Regional Interagency Executive Committee
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 2, 2006

To:

Regional Interagency Executive Committee (see attached distribution list)

From:

/s/Anne Badgley, Executive Director

Subject:

REGIONAL INTERAGENCY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING REVISED NOTES FOR MARCH 17, 2006

9:00am

Welcome & Housekeeping

Kath Collier

9:05

Opening Remarks

Linda Goodman

9:10

Goals & Objectives of Meeting

Anne Badgley

9:15

Background & Budget

Lisa Freedman

9:30

- Orientation to Materials

ML Smith

9:35

- Review Process for Decision making

Kath Collier

9:40

ML Smith

10:30

Break

10:45

- Continue Review of Monitoring Questions

ML Smith

11:10

Break

11:20

- Summary & Discussion of Decisions

Lisa Freedman/ John Laurence

11:35

Cindi West

11:55

Next Steps

Lisa Freedman/ John Laurence

12 noon

Adjourn

Topic: RIEC PRIORITY QUESTIONS DECISION MEETING

Sponsor: Jim Golden , FS Region 6

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. The RIEC meeting was focused on seeking agreement on regional priority questions and concurrence on options to answer priority monitoring questions.

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. This task group has been working on a variety of tasks over the past year. One of the key tasks was to develop a process for RIEC to make decisions on a set of regional priority questions that would guide monitoring and research activities over the next decade.

Development of 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 Priority 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 was 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 was considered by the RIEC as they made decisions on a list of priority questions.

Current monitoring protocols will need to be revisited in light of decisions regarding direction for monitoring of priority questions for the NWFP area. Decisions regarding monitoring options are outlined below. Table 1 provides a tabular summary of monitoring decisions for priority questions.

Option C – Watershed stream reach sampling with data integrated within a GIS decision support model.

Additional direction: (1) Determine cost to transition PacFish/InFish Biological Opinion (PIBO) monitoring protocol to GIS framework. Want proof of concept on integrating PIBO and the Aquatic Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Program (AREMP) data within GIS decision model framework; (2) Suggest revisions for protocols and design for program; and (3) Senior Managers Group (SMG) to revisit decisions after additional information is available.

Funding level: $1,200K annually

Option A – Complete range wide habitat in-growth & loss every 10 years on Federal lands. Update habitat loss and change detection every 5 years.

Additional direction: Explore how to estimate change in habitat due to losses from fire annually. The FS Remote Sensing Application Center (RSAC) is investigating this. Cost may be minimal.

Funding level: Up to $30K Year 1 for development of data on habitat loss due to fire; $50K Year 5/10 for habitat modeling.

Option A – Develop recommendations & options for protocols to standardize BLM/ FS annual reporting and mapping of ground disturbing activities including standards, elements to be tracked and costs.

Additional direction: Consider including compliance for each mapped activity in database.

Funding level: The implementation of a GIS layer or activities database is on hold for 1-2 years pending available funding and development of a white paper outlining what ground disturbing elements to track, options and detailed costs.

Option B – Revise protocol to implement Interagency Mapping & Assessment Process (IMAP) program for Oregon, Washington, and California.

Funding level: $400K annually; $100K Year 1 for development of CA vegetation layer; $100K Year 5/10 for CA change detection layer.

Option D – Continue current demography studies while evaluating a population survey approach (Option C). Complete transition plan (include options for strata and costs), pilot to test protocol, and peer review in Year 1.

Additional direction: Goal is to complete transition in Year 2 to population survey approach, provided that the evaluation shows that the approach is cost effective and satisfies requirements for NSO population monitoring. Review transition plan at end of Year 1; consider peer review and pilot test results. In Year 2, make final decision regarding population survey approach and continuation of demographic studies.

Funding level: $2,300K annual; $300K Year 1 for transition plan, peer review and pilot test.

Option 1A – Continue current monitoring of populations and habitats for one year to complete data needed for power analysis, then re-evaluate to consider status of murrelet and other survey options.

Funding level: $354K annual.

Option A – Periodic regional analysis of existing data (e.g., 10-year census)

Additional direction: Suggest process and options with cost estimates.

Funding level: $50K in Year 5/10 (likely a low estimate).

What is the status and trend of government-to-government consultation? (M-8)
Option: Waiting for Interagency Tribal Monitoring Task Group (TMTG) to develop options and recommendations for RIEC consideration. The TMTG to report out by mid-April. This question will encompass other tribal related questions (e.g., M-9: Do American Indians have access to and use of forest species, resources, and places important for cultural, subsidence or economic reasons, particularly those identified in treaties? MR-8: Are sites of religious and cultural heritage being adequately protected? M-10: What is the status of trust resources identified in treaties with American Indians?).

Next Steps: The Adaptive Management & Monitoring Task Group will continue with the following tasks.

Allen, Dave (FWS)

Powers, Dave (EPA)

Badgley, Anne (REO)

Rabot, Terry (FWS)

Brong, Elaine (BLM, OR/WA))

Schuler, Carol (USGS)

Crouse, Mike (NOAA)

Shevock, Jim (NPS)

Golden, Jim (FS, R6)

Shipley, Frank (USGS)

Laurence, John (FS, PNW)

Thome, Darrin (FWS, CA/NV)

Mason, Garland (FS, PSW)

Tidwell, Tom (FS, R5)

Mottice, Mike (BLM, OR/WA)

Whistler, Alex (BIA)

STAFF

Collier, Kath (REO)

Loomis, Becky (REO)

Freedman, Lisa (FS, R6)

Smith, M.L. (FS, R6)

Gravenmier, Becky (PNW, REO)

Young, Kristi (FWS, REO)

Jenkins, Laurie Lee (NPS, REO)