Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2008-202-00 - Protect and Restore Tucannon Watershed Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2008-202-00 - Protect and Restore Tucannon Watershed
Project Number:
2008-202-00
Title:
Protect and Restore Tucannon Watershed
Summary:
Overview: CTUIR will conduct project planning and develop, yearly, a contract statement of work and budget for stream habitat protection and restoration in the Tucannon Basin in southeast Washington. Habitat actions resulting from this project will benefit ESA-listed spring Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout.

First Foods/River Vision Elements Addressed by Project: The CTUIR desires that this project contribute to a riverine system which is shaped and maintained by the dynamic interactions and interconnections of its natural physical and ecological processes. The proposed restoration actions will be tied to the CTUIR’s River Vision in that they address and enhance the interconnected nature of the five primary touchstones:
• Hydrology
• Geomorphology
• Connectivity
• Riparian community
• Aquatic biota.

Major limiting factors influencing the condition of these touchstones throughout the watershed, and particularly in the vicinity of the project reaches proposed for treatment, include:
• Anthropogenic modifications affecting and causing loss of natural channel processes linking the Tucannon River to its floodplain,
• Loss of key in-channel habitat diversity and quantity, especially in the form of gravel sorting, velocity diversity, and pools associated with large wood, and
• Elevated summer water temperatures.

Background: Implementing habitat enhancements and restoration in the Tucannon represents an expansion by the CTUIR of existing efforts by the Columbia County Conservation District (CCD), underway in the watershed since the mid-1990s (BPA project #1994-018-06); and further supplemented under the FCRPS BiOp by the Tucannon Habitat Programmatic (#2010-077-00) since 2010. Due to the ongoing status of work efforts guided by recovery planning in the State (Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan), independent ISRP review will not be necessary; the development, evaluation, and prioritization of project proposals for the subregion is guided by the SRSRB process supported through the programmatic habitat project.

Summary: With Accord funding, CTUIR staff (2 FTE) is responsible for developing contract work element deliverables in support of: a) the Tribes' First Foods and River Vision, and b) the habitat recovery objectives throughout the Middle-Snake subregion reflected in the BPA Habitat Programmatic project. Within this framework, local planning and coordination will be conducted, and project actions identified and managed, to be implemented within the time-period and terms outlined in a yearly contract statement of work and budget submitted to BPA over the duration of the Accords.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) (Tribe)
Starting FY:
2008
Ending FY:
2032
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
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Freshwater Mussels
Lamprey, Pacific
Lamprey, Western Brook
Steelhead - Snake River DPS
Trout, Bull
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:

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 *
FY2018 (Previous) $233,934 $466,428 $466,428 $466,428 $389,950

Post 2018 – Umatilla $466,428 $466,428 $466,428 $389,950
FY2019 (Current) $466,428 $466,428 $466,428 $0

Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla $466,428 $466,428 $466,428 $0
FY2020 (Next) $466,428 $466,428 $0 $0 $0

Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla $466,428 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 30-Sep-2018

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2018 - FY2020)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2018 Expense $243,681 From: Post 2018 – Umatilla FY18 Initial Planning Budgets (WS, CTUIR, YN, CRITFC) 7/18/2017 07/18/2017
FY2018 Expense $9,747 To: Post 2018 – Umatilla CTUIR Establish FY18 budget for 2012-010-00 Accord Administration 08/21/2017
FY2018 Expense $232,494 From: Post 2018 – Umatilla Accord Budget (CTUIR) 1/3/2018 01/03/2018
FY2019 Expense $466,428 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Extensions (Umatilla Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2020 Expense $466,428 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Extensions (Umatilla Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2019
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
2016 $1,011,476 (Draft) 69 % (Draft)
2015
2014
2013
2012 $6,300 2 %
2011 $327,000 53 %
2010 $23,593 6 %
2009 $13,107 10 %
2008

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
73982 REL 15 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 2008-202-00 EXP TUCANNON WATERSHED HABITAT: PROTECT AND RESTORE Issued $478,600 4/1/2017 - 3/31/2018
73982 REL 41 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 2008-202-00 EXP TUCANNON WATERSHED HABITAT: PROTECT AND RESTORE Issued $466,428 4/1/2018 - 3/31/2019
CR-325525 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 2008-202-00 EXP TUCANNON WATERSHED HABITAT: PROTECT AND RESTORE Pending $466,428 4/1/2019 - 3/31/2020



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):11
Completed:6
On time:6
Status Reports
Completed:37
On time:25
Avg Days Early:1

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
44048 45826, 52877, 55994, 60445, 64136, 67768, 72049, 73982 REL 15, 73982 REL 41 200820200 EXP PROTECT & RESTORE TUCANNON WATERSHED Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 08/2009 08/2009 Issued 37 98 10 1 4 113 95.58% 4
Project Totals 37 98 10 1 4 113 95.58% 4


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2008-202-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 2008-202-00 - Protect and Restore Tucannon Watershed
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-2008-202-00
Completed Date: 6/11/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

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

The significance of the habitat restoration actions described in the proposal is well established through the project prioritization process that has been developed for the Tucannon. The sponsors are part of the Tucannon Habitat Program, which implements a process to prioritize and plan habitat restoration activities in the basin. Therefore, the proposed projects address factors that are limiting salmon and steelhead production in stream reaches with potential to support high levels of productivity for these species.

This project has six objectives, to: 1) improve fish passage and migration conditions for salmonids, 2) restore river channel functions, 3) increase instream habitat complexity, 4) reconnect floodplains to the main river channel, 5) improve water quality, and 6) establish multi-tiered levels of vegetation in riparian areas. These objectives are all well supported by the habitat assessments that have been conducted in the watershed and are appropriate for this project.

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

Although there has been monitoring ongoing in the Tucannon, this proposal does not review the results from this work. Previous projects have been successfully completed. These projects increased stream sinuosity, floodplain connectivity, removed passage barriers, installed large woody debris, boulders and spawning gravel, planted native grasses, sedges, trees and saplings, and removed or suppressed noxious weeds. Pre- and post-project evaluations have been performed and show that these projects have increased stream width, depth, length, the presence of undercut banks, shade, wood, and root wads and decreased erosion. Methods have included fencing of riparian areas and restoration of riparian vegetation. More complete presentation of existing habitat-monitoring information would have been useful in the proposal review process.

There is some evidence presented that restoration methods have evolved as a result of past experiences, suggesting some capacity to adapt. Recent changes include shifting restoration actions from steelhead habitat to spring Chinook habitat. “Softer” restoration approaches are now being employed, such as using large woody debris and natural materials whenever possible. Another change has been to “work in the dry” by de-watering stream reaches before construction begins. This approach is being applied to minimize habitat disturbances in project areas. Plastic tarps were used to control weeds; these have now been replaced by biodegradable coir fabric. To reduce grazing and beaver impacts, the sponsors are using organic repellants and planting birch and red alders as opposed to willows and cottonwoods. However, there was no formal process for adaptive management described in the proposal. To ensure maximum benefit from the RM&E program, such a process should be developed.

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

The relationships between this project and other projects in the Tucannon, some of which are pursuing objectives similar to those of this project, are inadequately described. The sponsors are part of the Tucannon Coordination Committee. Parts of this proposal that address project prioritization and program administration appear to overlap considerably with GEOREV-1987-100-01. However, the work elements appear to be focused on the implementation of projects. The relationship of this project to the other habitat improvement and monitoring efforts on the Tucannon requires some additional clarification.

The other proposals for the Tucannon all represent the RM&E efforts as very comprehensive. Surprisingly, this proposal suggests that the current monitoring is not sufficient to evaluate projects being implemented by the CTUIR. The reasons for this concern were not fully explained. It is a bit worrisome that the proposal states "There has been some limited coordination with Washington Department of Fisheries Research Monitoring and Evaluation (RM&E) Project in which they collected baseline data regarding pre-implementation status of juvenile salmonids in Russel Springs Creek. The CTUIR RM&E is transitioning into conducting biological monitoring in the Tucannon Basin starting in 2013 due to incomplete coverage by state entities and lack of shared data." It is unclear why data are not being shared among organizations involved in the various Tucannon projects. If this is truly a serious issue, it could compromise the value of the entire monitoring plan for this watershed. Another concern is that the lack of coordination among monitoring efforts will lead to duplication in effort. It would seem that the Tucannon Coordinating Committee would be the appropriate organization to coordinate monitoring efforts for the Tucannon. A more thorough discussion of the concerns with the current monitoring effort should be included in this proposal.

The proposal indicates that the deficiencies in the current monitoring process are being addressed through the development of two, new RM&E plans, a physical habitat monitoring plan and a biomonitoring plan. These plans should have been included in this proposal. The plans should include a thorough description of the coordination with other monitoring efforts in the Tucannon.

Two emerging issues were identified in the proposal: climate change and invasive species. The sponsors list expected impacts due to climate change and propose several actions to alleviate possible consequences. They include continuing to connect floodplains to main channels to increase hyporheic flows and reduce water temperatures and maintaining their tree planting activities to increase stream shading. They propose to control noxious weeds by using biodegradable tarps and plan on limiting the occurrence of invasive animal species by creating proper conditions for salmonids.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The deliverables list 17 individual habitat projects, organized into 6 habitat project types, that they would like to implement by 2018. These habitat projects have been identified as priorities through the Tucannon project ranking process. They are designed to increase stream sinuosity and channel complexity, remove barriers to fish passage, and increase holding areas for adult and juvenile spring Chinook. The work elements appear to appropriate for the projects being proposed.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

Two protocols, the Umatilla Subbasin Fish Habitat Restoration Monitoring Plan and the CHaMP protocol will be used. Both are described. But no information is presented on the monitoring at the two sites (Russel Creek/Pataha) to measure responses of fish populations to the habitat changes. Both of these sites will be assessed using a Before/After protocol because control sites could not be identified -- more information on why control sites are not available is needed. No information was presented on how the fish metrics will be measured.


===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

Qualification #1 - Qualification #1
This project includes a subset of the habitat projects to be implemented under the Tucannon Habitat restoration program. The proposal was a bit confusing as initially it appeared that the objective of this project was a habitat restoration program to identify and prioritize restoration actions. This objective completely overlaps with those in another project proposal (Tucannon Habitat Restoration Program; GEOREV-1987-100-01). However, the work elements and deliverables section clearly indicates that the purpose of this project is to implement habitat restoration actions. These actions have been identified through the Tucannon Habitat Program as priorities for the restoration of Spring Chinook and steelhead in this watershed. Therefore, this project is an important component of the restoration effort for the Tucannon. But the proposal would have greatly benefitted from a more thorough description of the manner in which this project is aligned with the Tucannon Habitat Program and the other habitat restoration efforts occurring in this watershed. Description of the process being used to coordinate RM&E efforts in the Tucannon also should be included in the proposal as this proposal suggested some deficiencies in the current approach. These concerns can be addressed in future reports or proposals for this project.
First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

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

The significance of the habitat restoration actions described in the proposal is well established through the project prioritization process that has been developed for the Tucannon. The sponsors are part of the Tucannon Habitat Program, which implements a process to prioritize and plan habitat restoration activities in the basin. Therefore, the proposed projects address factors that are limiting salmon and steelhead production in stream reaches with potential to support high levels of productivity for these species.

This project has six objectives, to: 1) improve fish passage and migration conditions for salmonids, 2) restore river channel functions, 3) increase instream habitat complexity, 4) reconnect floodplains to the main river channel, 5) improve water quality, and 6) establish multi-tiered levels of vegetation in riparian areas. These objectives are all well supported by the habitat assessments that have been conducted in the watershed and are appropriate for this project.

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

Although there has been monitoring ongoing in the Tucannon, this proposal does not review the results from this work. Previous projects have been successfully completed. These projects increased stream sinuosity, floodplain connectivity, removed passage barriers, installed large woody debris, boulders and spawning gravel, planted native grasses, sedges, trees and saplings, and removed or suppressed noxious weeds. Pre- and post-project evaluations have been performed and show that these projects have increased stream width, depth, length, the presence of undercut banks, shade, wood, and root wads and decreased erosion. Methods have included fencing of riparian areas and restoration of riparian vegetation. More complete presentation of existing habitat-monitoring information would have been useful in the proposal review process.

There is some evidence presented that restoration methods have evolved as a result of past experiences, suggesting some capacity to adapt. Recent changes include shifting restoration actions from steelhead habitat to spring Chinook habitat. “Softer” restoration approaches are now being employed, such as using large woody debris and natural materials whenever possible. Another change has been to “work in the dry” by de-watering stream reaches before construction begins. This approach is being applied to minimize habitat disturbances in project areas. Plastic tarps were used to control weeds; these have now been replaced by biodegradable coir fabric. To reduce grazing and beaver impacts, the sponsors are using organic repellants and planting birch and red alders as opposed to willows and cottonwoods. However, there was no formal process for adaptive management described in the proposal. To ensure maximum benefit from the RM&E program, such a process should be developed.

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

The relationships between this project and other projects in the Tucannon, some of which are pursuing objectives similar to those of this project, are inadequately described. The sponsors are part of the Tucannon Coordination Committee. Parts of this proposal that address project prioritization and program administration appear to overlap considerably with GEOREV-1987-100-01. However, the work elements appear to be focused on the implementation of projects. The relationship of this project to the other habitat improvement and monitoring efforts on the Tucannon requires some additional clarification.

The other proposals for the Tucannon all represent the RM&E efforts as very comprehensive. Surprisingly, this proposal suggests that the current monitoring is not sufficient to evaluate projects being implemented by the CTUIR. The reasons for this concern were not fully explained. It is a bit worrisome that the proposal states "There has been some limited coordination with Washington Department of Fisheries Research Monitoring and Evaluation (RM&E) Project in which they collected baseline data regarding pre-implementation status of juvenile salmonids in Russel Springs Creek. The CTUIR RM&E is transitioning into conducting biological monitoring in the Tucannon Basin starting in 2013 due to incomplete coverage by state entities and lack of shared data." It is unclear why data are not being shared among organizations involved in the various Tucannon projects. If this is truly a serious issue, it could compromise the value of the entire monitoring plan for this watershed. Another concern is that the lack of coordination among monitoring efforts will lead to duplication in effort. It would seem that the Tucannon Coordinating Committee would be the appropriate organization to coordinate monitoring efforts for the Tucannon. A more thorough discussion of the concerns with the current monitoring effort should be included in this proposal.

The proposal indicates that the deficiencies in the current monitoring process are being addressed through the development of two, new RM&E plans, a physical habitat monitoring plan and a biomonitoring plan. These plans should have been included in this proposal. The plans should include a thorough description of the coordination with other monitoring efforts in the Tucannon.

Two emerging issues were identified in the proposal: climate change and invasive species. The sponsors list expected impacts due to climate change and propose several actions to alleviate possible consequences. They include continuing to connect floodplains to main channels to increase hyporheic flows and reduce water temperatures and maintaining their tree planting activities to increase stream shading. They propose to control noxious weeds by using biodegradable tarps and plan on limiting the occurrence of invasive animal species by creating proper conditions for salmonids.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The deliverables list 17 individual habitat projects, organized into 6 habitat project types, that they would like to implement by 2018. These habitat projects have been identified as priorities through the Tucannon project ranking process. They are designed to increase stream sinuosity and channel complexity, remove barriers to fish passage, and increase holding areas for adult and juvenile spring Chinook. The work elements appear to appropriate for the projects being proposed.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

Two protocols, the Umatilla Subbasin Fish Habitat Restoration Monitoring Plan and the CHaMP protocol will be used. Both are described. But no information is presented on the monitoring at the two sites (Russel Creek/Pataha) to measure responses of fish populations to the habitat changes. Both of these sites will be assessed using a Before/After protocol because control sites could not be identified -- more information on why control sites are not available is needed. No information was presented on how the fish metrics will be measured.


===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 1:12:53 PM.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2008-202-00-NPCC-20131126
Project: 2008-202-00 - Protect and Restore Tucannon Watershed
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-2008-202-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement with condition through FY 2018. Sponsor to address ISRP qualification in contracting. Also see Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #1—Sponsor to address ISRP qualification in contracting.
Council Condition #2 Programmatic Issue: A. Implement Monitoring, and Evaluation at a Regional Scale—Also see Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Gary James Supervisor Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Peter Lofy Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Daniel Gambetta Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Andre L'Heureux Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Michael Lambert Supervisor Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Kris Fischer Project Lead Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Julie Burke Administrative Contact Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Zach Seilo Technical Contact Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)