Regional Ecosystem Office
333 SW 1st P.O. Box 3623
Portland, Oregon 97208-3623
Website: www.reo.gov E-Mail: REOmail@or.blm.gov
Phone: 503-808-2165 FAX: 503-808-2163

Memorandum

Date:

November 18, 2005

To:

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (see attached distribution list)

From:

/s/Anne Badgley, Executive Director

Subject:

INTERGOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA & PREWORK FOR NOVEMBER 30, 2005

John Woolley, California State Assn. of Counties
Joan Smith (Alt)
Crawford Tuttle, Resources Agency, State of California
Cathy Bleier (Alt)

Larry Giustina, Oregon State Board of Forestry
Kevin Birch (Alt)
Rocky McVay, Assn. of Oregon & California Counties
Gil Riddell (Alt)

Merv George Jr., California Indian Forest & Fire Mgmt. Council
Nolan C. Colegrove (Alt)
David Herrera, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
Bruce Davies (Alt)
George Smith, Intertribal Timber Council
Donald Motanic (Alt)

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee
November 30, 2005 Meeting Agenda
Conference Room A106, Convention Center, Portland, Oregon

Time

Topics

Purpose

Presenter

8:30 a.m.

• Introductions and Agenda Overview
• Recognition (Cispus Award)

House-keeping

Anne Badgley, REO

8:50

OPENING REMARKS

Opening

Linda Goodman, Chair

8:55

Public Comment Period

Facilitator

9:05

MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS OVERVIEW

Stage setting

Anne Badgley, REO

9:15

FIRE-PRONE SYSTEMS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

Update

Shawne Mohoric, FS

9:35

Break

9:50

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT/MONITORING SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

Advice

Linda Goodman, FS
Tom Quigley, PNW
Lisa Freedman, FS

11:45

Lunch

1:00

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE – ESA Changes

Update

David Patte, FWS

1:30

LITIGATION UPDATE

Update

Owen Schmidt, USDA General Counsel’s Office

2:00

STATE REPORT: Washington

Update

John Mankowski,
Washington State IAC Alternate

2:30

Break

2:45

STATE REPORT: California

Update

Cathy Bleier,
California State IAC Alternate

3:00

EPA UPDATE: NWFP Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategy & the Yellowjacket Water Quality Restoration Plan

Update

Dave Powers, EPA

3:20

• Marbled Murrelet and Recovery Planning Updates (5)
• NOAA Update (5)
• Others

Info sharing

Terry Rabot
Mike Crouse

3:35

• Status Report questions
• Future meeting dates & topics
• Assignment/Agreement/Recommendation review

House-keeping

Facilitator

3:40

Closing Remarks

Linda Goodman, Chair

3:45 p.m.

Adjourn

Topic: WELCOME & OPENING REMARKS

Presenters: Incoming IAC Chair Linda Goodman will discuss the goals for this meeting. Prior to her presentation, we would like to recognize the Cispus Interagency Communications Workshop staff who received Honorable Mention in the national 2005 Department of the Interior (DOI) Environmental Achievement Award Teams competition (for more information on this competition see www.doi.gov/greening/awards). This award recognizes DOI Bureaus, offices, employees, and contractors for exceptional achievements that conserve our Nation’s natural resources through communication, consultation, and cooperation. The Cispus Workshop celebrated its 35^th year in 2005 and is supported by many of our IAC members. The volunteer workshop staff have provided advice regarding the execution of our IAC meetings. Entities who have participated or contributed to this very successful workshop in the past include:

State of Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife

Department of Forestry

Parks and Recreation

Marine Board

Department of Energy

State of Washington

Department of Natural Resources

State Parks

State of Idaho

State Parks

US Dept. of Agriculture

Forest Service, Region 6

Natural Resources Conservation Service

US Dept. of Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclamation

Fish and Wildlife Service

National Park Service

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Geological Survey

Other Federal

US Army Corps of Engineers

Regional Ecosystem Office

Other Non-Federal

Oregon State University

Counties: King, Masion, Yamhill

Watershed Councils, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and Pacific States Marine Fisheries

Action Required:

[ x ] Information/celebration [ ] Decision

Topic: MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS OVERVIEW

Presenter/Sponsor: Anne Badgley, REO

Issue Statement: Anne will set the stage for today’s discussions by providing a quick overview on the management implication topics presented at the April 2005 IAC meeting. An annotated list of these topics and the results of the IAC prioritization exercise follow. Note:

Action Required:

[ x ] Information [ ] Decision

Ref. # *

Fed. Priority

Non- Fed. Priority

Activity Footnote Key: 1/ indicates that these topics are being currently worked on by the RIEC or other group. 2/ indicates this topic is part of this meeting.

Team Lead/ Activity

2

1

2

1/ 2/

3

4

5

2/

4

4

5

1/

5

3

--

6

5

5

1/ 2/

7

2

1

1/ 2/

8

5

3

9

3

4

1/

10

--

--

1/ 2/

11

--

--

Monitoring Funding and Importance (combined with #6 and #7)

1/ 2/

12

--

--

Examine reserve strategy and consideration of other vegetation type. Examine the reserve strategy, roles and how we can manage these, impact of the loss of hardwoods

1/

13

--

6

Communication with PACs/PIECs (Combined with #8)

14

--

6

Tribal Considerations. Report submitted by Merv George at the Science Conference.

1/ 2/

15

--

--

Effects of laws on Plan Implementation. Tell story of affect of legal requirements and litigation on plan implementation.

2/

16

--

--

Focus energy on areas of greatest risk, best science, most flexibility. Focus on areas of greatest risk, best science, least process and most flexibility.

2/

17

--

--

Need ways to step down Plan from regional scales to forest management plans and individual projects. Evaluate how managers will be able to incorporate regional plan components into local plans.

1/

18

--

--

Consider lessons learned form Region 5 Northwest Forest Plan review. Consider lessons learned from the California NWFP review.

1/

19

--

6

Create convergence among NOAA and FWS recovery planning and FS and BLM land management planning. Evaluate the timing and opportunities of converging NOAA/FWS recovery planning into BLM/FS land use plans.

1/

Topic: MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS – Fire-Prone Systems Subcommittee - Restoration of Forests in NWFP Fire-Prone Regions

Sponsor: Bernie Weingardt (Forest Service, Region 5)

Presenter: Dave Gibbons (Forest Service, Region 5)

Subcommittee members: Bernie Weingardt (lead) (FS), Dave Gibbons (FS), Dave Powers (EPA), Mike Crouse (NOAA-Fisheries), Terry Rabot (USFWS), Jim Sedell (FS-PSW), Alex Whistler (BIA), Shawne Mohoric (FS), and Kristi Young (USFWS)

Issue Statement: NWFP monitoring results indicate that fuels management in dry forests has fallen short of expectations. There is a need to accelerate risk reduction treatments in these areas to reduce resource loss from wildland fires.

Background: Late-successional and old-growth forests in the drier provinces of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) area are at risk to habitat loss from catastrophic wildfire. Monitoring results indicate that fuels management in dry forests has fallen short of expectations. Following the NWFP Science Conference, the RIEC established a sub-committee to pursue avenues for increasing acres treated for risk reduction in fire-prone regions of the NWFP and restoring forests to sustainable conditions.

Managers responsible for managing NWFP fire prone areas were sent five questions concerning planning and implementation of risk reduction activities. Ten of eleven units responded. Following are top issues cited as reasons curtailing or affecting accomplishment of risk reduction activities:

• Funding: Funding and funding mechanisms were the top reasons reported by field units that impede accomplishing more acres of risk reduction treatments. All units cited this concern. In addition to insufficient budgets, units reported that allocation criteria directs funds to low unit cost rather than considering risks reduced or values protected. Many NWFP acres have a high unit cost/acre to treat. Also, allocation priorities direct funds to other planning or program areas such as Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), fire suppression, and other regional or national priorities. Units reported that reduced staffing and skill mix, reorganization, and downsizing all are factors impeding accomplishment of risk reduction treatments.
  
• Survey and Manage (S&M): Eight units reported S&M requirements reduced their ability to implement risk reduction activities. Cited were high costs, time, inadequate resources, inability to implement risk reduction activities in buffers, (especially prescribed burning) and lack of information on effects to fire-adapted species.
  
• Riparian Reserves (RRs): A number of units expressed concern over the lack of risk reduction treatments in RRs and watershed impacts from catastrophic fires. Also expressed were concerns about RR buffers serving as "wicks" to advance wildfires. Included were concerns over Record of Decision desired conditions and objectives and Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs). Suggestions were made to acknowledge fire’s natural role as an ecosystem disturbance process and provide direction for treating ephemeral RRs. Concerns were expressed over interpretation of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, as well as complications resulting from the unknown effects or benefits to aquatic species from various risk reduction treatments.
  
• Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) Endangered Species Act (ESA) Consultation and Critical Habitat: A number of units reported concerns over ability to conduct risk reduction treatments in NSO habitat and Critical Habitat and the lack of acknowledgement of long vs. short term risk in Biological Assessment/Biological Opinion (BA/BO) process. Suggestions were made to acknowledge fire’s natural role as an ecosystem disturbance process. Region 5 National Forests expressed concerns over impediments to conducting fuels treatments Critical Habitat in Matrix.
  
• Desired Conditions, Objectives, S&Gs: In fire-prone regions of NWFP, much of the NSO habitat developed as a result of fire suppression. Several units commented that desired conditions, objectives and S&Gs for fire-dependent systems need to be revised to acknowledge forest ecotypes and disturbance regimes characteristic of dry forests. Noted was the incongruity in the NWFP to manage Late Successional Reserves (LSRs) for NSO and other species dependent upon multi-storied stands with old stand attributes characteristic of west-side conditions without proper recognition that many dry forest ecotypes and associated species evolved under frequent fire regimes.
  
• Limited Operating Periods: Significant reduction in implementation capability was cited in Region 5 National Forests.
  
• Lack of Scientific Information: Several units reported internal, interagency, and external controversy arising from lack of scientific knowledge on beneficial or detrimental effects from treatments in RRs and LSRs for both aquatic and terrestrial species. This included types of treatments (mechanical vs. burning) and effects on air quality from fires. Some expressed concern over the absence of information on effects of treatments to especially for fire adapted species.
  
• Internal Processes: A number of units reported on issues that are under local line authority to control such as: (1) An LSR assessment that restricts risk reduction treatments; (2) Lengthy Interdisciplinary Team reviews of projects.
  
• Other Issues: See Questionnaire Summary (which follows).

1. Increase budget to NWFP fire-prone Field Units
2. Examine cost/unit allocation criteria:
   1. What’s included in cost/unit? Can other programs support risk reduction projects?
   2. Change unit measure from cost/acre treated to: Cost/values protected or risks reduced.
   3. Change allocation criteria to recognize cost differences between initial treatments (higher cost/acre) and maintenance treatments (lower cost/acre).
3. Revisit Priorities such as: WUI vs. non-WUI; suppression vs. fuels treatments
4. Other funding: Are there opportunities through partners (e.g., Tribes, Resource Advisory Councils, Watershed Councils, power companies, private timber owners)? Are stewardship contracts utilized fully?

1. Riparian Reserves (RRs)

1. Refine RR management based on desired conditions/objectives: Recognize fire-prone riparian ecosystems based on forest type, disturbance regime, and stream classification. Issue new RR management direction:
   1. Through FS and BLM plan revisions or
   2. Through regional amendment.
2. Develop Interagency MOU or Agreement on RRs Risk Reduction Treatments: Develop "Design Considerations" for treating RRs to reduce risk. Consider for instance, plant association groups or forest types, disturbance regimes, stream types, RR species of concern and RR resource values needing protection (e.g., shade). Guidance is especially needed for ephemeral streams. Utilize existing plans and publications as information sources such as Klamath Heartland and the Ashland Watershed Fire Resiliency Plan.

1. Desired Conditions/Objectives in LRMPs and RMPs for Fire-Prone Forests

1. Revise desired conditions/objectives: Recognize fire-prone ecosystems based on forest type and disturbance regime. Manage NSO habitat in plant association groups most sustainable through time.
   1. Through Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) plan revisions or
   2. Through regional amendment.

1. ESA Northern Spotted Owl (NSO)

1. Revisit Critical Habitat boundaries
2. Recovery Plan: Consider effects to NSO habitat from risk reduction treatments and short term risks/long term benefits. Can the recovery plan describe risk reduction activities that are consistent with or beneficial to the conservation of NSO? Address existing and future habitat needs; better define critical habitat. Is there an opportunity for interagency involvement in the development of the recovery plan?
3. Develop an interagency approach for managing NSO habitat in dry forests: Can we bring information together from the proceedings from: US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 2005 Eastside NSO workshop, 10-Year NWFP Monitoring Results, Recovery Planning, and FS and BLM plan revisions to help design an approach for managing NSO habitat to reduce risk and facilitate ESA consultation?
4. Limited Operating Periods (identified by a number of California National Forests): FS Region 5 is concluding an assessment for changing Limited Operating Periods that will provide greater flexibility in ESA consultation. Do BLM and FS Region 6 want to utilize this assessment?
5. Programmatic: Northern California FS/FWS are completing a programmatic BA/BO for vegetation and fuels treatments in WUI. Are the agencies here interested in this approach?

1. ESA Anadromous Fish

1. Critical Habitat: Work with NOAA-Fisheries to remove federal lands from Critical Habitat designation.
2. Programmatic: Northern California FS/FWS are completing a programmatic BA/BO for vegetation and fuels treatments in WUI. Does NOAA-Fisheries want to consider a similar strategy for fish?

1. RIEC selected three priorities to research further and assigned leads to accomplish additional staff work The three issues chosen for further consideration include:
   • Budget (Dave Gibbons, lead): Are there more effective ways to manage existing budgets to treat more acres in fire-prone regions?
     
   • Managing NSO habitat (Terry Rabot and Kristi Young, leads): Can we bring information together from the proceedings from: FWS 2005 Eastside NSO workshop, 10-Year NWFP Monitoring Results, Recovery Planning, and FS and BLM plan revisions to help design an interagency approach for managing NSO habitat to reduce risk and facilitate ESA consultation?
   • RR management (Dave Powers lead): Can we refine RR management based on desired conditions/objectives using characteristics of fire-prone riparian ecosystems based on forest type, disturbance regime, and stream classification?
2. The leads are currently preparing draft work plans for RIEC sub-committee consideration including skills needed, time and travel, products, timeline and cost/benefit assumptions to accomplish the tasks.
3. Work plans due to RIEC sub-committee by mid-December.
4. RIEC sub-committee selects follow-up items in December.

Action Required:

[ X] Information [ ] Discussion [ ] Decision

Restoration of Forests in NWFP Fire-Prone Regions
Questionnaire Summary

Five questions were sent to the eleven field units that manage forests in NWFP fire–prone areas. Ten of eleven units responded. Comments are summarized below.

5. Of the changes that could be made (S&Gs, policies, organizational barriers, processes, funding, etc.) which ones would be most helpful to make progress towards restoring these landscapes?

Issue

(#) Units*

Funding: Includes: 1) Increase funding; 2) Changing allocation from unit cost to risk reduced (e.g. from cost/acre treated to cost/values protected or risk reduced; 3) Competing priorities with other sources or programs (e.g., WUI, suppression, other regional priorities); 4) Overhead formulas need changing.

10

Survey and Manage: Includes: 1) Increased cost, resources, time; 2) Buffers impacting prescribed burns and fuels reduction capability or treatments; 3) No money for surveys leads to creation of buffers by assuming species presence; 3) S&Gs don’t address natural role of fire.

8

Riparian Reserves: Includes: 1) Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) interpretation at site scale; 2) Level 1 ESA consultation; 3) Revisit Desired Conditions/Objectives for RRs; stratify by forest type and disturbance regime; 4) Issue new direction for RRs (especially ephemerals) and consider fire’s natural role; 5) Language "limit size of all fires" (C-36).

6

NSO ESA Consultation: Includes: 1) Avoiding treatments in NSO habitat to avoid "take"; 2) Not accounting for long term vs. short term trade-offs for protecting NSO habitat in BA/BO; 2) Provide tech. assistance paper to define non-suitable habitat for ESA consultation (FWS).

5

Limited Operating Periods (LOPs): Includes: 1) Provide flexibility in "take" definition for noise and smoke disturbance; 2) Display and consider short term vs. long term risk in ESA Consultation (R5).

3

Desired Conditions, Objs., S&Gs for fire-prone ecosystems: Includes: 1) Align desired conditions, objectives, S&Gs with forest ecoytype and disturbance regime; 2) Reconcile with desired condition/ objectives for NSO habitat.

3

Critical Habitat: 1) Align with LSRs: 2) Provide tech. assistance paper to define non-suitable habitat for ESA consultation (FWS).

3

ESA Consultation ACS: Includes: 1) Avoiding treatments in RRs to avoid "take"; 2) Lack of recognition of fire’s natural role; 3) Broad scale programmatic BO for fish; 4) Develop design considerations for fuels treatments in RRs; 4) Interpreting ACS at site scale.

3

4) Competing priorities; 5) Poor NEPA.

3

Controversy: Includes: 1) Litigation and other challenges to projects; 2) lack of trust with externals; 3) lack of research information supporting treatments.

3

Research/Information: Includes lack of research or information on 1) Effects of risk reduction treatments in RRs and LSRs (including prescribed burning) on aquatic and terrestrial species; 2) Effects from wildfire vs. prescribed burning on air quality; 3) Need science review of gray literature on fuels treatments.

2

O&C Lands: Includes 1) Restoration expectations too high on O&C; 2) Effectiveness of treatments.

2

Adaptive Management: Improve adaptive management.

2

Snags/dead wood: S&Gs for "likely to persist" and "well distributed" needs clarification for salvage (R5).

2

Note: Healthy Forest Restoration Act/Healthy Forest Initiative procedures working well (including Categorical Exclusions under NEPA)

2

*Number of units that identified the issue. Responses were grouped and paraphrased. The tables do not necessarily reflect the specific priority placed on items by individual respondents.

Topic: ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT & MONITORING SUBCOMMITTEE

Presenter/Sponsor: Tom Quigley (PNW)

REO Contact: Becky Gravenmier, PNW Representative

Issue Statement: At the October 18, 2005 RIEC meeting, the first cut list of Corporate Questions (see definition below) or topics were prioritized and sorted for consideration at regional or local levels (see table 1). This list was initially generated by interagency staff starting with the current NWFP monitoring questions. New items were added to the list from the findings of the 10-year report and other sources such as the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. Given the direction of Federal budgets, we must focus on the highest priority concerns for the next 10 years. Our goal is to provide the RIEC with a short list of high priority issues/questions by February 2006. We would like your advice and help during this meeting to narrow the list of options.

Background: After the NWFP Conference in April 2005, the IAC met to prioritize a set of management implication topics from the 10-year monitoring reports. As a result of this meeting, adaptive management and monitoring were identified as priority action items. Jim Golden (FS, Region 6) and Tom Quigley (PNW) were designated as co-leads for the RIEC Adaptive Management/Monitoring subcommittee. A small staff group, led by Lisa Freedman (FS, Region 6) and John Laurence (PNW) was convened to evaluate tasks that might improve adaptive management and refine NWFP monitoring efforts. The staff group has a variety of tasks to complete including the development of an Adaptive Management Framework.

Adaptive Management Framework: The experiences implementing the NWFP during the first decade suggest that the effectiveness of adaptive management can be increased by bringing together a wide array of learning and adapting activities in a more systematic, coordinated, directed way. Figure 1 represents a start on a conceptual approach to adaptive management. This model will be refined and described in the final framework document.

Adaptive Management Framework Components: The Adaptive Management Framework should be comprised of at least three major components:

1) Corporate Questions – Defining corporate questions up front – to help learning activities be as relevant as possible to future decisions – is critical. Corporate questions are designed to focus monitoring and research investments over the next 10-years. Corporate questions represent the issues deemed most pressing, both currently and with an eye to the future, as judged by the collective input from the RIEC. Because these questions are designed to drive learning activities in support of key agency decisions, they need to be strategic. To maintain focus and stay within available budgets, only a small number of questions will receive priority at any given time. The questions should be developed by managers in an interactive process that involves scientists.

2) Learning Activities - The prioritized corporate questions can be address in several ways. Some questions could be effectively addressed by extensive management experiments, while some may require intensive studies or research, and some may be addressed through regional or local monitoring. The staff group is developing a template for extensive management experiments that could be applied by local managers within the NWFP area.

3) Evaluation - Evaluation is an often forgotten, but critical step. This is where all relevant information from previous monitoring, research, management experiments or other sources is analyzed and interpreted to inform management decisions (e.g., the 10-year report). Since most learning activities rarely generate an either/or answer, judgment based on the body of evidence is required. This step must be done to determine if changing management policies or activities is needed.

Prework Instructions: All IAC members (Federal and non-Federal) are requested to review the list in Table 1, and come to the November 30 meeting prepared to share answers to the following question:

Points to Consider when Prioritizing Corporate Question/Topics:

• Federal budgets continue to get smaller.
• This is not just about monitoring – remember that the approach (management experiments, intensive studies, other potential activities, research, monitoring) will be selected later.
• Some topics may be best addressed at local levels rather than at the regional level. Consider what you would do with the information once it was collected? Would you do anything differently once you have the information? (If not, maybe this is not a beneficial investment.)
• It is very important to think about what questions we will want to know the answers to 10-years from now.
• At the IAC meeting, each representative will be given the equivalent of $5 million NWFP "play" money to spend on their top questions/topics based on Table 1.
• Once our money has been spent we will look at and discuss the results.

For reference, about $5 million/year have been spent over the last 10 years on NWFP monitoring. In addition, between $1.5 to $6 million/year has been spent on research by PNW Research Station. At this time we have not tallied up research investments made by other agencies (i.e., PSW, EPA Research, NOAA, USGS, universities) or management experiments (Goosenest Adaptive Management Area, Five-Rivers Project, Blue River Project, etc), but it has been substantial.

Next Steps: Your input will be given to agency staff who will work towards creating an initial cost estimate which will be presented to the RIEC by February 2006.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information [ x ] Advice/Recommendations

Topic area

at a later date)

(Regional or Local)

WATERSHEDS

Watershed condition status and trends

R

*

Management practices effective in improving condition

R

*

Listed fish populations

R

*

Incorporate knowledge of dynamics of aquatic and riparian ecosystems in management approaches

R

*

Achievement of total maximum daily load (TMDL)

R

Actions to minimize impacts to aquatic systems

R

LISTED SPECIES

Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) Habitat status and trend

R

*

NSO population status and trends

R

*

Barred Owl and other new stressors’ affects

R

*

Affect of federal land management on status and trends of species

R

*

Marbled Murrelet habitat and populations

R

*

Effectiveness of reserve system in conservation of listed & unlisted species

R

*

Marbled Murrelet habitat model predictions

R

*

Marbled Murrelet nesting distribution

L

LATE-SUCCESSIONAL OLD GROWTH

Status and trends of older forests

R

*

Reserve system function

R

*

Change in forest habitat as result of stressors and disturbance.

R

*

Accelerate development of older forest

R

FIRE

Reduce risk to communities& ecosystem (Healthy Forests Restoration Act)

R

*

Effects of post-fire salvage

L

*

OTHER

Creating more resilient landscapes

R

*

Contribution of federal lands to meet objectives for biodiversity, forest productivity, & socioeconomic benefits

R

*

Factors limiting adaptive management (laws)

R

Status of non-listed species and habitats

R

PROCESS

Learning through monitoring and adaptive management

R

*

Effective integration of monitoring across scales and disciplines

R

*

Validity of NWFP assumptions

R

*

Mid-scale analysis for locating projects in priority areas

R

*

Moving toward NWFP objectives

R

NWFP provides robust direction for future

R

Use of "best management practices" on federal lands

L

Collaboration in monitoring and adaptive management

L

IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING

Compliance with Standards and Guidelines

L

*

Did we do what we said we would?

L

*

SOCIOECONOMIC

Environmental qualities and values (old growth and aquatic ecosystems)

R, L

*

Public values, attitudes and beliefs

R, L

Trends in human uses and cultural change

R, L

Role of communities and stakeholders in achieving healthy ecosystem objectives

R

Alternative models of governance

R

Trend in community capacity to manage forest resources

L

Realistic sustainable harvest

L

Predictable level of resources

L

*

Sustainability of local/regional economies & communities

L

*

Economic development/diversification in rural communities

L

*

Collaboration

L

*

TRIBAL

Government-to-government consultation

L

*

Religious and cultural heritages -- Protection & access to resource and cultural sites

L

*

Trust resource status

L

*

Tribal government forest stewardship capacity

L

Topic: LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

Sponsor: Terry Rabot (FWS)

Presenter: David Patte, Assistant Regional Director for External Affairs (FWS)

Issue Statement: David Patte, Assistant Regional Director for External Affairs, will provide an update on recent legislative activities, particularly those related to the Endangered Species Act.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information [ ] Decision

Topic: LITIGATION UPDATE

Sponsor: Linda Goodman, Chair

Presenter: Owen Schmidt, USDA General Counsel’s Office

Issue Statement: Owen Schmidt will provide an update on recent litigation related to the Northwest Forest Plan.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information [ ] Decision

Topic: STATE REPORT: Washington

Presenter: John Mankowski, Alternate Representative for the State of Washington

Issue Statement: John Mankowski will provide an update on forestry issues in Washington State, including a look at forest practices, old-growth, and issues crossing jurisdictional boundaries.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information [ ] Decision

Topic: STATE REPORT: California

Presenter: Cathy Bleier, Alternative Representative for the State of California

Issue Statement: Cathy Bleier will provide a brief update on several forest and natural resource topics in California of potential interest to IAC members.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information [ ] Decision

Topic: EPA UPDATES: Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategy & the Yellowjacket Water Quality Restoration Plan

RIEC Sponsor: Dave Powers (EPA)

REO Contact: Teresa Kubo, EPA Representative

Background: EPA will share information about the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Temperature Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) Implementation Strategy, and the Yellowjacket Water Quality Restoration Plan. These efforts have reduced the burden on State and Federal partners striving to meet water quality standards in a reasonable timeframe.

NWFP Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategy: On September 9, 2005, the FS and BLM released the final Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategies. A primary goal of this document is to provide the basis for analyzing stream shade, effects of shade on stream temperature, and management of riparian areas to meet water quality and broader objectives embodied in the NWFP Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS). The intent is to illustrate how the ACS and Riparian Reserves are protective of and provide shade necessary to protect and maintain water quality objectives and meet TMDL targets over time.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued a letter recognizing the TMDL implementation strategy as the temperature TMDL implementation mechanism pursuant to the Clean Water Act for lands administered under the NWFP with the following conditions:

1. The NWFP, particularly the aquatic conservation strategy (riparian reserves, key watersheds, standards and guidelines, watershed analysis, watershed restoration) will be fully implemented;
2. The analysis tool in the strategy focuses only on shade, and other factors important to water quality such as sediment, large wood and cumulative effects will be addressed through other Forest Service and BLM analyses, planning, and monitoring efforts;
3. Effectiveness monitoring and adaptive management will be fully implemented;
4. ODEQ, the Forest Service, and BLM will review the strategy and track its implementation during the first year. The strategy will be revised as necessary and agreed to by all three agencies.

The BLM State Office and Forest Service Region 6 have since transmitted this strategy to the field, along with direction to apply the process as appropriate.

Yellowjacket Water Quality Restoration Plan: The Clean Water Act contains an exception to the requirement that impaired waterbodies be listed on the State’s 303(d) list in those circumstances where "other pollution controls" required by a local State or Federal authority are stringent enough to meet water quality standards. Such waters can be placed in the Has a Pollution Control Plan category (category 4b) of a State’s integrated report. Because the pollution control plan is designed to improve and attain water quality in a manner comparable to a TMDL, the development of a TMDL is not required.

1. Has enforceable pollution controls or actions stringent enough to attain water quality standards?
2. Is problem-specific and waterbody-specific?
3. Has reasonable time limits established for correcting the specific problem?
4. Has a monitoring component?
5. Has adaptive management built into the plan to allow for future course corrections if necessary?
6. Is feasible, with enforceable legal or financial guarantees that implementation will occur?
7. Is actively and successfully implemented and shows progress on water quality improvements in accordance with the plan?

The Department of Ecology’s decision to omit Yellowjacket from the 303(d) list was approved by EPA in November, 2005.

Topic: IAC Recommendation Status List

REO Contact: Kath Collier, REO

Background: This status report has been included as part of an agreement reached at previous IAC meetings with respect to tracking IAC recommendations. Items that are completed and reported back to the IAC have been dropped from the Status Report list, and updates to ongoing topics have been included for your information.

1. 10-Year Monitoring Report: IAC members expressed an interest in providing input to this process prior to finalization. Notes: The reports are being published as indicated in this prework (see page 18).

2. Revisit creative funding solutions (similar to the USFWS agreement using National Fire Plan dollars). Notes: The field trip on August 17 included examples of creative multi-agency funding sources.

3. Future Field Trips. Notes: Logistical recommendations were incorporated into the 2005 field trip and will be used in subsequent trips. Planning activities for a 2006 field trip in Washington are underway.

1. Updates on BLM Resource Management Plan and FS Land Management Plan revisions. Notes: Updates have been provided; future updates are planned. These topics have been added to our topic tracking system.

2. Proposal for creating a NWFP Social Science Working Group: Written recommendations were received April 21, 2005 at the IAC meeting from Lynn Jungwirth, Watershed Research and Training Center, Hayfork, CA). Notes: This proposal was forwarded to Dave Gibbons (FS, R5) for follow-up.

3. Tribal Recommendations: Written recommendations were received from IAC member Merv George at the April 21, 2005 IAC meeting. Notes: The Adaptive Management/ Monitoring Subcommittee is referring to relevant recommendations as they assemble future plans.

4. Future Field Trips: Notes: Two potential future topics were suggested during the July 2004 field trip and have been added to our topic tracking system. Topics included: NRCS Conservation Security Program and potential cumulative impacts of restoration activities.

Topic: Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC) Rechartering

REO Contact: Teresa Kubo, EPA Representative

Issue Statement: As of late October, the Provincial Advisory Committees (or PACs) were re-chartered. Notification of the re-chartering should be going out through formal channels soon.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information [ x ] Decision

Topic: IRICC and the Pacific Northwest Regional Geographic Information Council

REO Contact: Dave Busch, USGS

Background: The Inter-organizational Resource Information Coordinating Council (IRICC), was chartered as an IAC subcommittee in 1995. Since then, IRICC has accomplished a lot by coordinating and producing geospatial products to support natural resource management activities in Washington, Oregon, and Northern California. Most IAC organizations continue to participate actively in IRICC to facilitate the improvement of their own geospatial capabilities.

Update: Since the formation of IRICC, the needs and uses for geospatial data have evolved and expanded to include homeland security, emergency management, and other emerging issues throughout the Pacific Northwest. The costs, complexity, volume of data, and need to collaborate on geospatial issues compel agencies to join forces and coordinate the cost-effective acquisition, development, use, exchange and management of geospatial data in the region. This has prompted a review of the IRICC Charter and a collaborative effort to evaluate the scope and geographical extent covered.

IRICC is now operating as the Pacific Northwest Regional Geographic Information Council (PNW-RGIC). The group is dedicated to assisting regional stakeholders by coordinating, promoting, and enabling the development, distribution, and maintenance of regionally and nationally significant geospatial datasets.

PNW-RGIC has developed an initial strategic plan with goals and objectives directed to a two- to five-year time period. The plan is intended to be fluid, flexible, and responsive to immediate and medium-term issues. Quarterly meetings are continuing through Fiscal Year 2006 in rotating locations in Washington, Idaho, and Oregon. Additional information will be provided to the IAC in the future.

Organizational/Funding Implications: None at this time.

Topic: What’s New On The Web?

REO Contact: Anne Badgley, REO

There are several new links and products available on the Northwest Forest Plan, Regional Ecosystem Office website:

Status of Other NWFP General Technical Reports to be published by PNW

Topic

Status

Est. Date to Printer

Marbled Murrelet

Going to layout soon

late December

Socioeconomic

In layout; working on Volume 3

early December

Synthesis

In final policy review

February

Management Implications

In final policy review

February

Topic: Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP) Update

RIEC Sponsor: Dave Powers, EPA

REO Contact: Dave Busch, USGS Representative

PNAMP Coordinator: Jennifer Bayer, USGS; Jennifer_Bayer@usgs.gov 509 538-2299 x273

Background: PNAMP provides a forum for coordinating State, Federal, and Tribal aquatic habitat and salmonid monitoring programs. Partnership goals include improving communication, promoting science-based efforts and improving scientific information, looking for ways to share resources and data, and seek ways to efficiently provide aquatic monitoring through cooperative efforts. A presentation introducing the IAC to PNAMP was made at the November 2004 meeting. More information about the PNAMP program can be found on our website: www.reo.gov/pnamp.

What’s new? FY 2005 Accomplishments have been posted on our website. A few significant accomplishments include:

• Became a formal organization by drafting a Charter and Business Practices, subsequently signed by 19 State, Federal, Tribal, and regional entities (including many IAC agencies).
• Drafted a long-range strategic planning document "PNAMP Strategy for Coordinating Monitoring of Aquatic Environments in the Pacific Northwest" March 2005.
• Facilitated coordination and collaboration among aquatic monitoring practitioners on aquatic monitoring design, protocols, and data standards. Projects included: watershed condition monitoring protocol comparison project, review of fish population monitoring protocols, draft of a regional plan to establish a network of intensively monitored watersheds, and hosting a variety of technical forums.
• Facilitated understanding across PNAMP partners of large scale needs, such as key management questions that drive aquatic monitoring in the region and high level indicators (draft summary documents in progress).

• Completion of an inventory of aquatic monitoring activities relevant to PNAMP partners.
• Completion of watershed protocol comparison project, publication of fish population monitoring protocol review.
• Planning of protocol comparison projects for effectiveness monitoring and fish population monitoring.
• Discussion with PNAMP partners about use of a "universal sampling design" for status/trend monitoring, implementation of plan for intensively monitored watersheds network.
• Consideration of adoption by PNAMP partners of a regional data dictionary and protocol library management tool (under development by the USDI Bureau of Reclamation).

• PNAMP would like to increase agency participation in the PNAMP technical workgroups. Meeting information is posted on the PNAMP website (http://www.reo.gov/pnamp) and is sent to interested parties in a monthly summary. They ask that you encourage your staff to attend the meetings and participate in the workgroups.
• PNAMP seeks your assistance in conducting the inventory of aquatic monitoring activities. They ask your cooperation in completing the inventory questionnaire (expected to begin early 2006) regarding the inventory.
• PNAMP is currently planning several protocol comparison projects to be conducted in FY07. They ask assistance in identifying potential funding sources for these activities.