IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING: WATERSHED QUESTIONNAIRE

ALL ALLOCATIONS:

Land Use Allocation Boundaries

1. Large Late-Successional Reserves were mapped as part of the Record of Decision (ROD, p. A6). In addition, the ROD established a number of additional LSRs which were expected to be identified and mapped locally. Review the following table and determine consistency with REO maps.

2. Large Managed Late-Successional Areas were also mapped as part of the Record of Decision (ROD, p. A6). The ROD established a number of MLSAs which were expected to be identified and mapped locally. Review the following table and determine consistency with REO maps.

3. Are land allocations established by the Record of Decision (April 1994) consistent with land allocations currently in use within the watershed? Compare local information with those provided for: Key Watersheds, Late-Successional Reserves, Managed Late-Successional Areas, and Adaptive Management Areas. [consistent / not consistent] Explain any inconsistencies.

Tribal Issues

4. The exercise of tribal treaty rights is not to be restricted by standards and guidelines unless the Regional Interagency Executive Committee determines that the restriction is (1) reasonable and necessary for preservation of the species at issue, (2) the conservation purpose of the restriction cannot be achieved solely by regulation of non-Indian activities, (3) the restriction is the least restrictive available to achieve the required conservation purpose, (4) the restriction does not discriminate against Indian activities either as stated or as applied, and (5) voluntary tribal conservation measures are not adequate to achieve the necessary conservation purpose. Has management in the watershed complied with the above direction? (C16) [complies, does not comply, not applicable] Explain any inconsistencies.

5. Have analysis and planning efforts in the watershed identified tribal trust resources, if any? (E-21) [resources identified, identification underway, resources not identified, NA]

6. Have planning efforts in the watershed consulted affected tribes, when tribal trust resources may be affected? (E-21) [consulted, consultation underway, not consulted, NA]

REVIEW OF EXISTING PROGRAMS:

7. Have the following pre-NFP programs and pre-NFP facilities been evaluated and mitigated to ensure that they do not prevent the attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives (C34) and Late-Successional Reserve objectives? (C18) [Note: respond with: all, some, none, NA. If activities are not yet mitigated, provide an estimated completion date]

WATERSHEDS:

Key Watersheds

8. Has construction of new roads been avoided in Key Watersheds in the remaining unroaded (as of 4/13/1994) portions of inventoried (RARE II) roadless areas? C7 [Yes/No/NA]

9. 

1. Has the net amount of roads in Key Watersheds been reduced or maintained? C7
   [reduced, maintained, increased, NA]
2. Has priority for road decommissioning been given to the roads that pose the greatest risks to riparian and aquatic ecosystems? [Yes/No/NA] B-19
3. Briefly describe the selection criteria used to identify roads for decommissioning.
4. What were/are the mileage of roads in the Key Watershed:

* miles of decommissioned or obliterated roads

10. List management actions in the Tier 1 Key Watersheds that have or will contribute to the conservation of at-risk anadromous salmonids, bull trout, and resident fish species? B18

Watershed Analyses

11. Has a Watershed Analysis been completed for the entire watershed (note: required prior to timber harvest, salvage, or management activities in key watersheds, roadless areas, or Riparian Reserves)? The ROD anticipates that ultimately, watershed analysis will be completed on all watersheds (B-20). R55-56, A7, B12, B17, B20-30, C3, C7, E20-21 [completed, underway, under revision, not started]

12. Have interim Riparian Reserve boundaries in the watershed been adjusted? [Yes, No, NA]

13. If interim boundaries were changed, briefly describe the change, the procedures used to document this change (e.g., NEPA, Watershed Assessment), and the rationale for the change. C31

14. Have restoration opportunities been identified in the watershed analysis? A7 [Yes, No, NA]

15. When is the Watershed Analysis expected to be updated? [Give estimated FY]

16. List management actions in the watershed that have or will contribute to watershed restoration and the attainment of ACS objectives.

17. Has the priority for upgrading stream crossings been based on a determination of risk to ecological values and riparian conditions? B19-20,C32-33 [all, some, none, NA]

18. Have fish and wildlife habitat restoration and enhancement activities been designed and implemented to contribute to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives? C37 [all, some, none, NA]

19. Have watershed restoration projects been designed to promote long-term ecological integrity of ecosystems, to conserve the genetic integrity of native species, and to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives? C37 [all, some, none, NA]

LATE SUCCESSIONAL RESERVES:

20. Have management assessments been completed for each Late-Successional Reserve, Managed Late-Successional Area, or group of areas? C26 [completed, underway, under revision, not started, NA]

21. Have habitat improvement projects in LSRs been designed to improve conditions for fish, wildlife, or watersheds and to provide benefits to late-successional habitat? C17 [all, some, none, NA]

22. If habitat improvement projects in LSRs were required for recovery of threatened or endangered species, have they avoided reduction of habitat quality for other late-successional species? C17 [all, some, none, NA]

23. The Regional Ecosystem Office is expected to review Late-Successional Reserve / Managed Late-Successional Area Assessments and certain types of projects for consistency with NFP standards and guidelines. Have the following types of activities in LSRs been submitted to, and reviewed by, REO? [Note: respond with: all reviewed, some reviewed, none reviewed, NA] R57,A7,C11,C26 Explain any answers other than "all".

24. Did the projects comply with the stocking, snag, coarse woody debris, and other parameters upon which an REO consistency finding (or exemption from REO review) was based? [all complied, some complied, none complied, NA]

MATRIX:

25. When the harvest of late-successional forest stands has occurred, has management maintained at least 15 percent of federal forested lands in late-successional condition in each 5^th field watershed? C44 [>15%, <15%, No late-successional forest harvested]

26. Discuss how silvicultural objectives for the matrix expected to, and actually contributed to, the production of commercial yields of wood. If the contribution was less than anticipated, explain possible reasons.

27. Discuss how silvicultural objectives for the matrix expected to, and actually contributed to, the retention of old-growth components such as snags, logs, and relatively large green trees. If the contribution was less than anticipated, explain possible reasons.

28. Discuss how silvicultural objectives for the matrix expected to, and actually contributed to, increasing ecological diversity by providing early-successional habitat. If the contribution was less than anticipated, explain possible reasons.

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AREAS:

29. Have planning documents (e.g., AMA Plan) been developed specifically to guide management of the AMA? D7 [Final, Draft, No Plan, NA]

30. Are planning documents for the Adaptive Management Area consistent with the area-specific requirements in Section D of the ROD? D12-17 [consistent in all respects, consistent in some respects, not consistent, NA]

31. When the harvest of late-successional forest stands has occurred, has management maintained at least 15 percent of federal forested lands in late-successional condition in the 5^th field watersheds or considered the role of such forests in watershed analysis prior to modification? D11 [met, not met, NA]

INTEGRATION OF MANAGEMENT

32. Has management around the 100-acre spotted owl Late-Successional Reserves been designed to reduce risks from natural disturbance to these areas? C10-11 [management reduced risks, management maintained risk, management increased risk, no management undertaken, NA]

33. At least three major planning documents could influence the planning and implementation of projects within a watershed; Watershed Analysis (WA), Late-Successional Reserve Assessments (LSRA), and Adaptive Management Area Plans (AMA Plan). Complete the following chart. Identify if the listed activities occur in the watershed, if the occurring activity is adequately addressed in the document, if the WA was used by the decision-maker to support a finding of consistency with ACS objectives, and if the projects are consistent with LSRAs and AMA Plans. [Note: if time is an issue, suggest doing just the underlined activity types and then sampling one or two projects of that type]

SPECIES

34. Are the following species being protected from grazing:

• mollusks (Ancotrema voyanum, Monadenia fidelis klamathica, Monadenia fidelis ochromphalus, Pristiloma articum crateris, Fluminicola n. sp. 1, Fluminicola n. sp. 11, Fluminicola n. sp. 19, Fluminicola n. sp. 20, Fluminicola n. sp. 3, Fluminicola seminalis)
• vascular plants (Pedicularis howellii). C6
  [all protected/some protected/none protected/no grazing or species in watershed]

35. Have management areas been established and managed for:

• Oxyporous nobilissimus (600 acres) C4-5;
• rare and endemic fungi (160 acres) C4-5, C49-54;
• Alpova sp. nov. Trappe 1966
• Alpova sp. nov. Trappe 9730
• Arcangeliella sp. nov. Trappe 12359
• Arcangeliella sp. nov. Trappe 12382
• Elaphomyces anthracinus
• Elaphomyces subviscidus
• Elaphomyces sp. nov. Trappe 1038
• Endogone acrogena
• Gastroboletus sp. nov. Trappe 2897
• Gastrosuillus sp. nov. Trappe 7516
• Gastrosuillus sp. nov. Trappe 9608
• Gautieria magnicellaris
• Gymnomyces sp. nov. Trappe 7545
• Hydnotrya subnix sp. nov. Trappe 1861
• Rhizopogon sp. nov. Trappe 9432
• Thaxterogaster sp. nov. Trappe 4867, 6242, 7427, 7962, 8520
• Tuber sp. nov. Trappe 2302
• Tuber sp. nov. Trappe 12493
[all established and managed, partially established and managed, established but not managed, neither mapped nor managed, NA]

36. Have recreation areas with known sites of Component 1 Survey and Manage Species fungi and lichen species been evaluated and managed to minimize disturbance? C6 [sites evaluated and managed, sites evaluated, no action, no known sites in recreation areas]

37. Have known sites for Protection Buffer Species and Component 1 Survey and Manage Species been identified, tracked, and managed? C5, 19-20, 23, 26-28 [all met, some met, none met, NA]

38. Have the required surveys for Protection Buffer Species and Component 2 Survey and Manage Species been conducted? C5, 19-20, 23, 26-28 [all conducted, some conducted, none conducted, NA]

5^th FIELD WATERSHED REVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

Note: These questions have been derived from the ROD, using as much original language as possible. The monitoring guidance on page B-32-33 and E4,5,6 provided the framework for these questions.

5^th FIELD WATERSHED NAME:

I. What are the land ownerships/Land Use Allocations in the watershed?

What types of overlapping land allocations are in the watershed? How have the standards and guidelines for the different allocations been applied? C1; E5

2. Late-Successional Habitat Information: What are the current amounts of the following habitats in the 5^th field watershed (C-44, D-11, and REO memorandum date October 24, 1997):

* Identify or describe the definition used and the analysis process used.

4. KEY WATERSHEDS

1. Is this a Key Watershed? B18 (YES, NO)
2. Has timber harvest, including salvage, occurred in the watershed? Were any of these projects addressed in the WA? B19
3. Were any new roads built, or being planned, in the remaining unroaded (as of 4/13/94) portions of inventoried (RAREII) roadless areas B19; C7 (YES,NO)
4.  How were roads prioritized for closing in the WA? B19 (Page references)
5. What were/are the mileage of roads in the Key Watershed?

Agency	System Road Mileage				Non-system and  Temporary Road Mileage				Net since 1994
	Existing in 1994	New since 1994	Decom* since 1994	Improved/Restored since 1994	Existing in 1994	New since 1994	Decom* since 1994	Improved/ Restored since 1994
FS
BLM

* miles of decommissioned or obliterated roads

6. Has the amount of existing system and non-system roads within this Key Watershed been reduced through decommissioning since 1994? (B19;B-31; C7) ("Road closures with gates or barriers do not qualify as decommissioning or a reduction in road mileage")

6. Was information available in the WA to support a decision-maker's finding of consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives for the above projects? (B-10) (please reference page numbers)

7. Riparian Reserves

1. Have Riparian Reserve boundaries been adjusted? RR boundaries include more than streams. How did you determine the extent of unstable areas and floodplains? C30; B13-B17
2. If RR boundaries were changed, what site specific analysis(e.g. NEPA, Watershed Assessment) was conducted and rationale used for final RR boundaries? (please provide page references)C-3; B-13;C31; B23
3. Has a transportation plan been developed that will meet the ACS objectives? RF-7 C-33
4. For each existing or planned road in a Riparian Reserve, were criteria a-g (Page C32) used to meet ACS objectives? Please reference project-specific documents.

1. What forms of recreation occur in the watershed?
2. In what land allocations are recreation activities, projects and/or facilities conducted?
3. What types of recreation were addressed in the WA (page references)?
4. How were projects found to be consistent with the ACS objectives? C34
5. Were new recreation projects/facilities in Riparian Reserves, if any, evaluated in the WA to ensure that they do not prevent, and to the extent practicable contribute to, attainment of ACS Objectives. RM-1; C-34 (please reference page numbers)
6. Are there any known sites of Component 1 Survey and Manage Species (fungi and lichen) in recreation sites? C6 What sources of information were used to determine this finding and when? If known sites exist, were required surveys completed?
   

Summary Notes for Reports, Hot Topics, and Updates from the May 4, 2000 IAC Meeting

Welcome, Introductions, and Presentations - Elaine Zielinski
Elaine recognized Greg Blomstom, charter member of the IAC, with a Letter of Appreciation and plaque as a memento of his participation in implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) since March of 1995. Jim Milestone, National Park Service REO Representative since April of 1996, was also recognized with a plaque and congratulated on his selection as Park Superintendent of Whiskeytown National Recreation Area outside Redding, California.

Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) Executive Director - Curt Loop
Work continues on completing the requirements necessary to bring on Steve Odell as the new Executive Director of the REO. Currently, his paperwork for position approval is in the final validation and approval phase in Washington, D.C. Each party has agreed to the necessary requirements which leaves OPM approval as the last step in the process. Steve is winding up his legal cases at his current law firm and should complete them within the next couple weeks. Finally, Steve is the proud new father of a baby girl. His wife and new baby are doing well. Steve is going to take a few days to take care of his other daughter and his wife and new baby once they come home from the hospital. All this said, we expect to welcome Steve in the REO some time this month.

Litigation Update - Judge Rothstein Ruling - John Volkman
Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's Associations (PCFFA) et al. v NMFS: This suit (filed January 19, 1999 in U.S. District Court in Seattle) challenged four biological opinions issued by NMFS for timber sales in the Umpqua River Basin, Oregon. In the previous litigation, Judge Rothstein found that NMFS had correctly determined that the NFP ACS satisfied Endangered Species Act Section 7 standards, but that NMFS' site-specific biological opinions were inadequate because they did not explain how individual timber sales met the ACS.

The current litigation challenges NMFS' conclusions within four site-specific biological opinions concerning the effects of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management actions (timber sales) on the endangered Umpqua River cutthroat trout and the threatened Oregon coastal coho salmon.

NMFS appealed a September 30, 1999 adverse ruling on summary judgement, and subsequently filed its opening brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Plaintiffs' reply brief was filed with the court on February 23. NMFS' response was filed with the Court by March 8. A Ninth Circuit Court hearing has been set for June 8, in Seattle Washington.

IAC Rechartering Progress Report - Steve Morris
Letters to non-federal governments requesting names of nominees have gone out soliciting two names as primary and alternate representatives plus background information (USDA Form 755 and a biographical sketch), or renomination of the incumbent and the name of an alternate. We have not yet heard from the states of Oregon, California, or Washington, the Washington Association of Counties, or the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. We will also need to obtain prior approval for any representative (federal or non-federal) who has served for more than six years on the IAC. Next steps include: 1) development and submission of the committee renewal package, including the draft charter and associated transmittal memos and letters; and, 2) development and submission of the appointment/reappointment package for nominees.

Non-federal Hydropower Projects and the NFP (FERC/ACS) Update - Steve Morris
At the March RIEC meeting, the REO was asked to facilitate discussion on the relicensing of non-federal hydroelectric projects on federal land within the NFP area, specifically the issue of ACS consistency as it applies to the licensing of existing projects. An interagency team consisting of staff from FWS, FS, BLM, EPA, and NMFS developed a draft product, which was distributed to the RIEC. The draft includes several questions dealing with policy issues and proposed answers to those questions. The draft also includes several long-term questions the team believes can and should be answered, but that will require more deliberation. The draft was distributed for agency review and will be discussed at the May 23 RIEC meeting, where the RIEC will decide: 1) to accept, reject, or modify the responses in the draft; and, 2) whether the team should be commissioned to continue addressing the long-term questions outlined in the draft. IAC review may be requested following RIEC agency review and completion of a new draft document.

Adaptive Management Area (AMA) Plans - Jim Milestone
The AMA Work Group was tasked with three elements: 1) Organize a process to review AMA Plans; 2) Develop a clear, concise interpretation of Record of Decision (ROD) S&Gs as they apply to AMAs; and 3) Assist AMAs, upon request, and support long-term needs as identified in AMA plans. To date, 9 of the 10 AMAs have submitted AMA plans, strategic plans, or guides for review by the REO AMA Work Group. The Finney AMA on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest is still outstanding, and is expected to submit a plan in the next couple of years.

In the past two years, efforts have been focused on developing a paper entitled, "Standards and Guidelines and the Adaptive Management Areas." The "Standards and Guidelines and the Adaptive Management Areas" paper is a synthesis of all of the RODs S&Gs that pertain to AMAs. The paper not only lists all the S&Gs, but provides an interpretation of the S&Gs intent. The Work Group believes that this will greatly assist managers, citizens, and scientists to understand the complexities of AMAs; develop a consistent interpretation for S&Gs for all involved with AMAs; and better define the AMAs role, function, and core values.

The RIEC reviewed the work accomplished to date by the AMA Work Group, and reviewed and approved the distribution of the policy paper on S&Gs for the AMAs. The RIEC agreed that the work of the AMA Work Group is completed as outlined in the February 1997 Charter and agreed to recess the Work Group until the Finney AMA plan is submitted for REO review or another AMA requests further assistance.

California IAC Subcommittee - Curt Loop
At the August 1998 IAC meeting, the formation of a subcommittee was approved to address NFP issues in California. Shortly thereafter, there was a change in the California State Government Administration involving activities and associated personnel changes that took priority over the formulation of this subcommittee. The subcommittee never became active. The issue is to determine whether or not the need for the committee still exists. Representatives from California requested time to meet and discuss activating or inactivating the subcommittee. The IAC agreed to postpone discussion and decision on this subject until the August IAC meeting.

Scheduling an IAC Meeting in the Field - Curt Loop
Many agencies and individuals have completed several tasks to improve overall communication among and between elements of the NFP. For example, the REO has matched REO Representatives with PACs to serve as liaison and a source of information; for several months, all PAC meetings have had REO Representatives in attendance who have provided current updates on several issues; for those who wished to attend PAC meetings, the REO mailed to each IAC member a list of the PAC meeting dates, points of contact, and telephone numbers of those points of contact; IAC members have volunteered to attend selected PAC meetings and provide updates on relevant issues; the Forest Service conducts quarterly conference calls among all Designated Federal Officials (DFOs) during which they exchange information and ideas; and the IAC has agreed to consider holding a meeting in a Province in combination with one or more PAC. With respect to scheduling an IAC meeting with a Province(s), the REO mailed each DFO a letter requesting their PACs interest in hosting a combined meeting. The suspense date for their replies is May 15. At the August IAC meeting, these responses will be presented and a proposal for a combined meeting discussed.

Included in this mailing is a copy of The Provincial Times, a Forest Service newsletter which disseminates information among all PACs.

BLM's National Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Strategy - Elaine Zielinski
There will be a series of local meetings this summer on an OHV strategy. Included in this mailing is a copy of the news release announcing this effort.

Rechartering the Provincial Advisory Committees (PACS) - Elaine Zielinski
Elaine, as RIEC Chair, asked, and received IAC permission to explore and make a decision on proposals from a few PACs for different structures. This would be an opportunity to be flexible in allowing PACs to try something different. The IAC will be kept informed as to any proposals for significant PAC charter changes.

Public Comment Concerning the Survey and Manage Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (S&M SEIS)

David Jennings, Gifford-Pinchot Task Force
Mr. Jennings asked the question "How are we going to deal with old growth species in Southwest Washington?" He gave a presentation on limited Late-Successional Reserves functioning in the Gifford-Pinchot National Forest and proposed no harvests take place in Late-Successional Reserves and roadless areas for the next 30 years.

Doug Heiken, Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC)
The ONRC opposes amending the S&M S&Gs for the NFP. They feel the S&M SEIS will result in more risk to species. The S&M SEIS should have a new alternative (copy provided as a handout at the meeting to IAC members) that stops the logging of old-growth timber.

Ivan Maluski, American Lands Alliance
Mr. Maluski pointed out that many groups have called for no old growth logging and that the SEIS must contain a no old growth logging alternative to be legal.

Future IAC Meeting Planning

Potential Agenda Topics for the August 3 IAC Meeting

• Aquatic/Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Plan
• Proposed EPA Regulations on TMDLs
• BLM's Third Year Evaluation
• Monitoring Program Implementation
• Implementation Monitoring Report for FY 1999
• Watershed Analysis Review
• California IAC Subcommittee - Suggestions for