This is a solid proposal with a long track record. The questions raised may seem insignificant on the surface, but concerns about hatchery straying, effectiveness monitoring, improving passage of non-natives, any active removal of beaver dams, and the lack of any adaptive management leave some lingering concerns.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The Oregon Fish Screen and Passage Project is of significance to regional programs by providing immediate and long-term protection for anadromous and resident fish species in the Deschutes, John Day, Umatilla, and Walla Walla River basins by installation of NOAA Criteria fish screens, irrigation diversions, pump intakes, and barrier removal as well as passage structures including ladders, siphons, culverts at road crossings, and habitat improvements associated with passage plus water efficiency devices. The project and personnel have many years of experience and thereby have developed the technical expertise to carry out the passage installations and modifications.

The Objectives are straightforward and appropriate.

Given the very large number of sites needing treatment a question arises as to what efforts are being used to prioritize work. How many individual projects remain? There are currently 300 diversion sites identified as important. Is there a target date to complete them? Also as projects are added so is maintenance, but the O&M budget is not increasing.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

The accomplishments and results to date are as expected, and are assisting the recovery of native fishes.

While there is a good discussion of lessons learned and subsequent program improvement, adaptive management is not being practiced nor is Structured Decision Making. This needs to be corrected by setting quantitative goals and timelines for improving fish passage for each project activity and by articulating hypotheses that can be tested statistically via appropriate monitoring data.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

The project has a long history of working with landowners, Tribes and agencies – and these relationships appear to be working well. Nevertheless, it is not clear to what extent this program coordinates with others that are working on fish passage restoration, especially correction of culvert passage at road-stream crossings and irrigation diversions. The process for prioritization is described as primarily driven by ODFW with some reference to subbasin plan priorities. Given the wide area covered by the program and the multiple players involved in an array of restoration activities, including passage, it appears that additional coordination is needed.

Further, it appears that some of the instream activities proposed for the John Day River are not well coordinated with the Warm Springs Tribe and their proposed activities. Clarification is needed on this point.

Specific questions:

1) In the Umatilla Basin, it is proposed to construct pool and riffle habitat using instream modifications. Where opportunities exist, work on public, federal, state, tribal and private lands will be conducted to increase the quantity of pools and gravel dominated riffles, as opposed to cobble. What agreements are in place to conduct this work? Is there any overlap with other proposals or projects?

2) The river systems being considered for fish passage improvements contain many native fishes as well as non-natives. Have analyses been conducted to compare the positive versus detrimental effects of improving passage for non-natives? Further, hatchery strays are a serious consideration, especially on the spawning grounds of native salmonids. Have similar analyses been conducted to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of improved passage?

3) Is there any way to use the screens and diversions to restrict the movements of non-native fishes?

4) What is the project’s policy concerning beaver dams?

It is refreshing to see that the project is taking climate change seriously as an emerging limiting factor and planning for it. The reality is that this region is already more than half way through the transition from snow-dominated late season runoff to more winter precipitation as rain.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The program is grounded in screening and passage yet is reliant on personal observation and word of mouth for the identification of many sites. Unfortunately, there is no assessment of irrigation diversions for the Deschutes River basin and there was no discussion as to when that might occur. Additionally, there is no reference to other assessments such as the Forest Service’s comprehensive assessment of fish passage at road-stream crossings.

Project prioritization is accomplished primarily by ODFW personnel using sets of rating criteria. It is not clear if these are only considered or whether they are actually scored for setting priorities. Additionally, there seems to be little if any coordination with restoration activities of other stakeholders which may be an important consideration in establishing a multi-year work plans.

The reporting rate is very low in comparison to other projects. This needs to be improved. Otherwise, the deliverables, work elements, metrics, and methods are appropriate.

In the budget, overhead is charged at 22%. In addition, there is a line item for rent and utilities (water, sewer, power, telephone, postage, office supplies, propane, garbage service, inspections, build). Should this line item be paid through the overhead rate?

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The need for improved Effectiveness Monitoring was previously identified by ISRP. According to the proposal this was not possible at most sites, for a variety of reasons. As a result, three by-pass traps were installed in the John Day watershed and three additional sites were to be established in 2013. There is no discussion of how these sites were selected or any findings, other than the number and species of fish trapped. As well, no location is given for the new sites. It was also mentioned that there are continuing difficulties in funding of effectiveness monitoring. Effectiveness monitoring needs additional attention. Further, there was no mention of ISEMP or AEM or any future program involvement with monitoring.

===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

This is a solid proposal with a long track record. The questions raised may seem insignificant on the surface, but concerns about hatchery straying, effectiveness monitoring, improving passage of non-natives, any active removal of beaver dams, and the lack of any adaptive management leave some lingering concerns.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The Oregon Fish Screen and Passage Project is of significance to regional programs by providing immediate and long-term protection for anadromous and resident fish species in the Deschutes, John Day, Umatilla, and Walla Walla River basins by installation of NOAA Criteria fish screens, irrigation diversions, pump intakes, and barrier removal as well as passage structures including ladders, siphons, culverts at road crossings, and habitat improvements associated with passage plus water efficiency devices. The project and personnel have many years of experience and thereby have developed the technical expertise to carry out the passage installations and modifications.

The Objectives are straightforward and appropriate.

Given the very large number of sites needing treatment a question arises as to what efforts are being used to prioritize work. How many individual projects remain? There are currently 300 diversion sites identified as important. Is there a target date to complete them? Also as projects are added so is maintenance, but the O&M budget is not increasing.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

The accomplishments and results to date are as expected, and are assisting the recovery of native fishes.

While there is a good discussion of lessons learned and subsequent program improvement, adaptive management is not being practiced nor is Structured Decision Making. This needs to be corrected by setting quantitative goals and timelines for improving fish passage for each project activity and by articulating hypotheses that can be tested statistically via appropriate monitoring data.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

The project has a long history of working with landowners, Tribes and agencies – and these relationships appear to be working well. Nevertheless, it is not clear to what extent this program coordinates with others that are working on fish passage restoration, especially correction of culvert passage at road-stream crossings and irrigation diversions. The process for prioritization is described as primarily driven by ODFW with some reference to subbasin plan priorities. Given the wide area covered by the program and the multiple players involved in an array of restoration activities, including passage, it appears that additional coordination is needed.

Further, it appears that some of the instream activities proposed for the John Day River are not well coordinated with the Warm Springs Tribe and their proposed activities. Clarification is needed on this point.

Specific questions:

1) In the Umatilla Basin, it is proposed to construct pool and riffle habitat using instream modifications. Where opportunities exist, work on public, federal, state, tribal and private lands will be conducted to increase the quantity of pools and gravel dominated riffles, as opposed to cobble. What agreements are in place to conduct this work? Is there any overlap with other proposals or projects?

2) The river systems being considered for fish passage improvements contain many native fishes as well as non-natives. Have analyses been conducted to compare the positive versus detrimental effects of improving passage for non-natives? Further, hatchery strays are a serious consideration, especially on the spawning grounds of native salmonids. Have similar analyses been conducted to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of improved passage?

3) Is there any way to use the screens and diversions to restrict the movements of non-native fishes?

4) What is the project’s policy concerning beaver dams?

It is refreshing to see that the project is taking climate change seriously as an emerging limiting factor and planning for it. The reality is that this region is already more than half way through the transition from snow-dominated late season runoff to more winter precipitation as rain.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The program is grounded in screening and passage yet is reliant on personal observation and word of mouth for the identification of many sites. Unfortunately, there is no assessment of irrigation diversions for the Deschutes River basin and there was no discussion as to when that might occur. Additionally, there is no reference to other assessments such as the Forest Service’s comprehensive assessment of fish passage at road-stream crossings.

Project prioritization is accomplished primarily by ODFW personnel using sets of rating criteria. It is not clear if these are only considered or whether they are actually scored for setting priorities. Additionally, there seems to be little if any coordination with restoration activities of other stakeholders which may be an important consideration in establishing a multi-year work plans.

The reporting rate is very low in comparison to other projects. This needs to be improved. Otherwise, the deliverables, work elements, metrics, and methods are appropriate.

In the budget, overhead is charged at 22%. In addition, there is a line item for rent and utilities (water, sewer, power, telephone, postage, office supplies, propane, garbage service, inspections, build). Should this line item be paid through the overhead rate?

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The need for improved Effectiveness Monitoring was previously identified by ISRP. According to the proposal this was not possible at most sites, for a variety of reasons. As a result, three by-pass traps were installed in the John Day watershed and three additional sites were to be established in 2013. There is no discussion of how these sites were selected or any findings, other than the number and species of fish trapped. As well, no location is given for the new sites. It was also mentioned that there are continuing difficulties in funding of effectiveness monitoring. Effectiveness monitoring needs additional attention. Further, there was no mention of ISEMP or AEM or any future program involvement with monitoring.

===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================