Regional Ecosystem Office

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

              Memorandum

Date:     May 23, 1995

To:         Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members (See distribution list)

From:     Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director

Subject:  June Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda and Prework

Enclosed are the draft agenda, agenda topic overviews, and status reports for the June 1 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting. The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Portland Airport Hotel, Portland, Oregon, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

The meeting objectives are:

• Review and confirm policy agreements developed during the May 19 meeting of the IAC Watershed Analysis Policy Group.
• Review the final draft Implementation Monitoring Plan, the proposed approach for effectiveness monitoring, and discuss possible IAC actions.
• Agree on a process to address requests from outside groups for time on future IAC agendas.
• Agree on agenda topics for the July meeting. Review and discuss possible topics for the August meeting.

It has been suggested that the IAC not meet in September, to allow for end-of-summer time and activities with families. The committee will be polled on the suggestion during the June 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

387/ly

Date: May 23, 1995
Subject: June 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)
Don Motanic, Technical Specialist, Intertribal Timber Council

Federal Agencies
Michael Collopy, Director, Forest and 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, Portland Area Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Ron Eggers, Assistant Area Director, Portland Area Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs(Alternate)
Ron Jaeger, Area Director, Sacramento Area Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Michael Spear, Regional Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
William Stelle, Jr., Regional Director, National Marine Fisheries Service
Jacqueline Wyland, Division Chief, Environ. & Tech. Services, National Marine Fisheries Service (Alternate)
Elizabeth Gaar, Senior Policy Coordinator, National Marine Fisheries Service (Alternate)
Tom Tuchmann, Director, Office of Forestry and Economic Development (Ex Officio)
William Walters, Acting Regional Director, National Park Service
Elaine Zielinski, State Director, Bureau of Land Management, OR/WA
Executive Director Hastey, State Director, Bureau of Land Management, CA (Alternate)

Agenda Topic Overviews Page
Revision of Watershed Analysis Guide Mike Tehan 6
Monitoring Barry Mulder 8
Committee Operations Gary S. Sims 10

Status Reports
Salvage Bill Update Don Knowles 12
Activity Information Sharing Chris Hamilton 13
Possible Agenda Items July and August Meetings Linda Kucera 14

ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEWS

ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW

TOPIC: Revision of Watershed Analysis Guide	REO Contact: Mike Tehan
Issue Statement: The IAC will be asked to review and confirm the policy agreements developed during the May 19 meeting of the IAC watershed analysis policy group. The REO will present a scenario of the next steps to move forward with revision of the draft Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale: The Revised Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis (Guide).
Background: The REO distributed the draft Guide at the March IAC meeting. At the May IAC meeting, the RIEC suspended the current Guide schedule, based on IAC concerns, until several key policy issues could be resolved. An IAC watershed analysis policy group was chartered to review the ROD, previous RIEC direction, and specific issues defined in the group charter. The policy group met on May 19 and agreed to present their proposed solutions to these issues to the full IAC for concurrence at the June meeting.
Analysis and Options: Concurrence by the IAC is requested for the following points of agreement reached by the watershed analysis policy group during the May 19 meeting: 1. All IAC members will have the opportunity, to have technical staff participate with the WACT in revision of the Guide. IAC members should notify the REO if they have representatives who will participate. 2. REO/WACT will clarify the use of the term "issues"in the Guide. Issues can be triggering events for why we do a watershed analysis (e.g., management programs, priorities, schedules, needs and projects; concerns people have about the watershed, etc.) or issues can be resource problems or concerns specific to the watershed that provide focus for the level of effort and scope of the analysis. 3. The FS and BLM will take the lead for developing management activity impact criteria which will be used to determine when watershed analysis is required prior to land management activities in riparian reserves. Accordingly, they will distribute the work they have completed to date to the IAC for discussion at the June IAC meeting. 4. Every watershed analysis should develop certain core information to demonstrate essential knowledge and understanding of the watershed. Accordingly, the REO/WACT will refine the list of "core analysis topics" and will develop a series of "critical questions" for each core topic. The critical questions will emphasize synthesis among the core analysis topics. 5. The policy group accepted the following points from the briefing materials that establish the expected use of the Guide with respect to nonfederal lands: The Guide is intended to be used on public lands administered by the BLM and the Forest Service (FS) where watershed analysis is required under the Standards and Guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP). The Record of Decision (ROD) for the NFP states that: "Information from the analysis will flow into the NEPA documentation for specific projects, and will be used where practicable to facilitate ESA and Clean Water Act compliance" (ROD-56). The ROD does not require agencies other than the FS and BLM to use the Guide on other federal lands (e.g., lands administered by National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service) or nonfederal lands. The ROD, in recognition of the need for broad coordination with stakeholders, states that the "participation in watershed analysis of adjacent landowners, private citizens, interest groups, industry, government agencies, and others will be promoted" (ROD E-20). In addition, it was recognized that when the FS and BLM implement watershed analysis, they do need to consider, for cumulative effects analysis, some information regarding conditions of nonfederal lands. 6. The REO/WACT will continue to work on Section I of the Guide, incorporating written comments and those from the May 19 meeting, to clarify/revise the following topics (concerns raised by IAC members and those previously identified by WACT as "easy fixes"): Clarify and emphasize the expected use and benefits of watershed analysis; i.e., explain why watershed analysis is important and what we hope to accomplish. Improve efficiency, coordination, and cooperation when multiple watershed analyses are being conducted in the same watershed (e.g.; coordination between Washington DNR and USFS when watershed analyses overlap land ownerships). Clarify the link to decisionmaking and regulatory processes. Clarify expectations regarding nonfederal (particularly tribal and public) involvement and participation in watershed analysis. Clarifiy how key issues for analyses are selected, and how future issues would trigger subsequent iterations of the analysis. Clarify and improve the link to monitoring. Clarify the use of "reference conditions" and how they relate to management plan objectives. Edit the Guide to improve clarity. Clarify expectations for analysis team composition and qualifications.
Organizational/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 a process that is technically adequate, but achievable with available budgets and staffing levels. If there is a significant change in the revised Guide timeline, participating organizations may need to re-examine and renew their commitment to participate in development of the Guide. Some agencies (e.g., BIA) may not be as fully available to participate in the Guide development process as they have in the past.
REO Staff Proposal: Assuming that the full IAC concurs with the agreements made by the watershed analysis policy group, the next steps in revising the draft Guide are: Refine the core analysis topics, develop critical questions for each topic, and incorporate them into Section I of the draft Guide (six-step analysis process). Incorporate both written comments and those from the May 19 meeting for the topics in item 6, under Analysis and Options, and develop a final working draft of Section I of the Guide for IAC review at the July meeting.
ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC: IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision IAC Concurrence

ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW

TOPIC: Monitoring	REO Contact: Barry Mulder
Issue Statement: Review the final draft implementation monitoring plan, the proposed approach for effectiveness monitoring, and discuss possible IAC actions.
Background: At the request of the Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC), the Research and Monitoring Committee has been preparing two monitoring plans: 1) to assess implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan and 2) to assess its effectiveness in meeting Northwest Forest Plan. The effectiveness monitoring plan emphasizes five key issues: northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, survey and manage species, late-successional forests, and riparian and aquatic systems. At the March 28-29 IAC meeting, it was announced that the final implementation monitoring plan and a description of the approach for the effectiveness monitoring plan will be presented to the IAC at the June 1 meeting for consideration. A draft of the implementation plan was distributed to the IAC and others prior to the May 4 meeting for review and comment; comments were due to the RMC by May 17.
Analysis and Options: The RMC is developing an integrated approach to ecosystem monitoring for the Northwest Forest Plan that contains three parts: implementation (compliance), effectiveness (status and trends), and validation (cause and effect) monitoring. The implementation and effectiveness monitoring plans, to be completed in December 1995, will cover a major portion of two parts of the overall ecosystem monitoring program. Implementation Monitoring Plan: The purpose of this type of monitoring is to assess whether or not the land-management agencies are implementing the Northwest Forest Plan as specified in the Record of Decision (ROD). Two reviews of this draft plan have been conducted, including a peer review. A wide range of comments have been received. The RMC will review and summarize the comments, make appropriate revisions, and provide a revised draft to the IAC for final consideration (and recommendation at the July meeting) as to whether or not the agencies should implement the proposed plan. Effectiveness Monitoring Plan: The purpose of this type of monitoring is to establish whether implementation is having the desired effect by gathering information to assess the status and trends for selected habitat, species, and issues. Initial emphasis is on the northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, survey and manage species, late-successional forests, and riparian and aquatic systems. The IAC will be presented with an overview of the intended approach to effectiveness monitoring along with preliminary recommendations for monitoring each of these five issues. This will include recommendations for integrating monitoring needs with existing monitoring activities, increasing the efficiency of information management, additional steps needed to fully develop on-the-ground monitoring projects, and an estimate of the costs associated with the proposed activities. Although progress has been made on this plan, specific expertise is needed to complete the remaining parts of the sampling scheme, develop specific protocols, evaluate ongoing activities, and identify study sites. At the May 4 meeting options for finishing these specific tasks were presented: 1) increase efforts on all five issues; 2) concentrate on one of the five issues; or 3) assign the project to research or contract out. The intent is to provide enough information to the IAC to allow a decision on whether to continue the development of the proposed approach for the five issues or take another approach. Options for staffing remaining tasks will be included to assist in setting a schedule, acceptable to the IAC, for completing the full plan for effectiveness monitoring.
Organizational/Funding Implications: As a major component of the Northwest Forest Plan, and as a high priority task in Judge Dwyer's decision, Northwest Forest Plan monitoring will have both organizational and funding implications. The proposed approach to both implementation and effectiveness monitoring is different from the approach currently followed by the land-management agencies. The intent is to provide a more scientifically sound and statistically rigorous monitoring program that will provide consistent and comparable data. It is expected that the proposed approach will incorporate some of the current monitoring activities, but will also replace some of those activities. It will also require a major change in how data has been managed. In some cases redistributing funds to cover monitoring needs may be necessary.
REO Staff Proposal: For the implementation monitoring plan, the RMC recommends that the IAC focus its discussion on whether or not to try out the proposed approach on a 2-year trial basis. Discussions on the proposed approach to effectiveness monitoring should focus on information needs, expectations, and priorities in determining the schedule and need for additional staff support to complete the effectiveness monitoring plan.
ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC: IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other

ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW

TOPIC: Committee Operations	REO Contact: Gary S. Sims
Issue Statement: How should the committee address requests from outside groups for time on regular meeting agendas.
Background: The IAC developed a series of operating principles at its first meeting. Those principles did not include the issue of outside groups making presentations to the committee. The IAC collectively determines what is on the meeting agenda. The Agenda Review Committee and REO help refine and staff out agenda topics to facilitate IAC meetings.
Analysis and Options: Outside groups or individual members of the public may request time on an IAC meeting agenda to present information for committee member consideration. Development of a procedure to address such requests will ensure that all interested groups or individuals are treated equally. Possible responses to requests by outside parties for inclusion on future agendas. Propose in public comment period. All meetings will have periods for public oral comment. A group or individual may request time on a future agenda during such a period. The individual requesting the agenda time will be expected to provide sufficient information to inform the committee on the purpose of the presentation and how it complements committee member interests or implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan. If the committee agrees, the individual will be put in touch with the REO for direction on how to develop a single page abstract for the prework package. Committee member sponsorship. A member of the IAC may ask the committee to include a presentation of an outside party at a future meeting. If the committee agrees to the presentation, the outside party will be put in touch with the REO for direction on how to develop a single page abstract for the prework package. Individual written request. An individual or group may submit a written request to the committee describing the topic they wish to present to the committee. A single page abstract may be completed by anyone desiring time before the committee. The abstract will be included in the meeting prework package for consideration by the committee during the upcoming meeting. In all cases, the outside presenter will be responsible for providing copies of documents or materials for committee members with sufficient copies for public distribution.
Organizational/Funding Implications: NA
REO Staff Proposal: The procedures as outlined above be adopted. The initial request for inclusion on a future agenda may be made by the party wishing to make the presentation, or by a committee member. If the committee agrees to include the presentation on an agenda, the presenting party will be responsible for the development of a single page abstract and providing copies of all documents or materials used during the presentation.
ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC: IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other/ Review and adopt

(Note: 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.)

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Salvage Bill Update :

REO Contact: Don Knowles

Background: As of May 15, 1995, conferencing on the Salvage Timber Sale Bill (H.R. 1158) was ongoing. The May 11, 1995, version of the compromise language includes the following provisions: An effective "emergency period" would begin on the date of Act enactment and end on September 30, 1997, for salvage timber sales that include removal of disease or insect-infested trees; dead, damaged, or down trees; or trees affected by fire or trees imminently susceptible to fires or insect attack. To the maximum extent feasible, the salvage timber sale volume achieved would be a sale volume level above the programmed level to reduce the backlogged volume of salvage timber. The Secretary of the lead agency would prepare a document combining the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental assessment, biological evaluations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and other applicable Federal law and regulatory requirements. NEPA documents and biological opinions prepared before the date of Act enactment may be used in lieu of preparing a new document. The Secretaries have a number of reporting requirements to Congress on the volume of timber available, sold, and harvested by administrative unit and on resources needed to carry out an enhanced timber salvage sale program through 1997. Exemptions from various contracting, notice, and publication requirements are provided and salvage sales under the Act would not be precluded where the costs of activities are likely to exceed the revenues derived from those activities. Salvage sales under the Act may be conducted notwithstanding Judicial decisions, restraining orders, or injunctions issued by a U.S. court before the date of Act enactment. Judicial review and decisions for proposed sales still apply with certain limitations. Any decision of the Secretary in connection with the salvage sales is not subject to administrative review. For lands covered by Option 9, timber sale contracts shall be expeditiously prepared, offered, and awarded notwithstanding any other law (including laws under which judicial orders may be outstanding on or after the date of Act enactment). Issuance of the ESA Section 4(d) regulation shall not require preparation of a NEPA Environmental Impact Statement. Federal lands excluded from the Bill include federal lands where timber harvesting is prohibited by statute, wilderness, and certain roadless areas designated for wilderness study or recommended for wilderness designation. Within 30 days the Secretaries must act to award, release, and permit 318 sales except in units where threatened and endangered species are known to be nesting. If for any reason a timber sale offered or awarded in units subject to section 318 cannot be released and completed within 45 days of the Act enactment, the Secretaries shall provide the timber purchaser with timber of equal volume, kind, and value subject to the terms of the original contract.

Possible Future Agenda Items for July and August

July 6, 1995
Seattle, Washington

Watershed Analysis Guide--Brief the IAC on the status of Guide revision, including the disposition of issues identified during the June IAC meeting.

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

• Activity Information Sharing--Present what the individual elements mean and pass out updates at future IAC meetings.
• Work Group Effectiveness--Review/evaluate work group structures and products for efficiency and effectiveness.
• Survey and Manage--Status Report.
• Salvage Bill--Status Report.

August 3, 1995
Portland, Oregon

Watershed Analysis Guide--Brief the IAC on the status of Guide revision.

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

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

Role of Government-to-Government Consultation--Present an analysis of ways to enhance government-to-government consultation and communication between federal, tribal, state, and local governments on issues related to the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan.

• Provincial Presentation--Invite the chair from a provincial committee to make a presentation concerning local issues and activities.
• Work Group Effectiveness--Evaluate and review work group structures and products.

1. Future Timber Sales activities and accomplishments reports will be made in the Activity Information Sharing system rather than as a separate document.