Clearwater Subbasin Planning or

The Long and Winding Road

Clearwater Focus Program

Idaho Soil Conservation Commission

Clearwater Subbasin in the Basin

Clearwater Focus ProgramOrigin and Structure

Authorized by the 1994 NW Power and Conservation Council’s Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, funded by the Bonneville Power Administration.

Program is co-coordinated by :

• Idaho Soil Conservation Commission

• Nez Perce Tribal Watershed Division

Purpose of the Clearwater Focus Program

•Coordinate watershed projects to Coordinate watershed projects to protect, enhance, and restore habitat protect, enhance, and restore habitat impacted by the Columbia River impacted by the Columbia River hydroelectric system.hydroelectric system.

•Facilitate optimal use of funding sources and subbasin expertise.

Land Cover Types

Western Clearwater Subbasin

Eastern Clearwater Subbasin

Ownership and Management

ESA Listed Fish Speciesin the Subbasin

•Fall Chinook, to Lolo Creek •West Coast Steelhead•Bull Trout

ESA Listed Animal Speciesin the Subbasin

•Gray Wolf•American Peregrine Falcon •Bald Eagle•Grizzly Bear

ESA Listed Plant Species

• Spaldings Catchfly

• Macfarlane’s Four O’Clock

• Water Howellia

• Ute Ladies’ Tresses

Habitat Project Areas

SCC Coordination Objectives The Road We’re On

• Subbasin Assessment

• Subbasin Management Plan & Inventory

• Implementation Project Support

Policy Advisory CommitteePeople on the Highway

Idaho Association of Counties/Idaho County

Idaho State: IDEQ IDFG IDL

Nez Perce Tribe Executive Committee

Soil and Water Conservation Districts

Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests

NOAA Fisheries

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Potlatch Corporation

The Funding Trail Rockin Down the Highway

• CBFWA MMG endorsed contract modifications March 2000

• Council approved contract modifications April 5, 2000

• Bonneville contracts September 2000

Add Provincial Review Along the Road

• March 2001 Draft Subbasin Summary

• May 2001 Final Subbasin Summary

• August 2001 Aquatic Assessment

• August 2001 Provincial Review

• October 2001 Terrestrial Assessment

Planning PhaseHit the Road Again

• PAC began the planning process in January 2002 after Provincial Review activities were complete. The Technical Guide for Subbasin Planners was available for this phase. Guidelines were not mandatory.

The Vision Transcendental Highway

• PAC developed a vision statement and 9 guiding principles for planning

• The vision for the Clearwater Subbasin is a healthy ecosystem with abundant, productive, and diverse aquatic and terrestrial species, which will support sustainable resource-based activities

Plan CompletedDancing on the Highway

• The “Final” Draft Clearwater Subbasin Plan was presented to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council in Coeur d’Alene on November 14, 2002

The First ISRP JunctionPavement Cracks

• The ISRP’s 43-page review of the draft Clearwater Subbasin Plan was available February 19, 2003 – Some of the points:

• Plan is not complete enough to be consistent with the Council’s Program

• In current form does not constitute a viable subbasin plan

More at the First ISRP Junction Breakdown Lane

• Strategies are not fully and clearly defined nor are they prioritized

• Linkages (internal consistency) between assessment/management plan/inventory are not explicitly described

• Aquatic and Terrestrial resources need to be described more quantitatively.

More at the First ISRP Junction Wreck on the Highway

• Other than these the ISRP loved the draft Clearwater Subbasin Plan

• Actually, the ISRP’s evaluation inspired additional subbasin plan review criteria be adopted to the Council’s program

Contingency PlanningCrawling from the Wreckage

• Clearwater PAC decided to respond to ISRP comments and requested the Council not start the adoption process

• The logic path went something like: Gee with so many comments, certainly we can improve the plan

Amending and RewritingOn the Road Again

• Response “fix-it” loop began July 2003

• Prioritized and selected subset of ISRP deficiencies to address

• Clearwater Subbasin Plan formally submitted for adoption process November 19, 2003

The Second ISRP JunctionSideways Down The Highway

• The ISRP’s 25-page review of the Clearwater Subbasin Plan was available February 6, 2004 – Some points:

• There were fewer pages because the ISRP referred to their previous review often

• While an improvement over the 2002 draft, “it does not differ substantively from that draft” …………

Adoptability FrameworkBright Side of the Road

• Council’s central staff developed a framework for adoptability and used it to evaluate the Clearwater Subbasin Plan

• Framework based on Council’s program language and the Power Act; later used to review other subbasin plans

Where is the Clearwater Plan TodaySide of the Road

• Clearwater Planners responded to central staff Adoptability Framework review

• Clearwater Subbasin Plan was categorized as between the Green Group and the Blue Group in basin plan review process

• Await next phase of process

Production of Clearwater PlanHillbilly Highway

• 34 PAC Meetings

• 24 Subcommittee Work Sessions

• 5 NOAA Specific Meetings

• 11 Public meetings

• 23 Drafted Component Releases

• 8 Drafted Whole Plan Releases

• 114 Individuals Participated in Process

Issues that Popped UpMalfunction Junction(s)

• Assessment & Summary Production• Models for data synthesis• Subbasin Planning vs Recovery Planning • Public participation• Additional program language review

criteria & new adoptability criteria• ISRP – Twice

What’s Next in the ClearwaterFurther up the Road

• Implementation projects continue as ongoing until plan adoption and call for new projects – the system to be designed

• Continue to pursue project funds from multiple sources

• Continue subbasin plan implementation via other processes and funding

What a Long Strange Trip it has Been

Questions and/or Comments

Potential Management Units

Groups of 6th Field HUCs, contiguous or not, clustered to characterize areas with similar themes that may influence restoration or recovery planning. Individual project planning will require site specific information. There are 22 PMUs delineated in the Clearwater.

Attributes Delineating PMUs

• Species (4) - Distribution, Life History, Hatchery Influence, Exotic species

• Landscape Level (4) - Ownership Accessibility, Protection, Land Use

• Habitat (5) – Habitat & H2O Quality, Limiting Factors, Temperature, Hydrology

• Disturbances (10) – Roads, Mines, Sediment, Surface Erosion, Landslide, Etc

Distribution and Relative Status of Steelhead in the Subbasin Layer

Road Density GIS Layer

Surface Erosion Hazard Layer

§303(d) Listed Streams

Landslide Hazard Layer

Potential Management Units

Watershed Scale

Big Canyon Creek Disturbances

• Potential Management Unit 6

– Surface Erosion Hazards – Very High

– Landslide Hazard – Moderate to High

– Road Densities – Moderate to High

• Potential Management Unit 7 & 8

– Surface Erosion Hazards – Very High

– Road Densities – Moderate to High

Big Canyon Watershed & PMUs

• Limiting Factors– Temperature– Base Flow– Sediment– Watershed

Disturbance– Habitat

Degradation

• Restoration Issues– Temperature– Sediment– Prairie Grasslands– Ponderosa Pine