**INTERAGENCY CONSERVATION AND CONSULTATION PLANNING TEAM**

For Implementation of the National Fire Plan in the Northwest

**STRATEGY FOR**

**CONSULTATION ON NATIONAL FIRE PLAN PROJECTS**

**IN THE NORTHWEST**

Prepared by:

#  Robin Bown, US Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon

Deb Bumpus, US Forest Service, Sawtooth National Recreation Area

Tim Burton, Bureau Of Land Management, Idaho State Office

Dennis J. Carlson, National Marine Fisheries Service, Lacey, Washington

Lisa Croft, US Forest Service, Region 6 Regional Office, Portland,
Oregon

Rick Edwards, National Marine Fisheries Service, Boise, Idaho

John Erickson, US Forest Service, Boise National Forest

Barb Masinton, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado

Janet Mizzi, US Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 6, Denver, Colorado

Scott Russell, US Forest Service, Nez Perce National Forest

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

The extensive wildland fires in 2000 raised public awareness of the
impact of decades of fire suppression on the health and safety of the
natural and human environment. This increased public attention led
Congress to allocate \$1.6 billion dollars in 2001 for fire-related
activities, including the restoration of burned areas and activities to
reduce hazards in unburned areas.

With this new focus, land management and consulting agencies recognized
the need for closer interagency coordination of fire-related management
activities, including conservation of and consultation on threatened and
endangered species and designated or proposed critical habitat as
required by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This focus has provided
the Northwest agencies an opportunity to establish a consistent
conservation approach for species across broad geographic ranges that
has not been possible to date.

The Management Team tasked the Technical Team with developing processes
for ESA compliance of National Fire Plan projects which assure
consistency across the planning area, provide efficiency in the
consultation process, and promote conservation and recovery of Federally
listed species, proposed and candidate species, and proposed or
designated critical habitats. In tackling this assignment, the Technical
Team split the consultation process into two tasks: 1) consultation for
National Fire Plan projects to be implemented in calendar year 2001, and
2) consultation for projects to be implemented in calendar year 2002 and
beyond.

**Calendar Year 2001**

For 2001 projects, the Technical Team proposes to use existing
consultation processes and products with a minimum of change. However,
it is believed that development of species-based effects determination
criteria of individual or batches of projects and instructions,
templates, or other products to assist in developing consistent
consultation documentation will promote efficiency and consistency
across the Northwest in the 2001 consultation process.

The **species-based effects determination criteria** will be developed
by interagency teams of species experts and used to screen projects for
potential effects to listed, candidate species, designated or proposed
critical habitat, and other at risk species. These should promote
consistency across administrative units, assist staff in analyzing
potential impacts of projects and developing documentation of effects,
guide the development of future projects, and simplify the consultation
or conferencing process for projects that meet the criteria for "not
likely to adversely affect" (NLAA) the species.

The application of the effects determination criteria will occur at the
local field units or other approved level and with the associated Level
1 Streamlining Teams or other existing interagency consultation
processes. Field unit staff will make a preliminary determination of
effects for each project or batch of projects, using the effects
determination criteria where available, and present these determinations
to the Level 1 Team or other interagency group for validation. We
anticipate that projects concluding with an informal consultation (NLAA
determination) for all species will conclude with an expedited response
from the appropriate consulting agencies. However, not all projects will
fall within the realm of this expedited approach to consultation.
Projects that do not meet the existing project criteria for NLAA or that
result in adverse affects to some listed species may still move forward
through existing interagency collaborative consultation processes.

Instructions or templates will be developed to improved consistency and
efficiency of the consultation documentation, resulting in a reduction
in the time required to complete the consultation while still
maintaining the required level of information. An interagency team will
provide recommendations on 1) the information to be compiled and
provided by the land management agency (e.g. biological analysis) and 2)
the format and general contents of the letter of concurrence on projects
not likely to adversely affect listed species and/or designated or
proposed critical habitat.

**Calendar Year 2002 and Beyond**

The process used for 2002 and beyond will build on the 2001 process and
accomplishments, including additions to the consultation process,
revisions and additions to the effects determination criteria, and the
development of additional instructional or analysis materials.

The primary difference in the proposed consultation process for 2002 is
the potential addition of programmatic consultation on projects that
meet the effects determination criteria for projects consistent with the
NLAA criteria at a regional or other large scale. While this would
require significant staff resources in the short-term, it may provide
additional efficiencies by reducing the level of work for individual or
batched project level consultations or reducing the need for
consultation on each individual project. We may also choose to develop
an Interagency Memorandum of Agreement for the use of the NLAA criteria.
In all cases, interagency support for the effects determination criteria
should improve efficiency of the consultation process.

**I. Background**

Wildland fires burned several million acres in the United States during
the summer and fall of 2000, increasing national attention to the
potential for large catastrophic fires and creating a need for closer
interagency coordination of fire-related management activities,
including consultation on threatened and endangered species as required
by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). While fire suppression will
continue to be a major component of the response to wildland fires,
there is general recognition that we need to move into more proactive
approaches to fuels and ecosystem management to increase the protection
of both resources and communities. This long-term need for management
formed the catalyst for the development of the National Fire Plan.

The National Fire Plan focuses management activities in two distinct
areas. The first focus is on long-term restoration of areas burned in FY
2000 but not funded through the Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation
(BAER) process. These activities will occur entirely within burned areas
and include a wide variety of activities ranging from administrative
site and developed recreation facility restoration to wildlife,
watershed and fisheries habitat restoration. The second focus of the
National Fire Plan is to reduce the risk of fires particularly in the
wildland/urban interface where past fire suppression has resulted in
unnatural forest conditions with elevated fuel loads. These projects
focus primarily on reduction of hazardous fuels through thinning,
prescribed fire, and/or other means and are not confined to areas burned
in the FY 2000 wildfires.

In providing funding for FY 2001 National Fire Plan projects, Congress
anticipated implementation of projects on the ground this fiscal year
(FY2001). With a majority of FY2001 already behind us, the need to get
good projects implemented this year, and the anticipated increase in the
ESA Section 7 consultation workload, managers from all agencies
recognized the need for more efficient, effective, and consistent
approaches to completing consultation on these projects. As a result, an
Interagency Management Team, representing land management and consulting
agencies in the Northwest, was formed.

The Management Team chartered a Technical Team to develop a strategy and
provide recommendations for improving the efficiency and effectiveness
of the consultation process. The Technical Team examined existing
processes in the Northwest as a starting point to the development of the
recommendations. There are a number of approaches to the consultation
process being implemented across the footprint of this Strategy. While
consultation is working well and efficiently in some areas, this is not
true for all areas within the footprint of this Strategy. Even where
consultation is proceeding efficiently, the processes and documentation
may vary substantially across unit or political boundaries. In some
cases, the determination of effects and management strategies differ
greatly within single ecosystems or watersheds despite limited
differences in ecology or baseline condition. Given the potential for
substantial increases in workloads for all agencies under the National
Fire Plan and the limitations of staffing levels, the Team developed the
following recommendations, building on existing consultation processes,
to improve efficiency and promote consistency among agencies within the
Northwest.

**II. Criteria for Success**

The Technical Team began by identifying the elements of a successful
strategy. To be considered successful, any recommended process should
meet the following criteria.

1\. The process should improve the efficiency of the consultation
process for field-level staff from both the land management and
consulting agencies. However, due to the need to ensure consultation
consistency and legal sufficiency, some units may find the process
somewhat more complex than their current approach. The process should
not interfere or disrupt ongoing successful consultation processes but
should make maximum use of existing information and processes.

2\. The process should assist in sorting projects or batches of projects
by level of complexity concerning listed, proposed, candidate species,
critical habitat, or other at risk species. The process should provide
for simple and concise consultation on the projects that are not likely
to adversely affect the listed and proposed species or critical habitat,
thereby reducing the workload to allow more staff time to deal with
complex projects. It should assist in prioritizing the workload for the
land management and consulting agencies.

3\. The process should promote consistency in the determination of
effects and consultation process across the range of the species. It
should also provide rationale for any differences, such as differences
in habitat or biology of a species in different portions of the range.

4\. The process should fall under the umbrella of the National
Memorandum Of Agreement on Section 7 Programmatic Consultation and
existing streamlining agreements. The process should not be completely
separate or disjunct from other existing consultation processes and
should be usable for consultations other than National Fire Plan
projects.

5\. The process should result in legally sufficient consultation, ensure
that projects comply with the ESA, and avoid jeopardy to species or
adverse modification of critical habitat. The process should provide for
good documentation of the effects analysis and consultation process that
may be used in the event of an appeal.

6\. The process should encourage projects that support the conservation
of the species and that consider ecosystem conservation and
sustainability. The process should encourage coordination and
consideration of consultation at the early stages of planning where
possible. The process should also provide recommendations for avoiding
adverse impacts to high-profile at-risk species that may be affected by
fire activities.

7\. The process should be completed in time to assist with consultation
on some 2001 projects.

8\. The process should provide sufficient value to the field so that it
is viewed as something the field chooses to use, rather than a process
dictated for use. It should receive line manager ownership and
commitment. The process should meet the needs of the fire organization.

9\. The process should include a communication plan that includes
consistent, understandable communications, both internally and
externally.

10\. The process should encourage monitoring on the implementation and
effectiveness of the process and any associated products.

**III. Recommendations**

In evaluating options for increased efficiency and effectiveness of the
consultation process, the Technical Team split the process into two
tasks: 1) consultation for National Fire Plan projects to be implemented
in calendar year 2001, and, 2) consultation for projects to be
implemented in calendar year 2002 and beyond. Many, if not most, of the
projects proposed for implementation in 2001 are already well into the
planning and consultation process and must be available for
implementation in a short time. The initial approach to 2001 projects is
designed to be efficient given the short time frame, while the process
for 2002 and beyond builds on the 2001 process and should provide even
greater consultation efficiency and benefits to the species, though it
will require additional up-front investment of staff time.

**A. Calendar Year 2001**

**1. Consultation Approach**

The Technical Team proposes to use the existing consultation processes
and products with a minimum of change for most consultations on 2001
projects. We simply do not have time to consider extensive changes to
the process if we are to succeed in implementing projects on the ground
this year. The 2001 approach may be more of a benefit to the consulting
agencies than land management agencies by establishing consistent review
and concurrence processes across the Northwest. Many of these projects
are already at some stage of consultation, therefore, using existing
processes will create the minimum of disruption. The use of existing
products and processes (for example, the Interagency Streamlining MOA,
Level 1 Streamlining Teams, the National Marine Fisheries Service and US
Fish & Wildlife Service aquatic matrices, the Lynx Conservation
Strategy, Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan and other broadly applied efforts)
will strengthen application of these existing efforts on local unit,
avoid creation of new and separate processes for the National Fire Plan
projects where unnecessary. The use of existing processes will also
reduce potentially confusing direction to field units and newly hired
staff.

However, the Technical Team does believe that there are two product
types we can develop in time to promote efficiency and consistency in
the 2001 consultation process. Increased workload associated with
National Fire Plan implementation, and the potential that many
consultations may be conducted by new staff with limited experience,
necessitated a more expedited approach to consultation for 2001
projects. The Technical Team recommends two emphases for the 2001
process.

-   development of species-based effects determination criteria of
    individual or batches of projects and;

-   instructions, templates, or other products to assist in developing
    consistent consultation documentation.

**a. Effects Determination Criteria**

The species-based effects determination criteria will be used to screen
projects for potential effects to listed, proposed, and other at-risk
species, and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. These project
screening mechanisms, hereafter referred to as effects determination
criteria, will be designed to:

-   Promote consistency across administrative units,

-   Assist staff in analyzing potential impacts of projects and
    developing documentation of effects,

-   Guide the development of future projects, and

-   Simplify the consultation or conferencing process for projects that
    meet the criteria for "not likely to adversely affect" (NLAA) the
    species.

Effects determination criteria are detailed activity-specific
descriptions of locations, timing, operational methods, and mitigation
measures which, if a project is consistent with, will lead to a
reasonable conclusion that the project will not likely adversely affect
the species, resulting in an informal consultation. These criteria can
be used to sort projects by level of effect for subsequent batched
consultation.

These criteria should further expedite consultation with the land
management agencies and/or the consulting agencies on low-impact
projects thereby freeing staff time for the more complex or higher
impact projects. Similar criteria developed for candidate or other
at-risk species will be used to promote projects with minimal or
beneficial effects to these species, though these species do not require
consultation or conferencing and may be used to address the land
management agency's policies on sensitive species (FS 2670 manual, BLM
6840 manual).

Effects determination criteria will be applied at local field units, or
other approved level, and with the associated Level 1 Streamlining Teams
or other existing interagency consultation processes (Figure 1). The
Level 1, or other interagency, Teams will be responsible for reviewing
the effects determination criteria relative to the project type and
species potentially

affected, and determining if these criteria fit the project and/or
[additional]{.underline} site-specific criteria are needed and
appropriate. For those species or activity types for which regional
effects determination criteria do not exist, the determination of
effects will be developed according to the current process.

Field unit staff will make a preliminary determination of effects for
each project or batch of projects, using the effects determination
criteria where available, and will present these determinations to the
Level 1 Team or other interagency group in a draft Biological Analysis
format. The interagency team will then validate the preliminary
determination of effects and sort the project by these determinations.

Projects which conclude with an informal consultation (NLAA
determination) for all affected species will be bundled by project
activity category and batched in a final Biological Assessment which
encompasses a reasonable geographic area (e.g. sub-basins, species
range, habitat types, etc.) for efficiency in the consultation process.
Once the Level 1 Team agrees on the content and conclusions in a final
biological analysis, we anticipate that consultation will conclude with
an expedited response from the appropriate consulting agencies.

**2. Prioritization of Species and Activities**

Based on the limited time remaining to provide materials for effective
use in the 2001 projects, the Technical Team prioritized species for
development of effects determination criteria based on one or more of
the following factors:

(1) species that are widely-distributed within the area covered by the
    Strategy,

(2) species already listed as threatened or endangered under ESA, and

(3) species that are candidate or at-risk species that will benefit from
    conservation actions associated with typical National Fire Plan
    projects.

High priority species for 2001 are those species with the greatest
distribution, and therefore, the greatest potential for expediting
consultations through the use of criteria. We anticipate completing
criteria for the moderate priority species prior to implementation of
the 2002 projects.

The recommended priority for the development of species criteria:

> **High Priority:** Salmonids, grizzly bear, Canada lynx, bald eagle,
> linear moonwort, water howellia, slick spot pepper grass, Spalding's
> catchfly, Ute ladies' tresses, sage grouse, and gray wolf.
>
> **Moderate Priority:** Desert tortoise, desert fishes, black footed
> ferret, northern spotted owl, Mexican spotted owl, southwest willow
> flycatcher, spotted frog, yellow billed cuckoo, northern goshawk.

Interagency teams of species experts (hereafter referred to as Species
Teams) will be convened to develop the effects determination criteria,
(Figure 2). Species teams will be asked to develop criteria for
conditions which will lead to a reasonable conclusion that projects
consistent with these criteria will be "not likely adversely affect" the
species. Success in developing these effects determination criteria will
be dependent on our ability to describe the breadth of the specific
activities likely to occur under the National Fire Plan.

To provide this information to the Species Teams, a group of key
contacts (Activity Coordinators) will be identified for each of the 14
activity types, listed below, to assist in development of project
criteria. The Technical Team will provide these individuals with a set
of instructions which summarizes overall responsibilities and identifies
pre-work needed prior to the development of the criteria. Activity
Coordinators will provide general activity descriptions and will be
available to answer questions from the Species Teams throughout the
criteria development process. Activity Coordinators will work with
Species Teams to refine activity descriptions as necessary and to
coordinate the review of the criteria with their peers to ensure they
are implementable. These individuals should have a strong background in
the implementation of the activity type and be able to coordinate with a
network of their peers to provide a broad description for the type of
projects being implemented. Knowledge of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and the consultation process would be beneficial, but
not critical.

Species Teams will be tasked with developing NLAA criteria for their
species relative to each National Fire Plan activity type. Because these
criteria are most useful when consolidated for all species by activity
type, the Technical Team has prioritized activity types. Each Species
Team will be asked to address these types in priority order. The
priority of the activity is based on the amount of work likely to occur
within that activity and the complexity of the activity relative to
listed or other at-risk species but not on the value of that work.
Preliminary project tables were used to determine the level of work
likely in 2001 for each activity type. Activities in the lower priority
categories are not less important, but are generally more complex and
will require more work to complete criteria for all species. Individual
Species Teams will have the option of moving past a higher priority
activity type if it presents ramifications that would stall the team's
progress.

The following list depicts the activities defined by the National Fire
Plan and will have criteria developed for them.

> Reforestation, Trails and Trail Reconstruction/Maintenance, Roads and
> Road Reconstruction/Maintenance, Range Infrastructure, Prescribed
> Fire, Defensible Space, Abandoned Mine Restoration, Insect
> Suppression, Forest Products, Recreational Facilities & Operations,
> Administrative Facilities, Mechanical Treatments, Watershed
> Restoration, TES Habitat Restoration, Water Systems, Weeds/Chemical
> Treatment

Establishment of the Species Teams and development of the effects
determination criteria are described in more detail in Appendix B.

The Technical Team has set a target date of late summer, 2001 for the
release of the criteria to the field. Species Teams and Activity
Coordinators will meet in early March, 2001 to begin this process.

**3. Instructions, Templates, Checklists, and Other Products for
Consultation Efficiency**

In addition to effects determination criteria, the Technical Team
believes that efficiency and consistency can be gained in the
consultation process by the development of detailed instructions,
checklists, templates or other products which can be used in documenting
the consultation process.

Two areas in particular can lead to a reduction in the time required to
complete the consultation while still providing the information
necessary for the consultation. These are through development of
instructions or templates for: 1) the information compiled and provided
by the action agency (e.g. biological assessment or analysis), and 2)
the Letter of Concurrence on projects not likely to adversely affect a
given listed species.

Biological assessments document the rationale for effects determinations
and comprise information used by consulting agencies for review of
project effects and concurrence with those determinations. Collecting
and organizing information needed for the biological assessment can
require significant staff time. On occasion, the biological assessment
requirements are reviewed by either the land management agencies or the
consulting agencies, often as the result of a large increase in
workload. This can be due to either new listings or a large scale shift
in program focus like the National Fire Plan. Instructions or templates
guiding how information is organized, can prevent assimilation of
unnecessary information, reducing the workload of action agency staff.
Additionally, development of consistent and focused biological
assessments will allow consulting agency staff to more efficiently
review and extract the necessary information for a Letter of Concurrence
or other consultation documents.

Instructions and guidelines for preparation of the biological assessment
can help ensure all information used in determining effects is well
documented, thus providing a solid base for addressing public concerns.
Such tools may be particularly useful in promoting consistent analyses
and information across unit and regional boundaries. Letters of
concurrence are the consulting agencies formal agreement with the action
agency's determination that a project is not likely to adversely affect
listed species. Some consulting agency units have already successfully
developed templates for letters of concurrence that ensure legal
sufficiency while reducing the time spent on each letter. Development of
such products across regional and agency lines will improve consistency,
promote legal sufficiency, and allow consulting agency staff to spend
more time on complex projects.

Not all projects will fall within the realm of this expedited approach
to consultation. Some projects may not be consistent with the regional
effects determination criteria, but due to local information or
conditions, may still conclude with NLAA determinations for all species.
Some projects may result in adverse affects to some species yet still be
appropriate for long-term species conservation and ecosystem health.
Projects that do not meet the existing effects determination criteria
for NLAA or result in adverse affects to some listed species may still
move forward through the normal consultation processes. Managers may
choose to subsequently revise projects so that they fall within the
parameters of the effects determination criteria and therefore expedite
the consultation.

**a. Biological Assessment Instructions (2001)**

The intent is to provide instructions that identify specific information
needed in the biological assessment. This will include basic
instructions on the types of information needed, scale of the analysis,
and, where possible, species specific instructions on describing the
environmental baseline, cumulative effects, and pertinent information
for the consultation. More efficiencies can be gained by both the
consulting and land management agencies by increasing the scale of
consultation. These decisions will be discussed further with regional
directors and/or Level 1 and Level 2 Teams.

These instructions will be developed by an interagency group of
biologists/botanists with experience in the consultation process. This
team will start by examining existing instructions or checklists for
biological assessments, including the ESA Section 7 Handbook. If
existing materials are sufficient, these will be disseminated to field
units. Species Teams will be asked to provide a list of species specific
information or analyses that they consider important to documenting
effects of projects on species and environmental baseline. This product
will require review and will be completed, to the extent possible, for
use on the 2001 consultations.

**b. Template Letter of Concurrence (2001)**

The intent is to produce a template for Letters of Concurrence similar
to those currently in use at the Boise Office of the National Marine
Fisheries Service. These will contain the language necessary for legal
sufficiency and a description of the project specific information needed
to complete the letter. This will allow for a quick review of NLAA
projects with limited effects on listed species and allow the regulatory
staff to save time for the more complex projects.

The template letter of concurrence will be developed by a small group of
biologists from both consulting agencies across the range. This group
will start with existing examples of such letters. The group will
develop the letter format, boilerplate language, and a description of
project or batch specific information needed to complete the letter.
This document will require review and will be completed for use on the
2001 consultations.

**B. Calendar Year 2002 and Beyond**

**1. Anticipated Consultation Process**

The process used for 2002 and beyond will build on the 2001 process and
accomplishments. The proposed process includes additions to the
consultation process, revisions and additions to the effects
determination criteria, and the development of additional instructional
or analysis materials. The Technical Team has concentrated on
development of the 2001 process, therefore the 2002 process is general
and conceptual at this time and will require additional development.

The primary difference in the proposed consultation process for 2002 is
the potential addition of programmatic consultation on projects that
meet the effects determination criteria for projects consistent with the
NLAA criteria at a regional or other large scale (Figure 3). While this
would require significant staff resources in the short-term, it may
provide additional efficiencies in one of two ways.

If the programmatic consultation can be completed in sufficient detail
and with measurable sideboards in the consultation process and
accounting for changes in the baseline by simultaneous Federal actions,
it may be possible to avoid consultation on individual projects that
conform to the NLAA criteria. Additional efficiencies can be obtained
through consultations at larger scales than are currently being
conducted. We anticipate that an annual or quarterly interagency review
would still be required to ensure that projects are implemented as
designed and effects are consistent with those anticipated, as well as
to update the baseline. This process has only been attempted at a small
scale. We are currently uncertain about our ability to meet the
information and detail requirements for this process to work, but will
research the possibilities over the next fiscal year (2002).

If the programmatic consultation cannot be completed in sufficient
detail to avoid consultation on individual projects, consultation at
this scale may still improve efficiency at the individual or

### 

**2001 Approach**

batched project level based on interagency agreement with the effects
determination standards. We assume that once all agencies have agreed
upon the effects determination criteria for NLAA projects, concurrence
upon future determinations will be expedited.

A third option is to develop an Interagency Memorandum of Agreement for
using the NLAA effects determination criteria. Advantages include; less
staff time review, interagency support for the criteria; and efficiency
at individual or batched project levels based on interagency agreement
with effects determination criteria. The 2002 process would be finalized
as soon as the agencies determine the appropriate process and
information required.

For 2002, existing effects determination criteria will be completed,
revised, or updated as needed based on our experience from 2001. If some
activity types were not addressed for some species in 2001, these would
be completed. Criteria would be developed for Priority 2 and any other
species for which criteria would improve conservation efficiency or
consistency.

Instructions, templates, checklists, and other products for consultation
efficiency developed in 2001 would be reviewed and revised or updated as
needed based on our experience from 2001. Additional items may be
developed if our experience in 2001 indicates that it would increase
consultation efficiency. This would likely include the development of
matrices of pathways and indicators for species where they do not
currently exist.

**2. Matrices of Baseline and Effects for Terrestrial Species**

Over the past several years, the agencies have made significant progress
in the consultation process for salmonid fish through the use of
matrices of pathways and indicators. These allow for consistent analyses
of current conditions, trend in conditions, and project effects. This
process has recently been explored for use with terrestrial species. It
is our intent to develop such matrices for baseline condition and
project effects for listed plants and terrestrial animal species to the
extent practical. Such matrices will allow for consistent evaluation of
baseline condition and effects of the action relative to that baseline.
Because these will be developed through interagency coordination, these
matrices should also provide added efficiency in the consultation
process.

Development of species matrices will require an interagency team of
experts, similar to the Species Teams. However, due to the time
necessary to acquire the information, develop the matrices, allow for
field review, and gain acceptance for use, it is unlikely that we can
develop additional matrices for use with 2001 projects. The Species
Teams will be asked to consider baseline condition and effects issues as
they develop the effects determination criteria and record any resulting
information. In the process of discussing the project criteria leading
to NLAA determinations, they will likely address some of these issues.
The matrices may be developed following completion of the effects
determination criteria.

Calendar year 2002 projects are already in the planning process,
therefore work on the 2002 consultation process should proceed as soon
as the 2001 process is finalized. Once the management decision on the
project-level consultation has been reached, interagency teams should be
formed and begin work on the criteria consultations.

**IV. Related and Future Processes**

**A. Communication Plan**

Success of the Strategy for Consultation on Projects under the National
Fire Plan in the Northwest is critically dependent on strong
communication with the field units that will be implementing this
strategy. The Technical Team recommends the creation of a Communication
Team to provide for internal and external communication of the elements
of this Strategy. The agencies will have this Team in place prior to the
completion of the 2001 process.

**B. Monitoring**

Monitoring as defined by this interagency conservation and consultation
process will ultimately evaluate the success of: 1) implementing
projects under the National Fire Plan based on the species effects
determination criteria as developed for 2001, and 2) the conservation
and recovery of species and their habitats. It is assumed that to
achieve success, implementation of this Plan will be consistent,
efficient, promote recovery of listed species, and build on existing
Streamlining consultation processes.

Once processes and templates are developed, we recommend that monitoring
protocols be formulated addressing the specific goals and objectives of
this project, including timelines and methods for measuring success.
Outcomes will be measured against current efficiencies in ESA Section 7
consultation across the "footprint" or area covered by this Plan.

**C. Implementation - Adaptive Management**

Adaptive management is a continuing process that ensures management
strategies will be adjusted to meet the goals and objectives through
planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Adaptive management
emphasizes results and makes adjustments when needed. A continual
feedback loop based on new information is used, allowing for mid-course
corrections to standards, guidelines and underlying assumptions in order
to meet planned goals and objectives. Adaptive management may also be a
tool for adjusting goals and objectives as new information develops.

**D. Information and Data Management**

The Technical Team has identified the need to track actions under the
National Fire Plan. There is currently an effort underway at the
Washington, D.C. level to develop a tracking database for project
proposals and implementation. We will work with our contacts at that
level to ensure that the information we need to track progress locally
is included. If that is not possible, we will consider create regional
database in the future.

**Appendix A**

## Interagency Conservation and Consultation Planning Team

### For Implementation of the National Fire Plan in the Northwest

## Technical Team Charter

The Technical Team is a standing group of consultation specialists who
provide the Management Team with technical recommendations regarding
consultation process and product development. This process facilitates
Endangered Species Act, Section 7 consultation for actions proposed in
Oregon, Washington, Utah, Idaho, western Wyoming, Montana, and Nevada to
implement the National Fire Plan. Agencies represented include: Forest
Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the National Marine Fisheries Service.

The initial objective (Phase 1 - Technical Team) of this focused team is
to develop a Strategic Plan consisting of consultation processes and
templates. Long-term responsibilities (Phase 2 - Species Project
Criteria Teams) are to develop species-specific effects determination
criteria for National Fire Plan projects at the local level. Specific
objectives in each Phase are summarized below.

***Membership:*** Phase 1 of the Technical Team will be comprised of a
small group of individuals from each of the agencies who have skills and
experience in the planning of consultation. The team is to be composed
of agency staff, representing wildlife, fisheries, ecology, and
botanical fields, committed to making consultation [strategic,
meaningful, and concise]{.underline} with experience in the appropriate
biological fields. Experience with programmatic consultations, and
knowledge of programmatic documents such as the Lynx Conservation
Strategy and Assessment, PACFISH and INFISH, or the Biological Opinions
for bull trout, salmon and steelhead is also important. Participation in
the Phase 2 Team will be based on recommendations in the Strategic Plan,
and will include expertise such as hydrology, silviculture, GIS, and
fire ecology to facilitate the completion of the products.

***Schedule:*** The target date for completion of Phase 1 is Friday,
February 16, 2001. Phase 2 may be initiated immediately upon completion
of the draft Strategic Plan (February 1, 2001). Criteria will be
developed and available for use during calendar year 2001.

***Phase 1*:** The Technical Team is responsible for developing
processes for Endangered Species Act compliance for National Fire Plan
projects. These processes will ensure consistency across the planning
area, provide efficiency in the consultation process, and promote
conservation and recovery of Federally listed species, proposed and
candidate species, proposed/designated critical habitats, and other
at-risk species. Specific objectives include:

1\. Propose a Strategic Plan for consultation which incorporates a
concise and meaningful process for completing the consultation work for
2001 projects.

2\. Recommend an integrated consultation process for National Fire Plan
Projects in 2001 and beyond. The integrated process shall represent a
shared vision/mission for all participating agencies.

3\. Recommend a consultation process that makes the consultation job
more efficient for field biologists, including ways to deal with routine
consultations so that more time may be committed to complex
consultations and projects contributing to species conservation.

4\. Recommend a communication strategy which links this effort with Fire
Planning, provides a map (footprint) of the area of application, and
presents a timely and consistent message to the Management Team and
others.

5\. Provide ongoing support to the Management Team through oversight of
Phase 2 of the consultation process.

6\. Recommend a strategy for implementing Phase 2, including
identification of species and categories of federal actions (or groups
of like actions) under the National Fire Plan.

***Species Teams:*** Assemble task-oriented teams, as per
recommendations of the Strategic Plan, to identify criteria for
individual species and project types. Time frames, product size, and
composition will vary according to the complexity of the assigned tasks.
Species Teams are to be established early in 2001 and function until
assigned tasks are completed. Species Teams report to the Technical Team
Leaders. Specific Species Team objectives include:

1\. Develop criteria for NLAA determinations for listed, proposed,
candidate, and other at-risk species, as recommended in the Strategic
Plan. As practical, address "no effect" and "likely to adversely affect"
determinations that would assist in the application of consistent
criteria. Criteria for each species will be categorized by federal
actions, or groups of like federal actions associated with the National
Fire Plan, and as recommended in the Strategic Plan. As practical,
address species likely to be listed in the near future.

2\. Recommend the appropriate consultation scale for batching agency
actions and conducting species-specific effects analysis (effects
determination criteria).

3\. Provide documentation to support the criteria as the "best available
science".

4\. Recommend measures associated with the National Fire Plan that can
be used to assist in the conservation and recovery of the assigned
species. Build on existing processes in the development of tools to meet
this objective (for example, Interagency Implementation Teams and
processes).

**Appendix B**

**Species Teams**

Interagency Species Teams will be formed to collaboratively develop
criteria for NLAA determinations for listed, proposed, candidate
species, and, as practical, species likely to be listed in the near
future. Species Teams will address some "no effect" and "likely to
adversely affect" determinations that would assist in the application of
consistent criteria as time allows or as coincident to the development
of the NLAA criteria. Criteria for each species will be categorized by
activity type, or groups of similar activity types associated with the
National Fire Plan and as identified in this Strategy.

**I. Factors for Species Team Membership Selection**

The Technical Team provided recommendations for team membership to the
Management Team. The Management Team will be responsible for making
final selections and arranging time commitments with the appropriate
supervisors. Factors to consider when identifying members for the
Species Teams are:

1.  Field level biologists actively involved in consultation.

2.  Biologists with expertise in the priority species.

3.  Biologists with expertise in the activity categories and/or in use
    of effects criteria.

4.  Willingness and interest in the process of streamlining consultation
    through screening effects.

5.  Teams should be representative of the participating agencies.

6.  Each Team size should be limited to fewer than 10 biologists.

7.  Teams should be composed of members from across the entire Northwest
    Interagency Conservation and Consultation Area.

**II. Identification of Species Teams**

Priority species have been selected based on one or more of the
following factors. Species that: are wide-ranging across the Strategy
Area, are already listed as threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act, and/or are candidate or at risk species that
would benefit from conservation actions associated with typical National
Fire Plan projects. The initial recommended priority species, or
groupings of species include:

**Priority 1 Species:** Salmonids (including bull trout, all cutthroat
trout subspecies, steelhead, chinook salmon, sockeye salmon, coho
salmon, redband trout), grizzly bear, Canada lynx, bald eagle, sage
grouse, gray wolf, *Spiranthes diluvialis, Silene spaldingii, Mirabilis
macfarlanei, Botrychium lineare, Gilia caespitosa, Lepidium
papilliferum, Pediocactus despainii, Pediocactus windleri, Townsendia
aprica* and *Howellia aquatilis.*

**Priority 2 Species:** Southwestern willow flycatcher, yellow billed
cuckoo, desert tortoise, desert fishes, black footed ferret, spotted
frog, northern goshawk, Mexican spotted owl, and northern spotted owl.

Each Species Team will consist of 10 or fewer members, including a Team
Leader. Teams should include a representative mix of specialists from
all agencies and across the range of the species within the Strategy
area. The Team Leader, generally a member of the Technical Team, will
orient the Species Team members to the guidance of the Strategy, record
and validate Team decisions, communicate Team products back to the
Technical Team, and encourage consistency between Species Teams. Team
membership for Priority 1 Species should include the following:

1.  Salmonids: 1 NMFS (Idaho), 1 BLM (Idaho), 1 FWS (Nevada -- Lahontan
    cutthroat), 1 BLM (Oregon -- redband trout), 1 FS (Utah --
    Bonneville cutthroat), 1 FWS (Montana -- bull trout, Yellowstone and
    westslope trout), 1 FS (Idaho -- bull trout, anadromous fish), 1
    NMFS 9 Oregon/Washington -- anadromous fish), 1 BLM (Wyoming --
    Yellowstone and westslope cutthroat).

2.  Grizzly Bear: 1 FWS (Region 6), 1 FWS (Montana), 1 FS (Wyoming), 1
    FS (Washington), 1 FWS (Washington).

3.  Canada Lynx: 1 FS (Idaho), 1 FWS (Montana), 1 BLM (Montana --
    Missoula District), 1 FWS (Washington), 1 FS (Wyoming).

4.  Plants: (may be divided into 2 Teams)

Linear moonwort: 2 FS, 2 FWS

Water howellia: 1 FS, 1 FWS

Slick spot pepper grass: 1 BLM (Idaho), 1 FWS

Spalding's catchfly: 2 FS, 1 FWS

Ute ladies'-tresses: 2 FS, 2 FWS, 1 BLM

5.  Sage Grouse: 1 BLM (Oregon), 1 BLM (Idaho), 1 FWS (Wyoming), 1 FS
    (Utah/Nevada), 1 FWS (Washington), 1 Range Ecologist BLM (Nevada).

6.  Gray Wolf: 1 FS (Idaho), 1 FWS (Montana), 1 BLM (Wyoming), 1 FWS
    (Washington).

7.  Bald Eagle: 1 BLM (Idaho), 1 FWS, 1 FS (Oregon), 1 FS (Idaho).

**III. Species Team Responsibilities**

-   Develop criteria for NLAA determinations for listed, proposed,
    candidate species, and, as practical, species likely to be listed in
    the near future. As practical, address "no effect" and "likely to
    adversely affect" determinations that would assist in the
    application of consistent criteria. Criteria for each species will
    be categorized by activity type, or groups of activity types
    associated with the National Fire Plan, and as identified in the
    Strategy.

-   Provide documentation to ground criteria in the "best available
    science".

-   Provide recommendations for appropriate scale of consultation for
    efficiency in batching agency actions and conducting species effects
    determination criteria.

-   Recommend measures associated with the National Fire Plan that can
    be used to conserve and recover the assigned species.

-   Develop recommendations for consultation documentation, analyses,
    and information applicable to the assigned species (i.e. limiting
    factors, habitat and population indicators, environmental baseline,
    conservation recommendations, etc.).

**IV. Species Team Oversight**

The Technical Team will provide oversight and direction to the Species
Teams, including organizing and implementing project activity expert
briefings; providing direction on the consultation process and use of
the criteria; developing operational procedures, recommended timelines,
and formats; and serving as a contact for information flow between
Teams. For this reason, it is recommended that Technical Team members
serve, and/or provide leadership to the Species Teams.

The Technical Team will develop instructions and materials for the
Species Teams prior to their meeting in March. This will include
descriptions of the potential actions under each activity type. Teams
will be convened at a single location. They will all receive the same
instructions, presentations on the activity types from the key contacts,
and an opportunity for questions.