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