Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1994-018-06 - Tucannon Stream and Riparian Restoration Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1994-018-06 - Tucannon Stream and Riparian Restoration
Project Number:
1994-018-06
Title:
Tucannon Stream and Riparian Restoration
Summary:
Summary: Tucannon Stream and Riparian Protection, Enhancement, and Restoration Project, implemented by the Columbia Conservation District, will address riparian recovery or maintenance and instream habitat quantity and diversity, the primary aquatic habitat limiting attributes identified thru EDT analysis in the Tucannon Subbasin.

Emphasis: Project implementation focus is: habitat protection, enhancement, and recovery strategies to support Subbasin Plan identified goals and objectives for ESA focal-species, culturally significant resources, and other species of interest, that supports recovery in the Tucannon Subbasin.

Approach: Instream habitat improvement activities are developed and prioritized within a framework, and sequenced for strategic implementation within identified key or critical geographic areas, consistent with that framework, from Pataha/Marengo thru Mountain Tucannon (NOAA MSA). Projects that implementing identified strategies, address various biological objectives: sediment reduction, primary pools and LWD recruitment/placement. Project implementation will provide habitat benefits to spring Chinook, steelhead and bull trout during their respective varied life stage needs within the MSA. Program administration functions include project scoping, planning and implementation management, including contract reporting requirements, participation and coordination with regional recovery and resource management planning efforts: Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan, Washington Department of Ecology 2514 Watershed and TMDL planning, regional M&E planning and Subbasin Plan evaluation and adaptive management planning.

Purpose: Riparian recovery/maintenance, a critical management objective, addressing the broadest diversity of limiting attributes in identified priority restoration and protection geographic areas will be addressed through CREP contract time extensions. Biological objective diversity, reduced embeddedness, LWD recruitment, primary pools, riparian recovery, and temperature addressed with this strategy, benefit ESA and cultural significant focal species, spring and fall Chinook, steelhead and bull trout, during their respective key life stages throughout the watershed. Accumulated restoration/protection geographic areas, Pataha/Marengo thru Mountain Tucannon matches NOAA’s Major Spawning Aggregation designation, (MSA), Pataha/Marengo to Tucannon Mouth and Lower Pataha match NOAA’s Minor Spawning Aggregation designations (MSA).

Action Effectiveness: Monitoring and evaluation for projects and watershed habitat conditions is a cooperative approach within the Snake River Salmon Recovery sub-region, integrated and managed within the Tucannon Programmatic Habitat Project. A coordinated M&E effort continues to evolve, as developed among BPA and the area resource and information co-managers -- to reduce costs or duplication of effort, and to establish consistency in the methodology and protocols used for evaluation on a sub-regional scale, consistent with regional expectations, protocols and direction.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Columbia Conservation District (SWCD) (SWCD)
Starting FY:
1995
Ending FY:
2018
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Plateau Tucannon 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Chinook - Snake River Fall ESU (threatened)
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU (threatened)
Lamprey, Pacific
Sockeye - Snake River ESU (endangered)
Steelhead - Snake River DPS (threatened)
Steelhead - Upper Columbia River DPS (threatened)
Trout, Bull (threatened)
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

No photos have been uploaded yet for this project.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2016 (Previous) $386,363 $386,363 $386,354 $386,354 $360,639

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $386,363 $386,354 $386,354 $360,639
FY2017 (Current) $386,363 $386,363 $386,363 $386,363 $287,338

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $386,363 $386,363 $386,363 $287,338
FY2018 (Next) $386,363 $386,363 $386,363 $386,363 $0

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $386,363 $386,363 $386,363 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Aug-2017

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2016 - FY2018)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2016 Expense $386,363 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY16 Initial Planning Budgets - Expense 05/22/2015
FY2017 Expense $386,363 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY17 SOY Budgets 06/02/2016
FY2018 Expense $386,363 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY18 SOY Budgets 07/17/2017

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Project Cost Share:

FY2016 12 %
FY2015 9 %
FY2014 26 %
FY2013 30 %
FY2012 20 %
FY2011 37 %
FY2010 18 %
FY2009 12 %
FY2008 43 %
FY2007 61 %
Fiscal Year Cost Share Partner Total Proposed
Contribution
Total Confirmed
Contribution
FY2015 Local project sponsors $36,242
FY2016 Local project sponsors $6,200
FY2016 Washington State Conservation Commission $26,000
FY2016 Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office $20,200

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
6211 SOW Columbia Conservation District (SWCD) 1999-057-00 TUCANNON RIVER WATERSHED FISH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT History $131,434 8/13/2001 - 2/10/2003
20114 REL 1 SOW Columbia Conservation District (SWCD) 199401806 IMPLEMENT TUCANNON RIVER MODEL WATERSHED History $316,463 10/1/2004 - 9/30/2005
20114 REL 2 SOW Columbia Conservation District (SWCD) 1994-018-06 EXP TUCANNON MODEL WATERSHED IMPLEMENTATION History $310,394 10/1/2005 - 9/30/2006
20114 REL 3 SOW Columbia Conservation District (SWCD) 1994-018-06 EXP TUCANNON MODEL WATERSHED IMPLEMENTATION History $325,218 10/1/2006 - 9/30/2007
75465 SOW Columbia Conservation District (SWCD) 1994-018-06 EXP COLUMBIA COUNTY STREAM & RIPARIAN RESTORATION Issued $386,363 4/1/2017 - 3/31/2018



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):13
Completed:10
On time:10
Status Reports
Completed:48
On time:43
Avg Days Early:2

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
11767 20114 REL 1, 20114 REL 2, 20114 REL 3, 20114 REL 4, 39652, 44443, 50146, 55843, 59663, 64596, 68607, 71864, 75465 1994-018-06 IMPLEMENT TUCANNON RIVER MODEL WATERSHED Columbia Conservation District (SWCD) 01/2002 01/2002 Pending 48 158 10 1 16 185 90.81% 3
Project Totals 48 158 10 1 16 185 90.81% 3


Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1994-018-06-ISRP-20130610
Project: 1994-018-06 - Tucannon Stream and Riparian Restoration
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-1994-018-06
Completed Date: 6/11/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:

This proposal generally described the actions to be supported by this project quite well. The ISRP comments provide suggestions that the project sponsors should consider as the project proceeds. The habitat restoration process being implemented in the Tucannon River watershed is among the most technically-advanced in the Columbia Basin. A comprehensive evaluation of current habitat conditions and fish distribution by life stage was used to establish project priorities. As projects are implemented, a very complete RME program with the inclusion of the Tucannon as a CHaMP site will provide information on the physical and biological response. The proposal’s only shortcomings were a lack of detail on work elements and an incomplete description of the adaptive management process to be used.

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

This project is one of a set of projects focused on improving salmon and steelhead habitat in the Tucannon River. The significance of this project is emphasized by the fact that the Tucannon River supports the only population of spring Chinook for the Lower Snake River major population group. Therefore, increase in this population is essential if this major population group is to recover.

The introduction to the proposal describes the process that has been used to assess the current status of habitat and fish populations in the watershed and how these data were then used to identify the locations for restoration projects with the highest probability of positively influencing the fish. The proposal presents a well-organized plan for implementing stream and riparian improvements. The project selection process that has been used in this watershed is one of the most technically-sound in the Columbia Basin.

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

The history and accomplishments of this project are described in the proposal. Perhaps the most impressive past accomplishment is the very complete assessment of the current condition of the watershed that was completed prior to selecting restoration projects. The geomorphic assessment, VSP parameter monitoring, sediment and temperature measurements provide a very clear picture of how the fish are using this watershed and the factors that are impacting the fish within each reach. This information was then used very effectively in project prioritization.

The dramatic improvement in stream temperature since the implementation of riparian protections was impressive. Some additional presentation of monitoring results for other parameters would have been useful. Much work on sediment control has been undertaken, but it was difficult to assess the effectiveness of these actions from the information included in the proposal. There was mention that positive trends in streambed sediment also have been observed, but these data were not presented.

This project has yet to implement many projects, so the extent to which they will modify their habitat restoration plans adaptively remains to be seen. The extensive evaluation of habitat conditions that was utilized to establish restoration project priorities, however, indicates that the sponsors of this project understand how to collect, analyze, and apply data to their management decisions. Similarly, the modification of restoration plans in response to a major forest fire in the watershed indicates the capability to adaptively modify restoration plans. Therefore, they should be able to implement a very effective adaptive management process. The project sponsors should consider developing a formal adaptive management process to ensure that restoration planning progressively becomes more effective as responses to previous actions are assessed.

Some additional presentation of results of habitat monitoring conducted to date would have been useful, especially the sediment monitoring. However, the proposal and the links provided did provide a relatively complete description of how past monitoring results are being used.

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

This project is one component of a program for habitat restoration in the Tucannon River. This project will focus on implementation of restoration actions. A process for prioritizing restoration projects was developed as part of another project. The RME effort for habitat will be covered by the CHaMP process, and a BPA-supported project is collecting the VSP parameters for Chinook and steelhead to compliment the habitat assessments. These projects appear to be well coordinated.

The RME process for habitat restoration in the Tucannon is very well developed. The Tucannon has been selected as one of the sites where CHaMP will be established. The CHaMP assessment will provide data on 45 randomly-selected sites annually. Four additional sites will be added each year at locations where projects have been implemented. The additional sites will ensure that habitat responses to restoration actions will be adequately assessed. Coupled with the steelhead and Chinook monitoring in the watershed, the RME program should provide a very clear picture of how habitat conditions and fish populations change over time as the habitat restoration program is executed in this watershed.

There was little discussion of emerging limiting factors in the proposal. Clearly, climate change and development within the watershed are issues that will need to be incorporated into restoration planning. The promising response in water temperature that has been observed over the last several decades indicates that actions that can help to mitigate for impacts from climate change are being implemented. However, a discussion of how these factors are being considered in the design of the restoration program for the Tucannon should have been included in the proposal.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

There was very little specific information on Work Elements included in the proposal. A general list of the types of actions that will be used to restore habitat function was provided. But there was no indepth discussion of restoration designs for specific locations. Given the systematic and comprehensive approach that was used to identify and prioritize projects, it seems highly likely that detailed study plans for the priority sites have been developed. A link to these plans would have aided in the ISRP assessment of this project.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The project uses CHaMP protocols for habitat monitoring.

First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
First Round ISRP Comment:

This proposal generally described the actions to be supported by this project quite well. The ISRP comments provide suggestions that the project sponsors should consider as the project proceeds. The habitat restoration process being implemented in the Tucannon River watershed is among the most technically-advanced in the Columbia Basin. A comprehensive evaluation of current habitat conditions and fish distribution by life stage was used to establish project priorities. As projects are implemented, a very complete RME program with the inclusion of the Tucannon as a CHaMP site will provide information on the physical and biological response. The proposal’s only shortcomings were a lack of detail on work elements and an incomplete description of the adaptive management process to be used.

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

This project is one of a set of projects focused on improving salmon and steelhead habitat in the Tucannon River. The significance of this project is emphasized by the fact that the Tucannon River supports the only population of spring Chinook for the Lower Snake River major population group. Therefore, increase in this population is essential if this major population group is to recover.

The introduction to the proposal describes the process that has been used to assess the current status of habitat and fish populations in the watershed and how these data were then used to identify the locations for restoration projects with the highest probability of positively influencing the fish. The proposal presents a well-organized plan for implementing stream and riparian improvements. The project selection process that has been used in this watershed is one of the most technically-sound in the Columbia Basin.

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

The history and accomplishments of this project are described in the proposal. Perhaps the most impressive past accomplishment is the very complete assessment of the current condition of the watershed that was completed prior to selecting restoration projects. The geomorphic assessment, VSP parameter monitoring, sediment and temperature measurements provide a very clear picture of how the fish are using this watershed and the factors that are impacting the fish within each reach. This information was then used very effectively in project prioritization.

The dramatic improvement in stream temperature since the implementation of riparian protections was impressive. Some additional presentation of monitoring results for other parameters would have been useful. Much work on sediment control has been undertaken, but it was difficult to assess the effectiveness of these actions from the information included in the proposal. There was mention that positive trends in streambed sediment also have been observed, but these data were not presented.

This project has yet to implement many projects, so the extent to which they will modify their habitat restoration plans adaptively remains to be seen. The extensive evaluation of habitat conditions that was utilized to establish restoration project priorities, however, indicates that the sponsors of this project understand how to collect, analyze, and apply data to their management decisions. Similarly, the modification of restoration plans in response to a major forest fire in the watershed indicates the capability to adaptively modify restoration plans. Therefore, they should be able to implement a very effective adaptive management process. The project sponsors should consider developing a formal adaptive management process to ensure that restoration planning progressively becomes more effective as responses to previous actions are assessed.

Some additional presentation of results of habitat monitoring conducted to date would have been useful, especially the sediment monitoring. However, the proposal and the links provided did provide a relatively complete description of how past monitoring results are being used.

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

This project is one component of a program for habitat restoration in the Tucannon River. This project will focus on implementation of restoration actions. A process for prioritizing restoration projects was developed as part of another project. The RME effort for habitat will be covered by the CHaMP process, and a BPA-supported project is collecting the VSP parameters for Chinook and steelhead to compliment the habitat assessments. These projects appear to be well coordinated.

The RME process for habitat restoration in the Tucannon is very well developed. The Tucannon has been selected as one of the sites where CHaMP will be established. The CHaMP assessment will provide data on 45 randomly-selected sites annually. Four additional sites will be added each year at locations where projects have been implemented. The additional sites will ensure that habitat responses to restoration actions will be adequately assessed. Coupled with the steelhead and Chinook monitoring in the watershed, the RME program should provide a very clear picture of how habitat conditions and fish populations change over time as the habitat restoration program is executed in this watershed.

There was little discussion of emerging limiting factors in the proposal. Clearly, climate change and development within the watershed are issues that will need to be incorporated into restoration planning. The promising response in water temperature that has been observed over the last several decades indicates that actions that can help to mitigate for impacts from climate change are being implemented. However, a discussion of how these factors are being considered in the design of the restoration program for the Tucannon should have been included in the proposal.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

There was very little specific information on Work Elements included in the proposal. A general list of the types of actions that will be used to restore habitat function was provided. But there was no indepth discussion of restoration designs for specific locations. Given the systematic and comprehensive approach that was used to identify and prioritize projects, it seems highly likely that detailed study plans for the priority sites have been developed. A link to these plans would have aided in the ISRP assessment of this project.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The project uses CHaMP protocols for habitat monitoring.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 11:55:58 AM.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1994-018-06-NPCC-20131125
Project: 1994-018-06 - Tucannon Stream and Riparian Restoration
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-1994-018-06
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement through FY 2018. Also see Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: A. Implement Monitoring, and Evaluation at a Regional Scale—Also see Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1994-018-06-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1994-018-06
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 potentially authorized/required to conduct; need confirmation that funding not applied for entities already required to conduct the work; also question whether BPA can provide funding directly proponent to lease lands from landowners to extend CREP contracts

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1994-018-06-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1994-018-06
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1994-018-06-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1994-018-06 - Tucannon Stream and Riparian Restoration
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:
Questions and comments from the ISRP were clarified for a number of issues as best as possible.

Some data is reported on fish density, but it is not clear that the project personnel are adaptively managing based on these data. It's not clear that the structures are actually benefiting the fish. They likely need another year to see if anything is changing.

Project sponsors provided some sediment/embeddedness measures from sampling by the U.S. Forest Service in 2005. These data can at least provide a baseline for assessments in the future, both in the mainstem and to help assess activities in the Pataha Creek basin. They also provided a 2002 progress report that provided some baseline data for temperature and for fish densities at several index sites, data that might be useful in the future. Statistical analysis of fish density data from control and treatment sites showed no significant differences between sites. Temperature data did not provide a basis for describing any trends in the system.

Qualification: Since there are no data and thus no scientific justification for continuing this project, it would have to be continued based on a qualification that the substrate, temperature, and fish density work be continued in such a way that decisions are possible regarding the effectiveness of project activities. The sponsors should make full use of data from other fish monitoring projects in the basin to help meet this requirement.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1994-018-06-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1994-018-06 - Tucannon Stream and Riparian Restoration
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: ISRP fundable qualified. Also see Programmatic Issue: habitat m&e.

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Terry Bruegman Supervisor Columbia Conservation District (SWCD)
Debra Nordheim Project Lead Columbia Conservation District (SWCD)
Peter Lofy Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Andre L'Heureux Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Dan Gambetta Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration