Regional Ecosystem Office

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

             Memorandum

Date:    June 6, 1996

To:        Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members (See Distribution List)

From:    Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director

Subject: May 1996 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting Notes

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

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

I wish to extend my thanks and appreciation for the warm welcome and hospitality of the Yakama Indian Nation during our visit. Everyone I have talked with has expressed their appreciation for the time, graciousness, and generosity of the forestry and wildlife staffs (Tribal and Bureau of Indian Affairs), Tribal members, and the Wapato Longhouse.

Our next IAC meeting is scheduled for Thursday, August 1, in Portland, Oregon. Location information will be conveyed to you as soon as we have a signed contract. Please note that we are suggesting that a policy subgroup meeting to review the Riparian Reserve module be held, if needed, on the morning of July 31, the day before the August IAC meeting (see page 10). If you have questions or suggestions, please contact me at 503-326-6266, Linda Kucera at 503-326-6283, or your agency representative.

Enclosure

cc:
REO

686/lak

Date: June 6, 1996
Subject: May IAC Meeting Notes

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Distribution List

California
Terry Gorton, Assistant Secretary, Forestry and Rural Economic Dev., California Resource Agency
Francie Sullivan, Shasta County Supervisor

Oregon
Paula Burgess, Assistant to the Governor for Natural Resources, Office of the Governor
Rocky McVay, Curry County Commissioner

Washington
Amy F. Bell, Deputy Supervisor for Community Relations, WA Dept. of Natural Resources
Carol Jolly, Executive Policy Assistant, Governor's Office (Alternate)
Harvey Wolden, Skagit County Commissioner

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
Eugene Andreuccetti, Regional Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Bob Graham, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service (Alternate)
Michael Collopy, Director, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, National Biological Service
Ken Feigner, Director, Forest and Salmon Group, Environmental Protection Agency
Thomas J. Mills, Station Director, Forest Service, PNW
Thomas Murphy, Director, Environmental Research Laboratory, Environmental Protection Agency
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, USDA Office of Forestry and Economic Assistance (Ex Officio)
William Walters, Deputy Field Director, National Park Service
Robert W. Williams, Acting Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, R-6
G. Lynn Sprague, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, R-5 (Alternate)
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

Updated 5/15/96

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

ISSUE SUMMARY
Meeting Date: May 31, 1996 REO Contact/Phone: G. S. Sims 503-231-6274
Topic: Government-to-Government Relationships and Consultation
Objective: To provide the IAC with an overview of what constitutes government-to-government relationships and consultation, especially from a Yakama Nation point of view.
Summary of Discussion/IAC Actions: The panel presentation described in these notes followed a day-long field trip to the Yakama Tribal Forest, where most of the IAC members were able to observe the forest conditions and learn about Tribal forest practices. That evening, a dinner hosted by the Tribe provided an opportunity for the committee members to learn more about the culture of the Tribe and the values the Tribe places in its natural resources. The meeting presentations were in the form of a panel of four speakers, with a question and answer period following the presentations. The panel (and each presentation focus) consisted of:

  • Ross Sockzehigh, Chairman, Yakama Tribal Council (government-to-government consultation/trust responsibility from a Tribal government perspective);

  • Anthony Washines, Vice Chairman, Yakama General Council (government-to-government perspective of the Tribal people from a traditional/cultural point of view);

  • Eric Hanson, Associate Manager - Wildlife Resource Program, Yakama Tribe (technical aspects of consultation with the Federal Government); and,

  • Gary Morishima, Tribal Representative (Intertribal Timber Council) to the IAC (Indian forestry from a national perspective and an overview of the Indian Forest Management Assessment Team (IFMAT) Report).

Chairman Sockzehigh began his presentation with a reminder that the basis of the relationship between the Yakama Nation and the Federal Government is the "1855 Treaty with the Yakama." That treaty is part of a long history of government-to-government relationships and is recognized in the U.S. Constitution as the "supreme law of the land." The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized the unique relationship between Tribal and Federal Governments-- the basis of the their trust relationship--which requires the Federal government to consult with Tribal governments when it is developing policy or management alternatives that may affect reserved treaty rights. Resources related to reserved treaty rights may be located on or off the Reservation. In many cases they will be in the much larger Ceded or Treaty Rights Area. Good-faith consultation requires personal contact and meetings with the Tribal leadership rather than relying solely on formal written communications. It was pointed out that meetings in and of themselves would not constitute government-to-government consultation. There should be some type of formal recognition by the Tribal government that consultation has occurred, often in the form of a Tribal resolution which expresses the government's position in regard to the items/matters consulted about. Chairman Sockzehigh stressed the importance of maintaining a balance between economic goals of the resources and providing for the cultural and spiritual needs of the Tribal members.

Vice Chairman Washines stressed the importance of language when reviewing documents such as the Treaty of 1855. The Yakama people take the words of the Treaty seriously and, as is the case with the U.S. Constitution, look at its terms and conditions in light of 20th century requirements. For example, when the treaty states that the U.S. Government will build and staff schools, and build blacksmiths' shops, etc., it is an acknowledgment that the Federal Government will help provide for the education of the Tribal members and assist in the economic development of the Tribe. Vice Chairman Washines reminded the IAC that although the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is usually considered a "lead agency" in fulfilling the Federal Government's trust responsibilities to Tribes, all Federal agencies have a trust responsibility to the Tribes and an obligation to consult on a government-to-government basis as they develop policies and practices to implement their particular programs.

Eric Hanson provided an overview of the development and application of the Yakama Tribe's northern spotted owl management program, which predates the listing of the owl. He pointed out that the Tribe has managed the forest over the last 50 years on a sustained (and sustainable) yield basis. When the first forest inventories were completed some fifty years ago, the standing timber volume was estimated at some six billion board feet (6 bbf). Since that time, approximately 5 bbf have been harvested. The standing inventory is currently over 9 bbf. Mr. Hanson showed slides that provided evidence that Tribal policy favors the retention of large, healthy old-growth trees. Current management practices include individual tree selection of high-risk old-growth trees and a focus on managing the surrounding second-growth forest (e.g., commercial thinning from below) in order to promote healthy forest conditions. Of interest is the fact that post-timber sale stand conditions include larger average tree diameters than before stand treatment. Mr. Hanson emphasized that when he or other professionals employed by the Tribe meet with Federal Government counterparts, he is not meeting in a governmental capacity and such meetings cannot be construed as formal government-to-government consultation. Such consultations must involve meetings between Federal decision makers and Tribal leadership.

Gary Morishima provided an overview of the Indian forest management from a national perspective, including a description of the IFMAT Report, and re-emphasized the importance of the Federal Government, through its Departments and Agencies, in meeting its government-to-government consultation requirements. He pointed out, from his own experience, that although virtually all Departments and Agencies have formal Native American policy statements, often field personnel responsible for program implementation are unfamiliar with them. This can lead to confusion and/or uncertainty on the role of local agency personnel in relation to their responsibilities concerning government-to-government consultation requirements. Further, it leads to a misunderstanding that providing Notification of Action via a letter to the Tribal Chairman constitutes consultation. Mr. Morishima also referenced the IFMAT report conclusions (Executive Summaries were provided to all the IAC members, and the full report can be provided to any interested member) that include the recognition that some of the best examples of ecosystem management are incorporated in Indian forest management practices. Mr. Morishima referred to other handouts that were made available to the IAC members, including "References to Tribes, Treaties, and Trust Responsibility in NFP-Related Documents," a copy of the 1855 Treaty with the Yakama, "Washington State Treaty Rights" (prepared by the League of Women Voters, 1980) and Forest Service National Resource Book on American Indians and Alaska Native Relations - Appendix B-4 Definitions. The reference material was specifically referred to because of the importance of clarity in the use of specific terminology; e.g., government-to-government consultation, reserved treaty rights, ceded areas, etc.

IAC Agreements: There was general agreement with the REO Staff proposal identified in the Action Topic Overview (ATO):

1. The REO, working with IAC Tribal representatives, will continue to actively solicit comments and input regarding Tribal review of developed policy/procedures concerning NFP implementation.

2. The REO will continue to distribute documentation and materials to Tribal leaders and key staff in order to expedite the Tribal review process.

3. The REO will continue to remain available to brief individual Tribal governments/organizations in order to keep them informed.

4. The responsible agencies will consult with potentially affected Tribes as soon as possible so that implementation policies and/or processes that may affect Tribal rights or resources can be developed collaboratively and cooperatively.

Follow-up Actions (who/what/when): The REO will work with the IAC Tribal representatives to identify appropriate follow-up that will continue the discussions on government-to-government consultation requirements. Additionally, the IAC Tribal representatives, working with the BIA, can help organize and arrange workshops or other meetings designed to help different Federal agency middle-management personnel understand the unique relationships between Tribal and Federal Governments and the responsibilities of the Federal Government in regard to government-to-government consultation and the protection of reserved Tribal rights.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

ISSUE SUMMARY
Meeting Date: May 30, 1996 REO Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie 503-326-6250
Topic: Implementation Monitoring
Objective: Obtain preliminary guidance on the development of a FY 1997 Implementation Monitoring Program to be presented at the September 1996 IAC meeting.
Summary of Discussion/IAC Actions:

The IAC expressed general recognition and support for interagency review teams and the need for participation by other interested parties. In addition, the IAC asked the RMC to address the following as part of the September IAC presentation:

  • Collect and present the results from this year's pilot process and provide a list of recommendations for the FY 1997 Implementation Monitoring Program.
  • Consider ways to have Implementation Monitoring address questions like: What isn't being done? What isn't working? and, What should be done to fix it?
  • Ask the PACs to identify priorities and topics they would suggest for the FY 1997 program.
  • Include recommendations on the role of the PACs and other potential participants.
  • Ask the Regional Implementation Monitoring Team and the PAC representatives to attend and provide comments at the meeting.
Follow-up Actions (who/what/when): REO/RMC will continue working with the Regional Implementation Monitoring Team to complete the FY 1996 pilot and to develop the FY 1997 Implementation Monitoring Program.
 

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

ISSUE SUMMARY
Meeting Date: May 30, 1996 REO Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie 503-326-6250
Topic: Effectiveness Monitoring
Objective: Reaffirm direction and priorities and identify resource requirements to continue current efforts.
Summary of Discussion/IAC Actions: A status report of progress of the effectiveness monitoring team was presented. The status of each of the five emphasis areas was briefly discussed. The conceptual model for effectiveness monitoring was outlined and focuses on an approach based on habitat and species associations. The efforts of the Northern Spotted Owl Team were addressed in greater detail as an example of the approach. The presentation by Joe Lint (BLM) focused on the relationship of population demographics and habitat. For the Northern Spotted Owl, good demographics information has been collected for the last 10 years. Vegetation information is needed to accurately characterize habitat. An overview of funding, resource, and organizational requirements needed for implementation was discussed.

IAC concern was expressed with the cost of implementation for the Northern Spotted Owl emphasis area and the additional need to fund the other four emphasis areas in the future. Available personnel resources to accomplish these tasks is also of concern. Some agencies commented that the scope of monitoring efforts needs to be enlarged to facilitate integration with monitoring efforts on State and private lands. Comments were made to the effect that priorities and tradeoffs are not yet clear and that IAC members need this overview so they know where to allocate their personnel and funds.

Several IAC members expressed concern that the slow pace of the Aquatic/Riparian portion of the effectiveness monitoring plan was not responsive to the high level of attention and urgency associated with aquatic and salmon conservation issues in the NFP area. A suggestion was also made that additional emphasis be placed on the social, economic, and Tribal resource monitoring issues.

The three research agencies expressed the view that the approach presented by the team is the appropriate path to follow. Several terms and conditions for PNW leadership in this area were presented and discussed. These include affirmation of the priority for effectiveness monitoring; identification of a lead organization (and individual) for conducting effectiveness monitoring; and participation of staff and funding where feasible by groups other than research.

IAC Agreements: While concern was expressed about the pace of development, particularly the aquatic/riparian issue, and about the lack of priority and progress on several key monitoring topics identified in the ROD, there appears to be continued IAC agreement on the current approach and priorities for the five emphasis areas previously identified. Moreover, there was general agreement to elevate the priority assigned to the development of effectiveness monitoring plans.
Follow-up Actions (who/what/when): The Research Directors agreed to accept the responsibility to support the planning effort and will work with the REO/RMC to identify a list of key staff and the resources to develop the effectiveness monitoring plans. The agencies agreed to work with the Research Directors to identify and commit the resources to complete the Effectiveness Monitoring Plan. NMFS offered to take the lead for the Aquatic/Riparian portion and to explore how that could be accomplished. The REO/RMC will develop the broader picture to be presented for consideration at the September IAC meeting along with the effectiveness monitoring materials.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

ISSUE SUMMARY
Meeting Date: May 30, 1996 REO Contact/Phone: Chris Hamilton 503-326-7133
Topic: IRICC Vegetation Data Standards Implementation Team Recommendations
Objective: Present status of efforts to date and request commitment to proceed with efforts to staff out implementation options.
Summary of Discussion/IAC Actions: The presentation described the efforts of the Vegetation Implementation team. Miles Hemstrom (USDA-FS) reviewed what vegetation standards are to be implemented. He explained why existing and potential vegetation maps produced from satellite imagery are important to agency missions. Implementation of the NFP needs accurate vegetation information to satisfy the requirements of Watershed Analyses, Late-successional Reserve Assessments, Survey and Manage sampling and Effectiveness Monitoring. Currently, vegetation maps are assembled from a variety of sources. Field units are spending large amounts of time to collect vegetation information to produce a product which is difficult or impossible to aggregate and which has limited utility.

Three teams have been established to develop implementation strategies for 1) existing vegetation mapping, 2) potential vegetation mapping, and 3) assembly of plot location information. A fourth team to develop a unified cover type classification has not yet been formed. Rough cost estimates for each product were presented.

Implementation is stalled right now due to the competition for scarce resources and lack of an overall strategy for collaboration. Future steps outlined in the presentation included the recommendation that a small team with a single lead be assigned to complete the implementation plan.

The IAC discussion reflected consensus that good vegetation information is important. However, the IAC members are concerned with the potential cost of implementation. They are also not sure how to compare other agency priorities with this effort. Some IAC members requested that vegetation information products include private lands information to allow regional analysis of other issues.

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

  • The Vegetation Data Standards Implementation Team will work with management in the BLM, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service to develop a plan to identify priorities, commit additional resources, and proceed with implementation. A meeting is scheduled for June 3 to discuss options.

  • The REO was asked to address this follow-up action in the broader context of RIEC priorities and work group product integration. The REO will provide a status report on this effort for the September meeting.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

ISSUE SUMMARY
Meeting Date: May 30, 1996 REO Contact/Phone: Chris Hamilton 503-326-7133
Topic: IRICC Fish/Hydro Data Standards Strike Team Recommendations
Objective: Propose adoption of the Phase I Fish/Hydro data standards and endorse commencement of Phase II by IRICC.
Summary of Discussion/IAC Actions: The presentation by Dale Guenther (USDA-FS) reviewed the efforts of the Fish/Hydro Strike Team to identify a core set of standards. This first phase focused on information which is commonly collected by Federal and State agencies. An implementation strategy for Phase I was presented with associated cost estimates. The presentation also described a new method to uniquely identify and name each stream segment. A Phase II effort was proposed to expand on the Phase I efforts by addressing additional information needed to meet consultation, monitoring, and other Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.

Some members of the IAC wanted additional time to check with appropriate staff to verify that the proposed Phase I standards were in accordance with agency needs and policies. Another member asked whether issues relating to Phase I standards could be raised for discussion prior to the August IAC meeting. The Interorganizational Resource Information Coordinating Council (IRICC) was asked to consult with the Vegetation Strike Team, Fish/Hydro Strike Team, and Aquatic/Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Group to begin work defining the scope of issues to be addressed in Phase II.

IAC Agreements:

  • Additional time should be allowed to verify with agency staff specialists that proposed Phase I data standards are acceptable.

  • The REO will poll IAC members to determine if they agree to adopt the Phase I Fish/Hydro data standards and to task IRICC to develop a strategy to begin initiating Phase II, at a pace yet to be determined.

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

  • The REO will contact IAC members by memo and ask whether there are any objections to adopting the Phase I data standards prior to the August IAC meeting. The REO will review issues and objections raised by IAC members, if any, attempt to resolve objections, and prepare a status report for distribution prior to the August IAC meeting.

  • The IRICC will begin developing a strategy to initiate Phase II. The REO will assist the IRICC to identify information needs. A variety of resource specialists from the cooperating agencies may be needed to define the issues to be addressed in the Phase II effort. Additional meetings with agency managers may be needed to reach agreement on how best to proceed.

 

REVISED SCHEDULE PROPOSED

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

STATUS REPORT
Meeting Date: N/A REO Contact/Phone: Michael Tehan 503-326-6276
Topic: Riparian Reserve Module
Background:

  • The Riparian Reserve Technical Team (Technical Team) expected to complete their revision of the draft Riparian Reserve Module (Module) (minus the species information proposal, which is still underway) so that the REO could, by June 7, send the final draft Module to IAC members for a 30-day review period.

  • If significant concerns are raised by IAC members in their comments on the final draft Module, REO planned to invite IAC members to participate in a meeting of the Watershed Analysis Policy Group in July to develop suggested approaches for resolution.

  • Watershed Analysis Policy Group recommendations (if they meet in July) would be presented to the IAC during the August meeting. The IAC previously agreed to also discuss at the August meeting the two policy issues deferred at the April meeting (i.e., whether the module is required or optional and whether the module should establish standard requirements), as well as the REO proposal for field testing the module.

Status/Update:

  • The Technical Team is still working with their Team members, agency staff, field practitioners, and some IAC members to complete their revision of the draft Module. There are several key points that are currently being worked out.

  • As a result of this continuing work, we expect that distribution of the final draft Module for IAC review will be delayed approximately one to two weeks. We are hopeful that we will be able to distribute the final draft Module to IAC members between June 14 and June 21.

  • Allowing for the agreed upon 30-day review period, IAC comments would be due to the REO on or about July 12 to July 19.

  • To allow time for the REO to receive and analyze the IAC members' comments, we would propose the Watershed Analysis Policy Group meet (if requested by IAC members to address new policy issues) during the morning of July 31. This would allow the REO the afternoon of the 31st to summarize the results of the Watershed Analysis Policy Group meeting for presentation at the August 1 IAC meeting the following day.

  • We would appreciate any feedback or reaction you may have to this possible schedule of events for finalizing the Module.

Potential Agenda Items for the August 1, 1996, IAC Meeting
Riparian Reserve Module--Summarize Review Comments & Policy Group Meeting Results
IRICC Fish/Hydro Strike Team Phase II Strategy
Fish Listings/Consultation Approaches
Budget Discussion--If Appropriate

Potential Status Reports for the August 1, 1996, IAC Meeting
Joint Planning Team Update
IAC/PIEC Advisory Committee Charter Renewal Update
IRICC Fish/Hydro Strike Team Phase I Update
Rescission Bill Update
Federal Timber Sale Update

Possible Agenda Items for the September 26, 1996, IAC Meeting
Implementation Monitoring--Draft Report for FY 1996 Activities
Effectiveness Monitoring
Proposed IAC Meeting Schedule for FY 1997

Possible Status Reports for the September 26, 1996, IAC Meeting
Proposed FY 1997 REO Budget
Review of RIEC Priorities and Work Group Product Integration

May 1996 IAC Meeting Handouts

May Prework Package:
Requested Amendment of the Minutes from the April 4, 1996, IAC Meeting
References to Tribes, Treaties, and Trust Responsibility in NFP-Related Documents
List of Federally Recognized Tribes-that fall within the range of the Northern Spotted Owl
Treaty with Yakima--1855
Report of the IRICC Fish/Hydro Strike Team
DOI Forest Plan Funding Table

Handouts:
IAC Agenda
DOI, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, Final Rule
Litigation Update, as of April 29, 1996
Some Useful Definitions Concerning Federal Government, Indian & Alaska Native Relations, 1995
Washington State, Indian Treaty Rights, July 1980
Congressional Record-House, page H3883-H3943, An Act Making Appropriations for the DOI and
Related Agencies for Fiscal Year Ending September 1996
An Assessment of Indian Forests & Forest Management in the United States, November 1993

Overheads:
Dan McKenzie-Implementation Monitoring and Effectiveness Monitoring
Joe Lint-Effectiveness Monitoring, Spotted Owl Monitoring Plan Goals
Miles Hemstrom-IRICC Vegetation Data Standards
Dale Guenther-IRICC Fish/Hydro Data Standards

Status Report:
Riparian Reserve Delineation Module

Information at the Reception Desk:
Organizational Chart, NFP
IAC Identification List
RIEC Identification List
PIEC Identification List
REO Telephone Directory
REO Functional Statement Packet
April IAC Notes
May 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 * May 30, 1996 * Attendance List *
Name Title Agency
Anderson, Jim Executive Director NW Indian Fisheries Commission
Blomstrom, Greg Forester Planner CA Indian Forest & Fire Mgmt. Council
Collopy, Mike Director, Coop. Research & Tech National Biological Service
Feigner, Ken Director, Forest and Salmon Group Environmental Protection Agency
Gaar, Elizabeth Holmes Habitat Branch Chief National Marine Fisheries Service
Mills, Thomas Station Director Forest Service, PNW
Morishima, Gary Technical Advisor Intertribal Timber Council
Murphy, Tom Director, Environ. Research Lab Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Speaks, Stan Area Director Bureau of Indian Affairs
Spear, Mike Regional Director U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Sullivan, Francie County Supervisor Shasta County, California
Tuchmann, Tom Director Office of Forestry & Economic Assistance
Walters, Bill Deputy Field Director National Park Service
Williams, Bob Acting Regional Forester Forest Service, R-6
Zielinski, Elaine State Director Bureau of Land Management, OR/WA

Regional Ecosystem Office
Barr, Susan Acting Administrative Officer Forest Service
DePrey, Paul Acting Receptionist Contractor
Hamilton, Chris GIS Bureau of Land Management
Knowles, Don (DFO) Executive Director Regional Ecosystem Office
Kucera, Linda Facilitator U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Loop, Curt Representative U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers
McKenzie, Dan Research & Monitoring-Leader Environmental Protection Agency
McNair, Ranotta Representative Forest Service
Owston, Pete Research & Monitoring Forest Service, Pacific NW Research Station
Pietrzak, Debbie Representative Bureau of Land Management
VanWyhe, Pete IRICC/GIS Bureau of Land Management
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 * May 30, 1996 * Other--Attendance List *
Name Title Agency
Bauer, Mike Attorney Yakama Nation
Bradley, Bill Forestry Chief Bureau of Land Management
Carlson, Lee Tribal Forest Service Liaison Yakama Nation
Clauson, Steve Regional Forester's Assistant Forest Service, R-5
Cooke, Vince Quileute Tribe
Davies, Bruce NW Indian Fisheries Commission
Dippon, Duane IRICC Member Bureau of Land Management
Everett, Richard Science Team Leader Forest Service, PNW, Wenatchee
Guenther, Dale IRICC Member Forest Service-Fish/Hydro Presentation
Hanes, Richard Tribal Affairs Coordinator Bureau of Land Management
Hansen, Eric Presenter Government-to-Government Presentation
Hemstrom, Miles Ecologist Forest Service
Ike, Sr., Fred Tribal Council Yakama Nation
King, Gina Wildlife Biologist Yakama Nation
Lewis, Edwin Assistant Forest Manager Yakama Nation - Bureau of Indian Affairs
Lint, Joe Biologist Bureau of Land Management
McConnell, Les Tribe Coordinator Forest Service
Meninich, Johnson Cultural Resource Yakama Nation
Meninich, Joanna Cultural Resource Yakama Nation
Motanic, Don Intertribal Timber Council
Perkins, Ralph Tribal Liaison Forest Service-ICBEMP
Pinkham, Joe General Council Secretary Yakama Nation
Pinkham, Shirley Camp Chaparral Yakama Nation
Robison, Dan Yakima Environmental Protection Agency
Roush, Paul Wildlife Biologist Bureau of Land Management-CA
Sanchey, Cecil Tribal Council Yakama Nation
Sedan, Dennis Forest Service-ICBEMP
Smitch, Curt Assistant Regional Director U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Sockzehigh, Ross Chairman Yakama Nation Tribal Council
Sprague, Lynn Regional Forester Forest Service, R-5
Washines, Anthony Vice Chairman Yakama Nation General Council
Whipple, David Habitat Conservation Plan Coor. WA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife