Regional Ecosystem Office
333 SW 1st
P.O. Box 3623
Portland, Oregon 97208-3623
Phone: 503-808-2165 FAX: 503-808-2163
Memorandum
Date: April 21, 2000
To:
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members (See Distribution List)
From: Curtis A. Loop, Acting Executive Director
Subject: Agenda and Prework Material for the May 4 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting
Enclosed are the proposed agenda, agenda topic overviews, and status reports for the May Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) meeting. The IAC
meeting will be held at the Downtown Embassy Suites, 319 SW Pine Street, Portland, Oregon 97204-2726 (Phone: 503-279-9000 and Fax: 503-497-9051).
You may phone the hotel to make your reservations (request the government rate).
The IAC meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. and is projected to adjourn by 3:15 p.m. We are currently scheduled to meet in the Gevurtz Ceremonial Room on the
mezzanine. The IAC agenda includes the following topics:
We will have updates on the appeal of Judge Rothstein's Ruling; Rechartering of the IAC; Non-Federal Hydropower Projects and the Northwest Forest Plan;
Adaptive Management Area Plans and Work Group; the California IAC Subcommittee; and the Next Steps on Planning a Field IAC Meeting. Hot Topic items
will be collected during the meeting and covered with the updates.
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
1521/lk
Date: April 21, 2000
Subject: Agenda and Prework Material for the May 4 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Distribution List
California
Mary Nichols, California Resource Agency, State Representative
Maria Rea, California Resource Agency (Alternate)
Francie Sullivan, Representative of California Counties
Oregon
Peter Green, Forest Policy Advisor, Office of the Governor
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
Harv Forsgren, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, R-6
Nancy Graybeal, Deputy Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, R-6
Brad Powell, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, R-5
Boynton, Jim, Acting Deputy Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, R-5
Bob Graham, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service
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)
John Volkman, Acting 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 2/15/2000
IAC Meeting Potential Agenda Items
May 4, 2000 - 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Downtown Embassy Suites Hotel
| Time | Potential Agenda Topics | Topic Purpose | Presenter |
| 9:30 20 min. |
Welcome, Introductions, Certify the February Meeting Notes, Review the May Agenda, and Presentations | Complete Official Business and Review the Agenda | Elaine Zielinski |
| 9:50 20 min. |
Monitoring Program Update | Information | Lisa Freedman, MPM Chair |
| 10:10 30 min. |
Implementation Monitoring Update
|
Information | Al Horton, IM Lead |
| 10:40 20 min. |
Break | ||
| 11:00 30 min. |
President's Roadless Area Initiative | Overview & Discussion | Lisa Freedman |
| 11:30 30 min. |
Landscape Issues
|
Overview & Discussion | John Volkman |
| 12:00 75 min. |
Lunch | ||
| 1:15 45 min. |
Survey and Manage (S&M) Update
|
Presentations & Discussion |
Dick Prather Gary Morishima Dick Elaine |
| 2:00 15 min. |
Public Comment | Feedback & Input | Elaine and Linda |
| 2:15 60 min. |
Hot Topics and Updates
|
Information Sharing |
John Volkman Steve Morris Steve Jim Milestone Curt Loop Curt |
| 3:15 15 min. |
Review Potential Items for the IAC Meeting, Closing Comments, and Adjourn | Potential Agenda Items for the Next Meeting, Close | Elaine & Curt |
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW
| Meeting Date: May 4, 2000 |
| Presenter: Lisa Freedman, MPM Chair, 503-808-2271 and Al Horton, IM Lead, 503-808-2262 |
| REO Contact: Dave Busch (REO, 503-808-2192) |
| Topic: Monitoring Program Implementation |
| Background: Following RIEC direction, a team of agency regional managers (the Monitoring Program Managers or MPM) is overseeing the implementation and development of monitoring modules in accordance with the approved Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) Monitoring Plan and consistent with agency priorities. The MPM includes representation from FS-R6, BLM, FS-R5, PNW, PSW, USGS, FWS, NPS, EPA, COE, and NMFS. MPM discussions have focused on monitoring program budget and personnel requirements, and the commitments of agencies to support key program elements. Monitoring modules currently being implemented cover Effectiveness Monitoring for Late Successional Old Growth (LSOG), the Northern Spotted Owl (NSO), and the Marbled Murrelet (MaMu), as well as Implementation Monitoring (IM). Modules are under development for Aquatic/Riparian systems (A/R), Social and Economic (Soc/Econ), Tribal, and Biodiversity/Survey and Manage species. |
| Analysis and Options: Reports on MPM progress and requests for RIEC questions or guidance will be presented for the following topics: Effectiveness Monitoring:
Implementation Monitoring
Organizational/Funding Implications: When the currently-approved positions are filled, the RMT will utilize 5 FTEs from the participating agencies. Additional positions (e.g., an information manager) may be required to carry-out a viable regional monitoring strategy. It is anticipated that the interagency monitoring budget will grow from its current $4-5 million range as new modules (e.g., A/R monitoring) are developed and implemented. |
| Action Required: Information Briefing |
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW
| Meeting Date: May 4, 2000 |
| Presenter: Lisa Freedman, 503-808-2271 |
| REO Contact: Shawne Mohoric, 503-808-2175 |
| Topic: President's Roadless Area Initiative |
Background: In October 1999, President Clinton asked the Forest Service to begin an open public process to address how roadless areas have typically
remained without roads because of inaccessibility, rugged terrain, low timber values, or environmental concerns. Addressing this issue is important because:
The Forest Service released a notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on October 19, 1999 and proposed a two-part process. Part one would restrict certain activities, such as new road construction, in inventoried roadless areas. Part two would establish national direction for managing inventoried roadless areas, and for determining whether and to what extent similar protections should be extended to uninventoried roadless areas. Both part one and part two would be implemented with extensive public involvement. Part two would be implemented through local forest planning. |
| Status/Actions: On December 20, 1999, the Forest Service concluded a comment period on the scope of the proposal. During this comment period, the agency hosted an unprecedented 190 regional and local public meetings and received more than 400,000 comments. The Forest Service is now preparing a draft EIS that will detail the agency's proposal and its likely effects. The agency plans to conduct another comment period and series of public meetings when it releases the draft EIS and a proposed rule in May 2000. The agency plans to release a final EIS and regulation before the end of 2000. |
| Action Required: IAC Overview and Discussion |
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW
| Meeting Date: May 4, 2000 |
| Presenter: John Volkman, 503-231-6267 |
| REO Contact: Steve Morris 503-808-2176 |
| Topic: NMFS' approach to ESA section 7 consultations on habitat activities that may affect listed salmonid populations |
| Background: In making judgments about whether habitat activities jeopardize listed salmonid populations, NMFS determines whether proposed activities are well regulated and consistent with the conservation of listed species' habitat by helping to attain and maintain properly functioning conditions (PFC). NMFS defines PFC as the sustained presence of a watershed's natural habitat-forming processes that are necessary for the long-term survival of salmonids through the full range of environmental variation. Actions that affect salmonid habitat must not impair properly functioning habitat, appreciably reduce the functioning of already impaired habitat, or retard the long-term progress of impaired habitat toward PFC. Programs must meet this biological standard in order for NMFS to find them qualified under a habitat-related limit. If proposed actions are consistent with this standard, NMFS can issue an permit for incidental take that may be associated with the action. |
| Action Required: IAC Overview & Discussion |
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW
| Meeting Date: May 4, 2000 |
| Presenter: Dick Prather, 503-808-6015 |
| REO Contact: Harold Belisle, 503-808-2173 and Shawne Mohoric, 503-808-2175 |
| Topic: Survey and Manage (S&M) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) |
| Issue Statement: Review progress to date on the S&M SEIS and review effects and select a preferred alternative. |
| Background: The Record of Decision for the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP), signed in April 1994, included S&M as a mitigation measure. S&M and related
Standards and Guidelines were added during preparation of the NFP Final SEIS to benefit species where there was a concern that proposed reserves may not
provide for persistence of the species. The S&M SEIS is an interagency effort that will clarify the language in the NFP, eliminate inconsistent and redundant direction, and establish a process that responds to new information. There are three action alternatives in addition to the No-Action Alternative which continues the direction in the NFP. All of the alternatives are designed to meet the purpose and need of the NFP. The consequences of the alternatives vary as a result of differences in the management of sites and surveys for these species. The Final SEIS will disclose these consequences. |
| Analysis and Options: The Draft SEIS was published in December 1999, and the public comment period closed on March 3. The S&M SEIS Team has
responded to comments, rerun the Species Review Process, rewritten Chapters 3 & 4, and edited the document. A review draft of the Final SEIS was sent to
the Washington, D.C. offices for review and comment. Tasks remaining to be completed are:
|
| Action Required: IAC Presentation and Discussion |
Report of the IAC Subcommittee
RE: March 27th Briefing on the Development of the Survey and Manage (S&M) Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(SEIS)
The IAC Subcommittee of Non-Federal members convened in Portland on March 27, 2000 to receive a briefing on the efforts of the S&M Team to address
concerns identified in the Subcommittee's comments of February 23rd.
Attendance:
| IAC Subcommittee Members | REO Staff | S&M Team Members |
| Gary Morishima Francie Sullivan Katie Krueger (representing Mel Moon) |
Curt Loop Linda Kucera Shawne Mohoric Harold Belisle Jim Milestone Dan McKenzie |
Jim Schuler, USFS Dick Prather, BLM Ken Denton, USFS |
Summary of Public Comments received on DSEIS:
The S&M Team reported that approximately 1500 letters and 4500 postcards had been received during the public comment period. Of these, some 170
substantive public comments are being processed. Responses will appear in a new Appendix I, currently about 200 pages in length.
The S&M Team indicated that significant changes are being made throughout the Draft SEIS in response to public comments.
Timing of Key Events Pertaining to Further Development of the S&M
DSEIS:
IAC Subcommittee Comments
Process:
The Subcommittee was disappointed that no written materials were available for review or inspection at the meeting. A draft of some chapters of the DSEIS
had been prepared, but was not made available for examination by the Subcommittee members even at the meeting. While there are some understandable
concerns regarding the disclosure of deliberative documents, this set an unfortunate tone for the meeting. Without something in hand to examine, it was
extremely difficult to determine how IAC concerns had been specifically addressed. Moreover, the withholding of the draft document left the disturbing
impression that IAC members could not be trusted with safekeeping sensitive information.
Remaining concerns:
Additionally, two central concerns remained after the briefing:
1. Non-Viability of Proposed Alternatives
The S&M Team has not adequately addressed the IAC Subcommittee's central concern that none of the alternatives presented appear to be viable because this
issue was believed to lie outside the decision space established by the Record of Decision for the Northwest Forest Plan. Nonetheless, the Subcommittee
continues to believe that the RIEC and IAC need to confront the fact that the strategy presented in the NW Forest Plan for dealing with uncertainty through
S&M and adaptive management may be fundamentally flawed because it is cannot be implemented in practice given anticipated funding constraints and
limitations. Instead of continuing to pursue the alternatives presented in the DSEIS, other approaches to mitigate for uncertainty should be investigated and
presented for consideration.
The Subcommittee is concerned that further efforts to pursue development or selection of any of the alternatives presented in the DSEIS would constitute little
more than a futile administrative exercise. Selection of a preferred alternative without commensurate funding required for implementation would mislead the
public and generate unrealistic expectations.
A simple principle needs to be placed before the IAC and RIEC (in flashing neon lights if necessary): "Before adopting an approach to S&M, ensure that
the Administration is fully committed to fund activities required for its implementation."
On a related matter, the Subcommittee was concerned that the DSEIS presents alternatives and effects under unrealistic assumptions of full implementation.
The costs of implementing any of the alternatives greatly exceed the $8-$12 million currently available for S&M. Given the cost of anticipated S&M activities
and budgetary limitations, coupled with uncertainties associated with the politics of upcoming Presidential and Congressional elections within the next few
months, it is extremely unlikely that full funding for implementation will become available. Consequently, S&M and other FS/BLM activities will be delayed
or even eliminated. The DSEIS needs to explicitly discuss the consequences for other aspects of FS/BLM operations if the S&M alternatives were to be
implemented under current budgetary limitations. The S&M Team attempted to incorporate some generic language about the difficulty of determining specific
effects of inadequate funding for S&M activities, but that approach provides little information of value to permit potential consequences to be evaluated from a
policy perspective.
The new forest planning regulations under consideration suggest that activities will not be implemented when funding is inadequate. The model being
developed in the draft FS regulations as the future way of doing business across the country relies heavily upon the use of adaptive management and concepts
akin to S&M. These approaches are attractive because they reflect uncertainty in scientific knowledge and delay the necessity for making firm decisions.
However, such an approach has certain problems that must be clearly recognized. Foremost among these is the need to understand that once an alternative is
adopted, implementation becomes a requirement. Failure to perform activities as required under the alternative, regardless of reason, then becomes fruitful
ground for administrative appeal and/or litigation.
2. Absence of Useful Criteria for Implementing Adaptive Management Concepts
The Subcommittee continues to support the general concept of adaptive management as a means of modifying S&M requirements to reflect new information
gained over time. However, the S&M Team has not adequately addressed the need to provide measurable standards and criteria for changing S&M
requirements for individual species. Instead, the Team has apparently opted to include language that in essence says "It's just too hard or too complicated."
The Subcommittee finds this excuse to be disingenuous, especially in light of the extensive treatment of the rationale for classifying various species in different
S&M categories under the alternatives presented in the current DSEIS. Obviously, the authors of the DSEIS employed some sort of criteria to support their
proposed classification of species into different S&M categories. It is reasonable to expect that those standards and criteria be explicitly presented to enable the
public to understand exactly how S&M requirements will be expected to change in response to the availability of new information over time. Absent
measurable standards and criteria, determination of S&M requirements will continue to be little more than a "black box" that will ultimately lead to the
proliferation of more litigation.
During the briefing, the S&M Team stated its intention to list changes in S&M requirements in an annual species review after those changes have already been
adopted. The Subcommittee's concerns for the lack of definitive standards and criteria are heightened by the lack of any provision for public notice of
anticipatory changes in S&M requirements for individual species. While the reluctance of agencies to engage in NEPA-type processes is understandable,
without some means of notice prior to adoption of changes in S&M requirements, the public would be left with few alternatives other than appeal or litigation
as individual projects are proposed.
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
UPDATE REPORT
| Meeting Date: May 4, 2000 |
| Presenter: John Volkman, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) |
| REO Contact: Steve Morris, 503-808-2176 |
| Topic: Litigation Update - Rothstein II. NMFS will provide an update on the status of the litigation. |
| Status/Update: Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's Associations (PCFFA) et al. v NMFS: This suit (filed January 19, 1999 in U.S. District Court in
Seattle) challenges four biological opinions issued by NMFS for timber sales in the Umpqua River Basin, Oregon. In the previous litigation, "PCFFA I" Judge
Rothstein found that NMFS had correctly determined that the Northwest Forest Plan's Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) satisfied Endangered Species Act
Section 7 standards, but that NMFS' site-specific biological opinions were inadequate because they did not explain how individual timber sales met the ACS. "PCFFA II" challenges NMFS' conclusions within four site-specific biological opinions concerning the effects of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management actions (timber sales) on the endangered Umpqua River cutthroat trout and the threatened Oregon coastal coho salmon. NMFS appealed a September 30, 1999 adverse ruling on summary judgement, and subsequently filed its opening brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Plaintiffs' reply brief was filed with the court on February 23. NMFS' response was filed with the Court by March 8. A hearing has been set for June 8, in Seattle Washington. |
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
UPDATE REPORT
| Meeting Date: May 4, 2000 |
| Presenter/REO Contact: Steve Morris, 503-808-2176 |
| Topic: Rechartering the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) |
| Background: The current IAC charter expires on November 3, as do the terms of the current non-federal IAC members. |
| Status/Update: The REO has initiated the IAC rechartering and non-federal member selection process, which will consist of the development and approval of
a new charter, and nomination of non-federal members. Letters have been sent to all non-federal governments requesting names and background information for IAC nominees. The next step will be development of a package requesting prior approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Committee Management Officer for any federal or non-federal IAC representative who has served for six or more consecutive years on the committee. This step will be completed within the next two weeks, shortly after receipt of responses to the non-federal nomination request letters. The REO timeline calls for forwarding the proposed IAC charter and nomination packets to Washington, D.C., by early May which will allow adequate time for the approval process, which we expect to be completed by September. |
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
UPDATE REPORT
| Meeting Date: May 4, 2000 |
| Presenter/REO Contact: Steve Morris, 503-808-2176 |
| Topic: Relicensing of FERC Projects Occupying or Affecting Federal Land within the Northwest Forest Plan Area |
| Issue Statement: Development of a collaborative approach to FERC project relicensing and development of a joint policy interpretation of ACS consistency as it pertains to FERC project relicensing. |
| Background: Relicensing of FERC projects on federal land within the NFP area represents a significant workload that will need to be addressed in the near
future. Additionally, the potential benefits of focused involvement, as well as the risk to natural resources from lack of involvement in the granting of new
50-year licenses for these projects are great. An estimated 189 projects on federal land will be coming up for relicensing in the near future. The Federal
agencies need to develop a collaborative process for addressing natural resource issues within the FERC relicensing venue. Additionally, recent experience
with FERC relicensing has revealed a need to address potential policy conflicts within the federal family, including: 1) project requirements for ACS
consistency; 2) potential conflicts between ACS consistency and the Federal Power Act (FPA), and; 3) potential conflicts between the FPA and federal land
management laws.
During the December 7, 1999 RIEC meeting, NMFS requested that the RIEC address the FERC relicensing issue through an interagency dialog process. The RIEC directed REO to convene and facilitate the interagency dialog on the issue in an effort to produce interagency interpretation of ACS consistency as it pertains to relicensing of FERC projects. |
| Status Update: The draft response that will be introduced at the May 4 RIEC meeting is a product of the REO facilitated FERC/ACS workgroup. To address the issue, the workgroup outlined critical questions and developed proposed responses for RIEC consideration. The issue will be fully discussed and a RIEC decision sought at the May 23 RIEC meeting. |
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
UPDATE REPORT
| Meeting date: May 4, 2000 |
| Presenter/REO Contact: Jim F. Milestone 503-808-2170 |
| Topic: Informational update and status report on the Adaptive Management Area's Work Group |
| Issue Statement: The RIEC/IAC chartered an Adaptive Management Area Work Group in February 1997. To date, the work group has completed most of the tasks it was established to implement. This update will discuss these accomplishments and what the agencies need to do in the near future to further support Adaptive Management Areas. |
| Background: In February 1997, the REO sent to BLM, Forest Service and PNW Research Stations, a memo describing the ROD's requirements for reviewing
Adaptive Management Area (AMA) plans. The REO then requested the RIEC and IAC to support the idea of developing an interagency work group that
would be dedicated to reviewing these plans as they were submitted to the REO for review. The RIEC and IAC chartered a work group that consisted of
agency representatives from the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and USDA Rural Development. The AMA Work Group was tasked with three items:
|
| Status Update: To date, 9 of the 10 AMAs have submitted AMA plans, strategic plans, or guides for review by the REO AMA Work Group. The Finney
AMA on the Baker Snoqualmie National Forest is still outstanding, but is expected to submit a plan in the next couple of years. The REO reviewed these plans
and met with the management teams and Provincial Advisory Committees that developed the individual AMA plans. All work group review comments were
provided to the Provincial AMA management teams.
The AMA Work Group has actively participated in the semi-annual AMA Coordinators meeting and associated field trips and science/ research meetings. In the past two years, the greatest efforts have been focused on developing a paper entitled, "Standards and Guidelines and the Adaptive Management Areas." This paper has gone through an exhaustive review by all the participating agencies, the Department of Justice, and the Council of Environmental Quality. Recently, because of Judge Rothstein's decision on the Umpqua, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided substantive comments, which gave the paper a fresh revision in light of discussions regarding the Aquatic Conservation Strategy consistency issue. The "Standards and Guidelines and the Adaptive Management Area" paper is a synthesis of all of the RODs Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) that pertain to AMAs. The paper not only lists all the S&Gs, but provides, where appropriate and necessary, an interpretation of the S&G's intent. The Work Group believes that this will greatly assist managers-citizens-scientists understand the complexities of AMAs, develop a consistent interpretation for S&Gs for all involved with AMAs, and better define the AMA's role, function, and core values. We also believe, that this paper can be a starting point to help all the land management and regulatory agencies develop a better understanding so S&Gs in AMAs can be tested and AMAs can have the flexibility necessary to conduct bonafide research in a creative and innovative manner. For today's status review, we ask that the RIEC review the work accomplished to date by the AMA Work Group, and review the S&Gs paper. For all practical purposes, the work of the AMA Work Group is completed as outlined in the February 1997 Charter. Until the Finney or another AMA request further work by the REO, it is recommended that the existing Chartered AMA Work Group be recessed. |
Status of AMA Plans
Northwest Forest Plans Chartered
Adaptive Management Area Workgroup
April 2000
| AMA Name | Plan Status | Document Signed |
| Hayfork AMA | Delivered Fall 1998 | Signed Review Letter 4/15/99 |
| Goosenest AMA | Delivered Summer 1998 | Signed Review Letter 11/13/98 |
| Applegate AMA | Delivered Fall of 1996 | Signed Review Letter 8/15/97 |
| Little River | Delivered Winter 1997 | Signed Review Letter 10/27/97 |
| Central Cascades AMA | Delivered Fall 1996 | Signed Review Letter 8/15/97 |
| North Coast AMA | Delivered Summer 1996 | Signed Review Letter 11/5/96 |
| Cispus AMA | Delivered Summer 1997 | Signed Review Letter 11/20/97 |
| Snoqualmie AMA EIS | Delivered Summer 1997 | Signed Review Letter 7/21/99 |
| Snoqualmie AMA Guide | Delivered Winter 1998 | Signed Review Letter 8/27/97 |
| Olympic AMA | Delivered Fall 1998 | Signed Review Letter 12/11/98 |
| Finney AMA |
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
UPDATE REPORT
| Meeting Date: May 4, 2000 |
| Presenter/REO Contact: Curt Loop, 503-808-2172 |
| Topic: California IAC Subcommittee |
| Issue Statement: Determine whether or not the California IAC Subcommittee is still warranted. If there is no need or desire to continue the Subcommittee, should the Subcommittee be disbanded? California representatives should be prepared to present their viewpoints. |
| Background: In 1998, the IAC agreed to form a California Subcommittee to the IAC as a mechanism for federal, state, local, and tribal governments in northern California to meet and provide advice and recommendations concerning landscape issues involved with the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan in that area. The proposed Subcommittee would consist of "IAC members representing California federal, state, local, and tribal interests and such other northern California federal, state, local, and tribal government representatives as they determine appropriate." The charter for the Subcommittee was approved at the August 1998 IAC meeting. |
| Status/Update: At the November 1998 IAC meeting, it was reported that the subcommittee had held their first meeting. At the meeting, the attending
members discussed 1) who the key individuals are that should be invited and encouraged to be at the meetings, 2) the scheduling of future meeting dates, and
3) the need to develop a questionnaire to determine future meeting agendas. Attempts to call another meeting were delayed due to the transition in the California State Administration and the retirement of the Region 5 Forest Service Regional Forester. Since that time, no meetings have been held. |
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
UPDATE REPORT
| Meeting Date: May 4, 2000 |
| Presenter/REO Contact: Curt Loop, 503-808-2172 |
| Topic: Next Steps on Planning a Field IAC Meeting |
| Background: For some time now, the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) has been implementing new methods for improving communication between the regional level (RIEC and IAC) and the provincial level (Province Interagency Executive Committees (PIECs) and Provincial Advisory Committees (PACs)). Also, the REO, in addition to many agencies, has been seeking other ways to enhance the effectiveness and communication among all the parties implementing the Northwest Forest Plan. One of the ways under consideration is to hold a RIEC and/or IAC meeting in conjunction with a provincial meeting (PIEC or PAC). |
| Status/Update: In order to identify the wishes of the various provincial committees, on March 31, the REO sent a memo to the Designated Federal Officials
(DFOs) requesting their input as to their desire to invite specific members of the RIEC and/or IAC to a provincial meeting and whether or not they wanted to
host a combined regional and provincial meeting later this year. In order to allow the provincial committees time to hold a meeting and discuss this issue, we asked to hear from the DFOs by May 15. The REO will present the provincial responses at the August IAC meeting. |
Future IAC Meeting Planning
Possible August 2000 IAC Agenda Topics
Possible August 2000 IAC Hot Topics and Updates