1. ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAMMATIC CONSULTATIONS IN OREGON, WASHINGTON, AND IDAHO IDAHO July 9, 2004 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 - 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. Activity Type DescriptionAddressed in the NW NFP PDC's Priority ** Too complex* GrazingAll grazing actions XXX Timb_harvCommercial timber harvest activities XXX ThinningNon-commercial timber thinningXXX Rd_culvertAll culvert work 3 Rd_bridgeAll bridge work 3 Road_surfAll road surface work 3 TrailsAll trail work Y LupLand use plans - revision, amendments, updates, etc. XXX RecreationAll recreation actions XXX Fire-supFire suppression Y Fire_prescPrescribed fire and fire/fuels treatmentsXXX Restore_wldhRestoration of wildlife habitat Y Restore_wtshRestoration of watershed habitat Y Restore_fhabRestoration of fish and riparian habitat 1 Nox_weedsNoxious weed treatments 2 RowRights of way and special use permits XXX Travel_planTravel plans XXX Out_guideOutfitters and guides Y SalvageSalvage 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.

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 Index Defined  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 consultations  Interpretations of AZ Cattle growers lawsuit - Solicitor’s decision - 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. Recommendation Pros 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