Regional Ecosystem Office

333 SW 1st
P.O. Box 3623
Portland, Oregon 97208-3623
Phone: 503-326-6265 FAX: 503-326-6282

              Memorandum

Date:     April 10, 1996

To:         Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members (See Distribution List)

From:     Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director

Subject:  April 1996 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting Notes

Enclosed are the notes from the April Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) meeting, including:

The minutes were approved and certified as correct for the April meeting. No one requested time on the agenda to address the committee in the public forum.

Our next IAC meeting is scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday, May 29-30, in Yakima, Washington. A block of rooms has been reserved for the night of Wednesday, May 29 at the Red Lion Inn, Yakima Valley, 1507 N First St., Yakima, Washington. You may phone the motel at 509-248-7850 to make room reservations (request the government rate for the IAC) and for shuttle service to and from the airport. Please make your motel reservations by May 7. A quick check of the flight schedules indicate that most folks could arrive by 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, May 29--let's plan to arrive prepared to start our field trip. The IAC meeting will be on Thursday, May 30 with adjournment in time for folks to make the flights that depart Yakima for Portland, Seattle, and San Francisco between 4:30 and 5:00 p.m.

If you have questions or suggestions, please contact Linda Kucera at 503-326-6283 or your agency representative.

Enclosure

cc: REO

652/lak

Date: April 10, 1996
Subject: April 1996 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting

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
Ken Feigner, Director, Forest and Salmon Group, Environmental Protection Agency
Eugene Andreuccetti, Regional Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Bob Graham, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service (Alternate)
Robert W. Williams, Acting 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
Dave Renwald, Wildlife Biologist, 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)
Elizabeth Holmes Gaar, Habitat Branch Chief, 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)
Paul Roush, Wildlife Biologist, Bureau of Land Management, Arcata, CA

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

ISSUE SUMMARY
Meeting Date: April 4, 1996 REO Contact and Phone: Chris Hamilton 503-326-7133
Topic: IRICC Vegetation Data Standards
Objective:

Approve adoption of a core set of vegetation data standards as developed by the Vegetation Strike Team.

Summary of Discussion/IAC Actions:

The presentation reviewed the efforts of the Vegetation Strike Team to identify the core data standards for vegetation. Discussion was brief and comments indicated a general readiness to accept the vegetation standards as proposed.

IAC Agreements:

The IAC agreed that a core set of data standards is needed to support Northwest Forest Plan implementation. Consensus was reached to recommend RIEC adopt the core data standards for vegetation as presented and discussed in December.

RIEC Decisions:

The RIEC approved the recommendation that the agencies adopt the core set of vegetation data standards.

Follow-up Actions (who/what/when):

The executives asked that the Vegetation Strike Team continue to staff out implementation options and cost estimates and make a presentation at the IAC meeting in May.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

ISSUE SUMMARY
Meeting Date: April 4, 1996 REO Contact and Phone: Mike Tehan 503-326-6276
Topic:

Riparian Reserve Evaluation Methods for Section II of the Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis

Objectives:
  • Report on the status of the Riparian Reserve Technical Team (Technical Team) and their draft Riparian Reserve Delineation Module.
  • Discuss policy questions raised by the Watershed Analysis Policy Group (Policy Group) at their April 3 meeting.
  • Provide direction to the Technical Team on additional topics to address when they revise the module, as suggested by the Policy Group.
  • Reach agreement on the schedule to complete the module.
Summary of Discussion/IAC Actions:
  • A variety of opinions were expressed on the two policy issues of whether the module should be required in all cases and whether it should establish standard requirements for all Riparian Reserve changes.
    • Some members suggested that in order to reflect the importance of Riparian Reserves and the need for a standard process for surety and accountability, the module should be required for all watershed analyses and/or for all Riparian Reserve adjustments.
    • Some thought it would be premature to require the module for all watershed analyses or to establish standards for all Riparian Reserve adjustments until it had been redrafted and reviewed again.
    • Some thought that the decision to require the module or to set standards should be deferred until the next iteration of the module had been "field tested" on a trial basis by watershed analysis teams and level 1 consultation teams, and the results reported back to the IAC.
  • Several members expressed concerns as to whether it was prudent or even possible to develop a module that would be adequate or that should be required in all watersheds across the region. These concerns were related both to the scientific capability to do so and the desire to retain flexibility to address local watershed conditions and local coordination fora (e.g., PACs).
  • The "legal guidance" (page 4 and Appendix A) and associated policy constraints were discussed.
    • Some agreed with the guidance that the interim reserves could be extended to achieve aquatic objectives, but not solely for achieving terrestrial species objectives.
    • Some disagreed with the guidance, stating instead that decision makers should be able to use the analysis results to extend Riparian Reserve boundaries solely to accomplish terrestrial species objectives.
    • It was noted that regardless of the interpretation, the "legal guidance" and related policy constraints were "out-of-place" in a module of analysis methods and techniques.
  • The subject of local decision maker accountability was discussed. Some wanted to ensure that adequate justification was provided in the NEPA process for Riparian Reserve adjustments by addressing the pertinent riparian (aquatic and terrestrial) objectives and linking decisions to analyses at the watershed and site scales.
  • The group expressed interest in having the REO track and report on the various approaches used by the implementing agencies to adjust Riparian Reserves over the next 6 months.
IAC Agreements:
  • The Technical Team should proceed with the review process and produce another draft of the module for review by IAC members. In carrying out this direction, the Technical Team should:
    • Delete the legal guidance section from the module (page 4 and Appendix A).
    • Address the "Additional Issues" identified at the Watershed Policy Group meeting:
      1. Clarify linkage to the 6 step process in Section I of the Guide.
      2. Provide additional guidance on management activities (appropriate and inappropriate) within Riparian Reserves.
      3. Improve linkage between watershed and site scale analysis.
      4. Incorporate additional risk analysis process (to be provided by IAC reviewers).
      5. Improve linkage to discussion of nonfederal lands and tribal interests in Section I of the Guide.
      6. Improve cumulative effects linkage to broader scale monitoring efforts.
      7. Complete the species information proposal (Appendix B) and include the results in the module.
        • make editorial improvements as recommended.
        • address the other technical comments received from IAC members, field practitioners, and other reviewers.
  • The revised module, which we expect to be completed in early June, will be provided to IAC members for a 30-day review period. If significant concerns are raised in the comments, REO will invite IAC members to participate in a meeting of the Policy Group in July to develop suggested approaches for resolution.
  • The IAC intends to further discuss the revised module at the August IAC meeting. Policy Group recommendations (if they meet in July) will be presented to the IAC. A proposal for field testing the module will be developed and presented by the REO.
  • The two policy issues deferred at the April meeting (whether the module is required or optional and whether the module should establish standard requirements) will be reconsidered at the August IAC meeting.
Follow-up Actions:
  • The Technical Team will work with the agencies, through the REO reps, to secure a commitment by species experts to perform the recommended species classification and habitat assessment work. The Technical Team will consolidate comments on the review draft of the report received on or before April 15. The Technical Team will address the comments by making editorial improvements and produce another draft by May 13.
  • The Technical Team will incorporate the species information, when complete, and prepare a final review draft (target date is June 3).
  • The REO will distribute the revised draft of the Riparian Reserve module to IAC members for a 30-day review period (target distribution date is June 7).
  • The REO will invite IAC members to participate in a meeting of the Policy Group, if necessary, to discuss remaining policy issues raised by IAC members (target week of July 15).
  • The IAC intends to further discuss the revised module at the August IAC meeting. Policy group recommendations (if they meet in July) will be presented to the IAC. A proposal for field testing the module will be developed and presented by the REO.
  • The two policy issues deferred at the April meeting (whether the module is required or optional and whether the module should establish standard requirements) will be reconsidered at the August IAC meeting.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

ISSUE SUMMARY
Meeting Date: April 4, 1996 NMFS Contact: Garth Griffin

REO Contacts: Mike Tehan 503-326-6276, Dave Powers 503-326-6271

Topic: National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) Regional Salmon Conservation Strategy
Objectives:
  • Report on the status of NMFS' biological reviews of coastal salmon stocks, including coho salmon and steelhead.
  • Discuss NMFS' and Oregon State's salmon initiatives.
  • Identify opportunities for collaboration between State and Federal initiatives.
  • Solicit information from the Regional Ecosystem Office regarding "goods and services" associated with NFP implementation that might be more broadly useful to other salmon conservation and restoration efforts.
Summary of Discussion/IAC Actions:
  • NMFS announced the results of its biological review of coastal steelhead. Fifteen distinct population segments (evolutionarily significant units or ESUs) of steelhead were identified; ten of these may warrant listing under the ESA.
  • In reviewing existing coordination tools and fora, NMFS clarified the roles of the IAC, the Pacific Salmon Coordinating Committee (PSCC) and the For The Sake Of Salmon effort.
  • The Governor described the State of Oregon's proposal for a voluntary, non-regulatory coastal salmon restoration effort. Among the opportunities for partnerships and coordination suggested by the Governor were:
    • Technology and information sharing, especially in watersheds with multiple land ownerships.
    • Coordination of funds to support local watershed council coordinators.
    • Coordination of Jobs-in-the-Woods projects to ensure efficiency and complementary results.
    • Coordinated flood restoration efforts to ensure the use of fish-friendly approaches.
  • The Governor's coastal salmon restoration initiative was well received by IAC members. Among the specific issues discussed were:
    • The desire to coordinate Federal conservation efforts on Federal lands with state conservation efforts that address other land ownerships.
    • The pros and cons of the voluntary, non-regulatory approach proposed by Oregon.
    • The need to ensure that Federal and State approaches are consistent in order to establish a predictable framework for private landowner involvement.
    • Incentives to encourage private landowner participation.
    • The need for coordinated budgets to achieve common goals.
    • The need for coordinated State and Federal monitoring efforts to address multiple salmon life stages and land ownerships.
    • Possible approaches to establish biological restoration standards.
    • The desire for conservation efforts to address multiple species where possible.
IAC Agreements:
  • A primary link for coordinating Federal salmon conservation efforts with efforts initiated by Oregon (and the other States) will be through the PSCC.
  • The IAC will consider salmon conservation issues directly related to the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) (the NFP is only one component of the four-part NMFS' Regional Salmon Conservation Strategy).
  • The REO will staff out specific information requests and provide information and recommendations regarding NFP implementation to the PSCC, as directed by the IAC.
Follow-up Actions:
  • To assist the PSCC with their task of identifying potential contributions from its participating agencies in support of the Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative, the REO will develop a list of "goods and services" associated with NFP implementation and identify which might be more broadly applicable to state conservation efforts. The REO will provide the requested information to the PSCC by April 24.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

STATUS REPORT
TOPIC: IRICC Fish/Hydro Strike Team Update REO Contact: Duane Dippon

503-952-6014

Background:

The Fish/Hydro Strike Team distributed the "Final Proposed Core Data Standards" in January 1996. This document generated a variety of comments, both about the proposed standards and about the level of interagency participation in the development of those standards. Members of the Strike Team (including representatives from the BLM, Forest Service, and Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission) met with representatives from the IRICC, REO, NMFS, and FWS on March 29 regarding the proposed set of data elements.

The meeting objectives were as follows:

  1. Clarify Strike Team objectives and efforts to date.
  2. Address comments received on the "Final Proposed Core Data Standards".
  3. Develop and agree on a process, steps, and a schedule to:
    • Gain IRICC and IAC approval.
    • Involve the Data Coordination Team (DCT) and clarify the DCT role.
    • Address additional data element needs and standards.
    • Identify and define implementation issues.
Status/Update:

The group agreed to incorporate numerous minor additions and corrections into the revised data standard documents in response to comments received. The group acknowledged that the proposed initial set of data standards is an important "Phase I" effort representing a broad set of data elements that a wide range of organizations and agencies can achieve using their current field collection processes. Acceptance of the data standards generated from this Phase I effort would result in compatible data being generated by ongoing field work across the region.

The group also agreed that a Phase II effort was needed to address additional data standards needed by Federal agencies for NFP implementation and potential Section 7 consultations. Phase II would be a collective effort to develop data standards for key elements of Survey and Manage, Effectiveness Monitoring, Watershed Analysis, Section 7 consultation, and Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.

The group also discussed:

  1. Opportunities for a workshop to identify data requirements for which standards would be developed.
  2. The roles and responsibilities of the Data Coordination Team (DCT) as a source of data stewardship to help evolve and maintain data standards throughout the region.
  3. The need to develop methodologies for maintaining a database of linked landscape features across many administrative and organizational jurisdictions throughout the region.

The Strike Team is scheduled to brief the IAC at their May meeting. We expect the Strike Team to recommend adoption of the "Final Proposed Core Data Standards," implementation of Phase I data standards, and initiation of a Phase II effort.

May 29-30--Potential Agenda Items

May 29-30--Potential Status Reports

Possible Future Agenda Items

 

April 1996 IAC Meeting

Status Reports in the April Prework Package:
IRICC Fish/Hydro Strike Team Update
Review of RIEC Priorities and Work Group Product Integration
Joint Planning Team Update
Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring Update
IAC/PIEC Advisory Committee Charter Renewal Update

Handouts:
Coastal Coho Salmon Letter to Bill Clinton, President, from John Kitzhaber, Governor-February 2, 1996
Coastal Coho Salmon Letter to John Kitzhaber, Governor, from Bill Clinton, President -March 28, 1996
Coastal Coho Salmon Letter to Will Stelle, NMFS, from John Kitzhaber, Governor-February 23, 1996
Coastal Coho Salmon Letter to John Kitzhaber, Governor, from Will Stelle, NMFS-March 20, 1996
Framework for the Salmon Conservation Discussion-April 4, 1996
Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative, State of Oregon-April 3, 1996
Insider-Digest of Environmental News, Issue 3147-March 1, 1996
Charter-For the Sake of the Salmon
Memorandum of Agreement-Pacific Salmon Conservation

Overheads:
Mike Tehan-Riparian Reserve Delineation Module
Will Stelle-Regional Salmon Conservation Strategy

Information available at the reception desk:
Organizational Chart, NFP
IAC Identification List
RIEC Identification List
REO Telephone Directory
REO Functional Statement Packet
March IAC Notes
April IAC Agenda & Prework
Correspondence of Interest-Available for requests

Publications available on request:
Record of Decision (ROD)
WA Guide-Section I
WA Guide-Section II (Modules)
Natural Resource Partnership Proposal-Cost-Effective Results through Public/Private Partnership-Draft
NFP 1995 Accomplishment Report-USDA Forest Service
NFP 1995 Accomplishment Report-USDI Bureau of Land Management
Interagency Vegetation Information-June 1, 1995

* Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting * April 4, 1996 * Attendance List *

IAC Members and Alternates

Name Title Agency
Bell, Amy Deputy Super. for Community WA, Office of the Governor
Blomstrom, Greg Forester Planner CA Indian Forest & Fire Mgmt. Council
Burgess, Paula Policy Advisor Natural Resources OR, Office of the Governor
Collopy, Mike Director, Coop. Research & Tech National Biological Service
Feigner, Ken Director, Forest and Salmon Group Environmental Protection Agency
Gorton, Terry Assistant Secretary State of California
Graham, Bob State Conservationist Natural Resources Conservation Service
Holford, Turk Area Forester Bureau of Indian Affairs
Knowles, Don (DFO) Executive Director Regional Ecosystem Office
McVay, Rocky County Commissioner Curry County, State of Oregon
Mills, Thomas Station Director Forest Service, PNW
Moon, Mel Commissioner NW Indian Fisheries Commission
Morishima, Gary Technical Advisor Intertribal Timber Council
Murphy, Tom Director, Environ. Research Lab Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Spear, Mike Regional Director U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Stelle, Will Regional Director National Marine Fisheries Service
Sullivan, Francie County Supervisor Shasta County, State of California
Tuchmann, Tom Director Office of Forestry & Economic Development
Walters, Bill Deputy Regional Director National Park Service
Williams, Bob Acting Regional Forester Forest Service
Zielinski, Elaine State Director Bureau of Land Management, OR/WA

Regional Ecosystem Office
Barr, Susan Acting Administrative Officer Forest Service
Hamilton, Chris GIS Bureau of Land Management
Kucera, Linda Facilitator U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Loop, Curt Representative U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers
McKenzie, Dan Research & Monitoring-Leader Environmental Protection Agency, Research
McNair, Ranotta Representative Forest Service
Milestone, Jim Representative National Park Service
Pietrzak, Debbie Representative Bureau of Land Management
Powers, Dave Representative Environmental Protection Agency
Sims, Gary Representative Bureau of Indian Affairs
Tehan, Mike Representative National Marine Fisheries Service
Watson, Jay Representative U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Ystad, Laurie Secretary Forest Service
 
* Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting * April 4, 1996 Other--Attendance List
Name Title Agency
Anderson, Jim Executive Director NW Indian Fisheries Commission
Andrews, Bruce Director State of Oregon
Arendt, Doug Senior Planner Corps of Engineers
Belisle, Harold Forest Plan Implementation Bureau of Land Management
Birch, Kevin   OR Dept. of Forestry
Bohn, Bart COL DEP CDR Corps of Engineers
Bradley, Bill Forestry Chief Bureau of Land Management
Brown, Jim State Forester OR Dept. of Forestry
Caraher, Dave Riparian Manager, Coordinator Forest Service, R-6
Clarke, Chuck Regional Administration Environmental Protection Agency
Clauson, Steve Regional Forester's Assistant Forest Service, R-5
Cleary, Paul Director State of Oregon
Collett, Russ Water Res. Mgr. National Resources Conservation Service
Davies, Bruce   NW Indian Fisheries Commission
Dippon, Duane IRICC Member Bureau of Land Management
Duff, Scott State Director Regional Economic Community Development
Duncan, Dave Oregon Liaison Bureau of Reclamation
Eggers, Ron Fish Program Adm. Bureau of Indian Affairs
Engelmann, Eb Project Support Manager OR Dept. of Transportation
Gainsforth, Patricia Commission OR Soil & Water Commission
Glover, Eric   Bureau of Reclamation
Golden, Mike Watershed Advisor OR Office of the Governor
Graybeal, Nancy Deputy Regional Forester Forest Service, R-6
Green, Peter   OR Office of Governor
Griffin, Garth Fisheries Biologist National Marine Fisheries Service
Hall, Jean Deputy Regional Forester Forest Service, R-5
Hanus, Ann Asst. State Forester OR Dept. of Forestry
Hazelwood, Lee SDSD Legislative Governor Commission
Hemmingway, Roy Salmon Policy Advisor OR Office of Governor
Hemstrom, Miles Regional Ecologist Forest Service, F-6
Heppe, Chris Forest Ecosystem Coor. Bureau of Land Management, CA
Herst, Eric Rural Economic & Community Development U.S. Department of Argiculture
Hohler, Dave Riparian Reserve Member Forest Service, R-6
Honeywell, Hank Division of Administration OR Dept. of Transportation
Jeske, Paul Resource Advisor Bureau of Land Management
Kakizawa, Hiraki    
Kitzhaber, John Governor State of Oregon
Lawrence, Jim Deputy Regional Forester Forest Service, R-5
Lockwood, Gregg   OR Office of the Governor
Luhr, Valerie Policy & Research Leg. State of Oregon
Lynch, Jim Fisheries Biologist National Marine Fisheries Service
Martin, Jim Salmon Technical Advisor OR Office of Governor
Maxon, Bill Habitat Coordinator U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
McMinds, Guy Executive Office Advisor Quinault Indian Nation
Ogden, Cay Watershed Team U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Owston, Peyton Forest Scientist Forest Service, PNW, Corvallis
Reilly, Dave   State of Oregon
Rice, Bob Watershed Mgr. Coord. State of Oregon
Riddell, Gil   Association of Oregon Counties
Robinson, Jennifer Spec. Asst. State of Oregon
Rosen, Rudy Director OR Dept. of Fish & Wildlife
Roush, Paul Wildlife Biologist Bureau of Land Management, CA
Smitch, Curt Assistant Regional Director U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Stone, Steve Fisheries Biologist National Marine Fisheries Service
Wesley, David Deputy Assistant U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
White, Bill Assistant State Conservationist Natural Resources Conservation Service
Willis, Bob Planning & Engineering Division, Portland Corps of Engineers
Wood, Tim COL District Engineer Corps of Engineers
Wyland, Jacqueline Division Chief U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service