Intergovernmental Advisory Committee

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

Memorandum

Date: April 24, 1998

To: Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members (See Distribution List)

From: Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director

Subject: Agenda and Prework Materials for the May 7 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting

Enclosed are the proposed agenda, agenda topic overviews, and status reports for the May 7 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) meeting. The IAC meeting will be held at the Double Tree Hotel, Columbia River, 1401 N. Hayden Island Drive, Portland, Oregon 97217 (Phone: 503-283-2111 and FAX: 503-283-4718). You may phone the hotel to make your reservations (request the government rate) and for shuttle service to and from the airport. If you are driving, the hotel is located on the westside of I-5 at Exit 308, Jantzen Beach.

The IAC meeting will begin at 9:15 a.m. in the McKenzie Room and is projected to adjourn by 3:00 p.m. The IAC agenda includes the following goals:

• Review of the NFP MOU: Review and solicit IAC advice and reaction to the significant topics that have been identified to date through the MOU review process. As a result of increased agency interest in providing additional review time, including review by Provincial Advisory Committees (PACs), we are not providing a new draft of the report at this time. The IAC discussion will be based on the April 7 draft.
• Implementation Monitoring: The FY 1997 implementation monitoring report is in draft form, under review by provincial level teams. However, a summary of its findings shows a continuing high level of compliance with the Standards and Guidelines. The proposed FY 1998 implementation monitoring program is also ready for decision.
• Survey and Manage Schedule Change: Schedule changes are proposed to the Survey and Manage Program, consistent with the Record of Decision. An overview of the proposed change will be presented and IAC comment sought. We expect to provide supplemental material at or before the IAC meeting.
• National Marine Fisheries Service Listings: In response to previous IAC requests, NMFS has agreed to provide a detailed overview of how it makes fish listing decisions. Opportunities for IAC member involvement will be highlighted.

Additionally, your prework package includes status reports on highlights from the FY 1997 Implementing report and revising the Riparian Reserve module. Please note that we are recommending that the Riparian Reserve module remain in draft form for an additional year.

If you have questions or suggestions about the logistics or the meeting agenda, please contact your agency representative, or Don Knowles at 503-808-2166.

cc: REO, RCERT, PIEC, Jim Pipkin

1119/ly

Date: April 24, 1998

Subject: Agenda & Prework Materials for the May 7 IAC Meeting

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee - Distribution List

California
Mark Stanley, California Resource Agency, State Representative (Acting)
Francie Sullivan, Representative of California Counties

Oregon
Paula Burgess, Assistant to the Governor for Natural Resources, Office of the Governor
Peter Green, Forest Policy Advisor, Office of the Governor (Alternate)
Rocky McVay, Representative of Oregon Counties

Washington
Craig Partridge, Federal Agency Liaison, State Representative
Dean Judd, Coordinator (Alternate)
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)
Katie Krueger, Environmental Policy Analyst, Quileute Tribe
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
Rosendo Trevino III, Acting 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
Tom Dwyer, Deputy 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
Kathy Jope, Natural Resources Team Leader, National Park Service
Jim Shevock, Associate 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

RCERT Ex Officio
Karin Berkholtz, Program Assistant, Governor's Rural Community Assistance Team, State of Washington

Updated 4/24/978

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: May 7, 1998

Contact: Jay Watson, Regional Ecosystem Office. Phone: 503-808-2178

Topic:Review /Schedule Change: 1999 Survey and Manage and Protection Buffer Species

Issue Statement: Report on a upcoming review of the "Survey and Manage" and "Protection Buffer" species, and a proposal to change the implementation schedule for some species.

Background: The ROD for the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) includes "survey and manage" mitigation measures for around 400 species, some of which are rare or not well known. They were believed to be associated with late-successional/old-growth forest habitat (FSEIS Appendix J-2). The ROD also provides "protection buffer" mitigation measures for about 15 species (C-19-21, C-26-28, and C-45-48). The majority of these species are fungi, lichens, bryophytes, and mollusks (ROD, pages 36 - 38, C-4 - C-6, and C-49 - C-61). None of the species were listed as Threatened or as Endangered. The NFP management direction for the "Survey and Manage" species consists of one or more of the following strategies: 1) Manage known sites to protect the organisms; 2) Survey prior to ground disturbing activities and implement site management as appropriate; 3) Extensively survey for the species using broad surveys during the most promising conditions; and 4) Conduct general regional surveys. Survey methods for locating most of these species ("protocols") did not exist at the time of the ROD, and were to be developed subsequently. Considerable work has been done for Component 1 and Component 2 species. Locations of species known as of 1995 have been compiled and sent to field offices. A second generation accessible, interactive, data base for "known sites" is in final testing. Moreover, well over half the needed protocols have been delivered to field units for use. Considerable experience has been gained, and training sessions for field biologists and botanists have been held for most taxa. Implementation monitoring from 1996 and 1997 indicates that there has been strong compliance with the survey and manage requirements on projects. However, much work remains to be done. Of particular concern is the requirement for surveys to be conducted for some 80 Component 2 and Protection Buffer species prior to implementing ground-disturbing activities in FY 1999 (which starts in October, 1998). Protocols or commonly used search methods exist for most of these species, but are in various stages of development and approval. However, significant technical aspects of surveying for these species means that some of the required surveys cannot be completed in time for some scheduled projects needed to meet other goals of the NFP. Initial estimates by managers indicate that a substantial portion of the planned timber harvest, most of the prescribed fire actions, and important recreational site restorations would go un-implemented in FY 1999 unless the schedule is changed. The ROD authorizes the RIEC to take actions, as appropriate, to change the schedule, move a species from one Component to another, or if a species is more secure than originally

Analysis and Options: Two interagency groups which report to the RIEC (the survey and manage species Core Team and Intermediate Managers Group), in concert with the REO staff, have embarked on a review of the survey and manage species, requirements, effects, and possible changes. Given concerns about FY 1999 projects, the first task was to review the species requiring survey prior to implementation of FY 1999 projects. On April 20, seventeen survey and manage taxa specialists and field biologists/botanists met in the REO office. They came from the FS (including Research), BLM, and FWS. They evaluated 80 Component 2 and "protection buffer" species with a FY 1999 date in the ROD. They focused on the technical feasibility of surveying for each species in time for the FY 1999 projects, and on the potential effects to each species of changing the schedule by one year, to FY 2000. Technical feasibility required that survey methods are available, species can be identified in the field, trained personnel are available, habitat and range be adequately defined, and that the species can be dependably found in one year. The analysis also considered the effect of a year's change in the schedule on the status of the species as a whole. That analysis revealed that surveying for about half these species is currently not technically feasible. It also showed that about a dozen of these species could be unintentionally harmed (because, for instance, of the small number of sites where they are known) if FY 1999 activities occurred prior to surveys. Additional information is being collected concerning field level technical feasibility, and on more specific effects of the conduct of FY 1999 projects. A full report of this analysis will be distributed to the IAC at the May 7 meeting; review and comments are invited in the two weeks following the meeting. The RIEC is considering changing the schedule for some species. Comments on the report and on the proposed review of other aspects of survey and manage and protection buffer mitigation measures will be welcome and of great benefit.

Organizational/Funding Implications: The NFP has several purposes. Changes to the survey and manage and protection buffer mitigation measures resulting from this analysis, if made in concert with the principles of adaptive management and with thoughtfulness of the hazards of moving ahead in the presence of partial knowledge, can significantly aid in attaining many of the management objectives for the NFP in 1999. The review of survey and manage and the protection buffer species, requirements, effects and changes will place a significant burden on the small group of scientists and specialists who know these species. The need for their help will coincide, unfortunately, with what is the busiest part of the season for their work in the field, to accomplish the required surveys.

REO Staff Proposal: The REO endorses the review of the survey and manage and protection buffer mitigation measures, and an appropriate change in the requirement schedule for Component 2 and protection buffer species. The full report may identify other appropriate changes.

Action Required: X IAC Review & Discussion

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: May 7, 1998

Sponsor: Donna Darm, Assistant Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service Contact/Phone: 206-526-6150

Topic: NMFS Endangered Species Act Listings

Issue Statement: What opportunities exist for IAC members to effectively participate in NMFS regulatory process for making species listing decisions pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA)?

Background: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) recently announced additional listings and proposed listings of chinook, chum, and sockeye salmon and steelhead within the Northwest Forest Plan area. In past meetings, IAC members have encouraged NMFS and the "other Federal agencies" to bring their major activities before the IAC for information sharing and to solicit IAC input. Listing decisions and HCPs have been mentioned several times as examples.

Overview of NMFS Listing Process: Definition of Endangered and Threatened Species The ESA defines "endangered species" as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range." The term "threatened species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range." To qualify for listing as a threatened or endangered species, the identified populations of salmon must be considered "species" under the ESA. The ESA defines a "species" to include "any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature." In 1991 NMFS published its policy that a Pacific salmonid population will be considered distinct and, hence, a species under the ESA, if it represents an Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of the biological species. A population must satisfy two criteria to be considered an ESU; it must be reproductively isolated from other conspecific population units, and it must represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the biological species. The ESA (section 4(a)(1)) requires NMFS to determine if a species is endangered or threatened based upon any one or a combination of the following factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or education purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or human-made factors affecting its continued existence. NMFS evaluates petitions filed by third parties to list species as either endangered or threatened and determines whether they contain substantial scientific information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.

Status Reviews Based on the number of petitions that were being filed in the early 1990's, NMFS began comprehensive west coast-wide status reviews of all Pacific salmon species in 1994. During its status reviews, NMFS assesses the best available scientific and commercial data, including technical information from Pacific Salmon Biological Technical Committees (PSBTCs) and interested parties in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. The PSBTCs consist primarily of scientists (from Federal, State, and local resource agencies, Indian Tribes, industries, universities, professional societies, and public interest groups) possessing technical expertise relevant to salmon and their habitats. NMFS also undertakes a co-manager review, prior to publishing a proposal to list a species, whereby the agency solicits comments from appropriate Federal, State, and Tribal agencies (i.e., those with expertise regarding the subject species) on a draft status review assessment. This is an important process whereby NMFS can ensure that the available information and analyses are accurate and complete. NMFS Biological Review Teams (BRTs), composed of scientists from NMFS Fisheries Science Centers, NMFS Regional Offices, and the National Biological Service, are in the process of completing coast wide status reviews for all Pacific salmonids. These reviews identify the constituent ESUs of each species and evaluate the population status of the ESUs. The results of NMFS' status reviews are published in NOAA Technical Memoranda. NMFS has identified a number of factors that should be considered in evaluating the level of risk faced by an ESU, including: (1) Absolute numbers of fish and their spatial and temporal distribution; (2) current abundance in relation to historical abundance and current carrying capacity of the habitat; (3) trends in abundance; (4) natural and human-influenced factors that cause variability in survival and abundance; (5) possible threats to genetic integrity (e.g., from strays or outplants from hatchery programs); and (6) recent events (e.g., a drought or changes in harvest management) that have predictable short-term consequences for abundance of the ESU. NMFS has prepared two documents which identify factors that have led to the decline of Pacific salmonids: "Factors for Decline: A Supplement to the Notice of Determination for West Coast Steelhead" and "Factors Contributing to the Decline of West Coast Chinook Salmon: An Addendum to the 1996 West Coast Steelhead Factors for Decline Report" (in prep.). These reports conclude that all of the factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA have played a role in the decline of steelhead and other salmonids. Consideration of Existing Conservation Efforts Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary of Commerce to make listing determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available and after taking into account efforts being made to protect a species. Therefore, in making its listing determinations, NMFS must not only assess the species status and identify factors for decline, but must also assess existing conservation actions to determine if those measures ameliorate the risks faced by the species. In judging the efficacy of existing conservation efforts, NMFS considers the following: (1) the substantive, protective, and conservation elements of such efforts; (2) the degree of certainty such efforts will be reliably implemented; and (3) the presence of monitoring provisions that permit adaptive management.

In some cases, conservation efforts may be relatively new and may not have had time to demonstrate their biological benefit. In such cases, provisions for adequate monitoring and funding of conservation efforts are essential to ensure intended conservation benefits are realized. NMFS has summarized some of the major conservation efforts in each species Federal Register notice as well as in a document entitled "Steelhead Conservation Efforts: A Supplement to the Notice of Determination for West Coast Steelhead Under the Endangered Species Act". Listing Determinations Based on a thorough review of the ESA listing criteria, factors for decline, and existing conservation efforts, NMFS determines whether the subject ESUs are in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges (endangered) or are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their range (threatened). NMFS determinations are published in the Federal Register as proposed rules and public comment invited. Also, per a joint policy with FWS, NMFS solicits the expert opinion of three independent peer reviewers to evaluate each listing proposal. Conservation Measures Concurrent with its proposed rules to list ESUs as endangered or threatened, NMFS identifies general protective measures that could be implemented to help conserve the species. These may include conservation measures by Tribes, States, local governments, and private organizations, Federal, Tribal, and State recovery actions, Federal agency consultation requirements, prohibitions on taking, and recognition. Recognition through listing promotes public awareness and conservation actions by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private organizations, and individuals. Critical Habitat Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as "(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species * * * on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species * * * upon a determination by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species." Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, NMFS designate critical habitat concurrently with determinations that species are endangered or threatened. For example, NMFS recently determined that it had sufficient information to propose designating critical habitat concurrently with its proposal to list seven chinook salmon ESUs as endangered or threatened. The economic and other impacts of a critical habitat designation are considered and evaluated when critical habitat is proposed. NMFS also identifies present and anticipated activities that may adversely modify the area(s) being considered or be affected by a designation. In proposing to designate critical habitat, NMFS considers the following requirements of the species: (1) Space for individual and population growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water,

air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring; and, generally, (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of this species. In addition to these factors, NMFS also focuses on the known physical and biological features (primary constituent elements) within the designated area that are essential to the conservation of the species and may require special management considerations or protection. These essential features may include, but are not limited to, spawning sites, food resources, water quality and quantity, and riparian vegetation. Prohibitions and Protective Measures Section 4(d) of the ESA requires NMFS to issue regulations it finds necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of a listed species. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits violations of protective regulations for threatened species promulgated under section 4(d). The 4(d) protective regulations may prohibit, with respect to threatened species, some or all of the acts which section 9(a) of the ESA prohibits with respect to endangered species. In the case of threatened species, NMFS also has flexibility under section 4(d) to tailor protective regulations based on the contents of available conservation measures. These 9(a) prohibitions and 4(d) regulations apply to all individuals, organizations, and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction. NMFS intends to have final 4(d) protective regulations in effect at or near the time of final listing determinations for Pacific salmon ESUs. The process for completing 4(d) rules provides the opportunity for public comment on proposed protective regulations.

Action Required: X IAC Review & Discussion IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other:

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: May 7, 1998

Sponsor: Jim Pipkin, USDI Contact/Phone: 202-208-5978

Topic: Review of the NFP MOU

Issue Statement: Based on Federal Executives and IAC discussions over the past several months, what would the IAC recommend in terms of a new NFP MOU?

Background: Jim Pipkin has conducted a number of interviews, meetings, presentations and discussions since last October, in an effort to support agencies and other interested parties reach agreement on a revised forest plan MOU. Most recently, he circulated an April 7 draft "Forest Plan Revisited" report for review. The goal for the IAC meeting is to reach agreement on how the new NFP MOU would read. Discussion will be based on the April 7 draft report, as agencies have requested additional time for review.

Analysis and Options: The report discusses a number of different observations and issues, including lessons learned, accomplishments to date, and draft revised MOU for review, discussion, and agreement.

Organizational/Funding Implications:

REO Staff Proposal:

Action Required: X IAC Review & Discussion X IAC Recommendation X RIEC Decision Other:

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: May 7, 1998

Sponsor: Dan McKenzie, Research & Monitoring Group Contact/Phone: 503-808-2190

Topic: Implementation Monitoring, Proposed FY 1998 Program

Issue Statement: Guidance on the scope and level of effort is needed to finalize the FY 1998 Implementation Monitoring (IM) Program.

Background: As identified in the Record of Decision (ROD) and elsewhere, implementation monitoring is one of the key components of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) and adaptive management. Implementation monitoring provides information on the degree that the NFP activities are following the Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs). The FY 1996 IM program reviewed 42 timber sales, the FY 1997 program 40 timber sales, 18 road construction, and 16 restoration projects. See enclosed Status Report for a summary of the FY 1997 findings. The FY 1998 program builds on those results, recommendations from participating agencies, PACs, IAC, plus initial discussion with the REO and RIEC. The FY 1998 proposal continues the existing approach of consisting of: Monitoring of timber sales and associated roads. Pilot testing a landscape review of the ROD S&Gs at the watershed scale. Program design, oversight, and reporting by the Regional Implementation Monitoring Team. Continuation of Province Implementation Monitoring Teams (PIMT) with agency, PAC, and public participation. The ROD contains a number of specific references (S&Gs) that address watershed and larger scales, in addition to the project level S&Gs. Many of these S&Gs describe planning and decision processes that provide a management framework leading to implementing specific projects and activities. The RIMT received considerable interest and recommendations for inclusion of implementation monitoring efforts at the watershed and landscape scale. Thus, the RIMT recommends that a pilot implementation monitoring effort focus on watershed scale as one of the important scales included in the NFP and as yet unaddressed by implementation monitoring. Analysis and Options: It is proposed to continue the practice of conducting implementation monitoring with Provincial Implementation Monitoring Teams (PIMT). Twelve PIMTs would be formed and facilitated by a team leader and composed of agency staff and PAC participants. PIMT reviews would also be open to public participation. Questionnaires derived from the ROD S&Gs and modified by the past 2 years experience would be used to guide timber sale and associated road the review process and reporting. One part of the FY 1998 IM program is to focus on one large (>1000 MBF) timber sale, that has been at least partially harvested, in each land management administrative unit (FS National Forest and BLM District). Thus, 26 sales that were sold in FYs 1995, 1996, or 1997 would be statistically selected and reviewed. It is also proposed that any road activities associated with those sales be monitored to assess compliance with the ROD S&Gs. The RIMT recommends this approach in response to feedback on the value of focusing on large harvested sales and a desire to equalize workloads among provinces and field units. In addition, the number of timber sales to be reviewed was reduced from the FY 1997 (40 sales) to accommodate the effort of the watershed pilot.

The second part of the FY 1998 IM program is proposed as a pilot effort to focus on reviewing NFP S&Gs that address watershed and landscape scale planning and activities. The objective of this effort will be to develop and test an implementation monitoring module that addresses the watershed and larger scale standards and guidelines in preparation for conducting a regional effort in FY 1999. The FY 1998 pilot effort would be based on a small number of selected watersheds from the NFP region. A draft questionnaire has been developed and after further review and priority setting, would be used to guide the PIMT's review. The RIMT's goal is to focus the review on 30-50 questions that address the objective of monitoring compliance with and progress towards implementation of the NFP S&Gs at scales greater than the project scale. The primary goal of the pilot is to develop and test the landscape IM module to meet the objective of conducting a regional FY 1999 program and report. Three alternative levels of watershed scale review are proposed for consideration by the IAC and RIEC. All three alternatives would select watersheds where substantial NFP planning, activities and projects have occurred. First consideration would be given to the larger more complex key watersheds. This selection strategy is based on: (1) key watersheds identified as high priority areas in the ROD, (2) anticipated areas where watershed assessments have been completed, and (3) availability of multiple landuse designations (key watershed, LSR and Matrix). Second consideration would be given to non-key watersheds that contained substantial management activities and projects. The alternatives differ primarily in the level of effort and intensity, the breath of watershed conditions examined, and the potential utility of the pilot results. Alternative 1 would select three watersheds for review and represents the minimum efforts considered for FY 1998. Alternative 2 would select six watersheds, including both key and non-key watersheds, and provide better regional coverage of the range of watershed diversity. Alternative 3 would provide for a statistical selection of 12 watersheds and, if the pilot was successful, a limited preliminary progress report on the implementation of the NFP at the watershed scale. The questionnaire for the PIMTs to follow in reviewing the watershed activities is currently in draft form under going additional review. The draft consists of less than 60 questions that are divided into two general categories: (1) questions that focus on a specific ROD S&G and would be answered as conformance/non-conformance, and (2) questions that ask for a narrative description of processes or outcomes. The scope of the draft questionnaire includes questions that address S&Gs for (a) all land allocations (boundaries, tribal, management, reviews, and cooperation issues), (b) key watersheds (roads, watershed analysis, riparian reserves, grazing, restoration), (c) LSR, (d) Matrix, (e) AMA, and (f) Species (S&M and buffer). It is anticipated that additional reviews by agency staff, REO and the PIMT leaders will reduce the number of questions by focusing on priority areas. The RIMT recommends that the initial questionnaire for the pilot be approximately 30 to 50 questions. Preliminary estimates of the level of effort to conduct a watershed scale review are for the host unit (1 week of preparation time and 2 days with the PIMT), and for the PIMT (2 days with the host unit, plus 1 to 2 days of reading and reporting). The RIMT resource requirements are independent of the number of watersheds reviewed and anticipated to require approximately 3 months of effort from each of the RIMT members to complete the plan, oversee the reviews, and produce a report with recommendations for FY 1999.

Analysis of Options Alternative 1: Selection and Review of 3 Watersheds Advantages: Provides information and feedback to evaluate and revise questionnaire Minimizes the staff requirements for the RIMT and PIMT Only three host field units are involved Disadvantages: Limited range of watershed settings examined, greatest uncertainty for FY 1999 design Limits PIMT and field learning experience to three provinces No potential for conclusions regarding overall assessment of current compliance or progress Alternative 2: Selection and Review of 6 Watersheds Advantages: Provides more diversity and a range of watersheds to evaluate and revise questionnaire Expands range of watershed conditions examined, which reduces uncertainty for FY 1999 design Six PIMTs and PACs gain experience in conducting watershed scale reviews Disadvantages: Work load for 6 field units, PIMTs, and RIMT No potential for conclusions regarding overall assessment of current compliance or progress Alternative 3: Selection and Review of 12 Watersheds Advantages: Provides participation of all provinces and associated watershed diversity If successful, provides, at least, a limited status report Pilot most closely mirrors FY 1999 program for regional effort Disadvantage: Has the potential to prematurely extend approach to too many watersheds May not fulfill expectations for report Work load for 12 host units, PIMTs, and RIMT (at least partially offset by reducing the number of timber sales) Organizational/Funding Implications: Conduct of the FY 1998 implementation monitoring requires the participation of all the agencies on the PIMTs to review the timber sales and watershed activities. Agencies staff will be needed to prepare materials for the PIMT review and conduct of site visits, as appropriate. PIMT leaders are needed to facilitate the review and reporting of results. The RIMT staff is necessary to complete the design, conduct training and oversight of the PIMTs, and produce the FY 1998 report.

REO Staff Proposal: The REO staff proposal is to conduct the timber sale and associated road tasks as proposed by the RIMT. REO staff expressed a preference for each of the alternatives identified for the pilot watershed scale monitoring and a unanimous support for one alternative was not readily apparent. However, there was more agreement on Alternative 2, (6 watersheds) than on either of the other two alternatives. It was recognized that all alternatives were capable of providing feedback and refinement of the questionnaire and contributing to a successful FY 1999 program, differing in the associated degree of uncertainty and level of effort to conduct the pilot. Alternative 3 is recommended if there is a desire for the pilot to provide a preliminary report on the current degree of compliance or progress toward implementing the NFP at the watershed scale.

Action Required: X IAC Review & Discussion X IAC Recommendation X RIEC Decision Other:

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

STATUS REPORT

Meeting Date: May 7, 1998	REO Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie, 503-808-2190
Topic: Implementation Monitoring, FY 1997 Summary Results
Issue Statement: The objective is to provide IAC with a summary of the findings of the FY 1997 Implementation Monitoring Program and a status update for the report.
Background: The FY 1997 Implementation Monitoring program reviewed NFP related projects in three areas: timber sales, roads, and restoration. Under the guidance of the Regional Implementation Monitoring Team (RIMT), Provincial Implementation Monitoring Teams (PIMTs) reviewed 40 timber sales, 17 roads, and 16 restoration projects. The PIMTs were again lead by FS, BLM, and FWS staff and included PAC participants. PIMT reports were reviewed by the PACs and integrated into the regional report by the RIMT.
Status/Update: The sample of projects selected for review followed the guidance of the RIEC and procedures developed during the FY 1996 program. Regional databases were queried to identify the population of interest and statistical procedures followed to select projects. Timber sales were stratified by volume (MBF), landuse allocation, and associated road activities. Sampling from these strata resulted in 40 timber sales and 17 road projects being selected for review by the PIMTs. The Jobs-in-the-Woods (JITW) database for FY 1995-96 projects was used to identify the 16 restoration projects selected for review. The RIMT convened an interagency analysis team to review the provincial reports and review and evaluate the database and assess the potential significance of those projects where an inconsistency with the S&G was reported. The RIMT has completed the analyses of the FYs 1997 results and anticipates that an internal review draft will be distributed to the PIMTs for their review in May 1998. Following that review, a draft will be circulated for agency and IAC review and comment. The draft results for timber sales are as follows. These results are expressed in terms of the number of applicable standards and guidelines, which were either exceeded, met, not met, or not capable of being met by the project under review. Response Number Percentage (%)* Exceeded 34 3.6 Met 957 91.6 Not Met 41 2.5 Not Capable 19 2.3 * Percentage estimated for all FY 1996 timber sales (>100 MBF)
The areas of exceeds or not met were similar to those reported in the FY 1996 results. The S&Gs associated with riparian reserves, coarse woody debris, snags and green tree retention were the primary areas where projects differed from the S&G. The assessment of biological effects associated with timber sales where the S&G was either exceeded or not met resulted in primarily low effects, a few moderate and three potentially high positive effects. The draft results for roads are as follows: Response Number Percentage (%) Exceeded 4 1.0 Met 431 97.7 Not Met 6 1.4 Not Capable 0 0 The potential effects from road related S&Gs that were exceeded or not met were judged to have low negative or moderate positive effects. The draft results for restoration (JITW) projects are as follows: Response Number Percentage (%) Exceeded 7 2.1 Met 312 95.4 Not Met 6 1.9 Not Capable 2 0.6 Low to moderate effects, positive and negative, were assigned to the few cases where the S&G was exceeded or not met.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee

STATUS REPORT

Meeting Date: May 7, 1998

REO Contact/Phone: Michael Tehan, 503-808-2176

Topic: Riparian Reserve Module

Issue Statement: As previously agreed, Forest Service and BLM field units are reporting the results of their draft Riparian Reserve module field tests and interim riparian reserve boundary adjustments for FY 1997. Absent significant concerns or objections from IAC members, the REO recommends that the agencies continue to test the draft module for an additional field season. Based on a more complete set of field results, the RIEC, with advice from the IAC, should reconsider how to proceed with finalizing the draft module in one year.

Background: The NFP Standards and Guidelines prescribe interim riparian reserve boundaries that apply to all watersheds until watershed analysis is completed, site-specific analyses conducted and described, and the rationale for final riparian reserve boundaries is presented through the appropriate NEPA decision making process (ROD, pages B-13, C-31). Watershed analysis is required prior to determining how proposed management within riparian reserves meets Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives (ROD, page B-20). The final working draft of the "Riparian Reserve Evaluation Techniques and Synthesis" module, agreed upon at the September 19, 1996 IAC meeting, was transmitted to administrative units for field testing on March 17, 1997. Administrative units were encouraged to provide feedback regarding four areas: clarity, relevance to NFP Standards and Guidelines, feasibility and cost, and management utility. At the December 5, 1996 IAC meeting, the Forest Service and BLM reported Riparian Reserve boundary adjustments to date and agreed to report further adjustments to the IAC concurrent with the module field test results.

Analysis: None of the administrative units were able to complete a comprehensive, "from scratch", test of the module. Comments were received from thirteen Forest Service and BLM administrative units (Mt. Hood, Umpqua, Olympic, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie, Okanogan, Klamath, and Gifford Pinchot National Forests; Coos Bay, Roseburg, Eugene, Salem, Medford, and Lakeview BLM Districts). Some field units were unable to test the module, but offered review comments. Others expect to use it when planning FY 1999 timber sales. Field units that tested the module either applied sections of the draft module retroactively to existing watershed analyses or utilized certain portions of the module in the site-scale review of management activities within or adjacent to riparian reserves. The collective module field test results do not reveal an obvious course of action for finalizing the draft module. The results are both incomplete and inconclusive; findings were not consistent across the units that tested the draft module (see attached comment summary). Some found the module useful for evaluating management activities within riparian reserves. Most field units found that they lacked sufficient data, technical expertise, time, funding, or patience to apply the draft module as written.

Only two cases of interim riparian reserve boundary modification were reported using the draft module. The Coos Bay BLM District reported using the draft module to modify riparian reserve boundaries along intermittent streams in the Sandy-Remote timber sale planning area, resulting in a 67-acre reduction out of an estimated 3035 acres of intermittent stream riparian reserves in the planning area. Similar adjustments were made in the Lower South Fork Coquille timber sale area, resulting in a 10-acre reduction out of an estimated 574 acres of intermittent stream riparian reserves in the sale planning area. The team found the Level I or "short-cut" process to be the most useful part of the module and recommended that the module be refined and revised to make it more useful to field personnel. Only three instances of riparian reserve boundary changes were reported without using the module. The Okanogan National Forest reported minor, site-specific RR modifications (some wider, some narrower), were made within the Thunder Salvage, Whiteface, and Long Draw timber sale areas based on interdisciplinary team recommendations during watershed, LSR, and site-specific NEPA analyses. Test units relayed the general impression that the rigorous analysis needed to modify interim riparian reserve boundaries was "not worth it" and that energy instead should be focused on developing appropriate management actions to promote ACS objectives within the reserves. While some reported that the module provided useful tools for addressing NFP requirements when modifying riparian reserve boundaries, most reported that the procedures were too complicated; staff, time and data intensive; or too expensive to justify the pursuit of interim reserve boundary modifications.

Options: The REO has identified several options for how to proceed with the draft module. 1. Leave the draft module in its current form. Allow fields units to apply or adapt tools from the module as needed for watershed or site analyses to support riparian reserve boundary adjustments or management within reserves in accordance with existing ROD requirements. Pros: Other high priority NFP implementation efforts are not affected by reassigning key staff to revise the module. Relies on existing watershed, project, NEPA, Endangered Species Act and Survey and Manage analyses to support riparian reserve boundary adjustments and management, consistent with NFP requirements. Maintains line officer and analysis team control over determining the appropriate level of analysis and appropriate local approaches for analyzing key issues in watershed analyses. Cons: Based on the initial feed back, it doubtful that many field units will try to use the draft module to modify riparian reserve boundaries because of the general perception that it is confusing, time consuming and expensive to apply. This option is not responsive to some field units' request for revised tools and guidance from the riparian reserve module (e.g., does not lead to the potential development of a consistent, region-wide approach to evaluating management actions within riparian reserves). 2. Reconvene a Riparian Reserve Technical Team to: a. Revise the draft module, based on the initial test results, to more clearly articulate analysis requirements for modifying riparian reserve boundaries and management activities within reserves; or b. Revise the draft module, based on the initial test results, to more clearly articulate analysis requirements only for evaluating and designing management actions within interim reserve boundaries (recognizes that there is little interest in changing interim reserve boundaries).

Pros: This approach is responsive to some field units request for revised tools and guidance from the riparian reserve module. Cons: Other high priority NFP implementation efforts would likely be affected by reassigning key staff to revise the module. Changes in the draft module would be based on limited field test results. Based on the initial feedback, it is doubtful that many field units would use even a revised module to modify boundaries because of limited interest in changing the interim RR boundaries and limitations in staffing, data, and funding. 3. Complete an additional year of pilot testing and reassess the need for module revisions based on additional field results. There are several possible scenarios: a. allow the original pilot test units to complete their tests (e.g., Roseburg BLM District), together with additional voluntary testing by other field units; b. recruit additional field units to attempt a comprehensive "from scratch" test of the module; or c. recruit additional field units to attempt a re-focused pilot field test that applies the module to assess management within RRs rather than an emphasis on modifying boundaries. Pros: This approach would allow additional time for identifying innovative approaches to riparian reserve management for inclusion in a future module revision or for developing future guidance on analyzing management actions within riparian reserves. It would avoid making changes in the draft module based on limited field test results. There seems to be little support for additional "from scratch" or "full blown" testing of the module, primarily due to inadequate data, time, staff resources, interest or funding. The additional year of testing may reduce potential impacts on other high priority NFP implementation efforts by postponing the reassignment of key staff to revise the module. Cons: Because of the apparent lack of interest in modifying riparian reserve boundaries, there appears little downside to delaying further module development. Some field units may feel this option is not responsive to their request for revised analysis tools. This option would postpone the potential development of additional regional guidance for assessing management activities within riparian reserves.

REO Staff Proposal: Currently there does not seem to be a strong desire by Federal land management field units to modify interim riparian reserve boundaries. Instead, the focus appears to be on the development of appropriate restoration and enhancement measures within the reserves to promote NFP objectives. At this time, there does not appear to be consensus among the agencies to reallocate staff resources to reconvene the Riparian Reserve Technical Team to revise the draft module because most are assigned to other high priority initiatives (e.g., Aquatic/Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Team), and the perceived need for a revised module is generally low. Absent significant concerns or objections from IAC members, the REO recommends that the agencies continue to field test the draft module as a set of optional tools for analyzing riparian reserves at the watershed and site scale for an additional year (essentially option 3a above). Based on a more complete set of field results, and in consideration of other interagency priorities identified in the REO Strategic Plan, the RIEC, with advice from the IAC, should reconsider how to proceed with finalizing the draft module in one year.

Organizational/Funding Implications: Completion/revision of the Riparian Reserve module is currently identified as a medium to high priority on the REO Strategic Plan. The effort is currently unfunded and most (if not all) of the original workgroup members have since been assigned to other high priority efforts (e.g., the Aquatic/Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Team). Any further work on the draft module at this time would likely require reprogramming of agency staff time and funding by dropping other high priority work efforts.

ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC: IAC Review IAC Recommendation IAC Concurrence RIEC Decision

 

Draft Riparian Reserve Evaluation and Synthesis Module

Summary of FY 1997 Field Unit Test and Review Comments

1. Clarity:

A. Is the Riparian Reserve guidance clear and easy follow?

• "This is an excellent module with many good tools and practical methods of analysis."
• Overall, the module was "somewhat hard to follow".
• "...for the most part, we found it well written and concise."
• We found it "...difficult to get a grasp of what needed to be done without re-reading the module several times."
• "The module is difficult to follow - a clear diagram would be helpful in understanding how to use the assessment."
• "Our teams found the Module to be straightforward but time consuming and costly to fully incorporate within the framework of watershed analysis."
• The module does not provide clear guidance on any of the stated objectives; i.e., riparian reserve management, restoration needs, and adjusting interim boundaries.
• A professional forest ecologist found trying to apply the draft module "a daunting task".
• "The guidance is systemmatic in its approach but not all that clear or easy to follow."
• The Level I analysis (shortcut method) "is clean, straightforward, and understandable. However, the rest of the document is difficult to follow and understand."
• Having two levels of analysis "is not a useful concept. There should be only one level of analysis."

B. Strengths

• Provides helpful review of riparian reserve objectives; background information on ROD.
• Provides a thorough description of physical and biological objectives that should be considered during watershed and site-level analyses.
• The checklist for site-scale analysis is good.
• Provides a good explanation of relationship between watershed and site-scale analyses.
• The Species Information Addendum is nice summary for many species that are not well known.
• Provides a description of desired future condition.
• The species classification exercise is valuable tool.
• Identifies values and hazards associated with riparian reserves.
• The physical analysis of riparian management effects and potential risk provides good quantitative and qualitative results.
• Provides a large list of tools for answering some of the many questions that need to be answered.

C. Weaknesses

• Appears redundant with items already being covered in watershed analysis.
• "Levels of Analysis" section was confusing.
• The module "...asks too many questions that have little relevance to the overall impact that adjusting a few Riparian Reserve boundaries will have upon the landscape."
• The assumption in Level I analysis that previously completed watershed analyses would be adequate to address site-specific decisions for intermittent streams is not valid.
• Physical processes are not addressed, nor are physical and biological considerations for developing reserve widths addressed.
• The process did not provide more or better site information.
• Dispersal habitat for terrestrial species is not addressed.
• Biological requirements and habitat conservation relationships are not adequately evaluated.
• There is inadequate consideration of species viability from past and current management activities.
• The module does not consider effects of introduced species.
• The module does not consider human uses and demands for forest resources on the species of concern.
• The module does not consider beneficial effects of natural disturbance processes.
• The "Site-Scale Analysis and Project and NEPA Compliance Stage" section was less clear than rest of document (and less realistic).
• A "high fog index" made the module difficult to follow.
• The connection to upland wildlife ecology is poorly developed.

D. Recommendations for improvement?

• "We recommend that the module be identified as a collection of useful tools and not as a task to be completed in full."
• The purpose of the module should be more concisely stated.
• Clarify "Levels of Analysis" section.
• Combine the "Levels of Analysis", there is no real difference between Level I and Level II.
• Establish "threshold watershed conditions" for factors like vegetation condition, ownership patterns, road density, that would preclude riparian reserve boundary changes as a first step/test in the module.
• Once all of the habitat requirements for all species of concern are overlaid, there is no room for riparian reserve adjustment without triggering species viability concerns. To address this concern, we suggest defining "acceptable watershed conditions in regards to viability for these species"; defining "objectives for landscape conditions within a watershed [or] province; and determining the "percentage of a population for which to manage."
• Simplify the module and make it more understandable to resource professionals.
• Refine and revise the module to make it more useable to field personnel.
• Streamline the watershed analysis portion of the module (steps 1-6).
• Provide better guidance for identifying ecological values present and delineating riparian reserves.
• Provide better inventory data, a more fully developed wildlife guild concept, and localized habitat mapping.
• Better develop the concept, applicability, and use of "reference conditions".
• Include a description of desired conditions for riparian reserves.
• Explore the protection needs of different types of intermittent streams.
• Research is needed to determine what data are needed for wildlife species or guilds for decisionmaking.
• Research should develop some regional benchmarks for ACS objectives and help translate the general goals of the NFP ROD into useable numbers and timeframes.
• Have the technical team that produced the module participate in full blown or "from scratch" field tests.
• The module should provide a framework for "identifying, delineating, and managing" intermittent streams, site potential trees, and unstable lands at the site scale to promote consistent delineation of riparian reserves across the NFP planning region.

2. Relevance to NFP Standards and Guidelines:

A. Are the analysis and synthesis techniques helpful in addressing NFP requirements for watershed and site analyses of Riparian Reserves?

• Yes, the analysis and synthesis techniques are excellent.
• "No, the watershed scale portion of the module raised a lot of questions for the site-specific analysis, but provided few answers to anything."
• The process provides a good reference to areas or species habitat of concern in the watershed.
• The module asks too many questions that cannot be addressed at the watershed scale.
• Processes for ranking habitat and identifying key habitat are particularly good.
• The module provides no additional guidance on defining "intermittent streams".
• The module provided a good framework for documenting information and analysis.

B. Did the module provide useful information for Survey & Manage and other terrestrial species?

• The evaluation module was not useful for Survey and Manage. For other terrestrial species, the framework provided was a useful starting point.
• Tables B1 and B2 were helpful along with lists 1 and 2.
• The description of species benefitting from riparian reserve scenarios 1 and 2 was confusing.
• Table B5 is useful for many species but omits other species that benefit from riparian reserves like the spotted owl (dispersal habitat).
• There was little to no information other than what may or may not be likely habitat.
• Data on coarse woody debris and habitat capability models are generally not available and would affect the ability to apply the species and habitat module components, particularly in the Level II analysis.
• The level of assessment for Survey and Manage species was not done in most watershed analyses and would require quite a bit of additional work.

C. What was most useful?

• Risk analysis, table format, and site-scale analyses were most useful.
• Includes a useful glossary.

D. What was not useful?

• Risk analysis, ACS steps, and habitat mapping were not useful.
• The habitat criteria ranking is not useful at the watershed scale (takes too much work) and is probably better done at the basin or province scale.
• The "Levels of Analysis" and "Watershed-Scale Processes" sections were not useful.

3. Feasibility and cost:

A. Is the module feasible and practical to implement?

• The team found that "...the module is not feasible or practicable to implement as written." It was practical and useful only after the ID team made substantial adaptations, deletions, and modifications.
• "We believe that the depth of analysis required to justify a decision to modify Riparian Reserve widths may exceed the budget and staff time available to a typical District, particularly for wildlife analyses. It may be that the default decision would be not to bother, and continue with the interim reserve widths."
• "The feasibility of utilizing the Module is low given the limited funding currently associated with watershed analysis and lack of fully trained personnel consistently applying this approach."
• The module is feasible, but not practical at the District level because of time and funding constraints.
• The team found the module "... time consuming and costly to fully incorporate within the framework of watershed analysis."
• "The requirements of the module severely hamper its implementation."
• The module covers more issues and asks more questions that can reasonably be answered at the fifth field watershed scale.
• The module was not used because of the estimation that it would take "...a large amount of time for the value gained, which would take away from other more pressing projects...".
• While the module is presented as an "optional toolbox of analysis methods and techniques", there is an implied assumption that the module would be a supplemental exercise. The Level II analysis is so detailed that it probably would not be completed other than in exceptional circumstances.
• Completing the module was not an excessive burden when applied to individual timber sale planning.
• Even if applied at a smaller (sixth field) watershed scale, the process is not cost effective given the module's requirements.

B. Are adequate staff resources available to apply the module?

• No. There is only one wildlife biologist on the District, and they are fully involved in consultation, watershed analyses, field work, KV projects, timber sale planning, supervision of field crews, etc.
• "There is adequate staffing of fishery and wildlife biologists to complete the requirements of the module. However, the requirements of the module place untenable time demands on the soil scientist, hydrologist, and botanist, which are scarce skills on the District."
• It would be difficult to fully implement the module at the project level, but the procedures should be helpful to interdisciplinary teams.
• The field unit lacked species, soils, and land stability data that would help complete the module.
• Staff expressed frustration trying to do the analysis with insufficient data.
• Staffs are reluctant to tackle yet another "voluminous document".
• There was insufficient information on species viability, presence, and distribution in the watershed to apply the module as written.
• All of the information called for in the module does not exist, particularly for wildlife.
• Application of the module may be feasible if the team can rely on existing data. The collection of new information to meet the module needs would be expensive and time consuming.

C. How much did it add to the cost of watershed and site analyses?

• If existing data and watershed analysis results are used, and a separate riparian reserve analysis is not written up, additional costs were about 10% - 20% above existing watershed analysis costs. If the module were fully implemented, it would likely add about 30% - 40% to the cost of a watershed analysis, particularly due to the collection of new data, analyses and writing.
• The module added about 25% to the cost of watershed analysis; at least 50% to the cost of site-specific NEPA analyses. Would cost substantially more if inventory and data were collected for wildlife species.
• The team concluded that "...completion of the module, as presented, would add significantly to our watershed analyses cost...."

4. Management utility:

A. Does the module produce useful information to support decisionmaking?

• Yes, its primary benefit is for planning watershed restoration and enhancement opportunities within riparian reserves.
• Results from applying the module did not appear to have any affect on decisionmaking.
• "The lack of information available on the District...makes the Module not as useful as it might be otherwise..... The Module would be considerably more cost effective with better species and habitat information available initially."
• Results would be more useful if the module products included a summary of analysis results.
• The module is too general for use at the site-scale.
• Yes, results will be used applied to timber sale and restoration activities.
• The module seemed more esoteric than practical.
• The process "will force a retreat to default interim riparian reserve widths" due to the cost of implementing the module and the perception that limited benefits would be derived from adjusting reserve widths.

B. Will the results of the analysis be applied to specific management actions?

• Recommendations for management activities within riparian reserves, based in part on application of "a small portion" the module, received an "unfavorable review" from NMFS and USFWS and therefore will not be implemented.
• The team would expect that the only changes that could be justified would be expansion of the interim riparian reserves to include unstable and potentially unstable soil concerns, based on site-scale analyses.
• Results from applying the module will be used to justify adherence to interim reserve widths and to prioritize restoration activities within reserves.
• Applying the module did not result in recommendations to modify reserve widths, but general recommendations for restoration actions within the reserves were generated (not at the project scale; that would come later).