Regional Ecosystem Office
333 S.W. First Avenue 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

Based on discussions at the meeting, a copy of the preliminary draft Northwest Forest Plan Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was distributed to all IAC members at the meeting, and faxed to the full IAC on April 2, 2003 for review. Comments and suggestions should be sent to Dave Busch, Acting Regional Ecosystem Office Director, by April 8, 2003.

Feedback from the IAC meeting and non-Federal member pre-briefing was very favorable. Based on the success of the pre-briefings, we plan to continue providing this service as needed to address specific needs and topics. A number of IAC members commented on how informative the social and economic factors panel was. For those of you who were not able to attend the meeting, we have included abstracts of the presentations made by the socio-economic panelists.

As a reminder, our next meeting is scheduled for August 5, 2003 and will be held in the Portland area. Further details regarding this meeting will be forthcoming.

If you have questions or concerns about the enclosed notes, please do not hesitate to contact REO Management Analyst Kath Collier or me.

Enclosures:

• April 2002 IAC Meeting Notes
• Panelist abstracts

1811/kc

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Distribution List

California

Mary Nichols, California Resource Agency, State Representative
Jen Carville, California Resource Agency, State Representative (Alt)
John Woolley, Humbolt County, CA Counties
Joan Smith (Alt)

Oregon

Peter Green, Forest Policy Advisor, Office of the Governor
Lance Clark, Resource Analyst, Office of the Governor (Alt)
Rocky McVay, Representative of Oregon Counties
Gil Riddell (Alt)

Washington

Robert Nichols, Senior Executive Policy Assistant, Office of the Governor
Karin Berkholtz, State Representative (Alt)
Albert McKee, Representative of Washington Counties
Daniel Cothren, Wahkiakum County Commissioner (Alt)

Tribes

Merv George, Jr., Executive Director, CA Indian Forest & Fire Management Council
Nolan C. Colegrove (Alt)
David Herrera, Fisheries Manager, NW Indian Fisheries Commission
Bruce Davies, Policy Analyst, NW Indian Fisheries Commission (Alt)
Jim Anderson, Executive Director, NW Indian Fisheries Commission
Katie Krueger, Environmental Policy Analyst, Quileute Tribe
George Smith, Intertribal Timber Council
Don Motanic, Intertribal Timber Council (Alt)
Gary Morishima, Intertribal Timber Council

Federal Agencies

Dave Allen, Regional Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Steve Thompson, California/Nevada Operations Office Manager, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
John Engbring, California/Nevada U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Alt)
Phil Detrich, Project Leader, Yreka FWO, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Alt)
Elaine M. Brong, Oregon/Washington State Director, Bureau of Land Management
Judy Nelson, Chief, Branch of Biological Sciences, OR/WA, Bureau of Land Management (Alt)
Michael Pool, California State Director, Bureau of Land Management
Paul Roush, Wildlife Biologist, Bureau of Land Management, Arcata, CA (Alt)
Jon Jarvis, Regional Director, National Park Service
Art Eck, Deputy Regional Director, National Park Service
Jim Shevock, Associate Regional Director, National Park Service (Alt)
Linda Goodman, Deputy Regional Forester, Forest Service, R-6
Lisa Freedman, Director, Strategic Planning Forest Service, R-6 (Alt)
Kent Connaughton, Deputy Regional Forester, Forest Service, R-5
Kathy Anderson, R-5 Forest Service, Liaison (Alt)
Bob Graham, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Col. Richard W. Hobernicht, District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Curt Loop, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Alt)
Anne Kinsinger, Regional Biologist, US Geological Survey Western Region
Dave Busch, USGS/REO (Alt)
Robert Lohn, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service
Mike Crouse, Assistant Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service (Alt)
Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, Western Ecology Division, Environmental Protection Agency
Dan McKenzie, Western Ecology Division, Environmental Protection Agency (Alt)
Dave Powers, Environmental Protection Agency
Dan Opalski, Environmental Protection Agency (Alt)
Stan Speaks, Area Director, Portland Area Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Alex Whistler, Wildlife Biologist, Portland Area Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs (Alt)
Ron Jaeger, Area Director, Sacramento Area Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Tom Quigley, Station Director, Forest Service, PNW
Cindi West, Deputy Station Director, Forest Service, PNW (Alt)

ISSUE SUMMARY

ISSUE SUMMARY

REO Contact/Phone: Dave Busch, Acting Executive Director (503) 808-2192

Topic: Updates on Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Issues and Projects

Summary: This portion of the meeting was devoted to updating IAC members on the Survey and Manage (S&M) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), the 2002 Annual Species Review results, the Aquatic Conservation Strategy SEIS, and the status and review for Northern Spotted Owl and Marbled Murrelet. In addition, Tribal members reported on a Tribal Monitoring meeting held March 31, 2003. Survey and Manage SEIS - Dick Prather, SEIS Team Lead The Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) continue to move forward with implementation of the S&M mitigation measures of the NWFP, as amended in January 2001. At the same time, the BLM and the FS are moving forward with the preparation of a SEIS to meet the requirements of a settlement agreement pursuant to a lawsuit by Douglas Timber Operators against FS and BLM. Three alternatives have been developed: Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Remove the S&M measures from the NWFP and instead rely on other elements of the NWFP and existing FS Sensitive Species and BLM Special Status Species programs to provide habitat for rare or little-known species. Alternative 3: Modify the S&M Program. This alternative stipulates that: - "Rare" species should continue to be covered under the Survey and Manage program - "Uncommon" species should be removed from the Survey and Manage Program (26 total) - Pre-disturbance surveys should be required only in stands that have been classified as late successional old growth - Responsibility to review exceptions to manage known sites and exceptions to pre-disturbance surveys should be shifted from the Regional Ecosystem Office to the line officer above the proposing official. The SEIS team hopes to have a draft document completed by May 9, 2003. The IAC will receive rush copies, and if interest exists, the REO will organize meetings to facilitate IAC input. 2002 Annual Species Review (ASR) - Jay Watson, USFWS/REO The 2002 ASR of S&M species has been completed. The ASR is an adaptive management provision for the S&M program. Its purpose is to evaluate new information accumulated on individual species and serve as the mechanism by which species are added to or removed from the S&M list, or moved between S&M categories. Following is a summary of the 2002 ASR results: Total number of species reviewed: 313 Number of species for with no management category change: 293 (94%) Number of species removed from S&M in all of their range: 8 Number of species removed from S&M in part of their range: 5 Number of species that were removed and will need to be reviewed for sensitive status: 4 Number of species remaining in S&M but with management category change: 8 Number of species moved into a pre-disturbance survey requirement: 1 Preliminary estimate of known sites released for other resource considerations: 2075 Number of species with approved range change (extensions and contractions): 23 Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) SEIS - Joyce Casey, SEIS Team Lead The FS and BLM have prepared a draft SEIS for language changes to the NWFP ROD. The agencies are proposing these changes in order to clarify how the NWFP was intended to be implemented. There has been confusion over the scale at which attainment of ACS objectives is to be assessed. This confusion has resulted in an inability to fully implement all parts of the NWFP. The current timeline for this effort is as follows: November 2002 - Notice of Intent to prepare SEIS published in the Federal Register December 2002 - Scoping letter sent to over 3,000 interested parties April 2003 - Draft SEIS issued (available at http://www.reo.gov/acs/) July 10, 2003 - Comments on Draft SEIS must be postmarked or date stamped August 2003 - FSEIS release scheduled September 2003 - ROD signed Summary of process to date: - Over 400 scoping comments received (could be a letter, postcard, or e-mail). Many comments were more general to the NWFP and did not focus specifically on the proposed action. However, scoping did identify a lack of clarity in the proposed language. - The draft SEIS has two alternatives - the Proposed Action and the No Action. Other alternatives were suggested in the scoping process, but none were responsive to the purpose and need. - Effects of the proposal were difficult to determine. Neither alternative changes how individual projects would be implemented, but may influence the types of projects that are implemented. All effects would be within the range of what was analyzed for the 1994 FSEIS. The proposed action is identified as the preferred alternative in the draft SEIS. - The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior will sign the ROD. This means there will be no agency administrative review of the decision. 5-Year Review of Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) and Marbled Murrelet (MaMu) - Barry Mulder Task: The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) will conduct a 5-year review of the status of the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet Scope: Evaluate new information (existing and already summarized) available since the listing of these species (NSO - 1990; MaMu - 1992) to determine if a change in listing status is warranted. The analysis will focus on changes in condition and trends in the following factors (further guidance will be forthcoming in early April): Habitat Changes, e.g., distribution/fragmentation/quality, fire effects/land exchanges, rates/types of harvest, habitat definitions as they relate to changes in acreage estimates, new GIS data/maps, etc. Population Changes, e.g., demographic analyses/results, analytic methods, surveys, distribution, and other factors such as predation, competition-barred owls, genetics, gill nets/off-shore spills, etc. Management Direction, e.g., NWFP, HCPs, tribal plans, State regulations, etc. Timeline: Final completion date is December 31, 2003 (draft due August 31) IAC members were asked to identify contacts to support information gathering and use, and reviews. IAC members with an interest can contact Barry Mulder, FWS, 503-872-2805. Tribal Monitoring - Dave Herrera Tribal Representatives and Tribal Monitoring Coordinators met on March 31, 2003 to discuss tribal monitoring module implementation and the role of the tribes in that process. Participants agreed on the importance of maintaining open communication lines, and recommended to the RIEC that the Tribal Monitoring Advisory Group be re-energized. The RIEC concurred with this recommendation. IAC Tribal Representatives indicated that re-invigorating this subcommittee would meet the concerns outlined in their February 10, 2003 letter to the RIEC chair and REO Executive Director. The Tribal Monitoring Advisory Group will coordinate with the Monitoring Program Managers and the Interagency Monitoring Team (Jon Martin, lead) to provide advice.

ISSUE SUMMARY

Presenter/Sponsor: Shawne Mohoric / Elaine Brong

REO Staff: Dave Busch, Acting Executive Director (503) 808-2192

Topic: Update on Revised NWFP MOU

Issue Statement: The NWFP MOU expires in October, 2003 and needs to be revised to reflect changes in plan implementation

Summary of Discussion: RIEC Chair, Elaine Brong, reviewed recent discussions of the RIEC to guide revision of the current MOU. She also reviewed her recent trip to brief Departmental officials on behalf of the RIEC. There is a high comfort level at the Cabinet level with the key points in the draft MOU, and with the regional executives' development of those points for the final MOU. The RIEC is planning to complete a revised draft MOU by April 25, which would be forwarded to Departmental officials along with a request to convene an Interagency Steering Committee meeting. A presentation was given that addressed advice, comments, and questions that had surfaced from three separate meetings/conference calls with the IAC. Components of the draft framework were presented including organizational structures. IAC comments were addressed in relationship to the draft MOU framework and these components. Other interagency structures, such as existing interagency workgroups, were described during the presentation. Time lines were shared as well. Advisory committee members indicated their comments had been adequately addressed to this point. The RIEC agreed to share the current working draft MOU with non-Federal IAC members and to consider advice provided by the IAC (see actions in cover letter for details).

IAC Agreements: To review and provide comments on the draft MOU by April 8, 2003

Next Steps (who/what/when): Create a final draft of the MOU.

Questions

PAC Charters - In response to a question about the status of FACA rechartering for the PACs, it was pointed out that they had not yet been rechartered. The Forest Service (Region 6) is working through this process currently. REO will check with Region 6- Public Affairs and report on the status of this action to the IAC shortly.

Housekeeping

Meeting evaluation: Favorable comments were received regarding the panel and socio-economic information, as well as the prebrief session and ACS presentation. Participants felt that they may benefit from additional conference calls (as part of the prebriefing process), and that the timeframe for the meeting may need to expand beyond a single day. Some members offered to provide their advice on the various SEIS reviews at the meeting.

Public Comments: No public comments were received.

Status Reports: No questions regarding the two status reports (Healthy Forests Initiative - Proposed Forest Service Categorical Exclusions and Port Orford Cedar Supplemental EIS) were received.

Handouts:

Preliminary draft Northwest Forest Plan Memorandum of Understanding, and copies of the slides from the presentation

Proposed agenda (single sheet)

RIEC/IAC Contact list

April 1, 2003 Prework

Abstracts (attached) and copies of the handouts from the presentations

Survey and Manage Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Status Report

Future Potential Topics: The following suggestions for topics were made; REO will add these to the list of potential topics for future agendas:

Social/Economic monitoring progress

Stewardship contracting

Proposed FS planning rule

Fire - Biscuit Fire (and other fires) and the relationship of rehabilitation to the NWFP

Healthy Forest initiative

Be sure to mark your calendars for April 28-30, 2003, for the "Innovations in Species Conservation" symposium. Assistant Interior Secretary Craig Manson is the keynote speaker and RIEC Chair Elaine Brong will provide the summation address at the close of the conference.

April 2003 IAC Meeting Attendees

Attachment: Socio-Economic Panelist Abstracts

Building and sustaining public acceptance of resource management decisions: the importance of context

Judgments represent public beliefs grounded in an understanding of the implications and consequences of the particular belief. Fostering judgments of public acceptance is essential to effective and sustainable implementation of public resource management decisions. Too often, however, adverse judgments stymie resource management programs and policies, irrespective of their scientific or economic soundness. The tendency often is to dismiss these as ignorant of the factual basis of a policy or as simply a reflection of self-centered interests. To improve organizational awareness of the importance of the judgment formation process and the bases from which such judgments arise, and to help build capacity to improve interactions with the public, a comprehensive review of knowledge, research, and experience in this area was undertaken. This includes an assessment of the state-of-knowledge regarding the factors that shape, sustain, and alter public judgments about the acceptability of forest management conditions and practices.

A suite of factors affect the judgment formation process, with technical and scientific information only one factor. Two elements are particularly important. First, acceptability judgments are almost always conditional and contextually-bound; that is, the answer to whether a given practice is socially acceptable often is, quite literally, "it depends"--e.g., on the place or the scale at which a policy is to be implemented. Second, judgments are provisional, driven by changes in both the context within which judgments are made (e.g., public trust of individuals and organizations, previous experiences) as well as by shifts in population, driven by such things as immigration. These changes are not random; to understand them we need better information about the factors that influence their formation and better processes for soliciting and processing such information. Five basic strategies are recommended:

· treat social acceptability as a process,
· develop organizational capacity to respond to public concerns,
· approach trust building and maintenance as a central long-term goal,
· provide leadership to create shared understandings,
· focus on the larger context within which forest landscapes are managed.

The research has applications for future social science, such as social assessments, socioeconomic monitoring, and the development of typologies of forest-based communities in the Pacific Northwest.

Contact person: George H. Stankey, Research Social Scientist, Human and Natural Resource Interactions Program, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, Oregon. ghstankey@fs.fed.us

The following related publication is available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/:

Shindler, Bruce A.; Brunson, Mark; Stankey, George H. 2002. Social acceptability of forest conditions and management practices: a problem analysis. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-537. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 68 p.

Understanding change in forest-based communities in the Pacific Northwest

The emphasis on ecosystem-based approaches to resource management, coupled with a growing awareness that human systems are part of ecosystems, have resulted in heightened demand for socioeconomic information at the community level across large bioregions. This work presents an approach for delimiting communities in the Northwest Forest Plan region that will be used in characterizing socioeconomic change. This work also responds to an increasing recognition on the part of decision-makers, researchers, resource managers, and the public about the complex, dynamic, and interrelated aspects of rural communities and forests. As such, this work contributes to understanding the attributes of sustainable forest management related to rural communities in the region.

Parts of this work have been published in PNW Research Station General Technical Reports, were used by the State of Oregon in their effort under the Montréal Process to assess progress towards sustainable forest management (presented to the public and to the Board of Forestry in Oct 2001), and are contributing to the Socioeconomic Monitoring Module of the Northwest Forest Plan.

Contact person: Ellen Donoghue, Research Social Scientist, Human and Natural Interactions Program, Pacific Northwest Research Station, edonoghue@fs.fed.us.

The following related publications are available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/:

Donoghue, E.M. (in press). Delimiting communities in the Pacific Northwest. Gen.Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-570. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 51 p.

Donoghue, E.M.; Haynes, R.W. 2002. Assessing the viability and adaptability of Oregon communities. Gen.Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-549. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 13 p.

Elmer, D.M.; Christensen, H.H.; Donoghue, E.M., comps. 2002. Understanding the links between ecosystem health and social system well-being: an annotated bibliography. Gen.Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-559. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 47 p.

Christensen, H.H.; McGinnis, W.J.; Raettig, T.L.; Donoghue, E. 2000. Atlas of human adaptation to environmental change, challenge, and opportunity: northern California, western Oregon, and western Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-478. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 66 p.

Paul Sommers, Northern Spotted Owl region: Framework, trends update, and community level monitoring recommendations. USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Cascadia Field Center, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, February 2001.

ABSTRACT

This report examines economic and social trends in the coastal northwest region impacted by the listing of the Northern Spotted Owl and the subsequent actions of federal agencies implementing the President's Northwest Forest Plan. A brief literature review in the report supports the conclusion that there is no generally agreed on model or framework that links federal land management decisions to economic changes and social impacts. This report proposes a regional economic model framework to meet this need, and examines county level data to see if these data confirm some of the key linkages in the proposed model. However, an examination of timber harvest trends vis á vis forestry and wood products employment data at a county level reveals no systematic association. Trends in employment within the spotted owl region suggest stronger economies in metropolitan areas and those counties adjacent to metropolitan areas. Comparisons of counties by type of economic base and by policy impact category revealed few consistent patterns of change over the 1990s, whether the owl counties are considered as a group, or compared to non-owl counties. Community level data must be assembled to adequately test this proposed socioeconomic impact model, using longitudinal surveys, or matched sets of counties impacted by policy change and similar counties unaffected by policy change.

Assessment of the Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative

A study conducted by
Forest Community Research
P.O. Box 11
Taylorsville, CA
(530) 284-1022

Abstract

Contact Person: Jonathan Kusel or Lita Buttolph (Lita@FCResearch.org) for further information.

Forest Community Research, 4438 Main Street, P.O. Box 11, Taylorsville, CA 95983
telefax: 530-284-1023, http://www.FCResearch.org

Socioeconomic Monitoring in the Northwest Forest Plan Area:
Phase III

Abstract

Phase III of the Northwest Forest Plan socioeconomic monitoring program was initiated in Fall 2002. The monitoring effort focuses on changes in the production of goods, services, and employment opportunities from federal forests under the plan, changes in forest-based communities since the plan was implemented, and links between the two.

The key monitoring questions being addressed are:

· Have Forest Service and BLM units been producing a predictable supply of timber sales, non-timber forest resources, and recreational opportunities since the NWFP was adopted?

· How has the supply of forest products and services from federal forests in the NWFP area contributed to social and economic well-being at the local, regional, and national levels since the Plan was adopted?

· What values and environmental qualities associated with federal forests in the NWFP area are important to stakeholders, and how well are they being provided for under the NWFP?

· How have community and economic assistance strategies and opportunities associated with the NWFP contributed to building community capacity in the NWFP area?

· How have relationships between federal agencies and local communities changed since the NWFP was implemented, and what has been the changing role of communities in participating in forest stewardship activities?

The socioeconomic monitoring effort is currently in the data collection phase. Monitoring methods include a combination of forest and associated community case studies, analysis of existing socioeconomic data from national and regional databases, analysis of existing resource, contracting, grant, and employment data from Forest Service and BLM databases, stakeholder interviews, and literature reviews. Monitoring results will be available in December 2004, together with recommendations for how Agency managers and other stakeholders can use them to support land management and planning.

For updates and additional information regarding the socioeconomic monitoring module and the other modules associated with the Pacific Northwest Interagency Regional Monitoring Program, go to: www.reo.gov/monitoring