Regional Ecosystem Office

333 SW 1st
P.O. Box 3623
Portland, Oregon 97208-3623
Phone: 503-808-2165 FAX: 503-808-2163

               Memorandum

Date:      June 6, 1997

To:          Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (See Distribution List)

From:      Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director

Subject:  Agenda and Prework Materials for the June 1997 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Field Trip and Meeting

Enclosed are the field trip itinerary, proposed agenda, agenda topic overviews, status reports, and logistics information for the June 18-19 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) field trip and meeting. The field trip will begin at the Eugene airport, the meeting will be held at the Oregon State Capitol Building, Room 50.

The field trip is planned for Wednesday, June 18. 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 8:00 a.m. on Thursday, June 19 and is projected to adjourn by 3:00 p.m. to facilitate transportation from Salem to the Eugene or Portland airports, as needed. The IAC agenda includes the following goals:

• Discuss field trip issues.
• Present the options for effectiveness monitoring of Late-Successional Old-Growth, Northern Spotted Owls, and Marbled Murrelets under the Northwest Forest Plan and provide information to support agency selection of monitoring options for these resource issues.
• Hot Topic informational mini-briefings on the Governor's Eastside Forest Health Initiative, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan, the Umpqua Land Exchange, and development of the Clean Water Act Standards.
• Overview and topics associated with the Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative.

Once your travel plans have been made, please fill out the enclosed fax form (page 15) and send it to the REO. If you have questions about the logistics or the meeting agenda, please contact Linda Kucera at 503-808-2179.

Enclosures

cc: REO, RCERT, PIEC, Presenters

939/lk

Date: June 6, 1997
Subject: IAC Prework Package for June 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
Dean Judd, Coordinator, Governor's Rural Community Assistance Team (Alternate-Acting)
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
William Hogarth, Acting Regional Administrator, 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

RCERT Ex Officio
Karin Berkholtz, Program Assistant, Governor's Rural Community Assistance Team, State of Washington

Updated 04/11/97

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: June 19, 1997

Sponsor: Research Executives for PNW, USGS/BRD, EPA and the RMC Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie 503-808-2190

Topic: Effectiveness Monitoring

Issue Statement: Present the options for effectiveness monitoring of Late-Successional Old-Growth Forests (LSOG), Northern Spotted Owls (NSO), and Marbled Murrelets (MaMu) under the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP). Identify policy and implementation issues to support agency selection of monitoring options for these resource issues, and agree on a schedule and process for their resolution.

Background: As discussed at the April 3 IAC meeting, draft monitoring plans for effectiveness monitoring for 3 of the 5 resource issues assigned by the IAC (LSOG, NSO, MaMu), and for the overall strategy, would be completed for review prior to the June 19 meeting; Riparian and Aquatic Resources (Rip/Aq) is still under development and Survey and Manage (S/M) has been on hold per IAC concurrence. A notebook containing the draft materials was forwarded to the IACmembers on June 3. These are complex issues and efforts to develop approaches for monitoring have been ongoing since the fall of 1994. An introduction to the general approach to this type of monitoring was described in the July 21, 1995 effectiveness monitoring report that was accepted by the IAC along with their concurrence to the recommendation to focus more thoroughly on the scientific basis for monitoring. As a result, at the request of the IAC 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. A core science team and four work groups were formally assigned to complete the proposals under their direction, including agency specialists with monitoring experience, senior scientists from the Research agencies, and management agency staff and mid-level managers. This temporary assignment is nearing completion with submittal of the draft products (see status report on Rip/Aq). These 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 the 4 resource areas (LSOG, NSO, MaMu, and Rip/Aq). At the May 1996 meeting the IAC also reaffirmed its support for the forest vegetation/species habitat-based approach that was proposed in the July 1995 report for monitoring the Forest Plan and affirmed the application of this approach in the initial draft proposal for monitoring the NSO. Hence, the work groups have been following that direction.

The intent of the assignment, given to these groups, was to produce a set of options with sufficient explanation that would allow the RIEC to select a specific approach to monitoring each of the resource issues that would provide useful and timely information in a cost-efficient manner. The draft reports for LSOG, NSO, and MaMu along with the overall strategy complete the assigned task for those issues. The assignment is the culmination of over 8 months of intensive work by these work groups, that involved over 100 individuals. All completed reports were peer reviewed and revised accordingly; all peer reviews were supportive of the approaches described. A series of briefings are being held with IAC/RIEC staff to begin the information and education process necessary for the RIEC to eventually select a set of options for monitoring. These include general informational briefings with agency staff and mid-level managers, discussions with the Research executives to ensure concurrence on the underlying science, and discussions between the Research and other agency executives to help reach conclusions about the draft options. A summary of these discussions will be provided to the IAC at the June 19 meeting. After IAC/RIEC review and discussion and the subsequent agency selection of a set of options for each issue, an implementation plan that outlines 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, as noted above, was to develop options for effectiveness monitoring of selected resource issues on Federal lands within the Forest Plan 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 Forest Plan 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 Forest Plan 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 Forest Plan. Monitoring, particularly at the scale of an ecosystem plan such as the Forest Plan, is very complex, scientific concepts are still evolving, and there are few examples of successfully applied programs from which to gain insight. In addition, because of changing budgets there is the added complexity of funding uncertainty. In responding to these challenges, the work groups developed a solid 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, Socio-Econ, 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, but will also include population monitoring. Because trend monitoring is such a long term exercise, there will be a concerted effort to develop a predictive modeling capability that links population trends with habitat trends. If successful, this will provide more timely knowledge and 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, particularly for marbled murrelets and predictive modeling. 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 using their results (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 the major role in the adaptive management process. However, past experience highlights the fact that most funding associated with monitoring has been allotted to data collection, and little attention has been 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 Forest Plan. Efforts to develop such a map have been proposed by the Vegetation Strike Team, and previously presented to the IAC. Interagency efforts have been underway to develop an approach to meeting this need, and a summary will be provided at the June 19 IAC meeting. A decision on how to implement their recommendations will be critical to the success of the monitoring program. Agency decision on this issue will need to be made prior to selection of monitoring options because the result of the decision may change some of those options. As noted above, on June 3 the IAC was provided a notebook that contains a report on the overall science basis for monitoring, and individual reports for LSOG, NSO, and MaMu. Although there are a number of potential decision areas identified in these reports, the major points that the IAC and RIEC will need to consider as it reviews these documents are: 1. Review and concurrence on the overall science-based approach to monitoring, 2. Review and decision on production of an approach to developing the vegetation map and database, and 3. Review and decision on monitoring options for each of the 3 resource areas. Initial decisions on options (item no. 3 above) should focus on four areas, and should be made in the following sequence: 1. Options for developing the LSOG vegetation habitat map, 2. Options for developing species (NSO and Mamu) habitat maps, 3. Options for developing species population databases, and 4. Options for developing predictive models.

Summaries were included in the notebooks to highlight these issues for reviewers. To help provide additional information for these decisions, agency briefings or workshops are being held to review and discuss these proposals, as described in the June 2 memo that accompanied the notebook forwarded to the IAC. At the June 19 meeting we will provide a summary of the accomplishments from each of those meetings relative to their objectives, as noted in the enclosed table. We will discuss whether those objectives were met and the conclusions and recommendations reached at each. Our primary objective for the June 19 meeting is to identify the policy and implementation issues to be addressed by the IAC and establish a process and schedule for their resolution. The results from the agency briefings will be used to clarify the objectives for the June 19 IAC meeting, and these will be provided to each IAC members prior to the session, probably either June 16 or 17 by fax. 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 and review and discussion with the IAC. These decisions will trigger the need for the agencies to establish an interagency group to evaluate the steps for implementation, including staffing and funding allocations.

Organizational/Funding Implications: To be effective, the selected effectiveness monitoring 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 will participate, including research, land management, and regulatory agencies. Estimates of the costs of the program are being evaluated and more information will be provided at the June 19 IAC meeting. Actual costs will depend on the options selected (the individual reports provide estimates) and the further evaluation that will be needed on an approach to staffing, coordinating, and managing this program; full costs of effectiveness monitoring will also depend on future modules, such as Rip/Aq, Social, etc. The result of these evaluations will affect future staff assignments and roles in each agency.

Action Required: IAC Review & Discussion

Chart -- Progress of NFP Monitoring Efforts

Enclosure

The components of Effectiveness Monitoring Plan that are under discussion are:

The Framework for Regional Effectiveness Monitoring, Northern Spotted Owl, Marbled Murrelet, Late-Successional Old-Growth Habitat, and Vegetation Mapping to support Effectiveness Monitoring.

June 1 (or earlier)	Distribution of revised proposals to IAC, REO, RMC, and agencies for review prior to the June 11 and 19 meetings. Distribution will include the EM proposals and a briefing summary of the key points, options, and issues for each component.
June 3	Briefing and presentation of draft materials to managers and interested parties. The briefing will focus on the summary materials and will include information to place the EM options in context will other NFP activities. Meeting Objective: Presentation of technical proposals and scientific foundation for EM, plus identification of policy and implementation issues.
June 11	Research Executive meeting with EM Team and Agency Representatives (9:00 - 3:00). The objective of this meeting is for the Research Executives to develop an in-depth understanding of EM package and options, including technical tasks, budget, leadership, and agency roles. The EM Team leaders will present the proposed EM Plan with options for consideration. Agency representatives will participate in the discussion to gain a greater understanding of the material, including policy and implementation issues. Meeting Objective: Obtain Research Executives consensus on the scientific foundation and options to be proposed.
June 13	Briefing for Agency Executives (9:00 - 11:00). The objective of this meeting is to present a brief overview of the technical options and then focus the discussion on the policy and implementation issues. One outcome of the meeting will be guidance for the presentation at the IAC meeting. Meeting Objectives: Obtain consensus on the recommended set of options, policy and implementation issues to be presented for IAC consideration.
June 19	IAC Meeting. Presentation of EM Package to IAC, obtain IAC advice and/or establish a schedule for advise and RIEC decision. Status and schedule for EM modules for Survey and Manage, Socio-economics, and Tribal, and to continue with the Riparian and Aquatic module, will also be presented. Meeting objective: Clearly identify the policy and implementation issues to be addressed by IAC and establish a process and schedule for their resolution.
July ?	Comments and recommendations from IAC members on agency proposal, policy, and implementation issues. With subsequent RIEC decision.

 

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: June 19, 1997

Sponsor: Governor Kitzhaber's Office of Natural Resources Contact/Phone: Paula Burgess 503-378-3548

Topic: Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative

Presentation: The State of Oregon will present an overview of the Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative. Presenters will cover development of the plan, major plan features, the MOA with the National Marine Fisheries Service, integration of plan assessment and monitoring efforts with federal efforts, and roles and responsibilities of local partners including local watershed councils and soil and water conservation districts. In addition, For the Sake of the Salmon will provide an update on their efforts and activities in the Pacific Northwest.

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

Possible Agenda Items - June 18-19
Effectiveness Monitoring drafts for MaMu and Aq/Rip
Land transfers
Governor Kitzhaber's Salmon Proposal
Source Water Protection Program, EPA

Possible Status Reports - June 18-19

Possible Agenda Items - August 6-7
HCPs
IAC/PAC Relationship--survey results

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 by Not Yet Scheduled
IAC/RCERT Interaction
Western Governors Association (WGA) Initiatives
Strategic Plan

STATUS REPORT

Meeting Date: June 19, 1997	REO Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie 503-808-2190
Topic: Effectiveness Monitoring for Survey and Manage Species, social and economic factors, and tribal issues.
Background: At the April IAC meeting, an interest was expressed in initiating social and economic monitoring later this fiscal year. Concurrence was given to begin work to initiate new work groups for Survey and Manage, social and economic, and American Indians and their culture.
Status/Update: Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) and Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW) representatives met several times to discuss using the existing Effectiveness Monitoring planning model for social and economic issues. It was decided to complete the socio-economic analysis in two phases. In early June, a team leader was selected and team members are now being contacted. IAC member representatives are invited and welcome. The first phase would scope, design, and establish tasks and timelines for the socio-economic analytical and monitoring project. The second phase would carry out the socio-economic analysis in order to answer the questions in the ROD. It is anticipated that the first phase will be accomplished in approximately 3 months. The second phase should begin in the fall of 1997. There has been little recent emphasis on integrating Survey and Manage into the Effectiveness Monitoring program. However, substantial progress continues to be made within Survey and Manage. Version 2.0 of the Known Site Database has been developed and transmitted to the field units for their use. Survey protocols and management recommendations continue to be developed. Likewise, although monitoring of American Indian cultural issues has not been explicitly dealt with, progress is being made to address such issues by involving Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission representatives in Aquatic/Riparian monitoring briefings and reviews, as well as in meetings of the Interagency Resource Information Coordinating Council (IRICC).

STATUS REPORT

Meeting Date: June 19, 1997	REO Contact/Phone: Gary Sims, 503 808-2174
Topic: Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)-Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC) relationships.
Background: At previous IAC meetings, IAC members posed questions about the current relationship with the PAC and what is should be. The Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) was directed to develop a questionnaire and survey the PAC as to the status of their perception of the relationship with the IAC and their efforts to fulfill the 8 roles outlined in an IAC memo dated November 17, 1993. The REO has employed the help of Tom Makowski, Environmental Sociologist, from the Natural Resources Conservation Service to design and implement a PAC survey.
Status/Update: To review the relationship of the IAC with the PAC, the REO began by asking the Designated Federal Officials (DFO) about PAC activities, PAC roles and responsibilities, and how the IAC can help the PAC achieve their goals. DFOs were asked a set of questions about their PAC. DFO answers will be used to start discussions with PAC members about what they believe PAC should be doing and how the IAC can help them become more effective. To date, the REO has collected information from the DFO for all 12 PAC. The DFOs were asked 4 questions: 1. On what activities do the PAC spend the most time ? 2. What are the PAC highest priority activities? 3. Regarding the designated PAC roles and responsibilities, how much time does the PAC spend on each and how important is each perceived to be? 4. What are the major obstacles to PAC success and how can the IAC help the PAC overcome these obstacles? A preliminary analysis of the DFO responses, which will be validated through discussions with PAC members, indicate that most of the PAC time is spent in two activities: (1) Information transfer and education and (2) Organizational activities. DFO indicated that the highest priority PAC activity was monitoring and implementation. Regarding the 8 PAC roles and responsibilities agreed to at the time the NFP was initiated, five were viewed as critical or significant and the other three were considered to be of little significance. The most significant PAC responsibility was to encourage and facilitate information among provincial stakeholders, Federal and non-Federal. The least important was preparing biological assessments for ESA consultation. Four obstacles were identified by DFOs as impeding the success of PAC: 1. Lack of information sharing between the PAC and the REO/IAC. 2. Inconsistent attendance and participation of PAC members - especially the Federal members. 3. Lack of direction and guidance from the IAC. 4. Cost of PAC staff support. The DFOs provided several recommendations for overcoming the obstacles which they identified. These responses are those of the DFOs only and will be validated through structured REO-PAC member discussions. To validate DFO perceptions, the REO will attempt, over the course of the next several months, to get an hour on the agenda of four to six PAC meetings and conduct focused discussions with PAC members. During these forums, PAC members will be asked the same questions the DFO were asked. The information gathered during these discussions will be analyzed and a final report will be presented to the IAC. Depending on the PAC meeting schedules and agenda, the IAC can expect a final report in approximately six months.

Regional Ecosystem Office
333 SW First Street
P.O. Box 3623
Portland, Oregon 97208
503-808-2165 FAX: 503- 808-2163

FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET

Date:

To: Linda Kucera, REO

Re: Logistics for the June 1997 IAC Field Trip in Eugene and IAC Meeting in Salem, Oregon.

From:

Flight from to

Date: Flight leaves at: Flight arrives at:

Flight from to

Date: Flight leaves at: Flight arrives at:

Lodging for the night of Wednesday, June 18 in Salem at the:

I plan to participate in the field trip on Wednesday: yes no

I plan to attend the IAC meeting on Thursday: yes no

Lodging (attending the RCERT meeting or other reasons)

for the night of Thursday, June 19 in Salem at the:

I plan to attend the RCERT meeting on Friday: yes no

Enclosure to 927iac.mem Number of page(s) including this cover sheet 1