Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2010-077-00 - Tucannon River Programmatic Habitat Project Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2010-077-00 - Tucannon River Programmatic Habitat Project
Project Number:
2010-077-00
Title:
Tucannon River Programmatic Habitat Project
Summary:
Work order: 00270089 task 01

Independent assessments have concluded that the following habitat factors are the most significant limiting factors for spring Chinook salmon in the Tucannon River:
• Elevated fine sediment • Elevated water temperature • Lack of channel complexity • Lack of floodplain connectivity • Reduced streamflow

Objectives of this proposal:
OBJ-1: Increase riparian function to 75% of maximum: Restore and protect riparian species composition and density to improve canopy cover, riparian area (acreage) and riparian structure.
OBJ-2: Increase large woody debris to 2 or more pieces per channel width: Add LWD to increase pool quantity and quality, promote development of side channel and backwater habitat and streambed aggradation to increase floodplain connectivity.
OBJ-3: Increase pool frequency to 15% of stream area: The desired outcome of this objective is to increase stream depth, habitat complexity, substrate sorting, and promote stable pool-out habitat for spawning.
OBJ-4: Reduce channel confinement/increase floodplain connectivity to at least 25% of river length: The desired outcome of this objective is improved channel function, increased stream length and side channel habitat, restored hyporheic conditions and riparian survival.
OBJ-5: Reduce maximum daily water temperature so that it does not exceed 72F at confluence of Pataha Creek (RM 11.8): The outcome of this objective is to improve water temperature, increase useable habitat, and expand the geographic range of spring Chinook.
OBJ-6: Decrease substrate embeddedness to 20% in all reaches above confluence of Pataha Creek (RM 11.8): The outcome of this objective is to increase egg survival, improve invertebrate species diversity and abundance, and increase interstitial spaces.
Proponent Orgs:
Snake River Salmon Recovery Board (Non-Profit)
Starting FY:
2011
Ending FY:
2019
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
Freshwater Mussels
Lamprey, Pacific
Steelhead - Snake River DPS
Trout, Bull
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Wildlife
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) $1,368,570 $1,368,570 $989,931 $1,001,572 $1,316,495

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $1,368,570 $989,931 $1,001,572 $1,316,495
FY2019 (Current) $1,368,570 $968,570 $999,983 $645,257

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $1,368,570 $968,570 $999,983 $645,257
FY2020 (Next) $0 $650,000 $651,313 $0

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $0 $650,000 $651,313 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Mar-2019

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2018 - FY2020)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2018 Expense $1,368,570 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY18 SOY Budgets 07/17/2017
FY2019 Expense $1,368,570 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) Nov 30th SOY Transfers 12/07/2018

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2019   DRAFT
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) $0
Total $0 $0
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2018 $105,697 7 %
2017 $726,282 35 %
2016 $413,243 23 %
2015 $448,043 25 %
2014 $476,043 25 %
2013 $330,043 21 %
2012 $621,965 33 %
2011 $4,092 1 %

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
76992 SOW Columbia Conservation District (SWCD) 2010-077-00 EXP TUCANNON (PA-28) PHASE III: FUNCTION & COMPLEXITY Issued $679,060 9/1/2017 - 8/31/2019
78510 SOW Walla Walla Community College 2010-077-00 EXP TUCANNON (PARENT) HABITAT PROGRAM: ADMIN & MANAGE Issued $180,815 4/1/2018 - 3/31/2019
73982 REL 42 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 2010-077-00 EXP TUCANNON (PA-3) SUPPLEMENT LWD AND ADD COMPLEXITY Issued $715,450 4/1/2018 - 3/31/2020
74314 REL 52 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-077-00 EXP TUCANNON (WDFW) ADMIN: (PA-13) DESIGN & PRE-CONST Issued $93,666 9/16/2018 - 3/31/2019
81783 SOW Walla Walla Community College 2010-077-00 EXP TUCANNON (PARENT) HABITAT PROGRAM: ADMIN & MANAGE Issued $175,500 4/1/2019 - 3/31/2020
74314 REL 65 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-077-00 EXP TUCANNON (WDFW) ADMIN: (PA-13) DESIGN & PRE-CONST Issued $140,445 4/1/2019 - 3/31/2020
CR-314133 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-077-00 EXP TUCANNON (PA-13) PHASE-I: FUNCTION AND COMPLEXITY Pending $652,625 9/1/2019 - 8/31/2021
CR-280695 SOW SHAKE & BAKE (DO NOT DELETE): RIPARIAN & INSTREAM HAB DESIGN WES Pending $0 1/1/2020 - 3/31/2020
CR-317872 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 2010-077-00 EXP TUCANNON (PA-17) BUILD: ADD FUNCTION & COMPLEXITY Pending $650,000 4/1/2020 - 3/31/2022



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):26
Completed:22
On time:21
Status Reports
Completed:138
On time:78
Avg Days Late:4

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
51166 56233, 60562, 65249, 68810, 72042, 75494, 78510, 81783 201007700 EXP TUCANNON RVR PROGRAMMATIC HABITAT Walla Walla Community College 01/2011 01/2011 Issued 33 69 0 0 3 72 95.83% 8
54636 2010-077-00 EXP WDFW LWD & BLDG REMOVAL IN THE TUCANNON Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 09/2011 09/2011 Closed 4 7 0 0 0 7 100.00% 1
58777 2010-077-00 EXP TUCANNON (AREA 14) REMOVE HARD BANK & ADD WOOD Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 09/2012 09/2012 Closed 9 5 0 0 0 5 100.00% 0
58975 2010-077-00 EXP TUCANNON (AREA 15) DESIGN - CHANNEL COMPLEXITY Walla Walla Community College 09/2012 09/2012 Closed 5 4 0 0 0 4 100.00% 0
62573 2010-077-00 EXP TUCANNON (AREA 15) BUILD - CHANNEL COMPLEXITY Columbia Conservation District (SWCD) 09/2013 09/2013 Closed 5 5 0 0 0 5 100.00% 0
62642 2010-077-00 EXP TUCANNON (AREA 3) BUILD - ADD LWD AND BOULDERS Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 09/2013 09/2013 Closed 5 5 0 0 0 5 100.00% 0
63605 2010-077-00 EXP TUCANNON (AREA 1) BUILD - HABITAT COMPLEXITY Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 11/2013 11/2013 Closed 5 5 0 0 0 5 100.00% 0
64018 2010-077-00 EXP TUCANNON (AREA 24) DESIGN - FUNCTION & COMPLEXITY Walla Walla Community College 01/2014 01/2014 Closed 4 3 0 0 0 3 100.00% 0
64003 68874, 72044, 75493, 74314 REL 52, 74314 REL 65 2010-077-00 EXP TUCANNON (AREA 11) LWD: DESIGN-SITE PREP-MATERIAL Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 01/2014 01/2014 Issued 19 23 4 0 0 27 100.00% 0
65148 2010-077-00 EXP TUCANNON (AREA 15) PHASE II BUILD: HAB COMPLEXITY Columbia Conservation District (SWCD) 04/2014 04/2014 Closed 8 7 0 0 0 7 100.00% 0
66844 2010-077-00 EXP TUCANNON (AREA 24) BUILD: FUNCTION AND COMPLEXITY Columbia Conservation District (SWCD) 10/2014 10/2014 Closed 6 7 0 0 0 7 100.00% 0
72405 76992 2010-077-00 TUCANNON (PA-28) PHASE 1-A: ADD FUNCTION & COMPLEXITY Columbia Conservation District (SWCD) 05/2016 05/2016 Issued 14 12 5 0 0 17 100.00% 0
73400 2010-077-00 EXP TUCANNON (PA-17/18) BUILD-I: ADD LWD & COMPLEXITY Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 08/2016 08/2016 Closed 9 5 0 0 0 5 100.00% 1
73343 2010-077-00 EXP TUCANNON (PA-6, 8-9) BUILD: ADD LWD & COMPLEXITY Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 08/2016 08/2016 Closed 8 7 0 0 0 7 100.00% 0
73982 REL 42 2010-077-00 EXP TUCANNON (PA-3) SUPPLEMENT LWD AND ADD COMPLEXITY Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 04/2018 04/2018 Issued 3 3 5 0 0 8 100.00% 0
Project Totals 137 167 14 0 3 184 98.37% 10


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

Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2010-077-00-NPCC-20131126
Project: 2010-077-00 - Tucannon River Programmatic Habitat Project
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-2010-077-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement with conditions through 2016. Sponsor should consider addressing ISRP qualifications #1 and #4 in future reviews. Also see Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring (Qualifications #2 and #3). See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation B for umbrella projects.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #1—Sponsor should consider addressing ISRP qualifications #1 and #4 in future reviews.
Council Condition #2 ISRP Qualification: Qualifications #2—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring (Qualifications #2 and #3).
Council Condition #3 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #3—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring (Qualifications #2 and #3).
Council Condition #4 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #4—Sponsor should consider addressing ISRP qualifications #1 and #4 in future reviews.
Council Condition #5 Programmatic Issue: A. Implement Monitoring, and Evaluation at a Regional Scale—see Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring (Qualifications #2 and #3).
Council Condition #6 Programmatic Issue: B. Evaluate and Improve Umbrella Projects—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation B for umbrella projects.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2010-077-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 2010-077-00 - Tucannon River Programmatic Habitat Project
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-2010-077-00
Completed Date: 9/26/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 8/15/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
Qualification #1 - Qualification #1
What is the landscape strategy for implementing these restoration actions? If such a strategy has been developed, but is part of a different project, more information should be given on how the projects fit together and are coordinated.
Qualification #2 - Qualifications #2
The ISRP is pleased that the project sponsors will be conducting surveys using CHaMP protocols, but how will ISEMP's biological effectiveness monitoring take place, who will do the work, and how will results of fish response studies be incorporated into revised restoration actions?
Qualification #3 - Qualification #3
Project-scale biological monitoring does not appear to be part of this project. Will ISEMP/IMW projects elsewhere provide an assessment of the project-scale effectiveness of the types of projects being implemented under this program? If not, this project should include some of project-scale biological assessment.
Qualification #4 - Qualification #4
The project sponsors should consider some assessment of how factors such as climate change or increase in human population could compromise the effectiveness of the restoration effort.
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

This proposal seeks support to implement 28 reach scale restoration projects in the 30-mile section of the Tucannon River where the majority of spring Chinook salmon spawning and rearing takes place. The groups working in this watershed have also identified the life stage for spring Chinook that is limiting productivity: egg to parr survival. The projects are designed to address habitat problems that are impacting survival of this life-history stage. The ISRP has previously reviewed the process used by the authors of this proposal to identify the highest priority projects in the watershed. This selection process is based on a thorough geomorphic assessment of all reaches accessible to anadromous fish in the basin and information from the fish research that is occurring; the approach is technically sound. This information is reviewed by a regional technical team that selects and prioritizes project sites and implementation sequencing. Overall, the project is well integrated into regional programs. The technical background was adequately described.

The project objectives are consistent with priorities identified in various restoration plans for this watershed. However, it is not clear how the numeric targets provided in the objectives (for example, two pieces or more of LWD per channel width) were derived. The meaning of the target for riparian function is unclear (“Increase riparian function to 75% of maximum”- maximum what?). Apparently, these targets were included in the Tucannon Subbasin Plan, which is ten years old. Does any of the new information that has been collected suggest that these targets should be modified or varied from reach to reach depending on site conditions?

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

History and past accomplishments of this study are well described in the proposal and links are provided to documents containing detailed information. The project has played a significant role in protecting Tucannon River riparian areas through the CREP program. The project has also been involved in a variety of conservation activities typical of the region, for example road improvements, riparian revegetation, fish screening, and water right acquisition. The results given in the proposal were primarily descriptive and were loosely related to increased salmonid productivity. As the ISEMP results become more available, this should improve.

The project has changed its focus adaptively over the last several years. Initially, restoration efforts were focused on reducing water temperature and sediment levels. Significant progress has been made on both of these concerns. To identify the next tier of factors limiting spring Chinook productivity, a geomorphic assessment was completed for all reaches accessible to anadromous fishes. This assessment was the basis for identifying key areas for restoration and the habitat improvements at those reaches that would make the greatest contribution to increased egg-parr survival. The RM&E effort associated with this project and the existence of the Technical Review Team should enable the improvement over time in the identification of critical habitat needs.

Results from monitoring and assessment efforts in the basin were briefly discussed in the proposal and more detailed information was available through links provided.

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

The relationship between this project and the projects that will be involved in implementing priority habitat actions is clearly described. This linkage was not explained well in some of the supporting proposals. The association among the projects addressing habitat deficiencies prioritized for treatment in the Tucannon Program should be clear in all of the related project proposals.

The RM&E program associated with this project is very complete. It includes CHaMP assessment of trends in habitat condition supplemented with four additional sites located at habitat restoration installations. There is a good working relationship with CHaMP. In addition, WDFW operates a fish-in/fish-out monitoring program on the Tucannon that provides an indication of watershed-scale changes in anadromous fish populations. An element that may be lacking in the RM&E program is an assessment of fish response to the restoration projects. These projects have been selected to improve survival of the egg-parr life history of spring Chinook. Adding some evaluations of the actual effect of the projects on this metric would be very valuable for assessing the effectiveness of the selected projects. Because this project will not involve fish monitoring, no tagging will occur. The CHaMP protocols include macroinvertebrate sampling, but the proposal does not confirm that such sampling will occur. It also was not clear whether ISEMP biological effectiveness monitoring would take place at all 28 restoration reaches.

It was not clear from the proposal whether emerging limiting factors such as climate change or the expansion of invasive aquatic and riparian species could be adequately accommodated with existing habitat models. The project sponsors should consider a more comprehensive assessment of emerging limiting factors in prioritizing future habitat projects.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Most of the deliverables and work elements were adequately described. The proposal also provides links to project plans that provide details for those projects that are currently being implemented or will be initiated in 2013-14. Additional information needed was whether a landscape-based strategy had been developed specific to the Tucannon River. That is, has there been an effort to plan the location and sequencing of restoration actions that builds a connected network of restored sites instead of a disconnected collection of sites with significant environmental problems in between them that keep focal species from making full use of the restoration?

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

This proposal was very well tied into the monitoring methods protocols.


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

This is a well-designed habitat restoration program and the proposal, on the whole, was well written. The project prioritizations are based on a thorough understanding of current habitat conditions and the factors that are limiting spring Chinook productivity.

Four areas of the proposal would have benefitted from additional detail. These qualifications can be addressed in contracting and responses to these concerns provided in future reviews and reports. A response is not requested.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/26/2013 2:33:33 PM.
Documentation Links:
Review: Proposals for New FCRPS BiOp work (FY10-July)

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Kris Buelow Project Lead Snake River Salmon Recovery Board
Andre L'Heureux Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Daniel Gambetta Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Sean Welch Technical Contact Bonneville Power Administration
Jonathan Goodman (Inactive) Technical Contact Bonneville Power Administration
Travis Kessler Technical Contact Bonneville Power Administration
John Foltz Supervisor Snake River Salmon Recovery Board