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:

December 21, 2005

To:

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (see attached distribution list)

From:

/s/Anne Badgley, Executive Director

Subject:

INTERGOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES 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 – NEW!
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)

November 30, 2005 Meeting Agenda

Time

Topics

Purpose

Presenter

8:30 a.m.

• Introductions and Agenda Overview
• Recognition (Cispus Award)

House-keeping

Facilitator
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

Background
Advice

Jim Golden, 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
• NOAA Update
• 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

Presenter/Sponsor: Linda Goodman, IAC Chair (FS)

Summary: Linda welcomed members and talked about activities that would occur during the day such as the state reports and discussions. She invited additional reports from the State and Tribal members. Linda provided background information on the Corporate Monitoring questions, the impacts to the agencies of downsizing and outsourcing, and her thoughts about how we may work together in the future. She indicated that the prioritization exercise the committee participated in during the meeting would help influence and shape the decisions related to the monitoring program for the next 10 years.

Celebration! The IAC recognized Cispus Interagency Communications Workshop staff representatives for winning an Honorable Mention award in the National 2005 Department of the Interior, Environmental Achievement Award Teams competition (for more information on this competition see http://www.doi.gov/greening/awards). Congratulations!

Action Required:

[ x ] Information/celebration [ ] Decision

Topic: MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS OVERVIEW

Presenter/Sponsor: Anne Badgley, REO

Summary: Anne provided a quick overview of the management implication topics presented at the April 2005 IAC meeting (a list was provided in the prework) and noted that there are several teams working on the areas that were identified as "high priority" by the IAC. Two of the committees reported during this meeting, and several other teams are also at work as shown in the prework.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information [ ] Decision

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

Sponsor: Bernie Weingardt (Forest Service, Region 5)

Presenter: Shawne Mohoric (Forest Service, Region 6) and Dave Gibbons (Forest Service, Region 5)

Subcommittee members: Bernie Weingardt (lead) (FS), Dave Gibbons (FS), Dave Powers (EPA), Mike Crouse (NMFS), Terry Rabot (FWS), Jim Sedell (PSW), Alex Whistler (BIA), Shawne Mohoric (FS), and Kristy Young (FWS)

Summary: Northwest Forest Plan (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 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. Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) managers responsible for managing NWFP fire prone areas were sent five questions concerning planning and implementation of risk reduction activities. 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: Eight units reported Survey and Manage 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, Standards and Guidelines (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.

• Funding

- Increase budget to NWFP fire-prone field units
- Examine cost/unit allocation criteria:
     - What’s included in cost/unit? Can other programs support risk reduction projects?
     - Change unit measure from cost/acre treated to: Cost/values protected or risks reduced.
     - Change allocation criteria to recognize cost differences between initial treatments (higher cost/acre) and maintenance treatments (lower cost/acre).
- Revisit priorities such as: WUI vs. non-WUI; suppression vs. fuels treatments
- 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?

• Riparian Reserves (RRs)

- 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:
     - Options: Through FS and BLM plan revisions or through regional amendment.
- 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.

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

- 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.

• ESA Northern Spotted Owl (NSO)

- Revisit Critical Habitat boundaries.
- 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?
- Develop an interagency approach for managing NSO habitat in dry forests: 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 approach for managing NSO habitat to reduce risk and facilitate ESA consultation?
- Limited Operating Periods (identified by several California National Forests): FS Region 5 is concluding an assessment for changing Limited Operating Periods that will provide greater flexibility in Endangered Species Act consultation. Do BLM and FS Region 6 want to utilize this assessment?
- 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?

• ESA Anadromous Fish

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

RIEC Decisions: The 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 Kristy 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?
- Riparian Reserve 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?

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. Work plans due to RIEC sub-committee by mid-December.

RIEC sub-committee selects follow-up items in December; progress report at January RIEC meeting.

IAC Discussion Highlights: Concerns were expressed about potential strategies for conducting fuels treatments in riparian areas and especially ephemeral streams. Any strategies need to be consistent with science and with existing aquatic strategies.

Tribal representatives expressed an interest in sharing forest management and restoration strategies on Tribal lands with the IAC. The work on the Hoopa Tribal lands in Northern California was mentioned as a potential future IAC topic and reference for the work being done by the IAC sub-committee on this topic.

State representatives are interested in budget discussions concerning WUI priorities. There is much going on in WUI and monitoring of restoration accomplishments. Northern California was used as an example.

State representatives, as expressed by John Mankowski from Washington, will want to be engaged early in the fire and fuels reduction treatment discussions to help build collaboration and support. Additional discussions between the management agencies and the State partners will improve members understanding about benefits and risks.

Action Required:

[ X] Information [ X ] Discussion [ ] Decision

Topic: ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT & MONITORING SUBCOMMITTEE

Sponsor: Tom Quigley (PNW)

Presenters: Tom Quigley (PNW), Jim Golden (FS), Lisa Freedman (FS)

REO Contact: Becky Gravenmier, PNW Representative

Summary: At the October 18, 2005 RIEC meeting, a draft list of Corporate Questions or topics were prioritized and sorted for consideration at the regional or local levels. 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, the RIEC must focus on the highest priority concerns for the next 10 years. The goal is to provide the RIEC with a short list of high priority issues/questions by February 2006. IAC members were asked to provide input into priority topics at the November 30 meeting.

Background: Jim Golden (FS, Region 6) reminded meeting attendees that after the NWFP Conference in April, the IAC identified adaptive management and monitoring as priority topics to address. The RIEC set up a subcommittee led by Tom Quigley and Jim Golden to address adaptive management. Due to potential overlap the monitoring task was added to the workload for this committee. Lisa Freedman (FS, R6) and John Laurence (PNW) were assigned as co-leads for the Adaptive Management and Monitoring task group. Jim briefly described the three main tasks of the task group which are to develop:

(1) a process to allow RIEC to agree upon a list of regional corporate questions,
(2) an adaptive management framework, and
(3) management experiment templates that can be used by the field for implementation of experiments. Jim suggested that the goal must be to focus on the most critical issues, improve effectiveness of our monitoring, and better articulate risk and uncertainty.

Adaptive Management Framework: Tom Quigley provided an overview of the adaptive management framework and highlighted the need for corporate questions to guide future monitoring and research investments. The experiences with 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 framework.

The adaptive management framework will be comprised of at least three major components: Corporate Questions, Learning Activities, and Evaluation. It is important to note that the Federal agencies do not have enough funding to address a long list of corporate questions. Corporate questions will be used to focus learning activities. There are a variety of activities such as monitoring, databases, management experiments, research and databases, that can be applied to answer corporate questions. Information will be collected from a suite or portfolio of activities that constitute learning. This information will then be evaluated to see if changes are needed to management or policy to better answer corporate questions.

Corporate Questions: Lisa Freedman provided an update on the adaptive management and monitoring task group activities. She noted that the RIEC started with over 60 questions from current monitoring efforts and other sources. She stressed the need to revisit monitoring to learn from implementation and better focus our efforts due to limited funds. The RIEC provided input on priorities at the October 18, 2005 meeting. Lisa reviewed the RIEC Corporate Question Topic Area table and described the process for collecting IAC input on top issues. The IAC members were asked to express their priorities through an exercise of spending "play" money on their top issues.

Results: The results of the priority exercise are portrayed in Table 1. Priorities varied by Federal versus non-Federal IAC members. The following topics ranked in the top 10 for the entire IAC.

Watershed condition status and trends: This topic ranked first in the overall rating. The IAC members’ focus on watershed conditions, and owl habitat and trends speaks of the overall desire to assess overall system health, and not just specific pieces.

Sustainability of local/regional economies and communities: This topic ranked second in the overall rating.

• Federal executives suggest that there is a need to look at the sustainability of local communities. Large scale, regional monitoring generates mixed results. Information collected at a large scale can identify areas where differences exist. However, it does not provide the Federal agencies with information at a local level that is needed to make localized management decisions.
• Tribal representatives suggested that the economic impact of the NWFP must not be discounted. Timber shortfalls and environmental litigation have impacted communities, in terms of their socio-economic health. They suggested the Federal agencies need a better understanding of the impacts and how communities have been affected.
• Some IAC members reminded other members that Counties play a key role in helping the Federal government meet its management objectives, and vice versa. When the Federal agencies are under-funded, there are direct impacts on the counties. County representatives suggest that these impacts should be monitored, and it should be the number one priority.
• Non-Federal members expressed concern about the lack of capacity to treat areas and conduct activities. They suggested that the lack of action has had a dramatic impact on communities and visitors to those communities. They feel that sustainability of local economies and communities are very important.

Government-to-government consultation: This topic ranked third highest in the overall rating.

• Tribal representatives expressed a concern with dropping the regional tribal monitoring program. Tribal representatives plan on submitting a letter to the RIEC outlining their concerns.
• Federal executives acknowledged the need to conduct government-to-government consultation and indicated that no decision had been made to drop tribal monitoring as yet. Federal members suggested that there is a need to look at better ways to address Tribal monitoring that would not deemphasize the need to monitor consultations. The question is - how can Federal agencies best use their limited resources? Could this monitoring be better conducted at the local level? Federal members might consider periodic questionnaires to Tribes and offices to compile progress on tribal consultations.
• Tribal representatives suggested that consultation might lead to better stewardship, healthy forests, and the re-building of public trust. They suggested that the RIEC might be able to learn from Tribal activities and share their management techniques. Tribal representatives would like to present some examples of their management at a future meeting. They feel success stories are needed to build public trust.

• Consultation and effective Tribal relationships can help diffuse trust issues and improve management on the ground. Tribal representatives suggested that gaining public trust will take time, and that those relationships must be nurtured. Monitoring allows the Tribes to assess line officer effectiveness. The monitoring component is needed to ensure effective consultation. Tribal representatives suggested that Federal managers need people who understand the local Tribes and that they should be careful in their communications with Tribes. There is a need for some kind of check and balance process.
• Federal executives expressed that consultation is key to future success. This topic addresses the monitoring of consultations and not the implementation of consultation. There may be other ways to collect information about how the Federal agencies are working with Tribes on consultation and other initiatives.

  Listed fish populations: It was noted that fish population monitoring is under-funded. It was suggested by one Federal executive that greater collaboration among Federal agencies is needed if this is to become a high priority.

  Management practices effective at improving watershed conditions: A non-Federal member questioned why Federal members would rate this item as a high priority when they have data showing the effectiveness of Federal best management practices. A Federal member responded that there are management practices that can improve watershed condition. No action may not always be the best alternative, or result in improved watershed condition. Monitoring results are needed to demonstrate this.

  Effects of post-fire salvage: It was noted that there were several issues relating to fire which illustrate the importance of this issue.

  Reduce risk to communities and ecosystems: Non-Federal members suggested that there is a need to collaboratively set priorities in order to manage wildland urban interface (WUI) areas effectively. A county representative suggests that if rural dollars are not reauthorized (Title I and II funds) there will be no dollars for community fire plans and there will be a reduction in county services. This will compound problems for the Federal government in terms of mitigating risk to communities. This is also an issue in terms of community sustainability. Monitoring this situation will help managers identify the impacts of reduced funding.

  Effectiveness of the reserve system: Non-Federal members suggested that the literature on effectiveness of reserves is not conclusive and that additional research is needed. Data for Washington State seems to indicate that there is no difference in spotted owl habitat between reserves and non-reserves. Additional data is needed to determine reserve effectiveness.

IAC Agreements: See the following summary.

Next Steps (who/what/when): A subgroup of the Adaptive Management and Monitoring subcommitee will staff out priority topics from the prior RIEC prioritization exercise to identify corporate questions, options and potential costs. The RIEC will consider IAC input as they make decisions on priorities and corporate questions in February.

Topic

Issue

Non-Fed
IAC
(8 members)

Fed IAC
(13 members)

Grand Total

WATERSHEDS

Watershed condition status and trends

4.5

6

10.5

SOCIOECONOMIC

Sustainability of local/regional economies & communities

3.5

4

7.5

TRIBAL

Government-to-government consultation

4.5

1.5

6

LISTED SPECIES

Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) Habitat status and trend

1.5

4

5.5

WATERSHEDS

Listed fish populations

2

3.5

5.5

FIRE

Effects of post-fire salvage

2

3

5

WATERSHEDS

Management practices effective in improving condition

1

4

5

FIRE

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

3

1.5

4.5

LISTED SPECIES

Effectiveness of reserve system in conservation of listed & unlisted species

1.5

3

4.5

PROCESS

Effective integration of monitoring across scales and disciplines

.5

4

4.5

LISTED SPECIES

NSO population status and trends

1

3

4

LSOG

Status and trends of older forests

1.5

2.5

4

OTHER

Creating more resilient landscapes

1.5

2.5

4

LISTED SPECIES

Barred Owl and other new stressors’ affects

2.5

1

3.5

LISTED SPECIES

Affect of Federal land management on status and trends of species

.5

2.5

3

TRIBAL

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

1.5

1

2.5

WATERSHEDS

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

1.5

1

2.5

LISTED SPECIES

Marbled Murrelet habitat and populations

.5

1.5

2

LSOG

Change in forest habitat as result of stressors and disturbance.

.5

1.5

2

OTHER

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

1.5

.5

2

PROCESS

Mid-scale analysis for locating projects in priority areas

0

2

2

PROCESS

Collaboration in monitoring and adaptive management

1

.5

1.5

IMPLEMENTATION

Compliance with Standards and Guidelines

.25

1

1.25

PROCESS

Validity of NWFP assumptions

0

1

1

SOCIOECONOMIC

Predictable level of resources

.5

.5

1

TRIBAL

Tribal government forest stewardship capacity

1

1

TRIBAL

Trust resource status

.5

.5

1

LISTED SPECIES

Marbled Murrelet habitat model predictions

0

.5

.5

LISTED SPECIES

Marbled Murrelet nesting distribution

0

.5

.5

OTHER

Status of non-listed species and habitats

.5

0

.5

PROCESS

Learning through monitoring and adaptive management

.5

0

.5

PROCESS

Use of "best management practices" on federal lands

.5

0

.5

SOCIOECONOMIC

Environmental qualities and values (old growth and aquatic ecosystems)

.5

0

.5

SOCIOECONOMIC

Public values, attitudes and beliefs

.5

0

.5

SOCIOECONOMIC

Realistic sustainable harvest

.5

0

.5

WATERSHEDS

Achievement of total maximum daily load (TMDL)

.5

0

.5

WATERSHEDS

Actions to minimize impacts to aquatic systems

.5

0

.5

IMPLEMENTATION

Did we do what we said we would?

.25

0

.25

LSOG

Reserve system function

0

0

0

LSOG

Accelerate development of older forest

0

0

0

OTHER

Factors limiting adaptive management (laws)

0

0

0

PROCESS

Moving toward NWFP objectives

0

0

0

PROCESS

NWFP provides robust direction for future

0

0

0

SOCIOECONOMIC

Collaboration

0

0

0

SOCIOECONOMIC

Trends in human uses and cultural change

0

0

0

SOCIOECONOMIC

Role of communities and stakeholders in achieving healthy ecosystem objectives

0

0

0

SOCIOECONOMIC

Alternative models of governance

0

0

0

SOCIOECONOMIC

Trend in community capacity to manage forest resources

0

0

0

SOCIOECONOMIC

Economic development/diversification in rural communities

0

0

0

Topic: ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

Sponsor: Terry Rabot (FWS)

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

REO Contact: Kristi Young, FWS Representative

Summary: David Patte provided an update on Endangered Species Act reauthorization efforts in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Summary of Discussion: On September 29, 2005, the House passed H.R. 3824, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005. David Patte presented a summary of the bill to the IAC. The bill requires the Secretary to issue regulations that establish criteria to determine the best available scientific data. The bill would also repeal critical habitat requirements, require recovery plans to be published within two years of a listing determination, provide new incentive programs for landowners to carry out activities to protect or restore important habitat, and require mandatory compensation to landowners for foregone uses because those uses are not in compliance with the ESA. The bill would also transfer all ESA functions currently in the Department of Commerce to the Secretary of the Interior and requires the Secretary of the Interior to survey all BLM and Forest Service lands to assess value of those lands for management for the recovery of listed species and for possible addition to the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Powerpoint presentations for this topic may be found on the IAC home page (http://www.reo.gov/iac).

Next Steps (who/what/when): The bill has been referred to the Senate Committee of Environment and Public Works.

Topic: LITIGATION UPDATE

Sponsor: Linda Goodman, Chair

Presenter: Owen Schmidt, USDA General Counsel’s Office

REO Contact: Steve Morris, NOAA Representative

Summary of Discussion: Owen Schmidt provided a discussion of NWFP litigation, including these previous significant cases: Portland Audubon Society v. Babbit, (9th Cir. 1993); Seattle Audubon Soc. v. Lyons, (W.D., Wash. 1994); Oregon Natural Resources Council v. U.S. Forest Service, (W.D. Wash. 1999); Hanson v. U.S. Forest Service, (W.D. Wash. 2001); Oregon Natural Resources Council Action v. U.S. Forest Service, (D., Ore. 2003).

Owen also provided a discussion of the following current cases:

(1) Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v.Rey, (W.D. Wash. 2005). This involves a Forest Service and BLM action to eliminate from management plans the "survey and manage" standard used to protect certain rare and uncommon species on forested land. On August 1, 2005, Judge Marsha J. Pechman ruled against the agencies on 6 claims, and for the agencies on 6 claims. Oral arguments have been set for December 16, 2005 in Seattle.

(2) Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations v. National Marine Fisheries Service, (W.D. Wash., filed May 27, 2004). This action challenges the biological opinions issued under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act by the National Marine Fisheries Service for listed salmon and steelhead and by the Fish and Wildlife Service for listed bull trout. Arguments were set in Seattle on November 22, 2005. The magistrate will file a report with the judge. A decision is pending.

(3) Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, __ U.S. __, 124 S.Ct. 2373, 2384-85

__ L.Ed.2d __ (2004). The court found that BLM land use plans are not on-going actions with remaining discretion that could be informed by the NEPA process.

(4) Cold Mountain v. Garber, 375 F.3d 884, 894 (9th Cir. 2004). The court found that once a permit is issued, there is no further Federal discretion and thus the NEPA process is not applicable.

(5) Wyoming v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 360 F.Supp.2d 1214, 1237-38 (D. Wyo. 2005). A supplement not necessary where the wolf reintroduction plan is in place and there is no further Federal action.

(6) Buckeye Forest Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 378 F.Supp.2d 835, 844-45 (S.D.

Ohio 2005). The discovery of a listed species, the Indiana bat, does not compel supplementation of Forest Plan EIS because there was no ongoing Federal action subject to NEPA.

The slides presented at this meeting can be found on the IAC home page (http://www.reo.gov/iac).

Next Steps (who/what/when): Future updates will be incorporated into meetings as needed.

Topic: STATE REPORT: Washington

Presenter: John Mankowski (State of Washington Alternate Representative)

Summary: John Mankowski provided an overview of forestry issues in Washington State. This included a look at some of the history of forest practices in Washington, ongoing efforts in the forestry arena, issues on the horizon, and opportunities for coordination and collaboration.

Background: It was noted that Washington has a large percentage of forested land (21 million acres). By ownership category, Federal lands make up 9.4 million acres; industrial private 4.5 million acres; non-industrial private 3.2 million acres; State 2.3 million acres; and Tribal, County, Municipal lands 1.8 million acres.

Forest practices have long been regulated in Washington. The Forest Practices Act was adopted in 1974, and has been revised 13 times. In 2001, the State responded to the ESA listing of salmon by enacting the Forest and Fish (F&F) law. The F&F law focuses on road improvements, riparian protection, adaptive management, and addressing the needs of native fish and amphibians. There are around 60,000 miles of streams on 8 million acres covered under this law. Since the passage of F&F law, Washington has abandoned 3,000 miles of road, and removed over 1,000 barriers to fish, opening 690 miles of stream to passage. In addition, the State has adopted wildlife rules for the marbled murrelet and the spotted owl. These are focused on landscape protection. The 4(d) rule related to these wildlife measures was not concluded, leaving this an area open to litigation.

- Washington is seeking Section 10 assurances for a Habitat Conservation Plan. This was submitted in February of 2005. They are currently working on Section 7 consultation on the Section 10 decision, and looking at species other than fish. The State is also currently reassessing their spotted owl strategy, given recent findings related to owl demographics. They are also discussing the barred owl issue and various management options.
- Another issue of key importance to the State is how to retain "working" forests, particularly on the rural/urban fringe. The State is looking at regulation, easements, acquisitions, the transfer of development rights, as well as other tools (forest certification, carbon sequestration) that can be used.
- Another issue that may be developing is a possible property rights initiative. This would be similar in nature to Measure 37 in Oregon.
- Washington is also closely tracking National Forest plan revisions for the Colville, Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. The importance of close State interaction on these revisions was noted.
- Also on the Federal side, it was noted that Washington was successful in receiving Section 6 grants (Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund Grants) in 2005. Over $14 million will go toward recovery land acquisition, HCP land acquisition, and HCP planning.
- And lastly, it was noted that with respect to the roadless issue, Washington’s governor has petitioned for protection of designated roadless areas in the State. This petition essentially requests the reinstatement of the 2001 roadless rule. There is strong support within the State for maintaining roadless areas.

On the Horizon: In the near term, there should be activity in the realm of the spotted owl in terms of State rule improvements, and recovery planning. It was noted that the State will play an active role in recovery planning.
- The State will also be moving on forest land retention issues, and fire risk management. It was noted that additional dialogue is needed across ownerships to ensure that there is appropriate action across jurisdictions, as well as to ensure that research and information are shared. Washington is tracking issues outside of the State’s jurisdiction, including Federal legislation (ESA, salvage), forest plan revisions, climate change, and ESA listings and delistings.

Opportunities for continued/increased collaboration: Washington is eager to be engaged early in the forest plan revision process. Opportunities exist to better coordinate and collaborate in the realm of research and monitoring. Areas ripe for better information sharing include FFR studies, NWFP monitoring, and salmon recovery planning.
- Another area where additional coordination is needed is fish passage. The State has been very active in addressing barriers in the lowlands. This needs to be taken into consideration as the Federal agencies look at opportunities in the upper watershed.
- Lastly, opportunities for continued/increased collaboration exist for ESA implementation (ESA Section 9, Habitat Conservation Planning, and Section 6).

Action Required:

[ x ] Information [ ] Decision

Topic: STATE REPORT: California

Presenter: Cathy Bleier (State of California Alternate Representative)

Issue: Cathy Bleier presented a brief update on forest and natural resource topics in California.

Summary: Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. The State of California, Resources Agency, recently entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the FS and FWS. The parties share the same general objective of balancing wildlife habitat needs and water quality considerations, with reducing expected wildfire losses and improving overall forest health and structure. The purpose of the MOU is to facilitate development and application of a multi-party adaptive management and monitoring system consistent with the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. The parties will be working with the University of California to articulate what adaptive management would look like, and to describe the State’s role in the monitoring process. The concept is to establish a third-party monitoring program that would provide additional data to help inform natural resource decision making processes.

Mattole Forest Futures Project. The State of California is exploring opportunities to conduct more cost effective forest management activities. The Mattole Forest Futures Project is a multi-partner effort that places emphasis on private sector and market-oriented funding sources to leverage limited State and Federal resources. Between 2006 and 2008, the project will demonstrate landscape approaches to forest management, and it is expected to generate significant cost savings and benefits for private landowners, and State and Federal agencies.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information [ ] Decision

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

Sponsor/Presenter: Dave Powers (EPA)

Summary: Dave Powers shared information about the 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: MARBLED MURRELET AND OWL RECOVERY PLANNING UPDATES

Sponsor/Presenter: Terry Rabot (FWS)

Summary: Terry Rabot, FWS, provided a brief update on the current status of the marbled murrelet delisting process and the northern spotted owl recovery plan.

Marbled Murrelet: When the FWS completed the status review for the marbled murrelet in 2004, it concluded that the murrelet populations in California, Oregon, and Washington do not satisfy the criteria for designation as a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) under the 1996 DPS Policy. The FWS is now preparing a proposed rule to delist the murrelet. Public comments will be solicited concerning the proposed rule.

Northern Spotted Owl: The FWS intends to contract out the writing of the revised recovery plan. A pre-solicitation notice was issued last week, informing prospective applicants that a ‘Request For Proposal’ was about to be issued. The RFP will be open for 30 days.

Topic: NOAA-FISHERIES UPDATE

Sponsor/Presenter: Mike Crouse, NOAA-Fisheries

REO Contact: Steve Morris, NOAA Fisheries Representative

Summary: Mike Crouse provided a brief discussion on the completion of NOAA Fisheries’ status review of listed salmon species (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/PR3/status_reviews.html) and the impending completion of salmon recovery plans (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/) under the Endangered Species Act.