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

               Memorandum

Date:      August 13, 1999

To:          Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members (See Distribution List)

From:      Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director

Subject:  August 1999 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting Notes

Enclosed are the notes from the August Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) meeting. The May meeting notes were certified as written.

Issue summaries are included for:

Hot Topics covered:

The next IAC meeting is scheduled for Thursday, November 4, in Portland, Oregon. Logistical information will be sent out in September. If you have questions or suggestions, please contact me, Curt Loop at 503-808-2172, Linda Kucera at 503-808-2179, or your agency representative.

Enclosure

cc:
REO, RCERT, PAC DFOs, Jim Pipkin

1389/lk

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Distribution List

California
Mark Stanley, California Resource Agency, State Representative
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
Karin Berkholtz, State Representative
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
Anne Badgley, Regional Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Michael Spear, California/Nevada Operations Office Manager, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Roger Blair, Branch Chief, Western Ecology Division, Environmental Protection Agency
Robert Lackey, Assoc. Director, Western Ecology Division, Environmental Protection Agency (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)
Col. Randall J. Butler, District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Davis Moriuchi, Deputy District Commander, U.S. Corps of Engineers
Ken Feigner, Director, Forest and Salmon Group, Environmental Protection Agency
Bob Graham, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Nancy Graybeal, Acting Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, R-6
Brad Powell, Acting Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, R-5 (Alternate)
Roberta Moltzen, Deputy Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, R-5
Thomas J. Mills, Station Director, Forest Service, PNW
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 Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service (Alternate)
Rick Applegate, 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 (Alternate)
Elaine Zielinski, State Director, Oregon/Washington, Bureau of Land Management
Alfred Wright, Acting State Director, California, Bureau of Land Management (Alternate)
Paul Roush, Wildlife Biologist, Bureau of Land Management, Arcata, CA

RCERT Ex Officio
Don Motanic, Technical Specialist, Intertribal Timber Council

Updated 7/30/99

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
ISSUE SUMMARY

Meeting Date:
August 5, 1999		 Contact/Phone: Bob Graham, NRCS, 503-414-3201 and Ron Graves, Hood River and Wasco County SWCDs, 541-298-8559
Topic: How Conservation Gets Placed on Private Lands or Soil and Water Conservation Districts in the Federal/Private Land Interface
Objective: To provide the IAC members with information about the background of Conservation Districts (e.g., origin, responsibilities, authorities, services, and capabilities) and their partnerships and relationships with various levels of organizations, and to provide examples of the application of their conservation policies and practices through case projects.
Summary of Discussion/IAC Actions: The majority of the morning session of the IAC meeting was devoted to the Soil and Water Conservation Districts of Eastern Oregon explaining how they interface with private land owners to support water and soil conservation projects on private lands. The discussion explained the historic development of a national system supported by the Federal Government to establish Soil and Water Conservation Districts throughout the United States. The program began in Oregon in 1939 following President Franklin Roosevelt's Federal Soil and Water Conservation Service model. In a national effort to prevent a "Dust Bowl" era from ever occurring again, the Soil and Water Conservation Districts focused on developing partnerships between the State and Federal Government and the private agricultural land owners to assist them in practicing sound conservation principles on their private land. There are 45 Conservation Districts in Oregon with 290 elected officials, 194 associate Directors, and 125 employees. Five gentlemen from Wasco County of central Oregon presented the role, functions, and examples of how a Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) operates. These people represented not only the SWCD employees, but also included representatives from Natural Resources Conservation Service, and a private landowner who has participated in the program for most of his career. The primary message that was passed along to the IAC was how effectively the SWCD develops partnerships with County, State, Federal agencies and with private landowners and private contractors to implement conservation projects related to agriculture and sound land management principles. Discussions on Oregon laws, responsibilities of districts, authorities and accountability were presented to the group. The group of presenters effectively explained how three areas of service (Technical Resources, Educational Programs, and Financial Assistance) are provided to the private land owner. An impressive list of collaborators was presented and specific projects were outlined that demonstrated a list of successes and accomplishments. The group concluded with a set of recommendations for the IAC to consider in its work with Federal agencies and the SWCD and private neighboring land owners within the Northwest Forest Plan.
 

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
ISSUE SUMMARY

Meeting Date: August 5, 1999 REO Contact/Phone: Gary Sims 503-808-2174 and
Jim Milestone 503-808-2170
Topic: Joint IAC/PAC Meeting
Objective: The REO recommended: (1) A joint meeting between the IAC and all PACs be held, and (2) the meeting be scheduled for February 2000.
Summary of Discussion: The Agenda Topic Overview for this presentation identified the potential objectives and the framework for a tentative agenda for a possible joint meeting between the IAC and the PACs. During the presentation it was noted that seven of the 12 PACs had responded to various inquiries and participated in development and review of the draft objectives and agenda framework. Of the PACs that contacted the REO about having the meeting, six expressed strong support and one stated it did not think a joint meeting would be particularly useful. It was also noted that questions at the PAC-level remain concerning how many members from each PAC would participate and how the cost of attending would be covered. During the presentation members of the IAC expressed concern about in the following areas:
  1. Cost. There were no cost estimates provided. Some members expressed concern that the outcomes from the meeting may not be commensurate with the cost. Indeed, it was noted that neither the IAC members or the PACs can realistically assess their support for the concept of holding a joint meeting without some idea of what the expected costs would be. Members requested an estimate, at least, of:
    1. Travel and per diem cost of federal PAC member participation.
    2. Travel and per diem cost of non-Federal PAC member participation.
    3. Travel and per diem cost of other expected federal participants (e.g., all National Forest Supervisors and BLM District Managers should be expected to attend, as well as other federal officials not associated with particular PACs).
    4. Meeting room and other facility cost. Cost analysis should include describing alternatives that may provide cost savings; e.g., limiting PAC member representation to reduce travel and per diem cost reimbursements.
  2. Agenda Focus. The meeting objectives and agenda topics need to be more clearly articulated. This should involve the "joint meeting steering committee" to clearly define what the expectations of the meeting would be. There is some concern that if the meeting objectives and agenda topics are too vague we may inadvertently raise unrealistic expectations. For example, some PAC members may come to a joint meeting expecting to be able to influence federal agency budget levels, change federal agency policies, and/or change federal statutes or regulations. The expectations for the participants must be realistic and this is first addressed in clear meeting objectives and agenda topics.
  3. Alternative Venues. Once it has been more concretely determined what PAC participants expectations may be, there should be some assessment of whether or not there is some other, more efficient vehicle to address them. There may be opportunities to address the perceived need for the meeting by greater use and circulation of the FS Region 6 newsletter Provincial Times, use of conference calls/E-mail/faxes, and/or other means.
Follow-up Actions (who/what/when): The REO will work with the steering committee and Region 6 public affairs staff to address the issues raised by IAC members. A status report will be made at upcoming RIEC meetings and an update will be included at the November IAC meeting. IAC members interested in receiving "steering committee" E-mail should contact the REO to include their names on our E-mail list. Most communication, so far, regarding agenda development has been by E-mail, to save cost and improve efficiency.

The following individuals are on the steering committee E-mail list:
Cliff Mc Millan (Klamath PAC);
Mark Stanley (IAC and NW Sacramento PAC);
Francie Sullivan (IAC and NW Sacramento PAC);
Katie Krueger (for Mel Moon, IAC);
Robert L Yoder (Gifford Pinchot NF);
Constance J Hendryx (Klamath NF, Klamath PAC);
Ken Eldredge (Olympic NF);
Ronald R DeHart ; Paul R Hart (Wenatchee NF);
Sonny J O'Neal (Wenatchee NF);
Neal Forrester (Willamette NF);
Don Ostby (Umpqua NF);
Sharon Heywood (Shasta-Trinity NF and Klamath/NW Sacramento PACs);
Daniel Chisholm (Mendocino NF and California Coast PAC);
Lynda Roush (BLM California);
Paul Roush (BLM California);
Richard Burns (BLM California);
Chuck Schultz (BLM California and NW Sacramento PAC);
Van Manning (BLM Salem District);
Wayne Elliott (BLM Eugene);
Ron Wenker (BLM Medford);
Shandra L Smith (FS Region 6 Public Affairs);
Mary M Knapp; REO Reps;
Greg Blomstrom (IAC);

 

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
ISSUE SUMMARY

Meeting Date: August 5, 1999 REO Contact/Phone: Curt Loop 503-808-2172
Topic: Regional Community Economic Revitalization Team (RCERT) Report
Objective: The Co-chairs of the RCERT presented their report to the IAC to inform them of the status, successes, and future of the Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative (NWEAI) and to better link the resource and economic sides of the Northwest Forest Plan. This information will be presented to the ISC in October in Washington, D.C.
Summary of Discussion/IAC Actions: Highlights of the Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative successes include:
  1. It created new federal, state, local, and tribal partnerships that enabled us to deliver assistance in a coordinated manner.
  2. It created a system in the CERT process that respected and responded to local priorities and was flexible enough to allow each state to organize its CERT process in its own way.
  3. It delivered real money to communities that needed it.
  4. The result has been that communities are recovering and in some cases prospering, workers have new jobs, and people are working together to ensure a secure future for their communities.
  5. It connected economic development and resource management better than ever before in our region.

From fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year 1998, 16 different federal programs from 10 federal agencies delivered nearly $1 billion in assistance. The 5-year (1994 through 1998) distributions was delivered in the following categories:

Workers and Family $ 63,520,000
Business and Industry $284,885,727
Communities and Infrastructure $496,877,653
Ecosystem Investment $153,315,664

The distribution amount by state was 50% Oregon, 30% Washington, and 20% California.

In addition to the message of success, it was emphasized that resource management agencies need to consider the economic impact of their policies and decisions in order to better link the work of resource managers, economic developers, and rural communities.

Since 1993, 77 barriers to effective implementation of the NWEAI have been identified and 37 have been resolved, seven have been denied, and the remainder are still being worked.

Copies of the RCERT Report, The Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative, 1993-1997, in partnership with the Northwest Forest Plan, were handed out to the IAC members. Complete details which describe the observations and opinions of the RCERT members can be found in this report.

Follow-up Actions (who/what/when):

The outcome of the presentation is for the ISC to consider the following:

  • Supporting initiatives, such as the Regional Forester's and Oregon/Washington BLM Director's "ecosystem management/socio-economic impacts initiative" with the State of Oregon.
  • Actively consider extending these economic initiatives to other regions and other federal agencies/programs such as U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, EPA, NRCS, and NMFS.
  • Requesting appropriations for economic development programs that have made the NWEAI work. These include: USFS-RCA, Old-Growth Diversification Fund, EDA Title IX, USDA Rural Development (RBEG, IRP, CF, W/WW), DOL/JTPA, and USFS & DOI Jobs in the Woods programs.
  • Recognizing that the implementation of federal initiatives need federal, state, local, and tribal partnerships to succeed and to use existing organizations/committees when developing new initiative organizations.
  • Providing funds from various sources for local staff & capacity planning.
  • Providing resources for local federal agency employee's presence in rural communities.
  • Continue placing emphasis on barrier busting.
  • Supporting investments in ecosystem work, in part to provide year round jobs for local workers trained in this career field, creating long-term sustainable quality jobs.
 

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
ISSUE SUMMARY

Meeting Date: August 5, 1999 REO Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie 503-808-2190 and
Gary Sims 503-808-2174
Topic: Tribal Effectiveness Monitoring Module
Objective: To present the IAC with the current draft Tribal Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring Module/Pilot Program and identify next steps.
Summary of Discussion: The Agenda Topic Overview and presentation of this topic stated that a draft Tribal Implementation and Effectiveness Module and Pilot Program has been developed. The IAC Tribal Monitoring Policy Subgroup met on July 26 to discuss the draft and develop recommendations for the next steps to be taken.

The IAC members were given a copy of the current revised module and pilot program description. The focus of the module and the pilot program was described to the IAC members. It was estimated that the pilot will cost approximately $50,000 and take about 6 months to complete. The subgroup recommended the pilot should be implemented via a contract/grant with a tribal organization. It was stated that the tribes ($25,000) and EPA ($10,000) have identified $35,000 that could be made available for the effort. The federal members of the IAC agreed to look to their agencies' budgets to determine if the additional $15,000 can be made available. In the meantime, the module and pilot program will be phased so that if the full funding level is not available this year, it will be finished next.

Follow-up Actions (who/what/when):
  1. The federal members of the IAC will check with their agencies' budgets to determine if additional funds (up to $15,000) can be made available to the support this effort.
  2. The IAC members are asked to review the draft module over the next two weeks. Please provide comments to the REO. Absent objection or significant comments requesting changes, we will finalize the draft by the end of the month.
  3. After finalization of the module, the REO will assist in the transfer of available agency funds, up to $25,000, to the BIA. The BIA will enter into a contract or grant with the appropriate tribal organization which will be responsible for the conduct and analysis of results of the pilot program. The intertribal organization will issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) and, with the concurrence of the IAC policy subgroup, select a subcontractor to implement and report on the pilot program. The interview team will be composed of the subcontractor and interested Federal participants. The IAC Tribal Monitoring Policy Subgroup will work with the intertribal organization as an oversight committee responsible to ensure Federal and Tribal interests are maintained.
  4. The subgroup and Research and Monitoring Group will review intermediate and final results of the pilot program and make appropriate modifications to the module.
  5. The REO and RMG will report the results, with recommendations, to the IAC.

Hot Topics:

Litigation Update -- Sue Zike
Judge Dwyer recently responded to a request for injunctive relief by 14 nonprofit environmental organizations on Federal actions involving Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) timber sales. The judge's ruling consisted of three principle findings:

  1. The NFP allows through adaptive management, a process to deal with new information (e.g., newly listed threatened and endangered species) such that a supplemental environmental impact analysis is not warranted to amend the existing Record of Decision (ROD).
  2. Land management agency directives to the field which modified red tree vole survey protocols did not have a basis in the ROD and therefore did not have a legitimate application.
  3. Land management agency directives to the field which defined implementation as other than a ground disturbing activity did not have a basis in the ROD and therefore did not have a legitimate application.

The judge issued a preliminary injunction on the operation of 9 timber sales (4 FS and 5 BLM) based on these findings and has scheduled a hearing in late August to consider a permanent injunction.

California Subcommittee to IAC -- The California subcommittee met June 9-10 in Ft. Bragg, California. The meeting provided the new Secretary and staff of the California Resources Agency (CRA) an opportunity to begin interaction with the Federal and non-Federal members of the IAC California subcommittee. The focus of the meeting was to put together a state-federal cooperative structure. Both California Federal agency and CRA Directors are interested in attending IAC meetings. They may use IAC meeting attendance as a mechanism to brief each other and stay informed on IAC activities, rather than the subcommittee structure.

October 6 Interagency Steering Committee (ISC) Meeting Planning Update -- The CEQ has firmed up the date for the next ISC meeting (Wednesday, October 6) and determined the focus will be on monitoring issues of the Northwest Forest Plan and the Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative. Reaching agreement in the region on the implementation of the interagency monitoring strategy will be the focus of the September 9 RIEC meeting. Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) members are invited to attend the ISC meeting. The REO will solicit IAC members interest in attending and explore our ability to fund travel costs, if needed.

REO Executive Director Recruitment Update -- We continue to make progress in selecting a new Executive Director for the REO. The vacancy announcement for the position closed on May 28. Twenty-two applications were submitted for determination of the best qualified. A six member group of regional executives reviewed the applications and identified the best qualified applicants. On July 30, the REO mailed out a letter to all IAC members requesting their interest and availability in participating in the interviews of these best qualified applicants. Elaine Zielinski has agreed to take the lead scheduling interviews for the applicants. She would like for each of you to have the opportunity to participate. Please let Elaine know (503-952-6023) if you want to participate. She will then get back to you on a schedule.

Over the next several months, Don will be out of the office a great deal of the time. Until the new Executive Director is selected and installed in the position, it was agreed that the FWS would advertise for a temporary Executive Director for a period not to exceed 120 days. Between now and when the temporary person is available, Curt Loop, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers representative to the REO, will be the acting REO Executive Director. Don's present plans call for him to attend the September 9 RIEC meeting. He is also scheduled to return and work with the new Executive Director for a week when that person is available.

Aquatic/Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Module Update -- The draft Aquatic/Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Plan is now being updated by PNW scientists prior to a final review by the entire Work Group and Technical Sounding Board. A revised draft will be sent to scientists for peer review. Following revisions stemming from this review, the research agency executives plan to submit the Plan for IAC consideration and advice leading to a recommendations for acceptance by the implementing agencies.

"Tofu" Agenda -- The discussion focused on better methods to solicit and receive advice and input from the non-federal IAC members. There is a perception among some IAC members that the briefings at recent IAC meetings are disseminating information more than soliciting input on key IAC agenda issues. The discussion included such topics as building the IAC agendas to track committee interests; having more time on the agenda for more substantive discussions, primarily during the scoping phases of issue identification; and seeking additional opportunities for non-federal IAC members to provide advice. The REO will discuss possible approaches and develop recommendations to resolve these issues during upcoming staff meetings.

Future IAC Meeting Planning

Possible November 4, 1999 IAC Agenda Topics

Possible November 4, 1999 IAC Status Reports

Potential Future IAC Agenda Topics

- Issues as Identified November 5, 1998 IAC Meeting; e.g., Integrating the NFP into the Management Landscape
- Effectiveness Monitoring Plan Updates
- Fish Listing Update
- New Information Process and NFP Changes
- FS Plan Revisions
- Validation Monitoring

Potential Future IAC Status Reports

- Strategic Plan Update

August 5, 1999 IAC Meeting Handouts

Handouts:
Activity Information Sharing Notebook--November 1998
Adaptive Management Areas Brochure- 1999
Annual Program Summary & Monitoring Report, FY 1998, Bureau of Land Management
Correspondence of Interest-Available for requests
Draft Norther Spotted Owl Report--May 4, 1999
Executive Summary--The Columbia River Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan (Tribes)
IAC Future Meeting Planning Topics/Status Reports
IAC August Prework Package
IAC Meeting Goals
IAC Identification List
IAC May Meeting Notes
IAC August Meeting Agenda
IAC Telephone Directory
Memo -- FY 2000 Work Plan, Dated July 20, 1999
Memo -- April & October ISC Meeting Topics
Memo "How Conservation Gets Placed on Private Lands, Dated June 23, 1999
New Ex-Officio Rep Description - Don Motanic, RCERT
NW Economic Adjust Initiative -- RCERT Presentation
Organizational Chart NFP
Overhead -- Soil & Water Conservation District
Overhead -- Tribal Effectiveness Monitoring -- Draft Pilot Module
Pamphlet -- WY'East Resource Conservation & Development Area
Pamphlet -- NW Economic Adjustment Initiative, 1993-97
Pamphlet -- NRCS In Partnership with People and a Healthy Land
PIEC Identification List
REO Telephone Directory
REO Functional Statement Packet
RIEC Identification List
Signed MOU For Forest Ecosystem Management, Dated October 19, 1998
Status Report -- Tribal Effectiveness Monitoring Draft Module

Publications available on request:
Accomplishment Report -- Forest Service, 1998 & 1997
Accomplishment Report -- Bureau of Land Management, 1998 & 1997
Effectiveness Monitoring Report-Final-August 7, 1997
Implementation Monitoring Program Final Report -- FY 1997, Dated November 6, 1998
Late-Successional & Old-Growth Forest Effectiveness Monitoring, December 1998
Northern Spotted Owl Effectiveness Monitoring, February 1999
Northwest Forest Plan-A Report to the President & Congress (Tuchmann Report) -December 1996
Northwest Forest Plan Revisited, Dated September 1998 (Pipkin report)
Record of Decision (ROD)
Strategic Research Plan to Support Implementation of the NFP-January 20 1998 - Draft
Strategy & Design of the Effectiveness Monitoring, January 1999
Survey and Manage Management Recommendations for Aquatic Mollusk-December 1998
Survey and Manage Protocol for Fungi--September 1997
Survey and Manage Protocol for Lynx--April 1998
Survey and Manage Management Recommendations for Bryophytes--October 1996
Survey and Manage Protocol for Lichens--March 1998
Survey and Manage Protocol for Fungi (Bridgeoporus nobilissimus)--May 1998
Survey and Manage Protocol for Aquatic & Terrestrial Mollusk-October 1997
WA Guide-Section II (Modules)-November 1, 1995 and Module Update October 16, 1997
WA Guide-Section I-August, 1995
WA Guide-Species Information, Addendum to Appendix B-February 1997 (draft)
WA Guide-Riparian Reserve Evaluation Techniques and Synthesis Module-February 1997 (draft)
Watershed Restoration Tracking & Reporting System, March 17, 1999

* Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting * August 5, 1999 * Attendance List *

* Intergovernmental Advisory Committee and Alternates *

Name Title Agency
Badgley, Anne Regional Director U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Blair, Roger Branch Chief, Western Ecology Division Environmental Research Lab, EPA
Blomstrom, Greg Forest Planner CA Indian Forest & Fire Management
Buffington, Doug Western Region Chief Biologist USGS Biological Resources Division
Feigner, Ken Director, Forest & Salmon Group Environmental Protection Agency
Graham, Bill State Conservationist Natural Resources Conservation Service
Graybeal, Nancy Deputy Regional Forester Forest Service, R-6
Holford, Clarence Acting Representative Bureau of Indian Affairs
Loop, Curt Acting Representative U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Milestone, Jim Acting Representative National Park Service
Moltzen, Roberta Deputy Regional Forester Forest Service, R-5
Motanic, Don RCERT -- Ex Officio Intertribal Timber Council
Moon, Mel Commissioner NW Indian Fisheries Commission
Morishima, Gary Technical Advisor Intertribal Timber Council
Morris, Steve Acting Representative National Marine Fisheries Service
Partridge, Craig State Representative State of Washington
Stanley, Mark State Representative Resources Agency, State of California
Stormer, Fred Acting Representative Forest Service, PNW
Sullivan, Francie County Representative State of California Counties
Regional Ecosystem Office
Belisle, Harold Representative Bureau of Land Management
Benson, Gary Research & Monitoring Forest Service, PNW
Busch, Dave Research & Monitoring USGS Biological Resources Division
Erwert, Ginger Administrative Officer Forest Service
Guenther, Dale GIS Administrator Forest Service
Keough, Ellen Receptionist Forest Service
Kirchner, Bill Representative Environmental Protection Agency
Knowles, Don (DFO) Executive Director Regional Ecosystem Office
Kucera, Linda Staff Assistant U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
McKenzie, Dan Research & Monitoring Leader Environmental Protection Agency
Mohoric, Shawne Representative Forest Service
Sims, Gary Representative Bureau of Indian Affairs
Ystad, Laurie Secretary Forest Service
* Other Attendees *
Barry, Cindy Assistant Regional Administrator U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Blakeman, Dave IRICC Member Forest Service, R5
Bradley, Bill Forestry Chief Bureau of Land Management
Brumm, Tom Manager OR Economic Development
Burbridge, Rich RC&D Coordinator Natural Resources Conservation Service
Clark, Jeff Watershed Coordinator WASCO County, SWCD
Cushing, Ken Analyst Forest Service, R6
Davies, Bruce Technical Specialist NW Indian Fisheries Commission
Edely, John Resource Conservationist Natural Resources Conservation Service
Engbring, John Klamath FWO Supervisor U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, CA
Farr, Angela Personnel Specialist U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Freedman, Lisa Director Forest Service, R6
Goldscmidt, Neil Board Member Fish & Wildlife Foundation
Graves, Ron August Agenda WASCO County, SWCD
Hansel, Kate Assistant Director CALFED
Herst, Eric RCERT Member RDA
Knudsen, Monty Chief, Office of Technical Support U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Mickey, Ross Manager NW Forestry Association
Overman, Dick Board Member WASCO County, SWCD
Roush, Paul Wildlife Biologist Bureau of Land Management, CA
Terry, Shandra Public Affairs Officer Forest Service, R6
Zike, Sue Attorney Forest Service, R6