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:

October 12, 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 OCTOBER 18, 2005

Dave Allen, US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Terry Rabot, US Fish & Wildlife Service (Alt)
Elaine M. Brong, Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
Mike Mottice, Bureau of Land Management (Alt)
Jon Jarvis, National Park Service (NPS)
Rory Westberg, National Park Service (Alt)
Linda Goodman, Forest Service (FS)
Jim Golden, Forest Service (Alt)
Bob Graham, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Dianne Guidry, NRCS (Alt)
Col. Thomas E. O’Donovan, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Curt Loop, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Alt)
Anne Kinsinger, US Geological Survey Western Region (USGS)
Carol Schuler, USGS Forest & Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center
Robert Lohn, NOAA-Fisheries
Mike Crouse, NOAA-Fisheries (Alt)
Tom Fontaine, Western Ecology Division, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, Western Ecology Division, EPA (Alt)

California Federal Executives
Bernie Weingardt, 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 (PSW)
Garland Mason, Pacific Southwest Station, Forest Service (Alt)

Regional Interagency Executive Committee
Draft October 18, 2005 Meeting Agenda
Robert Duncan Plaza, Third Floor Conference Rooms H&J

Time

Topics

Purpose

Presenter

8:00 a.m.

Housekeeping

Facilitator

8:10

Opening Remarks

Stage setting

Linda Goodman, incoming RIEC Chair

8:15

Introductions

Housekeeping

Facilitator

8:20

MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS TOPIC LIST
- Overview

Stage Setting

Anne Badgley

8:25

MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT - Fire-Prone Systems

Update & Discussion

Dave Gibbons

9:25

Break

9:35

MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT - Adaptive Management/Monitoring

Overview of today

Tom Quigley

• Status of the assignments
• September 9 Meeting Outcomes and Impacts
• Survey Results, Summary, and New Questions
• Next Steps

Status, Discussion, Decision

Jon Martin

11:40

Feedback

Facilitator

11:50

Closing Remarks

Linda Goodman, Chair

12:00 p.m.

Adjourn

Topic: MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS – Follow-Up Actions

Presenter/Sponsor: Anne Badgley, Executive Director

Issue Statement: Anne will set the stage for the following proceedings and touch on the process for addressing other recommendations identified at the April 21, 2005 RIEC meeting.

Background: The Management Implications report included nine findings and implications. In addition, the IAC members contributed additional ideas for follow-up. Some were included as facets of the original topics, while others were added as separate topics. Some topics were also combined. Below is a summary chart of the results of RIEC/IAC exercise to prioritize the topics. Additional details can be found in the April 21, 2005 IAC notes (http://www.reo.gov/library). The RIEC formed three subcommittees, two of which will be reporting at this meeting.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information [ x ] Discussion [ x ] Decision

Ref. #

Fed. Short Term Priority

Non-Fed. Short Term Priority

(description next page)

Team Lead:

2

1

2

Late-Successional Old-Growth (LSOG) in fire-prone areas (combined with #10 Post-Fire Activities)

Bernie Weingardt

7

2

1

Adaptive Management (combined with #6 Regional Monitoring and #11 Monitoring Funding and Importance)

Tom Quigley

9

3

4

Human Dimensions

5

3

0

Additional Factors & Considerations

3

4

5

Watershed Conditions

4

4

5

NWFP Goals

8

5

3

Collaboration (combined with #13 Communication with PACs/PIECs)

Elaine Brong

6

5

5

Regional Monitoring (Combined with #7)

10

Post-Fire Activities (Combined with #2)

11

Monitoring Funding and Importance (Combined with #7)

12

Examine reserve strategy and consideration of other vegetation type

13

6

Communication with PACs/PIECs (Combined with #8)

14

6

Tribal Considerations

15

Effects of laws on Plan Implementation

16

Focus energy on areas of greatest risk, best science, most flexibility.

17

Need ways to step down Plan from regional scales to forest management plans and individual projects

18

Consider lessons learned form Region 5 Northwest Forest Plan review

19

6

Create convergence among NOAA and FWS recovery planning and FS and BLM land management planning.

Ref. # & Topic

Definitions & Suggested Implications

2. Late-Successional Old-Growth (LSOG) in fire-prone areas

3. Watershed Conditions

4. Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Goals

5. Additional Factors & Considerations

6. Regional
Monitoring

7. Adaptive Management

8. Collaboration

9. Human Dimensions

10. Post-Fire Activities

11. Monitoring Funding & Importance

(combined with #6 and 7)

12. Reserve Strategy

Examine the reserve strategy, roles and how we can manage these, impact of the loss of hardwoods.

13. Communication with PACS/PIECs

(Combined with #8)

14.Tribal Considerations

Report submitted by Merv George at the Science Conference.

15. Legal Requirements & Litigation

Tell story of affect of legal requirements and litigation on plan implementation.

16. Risk, Science, Process

Focus on areas of greatest risk, best science, least process and most flexibility.

17. Planning

Evaluate how managers will be able to incorporate regional plan components into local plans.

18. Calif. Review

Consider lessons learned from the California NWFP review.

19. Recovery Planning

Evaluate the timing and opportunities of converging NOAA/FWS recovery planning into BLM/FS land use plans.

Topic: MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS – Fire-Prone Systems Subcommittee - Restoration of Forests in NWFP Fire-Prone Regions

Sponsor: Bernie Weingardt (Forest Service, Region 5)

Presenter: Dave Gibbons (Forest Service, Region 5)

Subcommittee members: Bernie Weingardt (lead) (FS), Dave Gibbons (FS), Dave Powers (EPA), Mike Crouse (NOAA-Fisheries), Terry Rabot (USFWS), Jim Sedell (FS-PSW), Alex Whistler (BIA), and Shawne Mohoric (FS)

Issue Statement: NWFP monitoring results indicate that fuels management in dry forests has fallen short of expectations. There is a need to accelerate risk reduction treatments in these areas to reduce resource loss from wildland fires.

Background: Late-successional and old-growth forests in the drier provinces of the Northwest Forest Plan (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. Following the NWFP Science Conference, the RIEC established a sub-committee to pursue avenues for increasing acres treated for risk reduction in fire-prone regions of the NWFP and restoring forests to sustainable conditions.

Managers responsible for managing NWFP fire-prone areas were sent five questions concerning planning and implementation of risk reduction activities. Ten of eleven units responded. Following are top issues cited as reasons curtailing or affecting accomplishment of risk reduction activities:

• Funding: Funding and funding mechanisms were the top reasons reported by field units that impede accomplishing more acres of risk reduction treatments. All units cited this concern. In addition to insufficient budgets, units reported that allocation criteria directs funds to low unit cost rather than considering risks reduced or values protected. Many NWFP acres have a high unit cost/acre to treat. Also, allocation priorities direct funds to other planning or program areas such as Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), fire suppression, and other regional or national priorities. Units reported that reduced staffing and skill mix, reorganization, and downsizing all are factors impeding accomplishment of risk reduction treatments.
• Survey and Manage: Eight units reported Survey and Manage requirements reduced their ability to implement risk reduction activities. Cited were high costs, time, inadequate resources, inability to implement risk reduction activities in buffers, (especially prescribed burning) and lack of information on effects to fire-adapted species.
• Riparian Reserves (RRs): A number of units expressed concern over the lack of risk reduction treatments in RRs and watershed impacts from catastrophic fires. Also expressed were concerns about RR buffers serving as "wicks" to advance wildfires. Included were concerns over Record of Decision desired conditions and objectives and Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs). Suggestions were made to acknowledge fire’s natural role as an ecosystem disturbance process and provide direction for treating ephemeral RRs. Concerns were expressed over interpretation of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, as well as complications resulting from the unknown effects or benefits to aquatic species from various risk reduction treatments.
• Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) Endangered Species Act (ESA) Consultation and Critical Habitat: A number of units reported concerns over ability to conduct risk reduction treatments in NSO habitat and Critical Habitat and the lack of acknowledgement of long vs. short term risk in Biological Assessment/Biological Opinion (BA/BO) process. Suggestions were made to acknowledge fire’s natural role as an ecosystem disturbance process. Region 5 National Forests expressed concerns over impediments to conducting fuels treatments in critical habitat on Matrix lands.
• Desired Conditions, Objectives, S&Gs: In fire-prone regions of NWFP, much of the NSO habitat developed as a result of fire suppression. Several units commented that desired conditions, objectives and S&Gs for fire-dependent systems need to be revised to acknowledge forest ecotypes and disturbance regimes characteristic of dry forests. Noted was the incongruity in the NWFP to manage Late Successional Reserves (LSRs) for NSO and other species dependent upon multi-storied stands with old stand attributes characteristic of west-side conditions without proper recognition that many dry forest ecotypes and associated species evolved under frequent fire regimes.
• Limited Operating Periods: Significant reduction in implementation capability was cited in Region 5 National Forests.
• Lack of Scientific Information: Several units reported internal, interagency, and external controversy arising from lack of scientific knowledge on beneficial or detrimental effects from treatments in RRs and LSRs for both aquatic and terrestrial species. This included types of treatments (mechanical vs. burning) and effects on air quality from fires. Some expressed concern over the absence of information on effects of treatments especially to fire adapted species.
• Internal Processes: A number of units reported on issues that are under local line authority to control such as: (1) An LSR assessment that restricts risk reduction treatments; (2) Lengthy Interdisciplinary Team reviews of projects.
• Other Issues: See Questionnaire Summary.

1. Increase budget to NWFP fire-prone Field Units
2. Examine cost/unit allocation criteria:
   1. What’s included in cost/unit? Can other programs support risk reduction projects?
   2. Change unit measure from cost/acre treated to: Cost/values protected or risks reduced.
   3. Change allocation criteria to recognize cost differences between initial treatments (higher cost/acre) and maintenance treatments (lower cost/acre).
3. Revisit Priorities such as: WUI vs. non-WUI; suppression vs. fuels treatments
4. Other funding: Are there opportunities through partners (e.g., Tribes, Resource Advisory Councils, Watershed Councils, power companies, private timber owners)? Are stewardship contracts utilized fully?

1. Refine RR management based on desired conditions/objectives: Recognize fire-prone riparian ecosystems based on forest type, disturbance regime, and stream classification. Issue new RR management direction:
   1. Through FS and BLM plan revisions or
   2. Through regional amendment.
2. Develop Interagency MOU or Agreement on RRs Risk Reduction Treatments: Develop "Design Considerations" for treating RRs to reduce risk. Consider for instance, plant association groups or forest types, disturbance regimes, stream types, RR species of concern and RR resource values needing protection (e.g. shade). Guidance is especially needed for ephemeral streams. Utilize existing plans and publications as information sources such as Klamath Heartland and the Ashland Watershed Fire Resiliency Plan.

1. Revise desired conditions/objectives: Recognize fire-prone ecosystems based on forest type and disturbance regime. Manage NSO habitat in plant association groups most sustainable through time.
   1. Through FS and BLM plan revisions or
   2. Through regional amendment.

1. Revisit Critical Habitat boundaries
2. Recovery Plan: Consider effects to NSO habitat from risk reduction treatments and short term risks/long term benefits. Can the recovery plan describe risk reduction activities that are consistent with or beneficial to the conservation of NSO? Address existing and future habitat needs; better define critical habitat. Is there an opportunity for interagency involvement in the development of the recovery plan?
3. Develop an interagency approach for managing NSO habitat in dry forests: Can we bring information together from the proceedings from: USFWS 2005 Eastside NSO workshop, 10-Year NWFP Monitoring Results, Recovery Planning, and FS and BLM plan revisions to help design an approach for managing NSO habitat to reduce risk of uncharacteristic wildfires and facilitate ESA consultation?
4. Limited Operating Periods (identified by a number of California National Forests): Forest Service Region 5 is concluding an assessment for changing Limited Operating Periods that will provide greater flexibility in ESA consultation. Do BLM and FS Region 6 want to utilize this assessment?
5. Programmatic: Northern California FS/FWS are completing a programmatic BA/BO for vegetation and fuels treatments in WUI. Are Oregon/Washington agencies interested in this approach?

1. Critical Habitat: Work with NOAA-Fisheries to remove federal lands from critical habitat designation.
2. Programmatic: Northern California FS/USFWS are completing a programmatic BA/BO for vegetation and fuels treatments in WUI. Does NOAA-Fisheries want to consider a similar strategy for fish?

-  Next Steps:

1. RIEC selects top 1-3 priorities to research further and assigns leads.
2. Leads prepare draft work plan for RIEC sub-committee consideration. Work plans include skills needed, time and travel, products, timeline and cost/benefit assumptions.
3. Work plans due to RIEC sub-committee by mid-December.
4. RIEC sub-committee selects follow-up items (date for next sub-committee meeting or conference call to be determined).

Organizational/Funding Implications: To be identified in the Draft Work Plan for each activity selected.

Action Required:

[ ] Information [ x ] Discussion [ x ] Decision

Questionnaire Summary

Five questions were sent to the eleven field units that manage forests in NWFP fire–prone areas. Ten of eleven units responded. Comments are summarized below.

1. Are there Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) that prevent or impede planning or implementing risk reduction activities? If so, please identify which S&Gs are problematic and what changes would help achieve NWFP objectives.
2. Are there existing policies or process requirements that prevent or impede planning or implementation of risk reduction activities? Please give examples and indicate what changes would help our capability to increase risk reduction treatments.
3. Are there organizational or institutional barriers that prevent or impede planning or implementing risk reduction activities? Please give examples.
4. Are funding priorities impeding the accomplishment of risk reduction treatments?
5. Of the changes that could be made (S&Gs, policies, organizational barriers, processes, funding, etc.) which ones would be most helpful to make progress towards restoring these landscapes?

Issue

(#) Units*

Funding: Includes: 1) Increase funding; 2) Changing allocation from unit cost to risk reduced (e.g. from cost/acre treated to cost/values protected or risk reduced; 3) Competing priorities with other sources or programs (e.g., WUI, suppression, other regional priorities); 4) Overhead formulas need changing.

10

Survey and Manage: Includes: 1) Increased cost, resources, time; 2) Buffers impacting prescribed burns and fuels reduction capability or treatments; 3) No money for surveys leads to creation of buffers by assuming species presence; 3) S&Gs don’t address natural role of fire.

8

Riparian Reserves: Includes: 1) Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) interpretation at site scale; 2) Level 1 ESA consultation; 3) Revisit Desired Conditions/Objectives. for RRs; stratify by forest type and disturbance regime; 4) Issue new direction for RRs (especially ephemerals) and consider fire’s natural role; 5) Language "limit size of all fires" (C-36).

6

NSO ESA Consultation: Includes: 1) Avoiding treatments in NSO habitat to avoid "take"; 2) Not accounting for long term vs. short term trade-offs for protecting NSO habitat in BA/BO; 2) Provide tech. assistance paper to define non-suitable habitat for ESA consultation (FWS).

5

Limited Operating Periods (LOPs): Includes: 1) Provide flexibility in "take" definition for noise and smoke disturbance; 2) Display and consider short term vs. long term risk in ESA Consultation (R5).

3

Desired Conditions, Objs., S&Gs for fire-prone ecosystems: Includes: 1) Align desired conditions, objectives, S&Gs with forest ecoytype and disturbance regime; 2) Reconcile with desired condition/ objectives for NSO habitat.

3

Critical Habitat: 1) Align with LSRs: 2) Provide tech. assistance paper to define non-suitable habitat for ESA consultation (FWS).

3

ESA Consultation ACS: Includes: 1) Avoiding treatments in RRs to avoid "take"; 2) Lack of recognition of fire’s natural role; 3) Broad scale programmatic BO for fish; 4) Develop design considerations for fuels treatments in RRs; 4) Interpreting ACS at site scale.

3

Organization: Includes: 1) Reorganization; 2) Downsizing; 3) Limited staffing and skill mix; 4) Competing priorities; 5) Poor NEPA.

3

Controversy: Includes: 1) Litigation and other challenges to projects; 2) lack of trust with externals; 3) lack of research information supporting treatments.

3

Research/Information: Includes lack of research or information on 1) Effects of risk reduction treatments in RRs and LSRs (including prescribed burning) on aquatic and terrestrial species; 2) Effects from wildfire vs. prescribed burning on air quality; 3) Need science review of gray literature on fuels treatments.

2

O&C Lands: Includes 1) Restoration expectations too high on O&C; 2) Effectiveness of treatments.

2

Adaptive Management: Improve adaptive management.

2

Snags/dead wood: S&Gs for "likely to persist" and "well distributed" needs clarification for salvage (R5).

2

Note: Healthy Forest Restoration Act/Healthy Forest Initiative procedures working well (including Categorical Exclusions under NEPA)

2

*Number of units that identified the issue. Responses were grouped and paraphrased. The tables do not necessarily reflect the specific priority placed on items by individual respondents.

Topic: CLOSING DISCUSSIONS

Presenter/Sponsor: Anne Badgley, Executive Director

Issue Statement: There are three quick topics to discuss during closing: (1) Members will be invited to share any closing remarks regarding the August 21, 2005 field trip, future field trips, etc. (2) Members will be asked to identify any dates on the proposed meeting calendar distributed during the August 21, 2005 field trip where the primary, alternate, or agency representative cannot attend. (3) The potential for an IAC Conference Call has been suggested and discussed by some members. No concrete agenda, timeline, or topics have, as yet, been identified for such a meeting. Members will be asked if such a call is needed.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information [ x ] Discussion [ x ] Decision

Topic: EPA FINE PARTICLE (PM 2.5) DESIGNATIONS

REO Contact: Teresa Kubo, EPA Representative

Update:

• In July 1997, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Fine Particles (PM-2.5). The annual standard is a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter, and the 24-hour standard is a level of 65 micrograms per cubic meter. Areas not achieving these standards (non-attainment areas) were designated by EPA in December of 2004 including 204 counties in 20 states being designated as ‘air quality limited.’
• On September 8, 2005, the EPA proposed requirements that State and local governments will have to meet as they seek to bring these non-attainment areas into compliance with the 1997 air quality standards.
• The proposed rule describes the implementation framework and requirements that State, local, and Tribal governments must meet in developing their implementation plans. An implementation plan must show how an area that is not attaining the PM2.5 standards will reduce air pollutant emissions in order to meet the standards as soon as possible. The implementation plan must include supporting technical analyses and any adopted State regulations as needed. State, local, and Tribal plans must be reviewed and approved by EPA.
• At present, all of Oregon, Washington, and the counties of northern California are designated as "attainment" or "unclassifiable" due to lack of data. More information on these designations is available at http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations.
• Comments will be accepted until November 7, 2005. All comments should be identified by Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0062 and submitted by email to:  a-and-r-docket@epa.gov
• It should be noted that although these 1997 standards are only now being implemented, EPA is under a consent decree resulting from a lawsuit settled two years ago to reconsider the fine particulate matter standard. According to the settlement, EPA must issue a proposal by December 20, 2005, with a final rule due September 27, 2006. EPA is not obligated under the agreement to change the PM standard. EPA will continue to inform and engage RIEC members on this issue as it develops.

Topic: INTERAGENCY TIMELINE ONLINE

REO Contact: Anne Badgley, Executive Director

Update: During the August 2005 IAC field trip a timeline describing key activities for several agencies was distributed. This timeline is periodically updated and available online at: http://www.reo.gov/iac/timeline.htm