Tillamook – Nestucca Fish Passage Partnership A Sub-basin Fish Passage Barrier Prioritization and Investment Portfolio Approach Dan Shively – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Steve Pilson – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service January 13, 2015 FSOC-sponsored Fish Passage Workshop

A Paradigm Shift in Fish Passage Restoration and Prioritization. Photo credit: Tillamook Estuary Partnership As we contemplate reconnecting aquatic habitat for fish passage, our aim is to be thinking and problem-solving at multiple scales through the collaborative work of this pilot effort. There is valuable information at the ground level, but it is far too easy to forget to place that information into its larger context. It’s also easy for the macro view to lose the relevant site-specific details. The work presented in this pilot sub-basin allows us to bridge these scales and to – for the first time ever demonstrated in the U.S. and abroad – link fish passage restoration work to species-specific population goals!

Background & History Regional perspective. Key stakeholders involved. What’s different and unique about this approach? Fish passage barrier inventories completed. A unique, unprecedented opportunity.

Let me pause here and re-state our overall goal for this pilot effort Let me pause here and re-state our overall goal for this pilot effort. This approach allows us to package a fish passage restoration portfolio, setting priorities at a landscape scale that tie directly to measurable biological outcomes at the population level. In contrast to the traditional common approach of funding fish passage opportunities and simply reporting the number of barriers removed and miles of habitat reopened, without expressing a defined end goal.

Overview of fish passage barriers. Culvert barrier inventories: 2006 and 2012. 270+ barriers to anadromous fish species. Technical Working Group determined replacement costs for 63 culvert barriers. Assigned replacement cost for all other culvert barriers. Reviewed all other barriers (Tidegates and Dams); determined costs.

Assigned Replacement Cost to Remaining Culvert Barriers Analyzed replacement costs for 63 sites determined by Technical Working Group. Stratified sites into one of six Road Types: Compiled inventory data to determine road-stream crossing size: small, medium, or large based on: Highway County Road City Street Private Drive Private Farm Crossing Forest Road – BLM, USFS, ODF, Pvt. Timber Co. Road Fill Index Bankfull Channel Width Culvert Length Road Surface Type

Forest Roads n = 15 sites (12 with data) Cost range = $10k to $500k, avg. of $188k No logic to cost breakdown Cost assignments categorized as: Size Road Fill Index Assigned Replacement Cost Small < 5 $75k Medium 5 - 10 $150k Large 10 + $300k

Summary of Culvert Replacement Cost Assignments Type Crossing Size Cost Highway Small $1 million Medium $2 million Large $4 million County Road n/a $350k City Street $250k Private Drive $160k Private Farm Crossing $40k Forest Road $75k $150k $300k

Key Points & Assumptions Treat all barriers as full barriers. Derived upstream habitat from ODF data. Weighted species benefits. Used Technical WG replacement costs. Where unavailable, used cost analysis along and professional judgment. Projects <$1 million: added 30% for planning, design, permitting, administration, and monitoring. Projects >$1 million: added 15%.

Goal Determine where on the landscape fish passage restoration could make the most impact on fish populations. (“Optimize habitat gain”) Let me pause here and re-state our overall goal for this pilot effort. This approach allows us to package a fish passage restoration portfolio, setting priorities at a landscape scale that tie directly to measurable biological outcomes at the population level. In contrast to the traditional common approach of funding fish passage opportunities and simply reporting the number of barriers removed and miles of habitat reopened, without expressing a defined end goal.

The APASS Model – Refining Priorities

Optimization Model – Cont. Budget Barriers Total Habitat (mi) $200K A+B 3.0 A+C 2.0 A+B+C Can’t afford A+C+D A: $100K, B: $50K, C: $75K, D: $100K Budget Barriers Total Habitat (mi) $300K A+B+C 4.0 A+C+D 4.5 A+B+C+D Can’t afford $400K 6.5

Analysis To arrive at rankings, ran APASS in “batch mode,” letting it iteratively solve for best solution at cost increment, then arranged output in frequency order Broke ties by ordering from downstream to up, and then by cost/mile Caveat: We explicitly note these are the Modeled priorities and that the actual implementation sequence may vary depending on a variety of local factors (i.e., project readiness, landowner willingness, clustering of projects, etc.) Important to note that work has been ongoing – so about 20 projects are in some stage of planning/initiation And part of our effort of engaging with local stakeholders was to develop a “package” of their top priorities to tackle first. However these 63 projects that emerged were not prioritized against the other 200+ sites.

Results Produced a guide to where and in what order restoration of fish passage should take place. Incorporates priorities set by local partners. Provides a way of quantifying progress at the subbasin scale or individual watersheds. Allows us to look at what levels of barrier remediation are needed (and where) in order to achieve species-specific, population-level distribution goals?

Overall Results Total Blocked Habitat Here’s a map of the 270 manmade barriers we analyzed in the subbasin with obstructed fish stream reaches in red. So as you can see, most barriers are on creeks and unnamed tribs of creeks, not the mainstem rivers of each watershed.

Linking Fish Passage Restoration to Species Population-level Goals Viable Salmonid Population Components (McElhany et al. 2000) Abundance (population size) Growth (population growth, lambda) Distribution (spatial structure) Diversity (genetic, life history)

85% Species Conservation Goal

90% Species Conservation Goal

95% Species Conservation Goal

The Portfolio Approach Bringing in needed expertise – marketing & investment experts Appealing to a broader investment audience; non-traditional Infrastructure Improved Miles Habitat Re-opened Fish Passage Restoration Ecosystem Services Community Benefits Economics: jobs, etc. Other

Partnership Participants Bureau of Land Management Tillamook County Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Tillamook County Creamery Association Oregon Department of Transportation Tillamook County Public Works Department Oregon Fish Passage Task Force Tillamook Estuaries Partnership Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Tillamook State Forest Natural Resources Conservation Service Trout Unlimited Nestucca-Neskowin Watershed Council U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland State University U.S. Forest Service Tillamook Bay Watershed Council

Partnership Goals Restore fish passage to 95% of historically available habitat in the Tillamook-Nestucca Subbasin over a 10-year timeframe: 2015 – 2025. Leverage non-traditional funding sources. Increase community awareness and engagement through innovative communications and outreach. Improve implementation efficiencies. Learn as we go and share “lessons learned.”

Questions