Regional Ecosystem Office
333 SW 1st
P.O. Box 3623
Portland, Oregon 97208-3623
Phone: 503-808-2165 FAX: 503-808-2163
Memorandum
Date: October 22, 1999
To: Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members (See Distribution List)
From: Curtis A. Loop, Acting Executive Director
Subject: Agenda and Prework Materials for the November 4 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting
Enclosed are the proposed agenda, agenda topic overviews, and status reports for the November Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) meeting. The IAC meeting will be held at the DoubleTree Hotel -- Columbia River (west side of I-5), 1401 N. Hayden Island Drive, Portland, Oregon 97217 (Phone: 503-283-2111 or 360-696-2565 and Fax: 503-978-4689). You may phone the hotel to make your reservations (request the government rate).
The IAC meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. in the Santiam Room and is projected to adjourn by 3:30 p.m. The IAC agenda includes the following topics:
You will find four update reports included for items that will be covered during the "Hot Topics" portion of the agenda -- Year 2000 Proposed Meeting Dates, Annual Accomplishments Report, New Developments in LSRs, and the Interagency Species Management System (ISMS).
If you have questions or suggestions about the logistics or the meeting agenda, please contact Curt Loop (503-808-2172), Linda Kucera (503-808-2179), or your agency representative.
Enclosure
cc: Presenters, REO Representatives, RCERT, PAC DFOs, Jim Pipkin
1431/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 9/28/99
IAC Meeting Potential Agenda Items
November 4, 1999 -- 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
DoubleTree Hotel -- Columbia River -- Portland, Oregon
| Time | Potential Agenda Items | Topic Purpose | Presenter(s) |
| 9:30 10 min. |
Welcome, Certify the August Meeting Notes, Review the November Agenda | Complete Official Business and Review the Agenda | Elaine Zielinski |
| 9:40 60 min. |
Salmon Conservation in Northern California from the County Perspective | Information Sharing | Mark Lancaster |
| 10:40 20 min. |
Break | ||
| 11:00 20 min. |
Report on the Interagency Steering Committee Meeting | Information Sharing | Elaine, Curt Loop |
| 11:20 25 min. |
Litigation Update and Survey & Manage SEIS Progress and Schedule | Information Sharing | Sue
Zike, Neal Middlebrook |
| 11:45 75 min. |
Lunch | ||
| 1:00 30 min. |
Northwest Forest Plan Monitoring | Information Sharing | Lisa Freedman, Dan McKenzie |
| 1:30 45 min. |
Planning for the Joint IAC/PAC Meeting | Update, Discuss, and Agree | Jim Milestone, Bill Kirchner |
| 2:15 15 min. |
Aquatic Conservation Strategy Consistency Determination Interpretation | Update, Discuss | Steve Morris |
| 2:30 30 min. |
Hot Topics & Updates
|
Information Sharing | Curt |
| 3:00 15 min. |
Public Comment | Feedback/Input | Elaine & Linda |
| 3:15 15 min. |
Review Today's Agreements, Potential Agenda Items for the Next IAC Meeting, and Closing Comments | Confirm Agreements, Potential Agenda Items for the Next Meeting, Close | Elaine & Curt |
| 3:30 | Adjourn | ||
Agenda Topic Overview
| Meeting Date: November 4, 1999 |
| REO Contact/Phone: Curt Loop 503-808-2172 |
| Topic: Salmon Conservation in Northern California from the County Perspective |
| Issue Statement: The REO continues to plan agenda items that broaden our focus from a "federal lands only" perspective to a more landscape level approach. |
| Background: The IAC has had presentations and discussion on federal programs, such as the NFP; on joint federal/state/landowner efforts, such as 4(d) rules or HCPs; on state-wide efforts, such as the "Oregon Plan" and Washington's "Extinction is Not an Option"; and on efforts to meet the conservation needs of local landowners, such as the partnership between NRCS and Soil and Water Conservation Districts. |
| Analysis and Options: This presentation focuses on the efforts of the Five Counties Salmon
Conservation Planning Committee to shape the implementation of the Endangered Species Act
in Northwest California. The committee includes supervisors, planners and public works
officials from Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Siskiyou, and Trinity counties. It has worked
together since 1997, when the coho salmon was listed as a federally threatened species
(effective Dec. 2, 1996).
The committee's goal is to balance salmon conservation with local economic and natural resource realities. These counties cover nearly 12 million acres and contain complex networks of bays, estuaries, rivers, streams and lakes that are home to the coho salmon. To date, its efforts have paid off; counties have obtained and allocated more than a million dollars in grants for salmon conservation. |
Interagency Steering Committee Meeting
October 6, 1999
Northwest Forest Plan Accomplishments
Litigation
Survey and Manage Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)
Northwest Forest Plan Monitoring Program
Status of the Northwest Economic Adjustment initiative (NWEAI)
New Developments in Late-Successional Reserves (LSRs)
REO Executive Director Position
Closing Comments
October 19, 1999
October 6, 1999
Council on Environmental Quality
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Department of the Army, Washington, D.C.
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
Regional Interagency Executive Committee Members or Alternates
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members
Regional Ecosystem Office
Additional Participants
Update Report
| Meeting Date: November 4, 1999 | REO Contact/Phone: Shawne Mohoric 503-808-2175 |
| Topic: Litigation Update | |
| Status/Update:
ONRC Action v. FS and BLM:
| |
Agenda Topic Overview
| Meeting Date: November 4, 1999 |
| REO Contact/Phone: Harold Belisle 503-808-2173 |
| Topic: Survey and Manage Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) |
| Issue Statement: Identification of the Preferred Alternative for the Draft SEIS |
| Background: The Survey and Manage SEIS originally consisted of two action alternatives
that were identical in effects to species and other natural resources. As a result of Washington
Office and Department of Justice review of the SEIS on August 24-25, the SEIS team
received recommendations to expand the range of alternatives in order to meet National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. On September 3, 1999, the RIEC met in an
emergency meeting and agreed to expand the range of alternatives in the Survey and Manage
SEIS. The staff work concerning this issue was placed before the RIEC during a conference
call on September 15, 1999. During that conference call, the RIEC approved three action
alternatives that would provide an adequate range of alternatives to meet NEPA requirements.
The alternatives in the SEIS now differ in their effects on the Survey and Manage species.
The Survey and Manage SEIS would amend the current Forest Service and BLM Plans. The Bureau of Land Management planning regulations require the identification of a preferred alternative (43 CFR 1610.4-7) for Plan amendments. Amendments of forest or district plans that would modify standards and guidelines in the NFP are required to be coordinated through, and subject to review by the RIEC (NFP ROD p. 58). The Survey and Manage SEIS is currently in the process of editing and review by Washington Office personnel, and Dept. of Interior, Office of General Council, Dept. of Justice attorneys. This work will not be completed until October 31, 1999. |
| Analysis and Options: The analysis and options for selecting the preferred alternative will be presented at two briefings. On November 1, 1999, the SEIS team will brief the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the alternatives and the effects analysis. On November 2, 1999, the SEIS team will brief REO representatives concerning the same information so that they may in turn brief their agency representatives to the RIEC. At the November 4, 1999, RIEC meeting, the SEIS Team will present the alternatives and effects and facilitate a discussion of the alternatives. The RIEC will be requested to approve a selected alternative. |
| Action Required: RIEC Decision |
Agenda Topic Overview
| Meeting Date: November 4, 1999 | REO Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie 503-808-2190 |
| Topic: Organization and Planning for Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) Monitoring | |
| Background: Following the RIEC's adoption of the effectiveness monitoring modules, the agencies have been working together to clarify roles and responsibilities for the long term implementation and conduct of all NFP monitoring. In addition to the roles and responsibilities, the agencies are addressing the issues of an interagency organization to effectively and efficiently conduct the monitoring and provide the information for adaptive management processes. Agreements for funding responsibilities are also needed to provide for long term consistent funding. | |
| Status/Update: The RIEC is in the process of establishing an interagency Regional
Monitoring Team to be responsible for implementation of NFP monitoring. The Regional
Monitoring Team will consist of a small number of dedicated staff to plan, coordinate and
lead the activities and efforts of the NFP monitoring program. Agreement has been reached
on the roles and responsibilities for the management, research and consulting agencies, an
agreement that clarifies each of the monitoring functions and activities. Funding amounts
have been negotiated to provide planning and commitments for each agency. An MOU is
being developed for the RIEC to document these agreement and commitments.
A presentation at the October 6, Interagency Steering Committee meeting, outlined the regional status, agreements and funding issues. An interagency MOU or MOA was proposed at that meeting, an agreement that would reaffirm and commit the agencies at the national level to support and conduct of NFP monitoring. Initial support for such and agreement was voiced at the meeting. Specific funding requirements for FY 2000 and FY 2001 were presented and assistance requested from the CEQ, OMB, and agency staff. Lisa Freedman, Chair of the Monitoring Program Managers (MPM) group, has the lead responsibility for follow-up and continued action on the RIEC and ISC issues. The IAC presentation will provide additional details and an update based on the outcome(s) of the MPM group meeting on October 22. | |
Agenda Topic Overview
| Meeting Date: November 4, 1999 |
| REO Contact/Phone: Jim Milestone 503-808-2170, Bill Kirchner 503-808-2171 |
| Topic: Joint IAC/PAC Meeting |
| Issue Statement: Both the majority of the IAC and the PAC members support the idea of joint meeting. A decision by the RIEC is needed on whether or not to host such a meeting. Additional areas of concern that require additional RIEC dialog and possible decision include: 1) what are the available sources for funding the joint meeting; 2) is this venue the best way to respond to the concerns raised in the Pipkin report and by the IAC and PACs; and 3) given the current priorities (e.g., monitoring, survey and manage, etc.) and workload on agency staff, is the timing of this meeting appropriate. |
| Background: The 1998 Pipkin report recommended that the Regional Interagency Executive
Committee should consider ways to strengthen ties and improve communication between
province-level and regional-level organizations, to provide guidance when appropriate, and to
provide increased opportunity for Provincial Advisory Committees to have input on policy
issues that will affect management at the province level. A joint IAC/PAC meeting has been
discussed with the IAC at the July and November 1998 and February and May 1999 meetings.
At the February meeting, the IAC agreed to the formation of a steering committee to develop
recommendations concerning a budget, a proposed date, objectives and an agenda for a joint
meeting prior to a final decision is made to hold this event.
This Agenda Topic Overview identifies the potential objectives, framework, and a tentative agenda for a possible joint IAC/PAC meeting. Of the twelve PACs, ten expressed strong support, one was neutral, and one was opposed. 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 previous presentations, RIEC and IAC members expressed concern about cost, agenda focus, and alternative venues. |
| Analysis and Options:
Cost. Current cost estimates include: 1) If one non-federal PAC member from each PAC (total = 12) were to attend the meeting, travel and per diem cost equals $5,704. If three members per PAC were to attend the cost is expected to be $17,112 and for five members $28,520. 2) Travel and per diem cost of federal PAC member participation and other expected federal participants (e.g., all DFOs) is assumed to come from current travel budget allocations (estimated cost similar to non-federal PAC member from each PAC ... $5,704 for the twelve DFO's). 3) Fees for a large conference room and break out rooms at local hotel may be waived if a sufficient number of rooms are reserved leaving catering (i.e., refreshments at breaks) and audio visual support as the outstanding cost (i.e., estimated cost equal $3 ,000). (Note: If less then 100 people register at the hotel where the conference is to be held, we would expect to incur rental fees for the meeting rooms. Also, a special budget for this meeting has not been established, so the meeting would have to be funded from existing agencies sources.) Agenda Focus. There are four options for the meeting format; 1) meet to address specific Northwest Forest Plan issues (e.g., litigation, roadless area policy, etc.), 2) meet to develop a better communication strategy, 3) meet on broader informational topics (e.g., Research and Monitoring, HCP's, Salmon listings, etc.), and 4) combination of the three. Depending on which format is selected, the meeting objectives and agenda topics will be tailored to the specific purpose. This will involve a formal "planning committee" to clearly define what the purpose and expectations of the meeting would be. The planning committee would also be responsible for specific details of the agenda, audio-visual needs, capturing key comments and recommendations and preparing conference proceedings, and other logistical requirements. Meeting objectives, for any of the four formats, would include: 1) Clarify the role of the IAC in the implementation of the NFP and its relation to the PACs. 2) Improve communication between the PIEC/PACs and the IAC/RIEC/REO. 3) Highlight and share areas of success that can be modeled elsewhere. 4) Improve the use of PACs in resolving and/or addressing regional issues. 5) Highlight PAC activities and projects via poster sessions. Alternative Venues. There are other potential mechanisms available to the RIEC to address the basic communication issue. A few ideas for consideration are a greater use and circulation of the FS, Region 6 newsletter Provincial Times; use of conference calls/email/faxes; and/or agency sponsored listening sessions with each PAC where individual issues and concerns are addressed (e.g., traveling road show). |
| Organizational/Funding Implications. If the RIEC approves the meeting as a priority for FY 2000, then a Planning committee (i.e., approximately 15 to 18 agency staff each with assigned task) will need to be formalized, a date selected, a time line established, and funds secured for budgetary needs (i.e., current estimate of cost = $33,000, current estimate of staff time = 2,014 hours). |
| REO Staff. Staff have identified several issues that remain open for discussion prior to the decision to move forward with hosting the proposed meeting. These issues include, but are not limited to: 1) what are the available sources for funding the joint meeting; 2) is this venue the best way to respond to the concerns raised in the Pipkin report and by the IAC and PACs; and 3) given the current priorities (e.g., monitoring, survey and manage, etc.) and workload on agency staff is the timing of this meeting appropriate. |
| Action Required: IAC Review and Discussion IAC Recommendation
RIEC Decision |
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee
(IAC)
Agenda Topic Preview
| Meeting Date: November 4, 1999 |
| REO Contact/Phone: Steve Morris 503-808-2176 |
| Topic: Current Status and Next Steps of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) Consistency Determination Interpretation - July 21 Draft ACS Interpretation |
| Background: On December 17, 1998, the RIEC requested that the REO facilitate discussions
seeking interagency agreement clarifying Record of Decision (ROD) interpretation for several
issues related to implementation of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS). Pursuant to
direction provided during the October 6, 1998 and November 5, 1998 RIEC meetings; and in
the December 17, 1998, memorandum transmitting the request, we have focused discussion on
four ACS interpretation issues: ROD requirements for determining project consistency with
ACS objectives, the intent of ACS objective #6 regarding regeneration harvest effects on
instream flows, the role of Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) that mitigate the effect of new
road construction on aquatic resources, and the role of Late-Successional Reserves (LSRs) and
designated roadless areas as components of the ACS.
At the October 20, 1999, special RIEC meeting, the Interagency Review Managers Team (Managers Team) reported that it has reached consensus on all issues except the intent of ACS objective #6 regarding regeneration harvest effects on instream flows, as addressed in the July 21 draft. The Managers Team informed the RIEC that the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Marine Fisheries Service concur on the July 21 draft version of the Objective #6 Issue whereas the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) believes that the July 21 treatment presents a perspective of the existing scientific literature that undervalues the importance of short-return period flows (1 - 2 years) and the biological significance of management-induced increases in these flows. The FWS also believes that the document should include a broader discussion of ACS Objective #6, to include, in addition to peak flows, discussion of protection of timing, magnitude, duration, and spacial distribution of peak, high, and low flows, as provided in Objective #6. The FWS provided a list of scientific citations in support of its assertions regarding short-return period flows and a rationale for its position on the scope of discussion. This information was reviewed by the Technical Team assigned to address ACS Objective #6 and FEMAT scientists. A consensus position did not result from this review. Thus, the issue was remanded to the Managers Team for discussion and presentation at the October 20 RIEC meeting. Additionally, at the October 6 Interagency Steering Committee meeting, the CEQ (George Frampton) requested that the RIEC provide its ACS consistency determination interpretation so that it can be forwarded to DOJ in support of the Government's position in PCFFA v NMFS. This raised the issue of whether the July 21 draft treatment of Issue #1 can serve as the joint Interagency ACS consistency determination interpretation in response to CEQ's request. RIEC Decisions: Based upon the Managers Team presentation, the RIEC approved the July 21 draft as the interagency interpretation of ACS consistency, excluding the discussion of ACS Objective #6. In addition, the four principal regional interagency executives (FS, BLM, FWS, NMFS) agreed to meet to determine if the issue of regeneration harvest effects on instream flows should be discussed further as a separate undertaking. |
| Follow-up Actions: The Regional Ecosystem Office will update the July 21 draft and distribute it as a final RIEC ACS consistency interpretation on: ROD requirements for determining project consistency with ACS objectives, the role of Standards and Guidelines that mitigate the effect of new road construction on aquatic resources, and the role of Late-Successional Reserves and designated roadless areas as components of the ACS. |
Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC)
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
| Meeting Date/Day | RIEC Meeting | IAC Meeting |
| January 11, Tuesday | 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. | |
| February 2-4, Wednesday - Friday | TBD | Joint IAC/PAC Meeting |
| March 7, Tuesday | 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. | |
| April 4, Tuesday | 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. | |
| Potential ISC Meeting | TBD | |
| May 4, Thursday | 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. | 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. |
| June 6, Tuesday | 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. | |
| July Unscheduled | - | - |
| August 3, Thursday | 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. | 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. |
| September 6, Wednesday (Monday, September 4, Holiday) |
9:00 to 11:00 a.m. | |
| October 3, Tuesday | 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. | |
| Potential ISC Meeting | TBD | |
| November 2, Thursday | 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. | 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. |
| December 5, Tuesday | 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. |
Update Report
| Meeting Date: November 4, 1999 | REO Contact/Phone: Curt Loop 503-808-2172 |
| Topic: REO Annual Accomplishment Report | |
| Background: Each year since 1996, the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) has prepared a notebook of significant information which highlights the background and current status of key items of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP). This note book is titled the Activity Information Sharing (AIS) Notebook. Also, prior to each of the last two Interagency Steering Committee (ISC) meetings, the REO has prepared a one page Summary of Accomplishments for key items of the NFP. | |
| Status/Update: In comparing the two reports, we noticed that the topics presented were virtually the same. The REO discussed these reports and decided to combine the two reports into one. The new report will be titled the Annual Accomplishments Report (AAR) and will serve as the annual report for those topics required in the NFP Record of Decision (ROD) as well as other significant items of interest. The report will highlight major accomplishments achieved in the past fiscal year. The one page Summary of Accomplishments will become the Executive Summary of the new report. Regional Interagency Executives Committee (RIEC) and Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) members are invited to recommend topics for inclusion in the Annual Accomplishments Report. The data described in the report will reflect data as of September 30, of each year and be distributed around the first of December each year. A copy of the table of contents for the FY 1999 AAR is attached. | |
FY 1999 Annual Accomplishments Report
Table of Contents
Work Plan Item
Update REPORT
| Meeting Date: November 4, 1999 | REO Contact/Phone: Bill Kirchner 503-808-2171 |
| Topic: New Developments in Late-Successional Reserves (LSRS) | |
| Background: At the August 5, 1999, RIEC meeting, Don Knowles provided an update on the status of the REO interpretation memorandum. REO received comments from the Department of Interior, Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency regarding the July 7, 1999, "fatal flaw" version of the REO interpretation. The interagency workgroup reached consensus on appropriate changes to address some of the concerns and incorporated the changes to produce an August 6 version of the REO interpretation. This interim draft was transmitted to Don Barry, Department of Interior, for his review and comment. On August 26, 1999, Don Barry and Dinah Bear submitted recommended changes. These changes were incorporated and another draft was disseminated to the five agencies working this issue for their review and comment. At the September 9 Regional Executive meeting, unresolved issues were outlined, but concurrence on the final interpretation was not reached due to interpretive and philosophical differences on critical implementation issues; such as: "how to determine if a proposed new development has a "neutral or beneficial" impact on the "creation and maintenance of late-successional habitat;" how will adverse effects be mitigated, and what will be the proximity of mitigation in relation to the effect on an Late Successional Reserve; and how to incorporate geographic and time scales into the determination? | |
| Status/Update: At an October 5, 1999, meeting of the five executives working this issue, a
final regional agreement was reached and a final REO interpretation was drafted. On October
13, 1999, the REO mailed the October 6 version of the interpretation to the full RIEC members
for review and requested that the interpretation be coordinated with their Washington DC
counterparts. A response was requested by October 29. Absent objection, REO would then
provide a final copy of the interpretation on November 1.
On October 21, during the ISC workgroup conference call, concerns from Don Barry and others were expressed regarding the October 6 interpretation. The concerns included: confusion over new language regarding proximity of mitigation; the broad application of the spatial scale for determining neutrality of the new development; and new issues with temporal scale. The REO agreed to withhold issuing the final version pending further regional executive discussion and agreement. | |
| Next Steps: The ISC members will have a meeting to discuss their concerns and provide alternative language to the REO. Following receipt of the ISC comments, the REO will facilitate a meeting of the five agencies to rework the REO interpretation. | |
Update Report
| Meeting Date: November 4, 1999 | REO Contact/Phone: Dale Guenther, 503-326-7133 |
| Topic: Interagency Species Management System (ISMS) | |
| Background: Under the NFP, 260 species were specified under Component 1, the "manage known sites" prescription. In order to track surveys, location, and habitat information for these species, the ISMS database was developed. This is a single database which all BLM and FS field units will be able to access and update remotely. Linked to this database is a geographic information system (GIS) which will allow spatial data and species data to be entered and reported as one unit. | |
| Status/Update: The REO Development Team (John Kramer and Bob Varner) conducted an
ISMS database 'Alpha' test in early September. For this test, 22 field botanists and biologists
were trained and then, using the system, entered species data into the database. Many
comments were collected and addressed from this test. Even with 20+ critical problems
identified, the test was considered a success as no fatal flaws were identified. The identified
critical and most minor flaws have been corrected by the REO Development Team.
The REO Development Team then hosted a 'Beta' test on four field units. These included the FS sites of Willamette and Six Rivers NF, and the Eugene and Arcata BLM District offices. ISMS was installed at these sites and a one day training session conducted to familiarize personnel with the system. These units will then use the ISMS system in a production environment to find any further flaws. The Beta test period will be one month. The REO Development Team will answer any questions and provide support if needed. Any problems identified will be researched and fixed before the final release. We are on schedule for a January 2000 release of ISMS. After release, we have contracted to have eight training sessions conducted on the ISMS database at various field offices. | |
Possible February 2000 IAC Agenda Topics
Possible February 2000 IAC Status Reports
Potential Future IAC Agenda Topics
Potential Future IAC Status Reports