Regional Ecosystem Office

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

              Memorandum

Date:     June 29, 1995

To:         Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members (See distribution list)

From:     Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director

Subject:  July Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda and Prework

Enclosed are the draft agenda, agenda topic overviews, and status reports for the July 6 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting. The meeting will be held at the Wyndham Garden Hotel, 18118 Pacific Highway South, Seattle, Washington, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. If you need lodging reservations, the telephone number for the hotel is 206-244-6666. Please be sure to mention you are associated with the government meeting being held July 6 so that you get the rate of $83.00 which includes tax.

The meeting objectives are:

• Information sharing on items from the recent Interagency Steering Committee meeting and the President's visit to the Pacific Northwest.
• Present, discuss, and agree on the revised final working draft of Section I of the final draft Watershed Analysis Guide and on the next steps to finalize the Guide.
• Review Phase 1 of the Activity Information Sharing System. Discuss and agree on the next steps for the GIS pilot test on the Willamette Province.
• Present, discuss, and agree on an approach for implementation monitoring.
• Report from the Western Washington Cascades and the Olympic Peninsula Provincial Advisory Committees.
• Agree on agenda topics for the August meeting. List possible topics for the October meeting.

If you have questions or comments, phone Linda Kucera at 503-326-6283.

Enclosure

cc: REO Staff, OFED

423/ly

Date: June 29, 1995
Subject: July 1995 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Agenda and Prework Package

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, Assistant to the Governor for Natural Resources, 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 Management 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 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
Hilda Diaz-Soltero, Southwest Regional Director, National Marine Fisheries Service (Alternate)
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 Deputy Field Director, National Park Service
Elaine Zielinski, State Director, Bureau of Land Management, OR/WA
Ed Hastey, State Director, Bureau of Land Management, CA (Alternate)

Agenda Topic Overviews
Revision of Watershed Analysis Guide Mike Tehan 5
Activity Information Sharing Chris Hamilton 7
Implementation Monitoring Plan Strategy Dan McKenzie 8
Provincial Advisory Committee Presentations Tony Sisto 10

Future Agendas
Future Agenda Items for August and October Linda Kucera 11

Status Reports
Survey & Manage Update Debbie Pietrzak, Jay Watson 12
For the Sake of the Salmon Don Knowles 13
FY 1996 Funding Don Knowles 13

ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW

TOPIC: Revision of Watershed Analysis Guide	REO Contact: Mike Tehan
Issue Statement: The REO will present a final working draft of Section I of Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale: The Revised Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis (Guide) to the IAC and will discuss the next steps to move forward with finalizing the Guide.
Background: At the June meeting, the IAC concurred with the six policy agreements from the watershed policy group meeting. The IAC members were asked to identify technical staffs to participate directly in revision of the draft Guide (WACT+). Core analysis topics were adopted to establish a common framework for understanding watersheds where analysis is performed. REO/WACT+ were asked to re-work the questions proposed for the core topics to clarify their relationship to the six analysis steps in the draft Guide. The IAC accepted in principle the FS/BLM proposal for minor activities in riparian reserves, given the opportunity to comment on the written proposal.
Analysis and Options: 1. The final working draft of Section I of the Guide is significantly revised from the March 24, 1995, review draft. Changes are based on the IAC policy agreements from the June meeting and written comments received in April and May. In summary, the REO/WACT+ have: edited the document to improve clarity; added seven core analysis topics and corresponding core questions that are integrated into the six analysis steps; clarified and emphasized the expected use and benefits of watershed analysis; clarified the link with decisionmaking and regulatory processes; clarified expectations for analysis team composition and qualifications; described ways to improve coordination with other analysis processes; clarified expectations for nonfederal (including tribal and public) participation; clarified how key issues are selected and how future analysis iterations are triggered; clarified the use of reference conditions; and clarified and improved the link to monitoring. 2. The REO/WACT has not revised Section II of the Guide, because a policy decision has not been made regarding an overall strategy for additional technical tools and analysis requirements (e.g., modules). The REO recommendation for this issue (from the May IAC meeting) has not yet been addressed. 3. Other policy issues previously raised by IAC members have not yet been resolved. These issues relate to implementation of the Guide, not to the Guide itself. For example: a) REO/WACT+ clarified expectations for team composition and qualifications; however, some reviewers recommend certification or mandatory training for watershed team members. b) REO/WACT+ recommended voluntary peer reviews for watershed analysis reports; however, some reviewers suggest mandatory review and/or approval of completed watershed analyses should be required. (The RMC has not yet proposed a science review process for completed watershed analyses reports). c) REO/WACT+ suggested ways to improve coordination between federal and nonfederal watershed analyses and clarified how federal analyses will address nonfederal lands. However, there continue to be disparate expectations regarding how nonfederal lands are addressed in federal watershed analyses and how federal and nonfederal analyses are coordinated.

Organizational/Funding Implications: Depending on the timeline for completing the revised Guide, participating organizations may need to re-examine and commit their level of participation. 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: 1) The IAC should adopt the final working draft of Section I of the Guide. 2) The REO should work with the agencies to finalize the transmittal letter, and the agencies should jointly distribute Section I to the field for implementation in fiscal year 1996. 3) The IAC watershed policy group should meet in July to discuss and resolve the four policy issues described above (items 2, 3a, b, and c; item 2 must be resolved before WACT+ can proceed with completion of the Guide).

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

ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW

TOPIC: Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring	REO Contact: Dan McKenzie & Barry Mulder
Issue Statement: Agree on a revised approach for implementation monitoring.
Implementation Monitoring: An overview of the proposed approach for implementation monitoring was presented at the June IAC meeting. The IAC requested that the BLM and FS work with the REO and the RMC to reassess: 1) the goals and objectives, 2) the basis for the census and sample process outlined, 3) the need and accessibility for a database, 4) cost estimates, and 5) the relationship of the Implementation Monitoring Plan to ongoing monitoring requirements/activities. In response to the IAC's request, the REO and RMC met on June 7 to discuss how to respond to the questions about implementation monitoring. Meetings with key FS staff were held on June 22 and with BLM staff on June 27 to discuss such questions as: 1) What are the requirements for implementation monitoring in NFMA (Forest Plans) and FLPMA (RMPs)? 2) Is there a distinction between project planning and close-out implementation monitoring? 3) Are all S&Gs monitored or only a sub-set of them? 4) How are current projects reviewed (scope of projects and depth within each project)? 5) What information should be reported? How many projects should be reviewed? The RMC and the REO met on June 28 to discuss preliminary findings. The REO staff proposal is as described below. Effectiveness Monitoring Plan: An overview of the proposed effectiveness monitoring plan was also presented at the June IAC meeting. The Effectiveness Monitoring Plan will gather information to answer questions about whether the objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan are being met. During the June presentation, the IAC agreed that the REO and the RMC should continue discussions on the relationships between different data-gathering activities (i.e., monitoring, watershed analysis, survey and manage, and existing monitoring activities) to identify efficiencies through integration of similar activities and to look for ways to reduce overall costs. At the June 7 meeting, the RMC initiated a review of the goals and objectives, key questions, and general approach to effectiveness monitoring. A status report on this work will be handed out at the July meeting.
Organizational/Funding Implications: NA
REO Staff Proposal for Implementation Monitoring: The REO and the RMC recommend that the draft implementation plan reviewed at the June IAC meeting be revised to rely more on existing documentation during the planning stage and closer coordination with agency efforts to review design layout and implementation stages. The list of questions in the draft will be retained and be used in two ways: 1) voluntarily, as a check list for agency staff during the planning stages, and 2) as a list of questions to be answered during the project/activity review process. The census sample and database will be replaced by a percentage sample (statistically selected) and database at the Forest Service District/BLM Resource Area (lowest level of the organization). Reviews will be conducted following completion of the relevant activity and may include both design-layout and completion. Implementation monitoring will determine compliance with all S&Gs, with different categories of projects/activities having different sampling percentages and subsequent statistical uncertainties. An annual monitoring report will aggregate the sample database to provide regional and province level summaries and reporting. Interagency review teams will be used and opportunities for involvement by additional parties developed; e.g., PAC members, publics, etc. The REO recommends that work begin immediately to further integrate this approach with ongoing FS and BLM reporting, tracking, and monitoring reports. The details for identifying and selecting the statistical sample need to be developed. The guidance for the review teams (i.e., selection of members, review questions, data, and reporting) need to be developed and tested. A draft Annual Report (mock-up), with a table of contents and example chapters will be developed to illustrate the use of the information. The data management and information sharing requirements for conducting the data aggregation and analyses will also be developed. The goal is to have a new draft of our approach, including the above items, by August 1.
ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC: IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other: Review & Concur

 

ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW

TOPIC: Provincial Advisory Committee Presentations	REO Contact: Tony Sisto & Dave Powers
Issue Statement: Reports by members of the Washington Cascades Provincial Advisory Committee and the Olympic Peninsula Provincial Advisory Committee.
Background: At the June meeting, the IAC expressed an interest in knowing how the provincial advisory committees (PIEC/PAC) are working and what activities have been taking place. This is the first in a series of presentations planned over the next several months by various province committees.
Analysis and Options: In addition to general information, the REO suggested the following items might prove to be useful information to the IAC members: Number of meetings held to-date, the PIEC (feds only) and the PAC. Do PAC members feel like they are advising the FS/BLM or the entire PIEC? Do PIEC members feel like they are coequals with the committee chairs? How is the relationship between the PIEC and PAC? Are the meetings friendly, cordial, collaborative, tense, etc.? What major agenda items have been covered by the PIEC/PAC? What was the disposition for these items? Has there been full PIEC/PAC review and agreement on watershed analysis priorities? Watershed restoration projects? Timber sale activities? Other? What relationship is needed or desired with the REO or RIEC/IAC? Are RIEC/IAC memos being received on a timely basis? Are they useful? Have the PIEC/PACs considered changes to standards and guidelines? If so, which ones and in what way? By what process? Does the PIEC intend to propose a provincial level product (e.g., monitoring plans)? Have you begun working with any associated AMAs? What is this relationship? Organizational/Funding Implications: N/A
REO Staff Proposal: We will plan provincial advisory committee presentations for the August and October meetings.
ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC: IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other: Review and adopt

Preliminary Agenda Topics for August 3, 1995

• Watershed Analysis Guide--Adoption of the IAC Policy Group July meeting agreements.
• Research and Monitoring Committee --Briefings: Survey of ongoing research and the Effectiveness Monitoring Plan.
• Information Management --Present integrated resource information system between REO, BLM, and FS.
• Provincial Presentation --Presentation (30 minutes each) by a PAC/PIEC chair from each state concerning local issues and activities - possibly Oregon this meeting.
• Sharing of Key Interests--Redistribute the list of interests captured during the March IAC meeting for a progress check and to assist us in setting fiscal year 1996 goals.

Preliminary Agenda Topics for October 5, 1995

• Watershed Analysis Guide--Content to be determined.
• Research and Monitoring Committee--Content to be determined.
• 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 --Presentation (30 minutes each) by a PAC/PIEC chair from each state concerning local issues and activities - possibly California this meeting.

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Survey and Manage Update - July 1995	REO Contact: Debbie Pietrzak & Jay Watson
Background: The Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) for the Northwest Forest Plan contain mitigation measures that were selected to "...avoid, rectify, reduce, or eliminate potentially adverse environmental impacts of forest management activities." Survey and Manage species are one of those components. The NFP includes measures to protect a variety of species associated with late-successional and old growth forest: amphibians, mammals, bryophytes, mollusks, vascular plants, fungi, lichens, and arthropods (S&Gs, page C-4; Table C-3). The S&Gs require identification, mapping and managing the "known" sites of Component 1 species and surveys for components 2, 3, and 4 species. The surveys have different objectives, priorities, and schedules: survey prior to ground disturbing activities (Component 2), conduct extensive surveys (Component 3), and conduct general regional surveys (Component 4).
Status/Update: Since the April IAC Meeting, the Survey and Manage Work Group has completed the following. Items 1 and 2 are completed products. Items 3 through 6 will influence future products. 1. Completed a Great Gray Owl Survey Protocol (a protection buffer species) and a request for a Great Gray Owl Protocol Study to be conducted by the Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forest Service, and others (May 12 and June 2, 1995). 2. Compiled interim known site information and transmitted it to Bureau of Land Management Districts and Forest Service National Forests (June 30, 1995). The final known site information will be completed in 1995. 3. Developed draft outlines for interim and detailed Management Recommendations (MR) for Component 1 species. To date, five draft interim MRs for 5 amphibians and one detailed MR for vascular plants have been received. 4. Developed a draft peer review process to be used for evaluation for management recommendations (to be evaluated and approved by the Research and Monitoring Committee). 5. Developed a process and initiated the first proposed change to Table C-3 species to be protected through survey and management S&Gs. 6. Developed a schedule for completing approximately 42 Component 2 survey protocols for 402 species.

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: For the Sake of the Salmon	REO Contact: Don Knowles
Background: During the public comment period at the June IAC meeting, Mr. Bill Bradbury, representing For the Sake of the Salmon, asked for the opportunity to make a full presentation about the For the Sake of the Salmon initiative before the IAC at a convenient future date. The IAC responded by asking the REO to get additional information from Mr. Bradbury prior to their deciding whether to schedule the full presentation.
Status/Update: Mr. Bradbury has responded to the REO's request. A copy of his letter will be available at the July IAC meeting. At this time, Mr. Bradbury does not view an IAC presentation in July or August as essential. It may be appropriate to consider an October or November presentation, in which case a specific proposal will be presented to the IAC for concurrence prior to scheduling such a presentation.

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: FY 1996 House Appropriations Committee Actions	REO Contact: Don Knowles
Status/Update: A table showing the funding levels proposed by the House Committee will be available at the July IAC meeting.