Little Lost River INFISH Field Review

Executive Summary

Kerry Overton, Team Leader

August 16-20, 1999

 

 

An INFISH field review was conducted on the USFS Lost River Ranger District, Salmon-Challis National Forest and the BLM Upper Snake River District, BLM Idaho Falls Resource Area, in the Little Lost River Drainage. Both field units demonstrated their understanding of INFISH and their commitment to Bull trout conservation.  The following field activities were observed by the interagency field review team:

 

1)            Biologists from both units have established cooperative BLM/USFS fish and fish habitat surveys and studies to identify Bull trout occupied stream-riparian areas and habitat issues.

2)            Using the above information, land use activities that had the potential to effect Bull trout and their habitat were being identified and addressed. 

3)            Both units had placed emphasis on achieving stream-riparian protection and improvement of Bull trout areas through adaptive management strategies, e.g. BLM area had established riparian pastures through an earlier initiative that was improving stream-riparian areas; USFS ranger district was working with the grazing association and NRCS on herding techniques to minimize livestock use of stream-riparian areas.

4)            Both units had an understanding of the requirements of INFISH and the Biological Opinions; and had established good communication between the federal agencies (USFS, BLM, NRCS, USF&WL) and the land users (grazing association).

5)            Both units stated, that because of limited personnel, dollars and higher priorities, stream-riparian areas outside of defined important Bull trout habitat were not receiving the same level of attention and protection.

6)            Both units indicated that they did not have a clear picture of all the different teams, activities and priorities associated with the IIT.  Because of limited staff, the ability to stay on top of all of the administrative and technical information and activities was impossible, they were in an information over-load.

 

In summary, the field review team felt that the progress observed towards stream-riparian protection and recovery of important Bull trout areas was the result of the units efforts to obtain good biological and habitat information; they have a good understanding of the INFISH objectives and requirements; and, they had developed good communication between users and agencies to work towards meeting the INFISH requirements.  They do not have a strategic plan for the entire Little Lost River drainage (e.g. subbasin assessment and conservation/restoration plan) to assist them in dealing with overall watershed condition and emerging issues to deal with the metapopulation concept, exotic species invasion and the role of non-federal lands in recovery of native trout.

 

Final Report

PACFISH/INFISH Implementation Field Review

August 16th to 20th, 1999

 

 

 

Field Review Area:  

*  Lost River Ranger District, Salmon-Challis National Forest.

*  Upper Snake River District, BLM Idaho Falls Resource Area.

 

 

Salmon-Challis NF/Idaho Falls BLM area field review team:

Don Martin, EPA Monitoring Team Representative, Facilitator

Susan Martin, F&WL IIT Representative

Ed Murrell, NMFS Representative

Lew Brown, BLM, IIT Representative

Rick Stowell, USFS, INFISH Technical Representative

Frank Guzman, USFS Range Technical Representative

Ken Heffner, USFS R4 Regional Hydrologist

Kerry Overton, USFS-RMRS, Team Leader

 

 

Field Review Team General Summary: 

 

1.      Field Review summary covers the following projects:

A.     USFS Lost River Ranger District:

                                                             a.      Pass Creek Allotment;

                                                            b.      Hilts Creek Timber Sale;

                                                             c.      Mill Creek Trailhead.

 

B.     BLM Upper Snake River District:

                                                             a.      Holly Mountain Allotment (Squaw Cr., Wet Cr.)

                                                            b.      Sawmill Creek Riparian Project

 

2.      The USFS and BLM field units demonstrated their commitment to identifying, protecting, and restoring important Bull Trout stream-riparian areas through the following field observed activities:

 

A.     Cooperative BLM/USFS fish and fish habitat information/database consisting of habitat, fish population and fish distribution-temperature studies;

B.     Screening of land use activities for identifying and minimizing direct effects to occupied Bull Trout habitat;

C.     Emphasis on achieving stream-riparian protection and improvement through adaptive management strategies;

D.     Understanding of the requirements of INFISH and the Biological Opinion;

E.      Established good communication between the federal agencies (USFS, BLM, NRCS, USF&WL) and the land users (grazing association);

F.      Established monitoring (greenline, field checks) to keep tabs on land use activities and riparian vegetation improvement;

G.     Were following the Biological Opinion (Little Lost River) and had developed and were using a Watershed Analysis (Draft Version);

H.     Appropriately applied the Likely-to-Adversely-Affect calls on project screening.

 

 

 

3.      The following are field review team comments and recommendations for the USFS/BLM field units:

 

A.     Continue progress towards stream-riparian protection, maintenance and restoration on all INFISH areas;

                                                             a.      Both BLM/USFS field units identified some non-Bull trout stream-riparian areas in need of protection and restoration, but scarce resources (personnel, information and funding) limited abilities to fully address.

B.     Prepare to fully implement the grazing implementation monitoring module for the FY2000 grazing season;

C.     Maintain close scrutiny of defined occupied bull trout populations and habitats to protect against any anthropogenic threats;

D.     Work with Idaho Fish & Game to increase public awareness and address protection measures regarding bull trout;

E.      An aquatic subbasin assessment and development of a conservation and restoration strategy could be pulled together easily for the Little Lost River subbasin (4th HUC).  This was not discussed at the field review.  Available current and historical population distributional information (Ranger District/BLM District current data) and the Inland West species status and hydrologic classifications (6th HUC) could rapidly be pulled together to formulate a conservation-restoration strategy for the Little Lost River Bull Trout subbasin/metapopulation, and be an efficient means to address brook trout, other salmonids, whirling disease potential, irrigation diversions, private and federal land management.

F.      USFS/BLM biologists believe that the one-on-one communication between them and the USF&WL biologist was very effective at designing and modifying projects to meet the intent of INFISH.

G.     Review Team wanted to recognize the excellent forethought that the Forest and BLM had for the development of their riparian, habitat and fish population database that has assisted them in developing and tracking management strategies.

H.     As stream-riparian areas improve, consider other grazing strategies to ensure a healthy diversity of all resources, i.e. concern over upland vegetation shifts resulting from increased grazing pressure in uplands because of the riparian pasture grazing strategy.

I.        Grazing Implementation Monitoring Module ‑ Didn't get the cards, but had the document and one or two went to the training.  The Lost River RD is getting the module applied in some cases, and the BLM plan on doing it on a 100% of their pastures with there own personnel.  Field Unit personnel made the following comments regarding the Module: module protocols weren’t burdensome, found useful, permittees were interested and needed time for training and more familiarity.  District and BLM felt 20% not a large enough sample to check compliance, RD will do more (probably 80%).  District said they were used to asking for that level of information and more.

 

4.      D   Field Unit comments or suggestions for the Field Review Team, IIT and the Task Teams:

 

A.     Field Units are suffering from information overload.  Field units do not have a clear view of how the IIT, task teams products, UCRB, different initiatives (e.g. Inland West, NRIS, INFRA), etc. fit together, and how it is perceived by upper management how these activities or products will translate into actual land management. They can only respond to direction passed down from the RF through the Forest Supervisor.

                                                             a.      Field Review Team recommends that the IIT develop a concise writeup and/or flow-chart to explain all the parts and activities, strategies and consultations to describe how they all fit together.

B.     Field Units were not sure how to prepare for the field review. 

                                                             a.      Field Review Team recommends clearly defining what they want to see prior to the review.  Prior to this review, the field review objectives, project selection criteria, and the project questions were forwarded to the field units.  Some of the questions ask about supporting documentation.  The field units were not sure if they were to supply all of the supporting documentation.  This field review team expressed more interest in hearing there answers to the questions regarding supporting documentation rather then receiving reams of documentation.  IIT may want to reword questions and/or define more clearly the level of documentation.

 

5.      E    Field review team recommendations to the IIT:

A.     Distribute the final “Priority/Key Watershed” task team report to field units, as there is confusion on the terms and definitions of Priority and Key Watersheds.

B.     Need to educate all levels of field units on the “effects determinations”, as there is confusion on the criteria and outcomes of an affects determination. For instance, there needs to be more guidance on “Likely to Adversely Affect” determinations, especially on short-term negative effects of projects aimed at long-term benefits.

C.     Field review team needs to have a facilitator to help keep the review on track and insure that all field forms are completed.

D.     Field review teams may want to consider having a laptop with blank electronic field review forms to eliminate the extra step of typing the summary results at a latter date.

E.      Consider sending “Kudos” to cooperators who are assisting the agencies in implementing PACFISH/INFISH.  For example, the grazing association was working well with the agencies in striving for protection and improvement of riparian conditions.

F.      Recommend a facilitator (Don Martin for this field review) for all field reviews.  Don kept the review team on track and insured all forms were completed and limited time was used wisely.

 

6.      G.  Project specific questionnaires are available upon request.

 

7.      H.  Field Review Process Steps Used for the Lost River RD/Idaho Falls District Review:

A.     Field Review Team office meet to get synchronized on project review process (1 -2 hours).  Each field review team member filled out a project questionnaire for each project. Have enough project questionnaires for each team member per project.

B.     Field Unit and Field Review Team office meet for introductions, cover field review objectives, project selection criteria, field unit general overview of area, projects and issues, and field review logistics (vehicles, lunches, time) (2 hrs).

C.     Arrive at project Site.

D.     Project overview by field unit - Overall project goals, clarify issues, general questions.

E.      Site visit & discussion with field unit - Site wandering.

F.      Before leaving that site, the field review team and the field units grouped-up, and the field unit answered the questions on the project questionnaire.

G.     Move on to next site (visited 2 to 3 sites a day).

H.     Field Review Team at end of site visits develops one master questionnaire by consensus and summarizes findings.

I.        At end of field reviews, close-out with field units on general findings of the review and solicit feedback from the field units regarding the field review process, recommendations to the IIT and task teams.