Regional Ecosystem Office
333 SW 1st
P.O. Box 3623
Portland, Oregon 97208-3623
Phone: 503-808-2165 FAX: 503-808-2163

Memorandum

Date: July 24, 1998

To: Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members (See Distribution List)

From: Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director

Subject: Agenda and Prework Materials for the August 6 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting

Enclosed are the proposed agenda, agenda topic overviews, and status reports for the August Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) meeting. The 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. The IAC agenda includes the following goals:

Debrief the July 16 IAC Meeting -- Continue the Discussion of Future Agenda Topics. How should future IAC agendas reflect the July 16 IAC discussion? We have developed a few examples, and want to test them with the members.
Forest Service Briefing on PSQ Adjustments. In response to questions at the July 16 meeting, the FS will provide an overview of their recent request to revise PSQ.
Tribal Effectiveness Monitoring. The tribal representatives on the IAC have developed a proposed approach to effectiveness monitoring for tribal issues, as required by the ROD. In order to reach agreement on the questions, scope, and contents of an effectiveness monitoring module, it appears we need to create a policy subgroup of the IAC. We'd like to outline our needs, propose a plan of action between now and November, and ask that a charter be prepared for approval at the November IAC meeting.

IAC Members 2

IRICC Presentation to the IAC. How are we doing on information issues? Are we satisfied with the current state of progress? We are including an IRICC status presentation, based in part on discussion at our July 16 meeting concerning our ability to use the IAC forum to discuss linking issues across the landscape.
Public Comment -- ForestWater Alliance Report on Aquatic Conservation Strategy and the NFP. Bonnie Phillips will present her group's recent report to IAC members. She will also request follow-up appointments with agency staff to discuss the report and its recommendations. Her report is enclosed.
California Subcommittee to the IAC. In accord with previous IAC discussions, there is a proposed charter enclosed for IAC approval. The charter will establish the California Subcommittee to the IAC.

Additionally, your prework package includes status reports on the NFP MOU renewal, the IAC rechartering, the FY 1997 Implementation Monitoring (IM) Report, the FY 1998 IM schedule, updates on the Aquatic/Riparian, Biodiversity, and Socio-Economic Effectiveness Monitoring plans, an update on the northern spotted owl 4(d) rule, and litigation updates.

If you have questions or suggestions about the logistics or the meeting agenda, please contact Don Knowles (503-808-2166), Linda Kucera (503-808-2179), or your agency representative.

Enclosures

cc:

REO
RCERT
PAC DFOs
Jim Pipkin

1172iac/lk

Date: July 24, 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

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

IAC Meeting -- Potential Agenda Items
August 6, 1998 -- 9:15 to 3:00
Klamath Room, DoubleTree Hotel, Columbia River, Portland, Oregon

Time	Potential Agenda Items	Topic Purpose	Presenter(s)
9:15 15 min.	Welcome, certify the July meeting notes and review the August agenda	Complete Official Business and Review the Agenda	Elaine Zielinski, Don Knowles
9:30	Debrief the July 16 IAC Meeting -- Continue Discussion of Future Agenda Items	Overview IAC Comment	Don & IAC Members
10:15 30 min.	Forest Service Briefing on PSQ Adjustments	Information Sharing	Bob Williams
10:45 15 min.	Morning Break
11:00 45 min.	Tribal Effectiveness Monitoring: Status, review issue, agree on staff group, revisit and charter a "Policy Subgroup" at the November meeting	Overview Discussion Agreement	Don
11:45 75 min.	Lunch
1:00 60 min.	IRICC: Status, next steps, "how to broaden the focus" for information management	Overview Discussion Agreement	Dale Guenther
2:00 30 min.	California Subcommittee to the IAC	Overview Discussion	Gary Sims
2:30 15 min.	Public Comment: Time request by Bonnie Phillips on behalf of ForestWater Alliance and their Report "ACS and the NFP"	Input/Feedback	Bonnie Phillips
2:45 10 min.	Hot Topics	Information Sharing	All
2:55 5 min.	Review today's agreements, possible agenda items for the November meeting, and closing comments	Confirm Agreements, Potential November Agenda Items, Close	Don & Elaine
3:00	Adjourn

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: August 6, 1998

Sponsor: Don Knowles, REO
Contact/Phone: 503-808-2166

Topic: Debrief the July 16 IAC Meeting -- Continue Discussion of Future Agenda Items (The following are examples of potential future agenda topics based on the July 16 IAC meeting.)

Potential Future Agenda Topic #1

Issue Statement: How could IAC PAC communications be improved? What role should PACs play in regional issues? (This topic is an example of an effort to use the IAC forum to link issues at different geographic scales.)

Background: The provincial advisory committees were established to focus largely on provincial issues. The system was designed so the provincial issues that needed regional input or resolution would flow either from the (Provincial Interagency Executive Committee) PIEC chair, a local FS or BLM line officer, to the FS or BLM member on the RIEC, or from other federal agency PIEC members to their RIEC counterpart. The reverse was also anticipated, that is, information discussed by the RIEC or IAC that would flow through the normal chain of command to the provincial federal agency staffers. We have also provided IAC and REO material to the Designated Federal Officials (DFOs), with the understanding that they would further distribute information to PAC members. However the system was designed, it appears that some additional discussion is warranted in the IAC setting.

Discussion Topics and Questions:

Some sample discussion topics include:

One problem is that PAC members feel like their advice on regional issues (e.g., ROD interpretations, standards for data and information systems, effectiveness monitoring, etc.) is not being used. What role should PACs have in regional decisions?
Is the appropriate scale for PACs the province or watersheds/basins within the province? When should PACs focus on regional issues?
Were the communication channels properly designed, or do we have unrealistic expectations?
Should non-governmental interests be added to the IAC, with the expectation that they will improve communications with PACs?
Should PAC members expect provincial federal agency staff to forward their views to the RIEC/IAC?
Should the IAC provide direction or suggestions to the PACs? If so, on what topics?
Should the RIEC members clarify and communicate their expectations to PIEC chairs and DFOs?
How much help would it be to the REO to finish the design and implementation of their Web Page, including putting NFP documents on it for PAC use?
Should REO have the same, less, or an expanded role regarding PACs? What?
Should federal members of the IAC (i.e., the RIEC) ask their PIEC members for problem or issue statements and proposed solutions?

Potential Future Agenda Topic #2

Issue Statement: Are Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) a sound conservation planning tool or are they unfair to private landowners, states, or tribes that do not have them?

Background: The NFP focused the conservation burden for a number of species on federal lands, thereby enabling the NMFS and FWS to develop private landowner HCPs that are "tiered" to the NFP. Current HCPs are being prepared for periods up to 100 years and include a "safe harbor" and a "no surprises" policy. These have the effect of "locking in" private landowner commitments for the long run.

Discussion Topics and Questions:

Some sample discussion topics include:

Are there appropriate analytical ways to develop and maintain a baseline of conservation actions for listed species such that landowners do not have to rush in for an HCP?
Are first-in-line landowners served equitably with later landowners?
Do HCPs restrict future options of other non-federal landowners?
Do HCPs restrict the future discretion of federal land managers?
Are review and comment procedures adequate for HCPs?

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: August 6, 1998

Sponsor: Bob Williams, Forest Service
Contact/Phone: 503-808-2636

Topic: Forest Service Briefing on PSQ Adjustments

Issue Statement: Recent press reports indicate that several Forest Supervisors have asked for PSQ reduction associated with continued implementation of the NFP. The Forest Service will present an overview of this issue for IAC members. Additional material will be available at the meeting.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: August 6, 1998

Sponsor: Dan McKenzie, RMG, REO
Contact/Phone: 503-808-2190

Topic: Tribal Effectiveness Monitoring (EM) Module

Issue Statement: The development of a Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) Tribal EM module requires policy guidance to facilitate further development and pilot testing.

Background: The NFP includes language that addresses protection of American Indian trust resources on public lands and describes processes and monitoring tasks to support implementation, (ROD pp 54-55, E-9). While this language provides general direction, additional policy guidance is needed to facilitate development of a quantitative monitoring plan. Thus, while the ROD states that "BLM and the Forest Service will identify Indian trust resources that would be affected, and identify potential conflicts between proposed federal actions and treaty rights or tribal trust resources", it does not provide guidance on the definition of treaty rights or trust resources. A definition is needed that incorporates agency legal guidance and that can provide the framework for establishing the objectives of a NFP monitoring plan. Additional examples of areas potentially requiring further policy guidance are: 1) federal government's trust responsibilities, and 2) a model or protocol for government-to-government consultation. The ROD at E-7 includes language that could lead to monitoring and reporting on conditions and trends of trust resources, effectiveness of coordination or liaison to assure protection of religious or cultural heritage sites, and adequacy of access to resources and to the vicinity of religious or cultural sites. The ROD includes language addressing a process and 5 specific conditions that are to be met prior to any restriction of tribal treaty rights. Policy guidance is needed on scope, definitions, and objectives to facilitate development of an implementation and effectiveness monitoring module.

In FY 1998, the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission undertook, on behalf of the tribal representatives to the IAC, the task of developing a proposal for Tribal Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring. A draft proposal, dated June 26, 1998 is enclosed for your information. This draft presents one interpretation and perspective on the previously identified issues. In addition, the draft outlines a process for phased development of the module.

Analysis and Options: Review of the draft within the RMG and REO leads to the recommendation that the following process be initiated to move this issue forward. At the August IAC meeting, the IAC and RIEC should provide direction to a work group for the further development of the issues, options, and scope for a pilot effort. The work group would work with the draft and interested staff to develop a package for the Nov IAC meeting. That package would include: 1) identification of an initial list of key issues needing policy guidance, 2) a proposal, with options, for a phase I effort, (including a pilot), 3) a recommendation for the establishment of an IAC Policy subgroup to facilitate resolution of issues, and 4) a proposed schedule. At the November meeting the briefing would cover those topics and seek initial IAC input and RIEC guidance for the pilot effort and policy sub-group.

Organizational/Funding Implications: Further development of this monitoring module requires additional staff work to prepare for the November IAC meeting. The likely outcome of the November meeting will require the formation of a work group to oversee or conduct the pilot and establishment of a IAC policy subgroup. Pilot effort will require resources in FY 1999 as will the task of completing the monitoring module.

REO Staff Proposal: Interested participants should be identified and work with REO/RMG to complete the staff work for the November IAC meeting. IAC policy sub-group to be formed following the Nov meeting. Conduct pilot effort in FY 1999.

Action Required: IAC Review & Discussion

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: July 6, 1998

Sponsor: Intergovernmental Resource Information Coordinating Council (IRICC)
Contact/Phone: Dale Guenther 503-808-2188

Topic: The Role of IRICC: How Do We Meet Information Needs to Make Quality Decisions?

Issue Statement: IRICC has accomplished several goals in relation to information management and systems integration across agencies and governments. These efforts have largely been accomplished via an ad hoc process, with minimal participation in both funding and personnel time by the agencies. However, additional tasks remain. If additional or accelerated progress is to be made in meeting the needs of Forest Plan implementation, we need a plan including commitments by all agencies.

Background: IRICC was chartered under the Forest Plan to provide direct support to the IAC in the areas of information management and computer technology. Staff level participation in and commitment to IRICC has been strong. Direct support of resources or critical staff to issues and related projects has never been formally established.

Analysis and Options: Currently each agency has some type of on-going information management strategy. The IAC approved charter indicates that the agencies want to create information management efficiencies. The question is how, and at what rate, to reach this goal:

One option is to continue to use IRICC as an information sharing organization.
Another option would be for IRICC to attempt to coordinate ongoing efforts among the participating agencies.
An additional option would be for IRICC to be charged with the task of developing a strategic information plan for the Forest Plan, which would be proposed for incorporation in the interagency planning process and presented to the IAC for joint agency coordination and implementation.

Organizational/Funding Implications: IRICC staff indicates that the first two options can be achieved with the current set of IRICC agency representatives, if they attend and participate in the periodic meetings. If the third option is desired, IRICC should be assigned and tasked to create an interagency strategy for IAC review by April 1999. Personnel will need to be assigned to this task by their agencies. Additionally, the current composition of IRICC is technically oriented. Additional management and policy expertise need to be incorporated in the development of an information management strategy for the Northwest. Thus, IRICC recommends the addition of mid-level managers, along with resources and IRM specialists, so that the strategic plan can represent all of the agencies issues, priorities, and policies.

REO Staff Proposal: None

Action Required: IAC Review & Discussion

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: August 6, 1998

Sponsor: REO
Contact/Phone: Gary Sims 503-808-2174

Topic: California Subcommittee to the IAC

Issue Statement: Review and adopt the proposed charter for a California subcommittee to the IAC

Background: The IAC has previously agreed to establish a California subcommittee to the IAC as a mechanism for federal/state agencies and local/tribal governments in northern California to meet and provide advice and recommendations concerning landscape issues involved with the implementation of the NFP in that area. The proposed subcommittee would consist of "[IAC] members representing California federal, state, county, and tribal interests and such other northern California federal, state, local and tribal government representatives as they determine appropriate." The proposed charter is attached to this ATO.

The California members of the IAC have stated that there is a need to develop a California intergovernmental subcommittee to enhance the participation of northern California federal, state, local and tribal representatives. This is considered particularly useful since most participating federal agencies on the IAC are represented by Regional Executives responsible for jurisdictions in the states of Washington and Oregon, but not northern California. Conversely most northern California federal regional executives have not directly participated with the IAC. The subcommittee would be responsible for meeting to discuss and develop advice and recommendations concerning northern California implementation issues. The recommendations will be reported to the full IAC.

Analysis and Options: The idea of a California subcommittee has been discussed with the IAC in the past. Jim Pipkin, in his report, recognized the benefits that such a committee could have. It is important to have the direct participation of the federal executives responsible for programs in northern California regarding discussions of NFP implementation issues. Further, this proposal would allow greater northern California regional participation by state, local, and tribal governments.

According to the proposed charter the committee would be composed of the California delegates to the IAC, and such other intergovernmental (federal, state, local, and tribal) representatives they determine are necessary to the successful operation of the committee. Membership/participation could vary depending on the issues being considered.

There is concern that if the decision to approve this charter is delayed until the next meeting of the IAC (November 1998) the committee cannot realistically be formed or have its initial meeting until sometime after January 1999. If the IAC does not wish to act on this proposal at the August 1998 meeting, a conference call should be scheduled within the next month for final discussion and decision.

Organizational/Funding Implications: Members to the subcommittee will serve without pay. The Forest Service (R5) will be responsible for reimbursing travel and per diem expenses for non-federal members of the subcommittee.

REO Staff Proposal: The IAC approve the California Subcommittee Charter.

Action Required: IAC Review & Discussion IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee
Subcommittee Charter

Subcommittee Name: California Subcommittee

Purpose: To increase the interaction between California federal agency regional directors and offices with state, tribal, and local intergovernmental representatives regarding the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) in northern California. The Subcommittee will be composed of Intergovernmental Advisory Committee members representing California federal, state, county, and tribal interests and such other northern California federal, state, local, and tribal government representatives as they determine appropriate.

The Subcommittee will select its chair from among its members. The Subcommittee will meet as frequently as necessary to: (1) collaborate on implementation of the NFP on federal lands in California within the range of the northern spotted owl; and (2) improve coordination and collaboration with federal, state, tribal, and local governments as they seek to implement management approaches that support or complement NFP goals. The Subcommittee will work with California Provincial Committees or other local groups, as appropriate, to ensure that local provincial issues and concerns are addressed. The Subcommittee will also work with the California Community Economic Revitalization Team, as appropriate, in coordinating economic adjustment initiative activities within northern California. The Subcommittee will report to the IAC on its discussions and agreements. The IAC will consider the Subcommittee's views as it advises the Regional Interagency Executive Committee.

The IAC members on the Subcommittee will continue to serve on the IAC. Participation on the Subcommittee is expected to enhance the operation of the IAC, not diminish its effectiveness.

Staff Support and Costs: Members or designees serve without pay. Reimbursement of travel and per diem expenses is authorized for non-federal members attending subcommittee meetings called by the Chair of the Subcommittee. Travel and per diem expenses for non-federal members of the Subcommittee will be submitted on vouchers signed by the Forest Service representative to the Subcommittee.

Staff support for the Subcommittee will be provided from amongst the membership, in coordination with the Regional Ecosystem Office.

Statement of Success. The California subcommittee will be successful if it is able to increase the coordination and collaboration of the federal, state, tribal, and local governments in northern California regarding the implementation of the NFP, while not reducing the effectiveness of the IAC. Further, the committee will be successful if it is able to identify and resolve issues and concerns of the participating members without having to elevate them to the IAC for resolution.