Regional Ecosystem Office
333 SW 1st
P.O. Box 3623
Portland, Oregon 97208-3623
Website: www.reo.gov
Phone: 503-808-2165 FAX: 503-808-2163



Memorandum
Date: August 1, 2001
To: Regional Interagency Executive Committee (see Distribution)
From: Stephen J. Odell, Executive Director
Subject: Agenda & Prework Materials for August 2 RIEC Meeting
 

Enclosed please find the agenda and prework materials for the Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) meeting scheduled for August 2, 2001, from 7:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. at the Sheraton Portland Airport Hotel (503-281-2500), located at 8235 NE Airport Way in Portland, in the Mt. Hood A Conference Room. The meeting will consist of three major segments: (1) the transaction of normal RIEC business meeting matters from 7:00-9:30 a.m.; (2) a conference call with Interagency Advisory Committee (IAC) members from 10:00-11:30 a.m.; and, (3) following lunch, a RIEC executive session to allow for continuation of discussion on the issues raised at July 17 off-site meeting.

In addition to status reports on several ongoing initiatives, the enclosed materials include agenda topic overviews addressing the following topics that will be covered at the upcoming RIEC meeting:

The IAC members conference call (503-326-7662) will provide updates on the following topics:

After lunch there will be a closed executive session that will follow-up on discussion of several issues that were initially addressed during the July 17 Executives Off-site meeting.

As you can see, we have a very busy day scheduled. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the agenda or the enclosed prework materials, please do not hesitate to contact me (503-808-2166), REO Management Analyst Kath Collier (503-808-2179), or your REO agency representative. I look forward to seeing you at the upcoming meeting.

cc:
REO
Presenters

Attachments:
Exemption Process presentation
Exemption Criteria presentation

1660/kc


Distribution List for RIEC:
Anne Badgley, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Doug Buffington, USGS Western Region
Col. Randall J. Butler, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Donna Darm, National Marine Fisheries Service
Mike Crouse, National Marine Fisheries Service
David Powers, Environmental Protection Agency
Harv Forsgren, Forest Service, Region 6
Nancy Graybeal, Forest Service
Bob Graham, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Thomas Mills, PNW, Forest Service
Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, Western Ecology Division, EPA
Stan M. Speaks, Bureau of Indian Affairs
William C. Walters, National Park Service
Jim Shevock, National Park Service
Elaine Y. Zielinski, Bureau of Land Management
Ed Shepard, Bureau of Land Management

California Federal Executives
Brad Powell, Forest Service
Bernie Weingardt, Forest Service
Michael J. Spear, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
John Engbring, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Michael Pool, Bureau of Land Management
Paul Roush, Bureau of Land Management


Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) Meeting
Proposed Agenda - August 2, 2001 - 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Sheraton Portland Airport Hotel - Mt. Hood A Conference Room

Time Potential Agenda Topics Purpose Presenter
7:00 Preliminary Matters
• Welcome, Introductions, Review & Adjust Agenda
Logistics Harv Forsgren
7:05 Update on Short-term Responses to PCFFA Court Rulings* Information Mike Crouse
7:20 REO's FY02 Budget Recommendation Curt Loop
7:35 Oregon Agreement Proposal: A Proposed Model for Results-Driven Environmental Policy Information Steve Odell
7:50 Science Findings
• Findings identified for presentation at Oct. '01 meeting**
• Emergent issues regarding northern spotted owl biology*
Information
Presentation
Gary Benson
8:05 Review of NFP S&G and Land Allocation Modifications
• White Pass Ski Area spur road
• New Land Allocation in LSR resulting from Huckleberry Land Exchange Forest to accommodate Tribal Elk Hunting*
Presentation
Decision
Steve Odell
Bill Kirchner
Debbie Pietrzak
8:20 Break  
8:30 Species' Environmental Baselines under ESA Information Barry Mulder
8:45 Survey & Manage
• Progress Report on Annual Species Review process*
• Formation of Work Group to address fire-related issues
Information Neal Middlebrook
9:00 Preparation for Conference Call with IAC members Clarification Steve Odell
9:15 Potential Hot Topics
• Update on NFP-related litigation*
Information Steve Odell
9:20 Status Reports Questions Clarification REO Reps
9:25 Closing Comments/Task Review Feedback Harv Forsgren
9:30 Break  
10:00 Conference call with IAC members
• Thinning Treatments in Dense, Younger Stands
• Overview and response to recent court rulings*
• Interagency evaluation of potential options to improve NFP implementation
• Process for RIEC/REO review of NFP Modifications*
Information Sharing
Progress Report
Harv Forsgren
Steve Odell
11:30 Lunch (on-site)  
12:30 Executive Session - Following up July 17 XXOS Meeting
• Talking Points on Present Status of NFP implementation
• Completion of discussion of minor, moderate, major, and extra-regional examples of potential changes from the present NFP implementation
• Interagency Washington Office NFP briefing options paper
Discussion
Decisions
Steve Odell
2:30 Break  
2:45 Follow-up (Continued)  
3:45 Wrap-up - Confirm Decisions, Next Steps, Meeting Critique  
4:00 Adjournment Procedural Harv Forsgren

Note: An asterisk denotes a task classified as Urgent (**) or High-Priority (*) in 2001 REO/RMG Work Plan

Status Reports
• National Fire Plan implementation
• Umpqua Land Exchange Project (ULEP)
• Monitoring Budget Challenges and September Presentation*
• Status of Forest Service's Roadless Area Conservation Rule

 

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Presenter/Sponsor/REO Contact/Phone: Steve Morris (503-808-2176)
Topic: Update on Short-term Responses to recent PCFFA court rulings
Issue Statement: To report on the progress of the interagency staff work group that is collaboratively working to develop project design criteria that would allow Endangered Species Act consultations on qualifying projects to proceed informally; i.e., "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" (NLAA) projects
Background: The NLAA work group was established pursuant to direction from the RIEC subcommittee that was formed to oversee development of short-term responses to the recent court rulings in the PCFFA litigation, which is composed of FWS, FS, BLM, and NMFS. The criteria the group is developing will facilitate identification of timber sale or other activities that can proceed in the near term, consistent with court rulings in the PCFFA litigation, in a manner providing appropriate protection for ESA listed anadromous fish resources within the Northwest Forest Plan area.
Analysis and Options: The NLAA work group met on July 24, and agreed to the following items:
  1. The work group will individually review existing criteria presently used by land management and consulting agencies to make NLAA determinations, including:
  2. (a) Joint review of NMFS Southwest Region/FS Region 5 Biological Opinions BOs), Biological Assessments (BAs) and Letters of Concurrence (LOC);
    (b) NMFS Northwest Region review of BOs and LOCs;
    (c) Criteria used in FS Region 6 (Wade Sims);
    (d) FWS review of NFP ROD timber sale S&Gs; and
    (e) Criteria used by BLM.

  3. The above material will be collected by REO and distributed to the work group on July 31. The work group will review this material and meet on August 7 to begin work on development of a consensus package of project design criteria.
  4. Barring consensus, the work group will develop a set of two to three option packages for RIEC review and decision.
  5. In addition to the above information, the work group will also review other project-level analysis models, including the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission coarse screen, the Eastside consultation screen, the National Fire Plan consultation model, NMFS Southwest Region take avoidance model, and the NMFS/FS Eastside NLAA determination process. The work group will incorporate elements of these as appropriate.
  6. The work group anticipates completion of criteria development, agency review, and presentation to the RIEC at its September 5 meeting.

The group that is addressing the related issue of developing an alternative analytical framework for carrying out consultation on ESA-listed anadromous fish has not yet had a chance to meet.

Organizational/Funding Implications: There is an ongoing commitment of time that is required by the agency staff serving on these work groups.
REO Staff Proposal: None required at this time.
Action Required: x Information Decision
 

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW
Presenter/Sponsor: Curt Loop, 503 808-2172 / Steve Odell, 503 808-2165
REO Contact/Phone: Curt Loop, 503 808-2172
Topic: Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) Budget
Issue Statement: To provide the Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) with an overview of some potentially significant changes to the FY 2002 REO budget and obtain some preliminary guidance for preparation of the FY 2002 REO operating budget
Background: Since FY 1995, agency contributions to the REO operating budget, along with REO expenses, have both remained generally constant. Respective agency contributions were based on ability to pay and ranged from $25,000 to $100,000, with the three research agencies providing $15,000 each. The total contributions were sufficient to meet the annual REO operating budget of approximately $720,000 each year. In every year, the REO operating budget sustained essential internal operations and services in support of the RIEC and Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC). When a surplus of funds occurred in one FY, agency contributions were reduced in the following year or additional essential projects were completed.

In FY 2002, several potentially significant changes may ensue including: The cost of space and utilities for the REO may increase substantially from the present level of $98,000; and agency contributions will be reduced by $100,000 due to congressional funding cuts to a major partnering agency, the Corps of Engineers. Another change includes the anticipated annual increase in personnel costs. The combination of all these changes may severely impact the amount of funds available to the REO and the amount of its discretionary funds.
Analysis and Options:

Income: As a result of the loss of the contribution from the Corps of Engineers, the total amount to operate the REO for FY2002 will be reduced to $620,000. An outline of some basic options includes:
1. Increase contributions of agencies to cover anticipated shortfall . For example, simply to make up for the loss of the Corps's $100,000 contribution, agencies that once provided $100,000 might be asked to provide approximately $117,000.
2. Increase contributions of agencies to take into account inflation (Consumer Price Index). For example, agency contributions have remained constant at $720,000 since 1995, which represents $835,000 in 2001 dollars. Under this option, agencies would provide approximately $135,000, $68,000, $34,000, and $20,000, depending upon the level of their present share.
3. Renegotiate agency shares.
4. Reduce REO services and capabilities to reflect lower sum of overall agency contributions.

Expenses:
1. Personnel Costs: Personnel expenses will continue to consume a major portion (approximately 90 percent) of the REO budget, with some increases scheduled for FY 2002. The REO will pay the annual Federal employee pay increase for all federal employees.
2. Rent: The major increase may occur in our space and utility costs. In previous years, the agreement for space costs has been $98,000. The REO is presently working with the Forest Service's Financial Management Department to determine its fair share of a rate increase or negotiate a multi-year fixed rate agreement. As an example, using the FS figures, annual rates for space typically ranges from $12,000 to $16,000 per person. If these planning costs are applied to the REO, space costs could potentially increase to between $240,000 to $320,000.
3. Miscellaneous Costs: Include office supplies, library/publications, postage, copying, and printing. Projected to remain relatively constant at approximately $30,000, or 4.5-5.5 percent of total expenses.
4. Equipment and Support: Another major portion of the REO budget is for GIS, automation, and telecommunication products and services.
Organizational/Funding Implications: Collectively, the major and minor changes occurring in FY 2002 will impact the REO operation budget and contributions from all agencies.
REO Staff Proposal: The REO will continue to expend funds on products services and operations that are only essential for successful RIEC and IAC support. With the information provided above, the RIEC faces important questions: Does the RIEC wish to maintain its level of available funds for essential REO operations and services and make up for the lost contribution?

If the answer is yes, the remaining agencies contributions will be adjusted upwards based on an alternative agreeable to all agencies. If the answer is no, then, based on RIEC input, the REO will review all its expenses to determine what areas are to be cut and analyze the impacts on resultant operations and services. The REO will then develop and recommend an operation budget that meets agency contributions and identifies those services that will no longer be provided along with the impact(s) on operations.

The REO is scheduled to provide its recommended budget at a RIEC meeting on September 5, 2001.
Action Required: X Information Decision
 

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Presenter/Sponsor: Bill Kirchner (503) 808-2171
REO Contact/Phone: Steve Odell (503) 808-2166
Topic: The Oregon Agreement Proposal
Issue Statement: To introduce the model Oregon Governor Kitzhaber has proposed serve as a basis for developing an intergovernmental Memorandum of Understanding on environmental issues
Background: In May 2001, U.S. Senator Gordon Smith hosted a meeting for Governor Kitzhaber, the Oregon congressional delegation, and representatives from the Bush Administration representing the Commerce, Interior and Agriculture Departments. At this meeting, Governor Kitzhaber provided copies of "The Oregon Agreement, A Proposed Model for Results Driven Environmental Policy."

As a follow-up to the May meeting, Louise Solliday, the Governor's Assistant for Natural Resources, is preparing a letter to President Bush asking for participation of key administration representatives in a 2-3 day meeting later this year. The meeting would include Federal and State legislative representatives, Federal and State agency executives, Governor's office key staff, key stakeholders, and business interests. The purpose of the meeting would be to draft an Oregon Agreement Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) similar to the Oregon Options MOU (an outcome-based approach used for social and human services issues in Oregon) entered into by the Governor with the Clinton Administration. The Governor envisions an agreement for natural resource issues that would include a set of principles and a set of shared outcomes. The starting point for a discussion on shared outcomes will be the Oregon State of the Environment Report 2000 that outlines 18 benchmarks. Ms. Solliday will attend and be available to answer questions at the September 2001 RIEC meeting.
Analysis and Options: N/A
Organizational/Funding Implications: N/A
REO Staff Proposal: None at this time.
Action Required: X Information Discussion and Decision


AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Presenters/Sponsors: Dave Busch & Gary Benson
RMG Contact/Phone: Gary Benson (503) 808-2191
Topic: Recent science findings relevant to Spotted Owl and future RIEC presentations
Issue Statement: To provide an update on emergent science findings relating to the spotted owl and a preview of research findings tentatively scheduled for presentation at the October 2001 RIEC meeting
Background: There has been recent media coverage about two lines of scientific inquiry that are producing potentially significant information regarding the Northern Spotted Owl, as follows:

1. Genetics studies relating to the Northern Spotted Owl: A recent peer-reviewed science publication (June 2001) indicates that there may be no significant genetic distinction between the Northern and California Spotted Owl, but that these population segments are genetically distinct from the Mexican Spotted Owl. The results of this study are more extensive than previous studies because it examined a larger number of individual owls and sampled more areas across the ranges of the Northern, California and Mexican Spotted Owls.

2. Barred Owl incursion into the ranges of Northern and California Spotted Owls: Recent science and monitoring information has documented the spread of Barred Owls into the range of the Northern Spotted Owl. The Barred Owl may have also made very minor incursions into the range of the California Spotted Owl. Demographic monitoring and research publications indicate that Barred Owls may displace Northern Spotted Owls, forcing the Northern Spotted Owls into more marginal habitats or causing their populations to decline. There have been reports of hybridization between the two owl species, which could also affect Northern Spotted Owl recovery.

In addition, the Research Agency Executives recently selected science findings in three topical areas for possible presentation to the RIEC or agency staff. Findings dealing with options for management at the landscape level pertinent to the NFP area are tentatively scheduled for presentation at the October 2001 RIEC meeting, while the other two topical areas, (1) management activities for Thinning in Riparian Reserves and (2) In-stream Habitat and Fish Populations, are being synthesized for potential future presentations at meetings of the RIEC or appropriate agency staff.
Analysis and Options:
Spotted Owl Topics:
This information is potentially pertinent to the listing status and recovery of the Northern and California Spotted Owl, and may also be pertinent to future management, research, or monitoring activities related to these subspecies.

The Research Executive's presentation on new information and science findings topics that have or will soon achieve sufficient development for management consideration and assessment continues the series of science findings presentations to the RIEC the committee agreed it would like to receive.
Organizational/Funding Implications:
Informational briefing, implications to be developed by subsequent tasks.
REO Staff Proposal: Communicate this information to RIEC members and, as appropriate, the RIEC members can pass this information along to the appropriate agency staff members. In the future, REO and/or interagency workgroups may participate in the development of additional tasks and action items as warranted.
Action Required: X Information Decision
 

AGENDA SUB-TOPIC OVERVIEW
Presenter/Sponsor: Steve Odell 503-808-2166
REO Contact/Phone: Shawne Mohoric 503-808-2175
Topic: RIEC/REO Coordination/Review of Gifford Pinchot Forest Plan Amendment
Issue Statement: To conduct a final review of a proposed Modification to a NFP Standard and Guideline to allow the construction of a one-quarter mile road segment within the Tier 2 Clear Fork Cowlitz River Key Watershed in an Inventoried Roadless Area on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest
Background: On March 27, 2001, REO received a request from Regional Forester Harv Forsgren to facilitate a coordinated review pursuant to NFP Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) of a proposed one-time, site-specific change to the NFP S&G which prohibits new road construction within inventoried Roadless Areas in Key Watersheds (page B-19). The proposed Modification is being sought to allow the Gifford Pinchot National Forest to construct a one-quarter-mile road segment within the Tier 2 Clear Fork Cowlitz Key Watershed (which is part of the White Pass Inventoried Roadless Area) for the purpose of servicing ski area facilities associated with the proposed expansion of White Pass Ski Area.

With respect to amending one or more individual forest plans in a fashion that would change or adjust NFP S&Gs, the ROD (page 58) and S&Gs (E-18) provide for RIEC/REO coordination and review to assure consistency with the objectives of the NFP S&Gs while fully acknowledging the line authorities of individual agencies. Under this requirement, the REO has completed its work of reviewing the proposed Modification and developed a set of recommended findings for RIEC's consideration and possible final adoption at the meeting.

To prepare for its review, REO requested the following information from the Forest:
  1. A complete description of the Amendment including its temporal and geographic scope,
  2. An explanation of why the RIEC/REO coordination/review is timely.
  3. Identification of any S&Gs, Land Allocations, or other major components that would be modified or are directly related to the proposed Modification.
  4. An explanation of how the proposed Modification is consistent with the objectives of the ACS strategy or other related objectives to the extent each is relevant to the proposed Modification.
  5. An explanation of how the proposed Modification is consistent with the five overarching principles of the NFP (ROD, page 58).

The Forest prepared a response to the requested information and briefed the REO staff on the proposed Modification at a meeting held in Portland on May 24, 2001. The Forest was asked to provide, and did provide, supplementary clarification on additional questions raised during the briefing. REO provided a preliminary briefing to the RIEC on its coordination/review efforts at the June 2001 RIEC meeting.

Analysis and Options: REO has completed its work associated with coordination/review of the proposed Modification and has prepared a set of recommended findings that the proposed Modification is consistent with the objectives of the NFP S&Gs. These recommended findings are being provided to RIEC under separate cover and will be presented to the RIEC for its consideration and potential concurrence during the August meeting.
Organizational/Funding Implications: None.
REO Staff Proposal: REO recommends that the RIEC concur with its set of recommended findings that the proposed Modification is consistent with the objectives of the NFP S&Gs.
Action Required: Information X Decision

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Presenter/Sponsor: Debbie Pietrzak (503-808-6006)
REO Contact/Phone: Shawne Mohoric (503-808-2175)
Topic: RIEC/REO coordinated review of a Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Plan Amendment for site-specific Land Allocation modifications
Issue Statement: To present for the RIEC's review a proposed modification of an NFP Land Allocation for approximately 2,340 acres that were acquired in 1998 as part of the Huckleberry Land Exchange and are currently within a Late-Successional Reserve (LSR).
Background: The NFP ROD states that "Amendments of forest or district plans that would modify the standards and guidelines or land use allocations established by this [ROD] will be coordinated through the [RIEC] and the [REO]" and provides for review by these interagency groups while acknowledging the line authorities of the individual agencies. Pursuant to this direction, REO received a request dated June 29, 2001, from Regional Forester Harv Forsgren to facilitate a coordinated review, pursuant to NFP S&Gs, of a proposed Modification to NFP Land Allocations on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. The proposed Modification provides for a revision to the land allocation for approximately 2,340 acres that are currently designated LSR and were acquired as part of the Huckleberry Land Exchange in 1998. (The exchange involved numerous parcels and resulted in an increase of more than 10,000 acres in the LSR at issue.) The proposed Modification changes the NFP land allocation on the specific acres from LSR to Administratively Withdrawn to accommodate an amendment to the Forest Plan that provides a special designation of Management Area 8E (MA 8E) in response to interests expressed by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe.

Specifically, within MA 8E, the land will be managed to provide elk and deer forage habitat in conjunction with long-term protection for old-growth forest, fish, wildlife, and water quality. The goal will be no net loss of forage habitat, consistent with all other laws and regulations, such as the ESA. To achieve that goal, the Forest Service will have the ability to maintain or create small openings, the majority of which will be no larger than 15 acres. The total area within openings will be roughly 630 acres, and the area outside openings (approximately 1,710 acres) will be managed as late-successional forest using the standards and guidelines for LSR. The exact location of openings will be identified later, through additional NEPA analysis.
Analysis and Options: REO has received both a written and oral briefing from the Forest in conjunction with its coordinated review of the proposed NFP Land Allocation modification. REO
is now in the final stages of its work associated with the coordination/review related to the proposed Modification and is developing a set of recommended findings for consideration by the RIEC that it hopes to be able to present for the RIEC's preliminary concurrence at the August 2001 RIEC meeting.
Organizational/Funding Implications: None identified at this time.
REO Staff Proposal: It is REO's present intention to provide its recommended findings to the RIEC for consideration and preliminary concurrence at the August 2001 RIEC meeting. RIEC members should then be provided with some window of time within which to raise any additional objections to the recommended findings based on coordinated review of the proposed Modification.
Action Required: Information X Preliminary Decision
 

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Presenter/Sponsor: Barry Mulder (503-872-2805)
REO Contact/Phone: Jay Watson (503-808-2178)
Topic: Species' Environmental Baseline under ESA
Issue Statement: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has completed a rangewide baseline evaluation of the northern spotted owl and its critical habitat incorporating data from Endangered Species Act, Section 7 Consultations from 1994 to present.
Background: The rangewide report is based on a year-long effort to better compile and evaluate information reported in all biological opinions on the northern spotted owl issued since 1994, with adjustments where the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service have determined that the consulted habitat or activity centers will no longer be affected by project implementation.
Analysis and Options: The baseline evaluation finds that the consulted-on effects regarding the removal and downgrading of suitable owl habitat are below the 2.5 percent estimated by the Forest Plan to be removed from Federal lands each decade. The report concludes that the consulted-on effects from 1994 to present are consistent with the assumptions of the Northwest Forest Plan. It was also determined not all consulted-on effects have actually occurred on the ground and that range wide effects to critical habitat are minimal.
Organizational/Funding Implications: Consultation procedures may have to be modified to assure accurate documentation of consulted-on effects.
REO Staff Proposal: REO is considering inclusion in its FY2002 Work Plan of a task to facilitate the convening and operation of an interagency work group to more effectively and efficiently maintain environmental baseline data for all ESA-listed species.
Action Required: X Information Decision
 

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW
Presenter/Sponsor: Neal Middlebrook (503-808-2491 or 541-751-4268), Chair, Survey and Manage Intermediate Managers Group (IMG)
REO Contact/Phone: Jay Watson (503-808-2178)
Topic: Progress Report on Implementation of Survey and Manage
Issue Statement: To provide a progress report on (1) the annual species review process called for under the recently adopted amendments to Survey & Manage (S&M) S&Gs to determine whether any changes to management categories are appropriate for S&M species; and (2) implementation of the National Fire Plan in an integrated and complementary fashion with S&M S&Gs and duties
Background:
1. The 1994 S&M S&Gs were amended to "add clarity, remove duplication, increase or decrease levels of management for specific species based on new information affecting the level of concern for their persistence, and establish a process for making changes to management for individual species in the future originally intended in the Northwest Forest Plan." An annual species review process is an important component of the 2001 Record of Decision (ROD).
2. Work by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management field units to implement the National Fire Plan necessitates integration of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) S&M S&Gs involving wildland fires, pre-disturbance surveys and managing known sites.
Analysis and Options:
1. The Annual Species Review Process (ASRP), as detailed in the S&M S&Gs, is scheduled to be completed in late September or early October. The ASRP, based upon information generated from pre-disturbance surveys, strategic surveys, and field studies, is likely to result in some species being assigned to different management categories.
2. The integration and interagency coordination necessary to implement the National Fire Plan within the NFP area is being addressed by an interagency work group that will report to the S&M IMG and the RIEC in the near future.
Organizational/Funding Implications: The ASRP Species Review Panels and the National Fire Plan activities (Fire Plans and REO/RIEC reviews) require extensive field unit participation for timely and effective implementation.
REO Staff Proposal: Continue existing level of support for the ASRP and implementation/ coordination of the National Fire Plan as it relates to S&M.
Action Required: XX Information Decision
 

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Presenter/Sponsor/REO Contact/Phone: Stephen Odell 503-808-2166
Topic: Preparation for Information Update Call with IAC members
Issue Statement: To discuss and clarify various matters to be discussed during the update conference call with IAC members in the second segment of the RIEC meeting scheduled from 10:00-11:30 am
Background: Due to a processing delay outside the control of the RIEC or REO, the Federal Register notice announcing the regularly scheduled Intergovernmental Advisory Committee meeting was not published in a timely fashion. Therefore, the meeting could not satisfy the criteria to qualify as an official Federal Advisory Committee Act meeting, and consequently, no reimbursement could be provided to non-Federal IAC members who would have traveled to Portland for the meeting. In response, RIEC chair Harv Forsgren opted to schedule an update conference call with IAC members. The conference line for IAC members who wish to participate in the call is 503-326-7662.
Analysis and Options: See IAC Update Conference Call ATOs immediately following.
REO Staff Proposal: N/A
Action Required: xx Information Decision
 

IAC UPDATE CONFERENCE CALL AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

REO Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie / 503-808-2190
Topic: Findings on Thinning Dense, Younger Stands & Adaptive-Management Options**
Issue Statement: This discussion will provide an opportunity to discuss major findings of the interagency work group formed to develop adaptive management options for potential responses to the recent research findings on thinning dense, younger stands to enhance development of late-successional old-growth forest habitat and biodiversity.
Background: Following a series of presentations by the Research Executives and the REO/RMG at the March 6 meeting, the RIEC directed the REO/RMG to facilitate an interagency work group to develop this issue and some potential adaptive-management options in light of the findings.
Status/Update: Key messages that arose during the work group's discussions are that management actions in dense young stands are needed within the next decade or two to gain most of the benefits anticipated by the research findings, and that raw data indicate approximately a substantial fraction of the acreage in Late Successional Reserves (LSRs) could benefit from some form of thinning. The work group recommended that further action be taken in the near term, and indicated that all four major categories of key factors would likely need to be addressed to achieve intended results. These factors include: funding; agency capacity and culture; legal, regulatory and administrative processes; and public understanding and acceptance/social capacity. Another important message is that the findings build on a previous body of research to provide additional scientific support for the direction in the NFP S&Gs that anticipates and encourages thinning treatments to be carried out in LSRs to help enhance development of Late-Successional and Old-Growth Habitat and characteristics.

The RIEC would like to receive input from IAC members generally concerning what use the Federal agencies should make of these research findings and, in particular, on how to effectively address the major categories of key factors referenced above to facilitate appropriate management adaptations.
Action Required: IAC Review & Discussion IAC Recommendation
RIEC Decision X Other: Information & Discussion

Presenter/Sponsor/REO Contact/Phone: Steve Odell (503-808-2166)
Topic: Overview of and Agencies' Response to recent Court Rulings
Issue Statement: To provide the IAC with an update on some significant court rulings that have recently been issued and an overview of how the agencies are responding to the adverse rulings
Status/Update: Several court rulings related to NFP implementation have been handed down in recent months, including in the series of cases entitled Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations v. National Marine Fisheries Service and in Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. A succinct synopsis of the rulings and their potential implications will be provided as well as what steps the agencies have taken in response to the adverse rulings they have received.
 

IAC UPDATE CONFERENCE CALL AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Presenter/Sponsor: Steve Odell (503-808-2166)
REO Contact/Phone: Ken Mabery (503-808-2170)
Topic: Interagency evaluation of potential options for improving NFP implementation
Issue Statement: To provide a progress report on interagency efforts underway to evaluate a wide array of potential options reflecting various degrees of change from the present course of NFP implementation so that all five of the fundamental objectives of the NFP may be more fully realized
Status/Update: An interagency team has been engaged in brainstorming discussions designed to identify a wide array of potential options for changes that could be made to the present course of NFP implementation to allow all five of the fundamental objectives of the NFP to be more fully realized. A brief overview of the team's work to date will be provided and there will be discussion of how best to engage IAC members on some potential broader-scale improvements that might be considered.

Presenter/Sponsor/REO Contact/Phone: Curt Loop, 503 808-2172
Topic: Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC)/Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) Coordination/Review of Modifications to Northwest Forest plan (NFP) Standards and Guidelines (S&G) or Land Allocations (LUA)*
Issue Statement: To provide an opportunity for IAC members to review the proposed REO/RIEC review process for requests for exceptions or modifications to the NFP S&G or LUA within the NFP
Status/Update: At the Feb. 1 IAC meeting, the committee was presented with the requirements for the RIEC and REO to review agency modifications to NFP S&Gs or Land Allocations. No process is currently in place to accomplish these review requirements. The IAC broke into four work groups to develop input on four issues directly pertaining to these reviews. The groups presented their comments and advice for formulating review criteria and developing a process. Following the meeting, the REO formed a team and developed a process (attachment 1), based upon the IAC advice, for completing the reviews. At the Mar. 6 RIEC meeting, the IAC advice and proposed process were presented and discussed. The proposed criteria (attachment 2) and process were approved for testing utilizing two actual field requests (White Pass Ski Area road extension and the Survey and Manage Annual Species Review (ASR)). The REO expects to receive the ASR packet around August 16-17.

The time table for developing the process calls for the REO/RIEC review process to be provided to IAC and agencies for their comments. The REO will request that comments be received within two weeks following the Aug. 2 IAC meeting. Using any comments received, the REO will modify the process and present it for consideration at the Sep. 5 RIEC meeting.
 

RIEC STATUS REPORTS

REO Contact/Phone: Ken Mabery 503-808-2170
Topic: Survey and Manage interface with the National Fire Plan
Background: NFP Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) require pre-disturbance surveys if practical for 67 species that are rare or about which little is known. In addition, the S&G requires most located sites to be managed in ways that ensure persistence of the species at the site. The Survey and Manage (S&M) S&Gs were expanded to 86 pages in a January 2001 interagency Record of Decision in an effort to add both clarity and flexibility to their implementation. While all of the S&M S&Gs apply to prescribed fire and other fuel treatments, if such treatments will potentially disturb S&M habitat, several S&M S&G s apply specifically to fuels treatment.

The National Fire Plan seeks to quickly address extreme forest fuels build-up, particularly around at-risk communities and their developments, and restoration of the natural role of fire. The Plan has been funded and given high priority by Congress, and we must respond. S&M requirements for pre-disturbance surveys and "protection" of species sites has the potential to substantially impact whether prescribed fire and other fuels management tools can be effectively used.
Status/Update: An interagency working team to scope and develop suggested recommendations for dealing with the S&G relative to National Fire Plan objectives. The first meeting occurred on July 24; agreement was reached on the scope of the issue. A preliminary list of approximately 14 recommendations will be submitted to the Intermediate Managers Group (IMG) for prioritization and refinement. A task group consisting of taxa and fire experts is being considered to develop species effects papers, scoping documnets, and/or edit existing Management Recommendations (MRs) to describe the appropriateness of fuels treatments within known S&G-managed sites.

REO Contact/Phone: Shawne Mohoric 503-808-2175
Topic: Forest Service's Roadless Area Conservation Rule
Background: On May 4, 2001, the Secretary of Agriculture expressed the Administration's commitment to providing protection of roadless areas in the National Forest System. However, acknowledging concerns raised by local communities, tribes, and States impacted by the roadless area conservation rule published on January 12, 2001, the Secretary also indicated that the Department would move forward with an alternative approach that fairly addresses those concerns.
Status/Update: The Department of Agriculture published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) on July 10, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 35,918) to give the public an opportunity to comment on key issues that have been raised regarding the protection of roadless areas. The advance notice indicates that the comments received in response to its issuance will help the Department to determine the next steps it should take in addressing the long-term protection and management of roadless values within the National Forest System. Comments in response to the ANPR are due by September 10, 2001.

REO Contact/Phone: Debbie Pietrzak, 503-808-6006, Patrick Geehan, 503-952-6446
Topic: Umpqua Land Exchange Project (ULEP)
Background: The FY2001 BLM appropriation from Congress contained language directing BLM to cooperate with the Foundation for Voluntary Land Exchanges to prepare land use plan amendments and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Federal lands in the lower Umpqua Basin, to consider whether large Federal/private land exchanges could lead to both increased ecological and economic outcomes. To do this, Congress directed that BLM use a spatially explicit vegetation/ ecological dynamics model developed by scientists from Oregon State University. In addition, Congress directed completion of biological opinions and habitat conservation plans (HCPs) under the Endangered Species Act. The final EIS, biological opinions and draft HCPs are to be completed by Dec. 31, 2002, and any land exchanges and final HCP by June 15, 2003.

Congress appropriated $4.3 million for the Foundation to accomplish most of the work. Affected Federal agencies are responsible for significant decisions and other related work. The Foundation and the BLM completed an Assistance Agreement on April 13, 2001 that lays out the obligations of each party and transfers those funds to the Foundation.
Status/Update: The Foundation is revising and updating the vegetation data for the model. BLM and the Foundation are finalizing validation of the data; subject matter experts are reviewing components of the data and the model.

Scoping for the EIS began in July, 2001. Several public scoping meetings were held in the local area during the week of July 16; locations included Reedsport, Roseburg, Drain, and Eugene. Approxi-mately 150 people attended these meetings. The objective of the meetings was to provide an opportunity for interested parties to identify important issues which would be used to help frame the range of alternatives addressed in the EIS. Preliminary results of the meetings include issues regarding how land exchanges may affect: recreational and commercial access, vegetation age and species distribution, endangered species, economic opportunities, and local government revenues.

Next steps include identification of alternatives for the EIS, final validation of data for the model, and public release and use of the model.

RMG Contact/Phone: Dave Busch (503-808-2192)
Topic: FY02 Funding of Interagency NWFP Monitoring
Background: Interagency implementation, Northern Spotted Owl (NSO), and Marbled Murrelet (MAMU) monitoring modules are being accomplished throughout the NFP area. Late-successional/ old-growth (LSOG) and Aquatic-Riparian (AREMP) modules were recently approved and are in the very early stages of implementation. Socio-economic, tribal, and biodiversity monitoring modules are still in the design stage.

Interagency funding through FY01 has been adequate to continue with Implementation, NSO, and MAMU monitoring and to pilot-test AREMP and to initiate LSOG.
Status/Update: FY02 funding projections are not adequate with the additions of the AREMP and LSOG modules, and program management costs. Costs for socio-economic and tribal monitoring remain small.

Options for decision at September 5 RIEC - To date, we have taken a "first-come, first-serve" approach to funding the modules. If funding remains "flat" and with the addition of AREMP and LSOG, should this approach be continued? Some options:
(1) Increase funding;
(2) "First-come first" - Implementation, NSO, MAMU (reduce AREMP, LSOG).
(3) Balance funding across all modules (reduce Implementation, NSO, MAMU funding).

NWFP Interagency Monitoring Program Funding (7/12/01)

Agency
Agency Fair Share (%) FY01 Final
(X1000)
FY02 Request
(X1000 - fair-share)
FY02 MPM Est. (X1000)
BLM 14.7 1273 1156 1200
R5 16 774 1258 774
R6 31.4 2050 2469 2200
NPS 1.9 190 149 190
FWS 3.8 396 299 396
PNW 8.6 602 676 602
PSW 4.5 179 354 179
USGS 5.7 234 448 234
EPA 3.8 90 299 90
EPA-R 1.1 0 86 0
NMFS 3.8 100 299 100
NMFS-R 1.1 0 86 0
NRCS 1.8 0 142 0
COE 1.8 0 142 0
Total   5888 7863 5965
 

NWFP Module Funding
Activity FY01 Final Funding FY02 Initial Request
Implementation 239 323
NSO 2398 2660
MAMU 1064 1374
AREMP 1426 1976
LSOG 411 567
Biodiversity 35 35
Socio-Econ 140 160
Tribal 10 100
Prog/Info Mgmt 165 668
Total 5888 7863