Regional Ecosystem Office
333 SW 1st
P.O. Box 3623
Portland, Oregon 97208-3623
Website: www.reo.gov
Phone: 503-808-2165 FAX: 503-808-2163
Memorandum
Date: February 23, 2001
To:
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members (See Distribution List)
From: Stephen J. Odell, Executive Director
Subject: Notes from February 2001 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting
Enclosed please find notes summarizing the discussion and decisions from the meeting of the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) on February 1,
2001. In particular, the notes provide issue summaries on the following agenda topics that were addressed during the meeting:
I would call your attention to two items in the enclosed notes in particular on which near-term follow-up opportunities are provided. First, as noted in the issue
summary for IAC's preliminary advice on the RIEC/REO coordination/review process, at the close of the discussion on this topic at the meeting REO agreed to
process the views expressed during the meeting and provide IAC members with a draft of the major points of preliminary IAC advice within 30 days. The
REO has completed this task, which is reflected in bulletized lists of advisory points contained in the summary. IAC members are asked to review the draft
list provided in the issue summary and provide any suggestions for changes to the REO within 3 weeks, or by March 16, 2001.
Second, the issue summary for IAC's Advisory Process and Operating Principles includes a list of principles that has been revised slightly from the list that was
presented during the meeting in an effort to respond to the discussion and recommendations made during the meeting. As noted in the issue summary, if no
objections are forthcoming to the revised set of IAC operating principles as set forth in the summary, they will be considered to be approved by the
IAC.
The notes also provide succinct written synopses for each of the hot topics that was covered during the meeting. These hot topics include updates on NFP-related litigation and the 3d-year evaluation to be released soon by the BLM. Also included is a notation of status reports on which committee members asked
questions as well as several housekeeping matters taken care of during the meeting.
On a more personal note, at the outset of the meeting we recognized recently retired Ken Feigner and celebrated the many valuable contributions he made
during 37 years of Federal service, and particularly his assistance to the IAC and RIEC in resolving many complex issues of importance to the successful
implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan. We also welcomed Bernie Weingardt, the new Deputy Regional Forester for Region 5 of the Forest Service
(California).
Finally, as a reminder, the next IAC meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 3, 2001, in Portland. Details about location and an agenda will be sent to you in
the pre-work materials for the meeting. If you have any questions or concerns with respect to the enclosed notes, please do not hesitate to contact me, your
REO liaison, or REO Facilitator Kath Collier (503-808-2179).
Enclosures:
Notes from February 2001 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting
NFP Guidelines for Obtaining Non-Federal IAC Advice (as approved by IAC)
cc:
REO, PAC DFOs
1615/kc
Mary Nichols, CA Resource Agency, State Representative
Maria Rea, CA Resource Agency (Alternate)
Francie Sullivan, Representative of CA Counties
Oregon
Peter Green, Forest Policy Advisor, State Representative
Lance Clark, Resource Analyst, State Rep. (Alternate)
Rocky McVay, Representative of Oregon Counties
Washington
Robert Nichols, Senior Exe. Policy Assistant, State Rep.
Karin Berkholtz, State Representative (Alternate)
Albert McKee, Representative of WA Counties
Tribes
Travis Britton, Forester, CA Indian Forest & Fire Mgmt Council
David Herrera, Fisheries Mgr, NW Indian Fisheries Commission
Bruce Davies, Policy Analyst, NW Indian Fisheries Com. (Alt)
Jim Anderson, Exec. Director, NW Indian Fisheries Com. (Alt)
Katie Krueger, Envir. Policy Analyst, Quileute Tribe (Alt)
George Smith, Intertribal Timber Council
Guy McMinds, Exec Office Advisor, Quinault Nation (Alt)
Eric Hanson, Assoc Director, Yakama Nation (Alt)
RCERT Ex Officio
Don Motanic, Technical Specialist, Intertribal Timber Council
Updated 2/15/2001
Federal Agencies
Anne Badgley, Regional Dir, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Michael Spear, CA/NV Op Office Mgr, FWS
John D. Buffington, Regional Dir, USGS Western Region
Michael Collopy, Center Dir, USGS Western Region (Alt)
Col. Randall J. Butler, Dist Engr, U.S. Army Corps of Engrs
Davis Moriuchi, Dep Dist Commander, U.S. Corps of Engrs
Donna Darm, Acting Reg Adm, National Marine Fisheries Ser
Mike Crouse, Acting Asst. Reg Adm, NMFS (Alt)
Dave Powers, Environmental Protection Agency
Harv Forsgren, Regional Forester, Forest Service, R-6
Nancy Graybeal, Deputy Regional Forester, FS, R-6
Brad Powell, Regional Forester, FS, R-5
Bernie Weingardt, Deputy Regional Forester, FS , R-5
Bob Graham, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Thomas J. Mills, Station Director, Forest Service, PNW
Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, Western Ecology Division, EPA
Robert Lackey, Western Ecology Division, EPA (Alt)
Stan Speaks, Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Dave Renwald, Portland Area Office, BIA (Alt)
Ron Jaeger, Area Director, Sacramento Area Office, BIA
William Walters, Deputy Regional Director, National Park Service
Kathy Jope, Natural Resources Team Leader, NPS
Jim Shevock, Associate Regional Director, NPS (Alt)
Elaine Zielinski, State Director, OR/WA, Bureau of Land Mmgt
Ed Shepard, Deputy State Director, OR/WA, BLM
Michael Pool, State Director, CA, BLM (Alt)
Paul Roush, Wildlife Biologist, BLM, Arcata, CA
Welcome and Introductions. IAC Chair Harv Forsgren officially welcomed attendees and opened the meeting. Harv reviewed the goals of the meeting and the agenda.
He also welcomed the new Deputy Regional Forester from Region 5, Bernie Weingardt, and recognized, along with other committee members, the many valuable
contributions to NFP implementation made by Ken Feigner, recently retired from the Environmental Protection Agency after 37 years of Federal service. Self-introductions by IAC attendees followed.
Certification of Previous Meeting's Notes. A request was made to certify the November 2000 IAC meeting notes. No objections having been made, the notes were so
certified.
Public Comment Period. A period for public comments was provided for in the agenda and at the meeting. No requests to make any comments were received and no
public comments were offered during the meeting.
| Meeting Date: February 1, 2001 |
| REO Contact/Phone: Curt Loop (503-808-2172) |
| Topic: Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) Advisory Process & Operating Principles |
| Issue Statement: To agree upon a process to seek, obtain, and integrate advice from non-Federal IAC members on issues relevant to NFP implementation and a set of IAC operating principles |
| Summary of Discussion: Curt Loop of the REO presented a final proposed process for soliciting and
taking into account non-Federal IAC members' advice on topics under consideration by the Federal
agencies and Regional Interagency Executive Committee. Curt explained that the process had been
revised in response to recommendations made during the November 2000 IAC meeting, when an
earlier iteration of the process was presented for IAC consideration, as well as to incorporate minor
changes to bring the process into conformity with IAC operating principles that were also discussed at
the November meeting. IAC members generally offered favorable comments on the revised process,
did not recommend further modifications, and approved the process as presented at the meeting. A
copy of the revised version of the process, as presented and approved by the full IAC, is enclosed. IAC Chair Harv Forsgren then covered a proposed set of 10 principles to guide future IAC discussions and operations that had been gleaned and synthesized from a larger set of expectations and principles arising from a series of small group discussions during the November 2000 IAC meeting. Harv covered each principle and gave examples of how each would be used in committee discussions. A few minor suggested changes were offered to the proposed set of principles. The principles, in no particular order, and as revised slightly in light of the comments made during the meeting, are set forth below. Revisions from the set of principles as presented during the meeting are reflected in italics.
|
| IAC Actions: The IAC approved the process for soliciting and integrating non-Federal members' advice for RIEC deliberations or work group operations as presented during the meeting. The committee also made three recommendations for minor changes (which are reflected in the revised set of principles above) to the set of proposed IAC operating principles that was presented at the meeting. |
| Next Steps (who/what/when): The REO will inform PACs and all relevant work groups of the approved process for involving non-Federal participants and soliciting and integrating IAC advice in their efforts. In addition, if no objections are made to the revised set of IAC operating principles set forth above, they will be considered to be approved by the IAC. As finally approved, the principles will be posted at future IAC meetings (although quite possibly in an abbreviated form). |
To further help frame IAC's crafting of advice, Steve summarized four major issues (and related
sub-issues) on which IAC advice would be particularly useful to the RIEC at this initial stage of
development of a RIEC/REO review process. For each issue, he described an array of potential
models or follow-up questions to help spur the fashioning of a response.
Advice Offered:
Issue #2. What should be the primary focus of the coordination/review?
Advice Offered:
Issue #3. What should be the core standard for any Exemption Criteria?
Advice Offered:
Issue #4. In broad terms, what should be the process for the review/coordination?
Advice Offered:
National Fire Plan Implementation Meeting Feedback: Handouts at February 2001 IAC Meeting:
Meeting Date: February 1, 2001 REO Contact/Phone: Curt Loop (503-808-2172) Topic: Preliminary IAC Advice on REO/RIEC Coordination/Review of Modifications to
Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) Standards & Guidelines or Land-Use Allocations Issue Statement: To present and receive preliminary policy advice from IAC on the manner in
which RIEC and REO should coordinate/review Forest or District Plan amendments that would
modify NFP Standards & Guidelines (S&Gs) or Land-Use Allocations (LUAs) Summary of Presentation & Discussion: Steve Odell began by providing background on the issue
and describing why it was timely for the IAC to address. This background included references to
language in the NFP Record of Decision (ROD) and S&Gs that directly refer to the responsibilities
of the RIEC and REO to coordinate/review proposed amendments that would modify NFP S&Gs or
LUAs. Steve went on to outline some of the key factors relevant to formulating advice on how to
address the matter. These factors are as follows:
Kath Collier then facilitated the division of IAC into four small teams to maximize the opportunity
for each committee member to discuss and explore these issues in depth. An REO representative
was assigned to each team to facilitate a discussion of two of the four focal issues Steve had
presented. The full committee then reconvened and each team presented the main points of their
discussion. Following is a list of the four specific issues on which the teams were asked to focus, an
abbreviated version of the array of potential options or sub-issues, and a synthesized summary (not a
detailed accounting) of the views expressed by the teams and the full committee in the general
follow-up discussion:
Issue #1. What should be the fundamental nature of the coordination/review?
Array of Potential Models:
Array of potential options:
Array of potential options:
Sub-issues:
Next Steps (who/what/when): The REO agreed to process the views expressed during the meeting
and provide IAC members with a draft of the major points of preliminary IAC advice within 30
days. The REO has completed this task, which is reflected in the bulletized lists of advisory points
set forth above. IAC members are now asked to review the draft list above and provide any
suggestions for changes within 3 weeks, or by March 16, 2001. At the same time, the REO is
moving forward with efforts to draft a proposed coordination/review process, and plans to report its
progress at the May 2001 IAC meeting.
Meeting Date: February 1, 2001 REO Contact/Phone: Jay Watson (503-808-2178) Topic: Identification of Potential IAC
Advice Topics for 2001 Issue Statement: To identify, discuss, and secure the priorities of committee members with
respect to potential policy topics on which IAC advice may be sought during the rest of 2001 Summary of Discussion: Steve Odell explained that, at its January 2001 meeting, the RIEC
identified seven potential topics on which it believed soliciting and receiving IAC's advice would
be particularly useful. (The RIEC also selected one of these topics to solicit the IAC's advice on
during the February 2001 IAC meeting, as discussed in detail in the preceding issue summary.)
The RIEC took these steps in an effort to better realize the principle IAC had identified during its
November 2000 meeting of having IAC meetings focus more on substantive discussions and
formulation of advice and less on simple information-sharing.
Steve briefly reviewed the seven potential topics the RIEC had identified and stated that the next
step in the process, to be accomplished during the meeting, was to ascertain IAC's level of interest
in such topics and any other additional topics non-Federal IAC members wished to recommend. In
accordance with this framework, IAC members offered several additional potential topics and then
were asked to indicate which topics they believed had the highest level of interest and would be
most appropriate for discussion at a future IAC meeting by placing one or more "dots" they had
been provided next to the topics on the supplemented list that best met these criteria. Steve also
reminded committee members that, as the process for soliciting and receiving IAC input and advice
that Curt Loop had presented earlier in the meeting demonstrates, there are several different
avenues for addressing and receiving advice on issues of interest to the IAC, not just quarterly
meetings of the full committee.
Set forth below is the list of potential IAC advice topics, as supplemented at the meeting by
recommendations of non-Federal committee members, in priority order based on the number of
"dots" each received. The first tier of six topics in the list received at least ten "dots."
Next Steps (who/what/when): REO will take the input and preferences expressed during the
meeting and return to IAC with information on the status and feasibility of seeking IAC advice
concerning each of the topics on the list above. REO will also prepare a proposal for specific topics
and issues to be addressed during the balance of IAC meetings in 2001.
Meeting Date: February 1,2001 REO Contact/Phone: Steve Morris (503-808-2176) Topic: Implementation Monitoring Long-Term Strategy Issue Statement: To brief IAC on the status of the implementation monitoring program and to
discuss how the IAC could provide advice in the development of a 5-year IM program strategy Summary of Discussion: Jon Martin and Dave Baker of the Interagency Regional Monitoring Team
briefed the IAC on the present status and planned next steps in the IM program, including:
Next Steps (who/what/when): An IAC mid-course check on the Long-Term IM strategy will occur
in August 2001. PAC input will also be sought during the summer of 2001. Presentation of a final
draft of the Long-Term IM Strategy to the IAC should occur by November 2001, and a final proposed
strategy is tentatively planned to be presented to the RIEC for approval in or around February 2002.
Meeting Date: February 1, 2001 REO Contact/Phone: Harold Belisle (503-808-2173) Topic: Update & Feedback on IAC Advice re: Survey & Manage (S&M) Record of Decision (ROD) Issue Statement: To give IAC an update on the recently-signed S&M ROD, including a brief
summary of initial implementation steps and how IAC advice was considered in ROD development Summary of Discussion:
Dick Prather reported that a Record of Decision for Survey & Manage (S&M) and related
amendments to NFP Standards & Guidelines had been signed by both the Secretary of Agriculture
and the Secretary of the Interior as of January 12, 2001. The amendments approved by the ROD are
to go into effect on or about February 12. Briefings for congressional staff were completed the week
of January 22-26. A dry run of the ROD roll-out is set for February 5 in Portland. In addition,
twelve briefings/training sessions for BLM and Forest Service Field Offices are scheduled between
February 12-28. Dick also stated that copies of the printed ROD will be provided to IAC members as
soon as they are received from the printer, which will probably be during the week of February 5.
Steve Odell then briefly presented specific point-by-point feedback on how each major point of
advice provided by the IAC S&M subcommittee was utilized in preparing the ROD, followed by an
opportunity for discussion and any questions. Steve also noted that enclosed in the meeting packets
was a memorandum from IAC Chair Harv Forsgren to the subcommittee expressing appreciation to
the subcommittee's members for their participation and advice, along with an attachment describing
in somewhat more detail how each item of advice was considered in preparation of the ROD. Non-Federal IAC members stated that they were impressed by, and very much appreciated, the specific
responses on how each piece of advice offered by the IAC S&M subcommittee was considered.Next Steps (who/what/when): None necessary or planned at this time.
Update on NFP-Related Litigation
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations v. NMFS (PCFFA III)(W.D. Wash.)
This lawsuit challenges the validity of 20 Biological Opinions that NMFS issued in 1998 and 1999 covering some 170 timber sales and a large number of other
agency actions such as restoration and maintenance projects. The challenge is patterned after an earlier lawsuit by the same parties (PCFFA II) in which Judge
Rothstein, who is also presiding over PCFFA III, ruled that four other NMFS Biological Opinions were invalid. The earlier case is presently on appeal to the
Ninth Circuit. On December 7, 2000, the District Court in PCFFA III issued a preliminary injunction that, as clarified through two subsequent court orders,
has the effect of suspending the 20 challenged Biological Opinions as they pertain to timber sales until the Ninth Circuit rules in PCFFA II.
It was reported during the IAC meeting that, in PCFFA III, the parties had agreed to and filed a Joint Status Report that, among other things, recommended that
the Court stay further proceedings in the case until the Ninth Circuit rules in PCFFA II. In addition, counsel for federal defendants has submitted a notice to
the Ninth Circuit in PCFFA II that provides an update of the district court's actions in PCFFA III, including issuance of the preliminary injunction (and
subsequent clarifying orders). It was further reported that the Ninth Circuit has not yet ruled on the appeal in PCFFA II.
Hanson v. Forest Service (W.D. Wash.)
This lawsuit alleges that the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because they have
not prepared a new Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to analyze allegedly significant new information that has come to light concerning
the northern spotted owl since the agencies prepared the NFP SEIS in 1994. The new information on which plaintiffs premise their NEPA claim includes (1)
the report of a 1999 owl demographic study; (2) the amount of late-successional and old-growth habitat that has been harvested on federal lands since adoption
of the NFP in 1994; and (3) the cumulative effect of the Habitat Conservation Plans covering northern spotted owls on non-federal lands within the NFP area
that have been entered into under the Endangered Species Act since the NFP's adoption.
It was reported at the IAC meeting that oral argument on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment was scheduled for February 7, 2001, in Seattle, and
that a report on the Court's ruling on the motions will be provided at the May 2001 IAC meeting if the Court has issued a ruling by then.
BLM Third-Year Resource Management Plans Evaluation
Elaine Zielinski reported that Oregon BLM had essentially completed the evaluation of land use plans in the NFP area. This evaluation, generally referred to
as the Third-Year Evaluation, is required by the BLM's Land Use Planning Regulations. Elaine pointed out that the period covered by the review is for
September 1995 through September 1998. A 30-day public review period for the evaluations begins the week of February 5. IAC members will receive
copies of the evaluations, one for each of the 6 BLM Districts in the NFP area. The evaluations indicate that amendments to the Resource Management Plans
are not needed based on the analysis of the first 3 years of implementation. BLM would welcome and appreciate IAC review and comment on the evaluations
during the 30-day period.
Questions on Status Reports Were Proffered with respect to the following issues:
In general, IAC members' responses to the meeting were very positive. Members were provided an opportunity to place a "dot" on an archery-like target with
a series of concentric circles to indicate their assessment of how close the meeting came to satisfying their expectations. All dots were placed within the two
inner-most circles (one was actually placed in the very center of the target!), and all but one were all or partially within the very inner-most circle. We
appreciate and are encouraged by the positive feedback, and will strive to continue to meet members' expectations to such a high degree.
* IAC Meeting * February 1, 2001 * Attendance List *
* Intergovernmental Advisory Committee and Alternates *Name
Title
Agency
Badgley, Anne
Representative
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Benson, Gary
Acting Representative
Forest Service, PNW Britton, Travis
Representative
CA Indian Forest & Fire Mgmt. Council Clark, Lance
Representative (Alt.)
State of Oregon Forsgren, Harv
Chairperson
Forest Service, R-6 Graham, Bob
Representative
Natural Resource Conservation Service Green, Peter
Representative
State of Oregon Kirchner, Bill
Acting Representative
Environmental Protection Agency Loop, Curt
Acting Representative
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers McKee, Albert
Representative
Washington State Counties Morris, Steve
Acting Representative
National Marine Fisheries Service Odell, Steve
Executive Director
Regional Ecosystem Office Rea, Maria
Acting Representative
State of California Shevock, Jim
Acting Representative
National Park Service Smith, George
Representative
Intertribal Timber Council Sullivan, Francie
Representative
California State Counties Zielinski, Elaine
Representative
Bureau of Land Management, OR/WA
Belisle, Harold
Representative
Bureau of Land Management Collier, Kath
Facilitator
Bureau of Land Management Erwert, Ginger
Administrative Officer
Forest Service Guenther, Dale
GIS Administrator
Forest Service Kuruc, JoAnn
Receptionist
Forest Service Mabery, Ken
Representative
National Park Service McKenzie, Dan
Representative
EPA Research Mohoric, Shawne
Representative
Forest Service Renwald, Dave
Representative
Bureau of Indian Affairs Ystad, Laurie
Secretary
Forest Service
* Other Attendees *
Baker, Dave
Bureau of Land Management Baker, Rowan
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Feigner, Ken
Retiree, Environmental Protection Agency Geehan, Patrick
Bureau of Land Management Gill, Rob
Umpqua Land Exchange Project Glass, Tom
WLG Martin, Jon
Forest Service, R-6 Knudsen, Monty
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Maluski, Ivan
American Lands Alliance Prather, Dick
Bureau of Land Management Roush, Paul
Bureau of Land Management Weingardt, Bernie
Forest Service, R-5
IAC February 2001 Meeting Agenda
IAC February 2001 Prework Package
IAC November 2000 Meeting Notes
NFP Guidelines for Obtaining Non-Federal IAC Advice Flow Chart
REO Telephone Directory
Re-establishment of the NW Forest Plan Interagency Advisory Committee
Renewal of the NW Forest Plan Provincial Advisory Committees