Dave Allen, US Fish & Wildlife Service
Terry Rabot, US Fish & Wildlife Service (Alt)
Elaine M. Brong, Bureau of Land Management
Judy Nelson, Bureau of Land Management (Alt)
Jon Jarvis, National Park Service
Rory Westberg, National Park Service (Alt)
Linda Goodman, Forest Service
Jim Golden, Forest Service (Alt)
Bob Graham, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Dianne Guidry, Natural Resources Conservation Service (Alt)
Col. Richard W. Hobernicht, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Curt Loop, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Alt)
Anne Kinsinger, USGS Western Region
Dave Busch, USGS/REO (Alt)
Robert Lohn, NOAA Fisheries
Mike Crouse, NOAA Fisheries (Alt)
Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, Western Ecology Division, EPA
Dan McKenzie, Western Ecology Division, EPA (Alt)

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

Time

Topics

Purpose

Presenter

8:00

• Introductions
• Agenda Review

Housekeeping

Linda Goodman
Facilitator

8:10

Report on Research Coordination Meeting

Report out

Anne Kinsinger

8:20

Expanding RIEC Membership

Decision

Anne Badgley

8:25

• Historical look at the IAC
• New FACA Recommendation Processes
• RIEC Discussion Questions
• IAC Agenda Review - Advisory Topics & Collection Processes

Direction

8:50

• Oral Reports & RIEC Issues
• IAC Presentations & Strategies

Reports, Decisions, Strategies

Subcommittee Leads

9:35

• Review of agreements, tasks, & assignments
• Future meeting dates and topics

Housekeeping

Facilitator

9:45

Break and Transition to IAC meeting

Topic: REPORT ON RESEARCH AGENCY EXECUTIVES’ MEETING

Sponsor/Presenter: Anne Kinsinger (USGS)

REO Contact: Dave Busch (USGS Research Rep.)

Issue Statement: On January 30, the regional leadership of a number of natural resources science agencies met at the USGS Western Regional Office in Seattle. Anne will provide a short report about the discussion.

Action Required:

[ x ] Information [ ] Decision

Topic: IAC RECOMMENDATIONS PROCESS

Presenter: Anne Badgley (REO)

REO Contacts: Teresa Kubo (EPA Rep.), Jay Watson (FWS Rep.), Kath Collier (REO Analyst)

Issue Statement: At the August and November 2003 IAC meetings, discussion was devoted to the process for collecting and tracking IAC recommendations. Based on the questions and needs identified through these discussions, an REO workgroup developed a series of recommendations to improve and clarify the existing process.

Background: Since August of last year, we have been looking at how to improve processes used to collect and track IAC recommendations. Reasons for this stem both from a desire on the part of IAC to see a more responsive system for tracking recommendations, and from the need to satisfy new reporting requirements under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Starting in FY04, all FACA committees must keep an accurate accounting of recommendations received, the number fully and partially implemented, and feedback mechanisms utilized.

At the November 2003 IAC meeting, the REO began to outline changes to the recommendation tracking process and committed to changing meeting documentation so that recommendations would be more clearly identifiable. These proposed changes were favorably received by the committee, but also raised further issues. In particular, the IAC briefly discussed the need to differentiate "comments" from "recommendations," processes related to individual versus group recommendations, and the level of agreement needed for group recommendations.

Since the last IAC meeting, an REO workgroup was formed to clarify the issues raised at the last meeting and to identify a mechanism for tracking RIEC response to specific recommendations. In undertaking this task, the REO workgroup considered IAC input from previous meetings, existing processes for obtaining non-Federal IAC advice, and input from representatives of other FACA chartered committees. Committees consulted for this purpose include the BLM/FS Resource Advisory Committees, the NWFP Provincial Advisory Committees, and the Hanford Reach National Monument Advisory Committee.

Analysis and Options: After considering IAC input, the input of other successful FACA committees, and the need to satisfy FACA requirements, the REO workgroup recommends the following minor modifications and clarifications to the current recommendation collection process:

1. Meeting agendas will clearly identify when formal recommendations/advice will be collected, and on what topics. Formal recommendations/advice collected on the specified topics will be captured and visually displayed at the meeting, and reflected in the meeting notes.
2. Definition of a "recommendation" - As a FACA chartered committee, the IAC is expected to provide formal recommendations/advice "as a group." This process does not preclude formal submission of individual recommendations outside of the committee meeting. Providing formal recommendations/advice "as a group" requires a certain level of agreement. The IAC is not required under FACA, its charter, or its operating principles to operate by consensus. As such, several different meeting processes can be used to help identify areas of agreement. Dissenting opinions will be recorded along with the majority opinion and reflected in the notes. Formal recommendations/advice with group agreement would then be considered by the RIEC as required by the reporting process.
3. Reporting back to IAC on status of recommendations: Following RIEC consideration of IAC formal recommendations/advice, the RIEC will inform the IAC of action taken (if any) on the recommendations received. An update will be presented as a part of the next scheduled IAC meeting, and captured and highlighted in the meeting notes.
4. Use of comments for IAC members: Informal comments or advice generated as a part of information sharing sessions will be summarized in the notes, and may help to identify topics for advice collection in the future. They do not, however, constitute formal recommendations/advice, and will not be reported on, or responded to, as such.

• Clearly identifying the issues slated for formal recommendations/advice collection will benefit IAC members by allowing them to make the most efficient use of their meeting preparation time.
• Helps the RIEC use the IAC member’s time most efficiently and effectively in reviewing and evaluating the formal recommendations/advice.
• Facilitates the RIEC being able to take full advantage of the IAC recommendations by organizing and tracking them in a methodical manner.

Challenges: The IAC members may need to devote additional time to subcommittees, conference calls, etc., to develop formal recommendations/advice. The RIEC may need to spend additional time to consider and evaluate IAC formal recommendations/advice. The REO’s workload may increase for tracking, coordinating analysis, and reporting.

REO Staff Proposal: The REO recommends that the IAC provide formal recommendations/ advice regarding the above modifications and clarifications, and determine if additional steps, such as modifying the IAC operating principles, is required/desired.

Action Required: [ x ] Information [ x ] Advice

Topic: NWFP IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEES

Presenter: Anne Badgley (REO)

Issue Statement: The Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) has been evaluating potential implementation improvements to the Northwest Forest Plan. Status reports for the various subcommittee activities follow. Some of the RIEC subcommittees have completed their tasks, others are still in progress, and some have involved creating a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS).

Background: The RIEC has been involved with several steps to improve implementation. These include:

• Clarification of Aquatic Conservation Strategy (SEIS)
• Survey and Manage (SEIS)
• Streamlined procedures

These improvements were developed during RIEC meetings in 2001-2002 and were based on problems that the RIEC identified which included:

• Timber harvest objectives not being met
• High cost of implementation
• Procedural obstacles in implementing plan

In the current round of improvements, the RIEC identified several activities that could help improve implementation which include:

• Follow-up to the Jack Ward Thomas report and recommendations
• Streamlining the consultation process or maximizing programmatic consultations
• Developing an exception to allow Native American burning in limited areas
• Ensuring clarification of the use of ‘recommendations’ captured in Watershed Analyses
• Evaluating opportunities and requirements to facilitate firewood gathering in Late- Successional Reserves
• Evaluating riparian reserve width standards
• Evaluating various approaches that might improve flexibility within Adaptive Management Areas for research and management.

Action Required: Additional status reports and/or discussions are planned as each of these projects proceeds. The REO is working with the implementing agencies to identify areas where IAC recommendations would be most timely and useful.