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

               Memorandum

Date:      November 12, 1999

To:          Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members (See Distribution List)

From:      Curtis A. Loop, Acting Executive Director

Subject:   November 1999 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting Notes

Enclosed are the notes from the November Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) meeting. Elaine welcomed Col. Randall Butler, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to the IAC; Steve Odell as the new REO Executive Director beginning mid-January; and Tom Makowski, Natural Resources Conservation Service, agency representative in the Regional Ecosystem Office. The August meeting notes were certified as written.

Issue summaries are included for:

Reports, Hot Topics, and Updates covered:

The next IAC meeting is scheduled for Thursday, February 3, in Portland, Oregon. Logistical information will be sent out in January. 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

1442/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

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
ISSUE SUMMARY

Meeting Date: November 4, 1999
REO Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie 503-808-2190
Topic: Status Report on NFP Monitoring
Objective: The presentation covered the recent events related to implementation of the NFP Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring programs. On October 6, the Interagency Steering Committee (ISC) was briefed on the status, RIEC agreements, and funding requirements for the monitoring program. The results of interagency work at the regional level was presented for the establishment of a regional monitoring team (RMT), agreements on the roles and responsibilities of all NFP agencies, and agreements on funding agreements establishing agency shares. Two Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) were proposed, one at the national level, the other at the regional level, that would document the interagency agreements and commitments. The ISC agreed to sponsor and get signatures for the MOU that would affirm the commitment to monitoring by the agencies at the national level. One ISC member requested background information on NFP monitoring priorities. A set of figures, tables, and draft MOU from the IAC meeting were included in the IAC briefing package.

The presentation continued with a status of the monitoring modules and current budget estimates. The budget for the FY 2000 program of work to implement the modules was presented as $7.3M. Currently, agency budgets provide for $4.3M, and the preliminary Monitoring Program Managers (MPM) priorities were presented indicating tasks that would be funded or require additional funds. Primarily, the MPM highest funding priorities were to continue the field data collection for modules underway, maintain progress on developing modules, and delay or postpone all other tasks. The MPM's preliminary thoughts are to not conduct implementation monitoring field reviews during FY 2000, but to develop a five year plan and analyze prior results.

Summary of Discussion/IAC Actions: The discussion that followed the presentation primarily dealt with requests for additional information and comments on the presented material. A request was noted for access to the material documenting the RIEC's establishment of monitoring priorities. The status of the Aquatic/Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring module was requested. It is the anticipated that the draft will be available for IAC review and comment in the spring of 2000. It was suggested that criteria should be developed to assess the efficiency and usefulness of the RMT. The recommendation to not conduct implementation monitoring was called into question. The speaker cited that only two years of information (FY 1999 results are not yet available) came from harvested timber sales and that was insufficient information to stop monitoring timber sale Standards and Guidelines. Several IAC members commented about the budget, generally agreeing that:
  • Funding needed to be sufficient to provide useful information, e.g., was there a threshold below which funding would be non-productive.
  • Concern was expressed that the funding ($4.3M) was inadequate to meet the NFP needs, particularly for the aquatic/riparian module.
  • It was suggested that attention be focused on describing the consequences of funded and non-funded monitoring products in terms of the RIECs desired outcomes.

A more general discussion ensued about the benefits and potential to collaborate and coordinate with other state and private monitoring programs. While all agreed to pursue such opportunities, IAC was reminded of the priority that needed to be given the NFP efforts.

IAC Agreements: IAC agreed to provide input on the monitoring program and priorities on an individual basis. Development of an IAC recommendation was discussed, but consensus was not reached.
Follow-up Actions (who/what/when): A draft IAC recommendation to the RIEC will be developed and circulated for revision and potential consensus. The MPM has the lead on this task.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
ISSUE SUMMARY

Meeting Date: November 4, 1999
REO Contact/Phone: Jay Watson 503-808-2178 or Harold Belisle 503-808-2173
Topic: Survey and Manage Update - Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS)
Issue Statement: Identification of the Preferred Alternative for the Draft SEIS
Summary of Discussion: Four alternatives were discussed: a no action and three action alternatives (A, B, and C.) The three action alternatives provide for a range of varying effects to species and timber harvest. The RIEC Chair indicated that recent information and analysis has resulted in uncertainty in reaching consensus on a proposed preferred alternative at this time. An additional RIEC meeting/conference call will be necessary. Interagency briefings are taking place in Washington, D.C. during the week of November 8. A proposed schedule for completing the Survey and Manage DSEIS was presented and is contingent on the selection of a preferred alternative.
Follow-up Actions (who/what/when): The RIEC agreed to meet to select a recommended preferred alternative on November 17, from 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. in the REO Conference Room. It was agreed that the IAC members would have the opportunity to review the DSEIS during December and January and provide advice to the RIEC at the February IAC Meeting.
 

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
ISSUE SUMMARY

Meeting Date: November 4, 1999
REO Contact/Phone: Dave Busch 503-808-2192
Topic: Salmon Conservation in Northern California from the County Perspective.
Objective: Share information regarding a five county salmon planning effort in the Klammath, Trinity and Eel river basins.
Summary of Discussion: Mark Lancaster, Senior Planner for Trinity County spoke to the IAC on salmon conservation activities in five northwest California counties. The Five County Salmon Conservation Planning Committee (Committee) is working to shape the implementation of restoration projects that balance salmon conservation with local economic and natural resource realties. The Committee's salmon planning effort deals with a diversity of interests on 11.6 million acres of federal, tribal, state, and private land in the Klamath, Trinity, and Eel River drainages (i.e., Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Siskiyou, and Trinity counties). The catalyst for this planning effort was listing of the coastal coho ESU in December 1996. The Counties adopted resolutions asserting the importance of watershed, as opposed to county, boundaries for this effort. In order of priority, the planning effort emphasizes the following components: 1) incentives, 2) education, and 3) regulation. Restoration projects are selected from an existing inventory of barriers to salmon migration, along with biologists' input as to which improvements should have the highest priority (i.e., relative risk assessment). Projects utilize normal maintenance budgets to accomplish "salmon friendly" work. Another part of the conservation program involves the purchase of wetlands for water quality improvement. The counties are dependent on other land use organizations, especially the Forest Service, to accomplish their road maintenance and restoration goals. The biggest obstacle to project initiation has been the Corps and NMFS permitting process. A University of California group has been asked to evaluate the effectiveness of the 5 county salmon planning effort. The Committee will use the results of this study to fine-tune program implementation.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
ISSUE SUMMARY

Meeting Date: November 4, 1999
REO Contact/Phone: Bill Kirchner 503-808-2171
Topic: IAC/PAC Relationship, Coordination, and Communication.
Objective: Update on planning for a joint IAC/PAC Summit. Discuss issue and make recommendation on whether or not the REO should or should not proceed with planning for a meeting.
Summary of Discussion: An overview including the purpose, objectives and agenda focus for the summit was provided to the IAC for their discussion and recommendation. The overview also outlined cost for the summit (i.e., $60,000 to $65,000 for 5 non-federal PAC members from each PAC plus 5 federal PAC members), other venues (i.e., circuit rider, hold an IAC meeting in conjunction with a PAC meeting) and unresolved issues (i.e., funding, appropriate venue, workload). The overview prompted lengthy discussions on the topic. The following were questions, concerns, and statements made by the IAC:
  • Need to address what people are frustrated about (i.e., what are we trying to resolve) and improve communications on the issues relevant to the PACs.
  • Need to go back and better define the problem and needs (i.e., How are we going to communicate with PACs and how will this communication occur ...time, form, function?
  • Summit could identify the common "problems", but will it address the communication problem and is the summit the appropriate venue to accomplish it?
  • If people who have committed time and energy in PACs have raised communication issues and the idea of a summit, we should probably listen to them.
  • Cost is still a major factor since funding sources are limited (i.e., contract money is not available), as well as workload and priority issues.
  • Don't see benefit of large meeting at this stage.

The IAC was given a copy of a letter from Daniel Chisholm, Designated Federal Official for the California Coast PAC and Forest Supervisor of the Mendocino National Forest. In the letter, he expressed concerns about communication between the RIEC and PACs, a desire for more opportunity to provide input to decisions made by the RIEC, and support for a summit meeting. He also expressed a concern that there is no interface between the California Coast PAC and the California representatives to the IAC.

From the discussion, IAC made the following recommendations:

  • Take a staged approach to the communication issue. Ensure full participation by the Federal Agencies in the PAC meetings.
  • Develop an IAC/PAC orientation package to address the NFP organizations and processes.
  • Suggest an interagency team (e.g., circuit riders), with IAC participation, visit PACs to listen and learn about PAC issues with a commitment to follow through on recommended changes on how we communicate.
  • Try other techniques (i.e., explore outreach ideas and cost out various approaches).
  • Draft a communication strategy and ensure current REO representative assignment to the PACs is incorporated. Address attendance issue by ensuring schedules do not conflict (i.e., RIEC and PAC meetings on same date). Have REO representative backups in case the primary representative can not attend. Address travel fund issue and examine alternative funding (e.g., invitational travel for REO staff not supported by host agency travel).
Follow-up Actions (who/what/when): Roberta Moltzen, FS, R-5, will take lead to meet with Northern California PACs and address their communication concerns and convey "process" kinds of information. The REO will draft letter to IAC and PAC members informing them of the decision to "stay" the planning of the joint meeting and offer an outline of other alternatives that are being considered to address the communication issue. The REO will develop an orientation package for new IAC and REO members. The long term goal should be the development of a communication plan that addresses issues and concerns documented in the 1996/97 REO survey of IAC and PAC members.
 

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
ISSUE SUMMARY

Meeting Date: November 4, 1999
REO Contact/Phone: Steve Morris 503-808-2176
Topic: Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) Consistency Determinations (REO Report)
Objective: Interagency agreement on issues clarifying Record of Decision (ROD) requirements for consistency with the ACS.
Summary of Discussion/IAC Actions: The IAC was informed that the REO, as previously directed by the RIEC, has completed the interpretation report on three of the four ACS issues: ROD requirements for determining 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. The IAC was also informed that discussions continue on the intent of ACS Objective #6 regarding the effects of regeneration harvest on instream flows. The IAC was further informed that development of field guidance pursuant to this report will be addressed by the agencies.
Follow-up Actions (who/what/when): The REO Interpretation Report will be distributed by November 12.

Reports, Hot Topics, and Updates -- Elaine and Curt

Report on the Interagency Steering Committee Meeting
Curt reviewed highlights and follow-up actions from the meeting notes for the October 6 meeting held in Washington, D.C. One IAC member commented that 90% of the meeting seemed to be focused on litigation and damage control with no mention or focus on intergovernmental coordination.

Activity Information Sharing = Annual Accomplishments Report
Curt explained the REO plan to combine and rename various status and annual reports (e.g., the annual Interagency Steering Committee report, Activity Information Sharing, etc.) into a single annual report called the Annual Accomplishment Report (AAR.) The AAR will use agency and work group data as of September 30 of each year and produce a variety of accomplishment and status reports for pertinent topics of the Northwest Forest Plan. The AAR is expected to be published in December of each year.

New Developments in Late-Successional Reserves (LSRs) Update
Curt explained that we are on hold with issuing the New Developments in LSRs interpretation memo pending receipt of comments from agency principles in Washington, D.C. These comments are not expected for several weeks due to travel and work schedules. Once comments are received, they will be consolidated and forwarded to the members of the Interpretation Development Team for review and action.

Interagency Restoration Database
Dale went over the latest maps showing restoration project information for Washington, Oregon, and Northern California submitted by the FS, BLM, NPS, and FWS. Copies of the maps and supporting tables will be provided to the IAC members with the meeting notes.

 

Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC)
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

Tentative Meeting Dates for Calendar Year 2000

November 10, 1999

Meeting Date/Day RIEC Meeting IAC Meeting
January 11, Tuesday 9:00 to 11:00 a.m.
February 3, Thursday 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
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.
 

Future IAC Meeting Planning

Possible February 2000 IAC Agenda Topics

Possible February 2000 IAC Status Reports

Potential Future IAC Agenda Topics

Potential Future IAC Status Reports

November 4, 1999 IAC Meeting Handouts

Handouts:
Adaptive Management Areas Brochure-1999
IAC Future Meeting Planning Topics/Status Reports
IAC November Prework Package
IAC Meeting Goals
IAC Identification List
IAC August Meeting Notes
IAC November Meeting Agenda
IAC Telephone Directory
Letter -- Joint IAC/PAC Meeting Next Year, Dated November 1, 1999
Magazine article "A Balanced Approach", By Mark Lancaster, Dated September/October 1999
Memo -- Service Lists Two More Populations of Bull Trout as Threatened, Dated October 28, 1999
Organizational Chart NFP
Overhead -- NW Forest Plan Monitoring Program
Overhead -- IAC/PAC Relationship, Coordination, and Communication
PIEC Identification List
REO Telephone Directory
REO Functional Statement Packet
RIEC Identification List
Signed MOU For Forest Ecosystem Management, Dated October 19, 1998
Survey and Manage-Key EIS Dates 1999/2000. Dated November 3, 1999

Publications available on request:
Accomplishment Report -- Forest Service, 1998 & 1997
Accomplishment Report -- Bureau of Land Management, 1998 & 1997
Activity Information Sharing Notebook--November 1998
Effectiveness Monitoring Report-Final-August 7, 1997
Implementation Monitoring Program Final Report -- FY 1997, Dated November 6, 1998
Implementation Monitoring Program Final Report -- FY 1998, Dated August 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
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)

* Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting * November 4, 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 Mgmt. Council
Butler, Col. Randall J. District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Davies, Bruce Technical Specialist NW Indian Fish Commission
Feigner, Ken Director, Forest & Salmon Group Environmental Protection Agency
Graham, Bob State Conservationist Natural Resource Conservation Service
Graybeal, Nancy Deputy Regional Forester Forest Service, R-6
Green, Peter Federal Policy Advisor State of Oregon
McVay, Rocky Representative of OR Counties State of Oregon Counties Rep.
Morishima, Gary Technical Advisor Intertribal Timber Council
Morris, Steve Acting for Rick Applegate National Marine Fisheries Service
Partridge, Craig State Representative State of Washington
Rea, Maria Acting CA State Representative CA Resource Agency, State of CA
Shevock, Jim Assoc. Regional Director National Park Service
Stormer, Fred Deputy Station Director Forest Service, PNW
Sullivan, Francie County Representative State of California Counties
Thorson, Robyn Acting for John Buffington USGS Biological Resources Division
Zielinski, Elaine State Director - Chair Bureau of Land Management, OR/WA
Regional Ecosystem Office
Belisle, Harold Representative Bureau of Land Management
Busch, Dave Research & Monitoring USGS Biological Resources Division
Erwert, Ginger Administrative Officer Forest Service
Guenther, Dale GIS Administrater Forest Service
Keough, Ellen Receptionist Forest Service
Kirchner, Bill Representative Environmental Protection Agency
Kucera, Linda Management Assistant U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Loop, Curt Acting Executive Director U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Makowski, Tom Representative Natural Resource Conservation Service
McKenzie, Dan Research & Monitoring Leader Environmental Protection Agency Research
Mohoric, Shawne Representative Forest Service, R-6
Renwald, Dave Representative Bureau of Indian Affairs
Watson, Jay Representative U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
* Other Attendees *
Blakeman, Dave IRICC Member Forest Service, R.
Bradley, Bill Forestry Chief Bureau of Land Management
Diaz, Nancy NFP Issue Coordinator Forest Service, PNW
Freedman, Lisa Director Forester Service, R.
Knudsen, Monty Chief, Office of Technical Support U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Lancaster, Mark Presenter State of CA Commission
Middlebrook, Neil S&M EIS Agency Lead Bureau of Land Management
Moltzen, Roberta Deputy Regional Forester Forest Service, R-5
Odell, Steve New REO Exec. Director (Jan. 2000) U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Roush, Paul Wildlife Biologist Bureau of Land Management - CA