Figures Tucannon River Programmatic Summary

Report Project #: 2010-077-00

Annual Summary Report (Reporting Period January 2017 to December 2017)

Contract: # 75494

Figures 1 – 30

PA-1 2017 High Flow

Figure 1: The Tucannon River Watershed located in southeast Washington, is the downstream most tributary of the Snake River. The Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan (2011) priority areas for Snake River ESU spring Chinook are highlighted in green (major spawning area) and yellow (minor

spawning area) polygons, including the Tucannon, Asotin and Wenaha River basins. The Asotin spring Chinook population is believe to be functionally extirpated. The two red arrows indicate the approximate upstream/downstream boundaries for the Tucannon Programmatic spawning

and rearing habitat restoration priority reach 2011-2017. In 2018, the programmatic initiated consideration of priority actions in reach 3-5 indicated by the dashed red oval.

Figure 2: Tucannon conceptual stream channel model developed for forested wandering gravel bed sections. This model illustrates an idealized cross section of the Tucannon River floodplain and riparian forests over time since pre-settlement. Section A through B illustrate changes which had occurred through the period of degradation leading to wide shallow river channels, to a modified condition with single narrow

channel however confined (section C) and recovering riparian habitat. Section D-F illustrate desired recovery trajectories for three different land types that all benefit salmon and steelhead. Section D, illustrates working lands where occasional flooding is acceptable. Section E, illustrates working lands with infrastructure protection needs and setback levee, and Section F a full wild land restoration. All three approaches

benefit salmon and using this approach has enabled us to extend restoration into private production lands.

Figure 3: The upper left illustrates the Tucannon Rivers forested wandering gravel bed channel type and the evolution it has undergone through from historic through present times to desired restored state. The maintenance of the forested wandering gravel bed is dependent on the presents of floodplain forests and the large wood debris. In the absence of trees to stabilize lateral channel migration the channel will have a

tendency to become wide and shallow (section B). In the Tucannon the progression was the removal of trees, loss of soils during floods and then modification of the channel (levees and berms) pushing it to the valley walls trapping it there with levee, riprap and channel incision. The illustrations on the right represent an example relative elevation model for floodplain and channel patterns corresponding to the sections to

the left. The light blue lines illustrate the wet channel extent through the channel evolution, trending from high channel length to less as degradation progress. Our focus as a program is to work in these areas to recover channel extant where possible.

Figure 4: Floodplain connectivity through structure removal in the Tucannon occurs in two primary forms. One involves the removal of river levees placed on the riverbank for the purpose of containing flood flows and channel migration. The relative elevation model

(left) illustrates the low-lying floodplain (dark blue-purple indicating lowest ground) cut off from the river by levee indicated by red arrows. Floodplain in the Tucannon is also disconnected by gravel berms placed in flow paths to prevent flooding into them

(example indicated by the white arc). Following levee removal it is often necessary to remove these berms or cut pilot channels to initiate flows into areas like the one highlighted by the yellow oval. Right images show a before after image of a levee breach

constructed in 2015 on private property.

Figure 5: Floodplain connectivity examples achieved through the placement of high density LWD, obstructing flows.

This approach accelerates deposition in the Tucannon and often in combination with other approaches to achieve floodplain connectivity.

Figure 6: Floodplain connectivity by connecting side channel and disconnected channels. The upper two maps illustrate side channel development on PA-14 before and after construction in 2014. Lower image show examples of new channel connected within the

project area. Side channel connectivity helps buffer peek flood flows and damage to redds by scour as well as providing refuge habitat for salmonids.

Figure 7: Tucannon Programmatic priority habitat restoration area, from RM 20 (left red arrow) to RM 50 (right red arrow). The three yellow highlighted projects reaches (left to right, PA-28, PA-18, PA-6-9) designed in 2015-16 and implemented in 2017. In addition, assessments and designs began on four project areas in 2016-17 and are highlighted in green and indicated by yellow arrows (from left to right PA-17, PA-13, PA-7 and PA-4&5). Project completed since 2011 are highlighted in red beginning at the left PA-26, PA-24, PA-23, PA-22, PA-15, PA-14, PA-11, PA-10, PA-3, Little Tucannon & PA-1.

Figure 8: Tucannon minimum stream flows measured at the Washington Department of Ecology Marengo stream gage. Data point represent instantaneous minimum flow in cfs for the period of record.

Figure 9: Total annual precipitation measured at the NRCS SNOTel gages for the period of record at he Touchet (upper diamonds) and Spruce Springs (lower squares) gages. The Touchet gage is located near the

Tucannon basin and the Spruce Springs gage is located southeastern most part of the Tucannon Basin.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Flow

CFS

water yr.

y = 0.6461x - 1242.6

y = 0.3696x - 706.05

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Tota

l Pre

cip

(in)

Water Yr

Figure 10: Minimum daily mean flow (cfs) by water year for the Tucannon River at Marengo, North Fork Touchet above Dayton, Asotin Creek above George Creek and Alpowa Mouth. Trend line and slope provided

for each watershed over the period of record. Data provided by Washington Department of Ecology (https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/eap/flows/station.asp?wria=35).

Figure 11: Daily ambient mean air temperature measured at the WDOE stream gage in Marengo for the period of record 2003 to 2017. Daily mean temperatures are plotted for June, July and August separately to illustrate

2015 as an anomaly leading to higher than recent summer water temperatures experienced in 2015. Data provided by Washington Department of Ecology (https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/eap/flows/station.asp?wria=35).

y = 2.2451x + 46.877

y = 0.0753x + 33.104

y = -0.3382x + 30.478

y = -0.0401x + 4.15770

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Min

imum

Dai

ly M

inim

um M

ean

Flow

(C

FS)

Water Year

Tucannon NF Touchet Asotin Alpowa

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Max

Dai

ly M

ean

Water Year

June July Aug

Figure 12: The above figure produced by Carol Smith, Washington Department Ecology, shows 2015 flows plotted against the mean daily flow for the period of record, illustrating the early loss of snow in 2015 had on

base flows. The summer base flow resulted in an extremely low summer flow.

Figure 13: In the Tucannon the 2015 daily flow when plotted against the long term mean showed high flows occurring in January February , relatively low flows in the spring (typically snow melt) followed by low but not

record low summer flows as seen in the Dungeness River analysis, indicating potential watershed storage.

Figure 14: Mean daily maximum stream temperature measured at the Tucannon River Washington Department of Ecology Marengo gage between 2003 to present. The time periods prior to 2003 was collected near Marengo by WDFW monitoring. The fine horizontal line indicated the recovery objective of <4 days greater than 72°F

annually. Data provided by Washington Department of Ecology (https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/eap/flows/station.asp?wria=35).

Figure 15: Programmatic funding provided by BPA (FY17) as allocated by type, including administration/personnel, sub-contracts for effectiveness and change detection and feasibility/Design and

habitat restoration implementation. In 2017, the programmatic allocated ~11% to administration of the project, 3% to change detection and Feasibility/Design and 86% to habitat actions on the ground.

y = -0.2156x + 77.974

60626466687072747678808284868890

Max

ium

Wat

er T

empe

ratu

re (

F)

$155,042, 11%$33,152, 3%

$1,180,376, 86%

Personnel Suplies & Equipment Feasability/ Designs/CHaMP Subcontracts Restoration Implementation Projects

Figure 16: The FY17 matching funds to the Programmatic implementation. In 2017, program match accounted for ~34% of the overall budget in the Tucannon. Matching funds were mainly in the form of SRFB grants acquired by CCD, CTUIR & WDFW. In 2017, ~90% of the program was used to implement projects

with only ~10% going to administration, project designs and project effectiveness monitoring.

Figure 17: Tucannon 2017 water year data from the Spruce Spring SNOTEL gage operated by NRCS in the Tucannon Basin. The chart shows higher than average precipitation and lower than average snow pack for

2017. The 2017 water year conforms to the Blue Mountain climate change model.

$155,042, 7%$33,152, 2% $1,180,376, 56%

$13,043, 1%$713,239, 34%

Personnel Suplies & Equipment Feasability/ Designs/CHaMP SubcontractsRestoration Implementation Projects Admin MatchRestoration Implementation (Match)

Figure 18: Daily mean discharge (cfs) for the Tucannon River for the 2017 water year. The 2017 flow was the highest discharge observed since 1996-97. The rapid dip in flow in January was the result of ice in the river

creating some splash dam floods.

Figure 19: The rate of project implementation in the Tucannon priorities measured as miles of LWD structure placement beginning in 2012 with the first Programmatic LWD project. Curve indicates the implementation

year and the red arrow indicates the year when 40% of the implementation to date was in place.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Mile

s of L

WD

Plac

emnt

implementation Year

Figure 20: Tucannon LWD structure varieties used over the projects. More than 15 mi of lWD structures have

been place since 2012 in the Tucannon. The right images are ELJ varieties and the right are free form unsecured.

Figure 21: Channel spanning structures placed in 2012 on PA10 by helicopter experienced a high water in 2017 following sever icing in January 2017. After flow recede no visible redistribution of structure was

observed, but there was also very little deposition as might have been expected by observing the flow velocities at flood. Post flood field observation lack of sediment source below upstream deposition area. Future action at this site may involve the reinforcing the existing structure and the placing of structures upstream which would cause riverbank scour.

Figure 22: Single log structures impinged in riparian cottonwood trees placed in 2015. Pre-project incising channel, (upper left), Post project (upper right) structures placed 2015 for the purpose of producing cover habitat and localized scour. Lower left high flow (~1,100 cfs) on March 10, 2017 over flowed the banks covering high floodplain on river left and right. Lower right is the post project 2017, structure and

the large pool that formed around the structure. Structures remained relatively intact through the high flow, but several of the logs cracked as a result of force and several riparian trees were ripped out of the ground by the leverage of the flood. Observation was grand and white firs do not make great single log structures long term.

Figure 23: Channel spanning logjam forming during high winter runoff in 2017 on the W.T. Wooten Wildlife Area and the channel and logjam evolution that occurred. Mobile LWD structures and debris which was intentionally placed in the channel upstream to become mobile did so (indicated by the connected arrows) racking on one bank imbedded structure causing it to washout pilling up on a ballasted structure (upper inset images). The position of the second racking event is indicated by yellow arrow associated with the images. That structure then collapsed moving another 100 m downstream before becoming lodged where the jam is

well established (lower left inset, yellow arrow indicating its location). The site was low risk and a lot of mobile material placed purposefully, to allow for natural jam formation, which did occur, however the mass movement of material from a ~300 m reach into single jam was not a desired outcome. In 2017, designs on active projects were modified to have stable structures at a higher frequency to maintain some LWD

distribution following flood events. The reach affected had several whole trees added to it as a corrective measure in the 2017 work window, mainly to help hold some of the depositional material deposited in 2017.

Figure 24: The Program and the partners are obligated locally to minimize wood debris leaving the project areas and passing on to private properties. This has been avoided in all projects where a catchers mitt approach as illustrated above has been used. The structure depicted above is located on project area 15, with the pre-project condition (upper left), the ascending flood in 2017 at 1,100 cfs (upper right) and the extended third flood peek of similar volume (lower left). The structure was designed to be stable at a 100 year flood, and to rack up material moving downstream, which the structure did achieve creating a single large meander jam by the summer of 2017. The structure racked > 40 large log and trees, some of which were previously racked in project area 15, preventing them from causing damage or the perception of damage downstream in 2017. A head on view of this

structure complex shown pre-post flood in the right two images.

Figure 25: A bar apex structure placed for the purpose of aggrading the river bed and diverting flows placed in 2014 in project area 14 adjacent to the Tucannon Fish Hatchery. The pre-project condition exhibited a steep incised channel running along the hatchery Levee and riprap. The structure was built mid-channel, and racked heavily on the levee site on the channel spanning the flow (upper center post

project). During the 2017 high flow significant floodplain connection occurred and the development of a new channel to river left occurred improving long-term floodplain connectivity objectives and providing an opportunity to capture addition side channel in future efforts (upper middle).

Figure 26: Streambed aggradation on the Tucannon River PA10 following the 2017 high flow. Upper left is immediate post project; the red arrow is indication the same location through all images. The lower left is the same spot in a 2015 survey. The upper right is the same perspective in May 2017, the river bed has aggraded to mostly cover the structure creating side channels in the adjacent forest, including forest scour pools

(>100 m2) which remain perennial and are teaming with “floodplain fatties” or salmonids benefitting from increased productivity of the floodplain pools.

Figure 27: Tucannon River channel aggradation formed during the high flow of 2017. The wood structures are part of the 1.8 mi long project area 10 constructed in 2012 by helicopter. The upper left image taken in the spring of 2015

following 3 years of low flows, note the bank line at the time of the photo. The post 2017 high flow photos (upper right and lower left) show the change in bed elevation, which occurred within the reach following the flood flow. The lower left image show the current bed elevation in relation to pre-existing bank elevation (redline). The red arrow indication the positions where the lower right image was taken. The outcome observed in this reach of the project areas provides

excellent habitat for spawning, winter rearing and summer rearing, while improving environmental conditions like water temperature and summer base flow.

Figure 28: Tucannon River juvenile spring Chinook rearing seasonal habitat use described by WDFW using data collected during the 2013-14 Life Cycle Model (Cram 20017). The large over winter reach from the mouth

of Pataha Creek upstream to the Tucannon Hatchery weir highlights the heart of winter rearing. The numbers 1-10 indicated the Geomorphic Reaches (Anchor 2011). The reach 1-5 currently are not within the

Programmatic priority reach.

Figure 29: WDFW pittag arrays located throughout the Tucannon River indicated by the red star (Bumgarner 2017)

Figure 30: Trends in fine sediment and embeddedness measured by the USFS in 2001, 2005 and 2008 compared to CHaMP data going forward since 2011. Fine sediments and streambed embeddedness were

significant issues in the 1980s and 1990s leading to extensive construction of sediment basins and implementation of minimum till agriculture BMPs. Currently, fine sediment is not limiting in the Tucannon.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Mea

n (%

)

% fines (<6mm)

Embeddedness

Figure 31: Example of bolo ballast typical detail used on some project areas in the Tucannon. The bolo has been used on private properties where structure stability is a primary concern of landowners. Although other ballast techniques are available i.e. embedding logs in banks with ballast rock we have preferred the bolo method due to the reduced impact with

dewatering and excavation. Bolo structures are typically placed on the riverbed in 3-5 log configuration sometime in the main channel where digging is difficult. The placing of a bolo type structure required less disturbance than placing the supper sacks to dewater.

Appendix Tucannon River Programmatic Report

Project #: 2010-077-00

Annual Progress Report (Reporting Period January 2017 to December 2017)

Contract: # 75494

Appendix 1 – 5

Page #s Tables: http://snakeriverboard.org/wpi/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2017-Tables_Tuc_Programmatic_Annual_Report.pdf Appendix 1: Project Area 6-9 http://snakeriverboard.org/wpi/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2017-Appendix_1_Tucannon_Programmatic.pdf Appendix 2: Project Area 18 http://snakeriverboard.org/wpi/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2017-Appendix_2_Tucannon_Programmatic.pdf

Appendix 3: Project Area 28 http://snakeriverboard.org/wpi/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2017-Appendix_3_Tucannon_Programmatic.pdf

Appendix 4: Project Area 13 http://snakeriverboard.org/wpi/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2017-Appendix_4_Tucannon_Programmatic.pdf

Appendix 5: Rapid Habitat http://snakeriverboard.org/wpi/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2017-Appendix_5_Tucannon_Programmatic.pdf