View and print project details including project summary, purpose, associations to Biological Opinions, and area. To learn more about any of the project properties, hold your mouse cursor over the field label.
Province | Subbasin | % |
---|---|---|
Columbia Plateau | Tucannon | 100.00% |
|
Description: Conditions of Cummings Creek prior to felling dead timber into the channel for increasing habitat comlexity for Listed fishes Contract: 60445 Dimensions: 3264 x 2448 Description: Conditions at Cummings Creek site after felling dead timber into the channel for improving habitat complexity for Listed fishes Contract: 60445 Dimensions: 3264 x 2448 Description: Pataha Creek RM 10 at HWY 12 bridge crossing, passage concern, CTUIR addressed with passage rectification in 2011 Contract: 60445 Dimensions: 3648 x 2736 Description: Passage rectified and habitat complexity and riparian conditions improved at RM 10 of Pataha Creek by CTUIR Contract: 60445 Dimensions: 1920 x 1080 Description: CTUIR sponsored LWD project, Tucannon River, RM 42 rweach just prior to setting 291 large whole trees in the channel, plus 500 smaller whole trees Contract: 60445 Dimensions: 3648 x 2736 Description: CTUIR sponsored helicopter LWD enhancement project, Tucannon R, RM 42 after implementation Contract: 60445 Dimensions: 3648 x 2736 |
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
Acct FY | Acct Type | Amount | Fund | Budget Decision | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
FY2022 | Expense | $478,162 | From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla | Accord Extensions (Umatilla Tribe) 10/1/2018 | 10/01/2018 |
FY2022 | Expense | $50,110 | From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla | Accord Transfers (Kalispel, CTUIR) 12/15/2021 | 12/15/2021 |
FY2022 | Expense | $75,208 | From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla | Accord Transfers (Kalispel, CTUIR) 12/15/2021 | 12/15/2021 |
FY2023 | Expense | $543,162 | From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla | Umatilla Tribe (CTUIR) 2023-2025 Accord Extension | 09/30/2022 |
FY2023 | Expense | $45,573 | From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla | Accord Transfers (CTUIR) 1/31/23 | 01/31/2023 |
FY2023 | Expense | $5,310 | From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla | Accord Transfers (CTUIR) 1/31/23 | 01/31/2023 |
FY2024 | Expense | $556,741 | From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla | Umatilla Tribe (CTUIR) 2023-2025 Accord Extension | 09/30/2022 |
Number | Contractor Name | Title | Status | Total Contracted Amount | Dates |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
44048
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 200820200 EXP PROTECT & RESTORE TUCANNON WATERSHED | Closed | $116,740 | 8/4/2009 - 12/31/2009 |
45826
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 200820200 EXP PROTECT & RESTORE TUCANNON WATERSHED | Closed | $385,556 | 1/1/2010 - 12/31/2010 |
52877
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 2008-202-00 EXP PROTECT & RESTORE TUCANNON WATERSHED | Closed | $289,995 | 1/1/2011 - 12/31/2011 |
55994
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 2008-202-00 EXP PROTECT/RESTORE TUCANNON WTRSH | Closed | $247,241 | 1/1/2012 - 12/31/2012 |
60445
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 2008-202-00 EXP TUCANNON WATERSHED: PROTECT AND RESTORE HABITAT | Closed | $369,207 | 1/1/2013 - 12/31/2013 |
64136
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 2008-202-00 EXP TUCANNON WATERSHED: PROTECT AND RESTORE HABITAT | Closed | $258,116 | 1/1/2014 - 12/31/2014 |
67768
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 2008-202-00 EXP TUCANNON WATERSHED: PROTECT AND RESTORE HABITAT | Closed | $272,754 | 1/1/2015 - 3/31/2016 |
72049
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 2008-202-00 EXP TUCANNON WATERSHED: PROTECT AND RESTORE HABITAT | Closed | $363,381 | 4/1/2016 - 3/31/2017 |
73982 REL 15
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 2008-202-00 EXP TUCANNON WATERSHED HABITAT: PROTECT AND RESTORE | Closed | $396,672 | 4/1/2017 - 3/31/2018 |
73982 REL 41
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 2008-202-00 EXP TUCANNON WATERSHED HABITAT: PROTECT AND RESTORE | Closed | $389,922 | 4/1/2018 - 3/31/2019 |
73982 REL 72
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 2008-202-00 EXP TUCANNON WATERSHED HABITAT: PROTECT AND RESTORE | Closed | $398,121 | 4/1/2019 - 3/31/2020 |
73982 REL 100
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 2008-202-00 EXP TUCANNON WATERSHED HABITAT: PROTECT AND RESTORE | Closed | $420,855 | 4/1/2020 - 3/31/2021 |
73982 REL 130
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 2008-202-00 EXP TUCANNON WATERSHED HABITAT: PROTECT AND RESTORE | Closed | $858,145 | 4/1/2021 - 3/31/2022 |
73982 REL 157
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 2008-202-00 EXP TUCANNON WATERSHED HABITAT: PROTECT AND RESTORE | Issued | $603,480 | 4/1/2022 - 3/31/2023 |
CR-357846
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 2008-202-00 EXP TUCANNON WATERSHED HABITAT: PROTECT AND RESTORE | Pending | $543,162 | 4/1/2023 - 3/31/2024 |
Annual Progress Reports | |
---|---|
Expected (since FY2004): | 15 |
Completed: | 10 |
On time: | 10 |
Status Reports | |
---|---|
Completed: | 54 |
On time: | 35 |
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 |
44048 | 45826, 52877, 55994, 60445, 64136, 67768, 72049, 73982 REL 15, 73982 REL 41, 73982 REL 72, 73982 REL 100, 73982 REL 130, 73982 REL 157 | 200820200 EXP PROTECT & RESTORE TUCANNON WATERSHED | Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 08/2009 | 08/2009 | Pending | 53 | 132 | 11 | 0 | 4 | 147 | 97.28% | 18 |
Project Totals | 53 | 132 | 11 | 0 | 4 | 147 | 97.28% | 18 |
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. |
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
Documentation Links: |
|
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 (Inactive) | 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) |