Regional Ecosystem Office
333 SW 1st   P.O. Box 3623
Portland, Oregon  97208-3623
Website:  www.reo.gov   E-Mail:  REOmail@or.blm.gov
Phone:  503-808-2165     FAX:  503-808-2163

Memorandum

Date:

April 8, 2004

To:

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members (see attached distribution list)

From:

/s/Anne Badgley, Executive Director

Subject:

INTERGOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES - March 10, 2004

California

•  Luree Stetson, Deputy Secretary, California Resource Agency
            Cathy Bleier (Alt)
•  Joan Smith, Siskiyou County, CA Counties
John Woolley (Alt)

Oregon

• Lance Clark, Office of the Governor
        David Morman (Alt)
• Rocky McVay, Representative of Oregon Counties
        Gilbert Riddell (Alt)

Washington

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

Tribes

• Merv George, Jr., Executive Director, California Indian Forest & Fire Management Council
        Nolan C. Colegrove (Alt)
• David Herrera, Fisheries Manager, NW Indian Fisheries Commission
        Bruce Davies (Alt)
• George Smith, Intertribal Timber Council
        Don Motanic (Alt)

Federal Agencies

• Dave Allen, Regional Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
        Terry Rabot  (Alt)
• Elaine M. Brong, Oregon/Washington State Director, Bureau of Land Management
        Judy Nelson (Alt)
• Kent Connaughton, Deputy Regional Forester, Forest Service, R-5
        Kathy Anderson (Alt)
• Linda Goodman, Regional Forester, Forest Service, R-6
            Jim Golden (Alt)
• Bob Graham, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service
        Dianne Guidry (Alt)
• Col. Richard W. Hobernicht, District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
        Curt Loop (Alt)
• Jon Jarvis, Regional Director, National Park Service
        Rory Westberg (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 (Alt)
• Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, Western Ecology Division, Environmental Protection Agency
        Dan McKenzie (Alt)
• Dave Powers, Environmental Protection Agency
        Dan Opalski (Alt)
• Michael Pool, California State Director, Bureau of Land Management
        Paul Roush (Alt)
• Tom Quigley, Station Director, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station
        Cindi West (Alt)
• Jim Sedell, Station Director, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station
           Garland Mason (Alt)
• Stan Speaks, Area Director, Portland Area Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs
        Alex Whistler (Alt)
• Steve Thompson, Manager, California/Nevada Operations Office, Fish & Wildlife Service
        Phil Detrich (Alt)
         John Engbring (Alt)

Topic:  SUMMARY

Certification of Meeting Notes – The notes were certified with the following change: The distribution list should show Joan Smith as from Siskiyou rather than Humbolt County

 Public Comment Period – No public comments were offered. 

 Status Report Questions:  No questions were offered.

IAC Suggestions for Potential Future Topics:

§         10-year monitoring evaluation progress report
§          Clean Water Act & Salmon
§         Update on Healthy Forest Initiative
§         FS/BLM Planning process/changes to NWFP S&G
§         Nutrient Cycling and other Science topics
§         Update on progress in implementing status of BLM Settlement Agreement

§         RACs’ Effectiveness
§         Agency budget information
§         Discussion of the holes/disconnects between the agencies’ needs, hopes, and available financial resources
§         PNAMP Progress Check in

Topics suggested at prior meetings:

§         NWFP Review in Region 5
§         Compare costs/accomplishments between agencies
§         Proposed FS Planning Rules

§         Healthy Forest Initiative Update
§         The relationship between fire and NWFP rehabilitation

Assignments

REO

Next few weeks

Distribute the new land use allocation map to committee members

Dave Powers

This week

Send PNAMP information to Joan Smith

Dave Herrera

April 16

Ask Tribal folks for their comments on riparian reserves and provide to RIEC

Topic:  UPDATED NWFP LAND ALLOCATION DATA

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

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

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

Summary of Discussion:  The Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are responsible for managing NWFP land allocations and associated data.  In order to implement the NWFP, these agencies refined and improved the data over time based on individual agency data standards.  In 2001, the RIEC formed a workgroup to develop interagency data standards, compile current agency data, and create an updated display map.  The updated display map represents a significant improvement over the precision, quality, and consistency of the original (1994) product.  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 are responsible for hosting and distributing this data, which will soon be available to the public on-line. 

Recommendations/Agreements: None

Next Steps:  The REO will distribute copies of the display map to IAC members and will advise them when map products are available on line.

Topic: PACIFIC NORTHWEST AQUATIC MONITORING PARTNERSHIP (PNAMP)

REO Contact: Dave Busch (USGS Rep.)

Issue Statement: The purpose of PNAMP is to coordinate important scientific information at the appropriate scales needed to inform public policy and resource management decisions among State, Federal, and Tribal entities with responsibility for watershed and salmon monitoring programs in the Pacific Northwest.  The Partnership includes nearly all State, Federal, and Tribal organizations with a common interest in coordinating various aspects of watershed condition monitoring, fish population monitoring, effectiveness monitoring, and management of resulting data. Improved communication, shared resources and data, and compatible monitoring efforts will provide increased scientific credibility and greater accountability to stakeholders.

Summary of Discussion: On behalf of PNAMP, Dave Powers (EPA) told the IAC that this was another of the series of presentations where Partnership members are briefing executive level groups about requirements for policy support and direction by member organizations, commitments of technical resources and staff time, and funding for Partnership coordination.  Support among Northwest Federal, State, and Tribal leadership groups has been strong.  State and County representatives from California expressed an interest in receiving more information on PNAMP.

Recommendations/Agreements: The IAC is interested in being kept abreast of PNAMP developments.

Next Steps: Dave Powers will provide the PNAMP “white paper” to IAC organizations that request it.

Presenter:  Sue Zike, Litigation Coordinator, FS, Region 6

REO Contact:  Shawne Mohoric (FS Rep.)

Issue Statement:  A number of lawsuits have challenged Northwest Forest Plan management.  Sue Zike, Litigation Coordinator for the Forest Service (FS) in Region 6, provided a litigation status of cases relevant to NWFP implementation.

Summary of Discussion: An overview of NWFP litigation was provided including cases involving Survey and Manage and the Aquatic Conservation Strategy.  The Forest Service indicated it is currently managing over 30 open cases.  A review of recent BLM lawsuits was provided as well as recent FS lawsuits.  Handout provided.  

Recommendations/Agreements:  It was suggested that this type of an update be scheduled on a regular basis (perhaps yearly).

Topic:  UPDATE ON IAC RECOMMENDATION PROCESS

Presenter: Anne Badgley (REO)

REO Contact:  Teresa Kubo (EPA), Jay Watson (FWS), and Kath Collier (REO)

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 has developed a series of recommendations to improve and clarify the existing process.

Summary of Discussion:  Anne Badgley explained the history of this issue and reasons for suggesting changes to the processes for collecting and tracking IAC recommendations. It was noted the IAC was formed to advise Federal agencies, the IAC provides both formal and informal advice, and there is no difference between recommendations and advice.

Recommendations/Agreements:  The IAC recommended using procedures that clearly identify recommendations, a standing agenda item be used to follow recommendations and outcomes, and future agenda topics might include: budget issues and trends, partnership opportunities and suggested Adaptive Management Area research ideas.

Next Steps:  Use the recommendations listed above, revisit and evaluate the process next year, and determine if additional processes are needed.

Topic:  NWFP IMPLEMENTATION IMPROVEMENTS ACTIVITIES

REO Contact:  Anne Badgley (REO)

Issue Statement:  The regional executives have been working on ten NWFP implementation improvement activities.  Not all of the topics were discussed at this meeting.  Notes for the items presented follow. 

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.

Summary of Discussion:  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 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 FS 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.

Options Reviewed:  The following options were reviewed and discussed:

Option 1.  Regional plan amendment/NEPA.  Assign a team to develop a region-wide plan amendment/EIS addressing AMA issues.

Option 2.  Regional policy development.  Assign a team to develop regional policy/guidance/ training to address AMA issues.  Note: An interagency policy paper developed in 2000 offered limited latitude in S&G interpretation for research and experimentation.      

Option 3. Focus on existing planning activities:  Agencies address AMA issues during scheduled plan revision processes or through AMA-specific amendments.

Discussion/Decision:  The RIEC discussed the conclusions from the field survey and acknowledged AMAs were not fulfilling expectations under the plan for many reasons outlined in the presentation.  It was decided that the future focus would be on providing changes to AMAs in future planning efforts.  This includes scheduled plan revisions for both the BLM and FS and site-specific amendments undertaken for individual AMAs (the Central Cascades, Little River, and Hayfork).  This approach provides opportunities to adapt and apply lessons learned to other AMAs, and it is consistent with actions under the recent AFRC Settlement Agreement.  The RIEC informed the IAC of their decision in this regard. 

Recommendations/Agreements: None

Topic:  PROGRAMMATIC CONSULTATION

REO Contact:  Steve Morris (NOAA-Fisheries Rep.), Jay Watson (FWS Rep.)

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

Summary of Discussion:  Mike Crouse, NOAA-Fisheries, indicated a list of biological opinions is being compiled by NOAA-Fisheries and the FWS to evaluate the use of programmatic consultations. An interagency meeting was held on January 9, 2004 in Redding, California to identify issues and follow-up steps.

Recommendations/Agreements: None

Next Steps:  FS, BLM, FWS, and NOAA-Fisheries to meet in near future. 

Topic:  WATERSHED ANALYSIS

Team Lead:  Elaine M. Brong  (BLM)

Presenter:  Debbie Pietrzak  (BLM Rep.)

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

Issue Statement:  The RIEC directed REO to provide a brief summary of information pertinent to the recommendations section in Watershed Analysis (WA).  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.  

Summary of Discussion:  The IAC reviewed background information regarding WA recommendations and noted that the FS Washington Office has an interest in potential changes to the WA Guide.  BLM and FS have completed one or more WA iterations on approximately 90 percent of the NWFP landscape since the Guide was adopted in 1995.  The utility of WA recommendations was discussed, e.g., to facilitate integration and synthesis across disciplines, identify opportunities to meet multiple objectives, highlight priorities, and provide context for subsequent analysis. 

Comments made by non-Federal IAC members highlighted the value of WA recommendations in providing linkages between broad and fine scale analyses.  Concerns regarding WA recommend-ations were also discussed, and the RIEC noted their agreement that FS Region 5 prepare a draft memo for RIEC review and potential approval as a regional policy clarification.  The draft would be subject to broad review by REO and other key agency staff, and it would be reviewed in the context of the upcoming Record of Decision to clarify aquatic conservation strategy language. 

Recommendations/Agreements: The RIEC agreed to provide an opportunity for IAC review prior to a final RIEC decision.  It was noted that this action could occur prior to the next scheduled IAC meeting.

Team Lead:  Mike Crouse  (NOAA, Fisheries)

Presenter:  Shawne Mohoric (FS Rep.)

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

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 hydrogeologic 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 125 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. 

FS and BLM field units were surveyed to determine what kinds and to what extent activities were occurring in RRs.  Both agencies reported a wide variety of treatments occurring in RRs to meet ACS objectives including fuels reduction, stand improvement, thinning to accelerate late-seral conditions, road de-commissioning and stream restoration.  However, it was acknowledged that barriers to conducting activities in RRs are similar to those that affect activities in other land allocations (e.g., ACS interpretation, ESA consultation, and implementation requirements associated with Survey and Manage, etc).

In 2002, the RIEC addressed the issue of RR interim boundaries and considered several options, including revisiting the draft RR Module to reduce its complexity and conducting a regional plan amendment and EIS to address Riparian issues.  The RIEC acknowledged that other options are available to address RRs related issues, such as scheduled Forest plan revisions or site-specific plan amendments. 

Discussion/Decision:  The RIEC reviewed options developed in 2002 and discussed additional options, including the opportunity to address RR issues during scheduled plan revisions or site-specific plan amendments.  During the IAC discussion, comments focused on the NWFP intent regarding RR boundary adjustments, and expectations that activities would occur within RRs to benefit Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives and reduce fuel hazards.

A question was raised regarding the extent of Riparian Reserves.  During plan implementation, the extent of RR was found to be greater than anticipated under the NWFP.  It varies across the NWFP area, typically ranging between 40 and 70 percent of the Matrix and Adaptive Management Area land allocation.  There has been an overall downward adjustment of 15 percent in Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ) since 1994.  This reduction took into account several factors, of which refinement of RR estimates was a factor.  A question was raised regarding potential implications from the FS draft planning rule.  Given that the rule has not been finalized, implications are uncertain.  However, FS planning was added to the list of potential future IAC topics.

Next Steps:  Tribal representatives requested an opportunity to provide written comments to the RIEC by the end of March, and the RIEC agreed.  David Herrera, Fisheries Director, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, volunteered to coordinate this effort.  Other IAC members were also invited to send in their comments to the REO.  Responses are due by April 16, 2004.

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

Issue Statement:  The Forest Service, Region 5 Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) review of activities in California highlighted several topics and options for improvement of the NWFP.  This review has generated discussions among the RIEC, IAC, agency staffs, and others including the scientists involved with the original plan (‘Gang of Four’).

Summary of Discussion:  There is a continuing dialog between the RIEC and agency staff regarding potential improvements to the NWFP.  Results of the California review are being reviewed and discussed. This task is ongoing.

IAC Recommendations:  Not requested at this time.  This topic will be considered for discussion at a future date.

Next Steps (who/what/when):  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 the implementation of the NWFP.

Topic:  IAC ROUND TABLE

REO Contact:  Anne Badgley (REO)

Issue Statement:  Topics within this informal discussion time include ‘early alerts’ for upcoming issues and activities, topics for future meetings, agenda items, and any other NWFP issues of interest to the members.

Summary of Discussion:  Several future topics were proposed (see Potential Future Topics on page 1) including:

1. Budget shortfalls for planning, reforestation
2. Budget trends
3. Budget and partnership opportunities
4. AMA Research ideas

Recommendations/Agreements:  NA

Next Steps (who/what/when):  Look at how and when to incorporate these ideas in a meaningful way into future meeting agendas

Dave Allen (FWS)

Merv George, Jr. (CAIF&FMC)

Steve Morris (REO NMFS)

Anne Badgley (REO)

Linda Goodman (FS)

Mike Mottice (BLM)

Cathy Bleier (State of CA)

Bob Graham (NRCS)

Judy Nelson (BLM)

Elaine Brong (BLM)

Becky Gravenmier (REO PNW)

Debbie Pietrzak (REO BLM)

Dave Busch (REO USGS)

Diane Guidry (NRCS)

Dave Powers (EPA)

Chris Cadwell (BLM)

Dave Haney (BLM)

Tom Quigley (PNW)

Lance Clark (State of OR)

Dave Herrera (Assn. Of OR Counties)

Terry Rabot (FWS)

Kath Collier (REO)

Laurie Lee Jenkins (REO NPS)

Gil Riddle (OR Counties)

Bill Connolly (FS)

Anne Kinsinger (USGS-BRD)

Jim Shevock (NPS)

Dan Cothren (WASAC)

Becky Loomis (REO)

George Smith (ITC)

Mike Crouse (NMFS)

Curt Loop (USACE)

Joan T. Smith (CA Counties)

Bruce Davies (NWIFC)

Shawne Mohoric (FS)

Jay Watson (REO FWS)

John Engbring (FWS)

Dave Morman (State of OR)

Alex Whistler (BIA)