Regional Ecosystem Office
333 SW 1st
P.O. Box 3623
Portland, Oregon 97208-3623
Website: www.reo.gov
Phone: 503-808-2165 FAX: 503-808-2163


                     Memorandum

Date:      November 17, 2000

To:          Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members (See Distribution List)

From:      Stephen J. Odell, Executive Director

Subject:   November 2 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting Notes


Enclosed are the notes from the November Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) meeting.

Summary notes are included for the following Agenda Topic(s):

Summary notes are also included for the following Hot Topic(s):

I would point out for your special attention that, as noted at the meeting, you should be receiving within the next week or so a copy of the Final Survey & Manage Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) via Federal Express. As discussed at the meeting, the (REO) has offered to facilitate the convening of an IAC work group to review the FSEIS and prepare comments and advice on the decision the agencies should make in light of the analysis in the document. Thus far, Francie Sullivan and Gary Morishima have expressed an interest in such a work group. If you have any interest in participating, as soon as possible please contact Harold Belisle (503-808-2173) or Shawne Mohoric (503-808-2175), who will be heading up REO's efforts to schedule a work group meeting. We would like to schedule this meeting by December 5 if at all possible.

Finally, as a reminder, the next IAC meeting is scheduled for Thursday, February 1, 2001, in Portland, Oregon. Logistical information will be sent to you in January 2001. If you have questions or suggestions, please contact Steve Odell at 503-808-2166 or your agency representative.

Enclosure

cc:
REO Reps, RCERT, PAC DFOs

1589/ly

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Distribution List

California
Mary Nichols, California Resource Agency, State Representative
Maria Rea, California Resource Agency (Alternate)
Francie Sullivan, Representative of California Counties

Oregon
Peter Green, Forest Policy Advisor, Office of the Governor
Lance Clark, Resource Analyst, Office of the Governor (Alternate)
Rocky McVay, Representative of Oregon Counties

Washington
Robert Nichols, Senior Executive Policy Assistant, Office of the Governor
Karin Berkholtz, State Representative (Alternate)
Albert McKee, Representative of Washington Counties

Tribes
Travis Britton, Forester, CA Indian Forest & Fire Management Council
David Herrera, Fisheries Manager, NW Indian Fisheries Commission
 Bruce Davies, Policy Analyst, NW Indian Fisheries Commission (Alternate)
Jim Anderson, Executive Director, NW Indian Fisheries Commission (Alternate)
Katie Krueger, Environmental Policy Analyst, Quileute Tribe (Alternate)
George Smith, Intertribal Timber Council
Guy McMinds, Executive Office Advisor, Quinault Indian Nation (Alternate)
Eric Hanson, Associate Director, Wildlife Department, Yakama Indian Nation (Alternate)

Federal Agencies
Anne Badgley, Regional Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Michael Spear, California/Nevada Operations Office Manager, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
John D. Buffington, Western Region Chief Biologist, BRD, U.S. Geological Survey
Michael Collopy, Center Director, Biological Resources Division, U.S.Geological Survey (Alternate)
Col. Randall J. Butler, District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Davis Moriuchi, Deputy District Commander, U.S. Corps of Engineers
Donna Darm, Acting Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service (Alternate)
Mike Crouse, Acting Assistant Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service (Alternate)
Ken Feigner, Director, Forest and Salmon Group, Environmental Protection Agency
Harv Forsgren, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, R-6
Nancy Graybeal, Deputy Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, R-6
Brad Powell, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, R-5
Glenn Gottschall, Acting Deputy Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, R-5
Bob Graham, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Thomas J. Mills, Station Director, Forest Service, PNW
Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, Branch Chief, Western Ecology Division, Environmental Protection Agency
Robert Lackey, Assoc. Director, Western Ecology Division, 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
William Walters, Deputy Regional Director, National Park Service
Kathy Jope, Natural Resources Team Leader, National Park Service
Jim Shevock, Associate Regional Director, National Park Service (Alternate)
Elaine Zielinski, State Director, Oregon/Washington, Bureau of Land Management
Ed Shepard, Deputy State Director, Oregon/Washington, Bureau of Land Management
Michael Poole, State Director, California, Bureau of Land Management (Alternate)
Paul Roush, Wildlife Biologist, Bureau of Land Management, Arcata, CA

RCERT Ex Officio
Don Motanic, Technical Specialist, Intertribal Timber Council Updated 11/8/2000

INTRODUCTIONS, PRESENTATIONS, & HOUSEKEEPING MATTERS


Welcome, Introductions, & Certification of Previous Meeting's Notes
Elaine Zielinski officially welcomed attendees and opened the meeting. She presented an award to Roger Blair in recognition of his long and distinguished service to the IAC. She set the stage for the meeting as one designed to help members become better acquainted with each other as well as the fundamentals of the Northwest Forest Plan. In her final act as outgoing IAC Chair, she presented a gavel to Harv Forsgren, the incoming IAC Chair. Harv thanked Elaine for her 16 months of service as Chair of the committee and presented her with a gift of a handsome wooden tea box in recognition for her outstanding leadership in the post.

Attendees introduced each other.

A request was made to certify the August 2000 IAC meeting notes. No objections having been raised, the notes were so certified.

Orientation Manual
An Orientation Manual was distributed to IAC members at the meeting. The manual includes key decision documents, reference materials, and other items related to the Northwest Forest Plan. The primary purposes of the manual are to provide a convenient reference for IAC members and to assist in improving communications between Federal and non-Federal members. Electronic versions of some of the materials in the manual are also available.

RIEC & IAC - Meeting Dates for Calendar Year 2001
During the meeting, Steve Odell advised members that the following dates had been established for RIEC and IAC meetings in 2001, which also were provided on a hand-out at the meeting, and asked members to reserve the IAC meeting dates in their calendars for next year.


Meeting Date/Day RIEC Meeting IAC Meeting
January 9, Tuesday 9:00 to 11:00 a.m.
February 1, Thursday 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
March 6, Tuesday 9:00 to 11:00 a.m.
April 3, Tuesday 9:00 to 11:00 a.m.
Potential ISC Meeting TBD
May 3, Thursday 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
June 5, Tuesday 9:00 to 11:00 a.m.
July Unscheduled - -
August 2, Thursday 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
September 5, Wednesday
(Monday, Sept 3, Holiday) 9:00 to 11:00 a.m.
October 2, Tuesday 9:00 to 11:00 a.m.
Potential ISC Meeting TBD
November 1, Thursday 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
December 4, Tuesday 9:00 to 11:00 a.m.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

AGENDA TOPIC SUMMARY

Meeting Date: November 2, 2000
REO Contact/Phone: Curt Loop, 503 808-2172
Topic: Orientation/Refresher on Northwest Forest Plan; IAC Advisory Process & Operations
Issue Statement: To provide new Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) members with an orientation, and existing IAC members with a refresher, on the fundamental elements and some of the major accomplishments of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP), and to discuss and seek a common understanding of the roles, responsibilities, and interrelationships of the IAC, Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC), and Regional Ecosystem Office (REO).
Summary of Discussion: The presentations consisted of three principal segments:
  1. Steve Odell presented an overview of the background and fundamental elements of the NFP.
  2. Elaine Zielinski delivered a summary of some of the major accomplishments of the NFP since its adoption in 1994.
  3.  Harv Forsgren led a review of the respective roles and responsibilities of the IAC, RIEC, and REO, and a discussion of the principles and processes that should guide their interrelationships in order to enhance meaningful IAC involvement and advice on relevant NFP issues.
In the first segment, Steve highlighted the goals and objectives, background, fundamental elements, and organizational structures and entities of the NFP. Steve also summarized the contents of the IAC Orientation Handbook that was provided to each committee member.

In the second segment, Elaine summarized some of the major accomplishments (interagency planning, monitoring, watershed assessments, restoration projects, consultation, social and economic outputs, survey and manage, etc.) of the NFP to date. Some of the challenges of NFP implementation were also discussed.

In the third segment, Harv began by presenting a vision and framework for a discussion on the respective roles and interrelationships of IAC, RIEC, and REO and how to enhance meaningful IAC involvement and advice on relevant NFP implementation issues. The committee then broke out into small groups to explore key expectations and principles that should guide operation of the IAC into the future. Each group wrote down a number of such expectations and principles on a flip chart. Collectively, the groups came up with the following items (not listed in any particular order):

Principles
  • All parties (Tribes, State, Federal) are full members and have equal standing
  • Less information exchange and more discussion of policy matters
  • Stronger linkages between IAC & decision makers in D.C. and local managing agencies
  • Keep in mind that California is different
  • Keep communications current (contacts)
  • Keep PAC communication link open
  • Clearer link between IAC and PACs
  • Earlier involvement by IAC in decision-making
  • Greater focus on policy issues
  • Clearer measures of objectives and success
  • Provide feedback on non-Federal input; describe how input was considered and/or incorporated
  • Categorize issues/agenda items re: IAC expectations
  • Ensure better working relationships and information flow among different non-Federal groups

Expectations

  • Getting PAC updates
  • Sort information by state
  • Link with socio-economics
  • Meaningful for all three states
  • Learn differences from each other, state and Federal agencies
  • Send to California Federal executives
  • Coordinating NFP with other intergovernmental plans and initiatives
  • Clarify role of research and help coordinate
  • Make adaptive management work more effectively
  • This group will continue after next week - the issues will be there
  • Non-Federal voices will be heard
  • Formal mechanism for feedback loop
  • Would like input on ROD interpretations
  • More effective management of transitional issues
  • Clarify and/or verify role of REO, esp. in review and approval of plan amendments

After the full committee reassembled, Harv offered a preliminary summary of some of the key themes arising out of the small group discussions, as follows:

  • We still appear to be struggling with the common understanding of roles and relationships, links to PACs, roles of research, and ISC.
  • We need to promote and continue active participation by Federal and Non-Federal principals in IAC proceedings and have clearer measures of our success.
  • We need to make adaptive management work on the ground and within our organizations.
  • We need to be involved earlier in processes to help develop, review, comment, consider recommendations, and potential policy impacts.
  • We need to show how advice was considered and used in the decision-making process.
  • We need to be engaged in significant and regional issues at a policy level.
  • We need to use a collaborative approach, strengthen ties between related regional planning efforts, strengthen communications, and consider issues surfaced by either RIEC or IAC.
  • We need an appropriate balance between socio-economic and ecological goals of the NFP.

Curt Loop then presented a flow chart visually depicting a proposed process for obtaining non-Federal IAC input and advice on NFP implementation issues. The flow chart was a modified version of the one he presented to the IAC during its August 2000 meeting, with the revisions having been made in response to the comments received from IAC members during that meeting. Curt led a discussion on how the process might be further amended to reflect the comments at the present meeting. Following this discussion, it was generally agreed that two further points should be added to the process: (1) it should be expanded to include a section describing how an issue is to be selected for assignment to a work group (to include any instructions to the work group to involve IAC non-Federal participation) and (2) a feedback loop or process should be added to indicate how the IAC advice was considered in the decision-making process.

IAC members expressed their appreciation for the presentations and discussion, stating that the background information will be useful for IAC operations in the months ahead. The IAC also requested further discussions clarifying the roles and relationships of the IAC, RIEC, Provincial Interagency Executive Committees (PIEC), Provincial Advisory Committees (PACs), Interagency Steering Committee (ISC), and the work groups.

Next Steps (who/what/when): In light of the discussion at the meeting, the REO will:
1. Synthesize the small groups' comments and full committee discussions and incorporate them into the proposed IAC advice process as well as a set of principles to guide IAC operations.
2. Seek IAC approval of a revised version of the IAC input process and new set of IAC operating principles at the February 2001 IAC meeting.
3. Transmit the approved process to all work groups operating under the direction of the RIEC.
4. Send a copy of the IAC Orientation Handbook to the PACs to augment their understanding of the NFP and for their use in briefing new members.
 

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

AGENDA TOPIC SUMMARY

Meeting Date: November 2, 2000
Sponsor: Intergovernmental Resource Information Coordinating Council (IRICC)
Contact/Phone: Dave Blakeman, 707-562-8767, and Dale Guenther, 503-808-2188
Topic: IRICC's Proposed FY 2001 Work Plan
Issue Statement: IRICC has accomplished several goals related to information management and systems integration across agencies and governments since its inception. For FY 2001, IRICC has agreed on a proposed work plan identifying and prioritizing a series of ongoing and prospective projects that it presented for the review and concurrence of the IAC.
Summary of Discussion: Dave Blakeman and Dale Guenther presented background information on the IRICC charter and IRICC's role in providing staffing to IAC on information management issues.

IRICC's accomplishments since the last annual update to the IAC were summarized. These include the development of interagency data standards in Hydrography, Transportation, Fisheries, 5th and 6th Level Watersheds, and Aquatic Restoration Reporting. Also, in the past year IRICC has developed an Interagency Clearinghouse for Hydrography information as well as a database to track restoration projects across agencies.

The IAC was briefed on IRICC's proposed work plan for FY 2001. A fuller description of the ongoing and proposed projects featured in the plan was provided in a hand-out at the meeting. Several questions were raised on the relationship of these projects to particular agencies and states. One issue in particular is whether IRICC has worked with northern California on Vegetation Standards. Dale and Dave agreed to contact the California IRICC partners to address this issue.

IAC members were also asked to review the proposed FY 2001 IRICC work plan with appropriate staff persons to ensure that it conforms to Federal, State, County, and Tribal requirements.
IAC Decision: IAC members will review this proposal and agreed to provide any comments or concerns, or raise any objections, by November 17, 2000. IAC agreed that it would concur with the FY 2001 work plan if no member raised any major issues or objections within that time frame.
Next Steps (who/what/when): The present IRICC charter states that organizations on the subcommittee are responsible for covering all costs associated with its activities. Current staffing support for IRICC projects, both from the regional and field level, are allowing IRICC to meet the project time frames to a large degree. IRICC presently intends to make a proposal to the RIEC to establish a formal yet minimal funding mechanism to support IRICC projects for FY2002.
 

SUMMARY NOTES FOR NOVEMBER 2000 IAC MEETING

HOT TOPICS

National Fire Plan
Mike Edrington, Director of Fire and Aviation Management for BLM and the Forest Service, gave an update on the National Fire Plan. In September 2000, the President accepted a report entitled, "Managing the Impact of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment" from the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior. The report outlined a five-point strategy and recommended a substantial increase in funding for the wildland fire programs of the Departments of Agriculture and Interior. Congress has provided for additional funding to be appropriated to the Departments for wildland fire purposes pursuant to an emergency supplemental budget request that likely will result in further appropriations early next year. The National Fire Plan calls for projects to be carried out in the following categories:

• Ecosystem restoration of Federal lands, especially in "wildland/urban interface" zones
• Ecosystem restoration on non-Federal lands through grants to landowners
 • Rehabilitation of burned landscapes from the wildfires of 2000
• Community assistance for economic diversification
 • Enhanced fire research
 • Fire preparedness for Federal and State agencies
• Volunteer fire department assistance

Community assistance and ecosystem restoration are foundational components of the National Fire Plan. Mike explained that the Pacific Northwest is well positioned to combine the new resources called for under the National Fire Plan to enhance current collaborative stewardship efforts and approaches. Because the Federal and State agencies serve the same communities, there should be a strong effort made at the regional level to encourage collaboration and utilize existing relationships to increase efficiencies.

Update on rechartering of IAC under FACA
The questions initially raised by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Office of General Counsel about the rechartering of IAC under FACA apparently have been resolved, but not without introducing some delay into the approval process. Nevertheless, the November 2 IAC meeting was held prior to the date of expiration of IAC's present FACA charter (sometime after November 3). We have until the February 2001 IAC meeting to have the rechartering approved. The approval process is proceeding and we expect the charter to be signed well before the next IAC meeting in February.

Litigation Update on NFP-related Cases
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations v. NMFS ("PCFFA III")(W.D. Wash.)
On October 13, 2000, plaintiffs in the prior PCFFA v. NMFS cases ("PCFFA I" and "PCFFA II") filed another lawsuit against NMFS, which, like the first two, has been assigned to Judge Rothstein. In the new case plaintiffs challenge 20 biological opinions issued by NMFS in 1998 and 1999 on approximately 100 timber sales as well as a whole host of other agency actions, including restoration projects. Plaintiffs ask the court to declare the challenged biological opinions illegal on the same basis on which it invalidated four other Biological Opinions in PCFFA II. Along with their complaint, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to which NMFS must file its opposition brief by November 16. The judge also directed the parties to pursue mediation as a possible means of settlement. NMFS is in discussions with the Forest Service and BLM regarding the positions it will take in the mediation and in the briefing.

Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. FWS (W.D. Wash.) and Hanson v. Forest Service (W.D. Wash.)
Both of these lawsuits challenge the manner in which the agencies have tracked and responded to data regarding the northern spotted owl since adoption of the Northwest Forest Plan. The Gifford Pinchot Task Force case challenges the manner in which FWS analyzes effects on northern spotted owls and their critical habitat in Biological Opinions and the Hanson case alleges that the National Environmental Policy Act mandates that the Forest Service and BLM prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement for the Northwest Forest Plan to address new information regarding the northern spotted owl. The Forest Service, BLM, and FWS are continuing to coordinate their efforts to compile information relevant to these lawsuits.

Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Forest Service (W.D. Wash.)
On September 26, 2000, the judge in this case ruled that the Forest Service had failed to comply with Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) direction regarding coordination with and review by the RIEC and REO of an amendment to the Gifford Pinchot National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan that modified NFP standards and guidelines. The court also asked for additional briefing on the appropriate scope of injunctive relief. The Forest Service is presently reviewing its options on how to respond to the ruling.

Survey & Manage SEIS Update
Dick Prather described the proposed schedule for completing the Final SEIS. The steps remaining include final typesetting, printing, delivery of 10 copies to the Environmental Protection Agency, and publishing the Notice of Availability (NOA) of the FSEIS in the Federal Register. The 30-day waiting period before a Record of Decision (ROD) may be signed starts upon publication of the NOA.

Some of the very first printed copies of the FSEIS will be sent via Federal Express to IAC members. Non-Federal members were reminded of the opportunity to participate on an IAC work group whose purpose would be to review the FSEIS and provide comments and advice regarding the decision they believe the agencies should make in light of the analysis in the document. In the past, Francie Sullivan and Gary Morishima had expressed interest in serving on such a work group. Anyone interested in working on such a work group was advised to contact the Regional Ecosystem Office (503-808-2165).

Tribal Effectiveness Monitoring
Dan McKenzie made a brief presentation on the results of a November 1, 2000, meeting of the IAC's Tribal Effectiveness Monitoring subcommittee to discuss the recent draft report on the pilot study of government-to-government consultation. The meeting focused on: (1) report revisions, (2) scope of the monitoring module, (3) government-to-government protocols, (4) goals and measurable indicators of success, and (5) recommendations for further monitoring module development and implementation. Several suggestions were made to revise the report and make it more specific, and a recommendation was made to conduct future monitoring based on the lessons learned from the pilot study. The subcommittee addressed the advisability of having the monitoring address "resources of concern to the Tribes" rather than "treaty rights or tribal trust resources," which is language in the 1994 NFP ROD, as well as the desirability of examining current agency protocols to identify the NFP-relevant protocols and to achieve greater consistency across the NFP agencies. The subcommittee reached tentative agreement on several points, including the following: an effort should be made to identify goals and measurable indicators of success for government-to-government consultation; a systematic method should be developed for assessing Federal actions under the NFP on resources of concern to the Tribes, through interviews based on key questions; the module should be revised to enhance the approach; and further monitoring should proceed this Fiscal Year.

The Tribal Subcommittee anticipates that the final draft of the pilot Monitoring Report should be completed by January 2001; that the Tribal Monitoring Module should be revised by June 2001; and that another round of Tribal Monitoring should be conducted around August or September of 2001.

Aquatic Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Plan (AREMP) Update
Shortly after the briefing presented at the August 2000 IAC meeting, copies of the final draft of AREMP were circulated to all IAC members. An IAC subgroup meeting was held to discuss the final draft on October 10, 2000. Review comments from the IAC were requested by October 18.

A number of valuable comments on the final draft have been received. While some remark that the Plan is ambitious, there has been virtually universal endorsement of the monitoring strategy recommended. In finalizing AREMP, the work group is refining and supplementing text relating to adaptive management, how project-level actions can be monitored, options for monitoring biotic indicators, monitoring watershed assessment, and cost projections. Upon finalization, the research agency executives are planning to recommend that the RIEC approve the Plan and take initial steps toward its implementation.

Notice of Availability of Science Findings
Gary Benson reported that the Forest Service's Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW) has been producing a monthly document entitled Science Findings since 1998. Each issue is a 3-4 page summary of significant PNW research findings intended for people who make and influence decisions about land and resource management. The findings are presented in non-scientific language and include short, bullet-style sections on Key Findings and Land Management Implications, as well as an overall summary, discussion, additional readings, and scientist profiles. Hard-copy issues of Science Findings are available by contacting Diane Smith at desmith@fs.fed.us and electronic versions in PDF format may be accessed on the PNW website at http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw. A collection of all of the Science Findings issues will be maintained in a binder and made available for reference during subsequent IAC meetings.

FERC/ACS Update
Steve Morris reported that the REO has received comments dated August 18, 2000, from the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) on the draft set of questions and answers on short-term issues developed by the work group addressing Aquatic Conservation Strategy consistency for FERC re-licensing projects within the NFP area (FERC/ACS). The work group is presently developing responses to issues raised in NWIFC's comments. A tribal alternate IAC member is also now a participant on the work group. The work group anticipates submitting a final draft of short-term questions and answers, revised in light of NWIFC's comments, at a RIEC meeting in the near future.

County Payments Legislation
Harold Belisle provided a brief overview of the recently enacted "Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000" (Act), which the President signed into law on October 30, 2000. The Act is intended to provide for increased, stable, and predictable Federal funding to counties containing Federal lands by, among other things, offering a revised formula for calculating the amount of Federal payments to such counties. Harold also noted potential linkages to implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan.

Sue Kupillas, attending the meeting as the representative of Oregon counties, urged that the resource advisory committees established under the Act (RACs) should be new bodies and that existing Province Advisory Committees (PACs) should not be used for such a purpose. Sue explained that the RACs do not include Federal representatives, as do the PACs, and asserted that more localized RACs would be more representative of the needs and views of the respective counties. She suggested the Association of Oregon Counties may eventually propose that there be one RAC for each National Forest and BLM District, and that the Association would have a fuller statement on the matter after its upcoming annual meeting. Sue also expressed frustration with written statements issued by several Federal officials upon passage of the Act that she felt erroneously characterized the legislation as "decoupling" the amount of Federal payments received by a county from Federal timber receipts, which she described as a very sensitive political issue.


PUBLIC COMMENTS
During the segment of the meeting set aside for public comment, Marc Kelly, Director of the Umpqua Land Exchange Project (ULEP), discussed new legislation moving ULEP to the next phase. Marc described the new legislation, including the time lines and future actions required under the legislation, including preparation of an EIS. Marc also noted that an application for initial funds appropriated by the legislation will likely be made no later than December 1, 2000, after discussions with the BLM, which has been designated as the lead Federal agency on the project. Marc asserted that the entire ULEP project is built upon the foundation of the NFP to increase habitat. Several IAC members asked clarifying questions.


CLOSING COMMENTS
Feedback was sought from IAC members on the meeting, particularly regarding some of the new techniques used to increase interaction among and participation by attendees. Several members stated that the presentations on the NFP were well-done and would prove useful, and others spoke approvingly of the increased opportunities that were provided for interaction among members.

* IAC FEBRUARY 1 MEETING PLANNING *


Potential Agenda Topics

Potential Hot Topics

Potential Status Reports

November 2, 2000 IAC Meeting Handouts



Handouts:
County Payments Legislation
IAC Meeting Goals
IAC November Meeting Agenda
IAC November Prework Package
IAC August Meeting Notes
IAC Identification List
IRICC Charter
IRICC Proposed Projects overview
National Fire Plan
NFP Proposed Process to Obtain Non-Federal IAC Advice Flow Chart
Organizational Chart for the NFP
Orientation Handbook
Overheads:
Orientation - NFP Overview - Steve Odell and NFP Accomplishments - Elaine Zielinski
Proposed Process Obtaining Non-Federal IAC Advice flow chart
IRICC Proposed Projects
PIEC Identification List
RIEC & IAC Meeting Dates for FY 2001
REO Telephone Directory
RIEC Identification List
S&M SEIS Schedule
Science Findings
Schedule for S&M Final SEIS Steps

* IAC Meeting * November 2, 2000 * Attendance List *
* Intergovernmental Advisory Committee and Alternates *
Name Title Agency
Barry, Cindy Acting Representative U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Berkholtz, Karin Acting Representative State of Washington
Britton, Travis Representative CA Indian Forest & Fire Mgmt. Council
Collopy, Mike Representative USGS Biological Resources Division
Crouse, Mike Acting Representative (a.m.) National Marine Fisheries Service
Feigner, Ken Representative Environmental Protection Agency
Forsgren, Harv Representative Forest Service, R-6
Graham, Bob Representative Natural Resource Conservation Service
Green, Peter Representative State of Oregon
Herrera, Dave Representative NW Indian Fisheries Commission
Kupillas, Sue Acting Representative Oregon State Counties
Loop, Curt Acting Representative U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
Motanic, Don Representative RCERT
Odell, Steve Executive Director Regional Ecosystem Office
Orme-Zavaleta, Jennifer Acting Representative Environmental Research Lab, EPA
Overberg, Karole Acting Representative Bureau of Indian Affairs
Rea, Maria Acting Representative State of California
Shevock, Jim Acting Representative National Park Service
Smith, George Representative Intertribal Timber Council
Sullivan, Francie Representative California State Counties
Szaro, Bob Acting Representative Forest Service, PNW
Zielinski, Elaine Chairperson Bureau of Land Management, OR/WA
Regional Ecosystem Office
Belisle, Harold Representative Bureau of Land Management
Benson, Gary Research & Monitoring Forest Service, PNW
Busch, Dave Representative USGS Biological Resources Division
Collier, Kath Facilitator Bureau of Land Management
Erwert, Ginger Administrative Officer Forest Service
Guenther, Dale GIS Administrator Forest Service
Keough, Ellen Receptionist Forest Service
Makowski, Tom Representative Natural Resources Conservation Service
McKenzie, Dan Representative EPA Research
Mohoric, Shawne Representative Forest Service
Morris, Steve Representative National Marine Fisheries Service
Watson, Jay Representative U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ystad, Laurie Secretary Forest Service
* Other Attendees *
Blair, Roger   EPA Research
Blakeman, Dave   Forest Service, R-5
Davies, Bruce   NW Indian Fish Commission
Edrington, Mike   Forest Service, R-6
Gottschall, Glenn   Forest Service, R-5
Kelly, Marc   Umpqua Land Exchange Project
Knudsen, Monty   U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Maluski, Ivan   American Lands Alliance
McGinnis, Cherie   Clackamas County
Powell, Brad   Forest Service, R-5
Prather, Dick   S&M SEIS
Roush, Paul   Bureau of Land Management
Van Loo, Ginny   Clackamas County