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:

A good quantitative description of expected accomplishments is provided, but there remains a lack of meaningful project level objectives describing the expected outcomes of the proposed work. Table 6 provides an excellent source material for development of such objectives. Examples of potential project objectives could include: within 5 years following restoration treatment, extend the duration of base flows (0.23 cfs or greater) for at least one month; increase stream surface shading to at least 60% on all perennial streams; achieve at least 80% survival for all riparian plantings, and, at identified fish passage barriers, ensure that all species and life stages are successfully passing the restored, road-stream crossings. Such objective statements provide a more valuable, quantitative description of desired post restoration conditions/outcomes and establish a clear basis to assess the effectiveness of restoration treatments.

Regarding the issue of summer streamflow response to meadow restoration activities, the sponsors provide a discussion of literature on this topic but did not specifically address the question because they say it would be speculative. Reviewers wonder if the sponsors are anticipating an increase in summer flows of 1%, or 10%, or perhaps restoration to a perennial stream following the proposed actions. The sponsors provided some flow monitoring data and referred to general habitat improvements associated with meadow restoration but unexpectedly failed to incorporate any mention of data from the groundwater monitoring system that has been in place for several years. That system purports to "a) test whether restoration significantly increases groundwater elevations and re-establishes connectivity between the channel and floodplain; b) estimate the direction and magnitude of groundwater flow gradients; and c) associate groundwater elevations with surface flow magnitudes and durations." But apparently it has not yielded any results to date. Reasons for that should be resolved during contracting and any appropriate modifications to the monitoring system should be implemented.

A detailed discussion of project prioritization was provided, but little additional information was given regarding completion of fish passage and road condition assessments for the four identified priority watersheds. Given the priority setting process, it appears that having a good assessment of conditions for passage and road condition is critical to ensure that important projects are identified and prioritized early in the planning process. For roads, there was a discussion about completion of a rocking program designed to reduce increased sediment delivery, but there was no discussion about potential improvements to road drainage or pull back/treatment of unstable areas, especially on side-cast roads. Attention to both of these factors is likely to more fully address the issue of accelerated sediment delivery from roads. A road condition survey would allow identification of these needs/opportunities and their incorporation into planned road treatments. Additional information regarding the schedule for completion of fish passage and road condition assessments can be provided 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?

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/27/2013 10:36:18 AM.

The Latah SWCD’s April response provided additional information regarding the proposal to add eight work elements to its existing BPA contract and enables the ISRP to now fully support the request. The work elements not fully supported in the ISRP 2009-8 report – Big Bear Creek cascade fish passage improvement, WE 29, WE 30, WE 181, and WE 184 – are now described in such a way that we can fully appreciate and support the ecological justification for the bioengineering approach that has been and will be employed. Additional information regarding the monitoring and evaluation program was presented to show how components will be coordinated with specific respect to this proposal and results incorporated into future management actions for the Potlatch watershed. The letter of support from NOAA (that provides funding for Latah SWCD through the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund) was helpful, especially as it indicated that agency’s endorsement of Potlatch results to date and the monitoring protocol and track record.

The ISRP is pleased to see stronger ties to fish and aquatic habitat here than in most SWCD proposals; this still works to implement Best Management Practices, but the authors have done an assessment and prioritized the tributaries with an understanding of what needs to be worked on first. This is a very strong point of this proposal. They used information from their assessment to actually inform their current understanding; i.e., some of the assessment data changed their minds. There is also a strong working connection, not just lip service, to IDFG steelhead studies on the Potlatch system.

The M&E needs to be better developed and coordinated; see ISRP's programmatic comments on M&E. Fish monitoring would be dependent upon IDFG. This is not likely a situation where in-depth habitat effectiveness monitoring is needed. The effectiveness monitoring should use methods that are peer reviewed and up to Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP) and Collaborative Systemwide Evaluation Program (CSMEP) standards.

In order to track progress toward a "restored" state, abundance targets (in this case, numbers of steelhead) are needed. Project staff will need to work with others to better identify abundance goals for fish in the Potlatch River. On page 9, paragraph 2 of the proposal, 5,900 - 10,000 adult A-run steelhead are identified as the goal for the Clearwater, and sponsors suggest that the Potlatch could produce a significant number of these fish. These goals should largely be identified by management agencies and perhaps a recovery plan.