333 SW 1st
P.O. Box 3623
Portland, Oregon 97208-3623
Phone: 503-808-2165 FAX: 503-808-2163
Memorandum
Date: July 25, 1997
To: Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members (See Distribution List)
From: Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director
Subject: Agenda and Prework Materials for the August 1997 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Field Trip and Meeting
Enclosed are the field trip itinerary, proposed agenda, agenda topic overviews, status reports, and logistics information for the August 6-7 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) field trip and meeting. We will board a bus for the field trip and conduct the meeting at the DoubleTree Hotel in Port Angeles, Washington.
The field trip is planned for Wednesday, August 6. Specific logistical information is included in the itinerary on page 3. You do not need to bring a lunch--it will be provided. Please wear field clothes, including boots, and be prepared for rain. The IAC meeting will begin at 8:00 a.m. on Thursday, August 7, and is projected to adjourn by 2:30 p.m. to facilitate the need for some members to return home the same day. The IAC agenda includes the following goals:
Once your travel plans have been made, please fill out the enclosed FAX form (page 11) and send it to the REO. If you have questions about the logistics or the meeting agenda, please contact Linda Kucera at 503-808-2179.
cc:
REO, RCERT, Presenters
967/ly
Date: July 25, 1997
Subject: IAC Prework Package for August 1997
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
RECERT Ex Officio
Karin Berkholtz, Program Assistant, Governor's Rural Community Assistance Team, State of Washington
| Draft Itinerary for the IAC Field Trip
August 6, 1997 | |
| 10 a.m. | Board the bus at the DoubleTree Hotel parking lot, depart for Elwha Dam (15 min. drive). |
| 10:30 | IAC members/alternates arriving at the airport in Port Angeles at 10:30 will be picked-up at the airport and transported directly to the Elwha Dam site. |
| 10:15 | Presentation by representatives of the National Park Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, Elwha Tribe, and the James River Co. on the watershed restoration proposal for
the site (David Morris, Cat Hoffman, Brian Winter, Bob Wunterlich, Michael Langland,
Orville Campbell ).
- Travel to Olympic Natural Resources Center (ONRC) in Forks. (Martha Hurd, Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), will point out the sights and answer questions about the area during the drive). |
| The central theme for this afternoon is how "Washington State is helping implement the Northwest Forest Plan in terms of habitat protection and community stability." | |
| 12:00 | Lunch with an introduction to ONRC and the Forks Training Center.
- ONRC is a research facility cooperative between the University of Washington and Washington State DNR to provide natural resource research coordination on the Olympic Peninsula (Center Director John Calhoun). - The Forks Training Center is a joint venture by numerous parties and is an opportunity to demonstrate how local communities are adjusting (Center Director Al Angrignon). |
| 12:45 | Overview of Washington State DNR mission & goals--similarities and differences from their neighbors missions and goals (Martha Hurd). |
| 1:00 | Overview of the Washington State DNR Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) (Chuck Turley). - Travel to the Calawah River site. |
| 2:30 | Calawah River Watershed Restoration Project Study: Washington State DNR is the lead,
funded by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service with participation by the Rayonier Company
and the Forest Service (Al Vaughan, DNR and Ginger Phalen, FWS).
- Travel to Horse Cents Thin and Cloverleaf Timber Sale site. |
| 3:10 | Horse Cents Thinning is a commercial thin and an example of implementation of the HCP.
Cloverleaf Timber Sale site was thinned in 1974 and is now ready for final harvest. This site illustrates where Washington State DNR is headed in the future (Mark Johnsen). - Travel to Fresca Timber Sale site. |
| 4:35 | Fresca Timber Sale is a Forest Service timber sale with a focus on adaptive management, habitat development, and coordination with Washington State DNR (Gary Harris, Verne Farrell, Phil Decillis). |
| 5:05 | Travel to Port Angeles, check-into the DoubleTree, and relax a bit. |
| 6:30 | Salmon Bake hosted by the Quileute Tribe. |
| Time
Duration |
Potential Agenda Topics | Topic Purpose | Lead/
Presenter |
| 8:00 | Welcome, Certify the June Meeting Notes, and Review the August Agenda | Complete Official
Business and Review the Agenda |
Bob Williams, Linda Kucera |
| 8:15 | Debrief the Field Trip | Feedback/Discussion | Bob/All |
| 8:30 | Effectiveness Monitoring (EM)
Discussion, Next Steps |
Tom Mills
Dan McKenzie | |
| 9:30 | Break | ||
| 9:50 | EM Continued
Discussion, Next Steps |
Dan | |
| 10:40 | EM Continued
Decision, Next Steps |
Dan | |
| 11:30 | Lunch | ||
| 12:45 | Secretarial Order--ESA/Tribal Policy Statement | Information | Gary Morishima |
| 1:00 | Habitat Conservation Plans -- overview, how many, where are they | Information | Curt Smitch |
| 1:30 | Tribal Restoration Projects on the Peninsula | Information | Mel Moon |
| 2:00 | Public Comment | Input/Feedback | Linda |
| 2:15 | Hot Topics | Information | All |
| 2:20 | Summary of Today's Agreements, Possible Agenda Items for the November Meeting, and Closing Comments | Confirm Agreements, Potential November Agenda Items, Close | Don Knowles, Bob Williams |
| 2:30 | Adjourn | ||
AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW
| Meeting Date: August 7, 1997
Sponsor: Interagency Effectiveness Monitoring Policy/Management Group Contact/Phone: Don Knowles 503-808-2166 Topic: Interagency Recommendations for Effectiveness Monitoring Issue Statement: Present the results of the interagency Effectiveness Monitoring Policy/Management (EM P/M) group's review of the options for Effectiveness Monitoring (EM). Present RIEC recommendations on EM for the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) and obtain IAC advice and input in support of an RIEC decision on EM for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest (LSOG), Northern Spotted Owl (NSO), and the Marbled Murrelet (MaMu). Background: Under the direction of the Federal Research Executives, the Effectiveness Monitoring Team (EMT) had completed their assignment to develop a set of options for monitoring LSOG, NSO, and MaMu (their report was provided to the IAC on June 2 and presented at the June 19 IAC meeting). As discussed at the June 19 meeting, the Federal agencies have tentatively accepted the options recommended by the EMT pending completion of a policy and management review that will lead to selection of a final approach to monitoring these three resource issues. At the request of the IAC a team of managers, representing the Federal agencies that would participate in the monitoring of these issues, was established: BIA (Karole Overberg), BLM (Mike Crouse), Forest Service Regions 5 and 6 (Steve Clausen and Arnie Holden), FWS (Dave Wesley), NPS (Kathy Jope), PNW (Jerry McIlwain) and USGS-BRD (Mike Collopy); Don Knowles (REO) chaired the team. The goal of the exercise was to conclude the EMT's efforts on LSOG, NSO, and MaMu and prepare the RIEC for a final selection of monitoring options so that the agencies can address implementation issues. The EM P/M was requested to review the proposed options and develop an interagency position on an EM plan for RIEC and IAC consideration that would include: (1) a recommendation on the monitoring options, (2) a description of agency roles in executing an interagency EM plan, and (3) a list of agency tasks and associated costs for RIEC consideration. As agreed at the June 19 IAC meeting, the results of the EM P/M review and the RIEC's recommendation on options for monitoring these three resource issues would be provided at the August 7 IAC meeting. Information to support the review was requested from IAC participants at the June 19 meeting. Agency input was obtained through a series of briefings and workshops following release of the June 2 draft monitoring proposals. IAC comments were discussed at their June 19 meeting; follow-up information was provided to the IAC (see REO June 26 memo). A letter with written comments was provided by the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. All these comments, responses, peer reviews, and supporting information were provided to the EM P/M for consideration in their review efforts. |
| Analysis and Options: The EM P/M reviewed and discussed the available material. Information was requested from the EMT for clarification or more explanation on some issues to provide a better understanding of the options. Some of these issues had been raised at the June 19 IAC meeting or in RIEC and agency briefings, and separate responses provided to these groups (and previously provided to the IAC); this information was used for this exercise. The EM P/M's conclusions, summarized below, have been provided to the RIEC for consideration and discussion at the |
| August 7 IAC meeting. Several issues were identified and will be the focus of an EM P/M meeting on
July 31. The results from those discussions will also be presented at the August 7 IAC meeting.
1. Review and recommendation on the monitoring options: Information pertinent to evaluating the options was reviewed and discussed. The EM P/M's review showed that most of the monitoring activities recommended by the EMT for all three resource issues were either ongoing or initiated in FY 1997, and that many of these activities had utility and importance to the agencies beyond EM. Therefore, the question for the EM P/M was whether to change the recommended options for future years given their agency's anticipated needs for monitoring and other data. The Forest Service (Region 5) raised the issue of an additional NSO demography study in the Klamath Province in California; EM P/M's conclusion was for Region 5 to further evaluate its need for information in that local area before adding another study area for EM. The other key issue discussed was the relationship between EM and other monitoring (implementation, validation, and particularly local level activities). The EMT expected that EM and implementation and validation monitoring would be closely linked; EM P/M's conclusion was that this should be a major focus of how these programs are managed in the future. The question about the relationship to local level monitoring and whether EM would replace local programs is more difficult, since EM is designed to answer region-wide ecosystem questions and the EMT did not evaluate local projects; EM P/M's conclusion was that it is each agency's responsibility to evaluate the types of questions local programs are designed to address before deciding their future utility and funding, but that this shouldn't affect decisions on options for EM.
|
2. Description of agency roles in executing an interagency EM plan: The EM P/M reviewed the options
to determine which agencies should provide leadership for each of the monitoring tasks, focusing
primarily on the first 3 years of the monitoring program which will be the transition period (Fiscal Years
1998, 1999, and 2000). As noted above, most EM activities are already ongoing, so consideration was
given to which agencies were currently responsible for existing activities and whether the lead for those
responsibilities should change or be clarified. The primary evaluation factor had to do with which
agency(s) would be most appropriate to play a lead role given their mandates, responsibilities, and
interests; EM P/M's tentative conclusion was that this would vary from retaining the current lead in some
cases to changing or clarifying the lead in others (see attached draft Tables 1 and 2 for comparison). In
many cases the lead would be split between resource agencies with the FS and BLM sharing the lead for
their portions of the program, but given current agency responsibilities for ongoing activities, appropriate
adjustments in leadership can be worked out through the transition period. The EM P/M emphasized that
the designation for lead for a specific monitoring task does not assign sole responsibility of funding for
that task to a specific agency, but that funding in many cases would be shared. Two questions emerged
from this discussion, the first having to do with the role of the Federal Research agencies in monitoring,
and the second concerning leadership for marine monitoring for the MaMu. The EMT expected research
to be a major component of monitoring to develop and test methodologies and models to improve and
support the monitoring program overtime, particularly for the MaMu; the EM P/M agreed with that
conclusion. Lead for MaMu population monitoring was a more difficult question. The proposed
monitoring program for the MaMu is structured to answer NFP questions, but the easiest and cheapest
method for carrying out the population component is through marine monitoring where the FWS has
played a major role because of its ESA responsibilities; the EM P/M's tentative conclusion was for the
FWS to continue to play a major role.
|
|
The following list of issues will be finalized recommendations formulated at the July 31 meeting.
3. List of agency tasks, associated costs, and implementation schedule: The primary questions that the EM P/M will address are about the cost of EM options in relation to available funds. Each agency has gathered basic information on the funds they currently allocated to activities that were expected to contribute to EM. The EM P/M group will further evaluate the funding and staffing issues and such questions as whether there are sufficient staff or managers in place, whether more permanent assignments are needed, how funds are allocated within and between agencies, whether funds would fully cover EM activities in future years, whether identified shortfalls for FY-98 could be covered, or whether funds could be shifted from currently (congressionally) authorized activities to other needs. Their initial conclusion was that the needs for FY-98 were fairly well covered, the agencies should continue supporting ongoing activities as they continue to evaluate these issues, but they should adjust future funding and staffing where needed through the transition period. 4. NSO monitoring--a spotted owl demography site in the Klamath province in northern California. The EM P/M group raised and discussed the advantages and disadvantages of initiating a NSO demographic study area in the Klamath province. It is anticipated that additional discussions will occur at the July 31 meeting. |
| Organizational/Funding Implications: The EM P/M is continuing their analysis of the issues, however, their recommendation to move forward with the EMT proposal. Because the funds (and staff) currently available for those activities proposed to make up the bulk of the monitoring program are already allocated among agencies, and because many of these projects include other goals in addition to those for EM, it was difficult to cleanly identify specific funds that would be allocated solely to EM for FY 1998, 1999, and 2000. However, the EM P/M felt that funding and staffing needs and allocations within and between agencies could be worked out through the transition from the current situation to a fully operational program; some of these issues are already under discussion between the resource and research agencies. |
| Action Required: IAC Recommendation for RIEC Decision |
Table 1: Proposed Leadership for Coordinating Effectiveness Monitoring Activities for LSOG, NSO, and MaMu
| Monitoring | Participating Agencies | ||||||||||||||
| Topic | Activity | FS (R.5 & 6)
BLM (OR & CA) |
FS (PNW & PSW)
USGS (BRD) |
FWS | Other
(NPS) |
Comments | |||||||||
| 98 | 99 | 0 | 98 | 99 | 0 | 98 | 99 | 0 | 98 | 99 | 0 | ||||
| LSOG | Veg Map and Grid Plot | Lead | Lead | Lead | (See veg/grid est.s) | ||||||||||
| Assessment & Reporting | Lead | ||||||||||||||
| Predictive Model | Lead | Lead | |||||||||||||
| Coordination and Mgmt. | Lead | Lead | Lead | 1-3 FTEs est. | |||||||||||
| NSO | Demographic Studies | Population | Lead | Lead | Lead | ||||||||||
| Hab Ass'n | Lead | Lead | Lead | ||||||||||||
| Habitat Assessment (landscape) | Lead | Lead | Lead | ||||||||||||
| Predictive Model | Lead | Lead | Lead | ||||||||||||
| Coordination and Mgmt. | Lead | Lead | Lead | 1-3 FTEs est. | |||||||||||
| MaMu | Population Studies | Lead | Lead | Lead | |||||||||||
| Habitat Studies | Landscape |
Lead |
Lead |
Lead |
Res lead for yrs 1 & 2 only (FY-98/99) | ||||||||||
| Stand Level | |||||||||||||||
| Predictive Model | Lead | Future activity (yr 3) | |||||||||||||
| Coordination and Mgmt. | Lead | Lead | Lead | 1-3 FTEs est. | |||||||||||
| Pilot | Evaluate EM analytic methods and report | Lead | Lead | Proj ends in FY-98 (Res as colead) | |||||||||||
| Regional | Coordination and Mgmt. | Lead | Lead | Lead | 3-4 FTEs est. | ||||||||||
Key: a) no change (light shaded box); b) lead changed or new (dark box); or c) lead clarified, e.g., if previously there were multiple leads (unshaded box)
Table 2: Current Leadership for Monitoring and Related Activities for LSOG, NSO, and MaMu
| Monitoring | Participating Agencies | ||||||||||||||
| Topic | Activity | FS (R.5 & 6)
BLM (OR & CA) |
FS (PNW & PSW)
USGS (BRD) |
FWS | Other
(NPS) |
Comments | |||||||||
| 98 | 99 | 0 | 98 | 99 | 0 | 98 | 99 | 0 | 98 | 99 | 0 | ||||
| LSOG | Veg Map and Grid Plot | Lead | Lead | Lead | (See veg/grid est.s) | ||||||||||
| Assessment & Reporting | |||||||||||||||
| Predictive Model | |||||||||||||||
| Coordination and Mgmt. | Lead | Lead | Lead | Multi-ag. leads | |||||||||||
| NSO | Demographic Studies | Population | 1/ | 1/ | 1/ | Lead | Lead | Lead | 1/ Funds for Res | ||||||
| Hab Ass'n | Lead | Lead | Lead | ||||||||||||
| Habitat Assessment (landscape) | 2/ | 2/ | 2/ | 2/ | 2/ | 2/ Mult-ag. leads | |||||||||
| Predictive Model | Lead | ||||||||||||||
| Coordination and Mgmt. | 3/ | 3/ | 3/ | 3/ | 3/ | 3/ | 3/ Multi-ag. leads | ||||||||
| MaMu | Population Studies | 4/ | 4/ | 4/ | Lead | Lead | Lead | 4/ | 4/ | 4/ | 4/ Funds for Res; Multi ag. leads | ||||
| Habitat Studies | Landscape |
Lead |
Lead |
Lead |
|||||||||||
| Stand Level | |||||||||||||||
| Predictive Model | |||||||||||||||
| Coordination and Mgmt. | 5/ | 5/ | 5/ | 5/ | 5/ | 5/ | 5/ Multi-ag. leads | ||||||||
| Pilot | Evaluate EM analytic methods and report | Lead | Lead | Proj ends in FY-98 (Res as colead) | |||||||||||
| Regional | Coordination and Mgmt. | 6/ | 6/ | 6/ | 6/ | 6/ | 6/ | 6/ Multi-ag. leads | |||||||
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW
| Meeting Date: August 7, 1997 |
| Sponsor: Socio-Economic Effectiveness Monitoring work group Contact/Phone: Chris Christensen 206-553-7260, Dick Phillips 503-808-2281, or Curt Loop 503-808-2172 |
| Topic: Socio-Economic Effectiveness Monitoring Plan |
| Issue Statement: What socio-economic impacts of the Northwest Forest Plan should be monitored, at what scale, and what intensity? How should we determine who will implement the socio-economic plan under development? |
| Background: The ROD, on page E-9, directs as part of its Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, the assessment of socio-economic impacts of the Northwest Forest Plan. Those 8 key areas of interest are: demographics, employment, government revenues, facilities and infrastructure, social service burden, Federal assistance programs, business trends, and taxes. Through the leadership of the PNW, the REO and RMC have formulated a team to develop a plan, including options, for presentation to the RIEC and IAC for collecting and analyzing socio-economic data to develop current status and trends. The first meeting of the team was held on July 17-18. Prior to the meeting, the two chairs of the team, Ms. Chris Christensen (PNW) and Mr. Dick Phillips (R6 Strategic Planning), along with representatives from the REO and RMC, conducted 4 teleconference calls with State, County, RCERT, and tribal representatives to gather their questions, interests, and concerns to better scope the direction of the initial meeting. The team consists of technical experts, agency representatives, and organizational leaders from throughout the region. In attendance at the meeting were: Anne Berblinger, EDA; Karin Berkholtz, WA SCERT and IAC-RCERT Liaison; Scott Duff and Eric Herst, RDA; Bruce Davies, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission; Chris Christensen, PNW and co-chair; Dick Phillips, USFS and co-chair; Leslie Frewing-Runyon, BLM; Terry Raettig, USFS; Tom Hackett, Corps of Engineers; Jerry Haugen, USFS; Wendy McGinnis, PNW; Jerry Williams, USFS; Ellen Donoghue, Social and Economic Values Research; Janel Tarczy, CA SCERT; Don Motanic, Intertribal Timber Council; Dan McKenzie, RMC; and Don Knowles and Curt Loop, REO. At the meeting, the group reviewed the relationship of the NFP and the monitoring component and discussed the process of plan development, the results of the 4 teleconference calls and each key question, and the final product (the plan). The proposed socio-economic effectiveness monitoring plan will be consistent with other monitoring plans and consist of a discussion of the conceptual framework for a socio-economic monitoring plan, the key questions and indicators to be answered, and an effectiveness monitoring plan outline and time line. |
| Analysis and Options: Since the Socio-Economic Effectiveness Monitoring plan is still in its formative stage, the IAC meeting is an opportunity for the planning team to receive IAC input as to plan sideboards, other economic questions to be addressed, and amount of intensity to be put forth during its implementation. The development of the socio-economic effectiveness monitoring plan and its implementation will be carried out by two separate work groups. The present team is responsible to develop the plan and its presentation at the August 6 and November 6 IAC meetings. Following the IAC discussion and any future revisions, the plan will be carried out by a second team (whose composition is yet to be determined). |
| Organizational/Funding Implications: To be determined. |
| REO Staff Proposal: The REO is assisting and monitoring the planning groups progress. The current status of plan development and its associated details (conceptual framework, development and implementation time lines, key questions to be answered, plan outline, etc.) will be presented at the August IAC meeting to familiarize the IAC members with the plan. Examples of questions which should considered in preparation for the meeting include: do the questions and indicators presented adequately satisfy the ROD's economic monitoring questions, what sideboards or restrictions are to be observed during the implementation of the plan, what agencies should be involved/responsible for implementing the plan, and what level of intensity is expected from the agencies implementing the plan. REO recommends contination of this planning effort, leading to a presentation and a decision at the November 6 IAC meeting. |
| Action Required: IAC Review & Discussion _____ RIEC Agreement on Next Steps |
AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW
| Meeting Date: August 7, 1997 |
| Sponsor: Research Executives for PNW, USGS/BRD, EPA and the RMC Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie 503-808-2190 |
| Topic: Effectiveness Monitoring for Aquatic and Riparian Resources |
| Issue Statement: At the June 19, 1997 IAC meeting, the research executives, together with the Research and Monitoring Group representatives, reaffirmed their commitment for developing options and a strategy for completing the aquatic and riparian resource effectiveness monitoring plan. |
| Background: The Record of Decision emphasized the need to monitor aquatic and riparian
systems and watersheds to evaluate whether or not the objectives of the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy (ACS) are being met by Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) implementation. The charge
to the Aquatic/Riparian (A/R) effectiveness monitoring (EM) work group was to develop a
plan for evaluating status and trends within A/R systems throughout the region to answer
specific questions and assess the responses of these systems to implementation of the ROD
Standards and Guidelines.
The procedural approach to develop an A/R monitoring plan has followed the framework applied to the other EM modules. However, this undertaking has proven particularly difficult, in part, because A/R monitoring potentially involves an assessment of a broad spectrum of ecosystem conditions. This is a complex problem with a diversity of habitat, species and scale issues. Consensus on the NFP effectiveness monitoring questions that are to be addressed has eluded the groups efforts. Absent this agreement, the ability to develop and prioritize the A/R effectiveness monitoring plan has been difficult to attain. To make use of existing data and knowledge while dealing with the fact that A/R systems may vary substantially at a provincial or watershed scale, the A/R workgroup has proposed that "integrative assessments" of watershed condition and trend be a first step in an EM plan (presentation to research executives, 6/13/97). Both available data and expert opinion would be employed by groups of scientists and managers to rate the condition of approximately 520 fifth-field watersheds throughout the NFP region. Although a "superset" of core indicators would be used throughout the region, the applicability and relative importance of indicators could shift among provinces, basins, or watersheds. Thus, the watershed condition rating would be a subjective one, based on available data and expert assessment of a suite of indicators by technical experts familiar with local systems. At a regional scale, changes resulting from NFP implementation would be described as shifts in the frequency distribution of these watershed condition ratings. |
| The integrative assessments could also be used as the starting place for the development of empirical models to quantify the relationships of upslope changes with A/R condition. In addition, integrative assessments could serve as the place where sampling stratification of core and scale-specific watershed indicators would be developed. These efforts are seen as feeding into a more quantitative effort where sample surveys of aquatic, riparian, and watershed indicators would be conducted, and predictive models refined. The quantitative assessment would provide an independent check on the integrative assessments of individual watershed condition, while also providing data for regional-scale analysis of NFP effectiveness. Additional components proposed by the A/R workgroup would provide for an evaluation of specific ACS practices on individual watersheds, as well as an evaluation of the effectiveness of Watershed Analysis in identifying impacts to A/R systems. |
| Analysis and Options: There has been concern within the A/R workgroup, and among the
group's management and scientific advisers and the research executives, about the emphasis
of the above approach on non-standardized data and subjective, albeit expert, opinion. The
consensus of agency representatives at the July 1, 1997 Research and Monitoring Committee
meeting was that the A/R monitoring plan must incorporate quantitative methodologies to the
greatest extent possible. There is an expectation that the A/R monitoring plan will provide
the information for a regional scale analyses. Furthermore, it has been proposed that the
development of a simple conceptual model, in the manner adopted by the other EM
workgroups, would facilitate progress toward developing an acceptable A/R monitoring plan.
When developed, the indicators and a conceptual model could provide a system for stratifying
both quantitative and integrative assessments. They would provide a framework for
discussions of the difficult issues surrounding sampling design. They would also provide a
system for scaling-up watershed-specific condition assessments to the regional level.
The following are some of the key issues where IAC advice is needed to revitalize the A/R monitoring effort: 1. The status of A/R systems on federal lands is, in many cases, strongly influenced by the management of neighboring nonfederal properties. The workgroup has struggled with this issue and whether or how to integrate private lands into A/R monitoring. The advantages of including information from nonfederal lands must be weighed against the monetary costs of including such information, a lack of consistent monitoring protocols, and perceptions regarding the appropriate federal sphere of influence. Policy guidance on the recommended land ownership approach for A/R monitoring would help in developing EM alternatives. 2. The experts comprising the A/R workgroup brought to their deliberations a wealth of knowledge on monitoring needs from related efforts. Among these are Watershed Analysis, the Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative, and Endangered Species Act listing, consultation, and litigation activities. Although there seems to be relatively clear direction to construct an EM plan that centers on A/R habitat and watershed status, ongoing scientific- and policy-level discussion of such related initiatives has tended to cloud this focus. The degree to which the EM plan should address the full suite of A/R issues has been a source of debate in the plan development efforts. Given that the A/R monitoring approach will be centered principally on an evaluation of the ACS, guidance should be clarified relative to the integration of other federal, state, or tribal efforts. 3. Although issues like the utility of conceptual models, core indicators, and quantitatively- versus subjectively-based analyses should be argued based largely on scientific merit, the expectations of the agencies responsible for approving and implementing the A/R monitoring plan should also be weighed in the prospective approach. Additional clarification regarding such expectations would help set a standard that the A/R workgroup could address in drafting a monitoring plan. 4. The mandate of the A/R workgroup needs to be solidified by affirming agency and individual commitments to this effort. Following determinations on the above policy issues, a renewed workgroup charter should be developed. Personnel and other resources must then be prioritized for completing the A/R monitoring plan. |
| Organizational/Funding Implications: Implementation of the A/R monitoring plan will require significant commitments of agency human and financial resources. Like the other monitoring modules that have received tentative approval, much of the A/R monitoring effort can be expected to come from ongoing programs that currently receive agency support. However, some redirection of funds and effort can be anticipated to implement a regionally-valid A/R monitoring program. |
| REO Staff Proposal: In conjunction with the research executives and REO representatives,
Research and Monitoring Group (RMG) personnel have developed the following
recommended set of steps to initiate the completion of the A/R monitoring proposal:
1. Clarify the issues - RMG staff will work with the A/R workgroup and the research executives to expand upon the four issues listed above. In addition to summarizing the progress that has been made by the A/R monitoring workgroup, it is anticipated that lists of those policy and technical issues perceived as obstacles to progress will be developed. To the extent possible, these lists will be accompanied by the benefits and costs associated with potential solutions to the issues presented. This step should be completed by September 5, 1997. 2. Provide policy guidance - A policy subgroup made up of representatives for the IAC members will be constituted, and will be asked to provide agency guidance on the issues identified in step 1. This effort will be led by REO. Participation would be open to all IAC members, with representation from the three states and native American groups highly encouraged. IAC member designees should be received by REO by September 5, 1997. This group will be asked to produce a prospective set of policy guidelines for A/R monitoring by September 26, 1997. 3. Develop a revised charter - Using the prospective set of policy guidelines developed by the IAC policy subgroup in step 2, and the list of technical issues developed in step 1, a proposed new charter for A/R monitoring plan development will be drafted by the RMG, under the direction of the research executives. The charter will address staffing requirements and schedules for the A/R monitoring workgroup. The proposed charter will be presented for IAC review and RIEC approval at the November IAC meeting. 4. Produce the plan - Using the approved charter, the A/R workgroup will draft the A/R monitoring plan for peer and agency review and approval. The A/R workgroup will coordinate closely with RMG staff and the research executives during plan development. The draft plan will lay out a set of alternative strategies for the monitoring of A/R resources. It is currently anticipated that plan development will require an additional 4 months to complete, making a final product ready for implementation by April, 1998. |
| Action Required: IAC Review & Discussion IAC Recommendation
RIEC Decision |
Field Trip Topics - April, June, August
Habitat Conservation Plan
PACs
Adaptive Management Areas
Forest Health
Possible Agenda Items - November 6
Possible Agenda Items Identified by Not Yet Scheduled
IAC/RCERT Interaction
Western Governors Association (WGA) Initiatives
Strategic Plan
STATUS REPORT
| Meeting Date: August 7, 1997 | REO Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie |
| Topic: Effectiveness Monitoring for Survey & Manage Species/Biodiversity and American Indians and their culture. | |
| Background: At the June 19, 1997 IAC meeting, initiating the development of an Effectiveness Monitoring Program for Survey and Manage species and biodiversity was briefly discussed. The research executives have the lead for the development of an Effectiveness Monitoring Plan for Biodiversity/Survey & Manage species throughout the NFP region. At the meeting the tribal members offered to initiate development of an Effectiveness Monitoring Plan for the area of tribal interests and their culture. | |
| Status/Update: Research and Monitoring Group met with the PNW director to discuss the
difficulties and complexities of different monitoring approaches (i.e., monitoring individual
populations or groups of Survey and Manage species versus monitoring biodiversity, or some
combination of these approaches). The value of employing a senior science team, similar to
those employed for earlier Effectiveness Monitoring modules, was discussed. It was felt that
such a team should be lead by scientists experienced with biodiversity and community
ecology issues and include additional technical experts, as well as management
representatives.
The tribal initiative has developed a draft proposal that is under tribal review. The REO anticipates receipt of the proposal in the near future. For both of these areas, the RMG/REO anticipates formation of a work group within the next few months and a plan for IAC consideration in early 1998. | |
Regional Ecosystem Office
333 SW First Street
P.O. Box 3623
Portland, Oregon 97208
503-808-2165 FAX: 503-808-2163
FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET
Date:
To: Linda Kucera, REO Phone: 503-808-2179 Fax: 503-808-2163
Re: Logistics for the August 1997 IAC Field Trip and Meeting on the Olympic Peninsula in Port Angeles, Washington
From:
Travel Information
I plan to fly into the Port Angeles airport: yes no. If yes, I arrive
at time on date and depart at time on .
I plan to drive to Port Angeles: yes no.
Lodging Information
I will stay at the DoubleTree Hotel the night of Tuesday, August 5: yes no
I will stay at the DoubleTree Hotel the night of Wednesday, August 6: yes no
I will stay at the DoubleTree Hotel the night of Thursday, August 7: yes no
Participation Information
I plan to participate in the field trip on Wednesday (lunch will be provided): yes no.
I plan to attend the salmon bake Wednesday evening hosted by the Quileute: yes no.
I plan to attend the IAC meeting on Thursday: yes no.
Enclosure to 964iac.mem