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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

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

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The project uses CHaMP protocols for habitat monitoring.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

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

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The project uses CHaMP protocols for habitat monitoring.