects) only. The Project Relationships section details the nature of the relationships between this project and the previous generation. To learn about the complete ancestry of this project, please review the Project Relationships section on the Project Summary page of each parent project.

Project Number:
2023-001-00
Title:
Upper Columbia Habitat Improvement Project (UCHIP)
Summary:
combination of CCT projects 2007-224-00 OSHIP and 1996-042-00 Salmon Creek
Proposer:
Proponent Orgs:
Colville Confederated Tribes (Tribe)
Starting FY:
2023
Ending FY:
2032
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Cascade Entiat 33.30%
Okanogan 33.40%
Wenatchee 33.30%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Tags:
None
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

No Decided Budget Transfers

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)

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
CR-359369 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2023-001-00 CCT-OKANOGAN RESTORATION-LOUP LOUP CREEK Approved $1,541,238 11/1/2022 - 10/31/2023
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
CR-358372 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2023-001-00 EXP CCT UCHP METHOW HAB RESTORATION Approved $1,200,000 11/1/2022 - 10/31/2023
CR-358374 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2023-001-00 EXP CCT OKANOGAN RESTORATION Approved $937,774 11/1/2022 - 10/31/2023



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):0
Completed:0
On time:0
Status Reports
Completed:0
On time:0
Avg Days Late:None

Historical from: 1996-042-00
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
BPA-007300 Ruby Townsite Land Acquistion Bonneville Power Administration 10/2000 10/2000 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18419 PI 199604200 SALMON CREEK MASTER PLAN D J Warren and Associates, Inc. 06/2004 06/2004 Closed 2 1 0 0 1 2 50.00% 0
32613 35989, 38935, 43648, 48846, 53459, 57344, 61640, 65820, 69697, 73255, 73548 REL 14, 73548 REL 35, 73548 REL 66, 73548 REL 94, 73548 REL 122 1996-042-00 EXP SALMON CREEK HABITAT RESTORATION Colville Confederated Tribes 04/2007 04/2007 Issued 76 109 0 0 12 121 90.08% 9
BPA-003837 TBL - Lands- Issues Bonneville Power Administration 10/2007 10/2007 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-004735 Restore Salmon Creek Land Acquisitions Bonneville Power Administration 10/2008 10/2008 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 182 475 25 0 112 612 81.70% 119


Historical from: 2007-224-00
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
36825 41542, 45887, 50974, 56701, 61158, 64894, 69214, 72866, 73548 REL 12, 73548 REL 36, 73548 REL 61, 73548 REL 90, 73548 REL 119 2007-224-00 EXP IMPLMNT OKANOGAN SUBBASIN PLAN Colville Confederated Tribes 02/2008 02/2008 Approved 61 265 17 0 66 348 81.03% 89
BPA-004317 Okanogan Subbasin Plan (TBL work for implementation) Bonneville Power Administration 10/2008 10/2008 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-004992 Okanogan Subbasin Plan (TBL work for land acquisitions) Bonneville Power Administration 10/2009 10/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-005435 Okanogan Subbasin Plan (TBL work for land & water acquisitions) Bonneville Power Administration 10/2010 10/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006194 Okanogan Subbasin Plan Bonneville Power Administration 10/2011 10/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006850 Okanogan Subbasin Plan Bonneville Power Administration 10/2012 10/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
61162 64895, 69226 2007-224-00 CAP IMPLEMENT OKANOGAN SUBBASIN PLAN Colville Confederated Tribes 05/2013 05/2013 Closed 14 42 0 0 2 44 95.45% 10
BPA-007580 Okanogan Subbasin Plan Bonneville Power Administration 10/2013 10/2013 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008229 Okanogan Subbasin Plan - TBL work Bonneville Power Administration 10/2014 10/2014 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 2007-224-00 EXP CCT METHOW RESTORATION Colville Confederated Tribes 07/2015 07/2015 Approved 29 58 8 0 31 97 68.04% 11
BPA-008796 FY16 TBL Realty Services Bonneville Power Administration 10/2015 10/2015 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-009465 FY17 TBL Task Orders Bonneville Power Administration 10/2016 10/2016 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-010266 FY18 TBL Task Orders Bonneville Power Administration 10/2017 10/2017 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 182 475 25 0 112 612 81.70% 119


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: 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.
Assessment Number: 1996-042-00-NPCC-20131125
Project: 1996-042-00 - Restore Salmon Creek Anadromous Fish
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-1996-042-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement with condition through FY 2018: Sponsor to develop an adaptive management process to be submitted to the ISRP for review by end of FY 2016. See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 ISRP Qualification: An M&E and Adaptive Management decision framework should be developed within the next three years and reviewed by the ISRP—Sponsor to develop an adaptive management process to be submitted to the ISRP for review by end of FY 2016.
Council Condition #2 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: 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)
Assessment Number: 1996-042-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 1996-042-00 - Restore Salmon Creek Anadromous Fish
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-1996-042-00
Completed Date: 9/27/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 8/15/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Does Not Meet Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:

ISRP Comments on the Specific Responses

ISRP Preliminary Comment 1. Significance to Regional Programs: The proposal needs to better describe how the project fits into regional restoration programs and the Biological Opinion. The proposal indicates that the project contributes to implementing BiOp RPA 34 and 35, but these are not mentioned in the significance to regional programs section. The proposal should provide explicit statements on RPA elements from the BiOp and restoration delisting under the Upper Columbia recovery plan. The presentation to the ISRP that showed the fish abundance targets for the subbasin, and for Salmon Creek for the recovery plan, subbasin plan, and tribal plans, is the type of explicit information the ISRP believes is essential to provide context and justification for the project tasks.

ISRP Comments on the Response: The additional information provided by the sponsor does not directly answer the questions posed by the ISRP and should be improved in future proposals. A sentence each is provided on RPA 34 and 35, but the text does not explain whether the actions in the proposal are explicitly identified in the RPA(s) and what the actions in the RPA(s) are. For example, the ISRP is under the impression that RPA 35 has a table 5 that gives improvement in survival assigned to habitat actions in specific tributaries. The ISRP believes this type of information is needed to establish the context for the project. Where the response cites the Recovery Plan and BiOp, details are lacking about the role that Salmon Creek would play in the recovery of steelhead. The ISRP understands the general relationship to the Recovery Plan and BiOp; it is the specific details that are requested. These specific details provide the basis for establishing quantitative objectives, monitoring and evaluation, and triggers to consider additional actions under adaptive management. Consequently, the ISRP believes the request is not just pedantic, but forms the foundation for guiding the project in the medium- and longterm. In the response to the ISRP, text is copied from a draft Okanogan Subbasin Steelhead Hatchery Master Plan. A portion of that text describes recovery plan standards for abundance and spatial distribution of steelhead in the Okanogan River subbasin. A succinct summary of those criteria and how the habitat restoration in Salmon Creek is intended to improve survival in Salmon Creek and contribute to achieving steelhead delisting is needed in future proposals.

ISRP Preliminary Comment 2. Technical Background (problem statement): The technical background provided in the proposal is very brief, but what is included suggests that a fairly thorough assessment of habitat conditions and fish distribution in the stream has been conducted. The proposal indicates that Salmon Creek contains much of the suitable spawning habitat for spring Chinook and steelhead in the Okanogan system. Restoring summer passage through the 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek below the irrigation diversion was identified as the second restoration priority in an assessment conducted on the Okanogan. The proposal makes an effective argument that water quality and physical habitat in upper Salmon Creek are worth the effort of restoring its connection to the Okanogan River during the migration (and irrigation) season.

The information that was presented in the proposal is sufficient to indicate that the habitat above the diversion is of high quality, supporting the high priority of reconnecting the upper watershed with the Okanogan River. A more detailed discussion of the results of the habitat and fish assessments that have been completed are needed to determine the opportunities for an RM&E program to assess response of the system to improved summer flows.

ISRP Comments on the Response: The response references a quantitative spawning habitat survey in 1995 and another survey in 1998. In addition, the response states “preliminary estimates of smolt production within pool tail-out regions indicated this 4-mile reach of Salmon Creek has the potential to produce more than 90,000 summer steelhead and 123,000 Chinook salmon smolts at a survival-to-emergence of 10%.” These statements suggest that existing habitat inventories are either over a decade old or contain considerable uncertainty. Periodic (every 1 or 2 years) habitat measurements will greatly assist project staff in determining the productive capacity of upper Salmon Creek for steelhead and Chinook, and also in identifying biological “hotspots” for spawning and rearing.

The response includes information from recent fish assessments (Fisher and Arterburn 2003, 2005) providing support for the sponsors ability to assess and evaluate the flow and channel for steelhead migration. As noted in other sections of this review, clear metrics for evaluation and links to recovery and BiOp plans are still needed.

ISRP Preliminary Comment 3. The objectives focus solely on recovery of summer steelhead. They provide a quantitative goal (Objective 2, return of 250 adult natural origin steelhead/yr). The introduction indicates that Salmon Creek also is an important spawning and rearing area for spring Chinook. Is the focus only on steelhead due to the fact that spring Chinook access the upper watershed prior to low flow becoming an issue below the diversion structure? Is there habitat below the diversion that would be improved by enhancing flow that could be valuable to spring Chinook?

ISRP Comments on the Response: Explicit answers to the two questions were not provided. The implication from the text is that the focus is on steelhead because they are listed and spring Chinook in the Okanogan are extirpated and not essential for recovery of that ESU, and that the volume of water for Chinook restoration (reintroduction) is not available at this time. There is text that states that spring Chinook are using Salmon Creek, but whether this use involves the low flow channel and leased water is not clear.

ISRP Preliminary Comment 4. The problem statement section of the proposal needs to include the TRT status review summary of recent abundance and productivity for the focal species, the near-term and long-term objectives under the Fish and Wildlife Program, BiOp, Recovery and Subbasin Plan, and discuss the extent to which those objectives are believed to be accomplished by continued implementation of the water lease.

ISRP Comments on the Response: Text in the proposal and the response provide much of the desired information. However some of the information remains in a general, rather than specific format and often without sufficient clarity. For example, in the response to the ISRP the sponsor answers the query by stating the BiOp population target is 500 steelhead in the Okanogan River subbasin and that all four populations must meet their targets to achieve the BiOp goal. But the four populations are not mentioned, nor are the targets for each of the populations. In this proposal the population of particular interest is Salmon Creek, but the overall context will aid in understanding the restoration in a subbasin level framework. The proposal goes on to state that Salmon Creek is considered a minor spawning area for steelhead and that the Colville Tribe estimates that 159 steelhead spawners are needed to achieve restoration objectives. If the subbasin goal is 500 steelhead, 159 in Salmon Creek would seem like a major, not minor contributor.

ISRP Preliminary Comment: During the site visit, the ISRP engaged in a discussion of the source populations being used to supplement and reintroduce steelhead to Salmon Creek. A paragraph or two in the problem statement should be added to provide a summary of the planning that has taken place in this regard. The ISRP concern is that steelhead from a population whose replication in Salmon Creek might contribute little to meeting genetic restoration objectives would constrain the full benefits of the project. An explanation is needed of steelhead population structure – independent populations, and major population groups – and priorities for obtaining stock for reintroduction or supplementation.

ISRP Comments on the Response: The text explaining the status of Wells Hatchery stock and the text from the draft hatchery plan given in response to 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions provides sufficient explanation of the recovery planning at this time. The topic can be reviewed in greater detail if the draft master plan is submitted. The ISRP is curious whether this plan will replace the Cassimer Bar Master Plan that began review several years ago.

ISRP Preliminary Comment 5. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results).

Accomplishments, Results: A paragraph in the proposal states, “Since 2009, there has been a conservative estimate of 662 adult steelhead which returned to Salmon Creek. This is a conservative estimate since counts are conducted via a video weir which becomes circumvented at flows in excess of 20 cfs.” This information indicates that there is an active program in place to assess fish populations in the Salmon Creek watershed, but no details about this program, or how it will be used to judge the effectiveness of improved passage below the diversion, was included in the proposal.

ISRP Comments on the Response: The response states that a primary metric for the project is the ratio of steelhead migrating and spawning above the point of diversion. The ratio of steelhead had been 2 fish spawning below for each fish spawning above in 2009 and 2010, whereas in 2011 and 2012 the ratio was 3 fish spawning above the diversion for 2 fish spawning below.

The ISRP believes metrics for the project need to be established, monitored, and used for evaluation and adaptive management. This important aspect of the project needs to be completed.

ISRP Preliminary Comment: The proposal needs to include succinct details on the video weir to enumerate adult steelhead and salmon, methods used to count emigrating smolts, survival of smolts to points downstream that is hopefully contrasted with other locations, a physical condition monitoring program for the channel, and to estimate the juvenile production and adult population generated by spawning and rearing in the eleven miles of now accessible habitat.

ISRP Comments on the Response: General information on the video weir is provided. Additional details are needed that provide evidence that the precision of estimates is adequate to guide management decisions on whether restoration standards have been met, whether additional flows and habitat is needed below the point of diversion, and whether continuation of the water lease is justified.

Adaptive Management:

The response to the ISRP provides adequate explanation of the state of adaptive management for this project. It is evident that the sponsor and various co-managers are engaged in longerterm discussions about the need for water and habitat for steelhead in Salmon Creek. Linkage needs to be clearly established between the decisions that will need to be made and project metrics and subbasin level M&E. The ISRP remains concerned that development of metrics for project evaluation is insufficiently linked to plans for data acquisition. The project has progressed to the point where a well-articulated decision framework would be useful.

ISRP Preliminary Comment 6. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

ISRP Comments on the Response: The response provides improved understanding of the role of the hatchery program and OBMEP. The ISRP believes the hatchery program needs independent review soon and that an M&E plan for this project needs to be clearly established. The response states that OBMEP collects both habitat and fish data throughout the Okanogan subbasin, including Salmon Creek. However, the response goes on to state that OBMEP is currently proposing to estimate juvenile production in Salmon Creek. Assessing juvenile production seems essential to the ISRP. As stated earlier, the ISRP is concerned that project metrics, M&E, and adaptive management is proceeding in an ad hoc manner, and that the project has developed to the point where a more formal decision framework is required. The ISRP appreciated the hatchery program draft, as it clarified the status of anticipated artificial production for conservation and harvest.

ISRP Preliminary Comment 7. Deliverables, Work Elements: The work element and deliverable on the purchase of 1,200 acre feet of water is adequate. The work elements and deliverables on inspection and maintenance of the low flow channel are inadequate.

ISRP Comments on the Response: The response provides a summary of challenges with maintaining the migration channel and the approach used for inspection. The proposal should provide a description of a flexible inspection and maintenance plan that is justified.

Qualification #1 - An M&E and Adaptive Management decision framework should be developed within the next three years and reviewed by the ISRP
An M&E and Adaptive Management decision framework should be developed within the next three years and reviewed by the ISRP. The M&E framework should include an annual habitat survey of Salmon Creek above the low flow channel to verify that spawning and rearing conditions remain favorable for steelhead and Chinook; objectives for juvenile outmigration, adult immigration, and low flow channel habitat, along with metrics for each; a plan to collect the data to evaluate the metrics; and an adaptive management decision framework to guide alternative selection based on empirical results. The data being generated through the OBMEP program could provide a sound foundation for a very effective adaptive management process. The project sponsors should develop a framework with clear, quantitative objectives and specific sets of circumstances that would initiate changes in management approach.
Qualification #2 - Annual habitat surveys above the low flow channel are needed
Annual habitat surveys above the low flow channel are needed to establish that assumptions about the suitability of upper Salmon Creek for the two species are supported empirically. This is important for two reasons: first, because evidence is needed that adequate flows for fish passage continue to be the most important limiting factor in the system (and not some other environmental parameter), and second, because realistic adult escapement and smolt production targets require up-to-date data on habitat quality and quantity in order to help project sponsors set quantitative population goals that balance artificial and natural production. The response mentions the Intrinsic Potential of Salmon Creek, but calculation of the Intrinsic Potential metric must be based on current habitat data.
First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:

This project is straightforward and involves maintaining a low-flow bypass channel that restores the connection between Salmon Creek and its parent stream, the Okanogan River, as well as negotiating water leases and other agreements with the Okanogan Irrigation District that will increase flow in lower Salmon Creek and the bypass channel, which will improve conditions during the primary steelhead and Chinook migration period as well as facilitating the downstream passage of smolts. According to the proposal, Salmon Creek was historically one of the most important spawning and rearing tributaries in the Okanogan River system, but anadromous salmonids were extirpated when Conconnuly Dam was constructed in the early 1900s. Restoration of flow to the lower portion of the Salmon Creek drainage network during late spring and summer is clearly an important restoration goal for the Okanogan system.

The proposal, however, is incomplete and revision is required. It does not provide sufficient background context on the status of the focal species; benefits that are anticipated to be accomplished by this project including a timeframe for improvements in abundance; relationship of the project to steelhead recovery and delisting; and criteria for evaluating success.

The proposal incompletely describes the work elements to be conducted by this project. Additional detail on the specific actions that will be undertaken to maintain the low-flow channel and how they will be sequenced from 2014 to 2017 should be provided. Finally, a much more complete description of the relationship between this project and projects in the Okanogan watershed that are monitoring fish and aquatic habitat condition should be included in the proposal.

Responses requested: See each proposal review topic for questions to be addressed in the proposal revision.

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

Significance to Regional Programs: The proposal needs to better describe how the project fits into regional restoration programs and the Biological Opinion. The proposal indicates that the project contributes to implementing BiOp RPA 34 and 35, but these are not mentioned in the significance to regional programs section. The proposal should provide explicit statements on RPA elements from the BiOp and restoration delisting under the Upper Columbia recovery plan. The presentation to the ISRP that showed the fish abundance targets for the subbasin, and for Salmon Creek for the recovery plan, subbasin plan, and tribal plans, is the type of explicit information the ISRP believes is essential to provide context and justification for the project tasks.

Technical Background (problem statement): The technical background provided in the proposal is very brief, but what is included suggests that a fairly thorough assessment of habitat conditions and fish distribution in the stream has been conducted. The proposal indicates that Salmon Creek contains much of the suitable spawning habitat for spring Chinook and steelhead in the Okanogan system. Restoring summer passage through the 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek below the irrigation diversion was identified as the second restoration priority in an assessment conducted on the Okanogan. The proposal makes an effective argument that water quality and physical habitat in upper Salmon Creek are worth the effort of restoring its connection to the Okanogan River during the migration (and irrigation) season.

The information that was presented in the proposal is sufficient to indicate that the habitat above the diversion is of high quality, supporting the high priority of reconnecting the upper watershed with the Okanogan River. A more detailed discussion of the results of the habitat and fish assessments that have been completed are needed to determine the opportunities for an RM&E program to assess response of the system to improved summer flows.

The objectives focus solely on recovery of summer steelhead. They provide a quantitative goal (Objective 2, return of 250 adult natural origin steelhead/yr). The introduction indicates that Salmon Creek also is an important spawning and rearing area for spring Chinook. Is the focus only on steelhead due to the fact that spring Chinook access the upper watershed prior to low flow becoming an issue below the diversion structure? Is there habitat below the diversion that would be improved by enhance flow that could be valuable to spring Chinook?

Specific quantitative targets for steelhead adult abundance and juvenile emigration are absent. A summary of long-term biological goals and some time frame for achieving the goals are needed. The project has apparently established an intermediate term (12-year) lease for water to wet a constructed low-flow channel, but there is no indication of what is going to happen in the longer term (post agreement) and what level of natural fish production is needed to expand on this initial agreement.

The problem statement section of the proposal needs to include the TRT status review summary of recent abundance and productivity for the focal species, the near-term and long-term objectives under the Fish and Wildlife Program, BiOp, Recovery and Subbasin Plan, and discuss the extent to which those objectives are believed to be accomplished by continued implementation of the water lease. During the site visit, the ISRP engaged in a discussion of the source populations being used to supplement and reintroduce steelhead to Salmon Creek. A paragraph or two in the problem statement should be added to provide a summary of the planning that has taken place in this regard. The ISRP concern is that steelhead from a population whose replication in Salmon Creek might contribute little to meeting genetic restoration objectives would constrain the full benefits of the project. An explanation is needed of steelhead population structure – independent populations, and major population groups – and priorities for obtaining stock for reintroduction or supplementation.

Objectives: There are two objectives identified: (OBJ-1) restore instream flow in Salmon Creek; and (OBJ-2) Restore instream flows to Salmon Creek. The difference in deliverables is that Objective 2 involves the lease of water while Objective 1 includes the lease of water and maintenance of a constructed low-flow channel. For both objectives a description of how success will be evaluated is needed. These metrics need to include physical habitat and biological targets.

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

Accomplishments and results: Although the project dates from 1996, the proposal describes work on the bypass channel and securing the 12-year water lease agreement with the Okanogan Irrigation District since 2009. Results therefore pertain only to bypass channel construction and maintenance, and to extending the water lease to provide additional flow. In addition, the project sponsors wish to modify the bypass channel so it provides passage for adult steelhead at 10 cfs instead of ~25 cfs.

A paragraph in the proposal states, “Since 2009, there has been a conservative estimate of 662 adult steelhead which returned to Salmon Creek. This is a conservative estimate since counts are conducted via a video weir which becomes circumvented at flows in excess of 20 cfs.” This information indicates that there is an active program in place to assess fish populations in the Salmon Creek watershed, but no details about this program, or how it will be used to judge the effectiveness of improved passage below the diversion, was included in the proposal.

The proposal also states that hatchery steelhead smolts have been used to document adequacy of the channel. However, no data are presented and no explanation is provided on the specifics of the monitoring, numbers of hatchery steelhead juveniles or smolts released, and estimates of natural smolt production. Fish use of the bypass channel should be assessed, and estimates of adults in and smolts out (both wild and hatchery) are needed to evaluate the biological effectiveness of this restoration effort. Specifically, this project needs at least three elements for evaluation: 1) emigration of stocked and natural smolts, 2) upstream migration of adult steelhead, and 3) physical condition of the constructed channel.

The proposal identified that recent flows have damaged the channel that stocked smolts presumably left the system and returned as adults – with at least 600 adults returning in the past few years. Mention is made of a video weir to monitor adult passage. The proposal needs to include succinct details on the video weir to enumerate adult steelhead and salmon, methods used to count emigrating smolts, survival of smolts to points downstream that is hopefully contrasted with other locations, a physical condition monitoring program for the channel, and to estimate the juvenile production and adult population generated by spawning and rearing in the eleven miles of now accessible habitat.

Adaptive Management: The adaptive management section of the proposal simply indicates that changes in water releases from Conconully Reservoir and alterations in the release location of steelhead smolts have been implemented or are being considered. There is no indication that these changes were linked in any way to an RM&E program that indicated that these changes could be beneficial (although the water release issue arose because of damage to the low flow channel). This project would benefit from a formal adaptive management process.

Two instances of adaptive management appeared in the proposal with one appearing in the secondary focal species section. The first described altered water management to reduce damage to the bypass channel, presumably to streambanks, during high flow events. This suggests that project managers are not allowing the bypass channel to interact with its riparian area in a way that would mimic a stream's natural interaction with its floodplain. There may be good reasons for doing this, but we caution against taking a hard bioengineering approach to fish habitat in instances where natural meander processes can yield long-term habitat benefits. The second example is the institution of a sport fishery targeted at non-native species in Salmon Creek. This seems like a good idea as long as there is not excessive mortality to focal species.

Evaluation of Results

Result reporting is brief, so retrospective comments on the project by the ISRP are therefore incomplete. Water leases and low-flow channel construction have been achieved. Removing migration barriers is argued to have substantial potential to contribute to restoration of salmon because intact spawning and rearing habitat is available and salmon abundance and productivity response will be quick. Restoration of access in Salmon Creek could contribute to estimating the benefits from this action, but the data presented are insufficient to establish reasonable conclusions on when, or if, the project may accomplish the steelhead and spring Chinook restoration objectives.

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

Project relationships are not explained at all in the proposal. This omission is a substantial deficiency for assessing the effectiveness of this project. The proposal indicates that the sponsors are not requesting support for RM&E. But there are a number of RM&E efforts in the Okanogan system that are likely collecting information that would help to evaluate the effectiveness of reconnecting Salmon Creek to the Okanogan River, and which could greatly benefit this project. This expensive effort incurs ongoing costs for water purchase. Some understanding of the benefit being derived in terms of fish production would be very important to determine the value of investing in projects of this type. The proposal should have described RM&E efforts occurring in Salmon Creek that are collecting data relevant to this project and should have indicated how the sponsors intend to use this information to improve project effectiveness going forward by using an adaptive management plan.

This proposal indicates that emerging limiting factors are being considered in restoration planning. The proposal mentions that providing consistent access to Salmon Creek may help mitigate for increased water temperatures caused by climate change. Salmon Creek drains a watershed with a northeastern aspect and has significant spring input. Therefore, it exhibits water temperatures through the summer that are much cooler than those in the Okanogan River and could serve as a thermal refuge if access were possible. There may be little this project can do to address problems related to long-term climate change, but the observation that Salmon Creek maintains a temperature regime more suited to cold water species does reinforce the need to allow salmon and steelhead access to its headwaters. There also are a number of ongoing programs to address impacts from non-native fishes in the Okanogan River. Statements in the proposal about removing invasive species suggest that the restoration project has links to other projects that have not been included in the proposal.

While climate change, predation from invasive bass and brook trout, and instream flows are identified as emerging limiting factors, how they will be addressed through adaptive management is not discussed.

Few details about hatchery releases were given. The proposal does not state what the estimated carrying capacity for juvenile steelhead and Chinook salmon might be in Salmon Creek. At some point such an estimate is needed, because as natural productions ramps up the number of hatchery releases may need to be ramped down.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Purchase of water for instream flow and maintenance of the low flow channel are the primary work elements. It appears that most of the requested funding for channel maintenance is basically for a contingency fund to repair damage should it occur. The ISRP recognizes that it not possible to specifically identify damage that will occur to the channel in the future. However, some explanation of the possible issues that might arise and the work elements and methods required to correct these issues should have been included in the proposal. A general description of deliverables and work elements is given, but the proposal lacked sufficient detail for scientific review. Specifying work actions and a timeline are needed.

Deliverables, Work Elements: The work element and deliverable on the purchase of 1,200 acre feet of water is adequate. The work elements and deliverables on inspection and maintenance of the low flow channel are inadequate.

Metrics: None are given. Monitoring and Evaluation is needed for this project, or linked to data and evaluation performed through other projects. The information provided in the proposal is inadequate.

Methods: None are provided.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

Not Applicable. No monitoring methods are provided; funding for monitoring is not requested.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/27/2013 9:08:24 AM.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/27/2013 9:21:30 AM.
Documentation Links:
  • Proponent Response (7/17/2013)
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.
Assessment Number: 1996-042-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1996-042-00 - Restore Salmon Creek Anadromous Fish
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. Sponsors should fund the water leasing portion of the project through the water entity project.

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:
Assessment Number: 1996-042-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1996-042-00 - Restore Salmon Creek Anadromous Fish
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
Reconnecting Salmon Creek to the Okanogan River is a worthwhile project that will benefit fish and wildlife. This is an excellent, well thought-out proposal. The proposal provides good information on habitat surveys and is well associated with the subbasin plan. Successful implementation will provide an estimated 11 miles of spawning habitat. This is likely to provide long-term benefits that will persist.

The ISRP was somewhat critical of this restoration plan early on, because of the lack of water in the confluence area coupled with the obvious need to restore access for anadromous fish through the grossly damaged lower reaches of the river, which were clearly impassable to fish. This proposal, which springs from efforts undertaken since our first reviews, has considered those problems and addressed them in a logical and comprehensive manner.

The previous ISRP review raised concerns about the potential benefit compared with the extensive restoration effort needed (and associated extremely high costs), which made this a not fundable proposal. (Insufficient benefit to fish.) In our previous review, the project sponsors estimated that about a potential of 280 steelhead and chinook could benefit from this project. This present proposal describes a reduced effort and addresses some of the concerns with availability of water in the stream and treatment of the alluvial deposit blocking passage at the mouth. This project might warrant a Three-Step review.

We rate this Fundable (Qualified) because of the non-technical question whether the funding of one staff member would be sufficient to supervise this rather complex construction contract. The proposal states that no facilities and equipment are needed. Apparently, this arises from the fact that the construction work will be arranged by contract with experienced contractors.

A more detailed description of the study design for the sponsors 10-year plan to monitor adult returns would improve the proposal. It is possible that M&E activities (e.g., weir construction) might affect non-focal species. The proposal would have been improved by discussion of potential problems.

The proposal would also be improved by a better description of information transfer. The administrative form lists "electronic" transfer, but there is no discussion in the narrative. We found no discussion of long-term storage of data.
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.
Assessment Number: 1996-042-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1996-042-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: Water leasing and reconnection of stream to address impacts of irrigation dam; Bureau of Reclamation, irrigation district authorized required as well; needs cost share or other remedy.

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
Assessment Number: 1996-042-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1996-042-00
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 From 2007-224-00 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).

This project Merged From 1996-042-00 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
Joseph Connor Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Matt Young Project Lead Colville Confederated Tribes
John Box Interested Party Colville Confederated Tribes
Chris Fisher Supervisor Colville Confederated Tribes
Charles Brushwood Administrative Contact Colville Confederated Tribes