1. HFQLG Independent Science Panel Phase Two (Final review) October 17 – July 31, 2013 Onsite Review March 18 th – March 21 st

2. HFQLG Independent Science Panel Team Composition Amy Merrill, Ph.D. – Hydrology/Wetlands (lead) Dennis Becker, Ph.D. – Socioeconomics (co-lead) David Ganz, Ph.D. – Fire Science/Silviculture David Saah, Ph.D. - Fire Science/Veg/Soils (lead) John Gunn, Ph.D. -Wildlife; Silviculture (lead); methods (lead ) Mike Liquori – Hydrology /Stream Ecology R. J. “Rocky” Gutierrez, Ph.D.– Wildlife/Spotted owls Scott Cashen – Botany (lead) & wildlife Tony Cheng, Ph.D.– Socioeconomics (co-lead) Will Price – Subject Area Support/Reporting (coordinator)

3. HFQLG Independent Science Panel Overview Purpose Team Composition & Introduction Overview of the process – Phases – Timeline Analysis ~ “Making Decisions” Comments from Team Leaders Questions

4. HFQLG Independent Science Panel Purpose (1) The Secretary (of Agriculture) shall establish an independent scientific panel to review and report on whether, and to what extent, implementation of the pilot project under this section achieved the goals stated in the Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal, including improved ecological health and community stability. The membership of the panel shall reflect expertise in diverse disciplines in order to adequately address all of those goals.

5. HFQLG Independent Science Panel Purpose – Cont’d The report shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (A) A description of any adverse environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the pilot project. (B) An assessment of watershed monitoring data on lands treated pursuant to this section. Such assessment shall address the following issues on a priority basis: timing of water releases; water quality changes; and water yield changes over the short- and long-term in the pilot project area.

6. HFQLG Independent Science Panel Purpose – Cont’d (3) Submission to the congress.--The panel shall submit the final report to the Congress as soon as practicable, but in no case later than 18 months after completion of the pilot project. [Sept 30, 2012] i.e. March 2o14, however the Independent Science Panel will submit the final report by July 31, 2013

7. HFQLG Independent Science Panel Phases Phase One Review (2007 – 2008) – Orientation field visit – Red Flag Reporting – Full field visit – Phase One Report Recommendations on data quality & needs No priorities among recommendations [Act Extension – from 2010 to 2013 for Final Report] Phase Two Review (2012 – 2013) – Orientation (October 2012) – Full field visit – Phase Two, final Congressional Report Phase Three Communications (2013) – Concurrent with finalization of report

8. HFQLG Independent Science Panel Report to Congress Comment period for the Forest Service in June 2013 (contractual requirement). – Comments will be considered and adopted at the discretion of the ISP Final Report – Report to Congress – Submitted to Forest Service – Made Available to the QLG & other stakeholders

9. HFQLG Independent Science Panel Analysis At this stage in the process, the ISP is interested in data and information, and perspectives that may help interpret that information. “Stories” or experiences associated with HFQLG implementation, the why, must be looked through this lens. The Act and the CSP establish the Goals

10. HFQLG Independent Science Panel Framework for Analysis

11. HFQLG Independent Science Panel Example: Goals & Criteria (GOAL 1) Improve forest health. [CSP 1, CSP 2.i, CSP 2.iii, CSP 3] 1.1 Achieve a desired condition of all age, multistory, fire resilient forests approximating pre- settlement Sierra Nevada conditions, while maintaining ecological integrity [CSP b] 1.2...Grazing allotments & riparian management 1.3...FERC & Fisheries 1.4...Minimizing impacts from resource mgmt.

12. HFQLG Independent Science Panel Other Goals (GOAL 2) Provide community economic stability [CSP 2.i and 4] (GOAL 3) Implement fire and fuel management recommendations from CASPO over the entire land base. [CSP 2.ii]

13. HFQLG Independent Science Panel Goal and Objective Evaluative Statements – Achieved – Partially Achieved – Not Enough Information to Evaluate