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 F&W Program Costs Reports

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
  • 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
  • Fuels Advisory Committee
  • Resource Adequacy Advisory Committee
  • System Analysis Advisory Committee
  • RTF Policy Advisory Committee
  • System Integration Forum

Energy Topics

  • Energy Efficiency
  • Demand Response
  • Power Supply
  • Resource Adequacy
  • Energy Storage
  • Hydropower
  • Transmission
Meetings
See next Council Meeting October 11 - 12, 2023 in Redmond › See all meetings ›

Recent and Upcoming Meetings

Swipe left or right
NOV 2022
TUE WED
15 - 16
Council Meeting
NOV 2022
WED
30
9:00 am—10:00 am
RTF Policy Advisory Committee Q4 Meeting
DEC 2022
MON
05
1:30 pm—3:30 pm
Resource Adequacy Advisory Committee
DEC 2022
TUE
06
9:00 am—4:00 pm
RTF Meeting
DEC 2022
TUE WED
13 - 14
Council Meeting
JAN 2023
TUE WED
10 - 11
Council Meeting
JAN 2023
WED
18
9:00 am—4:00 pm
RTF Meeting
FEB 2023
TUE WED
14 - 15
Council Meeting
FEB 2023
WED
22
2:00 pm—3:30 pm
Conservation Resources/Demand Response Adv Comm Combined Meeting
FEB 2023
WED THU
22 - 23
RTF Meeting
FEB 2023
FRI
24
9:00 am—2:00 pm
Conservation Resources Advisory Comm.
MAR 2023
TUE WED
14 - 15
Council Meeting
MAR 2023
TUE
21
9:00 am—4:00 pm
RTF Meeting
MAR 2023
THU
23
9:00 am—12:00 pm
Resource Adequacy Adv Comm - Technical Committee
MAR 2023
TUE
28
9:00 am—11:00 am
RTF Policy Advisory Committee Q1 Meeting
MAR 2023
FRI
31
9:00 am—10:30 am
Generating Resources Advisory Committee
APR 2023
WED
05
9:00 am—12:00 pm
System Analysis Advisory Committee
APR 2023
MON
10
1:00 pm—4:00 pm
Regional Coordination Forum (RCF) Meeting
APR 2023
TUE WED
11 - 12
Council Meeting
APR 2023
TUE
18
9:00 am—12:30 pm
RTF Meeting
MAY 2023
TUE WED
16 - 17
Council Meeting
MAY 2023
TUE
23
9:00 am—4:00 pm
RTF Meeting
10:00 am—12:00 pm
Regional Coordination Forum (RCF) Meeting
MAY 2023
WED
24
1:00 pm—3:00 pm
RTF Policy Advisory Committee Q2 Meeting
JUN 2023
TUE WED
13 - 14
Council Meeting
JUN 2023
WED
21
9:00 am—12:00 pm
RTF Meeting June 21, 2023
JUL 2023
TUE WED
11 - 12
Council Meeting
JUL 2023
FRI
14
9:00 am—12:30 pm
Demand Forecast Advisory Committee
JUL 2023
TUE
18
9:00 am—4:00 pm
RTF Meeting
JUL 2023
THU
20
9:00 am—3:00 pm
Conservation Resources Advisory Committee
AUG 2023
TUE WED
15 - 16
Council Meeting
SEP 2023
TUE
05
1:30 pm—4:30 pm
System Analysis Advisory Committee
SEP 2023
TUE WED
12 - 13
Council Meeting
SEP 2023
FRI
15
9:00 am—11:00 am
RTF Policy Advisory Committee Q3 Meeting
SEP 2023
TUE
19
9:00 am—3:00 pm
RTF Meeting
SEP 2023
THU
21
1:00 pm—3:00 pm
Regional Coordination Forum (RCF) Meeting - Governors Report and Future Reporting
OCT 2023
WED THU
11 - 12
Council Meeting
OCT 2023
TUE WED
17 - 18
RTF Meeting
OCT 2023
TUE
24
9:00 am—12:30 pm
Fuels Advisory Committee
OCT 2023
THU
26
1:00 pm—3:00 pm
Regional Coordination Forum (RCF) Meeting - Flat Funding
NOV 2023
WED
01
9:30 am—4:00 pm
Reserves in Power Planning Workshop
NOV 2023
THU
02
9:30 am—12:30 pm
Demand Response Advisory Committee
NOV 2023
TUE
07
9:00 am—1:00 pm
RTF Meeting
NOV 2023
WED
08
12:30 pm—3:30 pm
RTF Policy Advisory Committee Q4 Meeting
NOV 2023
TUE WED
14 - 15
Council Meeting
DEC 2023
TUE
05
9:00 am—4:00 pm
RTF Meeting
DEC 2023
TUE WED
12 - 13
Council Meeting
JAN 2024
TUE WED
09 - 10
Council Meeting
FEB 2024
TUE WED
06 - 07
Council Meeting
MAR 2024
TUE WED
12 - 13
Council Meeting
APR 2024
TUE WED
09 - 10
Council Meeting
MAY 2024
TUE WED
14 - 15
Council Meeting
JUN 2024
TUE WED
11 - 12
Council Meeting
JUL 2024
TUE WED
09 - 10
Council Meeting
AUG 2024
TUE WED
13 - 14
Council Meeting
SEP 2024
TUE WED
10 - 11
Council Meeting
OCT 2024
TUE WED
08 - 09
Council Meeteing
NOV 2024
WED THU
13 - 14
Council Meeting
DEC 2024
TUE WED
10 - 11
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 2023

Privacy policy Terms & Conditions