REPORT ON
BLM COTTONWOOD FIELD OFFICE
Review Conducted October 1- 3, 2001
IIT Field Review Team members
Susan Martin, FWS, Spokane, Washington
Tim Burton, BLM Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho
Jon Foster, BLM Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho
Joe Moreau, BLM Washington/Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon
Russ Strach, NMFS, Portland, Oregon
Phil Mattson, FS Region 6, Portland, Oregon
Scott Woltering. FS Region 6, Portland, Oregon
General Field Review Objectives
1. Determine if the Biological Opinions have been implemented in accordance with the mechanisms, terms and conditions.
2. Determine if on-the-ground management decisions are consistent with the Biological Opinions, PACFISH and INFISH Goals and Objectives.
3. Determine if PACFISH and INFISH Standards and Guides have been correctly interpreted and implemented on-the-ground.
4. 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.
5. Improve communication and coordination between agencies. Strengthen interagency commitment to watershed management under the management direction of PACFISH/INFISH.
Specific Local Objectives
A description and photos of the site visits are contained in Appendix 1.
FINDINGS
Commendations:
General: Both units have clearly integrated PACFISH and INFISH into their management of ongoing activities and into the design and implementation of new actions.
The projects we viewed were well thought out and fisheries concerns were fully integrated into the design, often driving the design.
The Units made good use of a Payette National Forest (NF) restoration team for road improvement/obliteration actions.
The Units are pioneering implementation of the Recreation Monitoring Module, are positive about the module, and obviously utilizing, and understand the grazing module.
One major strength unique to both these units is the institutional knowledge that has been retained in the fisheries programs, providing long-term consistency and solid leadership.
Payette NF: The Unit has a strong commitment to implementation of PACFISH and INFISH as evidenced by the fire suppression program and its consistency with the Biological Opinions, and many examples of PACFISH/INFISH compliance.
Participation by the Rangers in this review demonstrates a high level of line officer support.
The Review Team noted the innovative methods of bridge and culvert installation and replacement, as well as road closures.
The Unit has done an excellent job integrating the IIT Grazing Monitoring Module into the Forest-wide Range Program. The Unit indicated they do not have any unnecessary duplication of grazing monitoring activities between the module and project level biological opinions.
Cottonwood BLM: The Unit clearly has a strong relationship with the Payette and Nez Perce National Forests and works cooperatively with them on many projects.
Participation by the Field Manager and Assistant District Manager in this review demonstrates a high level of line officer support.
The Review Team observed restoration of a severely degraded road in a drainage significant to salmon and steelhead in the Little Salmon watershed, demonstrating the BLM commitment to PACFISH and INFISH implementation.
The Unit manages a unique and coherent recreation program on the Salmon River involving many complex activities, with obvious commitment to protecting listed fishes and fish habitat.
The lower Salmon River recreation activities, including boat races and potential affects to fall chinook salmon, are being monitored and controlled to protect that species.
Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS: Attendance by Level 1 Team members from these agencies was valuable to the review.
Level 1 Teams appear to be working well together, effectively completing complex consultations.
OBSERVATIONS AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS:
GENERAL:
The Review Team found that local units struggle with the lack of policy direction for addressing interrelated and interdependent effects of permitting access to activities on private lands. The issue is indirectly addressed by Standard and Guideline LH-3 in PACFISH and INFISH, and in the 1998 Biological Opinion (Mechanism number 4). Feedback from the Units was that the recent policy and interagency agreement (issued, then subsequently withdrawn in early 2001) was helpful in addressing these issues.
Both units are struggling to get through right of way (ROW-- access) consultations using past and current policy. These consultations are challenging and sometimes stretch out for years. In some instances these consultations were made more difficult by county assertions of RS2477 status. We recognize and understand these concerns which have been around for a long time, and suggest that the IIT communicate the concerns to all of the agency Executives once again, to reinforce the need for a clear policy. There was some discussion about the need for the consulting agencies to provide another tool under ESA Section 10 to address these issues, through development of Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) with non-Federal entitities, where take could be demonstrated.
The Units have limited capability to convert culverts to the 100-year flood standard (RF- 4) in the near term. Given this lack of capability, culvert replacements should be prioritized based on the need to connect populations, and on other significant risks to listed salmonids and designated critical habitat. This would also meet the fish passage requirements of RF-5.
Watershed Analysis priorities appear to be driven by projects with watershed-wide issues, like equivalent clearcut acres (ECA) standard exceedance, rather than by restoration and protection of listed fishes and their habitat. Restoration projects appear to be prioritized according to funding opportunities, such as burned area emergency rehabilitation (BAER) and National Fire Plan. This approach may miss higher priority opportunities, simply because those priorities have not yet been discovered or are left unfunded because of the lack of strategic planning. PACFISH emphasizes watershed analysis that uses: AA regional strategy that looks across landscapes and ownerships within the watershed to identify where restoration efforts are likely to be most effective.@
The Units are using Watershed Biological Assessments (BAs) in part to help identify restoration priorities. These assessments lack integration with other priorities/programs, and do not have the benefits of the Watershed Analysis Guide AStep 5: Synthesis@ provided by watershed analysis to strategically locate population recovery priorities. The Units also indicated that they are not using the IIT Restoration Strategy, which would strategically focus the restoration priorities according to the best available science.
We believe that the Restoration Strategy should be used to prioritize subbasin assessments and watershed analyses, generating the products needed to help prioritize restoration projects in a strategic, and more effective approach. The Strategy emphasizes the step-down process, and provides guiding principles that would result in products that would prioritize future discretionary and non-discretionary funding opportunities. Forest Service Region 4 has funded priority projects identified in other Watershed Analyses. For example, one of the criteria to receive 10% funding is the requirement to have a watershed analysis.
Payette NF: The team observed that the Forest was not pro-actively pursuing watershed analysis (perhaps due to lack of funding), and therefore lacks the benefits of such analysis in decision making. For example, the team observed that the relocation of a road and bridge at Lake Creek was completed without watershed analysis that arguably may have been required by RF-2a. The decision to relocate the road and bridge may have been different given the benefit of the results of watershed analysis. Given that the action of relocating a road and bridge in the riparian habitat conservation area (RHCA) was designed to improve habitat condition, both short- and long-term, and that the bridge failure presented an immediate need to address the issue, we agree that the interpretation in this case was appropriate. However, the Forest, in coordination with the Level 1 Team, needs to take caution on such actions in the future and seek assistance from the Level 2 Team in making an appropriate interpretation of RF-2a.
There is a backlog of watershed analysis on the Forest and this appears to be true for most administrative units in the PACFISH/INFISH area. Given that watershed analysis is important to setting priorities for restoration, as well as implementation of standards in PACFISH and INFISH, the Team recommends that the IIT work with their agency Executives to seek funding in an effort to help the Units complete watershed analysis across the Forest in a timely manner.
If adequate funding is not forthcoming, the IIT should consider developing practical, alternative tools that the Forests and Districts can use in circumstances where they are tripping watershed analysis triggers. This may be issue-driven (focused) watershed analysis on the road network, or amending the Biological Opinions to allow for site- specific analyses.
Cottonwood BLM
While reviewing a road restoration project, participants in the Review discussed the issue of potential short-term adverse affects associated with projects designed to accomplish long-term restoration. Short-term effects are being minimized/mitigated to the extent that no more than a negligible potential to adversely affect listed fish or adversely modify critical habitat can be derived. Thus a not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) determination can be made to move such projects along, such as those that result from floods or other emergencies. Reaching this determination allows the Unit to complete consultation more quickly. It was stated that these actions would not result in Atake@.
We support this approach to minimize adverse affects and use appropriate tools to enhance the project. However, we recommend that the Level 1 Teams be careful in how far this approach is carried, and reinforce the need to maintain objectivity in their efforts to achieve NLAA determinations. If the determination is at all in question, we recommend the Level 1 Team seek review of the rationale from Level 2, and potentially Level 3, to get additional help with, and possible confirmation of the determination. For needed instream work that would result in LAA determinations, units should recognize that formal consultation may be the appropriate avenue to follow .
Advice for the IIT
Effectiveness monitoring is viewed as of little value to local units because they perceive that it does not answer local questions or address local issues of concern. Development of protocols by the IIT effectiveness monitoring program, including assessment of quality assurance, is viewed as beneficial to local units. There are also concerns about costs and workloads in the expanding implementation monitoring program. The IIT should make sure that the upcoming demonstration projects address these issues.
There is a need for training new employees and to update existing employees in the use and interpretation of PACFISH/INFISH and the BO=s.
FEEDBACK (notes from discussion between Review Team and Forest/BLM representatives):
Watershed analysis: There is a lack of funding for it, so the units don=t have the luxury of doing it like they do under the Northwest Forest Plan. They have to make hard choices based on their financial capability. There are still questions about where step-down fits in the land use planning cycle. Future field reviews probably should focus a little more on how this program is working across the area. In this area, BLM is dependant on the FS for watershed analysis because of scattered land patterns, and FS priorities may not match BLM=s. They are working on high priority restoration projects without watershed analysis partly because they do have a strong institutional memory (tenured experience) and know where the major issues are located. For BLM, work on Watershed Analysis falls behind work on Standards and Guides, Fire Plan, etc. BLM still lacks adequate tools for that analysis, such as GIS.
Until watershed analysis is completed, the Forest is using the Watershed BAs, which also examine restoration opportunities. Biologists on the Forest say that the single biggest impediment to the program is primary purpose funding. Now that they can=t multi- finance projects, and funds come with specific targets, such constraints often prevent them from implementing PACFISH-driven watershed analysis. The Watershed BA=s identify restoration needs and recovery opportunities. They allow the fishery program people to display their priorities for other programs on the Forest, and for the Forest leadership team. However these priorities lack integration with other resources and priorities such as National Fire Plan. For example, they provide a view of how a lynx project stacks up in priority compared to a fish project. It doesn=t allow the ability to compare priority between a project in the Secesh River as compared with one in the Weiser River. The Watershed BA=s isolate the relative importance of factors limiting the population across the watershed, and so are strategic within the watershed itself. However the Watershed BA=s are detached from the budget process. So the budget process does not automatically address the priorities coming out of the BA=s. There is a need to integrate the findings of Watershed Analysis with funding of projects on the ground. Also, the Roads Analysis will help develop a strategic approach to that issue, which the Forest acknowledges is a key issue for listed fish.
BLM=s watershed BAs identify opportunities, and ability to address those opportunities. They also identify priorities for the projects. Priorities are based on capability and on value of the fishery (strongholds). So for BLM it is a matter of where we have need on top of where we have capability.
It is apparent that a lot of management efforts are reactive, or at least opportunistic, responding to opportunities to do work, primarily based on available funds. Fish is not always the driver; however we are going through cultural shifts, and there has been an increasing emphasis on integration. Projects now usually have variable resource components, and don=t focus on program components, as in the past. What we have in the BA=s are mini watershed analyses, they contain environmental baseline and potential, but they are not integrated with other programs and are perhaps disjunct from the current emphases on integration. That is the value of watershed analysis. The BAs also lack Step 5 Asynthesis@ where integration is analyzed. But the BAs are partly filling the need, and that, along with the funding message, is what we will carry forward to the IIT. Perhaps the National Fire Plan could be used as the linkage to the need for integration. Also, the bull trout unit recovery plans are being built at the watershed scale, and integration with those would strengthen the priorities identified in the Watershed BAs, going a long way toward the ultimate goal of strategically planning for restoration. Subbasin reviews don=t provide a lot of information on restoration priorities, because they are too broad.
Key points of discussion to carry forward: 1) primary purpose funding limits opportunities, 2) value of Watershed BA=s and how they are using them, and 3) integration and synthesis of information may be lacking.
Short-term impact vs long-term benefits: Need to separate emergency projects from other projects that are not as imminently in need. However there are times that we must acknowledge that take does occur and go ahead with formal consultation. The ability to expedite formal consultations is limited, so there is a risk on these emergency projects to actually implement a project without Atake@ authorization. So the need for the cautionary note. In Oregon, they have done batches/bundles and put all the projects under perhaps one or two that are likely to adversely affect ( LAA) which results in a Atake@ authorization for everything. However this runs the risk of some projects being encumbered by any that may be appealed. In addition, defining incidental take for a program would lose the advantage of controlling unforeseen instances, particularly in programs like road construction and maintenance.
The recommendation of getting review of NLAA=s is intended to help Level 1 Teams when the determination is unclear. There are some projects, like instream enhancements, that are LAA but have not gone forward because of the determination, but probably should be implemented. Perhaps we should include in our recommendations that Units should not be resistant to use of the formal consultation route when it is clearly the appropriate approach. In addition, for projects that are clearly restoration/enhancement in nature, Section 10 a(1)A recovery permits may be another mechanism to address the Atake@ issues.
Noxious weeds: Issue of herbicides and the element of risk from not following the constraints required. There is always the chance of having a mishap resulting from accidental spill. Should consultation address illegal acts? Payette NF has described how much illegal activity is going on, but they don=t assess effect because law enforcement is questionably a Afederal action@ under ESA. Past consultations have addressed probability of accidental spill.
Level of protection on private lands (or should a private land action lacking full compliance with PACFISH/INFISH still be NLAA?): This is an important issue for Level 1 Teams. The approach of the Payette NF has been to fall back to the old Dale Robertson policy which is contained in the interagency streamlining guidance. This is the policy that is addressed in the 1998 BO as needing update. If we raise this issue with the Executives, perhaps they can direct some efforts towards a clarification of the policy and how to proceed in a way that satisfies our obligations under ESA. These things take a lot of time and energy; should we be putting so much into them while more important issues are awaiting attention?
Schedule for the Report
The Review Team will have a draft of the report ready by 10/12 to distribute to the Field.
Need comments back by from the Field by 10/24.
Review Team revise draft and provide to IIT for 10/30 meeting.
Report for Regional Execs by 11/14.