Regional Ecosystem Office
333 SW 1st
P.O. Box 3623
Portland, Oregon 97208-3623
Phone: 503-808-2165 FAX: 503-808-2163
Memorandum
Date: August 18, 1997
To: Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (See Distribution List)
From: Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director
Subject: August 1997 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
Enclosed are notes from the August Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) meeting. Issue Summaries are included for effectiveness monitoring efforts:
Northern Spotted Owl, Marbled Murrelet, and Late-Successional Old-Growth Plans
The IAC was unable to conclude its advisory role. The REO will distribute a final set of recommendations and schedule a conference call in mid-September.
Aquatic and Riparian Resource Plan
The IAC agreed to a policy subgroup review to be scheduled in mid-October. Premeeting materials will be distributed in early September.
Social/Economic Plan
The IAC had an initial discussion of the Social/Economic monitoring plan. Little agreement was reached; however, many IAC members stated their interest and expectations. Additional efforts are expected, and an update will be provided at the November IAC meeting.
The field trip and meeting were a great success thanks to the efforts of the Washington Department of Natural Resources, Amy Bell and her staff, including especially Phil Aust, Bill Lewis, Martha Hurd, Al Vaughan, and Mark Johnsen; Dean Judd, Coordinator for the Governor's Rural Community Assistance Team; Olympic National Park staff, including especially Cat Hoffman and Brian Winter; Fish and Wildlife staff, including especially Nancy Gloman, Kate Benkert, and John Engbring; Olympic National Forest staff, including especially Ron Humphrey, Gary Harris, and Phil Decillis; John Calhoun, Director of the Olympic Natural Resources Center; Al Angrignon, Director of the Forks Training Center; and the Quileute Tribal Council and members, including especially Mel Moon, Bonita Cleveland, Nellie Williams, and those members who prepared salmon and shared song and dance with us; and all the folks who shared information during the field trip and meeting.
Hot Topics included distribution of a fish listing table and an update on the Umpqua cutthroat trout suit by Mike Tehan. The minutes of the June 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 Thursday, November 6, in Portland, Oregon. Logistical
information will be sent out as soon as it is available. If you have questions for suggestions, please
contact me at 503-808-2166, Linda Kucera at 503-808-2179, or your agency representative.
Enclosure
cc: RCERT, PIEC, REO
978/ly
Date: August 15, 1997
Subject: August 1997 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
Tom Dwyer, Deputy 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: August 7, 1997 | REO Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie 503-808-2190 |
| Topic: Interagency Recommendations for Effectiveness Monitoring | |
| Objective: The intent of the presentation was to report the recommendation from the interagency
Effectiveness Monitoring Policy/Management (EM P/M) Group on effectiveness monitoring for the
Northern Spotted Owl (NSO), Marbled Murrelet (MaMu), and Late-Successional Old-Growth Forests
(LSOG). The EM P/M group was established at the June 19 IAC meeting and chartered to conduct a
policy and management review of the tentatively accepted agency option for EM of these three issue
areas. The EM P/M recommended that the IAC endorse the tentative agency option and recommend
that the RIEC proceed with implementation. Further, the EM P/M recommended that agency
leadership roles remain unchanged in FY 1998 and transition to newly identified lead roles in FY
1999 and FY 2000. Draft statements describing the lead agency role and relationship of the Regional
EM monitoring to additional EM at smaller scales were also developed and provided. The EM P/M
group initiated the process of identifying FY 1998 through FY 2000 funding. Those discussions are
ongoing with a meeting scheduled for September 4, to bring the issue to closure.
The goal of the exercise was to conclude the EMT's efforts on EM for NSO, MaMu, and LSOG and prepare the RIEC for a selection of options so that the agencies can address implementation issues. IAC advice and consideration of the recommended option was requested, to be followed by a RIEC decision. | |
| Summary of Discussion/IAC Actions: The primary discussion centered on the EM documentation that had been distributed to the IAC, understanding the changes and lack of clarity as to the recommended option and desired IAC recommendation. Some of the supporting material that had been prepared and distributed to the EM P/M group had not been distributed to the full IAC. Also, some last minute changes resulted in an inconsistent set of documentation. As a result, the IAC was not able to conclude its advisory role and recommend the RIEC agree to the final recommendations. | |
| IAC Agreements: The IAC agreed to review a full and final set of documentation for the EM P/M recommendation for NSO, MaMu, and LSOG effectiveness monitoring. Following that review, any questions or issues would be discussed on a conference call. Pending resolution and disposal of any issues raised at that time, IAC would provide their advice to the RIEC on these issues. | |
| RIEC Decisions: None, pending final review and resolution of issues via conference call tentatively targeted in mid-September. | |
| Follow-up Actions (who/what/when): The REO/RMG will assemble and transmit a final package of EM materials to the IAC members as soon as possible. Following a 30 day review period, the REO will schedule a conference call for IAC members to identify and address any remaining issues. Absent significant unresolved concerns, the IAC will provide advice and guidance to the RIEC on these issues at the conclusion of the conference call. It is anticipated that the results of these activities and the RIEC decision will be presented at the November 6 IAC meeting. | |
| Meeting Date: August 7, 1997 | REO Contact/Phone: Curt Loop 503-808-2172 |
| Topic: Social/Economic Effectiveness Monitoring Plan | |
| Objective: To develop and implement a monitoring plan of the 8 key Social/Economic items identified in the Record of Decision (Demographics, Employment, Government revenues, Facilities and infrastructure, Social service burden, Federal assistance programs, Business trends, and Taxes). | |
| Summary of Discussion/IAC Actions: This discussion was an initial presentation of the
Social/Economic effectiveness monitoring module. The co-chairs for the development of a plan to
further refine the Record of Decision's key Social/Economic monitoring items presented an overview
of the progress to date. Those included scoping conference calls, formation of an initial social and
economic working committee, conduct of a 2-day workshop to discuss and develop a framework for
plan development, specific questions to be answered, and tentative plan products and time schedule.
It was pointed out that this initial phase of the plan was to concentrate on "status and trends" of social
and economic factors. However, a few IAC members commented that they were interested in the
"cause and effect" relationships.
IAC member comments included a variety of views. Various views were that the plan development and implementation should involve the Provincial Advisory Committees (PAC), State Community Economic Revitalization Teams (SCERT), and impacted communities; should focus on timber dependent communities as opposed to the regional scale; should use existing data and limit redundant data collection; should discuss the fishing component of the employment portion of the analysis; should identify specific briefing dates to the IAC for interim plan updates or course changes; should provide recommendations for sustainment of county tax receipts and a comparison of ROD projections with actual receipts; should look for additional guidance in the Regional CERT Strategic Plan; and should compare the funds received by the agencies of the NW Economic Adjustment Initiative with their initial projections. The need for a clear description of the decision sought was emphasized by some members, and a decision document format was recommended. Bob Williams concluded that it is very important to identify specifically who is responsible for each aspect of Social/Economic plan development and implementation. Some agencies are primarily committed to ecological monitoring, and somewhat disconnected from the NW Economic Adjustment Initiative. This Social/Economic monitoring plan has a broader scope of consideration than just the effects of Federal forest policy and involves a larger number of participants. Therefore, it is critical to identify exactly who has the credibility with the stakeholders in the region and can carry out the initial implementation of the plan and the future follow-on monitoring activities. | |
| IAC Agreements: Additional future discussions will be scheduled. | |
| RIEC Decisions: The Regional Federal Executives (including the RCERT co-chairs) will discuss potential leads for this monitoring effort and continue to refine the questions and approaches. | |
| Follow-up Actions (who/what/when):
1. As mentioned in the IAC meeting, the Regional Federal Executives and RCERT co-chairs will further discuss the Social/Economic Effectiveness Monitoring Plan and IAC comments at a meeting to be held on August 12, in the Regional Ecosystem Office conference room. At this meeting, the issues expected to be discussed include: A. What options exist for plan development and implementation? B. What policy issues need to be answered? C. Who should take the lead for oversight of the plan development and implementation phases? D. How should an intermediate management group and implementation team be staffed? E. What alternatives exist to resource the options for plan development and implementation?
3. An update on the Social/Economic Effectiveness Monitoring Plan, the options for its implementation, and the recommendation of who should implement the plan will be presented and discussed at the November 6 IAC meeting in Portland. Following the IAC comments, the plan will be further revised accordingly. | |
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
ISSUE SUMMARY
| Meeting Date: August 7, 1997 | REO Contact/Phone: Dave Busch 503-808-2192 |
| Topic: Effectiveness Monitoring for Aquatic and Riparian Resources | |
| Objective: The research agency executives and Research and Monitoring Group (RMG) representatives reported on progress toward their commitment to develop options and a strategy for completing the Aquatic and Riparian (A/R) Resource Effectiveness Monitoring Plan. The goal of the presentation was to present, in a general fashion, the policy, technical, and institutional questions needing refinement, and to propose a process for sharpening the focus on these questions. This is needed so that clear guidance can be provided on issues associated with the work group assignment to produce an A/R monitoring plan. | |
| Summary of Discussion/IAC Actions: The following four general issues/questions were
highlighted in the presentation and discussion:
Issue 1. The status of A/R systems on Federal lands is, in many cases, strongly influenced by the management of neighboring non-Federal properties. There has been a question of whether or how to integrate private lands into A/R monitoring. Issue 2. There are a number of related aquatic or riparian system initiatives with similar monitoring needs. Among these are Watershed Analysis; Washington's Timber, Fish, and Wildlife Program; the Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative; and Endangered Species Act listing, consultation, and litigation activities. There remains a question as to whether or how to link A/R monitoring for the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) to related Federal, State, or Tribal efforts. Issue 3. The expectations of the agencies responsible for approving and implementing the A/R monitoring plan should be combined with scientific perspectives on such issues as the utility of conceptual models, core indicators, and quantitatively- vs. subjectively-based analyses. Additional clarification regarding such expectations would help set a standard that the A/R work group could address in drafting a monitoring plan. Issue 4. The mandate of the A/R work group needs to be solidified by affirming agency resource availability and individual commitments to this effort, following determinations on the above policy issues Individual IAC members raised several points in response to the presentation. Their comments are paraphrased below along with a brief summary of the IAC meeting discussion: Comment 1. There should be a fundamental assumption that the nine ACS objectives are the basis for the development of A/R monitoring alternatives. While this has indeed been a premise of the A/R work group, there has also been concern that expectations for A/R monitoring are broader than this. Therefore, the development of policy guidance should allow for an evaluation of how the ACS focus should be associated with non-Federal lands and how related initiatives should be integrated with monitoring the effects of ACS implementation. | |
| Comment 2. The schedule proposed is ambitious, particularly if the integration of State efforts is
going to be fully evaluated. It was felt that there is strong incentive to conduct a rapid assessment
of policy and technical issues before completing the A/R monitoring plan. The policy subgroup
will benefit from the considerable progress that has been made in A/R monitoring plan
development. The proposed consideration of policy questions should be limited to an examination
of the propriety of integrating any related program needs with the NFP-mandated process. The
actual integration of technical monitoring elements from related initiatives would follow guidance
resulting from this examination.
Comment 3. If integration of related monitoring initiatives is going to be considered, State and Tribal involvement in the policy subgroup should be sought. The response to this suggestion was that the IAC is the body constituted to promote this involvement. All IAC members were invited to participate directly or select a designee for the policy subgroup. Comment 4. The A/R monitoiring plan should maintain a course that is specific to the ACS objectives on Federal lands, then subsequently other groups can determine how related initiatives might best tie-in. This will apparently be one of the options that the IAC policy subgroup considers. However, some IAC members felt that expectations for the A/R monitoring product may differ from this more limited approach. Because policy guidance on lands and related initiatives has potentially important technical consequenses, this is considered an opportune time to consider the breadth of the A/R monitoring charge. Comment 5. Early IAC involvement should be sought on policy issues and opportunities for considering these views should be incorporated in the process to provide policy guidance. The process described in the following sections on IAC Agreements and Follow-up Actions are meant to address this concern. | |
| IAC Agreements: Based on comments at the IAC meeting, the process to clarify the major issues
pertaining to the production of the A/R monitoring plan has been refined somewhat. The goal of
this revised approach is to streamline the process of identifying and providing policy guidance
prior to producing a draft A/R monitoring plan for review. A set of four steps to complete the
A/R monitoring proposal was recommended and, with the revisions incorporated below, was
accepted by the IAC:
Step 1. Clarify the issues - RMG and REO staff will work with the A/R work group and the research agency executives to expand on the four issues/questions above, while also addressing IAC member concerns. In addition to summarizing the progress that has been made by the A/R monitoring work group to this point, an outline of policy issues and alternatives will be developed. This step will be completed September 5, with the outline distributed to IAC members during the week of September 8. Step 2. Provide policy guidance - A policy subgroup made up of IAC members or their representatives will be provided with the information produced in step 1 and will be asked to provide guidance on the policy issues identified in this step. The group will review prior guidance and affirm, revise, or clarify this guidance, as necessary. The REO will facilitate this review and host the meetings necessary to bring it to a conclusion. Participation will be open to all IAC members, with representation from the three States and Tribes highly encouraged. This group will be asked to produce a prospective set of policy guidelines for the drafting of A/R monitoring alternatives prior to the next IAC meeting. | |
| Step 3. Clarify work group direction - Using the prospective set of policy guidelines developed by
the IAC policy subgroup in step 2, and a set of technical issues to be developed by the A/R work
group, the research agency executives will recommend that work group direction be affirmed or
revised. This recommendation will address staffing requirements and schedules for the A/R
monitoring work group and will be part of the pre-work package presented for consideration at the
November IAC meeting.
Step 4. Produce the plan - Following any revised direction, the A/R work group will draft the monitoring plan for peer and agency review and approval. The A/R work group will coordinate closely with RMG and REO staff during plan development. The draft plan will lay out a set of alternative strategies for the monitoring of A/R resources. The research agency executives will direct this step, with the objective of recommending to the IAC a monitoring plan for A/R resources that is scientifically-credible and implementable. | |
| RIEC Decisions: Following the general steps outlined above, convene an IAC subgroup to review policy guidance for the A/R monitoring plan. | |
| Follow-up Actions (who/what/when): Planned actions are summarized below and in the attached
A/R monitoring plan development flow chart.
Research Agency Executives - Continue to direct the process of A/R plan development. Oversee the production of an outline identifying policy and technical issues by early September. Use policy and technical guidance to affirm, clarify, or revise A/R work group direction, for consideration at the November IAC meeting. Assure that the work group has adequate staffing and support to produce A/R monitoring alternatives. Assure that the A/R monitoring plan receives appropriate agency and peer review. Provide recommendation for a scientifically-credible and implementable plan to the IAC and RIEC for advice and approval. REO - Provide staff, via the RMG, to coordinate and conduct the above research agency executive actions leading to A/R monitoring plan approval. Provide liaison with the A/R work group on technical plan development as well as policy issues. Coordinate the organization, reviews, and meetings of the IAC policy subgroup. Facilitate discussions resulting in a set of prospective policy guidelines for consideration at the November IAC meeting. A/R Work Group - Contribute to the development of policy and technical issues by September 5, 1997. Reassess work group commitments to the plan development effort. Coordinate, via the research agency executives and RMG staff, with the policy subgroup to provide feedback on the technical implications of potential policy guidance options. Work toward the development of alternatives to address technical issues. Assist the research executives and REO/RMG in developing revised work group direction. Under research agency executive leadership and in coordination with REO/RMG, produce a plan outlining A/R monitoring alternatives that incorporates any revisions to policy guidance as well as comments stemming from peer and agency reviews. IAC - Review positions on issues under consideration by the policy subgroup. Provide representatives to the IAC policy subgroup, assuring that representation is sufficient to produce prospective policy guidance prior to the November IAC meeting. (Re)commit appropriate staff to the A/R work group charged with the production of the A/R monitoring plan. Review proposed A/R charter policy guidance revisions prior to the November IAC meeting. Provide advice to the RIEC on A/R monitoring policy guidance and the A/R work group assignment at the November meeting. Participate in IAC reviews of A/R monitoring plan alternatives. | |
Brief presentations included the following topics and presenters:
- Presented by John Engbring, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington.
- Presented by Gary Morishima, IAC member and a direct participant in the preparation of the
Secretarial Order.
- Presented by Mel Moon, IAC and Quileute tribal member.
- Presented by Ron Humphrey, Forest Supervisor, Olympic National Forest
Possible Agenda Items - November 6
Effectiveness Monitoring
(If agreement is reached on the conference call, this will be converted to a status report)
Review the Activity Information Sharing Notebook
IAC/PAC Relationship--Survey Results
Implementation Monitoring for FY 1997--Preliminary Results
Possible Status Reports - November 6
Effectiveness Monitoring
Federal Timber Sale Update
Possible Agenda Items Identified by Not Yet Scheduled
IAC/RCERT Interaction
Western Governors Association (WGA) Initiatives
Strategic Plan
Handouts:
Adaptive Management Area--Brochures
Adaptive Management Areas--REOs Plan Review Schedule
Areas with Habitat Conservation Plans article--dated July 25, 1997
Comparison of ESA tools for private landowners--(FWS & NMFS)
Correspondence of Interest-Available for requests
Ecosystem Management Terms
Effectiveness Monitoring - Social & Economic for the NFP
Effectiveness Monitoring - NSO, LSOG, MaMu
Effectiveness Monitoring - Aquatic & Riparian Resources
Habitat Conservation Plans map
Handbook on Coordinated Resource Management Planning
IAC August Prework Package
IAC August Meeting Agenda
IAC Identification List
IAC Charter Renewal Status Report
IAC June Meeting Notes
NMFS Species Status Reviews--dated August 6, 1997
Olympic Province Briefing Paper--Watershed schedule for analysis work
Olympic NF 1998 Watershed Restoration project scoring--Brief summary of Issues by Watersheds
Olympic Habitat Development Study--The young stand study on the Olympic NF
Organizational Chart NFP
PIEC Identification List
REO Memo--Regional GIS Update--dated August 5, 1997
REO Functional Statement Packet
REO Telephone Directory
RIEC Identification List
ROD Training - Brain Book - March 5, 1997
Secretarial Order--American Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust respon., and Endangered Species Act
Washington State Habitat Conservation Plan Log--dated July 7, 1997
Watershed Management Council Networker--Summer 1997, Vol. 7, Num. 2
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 * August 7, 1997 * Attendance List *
* Intergovernmental Advisory Committee and Alternates * | ||
| Name | Title | Agency |
| Belisle, Harold | Representative | Bureau of Land Management, OR/WA |
| Bell, Amy | Deputy Supervisor | WA Dept Natural Resources-State Rep. |
| Berkholtz, Karin | RCERT Representative | Ex Officio |
| Blomstrom, Greg | Forester Planner | CA Indian Forest & Fire Mgmt. Council |
| Buffington, Doug | Western Region Chief Biologist | U.S. Geological Survey |
| Dwyer, Tom | Deputy Regional Director | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service |
| Feigner, Ken | Director, Forest and Salmon Group | Environmental Protection Agency |
| Holford, Turk | Area Forester | Bureau of Indian Affairs |
| Jope, Kathy | Chief, Research & Resources | National Park Service |
| Mills, Tom | Station Director | Forest Service, PNW |
| Moon, Mel | Commissioner | NW Indian Fisheries Commission |
| Murphy, Tom | Deputy Director Envir. Research Lab | Environmental Protection Agency |
| Stanley, Mark | Member of Team, For.&Rur.Ec.Dev. | Resources Agency, State of California |
| Sullivan, Francie | Representative of CA Counties | State of California Counties |
| Tehan, Mike | Representative | National Marine Fisheries Service |
| White, Bill | Assistant State Conservationist | Natural Resources Conservation Service |
| Williams, Bob | Regional Forester | Forest Service, R-6 |
| Wolden, Harvey | County Representative | Skagit County, State of Washington |
Regional Ecosystem Office
| Alverts, Sharon | Receptionist | Forest Service |
| Benson, Gary | Research | Forest Service, PNW |
| Busch, Dave | Monitoring | USGS, Biological Resources Division |
| Ellenwood, Jim | GIS Technician | Forest Service |
| Guenther, Dale | GIS Administrator | Forest Service |
| Hokkanen, Virginia | Acting Adm. Officer | 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 |
| McNair, Ranotta | Representative | Forest Service |
| Milestone, Jim | Representative | National Park Service |
| Sims, Gary | Representative | Bureau of Indian Affairs |
| Tehan, Mike | Representative | National Marine Fisheries Service |
| Watson, Jay | Representative | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service |
| Wilson, Karen | GIS Technician | Forest Service |
| Ystad, Laurie | Secretary | Forest Service |
| * Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting * August 7, 1997 *
* Other ** Attendees * | ||
| Name | Title | Agency |
| Benkert, Kate | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service | |
| Boysen, Karsten | Public Relations Manager | Quileute Tribe |
| Bradley, Alex | Olympic PAC | |
| Christensen, Chris | PNW, Forest Service | |
| Clauson, Steve | Agency Representative | Forest Service, R-5 |
| Davis, Bruce | NW Indian Fisheries Commission | |
| Duff, Scott | RCERT Member | State of Oregon, USDA/RECD |
| Furniss, Mike | Work group leader | Forest Service, R-5, Aquatic/Riparian EM |
| Gibbs, Allen | Public Info Officer | Forest Service |
| Gloman, Nancy | RCERT Member | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service |
| Gobin, Steve | Govt. Affairs Liaison | Tulalip Tribe |
| Hoffman, Cat | Chief, Natural Res. Mgmt. | Olympic National Park |
| Humphrey, Ron | Forest Supervisor | Forest Service |
| Hurd, Martha | Special Projects Coordinator | WA Department of Natural Resources |
| Jenkins, Kurt | Resources Biologist | USGS Biological Resources Division |
| Kitchel, Phillip | Clallam County Commissioner | State of Washington |
| Motanic, Don | Technical Specialist | Intertribal Timber Council |
| Phillips, Dick | Economist | Forest Service |
| Pipkin, Jim | Special Asst. & Counselor to Sec. | U.S. Department of the Interior |
| Roush, Paul | Wildlife Biologist | Bureau of Land Management |
| Schein, Ed | Resources Biologist | USGS Biological Resources Division |
| Seaman, Erran | Resources Biologist | USGS Biological Resources Division |
| Snow, Kathleen | Public Information Officer | Forest Service |
| Wesley, Dave | Acting Assistant Regional Director | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service |