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

Memorandum

Date: July 26, 1999

To: Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members (See Distribution List)

From: Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director

Subject: Agenda and Prework Materials for the August 6 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting

Enclosed are the proposed agenda, agenda topic overviews, and status reports for the August 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).

The IAC meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. in the Queen Marie Ballroom and is projected to adjourn by 3:30 p.m. The IAC agenda includes the following topics and goals:

"How Conservation Gets Placed on Private Lands" -- Soil and Water Conservation Districts have been around in Oregon since 1939. How do they work with NRCS and others to put conservation measures on private lands? What opportunities are there for closer collaboration with federal agencies?
Planning for the Joint IAC/PAC Meeting -- REO recommends that the joint meeting occur but that it be postponed until the first IAC meeting in 2000, probably February. Interest is high among the PACs. Significant planning work remains to develop a focused agenda; set reasonable expectations; and handle logistical details.
The Regional Community Economic Revitalization Team (RCERT) Report -- The RCERT has recently reviewed the effectiveness of the Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative and is preparing for a status report and briefing to the Interagency Steering Committee on October 13, in Washington, D.C.

Status reports are included for two items that will be covered during the "Hot Topics" portion of the agenda-- the Tribal Effectiveness Monitoring Module and IAC Participation in the REO Executive Director Recruitment Process.

You will find additional status reports covering the following topics: Implementation Monitoring Report for FY 1998; Implementation Monitoring for FY 1999; Effectiveness Monitoring of Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems; Effectiveness Monitoring of Biodiversity and Survey and Manage Species; Litigation Update; Survey and Manage Effort Update; New Developments in LSRs; Aquatic Conservation Strategy Interpretation; and an update on the Watershed Restoration Database.

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 Representatives
RCERT
PAC DFOs
Jim Pipkin

1377/lk

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Distribution List

California
Mark Stanley, California Resource Agency, State Representative
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
Karin Berkholtz, State Representative
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, Regional Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Michael Spear, California/Nevada Operations Office Manager, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Roger Blair, Branch Chief, Western Ecology Division, Environmental Protection Agency
Robert Lackey, Assoc. Director, Western Ecology Division, Environmental Protection Agency (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
Bob Graham, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Nancy Graybeal, Acting Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, R-6
Brad Powell, Acting Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, R-5 (Alternate)
Roberta Moltzen, Deputy Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, R-5
Thomas J. Mills, Station Director, Forest Service, PNW
Col. Robert T. Slusar, District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Davis Moriuchi, Deputy District Commander, U.S. 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 Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service (Alternate)
Rick Applegate, 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 (Alternate)
Elaine Zielinski, State Director, Oregon/Washington, Bureau of Land Management
Alfred Wright, Acting State Director, California, Bureau of Land Management (Alternate)
Paul Roush, Wildlife Biologist, Bureau of Land Management, Arcata, CA

RCERT Ex Officio
Don Motanic, Technical Specialist, Intertribal Timber Council

IAC Meeting Potential Agenda Items
August 5, 1999 C 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Downtown Embassy Suites Hotel -- Portland, Oregon

Time	Potential Agenda Items	Topic Purpose	Presenter(s)
9:30 10 min.	Welcome, Certify the May Meeting Notes, Review the August Agenda	Complete Official Business and Review the Agenda	Elaine Zielinski
9:40 60 min.	"How Conservation Gets Placed on Private Lands" Presentation	Information Sharing	Bob Graham Rich Vigil Ron Graves
10:40 20 min.	*Break*
11:00 30 min.	Continue "How Conservation Gets Placed on Private Lands" Questions and Answers	Information Sharing	Bob, Rich, Ron
11:30 30 min.	Planning for the Joint IAC/PAC Meeting	Update, Discuss, and Agree	Gary Sims
12:00 75 min.	*Lunch*
1:15 45 min.	The Regional Community Economic Revitalization Team (RCERT) Report RCERT Presentation	Information Sharing	Don Motanic
2:00 60 min.	Hot Topics • California Subcommittee to IAC • Tribal Effectiveness Monitoring Module • Planning for the October 13 ISC Meeting • IAC Participation in the REO Executive Director Recruitment Process	Information Sharing	Mark Stanley Dan McKenzie Don Knowles All
3:00 15 min.	Public Comment	Feedback/Input	Elaine & Linda
3:15 15 min.	Review Today's Agreements, Possible Agenda Items for the November Meeting, and Closing Comments	Confirm Agreements, Potential November Agenda Items, Close	Elaine & Don
3:30	*Adjourn*

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
Agenda Topic Overview

Meeting Date: August 5, 1999

Contact/Phone: Don Knowles 503-808-2166

Topic: "How Conservation Gets Placed on Private Lands" -- Joint information presentation by NRCS and Soil and Water Conservation District.

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

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

Analysis and Options: Soil and Water Conservation Districts have been around nationally since the 1930's. Oregon passed its district law in 1939. Recent listings of salmon in the Pacific Northwest has emphasized the need for a coordinated response including private landowners.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
IAC Agenda Topic Overview

Meeting Date: August 5, 1999

Contact/Phone: Gary S. Sims 503-808-2174

Topic: Joint IAC/PAC Meeting -- REO recommends the joint meeting be held, but be rescheduled for early in CY 2000, for example, February 2000, per the following discussion.

Background: The joint meeting was discussed with the IAC at the July/November 1998 and February/May 1999 meetings. At the February meeting the IAC agreed to the formation of a steering committee to develop recommendations concerning a proposed date and an agenda for a joint meeting. The IAC will discuss the results of the steering committee efforts and determine whether or not a joint meeting is the appropriate mechanism for addressing the potential agenda items.

Discussion: An email list of all DFOs and interested PAC members was developed to serve as the steering committee for the development of a joint meeting. Email was sent to all names on the list asking for potential agenda items for a possible joint meeting. An agenda framework was developed, based on ideas sent in by the steering committee members. The steering committee members were asked to submit comments. Additionally, the steering committee members were asked: 1. Are the issues/topic areas described substantive enough to warrant recommending to the IAC that a joint meeting should be held? 2. Are they the right topics? 3. Do they cover the subject matter. 4. Are there other topics that should be substituted for the ones listed? 5. (For DFOs) How many PAC members would be attending, and the associated cost? 6. (For DFOs) What is the interest of your PAC in holding the joint meeting?

The following objectives and agenda framework is a result of that mailing, and the steering committee member comments. Significant planning effort remains to focus the agenda on a selective few items and to set reasonable expectations for the meeting.

Potential

Joint Meeting Objectives
· Clarifying the role of the IAC in the implementation of the NFP and its relation to the PACs.
· Improving communication between the PIEC/PACs and the IAC/RIEC/REO.
· Highlighting and sharing areas of success that can be modeled elsewhere.
· Improving the use of PACs in resolving/addressing regional issues.
· Highlighting PAC activities and projects via poster sessions.

Potential Agenda

Topic

Potential Discussion Items

NFP Standards and Guidelines How are the S&Gs being implemented across the region?
· Survey and Manage - current implementation and status.
· Aquatic Conservation Strategy
· Activities in LSR

PACs What is happening in PACs?

General overview of how PACs operate, how they are doing, and general view of success.

How do non-federal members view their participation and involvement on the advisory committee.

The role of PACs relative to other emerging resource/landscape-based councils, e.g., Watershed Councils.

What protocols/processes to PACs use for conflict resolution.

How can PACs operate effectively when federal agency actions are being litigated and discussion of items under litigation is discouraged?

How effective are PACs?

What types of recommendations have PACs made to PIEC.?

How were recommendations used? Were they translated to on-the-ground management actions?

Is the original PAC structure/function still applicable, or has it evolved into something else?

What should the IAC/PAC relationship be?

How can PACs be used as a "scooping" mechanism to provide input in regional interpretations/implementation questions and issues?

What educational components are taking place in the PAC forum?

NFP Implementation How is NFP implementation affecting socio-economic goals?

How are local economies faring?

Has the NWEAI goal of economic diversification and job retraining been effective?

Impact of harvest levels on local economies -- is PSQ being met? Areas for improvement? How about local stewardship? Contracting?

Litigation

What are the outstanding litigation issues?

How can they be addressed by the PACs?

How is litigation affecting PAC communication?

Adaptive Management

What is the role and application of adaptive management in ongoing NFP implementation?

Are the AMAs working the way planned?

Is the adaptive management concept working in day-to-day operations of land managing agencies?

What are the lessons learned?

Are any changes being made, based on lessons learned?

IAC

· How does the IAC makes decisions/recommendations?

· What is/should be the relationship between the IAC and PACs?

Poster Sessions

Province Information Base (GIS) that covers all ownerships.

CWA/ESA projects

PAC accomplishments

Watershed restoration projects

PAC success stories

Breakout or Concurrent Sessions

Different concurrent sessions addressing items of PAC interest (to be identified by steering committee).

PAC Report Card. One suggestion included surveying the PACs and developing a "report card" in order to identify items such as: what issues have been addressed by the PAC; how active is the PAC in educating/informing the surrounding communities regarding accomplishments under the NFP; what important issues have not been addressed by the PAC, why; what recommendations regarding implementation of the NFP has the PACs made, what was the response; etc. Responses could be tabulated and presented to the joint meeting as well as provide ideas for poster and breakout sessions.
PAC Response to holding the meeting. Seven of the 12 PACs responded to the "agenda framework" and the questions about holding the meeting. Six of the 12 strongly endorsed the idea of holding the meeting and agreed the topics identified were appropriate and "on track."

Who should attend. Many of the responses said the meeting should be open to all PAC members. However, most respondents stated that having "self-selected" groups representing the PACs (of some 3-4 members) would be understandable, in order to hold down costs. One suggestion was for the PACs to support the travel/per diem cost of a representative group (again, some 3 to 4 non-federal members) while leaving the attendance open to those others who wanted to "pay their own way."

What is left to do. 1. Working with the steering committee, the agenda and meeting plan should be finalized. This includes focusing the goals and objectives for the meeting, specifying the agenda/poster/breakout items, moderators/facilitators, speakers panels, etc. 2. Logistics and meeting room arrangements need to be identified. This would include identifying a meeting location that can support the large number of participants anticipated, in addition to the poster and breakout session (if they are to be held). 3. The meeting cost and how to pay for it has to be identified.

Follow-up and Recommendations: The joint meeting should be held. The REO should continue to work with the steering committee to develop a final proposed agenda, including identifying speakers, presenters, facilitators, etc. The meeting should be targeted for the first IAC meeting in CY 2000, say for February 2000. Although a change in the meeting date would be the second change it is warranted for the following reasons: 1. Working with the various PACs takes time. Each PAC is on has its own meeting schedule, meaning it can take significant time to exchanges points of view and ideas. 2. There is a higher likelihood that the new REO Executive Director will be in place after the first of next year, versus November of this. It is important the new Executive Director be part of the meeting planning in order to understand the issues and help ensure follow-up to the meeting is accomplished. 3. Significant amount of REO staff time will be devoted to the upcoming ISC meeting in October, diminishing the time available for joint meeting development.

Action Required: x IAC Review & Discussion x IAC Recommendation x RIEC Decision

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
IAC Agenda Topic Overview

Meeting Date: August 5, 1999

Contact/Phone: RCERT Co-Chairs
Don Motanic 503-282-4296 & Mark Stanley 530-644-2345

Topic: Report on Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative (NWEAI) by the Regional Community Economic Revitalization Team (RCERT)

Issue Statement: The RCERT is presenting this report to the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) for the following reasons: 1) to better inform the IAC on the status, successes, and future of the NWEAI; 2) to better link the resource and economic sides of the Northwest Forest Plan; and 3) get your input for an RCERT presentation to the Interagency Steering Committee on October 13, 1999 in Washington, D. C.

Background: Many of us have been working on the state and/or regional level on the NWEAI since its inception in 1993. We consider the NWEAI largely a success because of the following:

It delivered real new money to communities that needed it.
It created new federal, state, local, and tribal partnerships that enabled us to deliver assistance in a coordinated manner.
It connected economic development and resource management better than ever before in our region.
It created a system in the CERT process that respected and responded to local priorities.
The result has been that communities are recovering and in some cases prospering, workers have new jobs, and people are working together to insure a secure future for their communities.

In addition to the message of success, we want to emphasize that resource management agencies need to pay attention to the economic impact of their practices and decisions. We must better link the day to day work of resource managers, economic developers and rural communities. Due to the NWEAI, lessons have been learned on how best to do this and we hope to transmit those lessons to others both in our region and others parts of the country.

What do we want the IAC and ultimately the ISC to do? We want you to consider the following:

Support the Regional Forester's and Oregon/Washington BLM Director's "ecosystem management/socio-economic impacts initiative."
Actively consider extending that initiative to other regions and other federal agencies/programs such as FWS, EPA, NRCS, and NMFS.
Continued support and appropriations for the economic development programs that have made the NWEAI work. These include: USDA Forest Service-Rural Community Assistance Program; Old Growth Diversification Fund; Economic Development Agency's Title IX; USDA Rural Development (RBEG, IRP, CF, W/WW); Department of Labor, JTPA; and FS and DOI Jobs in the Woods programs.
Support funds from various sources for local staff & capacity planning
Continue to provide for local federal agency employees & presence in rural communities
Continue to place an emphasis on barrier busting and don't create new barriers for those programs that work.
Recognize that the implementation of federal initiatives need federal, state, local, and tribal partnerships to succeed. Use existing organizations/committees from the start.
Lastly, support investments in ecosystem work-in part to provide jobs for local workers trained to this work year-around, creating long-term sustainable quality jobs.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
IAC Agenda Topic Overview

Meeting Date: August 5, 1999

Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie 503-808-2190 and Gary Sims 503-808-2174

Topic: Tribal Effectiveness Monitoring Draft Module

Background:
During FY 1998, the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission undertook, on behalf of the tribal representatives to the IAC, the task of developing a proposal for Tribal Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring. Initial drafts of the module raised several issues needing IAC and RIEC guidance. A Tribal Monitoring IAC Policy Subgroup was formed to address these issues. The subgroup met on September 17, 1998. The outcome of that meeting and guidance from the IAC/RIEC helped clarify the issues.

The Tribal Monitoring Module is designed to move forward as a pilot. It focuses on the processes of government-to-government consultation as implemented within the NFP. However, the focus includes questions about how the consultation process affects the 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 was anticipated that a pilot effort would 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. Individual tribes and associated federal agencies will be monitored to determine the degree of implementation of the consultation process and the degree of effectiveness of those consultations and conflict resolution efforts. A pilot effort to test and evaluate the module in FY 1999 is desirable.

At the May 6, 1999 IAC meeting, D. McKenzie and G. Sims of the RMG and REO were asked to take the lead in bringing together the draft pilot program on government-to-government consultation and work with the IAC Policy Subgroup on the other issues concerned with NFP Tribal monitoring.

Status/Update: A revised draft Tribal Monitoring Module Pilot Plan has been completed and submitted for review to the IAC Policy Subgroup members. The approach outlined for the pilot includes establishing a pilot leader, proposes that interviews with tribes and federal agencies be conducted by intergovernmental teams, identifies a preliminary list of six tribes, and two questionnaires. The objective of the questionnaires is to evaluate the government-to-government consultation processes among the NFP Federal agencies and Northwest Indian Tribes since the signing of the ROD in 1994. The primary purpose of the questionnaires is to obtain information to document Tribal consultation actions undertaken with NFP Federal agencies and to evaluate the parties adequacy/satisfaction with the processes. The area of interests when interviewing the tribal members and agency staff is the tribal trust resources and treaty/reserved areas potentially impacted or effected by Federal actions subject to NFP standards and guidelines. Preliminary estimates of the level of effort for the pilot indicate an approximate cost of ·50,000 and a 4 - 6 month project period.

The Tribal Monitoring IAC Policy Subgroup is scheduled to meet prior to the August 5th IAC meeting to discuss the draft pilot plan and questionnaires. It is anticipated that the IAC meeting materials will be updated based on the outcomes of that meeting.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
Status Report

Meeting Date: August 5, 1999	REO Contact/Phone: Don Knowles 503-808-2166
Topic: Status of the REO Executive Director Recruitment Effort
Background: The REO Executive Director has indicated an interest in relocating to Washington, D.C. this summer. In anticipation of this, the REO Executive Director's position has been advertised. Twenty-two applicants were deemed qualified. Efforts to review the applications continue. All RIEC and IAC members have been asked about their availability to participate in interviews. The regional executives hope to made a recommendation to the Interagency Steering Committee by Labor Day.
Status/Update: A regional executive group (comprised of Elaine Zielinski, BLM; Nancy Graybeal, FS; Tom Mills, PNW; Stan Speaks, BIA; Don Knowles, REO; and Anne Badgley, FWS, Chair) has reduced the initial list of 22 down to 5 names. IAC member participation in interviews in early august has been sought.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
Status Report

Meeting Date: August 5, 1999	REO Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie 503-808-2190
Topic: FY 1998 Implementation Monitoring Report
Background: Implementation Monitoring efforts in FY 1998 included reviews of 24 timber sales, associated roads and a pilot watershed scale effort. Provincial Implementation Monitoring Teams (PIMT) conducted the reviews and forwarded their reports to the Regional Implementation Monitoring Team (RIMT). The RIMT has consolidated the regional reports and prepared a draft FY 1998 Implementation Monitoring Report. The draft report was distributed widely through the REO and comments have been received by the RIMT.
Status/Update: The comments were generally very positive about the material in the report, with several good suggestions for improvement. Several reviewers recommended that additional material be included in the report. The draft report focused primarily on the timber sale results and included minimal information on other aspects, relying on the material in the previous reports. The RIMT will be meeting to address the review comments, revise the draft and finalize the report. In order to respond to suggestions that additional material be included in the report, our publication date will be delayed. It is anticipated that the report will be published during September, 1999.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
STATUS REPORT

Meeting Date: August 5, 1999	REO Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie 503-808-2190
Topic: FY 1999 Implementation Monitoring Program -- IAC Member Participation Sought
Background: Implementation Monitoring for FY 1999 is reviewing 24 timber sales and 12 watersheds. The timber sales were selected such that each of the FS Forests and BLM Districts participates during the review of a large (>1000 MBF), harvested, timber sale sold in FY 1997 or 1998. A timber sale in each Province was used to identify a 5th field watershed for the watershed review effort. Provincial Implementation Monitoring Teams consisting of a team leader, agency staff and PIEC members will conduct the reviews. Public participation is also anticipated.
Status/Update: The timber sales and watersheds have been identified and transmitted to the field units and PIMT leaders. The PIMT leaders have been assigned and two training sessions completed. The questionnaire has been revised and updated based on last year' s experience and input from the PIMT leaders. Nearly all the reviews have been scheduled during July, August and September, and some have been completed. IAC attendance is encouraged, a schedule is attached, and logistics can be facilitated by contacting Dan McKenzie, Loyal Mehrhoff, FWS (503-808-2578), Bob Alverts, BLM (503-952-6357), Al Horton, FS/R6 (503-808-2262) or Brian Stone, FS/R5 (707-562-8693).

FY 1999 Implementation Monitoring Field Review Schedule

Province	District/NF	Watershed	LUA	Sale Name	Mbf	Date
SWOR	Coos Bay		MX&RR	Rock again	5282	7/26-27
OROCR	Eugene	Upper Siuslaw	ConnBlk	Tyrrell	1841	8/17-19
SWOR	Medford		MX	Bloody jones	1113	7/19-20
KLAM	Reddin FO		MX	Deadwood	1535	8/26 or 9/2
SWOR	Rosebur		MX	Conley creek	311 1	7/21-22
Willamette	Salem	Marys River	MX	Reese Creek commercial	1524	8/17-18
KLAM	Lakeview		MX&RR	5900 Kakapo Stew	2076	8/23 or 9/16
Deschutes	Deschutes	Metolius	mx,lsr,rr,aw	Corridor Follow-up	8643
SW Wash	Gifford Pinchot	Middle Lewis River	MX	Rock	3220	8/3-5
WAWWC	Mt Baker-Sno	SoFk Skyomish River	MX&LSR	Hey thin	1505	9/8-10
Willamette	Mt Hood		MX	Roundup	3166	8/2-3
WAWEC	Wenatchee	Entiat-4,Mad River-5	MX&LSR	Mad Hornet Salvage	12449	8/11-1 2
Olympic	OIympic	Mathen Creek	LSR&AMA	Mouse Inn	1631	8/9-11
SWOR	Rogue River		MX	Crawtop	7074	8/ 11-12
SWOR	Siskyou	Althouse Creek	MX&RR	Fullhouse	4155	8/23-26
OROCR	Siuslaw		LSR&RR	Saat Project Atv	9901	7/27-28
SWOR	Umpqua		MX	Bull	5468	8/9-10
Yakima	Wenatchee	Mainstem Naches	MX&MLSRA	Pinus II	5141	7/28-29
Willamette	Willamette		MX	Moby atv	2570	8/4-5
Klamath	Winerna	Spencer Creek	MX&LSR	High Buck	3000	9/14-15
CACK	Klamath		MX&RR	Cub Heli sanitation	10734	8/10
NWSA	Mendocino	NoFk Cache Creek	MX&RR	Wild Bill Fire Salvage	1980	7/13-15
Klamath	Six Rivers		MX	Donahue Thinning	1928	8/31 or 9/7
CACK	Shasta-Trinity		AMA	Lower Little Helicopter	9510	8/24 or 25
CACCR	Six Rivers	No. Fk Eel				7/29 or 9/1

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
STATUS REPORT

Meeting Date: August 5, 1999	REO Contact/Phone: Dave Busch 503-808-2192
Topic: Status Report on Revised Schedule for Effectiveness Monitoring of Aquatic and Riparian (A/R) Ecosystems
Background: Using IAC policy guidance and research agency executives' direction to focus this effort, the A/R monitoring workgroup has continued development of an internal draft version of the 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, analysis, and sampling design.
Status/Update: Progress has been slowed due to competing assignments made to key workgroup members and the lack of a workgroup lead to oversee the transition of this module from planning through implementation. Application of a "knowledge-based" system for analysis of multiple watershed condition indicators has been piloted in the Oregon Coast Range, with promising results. This approach is being integrated into the AREMP development effort. The draft AREMP is now being updated by PNW scientists prior to a final review by the entire A/R workgroup and Technical Sounding Board. A 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 leading to a recommendation for acceptance by the implementing agencies.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
Status Report

Meeting Date: August 5, 1999	REO Contact/Phone: Dave Busch 503-808-2192
Topic: Effectiveness Monitoring of Biodiversity and Survey and Manage (B/S&M) Species
Background: Following briefings of agency program managers, the research agency executives issued guidance chartering the B/S&M effectiveness monitoring plan development effort on June 28. This guidance calls for 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. The workgroup for conceptual development (Phase I) of the B/S&M plan is comprised of the following individuals: Dr. Ross Kiester, FS-PNW Mr. Bruce Rittenhouse, BLM-Coos Bay Dr. Randy Molina, FS-PNW Dr. Russ Lande, University of Oregon Dr. Tom Edwards, USGS-BRD Dr. Marvalee Wake, University of California, Berkeley Dr. Denis White, EPA-ORD Dr. Phil DeVries, University of Oregon Dr. Loyal Mehrhoff, FWS-OTS
Status/Update: PNW has provided $50k annually to partially support plan development. The workgroup is planning to meet in late summer to initiate their plan development effort. Subsequent to this, a workshop is also being planned to help refine B/S&M planning objectives and better understand the scope and direction of programs with which B/S&M monitoring could be linked.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
Status Report

Meeting Date: August 5, 1999	REO Contact/Phone: Shawne Mohoric 503-808-2175
Topic: Litigation Update
Status/Update: Oral argument on ONRC litigation on the merits of the case on July 1, 1999 went well. The court queried ONRC Action about their NEPA claim, asking why the current Northwest Forest Plan was not adequate to accommodate new information as it developed. An issue arose about ONRC Action's proof of standing to even bring the case and the court entertained additional briefing on the subject. In addition, ONRC Action requested an injunction against the North Murphy (BLM) and Bear (FS) sales. On July 15, ONRC Action asked the court to enjoin ALL sales that ONRC and other plaintiffs had appealed on the issue of the Red Tree Vole and "implement" memos. BLM and FS have yet to determine what the scope of "all" sales might be. There is a hearing on July 26 on this request. Both the BLM and the FS are proceeding to award certain sales as well as approving plans of operations.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
Status Report

Meeting Date: August 5, 1999 REO Contact/Phone: Jay Watson 503-808-2178

Topic: Survey and Manage Effort Update

Status/Update: Phil Hall (BLM), Ken Denton (FS), and Kathy Helm (BLM) have joined the EIS team following Cindy Henchell's accident. A revised schedule puts publication of the DEIS at mid September. Following a 90 day comment period, content analysis, and FEIS preparation, publication of the ROD is expected in March. While progress is being made to resolve feasibility issues for the 32 species covered in the EA, at least 7 of those species will continue to be a problem. The 7 fungi require several years of surveys because of their irregular fruiting characteristics. Consequently, decisions that authorize ground-disturbing activities will once again have to be postponed in FY 2000 until the ROD is signed.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
Status Report

Meeting Date: August 5, 1999	REO Contact/Phone: Don Knowles 503-808-2166
Topic: Status of the Proposed REO Analysis and Interpretation of NFP Standards and Guidelines Regarding New Developments in LSRs
Background: The Record of Decision (ROD) includes "Standards and Guidelines for Multiple-Use Activities other than Silviculture," which govern non-silvicultural actions in LSRs. This Standard and Guideline (S&G) has been referred to the REO for interpretation, and a significant amount of discussion has transpired in the region and with staffs in D.C. On July 7, the REO circulated a proposed interpretation for review and requested responses by July 19.
Status/Update: The REO received a number of comments by the July 19 deadline. There appears to be general agreement with an interpretation but questions remain on how to implement the interpretation. The interpretation has four basic parts. One, the S&Gs allow new developments in LSRs subject to certain conditions. Two, as a general rule, new developments will be located outside LSRs whenever possible. Three, the nature and magnitude of public benefits are not factors in determining conditions neutral or beneficial to the creation and maintenance of late-successional habitat. Finally, we expect new developments in LSRs to occur infrequently, and only when the public benefits cannot be achieved outside LSRs. The critical implementation issue appears to be how to determine if a proposed new development has a "neutral or beneficial" impact on the "creation and maintenance of late-successional habitat," and in particular how to incorporate geographic scale and time into the determination. The REO and the Interagency LSR Interpretation Development Team will review the comments and produce another draft for review.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
Status Report

Meeting Date: August 5, 1999 REO Contact/Phone Steve Morris 503-808-2176:

Topic: Status of the Proposed REO Analysis and Interpretation of NFP Requirements for Aquatic Conservation Strategy Consistency Determinations

Background: On January 17, 1999, the Regional Interagency Executive Committee requested REO assistance in facilitating development of joint agency agreement on four issues regarding Northwest Forest Plan interpretation requirements for determining ACS consistency. Those issues are:
1. ROD requirements for determining project consistency with ACS objectives;

2. the intent of ACS objective #6 regarding regeneration harvest effects on instream flows;

3. the role of S&Gs that mitigate the effects of new road construction on aquatic resources;

4. the role of Late-Successional Reserves and designated roadless areas as components of the ACS

Status/Update: On July 22, 1999, The Managers Team, selected by RIEC members, met with REO and agency personnel to discuss "fatal flaws" in the draft REO response. The most significant issue raised during the "fatal flaw" review was the issue of potential effects of regeneration harvest on instream flows, and the related (but unrequested) issue of biological implications. The group also discussed the Bureau of Land Management's recommended changes to the draft response. The meeting concluded with the following agreements:
1. Changes agreed to during the meeting will be made to the document;

2. Fish and Wildlife personnel will provide new information and supporting documentation supporting its concerns regarding the potential effects of regeneration harvest on instream flow regimes.

3. The original technical team responsible for development of the report on this issue will review the team report in light of the Fish and Wildlife's new information, and will reach agreement on the issue.

4. A new draft based on the team agreements will be circulated to the senior agency managers for review.

5. The senior managers will meet shortly thereafter to discuss the hydrology issue, and proposals to address any remaining biological questions triggered by resolution of the hydrological questions.

Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC)
Update Report

Meeting Date: August 5, 1999	REO Contact/Phone: Dale Guenther 503-808-2188
Topic: Interagency Restoration Project Tracking Database
Status/Update: The system to help FS, BLM, NPS, and FWS track restoration projects has been released and implemented. Units have been trained and now are sending in their data sets to the REO clearinghouse. Once all units have submitted their data we will run and distribute a summary report and map on the Internet. This report has been developed and reviewed. Our biggest concern is acquiring data sets for all units. Currently only 60% of FS and 50% of BLM units have responded. This is of course a very busy time of year, and if there is anything REO can do to help in getting this data in please let us know.

Future IAC Meeting Planning

Possible November 4, 1999 IAC Agenda Topics

We will work to schedule the following discussions.

HCPs and 4(d) Rules:

NMFS -- A follow up discussion from the May, 1999 IAC meeting: Federal, State, Tribal, and Private Links to the NFP via HCPs and 4(d) Rules. Discuss, Using an Example, the Meaning of the Term "Baseline."

Protecting and Restoring Salmon:

Step-down Salmon Restoration Discussion from the States (California) to Counties, Watershed Councils, and Conservation Districts.

Report on the October Interagency Steering Committee Meeting
Develop an IAC Schedule for CY 2000. Recommend the following dates: February, 2000; May 2000; August, 2000; and November, 2000.

Possible November 4, 1999 IAC Status Reports

BLM's Third Year Evaluation Update
California Subcommittee to IAC Update
Implementation Monitoring for FY 1999
Litigation Update
Survey and Manage EIS Update
Tribal Effectiveness Monitoring Module Update
Joint IAC/PAC Meeting Planning

Potential Future IAC Agenda Topics

- Issues as Identified November 5, e.g., Integrating the NFP into the Management Landscape
- Effectiveness Monitoring Plan Updates
- Fish Listing Update
- New Information Process and NFP Changes
- FS Plan Revisions
- Validation Monitoring

Potential Future IAC Status Reports

- Strategic Plan Update

Meeting Date: August 5, 1999
Contact/Phone: Gary S. Sims 503-808-2174
Topic: Joint IAC/PAC Meeting -- REO recommends the joint meeting be held, but be rescheduled for early in CY 2000, for example, February 2000, per the following discussion.
Background: The joint meeting was discussed with the IAC at the July/November 1998 and February/May 1999 meetings. At the February meeting the IAC agreed to the formation of a steering committee to develop recommendations concerning a proposed date and an agenda for a joint meeting. The IAC will discuss the results of the steering committee efforts and determine whether or not a joint meeting is the appropriate mechanism for addressing the potential agenda items.
Discussion: An email list of all DFOs and interested PAC members was developed to serve as the steering committee for the development of a joint meeting. Email was sent to all names on the list asking for potential agenda items for a possible joint meeting. An agenda framework was developed, based on ideas sent in by the steering committee members. The steering committee members were asked to submit comments. Additionally, the steering committee members were asked: 1. Are the issues/topic areas described substantive enough to warrant recommending to the IAC that a joint meeting should be held? 2. Are they the right topics? 3. Do they cover the subject matter. 4. Are there other topics that should be substituted for the ones listed? 5. (For DFOs) How many PAC members would be attending, and the associated cost? 6. (For DFOs) What is the interest of your PAC in holding the joint meeting? The following objectives and agenda framework is a result of that mailing, and the steering committee member comments. Significant planning effort remains to focus the agenda on a selective few items and to set reasonable expectations for the meeting.
Potential Joint Meeting Objectives	· Clarifying the role of the IAC in the implementation of the NFP and its relation to the PACs. · Improving communication between the PIEC/PACs and the IAC/RIEC/REO. · Highlighting and sharing areas of success that can be modeled elsewhere. · Improving the use of PACs in resolving/addressing regional issues. · Highlighting PAC activities and projects via poster sessions.
Potential Agenda Topic	Potential Discussion Items
NFP Standards and Guidelines	How are the S&Gs being implemented across the region? · Survey and Manage - current implementation and status. · Aquatic Conservation Strategy · Activities in LSR
PACs	What is happening in PACs? General overview of how PACs operate, how they are doing, and general view of success. How do non-federal members view their participation and involvement on the advisory committee. The role of PACs relative to other emerging resource/landscape-based councils, e.g., Watershed Councils. What protocols/processes to PACs use for conflict resolution. How can PACs operate effectively when federal agency actions are being litigated and discussion of items under litigation is discouraged? How effective are PACs? What types of recommendations have PACs made to PIEC.? How were recommendations used? Were they translated to on-the-ground management actions? Is the original PAC structure/function still applicable, or has it evolved into something else? What should the IAC/PAC relationship be? How can PACs be used as a "scooping" mechanism to provide input in regional interpretations/implementation questions and issues? What educational components are taking place in the PAC forum?
NFP Implementation	How is NFP implementation affecting socio-economic goals? How are local economies faring? Has the NWEAI goal of economic diversification and job retraining been effective? Impact of harvest levels on local economies -- is PSQ being met? Areas for improvement? How about local stewardship? Contracting? Litigation What are the outstanding litigation issues? How can they be addressed by the PACs? How is litigation affecting PAC communication? Adaptive Management What is the role and application of adaptive management in ongoing NFP implementation? Are the AMAs working the way planned? Is the adaptive management concept working in day-to-day operations of land managing agencies? What are the lessons learned? Are any changes being made, based on lessons learned?
IAC	· How does the IAC makes decisions/recommendations? · What is/should be the relationship between the IAC and PACs?

Poster Sessions	Province Information Base (GIS) that covers all ownerships. CWA/ESA projects PAC accomplishments Watershed restoration projects PAC success stories
Breakout or Concurrent Sessions	Different concurrent sessions addressing items of PAC interest (to be identified by steering committee).
PAC Report Card. One suggestion included surveying the PACs and developing a "report card" in order to identify items such as: what issues have been addressed by the PAC; how active is the PAC in educating/informing the surrounding communities regarding accomplishments under the NFP; what important issues have not been addressed by the PAC, why; what recommendations regarding implementation of the NFP has the PACs made, what was the response; etc. Responses could be tabulated and presented to the joint meeting as well as provide ideas for poster and breakout sessions. PAC Response to holding the meeting. Seven of the 12 PACs responded to the "agenda framework" and the questions about holding the meeting. Six of the 12 strongly endorsed the idea of holding the meeting and agreed the topics identified were appropriate and "on track." Who should attend. Many of the responses said the meeting should be open to all PAC members. However, most respondents stated that having "self-selected" groups representing the PACs (of some 3-4 members) would be understandable, in order to hold down costs. One suggestion was for the PACs to support the travel/per diem cost of a representative group (again, some 3 to 4 non-federal members) while leaving the attendance open to those others who wanted to "pay their own way." What is left to do. 1. Working with the steering committee, the agenda and meeting plan should be finalized. This includes focusing the goals and objectives for the meeting, specifying the agenda/poster/breakout items, moderators/facilitators, speakers panels, etc. 2. Logistics and meeting room arrangements need to be identified. This would include identifying a meeting location that can support the large number of participants anticipated, in addition to the poster and breakout session (if they are to be held). 3. The meeting cost and how to pay for it has to be identified.
Follow-up and Recommendations: The joint meeting should be held. The REO should continue to work with the steering committee to develop a final proposed agenda, including identifying speakers, presenters, facilitators, etc. The meeting should be targeted for the first IAC meeting in CY 2000, say for February 2000. Although a change in the meeting date would be the second change it is warranted for the following reasons: 1. Working with the various PACs takes time. Each PAC is on has its own meeting schedule, meaning it can take significant time to exchanges points of view and ideas. 2. There is a higher likelihood that the new REO Executive Director will be in place after the first of next year, versus November of this. It is important the new Executive Director be part of the meeting planning in order to understand the issues and help ensure follow-up to the meeting is accomplished. 3. Significant amount of REO staff time will be devoted to the upcoming ISC meeting in October, diminishing the time available for joint meeting development.
Action Required: x IAC Review & Discussion x IAC Recommendation x RIEC Decision

Meeting Date: August 5, 1999	REO Contact/Phone: Jay Watson 503-808-2178
Topic: Survey and Manage Effort Update
Status/Update: Phil Hall (BLM), Ken Denton (FS), and Kathy Helm (BLM) have joined the EIS team following Cindy Henchell's accident. A revised schedule puts publication of the DEIS at mid September. Following a 90 day comment period, content analysis, and FEIS preparation, publication of the ROD is expected in March. While progress is being made to resolve feasibility issues for the 32 species covered in the EA, at least 7 of those species will continue to be a problem. The 7 fungi require several years of surveys because of their irregular fruiting characteristics. Consequently, decisions that authorize ground-disturbing activities will once again have to be postponed in FY 2000 until the ROD is signed.

Meeting Date: August 5, 1999	REO Contact/Phone Steve Morris 503-808-2176:
Topic: Status of the Proposed REO Analysis and Interpretation of NFP Requirements for Aquatic Conservation Strategy Consistency Determinations
Background: On January 17, 1999, the Regional Interagency Executive Committee requested REO assistance in facilitating development of joint agency agreement on four issues regarding Northwest Forest Plan interpretation requirements for determining ACS consistency. Those issues are: 1. ROD requirements for determining project consistency with ACS objectives; 2. the intent of ACS objective #6 regarding regeneration harvest effects on instream flows; 3. the role of S&Gs that mitigate the effects of new road construction on aquatic resources; 4. the role of Late-Successional Reserves and designated roadless areas as components of the ACS
Status/Update: On July 22, 1999, The Managers Team, selected by RIEC members, met with REO and agency personnel to discuss "fatal flaws" in the draft REO response. The most significant issue raised during the "fatal flaw" review was the issue of potential effects of regeneration harvest on instream flows, and the related (but unrequested) issue of biological implications. The group also discussed the Bureau of Land Management's recommended changes to the draft response. The meeting concluded with the following agreements: 1. Changes agreed to during the meeting will be made to the document; 2. Fish and Wildlife personnel will provide new information and supporting documentation supporting its concerns regarding the potential effects of regeneration harvest on instream flow regimes. 3. The original technical team responsible for development of the report on this issue will review the team report in light of the Fish and Wildlife's new information, and will reach agreement on the issue. 4. A new draft based on the team agreements will be circulated to the senior agency managers for review. 5. The senior managers will meet shortly thereafter to discuss the hydrology issue, and proposals to address any remaining biological questions triggered by resolution of the hydrological questions.