Local or MSRT Comments: See Washington guidance

Here, the ISRP adds the Qualification to this Fundable in Part recommendation that provisions be made in the assessment for quantitative evaluation of habitat quality and quantity above each barrier, and that these estimates should play a major role in prioritizing barrier replacement/removal projects. Provisions also should be made for some level of assessment of fish use and abundance after barrier replacement/removal.

From this inventory and prioritization, subsequent project proposal(s) to remove specific barriers or groups of barriers will have greater justification (along with measurable objectives, expected outcomes, and suitable M&E – implementation and effectiveness). Ultimately, much of the required information may be available for assembly rather than a new comprehensive inventory. Many USDA Forest Service units collect such information.

As for future proposals, M&E need not be a long-term, intensive monitoring program, but should include straightforward assessment indexes to verify that barrier removal did or did not provide access and use by focal species as well as non-native species.

The reviewers examined the forms attached for prioritizing culvert removal. No element appears that directly addresses response or outcome to focal species. Also, the sole habitat prioritization element appeared to be stream distance (number of miles) above the barriers, which does not account for habitat quality of newly accessible habitat for the focal species.

The ISRP finds the proposal potentially fundable if the individual projects can be appropriately justified and prioritized with habitat conditions above the current barriers as productive for focal species’ populations. Specifically, the proposal needs a stronger justification as to why it is needed, how it will lead to population responses, and where in the Subbasin priorities these actions fall. Moreover, the ISRP is uncertain as to why existing culvert inventories are inadequate to prioritize individual projects at present to justify what seem to be high inventory and design costs. Also, will an updated assessment (and priority projects) realistically lead to fish populations using the newly accessible habitats?

In addition to strengthening the justification, the ISRP recommends that the response should address and clarify a number of other key issues.

The timeframe (along with costs) appear to be greater than for other such “culvert” projects. A three-year time horizon for inventory seems excessive. A summary of previous efforts that justifies this time and expense might provide such support. Another benefit of summarizing what is presently known about barriers in this subbasin would provide the basis for their conclusion that present inventories are significantly incomplete.

Ultimately, this is a proposal to develop a new program of passage improvement for the Lower Snake Subbasin. It is intended to be an ongoing program; the identified problems to be addressed after the initial steps of barrier identification and plans for improvement. The ISRP recommends it be approved only for the development of the needs as a standalone project. Upon identification and prioritization of substantial barriers, subsequent project proposals may be submitted for review and funding based on measurable objectives, expected impact, and suitable M&E elements.

The ISRP recommends clarifying the relationship of this assessment project to other ongoing or proposed projects. Other projects are mentioned, but there is no summary of what is known and what specific actions are presently underway by other groups. Simply listing other projects and entities without a tie-in is not convincing that the assessment is critical or will lead to projects that will benefit focal fish populations.

The objectives are clear and flow somewhat from the problem statement, but are really tasks rather than measurable biological objectives (e.g., return x# steelhead to watershed or provide access to y# miles of spawning/nursery habitat). Perhaps including a salmon biologist on the team would be helpful.

How will quality, quantity, and type of habitat (e.g., spawning area, rearing habitat, thermal refuge) above the barrier be assessed? A barrier may receive a red rating and be replaced but the habitat above the barrier may be so degraded that it is only marginally suitable for fish. Habitat condition should be part of the prioritization process. The sponsors should explain how habitat conditions will be taken into account.

Watershed-scale population monitoring will be done by co-managers. Are the co-managers aware of this and building in appropriate effectiveness and population monitoring to measure a response?