333 SW 1st
P.O. Box 3623
Portland, Oregon 97208-3623
Phone: (503) 326-6265 FAX: (503) 326-6282
Memorandum
Date: November 30, 1995
To: Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members (See distribution list)
From: Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director
Subject: December 1995 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Agenda and Prework
Enclosed are the proposed agenda, agenda topic overviews, and status reports for the December 7 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee meeting. The meeting will be held at the Monarch Hotel, 12566 SE 93rd Avenue, Clackamas, Oregon 97015. You may phone the hotel (503) 652-1515 to make your reservations (request the government rate) and for shuttle service from the airport. The shuttle will take about 20 minutes. If you are driving south on I-205, take Sunnyside Road west, at Exit 14. This is opposite Clackamas Town Center. At the first light (93rd Avenue), take a left. The hotel is the second entrance on the left. We will meet in the Clackamas Room beginning at 9:00 a.m. and ending by 4:15 p.m.
The meeting objectives are:
If you have questions or comments, please contact your agency representative, Gary S. Sims (503) 326-6274, or Linda Kucera (503) 326-6283.
Enclosure
cc:
REO
OFED
565/lak
Date: November 30, 1995
Subject: November IAC Prework Package
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Distribution List
California
Francie Sullivan, Shasta County Supervisor
Terry Gorton, Assistant Secretary, Forestry and Rural Economic Dev., California Resource Agency
Oregon
Rocky McVay, Curry County Commissioner
Paula Burgess, Assistant to the Governor for Natural Resources, Office of the Governor
Washington
Harvey Wolden, Skagit County Commissioner
Amy F. Bell, Deputy Supervisor for Community Relations, WA Dept. of Natural Resources
Bob Nichols, Senior Executive Policy Assistant, Governor's Office (Alternate)
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)
Gary Morishima, Technical Advisor, Intertribal Timber Council
Guy McMinds, Executive Office Advisor, Quinault Indian Nation (Alternate)
Federal Agencies
Michael Collopy, Director, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, National Biological Service
Dennis Fenn, Western Regional Director, National Biological Service
Ken Feigner, Director, Forest and Salmon Management, Environmental Protection Agency
Eugene Andreuccetti, Regional Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Bob Graham, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service (Alternate)
John Lowe, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, R-6
G. Lynn Sprague, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, R-5 (Alternate)
Thomas Murphy, Director, Environmental Research Laboratory, Environmental Protection Agency
Thomas J. Mills, Station Director, Forest Service, PNW
Stan Speaks, Area Director, Portland Area Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Ron Eggers, Assistant Area Director, Portland Area Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs (Alternate)
Ron Jaeger, Area Director, Sacramento Area Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Michael Spear, Regional Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Curt Smitch, Assistant Regional Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
William Stelle, Jr., Regional Director, National Marine Fisheries Service
Hilda Diaz-Soltero, Southwest Regional Director, National Marine Fisheries Service (Alternate)
Jacqueline Wyland, Division Chief, Environ. & Tech. Services, National Marine Fisheries Service (Alternate)
Elizabeth Gaar, Senior Policy Coordinator, National Marine Fisheries Service (Alternate)
Tom Tuchmann, Director, Office of Forestry and Economic Development (Ex Officio)
William Walters, Deputy Field Director, National Park Service
Elaine Zielinski, State Director, Oregon/Washington, Bureau of Land Management
Ed Hastey, State Director, California, Bureau of Land Management (Alternate)
Dave Howell, District Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Ukiah, CA
Possible Agenda Topics for the
December 7, 1995 IAC Meeting
Portland, Oregon -- 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
| TIME | DURATION | POSSIBLE AGENDA TOPICS | PRESENTER |
| 9:00 | 10 min. | Welcome, certify the November meeting notes, and review the December meeting objectives and agenda | Elaine Zielinski & Linda Kucera |
| 9:10 | 30 min. | RCERT/IAC:
- Review and agree on a JPT Charter |
Curt Loop |
| 9:40 | 30 min. | New Information/Adaptive Management Process:
- Update on Rescission Bill analysis |
Don Knowles |
| 10:10 | 20 min. | Proposed IAC Meeting Schedule for 1996:
- Frequency of meetings and proposed dates |
Elaine Zielinski |
| 10:30 | 15 min. | Morning Break | |
| 10:45 | 50 min. | IRICC Vegetation Strike Team Recommendations:
- Present proposed data standards and recommendations for implementation |
Duane Dippon & Chris Cadwell |
| 11:35 | 70 min. | Lunch | |
| 12:45 | 15 min. | Review Today's Meeting Agreements | Don Knowles & Elaine Zielinski |
| 1:00 | 120 min. | FEMAT Presentation | Panel |
| 3:00 | 15 min. | Afternoon Break | |
| 3:15 | 15 min. | Possible Agenda Items for the Next Meeting | Elaine Zielinski |
| 3:30 | 20 min. | Hot Topics | All |
| 3:50 | 20 min. | Public Comment | Linda Kucera |
| 4:10 | 5 min. | Closing Comments | Elaine Zielinski |
| 4:15 | Adjourn | ||
ATOs for December 7, 1995
Status Reports for December 7, 1995
Other Agenda Topics for December 7, 1995
Information to be Provided IAC Members at the December Meeting (Red Folder)
ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW
| TOPIC: Jobs-in-the-Woods/Restoration | REO Contact: Curt Loop |
| Issue Statement:
In an effort to improve the coordination between the ecological and economic parts of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP), the Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC), with advice from the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC), will decide whether or not to establish a Joint Planning Team (JPT), its charter, and to receive nominations in accordance with the planning guidance. | |
| Background:
At the September IAC meeting, a proposal was presented which better links the fulfillment of the ecological and economic objectives of the NFP with local priorities and objectives. During the month of October, several meetings were conducted between Federal, state, tribal, and local committee members involved with implementation of the NFP to discuss this proposal, other options, and plans to achieve the stated objectives. It was agreed at these meetings that a JPT should be formed to formulate mutual plans and activities. At the November IAC meeting, the results of these meetings were presented along with a draft charter for the JPT, a recommendation for the nominating process, and a recommendation for composition of the selection committee. The JPT nomination and selection schedule is:
Since September 1995, the IAC has received presentations and held discussions concerning a proposal to form a JPT to better coordinate the ecological and economic activities of the IAC and RCERT in accomplishing the mutual objectives of the NFP and those of local impacted communities. At the November RCERT meeting, members generally endorsed a process to better link the collective efforts of the IAC and RCERT. However, no specifics of a process were discussed. At the December 6 RCERT meeting, the JPT proposal will be presented and the RCERT will be asked to endorse it, its charter, the nomination process, and the selection committee. The results of the RCERT meeting will be presented at the December 7 IAC meeting. Several IAC members suggested that JPT members should be selected from nominees that are already familiar with NFP goals, implementation structures, and processes. This reflects the fact that the JPT is to be a planning team reviewing proposed outcomes and implications, and then recommending actions to the IAC and RCERT. The process would be significantly slower if new people were included on the JPT. Some members also expect the JPT to be a short-term organization, although the charter is silent on the expected life of the JPT. | |
| Organizational/Funding Implications: Unknown. | |
| REO Staff Proposal:
At the December IAC meeting, the formulation of a JPT and the adoption of its charter be approved in accordance with the previously discussed nomination and selection process. Consideration should be given to scheduling JPT meetings the day before or the day after IAC or RCERT meetings. | |
| ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC:
IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other | |
ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW
| TOPIC: New Information/Adaptive Management Process | REO Contact: Don Knowles |
| Issue Statement:
The REO is to provide a description of the generic process of incorporating new information and describe how it will be addressed in the future (i.e., identify different categories of sources of new information and link that with the level of review/approval that would be required as an illustration to the IAC). | |
| Background:
At the November IAC meeting, the REO presented an overview of the issues concerning future response to and the incorporation of new information. The presentation included two discussion papers: Discussion Paper 1: Adaptive Management Process for Identification, Evaluation and Assessment of New Information Relevant to the Northwest Forest Plan; and Discussion Paper 2: Implementation of the ROD/Changes to Standards and Guidelines. The REO stated at the November meeting it would present examples of the types of activities/inform-ation that would: a) be brought to the attention of the IAC, b) not be brought before the IAC, and c) be reviewed on case-by-case basis to determine the best response. | |
| Analysis: The ROD does not reference the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC). The
Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) as described in the ROD (ROD, E-16) predated
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) lawsuit. For the purposes of this and subsequent
papers, the membership and roles of IAC and the RIEC are defined in the Intergovernmental Advisory
Committee Charter. The purpose of the IAC, as expressed in the Charter, is to "advise the RIEC on
intergovernmental coordination regarding implementation" of the ROD. In that regard, the IAC
advises (including making recommendations to) the RIEC. The RIEC provides the essential
interagency forum for agreeing on future action. The RIEC coordinates and ensures consistency
between decisions on future actions of the NFP. Decisions are implemented by individual RIEC
members acting as Regional Federal Executives, using statutory authority. The REO is staff to the
RIEC and, in that role, is staff to the IAC to help the IAC provide the highest quality advice possible.
In the process of developing advice by the IAC, the RIEC may involve the IAC in analyses of some potential changes to Standards and Guidelines. Alternatively, for some issues (such as those involving sensitive litigation issues), the Federal agencies may independently conduct such analyses and seek IAC advice at an appropriate time. The following are examples of how new information issues would be processed: 1. In general, things that are interagency or intergovernmental in nature or that are major in scope or geographic impact will be the topic of IAC advice and RIEC agreement. For example, the following would likely be changes to Standards and Guidelines and therefore involve review and decision by RIEC after advice and recommendation by IAC: Periodic assessments of the NFP that would be expected to occur on a regular schedule (perhaps every 3 to 5 years) and involve a comprehensive review of all relevant experience, data, and management decision changes. An interagency group, with facilitation by the REO, could review agency and other actions during the previous 3 to 5 years that cumulatively might effect NFP assumptions or suggest changes. | |
|
On-going specific subject reviews by Federal agencies, which identify specific information and issues. Individual agencies would be responsible for introducing focused reviews to the interagency/intergovernmental process, through the REO/PIEC. New information possibly affecting NFP assumptions which may be surfaced by a variety of sources, both public, and private. This could include scientific information or policy changes from another governmental entity (e.g., if a state changes how watersheds are identified). An interagency group, including appropriate IAC subcommittees, facilitated through the REO could be established to review the relevance of such information. Implementation experience, including monitoring, possibly affecting NFP assumptions. This could include both practical and scientific information arising from such experiences as adaptive management, development of provincial plans that challenge Standards and Guidelines based on particular experience (e.g., wide-spread disease epidemics requiring provincial-wide responses), etc. Agencies or PIEC/PACs would usually surface such information through agency channels. Legislative or regulatory changes possibly affecting NFP assumptions. The REO will facilitate interagency reviews and analysis. 2. In general, things that are single agency in nature or that are minor in scope or geographic impact may not be issues that are changes to Standards and Guidelines that need to involve the IAC or RIEC. The following are examples of information or actions that would not routinely be submitted to RIEC for review and not to the IAC for advice. In some cases, the REO would have the responsibility to review the proposal. Riparian Reserve boundary adjustments, based on watershed analysis and developed through the NEPA process. This would be implemented at the province, district, or watershed level. Changing salvage Standards and Guidelines in LSRs. Assessments are forwarded to agency Issue Resolution Teams (IRT) for review. The IRT forwards to the REO, which reviews and issues a "finding" memorandum back to the agency. Copies of the finding are provided to the IAC. Proposed adjustments in multiple-use activities beyond a forest level would follow the same procedure, except that the IAC may be asked for advice to review the findings prior to any adjustments. Standards and Guidelines developed for Adaptive Management Area (AMAs), which may be modified based on site-specific analysis, and are developed to meet objectives of the AMA overall strategy. This would require coordination with the REO. 3. Examples of categories of activities/new information which would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in order to determine the appropriate level of review. Changes in survey and manage species categories. The REO will review the proposed change, compare it with the ROD and past approved actions, and determine if it should be referred (with recommendations) to the RIEC and to the IAC for advice. Specific LSR activities that by ROD direction require REO action. The REO would evaluate the proposal, and determine whether or not it should be presented to the RIEC for action, or if the REO could dispose of the matter. | |
| REO Staff Proposal:
1. The IAC concur with the generic process for adaptive management, including the general categorization of responses to new information/changing conditions. | |
| ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC:
IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other: Review and adopt | |
333 SW 1st
P.O. Box 3623
Portland, Oregon 97208-3623
Phone: (503) 326-6265 FAX: (503) 326-6282
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Memorandum
Date: -------
To: Regional Ecosystem Office (REO)
From: Regional Interagency Executive Committee
Subject: Roles and Processes in Adaptive Management
The Northwest Forest Plan (NFP), in general, amends existing Forest Service (FS) plans, and was incorporated into Bureau of Land Management (BLM) plans with additional land allocations and Standards and Guidelines. The concept of adaptive management was specifically incorporated into the Standards and Guidelines, to be implemented for the purposes of maximizing their benefits and efficiencies (ROD, E-13). It is a continuous process of planning, monitoring, researching, evaluating, and adjusting with the objective of improving NFP implementation and achieving the goals of the Standards and Guidelines (ROD, E-12). In this process, "new information" is identified/evaluated and a determination is made whether to adjust the strategy or goals of the NFP. Agencies have retained the ability to use statutory authority to modify or amend Standards and Guidelines, as incorporated into individual land management plans.
For the NFP to be fully successful, it is critical to have the ability to remain flexible in the evaluation and response to new information. If adjustments to the NFP are determined to be required, the NFP includes a process by which the RIEC will consider adjustments.
The ROD does not reference the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC). The Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) as described in the ROD (ROD, E-16) predated the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) lawsuit. For the purposes of this and subsequent papers and discussions, the membership and roles of IAC and the RIEC are as defined in the IAC Charter. The purpose of the IAC, as expressed in the Charter, is to "advise the RIEC on intergovernmental coordination regarding implementation" of the ROD. In that regard, the IAC advises (including making recommendations to) the RIEC. The RIEC provides the essential interagency forum for agreeing on future actions. The RIEC coordinates and ensures consistency between decisions on future actions of the NFP. Decisions are implemented by individual RIEC members acting as Regional Federal Executives, using statutory authority. The Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) is staff to the RIEC and in that role is staff to the IAC to help the IAC provide the highest quality advice possible.
REO (DRAFT) 2
In the process of developing advice by the IAC, the RIEC may involve the IAC in analyses of some potential changes to Standards and Guidelines. Alternatively, for some issues (such as those involving sensitive litigation issues), the Federal agencies may independently conduct such analyses and seek IAC advice at an appropriate time.
The following are examples of how new information issues would be processed:
1. In general, things that are interagency or intergovernmental in nature or that are major in scope or geographic impact will be the topic of IAC advice and RIEC agreement. For example, the following would likely be changes to Standards and Guidelines and, therefore, involve review and decision by RIEC after advice and recommendation by IAC:
Periodic assessments of the NFP that could be expected to occur on a regular schedule (perhaps every three to five years) and involve a comprehensive review of all relevant experience, data, and management decision changes. An interagency group, with facilitation by the REO, could review agency and other actions during the previous three to five years that cumulatively might effect NFP assumptions or suggest changes.
On-going specific subject reviews by Federal agencies, which identify specific information and issues. Individual agencies would be responsible for introducing focused reviews to the interagency/intergovernmental process, through the REO/PIEC.
New information possibly affecting NFP assumptions which may be surfaced by a variety of sources, both public and private. This could include scientific information or policy changes from another governmental entity (e.g., if a state changes how watersheds are identified). An interagency group, including appropriate IAC subcommittees, facilitated through the REO could be established to review the relevance of such information.
Implementation experience, including monitoring, possibly affecting NFP assumptions. This could include both practical and scientific information arising from such experiences as adaptive management, development of provincial plans that challenge Standards and Guidelines based on particular experience (e.g., wide-spread disease epidemics requiring provincial-wide responses), etc. Agencies or PIEC/PACs would usually surface such information through agency channels.
Legislative or regulatory changes possibly affecting NFP assumptions. The REO will facilitate interagency reviews and analysis.
2. In general, things that are single agency in nature or that are minor in scope or geographic impact may not be issues that are changes to Standards and Guidelines and that need to involve the IAC or RIEC. The following are examples of information or actions that would not routinely be submitted to RIEC for review and not to the IAC for advice. In some cases, the REO would have the responsibility to review the proposal.
REO (DRAFT) 3
Riparian Reserve boundary adjustments, based on watershed analysis and developed through the NEPA process. This would be implemented at the province, district, or watershed level.
Changing salvage Standards and Guidelines in LSRs. Assessments are forwarded to agency Issue Resolution Teams (IRT) for review. The IRT forwards to the REO, which reviews and issues a "finding" memorandum back to the agency. Copies of the finding are provided to the IAC. Proposed adjustments in multiple-use activities beyond a forest level would follow the same procedure, except that the IAC may be asked for advice prior to any adjustments.
Standards and guidelines developed for Adaptive Management Areas (AMA), which may be modified based on site-specific analysis, and are developed to meet objectives of the AMA overall strategy. This would require coordination with the REO.
3. Examples of categories of activities/new information which would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in order to determine the appropriate level of review.
Changes in survey and manage species categories. The REO will review the proposed change, compare it with the ROD and past approved actions, and determine if it should be referred (with recommendations) to the RIEC and to the IAC for advice.
Specific LSR activities that by ROD direction require REO action. The REO would evaluate
the proposal, and determine whether or not it should be presented to RIEC for action, or if the
REO could dispose of the matter.
ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW
| TOPIC: Proposed IAC Meeting Schedule for 1996 | REO Contact: Don Knowles |
| Issue Statement:
Discuss and agree on the proposed frequency of IAC meetings and dates for 1996. | |
| Background:
The following dates are the first Thursday of every other month except for June (meet May 29-30) and October (meet September 26 to avoid meeting the first week of the new fiscal year). With the exception of the May 29-30 meeting, all other meetings will be scheduled for Portland. | |
| Analysis and Options:
Proposed dates:
| |
| Organizational/Funding Implications: N/A | |
| REO Staff Proposal: Adopt the proposed frequency of IAC meetings and dates. | |
| ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC:
IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other: Review and adopt | |
ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW
| TOPIC: Vegetation Data Standards | REO Contact: Tim Quinn |
| Issue Statement:
Should the vegetation data standards and implementation steps be approved? | |
| Background:
Land management organizations require the ability to share data and have common vegetation standards in order to provide the landscape-wide inter-organizational ownership view needed for ecosystem management. Agencies independently spend considerable time and money collecting information which cannot be easily shared. During the FEMAT and SEIS efforts considerable costs were incurred interpreting and combining agencies data to provide the region-wide view needed for planning. It was recognized at that time that agencies should invest in building standards and compatible data sets in the future. The RIEC approved the development of interagency vegetation and hydro/fish data standards, and a pilot process for development of data standards during their December 1, 1994, meeting. At that time IRICC agreed to report back on the status of efforts to define basic data standards and make recommendations for further implementation. Vegetation needs were identified through a formal information needs assessment survey of the pilot watershed analysis efforts and personal interviews of resource specialists from throughout the region by the Vegetation Strike Team. Criteria were developed to focus the wide array of information currently being used in watershed analysis into a set of basic, highly used, core elements. The results of the Strike Team findings were summarized in their report, "Interagency Vegetation Information: Data Needs, Standards, and Implementation Next Steps." The team distributed 500 copies of the report on June 1, 1995, for review and comment. A voting form was included for reviewers to indicate their degree of endorsement, level of need, and recommendations for implementation next steps. A Data Coordination Team (DCT) comprised of one representative from each agency and province had primary responsibility for coordinating comment and review within their organizations. Approximately 120 voting forms were returned from a diverse representation of agencies, levels within agencies, and the private sector. The team proposed core standards for Canopy Cover, Forest Canopy Structure, Tree Overstory Size Class, Species, Stand Year of Origin, Potential Vegetation, and Plot Locations. The team also proposed next action items for building the GIS coverage of these elements across the Northwest Forest Plan region. A subset of the DCT reviewed the voting forms to determine consensus and distill recommendations for IAC. The results of this review were sent out to the full DCT for a final opportunity for input before final recommendations are presented to IAC. | |
| Analysis and Options:
Continue Present Course of Action: Continue with current independent disjointed efforts to collect and classify data concerning vegetation. Agencies independently spend considerable time and money collecting information. This data cannot be easily shared and does not provide the landscape-wide interagency-ownership view needed for ecosystem management. | |
| Analysis and Options: (Continued)
Adopt a Core Set of Agreements: Implement a core set of agreements that move us towards establishing common vegetation data coverage. These are obvious steps that can provide immediate benefits and in most instances the costs associated with conducting these activities represents reallocating existing subject matter specialists efforts among competing priorities.
Commit to Continued Discussion of Longer Term Product Development: Developing existing and potential vegetation maps, as well as permanent plots entails considerable commitment and planning. Further discussion is required to assess resources needed to achieve the following three objectives.
| |
REO Staff Proposal:
| |
| ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC:
IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other: Review and Adopt | |
ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW
| TOPIC: FEMAT Presentation | REO Contact: Don Knowles |
| Issue Statement:
Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) Report presentation made at the November 7, 1995, At the Crossroads of Science, Management, and Policy--a review of bioregional assessments conference. | |
| Background:
The FEMAT was an undertaking of incredible complexity, proportion, and importance. It was (at the time) unparalleled in this regard in the Pacific Northwest--certainly with respect to Federal forestry. It included key elements of science, management, and policy, focusing almost exclusively on management strategies for Federal lands of the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park Service. The FEMAT presentation will give IAC members an opportunity to review the basis for the Northwest Forest Plan personally with a number of direct participants in the FEMAT process. This overview will help us focus on key implementation issues in the year ahead. Presenters: Folks who took part in the FEMAT Report and will be with us to answer questions: | |
| Analysis and Options: N/A | |
| Organizational/Funding Implications: N/A | |
| REO Staff Proposal: N/A | |
| ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC: N/A
IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other: Review and adopt | |
Potential Future Agenda Items
Potential Future Status Reports
STATUS REPORT
| TOPIC: Riparian Reserve Evaluation Methods for Section II of the Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis (Guide). | REO Contacts:
Mike Tehan, Ranotta McNair |
| Background:
The following agreements were reached at the November IAC meeting:
| |
| Status/Update:
The Riparian Reserve technical team includes the technical expertise identified by the IAC. John Applegarth - Amphibians/Molluscs Richard Holthausen - Wildlife Biology The team met in Corvallis on November 8 and 9 to plan their activities, including the specific tasks and schedules for team members. A week-long team meeting was held from November 27 through December 1, including sessions with the FEMAT and ROD authors of the Riparian Reserve system and research scientists who reviewed these two documents. The results of these meetings will be used by the team to begin drafting analysis methods and techniques for Riparian Reserves in accordance with previous direction from the IAC. | |
Status Report
| TOPIC: IAC Performance Review | REO Contact: Gary S. Sims |
| Background:
At the first meeting of the IAC, all members of the committee identified issues/concerns that were key to their participation. That meeting was in March 1995, 9 months ago. This is an opportunity to examine the identified issues: 1) to reconfirm that these are the pertinent issues, and 2) to assess if the activities of the REO in response to these issues/concerns are on track. This is also an opportunity to evaluate the performance of the IAC in meeting the identified issues. There were 46 original comments which were lumped into the following categories: Communication/collaborate/cooperate (16 responses), Ecosystem restoration/management (9), Implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) (6), Use of science in implementation of the NFP analysis/monitoring (6), Watershed restoration/Jobs-in-the-Woods (5), and Economic considerations (4). | |
| Status/Update:
At the November 2, 1995, IAC meeting the committee members were given a memorandum asking for their individual assessments relating to "five topical areas." Specifically, the members were asked for responses to:
On November 8, the IAC meeting notes were distributed. The summarization of the "IAC Performance Review" stated that the list of IAC member interests was previously distributed and it was agreed that the members would use the interests as the basis to evaluate how well the IAC was performing. Comments, requested by November 13, were to be summarized and distributed prior to the December meeting. The notes concluded with the statement that if no significant comments were received the "IAC Performance," as an agenda topic, may be deferred until an early 1996 meeting. | |
| We received three responses concerning two general areas. A summarization follows.
Communication/collaboration. There is a general agreement that cooperation/communication have improved over time with the expectation that they will continue to improve. However, there is some concern that implementing Federal agencies still view increased communication/collaboration requirements as impediments to meeting their individual agency goals. This may create tension between the Federal agencies and their desire to "get the job done," and the historical experiences of the non-Federal member organizations which have not always been positive.
| |
In addition to the comments concerning IAC performance, the three commenters offered their views on a
number of other topics. They are summarized here for the committee's information.
[By way of response, the new information/adaptive management process memorandum should address these comments.]
[This item is included in the agenda for discussion.]
[This table is in your red folder.]
[This topic is being analyzed and a proposed policy will be included in the in your red folder.] Given this discussion, we will defer this topic until it needs to be rescheduled as an agenda topic for discussion by the IAC. | |
STATUS REPORT
| TOPIC: Implementation & Effectiveness Monitoring | REO Contact: Dan McKenzie |
| Background:
Implementation: Following the revised approach to implementation monitoring that was initiated following the July meeting, the efforts continue to focus on the FY 1995 timber sales for the initial reviews and reporting. Effectiveness: Following the presentation and guidance from the October meeting, we have been moving forward to implement the recommendations. The agreement was to identify a project leader and "senior" team to move forward on the further development of the effectiveness monitoring issues and plans, as well as develop explicit guidance for integrating Regional/Provincial scale with watershed scale monitoring. | |
| Status/Update:
Implementation: The task of identifying FY 1994/95 sales (sales that are covered by Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines) and selection of a 10% sample for review (43 sales) has been completed. Of the 43 sales, nearly all the provinces are included, and are in matrix, LSR, and AMA land allocations. Procedures and guidelines for conducting the reviews are in final draft. An initial field review was rescheduled for Jan 9 - 10 following conflicts with the temporary furlough situation. Following this initial review, the procedures and guidelines will be finalized and the reviews of the 43 sales scheduled. Three organizations (R5, R6, and BLM) have assigned staff to coordinate the reviews. IAC members, or their staff, interested in participating as members of the review teams should contact Dan McKenzie, RMC/REO. Effectiveness: Agreement has been reached for Barry Noon (FS/PSW) to lead the senior work group, and efforts to identify and gain commitment of additional participants continues. Initial workshop sessions will be scheduled in January. NBS staffer, Jim Coyle, has been assigned to RMG to work specifically on the inventory of current monitoring being conducted on Federal lands. That task is scheduled to have a monitoring program database and report in March. The PNW has made a number of funding decisions and is in the process of implementing several tasks to support effectiveness monitoring. BLM and PNW are exploring a cooperative arrangement to provide two full-time staff to the effectiveness monitoring work group. Tom Mills, the new PNW Station Director, has meet with the RMG and REO and is quickly engaging the issues. | |
STATUS REPORT
| TOPIC: FY 1996 Major Activities | REO Contact: Don Knowles |
| Background:
A list of major activities was distributed for FY 1996 at the November meeting of the IAC. These activities include the key steps needed to continue implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan. They will also be used to select future IAC agenda items. | |
| Status/Update:
The IAC was asked for suggestions or comments by November 13. Our only commenter asked for a comparison between our IAC member interests and our FY 1996 priorities. Absent additional comments, we will move forward to implement these priorities in FY 1996. | |