15 min

15 min

75 min

• Presentation by Jim Pipkin 20 min.
• Presentation by Mike Crouse 15 min.
• Presentation by Gary Sims 10 min.
• General Discussion 30 min.

Mike Crouse,

Gary Sims

60 min

Wrap-up

30 min

15 min

15 min

15 min

Agenda Topic Overviews

Contact/Phone: Don Knowles 503-808-2166

Contact/Phone: Jim Pipkin 202-208-5978, Mike Crouse 503-952-6525, and Gary Sims 503-808-2174

The IAC has been operating about 3 ½ years, focusing on implementing the NFP on Federal lands. More specifically, the IAC meetings between Federal and non-Federal members of the IAC have dealt primarily with Federal agency staff reporting on Federal agency actions on Federal lands, as a way of seeking non-Federal coordination.

As consideration is being given to renewal of the MOU, we have been encouraged to focus increasingly on policy issues that cross jurisdictional boundaries. Offered under the umbrella of "Integrating the NFP into the Management Landscape," this suggested refocusing would discuss NFP management within the context of state, tribal, and private land management. Additionally, we have been encouraged to review the future desired relationship between the IAC and PACs.

The regional Federal executives have agreed to schedule an additional IAC meeting on July 16 to address this topic, as well as to work on member-to-member relationships. Two goals for the February IAC discussion are to actively solicit suggestions (i.e., brainstorm) for future attention (i.e., implications of this broadening) and to agree on how and when to move through these topics over the next year or so.

Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie 503-808-2190

A revised draft based on the research agency executives guidance was prepared and distributed for research agency executive review and finalization at the January 22 meeting. Based on the results of those discussions, the research executives recommend that implementation of the plan's research coordination procedure should be initiated, even if the final version of the SRP has not been completed. The research executives requested that they have the opportunity for a final review prior to distribution of the draft to the IAC for information and comment.

Status Reports

Background: Following the development of effectiveness monitoring (EM) plans for the NSO, MaMu, and LSOG modules for the NFP, including review and advice by IAC, the RIEC adopted the recommendation to implement these plans. The plans present programs of both research and monitoring tasks to be conducted in FY 1998 and beyond. Recommendations were included for a transition period to implement the necessary agency roles and funding arrangements. The successful completion of the developmental tasks was accompanied by a transfer of leadership and responsibility from the research executives to the management executives for implementation of the monitoring.

Status/Update: The Director of Strategic Planning, Region 6 of the FS has been designated lead responsibility for facilitating the implementation of the NSO, MaMu, and LSOG EM plans. Strategic Planning staff are working with an interagency group, including the REO and RMC, to finalize the agreements and implement the NSO, MaMu, and LSOG tasks. This includes an interagency management and funding structure to detail the roles and responsibilities for carrying out the monitoring tasks.

Background: On December 9, 1997 IAC Tribal Representatives met in the REO with Don Knowles, REO Representatives, RMG, and other agency (FS, BLM, USDI Regional Solicitor's Office) representatives. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss/comment on a draft NFP monitoring module, developed by the tribal representatives, to address American Indians and their culture.

In general it was agreed that:

• There should be separation between Effectiveness and Implementation Monitoring modules.
• The REO will continue to work with IAC Tribal Representatives to reach agreement on recommendations concerning how to proceed in FY 1998 on Implementation Monitoring, while working on Treaty/Trust Resource EM questions.
• There are two general Implementation Monitoring questions that should be addressed to provide monitoring information to tribal governments and the land managing agencies: 1) Is there mutual agreement on what resources need protection? 2) Determining and documenting the level of satisfaction of government-to-government consultation?

Status/Update: The REO held a meeting on January 14 with representatives from the 3 states and PNW at which this issue was presented and discussed. The REO has prepared the minutes from the meeting and distributed them to those in attendance for comment. Upon return of comments, the minutes from the meeting will be finalized and provided to the IAC members. The REO anticipates having a detailed summary of the meeting available for distribution at the IAC meeting.

In general, the States feel that the Federal agencies should retain the responsibility for preparation of the assessment report. However, if funded, the States are willing to participate in a partnership which will be responsible for the preparation of the report. Significant additional work is needed to more fully develop an agreement to proceed. The REO will continue to work on this issue and the issue of identifying additional resources.

Status/Update: Facilitated by the Research and Monitoring Group (RMG), a team of Federal scientists has begun an exchange of information on this topic. This exchange has included a review of the ROD for guidance as to the appropriate scope of this monitoring program. Ways are being sought to integrate knowledge and expertise from the S&M program, as well as from other pertinent agency efforts. Next steps (possibly in 1998) would include a plan to refine and formalize the scope of the Biodiversity/S&M EM effort as a recommendation to the research executives. Following their concurrence, staffing for a technical work group will be requested by the research agency executives in order to draft a plan for EM of Biodiversity/S&M Species for presentation to the IAC.

• At the September 19, 1996 IAC meeting, it was agreed that the "final working draft" of the Riparian Reserve module, which incorporated IAC member comments and IAC Watershed Analysis Policy Subgroup agreements, would be field tested during the FY 1997 field season.
• At the December 5, 1996 IAC meeting, the FS and BLM reported Riparian Reserve boundary adjustments to date. The agencies agreed to keep track of further riparian reserve boundary adjustments and report them to the IAC concurrent with the module field test results.
• At the February 6, 1997 IAC meeting, agencies reported that the module would be field tested by the Mt. Hood and Umpqua National Forests and the Roseburg and Coos Bay BLM Districts. It was agreed that the Riparian Reserve module would not be scheduled again for discussion by the IAC until late 1997 or early 1998, when the field test results had been compiled by the REO, working through the IAC Watershed Analysis Policy Subgroup.
• The final working draft of the "Riparian Reserve Evaluation Techniques and Synthesis" module was transmitted to administrative units for field testing on March 17, 1997. Administrative units field testing the module were encouraged to provide feedback regarding four areas:

1. Clarity: Is the Riparian Reserve guidance clear and easy to follow?
2. Relevance to NFP Standards and Guidelines: Are the techniques helpful in addressing NFP requirements for watershed and site analyses of Riparian Reserves?
3. Feasibility and cost: Is the module feasible and practical to implement?
4. Management utility: Does the module produce useful information to support decision making?

• The Mt. Hood and Umpqua National Forests expect results from their module tests to be available by March.
• Results are currently available from the successful application of the module by the Eugene District for timber sale planning. The Roseburg and Coos Bay BLM Districts were unable to initiate field tests of the module, however, the Coos Bay BLM District reports it was able to apply some aspects of the module in two separate watershed analyses. The results of these adjustments will be tested as future projects are implemented. The Roseburg BLM District expects to apply the module for planning some FY 1999 timber sales.
• The REO expects to work with the agencies to collect information on the module tests and Riparian Reserve boundary adjustments and report to the IAC at the May meeting. At that time, we would expect to present options for proceeding with finalization and implementation of the module, including the expected role of the IAC Watershed Analysis Policy Subgroup.

The NFP includes measures to protect a variety of species associated with late-successional and old-growth forest: amphibians, mammals, bryophytes (mosses and liverworts), mollusks, vascular plants, fungi, lichens, and arthropods (Survey and Manage, C-4; Table C-3). The S&Gs require identification, mapping, and managing the "known" sites of Component 1 species and surveys for components 2, 3, and 4 species. The surveys have different objectives, priorities and schedules: survey prior to ground disturbing activities (Component 2), conduct extensive surveys (Component 3), and conduct general regional surveys (Component 4).

5. Developed a process and initiated changes to Table C-3 species--those species to be protected through survey and management S&Gs. Changes to date include: understory and forest gap herbivores to Understory and forest gap herbivores (south range) (September 10, 1996), removal of Buxsbaumia piperi from Protection Buffer Status (July 16, 1996), change mountain hemlock dwarf mistletoe from Components 1 and 2 to Component 4 (July 24, 1995), and the lynx from Component 2 to Component 3 (May 31, 1996).

Step 1: Obtain information from the IAC.

Step 2: Survey the 12 Designated Federal Officials (DFOs) regarding how they view PAC activities and their relations to the IAC.

Step 3: Meet with a number of PACs in order to get their view regarding their activities and relationships with the IAC.

The November 1997 presentation to the IAC detailed the results of the surveys of all 12 DFOs (Step 2). The interviews with PAC members will provide an opportunity to incorporate their points-of-view (Step 3).

To date, four PACs have been visited (Southwest Oregon, Klamath, California Coast, and Northwest Sacramento) and visits are planned to three more before the February IAC meeting (Southwest Washington, Yakima, and Eastern Washington).

If the results show that there are significant differences between PAC and DFO perceptions, a presentation will be made to the IAC. If there appears to be basic agreement between the DFO responses and the PAC memberships, a summary of the results will be provided as a status report at the February meeting. A detailed summary will also be provided to Jim Pipkin for incorporation in his review of the NFP MOU.

* NFP MOU Review Report

* FY 1997 Implementation Monitoring Report

* REO/RIEC FY 1998 Accomplishment Goals

* Effectiveness Monitoring Plan Updates

* Riparian Reserve Module Tests Update

* Adaptive Management Area Update

* Tuchmann Report Items Follow-up

* New Information Process and NFP Changes

* BLM 3-year Plan Evaluations

* FS Plan Revisions

* Validation Monitoring

* Salmon Initiative Update