In our initial review, we asked the proponents to provide an M&E Matrix to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the subbasins. They provided a thorough summary of M&E efforts in the Tucannon subbasin and linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in their response. They explain their coordination with other partners, the Asotin Creek IMW, development of critical studies, use of prior data, development of HSI with CTUIR, data storage with the CTUIR Centralized Data Management System, and creation of a web map. The response also explains the linkages between the habitat implementation projects, hatchery projects, and monitoring elements for each. The proponents provided five maps that identified the location and type of monitoring throughout the subbasin. In addition, they produced a matrix of the M&E activities in the subbasin for 17 BPA-funded projects, which describes the types of monitoring actions, locations, timing of monitoring, and projects responsible for the monitoring. They also created a table that identifies the M&E actions associated with 27 project areas that are currently ongoing. The table includes information on the biological and physical components that are monitored, the timing of the monitoring, and the project sponsors. Working with their partners, the Tucannon River Programmatic Habitat Project coordinated the development of a thorough and informative summary of M&E activities in their subbasin and the linkages between monitoring and implementation and hatchery projects. The framework should serve as a valuable foundation for their continued collaborative efforts and provides a useful model for other proponents to follow to summarize M&E activities.

The thoughtful response from the proponents on linkages between physical habitat restoration and fish population response, however, highlights a key confounding issue:

“Hatchery management for both spring Chinook and steelhead have recently played an important role in maintaining the populations and in meeting NOAA ESA criteria, but these actions have limited the value and ability to conduct biological monitoring as a response to habitat improvements made through the Program or to continue the work initiated by Crawford (2019).”

It is important for decision-makers to understand that implementing multiple management actions at the same time (changes in hatchery production and habitat restoration) may make it difficult or impossible to separate their individual effects, especially if all hatchery fish are not marked or tagged. In other words, benefits of habitat restoration will be much harder or impossible to quantify, thus complicating decisions on future investment in habitat or hatchery projects. Many marked and unmarked steelhead from other watersheds enter the Tucannon River each year, which complicate evaluations according to WDFW. Regardless, we encourage investigators in the Tucannon watershed to monitor trends in abundance and productivity of natural origin steelhead and Chinook salmon.

Preliminary ISRP report comments: response requested (Provided for context. The proponents responded to the ISRP’s questions; see response link and final review above.)

Response request comment:

This proposal does a thorough job of describing the hierarchy of objectives, the history of actions and accomplishments, the methods, and the project evaluation and adjustment process. Based on the documentation of habitat improvements and the insightful discussion of lag effects, high flows, and climate change, the implementation of habitat work and its physical effects on fish habitat are being well evaluated.

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). The ISRP expects projects that focus on restoration of fish habitat to be closely collaborating with projects that monitor fish populations and to demonstrate this collaboration by providing some details about the response of targeted fish populations to habitat improvements. Unfortunately, there is no mention of measurements of biological conditions and processes such as fry and parr densities, egg-to-fry survival, or juvenile growth rates in the proposal. The proponents briefly mention some biological data related to escapement and smolt production. This limitation was also identified in the ISRP’s 2017 Umbrella review and the 2013 Geographic Review. The lack of biological information in the current proposal, in spite of a repeated recommendation from the ISRP on this topic, suggests that little progress will be made on this front.

Biological observations are critical to link physical changes resulting from restoration actions to biological effects. The proponents state they have “no influence or funding in the monitoring or management of biological resources within the basin but will continue to support fish co-managers in filling critical data gaps necessary for project prioritization and adaptive management.” (p. 23). We encourage the proponents to establish the linkage between physical restoration outcomes and biological benefits. We are concerned by the lack of discussion in the proposal on the existing biological data and how it will be used in the future.

The ISRP requests a response from the proponents to address the following items:

• M&E matrix – lead. One of the challenges for ISRP reviewers is understanding the specific monitoring that is being conducted for multiple implementation projects. Habitat restoration projects or hatchery projects implement actions that are intended to address limiting factors and benefit fish and wildlife. Most of these projects do not directly monitor habitat conditions or biological outcomes, but most identify other projects in the basin that monitor aspects of physical habitat or focal fish species. The monitoring project(s) in the basin provides essential monitoring data for habitat, juvenile salmonid abundance and distribution, outmigration, survival, and adult returns for salmon and steelhead. Some monitoring projects focus on status and trends in basins, while others focus on habitat relationships and responses to local actions. It is unclear what monitoring the monitoring project(s) conducts for each implementation project.

Given the regional leadership responsibilities of this programmatic project, the ISRP is requesting the Tucannon River Programmatic Habitat Project to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the basins. The summary should provide a table or matrix to identify what is being monitored for each implementation project and where and when the monitoring occurs. The summary also should explain how the projects are working together to evaluate progress toward addressing limiting factors and identify future actions. A map or maps could help identify the locations of monitoring actions. The monitoring information should clearly explain whether the biological monitoring is local information for the specific implementation site or basin scale monitoring of status and trends or fish in/fish out. We are asking implementation and other monitoring projects to assist this project in producing this summary.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The linkage between goals and actions is clearly described. Future annual reports and proposals should include descriptions of what biological states and vital rates are expected to improve given the quantitative implementation objectives (Fig. 3-1). This might better define the biological monitoring needs, and also highlight what data that is currently available will be useful in this regard.

Q2: Methods

The proposed methods are scientifically valid and are useful for evaluating physical responses to restoration actions. There is no biological monitoring conducted as part of the proposed actions, and the proponents rely on other groups to provide this information. Given the absence of biological results in the current proposal, this interaction does not appear to be effective. The ISRP expects habitat restoration practitioners to be working closely with the projects that monitor fish responses to the actions. For example, WDFW is implementing the Tucannon River Steelhead Supplementation M&E (201005000) that is monitoring natural and hatchery steelhead productivity, spawning escapement, and distribution in the Tucannon watershed which is providing data that may be useful for evaluating habitat response.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The monitoring and evaluation of physical states and processes influenced by habitat restoration is well described. There is no mention of how biological monitoring and evaluation will be conducted.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The proposal does a good job summarizing the physical changes that have resulted from restoration actions. There is a lack of biological information, so benefits to targeted fish populations have not been determined, and this is the sole but significant weakness of the proposal.

Modified by Thomas Ono on 4/7/2023 2:33:50 PM.

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.