OPAC QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER OF MEETING & ACTIVITIES
Issue 5 November 22, 2002

Olympic Forest Supervisor Dale Hom welcomed the group to the November 22, 2002 meeting held at the Forest Headquarters Office in Olympia, WA.

Ken Eldredge reminded members that alternates can be appointed for times when they are unable to attend meetings. Members need to submit names, addresses and phone numbers of their alternates to Ken so he can send them to the Regional Forester for approval.

INFORMATION UPDATE

Dale Hom

Because we do not have a Fiscal Year 2003 approved budget yet, we are operating under a continuing resolution that is in effect until January 11, 2003. We are continuing to provide the traditional programs and services through this time period.

Last year was a record fire year for the Pacific Northwest making fire restoration and rehabilitation a high priority for our Region. The new budget will reflect shifts in dollars to address these issues. Last year’s fires have also focused more attention on the importance of the National Fire Plan, healthy forests and clearing up fuels.

The Olympic provided many folks to help with the fire effort this past summer and are also making people available to help with the rehab efforts currently under way. Hood Canal District Ranger Dave Craig is currently on detail in Southern Oregon to help with recovery efforts there.

The Securing Rural Schools and Self Determination Act continues to be a major regional focus as do fish passage issues and forest restoration activities.

The Forest Leadership team identified 4 strategic areas for FY2002:

• Ecosystem management — managing for healthy, sustainable, productive ecosystems.
• Financial management — ensuring fiscal accountability and wise use of dollars.
• Quality external relations — including communities of interest and of place.
• Support of the workforce — the forest has realized a 67% reduction in people and budget making it critical that we manage workload and stress.

We did a good job this past year serving our customers and reaching out in the community. Some examples include our partnership with the Mason County Literacy Council to provide conservation education, and our partnership with the Tacoma Urban League which provided an opportunity for local youth to gain work experience doing trail maintenance.

CONSULTATION WITH INDIAN TRIBES

Les McConnell, Tribal Relations, Regional Office

Les McConnell provided a short course for the group related to consulting with Tribes in a government to government relationship. The summary below is taken from a handout he provided to the group.

12 POINT TRIBAL CONSULTATION

Consultation with Indian Tribal Governments

1. Tribal Governments are like State Governments; Chairman = Governor.
2. Establish line officer & Tribal leader contact and rapport, in-person.
3. Consult with Tribes prior to the public scoping process.
4. Consultation is needed when agency actions may affect tribal interests.
5. Allow extra time for meetings, help the tribe understand the proposal.
6. Develop two-way information exchanges and communications.
7. Agree on a protocol of primary contacts and list of tribal priorities.
8. Use simple letters whenever possible as Memorandums of Understanding (MOU’s) become cumbersome.
9. Offer field trips to sites where needed; tribes are exempt from (Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
10. Be persistent with follow-up calls; lack of response is not concurrence.
11. Demonstrate respect for elders; learn communications preferences.
12. Incorporate useful tribal information; use their words where possible.

There is a Regional Desk guide available for more information about Tribal Relations. Copies are available on the web by navigating to The Regional Ecosystems Office (REO) website at www.reo.gov. Once at the REO site, click on "About the REO," then select "Research and Monitoring," then "Reports and Publications," then under Tribal — download the "Desk Guide to Tribal Relations."

ROAD MANAGEMENT

Ward Hoffman and Mary Burgess

Mary Burgess shared with the group a list of road projects on the Olympic during FY 2002. It included construction projects completed, construction projects currently under contract, maintenance projects under contract and road projects in the design phase. Bear Creek culvert removal on the completed list was a partnership project where the partner did the work and we oversaw the contract.

We completed 72 ERFO sites (flood damage projects done with Federal Highway dollars) for over $3 million. Under ERFO, we are allowed to decommission in lieu of repair and we decommissioned 32 miles of road for $1.2 million.

On the Olympic, we have received $7-8 million in ERFO dollars since the big storm event in 1997. The bulk of the non-ERFO roads projects are Title II dollars. Much of our backlog work is related to undersized culverts. Many don’t meet the size for fish passage identified in the NW Forest Plan. We have prioritized projects by safety first and then those areas posing high aquatic risk. Norm Dicks earmarked $ in the proposed budget for fish passage and the forest has completed design work for related projects.

Ward Hoffman shared some information with the group about the Access and Travel Management (ATM) planning process currently underway on the Olympic. It involves looking at long term road management. In 1999 and 2000, the Olympic developed a Road Management Strategy. We used an analytical approach to prioritize and array our road system needs giving close consideration to both aquatic risks and access needs, in addition to other factors. The result was a forest-wide assessment of what we want to do with each road on the forest, which became the basis for drafting our ATM Plan.

In November, we held 5 open houses around the peninsula to introduce the public to our proposed ATM Plan. The meeting format was informal with information stations set up for different aspects of the plan. Most of the interest so far has been related to the trail aspect of the plan, specifically high interest in converting some roads into trails. The Forest is asking for all public comments to be submitted by January 10, 2003. The final ATM plan is projected to be completed by February 7, 2003. Implementation will occur over time through site-specific, project-by-project decision making.

SOCIAL & ECONOMIC MONITORING, NW FOREST PLAN

Dick Phillips, Regional Office Strategic Planning

Dick used a powerpoint presentation (with handout) to provide an overview of the socioeconomic monitoring module development work to date. He is part of a group that was charged with evaluating how well social and economic goals of the NW Forest Plan (NWFP) are being met and developing a long-term protocol for socioeconomic monitoring.

The objectives of the socioeconomic module are to:

• Evaluate whether social and economic goals of the NWFP are being met.
• Understand how community well-being is linked to forest stewardship
• Strengthen agency relationships with communities
• Develop tools and protocols that support the social science needs of the Forest Service (FS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and others
• Provide information and knowledge useful to managers, policy makers, and other clients.

He also asked the group for feedback and distributed a list of questions including:

• What are your management, policy, or other needs for social science information?
• What social and economic information would be most relevant and useful to you as clients, and why?
• Would you use the kind of information we produce in our monitoring program, and how?
• How have community/forest relationships been changing over the last ten years, where are they headed, and what does this suggest about the social and economic trends we should be monitoring?
• Who are our main clients for social and economic monitoring information?

Responses may be returned to:

Susan Charnley
PNW Research Station
P.O. Box 3623
333 SW 1^st Ave.
Portland, OR 97208-3623

ANTICIPATED MODIFICATIONS TO THE NW FOREST PLAN

Steve O’Dell, Regional Ecosystem Office

Steve shared that they don’t anticipate wholesale replacement of the NW Forest Plan, but rather some smaller modifications.

Since the NWFP was completed, we have had increased interagency coordination, less tied-up litigation, stronger scientific foundations with adaptive management being key, marked increase in protecting old growth forests, watershed analyses completed on 90% of federal lands, slow down of the decline in spotted owl populations, less old growth cut in matrix lands than predicted. The NWFP has served as the basis for Habitat Conservation Plans on state and private lands.

Some of the concerns include:

1. The timber supply issue. It has been more difficult for the region to get sales out than was expected in the NWFP. Probably a 760 — 811 MMBF harvest is more realistic than the billion board feet specified in the plan. Much of the original Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ) was based on silvicultural prescriptions with some old growth. If we can’t cut the old growth, it is hard to get the board feet originally predicted. The group also discussed the serious cedar theft problem and that changes are also needed to protect this old growth species.
2. High implementation costs. Costs to implement the NWFP have been quite high especially the initial years. Survey and manage costs are estimated to be between $15 and $20 million per year.
3. Implementation processes tied to costs. There are a number of sources directing the process including statutes, regulations and handbooks. Looking at possibility of using the agencies Special Status Species Program versus Survey and Manage.
4. Organizational Structure. The Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) is involved with looking at changes to the structure of the organization and how business is conducted. They agreed to keep RIEC in its current format but now only the Forest Service, BLM, US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries (Core agencies) would be deemed a quorum to implement a plan. This way, those with the most at stake would be given authority to make changes. The full group involves 12 agencies, but some have a low level of participation and involvement. They are also looking at another forum for discussing issues not related to NWFP.

The Regional Ecosystem Office future is up in the air with the Memorandum of Understanding expiring 10/03. There is the option for a phase-out of REO or a change in how it will operate.

FY 2002 FOREST PLAN MONITORING REPORT VALIDATION

Ward Hoffman

Ward shared the draft implementation monitoring report for FY 2002. The monitoring team evaluated two watersheds and 3 specific projects this past summer. The watersheds included the Hamma Hamma, which has had a moderate amount of timber harvest but activity is mostly recreation related, and the Wynoochee which is part of the Cooperative Sustained Yield Unit and has been heavily harvested. There is high recreation load associated with the Wynoochee Reservoir. The monitoring team found the Olympic to be consistent with the NWFP in both watersheds.

The projects evaluated included:

• A precommercial thinning in the Hamma Hamma watershed. This was found to be a low impact project, important to stand development. Of the 24 pertinent questions, the team found 3 did not meet the standards and guidelines. These related to identification of streams and delineation of riparian reserves during project development. A single oversight in project development led to the three "not met" conclusions. The lack of riparian impact associated with the project led the team to question whether riparian reserve identification is even required for projects of this nature. Overall, the team found that the project met the intent of the NWFP and represents a good example of treatments designed to meet LSR objectives in particular and NWFP objectives overall.

• Maidenhair Falls Trail project in the Wynoochee. This project consisted of a 4 mile re-route of the Wynoochee Lake trail to avoid the water crossing at the mouth of the reservoir. Of the 21 questions that related to this project, the team found two questions where applicable standards and guidelines were not met. Both related to oversights in project planning. Overall, the team found the project to be consistent with the intent of the NWFP, which anticipates the need for recreation facilities within Late Successional Reserves (LSR) and provides for their development.

• Sixteen Thin Commercial Thin. This involved 124 acres of young stand commercial thinning within LSR to enhance the development of late-successional characteristics within young LSR forest stands, with production of wood products as a secondary objective. No items were found "not met" for this project. The team determined, however, that conditions on the ground made the treated stands "not capable" of meeting the standards and guidelines related to residual levels of snags and coarse woody debris. The team found that the project effectively met the LSR objectives in particular and the NWFP objectives overall.

Generally, the team concluded that the Forest is not as rigorous as it could be in developing project plans for less controversial activities. We can be a little lax in this area, and can miss referencing watershed analyses and other guidance documents.

The OPAC group moved and unanimously approved to accept the FY 2002 Monitoring Report and forward it on to the Regional Office.

UPCOMING MEETING

Ken Eldredge provided the following dates for meetings in 2003:

February 28 in Sequim at the Sequim Community Center

May 23 in Forks at the DNR/FS Office

August 15 in Quinault

November 21 in Olympia at the Headquarters Office

Topic ideas for the next meeting include:

• NWFP monitoring team solicitation for 2003

• Administrations new rules on thinning, reforestation, etc. and any other new things.
• Olympic timber program goals, etc.
• Field trip possibility
• See how retrofitting projects (roads, streambeds etc.) have met goals over time.
• Further changes that impact forest management
• Charter Forest (President’s idea)
• Overview of ATM comments received
• Bingham Bill presentation

Please contact Ken Eldredge at (360) 956-2323 with any additional suggestions for future agenda items.