1 / 20

ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAMMATIC CONSULTATIONS IN OREGON, WASHINGTON, AND

This report evaluates the programmatic consultations in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, recommending new opportunities for expansion. It includes an assessment of consultation documents and relevant data, untangles programmatic consultation definitions, and discusses complexity factors and risk assessment. Recommendations are provided for expanding fish habitat restoration and convening sub-regional teams. Pros and cons of stepdown consultations are considered.

jpruett
Download Presentation

ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAMMATIC CONSULTATIONS IN OREGON, WASHINGTON, AND

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAMMATIC CONSULTATIONS IN OREGON, WASHINGTON, AND IDAHO July 9, 2004

  2. Assignment • December 18, 2003 charter to ICS • Assessment of Programmatic Consultations • Recommend new opportunities or expansion • Initiated by R-6 and NOAA Fisheries • Expanded to included R-1, R-4, and Idaho BLM

  3. Team Members • Russ Strach, NOAA Fisheries • Dan Brown, FWS • Tim Burton, ID BLM • Scott Peets, USFS, R-6 • Alan Christensen, USFS R-6 • Dan Duffield, USFS R-4 • Marc Liverman, NOAA Fisheries • Steve Morris, NOAA Fisheries

  4. Evaluation • Assembled programmatic consultation documents - Formal and informal • 109 FWS • 64 NOAA Fisheries • Plan-level, program-level, and batched • 24 different activity types • 12 BLM Districts, 42 National Forests • Obtained other relevant data

  5. Untangling “Programmatic Consultation” Definitions • Plan-level – LRMP/LUP containing groups of programs • Program – Guides development of activity types but not specific projects, i.e., range program • Project-level – Individual actions, time/location • Batched – Groups of project-specific actions (not programs), i.e., watershed • Other Processes – Idaho Pilot, counterpart regulations, Fire Design Criteria

  6. Bar Chart of 24 Activity Types F&WS

  7. Bar Chart of 24 Activity Types NOAA

  8. Focus and Filters • Areas where NMFS/FWS species overlap • Isolated programs not streamlined by NFP PDCs or counterpart regulations • No step-down consultation required • Complex, controversial, or litigation sensitive • USFS/BLM fish habitat improvements

  9. Complexity Factors • Available Information: upfront details • Predictability of Program: defining scale, types of actions, location, timing, exposure • Number of Species/CH Affected • Species Wide Ranging vs. Narrow Endemic • Species Life History Diversity • Geographic Scale ↑ Complexity ↑ • Coordination with Other Affected Agencies

  10. FWS Species Density* on USFS and BLM Lands FWS Species Diversity 20 Plants 6 Mollusks 3 Invertebrates 10 Fish 6 Birds 7 Mammals *Densities are based on number of T&E species per county

  11. * 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.

  12. Programmatic Consultations for Fish Habitat Restoration – US F&WS

  13. Programmatic Consultations for Fish Habitat Restoration – NOAA Fisheries

  14. Programmatic Consultations for Noxious Weeds – NOAA Fisheries

  15. Utility IndexDefined • FWS/NMFS both issued consultation documents • All ESA-listed species addressed • Template for scale and information needs • Applicable to all listed fish species • Others?

  16. High Moderate Low

  17. Programmatic Consultations Process and Risk • NMFS and FWS • Different interpretations of risk (legal) – -ITS with and without step-down consultations • Interpretations of AZ Cattle growers lawsuit - Solicitor’s decision • Legal risk vs. biological benefit • Decision-making authority/risk for Regional-scale consultation • Working to address divergence • Meantime focus on mutually acceptable approaches

  18. Recommendations • Thoughtfully expand fish habitat restoration to other units/regions • Convene a sub-regional team(s) or one team across OR, WA, and ID • Draw from the culvert programmatic and others to develop any future programmatics • Consider other program areas after an evaluation of instream restoration effort

  19. RecommendationPros and Cons • Stepdown possible (pro) • Reduces between unit redundancy (pro) • Increased long-term efficiencies (pro) • New Initial upfront workload (con) • Harmonizing differences across states and agencies (con) • Use existing streamlining structure (pro/con) • Commitment to increased monitoring and reporting

More Related