Panhandle National Forest - Upper
Columbia/Salmon/ Clearwater District BLM
Executive Summary
Dave Brunner, Team Leader
During the week of September 10, 1999, an interagency team conducted a field review of the Panhandle NF and the UCSC District-Bureau of Land Management. The purpose of this review was to evaluate compliance with direction in INFISH and the Biological Opinion for Bull Trout. (This area is outside the range of anadromy). Ten projects or issues were field reviewed or discussed. Overall, the field units visited St Joe and Coeur d' Alene Ranger Districts and the Emerald Empire Resource Area have both management and a key staff with a great understanding of the INFISH and BO requirements, and fully support and require the application of this direction to all appropriate activities. There is a close working relationship within the Level I consultation team and an apparent dedication to not only appropriate mitigation and project design, but also to active restoration activities in watersheds.
As with many activities, available dollars has inhibited both the implementation of projects and the restoration of watersheds. In some cases, beyond the need for dollars, there is confusion about activities in RHCAs that can be modified to meet RMOs. In other cases, some undesirable results continue because of this confusion (Emerald Creek recreational mining and the livestock grazing in lower Emerald Creek). However, these field units have made great strides toward meeting the requirements and have high potential to be leaders in the protection and restoration of fish habitats as prescribed in INFISH and the Bull Trout BO. Management emphasis is the key to making the required gains and our collective commitment.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Idaho State Office
1387 South Vinnell Way
Boise, Idaho 83709-1657
In Reply Refer To: 6840 (930) October 26, 1999
Memorandum
To: Interagency Implementation Team
From: Dave Brunner, Team Lead
Subject: Upper Columbia-Salmon Clearwater BLM District and Panhandle National
Forest INFISH/Bull Trout Biological Opinion Implementation Field Review
Attached is a copy of the final review report. Thanks again to everyone who made it a success.
Signed Authenticated
J. David Brunner Sharon Olendorff
DSD, Resource Services Staff Assistant (ID930)
Attachment
cc:
District Manager, BLM UCSC
Supervisor, Panhandle NF
Brett Roper, Panhandle NF
Kathy Stangl, BLM Cottonwood Field Office
INFISH/BULL TROUT
BIOLOGICAL OPINION (BO) FIELD REVIEW
September 13-17, 1999
Upper Columbia/Salmon Clearwater District
Bureau of Land Management
Panhandle National Forest
U.S. Forest Service
St. Joe and Coeur d=Alene Ranger Districts and Emerald Empire Resource Area
This is one of four field
reviews being conducted in FY 1999.
Other areas include:
Salmon/Challis National Forest and Idaho Falls BLM Resource Area
Lolo National Forest and BLM Garnet Resource Area
Malheur National Forest and BLM Prineville District
Field review included
discussions and visits to the following projects:
Fernan Heli Timber Sale - FS
Killarney Lake Timber Sale - BLM
St. Joe Sub-basin Integrated Ecosystem Restoration Strategy - Discussion
Huckleberry Campground - Discussion Only
Emerald Creek Grazing Allotment - FS
Emerald Creek Recreational Mining Activity - FS
Beauty Bay Campground Stream Restoration - FS
Beauty Bay CERCLA Site/Road Obliteration - FS
Blue Bay Acquisition - BLM
Blue Bay Recreation Site - BLM (Fritz=s Boat Ramp and Office Site)
Dave Brunner, BLM Idaho State Office, Team Lead
Cindy Swanson, USFS, Region 1
Jim Caswell, USFS, Clearwater National Forest
Chuck Dunn, USFWS, Portland Regional Office
Ken Troyer, NMFS, Boise Field Office
To assess
how well PACFISH, INFISH, and Biological Opinion requirements are understood
and are being applied.
To provide
a feedback loop to staff, managers, and the Interagency Implementation Team on
issues and concerns relative to implementation of PACFISH, INFISH, and the BOs.
The Team wished to thank Brett Roper, Fisheries Biologist on the Panhandle National Forest and Kathy Stangl, Fisheries Biologist for the BLM for their great selection of projects in terms of variety and complexity which led to very meaningful discussions in the field. We also wish to thank Dave Wright, Forest Supervisor, and Fritz Rennebaum, BLM District Manager for their participation and for having key staff available for participation in our discussions and field visits.
1. Close working relationship of BLM and FS on projects.
2. Good Level I Team relationships between action agency
and regulatory agencies.
3. Very good understanding by BLM and FS of the
requirements of INFISH and bull trout BO.
4. Great array of projects for review - the good, the
bad, and the ugly.
5. Have moved to ecosystem/watershed approach to
restoration.
6. Developing priorities and using limited funds where
possible to meet priorities.
7. Great support among both the fisheries staff and
management.
8. Put a great amount of work into geographic assessment
for strategic planning/priority setting.
9. Developed creative ways to use existing project
dollars for restoration activities.
10. Taking INFISH one step further to do more than mitigation,
i.e., restoration of watersheds (pulling roads).
11. BLM, while not a huge player in watershed restoration,
has taken an active role in habitat restoration through key acquisition.
12. The FS and BLM=s
willingness to focus the review on difficult issues that required some candid
discussion.
13. They are documenting RMO and RHCA modification
commensurate with their ability to adjust.
14. Great implementation monitoring on the key projects
and a very good sense of the need for some monitoring on other projects (Garnet
Mine).
15. Reclamation activity on the Emerald Creek recreational
mining was very thoughtful and creative.
16. Beauty Creek is an example of having on-the-ground
expertise working with the contractor.
17. Beauty Creek is a great example of trying to restore a
creek bed and maintain an existing campground.
1. Improve understanding and involvement or expand the
role of Level II Teams (i.e., CERCLA question or communication with non-federal
groups).
2. Need clarification of relationship between CERCLA and
ESA on need for consultation (both NF and IIT).
3. Need to maintain a higher degree of communication
between segments of the organization on road obliteration.
i.
Fernan-Heli Apply like standards/controls
ii.
Silver-tip Mine in both situations
iii. Have road obliteration expertise be more closely associated with any activities which require road obliteration.
4. Need to develop/enhance/prioritize long-term
effectiveness monitoring for those projects with high degrees of risk in order
to learn from or substantiate improvement.
Stay abreast of what the AEffectiveness
Monitoring Task Team@ is doing and play a role when possible.
5. On projects such as Killarney Lake Timber Sale, an
on-site visit by fisheries staff or perhaps improving training of other staff
to ensure that standards are not overlooked.
6. More effort needs to be put into working with private
landowners in development of watershed improvement projects.
7. There is an apparent need to adjust or eliminate
grazing in Emerald Creek to meet RMO=s
in INFISH.
8. Recreation mining does not appear to be in compliance
with INFISH and there is a need to minimize the impact of this activity. There is a need for annual rehab of the area
to accommodate the spring/winter runoff.
9. Need a watershed assessment/analysis to determine how
activities in Emerald Creek relate to each other in order to evaluate the
cumulative effects and make recommendations to mitigate and restore the
drainage. Given the level of impacts
and potential for development, the assessment may lead you to rationale for
some hard trade-offs in order to meet INFISH/BO requirements and needs for
species recovery and habitat restoration.
10. Caution needs to be the exercised when proposing
developments in RHCAs (i.e., Blue Creek boat ramp and/or recreation site).
(Contributor, Fritz)
11. Reestablish coordination with the state (particularly
Fish and Game) and establish coordination with Tribes.
12. Explore flexibility contained in INFISH, BO, and
streamlining guidance to further tailor RHCAs to aquatic restoration needs and
attainment of RMOs.
1.
Clarification of
CERCLA/ESA guidance on what needs to be done - include fish hydrology.
2.
With new construction in
RHCAs, is an EWAS required in all cases or only in priority watersheds.
3.
For ongoing projects
that they know do not meet INFISH - what do they do?
Minimizing vs. Restoration
4.
Without fish present, do
agencies need to consult, i.e., a definition of when agencies need to consult.
5.
When doing these
reviews, integrate with other reviews.
6.
Cost for implementation
of all that we are required to do is beyond our capability. We need to balance what we are required to
do with what we are financially capable of doing.
7.
Look at dates and stick
with commitments in BOs.
8.
Report annual progress
on INFISH/PACFISH BOs to Forest and District level staff.
Both the
BLM and NF have an extremely high sensitivity to the requirements of INFISH and
the BO.
Streamlining
appears to be well established for consultation.
There is a
close working relationship both between the NF and BLM and between the land
management agencies and the USFWS.
Communication
needs to be continually worked upon to ensure that standards are met.
The
opportunities for completing priority restoration activities are
severely limited by both the amount and method of providing funding.