UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE West Coast Region 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100 PORTLAND, OREGON 97232 Refer to NMFS No: WCRO-2019-01915 October 25, 2019 Charles Mark Forest Supervisor Salmon-Challis National Forest 1206 South Challis Road Salmon, Idaho 83467 Re: Reinitiation of Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Consultation and Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the Frank Church-River of No Return Weeds Management Program – Salmon- Challis, Boise, Payette, Nez Perce, and Bitterroot National Forests; Upper Salmon (17060201), Middle Salmon-Panther (17060203), Upper Middle Fork Salmon (17060205), Lower Middle Fork Salmon (17060206), Middle Salmon-Chamberlain (17060207), South Fork Salmon (17060208), and Upper Selway (17060301) Subbasins; Custer, Idaho, Lemhi, and Valley Counties, Idaho Dear Mr. Mark: Thank you for your letter of July 12, 2019 requesting initiation of consultation with NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) for the treatment of noxious weeds in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness; Salmon-Challis, Boise, Payette, Nez Perce, and Bitterroot National Forests’ (Forests); for the 2019 through 2039 management seasons. The noxious weeds program will be carried out through authority under the Federal Noxious Weed Control Act of 1974, the Sikes Act, the Plant Protection Act of 2000, the Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act of 2004, U.S. Department of Agriculture Policy 9500-10, and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Policy (FSM 2080). Thank you, also, for your request for consultation pursuant to the essential fish habitat (EFH) provisions in section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)(16 U.S.C. 1855(b)) for this action. In this biological opinion (Opinion), NMFS concludes that the action, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Snake River Basin steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), and Snake River sockeye salmon (O. nerka). NMFS also determined the action will not destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for designated critical habitat for all three species. Rationale for our conclusions is provided in the attached Opinion. 2 NMFS also reviewed the likely effects of the proposed action on essential fi sh habitat (EFH), pursuant to section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(b)), and concluded that the action would adversely affect the EFH of Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Therefore, we have included the results of that review in Section 3 of this document. As required by section 7 of the ESA, NMFS provides an incidental take statement (ITS) with the Opinion. The ITS describes reasonable and prudent measures (RPM) NMFS considers necessary or appropriate to minimize the impact of incidental take associated with this action. The take statement sets forth nondiscretionary terms and conditions, including reporting requirements, that the USFS and any permittee who performs any portion of the action must comply with to carry out the RPM. Incidental take from actions that meet these terms and conditions will be exempt from the ESA take prohibition. This document also includes the results of our analysis of the action's effects on EFH pursuant to section 305(b) of the MSA, and includes seven Conservation Recommendations to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects on EFH. These Conservation Recommendations are a non-identical set of the ESA Terms and Conditions. Section 305(b )( 4)(B) of the MSA requires federal agencies provide a detailed written response to NMFS within 30 days after receiving these recommendations. If the response is inconsistent with the EFH Conservation Recommendations, the Forests must explain why the recommendations will not be followed, including the justification for any disagreements over the effects of the action and the recommendations. In response to increased oversight of overall EFH program effectiveness by the Office of Management and Budget, NMFS established a quarterly reporting requirement to determine how many Conservation Recommendations are provided as part of each EFH consultation and how many are adopted by the action agency. Therefore, in your statutory reply to the EFH portion of this consultation, NMFS asks that you clearly identify the number of Conservation Recommendations accepted. Please contact Ms. Kimberly Murphy (Salmon Field Office, (208) 756-5180, [email protected]) if you have any questions concerning this consultation, or if you require additional information. Sincerely, ~!~Michael P. Tehan Assistant Regional Administrator Interior Columbia Basin Office Enclosure 3 cc: T. Ford – SCNF K. Krieger – SCNF M. Jakober – BNF M. Anderson – BNF C. Seesholtz– BNF T. Brummett – PNF C. Probert –NPCNF S. Fisher – USFWS C. Colter – SBT A. Rogerson – NPT Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Reinitiation for the Effects of the Treatment of Noxious Weeds in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness - Salmon-Challis, Boise, Payette, Nez Perce, and Bitterroot National Forests; Hydrologic Units: Upper Salmon (17060201), Middle Salmon-Panther (17060203), Upper Middle Fork Salmon ( 17060205), Lower Middle Fork Salmon ( 17060206), Middle Salmon­ Chamberlain (17060207), South Fork Salmon (17060208), and Upper Selway (17060301); Custer, Idaho, Lemhi, and Valley Counties, Idaho NMFS Consultation Number: WCR0-2019-01915 Lead Action Agency: USDA Forest Service, Salmon-Challis National Forest Aftecte dS ;pec1es an dNMFS' D etermmat10ns: Is Action Is Action Likely Likely To Is Action Likely Is Action Likely to Adversely Destroy or ESA-Listed Species Status to Adversely To Jeopardize Affect Critical Adversely Affect Species? the Species? Habitat? Modify Critical Habitat? Snake River steelhead Threatened Yes No Yes No ( Oncorhvnchus mykiss) Snake River spring/summer Threatened Yes No Yes No Chinook Salmon (0 . tshawvtscha) Snake River sockeye Endangered Yes No Yes No salmon (0 . nerka) Fishery Management Plan That Does Action Have an Adverse Are EFH Conservation Identifies EFH in the Project Area Effect on EFH? Recommendations Provided? Pacific Coast Salmon Yes Yes Consultation Conducted By: National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region Issued By: Assistant Regional Administrator Date: October 25, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 CONSULTATION HISTORY ....................................................................................................... 2 1.3 PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION ................................................................................................. 2 1.3.1 Prevention ...................................................................................................................... 3 1.3.2 Early Detection/Rapid Response ................................................................................... 3 1.3.3 Control ........................................................................................................................... 4 1.3.4. Monitoring .................................................................................................................... 5 1.3.4.1 Implementation Monitoring .................................................................................... 5 1.3.4.2 Effectiveness Monitoring ........................................................................................ 6 1.3.5 Treatment Methods ........................................................................................................ 7 1.3.5.1 Manual Treatment ................................................................................................... 7 1.3.5.2 Biological Control ................................................................................................... 8 1.3.5.3 Rehabilitation and Restoration ................................................................................ 9 1.3.5.4 Herbicide Application ........................................................................................... 11 2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ............................................................................................................................... 17 2.1 ANALYTICAL APPROACH ..................................................................................................... 18 2.2 RANGEWIDE STATUS OF THE SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT ........................................... 19 2.2.1 Status of the Species .................................................................................................... 19 2.2.1.1 Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon..................................................... 20 2.2.1.2 Snake River Sockeye Salmon ............................................................................... 22 2.2.1.3 Snake River Basin Steelhead ...............................................................................