Regional Ecosystem Office

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

              Memorandum

Date:     October 24, 1995

To:         Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members

From:     Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director

Subject:  November 1995 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Agenda and Prework

Enclosed are the proposed agenda, agenda topic overviews, and status report for the November 2 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee meeting. The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn Portland Airport, 8439 NE Columbia Blvd., Portland, OR 97220-1382. From I-205 take the Columbia Blvd. exit and go west, following the lodging signs. The Holiday Inn telephone number is (503) 256-5000. We will begin at 9:00 a.m. and adjourn no later than 4:30 p.m.

The meeting objectives are:

• Present and discuss adaptive management concepts and the role of new information. Agree to the REO undertaking efforts to apply the proposed process to two current issues.
• Present, discuss, and agree on a proposal to move toward integration of Northwest Forest Plan forest management activities and the Regional Community Economic Revitalization Team's economic development initiative.
• Review and discuss the proposed FY 1996 major activities for the IAC and REO related to NFP implementation.
• Review and concur on the agreements and schedule for Riparian Reserve evaluation methods reached by the watershed analysis policy group October 12.
• Agree on the proposed resolution of watershed boundary differences between the federal agencies and the State of Washington.
• Review and agree on potential agenda topics for the December meeting.

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

Enclosure

cc:
REO
OFED

525/lak

ATOs for November 2, 1995

• Adaptive Management Process--How to Look at New Information
• Three State Proposal--How to Proceed?
• Proposed FY 1996 Major Activities
• Update on Riparian Reserve Evaluation Methods
• Watershed Boundary Delineations in Washington
• Possible Agenda Items for the December Meeting

Status Report for November 2, 1995

• Federal Timber Sale Program for FY 1995

Other Agenda Topics for November 2, 1995

• Certify the September Meeting Notes and Opening Remarks
• ISC Meeting Feedback
• Hot Topics
• Public Comment
• Review Today's Meeting Agreements
• Closing Comments and Adjourn

Information to be Provided IAC Members at the November Meeting (Red Folder)

• Three State Proposal--How to Proceed? (ATO will be updated to reflect IAC/RCERT meeting on 10/31.)
• Summary of Key Interests Captured During the March Meeting for IAC Members to Evaluate Our Performance and Prepare for Discussion at the December Meeting (Cover memo and ATO)

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

TOPIC: Adaptive Management Process--How to Look at New Information	REO Contact: Tony Sisto and Dan McKenzie
Background: The Northwest Forest Plan (NFP), in general, amends existing FS plans, and was incorporated into BLM management plans with additional land allocations and standards and guidelines. The concept of adaptive management was specifically incorporated into the standards and guidelines, to be implemented for the purpose of maximizing the benefits and efficiency of the standards and guidelines (E-13). It is a continuous process of planning, monitoring, researching, evaluating, and adjusting with the objective of improving NFP implementation and achieving the goals of the standards and guidelines (E-12). In this process, new information is identified as such, evaluated, and a determination is made whether to adjust the strategy or goals of the NFP. For the NFP to be fully successful, it was recognized that it needed the flexibility to evaluate and respond to new information. If adjustments to the NFP are determined to be required, the NFP includes a process by which the RIEC will consider adjustments. (E-13, 14). Consistent with the adaptive management process, a decision to make any changes or adjustments to the NFP standards and guidelines or land allocations will be made through amendments to forest or resource management plans, when appropriate, using existing regulations. Such amendments will be reviewed by the RIEC to assure consistency with the objectives of the standards and guidelines (E-13, 18).
Status/Update: Representatives from the REO and the RMC have met with agency planning staff from the FS and the BLM to discuss the application of adaptive management and new information within the planning process for the agencies. There is general agreement that: 1. A process should be developed for initiating new information review and analysis to provide a basis for making decisions regarding possible changes or adjustments to the NFP standards and guidelines; 2. The differences between plan implementation, and what is and is not a change to standards and guidelines, need to be summarized; and 3. Applying examples of current issues (e.g., 4(d) rule, timber salvage legislation) to a proposed analysis process may best illustrate the role of new information in NFP implementation.
REO Recommendation: At the November IAC Meeting: Present and discuss a generic adaptive management approach and the role of new information. Notify RIEC and IAC of REO efforts to initiate review of new information aspects of the salvage legislation, and analysis of additional information related to the 4(d) rule. At the December IAC Meeting: Agree on the generic adaptive management approach. Progress report of ongoing REO review of salvage legislation implementation and new 4(d) information.

Discussion Paper 1: Adaptive Management Process for Identification, Evaluation and Assessment of Implications of New Information Relevant to the Northwest Forest Plan

The Northwest Forest Plan (NFP), consisting of standards and guidelines to be applied consistently with various associated agency processes, is based on knowledge gained through experience, monitoring, research, and socioeconomic feedback as known at the time of NFP preparation. One key aspect of the NFP is the concept of "adaptive management", which allows for the incorporation of new information, gained through experience, monitoring efforts, research, and other avenues, and a process for making adjustments as appropriate. Standards and guidelines in the Record of the Decision (ROD) state that:

"The adaptive management process will be implemented to maximize the benefits and efficiency of these standards and guidelines. This may result in the refinement of standards and guidelines, land-use allocations, or amendments to Forest and District Plans." (ROD, E-12).

Adaptive management allows for the review and incorporation of new information into the NFP, with the objective being to improve the implementation and achieving the goals of the NFP, if the information is deemed an improvement in meeting the NFP's overall objectives. To assure that the implementing agencies are receiving and incorporating appropriate information, a process is needed to describe and facilitate this aspect of new information and adaptive management. The process should be a consistent method to identify new information, evaluate the implications and potential implications of the information, and recommend changes or modifications to the standards and guidelines, or NFP objectives, if found to be appropriate.

EXPERIENCE TO DATE:

In most instances, we have concluded that ongoing agency actions not directly related to the NFP do not effect the plan (e.g., the proposal to list coastal coho; the proposed designation of critical habitat for marbled murrelets; and the proposed recovery plan for marbled murrelets). Although these conclusions have not evolved from formal analysis, it is accurate to say that the effects of these actions have been individually considered and informally concluded that there is no need for additional analysis.

In other instances, agencies have used existing authority to deal with similar issues (e.g., updating forest plans to reconcile ROD mapped late-successional reserve boundaries with other mapped allocations or landscape features).

Finally, in some other instances, agencies have used the implementation discretion built into the standards and guidelines to make some adjustments (e.g., changing a provincial boundary line to correct a mapping error in the ROD; moving a survey and manage species from one component to another pursuant to ROD standards and guidelines; etc.). (Note: see Discussion Paper 2 for further examples of implementation changes).

Because of the obvious availability and sources of issues, actions, and new information that could lead to an effect on NFP standards and guidelines or objectives, it is important to develop and implement a process for the identification of new information, and the resulting analysis to determine any effects on the NFP. If potentially significant new information which may affect the objectives of the NFP is brought to the attention of the agencies, Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC), Regional Ecosystem Office (REO), or the Research and Monitoring Committee (RMC), this information should be addressed in a thoughtful and coordinated manner to ensure its consistency with the NFP, or to integrate it into adjustments or changes to the NFP objectives or standards and guidelines.

PROCESS FOR IDENTIFICATION OF NEW INFORMATION:

Following are five potential sources of relevant new information. These differ primarily in the process and mechanism for discovery of the information:

SOURCE	EXAMPLE / RESPONSIBILITIES
Periodic assessments of the NFP. Such assessments would occur on a regular schedule (perhaps every 3 to 5 years), and would involve a comprehensive look at all relevant experience, data, and management decision changes. Thus, adaptive management would rightfully be an iterative process, looked at periodically in light of all the information accumulated since the previous review or revision.	Such a process supplements and serves to bridge regulatory differences between land management agencies for a specific plan review cycle. It does not replace agency plan review cycles. Interagency group, with facilitation by the REO, reviews agency and other actions during the past 3 to 5 years that cumulatively might effect the NFP assumptions or suggest changes.
Focused reviews by the federal agencies on an on-going basis. Specific important issues would be identified by the participating federal agencies, or by the IAC. Based on the issue, proactive efforts could be made to identify and gather all relevant information on an on-going or frequent basis.	Specific actions or policy considerations that should not wait for a periodic analysis process or agency plan review cycle. Examples could include recent RMC analysis and interpretation on coarse woody debris; or frequent evaluations of new information regarding Riparian Reserve structure and function relative to Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. Agencies would be responsible for introducing focused reviews to the interagency process through the RIEC/REO.
Federal or non-federal entities may submit new information for consideration by the IAC. Specific issues could be brought before the IAC by a variety of sources, both public and private. A consistent mechanism for the receipt and treatment of such information from these sources would be required. This source of information could provide a process for consideration of alternative analyses and interpretations of new information.	Generally, scientific information, although it could also be policy changes from another governmental entity, such as if a state made changes in identifying watersheds. Examples could include new scientific data, based upon research on spotted owl or other species habitats, developed by a university or institute that could challenge or change the NFP assumptions or standards and guidelines. An interagency group, facilitated through the RIEC/REO, would be established to review the relevance of such information.
Implementation experience, including monitoring, at the local level generates new understandings. Over time, relevant information will be learned during NFP implementation at the site and local scale, which could stimulate a need for review, evaluation, and decision at a broader scale. Rapid identification and evaluation of the information, and the appropriate action based on such implementation information, would be the objectives in treating such information. To achieve those objectives, guidelines need to be established on how to decide what is valid information requiring higher level review.	Practical and scientific information generally learned through effectiveness monitoring. Examples could include experiences in adaptive management areas; development of provincial plans that challenge standards and guidelines based upon particular situations in the province such as extensive forest diseases that might call for provincial scale actions. Agencies or PIEC/PACs would generally be the initial responsible entity for surfacing such information through agency and/or RIEC/REO review levels.
Legislative, legal, or policy actions not directly related to the NFP may have a potential effect on NFP objectives, assumptions, or on standards and guidelines. New information does not need to always be categorized as purely scientific or implementation-related information. Many issues external to the NFP could effect the underlying assumptions or implementation of the NFP. Such legislative and policy issues may need to be subjected to a thorough analysis for any effects on NFP implementation.	One potential example would include information used in, or resulting from, the proposed 4(d) rule and analysis. Another potential example could be understandings of landscape assumptions on habitat after the completion of 318 and replacement volume sales pursuant to Rescission Bill language. Responsibility with a technical interagency review effort with RIEC/REO facilitation.

PROCESS FOR EVALUATION OF NEW INFORMATION:

A baseline assumption in evaluating any new information, including the examples above, is that agencies will continue a philosophy of employing the best science available for adaptive management. This assumption will aid in the professional evaluation and rejection of submissions which are considered not scientifically sound, not applicable to, or without sufficient information for sound scientific scrutiny. To meet this assumption, key criteria need to be followed during evaluation of new information to make an initial determination of the effect on the NFP, prior to beginning a decision action process.

Such criteria should include at a minimum:

• Direct relevance of new information to the NFP.
• Other new information which was not previously considered in depth (includes any new analysis of old data).
• Potential effects and scale of effects on the NFP objectives and standards and guidelines that might warrant NFP change or adjustment decision actions.

The best forum for such a review remains with an interagency task group or team whose responsibility, after applying the key criteria, would be to determine if further action, including peer review, is recommended.

The REO would facilitate and coordinate the interagency review process. The REO would, after an initial policy review, forward new information "packets" to the RMC for initial screening and the preparation of a scientific analysis plan. The results of the RMC initial analysis, as recommendations to the RIEC through the REO, would provide a set of options for the agencies to consider. If an option for further analysis was chosen based upon convincing evidence that the new information could have significant or large-scale effects on the NFP, an in-depth analysis group would then be formed, coordinated by the REO, to focus on the scientific content of new information and its relevancy to the NFP. In evaluating the relevancy and effect of new information, the study would consider the following questions:

• Does the information refine or enhance the understanding of a process or relationship?
• Could the information lead to a change to the NFP objectives or standards and guidelines?

Such information and recommendations could be used by the agencies in any NEPA process or decision action, including any changes to the NFP objectives or standards and guidelines.

BASIC ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT MODEL:

Discussion Paper 2: Implementation of the ROD / Changes to Standards and Guidelines

The ROD amends existing Forest and Resource Management Plans by overlaying a set of standards and guidelines for the management of late-successional and old-growth forest related species. The standards and guidelines, although compiled as an appendix to the ROD, are to exist in and be implemented as a part of individual Forest and Resource Management Plans. As specific standards and guidelines are applied to activities and individual projects, unique or particular conditions are beginning to arise that require interpretation of, or may result in possible adjustments to, the standards and guidelines to best reach ROD objectives.

The ROD envisions the possibility of such adjustments when applying the standards and guidelines at the field level. The process of implementing the NFP, the importance of specific forest conditions at the provincial or site level, and the adaptive management process which envisions possible changes as a result of new information, all foresee the occasional conflicts inherent in implementing the ROD, and allow the flexibility and discretion to the manager to accomplish ROD goals and objectives.

The ROD also created additional interagency organizations with specific responsibilities relative to adaptive management, new information, and changes to standards and guidelines as follows:

"Decisions to change land allocations, or standards and guidelines will be made only through the adoption, revision, or amendment of these documents (FS and BLM planning structure documents) following appropriate public participation, NEPA procedures, and coordination with the RIEC. . .. Changes or adjustments to these standards and guidelines may be made through amendments to those plans. . .. The amendments will be reviewed by the RIEC to assure consistency with the objectives of these standards and guidelines." (ROD, E-18).

The purpose of this paper is to help provide direction to the field in implementing the ROD by answering the following questions:

1. What is a change, amendment, or adjustment to the standards and guidelines?

2. What adjustments to standards and guidelines does the ROD foresee in implementation, and what, if any, is the REO/RIEC role?

3. What process is used to make discrete decisions allowed in the NFP?

CHANGES, AMENDMENTS, ADJUSTMENTS TO THE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

The ROD uses the terms "changes", "adjustments", "amendments", and "revisions" to the NFP interchangeably. While some interpretation could perhaps be made that the terms were relative to a scale of change, there is little consistent information to adopt such an interpretation.

The more important issue is that the ROD speaks either of change as being part of an implementation process, or as resulting from new information. Either situation might result in a change, amendment, or adjustment to the standards and guidelines. The first situation involves making changes to specific standards and guidelines as a result of the NFP implementation as specifically foreseen by and provided for in the ROD. For example, the possibility of changing survey and manage species from one survey strategy to another, or dropping the mitigation requirement for a species, is clearly envisioned and expected in the ROD (ROD-37; C-6).

The second situation would involve the application of the adaptive management concept of seeking and applying new information, derived either from new scientific data (or new analysis of existing data), or from policy or legal factors that could have an effect on the NFP objectives or ROD standards and guidelines. The ROD specifically envisions through the adaptive management process the need to refine standards and guidelines at the field level (See Discussion Paper 1). Because the ROD amended existing Forest and Resource Management Plans, such adjustment or refinements will need to be accomplished pursuant to applicable agency regulatory and planning procedures, and at the appropriate planning level. The ROD also recognizes, however, that "most adjustments will be within the realm of administrative change" (E-15), and that not all adaptive management modifications necessarily require such plan adjustments (E-13).

IMPLEMENTATION AND REO/RIEC REVIEW

There are several actions to be taken in the field that the ROD envisions may require adjustment to the standards and guidelines short of changing regional level plans or the NFP objectives. For example, as mentioned above, the possibility of changing survey and manage species from one survey strategy to another, or dropping the mitigation requirement for a species, is clearly envisioned and expected in the ROD (ROD-37; C-6). When accomplished as required by the ROD, such a change would be fully consistent as implementation of the ROD. Such an action does not necessarily constitute a decision point requiring Forest or Resource Management Plan change or amendment (unless specifically required by agency regulations or planning processes).

A similar example with a different result would be changing Riparian Reserve boundaries based on a completed watershed analysis. This would be an implementation action specifically foreseen by the ROD (B-13). Even though such an action may require or result in an agency making amendments to Forest or Resource Management Plans, such a planning and regulatory action in and of itself need not be seen as a change to ROD standards and guidelines.

Amendments modifying the standards and guidelines established by the ROD "will be coordinated through the RIEC and the REO." ( E-18). However, the planning and regulatory action that an agency must take in implementing the ROD is not the sole trigger that would require E-18 REO/RIEC review. Other key triggers are the scope and effect of an action, and whether or not the proposed action is implementation or a change to standards and guidelines at a broad plan level based on new information and the adaptive management process.

The attached chart summarizes actions in the ROD that can be viewed as implementation and that in and of themselves do not constitute a "change" to the standards and guidelines.

PROCESS FOR MAKING DISCRETE DECISIONS ALLOWED IN THE ROD

The ROD does not supersede agency regulations or legislation. The ROD recognizes that planning is continuous at several levels, and that continuous monitoring, evaluation, and adjustment through decision-based amendment and revision is often required by agency regulations. As long as such decisions are consistent with the adjustments specifically foreseen in the ROD as implementation actions, REO/RIEC review is not required based on E-18 requirements. (Note that some implementation actions may none-the-less individually require REO/RIEC involvement pursuant to specific ROD directions). It is envisioned that implementation monitoring will provide sufficient review of those implementation actions not otherwise requiring REO/RIEC review.

Conclusion

- Agencies retain their full discretionary authority to implement the ROD, including making specific Forest or Resource Management Plan amendments, consistent with their existing statutory and regulatory requirements. Existing planning, NEPA, and public involvement processes are not changed.

- Any proposed change to the direction, goals, or strategy of the NFP or ROD standards and guidelines based on new information and the adaptive management process would require a decision consistent with agency regulatory and planning processes. This would require review by the REO/RIEC, and the RMC.

- Any proposed action that interprets or specifically implements a particular standards and guidelines consistent with the ROD need not be seen as a "change" to the standards and guidelines, even if specific Forest or Resource Management Plans are changed consistent with agency regulations. Such actions do not require E-18 REO/RIEC review, although the ROD may specifically require review for an action on its own merit.

- If a proposed site-specific project is found to be technically inconsistent with standards and guidelines, but, otherwise meets ROD objectives as fully shown in project documentation and through public processes, and applies only to a specific project rather than all future projects, the agency will follow available regulatory process for implementing these exceptions. Unless this action in some way undermines the objectives of the NFP, such action in and of itself need not be seen as a change to standards and guidelines. It would not necessarily require REO/RIEC review, unless the ROD specifically requires such review for that action.

Implementation Actions and Changes to Standards & Guidelines: Northwest Forest Plan

Topic	Description from the ROD Regarding Standards & Guidelines Revision	Implementation Level	Required REO/RIEC Action and REO Process
Survey & Manage Species	Agencies may propose changes to the REO for analysis. These changes could include changing the schedules [of status reports], moving a species from one survey strategy to another, or dropping the mitigation requirement for any species. [ROD-37, C-6, Table C-3 beginning on C-49]	Implementation within range of NSO.	REO reviews reports and forwards proposals for changes to RIEC. [C-6] Proposals forwarded through agency Regional Office to REO, who coordinates analysis and evaluation of support data, or gathering of additional data. REO makes finding and recommendation by memorandum to RIEC with copies to IAC. Barring receipt of objections, any change is implemented by memorandum from REO to RIEC, or proposal returned to agency for further study.
Riparian Reserves	Riparian Reserve boundaries may be adjusted after watershed analysis is completed and the rationale is presented through appropriate NEPA decision-making process. [B-13, 16, 23, 30, C-3, 31] Watershed analysis is required to change Riparian Reserve widths in all watersheds. [B-30, C-6]	Implementation at province, district, or watershed level.	None. None.
LSRs	Standards and guidelines should be refined at the province level prior to development of LSR assessments. [C-11, 14-16] It is expected that salvage standards and guidelines will be refined through the implementation and adaptive management processes. [C-14,15] (For multiple-use activities): It may be necessary to modify or eliminate come current activities in LSRs that pose adverse impacts. This may require the revision of management guidelines, procedures, or regulations governing these multiple-use activities. [C-16]	Implementation at Province or individual LSR level. Implementation at any level.	Late successional reserve assessments are reviewed by the REO. [C-11] Adjustments in standards and guidelines must be reviewed by the REO. [C-16] LSR assessments forwarded to agency Issue Resolution Team (IRT) for review for consistency with LSR objectives; then forwarded to REO through agency Regional Director. Results of REO review and finding forwarded by memorandum back to submitting agency, w/ copies to RIEC. Agency notifies field. Proposed adjustments in multiple-use activities beyond a forest level would follow the same procedure, except that RIEC would be given an opportunity to review findings prior to adjustment.
Adaptive Manage-ment Areas (AMAs)	Standards and guidelines of current plans and draft plan preferred alternatives need to be considered during planning and implementation of activities within AMAs, and they may be modified in AMA plans based on site-specific analysis. Otherwise, standards and guidelines are to be developed to meet the objectives of the AMA and the overall strategy. [C-3, 22; D-11] Within the Finney and Northern Coast Range AMAs, the LSR designations may be changed by AMA plans. [ROD-8, C-22]	Implementation at the individual AMA level.	Coordination with the REO is required. [C-22]

 

ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW

TOPIC: Jobs-in-the-Woods/Restoration	REO Contact: Curt Loop
Issue Statement: How can we improve the coordination between ecosystem management actions and the economic goals for local communities?
Background: A summary of the "Three State Proposal" regarding the future development of economic initiatives related to the NFP was presented by Kevin Smith from the Oregon Economic Development Department at the September 28 IAC meeting. Kevin reported that he had presented this proposal to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and was told by Katie McGinty that it was the CEQ's desire that the RCERT and IAC develop the proposal to include the outcomes. Following Kevin's presentation, he responded to IAC questions and recommended the organization of a task force composed of federal, state, tribal, and private entities from the three states to continue discussion about the desired organization and measured outcomes. Several IAC members requested additional information and more discussion before they could properly discuss the proposal. Meetings were held on October 13 and 19, at which representatives from the federal agencies and states met to discuss the proposal and come to agreement on how to proceed. At the October 13 meeting, it was decided that the proposal appeared to have substantial merit and potential for the region. It was recommended that a small planning team be formed to identify how to proceed and report back to the IAC and RCERT. At the October 19 meeting, representatives from the States endorsed the planning team concept. The team composition was discussed at length, but a number of points were left open. Federal agency representatives stressed, on several occasions, the need to proceed step-by-step in recognition of the complexity of this task.
Analysis and Options: The Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) agreed to hold a joint meeting in October of IAC and RCERT members, at which economic adjustment initiative issues, opportunities for improved coordination and communication, and a staff recommendation would be discussed. Representatives from the Multi-Agency Command (MAC), the RCERT, the State CERTs, the Office of Forestry and Economic Development (OFED), the REO, and several agency representatives met on several occasions in October and agreed on a joint recommendation to be discussed at the joint meeting scheduled for October 31. Basic assumptions agreed to and utilized in the discussions included: Use existing organizations (e.g. ISC, MAC, RIEC, RCERT, IAC, SCERT, PIEC, and PAC). Use the Three State Proposal's outcomes as a "starting point" for future discussions. The states agreed to rename the Three State Proposal the "Natural Resource Partnership". The joint meeting will be held on October 31 in the Region 6 Regional Forester's conference room.
Organizational/Funding Implications: Unknown at this time.
REO Staff Proposal: The REO, along with the MAC, OFED, RCERT, and SCERT, and agency representatives, recommends that a small planning team be established and empowered to develop a plan for better integration of the IAC and RCERT in achieving the mutual land management and economic goals of the NFP. The planning team should be composed of a small number of individuals chosen for their broad knowledge of the initiatives and issues (not a representative of every organization). The planning team's charter would be to clearly articulate the current situation, the current problems and barriers, and to propose a strategic direction and a plan for improving the coordination between ecosystem management activities of the Federal agencies and the economic goals of the local communities. This plan would be submitted to the IAC and RCERT for approval and would cover all of the agency's "Program of Work", not just JITW and EAI funding. The planning team is not to take a position on whether funds currently appropriated to the Federal agencies should be provided to the states, or vice versa. The planning team would call upon technical, environmental, public, private, and economic expertise as required to carry out its charter. Issues to be resolved concerning the planning team include: its size, composition, leadership, and geographic scope. The REO recommends a small (6-9 person) team, composed of current members from the IAC, RCERT, PIEC, PAC, or SCERT. We also recommend that the planning team be co-chaired by one Federal and one State representative. The planning team will also develop, for approval by the IAC and RCERT, agreed upon long term outcomes, short term measurable performance goals, and a time table to achieve each.
ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC: IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other

ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW

TOPIC: Proposed FY 1996 Major Activities	REO Contact: Don Knowles
Issue Statement: Review and discuss the Proposed FY 1996 Major Activities as RIEC priorities and REO/RMC actions with timeframes.
Background: These are the issues we need to take action on in FY 1996 to continue implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan.
Analysis and Options: The RIEC Priorities, REO/RMC Actions, and Timeframes in the Proposed FY 1996 Major Activities document are a continuation of applicable RIEC/REO FY 1995 Accomplishment Goals (dated 1/95), specific actions identified by the RIEC/IAC members, and activities planned by the various Work Groups and Subcommittees.
Organizational/Funding Implications: N/A
REO Staff Proposal: Adopt the proposed FY 1996 major activities.
ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC: IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other: Review and adopt

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: The Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) Watershed Analysis Policy Group met on Thursday, October 12 to discuss and agree on policy sideboards and direction for the technical team that will develop analysis methods and techniques for Riparian Reserves. The policy group agreements would affect the schedule for completion of Riparian Reserves methods that was agreed to during the IAC September meeting.
Background: The following agreements were reached at the September IAC meeting: The IAC watershed analysis policy group should meet early in October to identify and resolve policy issues relative to Riparian Reserve adjustments and to establish sideboards for the technical team lead by PNW. The technical team, lead by PNW and including IAC technical representatives, will build on the PNW draft process, based on the sideboards established by the policy group. The schedule proposed by the REO for completion of the methods and techniques was amended to allow for IAC review and approval in December and January. A draft report will be provided to the IAC for review at the December IAC meeting. At the December meeting, the IAC will determine whether to seek final approval of the report via a conference call on the second Thursday in January or whether to hold a special IAC meeting.
Analysis and Options: The following agreements were reached at the Watershed Analysis Policy Group meeting October 12: 1. The group agreed to operationally adopt the "Background" material and "Previous Agreements and Assumptions" that were presented by the REO. These revisions were provided to IAC members and their alternates following the meeting. 2. The group agreed to adopt the "Proposed Agreements" presented by the REO, with several specific additions and wording changes. The final direction to the technical team is as follows: a The process should include methods to address terrestrial species as groups, to the extent possible, based on habitat associations or geographic considerations. The process should build on, and be consistent with, previous decisions and current approaches for Survey and Manage species. The technical team should develop habitat requirements for species/groups/ communities, at the regional or province scale, to facilitate habitat assessments at the watershed scale. The technical team should perform regional or provincial classifications of watersheds, based on the habitat assessments described above, to provide information on specific geographic areas that are important for species persistence and distribution. b. The process should identify the appropriate scales for assessing the various ecological processes, functions, and species associated with Riparian Reserves. c. The process should address the issue of risk associated with Riparian Reserve adjustments relative to the interim Riparian Reserve widths, natural disturbance processes, and information availability. d. The team should consider alternative approaches, e.g., difference between "1/2 SAT" and "full SAT", pilot areas, and example scenarios. e. The team should address all functions of Riparian Reserves that need to be considered in watershed analysis to establish the watershed context for accomplishing Northwest Forest Plan objectives. f. The team should develop a series of "screens" or steps to be used in watershed analysis that would simplify the subsequent process of Riparian Reserve boundary adjustments. g. The team should continue to coordinate with field staff during the development of the process to maximize the utility of the ultimate product. 3. REO identified the needed expertise and timeframes for staff involvement and the IAC member subsequently nominated staff to serve on the team. 4. The policy group agreements would affect the schedule for completion of the Riparian Reserves methods that were agreed to during the September IAC meeting (revised schedule attached). We expect to convene another policy group meeting in mid-November to review the progress by the technical team and to have a more complete discussion of the Riparian Reserve issue at the December IAC meeting.
REO Staff Proposal: N/A
Organizational/Funding Implications: The IAC watershed analysis policy group should continue to be available to resolve policy issues identified by the technical team. In addition to the technical team, we will continue to use the concept of an extended team (analogous to the WACT+) to allow for broader input from IAC members who are not represented on the technical team.
ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC: IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision IAC Concurrence

Action Topic Overview

TOPIC: Watershed Boundary Delineations in Washington	REO Contact: Chris Hamilton
Background: The REO has been working to produce a consistent set of fifth field watershed boundaries throughout the Northwest Forest Plan area. Concerns were raised at the September IAC meeting that agreement could not be reached on a common set of watershed boundaries in Washington. This update attempts to clarify and resolve points of contention.
Update: A comparison of the Washington watershed boundaries with USGS watershed boundaries: Example - Wenatchee White-Chiwawa White River Washington - WRIA Basin WAU USGS - Subbasin Watershed Subwatershed 4th field 5th field 6th field The problem is that approximately 10% of Washington's watershed boundaries do not uniformly nest within national USGS 4th field subbasins (biggest variance is along the Columbia River in eastern Washington and in the northern Puget Sound). Also, Washington did not attempt to map areas which were predominantly agricultural (eastern Washington). The work group formed by the Washington Department of Ecology has decided to recommend that WRIA's not be adjusted to conform to the USGS HUC boundaries at this time. Instead, agencies can use a look-up table in GIS to translate between WRIA and HUC boundaries. The work group is also discussing using watershed delineations developed by the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) to fill in gaps in the eastern portion of the state. I believe that most of the discussion revolves around what size watersheds are acceptable. The ICBEMP watersheds may be too small to meet Washington's needs. Criteria for revising WRIA or WAU lines are being formalized by the Washington Department of Natural Resources. These criteria closely approximate the criteria used by federal agencies in previous mapping efforts and will control future revision of the state WRIA and WAU map. Over time, this may result in lines which are more consistent with federal delineations. Most revisions will result in capturing lines at a better scale and fix watershed boundaries where obvious errors exist, not realign boundaries to conform with USGS.
REO Staff Proposal: Washington will continue to use their own version of watersheds in conjunction with a look-up table in GIS so that the data can be translated west of the Cascades. Evaluate differences between forest watershed lines, ICBEMP, and Washington lines east of the Cascades. Work together to resolve differences and adopt one set of consistent watershed boundaries for the eastside.
ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC/RIEC: IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other: Review and adopt

Possible Agenda Items for the December 7 Meeting

Summary of Interests Identified by the IAC Members in March--Discuss how well we performed as a group since our first meeting in March. Request IAC members submit their evaluation of our performance on the topics (to be distributed at the November 2 IAC meeting) REO by Friday, November 10. Responses will be summarized and used as the basis for our discussion.

• Riparian Reserve Analysis Methods and Techniques--Report agreements from the November policy group meeting; report and discuss technical team progress. Decide whether to convene a special IAC meeting in January to address Riparian Reserves (in lieu of a conference call) based on progress to date.
• Salmon Conservation Plan Links to the Northwest Forest Plan--NMFS will lead an IAC discussion of the expected roles and contribution of the NFP in state conservation efforts for coastal salmon populations. In addition to identifying roles and contribution of the NFP elements and state conservation efforts; e.g., tasking the PIECs and PACs with addressing watershed analysis and restoration priorities, complementary conservation opportunities on nonfederal lands, etc.
• Proposal for the IRICC Vegetation Strike Team Data Standards Implementation--The Strike Team identified core data standard elements most commonly used by agencies for watershed analysis and other efforts. Implementation steps associated with these data standards have strong implications for interagency cooperation including Survey and Manage, LSR, and Watershed Assessments, and Monitoring implementation. Successful implementation of the data standards will require commitment from agencies to develop joint policies and undertake a number of vegetation classification and mapping projects.
• Snoqualmie AMA Joint Plan--The AMA, with the participation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was directed in the ROD to produce a "scientifically credible, comprehensive plan for providing late-successional forest on the "checker board" lands. A presentation would provide a brief overview of the AMA, issues, process, and preferred alternative. The draft EIS should be available in early December.
• Update on Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring--Progress report.
• Adaptive Management Process--Review efforts on new 4(d) rule information, ongoing salvage legislation implementation, and agree on a generic adaptive management approach.
• 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.

Status report

Meeting Date: November 2, 1995	REO Contact: Chris Hamilton
TOPIC: Federal Timber Sale Program for FY 1995
Background: The selected alternative in the Record of Decision calls for an estimated probable sale quantity (PSQ) of 1.1 billion board feet from lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service (FS) within the range of the northern spotted owl. Both agencies are working toward full 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: The attachments display the results of the FS and BLM FY 1995 timber sale program. Attachment 1 - Federal Timber Sale Program Results for FY 1995 The first two columns show a comparison of PSQ from the Record of Decision with the PSQ after individual forest and district plan revisions. Revisions to PSQ have been completed for BLM districts and National Forests in Region 5. The third through seventh columns display volume and value of timber sales offered and harvested in FY 1995 for each administrative unit. Volume reported as harvested this fiscal year may have been sold in previous years since most timber sale contracts range from 1 to 3 years in length. Due to a computer failure in the FS national reporting system, the National Forests have not been able to report volume harvested or any value figures for FY 1995. We will report this in a status report for the December IAC meeting. Finally, the last two columns project expected volumes for FY 1996 and 1997 for each forest and district. Attachment 2 - Summary of timber sale receipts for Oregon This report is produced by the BLM and updated monthly. It summarizes the timber sale receipts for the BLM and Forest Service on Oregon and California railroad (O&C) lands. Also shown is a summary of receipts on Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR) lands for the BLM. Attachment 3 - Comparison of Harvested Volume and Price for Western Oregon BLM The Bureau of Land Management has included a table which summarizes volume harvested with average stumpage prices each month.