Regional Ecosystem Office

333 SW 1st
P.O. Box 3623
Portland, Oregon 97208-3623
Phone: (503) 326-6265 FAX: (503) 326-6282

              Memorandum

Date:     July 26, 1995

To:         Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members (See Distribution List)

From:     Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director

Subject:  August 1995 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda and Prework

Enclosed are the proposed agenda, agenda topic overviews, and status reports for the August 3 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) Meeting. The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Portland Airport Hotel from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

A breakfast meeting for the IAC is planned for 7:00 a.m., in the Jefferson Room, at the Sheraton prior to the meeting. Resolution of "fatal flaw" issues in Section I, of the Watershed Analysis "Guide," will be sought, so a final decision at the meeting may occur as described in the enclosed ATO. In the event there are issues that cannot be resolved during the breakfast meeting, they will be considered and disposed of during the regular IAC meeting. The cost of the breakfast will be $7.50 (includes a $1.00 gratuity). Please RSVP your plans for attending the breakfast by calling the REO at (503) 326-6265.

The meeting objectives are:

• Reach final closure on Section I of the Guide
• Section II of the Guide:
• Discuss and agree on the purpose/objective
• Present and discuss three possible approaches for proceeding
• Agreement and marching orders
• Information sharing:
• Habitat conservation planning
• Provincial presentation
• Proposed Coho Salmon listing
• Salvage update
• Review and agree on possible agenda topics for the October meeting.

If you have questions or suggestions contact your agency's representative, Gary S. Sims (503-326-6274), or Linda Kucera (503-326-6283).

Enclosure

cc: REO, OFED

447/ly

Date: July 26, 1995
Subject: July IAC 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, 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
Dennis Fenn, Western Regional Director, 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, 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)
Dave Howell, District Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Ukiah, CA 

Agenda Topic Overviews
Revision of Watershed Analysis Guide 5
Provincial Presentation 7

Status Reports
Habitat Conservation Planning 8
Research and Monitoring Committee and
Research Work Group Status 9
Information Management
IRICC Framework Data 10
IRICC Update 11
Federal Timber Sale Program Update 12

Possible Agenda Items for the October Meeting 13

ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW

TOPIC: Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale: The Revised Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis (Guide)	REO Contact: Mike Tehan
Issue Statement: The results of the July 19 policy group meeting and the August 3 IAC breakfast meeting will be summarized and final agreement reached on Section I of the Guide. The final schedule for the production and distribution of Section I will be agreed upon. The purpose and objectives of Section II of the Guide (Analysis Methods and Techniques) will be discussed and agreed upon, and clear direction to the REO for completing this document will be sought.
Background: The watershed analysis policy group met on July 19 to resolve those remaining issues pertaining to Section I of the Guide that were raised during the July 6 IAC meeting. The policy group reviewed the REO rewrite of Section I and made several additional changes. On July 21, the policy group rewrite of Section I was overnight-mailed to the IAC, while the BIA concurrently distributed it to the approximately 42 tribes within the area of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP). The purpose of this final review was to identify only remaining "fatal flaws" or "show stopper" issues to be discussed and resolved at the August 3 IAC breakfast meeting. There was insufficient time, at the July 19 Policy Group Meeting, for the policy group to discuss possible approaches to move forward with Section II of the Guide. This issue will be discussed by the full IAC during the August 3 meeting.
Analysis and Options: Section I of the Guide: There was consensus by IAC members attending the policy group meeting that their July 19 rewrite of Section I fully resolved issues previously raised by IAC members. With the additional follow-up actions identified by the policy group (e.g., regional training workshop(s), Research and Monitoring Committee peer review process), the July 19 rewrite also fully addressed and resolved the four "other issues" previously identified by the IAC (team qualifications, peer review, non-federal lands, and higher-order analysis). Section II of the Guide: Based on the comments received to date, the REO/WACT+ identified three possible approaches for developing Section II: 1. Assemblage of "modules." The term "modules" refers to representative analytical approaches that can be used to characterize particular conditions or processes, to assess past or present conditions, or to evaluate causes of change in an ecosystem. Modules have been presented in previous versions of the Guide as optional "technical tools" that teams could apply if they proved to be useful. In addition to the 21 modules in the March review draft of the Guide, there were references to 4 other modules from earlier drafts that were not repeated in the March review draft. Reviewers of the draft Guide suggested that a number of new modules be developed. If the present assemblage of modules is to be used in Section II, they could either be finalized in their present form (i.e., not linked directly to the core questions) or they could be modified to specifically address the core questions.
2. Watershed analysis requirements/expectations from the Northwest Forest Plan. Many reviewers thought the Guide should specifically address watershed analysis expectations/requirements from the NFP. The only explicit references to NFP requirements in the March review draft were in the Terrestrial Addendum, which described possible approaches to terrestrial ecology issues, and the Aquatic Domain section, which described analysis needs related to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW) is currently developing a draft document that describes Riparian Reserve design considerations for watershed analysis. These existing work products could be combined to produce a single document to address the following watershed analysis considerations from the NFP: a) Riparian Reserve Design (aquatic and terrestrial considerations) b) Other Aquatic Conservation Strategy Considerations (key watersheds, restoration) c) Other Terrestrial Considerations (e.g., Survey and Manage species) Approaches to meeting NFP requirements could be mandatory or optional. They could be comprehensive (all watershed analysis requirements from the ROD) or limited (Riparian Reserve design only). 3. Information needs for regulatory requirements. In some cases, regulatory agencies may expect all watershed analyses to address information needs specific to regulatory requirements; e.g., Clean Water Act (CWA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), etc. Conversely, land management agencies may choose to address regulatory information needs separate from, or subsequent to, watershed analysis. The tools needed to develop information to support regulatory processes are generally those same methods and techniques discussed under 1 and 2 above. These tools could be mandatory or optional. They could be developed as part of Section II by other interagency policy groups or by individual agencies.
Organizational/Funding Implications: A renewed, revitalized interagency workgroup, with a full-time staff lead, would need to be formed to complete any additional work on Section II of the Guide. Given the current status of the WACT+, participating organizations will need to redefine their level of participation. Some agencies (e.g., BIA) are not as fully available to participate in the Guide development process as they have in the past.
REO Staff Proposal: The REO has not been able to arrive at a single recommendation that addresses all three of the possible approaches described above, and that is fully supported by all agencies. Based on comments received on the draft Guide, the highest priority for Section II appears to be Riparian Reserve design. It would seem reasonable to move forward, at a minimum, with the development of a new "module" for Section II that describes approaches and considerations for Riparian Reserve design (2a above) based on the ROD for the NFP. The IAC discussion and agreement on whether to address approaches 1, 2b, and 2c in Section II is needed. Additional discussion may be useful as to whether individual agencies should take the lead to develop or refine modules, or analytical methods to address specific regulatory requirements (approach 3 above).
ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC: IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision IAC Concurrence

ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW

TOPIC: Deschutes Provincial Advisory Committee	REO Contact: Gary Sims & Tony Sisto
Issue Statement: Report by a member of the Deschutes Provincial Advisory Committee.
Background: At the June and July meetings, the IAC expressed an interest in knowing how the Provincial Interagency Executive Committees (PIEC) and their Provincial Advisory Committees (PAC) are working and what activities have been taking place. At the August meeting Sally Marquest, with the Environmental Protection Agency, will give a presentation to the IAC.
Analysis and Options: In addition to general information, the IAC suggested several areas of particular interest to them: The issues and projects that are discussed at the PIEC/PAC meetings. What problems are the groups working on? What does the group do when it meets? How is the PIEC/PAC relating to the accomplishment of projects in the field? How will it benefit Northwest Forest Plan implementation? What does the PIEC/PAC need from the IAC?
Organizational/Funding Implications: N/A
REO Staff Proposal: We will also plan a PAC presentation for the October meeting being held in Sacramento, California.
ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC: IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other: Review and adopt

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Habitat Conservation Planning within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl	REO Contact: Jay F. Watson
Background: As part of the President's initiatives to bring an appropriate balance to land use practices in northwest forests, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is encouraging State and private timberland owners to develop Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) for their lands under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). A HCP accompanies an application for an incidental take permit. "Take" as defined in the ESA makes it illegal for anyone to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect any threatened or endangered species, or attempt to do so. "Harm" may include significant habitat modification where it actually kills or injures a listed species through impairment of essential behavior. An incidental take permit and HCP allow a landowner to proceed with an activity that would otherwise result in illegal take of a listed species. While the FWS provides detailed guidance throughout the process of getting an incidental take permit, development of an HCP is applicant driven.
Status/Update: To date, three HCPs have been completed covering approximately 640,000 acres of habitat in the Northwest. An additional 20 HCPs are underway in Oregon, Washington, and California, many of which will attempt to address the needs of multiple listed and candidate species. The FWS is encouraging a multi-species or ecosystem approach, which can provide long-term conservation benefits for species, as well as greater predictability for landowners. Conservation planning in northwest forests is being closely coordinated with the affected State and local governments, as well as the environmental community and timber industry. Where appropriate, the National Marine Fisheries Service will endorse HCPs which have threatened anadromous fish species on the planning area.

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Research and Monitoring Committee Research Work Group Status	REO CONTACT: Robert Romancier
Background: A background statement on research activities was originally provided to the IAC in March: "The main task is to develop an integrated interagency research plan to address critical natural resource commodity and non-commodity questions and to answer biological, social, economic, and adaptive management research questions. Using surveys and interviews, current and planned research relevant to the Northwest Forest Plan is being identified, while resource managers will soon be asked for their research information needs. The integrated research plan is to be in draft form by Spring 1996. A comprehensive electronic database of supporting research should be available soon thereafter. A continuing additional effort is to provide scientific advice to the Adaptive Management Areas and the Province organizations."
Status/Update: A research survey was developed and funding secured to conduct the survey. We requested survey approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in early March. While awaiting OMB approval, a pilot test was made of the document, and minor revisions were made. When OMB approval came on May 23 for the federal portion of the survey, more than 220 copies were mailed to USDA, USDI, and other researchers with a July 1 reply due date. Nonresponders were, and are, being contacted by mail and telephone. OMB approval for the non-federal portion of the survey was received June 14. The form was then mailed to approximately 400 individuals and institutions, with the reply due date as August 11. An electronic database will be completed from the responses and shared with all survey participants. Two detailers have been secured to extract research needs and assumptions from the Record of Decision and the Standards and Guidelines, and to summarize the research needs of resource managers. In addition, research or information needs have been requested from the various REO Working Groups, the Adaptive Management Areas, and forest staffs who regularly prepare watershed analyses. When all the information on needs, and current and planned research are assembled, work will begin on a draft interagency research plan to guide future federal research and to suggest profitable avenues of research to other scientists. The draft plan should be ready for review by Spring 1996.

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: IRICC Update	REO Contact: Tim Quinn
Background: The IAC approved the Interoganizational Resource Information Coordinating Council's (IRICC) charter at the May meeting. In addition to the charter, IRICC is working on various initiatives previously presented to the RIEC.
Status/Update: The IRICC subcommittee has appointed a chair and steering committee and adopted internal operating procedures per the requirements of the charter. Chair: Duane Dippon, Bureau of Land Management Steering Committee: George Mayfield, Bureau of Indian Affairs Margaret Connelly, Forest Service Tim Quinn, Regional Ecosystem Office Larry Sugarbaker, Washington Department of Natural Resources Stan Allen, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission Steve Sherer, Bonneville Power Administration The Vegetation Strike Team completed their proposal for data standards and has distributed approximately 500 copies of their report to reviewers and interested parties. Replies were due on July 26. A final proposal for implementing vegetation data standards will be made at the October IAC meeting. The Hydro/Fish Strike Team is in the process of completing their report, and should distribute their draft standards before the end of July for review and comment. A fiber optic network is now being used by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Portland, Oregon, to support office automation networking needs. Current work focuses on testing and resolving GIS file transfer capabilities and security between the above agencies and the REO. Work on additional connections for the State of Oregon and U.S. Geological Survey is in progress.

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 1.1 Billion Board Feet (mmbf) 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 intermediate goals of 60% (660 mmbf) in 1995 and 80% (880 mmbf) in 1996.
Update: Members of the IAC requested a quarterly update of timber volume offered and harvest accomplishments to date.
FY 1994 - Timber volume sold within the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) area:
	BLM FS	18.5 233.0 251.5	mmbf
- Volume harvested within the NFP area:
	BLM FS	154.5 851.0 1005.5	mmbf
FY 1995 - Volume offered within the NFP area as of 7/1/95. Some sales are under challenge through review processes. None have proceeded to litigation to date.
	BLM FS	21.0 70.0 106.0 197.0	"Old sales" made available by BLM in FY '95 mmbf
- Volume harvested within the NFP area as of 7/1/95.
	BLM FS	54.0 289.0 343.0	mmbf
- Estimated total sale volume for FY 1995 by September 30, 1995.
	BLM FS	122.2 70.0 466.0 658.2	"Old sales" made available by BLM in FY '95 mmbf

Possible Agenda Topics for October 5, 1995

• Change of chair from John Lowe to Elaine Zielinski--Opening remarks by Elaine. (To be held in Sacramento, California; details forthcoming.)
• 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.
• 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, state, tribal, and local governments on issues related to the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan.
• OFED Report Update--Progress report on the end of the year report being prepared by OFED.
• Budget--Potential impact of the budget on implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan, and review the REO budget for FY '96.
• Provincial Presentation--Presentation (30 min.) by a PAC/PIEC chair from California.
• IRICC--Vegetation Strike Team proposal for implementing the vegetation data standards.

Possible Status Reports

• Coho Salmon
• Salvage
• Marbled Murrelet
• 4(d) Rule