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

Memorandum

Date:

April 26, 2007

To:

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (see attached distribution list)

From:

/s/Anne Badgley, Executive Director

Subject:

INTERGOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES FOR MARCH 20, 2007

John Woolley, California State Assn. of Counties
Joan Smith (Alt)
Crawford Tuttle, Resources Agency, State of California
Cathy Bleier (Alt)

Larry Giustina, Oregon State Board of Forestry
Kevin Birch (Alt)
Rocky McVay, Assn. of Oregon & California Counties
Gil Riddell (Alt)

Bridget Moran, Intergovernmental Resource Mgmt. Director’s Office
John Mankowski (Alt)
Don R. "Bud" Hover, Washington Counties
Paul J. Pearce (Alt) 

Merv George, Jr., Calif. Indian Forest & Fire Mgmt. Council
Nolan C. Colegrove (Alt)
David Herrera, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
George Smith, Intertribal Timber Council
Donald Motanic (Alt)

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee
March 20, 2007 Agenda
Multnomah Conference Room, DoubleTree Hotel and Conference Center, Portland, Oregon

Time

Topics

Purpose

Presenter

8:00 a.m.

• Agenda Overview
• Introductions
• Certification of the notes

House-keeping

Anne Badgley (REO)
Kath Collier (REO)

8:10

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

House-keeping

Anne Badgley (REO)

8:20

OPENING REMARKS

Opening

Linda Goodman, Chair (FS)

8:30

Updates

9:15

Break

9:30

Updates

Joyce Casey (FS)
Dick Prather (BLM)
Tom Hussey (FS)
Dave Wesley (FWS)
Terry Rabot (FWS)
Mike Crouse (NOAA)

10:40

UPDATES – Non-Federal Members

Discussion

11:20

AWARDS and RECOGNITION

Celebrate!

Linda Goodman, Chair (FS)
Anne Badgley (REO)

11:50

Closing Remarks

Closing

Linda Goodman, Chair (FS)

12

Adjourn

Topic: WELCOME!

Presenter/Sponsor: Linda Goodman, Chair

Summary: Linda thanked members of the committee for their participation and commitment. She provided a brief overview of the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) activities since the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Record of Decision was signed. She noted the important role that the committee has played over the years, and that the implementation of the Plan would not have been as successful without the input and advice from the group. In addition, she noted the expectation of continued communication among the IAC members through other existing venues. Finally, she requested that the meeting presenters and members of the IAC describe ways that the committee members may stay engaged with particular topics in the future.

Topic: REGIONAL INTERAGENCY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (RIEC) DECISIONS

Sponsor: Linda Goodman, IAC Chair

Presenter: Anne Badgley, REO Executive Director

Summary: Information was shared with IAC members on agreements and decisions reached at the December and January Regional Interagency Executive Committee meetings. Anne summarized the decisions and described the process used to generate these changes. Topics covered included:

• Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC)
• Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
• Provincial Advisory Committees (PACs), and
• Regional Ecosystem Office (REO)

Topic: DECISIONS: Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC)

Background: After 12 years of NWFP implementation, the Federal agencies are entering a new era. The NWFP amended all of the Forest Service and BLM management plans within the range of the northern spotted owl. Today, the Forest Service and the BLM are revising those individual plans based upon experience and new information gained over the past 12 years. The RIEC was established in 1994 to ensure interagency coordination, communication, and consistent implementation of the NWFP. In the early years of the NWFP, the RIEC met frequently to coordinate activities and resolve implementation issues. Over the years, many implementation issues were resolved, and effective patterns of interagency coordination were established. Consequently, the RIEC began to meet less frequently.

Summary of the RIEC Decisions: The RIEC agreed to a new process of facilitating RIEC review and coordination of proposed plan amendments. This process is currently being tested with a review requested from the Six Rivers National Forest. After reviewing the current and anticipated RIEC workload, the agencies decided that an annual meeting would be a more efficient means to accomplish RIEC responsibilities. The next meeting will be in August or September. RIEC agencies may request additional meetings, if necessary, through the RIEC Chair. Between annual meetings, the Senior Managers’ Group (SMG) will handle NWFP issues as they arise. The SMG includes senior-level managers from each of the RIEC agencies.

Discussion: IAC members inquired about the role of the SMG. It was clarified that the SMG is composed of senior-level staff, and that each federal agency has a seat at the table. It was further clarified that the focus of the SMG has been and will continue to be around technical (rather than policy) aspects of NWFP implementation. The SMG will function as the frontline for NWFP issues, but will have the capacity to raise issues needing further attention to the full RIEC.

Topic: DECISIONS: Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

Background: In 1994, a Federally-chartered advisory committee was formed to assist the RIEC with NWFP implementation issues. The IAC has been officially chartered every two years. Its membership consists of individuals nominated by Tribes, Counties, and the States of Washington, Oregon, and California.

Summary of the RIEC Decisions: The IAC has served a very valuable role in advising the RIEC over the years. Like the RIEC, the IAC has evolved into more of an information sharing and relationship building forum. While these functions are very important, they do not require the time and expense of a federally-chartered advisory committee. Anne emphasized that there were various opportunities for members to communicate outside of the IAC committee. In light of these factors, the RIEC decided not to re-charter the IAC when the current charter expires in April, 2007.

Discussion: The importance of maintaining communication linkages was highlighted by several members. RIEC members indicated their intention to continue to work outside of the IAC arena with the entities and representatives around the table.

Topic: DECISIONS: Provincial Advisory Committees (PACs)

Background: The NWFP delineated a Provincial Interagency Executive Committee (PIEC) with representatives from the local Federal agencies for each of the 12 geographical provinces involved in NWFP implementation. Provincial Advisory Committees (PACs) were subsequently chartered to advise each of the PIECs. The PACs are under one charter which is renewed every two years. The current charter expires in October 2007.

Summary of the RIEC Decisions: In December 2006, evaluation forms were transmitted to the Designated Federal Officials (DFO’s) for the PACs to obtain information regarding the effectiveness of the PACs in Federal decision-making. DFO responses varied, indicating differences among the PACs. For example:

• Some DFOs noted a lack of participation and interest in PAC meetings.
• Federal and non-Federal attendance is unbalanced in some PACs.
• Some PACs are more active than others.
• PACs vary in the issues they address.

Based upon the information received from DFO’s and PIEC members from this inquiry, the RIEC decided to re-charter six of the PACs (Olympic Peninsula, Eastern Washington Cascades, Yakima, Oregon Coast, Deschutes, and California Coast). A decision regarding another PAC is on hold pending additional input from the PIEC (Southwest Oregon). Five of the PAC charters will not be renewed at this time (Western Washington Cascades, Southwest Washington, Willamette, Klamath, and Northwest Sacramento). After considering the array of DFO responses, the decision to not re-charter these PACs was based largely on two key factors:

• Agenda topics have been mostly information sharing rather than advisory
• Other venues are available for stakeholder involvement

PACs not re-chartered in this cycle can be reconsidered for re-chartering in two years. All PACs will remain chartered through initial distribution of the Draft BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions in 2007. Provincial Interagency Executive Committees (PIECs) remain as organizational entities regardless of whether their PAC is re-chartered. Additional information on Provincial Advisory Committees and the Provincial Interagency Executive Committee can be found at: http://www.reo.gov/general/aboutPIEC.htm

Discussion: IAC members noted the important role PACs have played in certain areas with regard to engaging groups in Forest issues at the local level. Some non-Federal members wondered if the remaining PACs would focus on a single issue, or tend towards a broader advocacy or coverage. It was suggested that the RIEC keep an eye on the PAC model, and consider revisiting it should it become evident that need for this structure remains. With respect to the availability of other venues for stakeholder involvement, it was noted that an organizational chart would be helpful. The intent would be to identify other venues, and potential communication linkages that could be pursued to ensure a continued dialogue around Forest-related issues.

Topic: DECISIONS: Regional Ecosystem Office

Background: As the RIEC workload has reduced over the years, so has the staff workload for REO. In FY 2008, the REO will evolve to a "virtual" organization which will convene as needed to support RIEC business and execute REO responsibilities.

Summary of the RIEC Decisions: After September 30, 2007, the REO will no longer occupy common office space or operate with an interagency budget. REO representatives and staff will be located at their agency headquarters.

Topic: UPDATES – Federal: Monitoring

Presenter: Joyce Casey, Regional Appeals Coordinator, Resource Planning and Monitoring, FS

Sponsor: Linda Goodman, IAC Chair

REO Contact: Shawne Mohoric, FS Representative

Summary: We are continuing to implement monitoring associated with the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). Monitoring helps us measure the plan implementation and adaptively manage the plan. The regional interagency monitoring program is organized around six modules. (NOTE: Implementation monitoring is being done exclusively at the field level and is no longer part of the monitoring program at the regional level.)

Vegetation and Old Growth – we are using IMAP (Interagency Mapping and Assessment Project) to update vegetation mapping across the NWFP area as well as the entire states of Oregon and Washington. IMAP is an example of the partnerships that have developed out of the stronger relations built by the NWFP. Mapping will conclude in 2007 for the 2010 report.

Aquatic Monitoring – There are efforts underway to standardize protocols (and improve communications) across agencies and between the Aquatic and Riparian Effectiveness and eastside PACFISH/INFISH effectiveness monitoring programs.

Spotted Owls – Demography studies are continuing along with pilot testing of an alternative population monitoring method to see if this work can be accomplished more efficiently, while still maintaining the needed scientific rigor. Analysis for the 2010 report will start by the end of 2008 field season. Agencies are looking at how monitoring can help with project planning, ESA consultation, and recovery plan implementation.

Marbled Murrelets – Murrelet monitoring is continuing. In April, the Senior Managers Group (SMG) will consider a proposal for options on monitoring.

Socioeconomic – A new monitoring protocol is under development by agency and PNW Research scientists. It will involve the use of secondary data (existing data from Counties, States, Census bureaus, etc.). A proposal will be presented to the SMG early this summer.

Tribal – The Senior Managers Group considered a proposal, developed by the Tribal Monitoring Advisory Group (TMAG), at their March 2007 meeting. The SMG is working with TMAG to further define elements of the proposal. This monitoring will involve sending a small survey to all 76 tribes in the NWFP area on an annual basis. Additional case studies will be done on a subset of the Tribes to provide a closer look.

The agencies will continue to produce annual monitoring reports, with more detailed reports planned at year 15 and year 20. The annual reports will reflect monitoring information as well as key science findings.

KEY CONTACTS:

Shawne Mohoric
Monitoring Team Leader
(503) 808-2175
smohoric@fs.fed.us

Steve Lanigan
Aquatic Effectiveness Module Lead
(503) 808-2261
slanigan@fs.fed.us

Melinda Moeur
Vegetation Module Lead
(503) 808-2811
mmoeur@fs.fed.us

Joe Lint
Spotted Owl Module Lead
(541) 464-3288
joseph_lint@or.blm.gov

Gary Falxa
Marbled Murrelet Module Lead
(707) 822-7201
gary_falxa@fws.gov

Lis Grinspoon
Socioeconomic Module Lead
(503) 808-2207
egrinspoon@fs.fed.us

Gary Harris
Tribal Monitoring Module Lead
(503) 808-2603
grharris@fs.fed.us

Topic: UPDATES – Federal: WESTERN OREGON PLAN REVISION

Presenter: Dick Prather, BLM

Sponsor: Ed Shepard, BLM

Summary: Dick indicated that the BLM is working with a wide variety of cooperators including 17 O&C Counties, 10 State agencies, 4 Federal agencies (Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, NOAA-Fisheries, and the Environmental Protection Agency). The Coquille Tribe is a member of the Steering Committee. He described the three alternatives as:

Next Steps: The draft plan is due in late June. There will be a 90-day comment period and the Record of Decision will probably be available by July 2008. Additional information can be found on the BLM website: http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/index.php

Topic: UPDATES – Federal: STATUS UPDATE ON FOREST SERVICE PLANS

Presenter: Tom Hussey, Forest Service

Sponsor: Linda Goodman, IAC Chair

Summary: The planning rule has been changed to establish broad strategic direction and managerial control systems designed to make steady improvements that contribute to sustainability and emphasize collaboration. The commitment to sustainability, compliance with environmental statutes and regulations, use of best science, environmental analysis at the appropriate scale, and the emphasis on collaboration will remain the same. The Forest Supervisor is now the responsible official and will focus on ecological, social, and economic sustainability. The Forests will be using an environmental management system (EMS) to identify actions that impact the environment. Note: Future plans will not have the NWFP process-related standards. Some standards will be converted to agency Directives.

NWFP Issues:
Late-Successional Reserves – Forests told to keep reserve network, consider changing standards for dry forests.
Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy – The plans will retain most of the original ACS strategy.

Additional information may be found by navigating to the Forest Service national home page (http://www.fs.fed.us/) and searching for a particular Forest. Each Forest has a link to "Projects and Plans" on their individual home pages.

Members also requested contact information for Region 5 (California) planning staff. The contact for the Northwest Forest Plan is Art Gaffrey (707-562-88719, agaffrey@fs.fed.us). The Regional Planner is Brad Burmark (707-562-8950, bburmark@fs.fed.us). The street address for both is: 1323 Club Drive, Vallejo, CA 94592.

Plan Revision Schedule:

Region 6 Forests

Begin

Complete

Okanogan-Wenatchee | Colville | Wallowa-Whitman | Umatilla | Malheur

2004

2008

Fremont-Winema | Deschutes | Ochoco

2009

2011

Rogue-River – Siskiyou | Umpqua | Willamette | Siuslaw | Mt. Hood

2012

2014

Gifford Pinchot | Mt. Baker – Snoqualmie | Olympic

2015

2017

Region 5 Forests (NWFP)

Klamath | Mendocino | Six Rivers | Shasta Trinity

2008

2010

Topic: UPDATES – Federal: NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL RECOVERY PLAN STATUS AND CRITICAL HABITAT

Presenter: Dave Wesley, FWS

Sponsor: Ren Lohoefener, FWS

Issue Statement: The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is preparing a new draft recovery plan and revising critical habitat for the northern spotted owl.

Summary: Dave Wesley, Deputy Regional Director and Team Leader for the Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Team, provided an update on the status of the recovery plan and the critical habitat designation. The draft Plan has been forwarded to Washington, D.C. It includes two options for recovering the owl. The notice of availability for review of the draft Recovery Plan is expected to be published in the Federal Register by late April. Once the draft plan is available, there will be a 60-day comment period. The FWS is planning on holding four public meetings starting about four weeks after the plan is published in the Federal Register. The FWS also will submit the draft plan for peer review. The publication of the draft Recovery Plan will be followed closely by the publication of revised proposed critical habitat for the spotted owl. The FWS will publish the proposal in the Federal Register by June 1. The FWS does not plan to hold any public meetings on the critical habitat designation, unless such a meeting is requested by the public.

Next Steps: Once the public comment periods close for both the draft Plan and proposed critical habitat, the FWS will begin preparing final documents. The final Recovery Plan and final critical habitat designation should be completed within a year. Additional information related to northern spotted owl recovery and critical habitat can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/NSORecoveryPlanning.htm

Topic: UPDATES – Federal: MARBLED MURRELET STATUS AND CRITICAL HABITAT

Presenter: Terry Rabot, FWS

Sponsor: Ren Lohoefener, FWS

Issue: The Fish and Wildlife Service is preparing a final critical habitat determination for the marbled murrelet. The FWS is also reviewing the status of the species throughout its range.

Summary: Terry Rabot, Assistant Regional Director, provided an update on the marbled murrelet range-wide status review and critical habitat designation. The FWS prepared a five-year review for the marbled murrelet in 2003. In that review, the FWS determined that the murrelet population in Washington, Oregon, and California did not meet the definition of a Distinct Population Segment. The FWS asked USGS to prepare a report on the status of the murrelet in the rest of the species’ range–Alaska and Canada. That report was published in December, 2006. The FWS and Department of Interior are still reviewing the report. The FWS and the Department has yet to make a final decision about the status of the listed population in Washington, Oregon, and California. Terry briefly explained a recent Solicitor’s Opinion that discussed the meaning of the Endangered Species Act term "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range." This new Opinion may affect the pending decision on the status of the listed murrelet population which is only listed in a portion of its range.

Next Steps: Meanwhile, the FWS is moving forward with revising the murrelet critical habitat designation. Revised critical habitat was proposed on August 30, 2006. The FWS will publish the final designation by August 30, 2007. Additional information may be found at: http://www.fws.gov/pacific/marbledmurrelet/

Topic: UPDATES – Federal: SALMON RECOVERY PLANS

Presenter/Sponsor: Mike Crouse, NOAA-Fisheries

Summary: Planning for salmon recovery began in 2000. Most plans are being developed by State or Local Groups with advice from NOAA-Fisheries. Most plans should be finished by the end of 2008 (except for the lower Columbia-Willamette). Additional information on salmon recovery plans may be found at: http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/

Topic: UPDATES – Non-Federal Members

Presenters: Listed below.

Sponsor: Linda Goodman, IAC Chair

Background: This segment provided an opportunity for the non-Federal members to share their perspectives and information related to the Northwest Forest Plan as we move into a new phase of implementation.

George Smith – Intertribal Timber Council (ITC). ITC has valued the IAC as a forum for information sharing, discussion, and providing advice. Tribal representatives have had monthly conference calls, and actively engaged in monitoring issues through the Forest Service liaison. This workgroup will continue to work on the tribal monitoring module with the hope of submitting formal recommendations to the RIEC prior to the expiration of the IAC charter. The Tribal representatives on the IAC will continue to seek opportunities to respond to NWFP issues at the Regional level.

Larry Giustina, State of Oregon. The Oregon Board of Forestry will be the main forum for forestry issues in the State of Oregon. The Governor directed the Board of Forestry to craft a unified vision for the Federal forest role in Oregon. This vision will guide State reviews of Federal Forest Actions. The Federal Forest Advisory Committee will play an important role in helping to shape the direction for Federal lands in Oregon. The work of this group will be used when reviewing Forest Plan revisions and in developing policy recommendations.

John Mankowski, State of Washington. John encouraged the RIEC members to continue thinking about the role of the states, their connection to forest issues at the executive level (state and federal), and how they might engage in Regional level discussions in the future. He stressed that Washington sees the NWFP as the backbone to much of their forest policy, and that the state will need to react in response to any changes to the NWFP. John also mentioned legislation under development on forest health. The bill would include a three tier system of landowner notification that would move from informing landowners of forest health issues on their property, to declaring an emergency, to compelling them to action.

John Woolley, California Counties. John agreed with the points made about maintaining State/County/Federal connections at the Regional level and stressed that Counties need to be engaged as Federal planning efforts move forward. He also noted that California Counties are working on watershed management plans that will soon be released. In closing he noted the importance of a structured approach to communication, and that the Provincial Advisory Committees had provided for this in California, making that forum extremely valuable.

Don Motanic, Intertribal Timber Council. Don shared information about the Thirty-First Annual National Indian Timber Symposium that will be held June 4-7, 2007 in Polson, MT. For information, see the ITC website at http://www.itcnet.org/. He also mentioned the ITC would be highlighted as part of the Spring 2007 Denman Forestry Issue Series. In closing, Don shared his perspective on the last 13 years of NWFP implementation in the context of a Tribal ritual known as the Owl Dance. It was a poignant reminder of the responsibility shared by all partners, regardless of jurisdictional boundary.

Paul Pearce – Provided an update on the State’s Secure Schools legislation.