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

                Memorandum

Date:      October 22, 1999

To:          Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) Members
                Anne Badgley, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
                Roger Blair, Western Ecology Division, Environmental Protection Agency
                John D. Buffington, USGS Biological Resources Division
                Mike Collopy, USGS Biological Resources Division
                Col. Randall J. Butler, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                Ken Feigner, Environmental Protection Agency
                Bob Graham, Natural Resources Conservation Service
                Nancy Graybeal, Forest Service
                Thomas Mills, Pacific Northwest Station, Forest Service
                Stan M. Speaks, Bureau of Indian Affairs
                William Stelle, Jr., National Marine Fisheries Service
                Rick Applegate, National Marine Fisheries Service
                William C. Walters, National Park Service
                Jim Shevock, National Park Service
                Elaine Y. Zielinski, Bureau of Land Management
                California Federal Executives
                Brad Powell, Acting Regional Forester, Forest Service
                Roberta Moltzen, Deputy Regional Forester, Forest Service
                Michael J. Spear, Operations Office Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                John Engbring, Operations Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                Alfred Wright, Acting State Director, Bureau of Land Management
                Paul Roush, Bureau of Land Management

From:      Curtis A. Loop, Acting Executive Director

Subject:   Proposed Agenda and Prework for the November 4 Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) Meeting

Enclosed is the proposed agenda and prework material for the Thursday, November 4 RIEC meeting. We will meet from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. at the DoubleTree Hotel -- Columbia River (west of I-5) in the Little Brickstones restaurant.

Enclosure
cc: REO Representatives, Presenters
1430/lk

Regional Interagency Executive Committee Meeting
Potential Agenda Items
DoubleTree Hotel, Columbia River -- Little Brickstones Restaurant
November 4, 1999 -- 7:00 to 9:00 a.m.

Northwest Forest Plan Accomplishments

• Handed out in the briefing package, however, not discussed.

Litigation

• Peter Coppelman from the Department of Justice (DOJ) reported on the present legal challenges to the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP). In the past six months, two law suits have been filed against the Forest Service (FS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and National Marine Fisheries Service. These include the ONRC Action law suit regarding Survey and Manage species with temporary rulings by Judge Dwyer and the Pacific Coast Fishermen's Federation Association regarding timber sales on the Umpqua National Forest with rulings by Judge Rothstein.
• Judge Dwyer has enjoined 34 timber sales as a result of his ruling involving some 140 million board feet of timber. The FS is currently engaged in settlement negotiations with the plaintiffs. Presently, the FS, BLM, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service are writing a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) that is designed to resolve Survey and Manage issues.
• Judge Rothstein, in reviewing the Umpqua River Basin timber sales, ruled that 4 Biological Opinions (BOs) violate NFP Standards and Guidelines. One concern of the judge is that the BOs did not properly analyze local site impacts of these proposed timber sales. The agency's argued unsuccessfully that analysis at the watershed scale was sufficient to meet the ROD's Standards and Guidelines. The judge ruled that the regulatory and land managing agencies need to review timber sale impacts at the Regional, Provincial, watershed, and site scales to conform with the Standards and Guidelines of the NFP.
• Peter Coppelman, DOJ, mentioned a third law suit involving the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance that has sued the FS regarding the White Pass Ski Area Expansion.
• Ted Boling, DOJ, reported that October 22 is the deadline to report to Judge Dwyer that a settlement has been reached or submit briefs on how the agencies will comply with the Judge's decision to avoid permanent injunctions being issued on the ONRC Action.
• Ted Boling reported that the plaintiffs, Judge Dwyer, and the agencies have discussed that the primary issue regarding the Survey and Manage law suit by the ONRC Action is for the timber sales that were enjoined, not other FS and BLM programs like campground maintenance, etc. As a result, the agencies will treat all future timber sales with the current rulings until the Judge makes his final decision or a settlement is reached.
• Interim survey protocols are being explored for the 13 species that in the past were extremely difficult or impossible to survey for because of lack of knowledge. Interim protocols are being explored that could potentially be used for surveys in timber sale locations. Ted stated that DOJ is not negotiating biology in settlement discussions.
• The present plan is to release a Draft SEIS for modifying Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines in the ROD in December 1999. A 90-day review will follow.
• It was projected that 257 million board feet of timber will be offered by the FS and BLM in FY 1999. This was significantly reduced from FY 1998 because of the Court ruling from Judge Dwyer. In FY 1998, 834 million board feet of timber was awarded.
• The DOJ must file a notice of intent to appeal Judge Rothstein's decision by October 15, with a formal appeal filed by October 29.
• Follow-up by the Agencies: George Frampton requested that the RIEC forward their interagency Aquatic Conservation Strategy consistency determination by October 22, so it can be forwarded to DOJ.

Survey and Manage Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)

• A SEIS Team has been organized and is working on the statement.
• Three action alternatives and one no-action alternative are being analyzed.
• Meetings with Dick Holthausen and other leaders of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) have been held concerning species viability.
• The Draft SEIS is scheduled to be sent to the printer on November 22.
• There will be a 90-day review period for the draft.
• The Final SEIS is scheduled for release in June.
• Follow-up by the REO: A detailed timeline describing activities up to the release of the Final EIS will be provided to the ISC.

Northwest Forest Plan Monitoring Program

• The committee was reminded of Judge Dwyer's ruling which underscored the agencies' obligation for conducting NFP monitoring.
• It was clarified that two Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) will be executed -- one at the ISC level that conveys commitment and support for continued interagency NFP monitoring and one at the regional level that will be more specific for organization, tasks, and overall percentage contributions by each agency.
• The budget discussion for monitoring included funding needs for Survey and Manage. It was acknowledged that a request for additional dollars could be made but may not be successful.
• There was support for continuing interagency monitoring in the future at a level necessary for continued operations under the NFP.
• Follow-up by the FS and BLM: Jim Lyons asked agencies for a complete picture of monitoring accomplishments.
• Follow-up by the REO: Peter Coppelman asked for a copy of the administrative record that led to decisions by the regional executives to approve the existing modules and priorities for monitoring.

Status of the Northwest Economic Adjustment initiative (NWEAI)

• Recommendations and observations from the report compiled by the Regional Community Economic Revitalization Team on the NWEAI:
• Help us better link environmental restoration and preservation with the creation of quality jobs for workers from resource dependent communities.
• Explore opportunities to work with local communities in continuing to implement the NFP and other federal land management efforts.
• Support continued funding for initiative programs such as the FS Rural Community Assistance Program and the FS and Department of the Interior Jobs-in-the-Woods programs.
• Consider the merit of continuing the current MOU on the NWEAI beyond its expiration date of the end of 2000.
• Consider how the federal government can best transfer the successes and lessons from the NWEAI to other parts of the country -- Southeast Alaska and the Interior Columbia Basin Project.

New Developments in Late-Successional Reserves (LSRs)

• Jim Lyons shared his understanding that there has been progress made at the Regional level that needs follow-up by the agencies at the National level.
• Curt Loop stated that the federal executives have reached agreement on philosophical differences and specific issues.
• Follow-up by the REO: The REO will prepare a new draft of the document and transmit to the Regional Executives who will brief their national ISC officials. A national level meeting may be necessary to assure concurrence.

REO Executive Director Position

• George Frampton indicated that the announcement of the REO Executive Director position will be made soon.

Closing Comments

• Elaine Zielinski - The accomplishment report which illustrates some of the successes in implementing the Northwest Forest Plan is in the handout package. Federal employees in the northwest have devoted a lot of effort to ensuring the success of the numerous and complex components of the Forest Plan and are somewhat discouraged by the recent court decisions. It would be helpful for Administration officials to express their appreciation to employees for their hard work at every opportunity.

October 19, 1999

Council on Environmental Quality

• George Frampton
• Dinah Bear
• Tom Brumm

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

• Don Barry
• Tom Fry
• Denny Fenn
• John Dennis
• Kim Harb
• Chris Nolan

Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

• Jim Lyons
• Anne Kennedy
• Al Ferlo
• Jim Furnish
• Jeremy Anderson
• Harv Forsgren

Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.

• Penny Dalton
• Don Knowles

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

• Bob Wayland
• Elaine Suriano

Department of the Army, Washington, D.C.

• Tim Toplisek

Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

• Peter Coppelman
• Ted Boling
• Jean Williams

Regional Interagency Executive Committee Members or Alternates

• Elaine Zielinski
• Cindy Barry
• Ken Feigner
• Nancy Graybeal
• Tom Mills
• Jim Shevock

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members

• Rocky McVay
• Don Motanic
• Gary Morishima
• Mark Stanley
• Francie Sullivan

Regional Ecosystem Office

• Curt Loop
• Harold Belisle
• Linda Kucera
• Dan McKenzie
• Jim Milestone
• Shawne Mohoric
• Jay Watson

Additional Participants

• Stuart Kasdin, Office of Management and Budget
• Lisa Freedman, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region

Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC)
Update Report

Meeting Date: November 4, 1999	REO Contact/Phone: Shawne Mohoric 503-808-2175
Topic: Litigation Update
Status/Update: ONRC Action v. FS and BLM: Parties continue to negotiate a possible settlement. The government brief on a permanent injunction and compliance with the previous rulings in the case is due to Judge Dwyer October 29, 1999. ONRC will file briefs following this date. Please review the October 20, 1999 RIEC meeting notes for the government's draft compliance proposal.

Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC)
Agenda Topic Overview

Meeting Date: November 4, 1999

REO Contact/Phone: Harold Belisle 503-808-2173

Topic: Survey and Manage Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)

Issue Statement: Identification of the Preferred Alternative for the Draft SEIS

Background: The Survey and Manage SEIS originally consisted of two action alternatives that were identical in effects to species and other natural resources. As a result of Washington Office and Department of Justice review of the SEIS on August 24-25, the SEIS team received recommendations to expand the range of alternatives in order to meet National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. On September 3, 1999, the RIEC met in an emergency meeting and agreed to expand the range of alternatives in the Survey and Manage SEIS. The staff work concerning this issue was placed before the RIEC during a conference call on September 15, 1999. During that conference call, the RIEC approved three action alternatives that would provide an adequate range of alternatives to meet NEPA requirements. The alternatives in the SEIS now differ in their effects on the Survey and Manage species. The Survey and Manage SEIS would amend the current Forest Service and BLM Plans. The Bureau of Land Management planning regulations require the identification of a preferred alternative (43 CFR 1610.4-7) for Plan amendments. Amendments of forest or district plans that would modify standards and guidelines in the NFP are required to be coordinated through, and subject to review by the RIEC (NFP ROD p. 58). The Survey and Manage SEIS is currently in the process of editing and review by Washington Office personnel, and Dept. of Interior, Office of General Council, Dept. of Justice attorneys. This work will not be completed until October 31, 1999.

Analysis and Options: The analysis and options for selecting the preferred alternative will be presented at two briefings. On November 1, 1999, the SEIS team will brief the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the alternatives and the effects analysis. On November 2, 1999, the SEIS team will brief REO representatives concerning the same information so that they may in turn brief their agency representatives to the RIEC. At the November 4, 1999, RIEC meeting, the SEIS Team will present the alternatives and effects and facilitate a discussion of the alternatives. The RIEC will be requested to approve a selected alternative.

Action Required: RIEC Decision

Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC)
Agenda Topic Overview

Meeting Date: November 4, 1999	REO Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie 503-808-2190
Topic: Organization and Planning for Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) Monitoring
Background: Following the RIEC's adoption of the effectiveness monitoring modules, the agencies have been working together to clarify roles and responsibilities for the long term implementation and conduct of all NFP monitoring. In addition to the roles and responsibilities, the agencies are addressing the issues of an interagency organization to effectively and efficiently conduct the monitoring and provide the information for adaptive management processes. Agreements for funding responsibilities are also needed to provide for long term consistent funding.
Status/Update: The RIEC is in the process of establishing an interagency Regional Monitoring Team to be responsible for implementation of NFP monitoring. The Regional Monitoring Team will consist of a small number of dedicated staff to plan, coordinate and lead the activities and efforts of the NFP monitoring program. Agreement has been reached on the roles and responsibilities for the management, research and consulting agencies, an agreement that clarifies each of the monitoring functions and activities. Funding amounts have been negotiated to provide planning and commitments for each agency. An MOU is being developed for the RIEC to document these agreement and commitments. A presentation at the October 6, Interagency Steering Committee meeting, outlined the regional status, agreements and funding issues. An interagency MOU or MOA was proposed at that meeting, an agreement that would reaffirm and commit the agencies at the national level to support and conduct of NFP monitoring. Initial support for such and agreement was voiced at the meeting. Specific funding requirements for FY 2000 and FY 2001 were presented and assistance requested from the CEQ, OMB, and agency staff. Lisa Freedman, Chair of the Monitoring Program Managers (MPM) group, has the lead responsibility for follow-up and continued action on the RIEC and ISC issues. The IAC presentation will provide additional details and an update based on the outcome(s) of the MPM group meeting on October 22.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
Agenda Topic Overview

Meeting Date: November 4, 1999

REO Contact/Phone: Jim Milestone 503-808-2170, Bill Kirchner 503-808-2171

Topic: Joint IAC/PAC Meeting

Issue Statement: Both the majority of the IAC and the PAC members support the idea of joint meeting. A decision by the RIEC is needed on whether or not to host such a meeting. Additional areas of concern that require additional RIEC dialog and possible decision include: 1) what are the available sources for funding the joint meeting; 2) is this venue the best way to respond to the concerns raised in the Pipkin report and by the IAC and PACs; and 3) given the current priorities (e.g., monitoring, survey and manage, etc.) and workload on agency staff, is the timing of this meeting appropriate.

Background: The 1998 Pipkin report recommended that the Regional Interagency Executive Committee should consider ways to strengthen ties and improve communication between province-level and regional-level organizations, to provide guidance when appropriate, and to provide increased opportunity for Provincial Advisory Committees to have input on policy issues that will affect management at the province level. A joint IAC/PAC meeting has been discussed with the IAC at the July and November 1998 and February and May 1999 meetings. At the February meeting, the IAC agreed to the formation of a steering committee to develop recommendations concerning a budget, a proposed date, objectives and an agenda for a joint meeting prior to a final decision being made to hold this event. This Agenda Topic Overview identifies the potential objectives, framework, and a tentative agenda for a possible joint IAC/PAC meeting. Of the twelve PACs, ten expressed strong support, one was neutral, and one was opposed. It was also noted that questions at the PAC-level remain concerning how many members from each PAC would participate and how the cost of attending would be covered. During previous presentations, RIEC and IAC members expressed concern about cost, agenda focus, and alternative venues.

Analysis and Options: Cost. Current cost estimates include: 1) If one non-federal PAC member from each PAC (total = 12) were to attend the meeting, travel and per diem cost equals $5,704. If three members per PAC were to attend the cost is expected to be $17,112 and for five members $28,520. 2) Travel and per diem cost of federal PAC member participation and other expected federal participants (e.g., all DFOs) is assumed to come from current travel budget allocations (estimated cost similar to non-federal PAC member from each PAC ... $5,704 for the twelve DFO's). 3) Fees for a large conference room and break out rooms at local hotel may be waived if a sufficient number of rooms are reserved leaving catering (i.e., refreshments at breaks) and audio visual support as the outstanding cost (i.e., estimated cost equal $3 ,000). (Note: If less then 100 people register at the hotel where the conference is to be held, we would expect to incur rental fees for the meeting rooms. Also, a special budget for this meeting has not been established, so the meeting would have to be funded from existing agencies' sources.) Agenda Focus. There are four options for the meeting format; 1) meet to address specific Northwest Forest Plan issues (e.g., litigation, roadless area policy, etc.), 2) meet to develop a better communication strategy, 3) meet on broader informational topics (e.g., Research and Monitoring, HCP's, Salmon listings, etc.), and 4) combination of the three. Depending on which format is selected, the meeting objectives and agenda topics will be tailored to the specific purpose. This will involve a formal "planning committee" to clearly define what the purpose and expectations of the meeting would be. The planning committee would also be responsible for specific details of the agenda, audio-visual needs, capturing key comments and recommendations and preparing conference proceedings, and other logistical requirements. Meeting objectives, for any of the four formats, would include: 1) Clarify the role of the IAC in the implementation of the NFP and its relation to the PACs. 2) Improve communication between the PIEC/PACs and the IAC/RIEC/REO. 3) Highlight and share areas of success that can be modeled elsewhere. 4) Improve the use of PACs in resolving and/or addressing regional issues. 5) Highlight PAC activities and projects via poster sessions. Alternative Venues. There are other potential mechanisms available to the RIEC to address the basic communication issue. A few ideas for consideration are a greater use and circulation of the FS, Region 6 newsletter Provincial Times; use of conference calls/email/faxes; and/or agency sponsored listening sessions with each PAC where individual issues and concerns are addressed (e.g., traveling road show).

Organizational/Funding Implications. If the RIEC approves the meeting as a priority for FY 2000, then a Planning committee (i.e., approximately 15 to 18 agency staff each with assigned task) will need to be formalized, a date selected, a time line established, and funds secured for budgetary needs (i.e., current estimate of cost = $33,000, current estimate of staff time = 2,014 hours).

REO Staff. Staff have identified several issues that remain open for discussion prior to the decision to move forward with hosting the proposed meeting. These issues include, but are not limited to: 1) what are the available sources for funding the joint meeting; 2) is this venue the best way to respond to the concerns raised in the Pipkin report and by the IAC and PACs; and 3) given the current priorities (e.g., monitoring, survey and manage, etc.) and workload on agency staff is the timing of this meeting appropriate.

Action Required: IAC Review and Discussion, IAC Recommendation, RIEC Decision

 

Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) 
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

Meeting Dates for Calendar Year 2000

October 14, 1999

Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC)
Update Report

Meeting Date: November 4, 1999	REO Contact/Phone: Curt Loop 503-808-2172
Topic: REO Annual Accomplishment Report
Background: Each year since 1996, the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) has prepared a notebook of significant information which highlights the background and current status of key items of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP). This note book is titled the Activity Information Sharing (AIS) Notebook. Also, prior to each of the last two Interagency Steering Committee (ISC) meetings, the REO has prepared a one page Summary of Accomplishments for key items of the NFP.
Status/Update: In comparing the two reports, we noticed that the topics presented were virtually the same. The REO discussed these reports and decided to combine the two reports into one. The new report will be titled the Annual Accomplishments Report (AAR) and will serve as the annual report for those topics required in the NFP Record of Decision (ROD) as well as other significant items of interest. The report will highlight major accomplishments achieved in the past fiscal year. The one page Summary of Accomplishments will become the Executive Summary of the new report. Regional Interagency Executives Committee (RIEC) and Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) members are invited to recommend topics for inclusion in the Annual Accomplishments Report. The data described in the report will reflect data as of September 30, of each year and be distributed around the first of December each year. A copy of the table of contents for the FY 1999 AAR is attached.

FY 1999 Annual Accomplishments Report

Table of Contents

Work Plan Item

1. Executive Summary

2. Interagency Budget and Priority Group

3. Research and Monitoring

1. Research Coordination

2. Implementation Monitoring

3. Effectiveness Monitoring

1. NSO, MaMu, and LSOG Modules

2. Aquatic-Riparian Module

3. Biodiversity/Survey & Manage (S&M) Mod

4. Socio-Economic Module

5. Tribal Module

4. Validation Monitoring

4. Survey & Manage and Protection Buffer Species

1. Survey and Mange Environmental Analysis

2. Survey and Manage Environmental Impact Statement

3. Survey & Manage Program

5. Riparian Reserve Module

6. Adaptive Management Area (AMA) Plans

7. Late Successional Reserves (LSR) Projects and Assessments

8. Data Bases

1. Interagency Species Management System

2. Watershed Restoration Project Reporting System

9. Interorganizational Resource Information Coordinating Committee (IRICC)

10. Other Topics

1. NFP Timber Sale Program, Road Reduction, etc

2. Completed Watershed Analysis

3. Peer Review of Completed Watershed Analyses

4. Coordination with Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative (NWEAI)

---

Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC)
Update REPORT

Meeting Date: November 4, 1999	REO Contact/Phone: Bill Kirchner 503-808-2171
Topic: New Developments in Late-Successional Reserves (LSRS)
Background: At the August 5, 1999, RIEC meeting, Don Knowles provided an update on the status of the REO interpretation memorandum. REO received comments from the Department of Interior, Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency regarding the July 7, 1999, "fatal flaw" version of the REO interpretation. The interagency workgroup reached consensus on appropriate changes to address some of the concerns and incorporated the changes to produce an August 6 version of the REO interpretation. This interim draft was transmitted to Don Barry, Department of Interior, for his review and comment. On August 26, 1999, Don Barry and Dinah Bear submitted recommended changes. These changes were incorporated and another draft was disseminated to the five agencies working this issue for their review and comment. At the September 9 Regional Executive meeting, unresolved issues were outlined, but concurrence on the final interpretation was not reached due to interpretive and philosophical differences on critical implementation issues; such as: "how to determine if a proposed new development has a "neutral or beneficial" impact on the "creation and maintenance of late-successional habitat;" how will adverse effects be mitigated, and what will be the proximity of mitigation in relation to the effect on an Late Successional Reserve; and how to incorporate geographic and time scales into the determination?
Status/Update: At an October 5, 1999, meeting of the five executives working this issue, a final regional agreement was reached and a final REO interpretation was drafted. On October 13, 1999, the REO mailed the October 6 version of the interpretation to the full RIEC members for review and requested that the interpretation be coordinated with their Washington DC counterparts. A response was requested by October 29. Absent objection, REO would then provide a final copy of the interpretation on November 1. On October 21, during the ISC workgroup conference call, concerns from Don Barry and others were expressed regarding the October 6 interpretation. The concerns included: confusion over new language regarding proximity of mitigation; the broad application of the spatial scale for determining neutrality of the new development; and new issues with temporal scale. The REO agreed to withhold issuing the final version pending further regional executive discussion and agreement.
Next Steps: The ISC members will have a meeting to discuss their concerns and provide alternative language to the REO. Following receipt of the ISC comments, the REO will facilitate a meeting of the five agencies to rework the REO interpretation.

Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC)
Update Report

Meeting Date: November 4, 1999	REO Contact/Phone: Dale Guenther, 503-326-7133
Topic: Interagency Species Management System (ISMS)
Background: Under the NFP, 260 species were specified under Component 1, the "manage known sites" prescription. In order to track surveys, location, and habitat information for these species, the ISMS database was developed. This is a single database which all BLM and FS field units will be able to access and update remotely. Linked to this database is a geographic information system (GIS) which will allow spatial data and species data to be entered and reported as one unit.
Status/Update: The REO Development Team (John Kramer and Bob Varner) conducted an ISMS database 'Alpha' test in early September. For this test, 22 field botanists and biologists were trained and then, using the system, entered species data into the database. Many comments were collected and addressed from this test. Even with 20+ critical problems identified, the test was considered a success as no fatal flaws were identified. The identified critical and most minor flaws have been corrected by the REO Development Team. The REO Development Team then hosted a 'Beta' test on four field units. These included the FS sites of Willamette and Six Rivers NF, and the Eugene and Arcata BLM District offices. ISMS was installed at these sites and a one day training session conducted to familiarize personnel with the system. These units will then use the ISMS system in a production environment to find any further flaws. The Beta test period will be one month. The REO Development Team will answer any questions and provide support if needed. Any problems identified will be researched and fixed before the final release. We are on schedule for a January 2000 release of ISMS. After release, we have contracted to have eight training sessions conducted on the ISMS database at various field offices.

Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC)
Update REPORT

Meeting Date: November 4, 1999	REO Contact/Phone: Curt Loop 503-808-2172
Topic: Potential Agenda Topics for December 7
Potential December 7, 1999 RIEC Agenda Topics Survey and Manage Litigation and SEIS -- Sue Zike and Al Wood FERC Relicensing -- Rick Applegate REO Management Review: Phase I -- Jerry Hubbard and Bill Funk REO GIS FY 2000 Program of Work -- Dale Guenther BLM's Third Year Evaluation
Potential December 7, 1999 RIEC Update Topics New Developments in LSRs Interpretation Aquatic Conservation Strategy Consistency Determination Interpretation

Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC)
IAC Agenda Topic Preview

Meeting Date: November 4, 1999

REO Contact/Phone: Curt Loop 503-808-2172

Topic: Salmon Conservation in Northern California from the County Perspective

Issue Statement: The REO continues to plan agenda items that broaden our focus from a "federal lands only" perspective to a more landscape level approach.

Background: The IAC has had presentations and discussion on federal programs, such as the NFP; on joint federal/state/landowner efforts, such as 4(d) rules or HCPs; on state-wide efforts, such as the "Oregon Plan" and Washington's "Extinction is Not an Option"; and on efforts to meet the conservation needs of local landowners, such as the partnership between NRCS and Soil and Water Conservation Districts.

Analysis and Options: This presentation focuses on the efforts of the Five Counties Salmon Conservation Planning Committee to shape the implementation of the Endangered Species Act in Northwest California. The committee includes supervisors, planners and public works officials from Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Siskiyou, and Trinity counties. It has worked together since 1997, when the coho salmon was listed as a federally threatened species (effective Dec. 2, 1996). The committee's goal is to balance salmon conservation with local economic and natural resource realities. These counties cover nearly 12 million acres and contain complex networks of bays, estuaries, rivers, streams and lakes that are home to the coho salmon. To date, its efforts have paid off; counties have obtained and allocated more than a million dollars in grants for salmon conservation.

Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC)
IAC Agenda Topic Preview

Meeting Date: November 4, 1999

REO Contact/Phone: Steve Morris 503-808-2176

Topic: Current Status and Next Steps of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) Consistency Determination Interpretation - July 21 Draft ACS Interpretation

Background: On December 17, 1998, the RIEC requested that the REO facilitate discussions seeking interagency agreement clarifying Record of Decision (ROD) interpretation for several issues related to implementation of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS). Pursuant to direction provided during the October 6, 1998 and November 5, 1998 RIEC meetings; and in the December 17, 1998, memorandum transmitting the request, we have focused discussion on four ACS interpretation issues: ROD requirements for determining project consistency with ACS objectives, the intent of ACS objective #6 regarding regeneration harvest effects on instream flows, the role of Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) that mitigate the effect of new road construction on aquatic resources, and the role of Late-Successional Reserves (LSRs) and designated roadless areas as components of the ACS. At the October 20, 1999, special RIEC meeting, the Interagency Review Managers Team (Managers Team) reported that it has reached consensus on all issues except the intent of ACS objective #6 regarding regeneration harvest effects on instream flows, as addressed in the July 21 draft. The Managers Team informed the RIEC that the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Marine Fisheries Service concur on the July 21 draft version of the Objective #6 Issue whereas the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) believes that the July 21 treatment presents a perspective of the existing scientific literature that undervalues the importance of short-return period flows (1 - 2 years) and the biological significance of management-induced increases in these flows. The FWS also believes that the document should include a broader discussion of ACS Objective #6, to include, in addition to peak flows, discussion of protection of timing, magnitude, duration, and spacial distribution of peak, high, and low flows, as provided in Objective #6. The FWS provided a list of scientific citations in support of its assertions regarding short-return period flows and a rationale for its position on the scope of discussion. This information was reviewed by the Technical Team assigned to address ACS Objective #6 and FEMAT scientists. A consensus position did not result from this review. Thus, the issue was remanded to the Managers Team for discussion and presentation at the October 20 RIEC meeting. Additionally, at the October 6 Interagency Steering Committee meeting, the CEQ (George Frampton) requested that the RIEC provide its ACS consistency determination interpretation so that it can be forwarded to DOJ in support of the Government's position in PCFFA v NMFS. This raised the issue of whether the July 21 draft treatment of Issue #1 can serve as the joint interagency ACS consistency determination interpretation in response to CEQ's request.

RIEC Decisions: Based upon the Managers Team presentation, the RIEC approved the July 21 draft as the interagency interpretation of ACS consistency, excluding the discussion of ACS Objective #6. In addition, the four principal regional interagency executives (FS, BLM, FWS, NMFS) agreed to meet to determine if the issue of regeneration harvest effects on instream flows should be discussed further as a separate undertaking.

Follow-up Actions: The Regional Ecosystem Office will update the July 21 draft and distribute it as a final RIEC ACS consistency interpretation on: ROD requirements for determining project consistency with ACS objectives, the role of Standards and Guidelines that mitigate the effect of new road construction on aquatic resources, and the role of Late-Successional Reserves and designated roadless areas as components of the ACS.