|
Overview Summary of the Clearwater Subbasin Plan
November 2003
A brief development history of the Clearwater Subbasin
Plan is discussed in this document followed by summary comparisons of the
subbasin plan with the Independent Science Review panel's (ISRP) Review
of Draft Clearwater Subbasin Plan, the Technical
Guide for Subbasin Planners, the Columbia
River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, and the review
criteria for subbasin plans as amended by the Council March 17, 2003.
Artificial production management is not discussed
extensively in the Clearwater Subbasin Plan because several regional
activities are currently underway and will affect these issues. Those
activities include: completion of the Hatchery
Genetic Management Plans, Artificial Production Review and Evaluation,
and the U.S. vs. Oregon case. Problem Component 3 was developed to address
coordination of artificial production in the Clearwater.
History of Clearwater Subbasin Plan Development
(Section 1 Clearwater Management Plan)
-
The Clearwater Policy Advisory
Committee (PAC) was convened in August 1999 to guide development
of the Clearwater Subbasin assessment and plan. The PAC is comprised
of subbasin fish, wildlife, land, and water managers.
-
The assessment phase of subbasin planning in the
Clearwater began in late 1999 as the Northwest Power and Conservation
Council (Council) was amending their fish and wildlife program.
-
The Council approved amendments to the two Focus
Program coordination contracts and several implementation contracts in
April 2000 that allowed work on the subbasin assessment and planning
to proceed. Funding was also requested and approved for assessment
work from the Idaho Soil Conservation Commission.
-
The subbasin summary and provincial review process for
the Clearwater occurred in 2001 and work on the assessment was
temporarily suspended, although the PAC continued to meet and work on
assessment issues.
-
The Clearwater Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) began
the planning phase in January 2002 and the Council's technical guide
had by then become available.
-
The PAC submitted the Final
Draft Clearwater Subbasin Plan to the Council in November 2002.
-
Late November 2002 a workshop was held for the
Independent Science Review Panel (ISRP) to discuss the final draft.
-
The ISRP submitted their review findings to the
Council in February 2003.
-
The Council amended their program March 17, 2003 upon
recommendation by the ISRP to add three more criteria to use for
subbasin plan reviews.
-
The PAC met in April 2003 to discuss the 231 comments
on the Clearwater subbasin plan that the ISRP presented in their
report. Comments were clustered into groups and the PAC selected seven
clusters to address in a revision phase, considering in part available
funding and time. The clusters were themselves prioritized.
-
A meeting was held with NOAA Fisheries personnel to
discuss work the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team was doing
in May 2003.
-
Summary of Activities from September 1999 ? October
31, 2003:
-
33 PAC meetings
-
23 Subcommittee meetings
-
6 Focus Staff special contracting meetings
-
5 NOAA specific meetings
-
11 Public meetings
-
23 drafted component releases
-
8 drafted whole plan releases
-
114 individuals participated by providing review,
comment, and /or draft material (See Clearwater Management
Plan Table 2)
Participating in the process were tribal, state, and
federal fish and wildlife managers in the Clearwater as well as other
resource agencies, and members of the public. The Clearwater Subbasin Plan
was submitted to the Council for adoption November 2003
Revisions in the Clearwater Subbasin Plan Reflecting
Responses to the ISRP
Report 2003-3
-
Linkages between the assessment, management plan, and
inventory were improved. The problems, objectives and strategies in
the management plan are directly linked to the assessment and the
research, monitoring and evaluation plan by specific section
references. A discussion section following each objective was added to
provide additional background or explanatory information to the issue
addressed. Data and information citations were improved, methodologies
described more fully, and scientific participation and review more
explicitly identified. Habitat and population descriptions are linked
with watersheds, creek names, and Potential Management Units (PMU) in
the Clearwater Subbasin Inventory in narrative form and in an Excel
spreadsheet that can be used in planning exercises.
-
Aquatic and terrestrial focal populations were
connected by habitats and watersheds. Listed fish species are also
connected to the TRT distribution identification.
-
An analysis of existing projects was done by looking
at projects, populations, restoration needs, limiting factors, and PMU
characteristics by drainages (watersheds) to identify gaps between
actions that have already been taken or are underway and additional
actions that are needed.
-
The assessment socio-economic section of the subbasin
was enhanced and component problems were also enhanced for clarity and
to provide direction for future economic analysis.
-
Component Problem 10 dealing with wetlands and
riparian habitats was strengthen to better coordinate future work that
will affect both terrestrial and aquatic species.
-
Appendix D Discussion of Regional Modeling Efforts in
Relation to the Clearwater Subbasin was prepared to assess the
viability of modeling in the Clearwater as a tool for forecasting the
response of aquatic populations to habitat improvement projects.
-
Artificial Production Review and Evaluations (APRE)
were in draft form and being edited when the Clearwater Subbasin Plan
was being completed. To address issues related to APREs, Hatchery
Genetic Management Plans (HGMP), and other issues Component Problem 3
Objective C Strategy 1 calls for the organization of a subbasin
hatchery production committee of fisheries managers to enhance
communication and coordination. APREs and HGMPs are included in the
Clearwater Subbasin Plan by reference.
Technical Guide for Subbasin Planners Comparison
Variations from the Technical Guide are related to the Ecosystem
Diagnosis and Treatment Method that was not used for Clearwater. The
following discussion addresses the omissions.
-
Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment Method (EDT) was not
used in the subbasin assessment process because preliminary data sets
were not available during that time. Preliminary data sets were made
available during the subbasin planning phase, but attempts to
populate/validate the data sets were unsuccessful largely due to a
lack of clear guidance. The intended products of EDT such as,
description of population abundance and life histories, habitat
capacity, system productivity, limiting factors, and development of
the working hypothesis and biological objectives, have been addressed
using alternative methods in the Clearwater assessment and planning
processes. A discussion of EDT results that were available in early
2002 can be found in Appendix D of the Clearwater Subbasin Management
Plan.
-
The EDT was not available for modeling and therefore
the results were not available for developing the working hypothesis
or biological objectives. However, synthesis, analysis, and definition
of Potential Management Units (PMU) that were completed for the
assessment provided structure for the Technical and Terrestrial
subcommittees of the PAC to develop the working hypothesis, biological
and environmental objectives, and strategies. Membership on these
subcommittees overlaps and included PAC members, PAC member agency
staff, and other subbasin technical staff.
Council's Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
Language
-
Hydropower secondary and operational losses are
addressed in the Council's program, ?Subbasin plans will serve as
the vehicle to provide mitigation for direct operational losses and
secondary losses.? (Council 2000-19,
p31) A program to mitigate for these losses will be drafted for
the Clearwater when regional guidance is developed. This is described
in the Clearwater Subbasin Management Plan under Component Problem 17,
Objective KK, Strategy 3.
-
The role of the Clearwater Focus Program and the
Clearwater Policy Advisory Committee after adoption of the subbasin
plan is defined in the Clearwater Subbasin Inventory Section 2.1
Programs. This requirement is in the Council's program in the
Transition Provisions section (Council 2000-19, p57).
-
An estimated 10-year implementation of the plan budget
was developed. This is a required component of subbasin management
plans and is described in Subbasins Section 5 (Council 2000-19, p41).
-
The Council's program calls for ?a proposed
sequence and prioritization? of strategies (Council 2000-19,
p41).The Clearwater planning process did not identify priority areas
or priority data gaps to fill. The Clearwater Management Plan
throughout the objectives however calls for identifying and
prioritizing actions (see Table 4 Clearwater Management Plan) Problem
19 defines the need for prioritization of habitat areas and data gaps,
these issues to be addressed within one year from the adoption of the
Clearwater Subbasin Plan. The schedule for completion of this exercise
should coincide with the next Provincial Review for the Clearwater.
Clearwater Plan Additions
-
Nine goal statements were developed because the PAC
decided an intermediate step was needed between the vision statement
and the working hypotheses, component problems, objectives, and
strategies. Developing the goal statements served another purpose
beside the one for which it was intended. That is, the discussions and
debates that took place during the two development meetings served to
solidify the meaning of the PAC's mission and their common
commitment toward achieving the Vision Statement. The Vision Statement
and Goals were adopted by the PAC on February 21, 2002.
-
The Technical Guide describes subbasin plans as
products to be developed locally and in collaboration with fish and
wildlife managers, local governments, interest groups, and other state
and federal land and water resources managers. The Clearwater had
already organized the PAC, which was not intended to function as the
larger community of interests suggested in the guidance. The PAC
decided to develop and implement the Public and Government
Participation Plan to seek input from subbasin governments, other
agencies, interest groups, and private citizens. The PAC adopted the
Public and Government Participation Plan on March 27, 2002.
-
Three objectives were developed for a socioeconomic
component problem to address related issues and to strengthen
consistency with the Northwest Power Act section 4(h)(6). The Council's
Independent Economic Analysis Board has released a guidance document
to address these issues (ISAB 2003-2)
although socioeconomic issues are not yet explicitly guided by the
Council's program or the Technical Guide.
Council Program Review Criteria
-
Is the Clearwater assessment thorough and
substantially complete? The Clearwater assessment is as thorough
and substantial as possible relative to the size of the subbasin and
the available quantitative data on aquatic and terrestrial species
populations and their habitats.
-
Are the subbasin goals, objectives, and strategies
scientifically appropriate in light of the assessment and inventory?
Problem components, objectives and strategies were derived from the
assessment and inventory by the Clearwater technical subcommittees and
are considered by the managers as scientifically appropriate. The
relative scientific relationships have been enhanced via more explicit
linkages between the subbasin plan components as described below.
-
Are the goals, objectives, and strategies
consistent with those adopted in the program for the province and/or
basin levels? The goals, objectives, and strategies are consistent
with the Council's for the Columbia basin. None have been
articulated for the Mountain Snake Province.
-
Does the plan demonstrate that alternate management
responses have been adequately considered? The PAC determined that
the program requirement regarding alternate management responses
(Council 2000-19, p43) was related to the Ecosystem Diagnostic
Treatment model which was not used in the Clearwater as described
earlier in this document. However, alternative action options were the
focus of 32 technical and policy meetings held during the planning
phase (not assessment phase). The selected management alternatives are
presented in the Clearwater Management Plan.
-
Does the plan demonstrate a linkage between the
strategies, the biological objectives, the subbasin vision, and the
assessment? Linkages between the assessment, plan, and inventory
have been made more explicit and more extensive.
-
Does the proposed subbasin plan include a procedure
for assessing how well subbasin objectives are being met over time? The
research, monitoring, and evaluation section of the Clearwater
Management Plan provide for this.
-
Does the plan provide a scientifically supportable
procedure for refining the biological objectives as new information
becomes available about how fish, wildlife, and the environment
interact, and in relationship to how the plans are implemented over
time? The plan provides steps for refining objectives throughout
the plan. A prioritization, implementation, monitor and evaluate,
adapt management sequence is used, for example see Problem 2:
Anadromous fish production is limited by habitat quantity, quality,
and connectivity in portions of the subbasin.
New Information in the Clearwater Plan
Assessment
-
Chapter 3 ? Overview of Data Collection, Analysis
and Synthesis
-
Section 4.10.2 ? Socioeconomic Overview ? This
compliments additions or modification in the preceding Demographics
section (4.10.1)
-
Inventory
-
Information on the Comprehensive State Water Plan for
the South Fork Clearwater River Basin (section 3l3)
-
Section 3.6?Discussion of Artificial Production
Review and Evaluation (APRE) products
-
Chapter 6 has been overhauled and now includes the
Inventory Review and Conclusions. Table(s) describing individual
projects will be included on the accompanying CD, but will no longer
be in the Inventory document itself.
Management Plan
-
Section 4.2 (Hypotheses, Problems, Objectives and
Strategies) has been revised throughout by the Technical Teams.
-
Discussion sections have been added for each objection
in Section 4.2 to provide further linkages between the Management Plan
and Assessment.
-
Appendix G Using the PMUs for Project Planning and
Review has been added.
-
Appendix H Response to NOAA Fisheries Comments has
been added.
This document provided by the
Clearwater Policy Advisory Committee:
George Enneking, Idaho County Commission, Chairman Cal Groen, IDFG,
Vice Chairman
Terry Cundy, Potlatch Corporation Bob McKnight, Idaho Department of
Lands
Bill Miller, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Kyle Hawley, ID Assoc. of
Conservation Districts
Allen Slickpoo, Jr., Nez Perce Tribe Executive Committee Larry Dawson,
Clearwater National Forest
Dale Brege, NOAA Fisheries Bruce Bernhardt, Nez Perce National Forest
Kerby Cole, ID Department of Environmental Quality
^ top
|
|
home