The sponsors provided a good deal of new information and reference material which was very useful in better understanding the proposal. The hot links to reference documents, especially the Potlatch Plan, provided excellent context for the information. The sponsors should be commended for their consistent use of non-BPA partner funds to support their ambitious program of work.

Sponsors were not able to provide an estimate of the extent to which the extensive meadow restoration efforts that have been completed (and are ongoing) would increase late summer flows. The ISRP urges the sponsors to aggressively pursue accumulating and analyzing data to enable a better quantitative understanding of that issue. At the same time, reviewers appreciate the value of the meadow restoration work in restoring watershed health and involving the community in those efforts.

The response described the IDFG monitoring, though it does not go into details about how this directly informs habitat restoration priorities. It does say the information is used to identify specific rearing and spawning habitat projects, but future reports and proposals would be strengthened by specific descriptions of how restoration strategies and completed actions improved rearing and spawning habitat of steelhead.

The comprehensive road crossing survey protocol now being initiated by the SWCD should provide significant benefits to fish.

Evaluation of Results

The results section of the proposal highlights five projects completed or in progress by the Latah SWCD. These are the Corral Creek / Tee-Colby Meadow, Meadow, Wetland, and Riparian Restoration, the Corral Creek / Avulsion-Round Reach, Meadow, Wetland, and Riparian Restoration, the Corral Creek / Passage Barrier Removal, the Corral Creek / Racetrack Meadow, Meadow, Wetland, and Riparian Restoration, and the Big Bear Creek / Tourmaline Wetland, Wetland and Riparian Restoration. Physical results are reported, and biological results are pending ongoing monitoring.

The qualifications are the same as those for the companion proposal 200860400, Lower Clearwater and Potlatch Watersheds Habitat Improvements.

The sponsors provided a comprehensive and effective response to most of the ISRP concerns. However, some items need additional attention, and those can be resolved at the time of contract preparation:

The tour and presentation helped this review. Additional useful information was provided that was not in the proposal. The proposal/response should supply this information in writing.

Response requested items:

1) Low summer flow is identified as a major factor limiting steelhead abundance, and reviewers concur. But despite reliance upon meadow restoration as a technique to increase water storage for eventual summer flow and with placement of monitoring instrumentation at project sites, there has been no assessment of the additional water that might be available in summer as a result of this restoration activity. The response should address this issue, perhaps by identifying high-low bookends for anticipated water volume, and compare this relative to current low summer flows. Flow enhancement in response to other actions being considered by both Potlatch projects should be considered in the analysis.

2) Objectives and proposed deliverables should be quantitative and should have a predicted time frame for expected results so that accomplishments can be better documented. For example, how many miles will be fenced and how many trees will be planted by year? Basic accomplishments should be quantified and documented in the proposal so that the Council knows what was accomplished with the funding.

3) It is not clear how various assessments are planned and completed to support restoration work into the future. Fish passage, primarily at road-stream crossings, is a primary issue, and it is not clear if a comprehensive assessment of the road system has been completed for the project area and, if not, when it will be done. This is important for prioritizing actions.

4) A statement that the sponsors intend to continue to implement restoration treatments shown to be effective over the past years suggests that some conclusions from monitoring have been made. These should be summarized and shared.

5) The second objective of this proposal is to provide suitable steelhead spawning and rearing habitat. The sponsors need a better vision of steelhead habitat, and they need early results from IDFG monitoring so they can be incorporated into continuing work. Please describe how IDFG monitoring is used to identify and prioritize restoration projects specific to rearing and spawning habitat.

6) A detailed watershed and activity prioritization protocol was laid out during the presentation. A written summary of this process should be included in the response.

This is an ambitious project with a good foundation for landscape/watershed scale restoration. There is good coordination and involvement by a variety of partners with inclusion of outreach and education as part of the project. Also, there is good linkage with water quality restoration plans. The project appears poised for good results but needs additional work to firm up implementation of the strategic approach for restoration, to frame the priorities for work, to ensure useful findings and application of results from monitoring, and to clearly describe quantitative objectives and deliverables.

The proposed habitat protection and restoration project demonstrates its significance to the region. The program incorporates a somewhat ad hoc prioritization scheme to identify projects with tributaries identified to support steelhead. The key concerns are 1) issues raised by ISRP (2009) should be addressed, for example thermal refuges in pools, maintenance of bioengineered projects, and removal of natural migration barriers, 2) objectives and proposed deliverables should be quantitative so that accomplishments can be better documented, for example how many miles will be fenced and how many trees will be planted, and 3) basic accomplishments should be quantified and documented in the proposal so that the Council knows what was accomplished with the funding.

The project demonstrates strong use of funds to leverage additional resources. They use significant cost share to implement projects.

The ongoing work to improve passage is described well and seems a priority for implementation. It is not clear, however, if a comprehensive assessment and prioritization of all passage barriers in the watershed has been completed to guide strategic implementation of these projects. Concerns about effectiveness of actions to enhance flow should be addressed.

How much improvement of spawning and rearing habitat is needed? At what point are returns too marginal for the investment to be defensible?

There does not seem to be a logical division of labor here for Potlatch efforts between the Latah SWCD project and the Idaho Office of Species Conservation project. Elsewhere we sometimes see complementary efforts where one group works on, say, tribal lands while the other focuses on private land. There is no such distinction here. It appears that there could be much of duplication of effort without clear synergy. Coordination between the two efforts should be clarified.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The Potlatch River is an important tributary for the restoration of natural-origin A-run steelhead. The proposal provides sufficient information linking the effort to regional programs and for justifying the importance of habitat protection and restoration. The proposal is intended to be a coordinated, landscape approach to restoration and has been underway for more than 10 years. A solid conceptual foundation for restoration is provided and three primary limiting factors/conditions are provided to focus restoration including passage, habitat quality, and flows.

The project objectives are very general and stated in qualitative terms, such as improve stream flows to improve steelhead rearing and spawning. Quantitative objectives are needed. For example, based on the proposed activities within the project period and fish requirements, how much will streamflow change, how much suitable habitat will be gained, and how many passage barriers will be removed as a result of restoration activities? With the long history of this project, the sponsors should be able to provide this information.

Additionally, a discussion of what major issues might slow achievement of the quantitative objectives and what alternative approaches may be employed if these should occur? Also, it is stated that restoration work will focus on priority tributaries, but there is no listing of these priorities or which have been chosen as a focus for current restoration. Additionally, the process for prioritizing projects seems lengthy and is overall confusing. It is stated that IDFG used a process to prioritize tributaries using a qualitative assessment. Treatments are then sorted using three very broad land types, these are ranked H, M, or L using consensus opinion, then ranked using five additional criteria, and again prioritized by consensus opinion. This is apparently in addition to similar work that was done in development of the Potlatch Watershed Restoration Strategy. Further clarification and summary of this process is needed and perhaps a flow chart developed to aide in following the process. The sponsor’s presentation provided some of this information, which should have been provided in the proposal.

It is also not clear how complete assessments are used to support restoration work into the future. Fish passage, especially at road-stream crossings, is the primary issue. This proposal will seek to inventory and prioritize road crossings that limit passage in high priority steelhead tributaries, but details of that process were not provided. It is not clear to what extent a comprehensive assessment of the road system has already been completed or when such an assessment will be done. Additionally, it is not clear if there has been a comprehensive assessment of sites that are potential candidates for wetland restoration, the primary strategy to be used to address flow issues. For this treatment, it would also be useful to see if any thought has been given to how much area, and in what locations, will likely be needed to produce meaningful increases in water storage and base flow conditions. Presumably, focusing this work in selected tributaries would provide the highest likelihood of measurable increases.

The project appears to be well coordinated with public and private landowners and is aligned with a water quality restoration plan/TMDLs approved by IDEQ. Integration of this work with the fish recovery work is a positive situation.

The ISRP (2009) asked whether only anthropogenic barriers would be removed by the project rather than natural barriers that might provide important refuge for native resident fishes? Have and will anthropogenic barriers be targeted? If they plan to remove natural barriers, they should do a risk assessment to evaluate how resident fishes might be affected positively or negatively.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

It appears that a good deal of restoration work has been completed. It would be helpful is there was a roll up to summarize past accomplishments and where in the watershed they were completed. There is minimal information given to describe the results of past restoration even though it appears that some monitoring has been underway. A statement that the sponsors intend to continue to implement restoration treatments shown to be effective over the past years suggests that some conclusions from monitoring have been made. These should be summarized and shared.

There is limited discussion of lessons learned and their application to current and future conservation/restoration work. There is not a formal adaptive management process identified although it may be provided in the Potlatch Watershed Restoration Plan.

The ISRP (2009) concluded that this program met scientific criteria in part. The current proposal extracted the complimentary statements from ISRP (2009), that is those report sections that met scientific criteria, but the current proposal failed to specifically address the portions of the program that the ISRP (2009) said it did not meet. Specifically, WE 29, 30, 181, and 184 were not described in such a way that the ISRP could fully appreciate and support the ecological justification for the bioengineering approach that has been, or will be employed. ISRP (2009) requested additional specific information such as a demonstration that pools in this watershed provided thermal refuges. It is not clear from this proposal or from proposal 2008-604-00 whether pools provided a thermal refuge.

The project often utilizes bioengineering approaches to improve habitat, but these actions may need maintenance. How much maintenance has been needed and is adequate maintenance being accomplished?

In several locations, the proposal states that habitat actions are needed to reduce steelhead density-dependent impacts. However, information and reference on density-dependent processes in this watershed were not provided. What types of density-dependent effects have been observed, what life stages, and what is the report that provides this information?

The sponsors highlighted five activities at Corral and Big Bear creeks as examples of past efforts. One (Tourmaline) involves repairing damage resulting from an earlier effort to create wetlands. Unfortunately, details such as maps and photos are not provided in the very brief report.

The Tee/Colby and Avulsion/Round Meadow meadows restoration project reports are more detailed and more helpful. However, they need to be accompanied by a more comprehensive discussion of the potential of projects like these and their ability to accomplish Objective 3, to improve stream flow for steelhead spawning and rearing. How much of an enhancement in summer flow can be achieved by many such projects? What are alternatives? What fish production increases might result?

Photos were helpful to visualize efforts. From what is provided, reviewers are not convinced that work conducted to revegetate stream banks and add instream cover in the form of single logs will achieve the desired objective. Such work is not bad in terms of increasing complexity but may not significantly increase steelhead egg to alevin survival. Monitoring results from the sponsors would be very helpful.

The numerous actions to increase summer base flow by restoring meadow habitat are likewise in need of scrutiny to ascertain if they are achieving the desired objective(s). Overall, all habitat work needs confirmation of its effectiveness before it is expanded to other locations.

The passage project on Corral Creek seems like an effective gain for steelhead but some fish data would be valuable to include.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

There is a discussion of climate change (an emerging factor) for projects, watersheds, and biological issues. This discussion is quite general and does not offer any specific approaches that will be incorporated into future projects in anticipation of changes in conditions. Additionally, there is no discussion of changes in forest health and their possible effects to aquatic habitat. This would seem to be an important issue for consideration. Relationships with other programs were briefly described.

Private landownership was not mentioned at a limiting factor, although approximately 78% of the watershed is private. Future reports and proposals might address to what extent private landownership is constraining habitat actions in priority reaches and, if so, what actions are being taken to address the issue.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The project proposes to inventory and prioritize road crossing in steelhead priority tributaries that limit passage. Priorities will be given to Little Bear Creek following the removal of the abandoned dam owned by the City of Troy and the East Fork Potlatch River where high quality steelhead habitat is located within a heavily forested watershed owned by the U.S. Forest Service, State of Idaho, and one industrial forest landowner.

Four deliverables are identified but were stated only in vague terms without quantitative metrics. The sponsors are urged to work toward the incorporation of quantitative metrics in future and should also be more specific regarding how they are tied to the primary limiting factors and when results are anticipated.

DELV 1 monitoring of vegetation and groundwater, and project maintenance seems appropriate.

DELV 2 to remove Dutch Flat Dam is a project component that should provide substantial benefit for steelhead. The proposal states the dam is scheduled for removal in 2103 but that date is hopefully a typo.

DELV 3 improve East Fork passage and habitat is very general, but reviewers feel that enough information was conveyed during the tour to enable their support of this deliverable.

There appears to be a monitoring program in place, but it is not fully described. There is no mention of AEM or CHaMP despite the fact that there is a NOAA IMW in the watershed.

There is mention of a series of stream habitat assessments that have been done, but methods for these are not described nor is there a summary of findings. What protocol was used and what were the findings?

This response is organized based on the six issues identified in the ISRP review.  This response has been organized in a fashion that seeks to efficiently and effectively respond to the issues identified by the ISRP.  A few issues were combined into a single response.  

1.   Low summer flow is identified as a major factor limiting steelhead abundance, and reviewers concur. But despite reliance upon meadow restoration as a technique to increase water storage for eventual summer flow and with placement of monitoring instrumentation at project sites, there has been no assessment of the additional water that might be available in summer as a result of this restoration activity. The response should address this issue, perhaps by identifying high-low bookends for anticipated water volume, and compare this relative to current low summer flows. Flow enhancement in response to other actions being considered by both Potlatch projects should be considered in the analysis. 

The Latah Soil and Water Conservation District (Latah SWCD) has completed restoration work in the Corral Creek watershed at Avulsion Reach - Round Meadow and Tee-Colby Meadows; work in Race Track Meadow will be initiated this year.  Planning and design work is currently underway for the Upper Corral Creek Meadow via Latah SWCD and Shea Meadow in coordination with Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). Future Corral Creek meadow restoration implementation may include Upper Tee Meadow and Lower West Fork Meadow.  Additional meadow restoration projects are under consideration by US Forest Service and Latah SWCD within the East Fork Potlatch River.

Streamflow Bookend Estimate

Streamflow data was collected at the same location below the Corral Creek project areas in 2002, 2008, 2009, and 2010. Streamflow was taken in 2012 several hundred yards upstream from the location of the previous years in preparation for the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality’s (IDEQ) beneficial uses reconnaissance protocol survey (BURP) and it is very likely flow in the creek was greater by the time it reached the downstream collection site. These flows are shown in the two tables below.  Corral Creek ceases to flow each year in the forest and agricultural upland areas of the watershed by late July to early August. Stream temperatures were collected for a five year period beginning in 1999 at the mouth of Corral Creek near the confluence with the Potlatch River. Flow at the mouth was continuous; this is likely due to inter-basalt flow spring contributions along the canyon portion of the watershed. Antidotal evidence indicates Corral Creek was a perennial flowing stream until the mid-1930s after intensive timber harvest of old growth ponderosa pine, accompanied by road and railroad construction, and stream channel alterations (Hatley, 2013).

There are so many variables within the watershed that affect the ecosystem hydrology that estimating “high-low bookends for anticipated” streamflow increases resulting from meadow restoration probably wouldn’t result in a meaningful estimate.  Although the streamflow data available is minimal, the variability of what does exist further suggests that projecting flows for any water year would be speculative at this point.  Arguably, fish could survive in no flow provided there were pools retaining a sufficient quantity of cool water from spring and early summer flow; this could describe a sub-low bookend. A low bookend might be described as extended base flow for one month at a rate of 0.23 cfs and a high bookend might be described as perennial (extended base flow for four months) with a base flow of 0.23 cfs. The 0.23 cfs base flow is the average of all minimum flows for 2002, 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Table 1: Corral Creek data comparison 2009, 2010, and 2012

(Source Dansart, 2010, 2011, 2013)

Table 2: Corral Creek data comparison (POT-12) 2002, 2008 and 2009

(Source: Dansart, 2010)

Anticipated Effects from Meadow Restoration

Planning and implementing restoration at a landscape scale will optimize the potential to restore natural processes fostering resilient ecosystems and a diversity of species more likely able to adapt to environmental changes (Beechie, 2012, ISAB, 2011-4).  A resilient ecosystem will more likely sustain healthy and diverse habitats for flora and fauna.

There have been numerous studies and reports on meadow restoration published since the mid-1990s when meadow restoration using the pond-and-plug technique was first used. This strategy involved relocating meadow streams to historic locations, reconstruction of the historic channel, and filling in existing incised gullies (Lindquist and Wilcox, 2000).  The following is taken directly from Long, 2013:

Published studies suggest that active meadow restoration designed to remedy incised channels has increased groundwater levels and subsurface storage, which in turn romotes wetland vegetation (Hammersmark et al. 2010); increased frequency and duration of floodplain inundation, which in turn may filter sediment and nutrients; attenuated peak flows and increased mid-summer base flows (Hammersmark et al. 2008, Tague et al. 2008); and reduced maximum water temperatures (Loheide and Gorelick 2006).  Cumulatively, these results address the factors limiting the production of ESA-listed steelhead in the Potlatch River watershed.

Corral Creek is a 14,300 acre watershed with extensive system of meadows in the upper 10,784 acres that include 18 stream miles of potential habitat for steelhead. This portion of the Corral Creek watershed was opened up by removal of a 220 foot railroad culvert barrier in 2007. Juvenile steelhead were detected above the barrier removal site the following year. All of the Corral Creek meadows have been degraded by extensive logging activities, overgrazing, channelization, and construction of roads and railroads. These activities resulted in channel incisions and gully development, decreased groundwater levels, drained riparian and wet meadow soils, degraded riparian and wetland vegetation, and streambank instability.

Completed restoration in Avulsion Reach and Round Meadows and Tee-Colby Meadows included restoring the meadow stream to historic channels, plugging ditches created by railroad prisms, cattle exclusion fencing, off site water development, grazing management changes, extensive revegetation of wetland and riparian areas, and surface roughening using floodplain flow fluctuators (Heekin and Firor, 2013). Sedge was harvested from construction areas and used for revegetation in addition to planting a diversity of other native species including the following: Alnus incana, Amelanchier alnifolia, Carex aquatilis, , C. lenticularis,  C. vesicaria, Cratageus douglasii, Philadelphus lewisii, Physocarpus capitatus, Pinus contorta, P. ponderosa, Populus trichocarpa,  P. tremuloides, Prunus virginiana, Salix drummondia, S. rigida var mackenziana, Symphoricarpos albus, Achillea millefolium, , Agrostis exarata, Bromus marginatus, B. carinatus, Hordeum brachyantherum, Danthonia californica,  Deschampsia caespitosa, D. elongata, Eriogonum heracleoides, Festuca idahohensis, Galium boreale, Geum triflorum, Koeleria macrantha,  Lomatium triternatum, Lupinus sericeus, L. polyphyllus,  Potentilla arguta, P. gracilis, Pseudoroegneria spicata, Sidalcea oregana, Solidago missouriensis, Symphyotrichum spathulatum, Wyethia amplexicaulis. 

Runoff from two winters with above normal precipitation has occurred since the completion of the Avulsion-Round Meadow and Colby Meadow work with no significant site degradation. In addition, it has been observed that the mesic and wet meadow vegetation has increased in both abundance and distribution since the beginning of restoration work (Heekin and Firor, 2013).

Other Meadow Restoration Studies

The Feather River Coordinated Resource Management Group in California (FR-CRM) shifted its stream restoration approach from bank stabilization to landscape function in 1994 when they began to employee the pond-and-plug technique to re-water meadow systems. Their restoration efforts quickly resulted in elevated shallow groundwater levels, elimination of gully wall erosion, filtered sediment from the upper watershed, extended and increased base flow.  The FR-CRM developed a monitoring protocol to measure the carbon sequestered in their project areas. “Initial data analysis indicates that restored meadows contain twice as much total carbon as degraded meadows; on average approximately 40 metric tonnes more carbon per acre” (FR-CRM, 2010). Furthermore, the carbon in restored meadows occurs in the soil and thus is protected from loss by grazing (Fr-CRM, 2010).

Restoration techniques that can best ameliorate climate change effects on peak flow, low flow, stream temperature or to increase salmonid population resilience are given in Beechie (2012) and include the following: barrier removal, floodplain reconnection, incised channel restoration (including beaver reintroduction). The Latah SWCD is implementing all of these techniques except reintroducing beaver and they are working on that issue.

Alyward and Merrill (2012) compiled technical and economic study data to evaluate the ecosystem benefits and assess the financial and social incentives for meadow restoration.  The benefits evaluated in the study included analysis of forage and beef production, sediment reduction, downstream flows, and habitat improvements. They conducted a literature review followed by an investigation of the private (financial) and social (economic) returns using the case study of a hypothetical “typical” 50-acre meadow restoration project. The authors noted that the number of generalizations and assumptions necessary to reach their conclusions suggest further work is warranted to review, revise, and update this effort. Nevertheless, their financial analysis concluded that the increase in returns for ranchers as a result of meadow restoration might be more significant than generally expected and thus an incentive to participate in restoration programs.

The rancher who holds a grazing lease in the Corral Creek project area has amended his management practices by including flash/mob grazing. Last year as an experiment, the rancher purchased six under-weight livestock at auction to release in the lease area and because the meadow and riparian areas have improved in quality and quantity from restoration, his livestock quickly reached optimal weight (Hatley, 2013).

2.           Objectives and proposed deliverables should be quantified and should have a predicted time frame for expected results so that accomplishments can be better documented. For example, how many miles will be fenced and how many trees will be planted by year?  Basic accomplishments should be quantified and documented in the proposal so that the Council knows what was accomplished with the funding.

In an effort to respond to this issue, proposed accomplishments will be identified by each of the four deliverables.  These four deliverables overlap, to some degree, with each of the three objectives.

Deliverable 1 – Potlatch River Watershed/Monitoring and Maintenance of Steelhead Habitat Restoration Practices

The accomplishments for this deliverable are divided between the monitoring elements within the Potlatch River watershed and the maintenance efforts of individual habitat restoration practices.

Monitoring Programs

Latah SWCD’s proposal and associated funding will focus on monitoring at the project scale and the watershed scale.  The biological scale monitoring of steelhead production and productivity is undertaken outside this proposal by IDFG through their Potlatch River Steelhead Monitoring & Evaluation Program (PRSME).  The PRSME program was highlighted by IDFG staff during the ISRP tour of the Potlatch River watershed.

Latah SWCD Monitoring Programs – Latah SWCD staff undertake a variety of programs to monitor environmental changes related to past project implementation and baseline conditions of future restoration efforts.  The Latah SWCD Monitoring Plan and Procedures is an attachment within Pisces for Project #2002-061-00. 

Meadow Restoration/Groundwater Conditions – Latah SWCD staff will continue to monitor/analyze groundwater and surface water changes associated with the five meadow restoration projects within the Corral Creek watershed.  Currently, there are 42 individual installations throughout the watershed that will be monitored annually.  The wells were installed over the past several years with non-BPA funding.  Additional wells may be added to new meadow restoration sites with non-BPA funding in a joint effort with IDFG.

Stream Temperature Monitoring – Stream temperature data loggers have been established within project sites within three watersheds.  Approximately 20 data loggers have been established and will be maintained on an annual basis.  Another 20-30 temperature data loggers will be added during the life of the proposal to account for new project sites and generating baseline information for future restoration efforts.

Stream Shade Monitoring – In an effort to understand how riparian restoration efforts begin to shade adjacent streams, approximately three miles of stream will be monitored each year using a Solar Pathfinder methodology.  Monitoring will include baseline sites for new restoration projects and future site monitoring of established project to measure changes in stream cover.

Low Water Habitat Availability Protocol Survey (IDFG) – The Idaho Department of Fish and Game has developed a protocol for surveying low water available habitat.  In addition to surveys by IDFG, Latah SWCD has implemented this protocol in the past to determine pool habitat within select tributaries of the Potlatch River.  Over the next five years, Latah SWCD will continue to implement this protocol within Corral Creek and survey approximately two miles per year.

Stream Flow Monitoring – Currently, there are three stream flow gaging stations that will be maintained by this project.  Latah SWCD maintains the gages on Corral Creek near Helmer and one on the W. Fork Little Bear Creek in Troy.  Through a contract with US Geological Survey (USGS), a gage is maintained at the mouth of the Potlatch River near Juliaetta.  See http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?13341570 .

These gages will provide critical information regarding baseline watershed stream flow conditions and the potential effects restoration practices may have affecting stream flows in select watersheds where significant riparian restoration efforts, including meadow restoration efforts, have been completed. 

Passage Barrier/Culvert Inventory – The Latah SWCD has developed a culvert inventory protocol.  This protocol will be implemented in a minimum of four watersheds during the proposal’s timeframe.  The watersheds include, but are not limited to: E. Fork Potlatch River, W. Fork Little Bear Creek, Big Bear Creek, and Corral Creek.  This inventory will be the basis for considering future passage barrier removal projects in the future.  See Issue #3.  Latah SWCD culvert inventory efforts will be coordinated with past and future inventories undertaken by conservation agencies and private industrial forest landowners.

Photo Point Monitoring – In an effort to evaluate changes in vegetative systems affected by watershed restoration projects, photo point monitoring has been established on over 20 project sites.  Within these 20+ sites, over 240 individual photo points have been established.  During the proposal’s timeframe, these project sites will be maintained and approximately 10-20 new project sites will be established for current and future projects.

Maintenance of Habitat Restoration Projects

The primary maintenance efforts associated with steelhead habitat restoration projects within the Potlatch River system include: in-stream structure repairs two to three years following initial construction, riparian and upstream replanting up to five years following initial plantings, seeding and mulching of disturbed areas for two to three years following initial construction and/or site disturbance, and mechanical weeding, as needed.

During 2009 – 2012, Latah SWCD field staff maintained approximately 10-12 sites per year.  It is expected that this level of effort will be continued, although slightly expanded, through the five year life of the proposal.  Individual sites can range from a riparian planting site of several thousand feet of stream to a large forest meadow system of nearly 50-60 acres and several miles of stream length. 

Due to budget constraints within projects 2008-604-00 and 2002-601-00, it is anticipated that approximately 8 – 10 restoration sites per year will be maintained with funding through 2008-604-00 and 2 – 4 sites per year will be maintained with funding through 2002-061-00.  Project maintenance efforts between the two projects is coordinated through the Latah SWCD.   

Deliverable 2 – West Fork Little Bear/Improve Passage and Steelhead Habitat Conditions

The Dutch Flat dam on the West Fork Little Bear Creek is scheduled to begin demolition with FY13 BPA funding associated with the BPA/State of Idaho Accord Project #2008-604-00.  The majority of the demolition funding has been secured through the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF) managed by the Idaho Office of Species Conservation (IOSC).  The restoration actions associated with this effort will not be completed for approximately five years.  While the project site associated with the dam removal is only approximately 10 acres is size, the dam blocks approximately 7,600 acres and 35 stream miles of the upper watershed that is in relatively good condition.

Upon removal of the dam, IDFG will undertake of inventory of steelhead throughout the newly accessible area to determine distribution.  This fisheries inventory information will be related to the culvert inventory information developed by Latah SWCD outlined in Deliverable 1.  It is anticipated that approximately 12-15 culverts will be inventories throughout the upper watershed.  Given past field reviews of culverts along the larger stream reaches above the dam, it is anticipated 4 – 6 culverts may serve as partial passage barriers and will be removed and replaced with appropriately sized culverts and/or replaced by prefabricated bridges.

In addition, once the fisheries inventory is completed, riparian conditions will be surveyed throughout the upper reaches to identify potential restoration areas that would be effective in enhancing steelhead spawning and/or rearing habitat.  Upon an early review of the upper watershed, there are several miles of stream habitat that have some degree of habitat degradation due to livestock grazing and may be ideal candidate reaches for restoration. 

Deliverable 3 – East Fork Potlatch River/Improve Passage and Steelhead Habitat Conditions

Within the East Fork Potlatch River, several non-BPA projects have been undertaken and several more are underway to address passage barriers associated with forest road culverts and high sediment loading from the extensive forest road system.  These initial project sites were identified as priority passage barriers by the Idaho Department of Lands and Potlatch Forest Holdings.  Projects are also underway to begin abandoning forest road systems within high priority tributaries that would be beneficial to fish passage and/or spawning/rearing habitat.

Latah SWCD will undertake a culvert inventory throughout the E. Fork Potlatch River system as outlined in Deliverable 1.  This inventory will be completed with FY14/15 funding through this project proposal.  The inventory will identify those that may serve as steelhead migration barriers to high quality habitat.  These potential barriers will be evaluated through the project prioritization process outlined within the Potlatch River Watershed Management Plan.

Given an initial review of the E. Fork Potlatch River forest road system and an early estimate of approximately 100 + locations where forest road cross major tributaries of the E. Fork Potlatch River, it would not be unreasonable to expect to replace 15 – 20 culverts that are likely to partially or fully block steelhead passage to a significant quantity of high quality habitat.  Due to the anticipated magnitude of the work associated with passage barrier removal within the E. Fork Potlatch River, both BPA and non-BPA funding will be coordinated to undertake this effort.

One of the additional limiting factors to steelhead production and productivity within the E. Fork Potlatch River is sedimentation of potential spawning habitat.  The majority of the 40,000 acre watershed is dedicated to timber production by three entities: Potlatch Forest Holdings, Idaho State Department of Lands, and USDA Forest Service.  There is an extensive forest road system throughout the watershed and is considered a major source of sediment into the tributaries and mainstem of the E. Fork Potlatch River.

With non-BPA funding, Latah SWCD has developed a cost-share funding program through the Idaho Office of Species Conservation using funding associated with the Snake River Basin Adjudication.  In 2013, approximately 9 miles of forest roads will be rocked to minimize the erosion of these road systems.  The reduced erosion for these roads will minimize the source of stream sediment for several critical tributaries.

Given the extensive forest road system within the watershed (~ 250 miles), the Latah SWCD anticipates continuing with the road rocking cost-share program within high priority tributaries with funding by BPA and non-BPA sources.  Approximately 5 – 10 miles per year will be rocked selecting for forest roads that prove to be significant sources of stream sediment in high priority steelhead spawning and/or rearing streams.  

Deliverable 4 – Potlatch River Watershed/Project Identification and Proposal Development to Leverage Non-BPA Funding, Contract Management and Outreach

One of the key points of leveraging limited BPA budgets is to use BPA funds associated with project #2002-061-00 and #2008-604-00 to identify, prioritize, and plan projects throughout the Potlatch River system for funding consideration by future BPA contracts as well as non-BPA funds.  Over the past five years, the majority of funding used for steelhead habitat restoration/protection within the Potlatch River watershed has been secured from non-BPA sources.  This approach of leveraging BPA funding will continue over the next five year period.

During the past five years, over $3,350,000 has been secured from 14 different grants and contracts from a variety of federal and state sources to leverage with BPA funds.  Typically the leverage ratio of BPA funding to non-BPA funding is 25% to 75%. Latah SWCD anticipates securing an additional $2,000,000 - $3,000,000 of non-BPA funds over the next five years to enhance steelheed habitat throughout the Potlatch River system.

4.   A statement that the sponsors intend to continue to implement restoration treatments shown to be effective over the past years suggests that some conclusions from monitoring have been made. These should be summarized and shared. 

Monitoring of meadow restoration in the Potlatch River watershed is in an early phase of implementation and to date no definitive conclusions from this monitoring have been made.

Meadow restoration, however, has become more common since the mid-1990s and there has been significant literature published on the hydrological, physical, and biological responses to this type of work. This is in combination with field observations by project planners have provided the basis for encouraging continued work. A few of these publications were discussed in response #1. The expansion of meadow restoration in Corral Creek, the East Fork Potlatch River, Big Bear Creek, and Little Bear Creek watershed by the Latah SWCD, IDFG, and US Forest Service has been indicated through the planning and monitoring processes employed thus far for the Potlatch River and further supported by published reporting of other western U.S. meadow restoration efforts.

A number of articles however have cautioned against over enthusiastic reporting of the results of meadow restoration, saying that in general monitoring efforts have been neither technically vigorous nor carried out long enough to support conclusions regarding the effectiveness of restoration (Aylward & Wilcox, 2013, Long, et al, 2013, Ramstead et al, 2012, and Hammersmark, 2008).  Several articles reviewed discussed the potential for stream flow below restored meadows to be affected by higher evapotranspiration rates in the rewetted meadows and increased subsurface storage (Long, 2013 and USFS, 2010). Other articles have discussed of fish and macroinvertebrate monitoring deficiencies (USFS, 2010 and Hammersmark et al, 2005).

Meadow restoration monitoring in the Potlatch River watershed will be guided by the draft Latah Soil and Water Conservation District Monitoring Plan and Procedures (Latah Plan) and the Potlatch River Steelhead Monitoring and Evaluation Program (PRSME) being conducted by the IDFG. The following discussion is taken directly from the Latah Plan; the entire plan may be reviewed at www.monitoringmethods.org

Monitoring under the Latah Plan will be conducted using several methods, to gain a better understanding of the functional and structural characteristics of the stream and meadow systems and to adaptively determine restoration trends (see Table 3).  Physical measures will include the following: water table elevations, surface water elevations and discharge, channel type, bank erosion, pool characteristics, and shade. Biological monitoring will include changes in macroinvertebrate populations, riparian vegetation and fish habitat. In addition to temperature, DO and pH will be measured in several pools throughout the Corral Creek meadow system. Methodologies will include the use of photo points, groundwater observation wells, solar pathfinder, water level and temperature recorders, to augment several established protocols (Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (SVAP), Low Water Habitat Availability Protocol (LWHAP), Beneficial Use Reconnaissance Program (BURP)) that assess riparian health and help identify trends.

Baseline values will be measured at Upper and Lower WF Corral creek, Tee Meadow, Race Track Meadow, and Shea Meadow prior to restoration. Monitoring at Colby Meadow began post-restoration; flows were restored in the channel in 2011 with subsequent revegetation. Monitoring is intended to extend ten years post-construction at each project provided funding continues to be available.

Monitoring will be performed and results interpreted by Latah SWCD personnel. If flow conditions are favorable, BURP assessment may be performed by Idaho Department of Environmental Quality crew members with survey results process by IDEQ staff.

Table 3. Monitoring techniques and measurements to assess progress toward project objectives

5.   The second objective of this proposal is to provide suitable steelhead spawning and rearing habitat. The sponsors need a better vision of steelhead habitat, and they need early results from IDFG monitoring so they can be incorporated into continuing work. Please describe how IDFG monitoring is used to identify and prioritize restoration projects specific to rearing and spawning habitat.

The monitoring undertaken by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) is incorporated into the project prioritization process outlined in the Potlatch River Watershed Management Plan.  This prioritization process is outlined in the response to Issue #6.  Monitoring information generated by other conservation agencies, in addition to the monitoring information generated by Latah SWCD outlined in Issue #2/Deliverable 1, is incorporated into the same prioritization process.

The IDFG monitoring information, and other fisheries related information from other state and federal conservation agencies, is specifically incorporated into the prioritization process as outlined in Issue #6 when the technical working group reviews the consideration of “Steelhead Production Response Potential” for each of five general restoration strategies per the three land types within each of the fourteen watersheds outlined in the Potlatch River Watershed Management Plan.

IDFG’s Potlatch River Steelhead Monitoring and Evaluation (PRSME) project was initiated in 2005 to establish baseline levels of steelhead trout production and productivity and expanded in 2008 to include the entire Potlatch River drainage.  Project activities include adult weir operation, radio telemetry surveys, redd surveys, juvenile screw trap operation, summer roving PIT tagging, snorkel surveys and habitat surveys.  Several limiting factors to steelhead production have been identified within the Potlatch River basin and they include: extreme flow variation (Figure 1 and 2), high summer water temperatures, lack of riparian habitat, high sediment loads, and low densities of in-stream structure (Johnson 1985; Bowersox and Brindza 2006).   

Figures 1 and 2:  The extreme flow variation present within the Big Bear Creek system.  The picture on the top is taken during base flow in August.  The picture on the bottom is taken during spring runoff in the same vicinity as the picture on the left.

IDFG has identified areas of critical spawning and rearing habitat through snorkeling, radio telemetry, redd surveys, habitat surveys and growth rate analysis.   One of the goals of monitoring is to determine steelhead population response to habitat restoration.  For example, this monitoring information has assisted in identifying several seasonal migration barriers that are impeding steelhead access to suitable spawning and rearing habitat (Figure 3 and 4).  This monitoring data is used to identify and prioritize restoration projects. 

Snorkeling

Snorkeling is used to track annual changes in juvenile steelhead abundance in the Potlatch River and its tributaries.   Snorkeling also identifies fry recruitment and relates this data to the available spawning and rearing habitat. IDFG completes annual snorkeling surveys at population trend sites.  Mark-resight snorkel surveys are conducted throughout the Potlatch River watershed. Sample sites are selected using a generalized random tessellation stratification design to provide a spatially balanced panel of survey sites (Stevens and Olsen 2004). Potential sites for the Potlatch River basin were obtained from personnel at the US-EPA, Corvallis, Oregon. Mark-resight snorkeling protocols are consistent with techniques outlined in Copeland et al. (2008). A minimum of 20 sites are completed in Big Bear Creek and the East Fork Potlatch River drainages to provide enough statistical power to track changes in juvenile steelhead density over time. This sample size is generated by conducting a power analysis on 2008 snorkel data from the Potlatch River drainage.

Radio Telemetry

Radio telemetry has been used to assess spawning distribution and identify spawning reaches. By tracking adult steelhead during spawn timing, preferred spawning habitat can be identified.  In 2010, 25 female steelhead were captured at project weirs and implanted with radio tags.  Subsequent tracking identified locations and movements of these fish.  Volitional movement was impeded at Big Bear Creek Falls, Big Meadow Creek Culvert and Dutch Flat Dam (Figure 3 and Figure 4).  Over 50 kilometers of habitat is available above these barriers that is consistent with known spawning and rearing habitat below these barriers.   

Figures 3 and 4:  Migration barriers located in the Big Bear Creek drainage of the Potlatch River basin.  Big Bear Creek Falls (top) is located about 10km from the mouth of Big Bear Creek and Dutch Flat Dam (bottom) located on the West Fork of Little Bear Creek near Troy, Idaho.

Redd Surveys

Redd surveys have been conducted on selected tributaries.  These  surveys  provide redd locations to identify spawning reaches.  At each of these locations GPS coordinates were recorded, as well as habitat type and substrate being used.  This data is then used to identify spatial distribution and critical habitat  (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Map of steelhead redd locations and radio telemetry detections of individual fish during the 2010-2011 field season.  Note the frequency of detections below Big Bear Creek Falls and Dutch Flat Dam on West Fork Little Bear Creek.

Low Water Surveys

Low Water Habitat Availability Protocol surveys (LWHAP) are conducted annually to estimate and evaluate wetted habitat quality present within the lower Potlatch River tributaries.  Tributaries are stratified into upland and canyon reaches to disperse transects throughout each tributary.  Two 500m transects are walked within each strata resulting in four transects per tributary.  Transect are walked during the first week of August during base stream flow.  The length of wetted habitat and the number of pools are recorded in each transect.  Other metrics include: maximum depth, modal depth, pool length, pool width, and  salmonid presence.

Restoration Prioritization

The monitoring activities described above are tools used to identify critical steelhead habitat. Knowledge of historical steelhead habitat allows prioritization of restoration projects specific to available rearing and spawning habitat.   Tracking the annual changes in adult returns, juvenile outmigration, fry recruitment, and fish abundance, project effectiveness can also be evaluated. The extensive habitat monitoring will further expand knowledge of existing habitat conditions and how they are changing to benefit fish production and survival.  The knowledge that is gained from this monitoring will provide adaptive management strategies, direction, and justification of current and future habitat restoration projects. 

As IDFG gains new insights related to steelhead productivity/production through the Potlatch River Steelhead Monitoring and Evaluation program, this information will be incorporated into the prioritization process outlined in the Potlatch River Watershed Management Plan.      

3.   It is not clear how various assessments are planned and completed to support restoration work into the future. Fish passage, primarily at road-stream crossings, is a primary issue, and it is not clear if a comprehensive assessment of the road system has been completed for the project area and, if not, when it will be done. This is important for prioritizing actions. 

 6.   A detailed watershed and activity prioritization protocol was laid out during the presentation. A written summary of this process should be included in the response. 

The following response seeks to address issues #3 and # 6.  A large portion of this response is an expanded explanation of the prioritization protocol outlined during the ISRP tour and presentation and outlined within the Potlatch River Watershed Management Plan.

A number of assessments and fish inventories were used to develop the Potlatch River Watershed Management Plan (Potlatch Plan), these include the following:

• Bowersox, Brett, Nathan Brindza, and Tom Biladeau. 2005. Potlatch River Basin Fisheries Inventory. Idaho. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. January 2005.
• Bureau of Land Management. 2000. Biological Assessment of Ongoing and Proposed BLM Activities on Fall, Chinook Salmon, Steelhead Trout, Bull Trout, and BLM Sensitive Species.
• Ecovista. 2003. Clearwater Subbasin Assessment.
• Fuller, Ross K., P.A. Kucera, D. B. Johnson. 1985. A Biological and Physical Inventory of the Streams Within the Nez Perce Reservation Synopsis of Three Year of Stream Inventory on the Nez Perce Reservation.
• Johnson, David B. 1985. Nez Perce Tribe, Fisheries Biologist. A Biological and Physical Inventory of Clear Creek, Orofino Creek, and the Potlatch River, Tributary Streams of the Clearwater River, Idaho.
• Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. 2005. Potlatch River Subbasin Assessment and TMDLs.
• Kucera, P.A., J.H. Johnson, and M.A. Bear. 1983. A Biological and Physical Inventory of the Streams within the Nez Perce Reservation. Fisheries Resource Management. Lapwai, Idaho.
• National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005. Final Assessment of NOAA Fisheries’ Critical Habitat Analytical Review Teams for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead. Prepared by NOAA Fisheries Protected Resources Division http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/crithab/FCHART-INTRO.PDF
• Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2005. Clearwater Subbasin Management Plan, In Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Portland, Oregon.
• Schriever, Ed and Doug Nelson. 1999. Potlatch River Basin Fisheries Inventory

The goal of the Potlatch River Watershed Management Plan is to “specify restoration and protection strategies that help restore steelhead to a robust, self-sustaining population in the Potlatch River watershed”.  The purpose of the Potlatch River Watershed Management Plan is to “provide landowners, land managers and conservation agency staff with a guideline to facilitate the collaborative coordination of steelhead habitat restoration efforts throughout the Potlatch River watershed”. (Resource Planning Unlimited 2007).

In essence, the Potlatch Plan was designed and continues to be used as the formal structure to prioritize restoration and protection efforts throughout the Potlatch River watershed.   A copy of the Potlatch River Watershed Management Plan is located at: http://www.latahsoil.org/id50.html.

As the Potlatch Plan was under development, a critical element of the Plan’s structure was the ability to prioritize steelhead habitat restoration efforts throughout the watershed.  Within the Potlatch Plan is a list of fourteen Potlatch River tributaries.  The prioritization of these fourteen tributaries is based on the 2003-2004 fisheries inventory undertaken by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG, 2006).  This fisheries inventory was funded by BPA through project 2002-061-00.  This prioritized watershed list, in essence, focuses restoration efforts toward select tributaries based on a qualitative habitat analysis undertaken by IDFG. 

Working with the information generated in the IDFG 2003-2004 fisheries inventory, current restoration/protection efforts, and those proposed over the next five years, are concentrated in select prioritized watersheds which include: Big Bear Creek, Little Bear Creek, Corral Creek, and East Fork Potlatch River with affected tributaries. 

Within each of the fourteen tributaries, the Potlatch Plan delineates three land types that may warrant different types of restoration strategies.  The three land types include canyon, agricultural uplands, and forest.  In general, the Potlatch River headwaters start within forest land types, pass through agricultural uplands within the lower tributaries and enter the canyon land types before entering into the Clearwater River.

Within each of the three land types, five general restoration strategies are considered.  These five restoration strategies include:

• Restore Riparian/Floodplain Areas
• Restore Meadow/Wetland Systems
• Restore Upland Ecosystem Functions
• Eliminate Migration Barriers
• Develop Artificial Water Retention Facilities

Each of the five restoration strategies is evaluated with regard to their appropriateness within each of the three land types (e.g., restoration of riparian/floodplain area within the forest land type).  There are fifteen combinations of restoration strategies and land types per each of the fourteen tributaries.   Within each of these 210 tributary/land type/restoration strategy combinations (14x3x5), an additional five variables are considered by the supporting technical working group.

The supporting technical working group consists of Latah SWCD project planning staff, contract engineers, agency staff from Natural Resources Conservation Service, Idaho Department of Lands, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, and Idaho Office of Species Conservation.  Fisheries biologists from Idaho Department of Fish & Game, NOAA/Fisheries and the Nez Perce Tribe participate in the technical working group.

It is through this technical working group that individual agencies bring forward the most pertinent and recent qualitative and quantitative monitoring information regarding fish inventories, productivity and production.  It is through this process that the IDFG monitoring information is shared and evaluated in the prioritization process.  See Issue #5 identified above.

In addition to fisheries monitoring information presented to the technical working group, cooperating agency staff brings forward additional watershed-based information related to steelhead habitat restoration.  For example, the IDEQ would present the latest findings related to Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) water quality monitoring and stream quality monitoring related to their Beneficial Use Reconnaissance Program (BURP) and the Idaho State Department of Agriculture’s pesticide survey information would be presented and considered.

Beyond this monitoring data, district staff and cooperation agency staff that are responsible for directing restoration efforts throughout the Potlatch River watershed present their findings related to restoration techniques (e.g., riparian restoration efforts).  These findings would include both successful and unsuccessful techniques used during the past several years.

Recent monitoring data and restoration techniques are presented to the technical working group so the members can evaluate and prioritize future restoration efforts.  The prioritization protocol is outlined in Chapter 7 of the Potlatch Plan.

In order to determine which of the restoration strategies should be ranked “high, medium, or low”, the technical working group seeks consensus opinions related to five additional variables/considerations for each of the 210 considerations.  The five additional considerations are ranked as strong, moderate or weak.  These five considerations include:

• Steelhead Production Response Potential
• Landowner/Operator Potential Interest
• Potential to Utilize Existing Conservation Agency Resources
• Potential to Obtain Additional Technical and/or Financial Resources
• Probability of Future Land Uses Supporting Completed Restoration Activities

Related to Issue #5 previously identified, participating fisheries biologist and project planners critique the variable of “steelhead production response potential” based on past restoration practices, the most current monitoring data from IDFG, and field observations from participating conservation agency staff.  This critique considers each of the five restoration strategies previously identified by land type and watershed to effectively improve steelhead production.

For example, when the variable of “steelhead production response potential” is considered with respect to the “eliminate migration barriers” restoration strategy within the forest land type of the Little Bear Creek watershed, the technical working group considerations monitoring data that indicates an impediment to upstream/downstream migration of steelhead, upstream spawning and/or rearing habitat quality/quantity, additional barriers that may need to be addressed upstream, and potential conflicts with diverse fish populations if the barrier is a natural barrier.    

At the end of this peer-to-peer dialogue, a consensus opinion is sought for each of the 75 (3x5x5) discussion points for each of the 14 watersheds.  In total, the prioritization process outlined in the Potlatch River Watershed Management Plan has 1,050 decision points are ranked through a numeric system.  Once this is ranking process is completed, a final discussion takes place to review the quantitative outcome to see if the relative ranking system within each of the 14 watersheds has support from the technical working group members.

Once this quantitative review has been undertaken and using this numeric ranking system as guidance, the technical working group is asked to identify each land type/restoration strategy combination as high, medium or low for each of the 14 watersheds.

A “high” priority ranking implies a priority commitment towards the active solicitation of additional technical and financial assistance for implementation.  High priority strategies also reflect the ability and willingness to coordinate the redirection of existing conservation programs towards specified strategies.  In addition, high ranking implies an active engagement of individual landowners, private and public, to consider implementation of the defined strategies.  High ranked tributary/land type/restoration combinations are the origins of project proposals by the Latah SWCD and IDFG to BPA and non-BPA funding sources such as Pacific Coast Salmon Recover Fund (PCSRF), Snake River Basin Adjudication (SRBA), Idaho Department of Environmental Quality/CWA § 319 and others.

When projects proposals go to various state and/or federal agencies for consideration, with or without BPA matching funds, these projects undergo additional review processes.  For example, proposals that are submitted to IDEQ are formally presented to one of six regional Basin Advisory Groups (BAG) for consideration with other project proposals.  The Clearwater BAG prioritizes projects for funding and submits a prioritized list to IDEQ Headquarters.  IDEQ Headquarters prioritizes the list from all six Basin Advisory Groups and submits a state list to EPA/Region 10 for approval.

Proposals that are submitted for consideration to the Idaho Office of Species Conservation (IOSC) for PCSRF funds or SRBA funds are processed through a multi-layer review.

First, project concepts are discussed at a recently formed entity called the Clearwater Technical Group (CTG) focuses on project coordination throughout the Clearwater Region, sharing information about restoration practices, technical input to project concepts and the identification of potential project partners.  The CTG also reviews resent fisheries monitoring data collected from IDFG.  See Issue #5 above.  

The CTG recommended the creation of a Core Review Team (CRT) that could provide a technical critique of PCSRF and SRBA proposals by professional conservation staff that does not have a vested interest in the submitted proposals.  Currently, the CRT has a roster of eight members to draw from with a minimum of three reviewers per project cycle.  Members, active or retired, represent Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, NOAA/Fisheries, US Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and Idaho Department of Fish and Game (retired).  The Core Review Team has developed review criteria and submits reviews of proposals to project sponsors and the Office of Species Conservation.

Finally, project sponsors present their applications to the IOSC Funding Board for formal consideration and approval.  The IOSC Funding Board is comprised of four members.  Three members are agency directors for Idaho Office of Species Conservation, Idaho Department of Water Resources and Idaho Department of Fish and Game.  The fourth member is one of the Governor’s Appointees to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council.

In summary, the prioritization process outlined for projects fully or partially funded by BPA is initiated within the process outlined in the Potlatch River Watershed Management Plan for each of the 14 sub-watersheds.  Project proposals that are generated out of this process will have incorporated the most recent fisheries monitoring data, field experiences from conservation agencies responsible for direct project implementation and a peer-to-peer critique of potential restoration efforts.

Bibliography

Aylward & Merrill. 2012. An Economic Analysis of Sierra Meadow Restoration. A report for Environmental Defense Fund under the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s Sierra Meadows Initiative. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/hfqlg/monitoring/resource_reports/socioeconomics/Economic%20Analysis%20of%20Meadow%20Restoration%202012.pdf

Beechie, et al. 2012. Restoring Salmon Habitat for a Changing Climate. River Research Applications. DOI: 10.1002/rra.2590. http://secure.ntsg.umt.edu/publications/2012/BIGWWPRKSKM12/Beechie%20et%20al%202012%20RRA%20restoring%20salmon%20habitat%20for%20a%20changing%20climate.pdf

Bureau of Land Management. 2000. Biological Assessment of Ongoing and Proposed BLM Activities on Fall, Chinook Salmon, Steelhead Trout, Bull Trout, and BLM Sensitive Species.Cooper, D.J. et al. 1998. Hydrologic Restoration of Fen in Rocky Mountain National Park. Wetlands, vol 18, no. 3, pp 335-345.

Copeland, et al. 2008. Idaho Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation, 2007 Annual Report. Idaho Department of Fish and Game Report 08-58. Bonneville Power Administration. Project 1991-703-00. Portland, OR.

Dansart, B. 2010. Potlatch River Monitoring Report 2009. Technical Results Summary WJD-PR-2010.

Dansart, B. 2011. Corral Creek Discharge Calculation Summary March 2010 to March 2011.    

Dansart, B. 2013. Personal communication

Ecovista. 2003. Clearwater Subbasin Assessment.

Feather River Coordinated Resource Management Group. 2010. Technical Report: Quantification of carbon sequestration benefits of restoring degraded montane meadows. http://www.feather-river-crm.org/

Fuller, Ross K., P.A. Kucera, D. B. Johnson. 1985. A Biological and Physical Inventory of the Streams within the Nez Perce Reservation Synopsis of Three Year of Stream Inventory on the Nez Perce Reservation.

Hammersmark, C. & Mount, J. 2005. Geomorphic, Hydrologic, and Ecological Effects of the Bear Creek Meadow Restoration Project. UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences. 17 pgs.   

Hammersmark, Rains, & Mount. 2008. Quantifying the Hydrologic Effects of Stream Restoration in a Montane Meadow, Northern California, USA. DOI: 10.1002/rra.1077

Hammersmark, C.T.; Dobrowski, S.Z.; Rains, M.C.; Mount, J.F. 2010. Simulated Effects of Stream Restoration on the Distribution of Wet-Meadow Vegetation. Restoration Ecology. 18(6): 882-893.

Hatley, C. 2013. Personal communication

Heekin, T. and Firor, S. 2013. Personal communication

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. 2005. Potlatch River Subbasin Assessment and TMDLs.

All IDFG publications are available at the following site:

https://collaboration.idfg.idaho.gov/FisheriesTechnicalReports/Forms/AllItems.aspx

IDFG. Schriever and Nelson. 1997. Potlatch River Basin Fisheries Inventory.

IDFG. Bowersox and Brindza. 2006. 2003-2004 Potlatch River Steelhead Monitoring and Evaluation Report. IDFG. Bowersox and Brindza. 2006. 2004 Potlatch River Steelhead Monitoring and Evaluation Report.

IDFG. Bowersox, Brindza, and Biladeau. 2005. 2005 Potlatch River Steelhead Monitoring and Evaluation Report

IDFG. Bowersox and Brindza. 2007. 2006 Potlatch River Steelhead Monitoring and Evaluation Report.

IDFG. Bowersox. 2008. 2007 Potlatch River Steelhead Monitoring and Evaluation Report.

IDFG. Bowersox, Banks, and Crawford. 2009. 2008 Potlatch River Steelhead Monitoring and Evaluation Report.

IDFG. Bowersox, Banks, and Crawford. 2009. 2009 Potlatch River Steelhead Monitoring and Evaluation Report.

IDFG. Bowersox, Banks, and Davids. 2011. 2011 Potlatch River Steelhead Monitoring and Evaluation Report.

IDFG. Bowersox, Banks, and Davids. 2012. 2010 Potlatch River Steelhead Monitoring and Evaluation Report.

IDFG. Bowersox and Biggs. 2012. Monitoring State Restoration of Salmon Habitat in the Columbia Basin – Interim Report

ISAB. 2011.Using a Comprehensive Landscape Approach for More Effective Conservation and Restoration. ISAB 2011-4

Johnson, David B. 1985. Nez Perce Tribe, Fisheries Biologist. A Biological and Physical

Inventory of Clear Creek, Orofino Creek, and the Potlatch River, Tributary Streams of the Clearwater River Idaho

Kucera, P.A., J.H. Johnson, and M.A. Bear. 1983. A Biological and Physical Inventory of the Streams Within the Nez Perce Reservation. Fisheries Resource Management. Lapwai, Idaho. February 1983.

Latah SWCD. 2007 (updated 2009). Potlatch River Watershed Management Plan.

Lindquist & Wilcox. 2000. New Concepts for Meadow Restoration in Northern Sierra Nevada. Annual Report.  http://www.feather-river-crm.org/

Loheide & Gorelick. 2007. Riparian Hydroecology: A Coupled Model of the Observed Interactions between Groundwater Flow and Meadow Vegetation Patterning. Water Resources Research vol.43, W07414.

Loheide, S.P., & Gorelick, S. M. 2006. Quantifying Stream-Aquifer Interactions through the Analysis of Remotely Sensed Thermographic Profiles and In Situ Temperature Histories. Environmental Science & Technology, vol 40, no. 10.        

Loheide SP, Deitchman RS, Cooper DJ, Wolf EC, Hammersmark CT, Lundquist JD. 2009. A Framework for Understanding the Hydroecology of Impacted Wet Meadows in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Ranges, California, USA. Hydrogeol J 2009, vol 17, pgs 229-246.

Long, et al. 2013. Science Synthesis to Promote Resilience of Social-Ecological Systems in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascades. Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/reports/psw_sciencesynthesis2013/index.shtml

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005. Final Assessment of NOAA Fisheries’ Critical Habitat Analytical Review Teams for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead.  http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/crithab/FCHART-INTRO.PDFNorman and Immeker. USFS.  2009. Interim Monitoring Report for the Big Meadow Creek in Cookhouse Meadow Restoration Project. Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5158607.pdf

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2005. Clearwater Subbasin Management Plan, In Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Portland, Oregon.

Patterson, et al. 2007. The Use of Hydrologic and Ecologic Indicators for the Restoration of Ditches and Water Diversion in a Mountain Fen in the Cascade Range California. Wetlands, vol 27, no. 2, p290-304.         

Ramstead, K.M., Allen, J.A., and Springer, A.E. 2012. Have Wet Meadow Restoration Projects in the Southwestern U.S. been Effective in Restoring Geomorphology, Hydrology, Soils, and Plant Species Composition? Environmental Evidence 2012, 1:11 DOI: 10.1186/2047-2382-1-11

Resource Planning Unlimited. 2007 (updated 2009). Potlatch River Management Plan

Stevens, D.L., and A.R. Olsen. 2004. Spatially Balancing Sampling of Natural Resources. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 99:262-278.

Tague et al. 2008. Effect of Geomorphic Channel Restoration on Streamflow and Groundwater in Snow Dominated Watershed. Water Resources Research, volume 44 W10415, DOI: 10.1029/2007WR006418 

USFS. 2010. The Pond and Plug Treatment for Stream and Meadow Resource Effects and Design Considerations. A Briefing Paper for Plumas National ForestResource Specialists and Managers. http://www.wetlandsandstreamrestoration.org/Publications/Pond%20%26%20Plug%20Treatment%20for%20Stream%20%26%20Meadow%20Restoration.pdf

Wilcox, Jim. 2010. Big Meadows Restoration Project October 14, 2009 Flood Event Report. Feather River Coordinated Resource Management. http://www.feather-river-crm.org/