Contact
About

Integrating energy and the environment in the Columbia River Basin

About the Council
Mission and Strategy Members and Staff Bylaws Policies Careers / RFPs
News

See what the Council is up to.

Read the Latest News
Read All News Press Resources Newsletters International Columbia River

Explore News By Topic

Fish and Wildlife Planning Salmon and Steelhead Wildlife Energy Planning Energy Efficiency Demand Response
Fish and Wildlife

The Council works to protect and enhance fish and wildlife in the Columbia River Basin. Its Fish & Wildlife Program guides project funding by the Bonneville Power Administration.

Fish and Wildlife Overview

The Fish and Wildlife Program

2020 Addendum 2014/2020 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Subbasin Plans Project Reviews and Recommendations

Independent Review Groups

  • Independent Economic Analysis Board (IEAB)
  • Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB)
  • Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP)

Forums and Workgroups

  • Asset Management Subcommittee
  • Ocean and Plume Science and Management Forum
  • Regional Coordination
  • Science and Policy Exchange
  • Toxics Workgroup
  • Columbia Basin Research, Monitoring and Evaluation Workgroup
  • Informal Hatchery Workgroup
  • Strategy Performance Indicator Workgroup

Topics

  • Adaptive Management
  • Anadromous Fish Mitigation
  • Blocked Areas
  • High-level Indicators
  • Invasive and Non-Native Species
  • Lamprey
  • Predation: Sea lions, pike, birds
  • Protected Areas
  • Research Plan
  • Resident Fish
  • Resource Tools and Maps
  • Sockeye
  • Sturgeon
  • Hatchery Map
Energy

The Council develops a plan, updated every five years, to ensure the region’s power supply and acquire cost-effective energy efficiency.

Energy Overview

The Northwest Power Plan

The 2021 Northwest Power Plan 2021 Plan Supporting Materials Planning Process and Past Power Plans

Technical Tools and Models

  • Regional Portfolio Model
  • Generation Evaluation System Model (GENESYS)

Energy Advisory Committees

  • Regional Technical Forum
  • Conservation Resources Advisory Committee
  • Demand Forecast Advisory Committee
  • Demand Response Advisory Committee
  • Generating Resources Advisory Committee
  • Natural Gas Advisory Committee
  • Resource Adequacy Advisory Committee
  • System Analysis Advisory Committee
  • RTF Policy Advisory Committee
  • System Integration Forum
  • Resource Strategies Advisory Committee (Not Active)

Energy Topics

  • Energy Efficiency
  • Demand Response
  • Power Supply
  • Resource Adequacy
  • Energy Storage
  • Hydropower
  • Transmission

Energy Forums and Workgroups

  • Pacific NW Demand Response Project
  • Northwest Wind Integration Forum (Archive)
Meetings
See next RTF Policy Advisory Committee Q2 Meeting June 08, 2022 in Portland › See all meetings ›

Recent and Upcoming Meetings

Swipe left or right
AUG 2021
WED FRI
04 - 06
RAAC/SAAC - Adequacy/GENESYS Technical Conference
AUG 2021
TUE WED
10 - 11
Council Meeting
AUG 2021
MON
23
1:00 pm—2:30 pm
Council Meeting Webinar to Discuss the Draft 2021 Power Plan and Decision to Release for Public Review and Comment
AUG 2021
TUE
31
9:00 am—2:45 pm
RTF Meeting
SEP 2021
MON
13
9:00 am—12:00 pm
Strategy Performance Indicator Workgroup
SEP 2021
TUE WED
14 - 15
Council Meeting
SEP 2021
TUE
21
10:00 am—11:00 am
Informal Hatchery Workgroup Meeting
SEP 2021
TUE WED
21 - 22
RTF Meeting
SEP 2021
MON
27
Power Plan Public Hearing Hosted by Montana
SEP 2021
WED
29
9:00 am—11:30 am
RTF Policy Advisory Committee Meeting
OCT 2021
THU
07
Power Plan Public Hearing Hosted by Washington
OCT 2021
TUE
12
Power Plan Public Hearing Hosted by Oregon
OCT 2021
TUE WED
12 - 13
Council Meeting
OCT 2021
THU
14
Power Plan Public Hearing Hosted by Idaho
OCT 2021
TUE
19
9:30 am—3:00 pm
RTF Meeting
NOV 2021
TUE
09
9:00 am—1:00 pm
RTF Meeting
NOV 2021
TUE WED
16 - 17
Council Meeting
NOV 2021
TUE
30
1:00 pm—3:00 pm
RTF Policy Advisory Committee Meeting
DEC 2021
TUE WED
07 - 08
RTF Meeting
DEC 2021
MON
13
9:00 am—11:00 am
Strategy Performance Indicator Workgroup
DEC 2021
TUE WED
14 - 15
Council Meeting
JAN 2022
TUE WED
11 - 12
Council Meeting
JAN 2022
WED
19
1:00 pm—5:00 pm
Ocean and Plume Science and Management Forum
JAN 2022
TUE
25
9:00 am—12:00 pm
RTF New Member Orientation: January 25, 2022
JAN 2022
WED
26
9:00 am—1:00 pm
RTF Meeting
JAN 2022
FRI
28
8:30 am—11:30 am
Power Committee Meeting
FEB 2022
MON
14
9:00 am—10:30 am
Informal Hatchery Workgroup Meeting
FEB 2022
TUE WED
15 - 16
Council Meeting
FEB 2022
WED
23
9:00 am—2:30 pm
RTF Meeting
MAR 2022
WED
02
9:30 am—3:00 pm
System Integration Forum: Scope of Work on Potential Lower Snake River Dam Analysis
MAR 2022
TUE
08
1:30 pm—2:30 pm
Public Affairs Committee Meeting
MAR 2022
MON TUE
14 - 15
Council Meeting
MAR 2022
FRI
18
9:00 am—11:00 am
Fish and Wildlife Committee Meeting
MAR 2022
TUE WED
22 - 23
RTF Meeting
MAR 2022
WED
30
9:30 am—12:00 pm
RTF Policy Advisory Committee Q1 Meeting
APR 2022
TUE WED
12 - 13
Council Meeting
APR 2022
TUE WED
19 - 20
RTF Meeting
MAY 2022
TUE WED
10 - 11
F&W and Power Committee Meetings
MAY 2022
WED
18
Council Meeting
MAY 2022
TUE
24
9:00 am—2:30 pm
RTF Meeting
JUN 2022
WED
08
9:00 am—12:00 pm
RTF Policy Advisory Committee Q2 Meeting
JUN 2022
TUE WED
14 - 15
Council Meeting
JUN 2022
WED THU
22 - 23
RTF Meeting
JUL 2022
WED THU
06 - 07
F&W and Power Committee Meetings
JUL 2022
TUE WED
12 - 13
Council Meeting
JUL 2022
TUE WED
19 - 20
RTF Meeting
AUG 2022
TUE
09
9:00 am—4:00 pm
RTF Meeting
AUG 2022
TUE WED
16 - 17
Council Meeting
SEP 2022
TUE WED
13 - 14
Council Meeting
SEP 2022
TUE WED
20 - 21
RTF Meeting
SEP 2022
WED
28
9:00 am—12:00 pm
RTF Policy Advisory Committee Q3 Meeting
OCT 2022
TUE WED
04 - 05
F&W and Power Committee Meetings
OCT 2022
TUE WED
11 - 12
Council Meeting
OCT 2022
TUE WED
18 - 19
RTF Meeting
NOV 2022
TUE
08
9:00 am—4:00 pm
RTF Meeting
NOV 2022
TUE WED
15 - 16
Council Meeting
NOV 2022
WED
30
9:00 am—12:00 pm
RTF Policy Advisory Committee Q4 Meeting
DEC 2022
TUE WED
06 - 07
RTF Meeting
DEC 2022
TUE WED
13 - 14
Council Meeting
View Council Meetings View All Meetings
Reports and Documents

Browse reports and documents relevant to the Council's work on fish and wildlife and energy planning, as well as administrative reports.

Browse Reports

REPORTS BY TOPIC

Power Plan Fish and Wildlife Program Subbasin Plans Financial Reports Independent Scientific Advisory Board Independent Scientific Review Panel Independent Economic Analysis Board

COLUMBIA RIVER HISTORY PROJECT

Final Review of the Proposed Scope Expansion of the Project Restore Potlatch River Watershed (2002-061-00)

Council Document Number: 
ISRP 2009-13
Published date: 
April 28, 2009
Document state: 
Published

Share

This review is the ISRP’s final review of information supporting a scope change for the Latah Soil and Water Conservation District’s (Latah SWCD) project Restore Potlatch River Watershed (200206100). The Latah SWCD requested new work elements be added to the existing project to address significant limiting factors as outlined in the Potlatch River Watershed Management Plan. The work elements are designed to address upland issues as well as instream habitat and riparian issues.

The work elements include:

  • WE#27 – Remove Debris
  • WE#29 – Increase Instream Habitat Complexity
  • WE#30 – Realign, Connect, and/or Create Channel
  • WE#33 – Decommission Road/Relocate Road
  • WE#84 – Remove/Install Diversion
  • WE#181 – Create, Restore, and/or Enhance Wetland
  • WE#184 – Install Fish Passage Structure
  • WE#186 – Operate and Maintain Habitat/Passage/Structure

This action is addressed in the recently signed Memorandum of Agreement between the State of Idaho and the FCRPS action agencies.

This review began with the Council’s November 2008 request for us to review the Latah SWCD’s scope change request. We reviewed that information, and on December 19, 2008 requested a response. On February 23, 2009, we received a response. We reviewed the response and released a memo on March 27, 2009. In that review, we found that the proposal met scientific review criteria in part. Specifically we recommended that four work elements were justified: 27, 33, 186, and 84 (although the benefits expected from replacing old culverts with "fish friendly" culverts were not adequately justified). Four other work elements – Big Bear Creek cascade fish passage improvement, 29, 30, 181, and 184 – were not described in such a way to ecologically justify their bioengineering approach. In addition, their plans for monitoring and evaluation were not sufficiently described. On April 10, 2009, the Latah SWCD responded to our concerns. Our review follows below.

ISRP April 2009 Final Recommendation: Meets Scientific Review Criteria

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.

ISRP April 2009 Final Comments

1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships (proposal sections B-D)

The response provided additional clarification in regard to several issues. It gave supplemental information based on project survey data with respect to pools in the Potlatch tributaries, their thermal regime, and their use by juvenile steelhead.
Reviewers had also asked to what extent the proposed investments on streams flowing through private lands will be protected (by easements, changes in livestock management, etc.) in the future. The response discussed the situation with enough detail to convince reviewers that as much as possible is being done within the limitation of private land ownership to protect habitat improvements resulting from project activities.

2. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods (section F)

In our December 2008 review, we also asked what was meant by "increasing riparian habitat complexity" or how the goal of increasing riparian complexity would be achieved. The April response discussed this issue and clarified how project staff approached project selection and design.

Many of the site restoration efforts involve intensive bioengineering, as opposed to passive restoration. The April response material provided additional information that was sufficient to demonstrate the need for bioengineering, in some situations, to address legacy impacts. It also dealt with the need for continued maintenance.

Based on the change of scope request and initial response it was unclear whether the Latah SWCD planned to provide adult migration at a natural passage barrier at stream mile 5.6 of Big Bear Creek – the top priority subwatershed. The April response indicates the Latah SWCD does not intend to modify this natural stream feature, and the ISRP concurs.

We had also asked for additional clarification on work element 30 that includes channel realignment, which may or may not provide significant benefit to steelhead rearing, depending on the situation. In the reviewers’ minds, the initial response had not indicated specifically how the WE 30 reaches will be restored and managed to retain conditions that will benefit this species. The new discussion clarified the issue (by incorporating stream avulsion risk, etc.), and this work element seems justified.

3. Monitoring and Evaluation (sections G and F)

The newly-provided material allays reviewers’ concerns over project monitoring and evaluation. Those concerns had originated from a lack of information, rather than any direct evidence of inadequate or misdirected monitoring. The request for change in scope and initial response had given the impression that the Latah SWCD monitoring plan was a set of various components that had not been thoroughly thought out and coordinated. The April response (especially the link provided to the just-completed IDFG 2007 Annual Report) shows the effort is complex, with extensive interaction with the IDFG, NOAA-funded project and other agencies. It appears well coordinated and adequately positioned to assess changes in habitat and fish abundance resulting from the BPA-funded work. The new detail provided on photo monitoring points, plant survival surveys, other summer habitat surveys, and juvenile steelhead abundance now garners support from the review panel.

4. Overall Comments - Benefit to F&W (all proposal)

In December 2008, we stated a belief that the project is on the right track and should produce real benefits to A-run steelhead, especially when upland treatments already underway are combined with riparian and instream restoration actions. The additional information provided in April 2009 was sufficient to justify all of the proposed actions.

Topics: 
Fish and wildlife
Tags: 
ISRP

ISRP 2021-05 LibbyMFWPfollow-up1June.pdf

Sign up for our newsletter

  •    

Contact

  • Central Office
  • Idaho Office
  • Montana Office
  • Oregon Office
  • Washington Office
  • Council Members

Social Media:

Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn Vimeo Flickr

Copyright 2022

Privacy policy Terms & Conditions Inclusion Statement