The ISRP recommends funding part of this project as a stand-alone effort. Specifically, we recommend the sponsors develop and complete a needs assessment to include identification (inventory) of substantial barriers with a prioritization for a removal sequence based on the expected impact and contribution to not only habitat improvement on a course level, but also to focal species at fine level. The sponsors appear to have misinterpreted the ISRP's original review comment pertaining to justification of barrier removal. The ISRP does not dispute the general fact that removal of barriers can - but not necessarily will - result in increased fish production, which seems to be the question that the sponsors were addressing. The ISRP recommended justification of each specific project based on the quality and quantity of habitat above a barrier (not just miles of stream as the sponsors propose) and the potential increase in fish use and benefit.

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.