The Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) meeting scheduled for March 8, 2006 will be held at the Red Lion Hotel Portland Convention Center, 1021 NE Grand Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232 in the Broadway/St. Johns conference room. Conference rooms are located on the top floor of the hotel. The Red Lion Hotel is conveniently located on the MAX Light Rail on the northeast diagonal corner across from the Portland Convention Center. If you require room reservations, please request a room under the REO/IAC meeting.

This meeting features an exciting line-up of topics and presenters. In the morning, we are looking forward to presentations by David Morman from the State of Oregon, and by Nolan Colegrove with the California Indian Forest and Fire Management Council. In addition, there will be a short update on the Survey and Manage litigation. In the afternoon, we will be revisiting the progress teams are making on two Management Implications subcommittees: Adaptive Management/Monitoring and Fire-Prone Systems. The IAC provided advice to both of these subcommittees earlier in the year. In addition, we will have a few hot topics and will open the floor to all members for announcements. We also plan to certify the notes from the last meeting.

If you have any questions regarding this meeting or the attached materials, please contact Kath Collier (503-808-2179), or me (503-808-2165). I look forward to seeing you at the March 8, 2006 meeting.

Enclosures:

1 – March Meeting Agenda and prework (11p)

cc: Presenters, REO Staff

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Distribution List

California John Woolley, California State Assn. of Counties Joan Smith (Alt) Crawford Tuttle, Resources Agency, State of California Cathy Bleier (Alt)	Oregon Larry Giustina, Oregon State Board of Forestry – NEW! Kevin Birch (Alt) Rocky McVay, Assn. of Oregon & California Counties Gil Riddell (Alt)
Washington John Mankowski, Office of the Governor- new! Bruce Crawford (Alt) Al McKee, Washington State Association of Counties Daniel Cothren (Alt)	Tribes 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)

Federal Members	Alternates
Dave Allen, Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS)	Terry Rabot
Anne Badgley, Regional Ecosystem Office (REO)
Elaine M. Brong, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Oregon/Washington	Mike Mottice
Tom Fontaine, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Western Ecology Division	Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta
Linda Goodman, Forest Service (FS), Region 6	Jim Golden
Bob Graham, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)	Dianne Guidry
Col. Thomas E. O’Donovan, US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)	Curt Loop
Jon Jarvis, National Park Service (NPS)	Rory Westberg
Anne Kinsinger, US Geological Survey (USGS), Western Region, Biological Resources Division	Carol Schuler
Robert Lohn, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA-Fisheries)	Mike Crouse
Michael J. Pool, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), California	Paul Roush
Dave Powers, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), R-10 OR Operations	Socorro Rodriguez
Dr. Bov Eav, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW) – new!	Cindi West
Jim Sedell, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW)	Garland Mason
Stan Speaks, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)	Alex Whistler
Steve Thompson, US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), California/Nevada Operations Office	Darrin Thome – new! (vice Phil Detrich)
Bernie Weingardt, Forest Service, Region 5	Vacant

Topic: BLM PLANNING UPDATE
Presenter/Sponsor: Mike Mottice, BLM (Alternate)
REO Contact: Debbie Pietrzak, BLM Representative
Issue Statement: Mike will provide an update regarding Bureau of Land Management (BLM) planning activities. Periodic updates on this planning process have been requested by the IAC. Last IAC update for this topic occurred in April 2005.
Background: The BLM in Oregon is beginning to revise resource management plans (RMPs) within the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) area. The BLM is revising RMPs for the Coos Bay, Eugene, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem Districts, and a portion of the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District. These RMPs, which were completed in 1995, incorporate the standards and guidelines and land allocations of the NWFP. All six plan revisions will be developed during a single planning process that will result in one environmental impact statement and six district-specific RMP decision documents. Contingent on funding, the revisions are scheduled for completion by December 2008 to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement with American Forest Resources Council and others.
Action Required:	[ x ] Information [ ] Discussion [ ] Decision

 

Topic: "FORESTRY PROGRAM FOR OREGON" IMPLEMENTATION

Sponsor: Larry Giustina, Oregon Board of Forestry, State Representative

Presenter: David Morman, Forest Resources Planning Program Director, Oregon Department of Forestry

REO Contact: Teresa Kubo, EPA Representative

Issue Statement: Information will be presented on implementation of the Forestry Program for Oregon, and the development of indicators of sustainable forestry that will be used to measure progress toward achieving the goals of the Forestry Program. IAC feedback will be sought, and additional avenues for Federal and non-Federal participation will be explored.

Background: The Board is entering the third year of implementation of its current eight-year strategic forest policy plan. The Forestry Program for Oregon provides a framework of Board of Forestry mission, vision, values, strategies, actions, and potential performance indicators to achieve integrated environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable management on all 29 million acres of Oregon forests. The Forestry Program for Oregon is built around seven strategies: A: Promote a sound legal system, effective and adequately funded government, leading-edge research, and sound economic policies. B: Ensure that Oregon's forests provide diverse social and economic outputs and benefits valued by the public in a fair, balanced, and efficient manner. C: Maintain and enhance the productive capacity of Oregon's forests to improve the economic well-being of Oregon's communities. D: Protect, maintain, and enhance the soil and water resources of Oregon's forests. E: Contribute to the conservation of diverse native plant and animal populations and their habitats in Oregon's forests. F: Protect, maintain, and enhance the health of Oregon's forest ecosystems, watersheds, and airsheds within a context of natural disturbance and active management. G: Enhance carbon storage in Oregon's forests and forest products. Under each of these strategies, potential indicators are being developed that will be used to measure progress toward achieving the goals of that strategy. These indicators include environmental, economic and social elements. Adequate consensus is needed within the Oregon forestry community on whether these are the appropriate and measurable indicators to use to evaluate Oregon's performance for the Board to be able to formally adopt them. Once they are finalized, these "core" indicators can be used to focus monitoring, assessments, and research, so that Oregon can more clearly tell its own citizens and the rest of the world the story of how Oregon forests are being managed. The Board is interested in sharing information with the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee and the Regional Interagency Executive Committee on the Forestry Program for Oregon and Oregon indicators of sustainable forest management. The Board is also interested in pursuing and enhancing Federal and non-Federal participation in the development and use of Oregon indicators. The text of the Forestry Program for Oregon and information about Board of Forestry work planning and sustainable forest management indicator development can all be accessed through the Board of Forestry’s website: www.oregonforestry.org.

Action Required: [X] Information [X] Discussion [ ] Decision

Topic: HOOPA TRIBE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
Presenter/Sponsor: Nolan Colegrove, California Indian Forest and Fire Management Council (Alternate)
REO Contact: Anne Badgley, Executive Director
Issue Statement: Nolan Colegrove will present a program that illustrates some of the successes that the Hoopa Tribe has had in forest management. This presentation was suggested by Merv George at the last IAC meeting.
Action Required:	[ x ] Information [ ] Discussion [ ] Decision

Topic: LITIGATION
Sponsor: Linda Goodman, IAC Chair
Presenter: Roger Nesbit, DOI Regional Solicitor’s Office
Issue Statement: Roger Nesbitt will provide an update on recent litigation related to the Northwest Forest Plan.
Action Required:	[ x ] Information [ ] Discussion [ ] Decision

Topic: MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS OVERVIEW
Presenter/Sponsor: Anne Badgley, REO
Issue Statement: Anne will set the stage for the discussions by providing a quick overview of 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.
Table Notes: - The reference number refers back to the original numbering system presentation by Nancy Molina at the April 2005 IAC meeting. Finding #1 was dropped at the meeting and several topics were combined (as noted below). For detailed notes regarding this discussion see the Northwest Forest Plan website meeting index (http://www.reo.gov/library/iac/index.htm). - An Activity Status column has been added to help track topics and efforts. - Featured in 2005 – this may include minor or major presentations, status reports, discussions, etc. For instance, there were reports regarding the Forest Service’s Invasive Species (Weeds) Environmental Impact Statement, economic research and impacts, and efforts to improve collaboration through training (Cispus Collaboration Workshop), and efforts to improve communication (RIEC Subcommittee on communication developed several fact sheets, agency planning timeline, and press releases).
Action Required:	[ x ] Information [ ] Discussion [ ] Decision

2005/2006 RIEC Management Topics and Suggested Implications

Topic: MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS – Fire-Prone Systems Subcommittee - Restoration of Forests in NWFP Fire-Prone Regions
Sponsor: Bernie Weingardt, Forest Service, Region 5
Presenters: Dave Powers, Environmental Protection Agency; Kristi Young, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Agency Representative
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. The RIEC Fire-Prone Systems Subcommittee is exploring ways to accelerate risk reduction treatments.
Background: Following the NWFP Science Conference in April 2005, the RIEC formed a subcommittee to explore opportunities for increasing fuels reduction treatments in NWFP fire-prone regions. A questionnaire was sent to field managers to evaluate potential ways to increase fuel treatments. The results of the questionnaire were presented to the IAC in November, 2005. The subcommittee is now investigating four areas identified in the questionnaire for potential improvements: Budgets; Riparian Reserves; Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) habitat management in dry forests; and a FS Region 5 programmatic Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation for fuels treatments in Wildland Urban Interface.
Status: Draft work plans for several of the tasks were developed and reviewed by the subcom-mittee in December. The subcommittee members selected several follow-up items to pursue. Subcommittee leads will present information about the following action items: Budget: Field units indicated that budget reductions have limited the amount of fuels reduction work being accomplished. At a meeting of fire and budget staff from FS Region 5, Region 6, and the BLM in January, the agencies reviewed and compared funding criteria for hazardous fuels treatments. The agencies are considering various options to increase treatment acres currently limited by budget allocation criteria. Riparian Reserves (RR): Field units reported that, in many cases, RRs are avoided for fuels treatments due to concerns with ESA consultation, lack of science on treatment effects, analysis burden, etc. Dave Powers created a workplan for developing design considerations and sharing current science and knowledge pertaining to treating fuels in riparian reserves. The proposal would provide scientific bases, specific examples, models and analysis tools, agency direction, and intergovernmental support for silvicultural treatments in at-risk stands in fire-prone areas that are designed to increase the likelihood of conserving functional riparian stands in fire-prone areas. NSO Habitat: Field units reported fuels treatments are often avoided in NSO habitat in fire-prone forests. The FWS is leading an effort to implement several of the recommendations from the 2005 Managing Northern Spotted Owl Habitat in Dry-Forest Ecosystems workshop in Redmond, Oregon that would improve NSO habitat management and consultation. Recommendations include: (1) Provide a provincial-level context for prioritizing risk reduction activities. (2) Institute a collaborative, interagency process at the Forest/District level to prioritize risk reduction projects. (3) Implement interagency planning of risk reduction projects. A second workshop has been scheduled for May 16-18, 2006 in Ashland, Oregon to further discuss recommendations from the 2005 workshop.
Action Required:	[ X] Information [ ] Discussion [ ] Decision

Topic: ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT & MONITORING SUBCOMMITTEE
Sponsor: Dr. Bov Eav, PNW Station
Presenter: John Laurence, PNW Station
REO Contact: Becky Gravenmier, PNW Representative
Issue Statement: At the October 18, 2005 RIEC meeting, the first cut list of Priority Questions or topics were prioritized and sorted for consideration at 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 Federal agencies must focus on the highest priority concerns for the next 10 years. In November, the IAC provided advice on priority topics. The RIEC will consider IAC input as they make decisions on priorities and corporate questions. The RIEC will be meeting March 17 to agree on a set of priority questions and to discuss options for monitoring. The goal for the March 8 IAC is to provide an update on the status of all adaptive management and monitoring related tasks.
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. 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. 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.
Status of Tasks: (1) 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. The task group has been working on a conceptual approach to adaptive management. This model will be refined and described in the final framework document. The adaptive management framework will be comprised of at least three major components: Priority 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. Priority 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 priority questions. The final framework document will be available later this spring. (2) Priority Questions: The RIEC started with over 60 questions from current monitoring efforts and other sources. There is a 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. The IAC provided input on top issues at the November meeting. A subgroup of the Adaptive Management and Monitoring subcommittee has been working to staff out priority topics from the prior RIEC prioritization exercise to identify corporate questions, options and potential costs. Meetings to provide an opportunity for Senior Managers Group (SMG) and key agency staff (not represented by SMG) to meet with the task group members to answer questions and clarify the monitoring staff work have been occurring. RIEC asked the SMG to meet and discuss potential options, rationale and pros/cons of those options, and availability of funding by agency. RIEC members will receive feedback from their SMG members and staff prior to making a decision on regional priority questions and options to answer those questions. The RIEC will consider IAC input as they make decisions on priority questions at the March 17 RIEC meeting. (3) Management Experiment Template: Active adaptive management compares alternate management treatments in "management experiments" that are applied, not as research projects, but as well-designed, agency-led administrative studies undertaken as an integral part of management itself. John Laurence will provide a progress update on the development of a template for extensive management experiments. This template could be applied by local managers within the NWFP area to research a variety of corporate questions. The template will be ready for RIEC review in mid-March and will include a summary of all existing management experiments, issues, and costs.
Next Steps: The RIEC will be meeting March 17 to agree on a set of priority questions and to discuss options for monitoring. They will consider input on priorities from the IAC as they make decisions.
Action Required:	[ x ] Information [ ] Discussion [ ] Decision

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: - Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years (1994–2003): preliminary assessment of the condition of watersheds (http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/pnw_gtr647/) - Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years (1994–2003): status and trends of northern spotted owl populations and habitat (http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/pnw_gtr648/) - Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years (1994–2003): Late -successional and old growth forests (http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/pnw_gtr646) - Interagency Planning Timeline (http://www.reo.gov/iac/Timeline.htm) –updated - Field Trip Photo Gallery (http://www.reo.gov/iac/photogallery/082005fieldtrip.htm) - Updated Meeting Calendar (http://www.reo.gov/iac/IAC_calendar.htm) - Northwest Forest Plan online orientation (http://www.reo.gov/training/) - Northwest Forest Plan Fact Sheet list (http://www.reo.gov/riec/Factsheets.htm) – links to fact sheets developed by the RIEC Communications Subcommittee. - Northwest Forest Plan Management Implications Summary Sheet (http://www.reo.gov/riec/Management%20Implications%20Summary%20Sheet%20(2145).htm – list of topics from the April 21, 2005 IAC meeting. - Link to IAC Charter (http://www.reo.gov/iac/IAC_Charter.htm) - Survey & Manage information page (includes information from the 2006, 2004, and 2001 efforts) – (http://www.reo.gov/s-m2006)
Status of Other NWFP General Technical Reports to be published by PNW
Topic	Status	Est. Date to Printer
Marbled Murrelet	Author Review Of Layout	Online 4/10/06; Publish 4/24/06
Socioeconomic	Author Review Of Layout	Online 3/1/06; Publish 4/15/06
Synthesis	Author Review Of Editing	Online 7/1/06; Publish 8/15/06
Management Implications	In Final Policy Review	Online 7/15/06; Publish 9/1/06