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 10, 2000
To:
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members (See Distribution List)
From: Stephen J. Odell, Executive Director
Subject: August 2000 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
Enclosed are the notes from the August Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) meeting.
Issue Summaries are included for:
Hot Topics covered:
In addition, during the introductory segment of the meeting, an objection was raised in response to a request for certification of the May 2000 IAC meeting
notes. These notes have been amended to address the objection, as described in the enclosed Hot Topics summary. Absent any further objection, the May 2000
IAC meeting notes are considered certified, as amended.
The next IAC meeting is scheduled for Thursday, November 2, in Portland, Oregon. Logistical information will be sent to you in October. If you have
questions or suggestions, please contact Steve Odell at 503-808-2166, Linda Kucera at 503-808-2179, or your agency representative.
Enclosure
cc:
REO Reps
RCERT
PAC DFOs
1560/lk
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
Lance Clark, Resource Analyst, Office of the Governor (Alternate)
Rocky McVay, Representative of Oregon Counties
Washington
Craig Partridge, Federal Agency Liaison, State Representative
Robert Nichols, Senior Executive Policy Assistant, Office of the Governor
Karin Berkholtz, State Representative (Alternate)
Harvey Wolden, Representative of Washington Counties
Albert McKee, Representative of Washington Counties
Tribes
Greg Blomstrom, Planning Forester, CA Indian Forest & Fire Management Council
Travis Britton, Forester, CA Indian Forest & Fire Management Council
Mel Moon, Commissioner, NW Indian Fisheries Commission
David Herrera, Fisheries Manager, NW Indian Fisheries Commission
Bruce Davies, Policy Analyst, NW Indian Fisheries Commission (Alternate)
Jim Anderson, Executive Director, NW Indian Fisheries Commission (Alternate)
Katie Krueger, Environmental Policy Analyst, Quileute Tribe (Alternate)
Gary Morishima, Technical Advisor, Intertribal Timber Council
George Smith, 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)
Mike Crouse, 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
Ed Shepard, Deputy 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 8/1/2000
INTRODUCTIONS, PRESENTATIONS, & INITIAL HOUSEKEEPING MATTERS
Elaine welcomed Steve Odell to the table as the new REO Executive Director. Curt Loop was recognized with a plaque for his very able leadership as acting
REO Executive Director the past 12 months. Letters of Appreciation and plaques were presented to charter Committee members Mel Moon, Gary Morishima,
and Harvey Wolden for their support and efforts on behalf of the Committee and the Northwest Forest Plan. Also, Craig Partridge received a Letter of
Appreciation and plaque for his participation on the Committee since November 1997. Congratulations on his new Tribal Liaison position with the National
Marine Fisheries Service and a much coveted REO plaque were given to Gary Sims for his years in the REO as the Bureau of Indian Affairs agency representative.
A request was made to certify the May 2000 IAC meeting notes. In response, Gary Morishima expressed a concern with the hot topic summary on non-federal
hydropower projects and the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (FERC/ACS) contained in the May notes. Gary said he was concerned that the summary did not
reference a statement that the initial draft FERC/ACS work product would be distributed to IAC members along with the May meeting notes, but instead stated
that the draft would be subjected to further RIEC and agency review prior to IAC distribution. Gary also raised these concerns in a May 18 letter to the REO.
The REO responded with several telephone calls and a June 1 memorandum explaining that the representation about distribution of the draft FERC/ACS work
product to IAC members along with the May meeting notes was due to inadvertent error. In these communications, the REO reaffirmed its commitment to
working closely with the IAC to obtain its input and perspectives on NFP issues, including FERC/ACS. Along these lines, the REO indicated that, as soon as
the necessary RIEC and agency staff review of the initial draft work product was completed, a draft of the FERC/ACS work product would be distributed to
IAC members for review and comment. This occurred on July 14, when the REO sent to IAC members a draft of questions and answers that could establish the
groundwork for agency guidance on using the hydropower licensing process to advance the goals and objectives of the NFP.
Consistent with the foregoing, the final two sentences of the FERC/ACS update, on page 27 of the May 2000 IAC meeting notes, have been amended to read as
follows:
During the meeting, it was inadvertently misrepresented that the draft work product would be distributed to IAC members along with these meeting notes.
In fact, the draft was still in need of further RIEC and internal agency review before distribution to IAC. Following completion of this additional review,
the REO circulated the draft FERC/ACS work product to IAC members for review on July 14 and requested that comments be provided to the REO by
August 14, 2000.
Absent any further objection, the May 2000 meeting notes, as amended consistent with the above, will be considered certified. The REO regrets the inadvertent
misstatement and any confusion it has caused, and appreciates the opportunity to clarify the IAC meeting notes in this regard.
SUMMARY NOTES FOR HOT TOPICS FROM THE AUGUST 3, 2000 IAC
MEETING
PAC-Hosted IAC Meeting - Curt Loop Litigation Update - Judge Rothstein Ruling - Mike Tehan
Potential Status Reports for the November 2 IAC Meeting
ISSUE SUMMARY
Meeting Date: August 3, 2000 REO Contact/Phone: Dave Busch, 503-808-2192 Topic: Effectiveness Monitoring of Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems - Briefing on Plan Strategy
Issue Statement: The objective was to brief the RIEC on Aquatic-Riparian Effectiveness
Monitoring Plan (AREMP) strategy, the Plan development and approval process, and steps being
taken to facilitate AREMP implementation. The research agency executives anticipate having a final
draft of the Plan available for distribution to the RIEC and IAC by mid-August and suggested that
the RIEC offer to facilitate the convening of an IAC subcommittee meeting on the draft Plan. This
subcommittee meeting would be scheduled for mid-September, in advance of the time when written
comments on the final draft Plan would be due. The Plan will then be revised by the AREMP
workgroup prior to presenting a final recommended version to the RIEC for approval. The IAC will
be informed of the decision, tentatively at their November meeting.
Summary of Discussion: The final draft Plan recommends a minimum of 2 years for pilot testing
of the physical habitat monitoring aspects that are central to the recommended strategy. During this
period, uncertainty surrounding sampling design, analyses, and logistical issues will be reduced, and
the most appropriate means of integrating biotic monitoring and monitoring of the implementation
of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy will be evaluated and proposed. As envisioned in the overall
effectiveness monitoring strategy that was previously accepted by the federal executives (PNW-GTR-437), the AREMP strategy anticipates that an incremental series of decisions will be made
based upon pilot testing and early implementation, as well as the resources available for
implementing this monitoring module.
It was discussed and generally agreed that IAC comments on the final draft Plan would be most
useful if they focused on the extent to which the Plan is consistent with IAC's earlier guidance on
AREMP development.
During the discussion of AREMP development, the IAC was reminded that the federal agencies
will be reviewing and revising the final draft Plan and would welcome IAC comments on that Plan
as a part of the IAC review and advice process.
In response to IAC comments that social and economic factors should be part of the monitoring of
aquatic and riparian systems, it was pointed out that an Effectiveness Monitoring module focuses on
socio-economic factors as part of the overall monitoring program under the NFP. Although some
IAC interest in monitoring urban lands was expressed, it was noted that this Plan is designed to
focus primarily on federal forested lands and their condition and management in light of other types
of surrounding land ownerships.
A question was raised about how AREMP relates to other initiatives being undertaken pursuant to
the Clean Water Act, NMFS Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) analyses, and Watershed
Analysis. Although the Plan is primarily designed to respond to the need to monitor the
effectiveness of the NFP and Aquatic Conservation Strategy, it was explained that the AREMP is
consistent with the NMFS-PFC framework, that efforts have been made to coordinate with States
and other federal agencies, and that the Plan generally is expected to mesh fairly well with other
related initiatives.
There was a question about how applicable AREMP would be outside of forested lands of the
Pacific Northwest. The answer indicated that, with some adjustments, the basic framework outlined
in AREMP could be applied to range or agricultural lands.
In response to a question about how many watersheds would be monitored by implementing
AREMP, it was pointed out that the final draft Plan recommends a rotating panel design that would
sample 50 sixth-field watersheds per year and 250 over 5 years, before repeat sampling of the initial
50. The 250 watersheds is estimated to be on the order of 10 percent of the watersheds of this scale
in the NFP area.
Although there are more unaddressed questions about monitoring biota than there are for habitat,
considerable support exists for beginning to monitor stream and upslope environments as
recommended by the final draft Plan. Several comments related to how AREMP appears to provide
a strong foundation that is compatible with EPA's EMAP, FS-Region 5 monitoring, Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality monitoring, and similar programs.
A concern was expressed that there are lots of data available on aquatic and riparian habitats that
might fill the needs of the monitoring program. It was agreed that managing such data is likely to be
a major challenge during the implementation of AREMP.
IAC Agreements: The IAC agreed to the process outlined by the research agency executives for
obtaining IAC advice about AREMP.
RIEC Decisions: We are projecting a RIEC decision on AREMP acceptance between late October
and early November.
Next Steps (who/what/when): IAC members were asked to let the REO Executive Director know
if they have any interest in a subcommittee meeting to discuss AREMP comments and advice. If
such interest is expressed, the REO will facilitate the subcommittee's work. The research
executives will see that the final draft Plan gets distributed for review through the REO by mid-August. Written comments are requested within 1 month following distribution to the IAC.
ISSUE SUMMARY
Meeting Date: August 3, 2000 REO Contact/Phone: Harold Belisle, 503-808-2173 and Shawne Mohoric, 503-808-2175 Topic: Survey and Manage (S&M) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) and
Record of Decision (ROD)
Issue Statement: Update on the S&M SEIS effort and invitation to form an IAC Subcommittee.
Summary of Discussion: Dick Prather provided an update on the S&M SEIS and ROD. The
revised schedule was discussed. Key next steps in that schedule are a Washington, D.C., agency
review scheduled for August 21-25, sending the Final SEIS to the printer so that it is available to the
public in early September, and a decision on the selected alternative by the end of October.
A proposal was outlined for IAC to provide advice to the RIEC on the Final SEIS, in particular
concerning which alternative should be selected. Advance copies of the Final SEIS will be provided
to the IAC with the opportunity for review by and advice from an IAC subcommittee as well as
individual IAC members. Advice from the subcommittee would need to be provided to the RIEC
around October 24 under the currently proposed schedule.
IAC Agreements: The IAC members discussed the process and agreed to form a subcommittee to
provide advice to the RIEC. Also, individual IAC members can provide written advice to the RIEC.
RIEC Decisions: None at this time.
Next Steps (who/what/when): Gary Morishima agreed to chair the subcommittee and Francie
Sullivan agreed to be a member. The REO will facilitate the subcommittee's review and will help
to arrange a meeting of subcommittee members.
ISSUE SUMMARY
Meeting Date: August 3, 2000 REO Contact/Phone: Curt Loop, 503 808-2172 Topic: Process to Obtain Non-federal Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) Advice.
Issue Statement: To develop and agree upon a process to seek and obtain advice from the non-federal IAC members on issues pertaining to implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP).
Summary of Discussion: Utilizing the flowchart contained in the IAC prework package, a proposed
process for obtaining non-federal IAC advice was presented and discussed. Several concerns and
clarifying questions were discussed. Comments at the meeting were collected and the flow chart has
been revised accordingly. Members were requested to provide any additional comments within the
next 30 days, at which time the process flowchart will be further updated.
IAC Agreements: Additional comments of IAC members will be provided to the REO. The
updated process will include a statement of intent clarifying the flexibility in the process and
ensuring that the federal work groups and any non-federal individuals work in a mutually inclusive manner.
RIEC Decisions: None at this point. The RIEC did request that, if non-federal IAC members have
questions about the kind of issues on which it is appropriate to solicit their advice, they provide a list
of issues upon which they would like to provide advice in the coming year. Also, if the proposed
process does not meet their needs, IAC members are asked to propose amendments.
Next Steps (who/what/when): Attached is a revised flow chart that has been amended in response
to comments made during the meeting. The REO will collect IAC comments on the proposed
process as reflected in the enclosed revised flow chart for the next 30 days. Once IAC comments are
received, the proposed process will be revised and distributed again for IAC review.
During this presentation and throughout the entire meeting, several comments were made about non-federal membership on the various work groups; e.g., those addressing Socio-Economic, Tribal, and
Aquatic/Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring. If any IAC member wishes to participate on any of the
work groups, their participation would be welcome and beneficial. IAC members wishing to work
on one of the work groups should contact the REO for additional information.
Curt explained that the invitation for a combined IAC and PAC meeting from the NW Sacramento PAC had been withdrawn. As it stands presently, all PACs
either have expressed no interest in hosting a joint meeting or are apparently not in a position to host such a meeting. Therefore, no further effort will be
expended on this issue at this time.
However, other efforts will continue to sustain the recent improvement in communications between the RIEC/IAC/REO and the PAC/PIECs. Examples of
recent efforts to improve communications are: Several IAC members are participating at PAC meetings; REO reps will continue to attend PAC and PIEC
meetings and brief PAC members on activities of the RIEC/IAC; and copies of correspondence distributed to IAC members is also being provided to the PAC
Designated Federal Officials. PACs wishing to present an issue and be scheduled on an IAC meeting agenda are requested to contact Steve Odell in the REO.
Another alternative is for PACs to invite RIEC or IAC members to their meetings.
California IAC Subcommittee - Curt Loop
Curt explained that the REO has received no further information concerning the California Subcommittee to the IAC. At the May IAC meeting, Maria Rea
agreed to follow up on this initiative. She was not able to attend the August IAC meeting. The issue will be rescheduled for the November IAC meeting.
Forest Service Roadless Area Initiative - Bill Connelly
Bill Connelly gave an update on the Forest Service's Proposed Rule on Roadless Area Conservation. A draft environmental impact statement (EIS) and
proposed rule were released for comment May 10, and the public comment period ran through July 17, 2000. Approximately 450 public meetings were held
nationwide with a total of 25,000 attendees. Currently, public comments are under review and consideration in preparation for a final rule and EIS (expected to
be completed by winter 2000).
Briefly, the proposed rule would:
The PCFFA v. NMFS hearing before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took place on June 8. Kathy Barton of the Department of Justice argued NMFS's case.
The panel consisted of Judges Hug, Goodwin, and Brunetti. Judge Goodwin had previously presided over some of the northern spotted owl litigation, and was
therefore somewhat familiar with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan. By most accounts, the hearing went fairly well for NMFS.
There is no way to know when the court will issue a ruling, although usually it does so within 6 months or so after hearing oral argument.
Currently, the Justice Department is in the process of attempting to negotiate a "Stipulation" with the attorneys for plaintiffs, which would serve as an
agreement between the parties regarding what management actions may proceed pending a ruling from the Ninth Circuit. If such a stipulation is signed by the
parties, it would be filed with the court and bind the parties until the Ninth Circuit rules. The stipulation would not constitute a final "Settlement Agreement,"
as it would not dispose of the issues pending on appeal. It would be only an interim agreement between the parties in order to avoid any additional litigation
against NMFS, FS, and/or BLM pending a ruling from the Ninth Circuit.
Non-Federal Hydropower Projects and the NFP (FERC/ACS) - Steve Morris
The IAC was reminded that the draft work group product addressing Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) consistency for relicensing of existing FERC
projects within the NFP area was circulated for IAC review on July 14 with any responsive comments requested by August 15. A question arose about whether
there was to be a substantive discussion of the July 14 memo during the meeting. In response, it was explained that IAC members could provide substantive
input by formation of an IAC subcommittee, participation on the FERC/ACS work group, and/or individual comments.
Final Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) Rule
In regard to EPA's recent TMDL rule, Lance Clark, representing the Oregon Governor's Office, distributed copies of the National Association of State
Foresters and Society of American Foresters report, "A Review of Waterbodies Listed as Impaired by Silvicultural Operations." The report outlines numerous
concerns with EPA's 303(d) Clean Water Act listing of streams that are impaired because of silviculture. This issue will receive further review as EPA and the
States develop future 303(d) listings and jointly work with affected interests on a TMDL rule for silvicultural operations.
Tribal Monitoring - Dan McKenzie
Dan briefly summarized the major findings of the just-completed Tribal Monitoring pilot study report. Gary Morishima indicated that the report is under
review by the Intertribal Timber Council (ITC) and has not yet been accepted by the ITC. It was suggested that the IAC Tribal Monitoring subcommittee aid in
evaluating the pilot results and provide guidance for further Tribal Monitoring Module development and implementation. It is anticipated that a proposed
course of action and schedule will be presented for further development of the Tribal Monitoring Module at a future IAC meeting, perhaps as soon as
November 2000. The presentation will address the key steps, reviews, and decisions that are needed to complete module development.
Potential Agenda Topics for the November 2 IAC Meeting
Potential Hot Topics for the November 2 IAC Meeting
Handouts:
Announcement of Jon Martin, Program Manager, Interagency Regional Monitoring Team
Aquatic/Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Plan IAC Briefing Paper
FS Roadless Area Construction pamphlet
FS Roadless Area Construction pamphlet summary
IAC Meeting Goals
IAC August Meeting Agenda
IAC August Prework Package
IAC May Meeting Notes
IAC Identification List
NFP Proposed Process to Obtain Non-Federal IAC Advice flow chart
Organizational Chart for the NFP
Overheads: NFP Aquatic/Riparian Monitoring Module
PIEC Identification List
REO Telephone Directory
REO Functional Statement Packet
Review of Waterbodies listed as Impaired by Silvicultural Operations, Report by NASF & SAF
RIEC Identification List
Schedule for S&M Final SEIS Steps
Summary, NFP Tribal Monitoring Pilot Study Report
* IAC Meeting * August 3, 2000 * Attendance List *
* Intergovernmental Advisory Committee and Alternates *Name
Title
Agency
Barry, Cindy
Acting Representative
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Britton, Travis
Acting Representative
CA Indian Forest & Fire Mgmt. Council Clark, Lance
Acting Representative
State of Oregon Collopy, Mike
Representative
USGS Biological Resources Division Feigner, Ken
Representative
Environmental Protection Agency Graybeal, Nancy
Acting Representative
Forest Service, R-6 Kupillas, Sue
Acting Representative
Oregon State Counties Loop, Curt
Acting Representative
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers McKee, Al
Acting Representative
Washington State Counties McKenzie, Dan
Acting Representative
Environmental Research Lab, EPA Mills, Tom
Representative
Forest Service, PNW Moon, Mel
Representative
NW Indian Fisheries Commission Morishima, Gary
Representative
Intertribal Timber Council Motanic, Don
Representative
RCERT Odell, Steve
Executive Director
Regional Ecosystem Office Shevock, Jim
Acting Representative
National Park Service Sullivan, Francie
Representative
California State Counties Tehan, Mike
Acting Representative (a.m.)
National Marine Fisheries Service Vigil, Rich
Acting Representative
Natural Resource Conservation Service Zielinski, Elaine
Chairperson
Bureau of Land Management, OR/WA
Belisle, Harold
Representative
Bureau of Land Management Benson, Gary
Research & Monitoring
Forest Service, PNW Busch, Dave
Representative
USGS Biological Resources Division Erwert, Ginger
Administrative Officer
Forest Service Guenther, Dale
GIS Administrator
Forest Service Keough, Ellen
Receptionist
Forest Service Kucera, Linda
Staff Assistant
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Makowski, Tom
Representative
Natural Resources Conservation Service Mohoric, Shawne
Representative
Forest Service Morris, Steve
Representative
National Marine Fisheries Service Renwald, Dave
Acting Representative
Bureau of Indian Affairs Watson, Jay
Representative
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ystad, Laurie
Secretary
Forest Service
* Other Attendees *
Amidon, Barb
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Blakeman, Dave
Forest Service, R-5 Boynton, Jim
Forest Service, R-5 Burel, Patty
Forest Service, R-6 Chen, Glenn
Forest Service, R-6 Davies, Bruce
NW Indian Fish Commission Magill, Robert
Bureau of Land Management Maluski, Ivan
American Lands Alliance McMaster, Kemper
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Nelson, Judy
Bureau of Land Management Phelps, Nancy
Forest Service, WO Prather, Dick
Bureau of Land Management Reeves, Gordie
Forest Service, PNW, Corvallis Roush, Paul
Bureau of Land Management Sims, Gary
Bureau of Indian Affairs So, Khemarith
Northwestern University Zylstra, Stephen
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service