333 SW 1st
P.O. Box 3623
Portland, Oregon 97208-3623
Phone: 503-326-6265 FAX: 503-326-6282
Memorandum
Date: December 13, 1996
To: Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (See Distribution List)
From: Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director
Subject: December 1996 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
Enclosed are the notes from the December Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) meeting.
Specific enclosures include:
The minutes of the September meeting were certified. No one requested time on the agenda to address the committee in the public forum.
Hot Topics included a progress report by Tom Mills on the Effectiveness Monitoring effort, including the timeline and a discussion of the need for continued support of the people involved in that effort. Steve Clauson shared with us that the Klamath Provincial Advisory Committee has developed a contract for a social and economic monitoring assessment for the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area.
Our next IAC meeting is scheduled for Thursday, February 6, 1997, in Portland, Oregon. Location information will be conveyed to you as soon as we have a signed contract. If you have questions or suggestions, please contact me at 503-326-6266, Linda Kucera at 503-326-6283, or your agency representative.
cc: RCERT, JPT, REO
844/ly
Date: December 13, 1996
Subject: December 1996 IAC Meeting Notes
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Distribution List
California
Terry Gorton, Assistant Secretary, Forestry and Rural Economic Dev., California Resource Agency
Mark Stanley, Member of Resources Agency Task Force for Forestry & Rural Economic Development
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, Center Director, Biological Resources Division, U.S.Geological Survey
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
Robert Lackey, Associate 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, 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 12/11/96
| Meeting Date: December 5, 1996 | REO Contact/Phone: Don Knowles 503-326-6266 |
| Topic: Proposed IAC Meeting Schedule for FY 1997 | |
| Objective: Agree to the proposed dates. | |
IAC Agreements: The IAC agreed to the proposed dates, modified as follows. For the
April, June, and August meetings, we will add Wednesday as a field trip day. The June
meeting dates will be changed to June 18 & 19.
| |
| Follow-up Actions (who/what/when): Members are requested to block these dates on their calendars. The REO will work with IAC members to schedule the field trips, including topics for review and agenda items. Increased participation will be sought of the State, Tribal, and County representatives in hosting the meetings and in developing and presenting agenda topics. | |
| Meeting Date: December 5, 1996 | REO Contact/Phone: Don Knowles 503-326-6266 |
| Topic: Evaluation of IAC Processes and Procedures | |
| Objective: Respond to the discussion at the September IAC meeting regarding the nature of IAC meetings in general, the types of issues addressed at those meetings, the relationship of the IAC to the Provincial Advisory Committees (PACs), and the overall performance of the PACs with the results of the questionnaire sent to all IAC members. | |
| Summary of Discussion/IAC Actions: The IAC discussed the trial recommendations identified in the prework package (the IAC goal statements, draft criteria for selecting agenda topics and a definition of "policy," increasing the non-Federal IAC member participation in the development of agenda topics and IAC activities, and identifying the type of REO correspondence in an effort to ease IAC member decisionmaking). The role of the PACs and their relationship to the IAC was discussed. | |
| IAC Agreements: We will keep the IAC goal statement from the IAC Charter in mind as we operate future IAC meetings. In general, there was agreement to keep the discussions at a policy level. Moreover, there was agreement to use the proposed definition of "policy" as we prepare IAC written materials and as the chair manages future IAC meetings. Significant efforts will be made between now and April 1977 to clarify our expectations from PACs. | |
| RIEC Decisions: The RIEC agreed with the IAC discussion. | |
| Follow-up Actions (who/what/when): The REO will report back to the IAC on the results of a review of ROD citations to determine PAC expectations, on the IAC/PAC relationship, and any guidance or direction issued by BLM and FS to PACs for their agendas or operations, and on a questionnaire to be distributed to all PAC members. Based on this report, IAC members will be asked for suggestions about future roles for PACs. | |
| Meeting Date: December 5, 1996 | REO Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie 503-326-6250 |
| Topic: Final Draft: Results of the FY 1996 Implementation Monitoring Program Report | |
| Objective: The Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) had been requested to review and comment on the final draft report. Based on written review comments and the IAC discussions, guidance on completing and publishing the report was requested. In addition, the objective was to establish a process to assess the significance of the results and development of potential follow-up management actions. | |
| Summary of Discussion/IAC Actions: In general the review comments and the discussions were in
three categories: (1) editorial comments and suggestions, (2) a small number of technical issues, and
(3) the extent and amount of analysis of the results and in particular the assessment of their
importance and recommendations for follow-up management actions. The technical discussion
centered around the amount of emphasis to be placed on the quantitative results of the questionnaire
versus the pilot nature of the effort and the more qualitative lessons learned. The majority of the
discussion focused on the options for revising the text: (1) revising the text, without editing the
database, (2) revising the text after editing the database to address inconsistencies in the Yes/No/NA
format, and (3) conducting option 2, plus additional analysis of topical areas. The major criteria to
emerge during the discussion was the degree to which the report identified and supported the
assessment of the results and recommended management actions. The discussion of the process to
develop recommendations primarily addressed the advantages of an interagency group and inclusion
of their results in the report.
During the presentation the correct interpretations of the summary statistics in the report were discussed. Review comments supported the concept of the five categories of answers, and the value of the topical analysis results using those categories; i.e., riparian reserves, coarse woody debris and snags. These results provide the relevant information that can be used to assess the importance of meeting the Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) and development of management follow-up recommendations. The summary statistic, "the proportion of Yeses is 77.6 percent with a 80 percent confidence interval of 74.4 percent - 80.8 percent", should not be interpreted as "only 77.6 percent of the time did the timber sales comply with the applicable S&Gs". Inconsistency in answering the questions, particularly due to inadequate guidance and different assumptions on the part of the review teams about the questionnaire, lead to difficulty in interpretation of the simple statistical summaries. Recommendations for options for revising the text to resolve these inconsistencies and provide a relevant foundation for the assessment of importance and follow-up management recommendations was presented and discussed. | |
| IAC Agreements: Convene an interagency group and charge them with reviewing the significance of the results from the FY 1996 Pilot. If the results are supported by the current information summaries, then the report will be completed through the addition of the recommendations and editing the text. If the group determines that additional database and analyses are needed, they will be completed and then the report revised. The group will also assess and potentially expand the importance of the results and management guidance to reflect significant findings. | |
| RIEC Decisions: It was decided to staff a group to address the completion of the report and development of potential management guidance. | |
| Follow-up Actions (who/what/when): The REO will work in conjunction with the Regional Implementation Monitoring Team (RIMT) to identify appropriate staff and facilitate the group process of reviewing the report. It is anticipated that the results can be available at the February IAC meeting. If additional analyses are required the REO will work with the RIMT to coordinate staff efforts to complete the tasks. | |
| Meeting Date: December 5, 1996 | REO Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie 503-326-6250 |
| Topic: Draft Proposal for the FY 1997 Implementation Monitoring Tasks | |
| Objective: To provide guidance for the establishment of the FY 1997 implementation monitoring tasks. Guidance on the number of project areas and level of effort are needed to allow the development of the details for the tasks. | |
| Summary of Discussion/IAC Actions: The discussions focused on the three areas that were proposed in the FY 1996 report: timber sales, roads, and restoration projects. No additional areas were considered to be of equal priority or interest. The level of effort to devote to the FY 1997 reviews was discussed and primarily focused on a level of effort similar to the FY 1996 efforts. | |
| IAC Agreements: There was agreement that the FY 1997 design efforts should address all three proposed areas. The detailed plan should provide an assessment of two levels of effort: (1) approximately the same as FY 1996 (50 project reviews), and (2) an increased level of effort of approximately 150 percent of FY 1996 (75 project reviews). If substantial policy issues arise during the design process, either a policy subgroup of the IAC will be formed or the issues will be presented to the IAC. | |
| RIEC Decisions: The RIEC agreed to initiate the design and planning processes to develop the FY 1997 implementation monitoring program for timber sales, roads, and restoration projects. | |
| Follow-up Actions (who/what/when): The REO staff will work to facilitate the development of the detailed FY 1997 implementation monitoring plans by helping to identify specific tasks and staff requirements. The land management agencies have the lead responsibility to develop the plans. | |
| Meeting Date: December 5, 1996 | REO Contact/Phone: Curt Loop 503-326-7002 |
| Topic: Status of the Planning Grant Proposal and resolution of remaining Joint Planning Team (JPT) issues from the combined Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) and Regional Community Economic Revitalization Team (RCERT) meeting of September 19. | |
| Objective: To come to closure on the remaining unresolved IAC Agreements (5) and Follow-up Actions (3) from the combined IAC and RCERT meeting of September 19 and to discuss a set of overarching principles to guide future detailed activities. | |
| Summary of Discussion/IAC Actions: The presentation reviewed the discussion from the November 14 conference call where it was decided and agreed to that the Planning Grant Proposal alternative could not succeed and was therefore abandoned. During the call, the REO offered a series of overarching principles for review which would guide future activities by participating agencies to better integrate efforts to achieve the social, economic, and ecological objectives of the NFP. During the conference call, it was pointed out that some Agreements and Follow-up Actions remained unresolved. During the presentation, the REO provided information on each issue and recommended that all unresolved issues be closed. | |
| IAC Agreements: The IAC concurred with and supported the REO recommendations to close all Agreements and Follow-up Actions from the September 19 combined meeting. The IAC also supported the dissolution of the JPT. | |
| RIEC Decisions: The RIEC decided to dissolve the JPT and close all outstanding issues from previous JPT meetings. The RIEC commended the members of the JPT for their labors and efforts to bring forth recommendations to more fully integrate the goals and objectives of the ecological and social/economic objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan. The REO was directed to prepare Letters of Appreciation for the JPT members in which the overarching principles brought forth during the November 14 conference call are outlined. These principles would be considered in future planning and in the conduct of activities in support of the Northwest Forest Plan. | |
| Follow-up Actions (who/what/when): The REO will prepare Letters of Appreciation for the JPT members for the RIEC chairperson's signature. The REO will also continue to schedule joint meetings with the RCERT and place on the agenda, economic issues which warrant IAC consideration and discussion. The REO will also continue to explore and recommend other methods of integrating the ecological and social-economic goals and objectives of the NFP. | |
Text of the presentation by Scott Duff at the December 5, 1996 IAC Meeting
Forest Conference
The President's Forest Conference identified the following issues: a lack of community investment, a lack of land tenure, a lack of community leadership capacity, and a lack of local control.
The economic side of this effort's perception is based on investments, or the lack of investments. For example, activities in a watershed have an impact on a community's investments. Forest harvest activities were one reason why Rural Development invested in a water storage and distribution system in Riddle, Oregon. A new water storage system was required at Riddle because the watershed lost its holding capacity after timber was harvested. This is an example of the relationship between forest harvest and community investment. I am not sure if it was harvested on private land or Federal land.
Our connection is where we begin to mix a sustainable forest with a sustainable community. For example, information is needed about the stream of products that forest land will produce over time: tourism potential, plants other than timber, water, and fish. What is the required investment to bring the forest to a sustainable state? What is the investment needed to assure the survival of endangered species? How does the needed public investment for communities to diversify and become sustainable link together with a diverse forest ecosystem?
Harvesting timber from a public resource should have a public benefit, such as investment in the forest or community. In many communities, a lack of public investment resulted when companies harvesting Federal timber moved on, leaving a contaminated mill site with an inadequate water and sewer system. Many communities lack essential public facilities.
History of the EAI
The RCERT adopted a decentralized approach for decisionmaking. The RCERT deliberately focused decisionmaking at the SCERT level. Community priorities are created and ranked by each county as to priority for submittal to the SCERT. Partnerships are emphasized to both improve service delivery and create efficiencies of operation with scarce administrative resources. Partnerships have improved service delivery by creating a lead agency for communities.
The RCERT rejected the option of becoming a Federal Advisory Committee because of the time involved in creating a committee and the cost of its operation. This decision was made with some controversy. It was agreed that a regional organization was not the place to make project decisions. The RCERT also eliminated the tendency for the meetings to be a sounding board for forest management decisions.
Two Paths
The forest management controversy at the beginning of the EAI threatened to impact the focus of the organization. An attempt at the regional level to coordinate activities was not pursued in order to separate the RCERT from forest management issues. The RCERT's clearly defined focus is essential community investments that will promote economic recovery through diversification. This objective of diversification has been a topic for communities in rural America for decades. RCERT leaders feel our efforts are a positive way to move beyond the forest management controversy, and engage community's energy in a positive effort. Investment opportunities were identified in key areas: education and job training, infrastructure, capital access, ecosystem investments, and community leadership capacity building.
Text of the presentation by Scott Duff at the December 5, 1996 IAC Meeting--Continued
The process has engaged the energy of communities and individuals to build their infrastructure, create business, create positive change, adapt to new realities, and build capacity for local control.
Our interagency efforts are closely coordinated at the state and local levels. However at the regional level we are not coordinated, nor is this coordination emphasized. We did agree early on in the effort to coordinate at the province and state level.
Some people have confused public involvement with economics. Economic diversification (adjustment) involves public input but also must be investment driven. Local people must have input into the investment decisions. The community finance people of the EAI put decision in terms of investments in the future. It is important to expand our partnership to the regional level to begin analyzing decisions as investments to achieve a sustainable community and ecosystem.
Just a note: sustainable development has some baggage - to some it means organic farming via sustainable agriculture.
To accomplish this coordination, I think that Federal agencies should have the same vision. This to me is an issue of implementation rather than policy. We need to have an idea of how to move on to the next level. We need an approach to put the parts together. We need to answer the question, "Is the economic and sociological research adequate?" We need to examine the management structures and understand each other's operations. We need to understand and chart public involvement entities and structures. We need a watershed-by-watershed analysis of the investment required to achieve our objectives, and a vision of how to generate the investment capital.
| Meeting Date: December 5, 1996 | REO Contact/Phone: Don Knowles 503-326-6266 |
| Topic: Adaptive Management Areas--A Status Report and Two Proposals | |
| Objective: Review the status of the Adaptive Management Area (AMA) program. Review and discuss the proposed charter for an AMA Work Group to review AMA plans, and criteria to be used in such review. | |
| Summary of Discussion/IAC Actions: The AMA presentation to the IAC included the background for AMA establishment and a status report on AMA efforts to date. Many comments recognized that an essential ingredient to AMA success was local stakeholder efforts. Several IAC members suggested close cooperation between AMAs and Level I Consultation Teams, as well as the continued need for early interagency involvement in tests of Standards & Guidelines. Additionally, several members suggested ways to revise the draft review criteria memo. | |
| IAC Agreements: IAC members supported the need to conduct AMA plan reviews, as required by the ROD, and also the use of an appropriately chartered AMA Work Group to effect these reviews. | |
| RIEC Decisions: The RIEC agreed that AMAs were an integral part of the Northwest Forest Plan and that it was timely to increase attention and support for AMA operations. The RIEC agreed to the establishment of an interagency AMA Work Group and that the AMA Work Group should review and revise if appropriate, the review criteria memo prior to its signing. | |
| Follow-up Actions (who/what/when): The REO will take the necessary action to have the RIEC establish the AMA Work Group. Once established, the Work Group will put the review criteria memo in final form for signature; finish the development of the Charter for the Work Group; and begin carrying out the provisions of the Charter, including the review of AMA plans. The REO will encourage the Work Group to use the ROD review criteria as the starting point for reviewing AMA plans, and to additionally look at AMA goals and objectives so that innovative AMA efforts can proceed within the Northwest Forest Plan context. The REO will report back to the IAC in February 1997 on the progress to date for the above tasks. | |
Potential Agenda Items for the February 6, 1997 IAC Meeting
Potential Status Report for the February 6, 1997 IAC Meeting
Possible Future Agenda Items
Overheads:
Adaptive Management Areas
FY 1996 Implementation Monitoring Draft
FY 1997 Implementation Monitoring Proposal
Joint Planning Team--Planning Grant Proposal
Handouts:
Adaptive Management Areas Brochures
Correspondence of Interest-Available for requests
Hot Topics--Status of the Effectiveness Monitoring Effort for the NW Forest Plan
IAC Charter Renewal Status Report
IAC December Prework Package
IAC December Meeting Agenda
IAC Identification List
IAC September Meeting Notes
Organizational Chart NFP
PIEC Identification List
REO Functional Statement Packet
REO Telephone Directory
RIEC Identification List
Publications available on request:
Effectiveness Monitoring Report-July 21, 1995
Implementation Monitoring Report-Draft -November 1, 1996
Interagency Vegetation Information-June 1, 1995
Natural Resource Partnership Proposal-Cost-Effective Results through Public/Private Partnership-Draft
Record of Decision (ROD)
WA Guide-Section I-August, 1995
WA Guide-Section II (Modules)-November 1, 1995
| * Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting * December 5, 1996 * Attendance List *
* Intergovernmental Advisory Committee and Alternates * | ||
| Name | Title | Agency |
| Blomstrom, Greg | Forester Planner | CA Indian Forest & Fire Mgmt. Council |
| Feigner, Ken | Director, Forest and Salmon Group | Environmental Protection Agency |
| Graham, Bob | State Conservationist | Natural Resources Conservation Service |
| Green, Peter | Federal Policy Advisor | State of Oregon |
| Holmes Gaar, Elizabeth | Habitat Branch Chief | National Marine Fisheries Service |
| Jolly, Carol | Senior Executive Policy Asst | State of Washington |
| Lackey, Bob | Deputy Director Envir. Research Lab | Environmental Protection Agency |
| Milestone, Jim | NPS Representative | Regional Ecosystem Office |
| Mills, Tom | Program Manager | Forest Service, PNW |
| Moon, Mel | Commissioner | NW Indian Fisheries Commission |
| Morishima, Gary (a.m) | Technical Advisor | Intertribal Timber Council |
| Motanic, Don (p.m.) | Intertribal Timber Council | |
| Speaks, Stan | Area Director | Bureau of Indian Affairs |
| Spear, Mike | Regional Director | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service |
| Stanley, Mark | Member of Team, For.&Rur.Ec.Dev. | Resources Agency, State of California |
| Starkey, Ed | Research Biologist&Terr Ec. Prg. | Natural Biological Service |
| Sullivan, Francie | County Supervisor | Shasta County, California |
| Tuchmann, Tom | Director (Ex Officio) | Office of Forestry & Economic Assistance |
| Williams, Bob | Acting Regional Forester | Forest Service, R-6 |
| Zielinski, Elaine | State Director | Bureau of Land Management, OR/WA |
Regional Ecosystem Office
| Alverts, Sharon | Receptionist | Forest Service |
| Benson, Gary | Research Representative | Forest Service, PNW |
| Knowles, Don | 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 |
| Guenther, Dale | Acting GIS Coordinator | Forest Service |
| Powers, Dave | Representative | Environmental Protection Agency |
| Pietrzak, Debbie | Representative | 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 |
| Wheeler, Jeff | Administrative Officer | Forest Service |
| Ystad, Laurie | Secretary | Forest Service |
| * Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting * December 5, 1996 *
* Other ** Attendees * | ||
| Name | Title | Agency |
| Alverts, Bob | Research & Monitoring | Bureau of Land Management |
| Belisle, Harold | Forest Plan Coordinator | Bureau of Land Management |
| Bradley, Bill | Forestry Chief | Bureau of Land Management |
| Clark, Roger | Program Manager, Seattle Lab. | Forest Service, PNW |
| Clauson, Steve | Regional Representative | Forest Service, R-5 |
| Duff, Steve | RCERT Member | State of Oregon, USDA/RECD |
| Graybeal, Nancy | Deputy Regional Forester | Forest Service, R-6 |
| Craggier, Katie | Envir. Policy Analyst | Quileute Tribe |
| Magee, Jerry | AMA Program Coordinator | Bureau of Land Management |
| McIlwain, Jerry | Program Manager | Forest Service, PNW |
| Tolle, Tim | AMA Program Coordinator | Forest Service, R-6 |
| Wesley, Dave | Deputy Asst. Regional Director | Fish & Wildlife Service |
| White, Bill | Assistant State Conservationist | Natural Resources Conservation Service |