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:

May 25, 2005

To:

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (see attached distribution list)

From:

/s/Anne Badgley, Executive Director

Subject:

INTERGOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FIELD TRIP & MEETING PREWORK FOR MAY 31 - JUNE 1, 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., Calif. 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
May 31, 2006 Field Trip Agenda
Juan de Fuca Conference Room, Red Lion Convention Center, Port Angeles, Washington

Time

Topics

Purpose

Presenter

7:30 a.m.

• Sign In, collect meal funds, and emergency form; distribute field trip packet

House-keeping

REO Staff

8:15

• Introductions and Opening Remarks

House-keeping

Anne Badgley, REO
Linda Goodman, USFS
Karen Rogers, Mayor, Port Angeles
Rory Westberg, NPS
Bill Laitner, NPS
Frank Shipley, USGS

9:00

BOARD BUS - DEPART

Elwha Restoration and Monitoring

9:30

• History of the Elwha Project
• Elwha KlallamTribal Issues

10:10

BOARD BUS - DEPART

10:30

• Cost and Challenge of Elwha Project
• Aquatic Populations
• Salmon Restoration

11:00

BOARD BUS - DEPART

11:15

• Elwha Research Consortium

Brian Winter, NPS (Moderator)
Bill Eaton, Peninsula College
Jerry Freilich, NPS

12:00

BOARD BUS - DEPART

12:15 p.m.

Stop #4: Altair Campground

Lunch

1:00

• Fish Restoration Plan
• Freshwater Research

Brian Winter, NPS (Moderator)
Pat Crain, NPS
George Pess, NOAA

1:50

Walk to Bus

2:00

BOARD BUS - DEPART

Time

Topics

Purpose

Presenter

2:20

• Revegetation Plan
• Riparian Systems

• Bull Trout and River/Wadeable Stream Monitoring
• Biogeochemistry
• Marbled Murrelets
• NSO Monitoring Program & Fisher Conservation

Cat Hawkins Hoffman, NPS (Moderator)
Sam Brenkman, NPS
Steve Perakis, USGS
Marty Raphael, PNW
Patti Happe, NPS

4:00

BOARD BUS – DEPART TO HOTEL

4:30 p.m.

• Closing reminders for evening session, meeting times and location

House-keeping

Facilitator

Northern Spotted Owl Hooting Field Trip

6:30 p.m.

• Orientation

Patti Happe, NPS (Moderator)

6:50

Stop #1: Morse Creek Overlook

Overview/ Education

Scott Gremel, NPS

7:00

BOARD BUS - DEPART

7:40

• Refreshments
• Northern Spotted Owl Presentation
• USGS Barred/Spotted Owl Interaction Study

8:30

BOARD BUS - DEPART

8:50

Stop #3: Owl Hooting

Scott Gremel, NPS
Patti Happe, NPS

9:30 p.m.

Arrive at Red Lion Hotel

Topic: FIELD TRIP LOGISTICS

REO Contact: Anne Badgley, REO Executive Director

Issue Statement: As you can see from the above agenda, we have a full day packed with many stops and speakers. To ensure that we can meet this schedule, it would be helpful if everyone is on time.

What to wear/bring: It will be important that you wear comfortable shoes for taking short walks and standing to hear presenters. Attendees are advised to wear long pants and to bring a long-sleeve shirt to wear at field stops. You may also want to bring a rain coat, umbrella, hat, camera, and an extra beverage of choice (water will be provided during the day).

About the Elwha: The Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams were built on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington in the early 1900s blocking access of anadromous fish such as salmon and steelhead to over 70 miles of stream habitat, 95 percent of which lies within Olympic National Park. The dams provided one-third of the power needs for a single pulp mill in nearby Port Angeles. Remaining fish populations are limited to the lowest five miles of stream and are a fraction of their historic sizes. The federal licensing process for the two nonfederal dams began in 1968. To resolve the licensing issue, Congress enacted the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act (P.L. 102-495) in 1992. The Secretary of the Interior determined that both the Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams must be removed to meet the goal of the act, which is full restoration of the Elwha River ecosystem and native anadromous fisheries. Field trip speakers will provide you with the latest information on the dam removal process and implications.

Additional information regarding the history of the Elwha Dams can be located on the National Park Service website at http://www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee
June 1, 2006 Agenda
Juan de Fuca Conference Room, Red Lion Convention Center, Port Angeles, Washington

Time

Topics

Purpose

Presenter

8:00 a.m.

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

House-keeping

Anne Badgley, REO

8:10

OPENING REMARKS

Opening

Linda Goodman, IAC Chair

8:20

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

House-keeping

Anne Badgley, REO

8:30

FIELD TRIP EVALUATION AND DEBRIEF

Feedback/ Advice

Anne Badgley, REO

8:45

LINKAGES AMONG REGIONAL MONITORING INITIATIVES

Field Trip Closure

9:45

• Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan Update
• Biodiversity Workshop
• Other?

Info sharing

10:00

IAC ROUND TABLE

Moderator

Anne Badgley, REO (Moderator)

10:20

• Future meeting dates & topics

House-keeping

Anne Badgley

10:25

Closing Remarks

Linda Goodman, IAC Chair

10:30

Adjourn

Topic: WELCOME & OPENING REMARKS

Presenters: Linda Goodman, IAC Chair

Issue: Linda Goodman will open the meeting, discuss the meeting goals, and highlight a few of the scheduled presentations.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information [ ] Discussion [ ] Decision

Topic: LINKAGES AMONG REGIONAL MONITORING INITIATIVES

Sponsor: Rory Westburg, National Park Service

Presenters: Cat Hawkins Hoffman (NPS), Jerry Freilich (NPS), Steve Acker (NPS), Dave Busch (USGS), and Representative (State of Washington)

REO Contact: Dave Busch, USGS Agency Representative

Issue Statement: This panel discussion will cover key monitoring approaches being implemented in the Pacific Northwest.

Background: IAC members will hear about various aspects of the Olympic National Park monitoring program on the May 31 educational field trip. During the June 1 meeting, a panel of presenters will discuss linkages among the National Park Service network-based Vital Signs monitoring approach, the monitoring program being implemented for the Northwest Forest Plan, and that being coordinated by the State of Washington Governor’s Monitoring Forum. IAC members will have an opportunity for questions and comments about how efficiently such monitoring efforts are being coordinated.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information [ x ] Decision

Topic: LITIGATION UPDATE: Survey and Manage Environmental Impact Statement

REO Contact: Anne Badgley, REO Executive Director

Background: The Northwest Forest Plan included the Survey and Manage (S&M) Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (S&G), which provides protection for approximately 296 rare or little-known species of plants and animals associated with late-successional, old-growth forests.

January 2004 - the BLM and FS released a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) which amended 28 land and resource management plans within the range of the northern spotted owl by removing the S&M Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines.

August 1, 2005 - This action was challenged in court by a coalition of environmental and conservation groups. On August 1, 2005, Judge Pechman issued an Order (Northwest Ecosystem Alliance et al. v. Mark E. Rey et al., No. 04-844P, W.D. Wash) that found the agencies deficient in three areas. Defendants failed to:

1. Analyze potential impacts to S&M species if they are not added to or are removed from the FS and BLM respective programs for special status species.
2. Provide a thorough analysis of their assumption that the late-successional reserves would adequately protect species that the S&M standard was introduced to protect.
3. Disclose and analyze flaws in their methodology for calculating the acreage in need of hazardous fuel treatments. Part of the cost analysis was similarly flawed because it relied on the acreage in need of hazardous fuel treatments in calculating the cost of the Survey and Manage standard.

January 9, 2006 - Judge Pechman signed an Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Injunctive Relief (Northwest Ecosystem Alliance et al. v. Mark E. Rey et al., No. 04-844P) that:

1. "The Record of Decision dated March 22, 2004, entitled "To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl" (the "2004 ROD") is hereby set aside, and Defendants shall not rely on it or implement it."
2. "The Record of Decision dated January 2001, entitled "Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines" (the "2001 ROD") is hereby reinstated, including any amendments or modifications to the 2001 ROD that were in effect as of March 21, 2004." [e.g., including results of the 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Species Reviews (ASR)].
3. "Defendants shall not authorize, allow, or permit to continue any logging or other ground-disturbing activities on projects to which the 2001 ROD applied unless such activities are in compliance with the provisions of the 2001 [sic] ROD (as the 2001 ROD was amended or modified as of March 21, 2004)."
4. "No project or activity enjoined under this Order may occur unless and until this Court modifies or vacates this Order." [or the agencies bring the activities into compliance with the 2001 ROD].

The FS and BLM have contracted for the preparation of a Supplement to the 2004 SEIS which will respond to the inadequacies found by the Court. See below for schedule. Following issuance of a Final Supplement, the Agencies plan to issue a new Record of Decision by no later than March 20, 2007.

• The Court’s order prohibits implementing projects that do not comply with the 2001 Record of Decision for S&M and any amendments or modifications to that ROD that were in effect as of March 21, 2004.
• The Court’s ruling affects all categories of projects that disturb habitat for S&M species found within the range of the Northern spotted owl.

• Draft SEIS published, begin 90-day public comment period: June 30, 2006
• Final SEIS expected to be published in mid-to-late December 2006
• Record of Decision expected to be signed by March 31, 2007

Topic: LITIGATION UPDATE: Aquatic Conservation Strategy

REO Contact: Anne Badgley, REO Executive Director

Background: The Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision of 1994 (NWFP) included the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) which was developed to restore and maintain the ecological health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems on public lands.  The ACS consists of a system of riparian reserves, a system of key watersheds, requirements and procedures for conducting watershed analysis, and a program of watershed restoration.

In March, 2004, the NWFP was amended to clarify how the ACS is to be applied.  This decision responded to the agencies' underlying need for increased ability to successfully plan and implement projects under the NWFP. The language of the 1994 ROD had hindered the agencies' ability to follow the NWFP principles and achieve its goals. Key elements of the amendment were designed to clarify that the proper scales for federal land managers to evaluate progress toward achievement of the ACS objectives are the fifth-field watershed and larger scales, and that ACS objectives should not be expected to be achieve at the project scale. For more information see www.reo.gov/library/ACS.

Status: In May, 2004, several parties challenged the 2004 Record of Decision (ROD). Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Ass’ns v. National Marine Fisheries Service, No. C04-1299-RSM (W.D. Wash. March 28, 2006). The plaintiffs alleged National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) violations, asserting that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the amendment fails to assess the impact of eliminating the requirement that each project must be consistent with attainment of ACS objectives, fails to disclose scientific disagreement with the amendment, and fails to assess a reasonable range of alternative. The plaintiffs also alleged ESA violations, asserting that the "no-jeopardy" conclusions in the FWS' and NMFS' biological opinions on the amendments are arbitrary and capricious.

Oral arguments were held in November, 2005. In March, 2006, Magistrate Judge Theiler issued initial Findings and Recommendations that the biological opinions (BiOps) from FWS and NMFS were arbitrary and capricious but the Forest Service and BLM adequately complied with NEPA. The Magistrate has recommended to the District Court that the Court grant Plaintiffs summary judgment on the ESA issue regarding the validity of the NMFS and USFWS Biological Opinions, and grant the Government summary judgment on the adequacy of the ACS amendment SEIS.

On the ESA claims, the magistrate first found that the BiOps were "final agency actions" subject to judicial review, despite the absence of an Incidental Take Statement (a "license" to take, that the government argued was necessary for a BiOp to be a reviewable "action" under the APA). Although the magistrate acknowledged the general concept of tiered consultation, she found that the BiOps in issue "adopt[] a wholesale deferral of analysis to the project level, [and therefore] it cannot be said that the agencies satisfied their burden to ‘make certain’ that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habit." Furthermore, deferral of analysis to site-specific project consultations "improperly curtails the discussion of cumulative effects." The magistrate also faulted the BiOps for premising their no-jeopardy findings in at least significant part on the assumption that a discretionary analytical process will be applied in later project consultations. Finally, because reliance on future site-specific consultations as justification for the BiOps is impermissible, the agencies failed to provide a reasoned analysis to distinguish these BiOps from earlier BiOps, which had relied on ACS consistency for their no-jeopardy determination.

On the NEPA claims, the magistrate rejected plaintiffs’ claims that the ACS SEIS’s tiering to the 1994 NFP SEIS was arbitrary and capricious. While the magistrate found "troublesome" the agencies’ "blithe assertion that the amendments to the ACS impose no fundamental changes," and is simply a clarification of the NFP’s original intent, she acknowledged the "absence of evidence that the action agencies presumed [a requirement for] project-level ACS consistency in rendering their 1994 [SEIS]." Plaintiffs did not show that the expected increased project activity following the ACS amendments were not originally accounted for in the1994 SEIS. It also appeared to the magistrate that impacts would be disclosed in project-specific analysis. The magistrate also found that the ACS SEIS adequately responded to the oppposing views of FEMAT scientists regarding the role of ACS objectives. Finally, the magistrate refused to find the agencies’ narrow objectives, and hence the "Proposed Action, No Action" range of alternatives, unreasonable.

The U.S. District Court will review the magistrate’s opinion, objections/responses of the parties, and any potential oral arguments. The District Court has not issued a ruling to date.

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 are periodically 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 these reports. Notes: Updates on where to find these reports online included on page 8.

2. Revisit creative funding solutions (similar to the USFWS agreement using National Fire Plan dollars). Notes: The field trip on August 17, 2005 included examples of creative multi-agency funding sources.

3. Future Field Trips. It was previously suggested that a field trip to Washington be planned. This meeting includes a field trip in the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Notes: Logistical recommendations were incorporated into the 2005, 2006 field trips. Additional feedback will be requested on the 2006 field trip on June 1, 2006.

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. An update from BLM occurred at the March 8, 2006 meeting. An update from the Forest Service is planned for the November 2006 meeting.

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. Future Field Trips: Notes: (a) 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.

4. Tribal Recommendations: A presentation related to Tribal Recommendations/Success Strategies was presented at the March 8, 2006 meeting. Notes: Additional follow-up from the Tribal Monitoring subcommittee was received on May 18, 2006.

Topic: WHAT’S NEW ON THE WEB?

REO Contact: Anne Badgley, REO Executive Director

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

Topic

Status

Est. Date to Printer

Marbled Murrelet

Final Layout

Online by 5/30/06; Publish 7/15/06

Socioeconomic

At the printer

Online; Publish 5/30/06

Synthesis (includes Management Implications)

Parts 1 & 2 in Layout; Part 3 in Final Policy Review

Draft online by 7/15/06; Publish 8/15/06

Synthesis Summary

Being written

Online by 8/15/06; Publish 9/30/06

Status of other Reports to be published by BLM/FS

Topic

Status

Est. Date to Printer

Tribal

Editing map

To printer and on-line by 5/20/06

Implementation Summary

Completed

To printer and on-line by 5/12/06

Information Management

Revising for policy review comments.

To printer and on-line by 6/1/06