Regional Ecosystem Office
333 SW 1st
P.O. Box 3623
Portland, Oregon 97208-3623
Phone: (503) 326-6265 FAX: (503) 326-6282

Memorandum

Date: July 23, 1998

To: Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members (See Distribution List)

From: Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director

Subject: July 1998 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting Notes

Enclosed are notes from the July Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) meeting.

After a full day of discussion, three broad types of future IAC agenda topics were suggested.

Enclosed is a verbatim set of flip charts which we have annotated (in italics) for context and readability. Please look at the enclosed premeeting materials for the August 6 IAC meeting to see how we have evolved these three broad types of agenda topics into specific agenda items.

I want to thank each of you for your efforts before and at the July 16 IAC meeting. I hope you conclude these notes and our future meetings are worth your investment of time and effort.

The August 6 IAC meeting will be held at the DoubleTree Hotel, Columbia River, 1401 N. Hayden Island Drive, Portland, Oregon 97217 (phone 503-283-2111 and fax 503-283-4718). You may phone the hotel to make your reservations (request the government rate) and for shuttle service to and from the airport. If you are driving, the hotel is located on the westside of I-5 at Exit 308, Jantzen Beach. The IAC meeting will begin at 9:15 a.m. in the Klamath Room and is projected to adjourn by 3:00 p.m.

IAC Members 2

If you have questions about, or corrections to, the notes, I would appreciate knowing about them before the August 6 meeting, if convenient. If you have questions or suggestions about the logistics or the August 6 meeting agenda, please contact Don Knowles (503-808-2166), Linda Kucera (503-808-2179), or your agency representative.

Enclosure

cc:
REO
RCERT
PAC DFOs
Jim Pipkin

1170/lk

Date: July 23, 1998

Subject: Agenda and Prework Package for the August 6 IAC Meeting

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Distribution List

California
 Mark Stanley, California Resource Agency, State Representative (Acting)
Francie Sullivan, Representative of California Counties

Oregon
 Paula Burgess, Assistant to the Governor for Natural Resources, Office of the Governor
Peter Green, Forest Policy Advisor, Office of the Governor (Alternate)
Rocky McVay, Representative of Oregon Counties
Sue Kupillas, Alternate for July Meeting

Washington
 Craig Partridge, Federal Agency Liaison, State Representative
Dean Judd, Coordinator (Alternate)
Harvey Wolden, Representative of Washington Counties

Tribes
 Greg Blomstrom, Planning Forester, CA Indian Forest & Fire Management Council
Mel Moon, Commissioner, NW Indian Fisheries Commission
Jim Anderson, Executive Director, NW Indian Fisheries Commission (Alternate)
Katie Krueger, Environmental Policy Analyst, Quileute Tribe
Gary Morishima, Technical Advisor, Intertribal Timber Council
Guy McMinds, Executive Office Advisor, Quinault Indian Nation (Alternate)
Eric Hanson, Associate Director, Wildlife Department, Yakama Indian Nation (Alternate)

Federal Agencies
 Rosendo Trevino III, Acting Regional Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Bob Graham, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service (Alternate)
John D. Buffington, Western Region Chief Biologist, BRD, U.S. Geological Survey
Michael Collopy, Center Director, Biological Resources Division, U.S.Geological Survey (Alternate)
Tom Dwyer, Deputy Regional Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Ken Feigner, Director, Forest and Salmon Group, Environmental Protection Agency
Thomas J. Mills, Station Director, Forest Service, PNW
Thomas Murphy, Director, Environmental Research Laboratory, Environmental Protection Agency
Robert Lackey, Assoc. Director, Environmental Research Lab, Environmental Protection Agency (Alternate)
Stan Speaks, Area Director, Portland Area Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Dave Renwald, Wildlife Biologist, Portland Area Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs (Alternate)
Ron Jaeger, Area Director, Sacramento Area Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs
William Stelle, Jr., Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service
William Hogarth, Acting SW Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service (Alternate)
Elizabeth Holmes Gaar, Assistant Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service (Alternate)
William Walters, Deputy Regional Director, National Park Service
Kathy Jope, Natural Resources Team Leader, National Park Service
Jim Shevock, Associate Regional Director, National Park Service
Robert W. Williams, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, R-6
G. Lynn Sprague, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, R-5 (Alternate)
Elaine Zielinski, State Director, Oregon/Washington, Bureau of Land Management
Ed Hastey, State Director, California, Bureau of Land Management (Alternate)
Paul Roush, Wildlife Biologist, Bureau of Land Management, Arcata, CA

RCERT Ex Officio
 Scott Duff, USDA Rural Development Updated 7/22/98

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
ISSUE SUMMARY
Meeting Date: July 16, 1998 REO Contact/Phone: Don Knowles 503-808-2166
Topic: Future IAC Agenda Topics
Objective: The members agreed to discuss future IAC agenda topics and plan future discussions.
Summary of Discussion/IAC Actions: Working together in small groups prior to the meeting, members raised a number of suggestions for discussion. Greg Blomstrom and Gary Morishima posed six questions on behalf of the tribes. Francie Sullivan and Sue Kupillas raised three questions on behalf of the counties and Peter Green and Craig Partridge posed four questions on behalf of the states. Each question was reviewed and presented for discussion. A verbatim set of flip charts are enclosed that include some transitional text in italics.
IAC Agreements: Following discussion, Elaine Zielinski, Bob Williams, and Don Knowles presented a synthesis of the discussion and proposed three broad types of future agenda topics. Don also agreed to review and refine the flip chart notes, putting them into an organized format and proposing agenda topics for the meeting in August.
RIEC Decisions: None
Follow-up Actions (who/what/when): See the enclosed flip chart notes for follow-up actions (page 16). Also, see agenda topics proposed for August. (They were developed, in part, based on discussions and ideas expressed during the meeting.) There will be additional discussion time at the August IAC meeting to plan specific future agenda items.


13 Questions Posed by IAC Members Revised July 16, 1998

Six questions posed by Greg Blomstrom and Gary Morishima.

1. How can the agenda address issues of mutual concern, and how can the non-feds assert greater influence over the functioning of the committee and the agenda topics?

2. How can the IAC increase intergovernmental coordination between the tribes, states, local governments, and the feds?

3. How can the IAC initiate a cumulative effects analysis of the HCPs (Habitat Conservation Plans) being developed as well as the ones already permitted?

4. How can the IAC take on the responsibility of governments to focus the public debate on reasonable management?

5. How can the IAC help to devise and engage strategies that recognize the interdependence of forests and communities?

6. How can the IAC help coordinate decision making between federal, state, county, and tribal governments and PACs (Provincial Advisory Committees) to achieve ecosystem management over the landscape?

Three questions posed by Francie Sullivan and Sue Kupillas.

1. How can the IAC help the federal agencies increase the attention provided to the social-economic effects of federal forest plans?

2. How can the IAC help federal agencies institutionalize the commitment to change that is embodied in the NFP?

3. What kind of future relationship does the IAC want with the PACs and how can the IAC improve connections with the PACs?

Four questions posed by Craig Partridge and Peter Green.

1. What is the current IAC purpose? What is the revised IAC purpose from the new MOU?

2. How can the IAC improve its ability to engage in the really important future issues? What decisions have been influenced by the IAC? Why? What are the future decisions the IAC should discuss?

3. How can the IAC improve the relationship between PACs and the IAC, and between other processes at watershed scales versus basin, state, or regional scales?

4. Does "broadening the focus" include having the federal regulatory agencies bringing their agendas or actions (both as they affect federal and non-federal lands) before the IAC for advice? The tribal agenda? The state agenda? The county agenda?

Greg Blomstrom and Gary Morishima reviewed and elaborated on their proposed agenda topics:

Add to tribal concerns: Link to state issues:

This topic was also raised by the states.

1. New: How can future agendas anticipate key/important issues? (This was included in the premeeting tribal letter but overlooked in the meeting materials.)

2. How can we link individual issues and get a big picture?

3. Improve intergovernmental coordination:

- Institutionalize interaction -- build a structure on how to . . .

4. HCP

5. Don't focus on means -- focus on objectives/goals.

- Let's make objectives explicit -- what should these forests look like in the future and how we can communicate those perspectives to the public.

6. Focus on interdependence between forests and communities.

Discussion (During discussion of the tribal issues, the following comments were made and recorded.)

Relevance of IAC agenda topics to other actions in the region, e.g.:

- PAC operations
- Fish Management
- HCPs

IAC criteria?
- Policy issues
- Scale issues

Future emphasis on monitoring and assessments.

Which is our objective and focus?

NFP on fed lands (original vision)
or
Non-federal land management actions
or
Landscape
or
Social/economic
or
???

Scale -- how should IAC relate to scale issues?

Scale (cont'd)

Local initiative and federal support -- is this the shift?

Communication and coordination:

- Inform federal staff
- Inform PACs
- Should we decide who will focus on what? What the IAC is and what it is not?
- Go back and communicate our goals and objective for the landscape and community/forest connection.

Should we shift day-to-day issues to another group/subgroup and have this group focus on links to PACs, etc.?

Francie Sullivan and Sue Kupillas reviewed and elaborated on their proposed agenda topics:

County Issues

Social/Economic

- Planning for timber sales -- (How can we incorporate social/economic goals into timber sale planning?)
- Local scale
- What place do social/economic goals have in timber sale planning? Incorporate communities in our thinking? RCERT has been completely separate.
- Lawsuit furthers the shift to focus on ecology and away from communities -- this group needs to articulate vision including people.

County Discussion
Should MAC or other group push this or can IAC address?

County Discussion (cont'd)
NFP hasn't reduced lawsuits, protests, appeals. Disappointing.

Social/economic goals are in the law but not in planning regulations. Suits will occur, so what's the difference?

Is there a legally based basis to push back and (protect) support social/economic issues, e.g., a harvest volume? IAC could discuss whether there is and if so, what is it? Forest health?

Afternoon agenda -- our agenda for the afternoon was to proceed through the items in the following order:

- Complete review of suggestions -- states
- Select topics
- Schedule for meetings (or subgoups)
- Determine lead and action
- Agree on follow-up

Peter Green and Craig Partridge reviewed and elaborated on their proposed agenda topics:

States

- Many issues, many venues.
- What is the IAC charter? (The IAC charter was posted on the wall.)
- Who is being influenced; by whom?
- FS -- R6, R5?
- BLM?
- Federal regulatory agencies?
- States, Counties, Tribes?

- What significant effects has IAC caused? What future ones?

- IAC relationship to PACs?

- PAC (Watershed Councils, Biodiversity Councils, etc.) comments don't lead to changes (at the regional scale).

- Should IAC provide guidance?

State Discussion


Is the IAC the venue to influence one another?
- If yes, focus?
- If no, disinvest?

How does IAC purpose and objective relate to Eastside, etc. issues?

Goal -- Economically invest in effective processes.

Smaller groups -- how would that work?

IAC should be/could be information sharing and looking for linkages.

Bob Graham gave us an overview of the NRCS model. This depiction is missing Bob's drawing of a watershed.

Locally Led

Basin Watershed/Local

Strategic Plan SWCDs

RC&D Watershed Councils

Basin Working Group

Federal State

USDA Service Center

F.O.T.G.

County State Tech Comm Landowner

Cost Share

Lease

Easements

After discussion, Bob Williams, Elaine Zielinski, and Don Knowles produced the following summary and proposal. We started by pointing out some boundaries of the IAC.

The IAC is:

- Not the only venue we work in.

- Not just one scale -- includes regional, state, and local scales.

- Not "nuts and bolts" but broader.

- Primarily (but not exclusively) NFP on federal lands.

- Therefore, we need to be efficient and focused.

We then identified some common themes for future IAC agenda topics.

The IAC is:

1. Forested landscape, forest management activities.

2. Policy level.

3. Multiple scales -- we are interested in linkages and information sharing -- off channel communications.

4. In our public comments/communications -- we should shift from discussions of means (tools: timber sales, LSR assessments, etc.) to a discussion of goals and objectives (healthy ecosystems and communities -- socio/econ).

5. There will need to be some continuing attention paid to monitoring and implementation --
- (cost?) EM Tribal, Aquatic/Riparian, Social/Economic
- Data
[In separate work groups?]

Not Uniquely IAC Business? (The comment was made that a number of these agenda topics are not uniquely the business of the IAC but other organizations also deal with these issues.)

Agenda Topics -- Elaine, Bob, and Don proposed three broad types of agenda topics.

1. In the future, the IAC should be a place to discuss how best/better to link. Do we have the capability to link? If not, what is needed?

- scale issues; venues; ownership issues; social and ecological.
- e.g., watershed councils -- what level of support should we provide?
- PACs and IAC -- relationship? What do we want from PACs? What is their role protecting species across a fragmented landscape?
- Biodiversity Councils
- SWCD

Think Watersheds Think consistency within

Think Communities agencies regarding representation

Think Partners in different venues.

Think State Leadership Intra-organizational communication.

August IAC -- Should watershed councils be the ground level (venue) coordinating mechanism?

All Feds Business -- (The comment was made that most of these issues were the business of all the federal agencies.)

2. What do federal land managers need help on?
- Develop and articulate vision of lands and communities:
- Social/economic/communities and lands -- interdependence
- Define -- measures of desired outcomes/results

inputs = outputs = outcomes

$ products results

Federal Land Manager's Business (The comment was made that most of these issues seem to be primarily the business of federal land managers.)

3. Continue implementation issues
- HCP
- S&M
- EM -- Tribal
Aquatic/Riparian
Social/Economic
- Data
- Strategic Research Plan (SRP)

Add focus of outcomes (to the above)?

These comments were made while discussing the three proposed broad types of agenda topics.

How do we use the IAC forum to monitor and evaluate what is going on across the landscape?

E.g., PSQ adjustment (should have been brought to the IAC).

What are resources of interest and what do we want from/for them?

What sort of coordination do we need to see that what we want occurs?

Jim Pipkin Report:

1. Begin analysis of WA/LSRAs -- did we get what we wanted?

2. Basin analysis -- can we/how do we scale up to province/basin?

Following the discussion on the proposed broad agenda topics, Don Knowles agreed to do the following:

Do (We agreed to have these two topics covered at the August meeting.)

- HCP -- list of completed, including California, plans and those currently in process.

Do

- Timber -- salvage/PSQ/LSR?

Future Meeting Planning

(Based in part, on potential future agenda topic areas identified at the July 16 IAC meeting.)

July 23, 1998
August 6, 1998 IAC Meeting
Potential Agenda Topics:

1. Debrief IAC July 16 meeting -- Discuss Broad Agenda Topic Areas and Try to Refine into Future Agenda Topics
2. FS Briefing Paper on PSQ Adjustments
3. Tribal Effectiveness Monitoring: Status, review issue, agree on staff group, revisit and charter a "Policy Subgroup" at the November IAC meeting
4. IRICC presentation to the IAC: Status report, next steps, "how to broaden the focus" for information management. This should be discussed in the context of our current capability and future plans to monitor and evaluate what is going on across the landscape, per the July 16 meeting.
5. California IAC Subcommittee
6. Public Comment: Time requested by Bonnie Phillips on behalf of ForestWater Alliance and their report entitled "ACS and the NFP"
7. Hot Topics
8. Review Today's Agreements and November Potential Agenda Topics

Status Reports:

1. MOU Renewal and IAC Rechartering Status
2. Implementation Monitoring: FY 1997 IM Report and the FY 1998 Schedule
3. Effectiveness Monitoring: Aquatic/Riparian; Biodiversity; and Socio-Economic
4. Northern Spotted Owl 4(d) Rule: FWS/NMFS Update
5. Litigation: Salmon, Survey and Manage, Other


November 5, 1998 IAC Meeting
Potential Agenda Topics:

1. Change of Chair ceremony.
2. Tribal Effectiveness Monitoring - review and agree on a charter for the Tribal EM policy subgroup.
2. Ground Water/Drinking Waters Issues Presentation. (EPA)
3. Possible IAC Meeting Dates for 1999.

Status Reports:

1. 1997 IM Report.
2. Strategic Research Plan.
3. MOU Renewal.