333 SW 1st
P.O. Box 3623
Portland, Oregon 97208-3623
Phone: 503-808-2165 FAX: 503-808-2163
Memorandum
Date: June 26, 1997
To: Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (See Distribution List)
From: Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director
Subject: June 1997 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
Enclosed are notes from the June Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) meeting. Issue Summaries are included for:
Effectiveness Monitoring
The IAC agreed to provide written comments on the Effectiveness Monitoring Plan by July 11.
It was also agreed that the topic would be on the August 7 IAC agenda with the goal of
concluding IAC advice and input, followed by a RIEC decision for several modules (LSOG,
NSO, and MaMu). Also, agreement was reached on a schedule for resolution of the issues.
Additionally, we agreed to have the work plans for the other modules at the August 7 IAC
meeting. The RIEC agreed to establish and staff the Effectiveness Monitoring
Policy/Management group (EM P/M) to be chaired by Don Knowles.
Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative (OCSRI)
The Oregon Governor's office provided an overview of the OCSRI, to increase the
understanding of conservation efforts on state and private lands and how they relate to
implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan.
The field trip and meeting were a great success thanks to the efforts of the Eugene BLM District, including especially Judy Nelson, Lee Lauritzen, Dan Howells, Neil Armantrout, Mark LaPine, Wes Seckler, and Doug Huntington; Paula Burgess and her staff, including especially Louise Solliday, the Governor's Watershed Advisor, Peter Green, and Suzy Miller; and all the folks who shared information during the field trip and meeting.
Hot Topics included overview presentations on the Governor's Eastside Forest Health Initiative by Peter Green; the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan by Tom Mills; the Umpqua Land Exchange by Robin Hartman, Ned Davis, and John Sessions; and the Environmental Protection Agency's Source Water Protection Program by Ken Feigner.
The minutes of the April meeting were certified. No one requested time on the agenda to address the committee in the public forum.
The next IAC meeting is scheduled for Wednesday through Thursday, August 6-7 in Washington. Logistical information for the field trip and meeting will be sent as soon as it is available. If you have questions or suggestions, please contact me at 503-808-2166, Linda Kucera at 503-808-2179, or your agency representative.
Enclosures:
IAC June Meeting Notes
Tribal Conference Call Notes from June 17
MOA between the State of Oregon and the National Marine Fisheries Service
cc: RCERT, REO
950/ly
Date: June 26, 1997
Subject: June IAC Meeting Notes
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
| Meeting Date: June 19, 1997 | REO Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie 503-808-2190 |
| Topic: Effectiveness Monitoring | |
| Objective: The intent of the presentation was to describe the agency's tentative option for effectiveness monitoring for Late-Successional Old-Growth Forests (LSOG), Northern Spotted Owl (NSO), and Marbled Murrelet (MaMu) under the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP), to identify policy and implementation issues to support agency selection of monitoring options for these three resource issues, and to agree on a schedule and process for their resolution. The presentation included three parts: (1) a summary of the tentative conclusions by the Research and Resource Agency Executives from their review of the science underlying the options in relation to their utility in answering questions about the NFP; (2) an overview of the assignment, process for developing the options, and general description of the monitoring approach and components; and (3) a discussion of the proposed process to solicit IAC comments on the options and to conduct a policy level review of the proposals to occur prior to the August 7 IAC meeting. In summary, considerable effort has gone into the development of these proposals for monitoring. Peer and other reviews were conducted and all comments were supportive of the approaches described. The agency executives have concluded that sufficient information exists to initiate a policy and management level review that will lead to selection of a final approach. They tentatively accepted the options recommended by the Effectiveness Monitoring Team (EMT) pending completion of this policy and management review. The review will start with tentative options and estimated costs, and focus on staffing, leadership, and participation in the monitoring program. In addition, there was discussion about continuing or initiating development of other monitoring modules (riparian and aquatic, survey and manage/biodiversity, socio-economic, and Tribal). | |
| Summary of Discussion/IAC Actions: The following is a summary of the questions, comments, and
responses discussed at the June 19 IAC meeting. In addition to the copies of overheads provided at
that meeting, two supplemental documents were handed out that also addressed some of these issues:
(1) Questions and Issues and (2) Information on Recommended Options. The EMT discussed these
and many other issues during development of the monitoring proposals. Some of the issues are
addressed more fully in the reports. Many of these issues, however, would more appropriately be
addressed during the process to select and implement the monitoring program, since they were
beyond the EMT scope and charge of developing a range of science-based options. The following
issues were addressed at the meeting:
Issue 1: Applicability of the design template. Question: How does the template for designing a monitoring program for LSOG, NSO, or MaMu apply to other resources, including social? Response: The key design steps (identify goals, monitoring questions, conceptual model, etc.) described in more detail in the draft plan (5/30/97, pp. 2-12 to 2-20) is a generic design that is common throughout the monitoring literature as a step-wise development process for designing a monitoring program that meets information needs regardless of the issue--whether it be owls, socio-economic, or aquatic. In addition, the design template for implementation (collecting, managing, summarizing, and interpreting data) is also a commonly used approach for managing and using information. These were offered to improve the basis and future management of the NFP. The EMT's review of the monitoring literature and of some past and current programs revealed that many of those programs failed, in part, because they did not follow this process in designing and conducting the program. Because of the magnitude and cost of a program to monitor the NFP, both these designs are critical and should be used by all monitoring groups to help construct a monitoring program that meets the information needs of the NFP. The indicators selected for measurement and sampling methods to collect necessary data, of course, would be different. Predictive modeling was offered as an opportunity to improve the overall approach and reduce future costs for the NSO monitoring, but is not necessarily a component of other NFP monitoring areas. Issue 2: Additional monitoring modules. Question: What is the status of the riparian/aquatic effort? Can we prioritize planning efforts to complete the riparian/aquatic proposal? When will modules for survey and manage/biodiversity, socio-economic, and Tribal be initiated? Will non-Federal parties be included in riparian/aquatic, socio-economic, and Tribal module development? Response: A new proposal to help complete the riparian/aquatic product, and proposals for initiating the other modules will be provided to the IAC on August 7 and will address IAC participation. It is expected that these modules will apply the same sideboards with the primary goal of responding to the information needs for the NFP. The general approach to designing a monitoring program will be followed. Issue 3: Monitoring options. Question: Why weren't more options or alternative methods provided for monitoring these issues? Response: For the modules that were provided for IAC review, fairly basic information was needed to address status and trends--information on vegetation/habitat and species populations. Within this general framework, there is not a wide array of approaches for monitoring these types of ecological resources, and these had to be evaluated in the context of what it would take to meet the information needs of the NFP. Use of the conceptual model approach helped rule out alternative approaches that, although appropriate for some types of monitoring, would not meet the criteria for monitoring the NFP, a weeding out process that will occur with riparian/aquatic and other future modules. However, the current modules contain alternatives that are more related to the level of intensity than to competing methodologies. Since cost is a major factor, the EMT identified several levels of effort (options) to meet these information needs within this framework. We can always expand the program to collect more data; e.g., by including more study sites to answer a wider range of interests, but this will increase the cost of monitoring. The proposals provide a balance between cost and scientific defensibility in meeting NFP information needs. Issue 4: Predictive models. Question: How can we propose to use a model approach if we know so little about species/habitat relationships? Response: Trend monitoring is a long term activity and often is carried out as a retrospective assessment, such that trends are identified when the options for responding are limited; e.g., endangered species. The modeling approach was proposed as a way of reducing the lag time, but since it is not well tested, the EMT proposed that this be evaluated concurrently while the monitoring program is carried out so that our knowledge of species/habitat relationships improves as we conduct the monitoring program. If we can develop strong enough correlations to build predictive models, the monitoring program can be scaled back. Issue 5: Cause/effect. Question: Ecosystems are complex, particularly in mixed ownerships, so how will cause/effect evaluations be considered? Response: The first step is to lay out a program to obtain status and trend information. The conceptual model approach helps to focus on what we currently believe are the most critical issues to track for trend; this exercise helped the EMT identify some key validation questions and these are included in the reports. The next increment will be to develop a validation monitoring program in conjunction with research. This issue will be evaluated in conjunction with review of the NFP research strategic plan. Mixed ownerships do present a challenge in interpreting trend data when the available data are restricted only to Federal ownership; this is an issue that needs to be addressed through implementation. Issue 6: Data analysis. Question: Do we have the capability to analyze existing data, particularly vegetation data (e.g., aerial photos, landsat, etc.) to look at past trends to see if that provides information to help assess future or expected trends? Response: Yes, if appropriate and feasible. Our ability to do this may be limited by the capability of the technology; e.g., remotely sensed data would need to be analyzed using current technology, since using old methods may not produce comparable results. This issue is part of the question about establishing a baseline for trend analysis which needs to be determined as we implement the program. Issue 7: Trend reporting. Question: Five years is too long to wait for interpretation of monitoring data. Is there a process for providing annual or more frequent reports? Response: Yes, the EMT proposed an annual or periodic process for summarizing monitoring data. The primary intent of that process is to make data available for use, but also to help flag items that management should consider without waiting for the 5-year interpretative report. The EMT concluded, however, that given the time it takes to develop useful trend data, particularly for resources such as LSOG that will show minor change over a 5-year period, there isn't much to gain from having interpretative reports on a shorter cycle. Issue 8: Other input. Question: Will other information be considered when evaluating monitoring data and what is the process for including it? Response: Although the primary focus of the described program is to obtain trend data on specific NFP issues, the EMT feels that these data should be considered in context with other data that may have a bearing on the status of the resource and management activities, in particular information from implementation monitoring, research, other monitoring, or non-Federal lands. The EMT proposed that this information be considered in the evaluation of the monitoring data for the 5-year interpretative report, and that these data be considered by multi-disciplinary groups that would include people representing those other issues. Issue 9: Accessibility of trend data. Question: Will the monitoring information and trend results be available for review and comment? Response: It is expected that the annual summaries and 5-year interpretative reports would be available to those interested. Annual summaries are project reports that essentially make the collected data useful and available for review, but it is expected that involved non-Federal parties would be given the opportunity to review and comment on the information and general conclusions before the final interpretative reports are issued. The issue of data access to the "raw" data needs further policy and technical discussions to reach consensus and lead to an action plan. Issue 10: Monitoring to meet other interests. Question: Will the monitoring program meet the needs of all interested parties; e.g., will it address the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service needs for information on listed species, or the Tribes' and States' interest in riparian and aquatic systems? Response: The focus of the monitoring program is to address information needs for the NFP and how the NFP is doing on Federal lands. Although the methods and design can be expanded to help gather information to address these other interests, the current program is intended to provide regional information on the NFP. It is hoped that other parties, both those who are interested in and who are collecting other trend information, would take advantage of the opportunities for integrating their efforts with those for the NFP. Issue 11: Non-Federal lands. Question: Some committee members wanted to know how information from non-Federal lands will be considered, and how will coordination be handled? Response: The monitoring program was constructed to address questions about the NFP, but the EMT realizes that the status and trends of many resources; e.g., marbled murrelets and fish, are influenced by activities on non-Federal lands and vice versa, and in many cases it is not possible to clearly identify or separate out the source of the trend. The tools and information may exist for evaluating non-Federal information, but this was not proposed as a specific monitoring goal for this program. Therefore, the EMT proposes that this type of information be considered during the interpretative reporting process, through coordination with involved non-Federal parties. Issue 12: Local scale monitoring. Question: How does this regional program link to local monitoring efforts and local information needs? Response: The NFP is a regionally-based ecosystem management plan, and the monitoring program was constructed to address questions about how the NFP is doing over its range. Although there are usually localized differences, a properly constructed monitoring program should provide accurate data on status and trends that accounts for variation such that there is not a need to address these questions on every management unit. This is a key issue because the NFP provides a regional set of standards and guidelines where the monitoring results help put local management decisions in an appropriate context. The more information we have, the greater our comfort in understanding--the question is one of risk versus certainty. As such, the monitoring design can also be applied at local scales, but the cost escalates quickly. The monitoring program, however, is not proposed to replace all local-level monitoring. There may be issues for which local information is necessary, and data from these types of activities would be expected to be considered in the adaptive management process. It is expected, though, that local people will be involved in data collection and analysis. | |
| IAC Agreements: The IAC agreed to provide written comments on the Effectiveness Monitoring Plan by July 11. It was also agreed that the topic would be on the August 7 IAC agenda with the goal of concluding IAC advice and input, followed by a RIEC decision. Also, agreement was reached on a schedule for resolution of the issues. Additionally, we agreed to have the work plans for the other modules at the August 7 IAC meeting. | |
| RIEC Decisions: The RIEC agreed to establish and staff the Effectiveness Monitoring Policy/Management group (EM P/M) to be chaired by Don Knowles. | |
| Follow-up Actions (who/what/when):
July 11 Written comments from IAC members on EM Plan to Dan McKenzie, RMC. July 18 EM P/M recommendation finalized. July 23 Pre-work package to IAC, includes Agency recommended EM Plan and the draft work plans for aquatic/riparian, socio-economic, survey and manage/biodiversity, and tribal. August 7 IAC Meeting agenda: presentation, discussion and IAC advice on recommended EM Plan, followed by RIEC decision. | |
| Meeting Date: June 19, 1997 | REO Contact/Phone: Don Knowles 503-808-2166 |
| Topic: Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative (OCSRI) | |
| Objective: Increase the understanding of conservation efforts on state and private lands through the OCSRI and how those efforts relate to implementation of the Federal Northwest Forest Plan. | |
| Summary of Discussion/IAC Actions: Governor Kitzhaber opened the discussion of the
OCSRI by welcoming the IAC to Salem and by providing a brief summary of why Oregon
has undertaken such an ambitious project as the OCSRI. He expressed his commitment to
implementation of the initiative and his appreciation for the Federal agency efforts on behalf
of the initiative.
Jim Martin (State of Oregon), Garth Griffin (NMFS), and Mike Crouse (BLM) then provided a more detailed description of the OCSRI. Other presentations involved Kelly Moore (State of Oregon) on the topic of OCSRI monitoring, Louise Solliday on the role of Watershed Councils, Patricia Gainsforth on the role for local Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and Gabriella Goldfarb on the role for the group For the Sake of the Salmon. Louise Solliday then handled questions and answers, including a summary and wrap-up. | |
| Follow-up Actions (who/what/when): Reference was made during the presentation and discussion to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the National Marine Fisheries Service and the State of Oregon listing follow-up actions required to implementation of the Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative. This MOA (enclosed) lists the key next steps. At this time, no further IAC agenda time has been scheduled on this topic. | |
Field Trip Topics - April, June, August
Habitat Conservation Plan
PACs
Adaptive Management Areas
Forest Health
Possible Agenda Items - August 6-7
IAC/PAC Relationship--survey results
Effectiveness Monitoring
Habitat Conservation Plans--in particular, the Washington State DNR Habitat Conservation Plan
Possible Status Reports - August 6-7
ESA/Tribal Policy Statement
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 - Not Yet Scheduled
IAC/RCERT Interaction
Western Governors Association (WGA) Initiatives
Strategic Plan
Overheads:
Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative - The Oregon Plan
Coho Salmon - April 1997 Plan
Effectiveness Monitoring - Decision Process
For the Sake of the Salmon Agenda
OCSRI - Federal Agency Commitment
Handouts:
Adaptive Management Areas--REOs Plan Review Schedule
Adaptive Management Area--Brochures
Congressional Record--House - Title VIII Umpqua River Land Exchange Study-September 18, 1997
Correspondence of Interest - Available for requests
Eastside Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Preferred Alternative - May 1997
Ecosystem Management Terms
Effectiveness Monitoring - Assignment, Concepts, and Implications
Effectiveness Monitoring - Information on Recommended Options
For the Sake of the Salmon
Handbook on Coordinated Resource Management Planning
IAC April Meeting Notes
IAC Identification List
IAC June Meeting Agenda
IAC June Prework Package
MOU between the State of Oregon & NFP Federal Agencies - To improve watersheds to restore
habitat
OCSRI Conservation Plan - Federal Agency Workplans - March 1997
Organizational Chart NFP
PIEC Identification List
Proposed Eastside Forest Health Strategy - State of Oregon - June 1977
REO Telephone Directory
REO Functional Statement Packet
RIEC Identification List
ROD Training - Source Book - March 5, 1997
Umpqua Land Exchange Project
Publications available on request:
Effectiveness Monitoring Report-May 30, 1997
Implementation Monitoring Report-Final-March 3, 1997
Institutional Barriers & Incentives for Ecosystem Management: A Problem Analysis-February 1996
Interagency Salvage Program Review-October 8, 1996
Interagency Vegetation Information-June 1, 1995
Keystone National Policy Dialogue on Ecosystem Management-October 1996
Natural Resource Partnership Proposal-Cost-Effective Results through Public/Private
Partnership-Draft
Record of Decision (ROD)
Strategic Research Plan to Support Implementation of the NFP-May 23, 1997
The Northwest Forest Plan-A Report to the President & Congress-December 1996
WA Guide-Section I-August, 1995
WA Guide-Section II (Modules)-November 1, 1995
WA Guide-Riparian Reserve Evaluation Techniques and Synthesis Module
WA Guide-Riparian Reserve Evaluation Techniques and Synthesis Module-Addendum to Appendix B
| * Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting * June 19, 1997 * Attendance List *
* Intergovernmental Advisory Committee and Alternates * | ||
| Name | Title | Agency |
| Berkholtz, Karin | RCERT Representative | Ex Officio |
| Blomstrom, Greg | Forester Planner | CA Indian Forest & Fire Mgmt. Council |
| Burgess, Paula | Policy Advisor Natural Resources | State of Oregon |
| Collopy, Mike | Western Region Chief Biologist | U.S. Geological Survey |
| Feigner, Ken | Director, Forest and Salmon Group | Environmental Protection Agency |
| Graham, Bob | State Conservationist | Natural Resources Conservation Service |
| Holmes Gaar, Elizabeth | Habitat Branch Chief | National Marine Fisheries Service |
| Judd, Dean | Coordinator | State of Washington |
| McMinds, Guy | Executive Office Advisor | Intertribal Timber Council |
| McVay, Rocky | Executive Director to Oregon Counties | State of Oregon Counties |
| Mills, Tom | Station Director | Forest Service, PNW |
| Moon, Mel | Commissioner | NW Indian Fisheries Commission |
| Murphy, Tom | Deputy Director Envir. Research Lab | Environmental Protection Agency |
| Speaks, Stan | Area Director | Bureau of Indian Affairs |
| Stanley, Mark | Member of Team, For.&Rur.Ec.Dev. | Resources Agency, State of California |
| Sullivan, Francie | Representative of CA Counties | State of California Counties |
| Walters, Bill | Deputy Field Director | National Park Service |
| Wesley, Dave | Deputy Assistant Reg Director--NPCE | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service |
| White, Bill | Assistant State Conservationist | Natural Resources Conservation Service |
| Williams, Bob | 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 | Forest Service, PNW |
| Busch, Dave | Monitoring | NGS, Biological Resources Division |
| Ellenwood, Jim | GIS Technician | Forest Service |
| Guenther, Dale | GIS Administer | Forest Service |
| 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 |
| Milestone, Jim | Representative | National Park Service |
| Pietrzak, Debbie | Representative | Bureau of Land Management |
| Sims, Gary | Representative | Bureau of Indian Affairs |
| Watson, Jay | Representative | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service |
| Wheeler, Jeff | Administrative Officer | Forest Service |
| Ystad, Laurie | Secretary | Forest Service |
| * Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting * June 19, 1997 *
* Other ** Attendees * | ||
| Name | Title | Agency |
| Belisle, Harold | Forest Plan Coordinator | Bureau of Land Management |
| Borngauer, Fred | County Commissioner | Grants Pass, Oregon |
| Bradley, Bill | Forestry Chief | Bureau of Land Management |
| Cantine, Bob | Executive Director | Assoc. of Oregon Counties |
| Clark, Lanse | Resource Analyst | Oregon Department of Forestry |
| Clauson, Steve | Agency Representative | Forest Service, R-5 |
| Crouse, Mike | Bureau of Land Management | |
| Davies, Bruce | NW Indian Fish Commission | |
| Davis, Ned | Interagency Coordinator | Forest Service, Umpqua NF |
| Doerksen, Kelly | Fish & Wildlife Coordinator | Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde |
| Feeban, Katheen | Environmental Specialist | Forest Service, Umpqua NF |
| Ferris, Rennie | Oregon Coast PAC | |
| Furnish, Jim | Forest Supervisor | Siuslaw NF |
| Gainsforth, Patricia | President | Oregon Assoc. of Conservation Districts |
| Goldfarb, Gabriella | Deputy Director | For the Sake of the Salmon |
| Green, Peter | Federal Policy Advisor | State of Oregon |
| Griffin, Garth | Natural Marine Fisheries Service | |
| Hanus, Ann | Assistant State Forester | Oregon Department of Forestry |
| Hartman, Robin | Umpqua Land Exchange | |
| Hildreth, Joanne | Forest Service, PNW | |
| Jeske, Paul | Resource Advisor | Bureau of Land Management |
| Kitzhaber, John | Governor | State of Oregon |
| Krueger, Katie | Policy Analyst | Quileute Tribe |
| Leno, Shonn | Fish & Wildlife Aide | Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde |
| Lewis, Robert | Washington D.C. | Forest Service, Research |
| Martin, Jim | OCSRI | |
| McIlwain, Jerry | Program Manager | Forest Service, PNW |
| Moore, Kelly | Monitoring Coordinator | Oregon Natural Resources |
| Motanic, Don | Technical Specialist | Intertribal Timber Council |
| Mulder, Barry | U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service | |
| Nicholas, Jay | OR Plan Development & Imp. | Oregon Natural Resources |
| Norton, Greg | Tribe | |
| Phillips, Carrie | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service | |
| Propel, Mike | County Commissioner | Polk County, Oregon |
| Reynolds, John | Regional Director, Washington D.C. | National Park Service |
| Rheiner, Bob | NW Economic Revitalization | Bureau of Land Management |
| Robertson, Doug | County Commissioner | Douglas County, Oregon |
| Sessions, John | Umpqua Land Exchange | |
| Solliday, Louise | Oregon Governor's Office | |
| Wilson, Michael | Land Administration | Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde |
Fax Transmission
Regional Ecosystem Office
333 SW 1st/P.O. Box 3623
Portland, Oregon 97208-3623
503/808-2174
Fax: 503/808-2163 E-Mail: gsims@or.blm.gov
| To: | Jim Anderson 360/753-8659
Greg Blomstrom 916/625-4230 Bruce Davies 360/753-8659 Eric Hanson 509/865-3619 Richard Fielitz 916/979-2569 Turk Holford 231-6774 Katie Krueger 360/374-9250 Mel Moon 360/374-9250 |
Gary Morishima 206/236-6842
Don Motanic 282-1274 Dave Renwald 231-6774 Stanley Speaks 231-2201 George Smith 641-5426 Gary Varner 541/444-2513 John Vitello 509/865-2049 Jim Weber 235-4228 |
| Date: | June 17, 1997 | |
| From | G. S. Sims | |
| Sub: | Tuesday Conference Call Notes - June 17, 1997 | |
COMMENTS: (These are informal notes taken during the conference call. If I got something wrong, please call me with any changes that may be needed.)
Participants: Turk Holford, Gary Morishima, G. S. Sims, Guy McMinds, Don Knowles, Dave Shweet-Hames
D. Knowles.: With GM's not being able to join IAC meeting Thursday, wanted to give tribes opportunity to comment on the Effectiveness Monitoring Report and current timetable.
D. McKenzie: Reviewed latest steps on Effectiveness Monitoring activity and proposals. The material has been reviewed with research execs. They seem comfortable with the material. Wanted more detail on undeveloped options and rationale for recommendations. Took forward to exec meeting on 13th and asked for response to recommendations in the report, as a starting point for the next step--policy and management review on scope, intensity, schedule ... funding (old versus new, agency to come from) ... various agencies roles and responsibilities. Need to move from suite of options and various intensities to selecting specific options and particular program, which will be part of the discussion of IAC in August. Need to have agencies have the developed recommended program by July 21 for IAC mailing, which means they will get together between July 4 and 18. Need IAC input before that time. Recommended suite will go to IAC before August IAC meeting for final IAC comment. Would then develop program on August 11 following meeting. (This is for NSO, MaMu, and LS/OG).
Aquatic Riparian group is working on status report. Likely will not have sufficient detail for peer review document. Mills has committed to getting final product out in as timely manner as possible. First IAC discussion is potentially in August, depends how far the group gets. They are not near point of interagency consensus yet.
D. Knowles: The distinction between NSO, LS/OG, MAMU important with Riparian
G. Morishima: From reading document wasn't sure what options were being presented for discussion and decision. Further, the report on page 1.1 states that the development of the report was by the Effectiveness Monitoring Team and was uncertain about how final the report is vs. being in a draft stage.
D McK: Document went out before final agreement among agencies was made. Have commitment to have interagency agreement by July 23 date.
GM: Thursday's IAC meeting to review the report and generally decide if on right track. Particular agency programs are not identified in report. How can we comment to agencies to make sure concerns are addressed.
D McK: It is hard to understand from the notebook (report) what the final suite of options that are to be recommended. The presentation on Thursday should clarify. An Effectiveness Monitoring Policy and Management Team (PNW, BLM) with research and agency connections to negotiate the details of accomplishing the agreed-to scope, intensity, etc. for the recommended and adopted options. Upper Mid-level agency managers that can commit the agency to follow-up and accomplish the options adopted. Don Knowles will chair the group.
GM: Number of references to future development of socio-economic/tribal monitoring ... the templates developed for ecosystem monitoring will not lend themselves to socio-economic/tribal cultural assessments ... not clear how they would be developed. Concerned that more lip service at this point than identified future approach.
DK: It is more true than not. Do have commitment from PNW to have someone commit three months to develop socio-eco component. PNW may not be best source on tribal issues. May want to work more closely with BIA/Tribes.
D McK: Tom Mills has committed to coming to Thursday's IAC meeting with outline of how will begin to address socio-eco, tribal, survey and manage issues. Will sketch out approach and identify lead contacts for each.
GM: Thinks step missing, can address later. Unsure what reference that approach to be developed by Effectiveness Monitoring Team ... not real sure how to take this comment.
DK: Important for agencies to realize that the intent all along was that after the monitoring plan was developed and finalized the implementation will be the responsibility of the agencies not the research group or research agencies alone. Now that the Effectiveness Monitoring Plan is coming to final, agencies need to be aware that they will be responsible for implementation.
GM: page 1.7 monitoring links to forest management units ... disconnect with sidebar. Text talks about improved local decisions. Side bar says the importance of the effectiveness monitoring is more indirect ... how to reconcile the two. How will it improve local management with indirect benefits.
D McK: There is a mix between regional and local benefits. The more direct piece is being able to make better local decisions with improved regional information. Indirectly will be able to use the regional information to help focus attention on local scale.
GM: Primary concern is local implementation without regard for potential regional impact. Concern with local managers proceeding in isolation without concerning self with regional concerns, issues.
D McK: Understandable concern. BLM is pretty centralized in direction versus FS decentralized approach. Researchers believe needs to be strong direction on consistency of approach.
GM: page 2-4 ... concern on general structure approach ... lack of more direct tie on implementation and effectiveness monitoring ... may be premature ... looking at effectiveness without knowing if (or what) s&gs are being implemented.
D McK: Assumption is that s&gs are being implemented ... effectiveness monitoring will be looking at that.
GM: Thought effectiveness monitoring was to look at how well the goals of NFP are being met. Need to know to what extent the direction is being implemented in the field. This language doesn't seem strong enough to ensure review/assessment that the s&gs are being implemented.
DK: Is there a better approach we can take. Problems with time scale. Implementation monitoring and effectiveness monitoring overlap a little ... not recommending delaying effectiveness monitoring.
GM: Need stronger language on the purpose of implementation monitoring is to ensure that s&gs are being met. This includes the need to make a stronger tie between implementation and effectiveness monitoring.
Also having very hard time finding options ... only place seem to have them identified is the exec. summ on LSOG .
D McK: Some problem with identifying what is an option. FS had same problems ... example NSO options are different approaches on how to do demographic studies on NSO (methodologies) ... ended up with identification of "Levels" of surveys. More an intensity set of alternatives rather than true methodological approaches.
GM: Couldn't see the options in that section of the report.
DK: There is a problem in that there is a lack of identification of approaches that had been considered and rejected, versus considered and retained. An updated package will have a fuller discussion on what approaches have been reviewed/analyzed, both retained and rejected.
D McK: That is combined with the idea that within the recommendations of the report (notebook) there are several layers of options. For NSO there is the option of adopting the identified approach and if adopt that approach, what intensity would be appropriate. Similar treatment for other areas (e.g. MaMu) Team leaders at presentation on June 3 realized that while they were intimately familiar with options and approaches, for new readers without their background that there is a lack of clarity.
GM: Trying to understand how monitoring program would differentiate between random variation and trends. When will the information be compelling enough to know when to take a follow-up action.
D McK: Agreed that area should be expanded. It is a little premature at this time, but does need to be addressed. Are the s&gs being followed and are changes being seen meaningful enough to require alteration/modification.
GM: Clearly tied to adaptive management ... needs to be more clearly defined. There needs to be integration of adaptive management, implementation monitoring, and effectiveness monitoring.
Dave SH: At exec briefing were decisions made on aquatic-riparian?
D McK: The team members are being pressed to finish their document. First determination when team's document is done will be to determine if it is ready for peer review. Need to evaluate what needs to be done to get group and product finalized. Will be discussed in general terms at Thursday IAC meeting.
D S-H: Unclear on relation on monitoring federal lands and taking into account activities on tribal, state, and private lands. Need to do assessments across the watershed boundaries. Need to identify and address whole suite of concerns that arise out of that need. At this level in the plan need to clarify what will be expected.
GM: Agrees, in terms of MaMu (page 25 of MaMu Report) is addressed somewhat.
D McK: Strategy so far has been to develop federal land portion ... then could sit down and review how to address private, state, tribal component. For NSO is expectation that FWS will be able to address what private landowners under HCPs will be required to do and how will they complement each other and help meet the goals of NFP. Further, detailed, discussions of private lands would be anticipated after the federal lands decisions are made.
DK: On afternoon of IAC meeting is a detailed discussion of how the Oregon Plan will be monitored and how fits with NFP.
D S-H: There are a lot of private, state initiatives going on that need to be addressed. This combined with the enormity of activity on watersheds there is a need to address integration and information sharing. If not addressed here must at least be thinking about them now so may be addressed when the time is ripe.
DK: Issue that needs to be addressed because federal agencies have further concerns/sideboards when addressing private lands.
G. Morishima: Further IAC-related items: First time Hot Topics identified in the prework. If this is new procedure, it will be useful to have more information on them so will be more prepared.
DK: Sort of an "ad hoc" approach. Several members called and said that they would like to discuss particular items and it seemed to fit Hot Topics (for this meeting) better than trying to make a part of the formal agenda.
GM: The land exchange issue could spill over to other issues, such as dedication of BLM lands to tribes.
DK: Not sure what the presentation will be.
GM: Concerned that there are activities at different levels, including Congressional, that may affect tribes and lands.
Another issue. Hoping would be able to talk at this meeting on how to increase substance in discussions. IN this meeting the only substantive subject is effectiveness monitoring, most time devoted to status/update reports. Since only meeting every other month or so am concerned that there won't be sufficient discussions of policy matters/issues. Will want to discuss with DK in future how to increase the substance of future meetings. Will try to get together when in Portland in the future.
Would like to know when appendices to report will be developed. D McK will find out.
Call Concluded at 10:17 A.M.