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:

To:

Regional Interagency Executive Committee (see attached distribution list)

From:

/s/Anne Badgley, Executive Director

Subject:

REGIONAL INTERAGENCY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES FOR JUNE 1, 2005

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 (Alt)
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)

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)
Bernie Weingardt, Forest Service

Regional Interagency Executive Committee
Final June 1, 2005 Meeting Agenda

Time

Topics

Purpose

Presenter

8:30 a.m.

Housekeeping

Facilitator

8:40

Opening Remarks

Stage setting

Elaine Brong, RIEC Chair

8:45

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, FWS

9:45

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

• Risks to Forests in Fire-Prone Areas Subcommittee
• Communications Subcommittee
• Other Implication Topics - Additional Follow-Up

Update & Discussion

Kent Connaugton, FS
Elaine Brong, BLM
Anne Badgley, REO

2:15

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

Feedback

Facilitator

3:55

Closing Remarks

Elaine Brong, RIEC Chair

4:00 p.m.

Adjourn

Topic: Welcome & Opening

Presenters: Anne Badgley, REO Executive Director, Jon Martin, Interagency Monitoring Program Lead, and Elaine Brong, Regional Interagency Executive Chair

Summary of Discussion: A plaque was awarded to former FWS REO Representative Jay Watson from the California Coast/ Southwestern Oregon Provincial Interagency Executive Committees for his outstanding work. We welcomed Bernie Weingardt, who has been selected as the new Region 5 (California) Regional Forester, replacing Jack Blackwell. We also said a fond farewell to Region 5 Deputy Regional Forester Kent Connaughton who has accepted a position in the Forest Service Washington Office.

Next Steps (who/what/when): In the near future, members will be invited to express their well wishes on a Northwest Forest Plan Map for Kent Connaughton, which will be shipped to him.

Topic: ESA ISSUES: Salmon Recovery Planning

Presenter: Mike Crouse (NOAA-Fisheries)

REO Contact: Steve Morris (NOAA-Fisheries Representative)

Issue Statement: NOAA-Fisheries is charged with recovery on 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.

Summary of Discussion: Mike Crouse provided an update of salmon recovery planning. The discussion included legal mandates, regional recovery plan vision and strategies, recovery plan organization, inclusion of locally developed recovery plans, recovery goals, schedules for plan completion, and coordination and linkage opportunities. Mike emphasized the importance of coordination with Federal land management agencies during upcoming management plan revisions.

Next Steps (who/what/when): NA

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

Presenters/Sponsors: Terry Rabot (FWS) and Phil Detrich, (FWS, California)

REO Contact: Kristi Young (FWS 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, bull trout, and the fisher.

Summary of Discussion: As a result of the 2002 American Forest Resources Council lawsuit settlement, the FWS had a list of tasks to accomplish. The first tasks – five-year reviews for the Northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet – have been completed. Per the settlement, the next task was revising the critical habitat designation for the spotted owl, due December, 2005. However, there is general agreement now that a recovery plan should be completed before critical habitat is revised. Therefore, new deadlines for a new recovery plan and revised critical habitat are being finalized. The FWS will try to coordinate the recovery planning process with the deadlines for the land management agencies’ management plans.

The marbled murrelet five-year review determined 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 next step for the murrelet is to conduct a range-wide status review, including the populations in Canada and Alaska. The end result of this review will be a decision to either delist the species or to list it in a significant portion of its range.

The FWS designated critical habitat for the bull trout in the Columbia and Klamath River basins in September 2004. The FWS proposed critical habitat for the Coastal-Puget Sound population in June 2004. A final rule on this designation is expected June 15, 2005. As a result of a lawsuit on the Columbia and Klamath River designations, the FWS has requested a voluntary remand of the rule from the Court. The FWS is proposing to complete a new final rule for the by September 2005, and has re-opened the public comment period on the Columbia and Klamath basin critical habitat designations until the end of June 2005. The existing final designation will remain in place until the new final rule is published.

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 FWS completed a status review on the fisher in April 2004, and determined that listing of the fisher was warranted, but precluded by other higher priority species. Funding was provided in the 2005 budget to complete a variety of conservation actions for the fisher. The FWS is working on surveys and possible reintroductions throughout the range of the fisher.

Topic: EPA Update – Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Other Issues

Presenter: Dave Powers (EPA)

REO Contact: Teresa Kubo (EPA Representative)

Issue Statement: Dave Powers provided the overview "EPA Actions in Oregon/Washington Relevant to the Northwest Forest Plan." He focused on the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Grants/Loans, and touched on some other related issues (such as litigation trends).

Summary of Discussion:

Clean Air Act - Several agencies mentioned being touched in some way by the Clean Air Act, be it the new diesel emission standards, regional haze rules, or particulate standards. Dave indicated that EPA has some Voluntary Diesel Initiative monies that can be applied to upgrade Forest Service and BLM facilities and equipment to reduce emissions. It was suggested that there is a possibility for a national dialog regarding the impacts of wildfire on particulates, short- and long-term opportunities, health impacts, and the linkage to the fire-prone area activities (particularly the support for mechanical treatments versus large burns).

Clean Water Act -- There are several activities related to the Clean Water Act that are also of interest to many agencies. Included in this list are: Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), water quality standards, funding programs, and litigation trends. Dave provided an overview of activities in Oregon and Washington, and touched on a few other states. He talked about the opportunities for increased collaboration between agencies and an opportunity to reduce the consultation workload. Dave mentioned EPA’s work with the States and Tribes to reduce toxics, and some of the evolving litigation. Finally, Dave mentioned the availability of 319 funds for projects on Federal lands, low-interest loans, and watershed health improvement grants that are also available.

Next Steps (who/what/when): The RIEC was very interested in several of these topics and will be asking Dave to discuss them again in the near future.

Topic: Adaptive Management Subcommittee

Presenter/Sponsor: Tom Quigley, PNW

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 four key factors that contributed to adaptive management implementation that was less than expected:

• Ambiguity in definition (some saw adaptive management as a very passive process, while others saw it as a public participation process to develop collaboration);
• Piecemeal implementation of broader adaptive-management concepts (such as learning activities on and off the Adaptive Management Areas [AMAs], regional and other monitoring, information technology, and planning) that preclude a systematic approach;
• Limited latitude to try approaches that varied from the NWFP (essentially precaution and risk-aversion trumped learning and adaptation); and
• Failure to fully institutionalize adaptive management and overcome institutional barriers, including declining personnel and funding, limited regional support, lack of training, and lack of regulatory participation.

Background: In light of these findings, at the last RIEC meeting on April 21, 2005 Tom Quigley, with the assistance of Jim Sedell, was asked by the RIEC to lead an effort to develop options for the RIEC that would include using existing AMAs as centers for testing and learning, as well as, options for including a broader landscape approach for institutionalizing the adaptive management concept.

Discussion: Tom Quigley provided an overview of a concept for a systematic adaptive management framework to enhance adaptive management within the NWFP area. This concept provides for a broader landscape approach to adaptive management and includes options specific to the AMA areas in the context of the framework. Tom Quigley suggested that the RIEC might consider:

• Developing a common corporate definition of adaptive management.
• Establishing a RIEC-led team to flesh out a broad adaptive management framework bringing together a wide range of learning activities to link and balance them.
• Conducting a RIEC-led workshop to develop, refine, and decide on a small set of long-term corporate (management driven) questions to help develop, focus, and link learning activities.
• Establishing regional extensive management-experiment templates for use by field units in designing specific projects.
• Confirming the role for AMAs in the context of the broad adaptive management framework.

• Monitoring is part of the adaptive management loop.
• Additional work flushing out the framework is needed. Include defining what the framework is and is not. Framework should include costs, funding, data collection and management, processes, and next steps to move forward with the concept.
• Framework should include a process for a feedback loop linking learning (through research) to management activities.
• Need to define how the framework works across scales (regional and local) and links to local questions and priorities.

• The U.S. Department of Interior is also working on adaptive management and may be releasing guidelines soon that would need to be folded in.
• It was suggested that proposals for testing new ways to conserve riparian and aquatic resources (Management Implication #3- Watershed Condition) might first be tested in the Adaptive Management Areas as suggested by the IAC.
• There were suggestions regarding involving our partners/collaboration to help educate/ communicate the concepts.

Decisions: The RIEC agreed to create a RIEC-lead team to develop a broad adaptive management framework. Tom Quigley volunteered to lead the team which includes Anne Kinsinger (USGS), Jim Sedell (PSW), Linda Goodman (FS, Region 6), and Elaine Brong (BLM). The team is expected to develop a framework to:

• Define and prioritize adaptive management goals.
• Identify mechanisms for achieving the goals (the most important work gets prioritized and accomplished).
• Develop management-experiment templates for use by field units in designing specific projects.
• Establish thresholds to trigger when changes or different actions are needed to achieve goals.
• Determine how accomplishments might be tracked and evaluated as to their effectiveness in helping agencies meet the desired goals, and how these results might be used to make adjustments to improve the effectiveness of the program.
• Consider the role for AMAs within the broad adaptive management framework.
• Address the management implication (#3- Watershed condition) through the adaptive management framework to define and outline how the issue of dynamic watersheds might be addressed through adaptive management learning – inside and outside the AMAs.

Related Decision: Tom Quigley volunteered to develop a short white paper describing the Experimental Forests issue.

Action Required: The team will provide a progress report for the July 28, 2005 conference call.

Topic: MANAGING LATE-SUCCESSIONAL AND OLD GROWTH HABITAT IN HIGH FIRE FREQUENCY FORESTS

Presenter/Sponsor: Kent Connaughton, FS, Region 5

Contact: Dave Gibbons (FS, Region 5)

Issue Statement: Late-successional and old-growth forests in the drier provinces of the NWFP 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: Much habitat in Late-successional Reserves (LSRs) has been lost in recent years from large stand-replacing wildfires. Many LSR forests within the NWFP in the Southern Oregon Province, in Northern California and dry forests east of the Cascade Mountains are at risk to large landscape fire disturbances. The risk is exacerbated by years of fire suppression and missed fire return intervals especially in dry forest vegetation types. Monitoring results have indicated that adjustments to management objectives and strategies in high fire regime dry forests would help reduce habitat loss and accelerate restoration goals.

Notes: Forest Service, Region 5, prepared a white paper for the RIEC entitled ‘Proposal to Address Risks to Forests Within the Fire-prone Subregion of the Northwest Forest Plan Area." Kent Connaughton, Deputy Regional Forester, gave an overview of the paper at the meeting.

Following is a summary of his overview:

A relatively large proportion of the fire-prone provinces are currently in a condition that makes them susceptible to wildfire losses, especially uncharacteristically severe, stand-replacing fires. Forests have been described using condition classes, where Condition Class 1 represents lands whose associated fire regimes are within historical ranges, Condition Class 2 represents lands whose fire regimes have been moderately altered from their historical ranges, and Condition Class 3 represents lands whose historical fire-return intervals have been significantly altered and the risk of losing key ecosystem components from fire is high. Lands in Condition Classes 2 and 3 are prime candidates for restoration, including fuel treatment, and are widespread throughout the fire-prone provinces. The proposed program of work to treat fuels in the fire-prone provinces is small relative to the number of acres in Condition Classes 2 and 3. Active fire suppression, resulting in continued fire exclusion over much of the NWFP area will, therefore, encourage the buildup in forest biomass that occurs as a consequence of natural succession. Regardless of land allocation, therefore, fuels will continue to accumulate, stand structure and composition will continue to be adversely affected by fire exclusion, and forest conditions associated with large-scale, high-intensity wildfire will persist and potentially intensify.

Estimated costs associated with forest restoration for the fire-prone provinces of the NWFP were extrapolated from a detailed proposal of restoration needs, prescriptions, treatment schedules, and costs for the Klamath Tribal lands. With a focus on the fire-prone NWFP provinces and forests in Condition Classes 2 and 3, a 20-year restoration program goal would require approximately 400,000 acres per year to be planned, of which approximately 200,000 acres per year might receive treatment. Comparable extrapolations imply costs of approximately $26 million per year for planning and treatment of Federal forests. These cost estimates for NWFP forest treatments were generated for comparison purposes only.

Next Steps: The RIEC is interested in determining which areas are at highest risk and developing a regional strategy to facilitate fuels treatments and forest restoration in high priority areas. The Forest Service, Region 5, will be drafting elements of a strategy that will be considered during the July 28, 2005 RIEC conference call. Team members include: Bernie Weingardt (lead), Dave Powers, Mike Crouse, Terry Rabot, Jim Sedell, and Alex Whistler.

Topic: COMMUNICATIONS

Sponsor/Chair: Elaine Brong, BLM

REO Contact: Anne Badgley, REO

Issue Statement: At the April 21, 2005 meeting, the RIEC determined that there is a need to develop key follow-up messages from the science conference on behalf of the RIEC and to communicate them inside and outside of the Federal government. The committee also agreed that there was a need to manage expectations from the many discussions that have taken place and create common tools that RIEC managers could use.

Summary of Discussion: Several tools were created and sent out to RIEC members in draft for form review including:

• Fact Sheet: Northwest Forest Plan Background
• Fact Sheet: Suggested Management Implications
• Fact Sheet: Science Findings from the NWFP 10-Year Monitoring Reports
• Powerpoint: Science Findings and Management Implications
• Talking Points: Northwest Forest Plan Science Conference and Management Implications Follow-Up"

Anne Badgley walked the committee through several draft products created by the communications subcommittee.

RIEC Decisions: The products were accepted with minor changes. Refinements to the Management Implications document were requested. Changes will be incorporated throughout the documents ensuring that the information and presentation are consistent.

Next Steps (who/what/when): Comments on the communication products should be sent to Anne Badgley by COB Wednesday, June 8. The target for sending final products to the RIEC is June 15, 2005.

Topic: OTHER: Monitoring

REO Contact: Shawne Mohoric (Forest Service Representative)

Issue Statement: Management Implication #6 focused on challenges that the regional monitoring program has faced over the years. This included the difficulty of making monitoring interpretations due to the lack of specific targets, the relatively brief interagency 10-year time frame in identifying significant changes, and an issue regarding what new monitoring questions may need to be asked to frame the future monitoring plan. It was suggested that we incorporate what we currently know about these factors, and take steps to address the uncertainties.

Summary of Discussion: Tom Quigley indicated that there is an existing small interagency staff group already working on these issues (Tom Quigley and Jim Golden are leads). Lisa Freedman and John Martin are looking at the short-term questions and costs in 2006. The target for reporting back to the RIEC is October with a good start on the long-term vision piece. It was suggested that we need to think more about who should be a part of these discussions.

RIEC Decisions: The RIEC agreed to help develop the long-term corporate vision, and questions and priorities needed as part of the interagency regional monitoring project.

Next Steps (who/what/when): An update will be provided at the July 28, 2005 conference call. Anne Kinsinger, Mike Crouse will join the existing team. Tom Quigley and Jim Golden will report on the short-term questions; and provide a status of the long-term vision piece in October.

Topic: OTHER: Human Dimensions/Collaboration

REO Contact: Anne Badgley (Executive Director)

Issue Statement: Management Implications #9 addresses the socio-economic issues of the impact of not meeting timber harvest expectations, and the predictions of how local communities and the economy would respond to the NWFP. It was suggested that we develop a more accurate understanding of the significance of the contribution of the Federal lands and resources to the overall economy, and to communities adjacent to Federal forest land. The new information would be used to help shape Federal planning, decisions, and policies.

Summary of Discussion: RIEC members were only able to briefly discuss this item. Their focus was on how the Lynn Jungwirth proposal might fit in with the current activities, as well as how best to respond to her proposal. California RIEC members were asked to contact Lynn Jungwirth. The RIEC also discussed how to better identify socio-economic goals and measuring progress towards meeting them.

Next Steps (who/what/when): Bernie Weingardt (R5) will be following up on the Lynn Jungwirth letter. More discussion on this topic is needed.

Topic: FIELD TRIP UPDATE

Sponsor: Jack Blackwell (FS, R5)/Bernie Weingardt (FS, R5)

Presenter: Dave Gibbons (FS, R5)

REO Contact: Shawne Mohoric (FS Representative)

Summary of Discussion: Dave provided an update on the field trip planning:

Proposed Dates: August 17-18, 2005
Proposed location: Yreka, California
Proposed focus areas: Collaborative post-treatment thinning in fire-prone areas (two locations); and a "before treatment" project within a Late-Successional Reserve area.

Next Steps (who/what/when): Additional information will be provided by the July conference call. Be sure to check your calendars for these dates, and commuting time you may need. Dave suggested that members consider flying into Medford, Oregon or Redding, California.

Badgley, Anne (REO)

Gibbons, Dave (FS, R5)

Quigley, Tom (PNW)

Brong, Elaine (BLM, OR/WA)

Goodman, Linda (FS, R6)

Rabot, Terry (FWS)

Connaughton, Kent (FS, R5)

Kinsinger, Anne (USGS)

Paul Roush (BLM, CA)

Crouse, Mike (NOAA-Fisheries)

Curt Loop (COR)

Schuler, Carol (USGS)

Detrich, Phil (FWS, CA)

Mottice, Mike (BLM)

Bernie Weingardt (FS, R5)

Fontaine, Tom (EPA)

Pool, Mike (BLM, CA)

Westberg, Rory (NPS)

Powers, Dave (EPA)

Whistler, Alex (BIA)

STAFF

Busch, Dave (USGS, REO)

Loomis, Becky (REO)

Pietrzak, Debbie (BLM, REO)

Collier, Kath (REO)

Morris, Steve (NOAA- Fisheries, REO)

Young, Kristi (FWS, REO)

Gravenmier, Becky (PNW, REO)

OTHERS

Martin, Jon (FS, R6)

Molina, Nancy (BLM)

Jill Birchell (visitor)