Regional Ecosystem Office

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

              Memorandum

Date:     March 21, 1997

To:         Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (See Distribution List)

From:     Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director

Subject:  Agenda and Prework Materials for the April 2-3 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Field Trip and Meeting

Enclosed are the field trip itinerary, proposed agenda, agenda topic overviews, and logistics information for the April 2-3 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) field trip and meeting. The meeting will be held at the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Hall, Hoopa Reservation, Hoopa, California.

The field trip is planned for Wednesday, April 2. Specific logistical information is included in the itinerary on page 3. You do not need to bring a lunch--it will be provided. Please wear field clothes, including boots, and be prepared for rain. The IAC meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, April 3 and is projected to adjourn by 3:00 p.m. to facilitate transportation from Hoopa to the Arcata airport for the earliest scheduled flight departing at 4:50 p.m. The IAC agenda includes the following goals:

• Discuss field trip issues.
• Present an overview of the Effectiveness Monitoring effort, review the current status of the Work Group proposals, and discuss what the next decision points are.
• Tribal Sovereignty and consultation presentations with time for questions and answers.
• Present options for a decision on the FY 1997 Implementation Monitoring Program.
• Panel presentation by the California Provincial Advisory Committees with time for questions and answers.

We need your travel information so we can work with Greg Blomstrom in planning the field trip and other events. Once you have made your reservations, please fill out the enclosed fax form (page 16) and send it to the REO. If you have questions about the logistics or the meeting agenda, please contact Linda Kucera at 503-326-6283.

Enclosures

cc: REO, RCERT, DFO's California PACs

902/lk

Date: March 21, 1997
Subject: IAC Prework Package for April 1997

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Distribution List

California
Mark Stanley, California Resource Agency (Acting)
Francie Sullivan, Representative of California Counties

Oregon
Paula Burgess, Assistant to the Governor for Natural Resources, Office of the Governor
Rocky McVay, Representative of Oregon Counties

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, Representative of Washington Counties

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)
Eric Hanson, Associate Director, Wildlife Department, Yakama Indian Nation (Alternate)

Federal Agencies
Eugene Andreuccetti, Regional Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Bob Graham, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service (Alternate)
John D. Buffington, Western Region Chief Biologist, BRD, U.S. Geological Survey
Michael Collopy, Center Director, Biological Resources Division, U.S.Geological Survey (Alternate)
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, Assoc. Director, Environmental Research Lab, Environmental Protection Agency (Alternate)
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 Administrator, 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)
William Walters, Deputy Regional 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 03/20/97

Begin in Arcata at 9:30 a.m. and End in Hoopa at 5:30 p.m.

Field Trip -- April 2 -- Wednesday
9:30 a.m.	Folks driving to or staying in Arcata will meet at the Holiday Inn across the street from the Valley West Shopping Center, board a bus, and depart at 9:30 for the Arcata airport to collect additional passengers. Note: No private vehicles will be allowed on the tour.
10:00	Everyone arriving at the Arcata airport will depart, by bus, for "Ah Pah" Redwoods National Park watershed restoration site.
11:00	Arrive at "Ah Pah" Redwoods National Park to view and discuss a watershed restoration road obliteration project.
11:40	Depart "Ah Pah" and travel to Dolason Prairie.
12:00 Noon	Arrive Dolason Prairie for a presentation on prairie burning and meadow invasion by the National Park Service. Lunch stop, sack lunch provided, and restroom available.
1:00 p.m.	Depart Dolason Prairie and travel to the Hoopa Valley Reservation.
2:00	Arrive at "1T" Hoopa Valley watershed restoration site. Walk to site and discuss watershed restoration and road decommissioning.
3:15	Depart "1T" watershed restoration site and travel to "Bald Hill K 15".
4:00	Arrive "Bald Hill K 15" old-growth cut and discuss partial cutting in old-growth, hardwood management, wildlife mitigation, down wood material, group shelterwood, erosion, tractor piling/slash management, windthrow of leave trees.
5:00	Depart "Bald Hill K 15" for Hoopa.
5:30	Arrive at the Hoopa Best Western. Note: Transportation will be provided to Willow Creek and Arcata--this precludes attending the dinner.
5:30	Hoopa Tribal Museum will be opened for us to visit.
6:30	Dinner hosted by the Tribe at the VFW Hall--transportation to/from Hoopa Best Western provided.
7:30	Cultural sharing hosted by the Tribe.
8:00	Transportation provided to Willow Creek motels and Arcata Holiday Inn and airport.
IAC Meeting -- April 3 -- Thursday
7:45 a.m.	Depart Willow Creek motels for Hoopa -- transportation provided.
11:45	Lunch provided by the Tribe during the IAC meeting.
3:15 p.m.	Depart Hoopa for Arcata airport -- transportation provided.

 

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: April 3, 1997

Sponsor: Research Executives for PNW, USGS/BRD, EPA and the RMC Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie 503-326-6250

Topic: Effectiveness Monitoring Overview

Issue Statement: Present the overall approach for effectiveness monitoring of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) and provide information to support eventual agency decision on options for monitoring key resource issues. Review the status of the Work Group efforts for late-successional old growth (LSOG), northern spotted owl (NSO), marbled murrelet (MaMu), Riparian and Aquatic (Rip/Aq), Survey and Manage (S&M), Social-Economic, and Tribal.

Background: Development of monitoring plans for effectiveness monitoring for 5 resource issues (LSOG, NSO, MaMu, Rip/Aq, and S&M), assigned by the IAC, has been underway since the fall of 1994. As previously discussed with the IAC, this has been a long and difficult task hampered by the lack of available staff and expertise, and because of the complexity of ecosystem monitoring. An initial report (July 21, 1995) describing the general approach to this type of monitoring was accepted by the IAC in the fall of 1995 along with a recommendation to focus more thoroughly on the scientific basis for monitoring. As a result, at the IAC meeting in May 1996 the three Federal Research Executives (Tom Mills, Mike Collopy, and Tom Murphy) agreed to take responsibility for sponsoring completion of proposals for effectiveness monitoring. Five Work Groups were created, and agency staff were formally assigned to complete the proposals; the Work Groups were comprised of agency specialists with monitoring experience, including senior scientists, management agency staff, and mid-level agency managers. These Work Groups were assigned the responsibility of completing development of an integrated, science-based approach to monitoring, and were specifically tasked with identifying options for monitoring each of 4 key resource areas (LSOG, NSO, MaMu, and Rip/Aq); the 5th area, S&M, was delayed with IAC concurrence to allow completion of the S&M survey protocols and management recommendations. Effectiveness monitoring plan development has only recently been initiated for the additional issues. At the May 1996 meeting the IAC also reaffirmed its support for the habitat-based approach that was proposed in the July 1995 report for monitoring the NFP and affirmed the application of this approach in the initial draft proposal for monitoring the NSO. The intent of the assignment was to produce a set of options with sufficient explanation that would allow the Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) to select a specific approach to monitoring each of the 4 resource issues that would provide useful and timely information in a cost efficient manner. The Work Groups are nearing completion of that task and this briefing initiates the process that is intended to lead to agency decisions on monitoring for the initial 4 resource issues. The assignment is the culmination of over 6 months of intensive work by the 5 Work Groups, involving over 100 individuals. The expectation is that there will be a discussion between the Research and other agency executives for a decision 30 days following agency review of the final Work Group recommendations, potentially to occur in May to June. Each report will have gone through peer review prior to submittal to the agencies for their decision. After selection of a set of options for each issue, the specific steps, staffing plans, funding allocations, field manuals, etc., will need to be developed so the selected options can be implemented.

Analysis and Options: The assignment was to develop options or alternative approaches for effectiveness monitoring of selected resource issues on Federal lands within the NFP area. Effectiveness monitoring is only intended to address the "status and trends" of resource issues. It focuses on the question: "to what extent are the goals and objectives of the NFP being achieved?" In addition, the assigned task was to develop an approach that would answer this question at the regional scale to help assess whether the NFP as a whole was meeting expectations for each resource issue. To answer trend questions about long-lived resources requires establishment of a long-term monitoring program that will last the life of the NFP. This has not been an easy task. Monitoring, particularly at the scale of an ecosystem plan such as the NFP, is very complex and little understood. There are few examples of successful programs and none at this scale. Most "guidance" exists in the scientific literature as theory or concepts. Hence, the Work Groups were breaking new ground in the development of this program. In addition, because of changing budgets there is the added complexity of funding uncertainty. In responding to these challenges, the Work Groups have developed a highly science-based approach that relies on existing data collection programs where feasible, and which integrates related components of these and other programs to increase efficiencies and to reduce cost. This proposed approach is also intended to provide a template for developing future modules for effectiveness monitoring (e.g., S&M, Social-Economic, and Tribal). The general ecological approach proposed by the Work Groups is to focus on forest vegetation/species habitat as the core of the monitoring program. The program will also include population monitoring and there will be a concerted attempt to develop a predictive modeling capability that links population trends with habitat trends. If successful, this will further reduce the future costs of monitoring. Data collection will use both remote sensing and ground plot techniques. Because of the lack of experience with this type of monitoring, there will be strong emphasis in the initial years on pilot testing and development of more effective methodologies. A number of pilot projects have already been initiated to begin to respond to these needs, and it is expected that the program will be improved over time (i.e., adaptive monitoring). The critical aspect of this program is its emphasis on information management, analysis, and reporting. The primary product that this program will produce is a periodic interpretative report that is intended to play a major role in the adaptive management process. However, past experience highlights the fact that most funding associated with monitoring is allotted to data collection, and very little if any attention is given to information management. Therefore, the program was structured around institutionalizing these activities in a way that is integrated into day-to-day operations. The complexity of this type of monitoring only further illustrates the need for making monitoring a normal part of operations. Finally, a key underpinning to this program is the availability of an updated regional vegetation map that meets a minimum standard of scientific acceptability. The development of this map (and supporting database) is a central component of the vegetation/species habitat and predictive modeling approach, and will be the primary source of trend information needed to address many of the monitoring questions about the NFP. Efforts to develop such a map have been proposed by the Vegetation Strike Team, and previously presented to the IAC. A decision on how to implement their recommendations will be critical to the success of the monitoring program. This decision will need to be made prior to selection of monitoring options because the result of the decision may change some of those options.

Either at the April 3 meeting or shortly thereafter, the IAC will be provided a notebook that contains a report on the overall science basis for monitoring, and individual reports for each of the 4 initial resource issues. Although there are a number of potential decision areas identified in these reports, the major points that the IAC will need to consider as it reviews these documents are: Review and decision on the overall science-based approach to monitoring. Review and decision on production of a vegetation map and database. Review and decision on monitoring options for each of the 4 resource areas. Reaffirm staff commitments to continue development of the draft proposals materials for the other resource areas that were recently initiated. To help provide additional information for these decisions, agency briefings or workshops will be set up for discussion. The Research Executives, sponsoring this Work Group effort, would like to help the agencies reach decisions within 30 days following submittal of the final products (May to June).

Organizational/Funding Implications: To be effective, the basic program, regardless of the options selected will need long-term stability in both staffing and funding. In addition, it is expected that all Federal agencies participate, including research, land management, and regulatory agencies. While costs of some aspects can be estimated, the actual costs of the total program cannot be estimated. This will depend on the options selected (the individual reports will provide estimates), but will also depend on future modules, such as S&M. In addition, after selection of the options, an approach to staffing, coordinating, and managing this program will need to be determined. The result will affect future staff assignments and roles in each agency.

Action Required: IAC Review & Discussion

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: April 3, 1997

Sponsor: Research Executives for PNW, USGS/BRD, EPA and the RMC Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie 503-326-6250

Topic: Status of Effectiveness Monitoring Work Group Proposals

Background: In May 1996 the Federal Research Executives (PNW, USGS/BRD, and EPA) in agreement with the IAC took responsibility for completing proposals for effectiveness monitoring for the Northwest Forest Plan. A core science team and four Work Groups were established to develop an overall science-based approach to monitoring and individual proposals for monitoring 4 resource areas previously assigned by the IAC (late-successional old growth, northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, and riparian/aquatic). This effort was intended to complete the initial work begun under IAC direction in 1995 (see ATO for further details). In addition, the Research Executives have taken responsibility for initiating additional Work Group efforts to begin to draft monitoring plans for S&M species, Social-Economic, and Tribal issues. An effort to begin addressing validation monitoring is expected to be integrated with the interagency research plan, and discussions will be initiated after completion of the research plan.

Status/Update: The 5 Work Groups are nearing completion of their assignment, as follows: The core science team is developing the scientific basis for the effectiveness monitoring program. A draft report has been prepared that will be sent out for peer review among a selected group of nationally known scientists and experts. A final report should be completed in late April to early May. Proposals for late-successional old growth (LSOG) and the spotted owl (NSO) have gone through scientific peer review and are currently undergoing final revisions before submittal to the Research Executives in early April. The proposal for the murrelet (MaMu) is currently in peer review; a final document is expected in late April. Development of a monitoring proposal for Riparian and Aquatic resources (Rip/Aq) has proven to be more difficult than expected. The Work Group has developed a conceptual approach; a draft proposal is not expected until sometime this summer. Development of a vegetation map and database is critical to the success of an effectiveness monitoring program for all 4 resource issues. A proposal for developing a regional vegetation map using common standards was previously proposed by IRICC (Vegetation Strike Team). This proposal is being revised to meet the needs of the monitoring program and a final draft proposal will be available in April. The resultant products will provide an array of options of different levels of intensity and cost for each resource issue for agency decision. The intent had been to provide final proposals for all 4 resource areas as one package to give agency executives a better sense of the major part of the expected program. However, because of the complexity of the Rip/Aq issue, only the LSOG, NSO, and MaMu will be provided in April for IAC review and discussion leading to agency decisions in May to June. Detailed briefings will be provided as needed on each issue. Work Group discussions are only in the initial stages for the other resource areas; draft plans are expected in the fall of 1997. See the attached timetable for comparison of the status of these and related efforts.

Progress of NFP Monitoring Efforts

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: April 3, 1997

Sponsor: Hoopa Tribe Contact/Phone: Greg Blomstrom, Tribal Forester 916-625-4284 or G. S. Sims 503-326-6274

Topic: Tribal Panel

Issue Statement: A panel is scheduled to discuss Tribal sovereignty and consultation.

Background: The panel will have four presenters: Dale Risling, Hoopa Tribal Chairman Nolan Colegrove, Hoopa Forest Manager Ron Jaeger, Sacramento Area Director Martha Ketelle, Six Rivers National Forest Supervisor. Each member of the panel will make a short presentation and will be able to answer any questions from the IAC members. The tentative topics for the presenters are: Dale Risling, Hoopa Tribe, Chairman will make a presentation on self-governance. It will focus on the historical context of how self-governance became law. Chairman Risling will also discuss the mutual obligations between Federal agencies and compact Tribes. Nolan Colegrove, Hoopa Tribe, Forest Manager will have a slide presentation comparing and contrasting Tribal forest management with the Northwest Forest Plan. Ron Jaeger, BIA, Sacramento Area Director will discuss how the BIA represents Tribes to other agencies and how other agencies work with the BIA. This will be presented in light of Sacramento Area's responsibilities to 104 Rancheria Tribes. Mr. Jaeger will also discuss the additional difficulties, common in California, of working with Tribes so small they have virtually no staff. Martha Ketelle, FS, Forest Supervisor, Six Rivers National Forest will discuss the opportunities and challenges associated with government-to-government consultation with Tribes, from the Forest Service point of view. Examples may include support for the South Boundary adjustment; working with the Karuk Tribe concerning burning and the village sites at Orleans; working with basket weavers; and management of the "DeNoTo Trail."

Action Required: Other: Information sharing

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: April 3, 1997

Sponsor: RMC/REO Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie 503-326-6250

Topic: FY 1997 Implementation Monitoring Plans

Issue Statement: Previous decisions by the Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) provided the guidance for the development of the FY 1997 implementation monitoring program. Selection of the configuration to implement is needed, along with an affirmation of interagency commitments to leadership and staffing the plan.

Background: Based on the FY 1996 pilot implementation monitoring results and input from the IAC, the scope for the FY 1997 program was established to include timber sales, roads, and restoration projects. Further guidance requested that two optional levels of effort be explored and presented. The FY 1997 implementation monitoring plan is nearing completion and final guidance is needed to select amongst the options. Concurrently, reaffirming commitments to providing the staff and additional resources to accomplish the project reviews and reporting is needed.

Analysis and Options: The FY 1997 implementation monitoring plan is designed based on a target number of provincial team reviews, with each review including a combination of timber sales, roads, and restoration projects. As in FY 1996 each review team session would likely consist of 2 days and would include both field and office components. Overall leadership and facilitation would be provided by a regional implementation team consisting of Forest Service R-5 & R-6 and Bureau of Land Management staff. The provincial review teams would be lead by agency staff, and consist of agency representatives and be open to public participation. Team leaders would be responsible for the review and reporting the results. The Regional team would provide a report on the findings to complete the FY 1997 effort. Option A: Approximately 40 provincial team reviews will be scheduled. Timber sales will be selected that provide results for timber sale volume (100 - 1000 MBF, and greater than 1000 MBF) and Land Allocation (LSR, AMA, Matrix). Road construction projects will be selected that provide results for both roads associated with and without timber sales. Restoration projects will be selected and reviewed to provide results for two or three categories of restoration activities. An underlying design criteria is samples from each strata and may lead to some provinces without a review session; i.e., provinces will not be an explicit strata. This represents essentially a continuation of the work effort associated with the FY 1996 program. Option B: Additional reviews will be scheduled such that all provinces have at least one review session. This is a slight increase from the FY 1996 program. Option C: Approximately 60 provincial team reviews will be scheduled. This option will provide increased sample sizes in the categories identified in Option A and better provincial representation (at least two reviews). A limited number of reviews of timber sales with volumes less than 100 MBF would be possible. This represents about 50 percent more effort than the FY 1996--with increased sample sizes and confidence in results. Organizational/Funding Implications: Conduct of the FY 1997 implementation monitoring effort will require assignment of a regional team for an estimated 25-30 work months. The leadership and responsibility for this effort should be explicit. At the provincial level the work is contingent upon provincial teams lead by an agency team leader, with participation by agency representatives and public participation. In addition, the host field office from the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service provide the project materials and logistics for the review sessions. It is estimated that the level of effort to conduct Option A is 60-65 work months, 65-70 work months for Option B, and 90 work months for Option C.

REO Staff Proposal: Option A is recommended for the FY 1997 implementation monitoring to support the Northwest Forest Plan. Option B should be entertained only if there is a compelling policy rationale for including all provinces.

Action Required: RIEC Decision

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: April 3, 1997

Sponsor: IAC Contact/Phone: Designated REO Representative and Steve Clauson, Panel Moderator

Topic: Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC) Panel

Issue Statement: How are the PACs operating? Since 1995, the PACs have been meeting and advising the Provincial Interagency Executive Committees, but there has been little interaction with the IAC. The PACs in California are working well and want to assure the IAC that the advisory committee process is valid and working.

Background: When the PACs were chartered in September of 1994 (rechartered September of 1996), a decision by the Regional Interagency Federal Executive Committee was to have them operate essentially independently. At a recent Forest Service Forest Supervisors conference, some of the Designated Federal Officials were concerned about whether the PACs were the best vehicle for getting intergovernmental collaboration and advice. This message plus the concern of some IAC members prompted the role of PACs and their relationship to IAC to be a possible future agenda item. The three PACs in California have all expressed a strong desire to continue operation. They have all been dealing with different issues but their existence has allowed interagency/intergovernmental collaboration to occur and relationships to be built that would not necessarily have happened otherwise. The PACs through their representatives will present 3 items for discussion with IAC: Major accomplishments by each PAC. Recommendations on what their relationship could or should be with IAC. A description of how the SCERT and PACs have developed a subcommittee to assure better integration of the ecosystem and economic sides of the Northwest Forest Plan. After the PAC panel presentations, there will be a moderated discussion between the PACs and IAC.

Action Required: Other: Information Sharing

April Red Folder Items (as of 3/21)
Overheads - Effectiveness Monitoring
Briefing Documents for each Key Resource Issue
Overheads - Implementation Monitoring

Field Trip Topics - April, June, August
Habitat Conservation Plan
PACs
Adaptive Management Areas
Forest Health

Possible Agenda Items - June 18-19
IAC/RCERT Interaction
Effectiveness Monitoring drafts for MaMu and Aq/Rip
Land transfers
Governor Kitzhaber's Salmon Proposal

Possible Status Reports - June 18-19
Federal Timber Sale Update
Funding for NFP implementation - Tables to IAC

Possible Agenda Items - August 6-7
Source Water Protection Program, EPA
HCPs

Possible Status Reports - August 6-7

Possible Agenda Items - November 6
Take a look at where we are: big picture look, grounding, accomplishments
Activity Information Sharing Update

Possible Agenda Items Identified but Not Yet Scheduled
IAC/RCERT Interaction
Western Governors Association (WGA) Initiatives
Strategic Plan

Logistics for the April 1997 IAC Field Trip and Meeting in Hoopa, California

At the invitation of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Council, and as discussed at our February 6 IAC meeting, our April 2-3 Advisory Committee meeting and field trip will be held in Hoopa, California. The logistical information that follows is being provided to assist you in making your travel arrangements. Because motel rooms and flights are limited, please make your travel arrangements as soon as possible. Government per diem rates for Humboldt County, California, are $56 for lodging and $34 for meals and incidentals.

Lodging

IAC members should make your motel reservations at the Best Western Tsewenaldin Inn (telephone 916-625-4294) for the night of Wednesday, April 2. Greg Blomstrom, acting on behalf of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Council, has placed a hold on all available rooms at the Best Western, so you may need to identify your association with the IAC.

REO representatives and others participating in the field trip and meeting should make motel reservations in Willow Creek at either Wyatts Motel (telephone 916-629-2142) or Willow Creek Motel (telephone 916-629-2115).

Flights

Our goal is to assemble at the airport around 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday. Here are the flights that make that work. Also, we plan to adjourn by 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, to fit the following flight schedule.

Flights to Arcata Flights from Arcata

From Leave Arrive To Leave Arrive

Portland 7:20 a.m. 9:25 a.m. Portland 6:25 p.m. 8:55 p.m.
Seattle 6:00 a.m. 9:40 a.m. Seattle 5:10 p.m. 9:00 p.m.
Sacramento 8:30 a.m. 9:35 a.m. Sacramento 4:50 p.m. 5:55 p.m.
San Francisco 7:20 a.m. 8:30 a.m. San Francisco 5:10 p.m. 6:20 pm.
8:30 a.m. 9:40 a.m.

Meals

Our meals (except for Thursday breakfast) will be hosted by the Tribe, including lunch and dinner on Wednesday and lunch on Thursday.

Transportation

The Tribe and the Forest Service will provide transportation for us during the 2 days.

Once you have made your reservations, please fill out the enclosed fax form and send it to the REO. We will use this information to work closely with Greg Blomstrom in planning the field trip and other events.

If you have questions, please call Linda Kucera (503-326-6283).

Regional Ecosystem Office
333 SW First Street
P.O. Box 3623
Portland, Oregon 97208
(503) 326-6265 FAX: (503) 326-6282

====================================================================

FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET

Date:

To: Linda Kucera, REO

Re: Logistics for the April 1997 IAC Field Trip and Meeting in Hoopa, California

From:

Flight to Arcata:

Date: Leave: Arrive Arcata:

Flight from Arcata:

Date: Leave Arcata: Arrive:

Lodging: Motel

I plan to rent a car: yes no

I plan to participate in the field trip: yes no

I plan to attend the dinner (April 2) hosted by the Tribe: yes no

I plan to attend the IAC meeting: yes no

Enclosure to 902iac.mem Number of page(s) including this cover sheet 1

===================================================================