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

Memorandum

Date: October 23, 1998

To: Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members (See Distribution List)

From: Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director

Subject: Agenda and Prework Materials for the November 5 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting

Enclosed are the proposed agenda, agenda topic overviews, and status reports for the November Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) meeting. The IAC meeting will be held at the Embassy Suites Portland Downtown, 319 SW Pine Street, Portland, Oregon 97204-2726 (phone 503-279-9000 and fax 503-497-9051). You may phone the hotel to make your reservations (request the government rate) and for suggestions on shuttle service to and from the airport. The hotel is 1 block off Burnside between Ash and Pine Streets and between SW 3^rd and 4^th Avenues downtown. It is within easy walking distance of Robert Duncan Plaza, which is the FS and COE headquarters.

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

Tribal Effectiveness Monitoring: We will report back to the full IAC on discussions at the IAC policy subgroup meeting, including a review and discussion of the major points of agreement on next steps and a draft proposed charter. The IAC will be asked for comment on the proposed charter and for advice on how to proceed. A final set of notes are included, reflecting the comments received on the draft notes circulated on September 25.
Draft of the Washington State Salmon Plan: Craig Partridge has offered to review the Draft Washington State Salmon Plan for IAC members and welcomes comment.
IRICC: We will report back to the full IAC on discussions at the joint IRICC/IAC policy subgroup meeting, including a review and discussion of potential future priorities. We hope to get agreement on next steps.
Future IAC Agenda Items: We will report back to the IAC on the results of our policy subgroup meeting. Our goal will be to reach agreement on some specific future IAC topics, as well as to continue to increase agenda items added at the request of the non-Federal members.
California Subcommittee to the IAC Report: We expect a brief report from Mark Stanley on the actions of the California Subcommittee to the IAC.
Effectiveness Monitoring Implementation: The group of senior managers working through this issue has undertaken an unprecedented effort, and is making significant progress. Progress and problems concerning the implementation of effectiveness monitoring modules will be discussed.
IAC Meeting Dates for 1999: We are enclosing a complete list of proposed IAC and RIEC meeting dates for FY 1999.

Additionally, your prework package includes a status report on the Survey and Manage efforts to date. At this time, we plan to have the following handouts for you at the meeting: the Implementation Monitoring Report for FY 1997; Activity Information Sharing Notebook for FY 1998; a signed copy of the NFP MOU and the Pipkin Report; IAC/PAC Charters; a brief description of Implementation Monitoring for FY 1998; and an update on the Lawsuit.

If you have questions or suggestions about the logistics or the meeting agenda, please contact Don Knowles (503-808-2166), Linda Kucera (503-808-2179), or your agency representative.

Enclosures

cc:
REO
RCERT
PAC DFOs
Jim Pipkin

1223iac/lk

Date: October 23, 1998
Subject: Agenda and Prework Package for the November 5 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
Anne Badgley, Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Michael Spear, California/Nevada Operations Office Manager, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Joan Perry, Regional Conservationist West, 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)
COL Robert T. Slusar, District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Stan Speaks, Area Director, Portland Area Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Dave Renwald, Wildlife Biologist, Portland Area Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs (Alternate)
Ron Jaeger, Area Director, Sacramento Area Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs
William Stelle, Jr., Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service
William Hogarth, Acting SW Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service (Alternate)
Elizabeth Holmes Gaar, Assistant Regional Administrator, 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
Scott Duff, USDA Rural Development Updated 10/23/98

IAC Meeting -- Potential Agenda Items
November 5, 1998 -- 9:15 to 3:00
Queen Marie Ballroom, Embassy Suites Portland Downtown, Portland, Oregon

Time	Potential Agenda Items	Topic Purpose	Presenter(s)
9:15 15 min.	Welcome, Change of Chair, Certify the August Meeting Notes, Review the November Agenda	Complete Official Business and Review the Agenda	Elaine Zielinski, Bob Williams, Don Knowles
9:30 15 min.	Successes Implementation Monitoring FY 1997 Report Activity Information Sharing Notebook NFP MOU Renewal and Pipkin Report	Handout Handout Handout	Don
9:45 30 min.	Tribal Effectiveness Monitoring and Charter	Decision	Dan McKenzie, Gary Sims
10:15 30 min.	Heads Up Topic Draft of the Washington State Salmon Plan	Information Sharing	Craig Partridge
10:45 15 min.	Morning Break
11:00 45 min.	IRICC Report on the Updated Strategic Plan --Review Accomplishments to Date; Discuss and Agree on Next Steps	Review, Discuss, and Agree	Dale Guenther
11:45 75 min.	Lunch
1:00 30 min.	Future IAC Agenda Items Next Steps	Overview and Discussion	Don
1:30 20 min.	Heads Up Topic California Subcommittee to the IAC Report	Subcommittee Report	Mark Stanley, Francie Sullivan, Greg Blomstrom
1:50 20 min.	Effectiveness Monitoring Implementation Progress Report	Information Sharing	Tom Mills, Mike Crouse
2:10 10 min.	IAC Meeting Dates for 1999	Decision	Don
2:20 10 min.	Public Comment	Feedback/Input	Bob & Linda
2:30 15 min.	Hot Topics	Information Sharing	All
2:45 15 min.	Review Today's Agreements, Possible Agenda Items for the February Meeting, and Closing Comments	Confirm Agreements, Potential February Agenda Items, Close	Don & Bob
3:00	Adjourn

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

ISSUE SUMMARY

Meeting Date: September 17, 1998	REO Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie 503-808-2190
Topic: IAC Subgroup Meeting on Tribal Effectiveness Monitoring--A Report to the Full IAC--Final Notes
Issue Statement: As agreed to at the August IAC meeting, an IAC policy subgroup was convened to address policy issues to facilitate completion of the NFP Tribal Monitoring Module.
Background: At the August IAC meeting, it was agreed that we needed additional policy guidance to facilitate the completion of the Tribal Monitoring Module. Based on a draft module developed by the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (working on behalf of the tribal representatives to the IAC), several issues were identified that need additional attention. The IAC agreed to the formation of an IAC policy subgroup to facilitate resolution of outstanding issues and identify possible Tribal Monitoring Module and implementation options.
Summary of Discussion: The IAC policy subgroup meeting was held on September 17, in the REO Conference Room, Portland, OR. The proposed agenda, attendance list, and handouts list is attached. Following brief presentations on the NFP Tribal Monitoring background, ROD citations, the draft module, and potential issues, the subgroup discussed two primary issues. The first addressed the need for, and desirability of, developing an inventory of tribal/trust resources. Consensus was reached that such an inventory was not particularly feasible nor desirable at this time. The second examined the desirability of and need for defining Federal trust responsibility. In addition to different definitions of trust and treaty resources held by the agencies, it was acknowledged that a common definition of trust responsibility did not exist between members of the IAC. Consensus was reached that as it was not considered essential to completion of the module, the NFP Tribal Monitoring Module should not attempt to establish an NFP-based definition. The discussion of the ROD concluded with a consensus that the agencies' and tribes' commitment to government-to-government consultation should be the basis and the foundation of the Tribal Monitoring Module. Therefore, the policy subgroup recommends to the full IAC that the monitoring module focus on monitoring the government-to-government consultation process. The implementation monitoring module should assess the degree to which the government-to-government consultation process is being implemented, while effectiveness monitoring should focus on an assessment of the effectiveness of the consultation and conflict resolution processes and associated outcomes. It was recommended that we not attempt to develop a protocol for government-to-government consultation and conflict resolution as part of the module. The module should develop information on the existing protocols, their usage, and degree of satisfactory results. Development of a protocol would be deferred until such time as an evaluation of results indicated a beneficial outcome from such an effort. The group discussed the issue of scale and concluded that the tribe should be the scale for gathering information. Moreover, the group agreed that aggregation of results for regional reporting was necessary. At the conclusion of the policy subgroup session, a series of summary statements were developed and agreed to by the group. These statements are attached and, following IAC review and RIEC concurrence, will serve as guidance for the completion of a draft Tribal Monitoring Module for IAC review and RIEC adoption.
Summary of Consensus Agreements: Further development of the draft effectiveness monitoring module should use the existing draft as a foundational document. With the tribal draft module as a reference, the following points were made concerning the next iteration: There are several potential monitoring questions in Appendix B. Section A. Treaty and Trust Resources contains three subcategories that would be excluded in the next draft document: (1) Identification of Trust Resources, (2) Interim Protection and Mitigation, and (3) Development of Desired Future Conditions (pgs 29-31 and 33-34). Section C. Federal Trust Responsibility would not be included (pgs 33-34). The revision would include item 4. Access (pg 31), Section B. Government-to-Government Relations (pg 32), and Section D. Cultural and Religious Issues (pgs 34-36). These revisions should focus on government-to-government consultation processes and outcome and provide the basis for a pilot program. There should not be an attempt, at this time, to inventory or list tribal trust or treaty resources on Federal lands. The eventual Tribal Monitoring Module should not attempt to define trust responsibility. The Tribal Implementation Module should assess the degree that tribal and Federal government-to-government consultation is being undertaken as the NFP is implemented. The Effectiveness Module should focus on assessing the effectiveness of government-to-government consultation, and any conflict resolution attempted, in the process of implementing the NFP. The Tribe is the appropriate scale for gathering information related to Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring. The information gathered should be collected in a format that allows for aggregation in order to yield regional conclusions.
Organizational/Funding Implications: Following IAC review and RIEC concurrence, the draft Tribal Monitoring Proposal will be revised to reflect that guidance. It is anticipated that the draft proposal will include the recommendation to conduct a pilot effort in FY 1999 to evaluate the approach and provide the basis for adjusting the modules for regional implementation. We have not yet developed a funding estimate for this module. Future discussion will be needed to determine whether the module will be administered by the Federal agencies, tribes, contractor, or an alternative arrangement.
REO Staff Proposal: The draft "Monitoring Impacts of the Northwest Forest Plan On Tribal Communities and Trust Resources," June 26, 1998 should be revised based on the IAC policy subgroup agreements and RIEC consensus. The proposed Monitoring Module and Pilot effort should be developed under the oversight of the policy subgroup. When completed, it should be reviewed by IAC and, following RIEC acceptance be implemented by the NFP agencies. The following schedule is proposed: 9/25 Distribute draft meeting summary notes 10/9 Receive Subgroup Comments on the draft 10/23 Distribution of IAC Prework Material, including draft guidance. 11/5 Presentation and Discussion at IAC Meeting 2/99 Revised Draft with Implementation Recommendation(s) 5-7/99 Pilot Tribal Monitoring Module Field Task 12/99 Report on Pilot and Recommendations for Implementation
Attachment #1: IAC Tribal Monitoring Policy Subgroup Meeting Proposed Agenda, Attendance, and Handout List Attachment #2: Summary of IAC Policy Subgroup Discussions Items Attachment #3: Proposed Tribal Monitoring Subgroup Charter

Attachment #1: IAC Tribal Monitoring Policy Subgroup Meeting Proposed Agenda, Attendance, and Handouts - September 17, 1998, Portland, Oregon.

9:00 Opening: Discuss Goal for Meeting, review, and adjust agenda
Goal: Develop recommendations on key issues regarding development of Tribal Monitoring Modules.
IAC Policy Subgroup Product: Document for IAC review that, following RIEC concurrence, forms the guidance for a monitoring work group to produce a draft Tribal monitoring modules(s), including options, milestones and decision points, schedules, including a proposed implementation schedule.

9:20 Background and setting for developing the NFP Tribal Monitoring Plan

ROD cites and key phrases

Monitoring Plan development stages (Noon, et al.)

IAC, RIEC, and Research Executive priorities and directions

Draft Plan development and identified issues

9:30 Presentation of Draft Plan - Davies

10:00 Partial Initial list of Key issues to initiate discussion

Definition of "trust resources," "Federal trust responsibilities"

Identification of monitoring questions and measures of performance (habitat, population, harvest, etc.)

Source material to be used in establishing monitoring scope (ROD, treaties, executive orders, court rulings, etc.)

Geographic scope to be used; range of NSO, Federal lands, all lands, etc.

Geographic scale of information; Tribe/Reservation, Province, Region

Monitoring for compliance, status and trends, cause-and-effects

Relationship to other monitoring programs

10:10 Comments, concerns, expectations of participants

11:00 Development and agreement on policy subgroup

membership

charter

schedule

next action

12:00 Lunch

Attendees:

Name Affiliation Name Affiliation

Greg Blomstrom IAC (CIFFMC) Harold Belisle REO/BLM

Bruce Davies NWIFC Dave Busch USGS/REO

Richard Hanes BLM Ken Denton FS/REO

Katie Kruger
(for Mel Moon) Quileute Tribes
(via phone) Don Knowles REO

Bill Maxon FWS Dan McKenzie RMG/REO

Les McConnell FS Jim Milestone NPS/REO

Rocky McVay IAC (O&C Counties) Gary Sims BIA/REO

Gary Morishima IAC (ITC) Michael Tehan NMFS/REO

Jay Watson FWS/REO

Handouts used at the Policy Subgroup Meeting:

ROD pages 54-55, C-16-17, E-9-10
Draft Proposal dated 6/26/98, titled: Monitoring Impacts of the Northwest Forest Plan On Tribal Communities and Trust Resources
Presentation Overheads used by Dan McKenzie
Presentation Overheads used by Bruce Davies

Attachment #2: Summary of IAC Policy Subgroup Discussion Items: The following are major discussion items agreed to by the Subgroup

The Effectiveness Monitoring Framework (Noon, et al.) used for overall effectiveness monitoring planning does not provide an appropriate template for the development of the Tribal Monitoring Module. Only the appropriate individual steps and concepts from that framework should be incorporated into the module development.

A comprehensive inventory of Trust or Treaty Resources is not doable nor desirable at this time, primarily because of differing legal interpretations among the IAC members and agencies, as well as potential tribal reluctance to provide such an inventory to Federal agencies.

The Tribal Monitoring Module should focus on the processes of government-to-government consultation as implemented within the NFP. However, the focus should include questions about how the consultation process affects broad scope of trust and legal responsibilities, in addition to the NFP S&Gs.

The implementation monitoring approach will be to develop a questionnaire to look at attributes of government-to-government consultation to provide information on the current status and effectiveness. It is anticipated that a pilot effort will be developed to test the questionnaire and approach. The pilot should identify and include several case examples where government-to-government consultation occurred. In addition, the pilot design should attempt to include cases where either the tribes or agencies felt that consultation would have been advantageous, but it did not occur.

A pilot effort will identify tribal and agency perspectives on how well government-to-government consultation is working and will identify issues of concern to the tribes and agencies. One outcome of the pilot will be an evaluation of the need for a protocol/template for government-to-government consultation and/or dispute resolution. We will not try to develop a protocol at this time.

It is anticipated that during government-to-government consultation tribes may identify sensitive resources or resources of concern that potentially could be addressed with monitoring information. This might take the form of sensitive or indicator habitats or species, rather than specific resources of concern. Efforts to evaluate and assess such monitoring needs for these resources will, to the extent possible, utilize other appropriate monitoring to track or assess the status and trends for these resources. If unmet monitoring needs are identified, they will be evaluated and considered for development of appropriate plans and programs.

The Tribal monitoring module will focus on providing information on status and trends for adaptive management processes and decisions, and avoid subjective interpretation and legal precedent.

The monitoring results are to be reported at the regional level. It is suggested that the Tribe is the scale appropriate for sampling. It is recognized that access for religious and cultural purposes occurs at an individual scale, but identification of the issue could be assumed to occur at the Tribal scale.

Issues identified relative to the June 26, 1998 Draft Document:
In Appendix B, several potential monitoring questions were drafted. During the IAC Subgroup meeting it was recommended that a revision be developed based on the following guidance. Section A. Treaty and Trust Resources contains three subcategories that would be excluded: (1) Identification of Trust Resources, (2) Interim Protection and Mitigation, and (3) Development of Desired Future Conditions (pgs 29-31 and 33-34). Similarly, Section C. Federal Trust Responsibility would not be included (pgs 33-34). The revision would include item 4. Access (pg 31), Section B. Government-to-Government Relations (pg 32), and Section D. Cultural and Religious Issues (pgs 34-36). These revisions should focus on government-to-government consultation processes and outcome and provide the basis for a pilot program.

The subgroup discussed the need for and advisability of developing a protocol for government-to-government consultation and conflict resolution. Most recognized that having an agreed upon protocol would facilitate implementation of the NFP, but considered its development to be beyond the scope of the monitoring module. It was pointed out that other efforts (e.g., FWS, NMFS and Tribes to implement a Secretarial Order) are proceeding to develop such a protocol and therefore the potential for incorporation into the NFP activities. It was agreed that the pilot effort should gather information on government-to-government consultation and conflict resolution as to the existence of protocols, or lack thereof, the degree of satisfaction by the Tribes and agencies, and level of interest in protocol development.

It was agreed that it is critically important to involve the Tribes in the development of the monitoring module and pilot. Continued active participation by the Tribal IAC members is key to obtaining that involvement and is anticipated to continue. In addition, it was recommended that draft modules be shared with the Tribes, at the earliest opportunity in their development, to increase the likelihood of a successful Tribal Monitoring Module.

The tribal members of the subgroup expressed the opinion that conduct of a pilot and implementation of the module would best be carried out by an independent group; i.e., not one of the management agencies.

Attachment #3 - Proposed Tribal Monitoring Subgroup Charter

CHARTER

Group Name: IAC Subgroup for Tribal Monitoring	Date: September 17, 1998
Purpose: The Tribal Monitoring Subgroup will provide IAC oversight and guidance for the development of draft monitoring modules that address NFP implementation for American Indian Tribal issues and trust resources.
Scope: The Tribal Monitoring Subgroup will work to incorporate the following principles and guidance into the draft monitoring modules: Effectiveness Monitoring Framework (Noon, et al.) does not provide an appropriate template for the development of the Tribal Monitoring Module. Only the appropriate individual steps and concepts from that framework should be incorporated into the module development. A comprehensive inventory of Trust or Treaty Resources is not doable nor desirable, primarily because of tribal reluctance and legal questions. The Tribal Monitoring Module should focus on the processes of government-to-government consultation as implemented within the NFP. However, the focus should not be limited to the NFP S&Gs, but include the broader scope of trust and legal responsibilities. Develop a questionnaire to look at attributes of government-to-government consultation to provide information on the current status and effectiveness. It is anticipated that a pilot effort will be developed to test the questionnaire and approach. The pilot should identify and include several case examples where government-to-government consultation occurred. In addition, the pilot design should attempt to include cases where either the tribes or agencies felt that consultation would have been advantageous, but it did not occur. A pilot effort will identify tribal and agency perspectives on how well government-to-government consultation is working and will identify issues of concern to the tribes and agencies. One outcome of the pilot will be an evaluation of the need for a protocol/template for government-to-government consultation and/or dispute resolution. It is anticipated that during government-to-government consultation tribes may identify sensitive resources or resources of concern that potentially could be addressed with monitoring information. This might take the form of sensitive or indicator habitats or species, rather than specific resources of concern. Efforts to evaluate and assess such monitoring needs for these resources will, to the extent possible, utilize other appropriate monitoring to track or assess the status and trends for these resources. If unmet monitoring needs are identified, they will be evaluated and considered for development of appropriate plans and programs. The Tribal monitoring module will focus on providing information on status and trends for adaptive management processes and decisions, and avoid subjective interpretation and legal precedent. The monitoring results are to be reported at the regional level. It is suggested that the Tribe is the scale appropriate for sampling. It is recognized that access for religious and cultural purposes occurs at an individual scale, but identification of the issue could be assumed to occur at the Tribal scale. The pilot effort should gather information on government-to-government consultation and conflict resolution as to the existence of protocols, or lack thereof, the degree of satisfaction by the Tribes and agencies, and level of interest in protocol development. In addition, the effort should coordinate with similar efforts devoted to government-to-government protocol development.
The subgroup will work to involve the Tribes in the development of the monitoring module and pilot. Continued active participation by the Tribal IAC members is a key process in that involvement and is anticipated to continue. In addition, consideration will be given to share the draft modules with the Tribes, at the earliest opportunity in their development, to increase the likelihood of a successful Tribal Monitoring Module. Include in the optional approaches for the conduct and reporting of a pilot and implementation of the module an alternative based on an independent group, i.e. not one of the management agencies.
Membership: The IAC Tribal Monitoring policy subgroup is comprised of IAC members and other representatives.
Schedule: Meetings will be held as needed to accomplish the following schedule: 11/5 Presentation and Discussion at IAC Meeting 2/99 Revised Draft with Implementation Recommendation(s); IAC Presentation and RIEC Guidance on Pilot Implementation Tasks 5-7/99 Pilot Tribal Monitoring Module Field Task 11/99 Report on Pilot and Recommendations for Implementation
Leadership: The Subgroup activities will be coordinated and facilitated by the REO and Research and Monitoring Group. Dan McKenzie and Gary Sims will be the primary contacts.
Funding: Non-agency IAC members and participants will require travel authorization to attend.
Statement of Success: The IAC Tribal Monitoring Policy Subgroup will forward to IAC a draft Tribal Monitoring Module and recommendations for pilot testing. The IAC members will be briefed and kept informed of progress and significant issues during the development and pilot testing. A draft report on the pilot effort will be presented to IAC as the completion of the Subgroup mission.

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: November 5, 1998

Topic: Washington State Working Draft Salmon Strategy--Report by Craig Partridge, State of Washington

Background and Status: On September 25, 1998, Washington State's Joint Natural Resources Cabinet released a "working draft" of a Statewide Strategy to recover salmon. Entitled "Extinction is Not an Option," the 200-plus page document presents for public review an overall draft strategy to "restore salmon, steelhead, and trout populations to healthy harvestable levels and improve those habitats on which they rely."
The Joint Cabinet highlighted four fundamental principles which characterize the draft strategy:

The state should promote a voluntary, cooperative approach to salmon recovery. This collaborative approach needs to be coupled with enhanced enforcement of existing environmental laws and regulations.

Where resource risks are severe, early and immediate actions will be taken.

Performance measures will be established to monitor progress.

Where performance measures are not being met after a reasonable period of time, the state will be prepared to take default actions.

The draft strategy describes a flexible problem-solving framework built from local watershed management initiatives, regional recovery strategies for "evolutionarily significant units," and a statewide coordinating framework to present the overall strategy to Federal regulatory agencies.
The draft strategy includes several core elements, including the fundamental use of science as a guide; strategies for fish harvest and hatchery management; several habitat elements including agriculture, timber, urban land use, water, and fish passage; hydropower; and implementation strategies.
Release of this working draft is one step in the long development of a successful strategy. Numerous written comments have been received and over 25 stakeholder meetings held so far. In November and December, Governor Locke will announce the final draft statewide strategy along with a package of budget and legislative proposals to the 1999 Legislative Session. During the January to May session, the Legislature will define a level of commitment to salmon recovery. In summer, 1999, the governor's Salmon Recovery Office will submit a Washington State Strategy to National Marine Fisheries Service, incorporating legislative decisions. Any necessary formal environmental review will be conducted at that time to support State and Federal decision-making.

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: November 5, 1998

Sponsor: Intergovernmental Resource Coordinating Council (IRICC)
Contact/Phone: Dale Guenther 503-808-2188

Topic: IRICC

Issue Statement: IRICC has accomplished a number of goals in relation to information management and system integration across agencies and governments. Recognition of our accomplishments to date, and our current commitments, need to frame the following discussion. These efforts have been largely accomplished via an ad hoc process, dependent on the ability of individuals to obtain agency approval to allocate their time to the task. If IRICC is to make continued progress in meeting the needs of NFP implementation, clear interagency and intergovernmental priorities need to be established and all agencies need to identify resources to support joint activities.

Background: IRICC was chartered under the NFP to provide direct support to the IAC in areas of information management and computer technology. Participation in IRICC has been strong. However, we have not established a dedicated staff with associated resources to work solely on IRICC issues.

Analysis and Options: This briefing from the IAC policy subgroup to the full IAC will present the proposed list of prioritized projects, developed from the last IRICC/IAC policy subgroup meeting. Also presented will be a list of potential team members identified as supporting each of these projects, a rough hierarchy of how these projects are related, and consequences in emphasizing one project over another.

Organizational/Funding Implications: The proposed project listing for IRICC relates to a variety of ongoing intergovernmental issues. For example, implementation of effectiveness monitoring plans require 4 of the 7 projects to be complete. The teams for these are not complete. The current agency commitment to, and representation on, IRICC is not adequate to manage these projects. The current composition of IRICC is technically oriented. Management and policy capability needs to be incorporated in the development of an information management strategy for IRICC. IAC discussion is sought on the potential priorities and on how best to more forward.

Action Required: IAC Review & Discussion IAC Recommendation

Final Notes--Results of the IRICC/IAC Policy Subgroup Meeting
Integrated Information Management and the IRICC Strategic Plan
October 1998

Note
As agreed to at the August 6 IAC meeting, an IAC policy subgroup met with IRICC on October 1 to consider the IRICC strategic plan for future projects and activities.

Attendees
Don Knowles, REO
Duane Dippon, BLM OR
Stan Allen, Pacific State Marine Fisheries
Theresa Valentine, OR State GIS
Dale Guenther, REO
Kim Rivard, USFS R6
Bob Mobley USFS R5
Milli Otwell, USFS R5
Jeri Powers, BLM, OR
Jim Shevock, NPS - PWR
Jim Milestone, NPS - REO
Chris Hamilton, BLM OR
Paul Bryant, USFS R6
Nancy Tubbs, USGS - NMD
Steve Morris, NMFS
Bill Bogue, EPA Region 10
Dave Blakeman, USFS R5
Bob Devlin, USFS R6
Kim Kratz, NMFS HCD
Gary Benson, REO
Dave Busch, REO
Jim McGinnis, SW OR Province

Background
The information management strategy for the NFP was developed by IRICC as a guide to assist agencies as they prioritize projects and allocate scarce staff, resources, and funds. One purpose for the strategy is to help integrate interagency information management goals with agency FY 1999 funding requests and workload plans. Whereas our primary focus to date has been on supporting the information management issues of the NFP, the future scope can be broadened to include information management collaboration opportunities to support the State's (California, Oregon, and Washington) Water and Salmon plans as well as the Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP).

Meeting Notes
The following listing identifies the projects that IRICC recommends be supported and funded by the members of the IAC. These projects are listed in order of priority (only 7 projects received votes) based on voting at the October 1 IRICC/IAC policy subgroup meeting. Included are a description of the projects, the number of votes received (indicating priority), and proposed team members. If a project is underway, a short description is included as to the progress.

What is not included are cost estimates and timelines for these projects. These items will need to be determined once the entire team is established. The staff listed here are the topical and managerial specialists who have the best knowledge for establishing specific project goals, timelines, and cost estimates.

What is most critical to the success of these projects is likely to be the commitment of personnel. Our hope is that we can solicit the support of IAC or IRICC members who have not yet made significant resource commitments. Only through your support of key agency personnel can we hope to accomplish any of these. Please note this missing support indicated by the question marks (?).

1. 5^th and 6^th Field Watershed Delineations -- Votes: 10 (out of 30)

Project Description: Watershed Boundaries Finish 5^th and 6^th field - Establish and agree on one set of watershed boundaries at first the 5^th field level (roughly 40,000 acres) and 6^th field (roughly 20,000 acres). Once established it would greatly facilitate planning and analysis at the landscape level rather than administrative.

Status: This project has been operating for 8 months. It has established 5^th field watersheds at the 1:24,000 scale for western Oregon. The team plans to work now on establishing these boundaries in western Washington, and establishing 6^th field boundaries in test areas of western Oregon. Timeline for completion for Oregon, Washington and norther California is 3 years. Budget needs have been covered by BLM and NRCS in Washington.

Desirable Team Members:
Bruce McCammon - USFS, R6
Dale Guenther REO
Stephen Bown USFS, R6
Chester Novak BLM
Dan Wickwire BLM
Ian Reid NRCS, OR
Dave Brorwer NRCS, WA
Dave Kresch USGS
Robert Harmon State of OR
Steve Bernath State of WA

2. Restoration Database -- Votes: 5 (out of 30)

Project Description: Spatial Data on Restoration Sites - Coordination between agencies and governments for tracking restoration activity information and location. For example, Oregon state has requested that Federal agencies adopt their proposed tracking system. How this relates to efforts already underway with the agencies and other states must be coordinated.

Status: A meeting was held October 22 to establish information needs and probable structure. All Federal agencies and states participated and while the meeting was a bit inconclusive, it provided a foundation for future discussion.

Desirable Team Members:
Ron Ochs, USFS
Dale Guenther REO
Duane Dippon BLM
Louise Solliday State of OR
EPA ?
Corp of Engineers ?
Washington State ?

3. Hydrography Framework Coverage -- Votes: 5 (out of 30)

Project Description: Hydrography Layer update - Agree on and combine linework from agencies for waterbodies. This would include streams, lakes, ponds, ocean, etc. at an enhanced 1:24,000 scale. Whereas the 1:24,000 USGS hydrology framework data provides a majority of the linework required, the USGS data is incomplete in regards to identifying the full extent of the hydrological network, and the current data only represents lines and not an organized hydrological framework that directly allows detailed resources modeling and analysis. The update is meant to correct these current shortcomings.

Status: This project has been initiated only through efforts of the State of Oregon and Washington and BLM. It will be expanded to include efforts by USFS and others.

Desirable Team Members:
Dale Guenther, REO
Stan Allen PSMFC
Stephen Bown USFS
Dan Wickwire BLM
Oregon ?
Washington ?
California ?
NRCS ?

4. Phase II of Fish/Hydro Data Standards -- Votes: 5 (out of 30)

Project Description: Phase II Fish/Hydro - To broaden the set of core standards that would involve the collection and storage of fisheries and hydrography information needed by the regulatory agencies (EPA, FWS, NMFS, and State DEQ) to meet the additional information requires for the Clean Water Act and Salmonid Plans.

Status: This project has not been initiated.

Desirable Team Members:
Stan Allen, Pacific State Marine Fisheries (PSMFC)
Effectiveness Monitoring/Aquatic Riparian Workgroup
CWA ?
EPA ?
NMFS ?
USFS ?
Dan Wickwire BLM

5. Phase I of Fish/Hydro Data Standards -- Votes: 2 (out of 30)

Project Description: Update and Refine Phase I Fish/Hydro - An initial set of core standards have been agreed to by agencies involved with the NFP and the State of Oregon, and are now being used. This project would manage the process to evaluate proposed changes and additions to these standards that agencies have made. The intent is still to focus on maintaining a small core set of standards related to land management agencies.

Status: This project has not been initiated.

Desirable Team Members:
Stan Allen, Pacific State Marine Fisheries
Dale Guenther REO
Dan Wickwire BLM
USFS ?
OR State ?
WA State ?

6. Hydro Summit -- Vote: 2 (out of 30)

Project Description: Hydro Summit - There is interest in convening a multi-day summit meeting or conference for all Pacific Northwest organizations to plan a coordinated approach to future hydro issues.

Status: This team has previously issued a report outlining a proposed conference format, attendance, costs, etc. It was decided that this original team undertake organizing the conference.

Funding source has not been decided.
Estimated cost of $5,000 for 350 people.

Desirable Team Members:
Dale Guenther, REO
Nancy Tubbs USGS
Stan Allen PSMFC
Joy Denkers WA State DOE ?
Theresa Valentine State OR ?

7. Cadastral Framework -- Vote: 1(out of 30)

Project Description: Cadastral Data - The goal is to compile the cadastral data (corner and monument marker locations) from the various agencies.

Status: The BLM has undertaken this project. Its pace is currently limited by their budget and resources.

Desirable Team Members:
USFS ?
BLM ?
USGS ?

Project Descriptions for Remaining IRICC Potential Projects: These IRICC projects represent a variety of issues. Almost all of them are already underway and are proceeding at a pace largely determined by the availability of qualified staff, managerial oversight, and funding. Several represent basic record maintenance requirements. The votes cast at the IRICC/IAC policy subgroup meeting seem to identify projects or topics where there is interest in accelerating ongoing efforts.

10 Meter DEMs - The Digital Elevation Model (DEM), is a 3 dimensional depiction of the landscape used to generate topography. Currently agencies have 30 meter DEMs. Agency specialists have determined that the 30 meter DEMs are inadequate for detailed analysis while the 10 meter DEMs appear to provide the resolution required.
Land Use Allocation - Combine land use allocation from agencies into one database. There is still no comprehensive coverage that has been updated and maintained since the ROD.
Road Layer Coverage - Combine and agree on linework between agencies for roads into one database. Scale of coverage would be enhanced 1:24,000. The "enhanced" term is used for roads and hydrology to signify that these new themes would have more detail than that currently available from the digital USGS 1:24,000 framework coverages.
ISMS - Interagency Species Management System. A single database used in support of the NFP. It will store the Survey & Manage, and Listed species sighting and survey information. Efforts are underway to input an additional 10,000 field unit records and to determine whether the ISMS database can be used in the upcoming EIS for Survey and Manage species.
Range Standards - Rangeland Health requires a core data set to support implementation and monitoring. A multi-disciplinary, -agency agreement on core data standards is still required.
Socio/Economic Data Standards - Many agencies are tasked to evaluate their policies and decisions relative to their potential impacts on local communities. An effort to determine what constitutes a core data set for dealing with this issue has yet to occur.
Forest Vegetation - There is currently a joint BLM/FS to create a consistent forest vegetation coverage for the entire range of the NFP. A similar effort may be required for Eastern Oregon and Washington, that would also support rangeland health.
Watershed Analysis and Assessment Status - Under the NFP, there is a database which is to be maintained to record the current completion record of watersheds assessments. This database is not current due to lack of agency participation. As with the Restoration database, it is necessary to maintain a record of known completions.
Late Successional Old Growth Analysis (LSOG)- Agencies may be required to fund and conduct an in-depth assessment of the forest health of the late successional reserves in support of monitoring for the NFP. Whether this project is a high priority for FY '99 has yet to be decided.
PIEC/PACs Information Sharing and Coordination - Numerous PIECs/PACs are pooling resources together to address information management issues at the local level. Identify current funding of such efforts by your agency. Such efforts need to be coordinated.
Analysis for Survey & Manage - Agencies may be required to fund and conduct an in-depth analysis in support of the Survey & Manage issues relating to the NFP.

Table 1. IRICC Strategic Plan - Projects in Relation to Management Issues February 12, 1999 (3:24PM)

Table 1 attempts to correlate the proposed projects with the many agreements, national policy and legal commitments issues facing natural resource agencies today. The intent is to provide a priority assessment to agency executives in order to determine the correct level of support necessary for integration of agency efforts. When a Project is determined to have a direct impact with the associated management issue then a 'Y' is placed there.

Management¹
Project²
NFP
Monitoring
NFP
S&M
Endangered Species
Act Clean Water Act State Plans
& MOUs Community-Based Info. Access
& MOUs ICBEMP
Implemen-
tation
National
Efforts Tribes

I. Framework: Foundation to tie standard data to and additional information for analysis.

Cadastral Data Y Y Y

10 Meter DEMs Y Y Y

Hydrography Layer Update Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Land Use Allocation Update Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Road Layer
Update
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Wtrshed Bndry Finish 5^th and 6^th Fld (3 States) Y Y Y Y Y

II. Data Standards: Needed across scale and administrative units to provide landscape based analysis.

ISMS Y Y Y

Metadata Standards Y Y Y Y

Phase I Fish/Hydro Standards Validation Y Y Y Y Y Y

Phase II Fish/Hydro Stds Development Y Y Y Y Y

Range Standards Y Y Y Y Y

Restoration Sites
Mapped
Y Y Y Y Y

Socio/Economic Standards Y Y Y

Vegetation Data Y Y Y

Watershed Analysis/ Assessments Status Y Y Y Y Y

III. Information Sharing: Need for information sharing and collection efficiency.

LSOG Analysis Y

PIEC/PACs Info Sharing & Coord. Y Y Y Y

S&M Analysis Y

Workshop -- Hydro Summit Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: November 5, 1998

Sponsor: Don Knowles 503-808-2166

Topic: Future IAC Agenda Items--Final Notes--Results of the IAC Policy Subgroup Meeting on Future IAC Agenda Items.

Issue Statement: We will report back to the IAC on the results of our policy subgroup meeting. Our goal will be to reach agreement on some specific future IAC topics, as well as to continue to increase agenda items added at the request of the non-Federal members. Members should be prepared to indicate their preferences for specific agenda topics to be scheduled at future meetings.

Background: As agreed to at the August IAC meeting, we convened an IAC policy subgroup meeting, which was held on September 17.
Overview: Future IAC agenda items discussed during the subgroup meeting generally fall into three broad categories of topics that are characterized below: ecosystem/landscape issues; socio-economic/sustainability issues; and ongoing NFP implementation issues. A description of the categories would include:

Ecosystem/landscape issues: This category includes issues of how to integrate Federal and non-Federal forest management with regulatory programs across geographic and jurisdictional boundaries to achieve ecosystem management goals.

Socio-Economic/Sustainability Issues: These are issue that help address the development and articulation of a vision for the forest-dependent communities, including attempts to define measure related to inputs, products, and outcomes. Sustainability is tied to international efforts that may have local ramifications.

Ongoing NFP Implementation Issues: These are agenda items that will, by presentation or Status Report, update the committee on ongoing implementation requirements and efforts. They would include Survey and Manage, Monitoring, IRICC, and so forth.

Attendees:
IAC Members or Alternates: Staff to IAC:
Greg Blomstrom Harold Belisle
Katie Krueger Gary Benson
Rocky McVay Dave Busch
Jim Milestone Lisa Freedman
Gary Morishima Linda Kucera
Craig Partridge Curt Loop
Gary Sims Dan McKenzie
Mike Tehan
Jay Watson
Robert W. Williams
Elaine Y. Zielinski

Analysis and Options: We have identified potential future agenda items for the same three broad categories:
1. Ecosystem Management at the Landscape Level - Part I. Our notes from the meeting list a number of potential topics. We hope to identify some key ones to schedule in the future. We are also open to non-Federal IAC members taking the lead.
Ecosystem Management at the Landscape Level - Part II. A significant number of landscape level topics relate to desired future levels of coordination between the IAC and PACs. In addition to scheduling ongoing discussions, we are suggesting a regionwide joint meeting between the IAC and all PACs, to be scheduled for the Wednesday (August 4) preceeding an IAC meeting scheduled for Thursday, August 5.
2. Socio-Economic/Sustainability Issues. The following material represents the results of our IAC policy subgroup discussion. We hope to identify some key topics for future consideration and are open for the non-Federal members to take the lead.
3. NFP Implementation Issues -- New Information, Adaptive Management, and Other Ongoing NFP Implementation Issues. As our experience implementing the NFP grows, our implementation issues change. Initially, we were confronted with a series of urgent framework requirements -- how to conduct watershed analyses; what should silvicultural projects in LSRs look like and how should they be reviewed, etc. Increasingly, however, we are confronted with more strategic issues (such as our interagency funding issues), as well as issues that require us to consider our progress such as our implementation monitoring results, or other new information.
Moreover, our focus for IAC agendas is changing to include more attention to landscape level issues. Consequently, we expect to spend less time in our IAC setting focused on NFP implementation issues.
Our enclosure lists a series of implementation issues arising out of our IAC policy subgroup meeting. We would like some feedback on which of those we should schedule for future IAC discussion, versus which should be more routinely scheduled for RIEC meetings.

Action Required: IAC Review & Discussion IAC Recommendation

ISSUE SUMMARY - Ecosystem/Landscape Level Issues

Meeting Date: September 17, 1998	REO Contact/Phone: Gary Sims 503-808-2163
Topic: Ecosystem Management at the Landscape Level - Part I
Issue Statement: Additional work is needed by the IAC to ensure that member governments and agencies work collaboratively to develop and apply complementary ecosystem management approaches when fulfilling regulatory or non-Federal land management mandates across the landscape.
Background: The NFP emphasis on collaboration and coordination began a new way of managing Federal forest resources. The original focus of efforts over the past few years has been to implement the NFP on Federal lands. Many new procedures and processes were required, so that focus was appropriate. Now, however, the BLM and FS are looking for ways of increasing cooperating with other landowners, and looking to the IAC for advice and recommendations. Some members have suggested that the IAC should broaden its focus beyond FS and BLM management of Federal forest lands to consider opportunities to implement the desired ecosystem management across the entire landscape. This means more fully cooperating with not only other landowners (private and other governments) but also increasing collaboration with regulatory agencies (FWS, EPA, NMFS) and other Federal agencies active in addressing these types of issues (e.g., NRCS). Complementary to this concern/issue was an identified agreement that the processes and commitments made under the NFP need to be "institutionalized." This means, in particular, ensuring that interagency cooperation and collaboration continues in the future.
Discussion Topics and Questions: 1. The influence of regulatory agencies on management practice or approaches, should receive additional review and discussion by the IAC. Regulatory programs administered by agencies such as FWS, NMFS, and EPA can significantly affect how "managers manage." This is particularly important when there appears to be different interpretations for the same legal requirements across the landscape or region (i.e., two field offices of regulatory agencies requiring much different responses to the same issues). Along these lines, there is a need to review how existing and new regulations are implemented relative to policy /guidelines developed under NFP. 2. The IAC needs to discuss ways that interagency and intergovernmental cooperation and collaboration becomes "institutionalized" in the future. This is needed in order to maintain the benefits of collaboration into the future and avoid a gradual regression to the confrontational ways of the past. 3. Some agencies are actively helping private landowners (e.g, NRCS) develop and apply ecosystem management principles and to change management practices. Further, the implementation of a variety of Federal and state programs private landowners may affect the landscape. Closer cooperation and collaboration is needed between these Federal and state agencies which implement these programs and the Federal land management agencies to achieve common ecosystem goals. 4. Some regulatory program effects on the landscape may affect land management actions elsewhere. For example, the IAC has asked that the relationship between HCPs and NFP assumptions for Federal land management be further investigated. 5. After four years of working together (particularly at the intergovernmental level) there are still concerns on the compatibility of resource related data. Statutory and regulatory requirements call for the collection of increasing amounts of information. In some cases this is undoubtedly due more to discovering agency/owner differences rather than an lack of cooperation. However there is a need to continue to develop compatible/complementary data and data management systems. Regulatory and managing agencies needed to identify how compatible data can be collected to meet a variety of needs to make the efforts less costly. Related to complementary data is the need as much as possible, to develop compatible data request by regulators. 6. In considering ecosystem management issues across the landscape, "boundary issues" (relating to physical and jurisdictional boundaries) need to be considered. The integration of resource management must be across all boundaries. The influence/interpretation of regulatory agencies can be instrumental here in that the various environmental regulations transcend physical or jurisdictional boundaries. 7. There is a need to identify gaps in data, or methodologies, which render the overall picture of management and its effects on a particular ecosystem or landscape incomplete. 8. There is a need to monitor changes across the landscape, which would include at least two aspects: current development/changes; and some projection/model/prediction of what should be anticipated in the future if current trends are maintained. The latter should be contrasted against what the anticipated results would be of not implementing the S&Gs as written. This type of monitoring, as well as provincial or regional scale monitoring, could be accomplished using some form of remote sensing, including satellite imagery. The use of such technology could be highly cost effective. 9. In regards to landscape issues, particulary information gap identification, the continued reliance on IRICC should be reviewed with the possible identification of alternative information technology systems or approaches. 10. There is a need to review what has been learned from watershed/landscape scale analysis (e.g., watershed analysis) to identify changes in overall NFP assumptions and how the information should be used to modify implementation of the plan to achieve the goals outlined in the ROD. This may include re-assessing FEMAT and other foundation reports.
Follow-up. These results of the discussion will be presented to the IAC. The members will be invited to identify which of the above items, arising from the discussion of the subgroup are the most important to address. Each of the agreed upon topics will be scheduled for a future IAC meeting. Interested members of the IAC will be asked to "sponsor" each of the topics. REO staff, working with the agenda topic "sponsor," will assist in staffing out the topic.

ISSUE SUMMARY - Ecosystem/Landscape Level Issues

Meeting Date: September 17, 1998	REO Contact/Phone: Gary Sims 503-808-2163
Topic: Ecosystem Management at the Landscape Level - Part II -- IAC/PAC (and other) Relationships
Issue Statement: The Provincial Advisory Committees (PACs) were created at the same time of the IAC. The PACs advise the 12 PIECs, local counterparts to the RIEC. As originally envisioned, the PACs would communicate with the Federal agencies at the regional level, the regional executives, and the IAC through the normal Federal agency "chain-of-command." Although the ROD has several references to provincial level activities being of interest at the regional scale, direct communication between PACs and the IAC was not envisioned. Meetings with various PACs, and discussions with the IAC and the subgroup, have indicated a desire for improved communication with the IAC. In addition, there are a variety of ecosystem-based efforts taking place across the range of the NFP. Many of them have been initiated since the ROD was published. For example, the state of Oregon has created or authorized "Watershed Councils" across the state that are intergovernmental groups with broad representation concerned with landscape issues across ownerships, particularly restoration efforts in those watersheds. Similar efforts are taking place in the states of Washington and California.
Background: The relationship between the IAC and PACs has been discussed in the past with the IAC. During meetings with many of the PACs, it was brought out that there is a desire to have some type of more formal relationship between the local and the regional committees. These desires range from wishing the IAC would define future PAC agenda items and responsibilities of the PACs so that they are all working on similar issues with comparable understandings of their responsibilities to using the PACs as a "sounding board" or a "scoping body" as regional level policy issues or guidance directions are being considered. The advisory committees to the 12 PACs are all functioning at different levels and intensities. The level of involvement of the PAC members are also widely diverse. There is general agreement that with a clear, more understandable, relationship between the PACs and the IAC, the relatively inactive PACs may become more active and the active PACs become more focused. There are a variety of landscape or ecosystem efforts across the range of the NFP. These range from biodiversity councils in California (which pre-date the NFP) to watershed councils in Oregon (formed after the NFP to address the various fish listings and other ecosystem issues and concerns). The new PAC charters provides that PAC membership can model these groups.
Discussion Topics and Questions: There is a need to review the various efforts (such as California Biodiveristy Councils and Oregon Watershed Councils) to determine their respective areas of interests; the extent of the landscape covered; and their usefulness to the local line officials (of all participating agencies) in implementing the NFP. There is a need to determine how to link the efforts of the Watershed Councils and other efforts with the local PACs to ensure complementary cooperation and mutual support. The activities of the SW Oregon PIEC/PAC could be used as an example of how to address issues on a broad landscape level. There could be a benefit from hosting an "all PAC"/IAC joint meeting in the next year. The IAC has agreed to four meeting dates, and is holding a fifth open for a possible meeting. That fifth meeting could be a joint meeting to share information and refine ideas on how to enhance the relationship between the IAC and the PACs. Since it would be held only once this year it may make sense to invite all the PAC members across the range of the plan (versus individual delegations) to the meeting. This meeting would have to be carefully planned and developed. That means that planning should begin soon for a meeting that would be held at least six months in the future. In support of the all PAC meeting, the IAC should first consider the results of follow-up on the PAC interviews conducted by REO, and consider how to respond to identified suggestions for improved PAC/IAC communication. All the information should be compiled, summarized, and shared with the IAC and the individual PACs. Some original expectations include the issuance of regional guidance by the IAC to ensure that PACs meet regional expectations for provincial analyses and coordination. There should be an effort to explore where the development of that type of guidance is needed and how it should be issued. The relationship of NRCS programs and activities with various landscape-level efforts should be clarified to help determine how those efforts may be made complementary to PAC and IAC efforts. There may be ways for the Watershed Councils to help "fill in the gaps" with the various PACs. There was some general discussion about a need to know whether information about the Eastside Project affects future implementation of the NFP.
Follow-up: The REO should compile, analyze, and summarize the information gathered from interviews with the IAC and PACs for presentation to the IAC and sharing with the PACs. The IAC should review the REO survey results and develop options for responding to identified concerns, especially ways to improve communication and to identify regional expectations for PAC activities. If the full IAC agrees, the REO, working with interested IAC members, should plan an all PAC meeting. The meeting should be held in Portland, Oregon later in CY 1999. The REO, working with DFOs, PIECs, and PACs, should identify as many of the active ecosystem/landscape level efforts taking place in the three states. The efforts should be identified, described, and compared to the interests of the PACs.

ISSUE SUMMARY - Socio-Economic/Sustainability Issues

Meeting Date: September 17, 1998	REO Contact/Phone: Gary Sims 503-808-2163
Topic: Socio-Economic/Sustainability Issues
Issue Statement: The IAC forum could be used to help develop and articulate a vision for forests and communities, including an attempt to define measures related to inputs, products, and outcomes. Additionally, the IAC could make important contributions to the Federal agencies' development of policy regarding sustainable forestry.
Background: Many of the issues/concerns regarding the implementation of the NFP, as described in the S&Gs of the ROD, have been addressed. The relationship of forest management to the affected communities within the range of the plan needs to be further addressed. These socio/economic relationships and impacts need to be further integrated into IAC discussions of overall plan implementation. The importance of the economic and social value of the forests was never out-of-sight of the Administration as it articulated the challenge of developing a forest plan that: recognized "the importance of forest and timber to the economy and jobs in this region, " by including in the principles guiding the interagency effort, direction to: never forget the human and economic dimensions of these problem; proceed with timber sales in those areas where the health of the forest can be preserved; and produce a predictable and sustainable level of timber sales ... that will not degrade or destroy the environment. In partial response to the concern about the impact on economically dependent forest communities, the Administration created regional and state "Community Economic Revitalization Teams." The IAC has included a representative of the Regional CERT to participate with it as an ex officio member. Further discussions concerning the impact to forest-dependent communities and the recovery of their economies is desired by some of the IAC members. A complement to "economic revitalization" is the realization that forest production must be sustainable. Reference was made in the subgroup meeting to the management activities under the "Montreal Process." The "Montreal Process" began as an initiative of the Canadian Government, which hosted a meeting in Montreal in September 1993. The goal was to develop a scientifically rigorous set of criteria and indicators that could be used to measure forest management. The eventual result was two documents: "the Santiago Declaration" (signed by the US) and a final version of the seven criteria and associated quantitative and qualitative indicators for measuring forest management. Since that time the Administration and various Federal agencies have been developing responses to the "Montreal Process," (http://www.fs.fed.us/land/sustain_dev/sd/ sfmsd.htm) and holding conferences such the Forest Service's "Roundtable on Sustainability" (July 14).
Discussion Topics and Questions: There are scheduled revisions to FS plans and 3^rd year evaluations of BLM plans currently taking place. These plans need to reflect an integration of forest resources management and socio-economic issues. Both the implementation of the NFP S&Gs and various economic adjustment initiatives need to be evaluated in terms of being complementary and compatible to meet the intent of the NFP and further the goal of sustainable development. Changes in the management approach has greatly increased the cost of management activities, which in turn will have a variety of "ripple effects" such as less "acres treated" and less money available for local projects. The impacts, beneficial and adverse, of "decoupling" or "delinking" of timber receipts and county budgets.

ISSUE SUMMARY - Ecosystem/Landscape Level Issues

Meeting Date: September 17, 1998	REO Contact/Phone: Gary Sims 503-808-2163
Topic: NFP Implementation Issues -- New Information, Adaptive Management, and Other Ongoing NFP Implementation Issues
Issue Statement: New information and adaptive management are, in many ways, two sides of the same coin. How are the agencies going to incorporate, through adaptive management, new information into the implementation or revision of the NFP?
Background: New information is being gathered and assimilated at varying scales on a continuing basis. This may include information that may affect underlying assumptions across the range of the NFP.
Discussion Topics and Questions: There needs to be a discussion on how new information potentially affecting S&Gs can be accommodated. There is a concern that in order to incorporate new information, existing planning processes require a significant amount of effort because of the requirements associated with amending local plans. There is a distinction between new information affecting local and regional implementation of the plan. One aspect of new information includes "the lessons learned" from efforts such as Watershed Analysis. How can that information be useful or give a clearer understanding of the condition of the landscape/watershed across the region of the plan? How can the watershed analysis process be improved?
Follow-up: REO, working with the implementing agencies should review the various types of new information that is developing and propose a systematic process for its evaluation. The proposed new FS planning regulations should be reviewed and discussed in terms of implications regarding future implementation of the plan.

Other Ongoing NFP Implementation Issues
Items 1, 2, and 3 will likely receive the primary focus of NFP implementation this year. Item 4 is suggested by the research executives and we expect that there may be numerous opportunities for science perspectives to be added throughout all of these discussion topics.

1. Survey and Manage Program Activities

We need to complete the EA and begin an overall programmatic review.
Is there a better way to ensure viability for these species?

2. Monitoring

How can we facilitate implementation of completed modules? How much can we afford?
How should monitoring tie to research?

3. IRICC

How can we make progress towards our goal of seamless data?

4. Science Perspectives

We should look for additional opportunities to relate science and new research to ongoing NFP implementation issues.

5. Status report on restoration activities

Jobs in the Woods, and others -- do we have combined data?
Are we coordinating?
Are we prioritizing restoration needs?

6. Ensure continuation of multi-agency cooperation

Identify impediments and opportunities for ongoing (institutionalized) inter- and multi-agency cooperation.
Review appropriate laws, regulations, and procedures to determine what institutional barriers may be inhibiting such cooperation.

7. Reporting

Formalize reporting to IAC on developments relating to implementation issues as they occur (heads up), such as changes in PSQ, significant ROD interpretations, etc.

8. IAC Role

Discuss how IAC relates to inter-agency/multi-agency prioritization of NFP implementation activities and resolution of significant ROD interpretation issues or development of ROD guidance, including if IAC should be involved in review and/or analysis of changes to S&Gs and the development of written guidance on NFP implementation?

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: November 5, 1998

Topic: California Subcommittee to the IAC Update--Report by Mark Stanley, State of California

Background: A meeting was held in mid-October in conjunction with the California Biodiversity Council meeting in Redding, California with the following attendees:
Lynn Sprague, Regional Forester, R-5, Forest Service
Ed Hastey, State Director, California, BLM
Carl Roundtree, BLM
Paul Roush, BLM
Al Wright, BLM
Douglas Wheeler, Secretary California Resources Agency
Richard Wilson, Director California Department for Forestry and Fire Protection
Greg Blomstrom, IAC
Francie Sullivan, IAC
Mark Stanley, IAC
Mike Spear, FWS, invited but unable to attend

Status/Update: Discussions centered around who the main participants should be that will comprise the California Subcommittee and what the focus of the group should be. Although there was consensus that the reason for formation was to address Plan issues, it was also agreed that it should not be limited to Plan issues. It should also include those that affect, and are affected by, many other activities on adjacent non-Federal lands. I am in the process of distributing a very short questionnaire to those present at the meeting and Mike Spear, FWS, to determine additional people that should be involved and to identify 5-6 main issues that the group should consider addressing in California.
There is a plan to have another meeting in mid-November to discuss the main issues and formalize the committee and set the next agenda.

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: November 5, 1998

Sponsor: Tom Mills, PNW

Topic: Effectiveness Monitoring Implementation

Issue Statement: Progress and problems concerning the implementation of effectiveness monitoring modules will be discussed. The activities of this group of senior managers is truly unprecedented and significant progress has been made.

History and Status:

On 11/6/97 the RIEC concluded that the EM plan for LSOG, NSO, and MaMu is acceptable and made a commitment for their agencies to implement these 3 modules.
Subsequently, the RIEC decided that the implementing agencies should step-up their involvement with EM implementation. A group of senior managers representing the implementing agencies was requested to handle this task.
The EM Implementation Senior Managers Group (EMISMG) was formed with representation from FS-R6, USGS-BRD, BLM, FS-R5, PNW, PSW, FWS, and NPS. NMFS has recently joined the group, while a representative from EPA is being sought.
FY 1998 funding for 3 EM modules (LSOG, NSO, MaMu) was agreed upon. Preliminary discussions about FY 99 funding have been held, with needs for upcoming EM modules (i.e. A/R) included.
EMISMG met 10/7/98 to further resolve FY 1999 funding issues in anticipation of a progress report to be delivered at the 11/5/98 meeting of the regional Federal executives.

Current Issues:

The group is gaining momentum in its ability to deal with the complexities of disparate agency budget processes, budget cuts, and the priority of EM in relation to other natural resource programs.
Given that funding is less than what has been anticipated, a process for prioritizing project elements is needed; using a legalistic approach ("What keeps us out of court?") seems to emphasize only short-term projects at the expense of long-term planning.
Until about 1 year ago, a team of senior scientists and agency managers was available to provide feedback on EM plan development; EMISMG has been unable to fill this same role for the modules still under development because of uncertainty as to the scope of their charge and a need to focus closely on budget considerations.
Integrating EM implementation with planning for the overall suite of Interagency Strategic Plan activities (Mike Crouse's presentation) has also been problematic, but as the two groups become familiar with their roles it is expected that this will improve.

Next Steps:

The Senior Managers Group will continue to work through implementation issues and will provide a status report to the IAC again in February 1999.

Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) and
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
Meeting Dates for Calendar Year 1999

Meeting Date/Day	Regional Interagency Executive Committee¹	Intergovernmental Advisory Committee
January 5, Tuesday	9:00 to 11:00
February 4, Thursday	7:00 to 9:00	9:15 to 3:00
March 2, Tuesday	9:00 to 11:00
April 6, Tuesday	9:00 to 11:00
TBD (mid to late April)	ISC Briefing
May 6, Thursday	7:00 to 9:00	9:15 to 3:00
June 2, Wednesday (Holiday 5/31, Mon.)	9:00 to 11:00
July Unscheduled
August 4, Wednesday		IAC/PAC Meeting
August 5, Thursday	7:00 to 9:00	9:15 to 3:00
September 8, Tuesday (Holiday 9/6, Mon.)	9:00 to 11:00
October 5, Tuesday	9:00 to 11:00
TBD (mid to late October)	ISC Briefing
November 4, Thursday	7:00 to 9:00	9:15 to 3:00
December 7, Tuesday	9:00 to 11:00

Location of RIEC Meetings:¹ RIEC meetings scheduled from 9 to 11 are held in the REO Conference Room, while RIEC meetings scheduled from 7 to 9 are held at the IAC meeting location.

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Survey and Manage and Protection Buffer Species Strategy REO Contact: Jay Watson 503-808-2178

Background: The NFP is a comprehensive strategy for managing FS and BLM lands that maintains and restores late-successional forests and recognizes their importance to the economy and jobs in the region. It amended two regional guides and multiple FS and BLM land and resource management plans. The amendments included land allocations and S&Gs that collectively established broad scale conservation strategies for individual species, species groups and communities, and ecosystems within the range of the northern spotted owl. For example, the land allocations and the S&Gs in the plan represent: the Federal contribution to the recovery of the northern spotted owl, protection of Survey and Manage species, and an ecosystem-wide framework for maintaining and restoring aquatic ecosystems (the Aquatic Conservation Strategy).
The objective of the Survey and Manage S&Gs, alone or in combination with others, is to provide habitat of sufficient quality, distribution, and abundance to allow the species population to stabilize, well distributed across Federal lands. There are four different strategies or components for Survey and Manage species - manage known sites, survey prior to ground-disturbing activities, extensive surveys and general regional surveys. Species⁽¹⁾ can be in more than one group and with appropriate documentation, be moved from one strategy to another, have their schedule modified, or dropped from this mitigation (page C-6).
There are a total of 80 Component 2 and Protection Buffer species requiring surveys prior to the design of ground-disturbing activities to be implemented in FY 1999 (October 1998). Since the timing for surveys for Protection Buffer species is established by the timing requirements for Component 2 species, both groups are referred to as Component 2 species. A project is considered "implemented" when a NEPA decision is made. Survey protocols are available for 67 of the 80 Component 2 species.
However, surveys are not technically feasible at this time for 32 of these species because (1) the species is impossible to identify in the field; (2) it can only be identified in the field by a few experts; or (3) multi-year surveys are required to determine species absence. In order to deal with this situation, the agencies have developed an action plan that proposes that the survey schedule be delayed one year for the 32 species of mollusks, mosses, and fungi for which surveys are not technically feasible.
The action plan, containing 8 steps, has been approved by the Regional Interagency Executive Committee and has Interagency Steering Committee concurrence. It consists of: (1) establishment of an oversight team, (2) instructions to the field clarifying the definition of "ground disturbing activities, (3) completion of protocols and management recommendations, (4) a regional strategy to prioritize and assist in completion of the Component 2 field survey workload, (5) information consolidation and analysis, (6) preparation of an environmental assessment on changing the schedule for 32 species for which surveys are not technically feasible, (7) addressing the survey feasibility issue for the 32 species, and (8) forming a team to conduct a thorough review of Survey and Manage and Protection Buffer S&Gs.
In addition, as part of step (8), the agencies are proposing to begin evaluating the need for long-term changes to S&M and Protection Buffer Standards and Guidelines (PBs).

Status/Update:

To guide the preparation of the EA and the evaluation of the long-term changes to S&M and PBs, an oversight team has been established with representatives from the FS, BLM, FWS, and PNW. They meet on a regular basis and are tracking all the tasks.

A joint FS and BLM memorandum (dated September 14, 1998) was issued to the field outlining the strategy to be used for these S&M species.

All of the taxa leads have been contacted and a plan has been developed to complete the remaining uncompleted management recommendations and survey protocols by December 31.

Region 6 of the FS and two field units are developing necessary procedures for determining staff requirements for completion of the Component 2 field surveys.

Approximately 10,000 records are being entered in an interagency species management system (ISMS) and is scheduled for completion by mid-November.

The draft EA to change the implementation schedule for 32 survey and manage and protection buffer species was distributed for a 30-day review period October 2. It is available on the Internet.

It is anticipated that a contractor will work with the agencies in developing procedures for identifying certain difficult species and assist in modifying survey protocols as necessary.

Planning is underway for completion of an evaluation of other changes to the S&M and PB provisions of the NFP.

Future IAC Meeting Planning
Potential Future IAC Topics:

Issues as Identified November 5
Ground Water/Drinking Waters Issues -- EPA
Integrating the NFP into the Management Landscape
Effectiveness Monitoring Plan Updates
Fish Listing Update
Litigation Update
New Information Process and NFP Changes
BLM 3-year Plan Evaluations
FS Plan Revisions
Validation Monitoring

Potential Future Status Reports:

Implementation Monitoring Report for FY 1998
Effectiveness Monitoring Implementation
Strategic Research Plan

1. A complete list of Survey and Manage species by component is in ROD Table C-3 (Page C-49).

9:00	Opening: Discuss Goal for Meeting, review, and adjust agenda Goal: Develop recommendations on key issues regarding development of Tribal Monitoring Modules. IAC Policy Subgroup Product: Document for IAC review that, following RIEC concurrence, forms the guidance for a monitoring work group to produce a draft Tribal monitoring modules(s), including options, milestones and decision points, schedules, including a proposed implementation schedule.
9:20	Background and setting for developing the NFP Tribal Monitoring Plan ROD cites and key phrases Monitoring Plan development stages (Noon, et al.) IAC, RIEC, and Research Executive priorities and directions Draft Plan development and identified issues 9:30	Presentation of Draft Plan - Davies
10:00	Partial Initial list of Key issues to initiate discussion Definition of "trust resources," "Federal trust responsibilities" Identification of monitoring questions and measures of performance (habitat, population, harvest, etc.) Source material to be used in establishing monitoring scope (ROD, treaties, executive orders, court rulings, etc.) Geographic scope to be used; range of NSO, Federal lands, all lands, etc. Geographic scale of information; Tribe/Reservation, Province, Region Monitoring for compliance, status and trends, cause-and-effects Relationship to other monitoring programs 10:10	Comments, concerns, expectations of participants
11:00	Development and agreement on policy subgroup membership charter schedule next action 12:00	Lunch

Name	Affiliation	Name	Affiliation
Greg Blomstrom	IAC (CIFFMC)	Harold Belisle	REO/BLM
Bruce Davies	NWIFC	Dave Busch	USGS/REO
Richard Hanes	BLM	Ken Denton	FS/REO
Katie Kruger (for Mel Moon)	Quileute Tribes (via phone)	Don Knowles	REO
Bill Maxon	FWS	Dan McKenzie	RMG/REO
Les McConnell	FS	Jim Milestone	NPS/REO
Rocky McVay	IAC (O&C Counties)	Gary Sims	BIA/REO
Gary Morishima	IAC (ITC)	Michael Tehan	NMFS/REO
		Jay Watson	FWS/REO

Management¹ Project²	NFP Monitoring	NFP S&M	Endangered Species Act	Clean Water Act	State Plans & MOUs	Community-Based Info. Access & MOUs	ICBEMP Implemen- tation	National Efforts	Tribes
I. Framework: Foundation to tie standard data to and additional information for analysis.
Cadastral Data					Y	Y		Y
10 Meter DEMs			Y	Y	Y
Hydrography Layer Update	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Land Use Allocation Update	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y		Y
Road Layer Update	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y		Y	Y
Wtrshed Bndry Finish 5^th and 6^th Fld (3 States)	Y			Y	Y	Y	Y
II. Data Standards: Needed across scale and administrative units to provide landscape based analysis.
ISMS	Y	Y	Y
Metadata Standards					Y	Y		Y	Y
Phase I Fish/Hydro Standards Validation	Y		Y	Y	Y		Y	Y
Phase II Fish/Hydro Stds Development	Y		Y	Y	Y		Y
Range Standards			Y	Y			Y	Y	Y
Restoration Sites Mapped	Y		Y	Y	Y	Y
Socio/Economic Standards	Y					Y			Y
Vegetation Data	Y		Y				Y
Watershed Analysis/ Assessments Status	Y			Y	Y	Y	Y
III. Information Sharing: Need for information sharing and collection efficiency.
LSOG Analysis	Y
PIEC/PACs Info Sharing & Coord.	Y				Y	Y			Y
S&M Analysis		Y
Workshop -- Hydro Summit	Y		Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y