RIEC Prework June 1, 2005

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:	May 21, 2005
To:	Regional Interagency Executive Committee (see attached distribution list)
From:	/s/Anne Badgley, Executive Director
Subject:	REGIONAL INTERAGENCY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA & PREWORK FOR JUNE 1, 2005

Meeting Room: Robert Duncan Plaza, Third Floor Conference Rooms,
Conference Rooms H & J, Time: 8:30 a.m. – 4 p.m.

Enclosed please find a proposed agenda and pre-work for the June 1, 2005 Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) meeting. The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end on or before 4 p.m. The full-day meeting will include discussions on:

Management Implications subcommittee reports (Adaptive Management, Communications, and Fire),
ESA related issues (recovery planning, critical habitat, and other reviews),
Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act updates

Other hot topics or short informational reports may also be provided.

There will be an "Executives Only" session in the afternoon to make decisions about some of the follow-up to the work of the RIEC subcommittees. The subcommittee leads may send you additional material directly prior to the meeting.

If you have any questions regarding this meeting or the attached materials, please contact your REO Representative, Kath Collier (503-808-2179), or me (503-808-2165). I look forward to seeing you at this meeting.

Enclosures:

1 - June 1, 2005 Agenda and Pre-Work Materials (2p)

cc: Presenters, REO Staff

2068/kc

Distribution List for RIEC

Dave Allen, US Fish & Wildlife Service
Terry Rabot, US Fish & Wildlife Service (Alt)
Elaine M. Brong, Bureau of Land Management
Mike Mottice, Bureau of Land Management (Alt)
Jon Jarvis, National Park Service
Rory Westberg, National Park Service (Alt)
Linda Goodman, Forest Service
Jim Golden, Forest Service (Alt)
Bob Graham, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Dianne Guidry, Natural Resources Conserv. Service (Alt)
Col. Richard W. Hobernicht, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Curt Loop, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Alt)
Anne Kinsinger, USGS Western Region
Carol Schuler, USGS Forest & Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center
Robert Lohn, NOAA Fisheries
Mike Crouse, NOAA Fisheries (Alt)
Tom Fontaine, Western Ecology Division, EPA
Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, West. Ecology Div., EPA (Alt)
Dave Powers, Environmental Protection Agency
Socorro Rodriguez, Environ. Protection Agency (Alt)

Stan M. Speaks, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Alex Whistler, Bureau of Indian Affairs (Alt)
Tom Quigley, Pacific Northwest Station, Forest Service
Cindi West, Pacific Northwest Station, Forest Service (Alt)

California Federal Executives

Kent Connaughton, Forest Service
Dave Gibbons, Forest Service (Alt)
Steve Thompson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
John Engbring, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Alt)
Phil Detrich, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Alt)
Michael Pool, Bureau of Land Management
Paul Roush, Bureau of Land Management (Alt)
Jim Sedell, Pacific Southwest Station, Forest Service
Garland Mason, Pacific Southwest Station, Forest Service (Alt)

Regional Interagency Executive Committee Draft June 1, 2005 Meeting Agenda Robert Duncan Plaza, Third Floor Conference Rooms H&J
Time	Topics	Purpose	Presenter
8:30 a.m.	Welcome Agenda Review, Introductions, Announcements	Housekeeping	Facilitator
8:40	Opening Remarks	Stage setting	Elaine Brong, RIEC Chair
8:45	ESA ISSUES Recovery Planning	Update & Discussion	Mike Crouse, NOAA-Fisheries
9:15	Recovery Planning, Critical Habitat, and other reviews (Northern Spotted Owl, Marbled Murrelet, Bull Trout, and Barred Owl)		Terry Rabot/ Barry Mulder, FWS
9:45	EPA Update Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and other issues	Update & Discussion	Dave Powers, EPA
10:15	Break
	MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
10:30	Adaptive Management Subcommittee	Update & Discussion	Tom Quigley, PNW Station
11:30	Lunch
	MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS cont.
12:30 1:30 1:45	Fire Subcommittee Communications Subcommittee Other Implication Topics - Additional Follow-Up	Update & Discussion	Kent Connaugton, FS Elaine Brong, BLM Anne Badgley, REO
2:15	Field Trip Update/Discussion Logistics: Date, Location, Focus, and goals	Update	Dave Gibbons, FS Anne Badgley, REO
2:30	Break
2:45	EXECUTIVE SESSION (Closed)		Anne Badgley, REO
	Adaptive management Fire-Prone Systems Communications Other	Decisions
3:45	Closing Future meeting dates & topics Assignment/Agreement review	Update Feedback	Facilitator
3:55	Closing Remarks		Elaine Brong, RIEC Chair
4:00 p.m.	Adjourn

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEWS

Topic: ESA ISSUES: Salmon Recovery Planning
Presenter/Sponsor: Mike Crouse, NOAA Fisheries
REO Contact: Steve Morris (NOAA Fisheries REO Representative)
Issue Statement: NOAA Fisheries is charged with recovery of species listed by NOAA under the ESA. Recovery is the process by which listed species and their ecosystems are restored and their future secured to the point that protection under the ESA is no longer needed.
Background: NOAA Fisheries has established a recovery planning process to maximize local involvement and capitalize on ongoing efforts. As a result, NOAA Fisheries intends to link its own recovery planning processes to on-going salmon conservation and planning efforts. In the Pacific Northwest, NOAA Fisheries has identified recovery domains: Puget Sound, Oregon Coast, Willamette/Lower Columbia, Upper/Middle Columbia, and Snake River. These are geographically-based areas for preparing multi-species recovery plans for anadromous salmonids in the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. A recovery plan for each domain will address all Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) within the geographic area and will involve local stakeholder input and technical expertise. The plan is intended as a road map for species recovery and is one of the most important tools to ensure sound scientific and logistical decision-making throughout the recovery process. NOAA Fisheries has organized recovery planning into technical and policy tracks: For the technical track, NOAA Fisheries has appointed Technical Recovery Teams (TRTs) for each domain to identify independent salmonid populations within each ESU, recommend viability criteria, and analyze factors that limit species survival. The TRTs provide the technical basis for recovery plans and advise NOAA and other recovery planners. The policy track will be structured to refine viability criteria into recovery goals, develop specific actions to achieve recovery goals, and estimate the time and cost for recovery implementation. The TRTs will consider policy input as they accomplish technical work. The policy effort will rely on the TRTs and others for scientific input and advice. NOAA Fisheries has established an ambitious goal for completing draft recovery plans by the end of the year and has asked state and federal agencies and tribes for their assistance.
Analysis and Options: Mike Crouse will provide an update on NOAA Fisheries NW Regional efforts on recovery planning, including important milestones, a schedule for completion of recovery plans and relationships between recovery planning and ongoing recovery efforts, including federal land management strategies. An opportunity exists to dovetail other regional planning efforts such as FS and BLM land use plan revision with NOAA recovery plans.
Action Required:	[ x ] Information [ x ] Decision

Topic: ESA ISSUES: Recovery Planning, Critical Habitat, and Other Reviews (Northern Spotted Owl, Marbled Murrelet, Bull Trout, and Barred Owl)

Presenter/Sponsor: Terry Rabot, FWS

REO Contact: Kristi Young (FWS REO Representative)

Issue Statement: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is involved in or considering several actions related to the northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, and bull trout. The FWS is re-designating spotted owl and the bull trout critical habitat, completing a bull trout status review, and considering a possible range-wide status marbled murrelet review and a spotted owl recovery plan. Terry Rabot will review the history of critical habitat, recovery plans, and status reviews for these species, and discuss actions that the FWS is considering or currently taking.

Background:

Bull Trout: The FWS designated critical habitat for the bull trout in the Columbia and Klamath River basins in September, 2004. As a result of a 2004 lawsuit, the FWS has requested a voluntary remand with a new rule due by September, 2005. The FWS proposed critical habitat for the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbridge, Saint Mary and Belly River populations in June, 2004. A final rule on these designations is expected June 15, 2005. A five-year status review for the bull trout was initiated in April, 2004. The final status review recommendation is in the process of being finalized.

Marbled Murrelet: The FWS completed a five-year status review for the marbled murrelet last year, concluding that the murrelet populations in California, Oregon, and Washington do not satisfy the criteria for designation as a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) under the FWS’s 1996 DPS Policy. The five-year review did not answer the question of whether the three-state population constitutes a significant portion of the range of the species, or whether the species as a whole is at risk of extinction. The FWS is considering conducting a range-wide status review to answer these questions. The FWS is currently on schedule to revise critical habitat for the marbled murrelet by December, 2006. A final recovery plan for the species is currently in place.

Northern Spotted Owl: Critical habitat for the Northern spotted owl was designated in 1992. As a result of the 2002 American Forest Resources Council lawsuit settlement, the FWS agreed to publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register on revisions to critical habitat for the owl by December 15, 2005. The FWS has initiated the revision process and is on track to complete a proposed rule by December.
A draft recovery plan for the spotted owl was developed in 1992, but never finalized. Since then, the NWFP has been implemented and new information has been gathered, including the recent 10-year monitoring reports and the status review completed last year. Based on this new information, the FWS is considering a new recovery plan for the owl; however no funding is available in Fiscal Year 2005.

The five year status review for the Northern spotted owl found that the barred owl was a much bigger threat to the spotted owl than previously believed. The FWS is working with the research community to determine the nature and extent of this new threat, and to explore possible methods for containing or removing the threat. An upcoming workshop on barred owl and spotted owl interactions will assist in this effort.

The status review also recognized that past fire suppression practices, fuels accumulation, and the trend of forest development in dry forest ecosystems will continue to increase the risk of habitat loss. The FWS is sponsoring a workshop, "Managing Northern Spotted Owl Habitat in Dry Forest Ecosystems: A Workshop for Federal Land Resource Specialists and Managers" on May 24 and 25, 2005, in Redmond, Oregon to begin to address these issues. Presentations and discussions at the workshop will focus on the science related to the potential treatment of northern spotted owl habitat in dry forest ecosystems.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information [ x ] Discussion

Topic: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY UPDATE

Presenter/Sponsor: David Powers, Environmental Protection Agency

REO Contact: Teresa Kubo (EPA REO Representative)

Issue Statement: Dave Powers will provide RIEC members with a brief update on EPA-related issues, regulations, and litigation which may have a bearing on Northwest Forest Plan implementation. This will include updates on Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act-related issues, a discussion of funding opportunities presented by EPA’s State Revolving Fund and Non-point Source funding programs, and a snapshot of key litigation.

Action Required: [ X ] Information

Topic: MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS

Adaptive Management Subcommittee

Presenter/Sponsor: Tom Quigley, PNW Station

REO Contact: Becky Gravenmier (PNW REO Representative)

Issue Statement: Adaptive management was considered the cornerstone of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). However, implementation of the plan has not met expectations regarding the level of adaptive management that would occur. The NWFP Conference findings identified the following contributing factors to the lack of successful implementation of adaptive management:

(1) Latitude on AMAs was limited.

(2) Some saw adaptive management only as a public participation process to test collaborative goals that were included in the Plan.

(3) Precaution trumped adaptation. Concerns with avoiding risk and uncertainty suppressed the experimental policies and actions needed to increase understanding and reduce uncertainty.

(4) Sufficient resources were not available to implement adaptive management as envisioned by FEMAT scientists and others.

BACKGROUND: In light of these findings, the RIEC requested that a subcommittee look at barriers to adaptive management, options to increase flexibility within the AMAs for testing and experimentation, and considerations for promoting adaptive management outside the AMAs.

Analysis and Options: PNW is taking the lead on crafting a document that is intended to guide discussions by the RIEC for increasing flexibility to experiment and test standards and guidelines within the Adaptive Management Areas (AMAs), and to look at opportunities to promote and institutionalize the adaptive management process into the planning process. This document will be discussed at the June RIEC meeting.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information [ x ] Discussion

Topic: MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT - Fire-Prone Systems
Presenter/Sponsor: Kent Connaugton, Forest Service, R5
REO Contact: Shawne Mohoric (FS REO Representative)
Issue Statement: Late-successional and old growth forests in the drier provinces of the Northwest Forest Plan area are at risk to habitat loss from catastrophic wildfire. Monitoring results indicate that fuels management in dry forests has fallen short of expectations. There appear to be more effective objectives and approaches for managing late-successional forests in high fire regime areas.
Background: Late-successional and old growth forests in the drier provinces of the Northwest Forest Plan area are at risk to habitat loss from catastrophic wildfire. Monitoring results indicate that fuels management in dry forests has fallen short of expectations. There appear to be more effective objectives and approaches for managing late-successional forest in high fire regime areas.
Analysis and Options: The RIEC is interested in determining which areas are at highest risk and developing a regional strategy to facilitate fuels treatments. The Forest Service, Region 5, will be discussing elements of a draft strategy at this meeting.
Action Required:	[ x ] Information [ x ] Discussion

Topic: MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT - Communications

Presenter/Sponsor: Elaine Brong, BLM

REO Contact: Anne Badgley (REO Executive Director)

Issue Statement: The need to improve both internal and external communications was identified as a high priority by the RIEC at their April 21, 2005 meeting. In particular, managers requested materials that would help them deliver a consistent and clear message which included talking points, fact sheets, presentations, etc. as needed.

Background: Team members from the Communications Subcommittee plus other agency staff members created several draft products under the direction of Elaine Brong. Those draft materials are being sent out to the RIEC for review with the request that comments and suggestions be sent by close of business May 25, 2005. These comments and suggestions will be incorporated into a package that will be presented at the upcoming June 1, 2005 RIEC meeting.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information [ x ] Discussion

Topic: MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS - Additional Follow-up

Presenter/Sponsor: Anne Badgley, REO Executive Director

Background: The Management Implications report included nine findings and implications. In addition, the IAC members contributed some additional ideas for follow-up. The RIEC has identified three of the management findings/implications for follow-up and decisions at the June 1 RIEC meeting.

Analysis and Options: The RIEC will review the entire list of findings and implications topics from the April 21, 2005 IAC meeting, including the tribal recommendations, and discuss whether additional topics should be addressed. (Note: The IAC notes from the April 21, 2005 meeting contain the list and a summary of the top priorities. Those notes may be accessed at www.reo.gov/iac. Copies will also be distributed at the meeting).

Action Required:

[ x ] Information [ x ] Discussion

Topic: ESA ISSUES: Recovery Planning, Critical Habitat, and Other Reviews (Northern Spotted Owl, Marbled Murrelet, Bull Trout, and Barred Owl)
Presenter/Sponsor: Terry Rabot, FWS
REO Contact: Kristi Young (FWS REO Representative)
Issue Statement: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is involved in or considering several actions related to the northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, and bull trout. The FWS is re-designating spotted owl and the bull trout critical habitat, completing a bull trout status review, and considering a possible range-wide status marbled murrelet review and a spotted owl recovery plan. Terry Rabot will review the history of critical habitat, recovery plans, and status reviews for these species, and discuss actions that the FWS is considering or currently taking.
Background: Bull Trout: The FWS designated critical habitat for the bull trout in the Columbia and Klamath River basins in September, 2004. As a result of a 2004 lawsuit, the FWS has requested a voluntary remand with a new rule due by September, 2005. The FWS proposed critical habitat for the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbridge, Saint Mary and Belly River populations in June, 2004. A final rule on these designations is expected June 15, 2005. A five-year status review for the bull trout was initiated in April, 2004. The final status review recommendation is in the process of being finalized. Marbled Murrelet: The FWS completed a five-year status review for the marbled murrelet last year, concluding that the murrelet populations in California, Oregon, and Washington do not satisfy the criteria for designation as a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) under the FWS’s 1996 DPS Policy. The five-year review did not answer the question of whether the three-state population constitutes a significant portion of the range of the species, or whether the species as a whole is at risk of extinction. The FWS is considering conducting a range-wide status review to answer these questions. The FWS is currently on schedule to revise critical habitat for the marbled murrelet by December, 2006. A final recovery plan for the species is currently in place. Northern Spotted Owl: Critical habitat for the Northern spotted owl was designated in 1992. As a result of the 2002 American Forest Resources Council lawsuit settlement, the FWS agreed to publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register on revisions to critical habitat for the owl by December 15, 2005. The FWS has initiated the revision process and is on track to complete a proposed rule by December. A draft recovery plan for the spotted owl was developed in 1992, but never finalized. Since then, the NWFP has been implemented and new information has been gathered, including the recent 10-year monitoring reports and the status review completed last year. Based on this new information, the FWS is considering a new recovery plan for the owl; however no funding is available in Fiscal Year 2005. The five year status review for the Northern spotted owl found that the barred owl was a much bigger threat to the spotted owl than previously believed. The FWS is working with the research community to determine the nature and extent of this new threat, and to explore possible methods for containing or removing the threat. An upcoming workshop on barred owl and spotted owl interactions will assist in this effort. The status review also recognized that past fire suppression practices, fuels accumulation, and the trend of forest development in dry forest ecosystems will continue to increase the risk of habitat loss. The FWS is sponsoring a workshop, "Managing Northern Spotted Owl Habitat in Dry Forest Ecosystems: A Workshop for Federal Land Resource Specialists and Managers" on May 24 and 25, 2005, in Redmond, Oregon to begin to address these issues. Presentations and discussions at the workshop will focus on the science related to the potential treatment of northern spotted owl habitat in dry forest ecosystems.
Action Required:	[ x ] Information [ x ] Discussion

Topic: MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Adaptive Management Subcommittee
Presenter/Sponsor: Tom Quigley, PNW Station
REO Contact: Becky Gravenmier (PNW REO Representative)
Issue Statement: Adaptive management was considered the cornerstone of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). However, implementation of the plan has not met expectations regarding the level of adaptive management that would occur. The NWFP Conference findings identified the following contributing factors to the lack of successful implementation of adaptive management: (1) Latitude on AMAs was limited. (2) Some saw adaptive management only as a public participation process to test collaborative goals that were included in the Plan. (3) Precaution trumped adaptation. Concerns with avoiding risk and uncertainty suppressed the experimental policies and actions needed to increase understanding and reduce uncertainty. (4) Sufficient resources were not available to implement adaptive management as envisioned by FEMAT scientists and others.
BACKGROUND: In light of these findings, the RIEC requested that a subcommittee look at barriers to adaptive management, options to increase flexibility within the AMAs for testing and experimentation, and considerations for promoting adaptive management outside the AMAs.
Analysis and Options: PNW is taking the lead on crafting a document that is intended to guide discussions by the RIEC for increasing flexibility to experiment and test standards and guidelines within the Adaptive Management Areas (AMAs), and to look at opportunities to promote and institutionalize the adaptive management process into the planning process. This document will be discussed at the June RIEC meeting.
Action Required:	[ x ] Information [ x ] Discussion

Topic: MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT - Communications
Presenter/Sponsor: Elaine Brong, BLM
REO Contact: Anne Badgley (REO Executive Director)
Issue Statement: The need to improve both internal and external communications was identified as a high priority by the RIEC at their April 21, 2005 meeting. In particular, managers requested materials that would help them deliver a consistent and clear message which included talking points, fact sheets, presentations, etc. as needed.
Background: Team members from the Communications Subcommittee plus other agency staff members created several draft products under the direction of Elaine Brong. Those draft materials are being sent out to the RIEC for review with the request that comments and suggestions be sent by close of business May 25, 2005. These comments and suggestions will be incorporated into a package that will be presented at the upcoming June 1, 2005 RIEC meeting.
Action Required:	[ x ] Information [ x ] Discussion

Topic: MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS - Additional Follow-up
Presenter/Sponsor: Anne Badgley, REO Executive Director
Background: The Management Implications report included nine findings and implications. In addition, the IAC members contributed some additional ideas for follow-up. The RIEC has identified three of the management findings/implications for follow-up and decisions at the June 1 RIEC meeting.
Analysis and Options: The RIEC will review the entire list of findings and implications topics from the April 21, 2005 IAC meeting, including the tribal recommendations, and discuss whether additional topics should be addressed. (Note: The IAC notes from the April 21, 2005 meeting contain the list and a summary of the top priorities. Those notes may be accessed at www.reo.gov/iac. Copies will also be distributed at the meeting).
Action Required:	[ x ] Information [ x ] Discussion