This modest project proposal is to secure 10 thermographs, the staff time to deploy them, and analyze data as part of a larger scale temperature monitoring project in the subbasin. Temperature is a key variable for watershed and habitat improvements in the subbasin. Elevated temperature is a described as limiting factor for fish (focal and non-focal species) productivity and survival.

While this is a modest project that ties in directly with a broader subbasin temperature M&E project and funding will likely be ongoing as part of a long term monitoring need, the priority of these gauges is not clearly justified.

The ISRP recommends the project sponsors better describe why these are the key locations for thermographs and how the information gained will address a key management activity.

Also, what is the statistical design for placement of these gauges - especially the ten new gauges? What is the rationale for distribution of these gauges and the intensity of the sampling? Why the 58 in the places they are? The proposal would be improved by a reporting of the data collected from the existing 58 gauges. Specifically, it is not clear why so many monitoring sites are needed. Has there been an effort to compare records to see whether some sites might be omitted? The clustering of thermographs suggests that potential problem areas have been identified, but there is no discussion of this in the Narrative. The question is whether this placement is adequate for purposes that can be foreseen?

See ISRP comments on the "Umatilla Initiative" under proposal 198343600.