1. 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

2. 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!

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

4. 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.

5. Overview of fish passage barriers.
Culvert barrier inventories: 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.

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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%.

10. 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.

11. The APASS Model – Refining Priorities

12. 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

13. 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.

14. 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?

15. 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.

16. 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)

18. 85% Species Conservation Goal

19. 90% Species Conservation Goal

20. 95% Species Conservation Goal

21. 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

23. 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

24. Partnership Goals
Restore fish passage to 95% of historically available habitat in the Tillamook-Nestucca Subbasin over a 10-year timeframe: – 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.”

25. Questions