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:

February 27, 2004

To:

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members (see attached distribution list)

From:

/s/Anne Badgley, Executive Director

Subject:

INTERGOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA & PREWORK, 10:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m., March 10, 2004

Time

Topics

Purpose

Presenter

10:00

• Introductions
• Certification of Meeting Notes
• Agenda Review

Housekeeping

Linda Goodman
Anne Badgley
Facilitator

10:15

Public Comment Period

Open Forum

Anne Badgley

10:30

• Description of the updated display map

Product Update/ Completed task

Chris Cadwell
Bill Connelly

10:45

Litigation in Review

Information

Sue Zike

12:00

Lunch

1:00

• Formal recommendations on the new process invited

Update, Clarification & Advice

Anne Badgley

1:30

• Written and Oral reports from RIEC members on various subcommittee activities

Activity Reports & Informal Discussions

Moderator:
Anne Badgley Subcommittee Leads

3:00

Break

3:15

• Opportunity for discussion of current and future issues
• Future agenda and potential advisory topics collection

Open
Discussion
Informal Comments

Anne Badgley

4:15

• Review agreements, tasks, and assignments
• Next meeting date and future agenda topics
• Closing Comments

Housekeeping

Facilitator
Anne Badgley
Linda Goodman

4:30

Adjourn

Topic: OPENING ACTIVITIES

Planned Activities: There are several activities that will be occurring in the opening sessions that may be a bit different than in past meetings. This note is simply a "heads-up" for these activities, which include:

Certification of Meeting Notes – We will be asking for any comments or changes to the meeting notes from our last meeting in November 2003. Extra copies of these meeting notes will be available. If no modifications are submitted by the close of the meeting we will assume that they are correct and that they have been certified by default.

Public Comment Period – The public comment period has been moved so that it occurs earlier in the day. This gives us a chance to modify the agenda, if needed, to accommodate discussions, and potentially additional discussions related to public comments that may be received. The time is limited to 15 minutes, unless prior arrangements have been made, and there will be a sign-up sheet at the back of the room.

Local Restaurants – We will provide a list of local restaurants both in the hotel and those that are close by for the noon lunch break.

Refreshments – Water service will be provided during the day. Due to federal procurement regulations, we are not able to provide refreshments at this meeting. You may want to be sure to bring your beverage of choice.

Please let us know if there is anything we can do to help you participate and enjoy the meeting.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information

Topic: UPDATED NWFP LAND USE ALLOCATION DATA

Presenter: Chris Cadwell (BLM, Oregon State Office), Bill Connelly (FS, Region 6)

REO Contact/Phone: Debbie Pietrzak (BLM Rep.), Shawne Mohoric (FS Rep.)

Issue Statement: The Geographic Information System (GIS) data for Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Land Use Allocations (LUAs) has been updated per the RIEC assignment.

Background: The original NWFP LUA data was created at a coarse scale and assembled in 1994. In order to implement the NWFP, the agencies responsible for management of the land allocations and associated data (i.e., the Forest Service [FS] and Bureau of Land Management [BLM]) refined and improved the data over time based on individual agency data standards. In 2001, the RIEC formed an LUA workgroup under the REO to develop interagency data standards and to compile the current agency data into an updated display map. Standards were developed, agency data was compiled, and map products were developed.

The updated map product serves as a snapshot of agency LUA data as of 2003. It represents a significant improvement over the precision, quality, and consistency of the 1994 data. The updated data will support many interagency efforts including: NWFP monitoring, the five-year status review of the Northern Spotted Owl, and other landscape level analyses. The BLM and FS have responsibility for hosting and distributing this data, and map products will soon be available on line to other agencies and to the public.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information [ ] Decision

Topic: LITIGATION IN REVIEW

Presenter: Sue Zike, Litigation Coordinator, FS, R6

REO Contact/Phone: Shawne Mohoric (FS Rep.)

Issue Statement: A number of lawsuits have challenged Northwest Forest Plan management. Sue Zike will provide a litigation status of cases relevant to NWFP implementation.

Background: At the August 2003 IAC meeting, committee members requested a more in depth report regarding litigation history. This presentation was originally scheduled for November but delayed due to an emergency.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information

Topic: IAC RECOMMENDATIONS PROCESS

Presenter: Anne Badgley (REO)

REO Contacts: Teresa Kubo (EPA Rep.), Jay Watson (FWS Rep.), Kath Collier (REO Analyst)

Issue Statement: At the August and November 2003 IAC meetings, discussion was devoted to the process for collecting and tracking IAC recommendations. Based on the questions and needs identified through these discussions, an REO workgroup developed a series of recommendations to improve and clarify the existing process.

Background: Since August of last year, we have been looking at how to improve processes used to collect and track IAC recommendations. Reasons for this stem both from a desire on the part of IAC to see a more responsive system for tracking recommendations, and from the need to satisfy new reporting requirements under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Starting in FY04, all FACA committees must keep an accurate accounting of recommendations received, the number fully and partially implemented, and feedback mechanisms utilized.

At the November 2003 IAC meeting, the REO began to outline changes to the recommendation tracking process and committed to changing meeting documentation so that recommendations would be more clearly identifiable. These proposed changes were favorably received by the committee, but also raised further issues. In particular, the IAC briefly discussed the need to differentiate "comments" from "recommendations," processes related to individual versus group recommendations, and the level of agreement needed for group recommendations.

Since the last IAC meeting, an REO workgroup was formed to clarify the issues raised at the last meeting and to identify a mechanism for tracking RIEC response to specific recommendations. In undertaking this task, the REO workgroup considered IAC input from previous meetings, existing processes for obtaining non-Federal IAC advice, and input from representatives of other FACA chartered committees. Committees consulted for this purpose include the BLM/FS Resource Advisory Committees, the NWFP Provincial Advisory Committees, and the Hanford Reach National Monument Advisory Committee.

Analysis and Options: After considering IAC input, the input of other successful FACA committees, and the need to satisfy FACA requirements, the REO workgroup recommends the following minor modifications and clarifications to the current recommendation collection process:

1. Meeting agendas will clearly identify when formal recommendations/advice will be collected, and on what topics. Formal recommendations/advice collected on the specified topics will be captured and visually displayed at the meeting, and reflected in the meeting notes.
2. Definition of a "recommendation" - As a FACA chartered committee, the IAC is expected to provide formal recommendations/advice "as a group." This process does not preclude formal submission of individual recommendations outside of the committee meeting. Providing formal recommendations/advice "as a group" requires a certain level of agreement. The IAC is not required under FACA, its charter, or its operating principles to operate by consensus. As such, several different meeting processes can be used to help identify areas of agreement. Dissenting opinions will be recorded along with the majority opinion and reflected in the notes. Formal recommendations/advice with group agreement would then be considered by the RIEC as required by the reporting process.
3. Reporting back to IAC on status of recommendations: Following RIEC consideration of IAC formal recommendations/advice, the RIEC will inform the IAC of action taken (if any) on the recommendations received. An update will be presented as a part of the next scheduled IAC meeting, and captured and highlighted in the meeting notes.
4. Use of comments for IAC members: Informal comments or advice generated as a part of information sharing sessions will be summarized in the notes, and may help to identify topics for advice collection in the future. They do not, however, constitute formal recommendations/advice, and will not be reported on, or responded to, as such.

• Clearly identifying the issues slated for formal recommendations/advice collection will benefit IAC members by allowing them to make the most efficient use of their meeting preparation time.
• Helps the RIEC use the IAC member’s time most efficiently and effectively in reviewing and evaluating the formal recommendations/advice.
• Facilitates the RIEC being able to take full advantage of the IAC recommendations by organizing and tracking them in a methodical manner.

Challenges: The IAC members may need to devote additional time to subcommittees, conference calls, etc., to develop formal recommendations/advice. The RIEC may need to spend additional time to consider and evaluate IAC formal recommendations/advice. The REO’s workload may increase for tracking, coordinating analysis, and reporting.

REO Staff Proposal: The REO recommends that the IAC provide formal recommendations/ advice regarding the above modifications and clarifications, and determine if additional steps, such as modifying the IAC operating principles is required/desired.

Action Required: [ x ] Information [ x ] Advice

Topic: NWFP IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEES

Presenter: Anne Badgley (REO)

Issue Statement: The Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) has been evaluating potential implementation improvements to the Northwest Forest Plan. Status reports for the various subcommittee activities follow. Some of the RIEC subcommittees have completed their tasks, others are still in progress, and some have involved creating a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS).

Background: The RIEC has been involved with several steps to improve implementation. These include:

• Clarification of Aquatic Conservation Strategy (SEIS)
• Survey and Manage (SEIS)
• Streamlined procedures

These improvements were developed during RIEC meetings in 2001-2002 and were based on problems that the RIEC identified which included:

• Timber harvest objectives not being met
• High cost of implementation
• Procedural obstacles in implementing plan

In the current round of improvements, the RIEC identified several activities that would help improve implementation which include:

• Follow-up to the Jack Ward Thomas report and recommendations
• Streamlining the consultation process or maximizing programmatic consultations
• Developing an exception to allow Native American Burning in limited areas
• Ensuring clarification of the use of ‘recommendations’ captured in Watershed Analyses
• Evaluating opportunities and requirements to facilitate firewood gathering in Late- Successional Reserves
• Evaluating riparian reserve width standards
• Evaluating various approaches that might improve flexibility within Adaptive Management Areas for research and management.

Action Required: Additional status reports and/or discussions are planned as each of these projects proceeds. The REO is working with the implementing agencies to identify areas where IAC recommendations would be most timely and useful.

Topic: ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AREAS

Team Lead: Anne Badgley (REO)

Presenter: Shawne Mohoric (FS Rep.)

Team: Becky Gravenmier (PNW Rep.), Shawne Mohoric (FS Rep.), Debbie Pietrzak (BLM Rep.)

Issue Statement: At their November 5, 2003 meeting, the RIEC directed REO to provide a brief summary of research projects in Adaptive Management Areas (AMAs) and to identify options for managing AMAs to promote Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) intent.

Background: AMAs encompass over 1.5 million acres or 6 percent of the NWFP area. Ten AMAs were established, each with a unique emphasis for research and testing new approaches for achieving NWFP objectives. AMAs are independent entities and were not established as a network.

On March 11, 2003, the RIEC discussed options for providing a greater degree of flexibility in AMA management consistent with NWFP intent. At that meeting, the RIEC agreed to "…focus on encouraging PIECs to utilize the new delegation criteria to utilize a much broader interpretation of the AMA S&Gs to allow for more innovative activity in AMAs…" In addition, the RIEC agreed to monitor and re-evaluate this decision.

On October 3, 2003, the RIEC asked for a staff and legal review of the NWFP Record of Decision (ROD) and Standard and Guidelines (S&Gs) concerning AMAs, to determine what latitude exists for improving AMA performance to meet NWFP objectives. An AMA policy paper, approved by the RIEC and transmitted by the REO (May 16, 2000), was also reviewed. Findings based on these reviews were presented at the November 5, 2003 RIEC meeting.

With the exception of two provisions of limited application related to woody debris and 15 percent retention requirements, there are no NWFP ROD or S&G provisions for exemptions, exceptions, fast track or other flexibilities due solely to the fact that an activity is proposed within an AMA. Laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act, agency regulations, and procedural requirements (e.g. Watershed Analysis) apply to all activities in AMAs, including research. No NWFP provisions were identified for exempting proposed activities in AMAs from S&Gs for overlapping land allocations (e.g. Late-Successional Reserves, Riparian Reserves). In light of these and related findings, the REO was directed to provide a brief summary of AMA research projects, and identify options for improving AMA management to promote NWFP intent and meet AMA objectives.

Line officers responsible for managing each AMA were sent a questionnaire concerning management and research activities, barriers to program implementation, and suggestions for AMA improvements relative to other program priorities. All ten AMAs responded. Survey results indicate that the AMA goals of experimentation and testing alternative management approaches have been largely unattained. Barriers to managing AMAs (as identified by at least five of the ten AMAs) include:

• Limited funding
• Limitations on AMA management due to application of the S&Gs
• Risk-related issues, e.g., risk-aversion, conflicting interpretations of risk
• Collaborative processes, i.e., complexity, lack of trust, diverse expectations, high cost
• Competing priorities and workloads

The top three suggestions for improvement included:

• Increased funding (new money; not at the expense of other programs)
• Regional leadership, including clarification of expectations and support for priorities
• Changes in land allocation hierarchy and relief from application of S&Gs

All respondents identified a need for increased funding and resources to improve AMA performance, however, seven of ten AMAs indicated that changes to improve AMA management would not be a priority unless new funding was made available. The need to achieve a balance with other work was expressed, and there were concerns that funding may be diverted from other programs to fund AMAs. For a more complete list of barriers and improvements, see the "Summary of Adaptive Management Area Survey Responses" which follows this agenda topic overview.

The AMA review concluded that substantive research is being conducted within the NWFP area. However, very limited work is being done in AMAs to test S&Gs or alternative management approaches. PNW Station sponsored and funded 31 studies under the NWFP from 1999 to 2003. Additional studies were funded by individual programs within the Station. Seven of the PNW Station studies were within AMAs. Of these, only four specifically tested S&Gs or new management approaches (Little River, Applegate, Olympia, Central Cascades) as intended by the NWFP. In addition, PSW Station sponsored projects in California, some of which were in AMAs. Under a recent settlement agreement with the American Forest Resources Council, the BLM and the USFS agreed to conduct research projects in three AMAs (subsequently identified as Central Cascades, Little River, and Hayfork), and to identify projects for these areas in the near future.

Action Required:

[ ] Information [ x ] Discussion [ ] Decision

Detailed Information: SUMMARY OF ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AREA SURVEY RESPONSES

A set of four questions was sent to line officers responsible for managing each Adaptive Management Area (AMA). All ten AMAs responded.

• A pulse of funding during the first five years of NWFP implementation resulted in a corresponding pulse of research and management projects. In addition, the initial focus on AMAs encouraged project development. However, nearly all of the research and management that occurred in AMAs would have been possible in other land allocations.
• Field responses indicate there are different views regarding which types of projects are possible only in AMAs. Field understanding of regional direction varies; some projects appear to have been based on liberal interpretations of the AMA standards and guidelines.

• Substantial research is being conducted under the NWFP. However, very limited work is being done in AMAs to test S&Gs or alternative management approaches. Only four studies under PNW specifically tested S&Gs or new management approaches as intended by the NWFP (Little River, Applegate, Olympia, Central Cascades).
• Field responses indicate there are different views regarding which types of projects actually test S&Gs or new management approaches. Although several projects were 
  listed in response to this question, most appeared to be research which did not test S&Gs or new management approaches.

3. What are barriers to managing your AMA as intended (e.g., S&Gs, funding, organizational or institutional barriers)?

Barriers to Managing AMA as Intended

(#) AMA*

Limited funding

10 (all)

S&Gs: application within AMAs limits management actions

6

Risk: conflicting interpretations of risk; scrutiny associated with AMAs inhibits risk taking; risk aversion; confusion over testing vs. violating the S&Gs; reluctance to advocate projects which may have unpopular outcomes

5

Collaboration: lack of public trust and common vision; lack of skill managing collaborative process; time intensive; short term investment vs. long term benefit; lack of infrastructure; increased public scrutiny; diverse expectations

5

Competing priorities and workloads (especially those which are tied to performance measures and targets, e.g., timber harvest); lack of AMA priority

5

Lack of consulting agency trust and support for flexibility and risk taking in AMAs, as evidenced during consultation; lack of common understanding of AMA concepts and goals among consulting and action agencies

3

Litigation

3

Lack of regional support and clear direction; lack of clarity regarding purpose of AMAs (e.g., must AMA projects contribute to timber output?)

3

Lack of academic research expertise; lack of a strategy for developing key landscape scale questions; difficulty designing landscape scale research

3

Overlapping land allocations

3

Multiple administrative units and multiple managers

2

Ability to test S&Gs is limited by stand conditions within the AMAs

1

Lack of full-time staff

1

Note: PNW scientists also reported barriers and limitations to work within AMAs. These included a lack of adequate funding, lack of regional support, lack of adequate staffing, limitation of S&Gs, administrative hurdles, and the inability to implement landscape level treatments.

1. What specifically would you change?

Potential Improvements to AMAs

(#) AMA*

Increase funding and resources (e.g., more full time staff)

10 (all)

Provide stronger regional leadership and direction; clarify expectations; set priorities and targets; provide more visible regional support for funding, priorities, and targets; support risk taking

7

Change land allocation hierarchy or exempt AMAs from NWFP S&Gs or eliminate AMA land allocation

5

Develop common understanding between consulting and action agencies regarding AMA intent/purpose/goals and risk associated with testing S&Gs

2

Establish incentives and support risk-taking in AMAs

2

Develop and formalize academic/institutional partnerships, including local/community colleges if available

1

Develop a strategy to identify key research questions to test S&Gs

1

Assign AMAs to a single manager/administrator

1

Provide some relief from NEPA requirements

1

Provide more flexibility (e.g., integrated budgets, partner-friendly collaboration tools

1

Focus on a few, adequately funded AMAs

1

Make AMAs a priority for research agencies

1

Eliminate RIEC review

1

Consolidate science advisory role into one scientist

1

In general, respondents believed there was a need for improvements if AMAs were to be managed successfully for experimentation and learning. However, the need to achieve a balance with other work was expressed, and there were concerns that funding may be diverted from other programs to fund AMAs. Seven of ten AMAs indicated that changes to improve AMA management would not be a priority unless new funding is available to implement the changes.

*Summary tables under questions 3 and 4 show the number of AMAs that identified each barrier or improvement. Responses were grouped and paraphrased. Topics are arranged sequentially so that topics with the greatest level of response appear at the top of each list. The tables do not necessarily reflect the specific priority placed on items by individual AMA respondents.

*Summary tables under questions 3 and 4 show the number of AMAs that identified each barrier or improvement. Responses were grouped and paraphrased. Topics are arranged sequentially so that topics with the greatest level of response appear at the top of each list. The tables do not necessarily reflect the specific priority placed on items by individual AMA respondents.

Topic: CALIFORNIA IMPLEMENTATION EFFICIENCIES: ESA CONSULTATION STREAMLINING; PROGRAMMATIC CONSULTATIONS; LSR, AMA, WUI, AND NFP PROJECTS

Team Leads: John Engbring (FWS-CNO, Sacramento), Paul Roush (BLM), Kent Connaughton (USFS)

Presenter: Paul Roush (BLM)

Issue Statement: At the October 2, 2003 RIEC Executive session, the use of ESA program-matic consultations was identified as one of several issues originating from the June, 2003, Jack Ward Thomas NWFP review sponsored by USFS Region 5. Related items included the use of programmatic consultations as a tool to improve overall implementation, particularly for projects in Late-Successional Reserves (LSR) and Adaptive Management Area (AMA) allocations, as well as Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and other National Fire Plan projects.

Action Required: Identify opportunities to complete additional programmatic consultations and to improve implementation efficiencies related to NWFP activities.

Summary of Discussion: The California Executives, (Mike Pool [BLM], Steve Thompson [FWS], Rod McInnis [NOAA-Fisheries], and Kent Connaughton for Jack Blackwell [USFS]), convened an interagency meeting in Redding, California on January 9, 2004 as a follow-up to the October 2 RIEC discussion. Several NWFP related topics were discussed including:

The California Executives will re-convene in late March or early April to focus on four key areas for further discussion and action:

• Formation of a California Level-3 team
• Implementation of National Fire Plan counterpart regulations
• Programmatic consultation approaches
• Effects call criteria dealing with coarse versus fine scale issues, potential alternative approaches to problematic Rothstein interpretations, consistency issues, etc.

IAC Recommendations: None

Topic: PROGRAMMATIC CONSULTATIONS

Team Lead/Presenter: Mike Crouse (NOAA, Fisheries)

Team: Mike Crouse (NOAA-Fisheries) and Terry Rabot (FWS)

Issue Statement: At the October 2, 2003 RIEC Executive session, the use of Endangered Species Act (ESA) programmatic consultations was identified as a potential area where improvements might be possible.

Action Required: Identify and make known completed programmatic consultations related to NWFP activities, and identify other areas where the use of programmatic consultations may be appropriate.

Summary of Discussion: An interagency work group has met several times since October 2003. The group is in the process of collecting information regarding existing programmatic ESA consultations between the FWS, NOAA Fisheries, Forest Service, and BLM. The information is being organized by administrative unit and activity type. Next steps will include analysis of this information to identify consultation gaps (geographical as well as by activity) that can be filled either by expansion of existing programmatic consultations, or by development of new consultations.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information

Topic: AQUATIC RIPARIAN EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PLAN (AREMP) PROTOCOL

Team Lead: Tom Quigley (PNW)/Dave Powers (EPA)

Team: Becky Gravenmier (PNW Rep.)

Update: The AREMP effectiveness monitoring protocol is in the process of being published as a research general technical report by PNW Research Station. The RIEC issue was generally that the science document was being proposed as the publishing source for the monitoring strategy, including the policy decisions that underlie the strategy. The manuscript is being revised to more clearly reflect the separation of the policy calls from the technical information underlying the strategy. Progress is being made; a draft revised manuscript is now in review.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information; Implementation actions in progress

Topic: FIREWOOD GATHERING IN LATE-SUCCESSIONAL RESERVES

Team Lead/Presenter: Anne Badgley (REO)

Team: Kathy Anderson (R5 Liaison, FS) and Shawne Mohoric (FS Rep.)

Issue Statement: Region 5 has two National Forests interested in making firewood collection in some of the Late-Successional Reserves available to the public.

Background: The Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) permit firewood collection in Late-Successional Reserves under certain conditions such as risk reduction treatments, cull decks, or where blow-down trees block roads.

Analysis and Options: On December 29, 2003 Region 5 transmitted a memo to Linda Goodman, RIEC Chair, indicating that four Forests are proceeding to initiate fuelwood harvest within LSRs specific to the guidance outlined within the above listed S&Gs (NWFP, pages C-12 and 13). The Forests are currently altering existing fuelwood harvest regulations and maps, and plan to issue fuelwood harvest permits within LSRs in 2004.

Follow-up Actions: The REO is drafting a response to the Region 5 memo for RIEC Chair signature that will be coming out in early March.

Action Required:

[ x ] Task complete

Topic: NATIVE AMERICAN BURNING EXCEPTION

Team Leads: Jack Blackwell (FS, R5) and John Engbring (FWS – California)

Team: Kathy Anderson (R5 Liaison, FS)

Issue Statement: At the October 2, 2003 RIEC Executive Session, Native American burning in Northern California was identified as an issue requiring further Northwest Forest Plan review.

Analysis and Options: No new information available.

Action Required:

[ ] Information [ ] Decision [ x ] Future Discussion

Topic: WATERSHED ANALYSIS

Team Lead: Elaine M. Brong (BLM)

Presenter: Debbie Pietrzak (BLM)

Team: Debbie Pietrzak (BLM Rep.); Shawne Mohoric (FS Rep.), Kathy Anderson (R5 Liaison, FS)

Issue Statement: At their November 5, 2003 meeting, the RIEC directed REO to provide a brief summary of information pertinent to the recommendations section in Watershed Analysis. The RIEC also asked REO to determine whether the "Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale – Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis version 2.2" (Guide) had been adopted in other locations and, if so, whether this created implications with respect to potential regional changes.

Background: An initial watershed analysis guide was developed by the Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) during the final stages of Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) development to ensure that work on watershed analysis could begin timely. The RIEC adopted the current Guide in 1995, and the BLM and FS have now completed one or more iterations of Watershed Analysis (WA) on approximately 90 percent of the NWFP landscape.

Recommendations were included as the last of six steps in the WA process. Although examples of recommendations were available, they were not included in the Guide. WA recommendations were designed to:

• Be responsive to identified watershed processes;
• Document the logic flow linking issues and interpretations;
• Identify monitoring and research; and
• Identify data gaps and limitations of the analysis.

The original intent was to conduct training on how to use the Guide immediately upon its release. However, since most offices were doing WA by the time the Guide was published, training was deferred pending identification of trouble spots during usage. The following year, courses were offered under the auspices of Provincial Interagency Executive Committees (PIECs). Designated Federal Officials were informed that training would be provided on request; however, no requests were received and no training was conducted.

During early use of the Guide, broad-scale ecosystem terminology was not yet defined for most resource disciplines. A tendency to retreat to finer-scale approaches sometimes resulted in competing, resource-by-resource recommendations at inappropriate scales. Varying levels of understanding and involvement on the part of some line officers also affected the process and WA recommendations. Such recommendations have made some analyses difficult to use and have complicated matters during litigation, as noted in the FS Region 5 NWFP implementation review.

In 2003, the FS Region 6 completed field surveys and workshops to evaluate the efficacy of the regional aquatic strategies, including the NWFP Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS). Preliminary survey results indicate that WA is a critical tool for managing aquatic resources and that the recommendations section in WA provides a critical synthesis and interdisciplinary link for line officers to utilize information. Survey results did not indicate that the recommendations step was problematic in utilizing WA.

The BLM is making effective use of watershed analysis recommendations which are made at an appropriate scale and level of detail. Such recommendations facilitate integration across disciplines, identify opportunities to meet multiple objectives, highlight priorities, and provide context for subsequent analysis.

There is Washington Office level interest in the Guide. In 1998, the regional watershed analysis procedure was mirrored in the national USFS/BLM procedure known as Hydrologic Condition Assessment (HCA). In 2000, a narrative tie was made between the Guide and HCA in the FS national budget direction. Consistent with national implications, the FS Washington Office would be involved in regional changes to the Guide, e.g., changes pertaining to the development of WA recommendations.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information [ ] Decision

Topic: RIPARIAN RESERVES

Team Lead: Mike Crouse (NOAA, Fisheries)

Presenter: Shawne Mohoric (FS Rep.)

Team: Shawne Mohoric (FS Rep.), Debbie Pietrzak (BLM Rep.), Kathy Anderson (R5 Liaison, FS)

Issue Statement: At their November 5, 2003 meeting, the RIEC directed REO to provide a brief summary of: (1) the types of activities occurring within Riparian Reserves (RRs), and (2) adjustments to RR widths.

Background: RRs were established in the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) as interim widths with the expectation that boundaries, particularly for intermittent streams, would be adjusted for site specific conditions based upon Watershed Analysis (WA). Few changes to the interim widths have occurred for a number of reasons, the most predominant being the complex and extensive analysis process needed to make adjustments.

Riparian Reserves are a NWFP land allocation and a key provision of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS). Riparian Reserve widths are described as interim boundaries in the NWFP Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) which provide for changes to these widths after Watershed Analysis, site-specific analysis, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) decision-making have been completed. For permanently flowing streams, the NWFP anticipated that final boundaries would approximate those described in the S&Gs. For intermittent flowing streams, however, it was recognized that there is much variability in hydro-geologic processes and that boundaries would be adjusted to reflect these differences.

The NWFP relies on RRs to accommodate aquatic, riparian and terrestrial species: "Under the ACS, Riparian Reserves are used to maintain and restore riparian structures and function of intermittent streams, confer benefits to riparian-dependent and associated species other than fish, enhance habitat conservation for organisms that are dependent on the transition zone between upslope and riparian areas, improve travel and dispersal corridors for many terrestrial animals and plants and provide for greater connectivity of the watershed. The Riparian Reserves will also serve as connectivity corridors among the Late-Successional Reserves." (S&Gs, B-13).

Between the draft and final SEIS, various mitigation measures were considered to improve confidence that the NWFP would provide for the habitat needs of all late-successional forest-related species. Final mitigation included a measure to increase the size of RRs on intermittent streams from RR Scenario 2 (one-half site potential tree or 50 feet) to RR Scenario 1 (one full site potential tree) in order to provide additional habitat and improve connectivity for a number of species. Many species were evaluated in this additional analysis process, including listed species and Survey and Manage (S&M) species. This mitigation was estimated to benefit 150 or more species and improved ratings on numerous species (Appendix J2, 57-79) including fish, other aquatic species and many terrestrial species. This mitigation is referenced and maintained in the NWFP as follows: "…any analysis of Riparian Reserve widths must also consider the contribution of these reserves to other, including terrestrial, species. Watershed analysis should take into account all species that were intended to be benefited by the prescribed Riparian Reserve widths. Those species include fish, mollusks, amphibians, lichens, fungi, bryophytes, vascular plants, American marten, red tree voles, bats, marbled murrelets, and northern spotted owls. The specific issue for spotted owls is retention of adequate habitat conditions for dispersal" (S&Gs, B-13).

The S&Gs require that to evaluate changes in interim RR widths, the analysis needs to take into account "all species intended to benefit," including those species whose ratings were improved by the added mitigation. This requirement exceeds the current capacity of watershed analysis given that numerous species are either rare, uncommon, or have little information known about their life histories. This has been a major contributing reason as to why so few changes to the interim riparian reserve widths have been accomplished.

Forest Service (FS). In 2003, Region 6 completed field surveys and workshops to evaluate the efficacy of the regional aquatic strategies including the NWFP ACS. Preliminary survey results indicate that in Region 6:

• The aquatic strategies as designed and implemented are meeting objectives
• Active management is occurring in riparian reserves to meet ACS objectives
• WA is a critical tool for managing aquatic resources

The Region 6 surveys indicate there is little effort towards refining boundaries or widths because of the required analysis, complexity, and expense of determining needs for riparian-dependent species. The Region 6 focus is not on adjusting RR widths, but rather on determining appropriate management activities to achieve aquatic conservation goals. Virtually all units reported that management activities can and should occur in RRs within provisions of the ACS. This philosophy is reflected by a wide variety of management activities undertaken in RRs including thinning and prescribed burning. Most Region 6 units indicated they were doing some management in RRs to advance aquatic conservation objectives in both perennial and intermittent streams. Some areas have focused on vegetation management to reduce fire risk to achieve ACS objectives. In all cases, WA has preceded RR management activities. Training was identified as a need to inform and demonstrate the need to actively manage RRs, where needed, to reach ACS objectives.

In 2003, FS Region 5 reviewed how well the NWFP was working in National Forests in California and identified potential implementation improvements. One of the topics examined was RR management. Region 5 review findings include:

• RR widths have not been adjusted as originally intended under the NWFP. Reasons include a concern that WA is too broad-scale for making site-specific adjustments. Prescribing treatments needed to meet ecosystem objectives was recognized as a fundamental requisite for management activities in RRs.
• RR land allocation does not preclude resource management or commodity outputs. Units are implementing a variety of activities within RRs including thinning and fuels reduction projects.
• Where management is occurring, emphasis is on risk management and restoration.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The BLM Districts in California are not adjusting RR widths. However, numerous activities to improve RR characteristics and meet ACS objectives are being accomplished within RRs (e.g., road decommissioning and restoration activities). BLM Districts in Oregon are not focusing on RR width adjustments given the complex analytical process prescribed to accomplish such changes. Efforts were made to utilize that analytical process during the early years of plan implementation. However, the complexity and scope of analysis were found to be disproportionately burdensome and costly compared to the number of acres involved. During watershed analysis and subsequent activity planning, BLM Districts in Oregon have identified needs and opportunities to further ACS objectives through activities in RR. Activities have included road decommissioning, culvert replacement to restore hydrologic function, and stand density management. The Districts have had varying degrees of success in implementing such activities to improve RR characteristics. Barriers to conducting activities in RRs are similar to those that affect activities in other land allocations, e.g., ACS issues which surface during consultation, and implementation requirements associated with Survey and Manage species.

In 2002, the RIEC considered several options to address RR issues, including clarification or revision of the policy on RR width adjustments, and a regional plan amendment to address activities within RRs. Analysis of those options indicated a low probability of achieving the intended benefits, and the RIEC chose not to pursue them at that time.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information [ ] Decision

Topic: JACK WARD THOMAS FOLLOW-UP

Team Leads: Tom Quigley (PNW)/Kent Connaughton (FS, R5)

Team: Becky Gravenmier (PNW Rep.)

Update: The RIEC has been gathering information about ways to improve the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan. The Region 5 review of NWFP activities in California highlighted several topics and options for potential improvement of the NWFP. This review has generated discussions among both the RIEC and IAC committee members. The RIEC has talked with a number of parties, including the scientists involved in the development of the original plan (‘Gang of Four’), agency staffs, and others related to concerns and opportunities highlighted in the Region 5 review. The Jack Ward Thomas follow-up is on-going with many activities in California and continuing discussions among RIEC members and their staff. As the RIEC works through their current set of tasks to address various components of the NWFP, they will continue to meet and discuss options to improve implementation of the NWFP.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information [ ] Decision

Topic: ROUND TABLE OPEN DISCUSSION

Presenter/Sponsor: Anne Badgley (REO)

Background: In August 2003, we initiated an informal Round Table Open Discussion to increase dialog opportunities among committee members for items that may not fit within the normal agenda. Topics within this time may include ‘early alerts’ for upcoming issues and activities, topics for future meetings, agenda items, and any other NWFP issues of interest to the members. It is not our intent to solicit formal recommendations at this time.

1. The status of the REO and REO Geographical Information System (GIS) function
2. Capturing IAC recommendations
3. The State 2003 Forestry Program for Oregon
4. The newly signed MOU for Northwest Forest Management as it relates to the economic viability of local communities, and
5. Clean Water Act lawsuits that may have implications for forest management.

1. NOAA Fisheries re-designation of critical habitat for ESUs and associated policy implications
2. Update on the 5-year status review for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet
3. The NWFP Monitoring Program 10-year report
4. Strategies for Adaptive Management Areas
5. Update on progress of O&C Settlement agreement with respect to Adaptive Management Areas
6. Definition of Old Growth
7. Further clarification of the role of Watershed Analysis in the decision-making process

Several of these topics have been included in this meeting as informational updates, discussion items, and status reports. In addition, we have been working with program leads to determine when other topics, such as the 10-year monitoring report, would best fit into the IAC meeting schedule. We will be collecting ideas on potential future agenda and advisory topics during this time.

REO Staff Proposal: To help keep this segment lively, we are asking that topics needing more than 10 minutes be scheduled as a hot topic or regular agenda item.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information sharing

Topic: FIVE-YEAR REVIEW OF NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL AND MARBLED MURRELET

Presenter/Sponsor: Barry Mulder, Forest Resources, Ecological Services, FWS

REO Contact: Jay Watson (FWS Rep.)

Issue Statement: In January 2003, the Department of the Interior entered into Settlement Agreements with the American Forest Resource Council (AFRC) and the Western Council of Industrial Workers to conduct 5-year status reviews of the Marbled Murrelet by April 30, 2004, and for the Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) by November 15, 2004.

Background: The 5-year review is an assessment of the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review. The FWS has requested from Federal agencies and others (April 21, 2003 Federal Register Vol. 68(76):19569-19571) submission of any new information (best scientific and commercial data) on the NSO and Marbled Murrelet since their original listings in 1990 and 1992, respectively. If the present classification of these species is not consistent with the best scientific and commercial information available, the FWS may, at the conclusion of this review, initiate a separate action to propose changes to the listing classification.

A 5-year review is required by Section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to ensure that a species' listing classification as either threatened or endangered is accurate. The review for this species will assess: (a) whether new information, or analyses of information existing at the time of listing, suggests the species' population is increasing, declining, or stable; (b) whether existing threats are increasing, the same, reduced, or eliminated; and, (c) if any new threats have arisen. The review will consider information such as: population and demographic trend data; studies of dispersal and habitat use; genetics and species competition investigations; and surveys of habitat amount, quality, and distribution.

Organizational/Funding Implications: The FWS has contracted with Sustainable Ecosystems, Inc. (SEI) to review the biological status of the NSO, and EDAW to review the biological status of Marbled Murrelet. These consultants have contacted various Federal researchers to share and discuss their data.

- The deadline for completion of the FWS’ review for the NSO was extended to November 15, 2004, to allow the inclusion of the final report from the NSO demographic NWFP analysis. The deadline for completion of the FWS’ Marbled Murrelet analysis remains April 30, 2004.

Action Required: [ ] RIEC Decision [ ]IAC Recommendation [ x ] Other: Update