This project is an important component of a larger restoration effort that encompasses many projects and entities. The Columbia Conservation District (CCD) has been a valuable partner in accomplishing habitat restoration in the Tucannon subbasin. Besides supporting on-the-ground restoration, the CCD has worked with local landowners and accomplished important changes in land uses via conservation easements and tillage operations. Additionally, it has been successful in acquiring outside funds from federal and state sources. These additional monies have provided needed support for the habitat restoration actions occurring in the Tucannon subbasin.

The project has an impressive list of accomplishments, including extensive contributions to numerous plans and habitat assessments, which have provided sound scientific guidance for this project and others. The emphasis on revising and updating assessments and plans has been important to the project success. In addition to these achievements, the project has successfully implemented and evaluated many restoration actions with a high degree of success. The project coordinates with numerous other projects in the subbasin. It has responded effectively to past Council and ISRP recommendations as demonstrated by a shift in focus from instream active restoration to broader floodplain and geomorphic-ecosystem function. The current proposal has a clear and complete timeline for the upcoming five-year period.

The proposal would be improved by expanding the description of how the restoration actions will improve productivity, capacity, or diversity and thus build resilience to climate change and other ongoing habitat degradation. In addition, the size of the areas that will be targeted for restoration during the upcoming 5-year period needs to be further defined. The budget appears appropriate for the proposed work described and the leveraging of the projects funding to secure up to 67% additional matching funds for action implementation is important added value.

The ISRP’s one 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 almost 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 biological observations are critical because they can be used to link physical changes resulting from restoration actions to biological effects. This limitation was previously identified in the 2007-2009 ISRP review:

"Some data is reported on fish density, but it is not clear that the project personnel are adaptively managing based on these data. It's not clear that the structures are actually benefiting the fish."

There was no information in the proposal on observed biological responses to restoration actions completed to date, or specifics on how that information would be used to adjust the projects. The lack of discussion of biological information in the current proposal suggests that little progress on this front has been made. This is a significant concern and, in large part, led to the ISRP’s recommendation of Conditional.

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. Purpose and limiting factors. Describe the location, purpose and limiting factors being addressed by the work scheduled to occur in 2021-2024

2. SMART objectives. Provide SMART objectives (see proposal instructions) for projects PA-26 Phase I/II and PA-26 Phase III and any other project that lacks SMART objectives.

3. Methods. Briefly describe the methods that will be used in the PA-26 Phase I/II project.

4. 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

Goals and objectives are well stated with clearly desired outcomes. It appears that considerable thought and analyses have gone into linking the overarching problem with the goals, objectives, strategies, and outcomes. The proposal provided a comprehensive description of past goals and objectives as well as revised future goals and objectives. The overall goal of enhancing habitat is partitioned and expanded into programmatic goals for improving floodplain, riparian, channel complexity, pool quantity and quality, and bed local sediment. The six programmatic objectives are well stated and contain the essential components of SMART objectives including quantitative desired outcomes. In addition to the overarching programmatic goals and objectives, the proposal includes prioritization goals and objectives for the years 2020 and beyond. These prioritization goals and objectives are well linked with the programmatic objectives and strongly informed by the recently completed Geomorphic Assessment and Restoration Plan (GARP). The project is addressing critical limiting factors that influence Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout, all listed as threatened under the ESA. The project is well supported by the subbasin plan and the ESA Recovery Plan.

We compliment the proponents for the extensive descriptions and connectivity provided, which linked goals and objectives with limiting factors, restoration strategies, expected outcomes, and assessment needs. The full set of goals and objectives will guide the project effectively into the future.

The proposal, however, does not link the work scheduled to occur over the next funding period with the six objectives. The Timeline portion of the project shows that five projects, identified by an alpha numeric abbreviation (e.g., PA-26 Phase I/II) are either ongoing or scheduled to take place in the future. The proposal’s Timeline Section shows when general activities (project design/permitting, pre-project monitoring, construction, post project monitoring as built, riparian planting, and post project monitoring) are expected to occur. However, no information about the location, purpose, and the limiting factors being addressed by each of these restoration projects is provided. SMART objectives for one or two of the projects should also be developed to provide further information about how projects are managed and expected to progress from the design period to post-project monitoring.

Q2: Methods

The overall methodology used by the CCD is guided by a scientifically sound well-designed adaptive management approach that incorporates the essential elements of planning, evaluation and outreach, project design, treatment, monitor and evaluate, and adapt strategies and actions. Specific steps within each of these key elements are thoroughly described. The planning process appropriately incorporates consideration of habitat condition assessments, limiting factors, geomorphic processes, outreach, restoration strategies, and prioritization methods.

The GARP is used extensively in the selection of project areas and site-specific restoration actions. The GARP document is valuable, providing updated geomorphic assessments and guidance built from prior assessments, successes, and failures, and incorporating new knowledge and techniques. The overall approach considers the unique conditions of each potential restoration area and the importance to specific life history stages.

The project has adapted methods over time with stronger emphasis on restoration strategies that promote geomorphic and ecological processes needed to restore ecological function. This shift has resulted in increased emphasis on flood plain reconnection/side channel development, instream structure and pool enhancement, riparian zone improvement, and increased wood recruitment.

The project appropriately relies extensively on habitat and geomorphic assessment and life stage specific limiting factors analyses to prioritize treatment areas and restoration strategies and actions. The ongoing process of updating habitat and geomorphic assessments has been important for adapting prioritization and implementation strategies and actions.

The proposal provides detailed descriptions on how the CCD selects and prioritizes projects. It was initially guided in this process by a model river watershed plan. Later comprehensive geomorphic assessments were made in the Tucannon subbasin. These assessments were used to create conceptual restoration plans that identified and prioritized regions of the basin where restoration should take place. The most recent assessment (Anchor QEA, 2021) identified four geomorphic processes in the subbasin that were impaired: in-channel structure (wood), modified sediment delivery and transport, reduced floodplain connectivity, and diminished riparian condition and function. The proposal provides some general descriptions of the methods that are being used to increase LWD, briefly discusses gravel augmentation, and levee/berm removal and installation. No methods, however, are linked to the project’s scheduled work. The proponents indicate that restoration actions/methods must be customized to the area where the work is taking place. The ISRP agrees. The Timeline indicates that construction is planned for project PA-26 Phase I/II for July and Aug of 2021. A description of the methods being used for this project need to be provided.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

This project evaluation and adjustment approach relies extensively on new information and knowledge provided in the GARP and other planning documents. The project has well established monitoring and evaluation programs that provide results that feed back into the adaptive decision process.

The proposal highlights and incorporates the importance of monitoring and evaluation at many steps in the planning, implementation, and adjustment stages. Extensive habitat and geomorphic process assessments and limiting factors analyses have been completed and are used for planning and action implementation. Much of the RM&E that provides effectiveness assessment is conducted by other projects including WDFW’s Fish-in and Fish-out project. The methods used for the most recent habitat and geomorphic assessments appear scientifically sound.

The evaluation and adjustment process are well characterized. The cyclical method for development and implementation of habitat restoration actions (Figure 4-1) along with detailed considerations described for each step in the cycle provide a solid framework for application of evaluation results. The process has multiple feedback loops that bring into consideration new evaluation results and confounding factors. Evaluation results are not just applied to specific restoration area actions but are also incorporated into strategic guidance.

The specific project treatment level evaluation process occurs in a logical stepwise progression for eight steps beginning with the treatment. Included in the project’s evaluation process are rapid habitat assessments of the treatment area within 5 years, qualitative and quantitative assessments after five years to assess response relative to desired change targets, incorporation of new fish information relative to use in the treatment area, restoration success assessment, additional area treatment needs, and lastly repeat the process if additional actions are warranted. Overall, the monitoring and evaluation and adaptive management approaches have served the project effectively and represent a major step forward.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

This is a long-term project focused on restoration of salmon and steelhead habitat in the Tucannon River subbasin. It is an important project because Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout are severely depressed and listed as threatened under the ESA. Habitat degradation has been extensive in the subbasin and habitat conditions are considered a key threat to the persistence and recovery of the listed species.

The project has an impressive list of accomplishments including major contributions to numerous plans and habitat assessments. These plans and assessments have provided essential and sound guidance for this project as well as other projects that are components of the overall restoration efforts. Emphasizing continuous updates to plans and assessments has provided valuable new information on the status of the habitat and limiting factors allowing for improved strategies, prioritization, techniques, monitoring and evaluation, and adaptive management.

The proponents have been engaged in habitat restoration in the Tucannon subbasin for about 26 years. Project actions, for example, have installed LWD, improved river length, increased floodplain and side channel connectivity, removed berms, improved available river flow, screened irrigation diversions, removed fish passage barriers, reduced sediment inundation, planted trees and shrubs, installed exclusion fencing to protect riparian areas, and built off-site livestock watering facilities. In aggregate, these activities have improved in-river conditions in the Tucannon subbasin; however, the proposal does not describe how the subbasin’s salmonid populations have responded to these restoration actions. Nevertheless, the actions taken have increased habitat complexity, added stability, and improved water quality, which are expected to benefit salmonids.

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.