lolo-review-1999

INFISH FIELD REVIEW

Lolo National Forest and BLM Missoula Field Office,

Mike Crouse, BLM OR/WA, Team Leader

October 4-7, 1999

Summary Conclusion

The Lolo National Forest and BLM Missoula Field Office staff and managers clearly understand the INFISH BO requirements and are committed to properly applying them on the ground. Both agencies are not viewing INFISH direction as a mere recipe to follow, but are actually working as a team of resource specialists and managers to address some difficult, complicated issues.

General Comments and Recommendations

The team recognized that the field units are looking beyond the point problems for the restoration projects and looking at the bigger picture, wanting to take a ecosystem approach (EAWS) to management but limited by funding, time, and resources.

The Team recognize and encourage the use of the Section 10(a)(1) authorization on restoration projects because for FWS and potential faster turnaround for restoration/recovery related projects.

The units are encouraged to place a high priority on the completion of the watershed BAs prior to the May 2000 deadline. These broader assessments provide the opportunity for increased efficiency, context setting, and prioritization of future actions.

The team recognizes that Level 1 team staffing, particularly for the FWS, is a major impediment to implementation of streamlining consultation.

The units needs to establish an active Level 2 team, and present the draft Level 1 recommendations to this group for resolution. The team recognizes the need for a forum for addressing technical issues related to BO implementation and will carry these forward to the IIT. However, the Level 1 team is encouraged to continue to work at the local level for consensus on technical issues.

Feedback to the IIT Team

Communication regarding IIT products is very important and needs to be improved. Line officers need to be more involved.

There are a lot of efforts underway to meet the needs of aquatic species. In many cases these are unconnected. We need to do better at communicating and establishing the links between these efforts.

Expectation to complete EAWS is not realistic given the declining budgets and personnel.

The IIT sub-teams need to coordinate with field units to make sure that the work they are doing will be useful and doable. Without sufficient field input, region-wide efforts and requirements (e.g., Grazing Module) have the potential to undo focused, important efforts at the local level.

The field units emphasized the importance of consistency within the Level 1 team in determining what to include in the baseline bulltrout area and in making may affect determinations. The IIT was asked to examine this issue in more detail and provide guidance to the field.

INFISH FIELD REVIEW

Lolo National Forest and BLM Missoula Field Office

October 4-7, 1999

Field Review Team

Mike Crouse, Team Leader, BLM Oregon State Office, Portland OR

Susan Martin, FWS, Idaho State Office, Boise ID

Steve Grabowski, BLM Washington Office, Boise ID

Scott Russell, Nez Perce National Forest, Graingeville, ID

Tom Wawro, BLM Oregon State Office, Portland OR

Lew Brown, BLM, Coeur d=Alene ID

Fred Bower, FS Region 1, Missoula, MT

Gordon Haugen, FS Region 6, Portland OR (Thursday only)

Field Review Objectives

C Assess how well PACFISH/INFISH and associated biological opinion (BOs) requirements are understood and applied.

C Provide a feedback loop between field managers and staff and the Interagency Implementation Team (IIT) on issues and concerns relative to implementation of PACFISH/INFISH and associated BOs.

Acknowledgments and General Observations

The IIT Field Review Team (the Team) wishes to thanks the BLM and Forest Service staff and managers for the excellent logistics planning and support. We recognized you have many ongoing priorities and we very much appreciated everyone=s time involved in the field review.

The prework prepared by field offices for the review was very thorough and helpful.

The participation by both technical specialists and managers throughout the field review was noted and appreciated.

The projects selected for review were not just the success stories, but illustrated a wide range of project types, management issues, and complications. This greatly increased the Team=s understanding of the issues the field units are facing. The field units= staffs were genuinely interested in feedback and assistance on how to handle the difficult projects.

It was apparent to the Team that both agencies are taking the implementation of INFISH, and associated BOs seriously. Field technical staff are not applying INFISH direction as a mere recipe to follow, but using their own heads and common sense. For example, the Level 1 team had done a tremendous amount of work pulling together existing information to develop specific Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs). By assuming extensive bull trout presence and distribution, the MT Level 1 team has positioned themselves to pro-actively meet their Sec 7 (a)(1) (species recovery) responsibilities. In addition, both field managers and staff exhibited a broad understanding of INFISH BO requirements that was the obvious result of a lot of previous dialogue.

Participation by permittees, partners, and Level 1 team members was much appreciated and very valuable to the review.

Project Specific Comments and Suggestions (see attached project descriptions prepared by the field units).

Big Creek Bank Stabilization Project This project was a cooperative effort with a local land owner and watershed group to stabilize severely eroding stream banks. The Superior Ranger District staff and managers candidly explained that the project developed from somewhat of an emergency situation and was not necessarily their highest restoration priority in the watershed. In the future, they intend to base restoration projects on a watershed assessment that factors in upstream and downstream conditions. The team recognized that it was still important to cooperate in the project because it established a working relationship with the local watershed group and served as an example for future restoration efforts. The District and team both recognized complications related to the design and implementation of the project, particularly the revegetation plan. The District is encouraged to continue to work on the revegetation plan for this project. The Forest and District are encouraged to continue to work with other watershed councils on restoration projects, guided by a watershed analysis that identifies restoration needs and priorities within the watershed as a whole.

Savenac Creek Restoration Project This was a well thought-out, designed and implemented project (e.g., channel meander, profile and shape was replicated, and flow to the ponds was maintained), especially considering it opened up 11 miles of bull trout habitat and restored the connection to the river for $10,000. The team observed a large number of non-native plant species present at the site, and the District is encouraged to implement their plan for addressing this problem. The District is encouraged to consider whether additional willow plantings are needed to complete the project. The District should also consider additional screening of the diversion head gate to avoid entrainment of fish. This project is a good example of where the Section 10(a)(1) ESA authorization procedure could be used to reduce FWS workload and BO turnaround for restoration/recovery related projects..

Cedar Creek Road Maintenance This site demonstrated how mitigating measures such as berms along forest roads had resulted in downgrading affects determination of the road maintenance from likely to adversely affect (LAA) to not likely to adversely affect (NLAA). The Forest and District are encouraged to attempt to mitigate the adverse effects of road maintenance projects elsewhere if possible by including these types of mitigation measures in the project design. However, making a LAA call should not necessarily be viewed as a problem, and should not be avoided when it is the appropriate determination. The LAA determination only becomes a problem when due to limited staffing the FWS is unable to complete a BO in a timely manner in response to these formal consultation needs. The team recognizes that this staffing limitation may also cause delays and frustration related to road special use permit requests. The road permit issue is not unique to this Forest. It has been elevated to the national level but remains unresolved. The road maintenance issue is an example where a functioning Level 2 team could have validated the Level 1 priorities for consultation to relieve some of the pressure on the field biologists. The Forest is encouraged to complete a programmatic Biological Assessment (BA) that includes all their road maintenance activities (including LAAs). There will be a need to maintain coordination with the IIT Roads Team to ensure there is not a duplication of effort. Re-initiation of consultation may be a useful tool to incorporate the results of the sub-team when these are complete. In addition, completion of watershed BAs should help put the issues of road maintenance, road location, and road density into context in terms of overall impacts to listed aquatic species in a watershed. The Forest can then develop an approach for addressing overall road issues in a watershed. One approach may include development of a transportation management plan for the Forest which addresses all these aspects, and prioritizes actions to deal with them.

Cedar Creek Mining Sites These sites illustrated a situation where the mining claimants were not able to operate this field season because a biological opinion had not been issued by the FWS. The Team and field units recognized that the INFISH standards and guides for mineral management are easily met and additional mitigation measures were added through the biological assessment. The Forest was interested in input from the Team about the validity of their LAA determination. The Team felt that peer review of this call was more appropriately received from the Level 1 team. As in the case of road maintenance, the root of the problem is the inability of FWS to respond in a timely manner due to staffing limitations. It was a concern to the Team that three of these Plan of Operations do not include an expiration date and will make consultation more difficult. However, going to a annual POO authorization schedule may also present problems in terms of timing and workload. The Team appreciated visiting the claimants on the site during the review. Their presence and personality added a great deal to the visit. Also the District staff are to be commended for their professional and courteous manner of interacting with the claimants during an obviously difficult situation.

Sluice Gulch Allotment This field site illustrated the increased attention the BLM Missoula Field Office staff has put on riparian conditions as a result of the bull trout listing and the implementation of BLM=s Healthy Rangeland Standards and Guides. The BLM is doing an excellent job of working with private landowners to achieve improvements on both the public and private ground, especially given their limited and fragmented land ownership pattern. The Clarks (permitees) are also commended for their efforts and willingness to work with the BLM. Their presence during the review, along with the County Commissioner and Extension Agent, added a great deal to the discussion. The BLM is encouraged to consider the planting of shrubs along the fenced section of Sluice Gulch to facilitate the restoration effort, recognizing the problems associated with browsing of streamside shrubs by wildlife. Projects like Sluice Gulch have the potential to serve as examples of pro-active partnership restoration efforts that may expand to other private lands.

The hardened crossing planned for the Papoose Gulch allotment is another good example of an innovative solution to balancing multiple objectives, combining efficiency, low cost and low maintenance. Construction of the hardened crossing should be done consistent with the existing channel profile.

The Rock Creek allotment isn=t scheduled for immediate fencing in order to pursue a cooperative partnership with the Montana Fish and Wildlife Department that would achieve a project of greater benefits. The Garnet Resource Area is encouraged to pursue the partnership project, recognizing that they may need to complete fencing of the BLM ground if the larger project doesn=t develop as anticipated.

The Upper Willow allotment is another example of restoration potential and should be pursued when the private land ownership situation is resolved.

In summary, the BLM projects have the potential to improve bull trout habitat not only on public lands, but can serve as a demonstration area for cooperative efforts with other private land owners in the basin.

General Comments & Suggestions

The watershed councils being formed in Montana and elsewhere offer a unique and productive opportunity for BLM and the Forest Service to work across ownership boundaries to improve watershed/fish conditions. We need to put special emphasis on working with these groups since they have influence and funding. Use of Wyden Amendment authority is one mechanism to cooperate in restoration projects on private land that benefit fish and wildlife resources on public lands. In addition to funding, BLM and the Forest Service can provide technical assistance and help identify restoration priorities through watershed assessments.

The Team recognize and encourage the use of the Section 10(a)(1) authorization on restoration projects because for FWS and potential faster turnaround for restoration/recovery related projects. .

The Forest and Field Office are encouraged to incorporate monitoring components into project design and implementation.

The team recognizes that Level 1 team staffing, particularly for the FWS, is a major impediment to implementation of streamlining consultation. This issue will be elevated to the regional executives in our final report.

Feedback to the IIT Team

The field units provided written feedback on IIT products and processes (see attached). In addition, the team heard the following concerns during the field review closeout:

1. Grazing Implementation Monitoring Module:

Regarding possible increases in grazing implementation monitoring requirements, there seems to have been a misunderstanding about the potential increase in sample size (from 20% of allotments to 100%). The team will carry to the IIT the field units concerns regarding monitoring and their ability to implement these requirements.

2. Review Format:

A clearer description of the review=s objectives and structure would have been helpful and avoided unnecessary effort. The projects= specific review questions were not particularly useful to the team or field units in assessing compliance with INFISH BO requirements. Establishing a firm date for the review earlier in the process may have permitted more line officer participation.

3. Selection of field projects for review:

The review team should have been more involved in the project selection, perhaps through a random process or by giving more specific criteria to the field units to direct their project selection (i.e., activity in the RHCA).

4. Communication:

Communication regarding IIT products is very important and needs to be improved. Line officers need to be more involved.

5. Linkage among ongoing efforts:

There are a lot of efforts underway to meet the needs of aquatic species. In many cases these are unconnected. We need to do better at communicating and establishing the links between these efforts.

6. Completion of EAWS:

Expectation to complete EAWS is not realistic given the declining budgets and personnel.

7. Field input and coordination:

8. Consistency:

Conclusion

The projects selected for review illustrated a wide range of project types, management issues, and complications. This greatly increased the Team=s understanding of the issues the field units are facing. This review and the feedback provided by the field units on IIT products and processes will be very valuable as the IIT assesses regional compliance with the PACFISH/INFISH BOs requirements and establishes priorities for interagency efforts in the future.