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:

February 6, 2006

To:

Regional Interagency Executive Committee (see attached distribution list)

From:

/s/Anne Badgley, Executive Director

Subject:

REGIONAL INTERAGENCY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES 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

Tom Quigley, PNW
Lisa Freedman, FS
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, FS

Presenters: Sara Vickerman, Director of Biodiversity Partnerships, Defenders of Wildlife
David Primozich, Director of the Willamette Partnership

Issue Statement: Sara Vickerman and David Primozich presented 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.

Summary of Discussion: Sara Vickerman, Defenders of Wildlife, opened with an overview of an Ecosystem Marketplace concept. An ecosystem marketplace acts as a broker to facilitate market transactions under which landowners can be paid for a variety of "ecosystem services" including clean water, fish and wildlife habitat, or carbon sequestration. The marketplace converts these ecological values into "credits," which then can be purchased by public and private developers, conservation buyers, and investors. Credits can be traded and bundled to address multiple values. The marketplace could also develop 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.

David Primozich, Willamette Partnership, described the Willamette River Basin Ecosystem Marketplace that is being developed with the help of a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency. The initial focus of the Willamette Ecosystem Marketplace will be to reduce water temperatures in the basin. In 2004, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality implemented new Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) restrictions for basin water temperatures. Businesses, farmers, and water treatment plants have regulatory obligations to meet the TMDL, but technical fixes to cool discharge are very expensive. Watershed restoration is more effective at cooling water and less expensive than purchasing equipment, and contributes significantly to overall watershed health. The Willamette Ecosystem Marketplace will provide a venue for businesses to find more cost-effective strategies to meet their regulatory obligations. Rather than buying equipment, businesses use their money to finance conservation credits, which can be converted into ecosystem services such as paying farmers to protect riverbanks and plant shade trees that cool water. The Marketplace is still in development. The Willamette Partnership plans to complete a market viability assessment, identify conservation priorities, define the currencies of trade and credit values, and determine the market mechanisms. They expect to conduct the first trade within 30 months.

The RIEC is interested in revisiting the progress of this project in the future.

RIEC Decisions: Information only.

Topic: R6 FOREST PLAN REVISIONS AND RIEC COORDINATION

RIEC Sponsor: Linda Goodman, Forest Service, Region 6

Presenters: Shawne Mohoric, Margaret Hartzell and Bill Gaines, Forest Service

REO Contact: Shawne Mohoric, Forest Service Representative

Summary of Discussion: The Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) received an update on Forest Service (FS) Region 6 (R6) Forest Plan Revisions. Coordination of plan revisions with the RIEC is a requirement of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) 1994 Record of Decision.

At this time, the R6 Forests within the NWFP area that are undergoing plan revisions include the Wenatchee and Okanogan National Forests. Revised plans will be strategic in nature and will not include final agency actions for projects or activities. The Forest Supervisor is the Responsible Official for the revised plans. Revisions will be guided by the new 2005 Planning Rule (see RIEC notes January 2005) and follow a new National Plan Model. This model provides a consistent format that includes vision, strategy, and design criteria for each Forest plan. Plan components include desired conditions, objectives, guidelines, suitability of areas, and special areas. Monitoring programs will be identified in forest plans.

The RIEC review process of plan revisions will focus only on those components pertinent to the 1994 NWFP amendments. Steps for review and coordination include a preliminary RIEC review (provided January 24, 2006) and a final RIEC review/presentation (executive summary) when a final plan option has been identified. There will be a 30-day RIEC review and comment period coordinated through the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO).

Following the presentation there were several questions regarding the need for agency managers at the national level to provide further guidance concerning Section 7 ESA Consultation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries expressed a desire to be involved in drafting a coordination agreement template with the FS for use in plan revisions at the local level.

This discussion was followed by a presentation from the Wenatchee-Okanogan National Forests who presented preliminary proposed changes in their plan revisions. The presentation focused only on those plan components that will change from the 1994 NWFP amendments. In summary:

• Desired Conditions and Objectives for managing Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) habitat on the eastside Cascade forests will be revised to reflect new science and monitoring findings. Revised plan components will acknowledge frequent fire disturbance regimes characteristic of dry fire-prone forests. Desired Conditions and Objectives will be correlated to plant association groups (PAGs). Management of NSO habitat will be emphasized in PAGs most resistant to fire disturbance (e.g., mixed conifer, moist). Dry eastside PAGs (e.g., ponderosa pine) will emphasize habitat for late-successional species characteristic of these PAGs (e.g., white-headed woodpecker).
• Minor boundary changes to LSRs are proposed to remove particular developed recreation sites from this land allocation. Another proposed change exchanges acres out of an isolated LSR with adjacent non-LSR acres to improve connectivity (there is ‘no net change’ of LSR acres).
• There will also be revisions to standards and guidelines concerning management of hazard trees along roadways and in developed recreation sites.

A final RIEC review will occur when the Forests have developed a final plan option in late 2006. The RIEC will have a 30-day review and comment period of proposed changes. The Forests emphasized the public involvement and collaboration occurring at the local level with interagency staff and public groups and individuals. RIEC members can stay abreast of the revision process through the Wenatchee National Forest website at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/wenatchee.

Topic: SURVEY & MANAGE LITIGATION

RIEC Sponsor/Presenter: Linda Goodman, Forest Service, Region 6

REO Contact: Shawne Mohoric, Forest Service Representative

Issue Statement: Linda stepped in for Sue Zike (who was not able to attend) and provided a brief overview of the Survey and Manage litigation, as summarized in the prework. Linda indicated that the FS and BLM are currently evaluating the impacts of this order.

Background: 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). 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.

Next Steps (who/what/when): Future update.

Topic: MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS OVERVIEW

Presenter/Sponsor: Anne Badgley, REO

Summary: Anne provided a quick overview of the management implication topics presented at the April 2005 IAC meeting (a list was provided in the prework) and noted that there are several teams working on the areas that were identified as "high priority." Two of the committees reported during this meeting, and several other teams are also at work as shown in the prework.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information [ ] Decision

Topic: MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS – FIRE-PRONE SYSTEMS SUBCOMMITTEE

RIEC Sponsor: Dave Gibbons, Forest Service, Region 5

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

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. The RIEC Fire-Prone Systems Subcommittee is exploring ways to accelerate risk reduction treatments.

Background: 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. A questionnaire was sent to field managers to evaluate potential ways to increase fuel treatments. Based on the results of the questionnaire, during the October 18, 2005 meeting, the RIEC directed the subcommittee to develop work plans focusing on four issues: budgets, riparian reserves, northern spotted owl habitat management in dry forests, and the FS Region 5 programmatic consultation for fuels treatments in Wildland Urban Interface (WUI).

Status: Dave Gibbons and Kristi Young provided an update of the subcommittee activities.

The programmatic consultation in Region 5 is not yet completed. Information about the potential to "export" components of the Biological Assessment/Biological Opinion to Oregon and Washington is not yet available.

Dave Powers (EPA) is forming a team to look at how to develop design considerations and share current science and knowledge pertaining to treating fuels in riparian reserves. A draft work plan was attached to the pre-work.

Kristi Young is forming a team of biologists to determine how to implement some of the recommendations from the 2005 "Managing Northern Spotted Owl Habitat in Dry-Forest Ecosystems" workshop. The synthesis and executive summary from the 2005 workshop are available on the REO website, www.reo.gov, under "What’s New!" The recommendations include:
(1) Provide a provincial-level context for prioritizing risk reduction activities
(2) Institute a collaborative, interagency process at the Forest/District level to prioritize risk reduction projects
(3) Implement interagency planning of risk reduction projects

An interagency regional/state level team is being formed to develop the framework for the provincial-level assessments.

RIEC Decisions: Information only.

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 and 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 gave a brief overview on the status of the task groups work items.

Adaptive Management Framework (AMF): 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 AMF 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 a corporate question. The RIEC was asked to provide feedback on the concept paper by February 14.

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 provided a progress update on the development of a template for extensive management experiments. This template could be applied by local managers within the NWFP area to research a variety of corporate questions. The template will be ready for RIEC review in March.

Priority Questions: Priority questions are designed to focus monitoring and research investments over the next 10 years. Priority 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. These questions need to be strategic because they will drive learning activities needed to address key agency decisions. 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. Staff were asked to provide the RIEC with options, cost and risk information for the high priority questions. 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 March 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 provided an overview of the current and planned research by agency for the high priority research questions. Research executives will continue discussion about priority research questions and will look for opportunities to collaborate.

Monitoring Topics: Lisa Freedman updated the RIEC on work completed for the monitoring corporate questions including options, decision criteria and recommendations. The RIEC and their staffs were asked to review the package following the meeting. The RIEC will be asked to make decisions on priorities in March 2006.

Adaptive Management Implementation Plan: Target completion date: March 2006.
Draft/revise monitoring protocols: Target completion date: Summer 2006

Discussion: The following items were discussed.

• It was suggested that the RIEC carefully consider what new management experiments to propose as there are already numerous experiments underway.

• RIEC wanted to ensure research would integrate with management experiments.
• Priority research questions may need to be refined in order be answerable. Some are too narrowly focused and others are too broad.
• It was noted that proposed research may be more than the agencies can afford. Need to focus on what is required by the ROD.
• Some RIEC members wanted additional information on tradeoffs and assumptions related to potential research questions. It was suggested that staff and senior managers might meet with the task group prior to next RIEC meeting.

• Some RIEC members wanted more information and discussion between staff before a decision is made on a short list of regional priority questions. Discussion should include assumptions, rationale, pros and cons.
• Decisions on priority questions are needed in March so that staff can revise/develop monitoring protocols prior to FY07.
  

It was also proposed that a ‘lead’ be identified for each priority question and that they report annually on findings and accomplishments across agencies.

Decisions/Assignments: The following decisions and assignments were made.

(1) RIEC and staff were asked to provide input to John Laurence by February 14, 2006 on the draft Adaptive Management Framework concept paper.

(2) The RIEC was asked to review the priority questions package, in preparation for the March RIEC meeting (yet to be scheduled), to:

• Recommend which priority questions would become the "short" list of regional priority questions to guide future adaptive management & monitoring activities.
• Determine which monitoring topics (Table 1) to invest in and the general option to pursue from their agency perspective. Staff would then complete additional work to identify potential monitoring protocols, costs and options and bring that back to RIEC for final decisions. Agencies should be prepared to discuss the level of funding support they can provide for future effectiveness monitoring efforts (FY07 and beyond).
• Suggest where additional research (Table 3) is needed to fully answer priority research questions.

(3) Schedule a meeting in March 2006 for RIEC to make decisions regarding regional priority questions and options for answering these questions.

(4) Schedule two meetings to provide an opportunity for Senior Managers Group (SMG) and key agency staff (not represented by SMG) to meet with the task group members to answer questions and clarify the monitoring staff work. RIEC would like the SMG to meet and discuss potential options, rationale and pros/cons of those options, and availability of funding by agency. RIEC members would like feedback from their SMG members and staff prior to making a decision on regional priority questions and options to answer those questions.

(5) Research executives will continue discussions about priority research questions and will look for opportunities to collaborate. They 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.

(6) The task group will complete the work on the management experiment templates prior to the next RIEC meeting. They will provide a summary of all existing management experiments, issues and costs.

Topic: CLOSING REMARKS

RIEC Sponsor/Presenter: Linda Goodman, Forest Service, Region 6

Summary: Linda wrapped up the session by thanking participants and presenters for the crisp presentations and noted that the meeting was concise and focused on issues. She mentioned the RIEC’s desires for more frequent updates on the FS/BLM planning processes and the desire to have an update on the successes of the Ecosystem Marketplace.

Status Reports:

There were no comments/questions on the status reports

Future Potential Topics

Willamette Partnership success and progress, Final RIEC Review Northeastern Washington Forest Plans, Litigation Update, and Marbled Murrelet

Tasks and Assignments

WHO

WHEN

WHAT

Kristi Young

ASAP

Identify staff involved in the May 2006 NSO Workshop

Lisa Freedman

ASAP - DONE

AM Framework document to the RIEC electronically

RIEC

2/14

Review of draft framework document – comments to John Laurence (PNW) – reminder sent with the electronic copy

Meeting Evaluation:

Out of a possible score of 5 the meeting had a mean average of 4.22. Both effectiveness and general execution were rated high (4.43 and 4.30 respectively) with efficiency being rated at 4.17 and focus at 4.0. Many positive comments were received on the room, presentations, and presenters. Most members appreciated the shortened time frame and faster pace. There was a desire to have more time to discuss issues.

RIEC MEMBERS

PRESENTERS

Allen, Dave (FWS)

Kinsinger, Anne (USGS)

Freedman, Lisa (FS, R6)

Badgley, Anne (REO)

Loop, Curt (COR)

Gaines, Bill (FS, R6)

Brong, Elaine (BLM, OR/WA))

Quigley, Tom (FS, PNW)

Hartzell, Margaret (FS, R6)

Crouse, Mike (NOAA)

Rodriquez, Socorro

Laurence, John (PNW)

Detrich, Phil (FWS, CA/NV)

Roush, Paul (BLM, CA)

Primozich, David (Willamette Partnership)

Gibbons, Dave (FS, R5)

Sedell, Jim (FS, PSW)

Vickerman, Sara (Defenders of Wildlife)

Goodman, Linda (FS, R6)

Shevock, Jim (NPS)

Graham, Bob (NRCS)

Whistler, Alex (BIA)

STAFF & VISITORS

Cochran, Bobby (Def. of Wildlife)

Joyner, Cal (USFS)

Morris, Steve (NOAA, Fisheries, REO)

Collier, Kath (REO)

Loomis, Becky (REO)

Shipley, Frank (USGS)

Fink, Elena (BLM)

Martin, Jon (FS)

Smith, Marie Louise (FS)

Gravenmier, Becky (PNW, REO)

Mattson, Phil (FS)

Soscia, Mary Lou (EPA)

Jenkins, Laurie Lee (NPS, REO)

Mohoric, Shawne (FS, R6, REO)

Young, Kristi (FWS, REO)