Clearwater Subbasin Planning or The Long and Winding Road Clearwater Focus Program Idaho Soil Conservation Commission

Clearwater Subbasin in the Basin

Clearwater Focus Program Origin and Structure Authorized by the 1994 NW Power and Conservation Councils 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 protect, enhance, and restore habitat impacted by the Columbia River hydroelectric system.Coordinate watershed projects to protect, enhance, and restore habitat impacted by the Columbia River 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 Species in the Subbasin Fall Chinook, to Lolo Creek West Coast Steelhead Bull Trout

ESA Listed Animal Species in the Subbasin Gray Wolf American Peregrine Falcon Bald Eagle Grizzly Bear

ESA Listed Plant Species Spaldings Catchfly Macfarlanes Four OClock Water Howellia Ute Ladies Tresses

Habitat Project Areas

SCC Coordination Objectives The Road Were On Subbasin Assessment Subbasin Management Plan & Inventory Implementation Project Support

Policy Advisory Committee People on the Highway Idaho Association of Counties/Idaho County Idaho State: IDEQIDFGIDL 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 Phase Hit 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 Completed Dancing on the Highway The Final Draft Clearwater Subbasin Plan was presented to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council in Coeur dAlene on November 14, 2002

The First ISRP Junction Pavement Cracks The ISRPs 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 Councils 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 ISRPs evaluation inspired additional subbasin plan review criteria be adopted to the Councils program

Contingency Planning Crawling 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 Rewriting On 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 Junction Sideways Down The Highway The ISRPs 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 Framework Bright Side of the Road Councils central staff developed a framework for adoptability and used it to evaluate the Clearwater Subbasin Plan Framework based on Councils program language and the Power Act; later used to review other subbasin plans

Where is the Clearwater Plan Today Side 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 Plan Hillbilly 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 Up Malfunction 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

Whats Next in the Clearwater Further 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 6 th 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