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:

January 17, 2006

To:

Regional Interagency Executive Committee (see attached distribution list)

From:

Kristi Young, Acting Executive Director

Subject:

REGIONAL INTERAGENCY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA & PREWORK FOR JANUARY 24, 2006

Regional Interagency Executive Committee
January 24, 2006 Meeting Agenda
Conference Room 3A&B, Robert Duncan Plaza

Time

Topics

Purpose

Presenter

8 a.m.

Welcome

House-keeping

Facilitator
Anne Badgley, REO

8:05

OPENING REMARKS

Opening

Linda Goodman, Chair

8:10

WILLAMETTE ECOSYSTEM MARKETPLACE

Overview

Sara Vickerman
Defenders of Wildlife
David Primozich, Willamette Partnership

9:15

Break

9:30

R6 FOREST PLAN REVISIONS and RIEC COORDINATION

Update

Shawne Mohoric, FS

10:15

PLAN REVISIONS IN NORTHEAST WASHINGTON FORESTS

Overview

Margaret Hartzell and Bill Gaines, FS

11:15

SURVEY & MANAGE LITIGATION

Update

Sue Zike, FS

11:30

Lunch

12:30

MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS OVERVIEW

Stage setting

Anne Badgley, REO

12:35

FIRE-PRONE SYSTEMS SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE

Update

Kristi Young, FWS
Dave Gibbons, FS

12:50

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT & MONITORING SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE

Update

John Laurence, PNW

2:30

Break

2:45

• NSO Recovery Plan
• Marbled Murrelet Proposed Delisting
• Other Quick Updates

Info sharing

Kristi Young, FWS
Committee members

3:00

• Status Report questions
• Future meeting dates and topics
• Assignment/Agreement/Recommendation review

House-keeping

Facilitator

3:10

Closing Remarks

Linda Goodman, Chair

3:15

Adjourn

Topic: WILLAMETTE ECOSYSTEM MARKETPLACE

RIEC Sponsor: Linda Goodman, Forest Service, Region 6

Presenter: Sara Vickerman, Defenders of Wildlife

Issue Statement: Information will be presented on a broad based water quality trading approach being termed the Willamette Ecosystem Marketplace.

Overview: Sara Vickerman, Director of Biodiversity Partnerships for Defenders of Wildlife and David Primozich, Director of the Willamette Partnership, will present a new approach to the conservation of land and water that taps existing mitigation funds and other sources to make strategic investments in high priority areas. Public and private partners in the Northwest are exploring options to pay landowners for a variety of "ecosystem services" including clean water, fish and wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, and others. Options include the use of conservation credits that could be traded and bundled to address multiple values, and development of spatially explicit conservation priorities to enable sites to be selected more strategically.

By looking holistically at the landscape and managing land for multiple values, tax dollars and private funds can be more effectively invested in ecologically significant projects. The Willamette Partnership recently received a targeted watersheds grant from the Environmental Protection Agency to begin a water quality trading program in the Willamette Basin. The trading program will initially focus on temperature, and potentially expand to include other values. The Partnership is a new nonprofit organization with a diverse board of directors including members from business, agriculture, conservation, academia, and local governments.

Action Required: [ x ] Information

Topics: R6 FOREST PLAN REVISIONS and RIEC COORDINATION for NE WASHINGTON NATIONAL FOREST PLAN REVISIONS

Presenters: Shawne Mohoric, Agency Representative (FS), Margaret Hartzell, Bill Gaines (FS)

Issue Statement: In 2003, Forest Service (FS) Region 6 (R6) initiated a schedule for revising National Forest plans. Two of the six Forest plans currently under revision were amended by the 1994 NWFP Record of Decision (ROD) which requires management agencies to coordinate plan revisions with the Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC).

Background: In January of 2005, the FS briefed the RIEC on the 2005 Planning Rule that implements the National Forest Management Act. In April 2005, the FS briefed the RIEC on the Regional Plan Revision Strategy and revision guidance to National Forests with plans amended by the 1994 NWFP ROD.

Discussion: Forest Plans amended by the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Record of Decision (ROD) require management agencies to coordinate plan revisions with the RIEC. This requirement applies only to plan components in the 1994 amendments proposed for change during revision.

As part of a national plan revision schedule and budget, Forest plans in Region 6 will be revised on a staged schedule beginning in 2003. Forest plans will be revised in groups, the first involving the Wenatchee, Okanogan, and Colville National Forests in northeastern Washington. Two of these Forests, the Wenatchee and Okanogan, have plans that were amended by the 1994 NWFP ROD. An overview of plan components proposed for revision will be presented to the RIEC by members of the plan revision team from northeastern Washington.

Action Required: [ X] Information [ ] Discussion [ ] Decision

Topic: SURVEY AND MANAGE LITIGATION UPDATE

RIEC Sponsor: Linda Goodman, Forest Service, Region 6

REO Contact: Shawne Mohoric, Agency Representative (FS)

PRESENTER: Sue Zike, Forest Service

Issue Statement: On January 9, 2006, US District Judge Marsha Pechman issued an order which set aside and prohibited implementation of the Record of Decision dated March 22, 2004, entitled "To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service & BLM Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl" (2004 ROD). This presentation will highlight the recent ruling.

Background: The Judge’s order reinstates the January 2001 Record of Decision for the "Final EIS for Amendment to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and Other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (2001 ROD)," which, among other things, requires that surveys be conducted for rare and/or isolated species prior to habitat disturbance. Judge Pechman’s order prohibits any habitat-disturbing projects that do not comply with the 2001 Record of Decision. (Note: Amendments or modifications to the 2001 ROD that were in effect as of March 21, 2004 were also reinstated.)

The order enjoins any projects that do not comply with the 2001 Record of Decision (ROD). This ruling affects all categories of ground disturbing activities including timber sales, hazardous fuels reduction, grazing, and recreation projects.

FS and BLM officials are in the process of evaluating potential management implications as a result of this order.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information [ ] Discussion

Topic: MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS OVERVIEW

Presenter/Sponsor: Anne Badgley, Regional Ecosystem Office

REO Contact: Kath Collier, REO

Issue Statement: Anne will set the stage for today’s discussion that began at the April 2005 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) meeting. An annotated list of these topics and the results of the IAC prioritization exercise follow.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information [ ] Decision

Activity Status

Ref. #

Fed. Priority

Non- Fed. Priority

Team Lead

Active work

Part of this meeting

Reported on in 2005

2

1

2

x

x

x

3

4

5

x

x

4

4

5

x

5

3

--

6

5

5

1/ 2/

x

x

x

7

2

1

1/ 2/

x

x

x

8

5

3

9

3

4

x

10

--

--

1/ 2/

x

x

x

11

--

--

Monitoring Funding and Importance (combined with #6 and #7)

x

x

x

12

--

--

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

x

13

--

6

Communication with PACs/PIECs (Combined with #8)

14

--

6

Tribal Considerations. Report submitted by Merv George at the Science Conference.

x

x

15

--

--

Effects of laws on Plan Implementation. Tell story of affect of legal requirements and litigation on plan implementation.

x

16

--

--

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

x

x

17

--

--

Need ways to step down Plan from regional scales to forest management plans and individual projects. Evaluate how managers will be able to incorporate regional plan components into local plans.

x

x

18

--

--

Consider lessons learned form Region 5 Northwest Forest Plan review. Consider lessons learned from the California NWFP review.

x

x

19

--

6

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

x

x

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

RIEC Sponsor: Dave Gibbons, Forest Service, Region 5

Presenters: Dave Gibbons (FS, Region 5) and Kristi Young, Agency Representative (FWS)

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), Shawne Mohoric (FS), and Kristi Young (USFWS)

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: The RIEC formed a sub-committee to explore opportunities for increasing fuels reduction treatments in NWFP fire-prone regions. Sub-committee findings were presented to the RIEC and the IAC in 2005. Three areas are being investigated for potential improvements by sub-committee leads:

1. Budgets (Lead: Dave Gibbons, FS): Field units indicated that budget reductions have limited the amount of fuels reduction work being accomplished. Units suggested changing allocation criteria from a ‘unit cost’ measure to an ‘acres protected’ measure which would facilitate balancing priorities and result in increased treatment acres.

2. Riparian Reserves (Lead: Dave Powers, EPA): Field units reported that, in many cases, RRs are avoided for fuels treatments due to concerns with ESA consultation, lack of science on treatment effects, analysis burden, etc.

3. Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) Habitat Management in Dry Forests (Lead: Terry Rabot, FWS): Field units reported fuels treatments are often avoided in NSO habitat in fire-prone forests.

4. Region 5 Programmatic for Fuels Treatments in Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) in NSO habitat (Lead: Dave Gibbons, FS): FS R5 and FWS staff are completing a programmatic Biological Assessment/ Biological Opinion for fuels treatments in WUI.

Status: Draft work plans for several of the tasks were developed and reviewed by the sub-committee in December. Updates will be provided to the RIEC at this meeting by Kristi Young and Dave Gibbons.

Action Required:

[ X] Information [ ] Discussion [ ] Decision

Topic: ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT & MONITORING SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE

Sponsor: Tom Quigley, Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW)

REO Contact: Becky Gravenmier, Agency Representative (PNW)

Issue Statement: The Adaptive Management & Monitoring Subcommittee continues to make progress on tasks to improve adaptive management and refine NWFP monitoring efforts.

Background: After the NWFP Conference in April 2005, the IAC met to prioritize a set of management implication topics from the 10-year monitoring reports. As a result of this meeting, adaptive management and monitoring were identified as priority action items. Jim Golden (FS, R6) and Tom Quigley (PNW) were designated as co-leads for the RIEC Adaptive Management/ Monitoring subcommittee. A small staff group, led by Lisa Freedman (FS, R6) and John Laurence (PNW) was convened to evaluate tasks that might improve adaptive management and refine NWFP monitoring efforts. The staff group has a variety of tasks to complete including the development of an Adaptive Management Framework.

Status of Task Group Work: Lisa Freedman will give a brief overview on the status of the task groups work items.

Adaptive Management Framework: The experiences implementing the NWFP during the first decade suggest that the effectiveness of adaptive management can be increased by bringing together a wide array of learning and adapting activities in a more systematic, coordinated, and directed way. The adaptive management framework will be comprised of at least three major components: Corporate Questions, Learning Activities, and Evaluation. It is important to note that the Federal agencies do not have enough funding to address a long list of corporate questions. Corporate questions will be used to focus learning activities. There are a variety of activities such as monitoring, management experiments, research and databases, that can be applied to answer corporate questions. Information will be collected from a suite or portfolio of activities that constitute learning. This information will then be evaluated to see if changes are needed to management or policy to better answer corporate questions. Lisa Freedman will update the RIEC on the status of the Adaptive Management Framework paper. The RIEC will be asked to provide feedback on the concept paper in February.

Management Experiment Template: Active adaptive management compares alternate management treatments in "management experiments" that are applied, not as research projects, but as well-designed, agency-led administrative studies undertaken as an integral part of management itself. John Laurence will provide an overview on the progress to date on the development of a template for extensive management experiments that could be applied by local managers within the NWFP area for a variety of corporate questions.

Corporate Questions: Defining corporate questions up front – to help learning activities be as relevant as possible to future decisions – is critical. Corporate questions are designed to focus monitoring and research investments over the next 10 years. Corporate questions represent the issues deemed most pressing, both currently and with an eye to the future, as judged by the collective input from the RIEC. Because these questions are designed to drive learning activities in support of key agency decisions, they need to be strategic. To maintain focus and stay within available budgets, only a small number of questions will receive priority at any given time.

At the October 18, 2005 RIEC meeting, the first cut list of Corporate Questions or topics were prioritized and sorted for consideration at regional or local levels. This list was initially generated by interagency staff starting with the current NWFP monitoring questions. New items were added to the list from the findings of the 10-year report and other sources such as the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. Given the direction of Federal budgets, the RIEC must focus on the highest priority concerns for the next 10 years. IAC members provided input into priority topics at the November 30, 2005 meeting. Their input on priorities will be considered as the RIEC makes decisions on a short list of high priority issues/questions by February 2006.

Research Topics: The NWFP Research Executives and staffs were asked to provide input on the priority research corporate questions and identify where their agencies have current or planned research activities. Tom Quigley will provide an overview of the work that has been accomplished by the research agencies and will suggest areas where the research agencies may be able to join efforts and collaborate in order to provide answers to key research questions important to Federal land managers.

Monitoring & Management Experiment Topics: Lisa Freedman will update the RIEC on staff work that has been completed for the monitoring and management experiment corporate questions including options, decision criteria and recommendations. The RIEC and their staffs will have the opportunity to review the staff work following the meeting. The RIEC will be asked to make decisions on priorities in February 2006.

Next Steps: Schedule a meeting or conference call in February 2006 for RIEC to make decisions regarding priority corporate questions and options for answering these questions.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information [ ] Recommendations

Management Implications Subcommittee Fire-Prone Ecosystems – Riparian Reserves Draft Workplan

Issue Statement: Riparian Reserves constitute a significant portion of the landscape in fire prone systems and are key to the conservation of a wide array of aquatic and terrestrial resources. Research and assessments of fire prone systems document that fire suppression policies and past management have resulted in stand conditions that put water quality, many species, and habitats at risk. Silvicultural treatments carried out to enhance stand characteristics and increase resiliency to severe fire events could help conserve important aquatic and terrestrial resources. Wood by-products would result from some of the treatments.

Proposal: Provide scientific bases, specific examples, models and analysis tools, agency direction, and intergovernmental support for silvicultural treatments in at-risk stands in fire prone areas that are designed to increase the likelihood of conserving functional riparian stands in fire prone areas.

Potential Tasks:

Status: Workgroup meetings are ongoing to identify specific information needs and staffing assumptions. Questions can be directed to Dave Powers, EPA, at (503) 326-5874 or powers.david@epa.gov.

Publishing Status of Northwest Forest Plan 10-Year Interpretive Reports

Issue Statement: The Northwest Forest Plan 10-year Interpretive reports are in the process of being published by PNW Research Station and Region 6. These reports summarize the key findings from the first 10 years of implementing the Northwest Forest Plan and monitoring results from the various monitoring modules.

Status: Three of the Northwest Forest Plan 10-year Interpretive reports have been published and are available on-line. The other reports are in various stages of the publication process.

Status of Other NWFP Reports:

Topic

Status

Est. Date to Printer

Marbled Murrelet

In layout

Early March

Socioeconomic

Volume 3 still in layout; Volumes 1-2, 4-6 in author review.

April

Synthesis

In editing process

May

Management Implications

In final policy review; then to be revised by authors and sent in to begin editing process.

June or July

Implementation Monitoring

In editing

March

Data Management

In editing

March

Tribal

In editing

April