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:

April 6, 2006

To:

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (see attached distribution list)

From:

/s/Anne Badgley, Executive Director

Subject:

INTERGOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES FOR MARCH 8, 2006

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)

Red Lion Convention Center, Broadway/St. Johns Conference Room

Time

Topics

Purpose

Presenter

8:30 a.m.

• Introductions and Agenda Overview
• Membership changes
• Certification of the notes process

House-keeping

Facilitator
Anne Badgley, REO

8:45

OPENING REMARKS

Opening

Linda Goodman, IAC Chair

8:50

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

Facilitator

9:00

BLM PLANNING UPDATE

Info

Mike Mottice, BLM

9:30

STATE OF OREGON

Info

David Morman, OR Dept. of Forestry

10:30

Break

10:45

HOOPA TRIBE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

Info

Nolan Colegrove, CIFFMC

11:45

Lunch

12:45

• Survey and Manage
• Other Litigation

Update

Roger Nesbit, DOI Regional Solicitor’s Office

1:15

MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS OVERVIEW

Stage setting

Anne Badgley, REO

1:20

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT/MONITORING SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

Update

John Laurence, PNW

1:50

FIRE-PRONE SYSTEMS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

Update

Dave Powers, EPA

2:20

Break

2:35

• Marbled Murrelet and Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Planning Updates
• NOAA Critical Habitat and Recovery Planning
• Other

Info sharing

3:15

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

House-keeping

Facilitator

3:20

Closing Remarks

Linda Goodman, IAC Chair

3:30 p.m.

Adjourn

Topic: WELCOME & OPENING REMARKS

Presenter/IAC Sponsor: Linda Goodman, IAC Chair

Summary: Linda Goodman opened the meeting, thanked both the participants and presenters, and highlighted a few of the presentations.

Topic: BLM PLANNING UPDATE

Presenter/IAC Sponsor: Mike Mottice, BLM (Alternate)

REO Contact: Debbie Pietrzak, BLM Representative

Issue Statement: An update was provided regarding ongoing BLM resource management plan (RMP) revisions.

Summary: The BLM in Oregon is revising RMPs for the Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, Coos Bay and Medford Districts, and a portion of the Klamath Falls Resource Area in the Lakeview District. All six plan revisions are being developed through a single planning process that will result in one environmental impact statement and six district-specific RMP decision documents. The plan revisions are being conducted consistent with direction in the O&C Act, Endangered Species Act, and all other applicable statutes. Contingent upon funding, the revisions are scheduled for completion by December 2008.

Mike Mottice presented information on progress made to date. The BLM has been meeting regularly with cooperators, including representatives from federal and state agencies, and local governments. Tribes are also involved in the planning process through government-to-government consultation. The BLM welcomes participation in this planning process, and recently hosted six public workshops to discuss preliminary alternatives. Four preliminary alternatives have been developed in addition to a "No Action" alternative. Sub-alternatives and opportunities for sensitivity analyses have also been identified. Although the alternatives use different approaches to meet plan goals and objectives, each alternative meets statutory requirements, and each satisfies the purpose and need for this plan revision.

Additional updates will be provided to the RIEC and IAC as the planning process moves forward. Publications including Analysis of the Management Situation and Proposed Planning Criteria and State Director Guidance have been distributed to the public and are available through the Internet. For further information, contact Dick Prather, Project Manager, at 503-808-6627, or access the BLM Western Oregon Plan Revision website at: http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr.

Topic: "FORESTRY PROGRAM FOR OREGON" AND INDICATORS OF SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY

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

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

REO Contact: Teresa Kubo, EPA Representative

Issue Statement: Information was presented regarding the Forestry Program for Oregon ongoing development of indicators of sustainable forestry.

Summary: David Morman, Forest Resources Planning Program Director with Oregon Department of Forestry presented information on the Forestry Program for Oregon and described the Oregon process for developing sustainable forest management indicators. The IAC discussed potential use of common indicators across the forest landscape, and members were supportive of the Board’s collaborative approach to sustainability.

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 for management of Oregon forests, and is built around seven strategies. Under 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 to ensure these are the appropriate and measurable indicators to use in evaluating Oregon's performance. Once finalized, these core indicators can be used to focus monitoring, assessments, and research – and to help tell the story of how Oregon forests are managed.

The process used to develop indicators is both technically- and value-driven. The set of resulting indicators are intended to be meaningful to Oregonians and responsive to their concerns. The Board is interested in sharing information and in pursuing and enhancing Federal and non-Federal participation in development and use of sustainable forestry indicators. For additional information regarding the Forestry Program for Oregon and development of sustainable forest management indicators, visit the Oregon Board of Forestry website at: www.oregonforestry.org.

Topic: HOOPA TRIBE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

Presenter/IAC Sponsor: Nolan Colegrove, California Indian Forest and Fire Management Council (Alternate)

REO Contact: Anne Badgley, Executive Director

Issue Statement: Merv George had suggested at the last IAC meeting that the committee would benefit from a presentation by Nolan Colgrove regarding the Hoopa Tribe’s challenges and successes with forest management.

Summary: Nolan Colegrove presented a richly illustrated overview of the efforts, lessons learned, and management practices used by the Tribe. He also provided copies of Evergreen Magazine (Winter 2005-2006) which is dedicated to Forestry in Indian Country: Models of Sustainability for our Nation’s Forests? which contains a wealth of articles outlining Tribal views on forest health and sustainability, stewardship activities, and success stories.

Topic: LITIGATION

Presenter: Roger Nesbit, DOI Regional Solicitor’s Office

IAC Sponsor: Linda Goodman, IAC Chair

REO Contact: Anne Badgley, Executive Director

Issue Statement: Roger Nesbit provided an update on recent litigation related to the Northwest Forest Plan.

Summary: Roger Nesbit chronicled the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines through the history of the Northwest Forest Plan. He discussed the most recent court ruling by U.S. District Judge, Marsha Pechman, concerning the Survey and Manage issue. This ruling reinstated the Survey and Manger mitigation measure as described under the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, plus amendments and modifications of the 2001 Survey and Manage Record of Decision that were in effect as of March 21, 2004. The Government has provided guidance to the field regarding the new rule and is seeking further clarification on the ruling regarding projects other than timber sales.

Topic: MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS OVERVIEW

Presenter/IAC Sponsor: Anne Badgley, Executive Director

Summary: Anne provided a quick overview of the management implication topics presented at the April 2005 IAC meeting, activities since that time, and an introduction for the topics being presented at this meeting.

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

Presenters: Kristi Young, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and Dave Powers, Environmental Protection Agency

IAC Sponsor: Bernie Weingardt, Forest Service, Region 5

REO Contacts: Kristi Young, FWS Representative, and Shawne Mohoric, FS Representative

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

Summary: Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) monitoring results indicate that forests in fire-prone regions of the NWFP are at risk and that risk reduction treatments are needed to reduce resource loss from wildland fires. Updates regarding the various subcommittee activities were provided at this meeting.

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 looking into several areas: Budgets, Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) habitat management in dry forests Riparian Reserves, and Riparian Reserve treatments.

Status:

Budget (FS Region 5 lead): Field units indicated that budget reductions have limited the amount of fuels reduction work being accomplished. Fire and budget staff from FS Region 5 and 6, and the BLM are in the process of reviewing and comparing funding criteria for hazardous fuels treatments. A follow-up report will be presented to the RIEC at a future meeting to discuss findings and recommendations.

Riparian Reserves (EPA lead): Field units reported that, in many cases, Riparian Reserve (RR) areas are avoided for fuels treatments due to concerns with ESA consultation, lack of science on treatment effects, analysis burden, etc. The focus of this action will be to examine a few areas where fuels reduction treatments in RRs are successfully occurring, facilitate a lessons-learned dialogue, and technology transfer based upon these findings.

NSO Habitat (FWS lead): Field units reported fuels treatments are often avoided in NSO habitat in fire-prone forests. The second of two workshops is scheduled for May 16-18, 2006 in Ashland, OR. This workshop will look at ways to implement several of the recommendations from the 2005 Managing Northern Spotted Owl Habitat in Dry-Forest Ecosystems workshop in Redmond, Oregon. Other efforts that will be given emphasis from the 2005 workshop include: Providing a provincial-level context for prioritizing risk reduction activities; instituting a collaborative, interagency process at the Forest/District level to prioritize risk reduction projects; and, implementing interagency planning of risk reduction projects.

Topic: ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT & MONITORING SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE

Presenter: John Laurence, Pacific Northwest Research Station

IAC Sponsor: Bov Eav, Pacific Northwest Research Station

REO Contact: Becky Gravenmier, PNW Representative

Summary: At the October 18, 2005 RIEC meeting, a list of Priority Questions or topics to be addressed by monitoring or research activities 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 which topics should be considered as a priority. The RIEC will consider IAC input as they make decisions on priorities and corporate questions. The goal for the March 8 IAC meeting was to provide a status update to the IAC regarding the adaptive management and monitoring related tasks.

Background: After the April 2005 NWFP Science Conference, 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. The RIEC set up a subcommittee led by Jim Golden (FS, Region 6) and Tom Quigley (PNW) to address adaptive management. A small staff group, led by Lisa Freedman (FS, Region 6) and John Laurence (PNW) was convened to investigate tasks that might improve adaptive management and refine NWFP monitoring efforts which included three main tasks that involved developing:

(1) Adaptive Management Framework: Based on the first decade of implementation experience, it appears that adaptive management effectiveness can be improved 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 draft framework was shared with IAC for their consideration.

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 and that a list of Priority questions that can be used to focus learning activities must be developed.

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: A subgroup of the Adaptive Management and Monitoring subcommittee staffed out priority topics from the prior RIEC prioritization exercise to identify corporate questions, options for answering these questions, and potential costs of these options. Meetings were held to provide an opportunity for key agency staff to meet with the task group members to answer questions and clarify the monitoring staff work. The RIEC provided input on priorities at the October 18, 2005 meeting. The IAC provided input on top issues at the November 2005 meeting.

John Laurence reviewed the progress to date on the development of priority questions with the IAC. The RIEC started with over 60 potential questions that were generated from current monitoring efforts, IAC advice, and other sources. The RIEC asked the Senior Managers Group (SMG) to help sort through these topics and develop recommendations on priority questions and potential options for monitoring. Recommendations from the SMG will be discussed at the March 17 RIEC meeting.

(3) Management Experiment Template: John Laurence provided an update on the template development that will be used for extensive management experiments. "Management Experiments" are well-designed, agency-led administrative studies undertaken as an integral part of management itself and not solely as research projects, as part of an active adaptive management process. The template will outline a series of design, implementation, and monitoring steps needed to create a management experiment that compares land management strategies, and that produces scientifically and operationally valid conclusions about the continued application of those strategies. 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. Figure 1 illustrates how management experiment templates can be used in association with the Adaptive Management Framework.

Discussion Notes: The following general discussions occurred concerning the adaptive management framework and the development of the management experiment template:

• A concern was expressed about how legal requirements and the need for change will work with the adaptive management framework. It was suggested that the use of conceptual models will enable managers to "quantify" change and determine if management is on the right track, or if a change in management is needed. Some changes may lead to the need to revise land use plans but this is unlikely.
• The potential relationship between the Adaptive Management Framework and the FS new planning rule’s Ecosystem Management System (EMS) was discussed. It was suggested that the EMSs would be implemented locally and would be specific to individual land use plans and monitoring needs. Line officers will select key elements to monitor plan indicators and provide feedback. It was suggested that priority questions and monitoring at the local level may be able to be rolled up and nested within regional priority questions and monitoring. It was suggested to have an EMS presentation for the IAC in the future.
• The use of decision support models was briefly discussed. The Aquatic and Riparian monitoring module uses decision support models as part of the monitoring protocol.

Next Steps (who/what/when): On March 17, the RIEC will finalize a set of priority questions and discuss options for monitoring based on IAC input, subcommittee findings, and recommendations, and committee discussions. The RIEC will consider IAC input as they make decisions on priorities and corporate questions in February. The IAC will receive an update on RIEC decisions regarding priority questions and options for monitoring in the near future.

Topic: MARBLED MURRELET DELISTING AND SPOTTED OWL RECOVERY PLAN UPDATES

Presenter/REO Contact: Kristi Young, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Representative

IAC Sponsor: Dave Allen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Summary: Kristi Young 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 intended to contract out the writing of the revised recovery plan. A request for proposals was posted on January 19, 2006. The solicitation period closed on February 17, 2006.

NAME

NAME

PRESENTERS, STAFF, & GUESTS

Badgley, Anne (REO)

McVay, Rocky (Assoc. of OR/CA Counties)

Morman, David (OR Dept. of Forestry)

Birch, Kevin (OR State)

Motanic, Donald (ITC)

Busch, Dave (USGS, REO)

Brong, Elaine (BLM, OR/WA)

Mottice, Mike (BLM, OR/WA)

Collier, Kath (REO)

Colegrove, Nolan (CIFFMC)

O’Donovan, Col. Thomas (COR)

Gravenmier, Becky (PNW, REO)

Cothren, Daniel (WA State Assoc. of Counties)

Powers, Dave (EPA)

Harris, Gary (FS, R6)

Crouse, Mike (NOAA)

Shevock, Jim (NPS)

Jenkins, Laurie Lee (NPS, REO)

Davies, Bruce (NWIFC)

Shipley, Frank (USGS)

Loomis, Becky (REO)

George Jr., Merv (CIFFMC)

Smith, George (ITC)

Haske, Mike (BLM, OR/WA)

Golden, Jim (FS, R6)

Swedeen, Paula (WA Dept. Fish & Wildlife)

Knopp Chris (FS, R5)

Goodman, Linda (FS, R6)

Thome, Darrin (FSW, CA/NV)

Nesbit, Roger(DOI Regional Solicitor’s Office)

Graham, Bob (NRCS)

Tidwell, Tom (FS, R5)

Mohoric, Shawne (FS, R6, REO)

Lahti, Glenn (BLM, CA)

Tuttle, Crawford (CA State Resources Agency)

Morris, Steve (NOAA, Fisheries, REO)

Laurence, John (FS, PNW)

Woolley, John (CA Counties)

Pietrzak, Debbie (BLM, REO)

Loop, Curt (COR)

Tamez, Sonia (FS, R5)