• Federal and State Discussion

• Federal, State, Tribal, and Private Links to the NFP via Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) and 4(d) Rules via HCPs and 4(d) Rules

• Clean Water Action Plan and the Safe Drinking Water Act

The November 12 IAC meeting notes identified some possible agenda items for the joint IAC/PAC meeting, including:

• How are the PACs interacting with other local groups such as watershed councils, biodiversity councils, etc.;
• How are the PACs operating (what is/is not working?);
• How can the joint PAC/IAC meeting be structured to serve as a form of effectiveness monitoring on how the NFP is working across the region;
• A discussion on how the PAC (non-Federal) members can comment on current environmental/political issues including interest groups to help provide information regarding NFP implementation, agency needs, how to further collaboration with other landowners.

It was also noted that PAC input would be helpful in setting the agenda for the joint IAC/PAC meeting.

The November IAC meeting notes identified three follow-up actions to support this effort:

• The REO will review the results of the PAC surveys (based on the PAC interviews conducted by the REO) to help develop themes for the All PAC/IAC meeting;
• In preparing for the meeting the REO will: work with FS Region 6 staff responsible for PAC contacts, and DFOs; if needed, develop a questionnaire to help identify discussion topics; identify meeting location; develop a proposed agenda for the meeting that would include information sharing between the PACs and with the IAC (including the PAC identification on how the IAC can best help them to "do their job").
• The REO will share work with the IAC members on developing the joint meeting and other future agenda items. This may include developing future conference calls and faxes to solicit ideas, and receive comments and suggestions.

The REO met with FS Region 6 staff to begin a discussion on how to plan and organize the meeting. That meeting resulted in the identification of the following recommended next steps:

1. The IAC should establish a Steering Committee composed of the following representation:
1. RIEC (including any and all agencies that have expressed particular interest in PAC activities, viz., NMFS, NPS, FS, and BLM)
2. REO
3. IAC (any interested member)
4. DFO (one from each state?)
5. PAC (one from each state?)
The Chair will be selected by the members. REO staff will provide staff support to the Steering Committee.

2. The Steering Committee will be responsible for developing recommendations to the RIEC concerning:
1. Date for the joint meeting;
2. A proposed agenda for the joint meeting (which will need to be combined with the regularly scheduled IAC meeting and may include such activities as poster sessions);
3. Identify which agency(ies) will take the lead in deciding on meeting location and providing logistical support; and
4. Develop preliminary budget estimates needed to support the joint meeting.
   
3. The Steering Committee should report results to the RIEC at its April meeting. IAC input will be through participation on the Steering Committee. Additionally, conference call can be scheduled if desired.
   
4. The following guidance should be given to the Steering Committee to use as a reference when developing recommendations for the agenda and other aspects of the meeting:

1. Agenda topics and presentations should be developed with the intent to assist the IAC and the PACs better perform their roles of advisory committees to the Regional and Provincial Interagency Executive Committees;
2. Agenda topics and presentations should substantively address issues relating to the implementation of the NFP and the advisory committees' roles (identification of issues and concerns should include development of recommendations to their resolution);
3. The possible discussion topics identified in the November IAC meeting notes should be used by the Steering Committee as a starting point in agenda development:
• How are the PACs interacting with other local groups such as watershed councils, biodiversity councils, etc.;
• How are the PACs operating (what is/is not working?);
• How can the all PAC/IAC meeting be structured to serve as a form of effectiveness monitoring on how the NFP is working across the region; and
• A discussion on how the PAC (non-federal) members can comment on current environmental/political issues including interest groups to help provide information regarding NFP implementation, agency needs, how to further collaboration with other land owners, etc.

Contact: Dan McKenzie 503-808-2190

Background: The FY 1998 Implementation Monitoring effort consisted of two tasks. Twenty-four timber sales, volume greater than 1000 MBF and at least partially harvested, were evaluated on the degree that the NFP Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) were implemented by the agency. A pilot watershed scale monitoring task was also conducted and evaluated NFP compliance with S&Gs at the watershed scale in six watersheds. The reviews were conducted by Provincial Implementation Monitoring Teams comprised of agency staff and Provincial Advisory Committee members.

Status/Update: The results of the FY 1998 timber sale monitoring (24) and pilot watershed (6) efforts have been gathered and entered into a regional database. Data analysis and report preparation are underway. Preliminary assessment of the information indicates that the results are consistent with prior year implementation monitoring results. It is anticipated that the report will address both this year's results and a comparison of the three years of timber sale results. The watershed scale pilot appears to have met its objectives and provides a sound basis for planing future watershed scale implementation monitoring. The Regional Implementation Monitoring Team anticipates completing a review draft of the FY 1998 program during March 1999. Planning continues on the FY 1999 program. A meeting with agency managers is scheduled for February to address scope and schedule for the task. Alternatives under consideration include focusing on selected areas within timber sale projects and watershed scale issues.

Topic: Effectiveness Monitoring of Aquatic and Riparian (A/R) Ecosystems

Contact: Dave Busch 503-808-2192

Background: Using IAC policy guidance and research agency executives direction to focus this effort, the A/R monitoring work group has produced an internal draft A/R Effectiveness Monitoring Plan (AREMP). The overall monitoring approach, a conceptual framework, and a set of prospective core indicators have been developed, and solutions have been outlined for complex questions related to scale, protocols, linkages to related monitoring efforts, and sampling design.

Status/Update: The draft AREMP is currently being edited prior to a final review by the A/R work group and Technical Sounding Board. The revised draft will be sent to scientists for peer review, as laid out in the research agency executives' direction. Following revisions stemming from this review, the research agency executives plan to submit the AREMP for IAC consideration and advice (perhaps at the May or August meetings) leading to a recommendation for acceptance by the implementing agencies. Progress on AREMP has been communicated via briefings to REO representatives and the EM implementation senior managers group. Prior to acceptance, it is anticipated that these groups will provide feedback on how the plan meets agency expectations and, once the AREMP is adopted, will help guide plan implementation.

Topic: Socio/Economic Effectiveness Monitoring

Contact: Curt Loop 503-808-2172

Background: In accordance with the ROD requirements for monitoring Rural Economies and Communities (page E-9), the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) has been working on a plan to conduct an assessment of the eight key items to be monitored as part of the Effectiveness Monitoring (EM) program. The REO formed a planning group to guide the development of a Socio/economic EM Plan. At a minimum, the report is expected to describe baseline status and trend conditions at the region, state, and county levels.

Status/Update: The group has developed a proposal to fulfill the Socio/economic EM requirements. A copy of this proposal will be available at the meeting. In early February, this proposal and tentative schedule will be discussed with the Research Executives and their comments and concurrence sought. Using the existing cooperative agreements of the USGS Biological Resources Division, we have viable academic institutions (primarily Oregon State University and the University of Washington) that could carry out the EM plan. The request for proposal (RFP), once revised, will be forwarded to the universities for their review and response. Following the receipt of the universities' plans and costs, the IAC will be asked to comment on the selected proposal. Final advice will be solicited at the May IAC meeting.

Topic: Tribal Effectiveness Monitoring

Contact: Dan McKenzie 503-808-2190, Gary Sims 503-808-2174

Background: Initial efforts to develop this module resulted in the identification of several policy issues. In response the IAC Policy Subgroup for Tribal Effectiveness Monitoring was convened and developed a recommendation and charter. The recommendations and charter were discussed at the November 1998 IAC meeting. That agreement addressed six policy items as guidance for further module development and a pilot implementation phase. Further agreements identified a tentative schedule for module development, testing and continued oversight by the IAC Policy Subgroup.

Status/Update: The anticipated revision of the draft module, and pilot program description have not been completed. The REO will meet with the IAC tribal representatives to reassess progress and schedules. A preliminary "place-holder" budget has been identified to fund the module development and pilot. One agency is actively pursuing partial funding, under the understanding that additional funds will be contributed by other agencies. We will provide an additional update at the May IAC meeting.

Topic: Effectiveness Monitoring of Biodiversity and Survey and Manage (B/S&M) Species Contact: Dave Busch 503-808-2192

Background: Agency program managers and leaders of the S&M species EIS have been briefed on this module and have incorporated it into planning for FY 1999 and beyond. The research agencies are overseeing production of the B/S&M monitoring plan.

Status/Update: Initiation of planning activity is awaiting the formation of an EM technical work group. The Research and Monitoring Group (RMG) outline for planning this EM module will be the basis for the research agency executives' charter to the B/S&M work group. The outline envisions EM planning activity in two phases. The first phase will refine objectives for the B/S&M monitoring module, develop a conceptual model, identify those stressors most closely linked to NFP actions, and identify prospective indicators. The second phase will fully integrate management agency input to formulate protocols for the indicators selected, as well as methods of analysis and reporting.

Attempts to call another meeting have been delayed due to a transition in Administration at the state level, as well as the retirement of Lynn Sprague as the Region 5 Regional Forester for the USDA Forest Service.

As the Gray administration in California comes on board, we will attempt to brief the new state members and get the committee up and running.

1. 5^th and 6^th Field Watershed Delineations.

• A single 5^th field (HUC) watershed has been established for Western Oregon. A large area of NE Oregon is going through the final review process for inclusion into this single coverage. Agreement has been reached with all Washington State and federal agencies on establishing a single coverage of 4^th and 5^th field watersheds. As yet no emphasis has been made in regards to a single coverage for California.
• A process has been agreed to by all state and federal agencies, and timeline established to designate a single coverage of 6^th fields watersheds for SW Oregon.

2. Restoration Activity Tracking.

• An initial set of core attributes or information is under development and has been agreed to by a number of state and federal agency representatives in the PNW. These partners have agreed to supply this information into a central clearinghouse, to be accessible to all. A spatial input/reporting system has been developed (REO) which will be used by agencies lacking such a system. For further information please reference the www.reo.gov web site.

3. Hydrography Framework Coverage.

• The states of Washington, Oregon, and California are all moving forward, with federal partners, to develop a single coverage of hydrography (Streams) at the 1:24,000 scale. Prototypes have been successfully implemented, integrating all state and federal information. With the support of IRICC, Oregon and Washington have agreed on a single set of attributes to describe hydrography.
• Hydro Summit: Based on discussions with IAC, the Interagency Planning and Budget Group, and IRICC, this project has been refined to a sub-project under the Hydrography Framework project. Under this refinement the goal of this summit would instead be a workshop, focusing on the implementation of a single hydrography coverage. The technical issues involved in this implementation are many and complex. This forum would be used to bring the agency technical leads together in order to coordinate options, testing, and implementation of spatial methodologies.

4. Phase II Fish/Hydro Data Standards.

• In order to meet the aquatic information needs of the regulatory agencies, this project was established. Plans include a needs assessment of the agencies, including Aquatic Riparian, Monitoring and land management agency needs. Due to team logistics and time commitments there has been no progress on this project.

5. Phase I Fish/Hydro Data Standards.

• An initial planning meeting has established a project proposal for refining the agreed Phase I Fish/Hydro Standards (3/96). This review will involve federal land management agencies and states. Estimated completion by June 1999.

6. Cadastral Framework.

• Currently an ongoing work element by the BLM. While this work continues, we know of no additional emphasis or resources being sought to expand this project.

7. Transportation Framework (Roads Layer).

• IRICC members discussed the role of IRICC to coordinate road information needed and used by a variety of entities. IRICC will be setting up a Strike Team to outline the task: determine what the coordination issues are, develop a needs assessment to find out what the common information needs are, and to outline the resources (people and dollars) to accomplish Strike Team objectives/goals.