Enclosed please find notes briefly summarizing the discussion and agreements from the Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) meetings held on January 7, 2003. The day's series of meetings got underway with an Executive Session focused on discussing how to provide for a smooth and effective transition to an interim Acting REO Director upon my upcoming departure, as well as reviewing staff work to date and discussing executive direction with the Futures Work Group that has been looking at options and criteria for a future organizational support structure.

Upon adjournment of the full committee meeting, two RIEC subcommittees held meetings, in particular the Aquatic Conservation Subcommittee and the Survey & Manage Subcommittee. Notes of these meetings will be made available under separate cover via the subcommittee chairs.

I would also like to remind RIEC members of my upcoming paternity leave, which is scheduled to run for two weeks and commence on or about January 17. Kath will circulate an e-mail message notifying you of the dates of my leave once they are known with specificity. I have appointed Dave Busch of the Research and Monitoring Group to serve as Acting REO Director during my absence. Consequently, please contact Dave concerning normal REO business while I am out. His phone number is 503-808-2192 and his e-mail address is dave_busch@usgs.gov. Kath will know how to get ahold of me during this period if an urgent matter should arise.

Set forth below please find a description and reminder of several upcoming RIEC events. (A complete RIEC calendar is available online at http://www.reo.gov/riec.) The most important item to which to draw your attention in this regard is the recent rescheduling of the next RIEC meeting from February 6 to February 12. This schedule change was made to accommodate the attendance of Elaine Brong, as neither she nor her designated alternate could attend on the sixth.

• January 21, 2003 - 8:00-8:30 a.m.: RIEC conference call regarding further discussion of options and decision on selecting interim REO Executive Director to serve between my departure and execution of next MOU. Conference line call-in number is 503-808-2727.

• January 24, 2003 - 7:00-8:00 a.m.: Meeting of the RIEC Executive Oversight Team and Futures Work Group to discuss framing of potential future organizational structure options for February 12 RIEC meeting. The meeting location is the 3^rd floor conference room at the Fish & Wildlife Service Regional Office, in the Bonneville Power Complex.

• February 12, 2003 - 8:00 a.m.-Adjournment time TBD: Full RIEC Meeting. The agenda for this meeting is still under development, but the primary focus likely will be an Executive Session designed to reach a final recommendation on the future organizational support structure for the next NWFP MOU. The meeting will be held in the REO Conference Room. There also will likely be meetings of the Aquatic Conservation and Survey and Manage RIEC subcommittees following the full RIEC meeting.

In closing, I would like to quickly point out that the format of the RIEC meeting notes has been revised to add a few "new and improved" features. For example, a table that briefly summarizes the tasks and assignments made during the meeting has been added for your convenience. If you have questions or concerns regarding these notes, please do not hesitate to contact me (or Dave Busch), your REO representative, or REO Management Analyst Kath Collier (503-808-2179).

Enclosures:
• January 2003 RIEC Meeting Notes

1794/kc

To:     Regional Interagency Executive Committee Members & Designated Alternates

Anne Badgley, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
  Rowan Gould, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Elaine M. Brong, Bureau of Land Management  
  Judy Nelson, Bureau of Land Management
Jon Jarvis, National Park Service
  Art Eck, National Park Service
  Jim Shevock, National Park Service
Linda Goodman, Forest Service
  Lisa Freedman, Forest Service
Bob Graham, Natural Resources Conservation Service   
Col. Richard W. Hobernicht, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
  Curt Loop, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Anne Kinsinger, USGS Western Region
  Ronald E. Kirby, USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center
Robert Lohn, National Marine Fisheries Service
  Mike Crouse, National Marine Fisheries Service
Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, Western Ecology Division, Environmental Protection Agency
  Dan McKenzie, Western Ecology Division, Environmental Protection Agency
Dave Powers, Environmental Protection Agency
Stan M. Speaks, Bureau of Indian Affairs
  Alex Whistler, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Tom Quigley, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forest Service
  Bob Szaro, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forest Service
  Cindi West, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forest Service

California Federal Executives
Kent Connaughton, Forest Service
  Kathy Anderson, Forest Service
Steve Thompson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
  John Engbring, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
  Phil Detrich, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Michael Pool, Bureau of Land Management
  Paul Roush, Bureau of Land Management

ISSUE SUMMARY

Presenter/Sponsor: Steve Odell/503-808-2166

REO Staff (Futures Work Group): Dave Busch, Ken Mabery, Shawne Mohoric, Debbie Pietrzak, Dale Guenther, & Kath Collier

Topic: Executive Session on Future Organizational Support Structure & Operations

Issue Statement: To identify potential future staffing and support options for regional interagency executive entities, including RIEC, IAC, & Northwest Natural Resources Forum

Summary of Discussion: Steve Odell commenced discussion of this topic by providing a background overview, including a brief rundown on the RIEC's previous discussions on the topic. In particular, he quickly reviewed the key elements and common understandings that arose from the discussion the RIEC had at its December 2002 meeting, which are as follows: • RIEC should continue to function as "highly substantive" executive-level forum • REO should continue to exist, but in modified form, and generally should be designed to perform moderate-level functions; real question is what shape new form should take • 3 general time frames at issue, as described below, but need for flexibility emphasized: Near-term - Now through when REO Director leaves, in mid-February or early March Short-term - From REO Director's departure through end of present MOU Long-term - Under new MOU • Near-term: >Look for opportunities to make easy-to-accomplish changes that could reap benefits >Develop transition plan for REO Director >Establish long-term target/new MOU framework at which subgroup can work toward • Short-term: >General desire expressed to stay with status-quo (on paper, at least) through end of MOU II, although should look for opportunities to make near-term changes as feasible >In general, no desire expressed for radical or systemic changes to support structure while NWFP amendments continue to be developed, at least until new MOU executed • Long-term: >General coalescence emerged around "leaner, meaner" version of REO >To that end, direction provided to take a "limbo dance" approach - i.e., REO should function at lowest possible levels of cost, space, and personnel while still ensuring that essential and any re-affirmed desirable tasks continue to be performed effectively >Likely need noted to set up a meeting in Washington to brief D.C. folks on proposal • Time frame goals: >To seek decision on MOU framework at February 2003 RIEC meeting >To complete MOU before expiration of existing version (i.e., by 10/19/03) No objections or concerns were raised with any of the foregoing elements, and thus, it was agreed that they should continue to be used to guide further staff work and issue resolution. A. Near Term/REO Leadership Transition: Upon reaffirming the progress the RIEC has made in its deliberations on this topic to date, the discussion shifted to focus on options for meeting near-term organizational support needs and, in particular, filling in behind Steve Odell after he vacates the REO Executive Director position in late February or early March. Kath Collier briefly outlined the three options to meet the near-term REO leadership transitional needs described in the meeting's pre-work materials. The discussion revealed a widespread preference for Near-term Option 3, calling for the temporary appointment of an acting REO Director from the time of Steve's departure until the next MOU is executed. The discussion then turned to the naming of several potential candidates and a very preliminary assessment of their respective strengths and weaknesses. In this context, committee members identified a variety of strengths that an interim Director should possess, including organizational skills, management experience, leadership, willingness to go beyond the status quo, an ability to communicate and work effectively with agency and departmental counterparts in Washington, D.C., to bring the next MOU to closure, and coordination skills to ensure the RIEC is regularly kept abreast of the myriad number of efforts presently underway to improve the NWFP. Various vehicles were discussed for bringing on an interim director, including "detailing" someone into the position or entering into an interagency personnel agreement (IPA). No final decision was reached on the most appropriate tool, although most committee members seemed to favor the use of a detail over an IPA, all other things being equal. Toward that end, the REO (Kath Collier) & Elaine Brong agreed to do some follow-up research on personnel mechanics and procedural requirements. There also appeared to be general agreement that the interim director position should not be classified as Senior Executive Service, but rather at a GS-15 level, and that, if the selectee is presently below that grade, s/he would be entitled to receive a temporary promotion and pay raise to the extent authorized by applicable agency regulations and guidelines. Finally, it was determined that the interim director would need to be solely dedicated to the REO Director position (and thus should not continue with their present duties). C. Mid- and long-term: The REO Futures Work Group joined the Executive Session for the second major segment of the discussion on this topic, involving mid- and long-term transitional issues. Ken Mabery got things rolling by providing an overview of the work group's progress to date and circulating a draft list of present REO tasks. Dale Guenther then reviewed a draft decision matrix and time line generated by the work group, and circulated copies of each. These graphics led to a lively discussion regarding process and executive expectations, and culminated with a determination that the work group needs to continue pushing ahead on its work to meet the proposed completion dates reflected in the draft time line. Several more particular points emerged during the RIEC's discussion as well, including the following: • The draft time line needs to be fleshed out further between 4/30/03 and 9/30/03 • A request was made to arrange a meeting between the work group and the RIEC's Executive Oversight Team on or near January 24 to discuss and frame the options for presentation to and consideration by the full RIEC at its February 2003 meeting • The work group should perform the necessary work and analysis to provide the RIEC with concrete options for consideration, not just an analytical process to work through • The need was recognized to follow up on the interest expressed by the IAC at its December 2002 meeting to have an opportunity to be involved with the decision on the future organizational support structure; consequently, it was urged that IAC members be apprised of the status of the RIEC's deliberations and provided the draft time line; Mike Crouse also offered to assist in working with the IAC given his previous experience • The REO Director was directed to notify appropriate officials in Washington, D.C., of the RIEC's recommendation that a meeting of the Interagency Steering Committee be held in May or June 2003 to discuss the next iteration of the MOU and the ongoing efforts to improve NWFP implementation and to develop a proposed meeting agenda • The work group should address the potential impacts on RIEC and REO clients and client services in its analysis of the pros and cons of the options to be presented Overall, feedback on the REO work group's efforts to date was universally favorable, and there seemed to be general agreement that the group is on the right track. Thus, the work group was instructed to continue to move ahead vigorously with efforts to facilitate reaching a tentative recommendation on a future organizational support model at the February 2003 RIEC meeting.

RIEC Decisions: A. Near Term/REO Leadership Transitional Needs: The RIEC selected Near-Term Option 3 as laid out in the prework materials, which calls for appointing an interim Acting REO Director. The RIEC also expressed a preference for using a long-term detail to fill the position, which should be graded as a GS-15 with an opportunity for a temporary promotion and pay raise to the extent permissible. The interim position would likely start in late February or early March and continue through execution of the new MOU (scheduled for October 2003). B. Mid- and long-term: The RIEC confirmed that the workgroup was heading in the correct direction and provided some feedback on the work products presented, as described above. The RIEC also decided to recommend that an ISC meeting be scheduled for May or June 2003.

Next Steps (who/what/when): Near-Term: (1) Executives for the candidates are to provide further input to Odell during the week of January 13-17, in particular as to whether their respective candidates are willing and available. (2) A conference call has been scheduled for 1/21/03 from 8-8:30 a.m. for 2 major purposes: (a) List of potential detail candidates and recommendations & (b) feedback on mechanics (3) Kath will send around a brief update on feedback a day or two ahead of the conference call. Mid- and Long-Term: (1) The REO's IAC Liaison (Teresa Kubo) will notify IAC members of opportunity to track ongoing progress on developing a future organizational support structure for RIEC, IAC, etc. (2) The REO will schedule a meeting of the RIEC Executive Oversight Team (whose members include Linda Goodman, Anne Badgley, Dave Powers, and Steve Odell) and the REO Futures Work Group on or near January 24, 2003. (3) REO will set up a conference call for the Futures Work Group, Executive Oversight Team, and interested IAC members, and try to schedule it just prior to the February '03 RIEC meeting. (4) Steve Odell will work with CEQ to inform the Interagency Steering Committee (ISC) of the RIEC's recommendation that an ISC meeting be convened in May or June 2003; if interest is expressed, REO will work with CEQ to develop a draft agenda for the meeting, which at a minimum should include RIEC's proposed MOU III and updates on NWFP improvements

ISSUE SUMMARY

REO Contact/Phone: Gary Benson /503-808-2191 & Dave Busch /503-808-2192

Topic: Science Findings of Potential Significance to the NWFP

Issue Statement: To present potentially significant science findings and their implications to the RIEC to facilitate adaptive management to better achieve NWFP Goals and Objectives

Summary of Discussion: Science findings on aquatic, riparian, and watershed system dynamics were reported by Bob Szaro (FS-PNW). The presentation was based upon the work of Gordie Reeves and Sam Chan (FS-PNW), and Dave Hibbs and Jim Shatford (USGS and Oregon State University). Important points and questions that were raised by the RIEC included, given that the findings emphasize the importance of fire, landslides, floods, etc. in natural ecosystems, what disturbance have humans added to the natural background? It was noted that these findings will be presented in greater detail by Gordie Reeves and Sam Chan at a Science Information Sharing day on January 9 to FS and BLM professional staff. Recent findings from the FS-PNW socio-economic science program were also summarized by Richard Haynes for the RIEC. Key points in Richard's presentation included: -- A small number of forest-dependent communities have a relatively large influence over policy development. Many of these communities have low viability and adaptability. -- Washington Office might find findings about "timber dependent" communities valuable Anne Kinsinger (USGS Regional Biologist) discussed strategies that the research agencies are using or considering for use as individual organizations, as collaborating research institutions, and in conjunction with the RIEC. Points raised in her presentation and the discussion that followed include: -- Research agencies are planning to work together in new ways across broader range of issues. -- We are being challenged to look at the value of Federal research to society. -- Want to improve linkages of research agencies and other RIEC agencies to create a more dynamic relationship. -- Want to provide better synthesis of a range of research on a large number of topics. -- More consultation and coordination, and collaboration among research agencies is anticipated. -- Want research topics woven more into the RlEC agenda (more frequent agenda items in smaller 'chunks'). -- Presentations are helpful at seeing how landscape is dynamic when we have a history of managing and consulting on a static basis. -- Scientific background on Northern Spotted Owl and Marbled Murrelet are of interest to FWS and other agencies in relation to examinations of the listing status of these species. -- Research executives are interested in topics proposed by other RIEC members. -- Presentation of research information to RIEC should be paired with presentations to agency technical staff, as FS is doing with their science sharing session this week. -- Try to achieve balance between topics of immediate importance and those that have future importance. In the final phase of this topic, John Stein of NOAA-Fisheries Research led the RIEC in a discussion about next steps for science-management interaction. Key points raised include: -- There is great value in having all agencies hear same message from research. In many cases, it will be most efficient for agencies to respond individually. -- Communication is very important. New delivery mechanisms are desirable. Venues could include the media and general public. -- Need to track management changes that result from new information and note successes. -- Big challenge is pushing new information into the management change step of adaptive management. -- Science information and management needs often are province specific. -- Need to engender more realistic view of certainty and risk (much of research and monitoring ties to social acceptability of such concepts). -- Discussion on research topics should be iterative . -- There was some difference of opinion about how findings regarding forest thinning were used; may want to revisit topic. -- RIEC strongly endorsed idea of more science dialogue. -- Need to make best utilization of scientists' time perhaps by grouping presentations to different forums. - A request was made for a communication function to be included in the information process slide. -- Interest expressed in fire as a potential topic (research agencies described some of the steps underway taken to study and communicate findings about fire). Overall, the presentations were very well received. The RIEC liked the format and issues covered, and several executives stated an intent to follow up on the findings with their staffs. It was also suggested that the IAC might be interested in the research findings presented (and potentially others as well) and that a presentation be included in the next IAC meeting agenda. In addition, widespread interest was expressed in further developing the science information-sharing component/processes to maximize the distribution of this information to the field. Finally, there was general support for pursuing measures that could bring about greater coordination among agencies in communicating findings and their principal implications.

RIEC Decision: The RIEC directed the REO to work with the RMG and research agency executives on preparing a presentation of recent research findings for the agenda of the next IAC meeting.

Next Steps (who/what/when): -- The science information process slide will be revised to incorporate a communication function. -- Within 2 weeks (i.e., by January 21, 2003) RIEC members need to provide input to Gary Benson about topics of interest for future presentations on new science information. -- The REO will work with the RMG and research agency executives to develop an agenda item addressing recent research findings for presentation at the next IAC meeting.

ISSUE SUMMARY

RMG Contact/Phone: Dave Busch /503-808-2192

Topic: Northwest Forest Plan Monitoring: Latest Data and Developments

Issue Statement: To provide an update on recent NWFP monitoring program developments

Summary of Discussion: Jon Martin, Interagency Effectiveness Monitoring Program Manager, provided background information on the history, development and past funding of the NWFP Monitoring effort and present organizational structure of the interagency NWFP Monitoring Program. He also provided status reports on the Watershed (AREMP) Monitoring Plan, Tribal Monitoring Plan, Socio-Economic Plan and Implementation Monitoring Plan. Jon reported that good progress is being made to work cooperatively with the States on the Watershed (AREMP) Monitoring Plan. Currently this plan is going through pilot testing, and 40 watersheds have been sampled since 2001. The Tribal Monitoring Plan has been approved by the RIEC and 76 tribes will be interviewed over the next three years under that Plan. Dr. Susan Charnley has been hired to finalize development of the Socio-Economic Plan. In regard to Implementation Monitoring, Jon reported that it focused on forest thinning activities in 21 Late-Successional Reserves during FY02. All provinces were sampled, and the PAC's review teams found a 98 percent compliance rate with NWFP Standards and Guidelines. Jon also provided a status report and proposed timeline for completion of the 10-year effectiveness monitoring interpretive report. The time line calls for a draft report to be finished in June 2004 and a final draft provided for RIEC approval in December 2004. Next, Melinda Moeur, the Late Successional-Old Growth Effectiveness Monitoring Plan Lead, provided a status report on the LSOG Effectiveness Monitoring Plan for the NWFP. She provided information and a description of the objectives and strategy for this plan. Information to be addressed in the 10-year evaluation report will include LSOG status and trends information (both short- and long-term). She described components involved in the monitoring effort, as well as the interagency partnerships that were formed to develop needed information. These agencies include federal and state (OR, WA, CA) agencies. Descriptions of existing vegetation (based on remote sensing data) for these states were provided as well as examples of change detection to illustrate how changes in LSOG could be tracked over time. A draft timeline for products was reviewed that calls for completion of a status and trends analysis report by December 2003, and the 10-year evaluation report by December 2004. In addition, Melinda stated that the Existing Vegetation Baseline Maps for all NWFP Provinces should be completed by late January 2003. These maps will contain canopy cover, size, canopy structure, and dominant vegetation type information. The final LSOG maps for all the provinces should be completed by September 2003.

RIEC Decisions: N/A

Next Steps (who/what/when): The Interagency Effectiveness Monitoring Program Manager anticipates that the draft 10-year NWFP Effectiveness interpretive report will be completed by June 2004, and a final report is expected to be ready for RIEC approval by December 2004.

ISSUE SUMMARY