Regional Ecosystem Office

P.O. Box 3623
Portland, Oregon 97208
(503) 326-6265
FAX: (503) 326-6282

              Memorandum

Date:     March 22, 1995

To:         Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members (See distribution list)

From:     Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director

Subject:  March Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda and Prework

Enclosed are the agenda, topic overviews, and status reports for the March 28-29 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting. Please bring your prework package to the meeting. The No-Host luncheon will begin at noon on Tuesday, March 28, at Harold's at the Sheraton Portland Airport Hotel, the cost is $12.50/person.

The meeting objectives are:

• Introduction and Key Interests: All members introduce themselves and share their key interests as members of the advisory committee.
• Operating Guidelines: Discuss and adopt operational rules and guidelines to help ensure smooth operation of the advisory committee.
• Future Agenda Topics: Preview for discussion on Wednesday.
• Public Comment: Provide an opportunity for public comment.
• Brief Overview of the NW Forest Plan: Provide background information and knowledge on the NW Forest Plan's fundamental concepts, terminology, and goals.
• Summary of Actions by Federal Agencies: Inform advisory committee members of the status of established work groups. Describe recent actions by federal agencies implementing the NW Forest Plan.
• Subcommittees: Discuss and adopt subcommittees to the advisory committee.
• Topics for Future Meetings: Set topics for the May and June meetings. Discuss possible topics for meetings after June.

I'm looking forward to the first meeting of the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee. If you have questions or comments, phone me at 503-326-6265, Gary S. Sims at ext. 6274, or Linda Kucera at ext. 6283.

Enclosure

cc: REO Staff, OFED

341/ly

Date: March 22, 1995
Subject: March Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda and Prework

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Distribution List

California
Francie Sullivan, Shasta County Supervisor
Greg Blomstrom, Forest Planner, Hoopa Valley Tribe
Terry Gorton, Assistant Secretary, Forestry and Rural Economic Dev.; State Resource Agency

Washington
Harvey Wolden, Skagit County Commissioner
Mel Moon, Natural Resources Director, Quileute Indian Tribe
Gary Morishima, Technical Advisor, Quinault Nation
Amy F. Bell, Deputy Supervisor for Community Relations, Dept. Natural Resources
Bob Nichols, Senior Executive Policy Assistant, Governor's Office (Alternate)

Oregon
Rocky McVay, Curry County Commissioner
Paula Burgess, Federal Forest and Resource Policy Advisor, Governor's Office

Federal Agencies
Michael Collopy, Director, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, National Biological Service
Anita Frankel, Director, Forest and Salmon Group, Environmental Protection Agency
Bob Graham, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service (Acting)
John Lowe, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service
G. Lynn Sprague, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service (Alternate)
Thomas Murphy, Director, Environmental Research Laboratory, Environmental Protection Agency
Charles Philpot, PNW Station Director, Forest Service
Stan Speaks, Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Michael Spear, Regional Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
William Stelle, Jr., Regional Director, National Marine Fisheries Service
Tom Tuchmann, Director, Office of Forestry and Economic Development (Ex Officio)
William Walters, Deputy Regional Director, National Park Service
Elaine Zielinski, State Director, Bureau of Land Management
Ed Hastey, State Director, Bureau of Land Management

Organizational and Operations Presenter Page
IAC Operating Guidelines Gary Sims 2
RMC Subcommittee of the IAC Dan McKenzie 3
IRICC Subcommittee of the IAC Tim Quinn 5
Future IAC Agenda Items Gary Sims 7

Status Reports
Watershed Analysis Mike Tehan 10
Watershed Restoration/Jobs-in-the-Woods Ranotta McNair/Curt Loop 12
Timber Sale Program Christine Walsh 13
Survey & Manage Work Group Jay Watson/Debbie Pietrzak 14
Activities in Late Successional Reserves Dave Powers 15
Habitat Conservation Planning Jay Watson 16
Proposed 4(d) Rule Jay Watson 17
Adaptive Management Areas Jay Watson 18

Research and Monitoring Committee:
Scientific Oversight Dan McKenzie 19
Research Work Group Robert Romancier 20
Monitoring Work Group Barry Mulder 21
Information Management Tim Quinn 22

Organizational & Operational
Items

ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW

TOPIC: IAC Operating Guides	REO Contact: Gary S. Sims
Issue Statement: In order to operate as effectively and efficiently as possible, the IAC should adopt a fundamental list of operating principles.
Background: The IAC charter identifies a number of characteristics of the committee. Some of them include items that would ordinarily be defined by the committee itself (e.g., the identification of a 13-member quorum). Other items have not been identified and the members should discuss and finalize them as soon as possible.
Analysis and Options: In order to create a cooperative atmosphere and to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the operations of the committee, some fundamental operating principles should be agreed on. The Regional Ecosystem Office recommends adoption of the principles listed below.
Organizational/Funding Implications: N/A
REO Staff Proposal: Propose/Dispose. In general, items requiring committee action, or the development of a recommendation, will be accomplished in a two-step process. The item will be presented in as much detail as possible in 1 month, and will be decided (in final form) at the following meeting. In that way, committee members can deliberate and consult with their respective organizations/agencies for a month before developing a position/recommendation. Contact and interaction is expected to occur between meetings, if appropriate. There may be some instances where the federal agencies will quicken decisionmaking. Voting. It is assumed that most decisions of the IAC will be reached by consensus and the committee will seldom feel a need to vote on a proposal. However, if a vote is needed a vote of a simple majority of those members present and voting will prevail. All members may vote on a recommendation of the IAC to the Regional Interagency Executive Committee. Meeting Schedule. Meetings of the IAC will be on the 1st Thursday of the month. The March and May meetings will be in Portland. At least one meeting a year will be in Sacramento and Seattle. Alternates. The charter states that members may choose their own designees. Such designees will serve as alternates to the members, with full voting privileges. Each member is encouraged to have the same alternate as much as possible for the sake of continuity. The alternate for Don Knowles as the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) will be Gary Sims. Travel cost reimbursements for alternates will be made only when the alternate is traveling as the official representative. To make travel arrangements, a member will inform the REO that an alternate will be attending the meeting as the official representative. Establishment of Subcommittees. See other Action Topic Overviews. Public Comment. As much as possible, public oral comments will be allowed at IAC meetings. In general there will be ½-hour at the end of the regularly scheduled meeting to allow members of the public to speak on the proceedings of the day or any other specific matter relating to the NW Forest Plan or the IAC's chartered area of responsibility. Advance registration of intent to comment will be required, which may include a sign-up sheet at the time of the meeting. Other. Members may wish to propose other guidelines.
ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC: IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision X Other: Review and adopt

ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW

TOPIC: RMC Subcommittee of the IAC	REO Contact: Dan McKenzie
Issue Statement: The current Research and Monitoring Committee (RMC) is composed of federal members only. Should the IAC create a Research and Monitoring Subcommittee as a way to involve nonfederal staff in the operation of the committee?
Background: The RMC was established to facilitate NW Forest Plan implementation in three major areas: scientific oversight, monitoring, and research. In each of these areas the RMC is developing plans and guidelines to coordinate interagency planning, research, and monitoring activities for NW Forest Plan implementation. The RMC works to develop strong scientific relationships among the participating agencies, Indian Tribes, management groups, and public/private organizations. These efforts focus on coordination, communication, information sharing, and planning to ensure the best available scientific information is developed and applied to ecosystem management. The current membership of the RMC consists of representatives from the following federal agencies: BIA, BLM, EPA, FS, FWS, NBS, NPS, NRCS, and USGS. The RMC is unable to solicit/accept nonfederal participation in a collaborative sense because of the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Analysis and Options: It was always intended that the RMC membership would include nonfederal representation. It was anticipated that there would be participation by tribes, state/local agencies, and others as needs were identified. The IAC charter allows for the establishment of work groups and subcommittees it determines are necessary. The creation of a subcommittee will allow the IAC and/or the subcommittee to seek the participation of needed expertise regardless of affiliation. The establishment of the committee will enhance the capabilities of an essential element in the success of the NW Forest Plan.
Organizational/Funding Implications: There are no provisions for reimbursing participating governments/agencies/organizations the costs of travel, attending meetings, etc.
REO Staff Proposal: Establish the RMC as a subcommittee to the IAC by adding nonfederal members to the RMC. 1. Purpose of the RMC subcommittee. Provide a forum to develop intergovernmental recommendations concerning scientific oversight, monitoring, and research for NW Forest Plan implementation. 2. Membership. Members of the IAC may nominate an individual to represent their agency/interest. These nominees will meet the same standards applied to current federal members. These standards are: a. Must be a high level manager or scientist who can make most key decisions for the agency/organization relative to research, monitoring, and scientific oversight and have immediate access to key managers for decisions that are beyond the authority given to the committee member. b. Must be someone with authority to pick agency/organization staff to work on tasks for the RMC Committee. c. Must understand the relationships between monitoring, research, and scientific oversight and their importance to ecosystem management. d. Must be able to commit the time required to accomplish the responsibilities of the RMC Committee. Initially, this is expected to require a significant amount of time for 2 to 3 months and then intermittently thereafter, depending on the tasks. e. Must be able to work effectively in a collaborative interagency atmosphere to accomplish the committee's work. New members will serve in addition to the current members so not every federal agency will nominate a new member. Nominations will be presented to the IAC for review and approval. Members of the RMC subcommittee of the IAC will serve for the duration of the committee life. 3. Member cost reimbursement. There are no provisions for reimbursement of subcommittee member expenses for participation. 4. Relationship of RMC Subcommittee to RMC and IAC. The subcommittee oversight will be provided by the RMC through the Research and Monitoring Group (RMG), on staff at the Regional Ecosystem Office. The RMG members are members of the RMC and will make presentations/proposals to the IAC. The RMG members (and their responsibilities) are: Dan McKenzie, EPA (Scientific Oversight); Robert Romancier, FS-PNW (Research Planning and Coordination); Barry Mulder, NBS (Monitoring Planning and Coordination). The proposals presented by the RMC to the IAC will be considered by the IAC, which will make final recommendations to the Regional Interagency Executive Committee. 5. Meeting schedule. Regular meetings of the RMC are scheduled on a twice a month basis. The meetings are held in the REO conference room. The same schedule would be expected for the subcommittee. 6. Work/Task Groups. Once the RMC is established as a subcommittee, it will be able to form work/task groups as needed in order to fulfill the purposes of the subcommittee. The RMC subcommittee will identify the needed work/task group composition and mission. Results will be reported back to the RMC by the work task groups.

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

ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW

TOPIC: IRICC Subcommittee of the IAC	REO Contact: Tim Quinn
Issue Statement: Should the IAC establish the Interorganizational Resource Information Coordinating Council (IRICC) as a subcommittee in order to enhance the capabilities of the IRICC?
Background: The IRICC was established by the Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) in February 1994 to promote the sharing and coordination of resource information and to encourage cooperative activities among participating organizations in support of implementation of the NW Forest Plan. The RIEC's vision is to establish a seamless, current, and accessible information network to support ecosystem management. IRICC is organized around three work teams covering issues concerning people, data, and technology. IRICC has held regular business meetings throughout Washington, Oregon, and northern California to promote the vision and plan its program of work. Periodically, representatives from the IRICC have provided updates to the RIEC.
Analysis and Options: Currently, the IRICC can legally meet as a technical committee but not recommend decisions concerning policy. Including the IRICC as a subcommittee under the umbrella of the IAC allows it to recommend policy per the Federal Advisory Committee Act in such areas as data standards, data acquisition, networking, and other information management and technology issues.
Organizational/Funding Implications: Organizations have made significant contributions in terms of staff participation and funding for IRICC activities. Implementation of IRICC plans for a seamless database represents a reallocation of agency efforts into interorganizational efforts. The initial commitment of people and funding to establish these capabilities is substantial, but long-term benefits are also expected to be substantial. There are no formal provisions for reimbursing subcommittee members of participating governments, agencies, or organizations the costs of travel, attending meetings, etc.
REO Staff Proposal: Establish the IRICC as a subcommittee to the IAC in order to enhance the capabilities of the IRICC. 1. Purpose of the IRICC subcommittee. Establish a seamless, current, and accessible information network to support ecosystem management. IRICC will coordinate information management efforts and plans among participating organizations including: identification of key data sets, formulation of standards, establishment of data management priorities, and data maintenance. 2. Membership. Current members of the IRICC will continue. Additionally, IAC members not currently represented on IRICC may identify a representative. The representative is expected to provide the necessary coordination and communications with your organization, have a comprehensive understanding of the organization's resource issues and needs, and a working knowledge of information resource management principles and concepts. 3. Relationship of IRICC subcommittee to REO and IAC. The REO is a participating member of the IRICC. The REO GIS (geographic information systems) staff works closely with the work groups, brings IRICC issues to the IAC, and provides immediate staffing on NW Forest Plan implementation issues. The IRICC focuses on more long-term information management issues such as data standards. The IAC directs and monitors IRICC's initiatives. 4. Meeting schedule. IRICC meetings are held approximately every 6 weeks. Conference calls occasionally replace meetings. 5. Work/Strike Teams. Three work teams have been formed by the IRICC to manage people, data, and technology issues on a strategic level. Short-term strike teams are formed by the work teams to research technical issues and make specific recommendations for approval. There are four to seven strike teams per work team at this time. These will be expected to continue in the future.
ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC: IAC Review X IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other

ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW

TOPIC: Future IAC Agenda Topics	REO Contact: Gary S. Sims
Issue Statement: In order to effectively and efficiently plan meetings and IAC briefing materials major future agenda topics need to be identified.
Background: There are a number of activities and products that have already been identified with expected accomplishment dates. Work groups anticipate presenting specific information to the IAC in an identified timeframe. Some of the material will be presented for information only, some for internal decisionmaking of the committee, and some for development of recommendations to the Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC). In order to be able to effectively and efficiently plan future meetings and allocate staff and committee member resources, the knowledge of timing of upcoming topics is important. Additionally, IAC members will be able to allocate their staff resources to respond to topics of particular interest to them.
Analysis and Options: Topics shown below with month and day identified are from the FY 1995 RIEC Priorities. Topics at the end (without months identified) are from IAC member comments and other sources.
Organizational/Funding Implications: N/A
REO Staff Proposal: In addition to the topics that the committee members may want to include in future meetings, the following agenda topics have been identified: From FY 1995 RIEC Priorities April No Meeting The Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) will be receiving review comments on the revised Watershed Guide May 4 Restoration/Jobs-in-the-Woods Monitor success of existing direction at: meeting ecosystem objectives; maximizing creation of long term, high quality jobs; complementing restoration activities on adjacent ownerships (originally scheduled for April 1995) Timber Sales Monitor program progress to identify need for process or other change Information Management Establish forest vegetation and hydrography/fish thematic standards by interagency team (originally scheduled for April 1995) Validate standards above and test technology at the provincial level on two provinces Watershed Analysis Presentation of synthesized comments and recommended changes to the revised Watershed Guide for tentative agreement June 1 IAC Operations Consideration of additional subcommittees: Salmon Research & Monitoring Effectiveness monitoring plan components for FY 1995 implementation for: listed species, late-successional old growth (LSOG), riparian/aquatic habitats; survey design from the Survey & Manage (S&M) work group Restoration/Job-in-the-Woods Report and recommend adjustments as needed Watershed Analysis Present final revised Watershed Guide for approval
July 6 Watershed Analysis Distribute revised Watershed Guide Proposed process to review watershed analysis at the programmatic level Restoration/Jobs-in-the-Woods Program review results & recommendations Information Management Delineation of a consistent set of watershed boundaries August 3 Research & Monitoring Develop database of on-going research Information Management Integrated resource information system between REO, BLM, & FS (at a minimum) September 7 Research & Monitoring Additional components for FY 1996 FY 1995 on Regional Priorities & Accountability Benchmarks Report on accomplishments FY 1996 Regional Priorities & Accountability Benchmarks Establishment of FY 1996 priorities and benchmarks Information Management Interagency database plan October 5 Information Management Development of remaining geographic information systems (GIS) themes and standards beyond vegetation and hydrography/fish, soils, roads, wildlife, cultural, etc. December 7 Research & Monitoring Fully integrated draft Monitoring Plan ready for peer and field review Draft list of priority research needs Other Topics - From IAC member comments and other sources Adaptive Management Areas Adaptive Management Process Process for review of new information Process for incorporating new information Clean Water Act Integration with other regulatory and resource management efforts Fire Management Fire Rehabilitation Fire Salvage
ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC: IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision X Other: Internal working decision

Status Reports

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Watershed Analysis

REO Contact: Michael Tehan

Background: As the primary tool for generating information to guide and implement ecosystem analysis, as directed in the NW Forest Plan, watershed analysis is essentially ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale. Several different interagency teams have worked to develop complementary components of a comprehensive watershed analysis strategy to ensure consistency with the Record of Decision (ROD) and to meet agency priorities and concerns. Significant watershed analysis milestones are summarized below: December 1993 The Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) approved and distributed a "Preliminary Watershed Restoration Assessment" process developed by an interagency restoration work group as part of the Interagency Watershed Restoration Strategy for Fiscal Year 1994. This was in response to the requirement in the ROD for an abbreviated form of watershed analysis before proceeding with watershed restoration projects in FY 1994. The RIEC approved a three part watershed analysis strategy: 1) form an interagency analysis coordination team; 2) develop an initial watershed analysis process to support new and on-going projects during the ROD transition period (FY 1994-1996); and 3) coordinate a pilot program to develop a comprehensive analysis process that updates the Federal Agency Guide to Watershed Analysis (Guide). January 1994 The Watershed Analysis Coordination Team (WACT) was established to organize and implement the approved watershed analysis strategy. The initial version of A Federal Guide to Watershed Analysis (Guide) was distributed to the agencies for use in both pilot and non-pilot watershed analyses. March 1994 The RIEC accepted 15 pilot watersheds recommended by the WACT, allowing the pilot watershed analysis program to proceed. The WACT sponsored a watershed analysis update meeting in Portland, Oregon, to "kick-off" the pilot program . June 1994 The RIEC approved and distributed the FY 1994-1996 Watershed Analysis Guidelines. The Guidelines suggest methods that agencies could follow to ensure that watershed analyses completed during the initial period of NW Forest Plan implementation (1994-

Background: Continued September 1994 The Interagency Strategy for Watershed Analysis Priorities was approved and distributed by the RIEC. The Strategy addresses agency concerns, builds on priorities established in the ROD and Guidelines, and ensures provincial stakeholders' concerns are considered when prioritizing watersheds for analysis. November 1994 An interagency meeting in Eugene, Oregon, allowed agency analysts to share results and learn from the FY 1994 watershed analysis experience (pilot and non-pilot watershed analyses). The provinces reported their tentative list of priority watersheds where analyses would occur in FY 1995 (FY 1996 and 1997 priorities were reported by some provinces). This list will be refined upon further review by the Province Interagency Executive Committees. December 1994 The Research and Monitoring Committee (RMC) completed its peer review for the first 7 pilot analyses and provided preliminary findings to the WACT. The final 8 pilots should be completed and peer reviewed later in 1995. The RIEC accepted a revised timeline for Guide revision. The draft Guide will be circulated for review in March 1995 and the final version distributed in June. January 1995 The RIEC provided direction to the WACT to focus their efforts to revise the Guide (letter dated January 10, 1995). The letter of direction established a common definition for watershed analysis, outlined program goals, and described expectations for the analysis process, watershed report content, and format of the Guide.

Status/Update: The draft watershed analysis Guide will be provided to the IAC for review by March 29. Agencies will be asked to collate and synthesize their review comments and submit a single response to the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO). While the comment period will be kept open until May 5, all comments received on or before April 25 will be summarized and synthesized by the REO for discussion/agreement at the May 4 IAC meeting. The intent is to complete the Guide revision based on the May 5 IAC agreements and prepare a final document for approval at the June 1 committee meeting. Production and distribution of the final Guide would occur between June 2 and June 30. The REO is working with the RMC to develop a proposal for peer review of watershed analysis reports as part of their science oversight and monitoring efforts. This issue should be ripe for discussion in July. The REO is working with the Interagency Resource Information Coordinating Council (IRICC) and agencies to develop common watershed boundaries. This watershed delineation protocol is consistent among the states and agencies, including the Eastside Ecosystem Management Project, Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana, and, with minor exceptions, Washington. The next steps are to apply the protocol, review existing agency watershed boundaries for consistency, and incorporate any necessary changes.

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Watershed Restoration/Jobs-in-the-Woods

REO Contact: Ranotta McNair Curt Loop

Background: Interagency work groups were established in 1993 and 1994 to develop coordinated watershed restoration strategies. The initial group developed an Interagency Watershed Restoration Strategy for FY 1994, while a subsequent group modified that strategy for use in FY 1995 and beyond. The current Interagency Watershed Restoration Strategy will be used by participating agencies to guide both the development and selection of Jobs-in-the-Woods restoration projects. The reason that the Interagency Watershed Restoration Strategy for FY 1994 had to be modified was because the NW Forest Plan Record of Decision (ROD) defined different watershed analysis and restoration requirements for FY 1995 and beyond. The restoration work group therefore, reviewed the 1994 Strategy and determined what changes were needed to ensure consistency with the ROD, the FY 1994-1996 Watershed Analysis Guidelines, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), and other agency concerns. The work group identified improved mechanisms to encourage early involvement by Community Economic Revitalization Teams (CERTs) and to integrate state, tribal, and other government priorities for restoration in a manner that complies with FACA. The revised Interagency Watershed Restoration Strategy was completed by the restoration work group in September 1994. After approval by the Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC), the Strategy was distributed to the federal agencies for implementation on October 5, 1994.

Status/Update: In October 1994, the RIEC also decided to make Jobs-in-the-Woods a priority for FY 1995, emphasizing the worker/community assistance aspect of this restoration program. It was agreed that efforts were needed to better link the CERTs with the RIEC for integration and coordination of ecosystem restoration with social-economic programs. Specific tasks for the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) include development of restoration project identification and development, packaging guidelines, and implementing a project reporting system. The REO anticipates the need for a subcommittee involving Office of Forestry and Economic Development (OFED), IAC, and Regional CERT members in order to monitor the progress of watershed restoration projects. As part of their FY 1995 strategy, the Regional CERT is expected to establish a subcommittee. The IAC has the option to establish their own subcommittee or coordinate with the Regional CERT and utilize one subcommittee to provide the economic and restoration information. IAC members will be polled at the March meeting as to their preference. In addition to the specific tasks described above, the agencies agreed to implement additional community/worker training and work experience programs across the region. Though the exact number of displaced workers who could be organized to take advantage of such training is yet to be determined, preliminary estimates indicate that 250 workers could be made available for such programs throughout the three-state region. In those places where training cannot be carried out, land managers should exercise initiative in seeing that family-wage work is designed with the objective of employing local workers. This can and should be done in partnership with relevant local, state, and private entities and organizations with contacts and experience in working with displaced timber workers.

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Timber Sale Program	REO Contact: Christine Walsh
Background: One of the five principles President Clinton set forth at the Forest Conference to guide interagency efforts to produce the NW Forest Plan was: "...the plan should produce a predictable and sustainable level of timber sales and non-timber resources that will not degrade or destroy the environment." The selected alternative in the Record of Decision calls for an estimated annual probable sale quantity (PSQ) of 1.1 billion board feet (bbf) for Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service within the range of the northern spotted owl. Both agencies are working toward a timber sale program that will meet full PSQ in FY 1997, with intervening goals of 60 % in 1995 and 80% in 1996. Accomplishment of PSQ is increasingly a challenge to the land managing agencies because of the number of steps and processes involved in producing a timber sale; some of which were in existence before the NW Forest Plan (e.g., sale planning and layout, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance and Section 7 Consultation), and others which were added by the NW Forest Plan (e.g., watershed analysis and survey and manage species protection measures). FY 1994 ACCOMPLISHMENT VOLUME SOLD (millions of board feet - mmbf) (within the range of the Spotted Owl) BLM 18.5 FS 233.0 251.5 mmbf
Status/Update: FY 1995 ACCOMPLISHMENT VOLUME OFFERED A number of the timbers sales represented by this volume are under challenge through agency review processes. None have proceeded to litigation to date. As of 2/28/95 BLM 9.0 FS 38.8 47.8 mmbf ESTIMATED OFFERING As of 6/30/95 BLM 38.0 (cumulative) FS 112.0 150.0 mmbf As of 9/30/95 BLM 118.0 (cumulative) FS 472.0 590.0 mmbf

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Survey & Manage Work Group	REO Contact: Jay F. Watson Debbie Pietrzak
Background: The propose of the Survey & Manage (S&M) work group is to collect known site information, develop management recommendations, and develop standardized survey protocols for species in the Record of Decision, as a regional interagency effort, as efficiently as possible. In December 1994, the Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) approved the use of subgroups (agency specialists and managers), plus outside experts under contract to complete Components 1, 2, 3, and 4. Protocol development will involve review and refinement of existing protocols, and development of new protocols if necessary. Protocol development will be coordinated among subgroups to ensure efficiencies in protocol design and survey implementation.
Status/Update: Accomplishments of the S&M Work Group during FY 1995 include: Met with the Research and Monitoring Committee (RMC) regarding RMCs draft Product Peer Review Process dated September 7, 1994. Coordination with the RMC is ongoing regarding protocol and monitoring implications. Developed a list of survey and manage definitions, and guidelines on definitions. Established an interagency S&M Core Group. Designated taxonomic subgroup leads for data, mollusks, bryophytes/lichens, fungi, vascular plants, amphibians, and bats. Developed initial work plans for most taxonomic subgroups. Completed a summary of "known site" information for Component 1 species. Compilation of known site data and development of management recommendations for Component 1 species is ongoing. Transmission of this data to the field is a key element of the S&M strategy. Contract preparation is in progress; some contracts have been let. Information to be acquired includes data for updating Appendix J-2, Results of Additional Species Analysis from the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitit for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. We are in the process of internally reviewing the S&M groups accomplishments, progress, and future direction. The review will not be completed by the March IAC meeting date, but we can update members personelly if so desired.

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Activities in Late-Successional Reserves	REO Contact: Dave Powers
Background: The Record of Decision (ROD) for the NW Forest Plan established a network of late-successional reserves (LSRs) to provide habitat for species associated with late-successional and old-growth habitat. The LSR network is a key component of the strategy to maintain viable populations of hundreds of species, including the northern spotted owl. Management activities in LSRs, which range from watershed restoration projects to timber salvage and commercial thinning, must maintain or enhance late-successional/old-growth characteristics in order to be consistent with the ROD objectives, and standards and guidelines (S&Gs). The ROD expressly subjects certain types of activities to Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) or Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) review. Activities requiring review include salvage, thinning, LSR management assessments, fire management plans for LSRs, research projects, significant changes to S&Gs, and other activities that have potentially adverse effects on LSR objectives. Other categories of activities, such as fuelwood gathering, recreational uses, and habitat improvement projects, are not subject to REO/RIEC review unless they would require significant changes to S&Gs or conflict with meeting LSR objectives. The REO initiates its review process after a proposed LSR activity has gone through the proposing agency's review and approval process. Proposals are submitted to REO from a RIEC member or their designated representative. An interagency work group, which includes members from agencies in REO, reviews proposals to support REO findings on consistency with the ROD. The REO Executive Director directly notifies the Regional or State Office of the agency submitting a proposal in writing when a proposal is consistent with the ROD. The RIEC members are also simultaneously notified. The REO Executive Director may request RIEC review of proposals for particularly controversial or complex proposals, in cases where consistency with LSR S&Gs is not clear, or in cases where balancing with other objectives is needed. The REO Executive Director documents the RIEC review findings and conclusions in writing to the Regional or State Office of the submitting agency in these cases.
Status/Update: The REO has reviewed six projects in LSRs to date. All six projects were found to be consistent with LSR objectives. One of the projects was modified to ensure LSR objectives would be clearly met. The extensive wildfires this past summer and the state of forest health in some areas covered by the NW Forest Plan may increase the level of activities in some LSRs. The management assessments the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are preparing for the large LSRs and groups of smaller LSRs will help provide a framework for future LSR activities. These management assessments will be reviewed by REO. Consistent with the ROD, the REO is considering criteria that could be used to exempt certain LSR activities from review. For example, review of thinning projects in young, predominately single species plantations may provide the basis for developing criteria that if met would exempt certain types of thinning projects from review.

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Habitat Conservation Planning within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl	REO Contact: Jay F. Watson
Background: As part of the President's initiatives to bring an appropriate balance to land use practices in northwest forests, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is encouraging State and private timberland owners to develop Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) for their lands under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act. An HCP must accompany an application for an incidental take permit. Incidental take permits are required when nonfederal activities will result in the take of threatened or endangered species (as defined in the Endangered Species Act). The purpose of any HCP and permit is to allow these activities by determining and minimizing the level of take and mitigating for that take to the maximum extent practicable. Take is defined in the Endangered Species Act, making it illegal for anyone to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect any threatened or endangered species, or attempt to do so. Harm may include significant habitat modification where it actually kills or injures a listed species through impairment of essential behavior. An incidental take permit and HCP allows a land owner to legally proceed with an activity that would otherwise result in illegal take of a listed species. In addition, an HCP and incidental take permit provide a land owner certainty about the kinds of activities that can legally be conducted on his or her land now, and in the future. An HCP also allows a land owner to determine how best to meet the agreed-upon fish and wildlife management goals. While the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides detailed guidance throughout the process of getting an incidental take permit, development of an HCP is applicant driven.
Status/Update: To date, three HCPs have been completed covering approximately 640,000 acres of habitat in the northwest. An additional 20 HCPs are underway in Washington, Oregon, and northern California, many of which will attempt to address the needs of multiple listed and candidate species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is encouraging a multi-species or ecosystem approach, which can provide long-term conservation benefits for species, as well as greater predictability for land owners. Conservation planning in northwest forests is being closely coordinated with affected State and local governments, as well as the environmental community and timber industry. Where appropriate, the National Marine Fisheries Service will endorse HCPs which have threatened anadromous fish species on the planning area.

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Proposed Special Rule Easing the Regulatory Burden on Timber Harvest on Nonfederal Lands (4(d))	REO Contact: Jay F. Watson
Background: In the June 1990 listing of the northern spotted owl as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not promulgate a special section 4(d) rule, and all of the section 9 prohibitions, including the "take" prohibitions, became applicable to the species. After listing of the northern spotted owl, a Federal Late-Successional and Old-growth Forest Management Strategy was developed. That strategy was formally adopted on April 13, 1994, in a Record of Decision that amended land management plans for federal forests in Washington, Oregon, and northern California. In recognition of the significant contribution the NW Forest Plan makes toward northern spotted owl conservation and management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced on February 7, 1995 a proposal to ease timber harvest restrictions currently imposed on private, Tribal, and other nonfederal forest lands to protect the northern spotted owl in Washington and northern California. Currently, "takings" restrictions are imposed in all of the owl's range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's proposed rule uses a provision of the Endangered Species Act known as "section 4(d)" to impose the "takings" prohibition only where the Service finds it to be necessary and advisable. Thus, under the rule, the incidental take of spotted owls in the course of timber harvest and related activities on specified nonfederal lands in Washington and northern California will not be prohibited. The proposal does not apply to Oregon in deference to the State's desire to develop an "Oregon alternative" to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Proposal. For the interim, the northern spotted owl in Oregon would remain fully protected from incidental take under the prohibitions established at the time of its original listing in June 1990.
Status/Update: The proposed rule, published in the Federal Register (60(33):9484-9527) on February 17, 1995 states that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes a special rule, pursuant to section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act, to replace the blanket prohibition against incidental take of spotted owls with a narrower, more tailor-made set of standards that reduce prohibitions applicable to timber harvest and related activities on specified nonfederal forest lands in Washington and northern California. The comment period on the proposed rule closes May 18, 1995.

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Adaptive Management Areas	REO Contact: Jay F. Watson
Background: The NW Forest Plan allocates 24.4 million acres of Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and other federally-administered land within the range of the northern spotted owl to one of six designated areas or to matrix. About 1.5 million acres of federal lands are within designated Adaptive Management Areas (AMAs). The 10 AMAs, distributed within the range of the northern spotted owl, were designated to develop and test new management approaches to integrate and achieve ecological and economic health, and other social objectives. Each AMA has different objectives and is geographically located accordingly.
Status/Update: During FY 1994, the 10 AMAs produced results in three main areas: public participation, ecological assessments and plans, and projects. All AMAs attempted rapid advancement in public participation. In addition to the Applegate and Hayfork AMA, which had active participating groups prior to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitit for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl and the signing of the NW Forest Plan, 7 other AMA created participation opportunities through field trips, information exchanges, and other public participation activities. Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requirements were of concern to the participating groups. Most of the AMAs are working on ecological assessments. The Applegate AMA is completing an ecosystem health assessment in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, and university scientists. It appears that fire history is a significant factor in each area. The AMAs are progressing rapidly with their geographic information systems. The AMAs are progressing with area plans, however, FACA is impacting the participants and time schedules. The Olympic AMA is establishing a research effort on 30- to 70-year old forests. Two AMAs (Snoqualmie Pass and Goosenest) had to delay their planning efforts due to forest fires last summer. In October 1994, the Office of Forestry and Economic Development, provided groups and partnerships with information concerning different approaches that could be considered for complying with the letter and intent of FACA. Most of the work to date has not involved project work. However, the Finney AMA has been involved with watershed restoration efforts. The implementing agencies have concerns regarding the amount of detail and/or the level of completion of watershed analysis that is necessary for projects in riparian areas. The research and management contact for each AMA is:

AMA	Research Contact	Management Coordinator
Applegate	Mike Amaranthus	Su Rolle
Central Cascade	Fred Swanson	Diana Bus
Cispus	Jim Weigand	Margaret McHugh
Finney	Joe McNeel	Joe Iozzi
Little River	Gordon Reeves	Barbara Fontaine
Northern Coast Range	Tom Spies	Warren Tausch
Olympic	Andrew Carey	Ward Hoffman
Snoqualmie Pass	John Lehmkuhl	Joe Iozzi/Vladimir
Hayfork	Cathy Harcksen	Julie Riber/John Veevaert
Goosenest	Cathy Harcksen	Tom Farmer

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Research and Monitoring Committee (Scientific Oversight)	REO Contact: Dan McKenzie
Background: The Research and Monitoring Committee (RMC) works to develop strong scientific relationships among the participating agencies, Indian Tribes, management groups, and public and private organizations. These efforts focus on coordination, communication, information sharing and planning to insure that the best available scientific information is developed and applied in ecosystem management. In addition, RMC develops guidelines for scientific oversight to achieve credible science of the highest quality in NW Forest Plan implementation. Scientific oversight includes periodic review of the monitoring and research activities and results that support the NW Forest Plan, as well as interpretation and recommendations for changes to the Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs). As examples of activities to date, the RMC has developed guidance for conducting peer reviews, is conducting the required reviews (as specified in the Record of Decision) for ongoing research projects that are outside the S&Gs, has reviewed the interpretation of two S&Gs, conducted a review of the pilot watershed analyses, and is preparing a process for evaluation and assessment of new information.
Status/Update: In conducting these activities the RMC has been constrained to involvement of federal agency staff. These activities are anticipated to continue and additional participation by nonfederal expertise would benefit the implementation of the NW Forest Plan. See the Action Topic Overview, RMC Subcommittee of the IAC (pages 4-5). Formation of work groups to conduct specific tasks may involve significant amounts and commitments of staff resources. The results of these activities may result in recommendations to change or modify existing programs, components of the NW Forest Plan, and allocation of resources. There are no provisions for reimbursement of expenses for members participating in the RMC.

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Research and Monitoring Committee (Research Work Group Status & Products)	REO Contact: Robert M. Romancier
Background: Research is a component of the Research and Monitoring Committee (RMC), one of the organizations required under the Memorandum of Understanding for Forest Ecosystem Management signed in 1993 by the White House, the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, and Commerce, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Composition was to be scientists and managers from several disciplines; currently the group consists of two resource managers (Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management), and 6 scientists (1-National Park Service, 2-EPA, 2-Forest Service, and 1-National Biological Service). The main task is to develop an integrated interagency research plan to address critical natural resource commodity and non-commodity questions and to answer biological, social, economic, and adaptive management research questions. Using surveys and interviews, current and planned research relevant to the NW Forest Plan is being identified, while resource managers will soon be asked for their research information needs. The integrated research plan is to be in draft form by Spring 1996. A comprehensive electronic database of supporting research should be available soon thereafter. A continuing additional effort is to provide scientific advice to the Adaptive Management Areas and the Province organizations.
Status/Update: The integrated interagency research plan will focus research studies on the most urgent needs of resource managers, reducing both gaps, and duplication. Economies of cooperation may reduce the overall cost of research activities, or permit extension into topics not considered previously. The integrated interagency research plan should be evaluated and probably revised on a 5-year cycle. The existence of such an integrated research plan should support coordinated funding requests by EPA and the Interior and Agriculture research agencies. While the research plan and the research consultations and coordination are mandated activities, the electronic database is optional. It will need to be maintained to preserve it's usefulness. The database will probably contain information on 500 or so current and planned research studies, most physically located in the Pacific Northwest. The location of the computer and tape storage, and the servicing of requests, and periodic updating is yet to be determined. All these activities will require modest funding to make the database worthwhile. No cost figures have yet been developed.

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Research and Monitoring Committee (Monitoring Work Group Status & Products)	REO Contact: Barry Mulder
Background: Monitoring is a critical component of implementation of the NW Forest Plan, important to increasing public trust, ensuring compliance with the standards and guidelines, and to applying the adaptive management process. Current emphasis is on developing components of a monitoring program, which address: 1. Compliance with implementation of the plan. 2. The effectiveness of plan implementation for 5 key issues: a. northern spotted owl. b. marbled murrelet. c. survey and manage species. d. late-successional forests. e. riparian and aquatic habitat and species. (A social group has also been formed to review social and economic issues.) Eight work groups have been established to coordinate and develop the components of a monitoring program for these issues. Membership varies by group, but includes representatives of management and research from most of the federal agencies. A draft implementation plan was disseminated for agency review in January 1995.
Status/Update: The draft implementation plan is currently being revised. Plans for the 5 key issues are being prepared. All drafts will go through a review, including peer review, process. Drafts for all 5 components will be completed for Regional Interagency Executive Committee and Interagency Advisory Committee review in the summer of 1995. A fully integrated monitoring plan, which includes the social and other components, is expected by the end of 1995. Implementation of a program to monitor the NW Forest Plan may result in 1) the revision of existing programs; 2) a change in the current allocation of base agency funds, in particular Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Environmental Protection Agency, and/or 3) implementation of new monitoring activities to cover issues not covered under existing programs.

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Information Management	REO Contact: Tim Quinn
Background: Resource information management is a pivotal component of ecosystem management, which requires consistent data across the land base. The Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) approved a vision and strategy on October 4, 1993 which established the Interorganization Resource Information Coordinating Council (IRICC) and the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) Geographic Information System (GIS) Core Team. IRICC has been operational for over a year with active members from over 20 agencies, organizations, and tribes. The REO GIS staff has recently been established.
Status/Update: Framework Data: The strategy required IRICC to "Define and acquire a minimum set of digital base data (framework) needed to satisfy most users". A strategy was developed and implementation begun across the states of Washington, Oregon, and northern California. Framework data includes: standardized layers for transportation, topography, cultural features, hydrology, and public land survey. The data collection phase for the State of Washington is complete. Collection for the State of Oregon has a projected completion for January 1996, and California is in the planning stage. Portland GIS Network: Development of a comprehensive interagency GIS network in Portland, Oregon, is in process. This effort will allow high speed transfer of GIS files between agencies in the short term and establish the foundation for a common and shareable database. Establishment of Data Coordination Teams: IRICC has established two resource oriented teams (vegetation and hydrography/fish) responsible for establishing data standards in their respective areas. These teams are testing the process for standards development during the next 4 months. IRICC will report back to the IAC by July 1995. Other IRICC Actions: IRICC is undertaking a wide variety of other tasks and actions to support the vision outlined in their strategy. Small ad-hoc teams have been formulated to accomplish most of these actions; including, but not limited to the creation of an information clearinghouse, communication network, provincial database prototype, and a process for assessing region-wide information needs. REO GIS Staff: The REO GIS staff is working on a number of short-term NW Forest Plan implementation issues. Current projects include: 1) facilitating the development of a consistent set of watershed boundaries; 2) developing a database of Survey and Manage species known site data; 3) resolving Late Successional Reserves delineations; 4) developing a NW Forest Plan Pre-Implementation Evaluation Database; 5) updating the GIS database used by the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) and making it available to agencies through the clearinghouse; and 6) coordinating and facilitating between IRICC, provinces, and the agencies.