FY07-09 proposal 199401806

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Tucannon

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs: Project O&M is the responsibility of the landowner unless a catastrophic natural event occurs. In the case of a natural event, impacts on per-project bases will be evaluated for possible cost share assistance to maintain project intent.

Termination date: 2021
Comments: Tucannon Subbasin Plan implementation anticipated a 15 year schedule. Continuous annual funding will allow implementation of strategies on a progressive base for accumulative gains in meeting biological objectives.

Final deliverables: Reports documenting habitat gains impacting focus species life-cycle survivability and Tucannon ecosystem function. Reports will be from monitoring and evaluation efforts contracted to resource agencies, BPA BiOp Metrics, and project Pisces and annual accomplishments.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: This work has been ongoing for a sufficient amount of time to have made significant progress from the past reviews, but it includes no description of biological benefits nor does it demonstrate adaptive management. The history of the project is more reassuring than the proposed work. It puts more emphasis on riparian types of work. Perhaps the instream part of this project could be terminated. Sponsors did provide some information to show impact of projects on physical structure of the channel, but none to show the biological benefits. The data (Tables 1 and 2) presented are difficult to interpret. Many more pools were reported in 2000 than in 1998, but the stream got wider and shallower. Stream discharge was greater in 2000 than in 1998 making it difficult to assign the observed differences to project activities. Data in Table 12 are offered as evidence of benefits for fish, but these data need to be compared to similar data from both control and treatment sites before the alterations were made if it is to have any meaning. Demonstrated value of the work depends on availability of information to describe changes that have occurred as a result of the project and whether or not these changes are consistent with the project objectives. Even if the impact of project actions on fish and other aquatic organisms is ignored, sponsors need to answer questions concerning impacts on substrate composition, bank stability, stream temperature, and the hydrograph. Site specific actions taken to alter the physical structure of a stream and to overcome a perceived problem often result in unintended consequences making it important to initiate actions only with a clear understanding of dynamics in the entire system. Actions at one site are only reasonable when taken with a complete understanding of their potential impact at other locations. The ISRP is concerned that the focus of the project appears to have changed to development of bio-engineered instream structures. The project needs to return to its original purpose. That is "... increasing pool and spawning habitat quality and quantity through geomorphic stabilization, riparian bio-function restoration, increasing complexity, maintaining adequate flow, and reducing water temperature and sediment." The project needs to ensure reviewers that competent and experienced fluvial-geomorphologists have assisted in design, evaluation, and choice of projects that will provide a high probability for gaining geomorphic stability, and that sufficient change is possible to attain subbasin objectives for the system. These inputs should be in place before new actions are taken. NMFS comments from the province review are consistent with the ISRP's view that bioengineering projects should be limited to "fine-tuning" once watershed function has been restored. The ISRP requests responses to at least the following items. 1. What information is available to help assess whether or not the work that has been completed under this project has made any progress in reaching its objectives? 2. Can observed changes in the channel be attributed to project activities or did similar changes occur in other channels? 3. What assistance has been incorporated in the project from competent and experienced fluvial-geomorphologists? 4. What is the geomorphic basis for the projects that have been completed and proposed projects? 5. What is the basis for and the estimated probability that completed and proposed projects will attain desired channel conditions given the limitations imposed by alternative uses of the water and floodplain?

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: Questions and comments from the ISRP were clarified for a number of issues as best as possible. 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. They likely need another year to see if anything is changing. Project sponsors provided some sediment/embeddedness measures from sampling by the U.S. Forest Service in 2005. These data can at least provide a baseline for assessments in the future, both in the mainstem and to help assess activities in the Pataha Creek basin. They also provided a 2002 progress report that provided some baseline data for temperature and for fish densities at several index sites, data that might be useful in the future. Statistical analysis of fish density data from control and treatment sites showed no significant differences between sites. Temperature data did not provide a basis for describing any trends in the system. Qualification: Since there are no data and thus no scientific justification for continuing this project, it would have to be continued based on a qualification that the substrate, temperature, and fish density work be continued in such a way that decisions are possible regarding the effectiveness of project activities. The sponsors should make full use of data from other fish monitoring projects in the basin to help meet this requirement.