Regional Ecosystem Office

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

Memorandum

Date: December 2, 1997

To: Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC)
John D. Buffington, Western Regional Chief Biologist, USGS Biological Resources Division
Ken Feigner, Director, Forest & Salmon Group, Environmental Protection Agency
Thomas Mills, Station Director, Pacific Northwest Station, Forest Service
Thomas Murphy, Director, Environmental Research Lab, Environmental Protection Agency
Stan M. Speaks, Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Mike Spear, Regional Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
William Stelle, Jr., Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service
William C. Walters, Deputy Regional Director, National Park Service
Robert W. Williams, Regional Forester, R-6, Forest Service
Elaine Y. Zielinski, State Director, Oregon/Washington, Bureau of Land Management
California Federal Executives
Ed Hastey, State Director, California, Bureau of Land Management
G. Lynn Sprague, Regional Forester, R-5, Forest Service

From: Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director

Subject: Effectiveness Monitoring Agreements Reached at November 6 RIEC Breakfast Meeting

The objective of this memorandum is to document the Effectiveness Monitoring (EM) agreements and understandings that were reached at the Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) breakfast meeting on November 6. The agenda distributed for the meeting is attached and this memo focuses on the discussions on NSO, MaMu, LSOG, A/R, and Social/Economic EM. Please let me know if you have clarifications or corrections, as we can discuss and resolve at the December 11 Regional Executive meeting, if needed.

The discussion of NSO, MaMu, and LSOG EM began with a summary of the events leading up to the meeting. Tom Mills indicated that PNW had fulfilled its responsibility to deliver an EM Plan for these components, and that leadership for the various roles and tasks to carry out the plan was essential and a RIEC responsibility (Elaine Zielinski, RIEC Chair agreed). The primary conclusion reached was that the EM Plan for these three components was accepted by the RIEC and to proceed with implementation.

The discussion then focused on the issue of FY 1998 funding. Four agencies (BLM, PNW, PSW, and BRD) noted that they were ready to implement the EM P/M recommendations.

The report from the other agences were as follows:

• Bob Williams indicated that Region 6 recognized there is essential work to be done and is committed to finding the remaining funding as proposed for Region 6. He indicated the amount exceeded their planning budget ($1,340,000 proposed, $929,000 planned), but would continue efforts to identify the additional funding. Steve Clauson reported for Lynn Sprague that Region 5 needed to have additional conversations with PSW, but they were committed to providing the funding as proposed for Region 5 and PSW.

• Bill Walters asked for clarification on the amount proposed for NPS and the potential contribution by their ongoing monitoring efforts. Dan McKenzie shared his understanding that the situation was unchanged from the recent need to provide $50,000 for the Olympic NSO demographic study area (FY 1997). The available information indicates that the current NPS funding does not provide the information required for the NFP NSO demographic area and $50,000 is needed in FY 1998 and was proposed as the NPS share. Walters agreed to review the objectives of the funded projects and work to provide the NPS effort for the Olympic demographic area.

• Dave Wesley then discussed the proposed FWS role and funding. Dave affirmed that FWS did agree they have a role and responsibility particularly in the MaMu issue. He noted the FWS was releasing the final MaMu recovery plan in November and they were committed to the coordination and facilitation role as proposed in the EM plan. As far as the FWS providing the proposed funding ($240,000), Dave indicated that Mike Spear would have to make that decision, but Dave thought that some potential sources existed. Dave indicated the FWS would continue to address their role and funding responsibilities and he would work towards resolution with Spear.

At this point the RIEC confirmed their commitment to proceed with implementation of the EM components and requested that the REO and RMG develop an implementation plan. The implementation plan should include the next level of detail on tasks, agency roles, specific funding amounts, staffing recommendations, and a schedule with major milestones. It was requested and agreed that the EM Plan work group leaders (Lint, Hemstrom, Henson, and Madsen) would be available to help develop this next step.

The next topic discussed was the Aquatic/Riparian EM module and the presentation to be made at the IAC meeting. Specific details were not presented, leaving that to the IAC meeting. Briefly, the objective of the IAC presentation, results of the sub-group meeting, and additional discussion of the expectations for A/R monitoring were discussed. Reference to the additional modules to be developed (Biodiversity/S&M, Social/Economic, and Tribal) lead to a request for a more comprehensive planning and budgeting process for FY 1999. It was agreed that the RMG/REO should convene a planning work group (along the lines of the EM Policy/Management group) to develop an overall monitoring picture for FY 1999 (by about February 1, 1998), with major tasks and budgets.

The RIEC then discussed the status of the Social/Economic EM. Don reported on the recommendation to separate the two components (NFP and Economic Adjustment Initiative). However, the identification of a lead responsibility for implementing and carrying out a Plan has not been identified. Elaine stated, "as RIEC members there was a shared responsibility for seeing that this component of the NFP was conducted." None of the RIEC members volunteered to be responsible for the task. It was agreed that Don would have discussions with the States to see if they were willing to accept responsibility for this task, then Elaine, Bob, and Don would meet to develop a solution.

Summary

• RIEC adopted recommendation for NSO, MaMu, and LSOG EM modules.
• RIEC agreed to provide (or continue working on) FY 1998 funding and staffing.
• RIEC requested an Implementation Plan for FY 1998 tasks.
• RIEC requested that a planning team develop an overall projected FY 1999 monitoring budget by February 1.
• The RIEC Chair asked REO to continue efforts to obtain a lead for Social/Economic EM, perhaps from the States.

Enclosure

cc:

REO 1047/ly