Date post: | 16-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | eddie-burgess |
View: | 219 times |
Download: | 3 times |
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