BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE NATIONAL FOREST, PINTLER RANGER DISTRICT
F. Carl Pence, FS, Team Leader
September 10-12, 2001
IIT Field Review Team members:
F.
Carl Pence, FS, ICBEMP, R4
Dorothy
Mason, BLM, Baker City, Oregon
Kerry Overton, Rocky Mt. Research
Station
Ron Willey, BLM, Prineville, Oregon
Chuck Quimby, FS, R2
Kristin Bail, BLM, Prineville,
Oregon
Susan Martin, FWS, Coeur d Alene,
Idaho
Eric Johnston, FS, R1, Missoula,
Montana
General Field Review Objectives:
·
Determine if the Biological Opinions have been implemented in accordance with
the mechanisms, terms and conditions.
·
Determine if on-the-ground management decisions are consistent with the
Biological Opinions, PACFISH and INFISH Goals and Objectives.
·Determine
if PACFISH and INFISH Standards and Guidelines have been correctly interpreted
and implemented on the ground.
·Determine
if Grazing implementation monitoring activities have been evaluated to
eliminate duplication between the PACFISH/INFISH Grazing Implementation Monitoring
Module and other grazing implementation monitoring activities.
·Improve
communication and coordination between agencies.
·Strengthen
interagency commitment to watershed management under the management direction
of PACFISH/INFISH.
·Provide
the host unit a list of “findings” before departing, and within two weeks
provide a draft report.
Specific Local Objectives:
·Visit
the Dry Gulch Pasture on the Meadow Creek allotment to consider application of
riparian grazing standards along non-fish bearing perennial streams
·Visit
the Middle Fork Grazing Allotment and discuss issues specific to the allotment
regarding applicability of riparian use standards, and consider other factors
affecting the allotment management and broader issues that are occurring
district wide
·Visit
the Sand Basin allotment and discuss specific bull trout issues on this
allotment, and interact with the allotment user to hear and consider that
perspective.
Preface to Report Findings:
This field visit was of a very limited nature. The team only had one full day of field
visit, visited only portions of drainages, and during that timeframe the team
was somewhat distracted by the national terrorist activities which occurred
that day. These factors must be
considered with the findings and recommendations of the report.
Findings:
Commendations-
· The local Region, Forest and
District had OUTSTANDING participation in the field
visit. Of note was the line officer
participation from the Forest Supervisor and District Ranger and representation
from regional Rangeland and Fisheries program managers. Seldom are these visits so well attended by
local specialists and managers, line officers, and Regional program managers.
·The
unit demonstrated enthusiasm and dedication to do what is right to restore
listed fish habitat and to improve overall resource conditions, although there
remain differences of opinion between functional areas regarding the
appropriate course of action and desired end results.
·The
general condition of stream and riparian areas visited during the review
appeared to be significantly improved over conditions that were likely to have
existed 20 years ago. This trend will
likely continue. These improved
conditions were evidence of difficult, past decisions designed to improve
habitat conditions.
·The
unit has been working on applying the monitoring modules, although there have
been difficulties with interpretation and reaching mutual consensus regarding
triggers and application.
·The
unit has hired a technician to focus specifically on grazing use and
application of the BO Standards.
·The
unit provided OUTSTANDING hospitality to the review team, offering food
services and a camp, which were exceptional.
This kind service and support to the review team required significant
effort.
·The
unit included some Livestock User participation in the field visit and this
particular user had a good appreciation of the seriousness of meeting BO terms
and conditions and was working hard to meet them.
Observations-
·There were observed differences of
opinion between the local specialists regarding implementation of standards and
the methods used to monitor them. In
some instances, there appeared to be an over-reliance on canned general
standards rather than working as an interdisciplinary team to develop
appropriate site-specific standards.
·Existing
standards were not being met. Local
managers and specialists were aware of this, but there appeared to be no
strategy in place to correct this.
·There
is no apparent interdisciplinary process in place to develop and define desired
conditions. It appeared that the
involved employees are working functionally (on an individual program basis)
rather than in a true interdisciplinary manner, with corporate ownership of
projects and outcomes. Without
corporately developed, and agreed upon, goals and objectives, each program
works independently to move conditions and trends toward a program-centric
vision. This complicates communication
of desired results with the livestock operator, consulting agency personnel and
the remaining public.
·The
role and responsibility of livestock operators in the compliance of use
standards and in the monitoring process needs to be clarified and
emphasized. Our team observed that the
District is expending significant resources using its employees to monitor
utilization and bank trampling. These
employees must then direct the livestock operators to move their
livestock. Rather than being
reactive, the livestock operator should be functioning in a partnership with
the District’s monitoring efforts, and he/she should assume more responsibility
to determine when livestock should be moved.
The FS role should be more focused on helping the operator understand standards,
conducting spot compliance checks, doing effectiveness monitoring, redefining
standards that may not be clear, and refining the definition of desired future
conditions, etc.
·During
the review the team observed cattle that had “drifted into a pasture that
should have been clean of cattle use for the rest of the season. Residual cattle, after a move, and/or
“drift” back after utilization thresholds are reached can compromise the entire
monitoring effort, and will certainly compromise the achievement of desired
resource conditions. This was another
concern regarding the operator’s understanding of issues and commitment to
meeting conditions of use.
· There
appeared to be a need for training of all involved disciplines regarding the
meaning and intent of PACFISH/INFISH and specifically the grazing and other
implementation modules. There was a
break down in communication with the “Point Person” strategy the IIT used this
year to introduce Pilot Implementation of the Minerals, Recreation, and Vegetation
Implementation Monitoring Modules.
· The
use of management induced bank instability (MIBI) as a standard and trigger
were observed and discussed. This
problem is not the result of poor commitment or effort on the District’s part,
but is because there is no scientifically credible protocol for measuring MIBI,
and as a result, there is no science to support establishment and enforcement
of such a standard. For a standard to
have meaning, it must be tied to both science and to a specific protocol. MIBI currently meets neither of these. However, it was noted that the conditions
associated with the Sand Hollow Allotment may be one where a bank stability
trigger would be appropriate to address that issue, if it could be
scientifically credible and with a specific protocol. A similar problem exists regarding riparian hardwood utilization
standards. The District has recognized
this and has generally avoided monitoring shrub utilization.
·
Annual Operating Instruction (AOIs) need to include standards and specifically
site-specific changes in standards.
This is the document for the livestock operator to use to manage their
compliance. The team was unsure of
whether or not this tool was being used as documentation was not supplied
indicating this as a District procedure.
Recommendations:
·The Region should provide
PACFISH/INFISH implementation training to all involved employees, and this
training should be designed to facilitate the function of local
interdisciplinary teams.
·The
IIT needs to provide clear direction regarding the substitution of
site-specific standards from Biological Opinions, Forest Plans, and other
documents for the general standards (i.e. RMOs) provided in PACFISH/INFISH
documents.
·The
Forest should request assistance from the IIT and from the Riparian Service Team
in implementation of existing standards, development of new site-specific
standards, and developing desired future condition statements for each
monitoring key area. In addition, the
Forest should use the Forest Plan revision or amendment process to develop
these desired future conditions and to refine existing Forest Plan standards
for riparian-wetland areas.
·Where
existing standards are not being met, the unit must continue its efforts to
achieve compliance before developing new, more site-specific standards. The effectiveness of a particular grazing
system cannot be accurately assessed until it is implemented as designed.
·Regional
and Forest leadership needs to provide clear direction that compliance with
standards must be achieved. This direction
should also contain clear statements regarding consequences of non-compliance,
with acknowledgement there will be occasions when specific problems prevent
compliance and that accommodation in those cases may be warranted.
·It is
recommended that a refresher training regarding interdisciplinary
processes/teams and their use in corporately determining desired conditions be
conducted. And, the IIT needs to develop a process for determining and
documenting DC’s with a focus on site-specific DC’s for monitoring sites. It is also recommended the Riparian Service
Team be used to help facilitate the IDT interaction.
· The
Forest and District needs to focus on livestock operator’s assumption of
responsibilities to meet standards.
Standards must be included in the AOI, which clearly state it is the
livestock operator’s responsibility to comply with standards. However, in order to make this work, the
standards must be described in a fashion the operator can understand and apply
with reasonable accuracy. Therefore,
direct linkages between the particular standard and the stream/riparian process
of interest must be clearly articulated.
These discussions should not be limited to the standard alone, but
rather should extend to how the animal itself is affecting the stream process,
e.g., preventing the vegetation from developing point bars, reducing plant
vigor, etc. It is important that these
discussions are not “one way” but fully involve the livestock operator and take
full advantage of their knowledge. Then, the Forest/District should redirect
their efforts toward assisting the operator by providing training, check
monitoring, effectiveness monitoring, evaluation of standard appropriateness,
and development of corporate desired future condition statements for key
monitoring areas.
·The
Forest and District need to work closely with local livestock associations and
progressive livestock operators to ensure there is a clear understanding of
requirements, monitoring protocols, and the need for compliance.
·The
IIT needs to work with research to develop science-based protocols for MIBI and
for riparian hardwood shrub utilization.
Following that, science based standards need to be developed that are
tied to these protocols, based on ensuring maintenance or improvement of
resource conditions, as appropriate.
Until science based protocol and standards are developed, field units
should recognize the limitations inherent to these indicators, i.e., current
lack of a scientifically credible protocol, generally poor replicability in
actual measurements and/or limited scientific basis for actual numerical
standards.
If, after examination of stream/riparian processes
and how grazing is affecting these processes, the use of these indicators is
deemed necessary and appropriate, then it should be recognized the development
and application of numerical standards for these indicators are, at this time,
experimental. In other words, numerical
standards do not necessarily translate into real success or failure. Therefore, careful evaluation of
end-of-season stream/riparian conditions must occur each year. Results from these evaluations must be used
to determine the applicability of the indicator and likely further refinement
of the numerical standard. As with all
adaptive management, which this is, adjustments will be required. It is important to remember that the
bottom-line is achieving livestock management that contributes to the recovery
of healthy stream/riparian conditions and not just meeting a “standard”.
· Point Persons for the Vegetation, Minerals and Recreation modules did not make contact with the field unit. There was no awareness of the unit of the new module requirements to be piloted this year or that a report was due by Nov 1.
Recommendation: The point persons for Montana FS need to get in touch with these units and others in their area of jurisdiction and assist them in implementation of the pilot. This should be done immediately.
Recommendation: There is a need to have more specific training sessions for these new modules. IIT needs to arrange for site and module specific hands on training for these new modules, much like the grazing module training.
· There is no additional funding available to do these monitoring requirements. This is very difficult to cover along with all the other requirements.
· The Beaverhead-Deerlodge staff recognizes the ramifications of non-compliance with requirements of the BO’s. They are working hard to implement these requirements. IIT and the Monitoring Team needs to recognize that the “target thresholds” may not be right for these types of systems.
· IIT needs to do a better job of explaining the design, purpose and implementation of the Monitoring Modules.
·The Monitoring Modules need to be integrated instead of functional led. They facilitate isolated management decisions by being separate.
· IIT needs to be clear on the meaning of “replacement” of requirements in project specific BOs with the requirements of the monitoring implementation modules. . When, where and how should it apply? The field needs guidance.
· Jeanette Kaiser, Forest Supervisor, said she wants the monitoring folks to come back and help the unit. They set a date for their return.
· In future reviews Review Teams should look at a whole drainage, not just the problem spots. This will give a more accurate picture of ongoing management actions and their implications.
·It is suggested that the Helena National Forest would be a good site for the next review.
Conclusions:
1.
Communication
seems to be a significant issue needing attention. Line offices must become
visibly involved by providing emphasis to the need for compliance with
biological opinions. And, they need to
provide important sideboards to the development and implementation of
monitoring processes and standards. One
of these sideboards would be the successful use of interdisciplinary processes
to develop and apply utilization standards or other triggers. With better interdisciplinary involvement,
corporate ownership of the project and products would be improved. The results would be a better expressed and
generally accepted monitoring process, thus improving uniform application and
the product would be more reliable and supportable in the legal sense. Using technical support and assistance from
the IIT, the Riparian Service Team, regional specialists and consulting
agencies would also address this need.
In addition, another sideboard
should be livestock operator involvement.
There obviously was at least one range livestock user who appreciated
the seriousness of complying with the INFISH Biological Opinion terms and
conditions and was dedicated to do what was “right”. However, there was some evidence of confusion and lack of
involvement and resolve from livestock users in other situations. Successful application of these legal
requirements is very dependent upon the livestock user’s understanding of the
standards of use, so he/she can aid in the monitoring task, which is generally
beyond agency ability. It is also
critical that the livestock operator fully understands the consequences of
failure.
2. The use of local standards, such
as the management induced bank instability trigger needs careful
consideration. The IIT monitoring
process allows the development of local triggers, and triggers that are
different than the usual stubble-height trigger, however this must be
accomplished considering some important principles.
a.
While
there may be a need for a management induced bank instability trigger, there is
currently no science based, accepted protocol with this trigger. Because of this, reliability in measurements
cannot be assured. Without specific
protocol, where the science exists to tie the findings from the protocol to
on-the-ground results, the standards have little meaning. It is vital to have the science to relate
the measured effects to changes in condition and trends on the ground. Otherwise, the cost and efforts to measure
this trigger may be for nothing.
b.
Considering
the logistics and planning often needed to move livestock from a pasture, it is
important in the development of monitoring triggers, with uses such as
livestock grazing, that the livestock operator understand the trigger
sufficiently to anticipate proper moving dates. The user’s ability to become a partner in monitoring can also be
an asset, especially considering our budgets and staffing to effect
monitoring. As currently applied, the
management induced bank instability trigger appeared difficult for our own professionals
and technicians to use with confidence, let alone the livestock operator. The need for livestock operator acceptance
and involvement in the monitoring task is critical to successful monitoring.
To fully achieve this acceptance
and involvement, not to mention allow
livestock operator success, direct
linkages between indicators and associated numerical standards and
stream/riparian processes must be clearly articulated. In cooperation with the livestock operator,
these linkages must be further linked directly to animal behavior, e.g.,
overuse of vegetation on stream banks or developing point bars, reduction of
riparian plant vigor through repeated use on the same plant in a growing
season, mechanical damage to vegetation and stream banks, etc., and strategies
to reduce impacts to acceptable levels.
Appendix A:
Site Specific Field Observations:
The following is a summary of observations based on review team
expertise and conversations with Forest/District resource specialists.
Meadow Creek (9-10-01): A small tributary to East
Fork Rock???? Creek, which supports a Bull Trout Population.
Ø Stream Channel Characteristics:
o
Intermittent
flow with active channel scouring;
o
Past
extensive bank sloughing with recent less extensive bank disturbances;
o
Incised
channel with limited flood plain access;
o
Past
bank failures were well vegetated;
o
Woody
riparian vegetation was sparse and decadent;
o
Sediment
delivery, nutrients and temperature appeared to be issues for downstream water
quality and fish habitat.
Ø Fish Populations and Habitat
Characteristics:
o
Meadow
Creek dumps into East Fork of Rock Creek???, which supports a Bull Trout
population which is classed as depressed (CRB/IWWI species status), but part of
a functioning meta-population;
o
E.
Fk. Rock Creek also contained native westslope cutthroat??, brook and brown
trout;
o
Habitat
degradation and exotic fish species is an issue for protecting, maintain and
restoring native fish.
Ø Current Land Use Management:
o
Livestock
grazing and wildlife is primary use;
o
Has a
likely-to-adversely effect call;
o
Current
direction is to implement INFISH RMOs and Standards & Guides, project
specific B.O. and Forest Plan Standards & Guides.
Ø Stream Channel Condition:
o
Improving
from past conditions associated with livestock and wildlife grazing over use;
o
Channel
appears to be non-functioning in regards to channel form (bank stability,
channel incision, lateral erosion) and woody riparian vegetation;
o
Active
channel and immediate banks is meeting stubble height but not project specific
B.O. requirements, i.e. bank stability;
Ø Recommendations That Were Discussed
On Site:
o
Reduce
livestock use within the stream-riparian environment – i.e electric fencing,
herding, water developments, time of grazing;
o
Eliminate
the trespass problem;
o
Develop
a picture of desired future conditions to assist livestock operator and
District interdisciplinary team in defining management strategy and performance
standards;
o
Get
assistance from Riparian Service Team and PACFISH/INFISH Effectiveness
Monitoring Team to assist in defining and understanding ecological structure
and function details and likely variables and sampling schemes to assist in
monitoring.
Middle Fork (9-11-01): A major stream supporting a
Bull Trout Population.
Ø Stream Channel Characteristics:
o
Large
boulder-cobble-gravel stream (5-7 meters wide)
with perennial flow and active
channel scouring (Rosgen B channel);
o
Past
extensive bank sloughing with recent moderate to high lateral channel and bank
erosion;
o
Incised
channel with limited flood plain access with actively scoured secondary
channels;
o
Immediate-bank
grasses were highly variable (sparse to vigorous);
o
Woody
riparian vegetation was sparse and decadent;
o
High
sediment levels, shallow pools, limited LWD, and lack of inchannel diversity
would appear to be a habitat issue for rearing salmonids.
Ø Fish Populations and Habitat
Characteristics:
o
Bull
Trout population that was classed depressed but within a functioning
meta-population;
o
The
stream also contains native westslope cutthroat??, brook and brown trout;
o
Habitat
degradation from sedimentation, bank erosion, lack of undercut banks and deep
pools, and exotic fish species, is an issue for protecting, maintain and
restoring native fish.
Ø Current Land Use Management:
o
Livestock
grazing with traditional off and on dates, and extensive wildlife use;
o
Has a
likely-to-adversely effect call;
o
Current
direction is to implement INFISH RMOs and Standards & Guides; B.O. and
Forest Plan requirements.
Ø Stream Channel Condition:
o
Improving
from past conditions associated with livestock and wildlife grazing over use;
o
Channel
appears to be non-functioning in regards to channel form (bank stability,
channel incision, lateral bank erosion, high sediment levels) and lack of
over-hanging woody riparian vegetation;
o
Extensive
erosion, trampling and trailing on banks.
Ø Recommendations That Were Discussed
On Site:
o
Reduce
livestock use within the stream-riparian environment – i.e fencing, herding,
designated crossings, water developments, time and duration of grazing;
o
Engage
the livestock operator in understanding stream-riparian objectives;
o
Develop
desired future conditions to assist livestock operator and District
interdisciplinary team in defining management strategy and performance
standards;
o
Get
assistance from Riparian Service Team and PACFISH/INFISH Effectiveness
Monitoring Team to assist in defining and understanding ecological structure
and function details and likely variables and sampling schemes to assist in
monitoring.
Split Meadows Pasture (9-11-01): A small to medium
stream supporting Bull Trout.
Ø Stream Channel Characteristics:
o
Meandering
meadow stream with perennial flow and active channel scouring (Rosgen C
Channel);
o
Past
extensive bank sloughing with recent moderate to high lateral channel and bank
erosion;
o
Incised
channel with limited access to flood plain;
o
Immediate-bank
and flood plain grasses were vigorous;
o
Woody
riparian vegetation was sparse but may not be naturally occurring;
o
Moderate
sediment levels and shallow pools appear to be related to past and current bank
erosion.
Ø Fish Populations and Habitat
Characteristics:
o
Bull
Trout and Westslope cutthroat downstream and occasionally within affected
stream area;
o
Habitat
degradation from sedimentation, bank erosion, lack of undercut banks and deep
pools.
Ø Current Land Use Management:
o
Livestock
grazing and extensive wildlife use, and recreational use;
o
Has a
likely-to-adversely effect call;
o
Current
direction is to implement INFISH RMOs and Standards & Guides; B.O. and
Forest Plan requirements
o
Livestock
operator and county extension agent was conducting monitoring along with the
District.
Ø Stream Channel Condition:
o
Improving
from past conditions associated with livestock and wildlife grazing over use;
o
Channel
appears to be non-functioning in regards to channel form (bank stability,
channel incision, lateral bank erosion).
Ø Recommendations That Were Discussed
On Site:
o
Keep
livestock away from the stream-riparian environment – i.e continue electric
fencing, herding, water developments and crossings;
o
Assist
the livestock operator in understanding the stream-riparian desired conditions
for this site;
o
Get
assistance from Riparian Service Team and PACFISH/INFISH Effectiveness
Monitoring Team to assist in defining and understanding ecological structure
and function details and likely variables and sampling schemes to assist in
monitoring.
Log Flume Pasture (9-11-01): A small - medium stream
supporting Bull Trout.
Ø Stream Channel Characteristics:
o
Meandering
forested stream with perennial flow and active channel scouring (Rosgen B – C
Channel);
o
Past
extensive bank sloughing with recent moderate lateral channel and bank erosion;
o
Incised
channel with limited flood plain;
o
Immediate-bank
grasses were vigorous;
o
Woody
riparian vegetation consisted of moderate levels of shrub and conifers;
o
High
sediment levels (granitics), shallow pools and lack of LWD.
Ø Fish Populations and Habitat
Characteristics:
o
Bull
trout and Westslope cutthroat populations;
o
Habitat
degradation from sedimentation, bank erosion, lack of undercut banks, LWD and
deep pools.
Ø Current Land Use Management:
o
Livestock
grazing and extensive wildlife use, and recreational use;
o
Has a
likely-to-adversely effect call;
o
Current
direction is to implement INFISH RMOs and Standards & Guides; B.O. and
Forest Plan requirements
o
Livestock
operator conducting monitoring and fully engaged with the District on livestock
management.
Ø Stream Channel Condition:
o
Improving
from past conditions associated with livestock and wildlife grazing over use;
o
Channel
appears to be non-functioning in regards to channel form (bank stability,
lateral bank erosion, shallow pools, high sediment), but in an improving trend.
Ø Recommendations That Were Discussed
On Site:
o
Keep
livestock away from the stream-riparian environment – i.e fencing, herding,
water developments and crossings;
o
Assist
the livestock operator in understanding the stream-riparian desired conditions
for this site;
Get assistance from Riparian Service Team and
PACFISH/INFISH Effectiveness Monitoring Team to assist in defining and understanding
ecological structure and function details and likely variables and sampling
schemes to assist in monitoring.