ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAMMATIC ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAMMATIC

CONSULTATIONS IN CONSULTATIONS IN OREGON, WASHINGTON, AND OREGON, WASHINGTON, AND IDAHOIDAHO July 9, 2004July 9, 2004

AssignmentAssignment

December 18, 2003 charter to ICSDecember 18, 2003 charter to ICS Assessment of Programmatic ConsultationsAssessment of Programmatic Consultations Recommend new opportunities or expansionRecommend new opportunities or expansion Initiated by R-6 and NOAA FisheriesInitiated by R-6 and NOAA Fisheries Expanded to included R-1, R-4, and Idaho BLMExpanded to included R-1, R-4, and Idaho BLM

Team MembersTeam Members

Russ Strach, NOAA FisheriesRuss Strach, NOAA Fisheries Dan Brown, FWSDan Brown, FWS Tim Burton, ID BLMTim Burton, ID BLM Scott Peets, USFS, R-6Scott Peets, USFS, R-6 Alan Christensen, USFS R-6Alan Christensen, USFS R-6 Dan Duffield, USFS R-4Dan Duffield, USFS R-4 Marc Liverman, NOAA FisheriesMarc Liverman, NOAA Fisheries Steve Morris, NOAA Fisheries Steve Morris, NOAA Fisheries

EvaluationEvaluation

Assembled programmatic consultation documentsAssembled programmatic consultation documents

- Formal and informal- Formal and informal 109 FWS109 FWS 64 NOAA Fisheries64 NOAA Fisheries Plan-level, program-level, and batched Plan-level, program-level, and batched 24 different activity types24 different activity types 12 BLM Districts, 42 National Forests12 BLM Districts, 42 National Forests Obtained other relevant dataObtained other relevant data

Untangling “Programmatic Untangling “Programmatic Consultation” DefinitionsConsultation” Definitions

Plan-levelPlan-level – LRMP/LUP containing groups of – LRMP/LUP containing groups of programsprograms

ProgramProgram – Guides development of activity types – Guides development of activity types but not specific projects, i.e., range programbut not specific projects, i.e., range program

Project-levelProject-level – Individual actions, time/location – Individual actions, time/location BatchedBatched – Groups of project-specific actions (not – Groups of project-specific actions (not

programs), i.e., watershedprograms), i.e., watershed Other ProcessesOther Processes – Idaho Pilot, counterpart – Idaho Pilot, counterpart

regulations, Fire Design Criteriaregulations, Fire Design Criteria

Bar Chart of 24 Activity Types F&WSBar Chart of 24 Activity Types F&WS

05

1015202530354045

graz

ing

timb_h

arv

thin

ning

rd_c

ulvert

rd_b

ridge

road

_sur

ftr

ailsLUP

recr

eatio

n

fire-

sup

fire_

presc

resto

re_w

ldh

resto

re_w

tsh

resto

re_f

hab

nox_w

eeds

ROW

trav

el_plan

out_

guid

e

salv

age

mai

nten

ance

rese

archre

alty

min

eral

for_

prod

# of

Con

sult

atio

ns

Project

Program

Process

Plan

Batch

Bar Chart of 24 Activity Types NOAABar Chart of 24 Activity Types NOAA

05

101520253035

graz

ing

timb_h

arv

thin

ning

rd_c

ulvert

rd_b

ridge

road

_sur

ftr

ailsLUP

recr

eatio

n

fire-

sup

fire_

presc

resto

re_w

ldh

resto

re_w

tsh

resto

re_f

hab

nox_w

eeds

ROW

trav

el_plan

out_

guid

e

salv

age

mai

nten

ance

rese

archre

alty

min

eral

for_

prod

# of

Con

sult

atio

ns

Project

Program

Process

Plan

Batch

Focus and FiltersFocus and Filters

Areas where NMFS/FWS species overlapAreas where NMFS/FWS species overlap Isolated programs not streamlined by NFP PDCs or Isolated programs not streamlined by NFP PDCs or

counterpart regulationscounterpart regulations No step-down consultation requiredNo step-down consultation required Complex, controversial, or litigation sensitiveComplex, controversial, or litigation sensitive USFS/BLM fish habitat improvementsUSFS/BLM fish habitat improvements

Complexity FactorsComplexity Factors

Available Information: upfront detailsAvailable Information: upfront details Predictability of Program: defining scale, types of Predictability of Program: defining scale, types of

actions, location, timing, exposureactions, location, timing, exposure Number of Species/CH AffectedNumber of Species/CH Affected Species Wide Ranging vs. Narrow EndemicSpecies Wide Ranging vs. Narrow Endemic Species Life History DiversitySpecies Life History Diversity Geographic Scale Geographic Scale ↑↑ Complexity Complexity ↑↑ Coordination with Other Affected AgenciesCoordination with Other Affected Agencies

FWS Species Density* on USFS and FWS Species Density* on USFS and BLM LandsBLM Lands

FWS Species Diversity20 Plants6 Mollusks3 Invertebrates10 Fish6 Birds7 Mammals

*Densities are based on number of T&E species per county

ActivityType

Description Addressedin the NWNFPPDC's

Priority**

Toocomplex*

Grazing All grazing actions     XXX

Timb_harv Commercial timber harvest activities     XXX

Thinning Non-commercial timber thinning XXX  

Rd_culvert All culvert work 3  

Rd_bridge All bridge work   3  

Road_surf All road surface work   3  

Trails All trail work   Y  

Lup Land use plans - revision, amendments, updates, etc.

    XXX

Recreation All recreation actions     XXX

Fire-sup Fire suppression   Y  

Fire_presc Prescribed fire and fire/fuels treatments XXX    

Restore_wldh Restoration of wildlife habitat   Y  

Restore_wtsh Restoration of watershed habitat   Y  

Restore_fhab Restoration of fish and riparian habitat   1  

Nox_weeds Noxious weed treatments   2  

Row Rights of way and special use permits     XXX

Travel_plan Travel plans     XXX

Out_guide Outfitters and guides   Y  

Salvage Salvage harvest     XXX

* It is unlikely that NMFS and FWS would be able to provide broad-scale ESA coverage for these activity types. Many components are already addressed in the NW NFP PDC's, It may be possible to consult programmatically on these components "Too complex" means: this activity is highly variable across the Region, but may be handled on a unit-by-

unit basis

** NMFS and FWS may be able to provide some broad-scale ESA coverage for these activity types, without subsequent project-level

consultation.

Programmatic Consultations for Fish Habitat Restoration – US F&WS

Programmatic Consultations for Fish Habitat Restoration – NOAA Fisheries

Programmatic Consultations for Noxious Weeds – NOAA Fisheries

Utility IndexUtility IndexDefinedDefined

FWS/NMFS both issued consultation FWS/NMFS both issued consultation documentsdocuments

All ESA-listed species addressedAll ESA-listed species addressed Template for scale and information needsTemplate for scale and information needs Applicable to all listed fish speciesApplicable to all listed fish species Others?Others?

Utility Index of Existing Biological Opinions

0

1

2

3

4

5

BPA NW Oregon Culvert

Programmatic Consultations (Aquatic Restoration)

Uti

lity

High

Moderate

Low

Programmatic Consultations Programmatic Consultations Process and RiskProcess and Risk

NMFS and FWS NMFS and FWS Different interpretations of risk (legal) – Different interpretations of risk (legal) –

-ITS with and without step-down-ITS with and without step-down consultationsconsultations Interpretations of AZ Cattle growers lawsuitInterpretations of AZ Cattle growers lawsuit - Solicitor’s decision- Solicitor’s decision Legal risk vs. biological benefitLegal risk vs. biological benefit Decision-making authority/risk for Regional-scale Decision-making authority/risk for Regional-scale

consultation consultation Working to address divergenceWorking to address divergence Meantime focus on mutually acceptable approachesMeantime focus on mutually acceptable approaches

RecommendationsRecommendations Thoughtfully expand fish habitat restoration to other Thoughtfully expand fish habitat restoration to other

units/regionsunits/regions Convene a sub-regional team(s) or one team Convene a sub-regional team(s) or one team

across OR, WA, and IDacross OR, WA, and ID Draw from the culvert programmatic and others to Draw from the culvert programmatic and others to

develop any future programmaticsdevelop any future programmatics Consider other program areas after an evaluation Consider other program areas after an evaluation

of instream restoration effortof instream restoration effort

RecommendationRecommendationPros and ConsPros and Cons

Stepdown possible (pro)Stepdown possible (pro) Reduces between unit redundancy (pro)Reduces between unit redundancy (pro) Increased long-term efficiencies (pro)Increased long-term efficiencies (pro) New Initial upfront workload (con)New Initial upfront workload (con) Harmonizing differences across states and Harmonizing differences across states and

agencies (con)agencies (con) Use existing streamlining structure (pro/con)Use existing streamlining structure (pro/con) Commitment to increased monitoring and Commitment to increased monitoring and

reportingreporting