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

The first segment of the meeting is a proposed Executive Session to provide an opportunity for the RIEC to continue with its discussions on the future NWFP interagency and intergovernmental organizational structure to be outlined in the next Memorandum of Understanding. This segment will feature a report from RIEC Chair Elaine Brong on her recent Washington Office briefing.

At 10:15 a.m. the meeting will shift to the regular business portion of the agenda, which features topics on the upcoming Intergovernmental Advisory Committee meeting scheduled for April 1, expounding upon the vision for the Northwest Natural Resource Forum that the RIEC agreed to form in October 2002, and the RIEC's assignment to evaluate development of interagency Adaptive Management Area interpretive guidance. Following discussions of these topics, there will be summary reports from RIEC subcommittees, a brief progress report on the recently finalized FY03 interagency memorandum of understanding for budget exceptions, as well as succinct Hot Topic presentations on NWFP-related litigation, ESA Status Reviews on the Northern Spotted Owl & Marbled Murrelet, identification of non-high-priority sites for the Red Tree Vole under the Survey & Manage program, an upcoming Federal Executive Board meeting on the Partnership for Public Service, and a reminder of the near-term RIEC meeting schedule.

Please note that one of the enclosures is a Northwest Natural Resources Forum preferences form. It is designed to help kick-start your thinking about some of the principal issues associated with the forum prior to the RIEC meeting. To that end, as time permits, please fill out the form and either fax it to the REO (503-808-2163) or bring it with you to the meeting as a discussion aid.

If you have any questions about the upcoming meeting or enclosed materials, or wish to suggest changes to the proposed agenda, please contact me, your agency's REO representative, or REO Management Analyst Kath Collier (503-808-2179). I look forward to seeing you next week.

cc: REO, DFOs, & Presenters

Enclosures:
• Proposed Agenda and Prework materials for RIEC Meeting on March 11, 2003
• Proposed Agenda for Aquatic Conservation Subcommittee meeting on March 11, 2003
• Preferences Form for Northwest Natural Resources Forum

1798/kc

Anne Badgley, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Rowan Gould, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Elaine M. Brong, Bureau of Land Management
Judy Nelson, Bureau of Land Management
Jon Jarvis, National Park Service
Art Eck, National Park Service
Jim Shevock, National Park Service
Linda Goodman, Forest Service
Lisa Freedman, Forest Service
Bob Graham, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Col. Richard W. Hobernicht, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Curt Loop, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Anne Kinsinger, USGS Western Region
Ronald E. Kirby, USGS Forest & Ecosystem Science Center
Robert Lohn, National Marine Fisheries Service
Mike Crouse, National Marine Fisheries Service
Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, Western Ecology Division, EPA
Dan McKenzie, Western Ecology Division, EPA
Dave Powers, Environmental Protection Agency
Stan M. Speaks, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Alex Whistler, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bob Szaro, Pacific Northwest Station, Forest Service
Cindi West, Pacific Northwest Station, Forest Service

California Federal Executives

Kent Connaughton, Forest Service
Kathy Anderson, Forest Service
Steve Thompson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
John Engbring, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Phil Detrich, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Michael Pool, Bureau of Land Management
Paul Roush, Bureau of Land Management

Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC)
Regular Business, Executive Session, & Subcommittee Meetings
March 11, 2003 - 8:00 a.m.-2:30 p.m.
Regional Ecosystem Office Conference Room
PROPOSED AGENDA

An asterisk denotes an item related to an Urgent (**) or High-Priority (*) task in the FY2002 REO/RMG WorkPlan.

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Presenter/Sponsor: Steve Odell, Dave Busch, Gary Benson

REO Contact/Phone: Teresa Kubo (503-808-2171)

Topic: Review of Proposed April 1 IAC Agenda

Issue Statement: To provide an opportunity for RIEC members to be briefed and weigh in on the proposed agenda and certain logistics for the next IAC meeting, which is scheduled for April 1, 2003

Background: The proposed agenda for the April 2003 IAC meeting includes (in chronological order): From 8 - 9:30 a.m. there will be a brief RIEC executive session. Concurrently, there will also be a non-Federal IAC pre-brief conducted by REO staff. The intent of this prebrief will be to address any preliminary questions and ensure the most efficient use of IAC meeting time. From 10:00 a.m. - Lunch The full IAC meeting will include morning discussions devoted to updating IAC members on recent developments concerning the Northwest Forest Plan, including the Survey & Manage SEIS, the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Clarification SEIS, and the settlement agreement between American Forest Resource Council and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Following this, the IAC will focus on providing an update and gathering advice and feedback regarding the new Interagency Memorandum of Understanding as it applies in particular to future interagency organizational structure to support entities (RIEC, IAC, and IRICC), timeline, strategies, etc. Lunch will be an informal "lunch by the number" to which all committee members (Federal and non-Federal) are cordially invited. 1:00 - 5:00 p.m. The afternoon portion will kick off with a brief opportunity for public comment, followed by a series of presentations, a panel discussion, and question & answer session focusing on the socio-economic side of the Northwest Forest Plan. Topics may include the recently released report on the Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative, current PNW research on community viability, an effectiveness monitoring report on socio-economic factors that was recently completed by USGS and the University of Washington, and efforts of the socio-economic monitoring team. Given the recently available wealth of information related to social and economic factors, and the longstanding interest of both Federal and non-Federal IAC members in this topic, this should prove to be an interesting an engaging session. Wrap up. The meeting will conclude with a wrap-up of key points and a look at future meeting dates and next steps.

Action Required: __ Information x RIEC Decision __Other:

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Presenter/Sponsor: Steve Odell

REO Contact/Phone: Dave Busch (503-808-2192), Jay Watson (503-808-2178)

Topic: Northwest Natural Resources Forum (NWNRF)

Issue Statement: This discussion is targeted at building a clearer vision of what the NWNRF might include and how it might be structured and sponsored. The goal in this meeting is to get a sensing of Executive preferences, identify where there may be some broad agreements, and identify a sponsor to begin working on the initial meeting, which has been scheduled by the RIEC for June 3, 2003.

Background: The concept of a suite of natural resource issues broader than the NWFP was discussed in the Executive Offsite meeting in October 2002, and set the stage for consideration of the NWNRF. There were many unanswered questions and this meeting is the only opportunity to clarify expectations before the June 3, 2003 proposed meeting. RIEC members at the October 2002 meeting expressed their preliminary thoughts about the NWNRF, which included: - Newly created group that will meet quarterly to address high-level, cross-cutting policy natural resource issues and initiatives - Agencies beyond those on the RIEC, including Bureau of Reclamation and Bonneville Power Administration, may be invited to attend - Work for more efficient and strategic calendaring that assigns issues to meeting agenda of most suitable entity, "Piggy-backs" multiple meetings where appropriate, and adds no more meeting dates overall to the executive's calendars unless absolutely necessary - Meetings estimated to take all or most of full day - Forum should strive to achieve more than just simple information sharing - Agencies are requested to submit broad reaching ideas for Forum meetings - Additional details will still need to be worked out; to this end, a longer-range vision outlining the primary purposes and functions of the Forum should be prepared.

Analysis and Options: There are several items to address if the RIEC wishes to move forward with the forum concept. To streamline this process, we have attached a preferences form that outlines several potential approaches to issues, topics, and logistical matters. As time permits, we would like the Executives to review and fill in their preferences prior to the meeting and either return the filled-in sheet to the REO via FAX or to bring it with them to the meeting for use as a discussion aid. To the extent forms are returned, REO will staff will review them and results will be reported with the goal of facilitating discussion and speeding up the decision making process. At the RIEC meeting, a key discussion point will be the kinds of topics committee members would like to address, particularly at the first forum meeting that is scheduled for June 2003, as well as how and who to prepare for it.

REO Staff Proposal: By the end of the presentation we would like to have direction on the following items: - Identification of who will carry out meeting support and definition of what 'sponsorship' might entail - Basic logistical framework requirements identified - A list of high-priority topics suggested by the agencies - Identification of an oversight committee/workgroup to develop the longer term vision for this activity, assist in implementation, and critique the end product - Agreement to revisit this concept after the first forum and evaluate how to make it more effective

Action Required: __ Information x RIEC Direction __Other:

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

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

Topic: Adaptive Management Area Interpretive Guidance Options

Issue Statement: To discuss options for potential next steps to follow up on the RIEC's assignment to explore preparation of interagency interpretive guidance for Adaptive Management Areas (AMA) S&Gs that would provide a greater degree of flexibility in their management as was originally intended

Background: During a RIEC Core Group Executive Session in October 2002, executives reviewed a matrix of potential actions that could be taken to help improve NWFP implementation. One such potential action called for development of interagency interpretive guidance for AMA Standards & Guidelines (S&Gs) to clarify that the primary goals of AMA management are to encourage a stronger role for affected communities and enhanced management flexibility to appropriately test S&Gs. The anticipated outcome was RIEC direction or guidance to be completed by approximately April 2003.

Analysis and Options: In response to the RIEC's assignment, the REO examined the history of AMA activities, current NWFP standards and guidelines, funding and support over time, and past efforts to promote an appropriate level and kind of activities within AMAs. One previous development of note occurred in 1999-2000 when the RIEC formed an AMA Workgroup with a tripartite charter: (1) to organize a process to review AMA plans; (2) to develop a clear, concise interpretation of the NWFP S&Gs as they apply to AMAs; and (3) to assist AMAs, upon request, and support long-term needs as identified in AMAs. Pursuant to this direction, the work group compiled a synthesis of all of the NWFP S&Gs pertaining to AMAs and then used it as the basis for preparing a "policy paper" that offers an interpretation of the intent underlying the AMA S&Gs. At its May 2000 meeting, the RIEC reviewed and approved the policy paper, provided for its distribution, and temporarily suspended the work group's operations until another AMA plan was submitted for REO review and another AMA requests assistance. Consistent with these decisions, the paper was subsequently distributed to field units during summer 2000. The REO's review of the May 2000 paper suggests that, although it contains considerable language encouraging experimentation and authorizing a broader array of permissible activities in AMAs, it also suggests in other portions that AMA S&Gs are quite restrictive and provide little discretion for managers to try innovative management actions to test approaches embedded in the present S&Gs. Another development worth noting is the ongoing Blue River Landscape Management Study in the Central Cascades AMA. The study involves the application of an alternate management strategy based on theories of disturbance ecology for the 57,000-acre Blue River watershed in the Willamette National Forest. It is relevant to this topic because it represents a large-scale, high-visibility test within an AMA of some of the most fundamental components of the NWFP, such as the designation of land allocations with hard-and-fast lines for every acre within the NWFP area as opposed to management that tries to emulate the range of natural variability based on historical patterns of natural disturbances in an area. Another example of more flexible management within an AMA is the ongoing efforts to use various treatments to accelerate development of old-growth Ponderosa Pine forests in the Goosenest AMA. In light of the preliminary results of REO's investigation into this matter, there are several options the RIEC may wish to consider by way of following up on its original assignment, including the following: 1. Direct that formal interagency interpretive guidance on AMA S&Gs be prepared for proposed concurrence and issuance by the RIEC that will unambiguously clarify that AMAs were expressly designed to allow for and encourage appropriate flexibility and experimentation in their management. If issued by the full RIEC, this guidance could serve to supersede the REO's May 2000 policy paper. 2. Modify the AMA S&Gs through a formal NEPA/NFMA/FLPMA process so that they more clearly reflect the intent of the architects of the AMA network (i.e., Jerry Franklin, et al.) 3. Encourage 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 within their respective provinces and more community involvement and participation. Local Federal land administrators could use the criteria to propose explicitly less stringent S&Gs, and/or increased use of the Resesearch Exemptions for research activities specifically designed to test assumptions and hypotheses of the current S&Gs. 4. Seek additional support (financial, resources) to enhance activities in the AMA's, e.g. -- The President's Healthy Forest Initiative for activities such as thinning, salvage in burned areas, and various restorations activities. -- Seek Interagency Steering Committee support for financial support, new processes or policies (which would probably trigger a new SEIS) 5. Discontinue use of AMA as a Land Allocation category under the NWFP, and have them revert back to one or more of the other allocation designations. Then changing the S&G's for Matrix and LSR's to allow for more management actions in Matrix or both Land Allocation Units. This would also necessitate a new SEIS but may be appropriate at the time to coordinate with the President's Healthy Forest Initiative and the National Fire Plan. 6. Undertake a study of those projects or experiments within AMAs that represent scenarios where greater flexibility and/or testing of hypotheses is occurring (e.g., the Blue River study in the Central Cascades AMA), and draw lessons learned about the key factors underlying that success for potential extrapolation to other AMAs (or, at the least, to the Finney AMA, the only area without an AMA plan). 7. Take no further action at this time.

Organizational/Funding Implications: The range of options could result in little or no effects on current organization and funding, to considerable effects on staffing needs for SEIS development, interactions at the ISC level, and considerable funding needs to effects some of the proposed changes.

REO Staff Proposal: None.

Action Required: X Information RIEC Direction RIEC Decision __Other:

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Presenter/Sponsor: Mike Crouse, NMFS/503-231-6880

REO Contact/Phone: Steve Morris/503-808-2176

Topic: Summary Report from RIEC Aquatic Conservation Subcommittee

Plan-level Biological Opinion Work Group: The workgroup has developed a field data request that will be used to update habitat condition baselines in the plan-level Biological Assessment (BA). This request was transmitted to the field units on February 21 (BLM) and February 24 (Forest Service). Responses to this request are due March 10. Also, the workgroup has submitted to the IMIRG two annotated Biological Opinion (BO) outlines and a consultation/conference strategy that identifies the federal action, scope of the consultation/conference, information sources for BA development, and FWS/NMFS consultation documents. These documents, along with a BA outline currently under development, will guide the remainder of the plan-level consultation process. Timeline: A draft plan-level BA was to be completed by March 1, 2003. However, field information updating the habitat baseline will not be available until March 10. Work will proceed as possible in generating and collating information from previous consultation records (existing plan-level BAs and BOs). This will be combined with new information and a draft BA will be completed shortly after March 10.

Project-level Analytical Framework & Technical Information Work Group: The workgroup is proceeding with development of an analytical framework based upon the previous consultation process model, and has addressed issues regarding use of a narrative approach to effects determinations in place of a table summarizing effects of proposed projects. This will result in a more robust analysis, better documentation of the logic being used to make effects determinations at the project level, and also will minimize opportunities for misunderstanding or misusing consultation documents. Time line. A completed draft of the new analytical framework is due by March 14, 2003. We anticipate that this deadline will be met.

Action Required: X Information RIEC Decision ____Other:

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Presenter/Sponsor/REO Contact/Phone: Kath Collier (503-808-2179)

Topic: FY03 Agency MOU for Budget Exceptions

Issue Statement: To solicit any clarifying comments or questions and capture signatures on the FY03 Interagency Memorandum of Understanding for Budget Exceptions

Background: Unanimous agreement regarding waiving surcharges for monies exchanged to support the Regional Ecosystem Office was reached by the RIEC in September of 2002. At that time the RIEC made an assignment to the REO to develop a method for achieving this goal. A MOU was proposed, reviewed by representatives, staffs, and agency specialists. Very minor changes were made to the original draft which was previously distributed to the RIEC and reviewed by the Reps and agency staff. The final MOU will be sent under separate cover for your review prior to the meeting and signature gathering. Note: The REO received confirmation in mid-February from the Forest Service that the documentation backing up the MOU was adequate and that the MOU was now ready for signature.

Action Required: __ Information RIEC Decision X Other: Signature

STATUS REPORT

REO Contact/Phone: Teresa Kubo (503-808-2171)

Topic: Passage of FY03 Omnibus Appropriations Package

Issue Statement: To inform RIEC on the basics of the $397 billion FY03 omnibus appropriations bill

Overview: The $397 billion FY '03 omnibus package covers the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), and the Departments of Interior, Energy, Agriculture, and Transportation. The budgetary breakdown (as provided on Greenwire) is as follows: -- NPS received $1.6 billion for operations, up from about $1.5 billion in 2002. Conferees provided $2.1 billion for the BLM and FS wildland fire management accounts, down from $2.3 billion in 2002. Members also included $825 million to repay FY '02 suppression costs. -- Members provided the USGS with an $11 million increase in 2002 funding, with the agency receiving $931 million. BLM's payment in lieu of taxes program received $220 million, $10 million more than last year. Funding for the FS's National Forest System account increased to $1.4 billion, up $31 million from last year. --House and Senate negotiators agreed on a final funding level of $8.1 billion for the EPA, a $500 million increase over the Administration's original request. The FY '03 tally is about $200 million above FY '02 levels, excluding the $150 million tagged for the agency in the FY '02 emergency supplemental. In addition to the spending tickets, the appropriations package also included several environmental riders. The most notable of these are: -- A provision that expands the FS's stewardship contracting program, whereby timber companies are allowed to harvest trees in exchange for clearing brush and undergrowth in forests considered at-risk to wildfires. Under this provision, the previous cap of 84 pilot projects per year would be removed, and projects would be authorized through 2013. In addition, the provision allows stewardship contracting on BLM lands for the first time. -- A rider that largely exempts Alaska's Tongass forest management plan from future lawsuits and judicial or administrative appeals. -- Language that removes a previous House-passed provision that would have barred funds for pre-drilling work in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

STATUS REPORT

REO Contact/Phone: Teresa Kubo/503-808-2171

Topic: FY 2002 REO Annual Report

Issue Statement: To inform and distribute to the RIEC a compilation of reports concerning the accomplishments and status of tasks and responsibilities undertaken by the REO

Overview: In support of Northwest Forest Plan implementation, the REO develops an annual work plan in conjunction with the Regional Interagency Executive Committee. This work plan serves to focus REO resources on specifically identified tasks and ongoing review responsibilities as identified in the Northwest Forest Plan ROD and Standards and Guidelines. In an effort to provide an account of what progress has been made on the various elements of the FY2002 REO Annual Work Plan, the REO has compiled an Annual Report. This report will be distributed to RIEC members at the March RIEC meeting, and will also be accessible on the REO website at www.reo.gov. The report is arranged with the same major headings as can be found in the FY2002 REO Annual Work Plan. Those headings are: -- Specified Review and Interpretive Guidance Duties -- Fostering Effective Coordination and Communication -- Interagency Issue Resolution and Strategic Planning Forum -- Facilitation and Support of Adaptive Management -- Coordination and Interface with Related Initiatives -- REO Staffed and Sponsored Meetings -- Ongoing Support of NFP Implementation and Operations -- Research and Monitoring Group -- Information Management There have been significant accomplishments and challenges in each of these areas, and this compilation of reports provides a forum in which each of these can be highlighted. As we move into a time of rapid change, it is important to take a look back at both difficulties faced, and what has worked well. It is our hope that this document will prove useful as we move forward on decisions affecting NWFP organizational structure and composition.

STATUS REPORT

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

Topic: Fish & Wildlife Service's Not-Warranted Finding on Petition to List the California Spotted Owl under the ESA

Issue Statement: FWS announced on February 10, 2003, that the California spotted owl, a native bird found in forests of the Sierra Nevada, the central coast range, and major mountain ranges of southern California, doesn't warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act at this time.

Overview: The Service's action comes in response to a petition filed in April 2000 by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Nevada Protection Campaign, and a subsequent Federal court order to finish the determination by February 10, 2003. Completing a 12-month review as required by the Endangered Species Act, Service biologists concluded, based on the best scientific and commercial information available, that the overall magnitude of current threats to the California spotted owl does not rise to a level requiring Federal protection. The California spotted owl still occurs throughout all or most of its historical range. Survey data indicates there are approximately 2,200 sites or territories in the Sierra Nevada and southern California where spotted owls have been recently observed. Investigators have been studying the population dynamics of this owl for more than a decade with mixed results. While some study areas show recent declines, the Service found no clear statistical evidence to show that the California spotted owl is declining throughout its range. Its conclusion was based on the review of several study methods used to identify changes in the population. The California spotted owl is recognized as a sensitive species by the U.S. Forest Service and a species of special concern by the California Department of Fish and Game. A complete description of the Service''s finding on the California spotted owl can be in the February 14, 2003 Federal Register 68(31):7580-7608.

STATUS REPORT

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

Topic: Latest developments on designating critical habitat and developing recovery plan for Bull Trout populations

Issue Statement: FWS has extended the public comment periods for its draft recovery plan for three distinct population segments of bull trout in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana and its proposed critical habitat designation for two of those populations. The deadline for submitting comments on the draft recovery plan is March 29, 2003. The deadline for submitting comments on the proposed critical habitat designation is May 12, 2003. Notices of the extensions were published in the February 11, 2003 Federal Register 68( 28):6863.

Overview: The Service released its draft recovery plan for three distinct population segments of bull trout and proposed critical habitat for two of those populations in November 2002, following nearly 3 years of collaboration with more than 120 stakeholders. The draft recovery plan contains recommendations for recovering bull trout in the Columbia River Basin, the Klamath River Basin and the St. Mary-Belly River Basin. Critical habitat is being proposed only in the Columbia and Klamath river basins at this time.

Attachment

Regional Ecosystem Office
333 SW First Avenue P.O. Box 3623
Portland, Oregon 97208-3623
Fax Transmission Cover Sheet

Please indicate your top 10 topics; new ideas welcome or use the potential topic list below (rank 1 to 10):