Intergovernmental Advisory Committee
333 SW 1st
P.O. Box 3623
Portland, Oregon 97208-3623
Phone: 503-808-2165 FAX: 503-808-2163

                 Memorandum

Date:       April 20, 2001

To:           Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members (see distribution list)

From:       Stephen J. Odell, Executive Director

Subject:   Agenda & Pre-work for May 2001 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting


Enclosed is the proposed agenda and supporting pre-work materials for the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) meeting scheduled for May 3, 2001. The meeting will be held at the World Trade Center, located at 121 SW Salmon, in the Mezzanine 2,3, & 4, from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

During this meeting, we will be exploring and providing advice on the future direction of Adaptive Management Areas (AMA). Please review the enclosed AMA Network pre-work and, in particular, the AMA Network Strategy, and Program of Work listed first on the agenda. In the morning, several presenters will be setting the stage for you by describing the original conceptual vision, preliminary findings evaluating AMA activities, and the recent work of the AMA coordinators. As in the previous IAC advice process, we will be requesting your comments in small group discussions, and then reporting and concluding in a group discussion.

Other topics include an overview of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Framework (which has several similarities to the NFP), how IAC advice was used in the development of the draft Aquatic Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Plan, and the FERC/ACS short-term questions and answers, and long-term questions. In addition, there are several hot topics and status reports on related ongoing projects.

For lunch, we are blocking out space at a nearby restaurant for an informal gathering for outgoing agency representative Harold Belisle. We will be coordinating your orders and making arrangements to speed along your meal.

If you have questions about the meeting, please contact your agency representative, Kath Collier, REO Facilitator (503-808-2179) or me (503-808-2165). I look forward to seeing you at the meeting.

Enclosures:
AMA briefing material

1629
cc: Presenters, REO, PAC DFOs

Distribution List:

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Distribution List
California
Mary Nichols, CA Resource Agency, State Representative
Maria Rea, CA Resource Agency (Alternate)
Francie Sullivan, Representative of CA Counties

Oregon
Peter Green, Forest Policy Advisor, State Representative
Lance Clark, Resource Analyst, State Rep. (Alternate)
Rocky McVay, Representative of Oregon Counties

Washington
Robert Nichols, Senior Exe. Policy Assistant, State Rep.
Karin Berkholtz, State Representative (Alternate)
Albert McKee, Representative of WA Counties

Tribes
Travis Britton, Forester, CA Indian Forest & Fire Mgmt Council
David Herrera, Fisheries Mgr, NW Indian Fisheries Commission
Bruce Davies, Policy Analyst, NW Indian Fisheries Com. (Alt)
Jim Anderson, Exec. Director, NW Indian Fisheries Com. (Alt)
Katie Krueger, Envir. Policy Analyst, Quileute Tribe (Alt)
George Smith, Intertribal Timber Council
Theodora Strong, Yakama Nation (Alt)
Gary Morishima, Intertribal Timber Council (Alt)

Updated 3/22/2001

Federal Agencies
Anne Badgley, Regional Dir, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Michael Spear, CA/NV Op Office Mgr, FWS
John D. Buffington, Regional Dir, USGS Western Region
Michael Collopy, Center Dir, USGS Western Region (Alt)
Col. Randall J. Butler, Dist Engr, U.S. Army Corps of Engrs
Davis Moriuchi, Dep Dist Commander, U.S. Corps of Engrs
Donna Darm, Acting Reg Adm, National Marine Fisheries Ser
Mike Crouse, Acting Asst. Reg Adm, NMFS (Alt)
Dave Powers, Environmental Protection Agency
Harv Forsgren, Regional Forester, Forest Service, R-6
Nancy Graybeal, Deputy Regional Forester, FS, R-6
Brad Powell, Regional Forester, FS, R-5
Bernie Weingardt, Deputy Regional Forester, FS , R-5
Bob Graham, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Thomas J. Mills, Station Director, Forest Service, PNW
Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, Western Ecology Division, EPA
Robert Lackey, Western Ecology Division, EPA (Alt)
Stan Speaks, Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Dave Renwald, Portland Area Office, BIA (Alt)
Ron Jaeger, Area Director, Sacramento Area Office, BIA
William Walters, Deputy Regional Director, National Park Service
Kathy Jope, Natural Resources Team Leader, NPS
Jim Shevock, Associate Regional Director, NPS (Alt)
Elaine Zielinski, State Director, OR/WA, Bureau of Land Mmgt
Ed Shepard, Deputy State Director, OR/WA, BLM
Michael Pool, State Director, CA, BLM (Alt)
Paul Roush, Wildlife Biologist, BLM, Arcata, CA

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) Meeting
AGENDA
Thursday, May 3, 2001 - 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Time	Potential Agenda Topics	Purpose	Presenter
9:30	Welcome, Introductions, Certify November 2000 Meeting notes, & Review February 2001 Agenda • Recognize Harold Belisle, outgoing BLM REO representative	Logistics	Harv Forsgren
9:40	Future Direction of Adaptive Management Areas • Overview of Advice and Input-Sharing Process (5) • Original Conceptual Vision for AMAs (15) • Planning Framework and NFP S&Gs for AMAs (15) • Preliminary Findings of Pending Research on AMAs (20) • Recent Work of AMA Coordinators (20)	Solicit & Receive Advice	Steve Odell Jerry Franklin Lisa Freedman Geo. Stankey Ward Hoffman
10:55	Break (Lunch-by-number sign-up)
11:05	Future Direction of Adaptive Management Areas (Cont'd) • Framing of Issues for Small-Group Discussion (10) • Small-Group Discussions (45) • Small-Group Reporting (30)	Solicit & Receive Advice	Steve Odell & Kath Collier
12:30	Lunch (Lunch-by-number for who signed-up at a.m. break)
1:30	Future Direction of Adaptive Management Areas (Cont'd) • Plenary Discussion + Consolidation • Transcription of IAC Advice	Discussion & Summary	Steve Odell Harv Forsgren
2:00	Opportunity for Public Comment	Feedback	Harv Forsgren
2:15	Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Framework	Information	K. Connaughton Steve Clauson
2:45	Feedback on IAC Advice • Aquatic Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Plan • FERC/ACS Short-Term Q&As and Long-Term Questions	Status & Feedback	Harv Forsgren Dave Busch Steve Morris
3:05	Hot Topics • Litigation Update on NFP-related cases • Research Findings on Thinnings in Dense, Younger Stands	Information Update	Steve Odell Dan McKenzie
3:15	Opportunity for Questions on Status Reports	Clarification	REO Reps
3:20	Meeting critique, Assignment and Agreement Review, Review of potential August 2001 Meeting Agenda, Closing Comments	Closing	Harv Forsgren Kath Collier
3:30	Adjourn

Potential Status Reports:
• National Fire Plan Implementation
• Lower Umpqua Land Ownership Adjustment Program (LULOAP)
• Implementation of Survey and Manage Program

Theme for Bonus-Prize Questions: National Forests (Sorry, all Forest Service Reps are ineligible)

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Presenter/Sponsor: Steve Odell (503-808-2166)

REO Contact/Phone: Bill Kirchner (503-808-2171), Shawne Mohoric (503-808-2175)

Topic: IAC Advice on Adaptive Management Areas.

Issue Statement: To present and receive preliminary policy advice from the IAC on how Adaptive Management Areas are managed now and in the future and how to best utilize and share information learned in the adaptive management process.

Background: A central component of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) is a network of 10 Adaptive Management Areas (AMAs) established in California, Oregon, and Washington. These areas were designed to test technical and social approaches to achieve desired ecological, economic, and other social objectives. Citizens, managers, and scientists are encouraged to learn together. Locally specific and individualized approaches were to provide opportunities for flexibility, discretion, and adaptation. This goal of the AMAs sets them apart from other land allocations. The management of matrix and reserve lands is grounded in a set of prescriptive, region-wide Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs), while the AMAs explicitly are recognized as areas where innovation, testing, and experimentation are both expected and appropriate. By implication, it also brings into question the extent to which the S&Gs are applicable within AMAs. Much has been accomplished in AMAs, including strong collaborations with communities and research partners and innovative approaches to forest management and economic development. The development of AMA plans brought together interested stakeholders, scientists and communities to discuss opportunities for testing alternative technical and social approaches to forest management, conducting research and monitoring, and enhancing ecological and economic conditions. Recently the AMA land managers and coordinators drafted an Adaptive Management Area Network Strategy and Program of Work. This document outlines goals and objectives for using AMAs as centers of learning and sharing and implementing the adaptive management concept. Much has been accomplished across the AMA landscape but the "performance" of the AMAs had fallen short of expectations. We need to evaluate what can be accomplished with expected budgets and skills and match expectations with capabilities. Additionally, recent research findings by George Stankey and Bernard Bormann, Pacific Northwest Research Station, evaluate the AMA network performance and suggest potential opportunities for enhancing the effectiveness of the AMA concept. In May 2000 the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) released a final policy paper on the S&Gs for AMA's for distribution to the field by the Regional Interagency Executive Committee. The purpose of this document is to provide background and clarification of the role of the S&Gs relative to AMA management. It provides a discussion of the purpose, rationale, and vision of the AMAs, as presented in the ROD with additional historical context from FEMAT. It also links the generic concept of adaptive management to the AMAs. Finally, it identifies those S&Gs with which AMA managers and scientists need to be particularly concerned.

IAC Advice Topics: The RIEC requests IAC advice on how the AMA concept can be used more effectively for learning and making needed NFP course corrections. 1. Next steps for the AMA network AMAs are an integral and important component of the NFP strategy as they are designed to be centers of learning and experimentation. As you recall from the pre-work and presentations, there is a wide variety of expectations on what should be delivered. We do not have the resources to fully support all 10 AMAs. Should we look at options for keeping the network as it exists or focus our resources in some other way? For example, reducing the number of AMAs or concentrating resources in fewer areas? 2. Information-sharing Currently there is no formal approach in place for sharing information about lessons learned. A regional approach would benefit all. Does the IAC want to be briefed on these lessons? And if so how? What other forums should be used regionally for sharing information such as lessons learned or studies underway? 3. Using new information Currently there is no formal process in place to change the NFP from lessons learned in the AMA network. Changing the plan is at the heart of adaptive management. Clearly a process is needed. Can the IAC play an active role to help champion case studies or lessons learned to effect needed changes? Should the IAC be used as a forum to bring forward options and recommendations for changes? 4. Other Observations What advice can you give about the Draft Strategy and Program of Work, including the proposed actions? What criteria should be used to prioritize the work? Are there other observations the IAC would like to share about Adaptive Management Areas?

Process: Steve Odell will present and frame the agenda topics, as well as the specific issues described above on which advice would be most useful to the RIEC. The IAC will then split into four subgroups. The subgroups will be asked to respond to two or more of the four questions listed above. The views expressed in the subgroups will be discussed with the full committee. A consolidated list will be developed as guidance for the Adaptive Management Areas. This topic will conclude with a discussion of next steps and the role of further IAC involvement in formulating that direction.

Action Required: X IAC Discussion & Advice

 

STATUS REPORT

REO Contact/Phone: Ken Mabery 503-808-2170

Topic: The National Fire Plan

Background: In August of 2000, President Clinton asked the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to prepare a report recommending how best to respond to the severe fires of 2000. This included how to reduce the impacts of these wildland fires on rural communities and how to ensure sufficient firefighting resources in the future. Additionally, the President asked for actions that Federal agencies in cooperation with States and local communities could take to reduce immediate hazards to communities in the wildland-urban interface and to ensure that fire management planning and firefighter personnel and resources are prepared for extreme fire conditions in the future. In response, the Secretaries developed the National Fire Plan which includes five key points: Firefighting preparedness for next year and the future; rehabilitation and restoration of landscapes; hazardous fuels reduction to reduce risk; community assistance to ensure adequate protection, and; accountability for oversight of coordination, program development and monitoring. Hundreds of communities in OR, CA, and WA are in wildland-urban interface areas at risk from catastrophic wildfire. Agencies and governments are building a long-term strategy to create successful outcomes. Partners include the State departments of forestry and fire and natural resources, the governor's offices, county officials, state fire marshals, Tribes, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Forest Service (FS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Much progress is being made with interagency and intergovernmental collaborations to meet the goals of the plan.

Status/Update: Firefighting Preparedness and Community Assistance: Grant recipients were selected in all States to receive millions of dollars to improve fire preparedness, train and equip local firefighters and volunteer and county fire departments, and to carry-out projects to reduce urban-rural interface fire risks. Projects include creating defensible space, removing hazard trees and fuels, creating shaded fuel breaks, and sponsoring educational programs including workshops that involve communities at risk. Agency funds for fire fighting and resource protection have increased significantly to allow for hiring additional firefighting crews and equipment in the FS, BLM, NPS, and FWS and to improve fire-fighting effectiveness. Rehabilitation and Restoration and Ecosystem Health: In FY 2001 the FS and BLM in OR and WA plan to treat over 200,00 acres to reduce fire risk and improve ecosystem health. Approximately 50,000 acres of FS, BLM, NPS and FWS will eventually be treated under the national fire plan to reduce fuel loading. In California, six of 15 restoration projects are in NFP National Forests and account for 80% of the restoration funds the California FS Region received for '01. In Oregon, hazardous fuels reduction projects including prescribed burning will occur in Crater Lake NP and John Day Fossil Beds National Monument. The FWS and NMFS are helping to lead interagency efforts to assure that Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation is part of the solution in implementing projects to reduce risks and hazards of wildfires. To improve ecosystem health, FWS plans to use prescribed fire on approximately 28,000 acres of national wildlife refuge land in Oregon and Washington in 2001. Research Support: Implementation of the national fire plan is science-based. Fundamental and applied research efforts by the FS research stations are being carried out in conjunction with numerous collaborators from western universities, and State and Federal agencies. Sixty-seven research projects funded at 9 million dollars will support the national fire plan. For example, selected projects highlight predictive tools for fire and fuels programs and for quantifying smoke emissions.

 

STATUS REPORT

REO Contact/Phone: Harold Belisle 503-808-2173

Topic: Lower Umpqua Land Ownership Adjustment Project (formerly Umpqua Land Exchange Project)

Background: The FY 2001 Department of the Interior appropriation bill included language directing Bureau of Land Management, in cooperation with the Foundation for Voluntary Land Exchanges (a Non-profit Oregon corporation), to prepare a land-use plan amendment to consider the possible biological and economic benefits of different Federal/private ownership patterns in the lower Umpqua basin. The analysis is to be based on the spatial optimization model that has been developed over the last 5 years under grants from the Forest Service to the Umpqua Land Exchange Project. The legislation envisions that final plan amendments will be completed by December 31, 2002. By that date a draft Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is also to be completed pursuant to Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act for those lands that would become private in land exchanges used to accomplish the plan. Such exchanges and the final HCP are to be completed by June 15, 2003. Congress appropriated $4.3 million to the Foundation (less no more than 15 percent for BLM overhead) to accomplish the objectives of the law. The appropriation bill also requires BLM to identify by March 31, 2001 those parcels in the basin that merit emergency acquisition. The parcels must have willing sellers and feature critical environmental values or face the possibility of imminent development.

Status/Update: Patrick Geehan, formerly the Chief of the Physical Sciences Branch in the BLM Oregon State Office, has been designated Project Manager as part of the BLM's efforts to comply with the law. Immediate objectives are to design a process for identification of emergency acquisition candidate parcels; to negotiate an assistance agreement with the foundation; to develop a long-term business plan to adopt the model and appropriate data, and complete the land use plan amendment. The draft schedule for the project calls for a draft EIS in March 2002 and Final EIS by December 2002. Critical issues anticipated include: consistency with the NFP, including the Aquatic Conservation Strategy and related biological opinions, as well as how available resources are orchestrated to accomplish the schedule established by the appropriations bill. The role of the REO, RIEC, and IAC will be proposed as part of the project planning process. For information on the project, contact Pat Geehan, Project Manager (503-952-6446)

 

STATUS REPORT

REO Contact/Phone: Jay Watson 503-808-2178

Topic: Survey and Manage (S&M) Program Implementation

Background: The S&M Program is initiating the first Annual Species Review as detailed in the S&M Record of Decision and Standards and Guides. At the April 3, 2001 RIEC meeting, a S&M Status Report was presented describing the three-step Annual Species Review Process (ASR) initiated with the signing of the 2001 S&M ROD. It is anticipated the findings of the ASR will be presented to the RIEC in September. Species evaluations have been conducted in the past but only involved a few species. Other continuing S&M activities include: • Distribution of funds to field units, taxa lead orientation (April 17). • Collection, preservation, and identification of S&M specimens (lichens, bryophytes, mollusks, red tree vole, fungi, and amphibians). • Training and direction for implementation of the 2001 standards and guides. • Strategic and pre-disturbance surveys. • Continued use of the Interagency Species Management System. • Development or revision of survey protocols and management recommendations based on new information or changes which may affect species placement in S&M Categories.

Analysis and Options: Annual Species Review. This three-step process for adding, removing, and changing species between categories will result in proposal to be presented to the RIEC in September. This is the first review using information derived from a Random Grid (Strategic Survey) type survey. Funding. Funds to support S&M activities including pre-disturbance surveys have been distributed to the appropriate offices and field units. Taxa Leads and Experts. Leads and experts have been identified for all taxa except mollusks, vascular plants and great gray owl which do not have designated experts. Interpretation of ROD/S&G Questions. The Agency Representative Team (ART) is coordinating the interpretation of about 90 questions raised by the field units during the "rollout" of the new ROD/S&G. Issues involving agency policy will be raised to the Intermediate Management Group (IMG) for disposition. Some issues will necessitate interpretations that will need to be signed at an interagency level. The application of these S&Gs to ongoing projects has drawn a great deal of interest by the field units. Strategic Surveys. This year it is planned to sample 450 randomly selected sites in Washington, Oregon and California in an effort to more clearly define the distribution and abundance of S&M species within the range of the NFP and within matrix and reserve land allocations. During 2000, over 210 sites were sampled. Data analysis has been initiated. In addition to the random sites, known site surveys (21 species), purposive surveys (17 species), and modeling (7 species) will be conducted. The Strategic Survey Framework, to be completed by September, will provide a structure for coordinating these efforts. Pre-disturbance surveys. Pre-disturbance surveys are required for 57 species (Category A and C species). Since the new S&Gs moved some species from categories that did not require pre-disturbance surveys or management to categories that do, some species are without survey protocols or management recommendations. It is planned to complete these additional documents as soon as possible.

Organizational/Funding Implications: Regional and States offices and well as field units will be asked to provide taxa specialists, managers and others for the Annual Species Review Teams, strategic surveys, pre-disturbance surveys and preparation of protocols and management recommendations. Anticipated time commitments for these details will be discussed with appropriate managers.

Potential Future IAC Meeting Topics

August 2

• Concurrence in Process for REO/RIEC Review of Proposed Modifications to NFP Standards and Guides or Land Use Allocations*

• Recommended Survey & Manage Adaptations Arising out of '01 Annual Species Review Process*

• Round 2 of New Science Findings - Several Options for findings to be presented at October '01 meeting**

• Tribal Effectiveness Monitoring Module

• Follow-up to Adaptive Management Area IAC Advice given in May 2001

November 1

• Present Proposed FY02 MPM Program for Monitoring Implementation