Regional Ecosystem Office

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

Memorandum

Date: April 27, 1995

To: Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members (See distribution list)

From: Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director

Subject: May Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda and Prework

Enclosed are the draft agenda, agenda topic overviews, and status reports for the May 4 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting. The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Portland Airport Hotel, Portland, Oregon, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

The meeting objectives are:

Review comments on the March 24 draft revised Watershed Analysis Guide.
Discuss the role of the IAC and REO concerning development of Ecosystem Restoration/Jobs-in-the-Woods policy and project implementation. Discuss opportunities to coordinate with CERT and other economic initiative efforts.
Review FACA exemption language in 1995 Unfunded Mandates Bill and agree on related follow-up actions.
Discuss and approve the RMC subcommittee charter. Finalize formation of the subcommittee.
Discuss and approve the IRICC subcommittee charter. Finalize formation of the subcommittee.
Review and provide direction concerning the format and possible content items of a proposed management information system.
Agree on agenda topics for the June meeting. Review and discuss possible topics for the July and August meetings.

We will move the Research and Monitoring Subcommittee topic to the June meeting agenda if there are no membership nominations from the IAC members at the May meeting. If you have questions or comments, phone me at 503-326-6265, Gary S. Sims at 326-6274, or Linda Kucera at 326-6283.

Enclosure

cc: REO Staff, OFED

376/ly

Date: April 27, 1995
Subject: May Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda and Prework

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Distribution List

California
Francie Sullivan, Shasta County Supervisor
Terry Gorton, Assistant Secretary, Forestry and Rural Economic Dev., California Resource Agency

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

Washington
Harvey Wolden, Skagit County Commissioner
Amy F. Bell, Deputy Supervisor for Community Relations, WA Dept. of Natural Resources
Bob Nichols, Senior Executive Policy Assistant, Governor's Office (Alternate)

Tribes
Greg Blomstrom, Planning Forester, CA Indian Forest & Fire Mgmt. Council
Mel Moon, Commissioner, NW Indian Fisheries Commission
Jim Anderson, Executive Director, NW Indian Fisheries Commission (Alternate)
Gary Morishima, Technical Advisor, Intertribal Timber Council
Guy McMinds, Executive Office Advisor, Quinault Indian Nation (Alternate)

Federal Agencies
Michael Collopy, Director, Forest & Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, National Biological Service
Anita Frankel, Director, Forest and Salmon Group, Environmental Protection Agency
Eugene Andreuccetti, Regional Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Bob Graham, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service (Alternate)
John Lowe, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, R-6
G. Lynn Sprague, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, R-5 (Alternate)
Thomas Murphy, Director, Environmental Research Laboratory, Environmental Protection Agency
Charles Philpot, Station Director, Forest Service, PNW
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
William Walters, Acting Regional Director, National Park Service
Elaine Zielinski, State Director, Bureau of Land Management, OR/WA
Ed Hastey, State Director, Bureau of Land Management, CA (Alternate)

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting
Draft Agenda for May 4, 1995
Sheraton Portland Airport Hotel, Portland, Oregon

Time Duration Topic Presenter

9:00 15 min. Welcome, certification of the March meeting notes, and objectives and agenda review for today Linda Kucera
John Lowe

9:15 60 min. Committee review of comments on the draft revised Guide Mike Tehan

10:15 15 min. Break

10:30 30 min. * Public Comment Linda

11:00 60 min. Continue review of comments on the draft revised Guide Mike

12:00 60 min. Lunch

1:00 30 min. Draft revised Guide: Reach agreement on proposed next steps for June Mike

1:30 60 min. Ecosystem Restoration/Jobs-in-the-Woods: Review background information and agree on how the IAC will proceed with the issue Curt Loop

2:30 20 min. Implications of FACA exemption language Gary Sims

2:50 15 min. Break

3:05 15 min. Approve RMC Charter as a Subcommittee Dan McKenzie

3:20 25 min. Approve IRICC Charter as a Subcommittee Tim Quinn

3:45 25 min. Review proposed Management Information System Chris Hamilton

4:10 15 min. Hot Topics Linda/All

4:25 20 min. List and agree on agenda items for the June meeting and add/delete/rearrange agenda items for out months Linda/All

4:45 15 min. Wrap-up and closing comments John and Linda

5:00 Adjourn

*If there are no public comments, we will distribute additional time as follows:

5 min. to RMC
10 min. to IRICC
10 min. to FACA
5 min. to Hot Topics

Table of Contents

Agenda Topic Overviews Page
Revision of Watershed Analysis Guide Mike Tehan 6
Ecosystem Restoration/Jobs-in-the-Woods Curt Loop/Ranotta McNair 7
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Gary Sims 8
Research and Monitoring as a Subcommittee Dan McKenzie 10
RMC Charter Dan McKenzie 11
Interorganizational Resource Information Tim Quinn 12
Coordinating Council as a Subcommittee
IRICC Charter Tim Quinn 13
Proposed Management Information System Chris Hamilton 15

Status Reports
Opportunities for IAC Participation Dave Powers 17
Rescission Bill Don Knowles 18
Consolidated Budget Don Knowles 18
Federal Timber Sale Program Chris Hamilton 19
IAC and ROD Requirements Gary Sims 20
Framework Data Tim Quinn 22
Monitoring Barry Mulder 23
Possible Agenda Items for June, Linda Kucera 24
July, and August IAC Meetings

ACTION TOPIC
OVERVIEWS

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW

TOPIC: Revision of Watershed Analysis Guide REO Contact: Mike Tehan

Issue Statement: What changes in the March 24 review draft of Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale: The Revised Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis (Guide) should be made based on comments received from the IAC and others?

Background: The Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) distributed the draft Guide and described the document review schedule during the March IAC meeting. The draft Guide was developed within the policy constraints described in the January direction from the RIEC to the Watershed Analysis Coordination Team (WACT) and REO. Comments received on or before April 24 are being analyzed and will be reported during the May meeting. During the May meeting, IAC members will be able to give their comments, which will be synthesized and incorporated into a final working draft that will be made available to the IAC members before the June meeting. At the June meeting, the IAC members will be able to comment on the incorporation of their suggested changes. The revised Guide will be presented in final form at the July meeting.

Analysis and Options: The REO and WACT are preparing an analysis of the comments received for presentation and discussion during the May IAC meeting. A revised ATO that includes this analysis will be sent to the IAC members prior to the May meeting.

Organizational/Funding Implications: As one of the cornerstones of the NW Forest Plan, watershed analysis carries major organizational and funding implications. Significant agency budgets and staff resources have been programmed to accomplishing watershed analysis as a prerequisite to restoration, timber harvest, and other activities in key watersheds, riparian reserves, and roadless areas. We need to develop a process that is technically adequate, and achievable with available budgets and staffing levels.

REO Staff Proposal: In preparation.

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

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW

TOPIC: Ecosystem Restoration/Jobs-in-the-Woods REO Contact: Curt Loop and
Ranotta McNair

Issue Statement: Review the Ecosystem Restoration/Jobs-in-the-Woods (JITW) program and discuss possible IAC actions.

Background: Following the March IAC meeting the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) drafted a discussion paper concerning the Economic Adjustment Initiative of which Ecosystem Restoration/JITW is a part. The paper (enclosed) provides an overview of the program and discusses the various federal agencies involved, the funding history, and the focus of the funding categories and programs.

Analysis and Options: Further discussion about the details and processes of the Ecosystem Restoration/JITW process appear to be a reasonable next step in determining whether an IAC involvement is warranted, and, if so, at what level. Among the issues to be considered:

Does the IAC need additional background and status information?

Should the IAC focus on ecosystem restoration activities?

What should the REO's role be to support the IAC interest in ecosystem restoration?

Should REO develop a mechanism for assessing the ecological and socioeconomic values of restoration projects (e.g., implementation monitoring) and a means for making decisions that balance these values within the area of the NW Forest Plan, as suggested by the R-CERT?

Organizational/Funding Implications: Unknown at this time. As additional information is gathered and guidance is received from the IAC as to the direction they wish to pursue, the REO will be able to better assess the organizational and funding implications.

REO Staff Proposal: REO recommends that the IAC focus its discussion on the Ecosystem Restoration/JITW activities, looking for ways to improve the packaging, coordination, tracking, and reporting of these activities across the agencies. The IAC should further discuss this topic and provide guidance to the REO.

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

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW

TOPIC: Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) REO Contact: Gary S. Sims

Issue Statement: The 1995 Unfunded Mandates Bill provides for exemptions from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) for meetings "held exclusively between federal officials and elected officers of state, local, and tribal governments (or their designated employees with authority to act on their behalf) acting in their official capacity." The IAC (committee) requested that the new language be evaluated and presented at the May meeting so that the committee may consider its options.

Background: The applicable part of the bill is Section 204:
SEC. 204. STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENT INPUT
a. In General: Each agency shall, to the extent permitted in law, develop an effective process to permit elected officers of state, local, and tribal governments (or their designated employees with authority to act on their behalf) to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals containing significant federal intergovernmental mandates.
b. Meetings Between State, Local, Tribal, and Federal Officers: The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to actions in support of intergovernmental communications where--

meetings are held exclusively between federal officials and elected officers of state, local, and tribal governments (or their designated employees with authority to act on their behalf) acting in their official capacities; and

such meetings are solely for the purposes of exchanging views, information, or advice relating to the management or implementation of federal programs established pursuant to public law that explicitly or inherently share intergovernmental responsibilities or administration.

c. Implementing Guidelines: No later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall issue guidelines and instructions to federal agencies for appropriate implementation of subsections (a) and (b) consistent with applicable laws and regulations.
Analysis and Options: To gain an initial impression of the possible opportunities the legislation may present the committee, staff discussed the issue with Jim Dean, Director - GSA Committee Management Secretariat; Susan Carr-Gossman, White House Liaison - USDA Committee Management Office; and Charles Lennahan, USDA OGC - Denver.
The results of those conversations indicated the following:
There is some confusion over the terms used in Section 204:

What is meant by "meetings exclusively" between the federal and other governments. (For example must exclusive meetings be held in "closed settings" without public involvement?)

What is meant by "elected officers . . . or their designated employees . . ."? (The language indicates that not every state/local/tribal employee may meet the requirement, but rather someone with clear authority to act on behalf of the elected official. For example, university professors are probably not delegated the required authority. Further, the exemption does not appear to include representatives from associations or organizations. There may be a need to have documentation showing delegated authority to employees of elected officials.)

What is meant by "with authority to act on their behalf," and how is it demonstrated? (What kind of authority is needed by employees? If an employee has to confer with the elected official before taking a position, does that indicate that there is a lack of delegated authority?)

Implementation actions for the NW Forest Plan pertain exclusively to federal lands. However, these decisions have effects across other land ownerships. Can meetings fulfill the requirement that they address a program "that explicitly or inherently share intergovernmental responsibility or administration?"

If the IAC were no longer an advisory committee under FACA, the following would be potentially immediate operational and financial consequences:

The formation and use of subcommittees. The IAC has tentatively approved the formation of two subcommittees (with details to be finalized during the May meeting): RMC and IRICC. There will likely be times when other subcommittees will be proposed and approved. The principal reason for forming a subcommittee is to allow the participation of nonfederal interests that are not members of the IAC. For example, there may be times when industry or university scientists could make major contributions to the work of a subcommittee. Neither one could participate, in a collaborative manner, unless such participation is within the framework of an approved committee, or subgroup of an approved committee.

The Forest Service would no longer be required to reimburse travel and per diem expenses of nonfederal members of the committee. The members' organizations would have to absorb the cost of attending official meetings, or the Forest Service would need to find an alternative way to reimburse individuals for their expenses.

If the IAC was no longer an advisory committee these FACA requirements would not apply:

Seek departmental written approval before being able to close meetings to the public.

Meetings have to be open and accessible to the public.

Renewal of committee charter every 2 years.

Federal Register public notification of meetings.

Detailed meeting minutes.

Provide annual report of disposition of committee recommendations.

For now, USDA is taking the following position:

The Department, rather than individual committees themselves, will determine which advisory committees will be terminated and "re-formed" under the Section 204 exemption.

The Department does not intend to act until the GSA publishes the interim regulations, to ensure that departmental actions are consistent.

The GSA expects the interim regulations to be released in early to mid-May.

Organizational/Funding Implications: N/A

REO Staff Proposal: The IAC should continue to operate as a FACA committee until additional guidance is received. REO staff should keep abreast of activities at departmental and GSA levels. Interim guidelines should be reviewed to see if they lead to different assessments than presented here.

ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC:
IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other: None

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW

TOPIC: Research and Monitoring Committee (RMC) as a Subcommittee REO Contact: Dan McKenzie

Issue Statement: At the March meeting, IAC members were invited to nominate RMC representatives, with membership to be approved at the May meeting. A strategy for communication will also be presented at the meeting.

Background: The IAC tentatively established the RMC as a subcommittee and agreed to expand the membership to include unrepresented IAC organizations. The list of nominees will be presented and decided on by IAC. The IAC members also asked the RMC to develop a communication strategy to facilitate participation by all parties, without incurring burdensome travel.

Analysis and Options: The RMC will review the nominations for membership and provide recommendations to IAC. The RMC recommends adoption of the communication principles listed below.

Organizational/Funding Implications: N/A

REO Staff Proposal: The RMC will actively use alternative methods to facilitate communication and participation in RMC issues, discussions, findings, and recommendations including the following:
Directory: Develop and maintain a directory of RMC members, with subdirectories for research, monitoring, and scientific oversight interest groups. All work groups will be entered into the directory.
Conference Calls: The RMC will look for opportunities to hold conference calls before, during, and after RMC meetings to identify issues, facilitate participation in the process, and communicate findings and results. Conference calls to discuss special issues will be scheduled on an as needed basis.
E-Mail: A directory of E-Mail addresses for all RMC members will be developed and distributed. To the maximum extent feasible, all meeting agendas, notes, and draft materials will be distributed via E-Mail or fax. In addition, one or more list servers will be established to provide convenient communications to all interested E-Mail users.
Meeting Location: The majority of RMC meetings will be held in Portland, Oregon. Periodically, meetings will be held in Seattle, Washington, and Sacramento, California, and coordinated with local area members.

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

CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE NAME: Research and Monitoring Committee (RMC) April 19, 1995

The Research and Monitoring Committee (RMC) was established to facilitate the Northwest Forest Plan's 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 Plan implementation. The RMC is supported by three full-time staff on assignment from FS, NBS, and EPA research organizations, in coordination with the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO). With the adoption of this charter, the RMC has been established as a designated subcommittee to the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee covered by FACA. Currently the RMC has representatives from the following participating agencies: EPA, BIA, FS, NMFS, NPS, NRCS, BLM, FWS, USGS, and NBS.
The RMC works to develop strong scientific relationships among the participating agencies, 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, the 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 that support the Plan, as well as interpretation and recommendations for changes to the standards and guidelines. A catalogue and directory of monitoring and research projects and results will be developed to provide access to current information.
The RMC orchestrates the development of an interagency monitoring network plan to provide monitoring data that can be compared and interpreted across numerous agencies and on relevant temporal and spatial scales. This includes identification of information needs, monitoring designs and protocols, and guidelines for implication at several spatial scales and project objectives. The RMC provides leadership in working with the numerous groups developing monitoring activities as part of specific Plan implementation components; e.g., Watershed Analysis, Adaptive Management Areas, Late Successional Reserves, Survey and Manage. The RMC coordinates the implementation of monitoring activities and aids in translating priority needs into action and budget plans. The RMC will periodically review and update this plan and evaluate progress toward meeting high priority monitoring needs. The RMC seeks to involve a wide spectrum of scientists and managers in the conduct and review of the monitoring activities.
The RMC helps coordinate and facilitate priority research for the NW Forest Plan through development of an interagency research plan. Annually, the RMC will review and update this plan, identify significant findings, and assess priority research needs. In addition, the RMC will help to translate this information into action and budget plans. The RMC will also work to coordinate the research activities conducted in the Adaptive Management Areas. Significant research results and their implications for management actions and standards and guidelines will be highlighted. The annual assessment will also present an evaluation of the implementation of the research plan and progress toward acquisition of priority scientific information.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW

TOPIC: Interoganizational Resource Information Coordinating Council (IRICC) as a Subcommittee IRICC/REO Contact: Tim Quinn

Issue Statement: Should the IAC approve the IRICC Charter as presented?

Background: The IAC tentatively approved the IRICC as a subcommittee at the March meeting. The IAC requested clarification concerning the subcommittee's relationship with the IAC, IRICC, and Regional Ecosystem Office (REO). The clarification and developed charter should strengthen the relationship between REO and IRICC for the benefit of IAC. Also, the scope of IRICC's support for data needs arising from Salmon issues in the Columbia River Basin, section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act, and Habitat Conservation Plans need to be identified.

Analysis and Options: Please refer to the attached IRICC Charter. The discussion will highlight:

Purpose of the IRICC.

Scope of IRICC's activities.

Organization of the subcommittee membership, meetings, leadership, project teams, and funding.

IRICC's relationships with the IAC, REO, and participating organizations.

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 expected to be substantial. There are no formal provisions for reimbursing subcommittee members of participating governments, agencies, or organizations the costs of traveling, attending meetings, etc.

IRICC Proposal: Please refer to the attached IRICC Charter. In addition to approving the Charter, the IRICC proposes developing a working agreement for approval by the IAC.

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

CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE NAME: Interorganizational Resource Information Coordinating Council (IRICC) April 25, 1995

Purpose: The Interorganizational Resource Information Coordinating Council (IRICC) is established as a subcommittee to the IAC to develop a seamless, current, and accessible information network to support ecosystem management. The subcommittee provides advice and guidance in the coordination of ecosystem information management efforts and plans among participating organizations including: policy direction, identification of key data sets, formulation of standards, establishment of data management priorities, applications, and data maintenance. IRICC will report directly to the IAC, in cooperation with Regional Ecosystem Office (REO), and will be expected to provide policy recommendations to the IAC on all information management priorities which cross agency jurisdictions.
Scope: The scope of IRICC's activities includes policy definition to enhance joint interests in the collection, management, and use of resource information and data, including: joint data policies, technical standards, data specifications, inventories, nonspatial and spatial data, analysis methodologies, and applications for ecosystem management. IRICC's information management includes support for implementation of the NW Forest Plan, the Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, treaty rights, and other applicable direction pursuant to ecosystem management in the Pacific Northwest. IRICC will coordinate with other interorganizational information management efforts.
Membership: Current members of IRICC will continue. Additionally, IAC members organizations not currently represented on the subcommittee may nominate a representative. Representatives are expected to provide the necessary coordination and communication with their organization, have a comprehensive understanding of the organization's resource issues and needs, and a working knowledge of information resource management principles and concepts.
Meeting Schedule: IRICC meetings are open and encourage broad participation. Meetings are held approximately every 6 weeks. Conference calls occasionally replace meetings. Prework for discussion topics will be distributed the week prior to meetings. Meeting notes will be distributed the week following. Actions will be documented in an IRICC record and reported to the IAC. A computer bulletin board system will be used to schedule meetings, publish meeting notes, list reports and project team products, and provide a means for members to comment on issues.
Leadership: IRICC will elect a chair from among it's members. The Chair will be expected to serve as a coordinator and project manager, in support of IRICC objectives as determined by IAC. Nominations and election of the chairperson will be made at the first regularly scheduled meeting of the fiscal year. Election will be by simple majority vote of members. Voting may be done in person or by telephone. Term of office will be 1 year. A steering committee comprised of the chair, the executive secretary, and a subset of IRICC members will meet on a more frequent basis than the entire IRICC membership to ensure projects are moving forward, set meeting agendas, and raise issues for IRICC resolution.

Project Teams: The IRICC will create working groups on an as needed basis.
Funding: Organizations are responsible for covering all costs associated with subcommittee activities.
Subcommittee Voting Members:
States (Washington, Oregon, California)
Three tribal governments
Federal agencies (BLM-CA, BLM-OR/WA, BIA, BOR, COE, EPA, FWS, NMFS, FS-R5, FS-R6, NPS, NRCS, REO, USGS, BPA)
Federal research agencies (FS, EPA, NBS)
Three counties (one per state)
REO Lead: Tim Quinn
Relationship of Subcommittee to REO, Organizations, and IAC: IRICC recommends projects, agency responsibilities, timelines, and priorities to the IAC. Individual IAC members make decisions in the exercise of their normal statutory functions. An annual working agreement will be developed by IRICC and proposed to the IAC for their concurrence. The agreement will be updated as needed throughout the year.
The REO is a participating member of the IRICC subcommittee. The REO GIS staff works with IRICC to: 1) ensure that the IAC is kept current on IRICC accomplishments and recommendations, 2) produce information products for the IAC, 3) facilitate IRICC's access to REO work groups and other IAC subcommittees, 4) update IRICC on the status of NW Forest Plan implementation priorities, 5) coordinate with provinces as appropriate, 6) facilitate requests to agencies for resources, and 7) provide staff support to the subcommittee. The REO GIS team lead will serve as executive secretary for IRICC. Furthermore, REO produces near-term implementation products relating to the NW Forest Plan for the IAC, in response to IAC direction, and with the support of IRICC.
Participating organizations provide: 1) representatives to serve on the IRICC; 2) tactical planning to balance organizational needs, resources, and priorities with interorganizational ecosystem management needs; 3) sponsorship and management of interorganizational projects and project teams, especially where similar work is already being done; 4) funding and staffing of interorganizational projects; and 5) delivery of information products for NW Forest Plan implementation.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW

TOPIC: Proposed Management Information System REO Contact: Chris Hamilton

Issue Statement: Review a proposed Management Information System mock-up and discuss potential interagency information management issues.

Background: Following discussion about the need for an interagency coordinated and integrated management information system at the March IAC meeting, the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) staff drafted and circulated on April 14, a memorandum outlining some issues and opportunities relating to such a system.

Analysis and Options: If the schedule and location information for a number of individual agency activities were shared, it would likely enhance the ability of all agencies to make sound management decisions. However, the benefits to each agency would need to be weighed against the additional staff time (if any) involved in designing and implementing such a system. Further discussions about the details of such a system would seem to be a reasonable next step in determining whether an IAC agreement to proceed with such a system can be reached. Among the issues to be discussed would be:

Priority activities to be tracked.

The need for GIS plots to accompany data sets.

The update frequency of such reports.

Whether all necessary data is currently being collected/reported and, if not, whether additional data collection would be worthwhile.

The relationship of such a system to PIEC, state, or regional decisionmakers.

Whether such a system needs to be electronic, or would a manually integrated system be adequate.

Organizational/Funding Implications: Unknown at this time. Additional information will be gathered over time. The REO GIS staff is capable of devoting some staff time in support of system design and implementation, if a decision is reached to proceed.

REO Staff Proposal: IAC should further discuss and provide additional direction.

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

Status

Reports

(Note: These Status Reports are designed to provide the IAC members with status and/or update information on items which do not require planned presentations. Committee members are encouraged to call on the individual REO Contacts for any amplification or clarification that may be needed.)

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Opportunities for IAC Participation REO Contact: Dave Powers

Background: The ability of tribal, state, and county IAC members and their staff to participate in Portland, Oregon-based efforts related to implementation of the NW Forest Plan is limited by budgets, logistics, and staff availability. The following opportunities are available to address these limitations.

Status/Update:

Products developed by Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) or associated work groups will be provided to IAC members in draft at early stages of development and review timeframes will be lengthened where possible to address cost and staff availability constraints.

IAC members and their staff can participate in based efforts where feasible. The timing and length of meetings can be adjusted to facilitate participation in Portland, Oregon. Alternative sites for meetings and workshops may be selected to enable the participation of IAC members and their staff in efforts relevant to specific geographic areas or issues.

IAC members can participate in REO and associated work group meetings through conference calls. REO's phone system currently has 6-way conference call capability and billing is to REO. REO also has access to two Forest Service conference call lines, which can each accommodate up to 20 callers. Billing on the Forest Service conference call system is to the person calling in.

At least three additional commercial conference call options are available through ATT Telephone Service at a cost of $.53/minute/line. Two of these options are billed to the outside callers.

IRICC is testing the utility of Oregon's ED-NET Compass bulletin board, electronic mail, and computer conferencing system in meeting intergovernmental business needs. Depending on its utility, ED-NET could be used for IAC member participation. The annual cost for access to ED-NET is $35, but calls from outside of Oregon are considered long distance and billed accordingly.

The National Rural Development Partnership provides a network with electronic mail, file transfer, clearinghouse, and other functions. This network can be accessed via Internet for sending and/or receiving E-Mail. A toll free number is available to nonfederal users.

REO and some of the work groups are utilizing the Internet System which costs $75 or $125 per year depending on the level of service. IAC members currently on Internet could communicate with work groups via Internet. ED-NET can also be utilized through the Internet System.

REO will help keep IAC members up-to-date on REO and work group activities through phone calls, written materials, and personal contacts on an ongoing basis.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Rescission Bill REO Contact: Don Knowles

Background: Both the House and Senate have passed legislation affecting the terms and conditions of timber sale activities for fiscal years 1995 and 1996. The legislative language proposes changes to administrative requirements, environmental documentation, court challenges, and appeals for timber salvage or forest health sales; for sales previously sold under the authority of Section 318 of the fiscal year 1990 appropriations bill; and for sales offered pursuant to the NW Forest Plan.

Status/Update: We intend to distribute copies of the House and Senate passed language prior to or at the May IAC meeting, along with an estimated schedule for conference committee and subsequent actions. Directly affected implementing agencies may also want to provide additional views at the IAC meeting.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Consolidated Budget REO Contact: Don Knowles

Background: The topic of a combined budget for the NW Forest Plan was discussed at the March IAC meeting. REO will distribute copies of a table, prior to or at the May IAC meeting, showing funding levels for all federal agencies in three categories: the President's FY 1995 request to Congress; the Congressional action establishing a funding level for FY 1995; and the President's FY 1996 request to Congress.

Status/Update: Neither House nor Senate have yet taken action on the FY 1996 funding bills for agencies involved in NW Forest Plan implementation. However, Congress has passed and the President has signed into law one bill rescinding $1.5 million previously appropriated to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for endangered species listing activities in FY 1995.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Federal Timber Sale Program REO Contact: Chris Hamilton

Background: The selected alternative in the Record of Decision calls for an estimated probable sale quantity (PSQ) of 1.0 billion board feet from lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service within the range of the northern spotted owl. Both agencies are working toward implementation of a timber sale program that will meet full PSQ in FY 1997, with intervening goals of 60% (600 mmbf) in FY 1995, and 80% (800 mmbf) in FY 1996.

Status/Update: Members of the IAC requested an update at each meeting of timber volume offered and harvest accomplishments to date.
FY 1994
- Timber volume sold within the NW Forest Plan area:
BLM 18.5
FS 233.0
251.5 mmbf
- Volume harvested within the NW Forest Plan area:
BLM 154.5
FS 851.0
1005.5 mmbf
FY 1995
- Volume offered within the NW Forest Plan area as of 5/1/95. Some sales are under challenge through review processes. None have proceeded to litigation to date.
BLM 18.2
70.0 "Old sales" made available by BLM in FY 1995.
FS 57.1
145.3 mmbf
- Volume harvested within the NW Forest Plan area as of 5/1/95:
BLM 32.6
FS 222.0
254.6 mmbf
- Estimated total sale volume for FY 1995 by September 30, 1995:
BLM 122.2
70.0 "Old sales" made available by BLM in FY 1995.
FS 466.0
658.2 mmbf

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: IAC and ROD Requirements REO Contact: Gary S. Sims

Background: A concern was expressed at the March IAC meeting that changes appear to have been made in the requirements identified in the Record of Decision (ROD). The example given was that the Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) as described in the ROD (page E-16) is different from the RIEC as identified in the IAC Charter. This Status Report describes the differences and attempts to explain why they exist.
The ROD identified the RIEC as being composed of eight federal and six nonfederal organizations: FS, BLM, FWS, NMFS, BIA, EPA, NPS, SCS (now NRCS); the states of Washington, Oregon, and California; and three tribal organizations.
Meetings of these organizations, designed to hold collaborative discussions and provide advice to the principal land management and regulatory agencies, were held for a number of months. However, the meetings were suspended because of concern about violation of FACA. Judge Jackson had ruled that FEMAT had violated FACA, and there was a concern that a similar determination regarding the RIEC could imperil the implementation of the ROD.
In order to comply with the requirements of FACA, it was decided that the RIEC should be reconstituted as an advisory committee with an approved charter and members appointed by the appropriate agency head (in this case the Secretary of Agriculture). While the advisory committee was being formed, collaborative meetings with nonfederal individuals were discontinued (around June 1994). It was originally anticipated that the federal executives would be meeting only a relatively short while until the advisory committee was formally established. The charter for the advisory committee was approved August 1994, but, members were not appointed until January 10, 1995. The first meeting of the advisory committee was held on March 28-29, 1995.
During the course of development of the advisory committee charter, the Forest Service (the lead agency in the effort) pursued the membership mirroring the former RIEC (federal agencies, states, and tribes) and added other representation the federal executives had identified as potentially important (federal research organizations and county governments). The membership to the advisory committee was finally described as: the original eight federal agencies, three tribal government representatives, three state representatives, three county representatives (one from each state), and three federal research representatives for a total of 20 members. The membership of the IAC closely reflects the original RIEC as described in the ROD.
While the advisory committee charter was being drafted, the executives of the 11 federal agencies continued to meet. There was a realization that to suspend all meetings until all FACA-related questions were resolved and a formal advisory committee was constituted would cause significant loss of momentum in the implementation of the ROD.

The advisory committee was developed to allow regular, collaborative meetings with nonfederal representatives. At the regional level, the committee is composed of governmental interests. The committee was titled the "Intergovernmental Advisory Committee." The charter conformed with FACA.

Status/Update: The IAC charter re-defined the RIEC as seven of the federal executives that were original signatories of the Interagency Memorandum of Understanding (i.e., BIA, BLM, EPA, FS, FWS, NMFS, and NPS; the SCS (NRCS) was dropped from the RIEC). These agencies would also be members of the IAC, with the FS and the BLM alternating as chair of the committee. This "re-definition" of the RIEC and the "creation" of the IAC satisfied two essential purposes:
1) Prior to the FACA exemption language in the Unfunded Mandates Bill, nonfederal governmental interests needed to be members of an advisory committee to be able to regularly meet with federal representatives in a collaborative manner, and to be able to offer advice and recommendations to the federal members. The inclusion of the nonfederal governmental executives as advisory committee members allows them and the federal representatives to collaborate together.
2) An advisory committee must provide advice to some entity. To address this need, and to meet the interagency goals of the NW Forest Plan, the seven signatory agencies were identified as the RIEC, and it is to this group that recommendations are made.
The changes in the RIEC were made in order to conform with FACA. If the federal agencies had been able to maintain the RIEC in its previous form, the nonfederal members would still have only been able to provide advice and recommendations. A federal official cannot delegate or defer to a nonfederal entity or individual the authority to make federal commitments or decisions. To our knowledge, with this exception, the NW Forest Plan as described in the ROD and S&Gs is the plan being implemented.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Framework Data - IRICC REO Contact: Tim Quinn

Background: Federal agencies in the Pacific Northwest have agreed to develop a combined set of data elements on five key "framework" information layers. These elements are those thought to have the widest utility in GIS systems and form the foundations on which other information layers, such as a habitat can be built. Completion of a regional set of framework data would substantially aid decisionmakers. Framework data includes: standardized layers for transportation, topography, boundaries, hydrography, and public land survey.

Status/Update: Compilation of framework data sets, now underway, involves contracting with USGS to digitize land areas not contributed by cooperating agencies. Contributed and contracted data sets must be edge matched and maintained in the out years in order to have useful data sets.
Framework data for Washington is being coordinated by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). Data collection is estimated to cost $370,000 and is expected to be completed by August. To date $320,000 has been contributed by participating agencies (EPA, FS, BLM, BOR, COE, NRCS, USGS, and three state agencies) at $20,000 per share with some agencies purchasing multiple shares. WDNR has applied for a grant to the Department of Commerce for $280,000 to develop an access and maintenance system. Ongoing operations and maintenance could run as high as $10,000 per year per cooperator.
The Oregon State Service Center for GIS is coordinating framework data for Oregon. Initial data collection is projected to cost $686,000 or about $35,000 per cooperator and has a projected completion date of June 1996. The State of California is in the planning stage with no projected completion date. Completion of all phases of framework data projects is contingent on the continued commitment of organizations to meet these funding requirements.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is interested in ensuring that these projects are well planned and financed through their life cycles. Each of the three projects will raise unique issues concerning funding and use of the data, such as what are the public data release rights of federal agencies when their funds are commingled with State of Washington Trust dollars? The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service may want to raise this issue for a brief discussion at the May IAC meeting to test for consensus.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Monitoring REO Contact: Barry Mulder

Background: At the request of the Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC), the Research and Monitoring Committee has been preparing a plan for monitoring the implementation of the NW Forest Plan. The NW Forest Plan and the Record of Decision (ROD) identify monitoring as a key component in implementation of the Plan, and monitoring is identified in Judge Dwyer's decision as an expected, high priority task. Implementation monitoring is one part of the overall monitoring program and addresses whether or not the standards and guidelines are being implemented as directed in the ROD. This information will be important in assessing agency compliance with the ROD. The intent has been to produce a plan which provides a sound and rigorous approach to monitoring that provides consistent and quantifiable data for analysis. A first draft was released for agency comment in January. A wide range of comments were received on the plan ranging from too lengthy and burdensome to requesting more specificity. Comments were considered and the document has been revised.

Status/Update: At the March IAC meeting, the IAC was informed that the second draft of the implementation monitoring plan would be available for review in late April. Prior to the May 4 meeting, members of the IAC should have received a package in the mail with the draft plan and a cover letter requesting review and comment by May 15. Two types of reviews are being undertaken: 1) review by the members of the IAC and Regional and Provincial Interagency Executive Committees in monitoring, management, and standards and guidelines. The letter contained a list of questions for the reviewers to consider as they review this draft. Comments will be reviewed and a final implementation monitoring plan will be presented to the IAC at the June 1 meeting. If accepted, it is expected that the plan will be implemented shortly thereafter.

Possible Agenda Items for June, July, and August IAC Meetings

June 1 in Portland, Oregon

Watershed Analysis Guide--Brief the IAC on the final "working draft" of the Guide. There will be an opportunity to discuss any lingering issues/concerns. We will seek agreement on subsequent steps to finalize the Guide.

Ecosystem Restoration/Jobs-in-the-Woods--Update on the progress to improve Ecosystem Restoration/Jobs-in-the-Woods coordination issues.

Research and Monitoring Committee--Present and distribute the final draft of the Implementation Monitoring Plan.

IAC Operations--Possibly consider additional subcommittees and FACA guidance from the Department.

July 6 in Seattle, Washington

Watershed Analysis Guide--Brief the IAC on the final Guide, including the disposition of issues identified during the June IAC meeting. The REO plans to produce and distribute the final document in July.

Ecosystem Restoration/Jobs-in-the-Woods--Seek resolution of any outstanding Ecosystem Restoration/Jobs-in-the-Woods issues.

Information Management--Presentation on a consistent set of watershed boundaries.

August 3 in Portland, Oregon

Research and Monitoring Committee--Status briefing on research and monitoring surveys and the Effectiveness Monitoring Plan.

Information Management--Presentation on a integrated resource information system between REO, BLM, and FS (at a minimum).

Role of Government-to-Government Consultation--Presentation of an analysis of ways to enhance government-to-government consultation and communication between federal agencies and tribal governments regarding issues related to the implementation of the NW Forest Plan.

Time	Duration	Topic	Presenter
9:00	15 min.	Welcome, certification of the March meeting notes, and objectives and agenda review for today	Linda Kucera John Lowe
9:15	60 min.	Committee review of comments on the draft revised Guide	Mike Tehan
10:15	15 min.	Break
10:30	30 min.	* Public Comment	Linda
11:00	60 min.	Continue review of comments on the draft revised Guide	Mike
12:00	60 min.	Lunch
1:00	30 min.	Draft revised Guide: Reach agreement on proposed next steps for June	Mike
1:30	60 min.	Ecosystem Restoration/Jobs-in-the-Woods: Review background information and agree on how the IAC will proceed with the issue	Curt Loop
2:30	20 min.	Implications of FACA exemption language	Gary Sims
2:50	15 min.	Break
3:05	15 min.	Approve RMC Charter as a Subcommittee	Dan McKenzie
3:20	25 min.	Approve IRICC Charter as a Subcommittee	Tim Quinn
3:45	25 min.	Review proposed Management Information System	Chris Hamilton
4:10	15 min.	Hot Topics	Linda/All
4:25	20 min.	List and agree on agenda items for the June meeting and add/delete/rearrange agenda items for out months	Linda/All
4:45	15 min.	Wrap-up and closing comments	John and Linda
5:00		Adjourn

TOPIC: Revision of Watershed Analysis Guide	REO Contact: Mike Tehan
Issue Statement: What changes in the March 24 review draft of Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale: The Revised Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis (Guide) should be made based on comments received from the IAC and others?
Background: The Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) distributed the draft Guide and described the document review schedule during the March IAC meeting. The draft Guide was developed within the policy constraints described in the January direction from the RIEC to the Watershed Analysis Coordination Team (WACT) and REO. Comments received on or before April 24 are being analyzed and will be reported during the May meeting. During the May meeting, IAC members will be able to give their comments, which will be synthesized and incorporated into a final working draft that will be made available to the IAC members before the June meeting. At the June meeting, the IAC members will be able to comment on the incorporation of their suggested changes. The revised Guide will be presented in final form at the July meeting.
Analysis and Options: The REO and WACT are preparing an analysis of the comments received for presentation and discussion during the May IAC meeting. A revised ATO that includes this analysis will be sent to the IAC members prior to the May meeting.
Organizational/Funding Implications: As one of the cornerstones of the NW Forest Plan, watershed analysis carries major organizational and funding implications. Significant agency budgets and staff resources have been programmed to accomplishing watershed analysis as a prerequisite to restoration, timber harvest, and other activities in key watersheds, riparian reserves, and roadless areas. We need to develop a process that is technically adequate, and achievable with available budgets and staffing levels.
REO Staff Proposal: In preparation.
ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC: IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other

TOPIC: Ecosystem Restoration/Jobs-in-the-Woods	REO Contact: Curt Loop and Ranotta McNair
Issue Statement: Review the Ecosystem Restoration/Jobs-in-the-Woods (JITW) program and discuss possible IAC actions.
Background: Following the March IAC meeting the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) drafted a discussion paper concerning the Economic Adjustment Initiative of which Ecosystem Restoration/JITW is a part. The paper (enclosed) provides an overview of the program and discusses the various federal agencies involved, the funding history, and the focus of the funding categories and programs.
Analysis and Options: Further discussion about the details and processes of the Ecosystem Restoration/JITW process appear to be a reasonable next step in determining whether an IAC involvement is warranted, and, if so, at what level. Among the issues to be considered: Does the IAC need additional background and status information? Should the IAC focus on ecosystem restoration activities? What should the REO's role be to support the IAC interest in ecosystem restoration? Should REO develop a mechanism for assessing the ecological and socioeconomic values of restoration projects (e.g., implementation monitoring) and a means for making decisions that balance these values within the area of the NW Forest Plan, as suggested by the R-CERT?
Organizational/Funding Implications: Unknown at this time. As additional information is gathered and guidance is received from the IAC as to the direction they wish to pursue, the REO will be able to better assess the organizational and funding implications.
REO Staff Proposal: REO recommends that the IAC focus its discussion on the Ecosystem Restoration/JITW activities, looking for ways to improve the packaging, coordination, tracking, and reporting of these activities across the agencies. The IAC should further discuss this topic and provide guidance to the REO.
ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC: IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other: Review and adopt

TOPIC: Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)	REO Contact: Gary S. Sims
Issue Statement: The 1995 Unfunded Mandates Bill provides for exemptions from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) for meetings "held exclusively between federal officials and elected officers of state, local, and tribal governments (or their designated employees with authority to act on their behalf) acting in their official capacity." The IAC (committee) requested that the new language be evaluated and presented at the May meeting so that the committee may consider its options.
Background: The applicable part of the bill is Section 204: SEC. 204. STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENT INPUT a. In General: Each agency shall, to the extent permitted in law, develop an effective process to permit elected officers of state, local, and tribal governments (or their designated employees with authority to act on their behalf) to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals containing significant federal intergovernmental mandates. b. Meetings Between State, Local, Tribal, and Federal Officers: The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to actions in support of intergovernmental communications where-- meetings are held exclusively between federal officials and elected officers of state, local, and tribal governments (or their designated employees with authority to act on their behalf) acting in their official capacities; and such meetings are solely for the purposes of exchanging views, information, or advice relating to the management or implementation of federal programs established pursuant to public law that explicitly or inherently share intergovernmental responsibilities or administration. c. Implementing Guidelines: No later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall issue guidelines and instructions to federal agencies for appropriate implementation of subsections (a) and (b) consistent with applicable laws and regulations. Analysis and Options: To gain an initial impression of the possible opportunities the legislation may present the committee, staff discussed the issue with Jim Dean, Director - GSA Committee Management Secretariat; Susan Carr-Gossman, White House Liaison - USDA Committee Management Office; and Charles Lennahan, USDA OGC - Denver. The results of those conversations indicated the following: There is some confusion over the terms used in Section 204: What is meant by "meetings exclusively" between the federal and other governments. (For example must exclusive meetings be held in "closed settings" without public involvement?) What is meant by "elected officers . . . or their designated employees . . ."? (The language indicates that not every state/local/tribal employee may meet the requirement, but rather someone with clear authority to act on behalf of the elected official. For example, university professors are probably not delegated the required authority. Further, the exemption does not appear to include representatives from associations or organizations. There may be a need to have documentation showing delegated authority to employees of elected officials.) What is meant by "with authority to act on their behalf," and how is it demonstrated? (What kind of authority is needed by employees? If an employee has to confer with the elected official before taking a position, does that indicate that there is a lack of delegated authority?) Implementation actions for the NW Forest Plan pertain exclusively to federal lands. However, these decisions have effects across other land ownerships. Can meetings fulfill the requirement that they address a program "that explicitly or inherently share intergovernmental responsibility or administration?" If the IAC were no longer an advisory committee under FACA, the following would be potentially immediate operational and financial consequences: The formation and use of subcommittees. The IAC has tentatively approved the formation of two subcommittees (with details to be finalized during the May meeting): RMC and IRICC. There will likely be times when other subcommittees will be proposed and approved. The principal reason for forming a subcommittee is to allow the participation of nonfederal interests that are not members of the IAC. For example, there may be times when industry or university scientists could make major contributions to the work of a subcommittee. Neither one could participate, in a collaborative manner, unless such participation is within the framework of an approved committee, or subgroup of an approved committee. The Forest Service would no longer be required to reimburse travel and per diem expenses of nonfederal members of the committee. The members' organizations would have to absorb the cost of attending official meetings, or the Forest Service would need to find an alternative way to reimburse individuals for their expenses. If the IAC was no longer an advisory committee these FACA requirements would not apply: Seek departmental written approval before being able to close meetings to the public. Meetings have to be open and accessible to the public. Renewal of committee charter every 2 years. Federal Register public notification of meetings. Detailed meeting minutes. Provide annual report of disposition of committee recommendations. For now, USDA is taking the following position: The Department, rather than individual committees themselves, will determine which advisory committees will be terminated and "re-formed" under the Section 204 exemption. The Department does not intend to act until the GSA publishes the interim regulations, to ensure that departmental actions are consistent. The GSA expects the interim regulations to be released in early to mid-May.
Organizational/Funding Implications: N/A
REO Staff Proposal: The IAC should continue to operate as a FACA committee until additional guidance is received. REO staff should keep abreast of activities at departmental and GSA levels. Interim guidelines should be reviewed to see if they lead to different assessments than presented here.
ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC: IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other: None

TOPIC: Research and Monitoring Committee (RMC) as a Subcommittee	REO Contact: Dan McKenzie
Issue Statement: At the March meeting, IAC members were invited to nominate RMC representatives, with membership to be approved at the May meeting. A strategy for communication will also be presented at the meeting.
Background: The IAC tentatively established the RMC as a subcommittee and agreed to expand the membership to include unrepresented IAC organizations. The list of nominees will be presented and decided on by IAC. The IAC members also asked the RMC to develop a communication strategy to facilitate participation by all parties, without incurring burdensome travel.
Analysis and Options: The RMC will review the nominations for membership and provide recommendations to IAC. The RMC recommends adoption of the communication principles listed below.
Organizational/Funding Implications: N/A
REO Staff Proposal: The RMC will actively use alternative methods to facilitate communication and participation in RMC issues, discussions, findings, and recommendations including the following: Directory: Develop and maintain a directory of RMC members, with subdirectories for research, monitoring, and scientific oversight interest groups. All work groups will be entered into the directory. Conference Calls: The RMC will look for opportunities to hold conference calls before, during, and after RMC meetings to identify issues, facilitate participation in the process, and communicate findings and results. Conference calls to discuss special issues will be scheduled on an as needed basis. E-Mail: A directory of E-Mail addresses for all RMC members will be developed and distributed. To the maximum extent feasible, all meeting agendas, notes, and draft materials will be distributed via E-Mail or fax. In addition, one or more list servers will be established to provide convenient communications to all interested E-Mail users. Meeting Location: The majority of RMC meetings will be held in Portland, Oregon. Periodically, meetings will be held in Seattle, Washington, and Sacramento, California, and coordinated with local area members.
ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC: IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other: Review & Adopt

TOPIC: Interoganizational Resource Information Coordinating Council (IRICC) as a Subcommittee	IRICC/REO Contact: Tim Quinn
Issue Statement: Should the IAC approve the IRICC Charter as presented?
Background: The IAC tentatively approved the IRICC as a subcommittee at the March meeting. The IAC requested clarification concerning the subcommittee's relationship with the IAC, IRICC, and Regional Ecosystem Office (REO). The clarification and developed charter should strengthen the relationship between REO and IRICC for the benefit of IAC. Also, the scope of IRICC's support for data needs arising from Salmon issues in the Columbia River Basin, section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act, and Habitat Conservation Plans need to be identified.
Analysis and Options: Please refer to the attached IRICC Charter. The discussion will highlight: Purpose of the IRICC. Scope of IRICC's activities. Organization of the subcommittee membership, meetings, leadership, project teams, and funding. IRICC's relationships with the IAC, REO, and participating organizations.
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 expected to be substantial. There are no formal provisions for reimbursing subcommittee members of participating governments, agencies, or organizations the costs of traveling, attending meetings, etc.
IRICC Proposal: Please refer to the attached IRICC Charter. In addition to approving the Charter, the IRICC proposes developing a working agreement for approval by the IAC.
ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC: IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other: Review & Adopt

TOPIC: Proposed Management Information System	REO Contact: Chris Hamilton
Issue Statement: Review a proposed Management Information System mock-up and discuss potential interagency information management issues.
Background: Following discussion about the need for an interagency coordinated and integrated management information system at the March IAC meeting, the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) staff drafted and circulated on April 14, a memorandum outlining some issues and opportunities relating to such a system.
Analysis and Options: If the schedule and location information for a number of individual agency activities were shared, it would likely enhance the ability of all agencies to make sound management decisions. However, the benefits to each agency would need to be weighed against the additional staff time (if any) involved in designing and implementing such a system. Further discussions about the details of such a system would seem to be a reasonable next step in determining whether an IAC agreement to proceed with such a system can be reached. Among the issues to be discussed would be: Priority activities to be tracked. The need for GIS plots to accompany data sets. The update frequency of such reports. Whether all necessary data is currently being collected/reported and, if not, whether additional data collection would be worthwhile. The relationship of such a system to PIEC, state, or regional decisionmakers. Whether such a system needs to be electronic, or would a manually integrated system be adequate.
Organizational/Funding Implications: Unknown at this time. Additional information will be gathered over time. The REO GIS staff is capable of devoting some staff time in support of system design and implementation, if a decision is reached to proceed.
REO Staff Proposal: IAC should further discuss and provide additional direction.
ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC: IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other: Review and adopt

TOPIC: Opportunities for IAC Participation	REO Contact: Dave Powers
Background: The ability of tribal, state, and county IAC members and their staff to participate in Portland, Oregon-based efforts related to implementation of the NW Forest Plan is limited by budgets, logistics, and staff availability. The following opportunities are available to address these limitations.
Status/Update: Products developed by Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) or associated work groups will be provided to IAC members in draft at early stages of development and review timeframes will be lengthened where possible to address cost and staff availability constraints. IAC members and their staff can participate in based efforts where feasible. The timing and length of meetings can be adjusted to facilitate participation in Portland, Oregon. Alternative sites for meetings and workshops may be selected to enable the participation of IAC members and their staff in efforts relevant to specific geographic areas or issues. IAC members can participate in REO and associated work group meetings through conference calls. REO's phone system currently has 6-way conference call capability and billing is to REO. REO also has access to two Forest Service conference call lines, which can each accommodate up to 20 callers. Billing on the Forest Service conference call system is to the person calling in. At least three additional commercial conference call options are available through ATT Telephone Service at a cost of $.53/minute/line. Two of these options are billed to the outside callers. IRICC is testing the utility of Oregon's ED-NET Compass bulletin board, electronic mail, and computer conferencing system in meeting intergovernmental business needs. Depending on its utility, ED-NET could be used for IAC member participation. The annual cost for access to ED-NET is $35, but calls from outside of Oregon are considered long distance and billed accordingly. The National Rural Development Partnership provides a network with electronic mail, file transfer, clearinghouse, and other functions. This network can be accessed via Internet for sending and/or receiving E-Mail. A toll free number is available to nonfederal users. REO and some of the work groups are utilizing the Internet System which costs $75 or $125 per year depending on the level of service. IAC members currently on Internet could communicate with work groups via Internet. ED-NET can also be utilized through the Internet System. REO will help keep IAC members up-to-date on REO and work group activities through phone calls, written materials, and personal contacts on an ongoing basis.

TOPIC: Rescission Bill	REO Contact: Don Knowles
Background: Both the House and Senate have passed legislation affecting the terms and conditions of timber sale activities for fiscal years 1995 and 1996. The legislative language proposes changes to administrative requirements, environmental documentation, court challenges, and appeals for timber salvage or forest health sales; for sales previously sold under the authority of Section 318 of the fiscal year 1990 appropriations bill; and for sales offered pursuant to the NW Forest Plan.
Status/Update: We intend to distribute copies of the House and Senate passed language prior to or at the May IAC meeting, along with an estimated schedule for conference committee and subsequent actions. Directly affected implementing agencies may also want to provide additional views at the IAC meeting.

TOPIC: Consolidated Budget	REO Contact: Don Knowles
Background: The topic of a combined budget for the NW Forest Plan was discussed at the March IAC meeting. REO will distribute copies of a table, prior to or at the May IAC meeting, showing funding levels for all federal agencies in three categories: the President's FY 1995 request to Congress; the Congressional action establishing a funding level for FY 1995; and the President's FY 1996 request to Congress.
Status/Update: Neither House nor Senate have yet taken action on the FY 1996 funding bills for agencies involved in NW Forest Plan implementation. However, Congress has passed and the President has signed into law one bill rescinding $1.5 million previously appropriated to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for endangered species listing activities in FY 1995.

TOPIC: IAC and ROD Requirements	REO Contact: Gary S. Sims
Background: A concern was expressed at the March IAC meeting that changes appear to have been made in the requirements identified in the Record of Decision (ROD). The example given was that the Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) as described in the ROD (page E-16) is different from the RIEC as identified in the IAC Charter. This Status Report describes the differences and attempts to explain why they exist. The ROD identified the RIEC as being composed of eight federal and six nonfederal organizations: FS, BLM, FWS, NMFS, BIA, EPA, NPS, SCS (now NRCS); the states of Washington, Oregon, and California; and three tribal organizations. Meetings of these organizations, designed to hold collaborative discussions and provide advice to the principal land management and regulatory agencies, were held for a number of months. However, the meetings were suspended because of concern about violation of FACA. Judge Jackson had ruled that FEMAT had violated FACA, and there was a concern that a similar determination regarding the RIEC could imperil the implementation of the ROD. In order to comply with the requirements of FACA, it was decided that the RIEC should be reconstituted as an advisory committee with an approved charter and members appointed by the appropriate agency head (in this case the Secretary of Agriculture). While the advisory committee was being formed, collaborative meetings with nonfederal individuals were discontinued (around June 1994). It was originally anticipated that the federal executives would be meeting only a relatively short while until the advisory committee was formally established. The charter for the advisory committee was approved August 1994, but, members were not appointed until January 10, 1995. The first meeting of the advisory committee was held on March 28-29, 1995. During the course of development of the advisory committee charter, the Forest Service (the lead agency in the effort) pursued the membership mirroring the former RIEC (federal agencies, states, and tribes) and added other representation the federal executives had identified as potentially important (federal research organizations and county governments). The membership to the advisory committee was finally described as: the original eight federal agencies, three tribal government representatives, three state representatives, three county representatives (one from each state), and three federal research representatives for a total of 20 members. The membership of the IAC closely reflects the original RIEC as described in the ROD. While the advisory committee charter was being drafted, the executives of the 11 federal agencies continued to meet. There was a realization that to suspend all meetings until all FACA-related questions were resolved and a formal advisory committee was constituted would cause significant loss of momentum in the implementation of the ROD.
The advisory committee was developed to allow regular, collaborative meetings with nonfederal representatives. At the regional level, the committee is composed of governmental interests. The committee was titled the "Intergovernmental Advisory Committee." The charter conformed with FACA.
Status/Update: The IAC charter re-defined the RIEC as seven of the federal executives that were original signatories of the Interagency Memorandum of Understanding (i.e., BIA, BLM, EPA, FS, FWS, NMFS, and NPS; the SCS (NRCS) was dropped from the RIEC). These agencies would also be members of the IAC, with the FS and the BLM alternating as chair of the committee. This "re-definition" of the RIEC and the "creation" of the IAC satisfied two essential purposes: 1) Prior to the FACA exemption language in the Unfunded Mandates Bill, nonfederal governmental interests needed to be members of an advisory committee to be able to regularly meet with federal representatives in a collaborative manner, and to be able to offer advice and recommendations to the federal members. The inclusion of the nonfederal governmental executives as advisory committee members allows them and the federal representatives to collaborate together. 2) An advisory committee must provide advice to some entity. To address this need, and to meet the interagency goals of the NW Forest Plan, the seven signatory agencies were identified as the RIEC, and it is to this group that recommendations are made. The changes in the RIEC were made in order to conform with FACA. If the federal agencies had been able to maintain the RIEC in its previous form, the nonfederal members would still have only been able to provide advice and recommendations. A federal official cannot delegate or defer to a nonfederal entity or individual the authority to make federal commitments or decisions. To our knowledge, with this exception, the NW Forest Plan as described in the ROD and S&Gs is the plan being implemented.

TOPIC: Monitoring	REO Contact: Barry Mulder
Background: At the request of the Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC), the Research and Monitoring Committee has been preparing a plan for monitoring the implementation of the NW Forest Plan. The NW Forest Plan and the Record of Decision (ROD) identify monitoring as a key component in implementation of the Plan, and monitoring is identified in Judge Dwyer's decision as an expected, high priority task. Implementation monitoring is one part of the overall monitoring program and addresses whether or not the standards and guidelines are being implemented as directed in the ROD. This information will be important in assessing agency compliance with the ROD. The intent has been to produce a plan which provides a sound and rigorous approach to monitoring that provides consistent and quantifiable data for analysis. A first draft was released for agency comment in January. A wide range of comments were received on the plan ranging from too lengthy and burdensome to requesting more specificity. Comments were considered and the document has been revised.
Status/Update: At the March IAC meeting, the IAC was informed that the second draft of the implementation monitoring plan would be available for review in late April. Prior to the May 4 meeting, members of the IAC should have received a package in the mail with the draft plan and a cover letter requesting review and comment by May 15. Two types of reviews are being undertaken: 1) review by the members of the IAC and Regional and Provincial Interagency Executive Committees in monitoring, management, and standards and guidelines. The letter contained a list of questions for the reviewers to consider as they review this draft. Comments will be reviewed and a final implementation monitoring plan will be presented to the IAC at the June 1 meeting. If accepted, it is expected that the plan will be implemented shortly thereafter.