Regional Ecosystem Office

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

Memorandum

Date: September 15, 1995

To: Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members (See Distribution List)

From: Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director

Subject: September 1995 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Agenda and Prework

Enclosed are the proposed agenda, agenda topic overviews, and status reports for the September 28 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) meeting. The meeting will be held at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Hall in Burney, California from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. In the spirit of the relaxed backdrop for our activities, I would encourage everyone to enjoy dressing casually throughout our activities.

The meeting objectives are:

Discuss field trip issues.
Review and agree on the next steps for effectiveness monitoring.
Review and discuss future Jobs-in-the-Woods issues and the three state "Partnership" proposal.
Discuss and agree on a schedule and next steps for the development of a riparian reserve boundary adjustment process.
Discuss and agree on possible agenda items for the November 2 meeting.

If you have questions or suggestions about the logistics of the field trip (itinerary can be found on the next page) or the agenda, please contact your agency's representative, Gary S. Sims (503-326-6274), or Linda Kucera (503-326-6283).

Enclosures (5)

cc:
REO
OFED

491/ly

Date: September 15, 1995
Subject: September 1995 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee 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
Thomas J. Mills, 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, Oregon/Washington, Bureau of Land Management
Ed Hastey, State Director, California, Bureau of Land Management (Alternate)
Dave Howell, District Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Ukiah, CA

IAC Field Trip September 27, 1995

Goals for the IAC field trip

The objective is to give the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) a sense for the fire dependent ecosystems within the range of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP). This is important because it is expected that policy issues relating to the NFP and the salvage amendment could come before them. The NFP recognizes the role of fire and encourages proactive actions to protect old growth habitat from fire. More recently, there has been the salvage amendment that mandated the land management agencies to provide for forest health through salvage activities. It is estimated that 70-80% of the salvage available in Northern California is found within Late-Successional Reserves (LSRs). There has already been interagency direction exempting some activities from LSR Assessment review. Policy questions for IAC: Should the exemptions be expanded to allow for more efficient implementation of forest health activities? Can there be treatment exemptions for certain ecosystems that would not apply to other areas within the boundary of the NFP?

Time Stop Key Discussion Items Lead Presenter

2:00 PM Redding Airport Overview Mark Stanley/Francie Sullivan/Lynn Sprague

2:55 PM Fountain Fire -Results of wildfire
-Natural vegetation regimes and the role of wildfire
-Consequences of the exclusion of fire Nathan Skinner (PSW)

3:45 PM Iron Canyon/West Girard LSR -What would happen if wildfire were to occur during cyclical extreme conditions?
-What would happen if prescribed fire were introduced to these stands?
-What if any vegetation treatments might be necessary prior to the reintroduction of fire?
-Large fire history in the area Dale Etter (Fire Behavior/Fuels Specialist STNF)
Gary Nakamura (UC Extension)

4:50 PM McCloud Ranger Station -Three State initiative
-Can this initiative help fill some of economic initiative leadership after OFED? To be confirmed

5:15 PM Miramac LSR -Effects of overstocking on forest health
-How does this effect the threat of wildfire All the above

5:45 PM Pondosa Fire -18 years later Mark Stanley

6:30 PM Burney

Potential Agenda Topics
September 28, 1995 IAC Meeting
Burney, California - 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

TIME	DURATION	POTENTIAL AGENDA TOPICS	PRESENTER
9:00	10 min.	Welcome, certify the August meeting notes, and review the September meeting objectives and agenda	Elaine Zielinski Linda Kucera
9:10	30 min.	Field Trip Review: Identify any policy issue follow-up needed	Francie Sullivan, Mark Stanley, Greg Blomstrom, Lynn Sprague
9:40	60 min.	Effectiveness Monitoring: Review the tentative policy agreements reflected in the ATO and focus follow-up discussions on the remaining issues	Dan McKenzie
10:40	15 min.	Break
10:55	30 min.	Effectiveness Monitoring continued: Closure, Next Steps, and Schedule	Dan McKenzie
11:25	30 min.	California Coast Provincial Advisory Committee Presentation	Dan Chisholm
11:55	60 min.	Lunch
12:55	45 min.	Jobs-in-the-Woods/Restoration Presentation and discussion of the three state "Natural Resource Partnership Proposal"	Curt Loop Kevin Smith
1:40	30 min.	Section II of the Watershed Analysis Guide: Interim Riparian Reserve boundary review and adjustment process and schedule	Mike Tehan
2:10	20 min.	Public Comment	Linda Kucera
2:30	30 min.	RIEC Update: Salvage Update Agency Budget Overview Including RIFs and Furloughs	RIEC Members Don Knowles
3:00	15 min.	Possible Agenda Items and Status Reports for the November Meeting	Elaine Zielinski
3:15	15 min.	Break
3:30	20 min.	Hot Topics Including the OFED Report Update	All
3:50	10 min.	Closing Comments	Elaine Zielinski
4:00		Adjourn

ATOs for September 28, 1995

Effectiveness Monitoring
Three State Proposal
Enclosure 1 - Natural Resource Partnership Proposal
Watershed Analysis - Section II of the Guide
Enclosure 2 Status of Revising and Releasing Existing Analysis Methods and Techniques
Enclosure 3 Preliminary Draft Analysis Methods and Techniques for Evaluating and Adjusting Interim Riparian Reserve Boundaries
Possible Agenda Items and Status Reports for the November Meeting

Status Reports for the September IAC Meeting

Communications with PACs
Implementation Monitoring
IRICC Vegetation Strike Team
REO Budget Proposal
Enclosure 4 Fiscal Years 1995 and 1996 REO Budget Issues
Enclosure 5 REO FY96 Activities Table
Status of Watershed Boundary Delineations

Other Agenda Topics for September 28, 1995

Field Trip Review
California Coast Provincial Advisory Committee Presentation
Public Comment
RIEC Update on Salvage and Other Issues
Hot Topics Including the OFED Report Update
Closing Comments and Adjourn

Information to be Provided IAC Members at the September IAC Meeting

Agency Budget Overview
Litigation Summary
Summary of Comments on the Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Plan

INTERGOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (iac)

ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW

TOPIC: Effectiveness Monitoring Plan REO Contact: Dan McKenzie

Issue Statement: Should we continue development of the effectiveness monitoring approach as described in the July 21, 1995, draft or change direction before additional time or resources are expended.

Background: At the August IAC meeting, a draft Effectiveness Monitoring Plan developed by the Research and Monitoring Committee (RMC) was distributed for comment. The draft represents a proposed interagency monitoring program for the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) with emphasis on 5 areas: Late-Successional Old Growth, Northern Spotted Owl, Marbled Murrelet, Survey and Manage, and Riparian and Aquatic. Reviews of the draft were invited and specifically reviewers were asked to respond to the question: Should we continue development of the approach described herein or change direction before additional time or resources are expended. A summarized list of the review comments and issues will be presented at the September IAC meeting. We will present an REO recommendation on issues where agreement can be reached, and will present a current status report on agency positions (including pros and cons) where REO has not been able to reach consensus. These will serve as starting points for the IAC discussion, and will help focus it.

Analysis and Options:
Summary of Key Policy Issues and Current Degree of Resolution and/or Consensus:
1. Goals. There is general agreement that the next phase of our monitoring effort (post-implementation monitoring) should help determine the degree to which the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) goals and objectives are being achieved and should provide information to improve agency decisions through adaptive management processes. In meeting these goals, monitoring will also provide a basis for supporting the NFP in the event of legal challenges.
2. Habitat and Population Monitoring. There is general agreement that the next monitoring steps will address both habitats and populations to some degree. While the distinction between effectiveness and validation monitoring is subject to interpretation, there are strong relationships and linkages between these two monitoring components.
It is generally recognized that the monitoring effort cannot reasonably address all species of interest (including survey and manage species) on an individual basis. This has led to discussions regarding the use of groups of species and the possible selection of representative species and/or habitat associations (i.e., how many would be selected and what criteria would be used for selection), as well as discussions regarding the nature of any population data to be collected (e.g., presence/absence, abundance and distribution, or demographics). Questions regarding the definition of population monitoring, how population monitoring is related to research, and the linkages between population and habitat monitoring have also surfaced.
3. Five Initial Emphasis Areas. There is some agreement that the five emphasis areas (northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, late-successional old growth, survey and manage species, riparian and aquatic) reflect current priorities. However, the relationships between them (e.g., are some subsets of others, what is the habitat/population linkage, should completion of the monitoring design for these emphasis areas be on the same track or prioritized on separate tracks, and what skills are needed to address each area) are subject to different interpretations.

4. Scale. The ROD makes reference to a provincial scale monitoring design; the current draft RMC monitoring proposal provides for information at the regional and provincial scales. There is recognition that some agencies or field offices may want to augment the regional/provincial data through efforts conducted on a smaller scale, and that some activities or species may warrant monitoring on a local level.
5. Pace. There is some agreement (particularly from a legal standpoint) that it is better to take additional time to produce a sound plan, than to settle for a poor plan which may be completed sooner. However, although we have some ongoing level of implementation and effectiveness monitoring, we need to begin the next phase in a timely manner. A decision on timeliness in this case needs to take into account the need for baseline information, the timeframes within which measurable results can be expected, and the recognition that monitoring cycles may vary. Based on these considerations, and an understanding of the scope of ongoing monitoring efforts, decisions can be made to provide for new or increased monitoring efforts as early as FY96, or in later years.
6. Costs, Funding, Roles. The REO has been asked to array the basic monitoring strategies in such a way that costs and risks can be compared; initial cost estimates are being developed. Upon completion of the next version of the monitoring plan, budget implications should be reconsidered, and appropriate adjustments should be made (in funding and/or monitoring intensity). To the extent that expected funding may not be available to complete the intended monitoring effort, identification of monitoring funding priorities may be a useful tool. Although not formally agreed to, it would be reasonable to assume that the funding baseline would be current funding levels (and that downward trends in those funding levels would continue).
During initial discussions, the BLM and FS have indicated a readiness to maintain their current agency focus on habitat monitoring. The FS and BLM also share expectations that there will be elements of population monitoring needed during the next phase, that there is a need to correlate habitat and population data, and that the linkages between habitat and population monitoring need to be identified. Additional discussions are needed to clarify other agencies' and governments' expectations regarding monitoring, including roles and funding commitments. These discussions may address which agencies have the appropriate skills mix, who develops protocols, who administers protocols, and who analyzes results and/or clarifies habitat/population linkages.

Organizational/Funding Implications: Depending on the policy decisions, the implications could range from modest to large for individual agencies and for the NFP.

REO Staff Proposal: The REO recommends that: 1) the IAC discuss the issues and options, 2) the RIEC consider the IAC discussions and any recommendations and reach agreement, 3) the RIEC provide direction to the REO and RMC for the continued development of the effectiveness monitoring plan and subsequent presentation to the IAC.

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: Three State "Natural Resource Partnership Proposal" REO Contact: Curt Loop
Presentation by Kevin Smith

Issue Statement:
How should the intergovernmental "Jobs-in-the-Woods" program evolve over time to provide good jobs, sustain natural resources, and give new hope to rural natural resource-based communities? How can we better integrate the economic and natural resource aspects of the Northwest Forest Plan?

Background:
The Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) was developed and implementation initiated as three distinct elements--forest management, interagency cooperation, and community and economic revitalization. Most parties agree that there needs to be continuing improvement in the coordination between these three elements in order to achieve the overall goals for the NFP.

Analysis and Options:
Kevin Smith, Intergovernmental Affairs Manager for the Oregon Economic Development Department, will present the three state "Natural Resource Partnership Proposal" to the IAC (Enclosure 1). This proposal asks the Federal government to become a participant in an outcome based partnership with state, local, Native American, industry, and environmental partners.

Organizational/Funding Implications: Unknown.

REO Staff Proposal: None.

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: Riparian Reserve Evaluation Methods for Section II of the Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis (Guide). REO Contacts:
Mike Tehan, Ranotta McNair

Issue Statement:
During the September 13 watershed analysis status report conference call, REO was asked to develop an alternative, accelerated schedule for completion of analysis methods and techniques for riparian reserves. Concerns regarding IAC review of analysis methods and techniques were also raised. IAC members requested time on the September IAC meeting agenda to discuss alternative schedules to developing these methods and techniques.

Background:
Development of the Guide is proceeding in accordance with agreements reached during the August IAC meeting. Section I of the Guide was finalized and distributed to IAC members, tribes, and other interested parties during the first week of September. REO was asked to immediately proceed with the first installment of Section II of the Guide, a technical supplement or "tool box" for Section I. REO reviewed the existing analysis methods and techniques from previous versions of the Guide (Enclosure 2). The first installment of Section II, containing approximately 14 analysis methods (category 1), should be ready for release by the end of September. A second set of methods (category 2) are being revised to be consistent with Section I and should be available to release by the end of October or soon thereafter. A third group of methods (e.g., riparian reserve design methods and techniques initiated by PNW) may take longer to develop because of their complexity, level of controversy, and staff requirements (Enclosure 2).

Analysis and Options:
Section II: Riparian Reserve Methods and Techniques:
IAC previously identified evaluation methods and techniques for riparian reserves as the highest priority and agreed that PNW would be the lead agency. PNW is working on a preliminary rough draft of these methods and techniques (Enclosure 3). The original proposed schedule for completion of this installment of Section II, as described by REO on the September 13 conference call, was:
September: Complete draft report and distribute at the September IAC meeting; provide a 30-day review period to solicit IAC comments on technical and policy issues; identify IAC technical staff to assist PNW in further development of the preferred approach.
October: IAC members submit comments to PNW and REO.
November: Convene intergovernmental work group. Incorporate comments from IAC. Identify policy issues that require IAC policy group resolution. Develop final draft of the riparian reserve report for IAC agreement.
December: Present final draft to IAC for review, discussion, and agreement.
January: REO, PNW and intergovernmental workgroup resolve "show-stopper" issues identified by IAC.
February: Final IAC review, if needed; adopt final report; distribute to agency field units for implementation.
During the conference call, REO was asked to develop an alternative, accelerated schedule for the riparian reserve installment. The product would be needed by November or mid-December, to be useful in planning FY 1996 and 1997 timber sales. Related concerns with shortened review periods were also raised. REO was asked to identify specific staffing needs to meet an accelerated schedule.
REO is currently staffing this issue out for discussion at the September IAC meeting. Additional materials will be provided as they become available or at the meeting.

Organizational/Funding Implications:
The IAC watershed analysis policy group will likely need to resolve policy issues (once they are identified) and establish sideboards before the technical work on this document can be completed. It appears that a dedicated intergovernmental technical workgroup is needed to help PNW expedite development of the riparian reserve installment. Additional agency staffs are currently working on minor revisions to the category 2 methods and techniques (mostly the original authors for 2 days to 3 weeks). Because of the priority given the riparian reserve installment and the category 2 methods and techniques, no staff resources have been identified to address the other category 3 methods, or methods that do not yet exist but that were recommended by various reviewers of the draft Guide.

REO Staff Proposal: In development.

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

Potential Agenda Items and Status Reports for the November Meeting

Potential Agenda Topics for November 2, 1995

Change of Chair from John Lowe to Elaine Zielinski--Opening remarks by Elaine. (To be held in Portland, Oregon, 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 FY96 goals.
REO Budget for FY96--Closure.
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 NFP.
PIEC/PAC Consensus Issues for IAC Consideration--Issues brought forward to the IAC from the PIEC/PACs.
Interim Riparian Reserve Boundary Adjustment Tools and Techniques

Preliminary Status Reports for November 2, 1995

Federal Timber Sale Program Update Chris Hamilton

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Communication with Provincial Advisory Committees REO Contact: Don Knowles

Background: At the August meeting, IAC members expressed a concern that the committee may at times inadvertently create obstacles for successful implementation of the NFP, at the provincial level. Additionally, there may be times when specific ROD requirements are unnecessarily burdensome, awkward, or complicated. There may be times when a PAC identifies a better, more efficient/effective, way to implement a portion of the NFP and accomplish NFP/ROD goals than described in the documents or IAC/RIEC direction.
The IAC requested that the REO develop 1) a process for regular and routine information sharing between the IAC/RIEC and the PIECS/PACs, and 2) ways the PIECS/ PACs may present alternatives to established processes for IAC/RIEC consideration.

Status/Update: The concerns expressed by the IAC include: 1) communication, and 2) identification/removal of obstacles.
1. Communication. Ongoing communication and information sharing with PACs may be accomplished through:

Sharing IAC meeting notes. Each PAC Designated Federal Official has been added to the mailing list used by the REO to distribute IAC meeting notes. This will ensure that each Chair will receive both advance agendas and subsequent meeting notes so that they will be aware of the principle meeting topics and results. Each chair will be asked to share the information with other PAC members.

Maintaining REO liaison with PACs. Each agency representative to the REO is responsible for maintaining ongoing contact and communication with identified PACs. This communication most often involves telephone contact to share information, including PIEC/PAC activities and recent REO/RIEC/IAC developments. The Agency Representatives are encouraged to attend PIEC/PAC meetings whenever appropriate and practical, in order to enhance information exchange and help to keep each other informed on current developments.

2. Identification/Removal of Obstacles. The REO developed, for IAC Chair signature, a memo to all PACs encouraging them to submit specifically identified barriers/obstacles that may have resulted from IAC actions. Additionally, they may submit identified ROD requirements that should be modified in order to allow more expeditious/efficient implementation of the NFP. Such situations may be specific to particular provincial situations or may be more generalized.
The letter states that such items must be consensus recommendations of the PAC and submitted in writing to the IAC, through the REO. The REO will the request and present an analysis to the IAC.

Follow-up Action Required (if any): 1. Agency Representatives to the REO will maintain individual contact with the PIEC/PACs, and 2. the proposed memo will be sent to all PACs, as described above.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee

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

Memorandum

DRAFT

Date:

To: All Provincial Advisory Committee Chairs

From: John E. Lowe, Chair, Intergovernmental Advisory Committee

Subject: Communication with Provincial Advisory Committees

The Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) has indicated its desire that 1) each PAC be fully informed of RIEC/IAC actions, decisions, and/or recommendations, and 2) it (the IAC) consider establishing a fixed time on its agenda to address PIEC/PAC issues which are causing the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) to be more difficult than intended.

To address these items, the IAC agrees that: the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) Agency Representatives should continue to serve as liaisons for communication and information sharing between the REO and PIEC/PACs, in order to help keep the PACs informed of REO/RIEC/IAC activities. This should be maintained through frequent contact with the PAC Designated Federal Officials (DFOs) and other PAC members. Also, the REO Agency Representatives should attend as many PIEC/PAC meetings as practical and appropriate (as determined between the Agency Representative and the PAC contact).

You are encouraged to maintain frequent contact with the appropriate REO contact so that there may be ongoing information sharing. In that way, each DFO will be informed of upcoming IAC agenda items and meeting results. Each DFO is encouraged to share the information with individual PAC members. Additionally, each DFO will be added to the REO mailing list in order to receive IAC meeting information.

The IAC is aware that it is possible that developed policies/decisions may result in making NFP implementation more difficult than intended. Because the IAC can not be aware of every local circumstance, it is possible that one or more ROD requirements may in fact not be practical or possible in a particular local circumstance, or that a province may be able to develop a more efficient way of implementing a requirement than originally described.

Therefore, if the PAC has determined that it has a better way to achieve the goals of the NFP than a particular directive or requirement, it should write the IAC, through the REO, and request either a variance from the particular direction or time on the IAC agenda to propose an alternative approach. The memo should reflect the degree of consensus of the PAC and contain, if possible, a description of what would replace the direction. The REO will evaluate the request, compare it with other individual requirements and how it fits with other province activities across the Region. The REO will provide the memo, a summary of the issues involved, and a recommendation at the next IAC meeting, if possible.

Although all the REO contacts have been identified previously, it is useful to repeat them here:

Province
REO Contact
Phone Number

California Coast
G. S. Sims/BIA Representative
503/236-6274
Deschutes

G. S. Sims/BIA Representative
503/326-6274
E. Washington Cascades

Mike Tehan/NMFS Representative
503/326-6276
Klamath

Jay Watson/FWS Representative
503/326-6278
NW Sacramento

Ranotta McNair/FS Representative
503/326-6275
Olympic Peninsula

Tony Sisto/NPS Representative
503/326-6270
Oregon Coast

Curt Loop/COE Representative
503/326-7002
SW Oregon

Jay Watson/FWS Representative
503/326-6278
SW Washington

Ranotta McNair/FS Representative
503/326-6275
W. Washington Cascades

Dave Powers/EPA Representative
503/326-6271
Willamette

Debbie Pietrzak/BLM Representative
503/326-6273
Yakima

Mike Tehan/NMFS Representative
503/326-6276

cc:
REO

draft/gss

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Implementation Monitoring Plan

REO Contact: Dan McKenzie

Background:

A revised approach to implementation monitoring has been under development following the July IAC meeting. The major principles of the revised approach are: 1) focus on completion stages of projects/activities, (e.g., for timber sales that could include both design-layout and harvest), 2) integration with existing agency systems to identify projects/activities for monitoring, 3) prioritization of projects/activities into categories with differing amounts of sampling and review efforts, 4) development of a mock annual report, and 5) initiation of implementation monitoring and reporting for FY95 timber sales.

Status/Update:

Implementation monitoring will determine compliance with all S&Gs, with different categories of projects/activities having different sampling percentages and subsequent statistical uncertainties. The sample selection process will consider: 1) project/activity type, priority, and status, and 2) land allocations. Once selected, the project review will determine compliance with relevant S&Gs through examination of project documentation and field visits. An annual monitoring report will aggregate the sample database to provide province and Regional-level summaries. Intergovernmental review teams will be used and opportunities for involvement by additional parties (e.g., PAC members, publics) will be offered. A draft outline for the annual report has been developed.

Efforts are continuing to inventory and evaluate the ability of existing agency systems to identify projects/activities for implementation monitoring. An initial list of priority projects/activities has been developed and includes timber sales, and roads and road management. The remaining projects/activities are being consolidated in two additional categories for less intense sampling and review. The initiation of implementation monitoring for FY95 timber sales is proceeding to identify a sample from the list of all sales and to develop and plan for their review and reporting by intergovernmental teams.

Current plans are to revise the draft implementation monitoring plan (dated May 30, 1995) based on the information gained from the FY95 timber sale monitoring effort. The revised plan will address the strategy for categorizing and selecting samples, the review and reporting procedures, and the associated costs. It is anticipated that the revised plan will be presented to the IAC in early CY 1996 for review, with a final report following resolution of comments and concerns.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Vegetation Data Standards REO Contact: Tim Quinn

Background:
The RIEC approved the formation of the Vegetation Data Coordination Team (DCT) during their December 1, 1994, meeting. At that time, IRICC agreed to report back on the status of the team's efforts to define basic data standards and make a recommendation for further implementation.
The Vegetation Strike Team distributed 500 copies of their report, "Interagency Vegetation Information; Data Needs, Standards, and Implementation Next Steps," on June 1, 1995, for review and comment. A voting form was sent with the report for reviewers to indicate their degree of endorsement, level of need, and recommendations for implementation next steps. Approximately 120 voting forms were returned from a diverse representation of agencies, levels within agencies, and the private sector.

Status/Update:
The team proposed core standards for Tree Crown Closure, Forest Canopy Structure, Tree Overstory Size Class, Species Information, Stand Year of Origin, Potential Vegetation, and Plot Locations. The team also proposed next action items for building the GIS coverage of these elements across the NFP region.
A subset of the DCT is now reviewing the voting forms to determine consensus and distill draft recommendations for IAC. The results of this review will be sent back out to the full DCT for a final opportunity for input before final recommendations are presented to IAC in January.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: FY95 and FY 96 REO Budget Issues REO Contact: Don Knowles

Background and Status:
See enclosed budget memo dated September 6, 1995.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

Status report

Meeting Date: September 28, 1995 REO Contact: Chris Hamilton

TOPIC: Watershed Boundary Delineations

Background: At the May 1995 meeting, the IAC instructed REO to develop a consistent set of watershed boundaries throughout the NFP area. The status report distributed at the July IAC meeting described the process and logic we are following, as well as the situation as of that date. This status report briefly describes the current status of the project in each state.

Update:

Washington
The Washington Department of Ecology formed a work group in late June to review a number of issues related to their existing watershed boundaries. A final report and subsequent decisions concerning watershed delineations is expected by this fall.
No mapping will be initiated until completion of the review so that we can work together to incorporate their decisions.
Oregon
Memo from the Forest Service and BLM to field offices requesting assistance was delivered in mid-June.
All Province teams have met, agreed upon boundary locations, and drawn watershed boundaries where none existed.
REO has received 80% of the new linework from the field offices.
REO is developing a contract to digitally capture the new linework and construct the watershed coverage.
Expect delivery of Western Oregon watersheds by December 1. Edits and updates from all shareholders will then need to be incorporated.
Some agencies expressed a desire to begin revision of Eastern Oregon watersheds but currently no coordinated effort has begun.
California
Statewide map of watersheds is complete and in GIS.
State Department of Forestry is responsible for revision and maintenance of GIS layer.
The National Forests have been actively participating in the update and revision process.

Time	Stop	Key Discussion Items	Lead Presenter
2:00 PM	Redding Airport	Overview	Mark Stanley/Francie Sullivan/Lynn Sprague
2:55 PM	Fountain Fire	-Results of wildfire -Natural vegetation regimes and the role of wildfire -Consequences of the exclusion of fire	Nathan Skinner (PSW)
3:45 PM	Iron Canyon/West Girard LSR	-What would happen if wildfire were to occur during cyclical extreme conditions? -What would happen if prescribed fire were introduced to these stands? -What if any vegetation treatments might be necessary prior to the reintroduction of fire? -Large fire history in the area	Dale Etter (Fire Behavior/Fuels Specialist STNF) Gary Nakamura (UC Extension)
4:50 PM	McCloud Ranger Station	-Three State initiative -Can this initiative help fill some of economic initiative leadership after OFED?	To be confirmed
5:15 PM	Miramac LSR	-Effects of overstocking on forest health -How does this effect the threat of wildfire	All the above
5:45 PM	Pondosa Fire	-18 years later	Mark Stanley
6:30 PM	Burney

TOPIC: Effectiveness Monitoring Plan	REO Contact: Dan McKenzie
Issue Statement: Should we continue development of the effectiveness monitoring approach as described in the July 21, 1995, draft or change direction before additional time or resources are expended.
Background: At the August IAC meeting, a draft Effectiveness Monitoring Plan developed by the Research and Monitoring Committee (RMC) was distributed for comment. The draft represents a proposed interagency monitoring program for the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) with emphasis on 5 areas: Late-Successional Old Growth, Northern Spotted Owl, Marbled Murrelet, Survey and Manage, and Riparian and Aquatic. Reviews of the draft were invited and specifically reviewers were asked to respond to the question: Should we continue development of the approach described herein or change direction before additional time or resources are expended. A summarized list of the review comments and issues will be presented at the September IAC meeting. We will present an REO recommendation on issues where agreement can be reached, and will present a current status report on agency positions (including pros and cons) where REO has not been able to reach consensus. These will serve as starting points for the IAC discussion, and will help focus it.
Analysis and Options: Summary of Key Policy Issues and Current Degree of Resolution and/or Consensus: 1. Goals. There is general agreement that the next phase of our monitoring effort (post-implementation monitoring) should help determine the degree to which the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) goals and objectives are being achieved and should provide information to improve agency decisions through adaptive management processes. In meeting these goals, monitoring will also provide a basis for supporting the NFP in the event of legal challenges. 2. Habitat and Population Monitoring. There is general agreement that the next monitoring steps will address both habitats and populations to some degree. While the distinction between effectiveness and validation monitoring is subject to interpretation, there are strong relationships and linkages between these two monitoring components. It is generally recognized that the monitoring effort cannot reasonably address all species of interest (including survey and manage species) on an individual basis. This has led to discussions regarding the use of groups of species and the possible selection of representative species and/or habitat associations (i.e., how many would be selected and what criteria would be used for selection), as well as discussions regarding the nature of any population data to be collected (e.g., presence/absence, abundance and distribution, or demographics). Questions regarding the definition of population monitoring, how population monitoring is related to research, and the linkages between population and habitat monitoring have also surfaced. 3. Five Initial Emphasis Areas. There is some agreement that the five emphasis areas (northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, late-successional old growth, survey and manage species, riparian and aquatic) reflect current priorities. However, the relationships between them (e.g., are some subsets of others, what is the habitat/population linkage, should completion of the monitoring design for these emphasis areas be on the same track or prioritized on separate tracks, and what skills are needed to address each area) are subject to different interpretations. 4. Scale. The ROD makes reference to a provincial scale monitoring design; the current draft RMC monitoring proposal provides for information at the regional and provincial scales. There is recognition that some agencies or field offices may want to augment the regional/provincial data through efforts conducted on a smaller scale, and that some activities or species may warrant monitoring on a local level. 5. Pace. There is some agreement (particularly from a legal standpoint) that it is better to take additional time to produce a sound plan, than to settle for a poor plan which may be completed sooner. However, although we have some ongoing level of implementation and effectiveness monitoring, we need to begin the next phase in a timely manner. A decision on timeliness in this case needs to take into account the need for baseline information, the timeframes within which measurable results can be expected, and the recognition that monitoring cycles may vary. Based on these considerations, and an understanding of the scope of ongoing monitoring efforts, decisions can be made to provide for new or increased monitoring efforts as early as FY96, or in later years. 6. Costs, Funding, Roles. The REO has been asked to array the basic monitoring strategies in such a way that costs and risks can be compared; initial cost estimates are being developed. Upon completion of the next version of the monitoring plan, budget implications should be reconsidered, and appropriate adjustments should be made (in funding and/or monitoring intensity). To the extent that expected funding may not be available to complete the intended monitoring effort, identification of monitoring funding priorities may be a useful tool. Although not formally agreed to, it would be reasonable to assume that the funding baseline would be current funding levels (and that downward trends in those funding levels would continue). During initial discussions, the BLM and FS have indicated a readiness to maintain their current agency focus on habitat monitoring. The FS and BLM also share expectations that there will be elements of population monitoring needed during the next phase, that there is a need to correlate habitat and population data, and that the linkages between habitat and population monitoring need to be identified. Additional discussions are needed to clarify other agencies' and governments' expectations regarding monitoring, including roles and funding commitments. These discussions may address which agencies have the appropriate skills mix, who develops protocols, who administers protocols, and who analyzes results and/or clarifies habitat/population linkages.
Organizational/Funding Implications: Depending on the policy decisions, the implications could range from modest to large for individual agencies and for the NFP.
REO Staff Proposal: The REO recommends that: 1) the IAC discuss the issues and options, 2) the RIEC consider the IAC discussions and any recommendations and reach agreement, 3) the RIEC provide direction to the REO and RMC for the continued development of the effectiveness monitoring plan and subsequent presentation to the IAC.
ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC: IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other: Review and adopt

TOPIC: Three State "Natural Resource Partnership Proposal"	REO Contact: Curt Loop Presentation by Kevin Smith
Issue Statement: How should the intergovernmental "Jobs-in-the-Woods" program evolve over time to provide good jobs, sustain natural resources, and give new hope to rural natural resource-based communities? How can we better integrate the economic and natural resource aspects of the Northwest Forest Plan?
Background: The Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) was developed and implementation initiated as three distinct elements--forest management, interagency cooperation, and community and economic revitalization. Most parties agree that there needs to be continuing improvement in the coordination between these three elements in order to achieve the overall goals for the NFP.
Analysis and Options: Kevin Smith, Intergovernmental Affairs Manager for the Oregon Economic Development Department, will present the three state "Natural Resource Partnership Proposal" to the IAC (Enclosure 1). This proposal asks the Federal government to become a participant in an outcome based partnership with state, local, Native American, industry, and environmental partners.
Organizational/Funding Implications: Unknown.
REO Staff Proposal: None.
ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC: IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other: Review and adopt

TOPIC: Riparian Reserve Evaluation Methods for Section II of the Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis (Guide).	REO Contacts: Mike Tehan, Ranotta McNair
Issue Statement: During the September 13 watershed analysis status report conference call, REO was asked to develop an alternative, accelerated schedule for completion of analysis methods and techniques for riparian reserves. Concerns regarding IAC review of analysis methods and techniques were also raised. IAC members requested time on the September IAC meeting agenda to discuss alternative schedules to developing these methods and techniques.
Background: Development of the Guide is proceeding in accordance with agreements reached during the August IAC meeting. Section I of the Guide was finalized and distributed to IAC members, tribes, and other interested parties during the first week of September. REO was asked to immediately proceed with the first installment of Section II of the Guide, a technical supplement or "tool box" for Section I. REO reviewed the existing analysis methods and techniques from previous versions of the Guide (Enclosure 2). The first installment of Section II, containing approximately 14 analysis methods (category 1), should be ready for release by the end of September. A second set of methods (category 2) are being revised to be consistent with Section I and should be available to release by the end of October or soon thereafter. A third group of methods (e.g., riparian reserve design methods and techniques initiated by PNW) may take longer to develop because of their complexity, level of controversy, and staff requirements (Enclosure 2).
Analysis and Options: Section II: Riparian Reserve Methods and Techniques: IAC previously identified evaluation methods and techniques for riparian reserves as the highest priority and agreed that PNW would be the lead agency. PNW is working on a preliminary rough draft of these methods and techniques (Enclosure 3). The original proposed schedule for completion of this installment of Section II, as described by REO on the September 13 conference call, was: September: Complete draft report and distribute at the September IAC meeting; provide a 30-day review period to solicit IAC comments on technical and policy issues; identify IAC technical staff to assist PNW in further development of the preferred approach. October: IAC members submit comments to PNW and REO. November: Convene intergovernmental work group. Incorporate comments from IAC. Identify policy issues that require IAC policy group resolution. Develop final draft of the riparian reserve report for IAC agreement. December: Present final draft to IAC for review, discussion, and agreement. January: REO, PNW and intergovernmental workgroup resolve "show-stopper" issues identified by IAC. February: Final IAC review, if needed; adopt final report; distribute to agency field units for implementation. During the conference call, REO was asked to develop an alternative, accelerated schedule for the riparian reserve installment. The product would be needed by November or mid-December, to be useful in planning FY 1996 and 1997 timber sales. Related concerns with shortened review periods were also raised. REO was asked to identify specific staffing needs to meet an accelerated schedule. REO is currently staffing this issue out for discussion at the September IAC meeting. Additional materials will be provided as they become available or at the meeting.
Organizational/Funding Implications: The IAC watershed analysis policy group will likely need to resolve policy issues (once they are identified) and establish sideboards before the technical work on this document can be completed. It appears that a dedicated intergovernmental technical workgroup is needed to help PNW expedite development of the riparian reserve installment. Additional agency staffs are currently working on minor revisions to the category 2 methods and techniques (mostly the original authors for 2 days to 3 weeks). Because of the priority given the riparian reserve installment and the category 2 methods and techniques, no staff resources have been identified to address the other category 3 methods, or methods that do not yet exist but that were recommended by various reviewers of the draft Guide.
REO Staff Proposal: In development.
ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC: IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision IAC Concurrence

TOPIC: Communication with Provincial Advisory Committees	REO Contact: Don Knowles
Background: At the August meeting, IAC members expressed a concern that the committee may at times inadvertently create obstacles for successful implementation of the NFP, at the provincial level. Additionally, there may be times when specific ROD requirements are unnecessarily burdensome, awkward, or complicated. There may be times when a PAC identifies a better, more efficient/effective, way to implement a portion of the NFP and accomplish NFP/ROD goals than described in the documents or IAC/RIEC direction. The IAC requested that the REO develop 1) a process for regular and routine information sharing between the IAC/RIEC and the PIECS/PACs, and 2) ways the PIECS/ PACs may present alternatives to established processes for IAC/RIEC consideration.
Status/Update: The concerns expressed by the IAC include: 1) communication, and 2) identification/removal of obstacles. 1. Communication. Ongoing communication and information sharing with PACs may be accomplished through: Sharing IAC meeting notes. Each PAC Designated Federal Official has been added to the mailing list used by the REO to distribute IAC meeting notes. This will ensure that each Chair will receive both advance agendas and subsequent meeting notes so that they will be aware of the principle meeting topics and results. Each chair will be asked to share the information with other PAC members. Maintaining REO liaison with PACs. Each agency representative to the REO is responsible for maintaining ongoing contact and communication with identified PACs. This communication most often involves telephone contact to share information, including PIEC/PAC activities and recent REO/RIEC/IAC developments. The Agency Representatives are encouraged to attend PIEC/PAC meetings whenever appropriate and practical, in order to enhance information exchange and help to keep each other informed on current developments. 2. Identification/Removal of Obstacles. The REO developed, for IAC Chair signature, a memo to all PACs encouraging them to submit specifically identified barriers/obstacles that may have resulted from IAC actions. Additionally, they may submit identified ROD requirements that should be modified in order to allow more expeditious/efficient implementation of the NFP. Such situations may be specific to particular provincial situations or may be more generalized. The letter states that such items must be consensus recommendations of the PAC and submitted in writing to the IAC, through the REO. The REO will the request and present an analysis to the IAC.
Follow-up Action Required (if any): 1. Agency Representatives to the REO will maintain individual contact with the PIEC/PACs, and 2. the proposed memo will be sent to all PACs, as described above.

TOPIC: FY95 and FY 96 REO Budget Issues	REO Contact: Don Knowles
Background and Status: See enclosed budget memo dated September 6, 1995.

Meeting Date: September 28, 1995 REO Contact: Chris Hamilton
TOPIC: Watershed Boundary Delineations
Background: At the May 1995 meeting, the IAC instructed REO to develop a consistent set of watershed boundaries throughout the NFP area. The status report distributed at the July IAC meeting described the process and logic we are following, as well as the situation as of that date. This status report briefly describes the current status of the project in each state.
Update:	Washington The Washington Department of Ecology formed a work group in late June to review a number of issues related to their existing watershed boundaries. A final report and subsequent decisions concerning watershed delineations is expected by this fall. No mapping will be initiated until completion of the review so that we can work together to incorporate their decisions. Oregon Memo from the Forest Service and BLM to field offices requesting assistance was delivered in mid-June. All Province teams have met, agreed upon boundary locations, and drawn watershed boundaries where none existed. REO has received 80% of the new linework from the field offices. REO is developing a contract to digitally capture the new linework and construct the watershed coverage. Expect delivery of Western Oregon watersheds by December 1. Edits and updates from all shareholders will then need to be incorporated. Some agencies expressed a desire to begin revision of Eastern Oregon watersheds but currently no coordinated effort has begun. California Statewide map of watersheds is complete and in GIS. State Department of Forestry is responsible for revision and maintenance of GIS layer. The National Forests have been actively participating in the update and revision process.