The project is a major contributor to a large multi-agency coordinated effort to improve degraded habitat conditions in the Tucannon River watershed. This is a sound proposal that demonstrates major improvements in many aspects of the project from planning through implementation, evaluation, and adaptive management. The project is productive with important past accomplishments that were well documented. The project is addressing a long legacy of human induced impacts that have resulted in severely degraded habitat conditions for all life stages of salmon, steelhead, and bull trout. The project is supported by numerous plans, principles, and guiding documents and is consistent with the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program. Overall, this is a sound project that is guided well by plans, assessments, and strategies and important Tribal cultural perspectives. The project has made major changes in goals, objectives, restoration approaches, evaluation, and adaptive management that have greatly improved the likelihood of project success.

We compliment the proponents for a very effective integration of cultural values and vision into the overall goals and adaptive management processes. Incorporation of First Foods reciprocity, River Vision, traditional ecological and cultural knowledge, and CTUIR's mission with western science approaches provide integrated and informative goals. There was a clear connection illustrated between important tribal perspectives and the project goal to restore resiliency and ecosystem function. We also acknowledge good progress in revising past goals to focus on "restoring a dynamic river ecosystem that supports natural production of First Foods and CTUIR community." The goals and objectives provide a much clearer set of future desired outcomes in comparison to past proposals. The project incorporated objectives for monitoring and evaluation, as well for as education and outreach, and both are important to project success. The addition of evaluation objectives directly addressed past ISRP recommendations.

Our only major concern with the proposal is that monitoring, evaluation, and adjustment is restricted to physical metrics (e.g., LWD, pools, flood plain reconnection, substrate). There is no mention of measurements of biological conditions and processes such as fry and parr densities, egg-to-fry survival, juvenile growth rates, or basic inputs and outputs (e.g., escapement in, smolts out). These observations are critical because they can be used to link physical changes resulting from restoration actions to biological responses. The lack of biological information in the current proposal was identified in the ISRP review of the previous proposal. We are asking your project to assist the Tucannon River Programmatic Habitat Project (201007700) to create a summary of monitoring and identify linkages between implementation and biological outcomes.

The ISRP’s recommended Conditions are listed below. The proponents need to assist with development of an M&E Matrix during the response loop (September 24 to November 22, 2021) and to provide information to address the other following Conditions in future annual reports and work plans.

1. SMART objectives. Provide representative SMART objectives (see proposal instructions) for some of the pending or ongoing restoration projects planned for implementation by the proponents.

2. Restoration methods. Provide general descriptions of the methods being used to reconnect floodplains, increase channel complexity, and reduce stream velocities.

3. M&E matrix - support. As habitat projects and monitoring projects are not presented as part of an integrated proposal or plan, the need for a crosswalk to identify the linkages between implementation and monitoring is extremely important for basins or geographic areas. The ISRP is requesting a response from the Tucannon River Programmatic Habitat Project (201007700) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the Lower Snake, Tucannon, and Asotin geographic area. During the response loop, we ask this project to assist them in creating the summary and provide information to them about what is being monitored for this implementation project and where and when the monitoring occurs. A map or maps of locations of monitoring actions would be helpful in this regard.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The proponents list three general biological objectives for their restoration work: (a) decreases in redd scour to be accomplished by the addition of large wood, (b) improvement in over-winter survival of juvenile salmonids by reconnecting floodplains and removing levees, and (c) improving adult survival by reducing channel incision and creation of low velocity pools. Five general physical objectives designed to accomplish these biological objectives are also described. These physical objectives have quantitative end targets. Two of the five—floodplain connectivity and channel complexity—included yearly implementation targets. The other three—creation of functional riparian areas, percentage of riparian vegetation in various height classes, and frequency/quality of pools—did not have yearly goals. Instead, these improvements were expected to occur over a longer time period.

The proposal’s timeline indicated that the proponents will be working on ten projects during the upcoming funding period. SMART objectives that could be linked to these projects were not presented in the proposal. For further clarity, the ISRP requests that examples of SMART objectives across some of the projects be described. For example, in PA-13 Phase II riparian and wetland planting is expected to occur from Jan-Mar in 2023. What specific implementation objectives will be established for that work? Similarly, examples of the implementation objectives in PA 1.1 GA during the scheduled construction period of July-August of 2023 would also be useful. Post project monitoring appears to occur in September, examples of specific objectives for this work also need to be provided.

Q2: Methods

Restoration planning, implementation, and evaluation methods are founded on sound biological principles as well as recent geomorphic assessments and limiting factors analyses. The project uses a Riverine Ecosystem Management Planning process to integrate all strategic guidance and new information in a five-step approach beginning with project scoping and ending with evaluation and adaptive feedback loops. The methods used to prioritize areas and develop specific restoration actions are sound and will serve the project well.

The proponents and their restoration partners, SRSRB (201007700) and CCD (199401806) are using “Rapid Habitat” surveys to obtain pre- and post-restoration habitat metrics. Examples of how these metrics have changed from pre- to post-project values are provided in the proposal. Data collected from the surveys seem well suited to track the prevalence of LWD, perennial side channel length, river complexity, area of floodplain inundation, and pool frequency and depth. However, what is lacking is a general description of the restoration methods being used. The primary objectives of the new work being proposed is to reconnect floodplains, increase channel complexity, and reduce scouring. For completeness, we ask that general descriptions of the methods used to reach these objectives be provided as requested in the conditions above.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The project has adopted an improved adaptive management framework that provides opportunity for information feedback at multiple stages in the restoration planning, implementation, and evaluation steps. The project has a solid list of accomplishments. The proposal included some excellent examples of past accomplishments to date with detailed descriptions, photos, data summaries, and graphics illustrating actions and responses.

In the early stages of the project, monitoring and evaluation were identified as a project weakness by the ISRP. The proponents have responded with much improved objectives, methods, and timelines for pre- and post- action implementation and effectiveness monitoring. The Tucannon River Monitoring Plan (Cramer Fish Sciences, 2021), along with the 2021 Plan, has provided much needed framework and approaches for the project. The monitoring approach incorporates rapid surveys to assess metrics associated with wood, pools, side channels, and includes photo points to complete pre- and post- assessments.

The revised adaptive management approach adopted by the project aligns well with past ISRP recommendations and provides multiple opportunities for evaluation results to feedback into the decision framework. The proposal included an excellent example of how the adaptive management process was applied in the completion of a multi-year restoration project.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The Tucannon River subbasin is important as it supports production of ESA listed Chinook salmon, steelhead, bull trout, and other native species including lamprey and mussels. The Tucannon River supports the only extant population of Spring Chinook salmon in the lower Snake River major population group, which is required to reach sufficiently high levels of viability for the ESU to meet delisting status. The project is an integral and important part of comprehensive multi-agency restoration programs. The proponents work closely with the SRSRB, Tucannon Implementation Work Group, WDFW, CCD, Nez Perce Tribe, irrigation districts, and private landowners to accomplish large restoration projects. The project has also contributed to geomorphic assessments, limiting factors assessments, and conceptual restoration strategies, which guide this project and others. The proponents are commended for their extensive education and outreach efforts, which are essential to project success.

In the proposal’s Part 2: “Progress to Date” section and in some of the proposal’s appendices, results from previous restoration actions in the subbasin are described. It is clear from the data presented that these efforts have had beneficial effects. Tabular results from the Rapid Habitat surveys, for example, were quite helpful and showed that the proponent’s restoration actions were producing desired changes in habitat conditions. How these changes may be influencing salmonid populations in the Tucannon River were not addressed. Such responses will likely have to be quantified by other agencies (e.g., WDFW) working in the Tucannon but with contributing effort from this project (see Condition 3 in the overall comment above).

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================

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================