Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-04-25 Work Session Minutes (3)-k Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2011 Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; and, for a portion of the meeting, Joe Stutter, County Forester; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Tom Anderson, George Read, Nick Lelack, Terri Payne and Todd Cleveland, Community Development; David Givans, Internal Auditor; and twelve other citizens, including media representatives Hillary Borrud and Devin Williams of The Bulletin. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Forester Update. Joe Stutter gave an overview of wildfire issues in the U.S. and locally, and the history of programs developed to address this problem. What was missing in the past was the true involvement of all of the various agencies and the stakeholders who are often the property owners. (He referred to a PowerPoint presentation.) He spoke of collaborative efforts to address the problems in any area that is prone to wildland fires. Normally there would be about 14,000 fires nationally by this time of the year. There have been 11,000 fires, but over 3 million acres have already been affected. Decreasing financial resources is another major negative factor. Therefore, there is emerging threat but diminishing capability to address that threat. The strategy for a cohesive wildfire management program is quite complicated and involves many different agencies with differing requirements and ideas. Mr. Stutter will be as involved as much as possible to make sure Deschutes County and the region are well represented. The Commissioners indicated they want to support him in these efforts as much as possible, and for him to keep them informed of the work he is doing. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 27, 2011 Page 1 of 8 Pages 2. Discussion of South County On-site Program Administration. Tom Anderson spoke of his efforts to discuss the issue with the DEQ to see if there are viable solutions to the problem. The purpose of their meeting was to agree as precisely as possible on what is required for construction and repair of on-site sewage disposal systems in the south County area. Given what is going on with the DEQ Steering Committee and trying to arrive at solutions long- term, an interim strategy might have to be developed. The DEQ has conceptually agreed to try to identify specific areas in that part of the County where treatment can be varied. Also, whatever is arrived at would be formalized between the DEQ and the County, to let everyone know that the agencies are in agreement, and issues and questions will be addressed in the same manner. He is hopeful that some kind of agreement can be reached to provide better direction to the County and citizens. Chair Baney talked about the e-mails the Commissioners and staff received regarding having the whole program go back to the DEQ. She is encouraged because she does not want to see services split, which would make it more difficult and potentially more expensive for County residents. Eric Nigg of the DEQ agreed with Mr. Anderson's statements. There is the potential of disagreements over some issues, and he wants to have a common understanding of procedures and requirements in the area. They are meeting with the Steering Committee to make recommendations on wastewater treatment issues in south Deschutes County and northern Klamath County. He does not want to set up multiple classes of property in the area without justification. His agency accepts the vulnerability of groundwater in the area, and it varies from location to location, so requires more fine-tuning to address the issue. He would like to see criteria and common understanding as to when a standard system cannot be used, and to minimize the number of reviews. They have a groundwater hydrogeologist on staff who reviewed the USGS study, and he is looking at that again as well as the groundwater issues in the area, to help make decision on a case-by-case basis. They accept the vulnerability where it is urgent or are already of concern, but other areas may have some time for solutions to be developed. They would like to get to something more comprehensive in place. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 27, 2011 Page 2 of 8 Pages Commissioner Unger asked about the impact on the rivers as well as groundwater. Mr. Nigg stated that there is not as much directive at this time that the rivers are being harmed as much as the aquifer. However, they are working to figure out the daily load on the rivers and sources of pollution that might violate water standards. Commissioner Unger asked about a timeline for all of this. He feels projects need to have a timeline to actually make progress and to keep moving. Mr. Nigg stated they do not have a date certain to have criteria in order, but staff is working on it and they are motivated, so a timeline can eventually be set. They want to get ahead of a bunch of review requests because they do not have staff to handle a large number of them. Chair Baney pointed out that there is a cost associated with reviews and she tried to make it clear to the public. The DEQ has a different fee schedule and it could cost more. Mr. Nigg wants to be sure that there are as few instances as possible that could be costly. Mr. Anderson stated that there are people waiting to take action, so he would like to see a solution developed as soon as possible. Chair Baney said they have gotten about twenty e-mails requesting the DEQ take over the groundwater inspection program or asking that the comprehensive plan include language to cover this. She asked how they could stave that off while the two agencies work together. Mr. Nigg stated that their position is the County could choose not to operate the program, and the DEQ can take it back, but they do not intend to take it away from the County. They prefer to have the County operate the program, consistent with the DEQ rules and protecting the environment. John Hammer of the DEQ has responded the same way. Chair Baney said that the County does not want to turn over the entire program anyway. Mr. Nigg stated that if there were an overwhelming number of reviews, they would have to analyze that. But he wants to get ahead of it at this point. Laurie Craghead asked if the County could turn over just a portion of the program and not for all of the County. Mr. Nigg said he does not know yet. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 27, 2011 Page 3 of 8 Pages Commissioner Unger thanked Mr. Nigg for his cooperation. Chair Baney added that they have all worked hard to do what needs to be done, and she hopes the agencies can align to do their best. Mr. Nigg said that within the constraint of rules that they have to follow, he feels they can work it out. Commissioner DeBone asked if they would be able to determine which areas actually need the new systems at some point. Mr. Nigg replied that they are trying to come up with funding to resample all of the wells that were used in the sampling event, as a snapshot in time. He has cost estimates but does not have the funding to do it. Also, they have no plans at this point to place site-specific requirements based on some kind of well samples, but they might if there are issues with residential wells. This will be a recommendation made by the groundwater hydrologist. Commissioner DeBone said that if a lack of $5,000 or $10,000 is the issue, he would try to get the County to support this financially. Mr. Nigg appreciates working with County staff on this issue. Mr. Kanner asked what would happen today if an application came in. Mr. Anderson said they would ask for DEQ's help in reviewing the application, and their hydrologist might be of assistance. He would rather delay making a decision to avoid additional expense if it turns out to be not necessary. Mr., Nigg said that even under the status quo, it works best if the agencies speak first before a review. Todd Cleveland said there are some permits outstanding that need action soon. In the meantime, they will be working on guidelines for both agencies to follow. Commissioner DeBone spoke again about assisting financially if it is needed. Chair Baney wants to support these efforts in any way possible, with staff and the DEQ's cooperation. 3. Work Session — Comprehensive Plan Update. Terri Payne said this is a continuation of the review process, which includes reviewing comments from the public. Counsel will be making sure they stay within the letter of State law. She referred to the staff report and other information available to the public. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 27, 2011 Page 4 of 8 Pages The group addressed Chapter 2 at this time. Some changes are just legal clarifications. 2.2.13 talks about allowing farmworker housing, but this may need a legislative fix. Ms. Craghead said there may be conditional uses in statute that the Board does not want included. Adopting what the State has would mean these would be included as well. They will work on this language. Also, they want to make sure to allow anything that both the plan and map show are consistent. A policy question would be whether to allow conversion of uses. The County can be stronger than the State. Ms. Craghead said that sometimes changing the zoning allows for uses that were not currently available. Ms. Payne said it has to meet certain criteria. There is support of a food council, which would help get the word out about availability, the food is better for you and may be more economical. There are other programs that involved a local delivery system. Discussion took place on what locations might be suitable, such as small growers who want to produce organic foods but cannot meet the $80,000 income requirement. The next one makes sense, alternative and supplemental activities not allowed by legislation, but a legislative solution would be required. This can be the County or via an application. Agricultural conditions and markets change, but protecting the overall farming community is important to the public. Much of this is contained in State definitions. A lot of land was platted before there were minimum lot sizes required. Many are near federal lands. Chair Baney said that ranch housing is needed to help people make their property successful. Ms. Craghead said they talk about someone who owns one property. It is a matter of state requirements. Chair Baney said nothing seems to get them where they need to be. You need a little bit of choice, as not all can be a farm dwelling. Ms. Payne said that it was hard when the Brothers school closed, and they have to go so far. This conversation is worth having. This would not be considering big subdivisions, but just a chance to talk about it. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 27, 2011 Page 5 of 8 Pages She said to add a review of County Code duplicates what is on 2.2. These can be incorporated. Language that is repetitive should be addressed at the beginning. Some requests to add clarifying language have been included. The right to farm rules have been spelled out. Chapter 4.14.1 1 acknowledges the importance of irrigation, but that dry land farming is to be considered. This is in the State definition of farm uses. They need to follow the letter of the law, but try to allow flexibility when able. Changing from F-2 to EFU has many conditions but not many properties fit that description, perhaps a dozen. Skyline Community Forest language could be added back in from the previous draft. Chair Baney asked about being that specific. Ms. Payne said this is half of that kind of land in the County, and people have provided input that they want it to remain and that it is a view corridor. Chair Baney said that it does not specify size. Ms. Craghead said Community Forest or Community Forest Authority language will likely change at the State level. There might be some other form of agency that will be a different name and it might be managed differently. Ms. Craghead stated that Section 2.3 has been an issue but now complies with ORS 195. Chair Baney asked about what happens if someone else takes it over. Ms. Craghead stated that affected agencies would be notified, but it is difficult to develop forestlands. The County could decide to not allow development that otherwise might be allowed through State law, if the County feels that it would negatively impact the forestlands. This could be something other than housing. Section 3.2.10 can be kept, but minimizes development impacts in forest zones. Commissioner Unger asked how these goals and policies affect public lands. Ms. Payne said the federal agencies are supposed to follow local land use laws, but there is no recourse if they do not want to. No action can be instituted against them. They try to work with the agencies to get things done. Mr. Lelack said that they have a good relationship with these agencies and can usually work through issues with them. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 27, 2011 Page 6 of 8 Pages Ms. Payne said that Goal 5 is very complicated and they have heard a lot from the public on this. Ms. Craghead stated that these were done outside of the initial comprehensive plan and some of the language needs to be retained so they comply with the DLCD. Ms. Payne said that language about the Newberry Crater and Newberry Monument has been suggested by the public, protecting the area. There is one pocket of private land in the middle of the public lands. The State or Federal may want to condemn it but the County could initiate this as well. Commissioner Unger stated that there needs to be private opportunities within federal lands and it could be used to enhance tourism. Ms. Craghead said that she believes it was proposed for geothermal uses and pumice mining, which did not go over well with the public. Ms. Payne said the Greenprint language is included. The Board said this is a huge undertaking and it may not be something the County can handle. Commissioner Unger would like to see `results' changed to `values'. Mr. Lelack stated that it could be reviewed and considered as part of Goal 5. The Board would like to be able to consider the Greenprint and community values, but not incorporate it into the Plan. This review was continued until the morning of May 4. The Commissioners want one more public hearing on the revised document in the evening, possibly May 24 or 31. The rest of Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 could be reviewed at the May 1 1 work session, or the morning Board meeting that day. 4. Continued Discussion of Development Approval Extensions. Mr. Kanner asked about extending a conditional use permit per a request. It expired and is not something the Board has talked about previously. He asked how much leeway should be given. Ms. Craghead said she did not think State law allows for this. Mr. Lelack stated the City of Bend allows it to be retroactive. Mr. Anderson said this almost never happens. The duration is spelled out, but the Board can help by redoing the original approval, which is the notice and other items. As long as the conditions have not changed, it is not a big issue. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 27, 2011 Page 7 of 8 Pages The cost would be minimal for this. It could be a new conditional use permit but allows for a partial fee waiver. The person was not the landowner at the time and the previous owner put the use in place. So the new owner probably was not as aware of things as he should have been. The County sends out letters if a septic permit is about to expire, but they have not done this for land use applications. Sometimes the County does not know if it has been done unless final permits are pulled. There is not a good mechanism to do these reminders. 5. Other Items. There will be no meetings on Monday, as two Commissioners will be in Salem that day. Being no fiirther discussion, the meeting concluded at 4:10 p.m., at which time the Board went into executive session under ORS 192.660(2)(h), pending or threatened litigation. Discussion occurred regarding whether Ms. Borrud should attend because litigation might involve the Bulletin. She was allowed to remain. DATED this '; Day of Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary 2011 for the Tammy Baney, Chair Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair Alan Unger, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 27, 2011 Page 8 of 8 Pages Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org REVISED WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2011 1. Forester Update — Joe Stutter 2. Discussion of South County On-site Program Administration — Tom Anderson, Todd Cleveland; Eric Nigg of DEQ 3. Work Session — Comprehensive Plan Update — Terri Payne 4. Continued Discussion of Development Approval Extensions — Tom Anderson and Nick Lelack 5. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e). real property negotiations: ORS 192.660(2) (h). litigation: ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b). personnel issues. Meeting dales, limes and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners meeting rooms al 1300 NNW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please cal/ 388-6172. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf. hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-I-1 to access the state transfer relay service for 1 l Y. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. Q) 0 N� Work Session acoI rrNis I � 00 0 CU 0.0 rcs NATIONAL COHESIVE WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY Talking Points and Q&As DATE: March 24, 2011 Topic: National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy Issue: The foundational reports for the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy have been signed and released by the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior. There are two reports: Report to Congress: The Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act of 2009, and A National Cohesive Wildfire Management Strategy. Key Messages: The National Wildland Fire Management Cohesive Strategy (Strategy) is an effort on behalf of federal, tribal, state, and local governments and non-governmental organizations to collaboratively address growing wildfire challenges in the U.S. - The Strategy is being developed in response to the Federal Land Management and Enhancement (FLAME) Act. Passed by Congress in 2009, the FLAME Act directs the Departments of Agriculture and Interior to develop and implement a cohesive wildland fire management strategy. The Wildland Fire Leadership Council (WFLC), an intergovernmental committee of federal, tribal, state, county and municipal government officials, is directing the development of the Cohesive Strategy. The intent of the Strategy is to establish a direction for wildland fire management that represents thc needs and capabilities of all cooperators and includes the public. The Strategy is about more than fire suppression. It also emphasizes restoring resilient landscapes and promoting fire adapted communities. - The Strategy is designed to better align national level decision-making with regional and local interests. - Two companion documents outlining thc Strategy have been developed, and are being released today: - The first, Report to Congress: The Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act of 2009, responds directly to seven key elements highlighted by Congress in the FLAME Act. - The second, A National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy, provides a vision for the fire management community. It incorporates input from 14 forums that were held nationwide throughout 2010, where more than 400 participants representing governmental and non-governmental organizations provided feedback on wildland fire management issues. - Next steps include the development of regional assessments. The Strategy divides the country into three regions: the West, Northeast and Southeast. Each of these regions will develop its own assessment, outlining wildland fire management goals, objectives, activities and actions for each region. - Once the regional assessments are complete, they will be used to develop a National Risk Tradeoff Analysis, which will weigh the benefits and costs of various management scenarios. - Status updates are available on the web via www. forestsandramzclands.uay. Questions and Answers 1. Why do we need a Cohesive Strategy'? Wildland fire management challenges are growing throughout the country. Currently, many different agencies and organizations prevent and respond to wildland fire. Although there is a great deal of cooperation, an overall strategy in which all the players have a part will help us develop fire adapted communities and restore resilient landscapes across all jurisdictions. 2. Who are the participants? While the FLAME Act directs USDA and DOI to develop the Strategy, the Departments quickly realized that a successful strategy must be truly collaborative and involve more than federal partners. The Departments tasked the Wildland Fire Leadership Council (WFLC) to oversee the effort. The WFLC is an intergovernmental committee of federal, tribal, state, county and municipal government officials appointed by the Secretaries of Agriculture, Interior and Homeland Security. 3. So, is this another federal project? No. All members of the wildland fire community have an equal voice. This is a key tenant of the Strategy. The needs and perspectives of states, tribes, local governments and non- governmental partners are equally important. 4. What makes this Strategy different from past efforts? This Strategy goes beyond previous efforts to coordinate wildland fire response. It recognizes regional differences and delves more deeply into the tough questions and tradeoffs that need to be addressed by using science in the decision making process to reduce risks to communities, firefighters and landscapes. 5. Where will the Strategy be used? This is a national strategy but its application will be informed by input at the regional level. Because wildland fire knows no boundaries, all lands, regardless of jurisdiction, are part of the Strategy. 6. Will the Strategy make it safer to manage wildland fire? Reducing risk to firefighters and the public is the first priority in every fire management activity. It is envisioned that through shared decision-making and communication, the Cohesive Strategy process will reduce risk to firefighters and the public by restoring landscape resilience and promoting fire adapted communities. 7. Will local governments, states, tribes and agencies retain their decision space? Yes. This Strategy intends to provide collectively -determined goals and objectives that can help all members of the wildland fire management community make better decisions that contribute to restoring resilient landscapes, promoting fire adapted communities and strengthening wildland fire response. 8. When will all of this happen? Regional goals and objectives will be developed by Fall 2011. This regional input will be used to inform the national Strategy, which will be completed by Fall 2012. The Strategy will be updated every five years. 9. Will this Strategy affect who pays for what in wildland fire management? The Strategy will inform but not direct how all partners can contribute human and financial resources to reducing wildfire risks and costs. The Strategy will facilitate better outcomes for everyone through improved wildland fire management decisions at every level of the fire management community. By providing collectively defined goals, the Strategy will help inform how investments to restore resilient landscapes, promote fire adapted communities and respond to fire can have the most impact. 10. Managing wildland fire is expensive. Will implementation of the Strategy result in cost - savings? The Strategy aims to better define the most cost-effective ways to manage the wildland fire workload. The findings of the Strategy will inform Congress and others making funding decisions on the best approaches for fire management. The Strategy will also guide fire managers at all levels across the country. 11. Will there be changes on the ground for fire managers as a result of this Strategy? Decision making capacity will still rest with those who have always had it. The Strategy is not designed to take away fire management responsibilities. The process is designed to include input from local, state, federal, tribal and other fire management entities in all phases of Strategy development. On the ground, it is hoped that this process will lead to increased collaboration among fire managers, better delineation of roles and responsibilities, and a more seamless and cost-effective approach to fire management before, during and after wildland fire events. 12. How does this effort relate to Fire Planning Analysis (FPA)? FPA provides a mechanism for DO1 and USDA budget formulation for firefighting activities at the national level. What we learn from the Strategy will enhance the capabilities of FPA by providing information on non-federal fire management capability. 13. Where can I get information? Updates on the Cohesive Strategy are available on the web via w uv‘..fOrestsandranLLcIands.,,ov. Significant Wildfire Issues in the United States - ..%•t, .' i -.r if 1, i 4 t.,4f , ii, - _ 4. f • . Ili - , • I / i of ii,/ r 4i1.1, l' ti :7; 1 1 /11 v 41"` tis , ; .1: i ! ' '" I, k , N. .., , i f't I : I L' ; # r, k I L "1 , .r. , I . ! . 4 a . 1 " 1, i li 1 • i . i JI - I --• 4.0_Z IL • , ' ''''-' . II° /* 4 Cohesive Wildfire Management Strategy Science -based Collaboration for Addressing Wildfire Issues Developing the Cohesive Wildfire Management Strategy (Cohesive Strategy) is an outstanding opportunity to address wildfire issues in the US. It will be a collaborative effort between affected stakeholders— federal, state and local governments, partners, all levels of the wildland firefighting organizations, tribal interests and non- governmental organizations. ❖The CS will be a national approach with all stakeholders working together to define their roles & responsibilities. The Flame Act of 2010 (Federal Land Assistance, Management & Enhancement Act) Directs the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Interior to develop a Cohesive Wildfire Management Strategy The WIIdIand Fire Leadership Council (WFLC) was established by the Secretaries of the USDA & USDI in 2002 WFLC direction is that the CS will fit within 3 over -arching principles: ❖ Landscape Restoration ❖ Fire Adapted Communities + Response to Wildfires Including: •Nati` Intergovernmental Wildfire Policy • Risk Management •2009 Implementation Guidance for 2 Kinds of Fire '`'Errtrrritsbu'rg` Ir The Cohesive Wildfire Management Strategy Such as: -"All Lands" • "Treasured Landscapes" • Climate Change • Water •CFLRA For Example: • FIREWISE • "Ready, Set, Go" •CWPPs Response to Wildfire Fire Adapted Communities GAO Recommendations • Approaches for addressing_ wildfire threats • Estimated costs • Trade-offs involved Landscape Restoration 7 FLAME ACT ELEMENTS • Cost-effective allocations • Reinvest in non -fire programs • Assess risk to communities • Appropriate wildfire response • Prioritize fuels project funding • Assess impacts of climate change • Study effects of invasive species Using risk management -based analysis Phases: 1. National Framework 2. Regional Analysis 3. Local Implementation 7 Main Points of the FLAME Act ❖ identify the most cost-effective means for allocating fire management budget resources ❖ Re --investment in non -fire programs ❖ Assess the level of risk to communities ❖ Employ the appropriate management response to wildfires ❖ Prioritize and allocate hazardous fuels reduction funds ❖ Assess the impacts of climate change on the frequency and severity of wildfires + Study the effects of invasive species on wildfire risk 3 Main Points Recommended by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) ❖ Lays out a range of potential approaches for addressing the growing wildland fire threat, + Estimate costs associated with each approach and; + Describe the trade-offs involved. Three Phases • Phase 1 of the CS is due to Congress by November 1, 2010. It will provide a national - scale, risk management -based framework for analysis to address national wildfire issues. • Phase 2 will use the framework to assess local options with regional analysis to ensure that it supports a cohesive approach. • Phase 3 will be implementation of the CS. National CohesiveWildland Fire Management Strategy Background and Progress Update Joe Stutter April 27,2011 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners What is the Cohesive Strategy? • A national, collaborative approach to addressing wildland fire across all lands and jurisdictions • Developed with input from wildland fire organizations, land managers and policy- making officials representing all levels of governmental and non-governmental organizations Why is it Important? • Wildland fire management is complex and involves a wide range of stakeholders • Risks to communities and firefighters are increasing • Decreasing financial and human resources to manage wildland fire • Effectively addressing these issues requires a united, comprehensive effort Background • 2009 Federal Land Assistance Management (FLAME) Act: Directs Departments of Agriculture and the Interior to develop Cohesive Wildfire Management Strategy Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommendations: Articulate potential approaches Estimate costs of each approach Describe trade-offs associated with each approach WiidIand Fire Leadership Council (WFLC) • WFLC leads and governs the Cohesive Strategy effort Intergovernmental committee of federal, state, tribal, county and municipal government officials Foundational Documents • A Call to Action • 2009 Quadrennial Fire Review • Mutual Expectations for Preparedness and Suppression in the Interface • Wildland Fire Protection and Response in the United States: The Responsibilities,Authorities and Roles of Federal, State, Local and Tribal Governments • Available at www.forestsandrangelands.gov WFLC Members Rhea Suh, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, Jay Jensen, USDA Deputy Undersecretary for Natural Resources and the Environment Tom Tidwell, Chief John Jarvis, Director Rowan Gould, Acting Director Bob Abbey, Director Mike Black, Director Marcia McNutt, Director Department of the Interior Glenn Gaines , United States Fire Administration Department of Homeland Security United States Department of Ted Kulongoski, Governor, State Western Governors Association Agriculture (USDA) of Oregon Representative USDA Forest Service National Park Service United States Fish and Wildland Service Dan Shoun, County Commissioner, Lake County, State of Oregon Joe Durglo, President, Confederated Satish and Kootenai Tribes Mary Hamann -Roland, Mayor, City of Apple Valley, State of Minnesota JeffJahnke, State Forester, Bureau of Land Management State of Colorado Bureau of Indian Affairs United States Geological Service Chief Robert Roper, Ventura County Fire Department State of California Counties Representative President, Intertribal Timber Council National League of Cities Representative for the National Association of State Foresters Representative for the International Association of Fire Chiefs 7 Cohesive Strategy Oversight Committee (CSOC) Appointed byWFLC to support completion of tasks assigned under FLAME Act • Membership includes federal, state, local, tribal and non-governmental representatives CSOC Members Tom Harbour USDA Forest Service Kirk Rowdabaugh United States Department of the Interior Maureen Hyzer USDA Forest Service Clint Cross USDA Forest Service Tim Sexton USDA Forest Service Bill Van Bruggen USDA Forest Service Susan Stewart USDA Forest Service Dan Smith National Association of State Foresters Caitlyn Pollihan Council of Western State Foresters/National Association of State Foresters Douglas MacDonald International Association of Fire Joshua Simmons Bureau of Indian Affairs Michael Carrier Western Governors' Association Ann Walker Western Governors' Association Lynda Boody Bureau of Land Management Wendy Reynolds Bureau of Land Management Dan Buckley National Park Service John Morlock National Park Service Ryan Yates National Association of Counties Aitor Bidaburu United States Fire Administration Jim Kelton United States Fish and Wildlife Chiefs Service Bryan Rice Bureau of Indian Affairs Jim Erickson Intertribal Timber Council Vision "Safely and effectively extinguish fire, when needed, use fire where allowable; manage our natural resources; and as nation, live with wildland fire:" Cohesive Strategy Principles Engages stakeholders, managers, and scientists ▪ Based on best available science, knowledge and experience • Emphasis on partnerships and collaboration • Balances Tong -term goals and near-term outcomes • Approach needs to be a"from-the-ground up" effort Cohesive Strategy Focus Areas: • Restore and maintain resilient landscapes • Fire adapted communities • Response to wildfire Elements of a National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy Re,.lore and Mamtiin Resilient Landscapes Science Fire-Ac_lapled Response 10 Comrnunitue s Wildfire A Phased Approach Phase I (complete) • National Cohesive 'Midland Fire Management Strategy and Report to Congress Phase II (2011) • Development of Regional Goals, Objectives,Actions and Activities Phase 111 (2012) • National Trade-off Analys is and Execution Phase 1 — National Strategy • Fourteen forums were held nationwide with 400+ participants • Developed foundational documents: A National Cohesive Wild fire Management Strategy Report to Congress: The Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act of 2009 • Documents approved byWFLC, OMB and signed by Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior Phase 11 — Develop Regional Goals, Objectives, Actions and Activities • Three regions have been identified • Northeast • Southeast • West • Regional Strategy Committee • Implement a collaborative planning process and analytical protocol Basic Principles of Phase 11 • Collaborative Engages stakeholders, managers, and analysts • Shared responsibility and ownership of process and results • Rigorous Adopts a formal definition of risk • Uses scientifically credible data and analyses • Transparent • All steps are documented and shared Intent and Deliverables • Define regional goals and objectives and portfolio of actions and activities • Complete qualitative analysis of goals and objectives and portfolio of actions and activities Develop protocol and guidance to complete quantitative analysis in Phase 111 (National Tradeoff Analysis) • Conceptual models, analytical models • Local and national data Four Step Planning and Analysis Process Design Alternatives Synthesize Results Role of Different Groups Specify Objectives Design Alternatives Managers & Stakeholders Analysts & Scientists Model Effects Synthesize Results Tools CRAFT: Comparative RiskAssessment Framework and Tools A structured approach for making complex decisions "Wizard"—a guide through the planning process and GIS Viewer Probability modeling software and support for a range of ancillary models and datasets Working Group(s) Working Group(s) Governance Regional Strategy Committee (NE) Regional Strategy Committee (West) Regional Strategy Committee (SE) Working Group(s) 1 1 Science and Analysis Team 21 Phase III —National RiskTrade-Off Analysis & Execution • Phase III will build on Phase 11. • Regional goals, objectives, and portfolio of actions and activities will be used to perform a national -level trade-off risk analysis. • Trade-off risk analysis will inform a national strategy to mitigate wildland fire risks to communities and landscapes. • Implement National Cohesive Strategy Timeline • Phase 1: Completed March 2011 WFLC agreement on documents (March 2011) Secretary signatures process, (March 201 I) • Phase 11: Present - September 30, 2011 WFLC agreement on process, deliverables and timeline (March 2011) Regional Strategy Committee members appointed (March 201 I) • Phase 111: September 30,2011- September 30, 2012 Resources • Continued Cohesive Strategy updates available at: www.forestsandrangelands.gov • Comparative Risk Assessment Framework and Tools (CRAFT): http://www.forestth reats.org/current- projects/project-summaries/CRAFT Questions *WAiliand. Fire pCowiI Date: March 10, 2011 Topic: National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy Issue: Implementation Update Background In response to requirements of the Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement (FLAME) Act of 2009, the Wildland Fire Leadership Council (WFLC) directed the development of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy (Cohesive Strategy). The Cohesive Strategy addresses the nation's wildfire problems by focusing on three key areas: Restore and Maintain Resilient Landscapes, Fire Adapted Communities and Response to Wildland Fire. The cohesive strategy effort utilizes a collaborative, science -based approach with active involvement of all levels of government and non- governmental organizations, as well as the public, to seek solutions to wildland fire management issues on all lands. Status and Next Steps The cohesive strategy effort is being implemented in three phases, allowing stakeholders to systematically and thoroughly develop a dynamic approach to planning for, responding to, and recovering from wildland fire incidents. Information on this effort is available on the web via v, fore,t,andran,lelands. A status update for each of the three phases is provided below. Phase I: National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy Phase I involved the development of two reports: the first is A National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy and the second is the Report to Congress: The Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act of 2009. Together, these reports provide the foundation for the entire cohesive strategy effort. Fourteen listening forums were held across the nation from April through June 2010 where more than 400 participants representing federal, state, tribal, local and non-governmental organizations discussed their concerns about land management and wildfire related risks. The input from these forums was included in the Cohesive Strategy. Phases II and III will implement the direction articulated in the Phase I reports. Phase II: Development of Regional Goals, Objectives and Portfolio of Actions and Activities The Cohesive Strategy Oversight Committee (CSOC) is developing a proposed collaborative planning and analysis process to implement Phases II and III. A prototype of the proposed planning and analysis process was initiated February 7-11, 2011 in Asheville, NC. The prototype considered wildland fire management in AL, GA, NC and SC. Input from the Southeast prototype is being analyzed, and the results will be presented to the CSOC on March 4; the CSOC will synthesize the results and provide a recommendation to the WFLC on March 10. A proposed plan and timeline for national implementation of Phase II will also be presented to WFLC at the March meeting. An integral part of the proposed implementation timeline includes the designation of a Regional Strategy Committee for each of the three regions (Northeast, Southeast and West), as outlined in the Cohesive Strategy. These committees will provide executive leadership and oversight to the planning process within their respective region. Agency nominations for each of the three Committees will be recommended to the WFLC on March 10. Phase III: National Risk Tradeoff Analysis Building on the work and progress of Phase II, a National Risk Tradeoff Analysis will be performed in Phase III. The National Risk Tradeoff Analysis will inform the proposed strategic tradeoffs discussion among stakeholders. Date: March 10, 2011 Topic: National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy Issue: Proposed Regional Strategy Committee Membership Background - The Cohesive Strategy Oversight Committee (CSOC) is developing a proposed collaborative planning and analysis process to implement Phases II and III of the Cohesive Strategy. An integral part of the proposed implementation timeline includes the designation of a Regional Strategy Committee for each of the three regions (Northeast, Southeast and West), as outlined in the Cohesive Strategy. These Regional Strategy Committees will provide executive leadership and oversight to the planning process within their respective region. Agency nominations for each of the three Committees are listed below. Agency Nominations for Regional Strategy Committees _Nlieilst�,-L - .. t ..`.. ;_:, �,. � ._ West TBD Regional Forester, FS Liz Agpaoa Regional Forester, FS Corbin Newman Regional Forester, FS Brad Simpkins State Forester, NH Tom Boggus State Forester, TX Bob Harrington State Forester, MT George Baker IAFC, Fire Chief, Mashpee, MA Bruce Woods IAFC, Texas State Forestry Joe Stutler IAFC, Deschutes County, OR Doreen Blaker Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Tom Lowery Choctaw Nation Tony Harwood Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Tom Remus Wildland Fire Management Specialist, BIA Ed Brunson Eastern Region Fire Ecologist, BIA John Philbin Western Region Forester, BIA Steve Jakala Midwest Regional Fire Management Officer, FWS Bob Eaton Southeast Regional Fire Management Officer, FWS Pam Easley Northwest Regional Fire Management Officer, FWS Jim Loach Associate Regional Director for Operations and Education, NPS Kevin Fitzgerald Great Smokey Mountains National Park Deputy Superintendent, NPS Karen Taylor -Goodrich Sequoia and Kings Canyon Parks Superintendent, NPS TBD Regional Governors' Association TBD Southern Governors' Association Ann Walker Western Governor's Association TBD National League of Cities TBD National League of Cities TBD National League of Cities TBD Forest Service Station Director TBD Forest Service Station Director TBD Forest Service Station Director Jim Johnson County Commissioner, Cook County, MN Robert Cope Lemhi County, ID Aden Seidlitz Boise District Manager, BLM Todd Hawbaker Research Ecologist, USGS March 10. 2011 PROPOSED COHESIVE STRATEGY PHASES WITH INTENDED DELIVERABLES c • U C 0 •E zg O a) U • U_ E •5L• ) m > — a) c w cn o • 0 2c▪ � a = ZLi Q)O) cC O • E 0. co U U 0 (o O) C (Co O) a) c ,— CO Oa) oeL - 0) -0rre- C w 0) co L > U co u) + 0cc • > a) 0a)U U O a) O co O Q 0 a 0_ C (/) 'a OO -0 O To O O o -o c 4- sac UCO_ F- O c° co OC LL ▪ O O U O1 0 U O � Q- 4- .O 0 a) To .o O+ O O (n O (o a)= C— a) U) U w c:L .- 0.0 • 0 o 2� Q 0 To a0ac 0c�aa'ioo D 0 a7 p L c rr (a 4 ' C O. (o N ^ C LO munities, and N O M 0) Phase 111 —� O M 0) a) 0) CO L 0_ 1 0 0 M O) a) U (o L 0_ 1 0) 0 0 M *CRAFT: Comparative Risk Assessment Framework and Tools (http://www.forestthreats.org/current-projects/project-summaries/CRAFT) March 1 "1 7 PROCESS Z w V) a w >- 1— cc — cc H w cn w 0 V w 0 a 0 cc a Science Team al _▪ fa . ✓ C E Q O is ID. To ce ▪ u q1 td) 0) Ceaj m 11) fq � *CRAFT: Comparative Risk Assessment Framework and Tools (http://www.forestthreats.org/current-projects/project-summaries/CRAFT) Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Coalition The Honorable Mike Simpson, Chairman Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies House Committee on Appropriations B-308 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 April 22, 2011 The Honorable James P. Moran, Ranking Member Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies House Committee on Appropriations 1016 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Re: Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Fund in the FY 2012 Appropriation Dear Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Moran: The undersigned organizations are writing to express our strong support for the President's Budget level of $40 million to fund the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Fund in FY 2012. Our organizations are actively engaged in collaborative projects that provide for science - based forest restoration, support wood -using businesses, and provide local jobs. We recognize the need for fiscal austerity in the FY 2012 Interior Appropriation Bill and we respectfully suggest that the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program provides an unprecedented level of accountability to ensure that forest management occurs in places where people and the environment will strongly benefit. The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program was successfully launched with a $10 million appropriation in FY 2010. Nearly 100 proposals were submitted and 10 projects were selected through a competitive process. The 10 selected projects have already generated significant outcomes in terms of labor income, direct and indirect jobs, board feet of timber, and acres of wildlife habitat and lands restored. Providing $40 million for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program in FY2012 would ensure that the existing projects are fully funded, while allowing for several new efforts to be initiated. Interest in the program is very strong among local communities and collaborative groups, with 26 new projects from across the country submitted for consideration should there be funding. The benefits of the CFLRP go far beyond the projects selected for funding, as the competitive process is leading Forest Service units and local stakeholders to better coordinate forest restoration planning focused on supporting wood using businesses, convening collaborative processes, and integrating the best available science in a transparent manner. The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program is leading the way to new, productive management of National Forests that involves American stakeholders more directly in their forests and communities. Our organizations wish to thank you for supporting FY 2011 funding, and we urge you to provide $40 million for the program in FY 2012 to further enhance the substantial progress made thus far. Sincerely, ADD YOUR ORGANIZATION (include contact, title and state); Send email to CI^LRCoalition(c email.com by Friday, April 22, 2011 [Note: An identical letter will be sent to the Senate by middle of May with names of organizations signed on to both letters.] Department of Administrative Services Dave Kanner, County Administrator 1300 NW Wall St, Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 www.co.deschutes.or.us April 21, 2011 TO: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FROM: DAVE KANNER RE: ADMINISTRATION OF ON-SITE PERMITTING AND INSPECTION With the repeal of Ordinance 2008-019, which required the use of nitrate -reducing on- site wastewater systems for new construction, upgrades and replacements in southern Deschutes County, the County must now apply OAR 340 when reviewing on-site wastewater disposal applications in the area previously covered by the ordinance. The County, of course, applies OAR 340 to all such applications county -wide. OAR 340- 071-130(1) states, "An agent may not authorize installation or use of a system that is likely to pollute public waters or create a public health hazard. If, in the judgment of the agent, the minimum standards in this division will not adequately protect public waters or public health on a particular site, the agent must require a system to meet requirements that are protective. This may include but is not limited to increasing setbacks, increasing drainfield sizing, or using an alternative system. The agent must provide the applicant with a written statement of the specific reasons why more stringent requirements are necessary." Exactly how this should or will be applied to southern Deschutes County, given the unique characteristics of the shallow groundwater aquifer, has been a concern for the Board and for many citizens who have written to the Board since the repeal of the ordinance. Since the County is an agent of the state, County staff has been in discussions with DEQ staff and is working toward an agreement as to how DEQ envisions having the OAR applied. County and DEQ staff will not have such an agreement to present to you at your work session of April 27, but will be available to speak generally about the general parameters of the agreement and how the two agencies will work together as we move forward. Enhancing the Lives of Citizens by Delivering Quality Services in a Cost -Effective Manner