a habitat monitoring plan to test the effectiveness of ...€¦ · limiting factor and this...

Eco Logical Research Inc. i

A Habitat Monitoring Plan to Test the Effectiveness of Stream

Restoration in the Tucannon River, Washington

Submitted to

Snake River Salmon Recovery Board

410B East Main Street

Dayton, Washington

99328

Submitted by

Stephen Bennett and Andrew Hill

Eco Logical Research, Inc.

456 South 100 West

Providence, Utah

84332

January 31, 2013

Eco Logical Research Inc. ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Multiple years of restoration activities are planned for the Tucannon River in an effort to improve stream habitat

and overall productivity of ESA listed species of salmonids. The majority of the restoration activities are targeted in

the upper portion of the mainstem from approximately RM 20 to 50 and are targeted at the spring Chinook

population though are species are expected to benefit. The two main forms of restoration proposed are levee and

road setbacks or removal and the addition of large woody debris. Anchor QEA, the Tucannon Coordination

Committee and the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board have developed and began to implement restoration

activities based on detailed geomorphic assessments and passed habitat assessments that indicate seven

ecological concerns need to be addressed: peripheral and transitional habitats, riparian conditions, water quality,

sediment conditions, water quantity, and habitat quantity.

Eco Logical Research Inc. (ELR) was tasked with developing a monitoring plan to determine the habitat

effectiveness of the proposed restoration activities. The monitoring plan consists of two main components:

Columbia Habitat Monitoring Protocol surveys (CHaMP) and LiDAR and aerial photography assessments. The

Tucannon River was selected as a CHaMP watershed in 2011 and ELR helped to develop a sampling scheme that

would maximize the number of CHaMP sites within restoration (treatment) and non-restoration (control) areas

throughout the domain of inference. The domain of inference was selected as the presumed historical extent of

spring Chinook. The design was furthered refined such that 14 pairs of treatment and control sites were

established throughout the mainstem. These sites will be used to collect detailed habitat and topographic data as

described in the CHaMP protocol.

CHaMP surveys will provide data at a site scale and mostly within the active channel. To determine changes

outside the active channel (i.e., reconnection of floodplain and side-channel habitat) LiDAR and aerial photography

will be used. These remotely sensed data were collected in 2010 and will be recollected in 2015 or later. Digital

elevation models will be created and custom change detection software will used to detect erosion and deposition

at treatment and control reaches as well as changes in side-channel pattern and density and riparian conditions.

Key recommendations in this report include:

A recognition of the uncertainty of the channel and floodplain response to restoration, and the

development of an adaptive management framework to maximize opportunities for learning

Further refinement of the envisioned conditions restoration is expected to produce

Further development of specific hypotheses for each restoration action

Description of how unexpected or “negative” outcomes will be managed

A set of metrics have been identified to test the effectiveness of restoration including, percent confinement and

frequency of LWD and habitat units. Other potential metrics are proposed and a brief summary of CHaMP habitat

data is provided. Further analyses of data will be completed in future monitoring reports and once this draft plan is

revised.

Eco Logical Research Inc. iii

CONTENTS

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... ii

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................................. v

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................................. v

List of Abbreviations and Agencies ............................................................................................................................... vi

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Report Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.3 Monitoring Plan Development ..................................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Adaptive Management Approach ................................................................................................................ 3

2 Tucannon Geomorphic Assessment and Habitat Restoration study ..................................................................... 3

2.1 Watershed Characteristics ........................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Stream Channel and Floodplain Characteristics .......................................................................................... 4

2.2.1 Reach Types ............................................................................................................................................. 4

2.3 Limiting Facotrs, Conceptual Models, and Restoration Targets .................................................................. 5

2.3.1 Limiting Factors and Ecological Concerns ................................................................................................ 5

2.3.2 Current Condition .................................................................................................................................... 7

2.3.3 Envisioned Condition ............................................................................................................................... 7

2.3.4 Restoration Targets ................................................................................................................................. 8

3 Restoration Plan .................................................................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Restoration Philosophy and Response Uncertainty ................................................................................... 10

3.2 Project Areas and Conceptual Restoration Actions ................................................................................... 11

3.2.1 Floodplain Reconnection ....................................................................................................................... 12

3.2.2 Development of Instream Habitat Complexity ...................................................................................... 12

3.2.3 Riparian Restoration .............................................................................................................................. 12

3.3 Design Hypotheses and Expected Responses ............................................................................................ 13

Eco Logical Research Inc. iv

3.3.1 Floodplain Reconnection ....................................................................................................................... 13

3.3.2 Development of Instream Habitat Complexity ...................................................................................... 15

4 Implementation Monitoring ................................................................................................................................ 16

5 Effectiveness Monitoring ..................................................................................................................................... 17

5.1 Effectiveness Monitoring Approach ........................................................................................................... 17

5.2 Effectiveness Monitoring Protocols and Data Sources .............................................................................. 17

5.2.1 Columbia Habitat Monitoring Protocol (CHaMP) .................................................................................. 17

5.2.2 LiDAR and Aerial Photogrpahy ............................................................................................................... 20

5.2.3 Ancillary Data ......................................................................................................................................... 20

5.3 Effectiveness Analyses ............................................................................................................................... 20

5.4 Control Network ......................................................................................................................................... 22

5.5 Geodatabase for the Tucannon Restoration Project ................................................................................. 22

5.6 Monitoring Timetable ................................................................................................................................ 22

Preliminary Results of Effectiveness Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 24

5.7 CHaMP Habitat Data .................................................................................................................................. 24

5.8 Geomorphic Change Detection .................................................................................................................. 25

6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 27

7 References ........................................................................................................................................................... 27

Appendix A. Example of an adaptive management approach in implemented in the Asotin Creek Intensively

Monitored Watershed. ................................................................................................................................................ 30

Appendix B. Expert Panel Limiting Factors and Bookends for the Tucannon River. .................................................... 31

Appendix C. Draft CHaMP Sample Design with pairs of treatment and control sites. ................................................ 32

Appendix D. A) Summary of CHaMP Metrics calculated from data collected ollected in 2011 and 2012 in the

Tucannon River and tributaries, and B) Definitions of the summary metrics. ............................................................ 34

Eco Logical Research Inc. v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Tucannon River watershed, reach locations where restoration and monitoring will be focused, and

Chinook domain (i.e., historic extent of Chinook use). ................................................................................................. 2

Figure 2. Relative confinement of each reach in the Tucannon River mainstem. Reach 1 starts at the mouth of the

Tucannon River (RM 0) and reach 10 starts at Big Four Lake (RM 44) and extends to Panjab Creek (RM 50.2; Figure

reproduced from AQEA 2011a). .................................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 3. Possible stream channel types that could represent the envisioned condition of the restored stream

channel in the Tucannon River. Figure reproduced from Makaske (2001). .................................................................. 8

Figure 4. Location and monitoring design designation of CHaMP sites within the spring Chinook salmon domain of

the Tucannon River. Treatment sites refer to sites that will be within restoration areas and control sites refer to

sites that are not in restoration areas. Undetermined sites may be treatment or control sites and tributary sites are

sites within tributaries and are not part of the mainstem restoration actions. .......................................................... 19

Figure 5. A) Average number of habitat units (pools, riffles, cascades, etc.)/100 m at all CHaMP sites going from the

mouth (Snake River) to the extent of the study area at RM 50.2. Tributaries are listed at the far right of the graph.

B) Number of habitat units/100 m at annual sites from 2011 to 2012. Sites listed in order from the mouth

upstream. .................................................................................................................................................................... 25

Figure 6. Example of geomorphic change and geomorphic change detection data for CHaMP site 481459 near the

Tucannon River RV Park. The site had no restoration activities but had significant deposition, erosion, and change

in channel location and form from 2011-2012. ........................................................................................................... 26

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Limiting factors identified as priorities for restoration by the Regional Technical Committee/Expert Panel

for the Tucannon River. Some proposed metrics are listed for use in monitoring restoration effectiveness. ............. 6

Table 2. Habitat factors and objectives for each major spawning area (MSA). Note the lower Tucannon River was

updated to a MSA from an mSA during the latest revision of the Subbasin Plan (SRSRB 2011). .................................. 9

Table 3. Location, restoration action, priority rank, and year of implementation by project area within the

Tucannon River, reaches 2 and 6-10 (AQEA 2011b,c). Extent of levee and road removal/modification are combined.

Riparian restoration will focus on select project areas where wildfires have recently burned. ................................. 10

Table 4. Summary of the limiting factors, effectiveness metrics, data sources, and methods proposed for

determining the effectiveness of the Tucannon River restoration actions. ................................................................ 20

Eco Logical Research Inc. vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND AGENCIES

CCD - Columbia Conservation District

CHaMP - Columbia Habitat Monitoring Protocol

DEM - Digital elevation model

DoD - Geomorphic change detection using the difference between two DEMs

DOE - Washington State Department of Ecology

ELJs - Engineered Log Jams

ELR - Eco Logical Research Inc.

GRTS - Generalized random tessellation stratification

LWD - Large woody debris

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's

NRCS - Natural Resources Conservation Service

PCSRF - Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund

PTAGIS - PIT Tag Information System

PUD - Public Utility District

RTT - Regional Technical Committee

RCO - Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office

SRSRB - Snake River Salmon Recovery Board

TCC - Tucannon River Coordinating Committee (includes members of AQEA, CCD, CTUIR,

NOAA, PUD, USFS, WDFW)

USDA - United States Department of Agriculture

USFS - United States Forest Service

USGS - United States Geological Survey

WDFW - Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

WRIA - Washington Water Resource Inventory Area

Eco Logical Research Inc. 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board (SRSRB) along with the Tucannon River Coordinating Committee (TCC) are

proposing a series of large-scale restoration actions in the Tucannon River in southeast Washington as part of the

Biological Opinion (BiOP) requirements to recover Endangered Species Act (ESA) threatened spring Chinook salmon

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). It is expected that other ESA listed salmonids will also benefit from the restoration

actions including fall Chinook salmon, steelhead (O. mykiss), and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). The primary

goals of the restoration actions are to restore physical and biological processes to address the limiting factors for

spring Chinook salmon and other salmonids in the Tucannon River. Seven limiting factors were specifically

identified for spring Chinook during the sub-basin planning process (CCD 2004) and have been updated during the

recent revision of the Snake River Sub-basin Plan (SRSRB 2011). The specific objectives of the restoration actions

are to provide a minimum of 17% improvement in each of the seven limiting factors (primarily in the upper

Tucannon River) to meet objectives outlined Tributary Actions Analyses (NOAA 2008). The seven limiting factors

are: peripheral/transitional habitat, channel structure and form, riparian condition, sediment, temperature, water

quantity and barriers. An expert panel (MADE UP OF …) has assigned specific metrics to assess the status of each

limiting factor and this monitoring plan will describe how these metrics will be derived.

A comprehensive Geomorphic Assessment and Habitat Restoration study of the Tucannon watershed has been

completed to assess the historic and current conditions of the Tucannon watershed, and to assess and prioritize

restoration options best suited to address the limiting factors of the ESA listed species (AQEA 2011a). During the

Geomorphic Assessment the Tucannon River was delineated into 10 reaches based on gradient, relative surface

elevation of the mainstem and valley floor, valley confinement, and the amount of disconnected floodplain

habitat. The extent of the assessment was from the mouth (RM 0) to RM 50.2 miles upstream at the confluence of

the mainstem Tucannon River and Panjab Creek (Figure 1). The reaches delineated in the Geomorphic Assessment

will be used throughout this report to refer to specific areas within the watershed and RM 0-50.2 of the mainstem

will be considered the focal area of the monitoring plan.

The upper section of the Tucannon River (upstream of RM 20; reaches 6-10) has been prioritized for restoration

actions based on the current use of the Tucannon River and anticipated benefits to ESA listed species (AQEA

2011b). Conceptual restoration plans have been drafted and specific reaches within the upper river have been

prioritized for restoration actions. Levee setbacks and the addition of large woody debris (LWD) are the main

restoration actions proposed to address limiting factors to salmonid production. Monitoring methods and metrics

specific to these restoration actions will be described in this report along with specific hypothesized responses to

restoration that can be tested and quantified.

1.2 REPORT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

SRSRB has undertaken to develop an effectiveness monitoring plan of the proposed restoration actions in the

Tucannon River. The following report outlines past geomorphic assessments, the current restoration plan, and a

proposed monitoring plan. The goal of the report is to outline how different aspects of the monitoring plan will

provide information to evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration, as well as what data will be gathered, and

how the data will be analyzed and managed. We also used past assessments and local knowledge to draft


conceptual models of the current and envisioned condition of the Tucannon River, and design hypotheses for each

of the proposed treatment actions to further aid in determining the effectiveness of the restoration.

Figure 1. Tucannon River watershed, reach locations where restoration and monitoring will be focused, and

Chinook domain (i.e., historic extent of Chinook use).

The specific objectives of this report are to develop:

1. An Implementation Monitoring Plan outlining how restoration actions will be documented,

2. An Effectiveness Monitoring Plan outlining how changes in attributes related to identified limiting factors

will be quantified, and

3. A timetable for monitoring efforts and reporting.

1.3 MONITORING PLAN DEVELOPMENT

Eco Logical Research, Inc. (ELR) was retained by SRSRB to develop a monitoring plan for the proposed restoration

actions in the Tucannon River, help coordinate monitoring activities, and assist in the analysis and interpretation of

monitoring data. The primary sources of data for assessing the effectiveness of restoration activities include the

use of the Columbia Habitat Monitoring Protocol (CHaMP), data from other groups working in the Tucannon River

including the Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), Washington Department of Fish and


Wildlife (WDFW) and Washington Department of Ecology (DOE), and LiDAR and aerial photography. The

restoration planning and designs are in various states of development and as such the monitoring plan will need to

be flexible and revised as proposed restoration actions move from the planning phase to the implementation

phase.

1.4 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT APPROACH

We propose that the Tucannon restoration actions be implemented using an adaptive management approach

(Holling 1978). Adaptive management explicitly incorporates monitoring into the restoration process, in a “learn by

doing” fashion, where monitoring information is used to refine restoration actions (Walters 1997). Although the

Tucannon River restoration is not being conducted within an explicit experimental framework, there is still a great

opportunity to learn from such an extensive restoration effort. Much of the work needed to implement the

adaptive management approach has already been completed or initiated (e.g., identification of limiting factors,

geomorphic assessment, restoration designs, etc.) though no formal adaptive management process has been

developed. Adaptive management is appropriate where management has an ability to significantly affect an

ecological system (in this case a watershed) and where there is considerable uncertainty in the outcome of

management actions (Williams et al. 2009). This is precisely the situation with large stream restoration projects,

such as levee setbacks, where there is considerable uncertainty about the channel response.

A potential adaptive management approach in the Tucannon River would require the following steps:

1. Identify the basic problem the restoration seeks to address

2. Document how the problems were identified and whether the problem is real or perceived

3. Establish ecosystem goals and objectives

4. Define conceptual models of how the hydrologic, geomorphic, and riparian systems function

5. Design restoration and Develop design hypotheses

6. Implement a restoration action (trial if possible) and monitor

7. Redefine conceptual models as necessary

8. Implement large scale restoration

9. Test those hypotheses and undertake the critical adaptive management learning loop through assessment

and evaluation of this data.

10. Learning loop will be revisited over several years as new restoration actions are implemented

Steps 1-3 have been developed during previous work phases and assessments (e.g., CCD 2004, AQEA 2011a). Step

4 has been partially developed and is expanded in section 2.3. Step 5 has been partially completed as restoration

designs are in various stages of development (AQEA 2011b,c) and draft design hypotheses are presented in section

3.3. Step 6 has been implemented as restoration has begun and steps 7-10 are yet to be developed. See Appendix

A for an example of a formal adaptive management approach implemented in Asotin Creek.

2 TUCANNON GEOMORPHIC ASSESSMENT AND HABITAT RESTORATION STUDY

In this section we provide a brief summary of the geomorphic and habitat assessments that have recently been

completed in the Tucannon River to provide context for the monitoring plan. For more detailed information please

see USFS (2002), CCD (2004), and (AQEA 2011a).


2.1 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS

The Tucannon River has a typical basalt geology of southeast Washington with more extensive loess deposits in the

lower watershed than other nearby watersheds (Gephart and Nordheim 2001). The loess deposits supported

extensive grasslands prior to settlement and grazing. Forested uplands dominated the upper watershed and

extensive riparian corridor was likely found along the extent of the mainstem (USFS 2002). The relatively flat

terraces and productive soils in the watershed produced relatively stable and non-erosive uplands that had

minimal slumping. Rill and sheet erosion is thought to dominate sediment input to the river especially in the form

of rain on snow and rain on frozen ground events. Pataha Creek is the largest tributary to the Tucannon River.

Pataha Creek makes up almost 37% of the watershed area of Tucannon River but only produces approximately

11% of the discharge.

2.2 STREAM CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN CHARACTERISTICS

Photographs from the 1930’s suggest that the dominant channel form of the mainstem Tucannon was a single-

thread, meandering, and relatively deep channel and that large peak flow events have increased the stream

gradient and braiding (Hecht et al. 1982; cited in AQEA 2011a). Logging, grazing, farming, irrigation, and

channelization have all impacted the Tucannon River since at least the early 1900’s. Many of these stressors were

intensified by large flood events especially in 1964 and 1996, and more recently by extensive and intense forest

fires due to past fire suppression in the forested uplands causing ingress (USFS 2002, 2008). Pasture and farming

practices in the lower watershed continue to restrict access of the river to the floodplain due to levees and

channelization and other infrastructure such as recreational fishing ponds, roads, and bridge crossings and old

railway beds.

In lower reaches especially, the Tucannon River has become wide and shallow, with less dense and extensive

riparian habitat, less instream habitat complexity due to decreased large woody debris (LWD), and warmer due to

increased solar radiation. The majority of the impacts on the mid to lower river on non-Federal lands (USFS 2002).

Due to these activities the stream length has shortened increasing the water velocity and reducing the diversity

hydraulic conditions and fish habitat for different life stages of listed salmonids.

2.2.1 REACH TYPES

The mainstem of the Tucannon River from RM 0 to RM 55 was divided into reach types during the geomorphic

assessment and form the basis of the restoration planning (ADEQ 2011a). Six characteristics of the channel or

valley were used to determine reaches that represent slope, channel form, and valley width as wells as current or

historic land use:

1. Gradient - average using LiDAR and 100 foot intervals

2. Relative surface elevation - using LiDAR and relative surface to mainstem elevation

3. Valley and Floodplain area – identified valley bottom (area above low floodplain) and low floodplain (area

subject of flooding ~ 5-10 years)

4. Confinement – delineated unconfined, moderately confined, and confined areas of floodplain based on

presence of levees, roads, alluvial fans, bedrock, and valley width.

5. Percent disconnected – amount of low floodplain disconnected from mainstem; does not include small

features and lakes that disconnect some low floodplain.


6. Riparian characteristics – height, density, width of zone, extent within reach

A total of 10 reaches have been identified with the first reach being excluded from further analysis due to

significant influence from Snake River backwater (Figure 1). All reaches except reach 1 have a mixture of

confinement types present with no general trend (Figure 2). The 10 reaches were also included in the design of the

monitoring plan (see Effectiveness Monitoring Plan below).

Figure 2. Relative confinement of each reach in the Tucannon River mainstem. Reach 1 starts at the mouth of

the Tucannon River (RM 0) and reach 10 starts at Big Four Lake (RM 44) and extends to Panjab Creek (RM 50.2;

Figure reproduced from AQEA 2011a).

2.3 LIMITING FACOTRS, CONCEPTUAL MODELS, AND RESTORATION TARGETS

The following section describes the limiting factors, current and envisioned condition of the stream channel and

flood plain, and restoration targets. Describing the current and envisioned conditions will make it easier to

articulate clear and testable hypotheses for the restoration actions. The envisioned conditions have not been fully

developed at this time.

2.3.1 LIMITING FACTORS AND ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS

Several recent assessments of the status and limiting factors for listed ESA species in the Tucannon River have

been completed including a revision of the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan (Gephart and Nordheim 2001, CCD

2004, SRSRB 2011). The limiting factors have been further assessed by the Regional Technical Committee, TCC, and

Expert Panel (DEFINE) to help guide restoration actions and monitoring efforts. The past limiting factors have been

assessed and grouped into a set of “ecological concerns” that will be the specifically addressed by restoration

actions. Table 1 lists the limiting factors/ecological concerns and the each factors weight. The weight of each factor

reflects the expected importance of the factor to fish productivity and therefore, restoration will attempt to target

greater improvements in higher weighted factors. Table 1 is divided into the upper and lower Tucannon River, with

greater assessment weight (0.8) being given to the upper river from Pataha (RM 13.2) to Little Tucannon River (RM

48.2). The greater assessment weight refers to the relative restoration effort planned for the two sections of river.


See Appendix B for the complete Expert Panel Ecological Concern summaries including current conditions and

recovery targets for 2018 and 2033.

Table 1. Limiting factors identified as priorities for restoration by the Regional Technical Committee/Expert

Panel for the Tucannon River. Some proposed metrics are listed for use in monitoring restoration effectiveness.

Ecological Concern Ecological Concern - Sub Category Limiting Factor

Weight

Upper Tucannon (Assessment Unit Weight 0.8)

Peripheral/ Transitional Habitats Floodplain Condition 0.30

Channel Structure and Form Instream Structural Complexity 0.20

Instream Structural Complexity 0.10

Bed and Channel Form 0.00

Riparian Condition Riparian Condition 0.10

Water Quality Temperature 0.10

Water Quality Turbidity 0.01

Sediment Conditions Fine Sediment 0.02

Sediment Conditions Embeddedness 0.05

Water Quantity* Decreased Water Quantity 0.05

Habitat Quantity* Anthropogenic Barriers 0.05

Injury and Mortality* Mechanical Injury 0.02

Lower Tucannon (Assessment Unit Weight 0.2)

Peripheral and Transitional Habitats Floodplain Condition 0.30

Channel Structure and Form Instream Structural Complexity 0.20

Instream Structural Complexity 0.10

Bed and Channel Form 0.00

Riparian Condition Riparian Condition 0.10

Water Quality Temperature 0.05

Water Quality Turbidity 0.01

Sediment Conditions Fine Sediment 0.03

Sediment Conditions Embeddedness 0.09

Water Quantity* Decreased Water Quantity 0.05

Habitat Quantity* Anthropogenic Barriers 0.05

Injury and Mortality* Mechanical Injury 0.02

* Note, water quality, habitat quality (barriers), and fish injury are not explicitly part of this monitoring plan at this time.


2.3.2 CURRENT CONDITION

The Tucannon River and associated floodplain are in a general state of recovery, with the upper river on USFS land

in significantly better condition than the lower river (USFS 2002, AQEA 2011a). Best management practices on

USFS land and improvements in agriculture practices (e.g., no till farming) and riparian restoration and

management (e.g., conservation easements) have decreased sedimentation issues and promoted riparian recovery

in many areas. However, significant portions of the stream channel are confined to one side of the valley or the

other by levees, rip-rap, road prisms, and existing infrastructure (AQEQ 2011a). Riparian areas are also well below

their historic extent both along the stream channel and within the floodplain. This artificial confinement and lack

of mature riparian vegetation are presumed to be limiting natural processes such as side-channel development,

sediment sorting and storage, and large wood recruitment to the channel.

The following is a list of conditions that have been described in the Geomorphic Assessment and other

assessments throughout the mainstem that are presumed to be more common than historic conditions (USFS

2002, AQEA 2011a):

Confinement by levees, roads, and infrastructure

Channelization/increased gradient

Reduced stream length

Reduced channel depth and increased width

Reduced riparian habitat (height, diameter, density, and extent)

Increased summer stream temperatures

Decreased LWD

Limited instream complexity

Excessive sedimentation

2.3.3 ENVISIONED CONDITION

As with many restoration projects, it is often difficult to find reference conditions (i.e., areas relatively undisturbed

by human development) in the watershed of interest of nearby watersheds. Where reference conditions occur,

they are often in high elevation areas that do not represent the typical reaches targeted for restoration. The

envisioned condition of the Tucannon River has not been completely described. The oldest aerial photos available

are from 1937 and they suggest that much of the stream was a single-thread, meandering channel (Figure 3).

During this period the channel was narrower and presumably deeper than the current channel which is a series of

braided and channelized sections. For a single-thread, meandering channel to persist there likely would have to

have been extensive forested conditions within the floodplain to prevent regular avulsions of the main channel.

However, the aerial photography from 1937 likely represents a period where significant human disturbance had

already occurred (McIntosh et al. 1994), and it is unclear if a single-thread, meandering channel is the goal of the

current restoration. A single-thread, meandering stream would likely accumulate large volumes of large woody

debris due to lower gradients and more sinuosity which would provide more opportunities to accumulate and

form larger, more stable log jams.


Figure 3. Possible stream channel types that could represent the envisioned condition of the restored stream

channel in the Tucannon River. Figure reproduced from Makaske (2001).

An alternative envisioned condition would be a more braided channel with multiple side-channels and off-channel

habitats, reduced stream power, and high instream habitat complexity (e.g., an anastomosing channel. The main

channel and side-channels would have greater sinuosity that the currently confined sections but would have a

braided or anastomosing form. It is unclear how this would change the current average width and depth of the

stream, but it may initially lead to a wider and shallower stream until more stable channels developed within the

new floodplain area created by levee setbacks. We propose to work with SRSRB and others to more clearly

articulate the envisioned conditions.

2.3.4 RESTORATION TARGETS

Specific restoration targets have been established based on the Subbasin Plan and RTT consultation (Table 2).

Monitoring data (see Effectiveness Monitoring below) will be used to assess if these targets are met in each of the

project areas and where possible the causal mechanisms will be identified. NEED CLARIFICATION HERE ABOUT

WHETHER THESE TARGETS OR THE 17% IMPROVEMENT IN HABITAT CONDITIONS TAKE PRECIDENCE.


Table 2. Habitat factors and objectives for each major spawning area (MSA). Note the lower Tucannon River was

updated to a MSA from an mSA during the latest revision of the Subbasin Plan (SRSRB 2011).

Lower Tucannon River MSA (from Pataha Creek downstream to the Tucannon mouth)

Imminent threats: Fish passage barriers, screens, low stream flows

Temperature: < 4 days > 72 F

Embeddedness: < 20%

Large woody debris: > 1 key piece per channel width

Riparian: > 40 to 75% of maximum

Channel confinement: <25 to 50% of stream bank length

Upper Tucannon River MSA (from Pataha Creek upstream to Tucannon headwaters)

Imminent threats: Fish screens, low stream flows

Riparian: > 40 to 75% of maximum

Large woody debris: > 1 key piece per channel width

Channel confinement: <25 to 50% of stream bank length

Temperature: < 4 days > 72 F

3 RESTORATION PLAN

AQEA in consultation with SRSRB and CCD developed a preliminary restoration plan during the geomorphic

assessment (ADEQ 2011a). The guiding principles to prioritize and implement restoration actions follow Roni et al.

(2002) and are outlined in the geomorphic assessment and restoration study as 1) protect and maintain natural

processes, 2) connect disconnected habitats, 3) remove or modify roads, levees, and other human infrastructure

impairing natural stream processes, 4) restore riparian processes, and 5) improve instream habitat conditions.

Each reach within the Tucannon River was then prioritized for restoration actions based on the following criteria:

1. Available low-lying floodplain,

2. Disconnected low-lying floodplain,

3. Distribution of known spawning areas, and

4. Distribution of spring Chinook juveniles.

Based on these criteria restoration projects were categorized into tiers with Tier 1 projects having the highest

priority for implementation (AQEA 2011b). Based on the above criteria reach 6-10 have top restoration priority

(Table 3). Partial (30%) restoration designs are being developed for specific project areas within these reaches.

Reach 2 has also been evaluated for restoration actions although it did not initially score as a high priority

restoration reach (AQEA 2011c).


Table 3. Location, restoration action, priority rank, and year of implementation by project area within the

Tucannon River, reaches 2 and 6-10 (AQEA 2011b,c). Extent of levee and road removal/modification are

combined. Riparian restoration will focus on select project areas where wildfires have recently burned.

3.1 RESTORATION PHILOSOPHY AND RESPONSE UNCERTAINTY

The original assessment, conceptual restoration plan, and 30% design plans for the restoration activities stress the

need to restore nature geomorphic and fluvial process in order create diverse and productive fish habitat for listed

ESA species. However, a general restoration philosophy has not been articulated that recognizes the uncertainty

involved in the proposed restoration actions and an outline of management responses to potential “failures”. For

~River

Mile Rch

Project

Area LWD (ft) Remove Setback Enhance New Reconn

Floodplain

(acres)

Riparian

(acres) Tier

Year

Start

50 1 6,713 2 2016

49 2 1,097 1,412 202 1

48 3 6,907 377 0.6 2 2013

47 4 2,385 1,190 1,028 1,968 256 821 1.6 2

46 5 2,459 3,314 95 10.7 2

46 6 1,134 144 3

45 7 2,443 3,043 2,467 2

45 8 1,504 684 329 445 545 1.0 2

44 9 2,969 2,563 3

43 10 8,173 1,304 5.8 39.4 1 2012

41 11 9,716 2,647 652 1.4 39.8 1 2014

40 12 1,965 17.8 3

39 13 3,555 3,191 758 3.9 1

38 14 10,309 162 17.8 1 2013

37 15 4,027 864 1 2015

36 16 1,708 524 1,118 4.6 3

34 17 2,935 1,369 724 1,614 2.3 17.3 1

33 18 3,558 2

32 19 1,432 639 3

31 20 fence 3

30 21 5,976 1,742 2,551 0.6 2

29 22 5,338 2,945 193 2.5 2

28 23 5,059 2,159 888 9.5 2

28 24 3,972 2,532 2,924 1.3 1 2014

27 25 1,177 3

25 26 9,578 8,304 12,217 29.3 1 2011

23 27 1,256 265 2,819 3

21 28 1,037 657 22.1 3 2011

3 2 1-6 3 2012

108,382 40,619 27,645 5,439 1,576 1,366 115.0 114.2

8

7

6

Levee/Road (ft) Side Channels (ft)

10

9


instance, levee setbacks may lead to a highly braided and dynamic channels forming in alluvial deposits. Braiding

may lead to more shallower channels and/or unstable channels that take several years or longer to form deeper,

more complex channels. Riparian vegetation may also take longer to establish in dynamic braided sections. What

will be the management response in these and other unexpected situations? Floodplain reconnections of the type

proposed are relatively a new approach to restoration (Pess et al. 2005), and much can be learned about the

response of a alluvial channel once levees are removed; however, learning opportunities will be reduced if

management actions seek to fix perceived failures. An adaptive management approach outlined in section 1.4

would explicitly outline management actions in these circumstances and allow monitoring data to inform

restoration actions.

We propose to work with SRSRB to define the “plausible outcome space” as defined by Sear et al. (2008) as:

Desired outcome – restoration works as planned

Undesired outcome – restoration is counter productive (e.g., stream temperature increases)

Unforeseen benefits – restoration results in a benefit that was not predicted (e.g., slower runoff time and

less redd scouring)

Unforeseen consequences – restoration initiates negative response (e.g., increase in invasive species)

We propose to outline a restoration philosophy that explicitly describes how management actions will be taken

depending on the outcomes of restoration such as channel, tree (LWD), and ELJ movement, and side-channel

creation, maintenance, and enhancement.

3.2 PROJECT AREAS AND CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION ACTIONS

Restoration actions have been divided into smaller project areas due to the length of the Tucannon River

assessment area, scale of the proposed restoration actions, type of restoration actions, and number of landowners

involved. A total of 28 specific project areas have been outlined within reaches 6-10 and a further 6 project areas

in reach 2 (AQEA 2011b, 2011c). The monitoring plan has only been developed to the level of specific restoration

actions (e.g., levee setbacks and LWD additions) and not the individual project areas. Therefore, for this version of

the monitoring plan, we will not describe the specific project areas or a specific monitoring plan for each project

area. Instead, we will be treating project areas with similar restoration actions as replicates in a monitoring design.

Where similar restoration actions take place in different reach types, the reach type will be treated as a sub-group

in the monitoring design.

Based on the conceptual and 30% restoration designs (AQEA 2011b and 2011c) we summarized the location and

main restoration actions proposed for project areas in reaches 2 and 6-10 (Table 3). AQEA (2011b) outlined the

following seven restoration actions to promote and restore natural geomorphic processes and mitigate limiting

factors for ESA listed species in the Tucannon River assessment area: passive restoration, reconnection of isolated

habitats, side channel development, infrastructure removal or setback, development on instream habitat

complexity, supplementation of existing rock structures, and riparian zone enhancement. We grouped these

restoration actions into three basic groups: floodplain reconnection, instream habitat complexity, and riparian

actions based on the expected responses and monitoring methods we propose to use. We may reevaluate how we

have grouped these restoration actions if the groups are too general to meet the needs of SRSRB. Regardless of the

grouping of restoration types, monitoring data will be collected on at least some aspect of floodplain and instream

habitat pre and post restoration for all relevant project areas (see Monitoring Plan below).


3.2.1 FLOODPLAIN RECONNECTION

Infrastructure Removal and/or Setback

This group of restoration actions are by far the most intensive and extensive proposed (Table 3). Over 68,000

linear feet (~ 21 km) of levee/road removal (60%) and setback (40%) are proposed. Levees and roads both act to

restrict the movement of the stream channel across the floodplain and will be treated similarly from a monitoring

perspective. Levees were installed along the Tucannon River to prevent flooding and protect infrastructure. In high

priority reaches these levees will be “setback” or removed depending on the extent of the floodplain and existing

land use. Vegetation that is currently growing on the levees will be used as LWD on some newly exposed floodplain

to provide more complex instream habitat. Vegetation growing outside the levees will be left and may be recruited

once the river channel moves.

Reconnection and Development of Side Channels and Floodplain Habitats

Over 8,000 linear feet (~ 2.5 km) of side channel restoration and 115 acres (~47 ha) are proposed (Table 3). The

majority of side channel restoration actions will focus on enhancing existing channels (65%) compared to new

(19%), and reconnected side channels (16%). Floodplain reconnection will be via levee removal and instream

structures forcing flows onto previously isolated low lying areas. These restoration actions are primarily intended

to promote “floodplain connection” and off channel habitat for juvenile fish. Where infrastructure is removed to

promote this response, the monitoring most appropriate will be the same as for levee setbacks. Where

“connection” and “development” are promoted by log jams and LWD splitting flows and forcing bar development

and changes in flow direction monitoring most appropriate for both setbacks and instream habitat monitoring will

be most appropriate.

3.2.2 DEVELOPMENT OF INSTREAM HABITAT COMPLEXITY

Addition of Large Woody Debris

The addition of large woody debris is the next most intensive and extensive restoration action. Over 108,000 linear

feet (~ 333 km) of LWD restoration structures are proposed (NEED KNOW THE NUMBER OF LWD PER MILE AND

SIZE CLASSES). Much of the Tucannon River has lost instream habitat complexity due to reductions in LWD

recruitment, loss of riparian habitat, channelization, floods, and direct tree removal. To increase instream habitat

complexity LWD and some boulders will be added. Single trees and engineered log jams (ELJ) will be created in

areas to promote further collection of LWD, sediment sorting, and creation of side channels. To increase the

stability of the LWD, helicopters will be used in many cases to bring large trees (> 50 cm diameter and 10-20 m

long) with root wads to the site and install the trees in a relatively natural fashion (i.e., limited or no anchoring).

In certain areas, ELJ will be created. These will also be constructed out of LWD but are built to be more resistant to

movement and are anchored in place. These structures are designed to emulate large log jams and as such are

expected to change sediment transport and flow on a large scale than single tree or small groups of trees. Other

structures that may be placed include boulders and large rocks in areas where there are already outcrops of

bedrock to further add structure to the channel.

3.2.3 RIPARIAN RESTORATION


Riparian restoration actions are currently targeted at four project areas where recent fires burned significant

amounts of riparian habitat (Table 3). In project areas 10-12, and 17 approximately 114 acres of riparian planting

will be implemented. In project area 20, fencing will be installed to exclude cattle grazing and act as passive

restoration. All other project areas will have varying amounts of riparian restoration depending on the amount of

riparian vegetation that is disturbed during other restoration activities (AQEA 2011b).

3.3 DESIGN HYPOTHESES AND EXPECTED RESPONSES

The following draft design hypotheses all directly or indirectly stem from the conceptual model of the current

conditions derived from reviewing past assessments and consultation with project managers, and participating

technical staff. From this understanding of the current stream conditions we generated an envisioned condition

post restoration that we then used to form specific, testable hypotheses, and a monitoring plan to test those

hypotheses. In the following sections we outline the design hypotheses and expected responses of the main

restoration actions for both short-term responses (immediately after construction) and long-term responses (after

the first high flow event). As noted in the Restoration Philosophy section above, we expect some reconnections

will not be immediately connected to the main flow due the dynamic nature of alluvial channels. Reconnections

and levee setbacks may remain relatively unchanged for several years once they are given an “opportunity” to

become active by infrastructure removal or direct excavation. In the same way, some LWD may be washed away or

be relatively inactive once placed in a project area. The monitoring infrastructure is set up to learn from these

situations as much as from immediate and dynamic responses.

3.3.1 FLOODPLAIN RECONNECTION

River channels are directly influenced and shaped by inputs of water, sediment, and wood within the unique

biophysical context of a watershed (Montgomery and Buffington 1997). These inputs are all partially influenced by

the floodplain habitat, usually defined as periodically inundated areas adjacent to the channel (Ward et al. 2002).

Common features of a properly functioning floodplain include main channels, side-channels, beaver ponds,

oxbows, natural levees, alluvial deposits, mid-channel islands (vegetated and non-vegetated), wetlands, and

woody debris (Pess et al. 2005). Constructed levees and confinement of the channel to protect infrastructure and

increase flow capacity reduce or eliminate many of these features leading to an overall decrease in habitat

complexity, fish habitat, organic inputs, channel migration, wood recruitment, floodplain inundation, and exchange

with hyporheic zone (reviewed in Pess et al. 2005).

We recognize two important plausible “responses” of the floodplain reconnection: i) some levee setbacks will ‘fail’

(i.e., not lead to a change in channel form), and/or ii) will lead to a change in channel form that is not desired (i.e.,

extensive braiding or unstable channels that are shallow and have limited diversity of habitats). Rivers are dynamic

and we fully expect both desired and undesired outcomes to occur within the project areas. However, the design

of infrastructure removal and setbacks and side-channel reconnections are designed to promote natural processes

wherever possible. The monitoring program is also designed to learn what characteristics of the channel and

removal process create positive responses.

3.3.1.1 SHORT-TERM RESPONSE OF INFRASTRUCUTRE REMOVAL OR SETBACK

The following list of hypotheses are a DRAFT and will require input from the TCC to fully develop.

List of short-term hypotheses (i.e., before the first flood)


1) Levee removal/setback

I. Channel migration - limited

II. Inundation – limited prior to high flows

III. Channel width – the channel (as defined by bankfull height) will be wider after levee removal

although water may not access the wider channel right away

IV. Water depth – little change in depth expected; there may be a decrease in the depth of flow if

the water spreads across new channel

V. We do not expect any significant geomorphic adjustment in response to these hydraulic changes

at base-flows

2) Side-channel or floodplain reconnection

VI. Flow – if the reconnection is done below the current water level will expect a proportion of flow

from the mainstem to enter the existing channel

VII. Inundation - limited prior to high flows depending on degree of reconnection via earth moving

VIII. We do not expect any significant geomorphic adjustment in response to these hydraulic changes

at base-flows

After the first high flow event we expect the following responses:

1. Levee removal/setback

IX. Channel migration – increased braiding in unconfined reaches and increased meandering in more

confined reaches

X. Inundation – newly exposed floodplain will be inundated which may enhance channel migration

XI. Channel width – the variability in the channel width will increase; variability will be greater in

unconfined reaches

XII. Water depth - the variability in the water depth will increase; variability will be greater in

unconfined reaches

XIII. Deposition/Scour – increased deposition and sediment sorting will be evident in form of newly

created gravel bars varying in substrate size based on forcing mechanism. Deposition will be

higher in unconfined and partly confined reaches compared to confined reaches. Expect the

opposite results for scour.

2. Side-channel reconnection/enhancement

XIV. Flow – should increase proportional to the size of the side-channel

XV. Inundation – should be based on elevation and connection of floodplain

XVI. Side-channel behavior – should see similar behavior as in the mainstem; channel migration,

increased depth and width variability, and deposition and/or scour depending on confinement.

3.3.1.2 LONG-TERM AND SITE SCALE RESPONSE OF INFRASTRUCUTRE REMOVAL OR SETBACK

These hypotheses have not been fully articulated. Depending on the envisioned condition, we could expect a semi-

braided or anastomosing channel to more of a single-thread, meandering channel. In all likelihood the restoration

will promote all these reach types depending on the landownership, valley confinement, and gradient. On public

land there are probably more opportunities to allow the channel more room to migrate and create more of an

anastomosing channel type.


3.3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF INSTREAM HABITAT COMPLEXITY

We recognize two important plausible “responses” of the LWD additions: i) some structures will ‘fail’ (i.e., be

swept downstream, or the channel will move around the structure, possibly leaving them outside the active

channel), and/or ii) some structures will have limited immediate effect (i.e., create a limited number of all the

possible responses). Rivers are dynamic and we fully expect both outcomes to occur at some structures.

3.3.2.1 SHORT-TERM RESPONSE AT INDIVIDUAL LWD STRUCTURES AND ELJS

The individual LWD structures are designed to produce an immediate hydraulic response by constricting the flow

width and/or directing flow into side-channels or onto the floodplain. Immediately following placement of the

structure we hypothesize the following physical responses (assuming a deflecting type structure):

A. Shift from uniform flow pattern to convergent flow pattern

B. An eddy will form in the wake of the LWD and extend downstream

C. Flow paths will strongly diverge downstream of the main zone of convergence

D. Limited geomorphic adjustment in response to these hydraulic changes at base-flows

In response to high flows, we hypothesize the following potential responses:

E. Drifting woody debris will accumulate on structures.

F. Scour and formation or enhancement of forced pools

G. Eddy formation behind the structure

H. Bank erosion and/or an undercut bank to develop opposite the structure

I. Gravel bar may form where the flow path becomes highly divergent downstream

J. Gravel bars initiate convergent flow and cause creation of a bar-forced pool

We hypothesize that the high-flows will result in the following geomorphic changes:

K. Greater variability in channel & flow width.

L. Increased variability in water depth

M. Increased diversity in the type of geomorphic units and a larger number of geomorphic units.

N. An increase in both the amount of erosion and deposition

O. An increase in the presence of structural cover for fish

P. An increase in the number, size and proximity of shear zones

If the LWD are washed downstream, we expect the channel to either:

Q. Quickly revert back to the pre LWD condition; or if the wood accumulates on a downstream feature,

R. Follow a similar progression to hypotheses A-J, resulting in K-P

3.3.2.2 LONG-TERM AND SITE SCALE RESPONSE TO INDIVIDUAL LWD STRUCTURES AND ELJS

Over time the continued we expect the eventual ‘failure’, shift, or evolution of the LWD. We expect the LWD to be

ephemeral on the time frame of 3-5 years but at sites with initial high densities of LWD treatments:


S. Material (both wood and sediment stored in associated active bars) will re-deposit or accumulate at

downstream LWD or LWD jam.

On the scale of these treatments, we hypothesize that over our 5-10 year monitoring window:

T. LWD used in the initial placement of the LWD will break down, but may be self-sustaining if natural

LWD recruitment roughly matches the rate of breakdown.

U. Residence time of gravels to increase, as indicated by a general increase in the number of active bar

deposits, which regularly turn over and are replaced.

In summary, the desired habitat conditions to increase the growth and survival of juvenile chinook are largely

reflected and predicted in hypotheses K-P. In the long term we expect the woody structures to become a part of

the study creeks that is more dynamic, resilient, and regularly adjusts to switch between alternative stable

states, which maintain a diversity of habitat types, and support increased Chinook production.

4 IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING

In order to track the effectiveness of restoration actions at improving instream habitat complexity and flood plain

connectivity it will first be necessary to determine the extent of restoration actions. Implementation monitoring

has been suggested as the first step assessing restoration effectiveness (Bernhardt et al. 2005, Katz et al. 2007).

Implementation monitoring essentially determines whether the restoration was implemented as designed

(Kershner 1997). Implementation monitoring should occur during and/or shortly after restoration and can act as an

evaluation of the restoration design. Problems implementing the design can be addressed quickly and the design

refined if local conditions make the original design impractical. Implementation monitoring also acts as an

accounting of the specifics about a restoration project so that future evaluations of its effectiveness can be

determined.

AQEA will be performing as-built surveys for each of the projects they are working on. Other project sponsors have

not decided on the level of detail for implementation monitoring. We propose that the following implementation

monitoring be completed for all projects:

Project Type – clear description of the restoration action using a consistent terminology (* we recommend the

terms already defined by AQEA (2011a,b,c).

Project location – mapping and/or surveying of all levee setbacks or removals, GPS locations of all LWD structures

using the control network established for the monitoring plan (see below).

Timing – description of the time projects were started and completed.

Magnitude – detailed description of the project extent (i.e., amount of levee removal in linear feet and volume, or

number and size of LWD additions)

Replicates – how treatment areas were restored


Project details – were the structures secured on site and if so how; was riparian vegetation from the levee added

to mainstem or side-channel to enhance habitat complexity; were structures labeled, if so, what markings were

used and where were they placed

Photo documentation – all restoration sites should be photographer pre and immediately post restoration to act as

a permanent record of site conditions. Standard photo points should be collected (i.e., photo upstream,

downstream, river left and river right) at each restoration structure or site.

5 EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING

5.1 EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING APPROACH

We propose to use a variety of monitoring protocols and comparisons to determine the effectiveness of the

Tucannon River restoration. Ideally, we will integrate the multiple protocols and data sources available across the

watershed where possible to maximize our ability to detect changes in the availability and quality of freshwater

habitat. To do this we will coordinate data collection between the various groups working within the Tucannon

watershed and promote the collection of standardized attributes and calculation of metrics. The major data

sources that we are aware of include the Columbia River Habitat Monitoring Program (CHaMP 2012), CTUIR

habitat monitoring using ODFW’s habitat monitoring protocol (Moore et al. 2008), WDFW assessments of

restoration structures (protocol to be defined), LiDAR and aerial photography collected in 2010 (WSI 2010), and

the original Tucannon geomorphic assessment (ADEQ 2011a).

5.2 EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROTOCOLS AND DATA SOURCES

In this section we briefly describe the monitoring protocols and data sources available, the monitoring

infrastructure, and how the data will be collected.

5.2.1 COLUMBIA HABITAT MONITORING PROTOCOL (CHAMP)

The CHaMP survey design falls into two major groups: collection of topographic data (X, Y, Z points) and collection

of non-topographic habitat attributes (e.g., LWD, sediment, fish cover, etc.). A crew of three people collect CHaMP

data. Two crew members use a total station to collect topography of the stream bed and banks while a third crew

member collects instream habitat data. The topographic data is used to generate relatively high resolution (~ 5 cm)

digital elevation models (DEM) of the site. These DEMs can then be compared from year to year and changes in

elevation can be calculated in GIS using custom software. Together with the instream habitat data these data will

be used to determine the effectiveness of restoration actions designed to increase instream habitat complexity

(e.g., LWD installation) and to a lesser extent methods to reconnect the stream to the floodplain (e.g., levee

setbacks and side-channel reconnections/enhancement). See champmonitoring.org and CHaMP (2012) for details

on the protocol.

5.2.1.1 CHAMP SURVEY DESIGN AND ALLOCATIONS OF SITES

The Columbia River Habitat Monitoring Program (CHaMP) is designed as a Columbia River basin-wide habitat status and trends monitoring program for assessing basin-wide habitat conditions (CHaMP 2012). The Tucannon River was selected as a CHaMP watershed in 2011. The default CHaMP target frame (domain of inference) is represented by the population of all stream reaches that meet the following criteria:


1. Wadeable streams (Strahler order > 1 and < 5) 3. Perennial (as defined by NHDPlus hydrography) 4. Downstream of permanent natural barriers < 12 % 5. Downstream of permanent human-made barriers 6. Accessible to adult and juvenile TRT populations as represented by the NHDPlus hydrography

To maximize our ability to determine the effectiveness of restoration actions, we restricted the domain of

inference in the Tucannon River to include only the spring Chinook salmon domain as defined by the RTT and

subbasin plan (SRSRB 2011). This restricted domain of inference was established because the focus of restoration

efforts in the Tucannon River are targeted at spring Chinook (ADEQ 2011a) and the SRSRB is required to

demonstrate the effectiveness of habitat restoration within the domain as part of the BiOP.

The spatial design of CHaMP typically uses a randomized, spatially balanced selection of sites within each target

population domain using the generalized random tessellation stratified site selection (GRTS; Stevens and Olsen

2004). The flexibility of GRTS allows stratification and replacement of sites that are deemed non-target, or cannot

be sampled for reasons such as access denial or safety. Sample sites for CHaMP are allocated using a stratified

sampling approach to make sure distinct geomorphic valley types and land ownership receive a balanced

allocation of sample sites. Stratification of CHaMP watersheds are typically based on a geomorphic valley

classification system developed by Beechie and Imaki (In Press). In the Tucannon River we used restoration (i.e.,

treatment) and non-restoration (i.e., control) areas as a stratum along with geomorphic valley types and land

ownership to allocate sites. Using these stratum ensured that CHaMP sites were allocated in designated treatment

and control areas and spatially distributed throughout the domain of inference (Figure 4). This approach will allow

for effectiveness monitoring of the restoration actions. For further information on the allocation of CHaMP sites

refer to Larsen et al. (2011).

A total of 25 sites are sampled each year in a CHaMP watershed. There are two basic types of sites used in a

CHaMP watershed: annual and rotating panel sites. A total of 15 annual sites are sampled each year. Annual sites

are designed to detect temporal changes at a site because they are revisited each year (Roper et al. 2003). To

complement annual sites, a group of rotating panel sites are also sampled each year. Rotating sites are divided into

panel years 1 through 3. Each year 10 rotating panel sites are sampled for a total of 30 rotating panel sites within 3

years. The resulting data contains sites that are to detect temporal patterns (annual sites) and sites that are to

detect spatial patterns (rotating sites). In a typical watershed, a full panel cycle of 3 years would result in 45 unique

sites being visited, and as the cycle is repeated, temporal patterns could be evaluated over all 45 sites.

In addition to the 45 sites in a regular CHaMP watershed, we added an additional four sites to increase the number

of sites that represent treatment sites where restoration actions will be implemented. These sites are incorporated

into the overall CHaMP design and will be used for status and trend as well as effectiveness monitoring.


Figure 4. Location and monitoring design designation of CHaMP sites within the spring Chinook salmon domain

of the Tucannon River. Treatment sites refer to sites that will be within restoration areas and control sites refer

to sites that are not in restoration areas. Undetermined sites may be treatment or control sites and tributary

sites are sites within tributaries and are not part of the mainstem restoration actions.

5.2.1.2 CHAMP SITES: TREATMENT AND CONTROL PAIRS

A total of 49 CHaMP sites will be sampled (Figure 4). We have designated 14 pairs of control and treatment sites

based on the proposed restoration and project areas (Appendix C). Pair 1 and 2 uses the same control site,

whereas all other pairs have unique control sites. In general, treatment and control pairs are within the same reach

or gradient class. The majority of CHaMP sites are on private land (59.2%) and within gradient class 2 and 3. We

will work further with the TCC to determine how to group restoration actions to determine effectiveness within

different strata (i.e., gradient class and ownership) and also by restoration type and intensity (i.e., density of LWD

additions, amount of levee setback per length of reach, etc.).

A before-after, control-treatment design (BACI) will be used to assess changes in stream habitat and channel form

using the 14 control and treatment pairs. Data will be collected for one or more years pre-restoration at control

and treatment sites. Sites will be revisited post-restoration and changes in key habitat metrics will be compared.

We will have to make some adjustments to the timing of CHaMP site surveys because of the rotation panel design

to ensure that control and treatment pairs are sampled in the same year.


5.2.2 LIDAR AND AERIAL PHOTOGRPAHY

Light detection and ranging (LiDAR) techniques are becoming a common method for rapidly collecting sub-meter

accuracy topographic data over large scales such as watersheds (Bowen and Waltermire 2002). The accuracy of

these data can be as low as 15-20 cm in the vertical axis depending on topographic relief and vegetation density.

Watershed Sciences Inc. collected LiDAR and aerial imagery in 2010 along the mainstem of Tucannon River and the

lower portion of Cummings Creek (WSI 2010). AQEA (2011a) has already used these data to identify disconnected

sections of the floodplain that can be targeted for restoration. We propose to further use the LiDAR data

determine changes in channel form, floodplain connection, and riparian conditions post restoration (see Analyses

section below). Unlike CHaMP sites, the LiDAR and aerial photography data encompass the entire floodplain of the

Tucannon River and therefore can be used to determine changes outside the existing channel boundary. Another

flight to collect LiDAR data post-restoration is planned for 2015. The LiDAR data will be used in a before after (BA)

design to compare the pre-restoration bare earth elevation model with post restoration elevation models and

assess the effectiveness of floodplain reconnection actions. Both LiDAR and aerial photography will be used to

assess the extent of riparian vegetation recovery over the next few years in a similar manner to the methods used

in the original geomorphic assessment (AQEA 2011a).

5.2.3 ANCILLARY DATA

There may be other data sets available to test restoration the effectiveness of restoration in the Tucannon River.

Both CTUIR and WDFW are collecting habitat data at the site scale from specific project areas they are sponsoring.

We will work with these groups to assess whether the data can be used along with CHaMP data to assess the

restoration.

5.3 EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSES

There are a wide variety of data analyses that could be performed using the CHaMP, LiDAR, and aerial

photography data to determine the effectiveness of the proposed restoration actions. We were tasked with

determining changes in the seven limiting factors outlined by the expert panel (Table 1). A metric for each limiting

factor was also chosen to represent changes in the limiting factor and these metrics will be compared to the

restoration targets to ultimately determine if the restoration actions were successful (Table 4). Below we describe

the basic steps for calculating each metric and we propose several other metrics that may be useful in determining

the effectiveness of the restoration actions. We propose to expand this set of metrics and analyses in the future, to

provide a variety of metrics that help understand the changes caused by the restoration actions and how they lead

to direct improvements in fish habitat.

Table 4. Summary of the limiting factors, effectiveness metrics, data sources, and methods proposed for

determining the effectiveness of the Tucannon River restoration actions.

Limiting Factor/ Ecological Concern

Metric Data Source Method and Assessment

Floodplain condition

% Confinement LiDAR, aerial photography

AQEQ (2011a) has determined the current % confinement within each reach as defined by floodplain habitat that is disconnected from the active channel by some type of human infrastructure. AQEA (2011a) has


also calculated the expected area of floodplain connection due to each restoration action. To determine if the restoration action achieved the predicted amount of floodplain connection we can use LiDAR data collected after the restoration to estimate the new floodplain elevation relative the bankfull height of the stream.

Using pre and post restoration LiDAR and aerial photography data acquisition we will use ArcGIS and relevant extensions, including Geomorphic Change Detection (http://gcd.joewheaton.org/) and River Bathymetry Toolkit (http://essa.com/tools/rbt/) to characterize the existing condition and conduct a change detection analyses. We will support these analyses with site level data from the CHaMP topographic surveys. If the topographic survey methods are repeated for the same reaches at later dates in time, digital elevation models derived from each survey can be produced and differenced to produce DEMs of difference (DoD). DoDs can be used to estimate the net volumetric change in a reach through time. From a geomorphic perspective, these represent the change in storage terms (due to erosion and deposition) of a sediment budget. Methods are described in Wheaton et al. (2010) for accounting for uncertainties in the individual DEMs, such that confidence can be developed in distinguishing changes due to geomorphic processes from changes due to noise. Separate methods will be developed to quantify side-channel development.

We also propose that field surveys specifically measure floodplain inundation during high flows to document a floodplain inundation index (inundation area/channel length) in treatment and control areas (Steiger et al. 1998).

Instream structural complexity

LWD, W/D, Habitat Units

CHaMP Instream structural complexity will primarily be assessed using: the number of pieces of LWD/100 m, Width to Depth ratio (W/D), and the number of habitat units. These metrics will all be available from the CHaMP surveys.

We also propose to conduct rapid habitat surveys outside the CHaMP surveys to encompass the entire restoration area. These rapid surveys will focus on measuring the key instream structural complexity metrics and will cover a larger scale than the CHaMP surveys (kms vs. 100s of m).

We also propose to measure other instream habitat characteristics such as undercut banks, fish cover, and gravel bars that are all potential indicators of greater structural complexity and are currently part of the CHaMP and rapid habitat protocols.

Riparian Condition

% Cover, density, age, species composition

LiDAR, aerial photography, CHaMP

AQEA (2011a) has already calculated the riparian cover by height class throughout the study area using LiDAR analyses. The same methods can be performed when LiDAR is collected in 2015 to determine changes in canopy heights and density.

CHaMP also provide data on the amount of solar radiation entering the stream using a Solmetric Suneye and estimates of riparian cover by forb, shrub, and tree layers including species composition. This information can be used to validate LiDAR estimates.

We also propose tree ages be calculated within the riparian area using a tree core to provide more information on riparian ages and composition.

Temperature 7 day average CHaMP and Temperatures during key periods of low flow will be compared to state


high temperature

other logger data

water quality standards as described in Appendix B)

Sediment Fine Sediment and Embeddedness

CHaMP CHaMP collects 200 pebbles to calculate D16, D50, and D84; also calculates pool tail fines (percent < 2mm and <6 mm), and calculates embeddedness calculation

5.4 CONTROL NETWORK

There are multiple agencies and partners conducting restoration and monitoring activities in the Tucannon River

basin. With many of these activities, on the ground data collection used for planning, implementation, and

monitoring includes some type of georeferenced topographic survey (LiDAR, channel cross-sections, CHaMP

surveys). Each of these surveys is currently conducted using a different control network and coordinate system

which leads to the inability to share and utilize existing and future data among groups.

There are two limitations to the current CHaMP topographic survey methodologies. The first is that the

coordinates used to georeference the survey are collected using handheld GPS devices. These devices are

imprecise (± 7m) which can lead to both horizontal and vertical errors and thus the inability to match up the

topographic surveys with other existing data (LiDAR). The second is that there is limited field time to survey all

potential areas outside of the active river channel where geomorphic change may occur in the future. Due to some

of the restoration actions occurring in the basin (levy removal, LWD placement), significant geomorphic changes

and lateral migration can be expected to occur which may be outside of the CHaMP topographic survey boundary.

We extended the existing control network and coordinate system used to collect the LiDAR data in 2010 by

establish additional control points throughout the basin. This will 1) allow the CHaMP topographic survey Digital

Elevation Models (DEMs) to be georeferenced and “stitched” in to the LiDAR DEMs in order to detect geomorphic

change outside of the CHaMP topographic survey boundaries and 2) provide control points and a consistent

coordinate system that all entities can access for future surveying.

The control network is a set of permanent survey monuments established by a professional survey crew. The

surveyor established this control network by occupying the same control points used by Watershed Sciences in

their 2010 LiDAR flight to ensure that all future surveys are consistent with that baseline LiDAR survey. Additional

control points will need to be established strategically throughout the basin to fill in gaps between the pre-existing

control points and all existing CHaMP benchmarks at mainstem sites. Where possible control points were

established with an error tolerance of ± 5 cm (VERTICAL and HORIZONTAL??).

5.5 GEODATABASE FOR THE TUCANNON RESTORATION PROJECT

As monitoring data is collected a geodatabase will be developed to store and manage the data. The geodatabase

will be made available to interested parties to aid in data sharing.

5.6 MONITORING TIMETABLE

The current condition of the Chinook domain in the Tucannon River (i.e., mainstem and lower portions of the main

tributaries) can be assessed on an ongoing basis with the existing LiDAR/aerial photography, past assessments, and

ongoing CHaMP monitoring. However, only two years of a three rotating panel CHaMP design has been completed,

so more information on the current condition will be available in late 2013. Below is a DRAFT timeline for the


proposed work but SRSRB will need to help refine this timeline based on their requirements and the

implementation of restoration treatments.

Work Element Start Date End Date

1. Review existing data and assessments Aug 1, 2012 Jan 31, 2013

2. Develop Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Plan Aug 1, 2012 Jan 31, 2013

3. Conduct CHaMP Surveys Aug 1, 2011 Sept 30, 2018

4. Refine Effectiveness Monitoring Plan; Implement Feedback Loops of an Adaptive Management Plan

April 1, 2013 Sept 30, 2013

5. Provide Technical Assistance Aug 1, 2012 Ongoing

6. Current Condition and Post-treatment Change Detection Aug 1, 2012 Ongoing

7. Collect new LiDAR and aerial photography Feb 1, 2015 Sept 30, 2015

8. Floodplain change detection Apr 1, 2015 Dec 31, 2015

9. Determine Effectiveness of Restoration Actions 2012-2015 Sept 30, 2015 Jan 31, 2016


PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING

Restoration actions began in 2011 the same time as CHaMP was implemented in the Tucannon River. We have not

performed any detailed analyses of the monitoring data to date but have summarized some key habitat metrics at

each of the CHaMP sites. We also have performed a preliminary geomorphic change detection between one site

from 2011 to 2012 to illustrate how this analysis will be used in the future and present the results in the following

sections.

5.7 CHAMP HABITAT DATA

All CHaMP habitat data and topographic surveys are available online at champmonitoring.org. To date we have

collected two years of CHaMP data from 2011-2012. A total of 15 annual sites were sampled in 2011 and 18 sites

in 2012 (3 extra sites added 2012). Ten panel year 1 sites were sampled in 2011 and ten panel year two sites were

sampled in 2012. In 2013, 18 annual and 10 panel year three sites will be sampled completing the full set of

CHaMP monitoring sites. A summary of CHaMP data is provided in Appendix D and more analyses will be provided

in future monitoring reports.

Figure 5 shows the number of habitat units at CHaMP sites as an example of a key habitat metric that will be used

to determine the effectiveness of restoration actions. The average number of habitat metrics along the mainstem

Tucannon River was 3.9/100 m compared to 9.5/100 m in the tributaries (Figure 5A). The higher number of habitat

units in tributaries is expected because habitat units are on average smaller relative to the bankfull width of a

stream. Figure 5B compares the number of habitat units at annual CHaMP sites from 2011 to 2012. Site 203211

had a levee setback after the CHaMP survey was completed in 2011 but has shown little change in the number of

habitat units. Field observations suggest that spring high flows in 2012 were not large enough to channel the pre-

treatment channel configuration. In contrast, site 481489 had a large increase in habitat units from 2011 to 2012

but no restoration was implemented at this site. This site is mostly unconfined and is a good example of how levee

removal or setbacks could increase habitat diversity at sites currently disconnected from the floodplain by levees

and other infrastructure (see geomorphic change detection below). Site 169855 had large amounts of LWD added

after being surveyed in 2012. We expect significant changes in the number of habitat units and LWD when the site

is resurveyed in 2013.


A)

B)

Figure 5. A) Average number of habitat units (pools, riffles, cascades, etc.)/100 m at all CHaMP sites going from

the mouth (Snake River) to the extent of the study area at RM 50.2. Tributaries are listed at the far right of the

graph. B) Number of habitat units/100 m at annual sites from 2011 to 2012. Sites listed in order from the mouth

upstream.

5.8 GEOMORPHIC CHANGE DETECTION

Site 481459 showed large changes in channel form from 2011 to 2012 (Figure 6). This site provides an example of

how geomorphic change will be detected using CHaMP and LiDAR derived DEMs. It also provides an example of

how sites can have dramatic changes without restoration actions being implemented and highlights the need for

control areas to separate the changes due to natural conditions from changes created by restoration actions. At

site 481459 (upstream of the Tucannon RV Park) significant erosion and deposition occurred and a new channel

formed and using the geomorphic change detection tool we were able to quantify these changes with 95%


confidence bounds (Figure 6). This same approach will be used in the future to look at changes over a larger scale

(Project Areas and Control Areas) using the LIDAR data from 2010 and 2015.

Figure 6. Example of geomorphic change detection data for CHaMP site 481459 near the Tucannon River RV

Park. The site had no restoration activities but had significant deposition, erosion, and change in channel

location and form from 2011-2012.


6 CONCLUSION

A draft monitoring plan is presented that outlines the basic approach to collecting and analyzing instream and

remote data to determine the effectiveness of stream restoration in the Tucannon River. At least 13 pairs of

CHaMP sites have been allocated in proposed restoration (treatment) and non-restoration (controls) areas to

assess instream habitat changes. LiDAR and aerial photography will be used to assess changes in the upper and

lower Tucannon River once repeat data collection is completed (sometime in 2015 or later depending on changes

in channel form). We recommend that the extensive restoration activities of planned for the Tucannon River (over

20 km of levee setback and/or removal and over 30 km of LWD treatments) be implemented within an adaptive

management framework that relies on specific monitoring inputs and iterative steps to learn from restoration

projects as they are implemented. The adaptive management framework has not been developed yet and requires

further input from the TCC. Further work required to complete this monitoring plan include a more complete

description of the envisioned conditions for each project area, hypotheses for the expected responses, and

definition of how unexpected outcomes will be managed.

7 REFERENCES

AQEA. 2011a. Tucannon River geomorphic assessment and habitat restoration study. Prepared for Columbia Conservation District, Dayton, WA. Prepared by Anchor QEA, LLC, Bellingham, WA. April 2011.

AQEA. 2011b. Conceptual Restoration Plan, Reaches 6 to 10 Tucannon River Phase II. Prepared for Columbia Conservation District. Dayton, WA. Prepared by Anchor QEA, LLC, Bellingham, WA. November 2011.

AQEA. 2011c. Memorandom: Design Restoration Feature Prioritization, Tucannon River Reach 2. Prepared for Columbia Conservation District. Dayton, WA. Prepared by Anchor QEA, LLC, Bellingham, WA. November 2011.

Beechie, T. and H. Imaki. In Press. Predicting Natural Channel Typology for River Restoration in the Columbia River Basin, North America.

Bernhardt, E. S., M. A. Palmer, J. D. Allan, G. Alexander, K. Barnas, S. Brooks, J. Carr, S. Clayton, C. Dahm, J. Follstad-Shah, D. Galat, S. Gloss, P. Goodwin, D. Hart, B. Hassett, R. Jenkinson, S. Katz, G. M. Kondolf, P. S. Lake, R. Lave, J. L. Meyer, T. K. O'Donnell, L. Pagano, B. Powell, and E. Sudduth. 2005. Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts. Science 308:636-637.

Bowen, Z. H. and R. G. Waltermire. 2002. Evaluation of Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) for measuring river corridor topography. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38:33-41.


CCD. 2004. Tucannon Subbasin Plan. Prepared by the Columbia Conservation District. Prepared for Northwest Power and Conservation Council. May 2004.

CHaMP. 2012. Scientific protocol for salmonid habitat surveys within the Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program. Prepared by the Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program and published by Terraqua, Inc., Wauconda, WA.

Gephart, L. and D. Nordheim. 2001. Draft Tucannon Subbasin Summary, Northwest Power Planning Council. http://www.cbfwa.org/files/province/plateau/subsum.htm.

Hecht, B., R. Enkelboll, C. Ivor, and P. Baldwin. 1982. Sediment transport, water quality, and changing bed conditions, Tucannon River, southeastern Washington. Report prepared for the USDA Soil Conservation Service, Spokane, WA, April 1982.

Holling, C. S. 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Wiley, Chichester, U.K.

Katz, S. L., K. Barnas, R. Hicks, J. Cowen, and R. Jenkinson. 2007. Freshwater habitat restoration actions in the Pacific Northwest: a decade's investment in habitat improvement. Restoration Ecology 15:494-505.

Kershner, J. 1997. Chapter 8: Monitoring and adaptive management, In Williams, J.E., Wood, C.A., and M.P.Dombeck (eds.) Watershed Restoration: Principles and Practices. American Fisheries Society, Bethesdam, Maryland.

Larsen, P., C. Volk, and S. Rentmeester. 2011. A Field Manual for Evaluating Sampling Sites used in the Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program 2011 Working Version 1.3.

Makaske, B. 2001. Anastomosing rivers: a review of their classification, origin and sedimentary products. Earth Science Reviews 53:149–196.

McIntosh, B., J. Sedell, J. Smith, R. Wissmar, S. Clarke, G. Reeves, and L. Brown. 1994. Management history of eastside ecosystems: changes in fish habitat over 50 years, 1935-1992. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-321. Portland, OR.

Montgomery, D. R. and J. M. Buffington. 1997. Channel-reach morphology in mountain drainage basins. Geological Society of America Bulletin 109:596-611.

Moore, K., K. Jones, and J. Dambacher. 2008. Methods for stream habitat surveys: Aquatic Inventories Project, Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, Corvallis, OR. Unpublished paper on file at: http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ODFW/freshwater/inventory/pdffiles/habmethod.pdf 67p. .

NOAA. 2008. Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis of the Federal Columbia River Power System and Mainstem Effects of the Upper Snake and other Tributary Actions.

Pess, G. R., S. A. Morley, J. L. Hall, and R. K. Timm. 2005. Monitoring floodplain restoration. Pages 127-166 In Roni, P. (Ed.) Methods for monitoring stream and watershed restoration. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

http://www.cbfwa.org/files/province/plateau/subsum.htm

http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ODFW/freshwater/inventory/pdffiles/habmethod.pdf


Roni, P., T. J. Beechie, R. E. Bilby, F. E. Leonetti, M. M. Pollock, and G. R. Press. 2002. A review of stream restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific Northwest watersheds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:1-20.

Roper, B. B., J. L. Kershner, and R. C. Henderson. 2003. The value of using permanent sites when evaluation stream attributes at the reach scale. Journal Freshwater Ecology 18:585-592.

Sear, D., J. M. Wheaton, and S. Darby. 2008. Uncertain restoration of gravl-bed rivers and the role of geomorphology. Pages 739-760 In H. Habersack, H. Piegay, and M. Rinaldi, editors. Gravel-Bed Rivers VI: From Process Understanding to River Restoration. Elseiver.

SRSRB. 2011. Snake River salmon recovery plan for SE Washington: 2011 version. Prepared by Snake River Salmon Recovery Board for the Washington Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office.

Steiger, J., M. James, and F. Gazelle. 1998. Channelization and consequences on floodplain system functioning on the Garonne River, southwest France. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 14:13–23.

Stevens, D. L. and A. R. Olsen. 2004. Spatially Balanced Sampling of Natural Resources. Journal of the American Statistical Association 99:262-278.

USFS. 2002. Tucannon ecosystem analysis, Umatilla National Forest. Prepared by U.S. Forest Service, Pomeroy Ranger District. August 2002.

USFS. 2008. Assessing soil and vegetation recovery following the 2006 School Fire, Umatilla National Forest: 2008 Progress Report. Prepared by the Forest

Service Rocky Mountain Research Station and University of Idaho researchers.

Walters, C. J. 1997. Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal ecosystems. Conservation Ecology [online] 1:1. Available from the Internet. URL: \url{http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss2/art1}.

Ward, J. V., K. Tockner, D. B. Arscott, and C. Claret. 2002. Riverine landscape diversity. Freshwater Biology 47:517-539.

Wheaton, J. M., J. Brasington, S. E. Darby, J. Merz, G. B. Pasternack, D. Sear, and D. Vericat. 2010. Linking geomorphic changes to salmonid habitat at a scale relevant to fish. River Research and Applications 26:469-486.

Williams, B. K., R. C. Szaro, and C. D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

WSI. 2010. LiDAR remote sensing data collection: Tucannon River, Tucannon Headwaters, and Cummins Creek, WA. Watershed Sciences, Portland, OR.

http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss2/art1%7d


APPENDIX A. EXAMPLE OF AN ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT APPROACH IN IMPLEMENTED IN

THE ASOTIN CREEK INTENSIVELY MONITORED WATERSHED.


APPENDIX B. EXPERT PANEL LIMITING FACTORS AND BOOKENDS FOR THE TUCANNON RIVER.

Assessment Unit Unit Code

(% of

population

area)

Upper Tucanon Tuc1 Ecological Concern

Ecological Concern - Sub

Category Metric

EDT (2004)

Level of

Certainty* 2018 2033

LF Weight as

proportion

Weighted

habitat

condition

Weighted

habitat factors

at AU Current 2018 2033

Upper Tucanon Tuc1 0.8

Floodplain confinement Peripheral and Transitional Habitats Floodplain Condition Confinement 68** 4 26 1 46 50 30.00 0.30 7.80 57% 4


Habitat diversity (LWD) Instream Structural Complexity LWD per BF width 51*** 3 14 2 30 32 20.00 0.20 2.80 47% 2


Habitat diversity (LWD) Instream Structural Complexity Habitat Units Not done NA 15 2 30 40 10.00 0.10 1.50 50% 10

Upper Tucanon Tuc1 0.8Habitat diversity (LWD) Bed and Channel Form WD ratio Not done NA 44 2 75 85 0 0.00 0.00 59% 10

Upper Tucanon Tuc1 0.8Riparian degradation Riparian Condition Riparian Condition 46 4 48 1 55 75 10.00 0.10 4.80 87% 20

Upper Tucanon Tuc1 0.8High water temperature Water Quality Temperature 34**** 2 34 1 45 60 10.00 0.10 3.40 76% 15

Upper Tucanon Tuc1 0.8High water turbidity Water Quality Turbidity 50 4 97 1 97 98 1.00 0.01 0.97 100% 1

Upper Tucanon Tuc1 0.8 High water turbidity Sediment Conditions Fine Sediment Not Done 4 85 1 90 95 2.00 0.02 1.70 94% 5

Upper Tucanon Tuc1 0.8High water turbidity Sediment Conditions Embeddedness Not Done 4 85 1 90 95 5.00 0.05 4.25 94% 5


Low stream flow Water Quantity Decreased Water Quantity 85***** 3 90 1 95 96 5.00 0.05 4.50 95% 1

Upper Tucanon Tuc1 0.8Barriers* Habitat Quantity Anthropogenic Barriers 65 4 90 2 95 95 5.00 0.05 4.50 95% 0

Upper Tucanon Tuc1 0.8 Screens* Injury and Mortality Mechanical Injury 96 1 96 2 97 97 2.00 0.02 1.92 99% 0

Upper Tucanon Tuc1Not done 25 5 70 90 NA

Channel Structure and Form

2009 Expert Panel

Limiting Factors

Straying/by-passing Tucannon River due to unknown but presumed reservoir affects or water

quality/quantity in the Tucannon

Progress

towards 2018

bookend

Improvement

between 2018

and 2033a

Weighted Habitat Quality at AUNew Crosswalked LFs

Starting

Point

based on

EDT 2004

38.14 30.51 41.21 46.42

current condition

(Dec 2011) as % of

goalq2011 Level of

Certainty*

High Bookends

LF Weight

based on 2011

conditions

Assessment Unit Unit Code

Ecological Concern

Ecological Concern - Sub

Category Metric

EDT (2004)

Level of

Certainty* 2018 2033

LF Weight as

proportion

Weighted

habitat

condition

Weighted

habitat factors

at AU Current 2018 2033

Lower Tucannon Tuc 2 0.2

Floodplain confinement Peripheral and Transitional Habitats Floodplain Condition Confinement 25 1 31 32 30 0.30 7.50 38.37 7.67 10.27 10.77 81% 1

Lower Tucannon Tuc 2 0.2 Habitat diversity (LWD) Channel Structure and Form Instream Structural Complexity LWD per BF width 18 45 45 20 0.20 3.60 40% 0


Habitat diversity (LWD) Instream Structural Complexity Habitat Units 25 60 65 10 0.10 2.50 42% 5

Lower Tucannon Tuc 2 0.2Habitat diversity (LWD) Bed and Channel Form WD ratio 54 0 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0


Riparian degradation Riparian Condition Riparian Condition % coverage by trees >5' tall 32 1 45 55 10 0.10 3.20 71% 10

Lower Tucannon Tuc 2 0.2High water temperature Water Quality Temperature 1 5 0.05 0.00 #DIV/0! 0

Lower Tucannon Tuc 2 0.2 High water turbidity Water Quality Turbidity 80 85 90 1 0.01 0.80 94% 5

Lower Tucannon Tuc 2 0.2High water turbidity Sediment Conditions Fine Sediment 80 1 85 90 3 0.03 2.40 94% 5

Lower Tucannon Tuc 2 0.2 High water turbidity Sediment Conditions Embeddedness 80 1 85 90 9 0.09 7.20 94% 5

Lower Tucannon Tuc 2 0.2Low stream flow Water Quantity Decreased Water Quantity 90 1 95 96 5 0.05 4.50 95% 1

Lower Tucannon Tuc 2 0.2 Barriers* Habitat Quantity Anthropogenic Barriers 95 2 96 96 5 0.05 4.75 99% 0

Lower Tucannon Tuc 2 0.2 Screens* Injury and Mortality Mechanical Injury 96 2 97 97 2 0.02 1.92 99% 0

Lower Tucannon Tuc 2Straying/by-passing Tucannon River due to unknown but presumed reservoir affects or water quality/quantity in the Tucannon 25 5 70 90 NA 20

Progress

towards 2018

bookend

Improvement

between 2018

and 2033a

2009 Expert Panel

Limiting Factors

New Crosswalked LFs Starting

Point

based on

EDT 2004

AU Weight (%

of population

area)

current condition

(Dec 2011) as % of

goalq2011 Level of

Certainty*

High Bookends

LF Weight

based on 2011

conditions

Weighted Habitat Quality at AU


APPENDIX C. DRAFT CHAMP SAMPLE DESIGN WITH PAIRS OF TREATMENT AND CONTROL SITES.

CHaMP SiteID Sample Type Site Type

Sample Pair Project Location

Project Area Reach Gradient

Gradient Class Ownership

CBW05583-386091 Annual Treatment 1 Tucannon Ranch 1-6 2 0.44 1 Private

CBW05583-481459 Annual Control 1/2 Tucannon Ranch 1-6 4 0.57 1 Private

CBW05583-222251 PY1 Treatment 2 Tucannon Ranch 1-6 2 0.44 1 Private

CBW05583-051659 PY2 Control 3 Marengo (King Gr) 28 6 0.89 2 Private

CBW05583-141771 PY2 Treatment 3 Marengo (Hovrud) 26 6 0.89 2 Private

CBW05583-203211 Annual Treatment 4 Marengo (Hovrud) 26 6 0.89 2 Private

CBW05583-339839 Annual Control 4 Marengo 22 7 0.98 2 Private

CBW05583-072139 PY1 Treatment 5 Marengo (Hovrud) 26 6 0.89 2 Private

CBW05583-208767 PY1 Control 5 Marengo 22 7 0.98 2 Private

CBW05583-170443 Extra Treatment 6 Marengo (Howard) 24 7 0.98 2 Private

CBW05583-432587 Annual Control 6 Marengo (Bridge) 25 6 0.89 2 Private

CBW05583-248063 Annual Treatment 7 WDFW HQ 15 8 1.1 3 Private

CBW05583-522111 PY2 Control 7 WDFW HQ 16 8 1.1 3 Private

CBW05583-010495 Extra Treatment 8 Cummings Bridge 14 8 1.1 3 Public

CBW05583-276351 Extra Control 8 Cummings Bridge 14 8 1.1 3 Public

CBW05583-427903 Annual Treatment 9 Deer Lake 12 9 1.3 3 Public

CBW05583-460671 Annual Control 9 Deer Lake 13 8 1.1 3 Public

CBW05583-018303 PY2 Treatment 10 Deer Lake 11 9 1.3 3 Public

CBW05583-100223 PY2 Control 10 Deer Lake 13 8 1.1 3 Public

CBW05583-038783 PY1 Control 11 Waterman 11 9 1.3 3 Public

CBW05583-169855 Annual Treatment 11 Waterman 10 9 1.3 3 Public

CBW05583-214911 PY2 Control 12 L.Tuc/Wooten 4 10 1.4 3 Public

CBW05583-519039 Extra Treatment 12 L.Tuc/Wooten 3 10 1.4 3 Public

CBW05583-353323 PY3 Treatment 13 Tucannon Ranch NA 2 0.44 1 Private

CBW05583-415923 PY3 Control 13 Tucannon Ranch NA 4 0.57 1 Private

CBW05583-274303 PY3 Control 14 Marengo 21 7 0.98 2 Private

CBW05583-465355 PY3 Treatment 14 Marengo 26 6 0.89 2 Private

CBW05583-007039 Annual Undetermined - - 3 10 1.4 3 Public


CHaMP SiteID Sample Type Site Type

Sample Pair Project Location

Project Area Reach Gradient

Gradient Class Ownership

CBW05583-047999 PY3 Tributary - - NA - NA NA Public

CBW05583-057139 PY1 Undetermined - - NA 5 0.74 2 Private

CBW05583-079743 PY3 Undetermined - McGovern Rd 17/18 8 1.1 3 Private

CBW05583-109611 Annual Tributary - - NA - NA NA Private

CBW05583-168191 PY1 Undetermined - - NA 10 1.4 3 Public

CBW05583-178047 PY1 Undetermined - - 20 7 0.98 2 Private

CBW05583-182527 Annual Tributary - - NA - NA NA Public


CBW05583-212787 Annual Undetermined - - NA 5 0.74 2 Private



CBW05583-310143 Annual Tributary - - NA - NA NA Public

CBW05583-327859 Annual Undetermined - - NA 5 0.74 2 Private


CBW05583-345983 PY2 Undetermined - - 7 10 1.4 3 Public

CBW05583-383231 PY3 Tributary - - NA - NA NA Private







APPENDIX D. A) SUMMARY OF CHAMP METRICS CALCULATED FROM DATA COLLECTED OLLECTED IN 2011 AND 2012 IN THE

TUCANNON RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, AND B) DEFINITIONS OF THE SUMMARY METRICS.

A)


Site ID Stream Sample Year Site Type UTM Zone Easting Northing RM

Project

Area Reach

#ChUnits/

100m Sinuosity

Wet/

BFArea W/D BF %Fines %Embed D16 D50 D84

%Fines

<2mm

%Fines

<6mm

KeyLWD/

BFW

LWD/

100m

CBW05583-222251 Tucannon PY1 2011 Treatment 11 412332 5153216 4 40? 2 5.2 1.2 2.0 56.0 7.6 19.2 3 28 56 21.5 25.7 1.2 55.1

CBW05583-386091 Tucannon Annual 2011 Treatment 11 412948 5152652 4 40? 2 2.1 1.1 1.2 34.3 10.5 15.5 3 32 67 2.4 6.0 0.1 18.3

CBW05583-386091 Tucannon Annual 2012 Treatment 11 412948 5152652 4 40? 2 3.3 5 28 63 0.3 1.3 0.0

CBW05583-481459 Tucannon Annual 2011 Control 11 419203 5150650 9 36 4 3.4 1.4 2.3 47.5 16.7 33.1 1 18 45 29.3 31.2 3.3 96.1

CBW05583-481459 Tucannon Annual 2012 Control 11 419203 5150650 9 36 4 7.8 14 27 49 1.2 3.9 3.5

CBW05583-057139 Tucannon PY1 2011 - 11 425097 5149566 14 33 5 4.3 1.1 1.2 43.3 2.4 15.6 19 46 86 0.3 0.6 0.3 14.4

CBW05583-212787 Tucannon Annual 2011 - 11 427210 5147832 16 32 5 5.1 1.2 1.4 33.2 0.5 9.7 21 41 66 1.3 4.5 0.2 17.6

CBW05583-212787 Tucannon Annual 2012 - 11 427210 5147832 16 32 5 5.5 14 32 59 0.9 1.0 0.2

CBW05583-196787 Tucannon PY2 2012 - 11 431599 5145932 19 29 5 3.3 24 45 84 2.1 3.2 0.6


CBW05583-327859 Tucannon Annual 2012 - 11 432649 5145739 20 29 5 2.6 1.2 1.1 15 50 104 0.2 1.5 0.0

CBW05583-051659 Tucannon PY2 2012 Control 11 434207 5145478 21 28 6 7.1 19 49 87 2.1 3.5 0.3

CBW05583-141771 Tucannon PY2 2012 Treatment 11 439145 5144165 25 26 6 2.8 0.1

CBW05583-203211 Tucannon Annual 2011 Treatment 11 440258 5143729 25 26 6 4.7 1.0 1.3 54.8 1.4 6.4 23 52 90 1.3 2.9 0.5 16.7

CBW05583-203211 Tucannon Annual 2012 Treatment 11 440258 5143729 25 26 6 4.1 0.6

CBW05583-072139 Tucannon PY1 2011 Treatment 11 442012 5143432 27 26 6 2.3 1.2 1.3 53.9 3.8 4.2 11 45 106 0.0 1.0 0.2 9.3


CBW05583-432587 Tucannon Annual 2012 Control 11 442495 5143147 27 25 6 2.3 1.1 0.0 34 65 101 1.0 3.4 0.0

CBW05583-170443 Tucannon Annual* 2012 Treatment 11 443441 5142637 28 24 7 4.6 0.2

CBW05583-208767 Tucannon PY1 2011 Control 11 443493 5140827 30 22 7 1.8 1.1 1.2 57.0 9.0 23.1 4 45 112 0.7 1.3 0.0 19.8



CBW05583-178047 Tucannon PY1 2011 Protection 11 444332 5138637 32 20 7 6.4 1.1 1.4 39.0 16.2 17.6 13 62 150 16.0 18.8 0.7 75.4



CBW05583-248063 Tucannon Annual 2012 Treatment 11 447517 5132856 37 15 8 3.1 1.1 1.5 23 54 114 0.8 0.9 0.4 23.2

CBW05583-010495 Tucannon Annual* 2012 Treatment 11 448324 5130623 38 14 8 5.4 1.3 1.7 16.5 27 74 129 1.9 3.2 0.5 10.4

CBW05583-276351 Tucannon Annual* 2012 Control 11 447785 5131479 38 14 8 6.3 1.4 1.4 16.1 25 50 96 4.0 5.4 1.0 37.0

CBW05583-460671 Tucannon Annual 2011 Control 11 448940 5129588 39 13 8 2.5 1.1 1.1 56.5 8.6 21.9 5 40 150 0.0 6.3




CBW05583-427903 Tucannon Annual 2012 Treatment 11 449524 5128432 40 12 9 5.7 1.1 1.3 24 58 125 3.4 6.3 0.2 12.0

CBW05583-018303 Tucannon PY2 2012 Treatment 11 449828 5127181 41 11 9 3.4 39 90 193 1.3 3.6 1.3

CBW05583-038783 Tucannon PY1 2011 Control 11 449546 5126159 42 11 9 6.1 1.4 1.4 36.9 1.0 9.8 28 72 145 0.6 1.3 0.2 23.0


CBW05583-169855 Tucannon Annual 2012 Treatment 11 449360 5124386 43 10 9 3.6 32 78 135 0.6 2.7 1.0

CBW05583-345983 Tucannon PY2 2012 - 11 447705 5121818 45 7 10 3.2 1.0 1.1 17.1 12 75 234 1.5 3.2 1.1 24.3


CBW05583-519039 Tucannon Annual* 2012 Treatment 11 444999 5119959 48 3 10 5.4 17 52 125 3.0 4.7 0.4


CBW05583-007039 Tucannon Annual 2012 - 11 444245 5119570 48 3 10 3.1 49 82 149 0.3 1.4 0.1

CBW05583-413951 Tucannon PY1 2011 - 11 444816 5118593 49 1 10 2.7 1.1 1.1 33.4 0.5 8.5 53 95 181 0.0 2.7 0.2 5.0

CBW05583-109611 Pataha Annual 2011 - 11 424603 5151337 NA NA NA 6.5 1.1 1.5 10.9 9.5 14.0 3 38 76 34.2 37.6 0.0 5.0

CBW05583-109611 Pataha Annual 2012 - 11 424603 5151337 NA NA NA 6.5 1.1 1.4 0.0

CBW05583-182527 Cummings Annual 2011 - 11 449534 5131139 NA NA NA 9.8 1.4 1.4 26.9 3.8 16.3 1 15 60 21.3 30.3 0.3 134.4

CBW05583-182527 Cummings Annual 2012 - 11 449534 5131139 NA NA NA 17.9 1.4 1.9 3 28 66 27.9 30.7 0.2

CBW05583-256895 L. Tucannon PY1 2011 - 11 443905 5119863 NA NA NA 8.6 1.1 1.3 28.0 11.4 21.8 2 51 150 6.0 9.7 0.0 4.7

CBW05583-310143 Panjab Annual 2011 - 11 444980 5116073 NA NA NA 8.6 1.1 1.6 24.7 1.9 15.3 4 48 132 3.3 6.7 0.0 33.8

CBW05583-310143 Panjab Annual 2012 - 11 444980 5116073 NA NA NA 6.3 13 63 121 2.4 7.0 0.2

CBW05583-329599 Cummings PY2 2012 - 11 450647 5128273 NA NA NA 11.7 11 39 118 6.6 16.1 0.4

CBW05583-473983 Panjab PY2 2012 - 11 444551 5114480 NA NA NA 9.4 5 53 127 5.5 10.5 0.5


B)

Metric/Name Description

Site ID Unique Site Identifier

Stream Stream Name

Sample GRTS Rotation; Annual: Sites sampled every year, Annual SRSRB: Contract sites sampled in 2012, PY1: Sites sampled in 2011, PY2: Sites sampled in 2012

Year Year sampled

Site Type Treatment/Control Designations

UTM Zone UTM Zone

Easting Easting

Northing Northing

River Mile Anchor River Mile

Project Area Anchor Project Area Number

Reach Anchor Reach Number

#ChUnits/100m Number of channel units per 100 meters: Used as an indicator of channel complexity

Sinuosity Sinuosity: Used as an indicator of channel bedform

Wet/BFArea Wetted area divided by bankfull area: Can potentially be used as an indicator of confinement/floodplain connectivity

W/D BF Bankfull width to depth ratio: Used as indicator of bedform

%Fines Percent fine sediment <1mm: Used as fine sediment indicator

% Embed Average embedded percent of cobble substrate: Used as embeddedness indicator


D16 Diameter of the 16th percentile pebble



%Fines<2mm Percent of pool tail fines measurements less than 2mm

%Fines<6mm Percent of pool tail fines measurements less than 6mm

KeyLWD/BFW Number of key large wood pieces (>30cm diameter, 6m length) per bankfull width: Used as indicator of large wood

LWD/100m Number of large wood pieces (>10cm diameter, 1m length) per 100 meters

a habitat monitoring plan to test the effectiveness of ...€¦ · limiting factor and this...

Documents