Regional Ecosystem Office

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

              Memorandum

Date:     February 16, 1996

To:         Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Members (See Distribution List)

From:     Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director

Subject:  March 1996 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Agenda and Prework

The March 7 meeting will be held at the Howard Johnson Airport Hotel, 7101 NE 82nd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97220. You may phone the hotel 503-255-6722 to make your reservations (request the government rate) and for shuttle service to and from the airport. If you are driving, the hotel is located 1 mile south of the Portland Airport on SR 213, from I-205 take the Columbia Blvd. exit to NE 60th Ave.; from I-84 take I-205 to Columbia Blvd.

Due to a number of factors, including the furloughs and the floods, we do not have ready for discussion all of the topics we had hoped. Therefore, we plan for the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) to meet in the morning and the Joint Planning Team (JPT), a subcommittee of IAC, to meet in the afternoon. Both meetings will be held in the Prom Room. The IAC meeting will run from 9:00 a.m. to 12:15 p.m., and the JPT meeting will run from 1:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Enclosed are the draft agenda, agenda topic overviews, and status reports for the March IAC meeting. A separate proposed agenda for the JPT meeting is also enclosed.

As of now, we understand that several Federal executives may be represented by alternates at this meeting. If interested, please check with us for an update. Contact Linda Kucera 503-326-6283 if you have any questions.

Enclosure

cc:
REO
OFED

612/lak

Date: February 16, 1996
Subject: March 1996 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
Dennis Fenn, Western Regional Director, National Biological Service
Michael Collopy, Director, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, National Biological Service
Ken Feigner, Director, Forest and Salmon Management, 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
Curt Smitch, Assistant 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)
Eric Natti, Bureau of Land Management, Ukiah, CA

Written Status Reports for the March 7 IAC Meeting

• Snoqualmie Pass Adaptive Management Area Plan - Draft EIS.
• REO Review of Late-Successional Reserve Assessments.
• Amendment to the Siskiyou National Forest LRMP - EA.
• Implementation Monitoring.
• IRICC Vegetation Strike Team. (Red Folder at the meeting)
• Federal Timber Sale Program Update. (Red Folder at the meeting)

Potential Agenda Topics for the April 4 IAC Meeting

• IRICC Vegetation Strike Team Recommendations--Closure on December Recommendations
• IRICC Hydro/Fish Strike Team Proposed Recommendations
• Salmon and the NFP--Presentation for Discussion
• Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring
• Joint Planning Team Report
• O&C Land Transfer Proposal
• Umpqua Land Exchange Proposal
• Coquille Forest Proposal

ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW

TOPIC: Implementation of the timber sale provisions of the Rescission Bill within the NFP area.	REO Contact: Don Knowles
Issue Statement: Given the complex relationships between the provisions of the Rescission Bill and implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP), plus the litigation concerning the Rescission Bill, there is a need to develop a common understanding among IAC members regarding the nature of policy decisions to be made with respect to Rescission Bill issues. The Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will each present approximately a 15- to 20-minute overview of their efforts to date to implement the Rescission Bill, and the Regional Ecosystem Office will present a brief status of our fact-gathering efforts as we try to determine which sales are released, or are to be released, and in what form.
Background: This presentation is not intended to describe or generate development of a legal strategy. These issues are complex, in litigation, and within the purview of the Department of Justice. This presentation is also not intended to result in the formation of a policy statement regarding implementation of the Rescission Bill. Instead, the presentation is designed: 1) to distinguish between implementation of Rescission Bill provisions and implementation of the Standards and Guidelines of the NFP, 2) to clarify how decisions are evolving with respect to Rescission Bill implementation, 3) to develop a common understanding of actions being taken to implement the Rescission Bill and to distinguish between the FS and BLM where appropriate, and 4) to surface policy level concerns which may be useful in subsequent discussions regarding NFP implementation.
ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC: IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other: Focused Discussion

ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW

TOPIC: Riparian Reserve Evaluation Methods and Techniques for Section II of the Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis	REO Contacts: Mike Tehan, Ranotta McNair
Issue Statement: The Riparian Reserve Technical Team (Team) will distribute a preliminary review draft of their proposed analysis methods for Riparian Reserve evaluation and adjustment to IAC members on March 11. Following a 3-week review period, the IAC Watershed Analysis Policy Group should meet on April 3 (the week of the April IAC meeting) to identify and resolve any "show-stopper" or "fatal flaw" issues identified by IAC members. Background: The IAC Watershed Analysis Policy Group met in October 1995 and developed policy direction for the Team. The direction was agreed to by the full IAC at their November meeting (Attachment 1). The Team, led by the PNW Research Station and including IAC member representation (Attachment 1), has followed the IAC direction in developing their evaluation methods and techniques. They are continuing to work with agency managers and field practitioners during development of the draft document. The Team has not been able to adhere to their original schedule for several reasons, including Federal furloughs, severe winter storm events, and difficulties with some team members' availability to continue their priority involvement with the project. Analysis and Options: As can be seen in the outline of the draft document (Attachment 2), the Team has followed the direction provided by the IAC. For example, a series of screens were developed to classify species, species groups, and communities based on habitat associations (the screens have not yet been used to classify the species of concern; that is a remaining task). As provided in the IAC direction, the Team considered options for how to address Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives and terrestrial species when adjusting Riparian Reserves. The proposed approach focuses Riparian Reserve adjustments on first meeting all pertinent ACS objectives. Once Riparian Reserve adjustments to meet aquatic objectives are identified, the effect of these adjustments on nonaquatic terrestrial species would be evaluated and mitigation measures may be identified. Riparian Reserve adjustments (up or down) would not be driven solely by nonaquatic terrestrial species. Also, viability analyses would not be required each time a Riparian Reserve boundary is adjusted. Viability analyses would be staged, depending on the cumulative effect of Riparian Reserve adjustments throughout the range, for any given species or species group. IAC members should review this approach for discussion in the policy group forum on April 3. There are three major steps to be completed before the Team can finalize their draft report: Solicit the assistance of species experts (many of whom are NOT currently on the Team) to actually apply the Team's habitat association screens to classify the species of concern so the resulting information can be made available to watershed analysis teams. The Team envisions eight separate species/taxa leads, all working full time for 4 weeks to track down the necessary information and complete the classification of species of concern. Solicit review of the proposed evaluation methods and techniques by field practitioners to evaluate feasibility and utility based on current watershed analysis efforts. Solicit IAC comments and resolve "show-stopper" or "fatal flaw" issues in the Watershed Analysis Policy Group forum. The major factor in meeting time frames will continue to be the availability of Team members and the species/taxa experts needed to apply the classification screens to the species of concern. Many of the species/taxa experts are also committed to the Survey and Manage effort. The tasks of the Team and the Survey and Manage group are related, but different enough that we envision difficulties securing some experts' time. Assuming that adequate Team participation can be secured, including the eight species/taxa experts, the Team has developed a revised schedule for completion of the Riparian Reserve evaluation methods and techniques (Attachment 3). Under the best possible case, the Team could have a final draft completed by May 10. If the Team continues to experience difficulties with Team participation, travel, etc., it is likely that the report would be delayed a month or more. Moreover, this schedule may need to be adjusted to accommodate IAC issues and discussion.
REO Staff Proposal: The REO will distribute the preliminary review draft of the report to IAC members on March 11. The IAC members will bring their written comments to a Watershed Analysis Policy Group meeting on April 3 (the week of the April IAC meeting). Any "show-stopper" or "fatal flaw" issues will be identified and resolved at the policy group meeting. The Team will send the review draft to selected field units for review concurrent with the IAC review. The Team will work with agencies through the REO agency representatives to try and secure a full-time, 4-week commitment by the eight species/taxa experts to perform the species of concern classifications. The Team will incorporate written comments and policy decisions from the April policy group meeting, feedback from the field review, and the species of concern classifications (if complete), and prepare a final draft by May 10 for IAC review.
Organizational/Funding Implications: The major factor in meeting time frames will continue to be the availability of Team members and the species/taxa experts, many of whom are committed to other high-priority efforts like Survey and Manage. In addition to conflicting staff assignments, budget limitations have resulted in travel restrictions that have affected some Team members' ability to attend meetings.
ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC: IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision IAC Concurrence

Attachment 1

Agreements from the October 1995 IAC Watershed Policy Group Meeting

Purpose of Module

Riparian Reserve evaluation methods and techniques (module) will:

a

1. Provide an optional toolbox of analysis methods and techniques that are consistent with Section I of the Guide and agreements reached to date on Section II.
   b
2. Help field specialists evaluate Riparian Reserves during watershed analysis to establish the watershed context for managing aquatic and terrestrial system functions in the watershed to accomplish Northwest Forest Plan objectives, e.g.:
3. Determining appropriate management activities (those that promote and restore critical processes and functions);

• Determining inappropriate management activities (those that prevent or retard critical processes and functions);
• Determining restoration needs and opportunities; and
• Determining ecological needs for adjusting the boundaries or configuration of Riparian Reserves.

Limitations

The Riparian Reserve module will not:

a

1. Be required for all Riparian Reserve width adjustments.
   b
2. Be required for all watershed analyses.
   c
3. Establish minimum standards or requirements for all watershed analyses.
   d
4. Automatically result in any Riparian Reserve width adjustments.
   e
5. Be a decision-making process (decision making will continue to occur at the project level through the NEPA process).

Technical Team Direction

Direction for the technical team to follow when developing the Riparian Reserve module:

a

1. The process should include methods to address terrestrial species as groups, to the extent possible, based on habitat associations or geographic considerations.
2. 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

3. The process should identify the appropriate scales for assessing the various ecological processes, functions, and species associated with Riparian Reserves.
   c
4. The process should address the issue of risk associated with Riparian Reserve adjustments relative to:
5. The interim Riparian Reserve widths
6. Natural disturbance processes

• Information availability

d

1. Consider alternative approaches, e.g.,
2. Difference between "1/2 SAT" and "full SAT"

• Pilot areas
• Example scenarios

e

1. Consider all functions of Riparian Reserves that should be considered in watershed analysis to establish the watershed context for accomplishing Northwest Forest Plan objectives.

   f

2. 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

3. Continue to coordinate with field staff during the development of the process to maximize the utility of the ultimate product.

Riparian Reserve Technical Team

John Applegarth - Amphibians/Molluscs, BLM Richard Holthausen - Wildlife Biology, FS
Tom Atzet - Vegetative Ecology/Silviculture, FS Joe Lint - Wildlife Biology, BLM
Joseph Furnish - Molluscs, BLM Cindy McCain - Ecology, FS
Mike Furniss - Soils/Hydrology, FS Bruce McCammon - Hydrology, FS
Richard Hardt - Forest Ecologist, BLM Dede Olsen - Amphibians, PNW
Phil Hall - Planning/Engineering, BLM Ken Sanchez - Wildlife Biology, FWS
Dave Hohler - Team Leader/Aquatics, FS Joanne Wu - Fisheries Biology, NMFS

Attachment 2

Outline of Draft Riparian Reserve Delineation Module

1. Introduction
   1. Purpose and Vision
   2. Background
   3. ROD and Legal Framework
   4. Document Structure
2. Riparian Considerations at Various Scales
   1. Province/River Basin
   2. Watershed
   3. Site
3. Riparian Reserve Evaluation Techniques and Synthesis
   1. Introduction
      1. Interactions of processes, functions, and systems
   2. Physical Considerations
      1. Extent of stream network and interim Riparian Reserves at the watershed scale
      2. Extent of interim reserves, site-potential tree height, unstable and potentially unstable lands, perennial vs. intermittent streams, fish presence vs. fish absence
      3. Stratifying the stream/riparian network
   3. Biological Considerations
      1. Species of concern
      2. Habitat classification
      3. Biological assessment process
   4. Integrating the Physical and Biological Considerations
4. Risk Assessment and Management
5. References and Resources

Appendix A-1: ROD and Legal Framework

Appendix B-1: Biological Considerations

Attachment 3

Proposed Schedule for Completing Riparian Reserve Delineation Module

	February	March	April	May
Technical Team	Internal Team review of draft report	Review draft to REO/IAC 3/11	Comments back from IAC and field 4/15	Incorporate comments into final draft 5/10
Species/taxa Experts		Agencies assign experts to species classification task by 3/11	Screens results to technical team 4/30
Field Review		Review draft to selected field units 3/11	Comments to technical team 4/15
IAC Review		Review draft to IAC 3/11	Written comments to technical team; IAC policy group meeting 4/3; may need time for discussion	Final draft from technical team 5/10

 

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Snoqualmie Pass Adaptive Management Area Plan - Draft EIS	REO Contact: Jay Watson
Background: The Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) directed detailed planning in the Snoqualmie Pass Adaptive Management Area (AMA) to precede all but minor activities, except those that can be categorically excluded under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and watershed restoration (ROD page D-5). The development and implementation of this comprehensive plan must have the participation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), be scientifically credible, and provide for late-successional forest on the "checkerboard" ownership lands. The plan must recognize the area for its critical connective north-south link for movement of organisms in the Cascades Range (ROD page D-16). This AMA is located both east and west of the Cascade Crest in the Interstate-90 corridor on the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie and Wenatchee National Forests in Washington State. In the summer of 1994, the Forest Service (FS), in coordination with the FWS, began the NEPA process for development of an environmental impact statement (EIS). The alternative selected in a Final EIS will become the Snoqualmie Pass AMA Plan and will guide management in the AMA on Federal land.
Status/Update: The Draft EIS was released for public comment with a January 31 deadline for comments. Following public review and comment on the Draft EIS, a Final EIS will be prepared. The Final EIS with Record of Decision will amend the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie and Wenatchee National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans and will guide the management of this AMA for an estimated 10 years. Seven alternatives were considered in detail, responding in a variety of ways to significant issues brought forward during scoping. Alternative 2 is the Proposed Action, and Alternative 5 is the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 5 focuses on providing late-successional and security habitat in large contiguous blocks throughout the AMA and emphasizes the critical connective link for movement of species across the Interstate-90 corridor. This involves three designated emphasis areas: 1) Primary Connectivity Emphasis Areas (PCEA), which include critical blocks of contiguous late-successional forested habitat and connective corridors across Interstate-90 ; 2) Secondary Connectivity Emphasis Areas (SCEA), which include connective corridors and smaller blocks of late-successional forest habitat to link PCEAs with late-successional forested habitat outside the AMA; and, 3) Other Areas, which were determined noncritical for connective corridors and will encompass most potential recreation expansion and special uses. Two public meetings were held in early December 1995 and two in January 1996 to gather public comments. Numerous informational briefings for interested parties were also scheduled. To request the Draft EIS contact Floyd Rogalski, Cle Elum Ranger District, at 509-674-4411. Additional contacts are Vladimir Steblina, Wenatchee National Forest, 509-662-4390; Joe Iossi, Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, 206-744-3282; and Vicki Campbell, FWS Western Washington Office, 360-753-5827.

 

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: REO Review of Late-Successional Reserve Assessments	REO Contact: Dave Powers, Gary Sims
Background: On December 15, 1995, the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) sent the Regional Interagency Executive Committee (with a copy to the IAC at a later date) a memorandum clarifying proposed implementation of the Record of Decision (ROD) requirement for review of late-successional reserve (LSR) assessments. LSR assessments, which are subject to REO review (ROD, p. C-11), should be prepared prior to developing and implementing habitat-manipulation activities within LSRs beginning in FY 1997. The ROD identifies eight elements which should be included in LSR assessments. The ROD also expressly provides for development of criteria which would exempt certain activities in LSRs from REO review (ROD, pp. C-12, C-13, C-18, and C-26). Potential activities (with clearly identified treatment criteria) which are adequately described in LSR assessments may not require subsequent REO consistency reviews. The REO is also working with the Research and Monitoring Committee to ensure that projects implemented in LSRs, including those exempted through REO review of LSR assessments from subsequent project-specific review, will be considered during implementation, effectiveness, and validation monitoring.
Status/Update: On January 19, REO found the Southwest Oregon LSR assessment to be consistent with the ROD and exempted certain silvicultural treatments from subsequent REO review. The REO is currently reviewing two additional LSR assessments. Should you want copies of the REO LSR assessment review findings memos, they will be listed in the correspondence log provided to you at each IAC meeting.

 

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Amendment to the Siskiyou National Forest LRMP - EA	REO Contact: Ranotta McNair
Background: Mining operations that exist today on the Siskiyou National Forest (NF) are scattered, seasonal, primarily small suction-dredging and gold-panning activities that seek gold from instream placer deposits. Most of these operations are short term and very small, with minimal impact on riparian resources. There are about 150 - 200 active placer operations on the Siskiyou NF each year, and they typically involve weekend operations. They are family endeavors involving two or three people who use a dredge with an intake nozzle of 4 inches or less in size. Almost all of the current placer mining occurring on the forest is located in areas that have been continuously mined over the past 100+ years. The Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) was amended on April 13, 1994, by the Record of Decision (ROD) for Amendments to Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Among the LRMP amendments adopted by the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) was Riparian Reserve Standard and Guideline MM-1. The requirements of MM-1 conflict with the FS locatable minerals regulations (at 36 CFR 228.4) in that MM-1 would require the operator to submit a Plan of Operations (POO) for all operation in Riparian Reserves, regardless of whether the operation would likely cause a significant disturbance of surface resources, and regardless of whether the operation is excluded from the requirement to submit a POO under the Regulations. This conflict was identified by public comments to the NFP Draft Supplemental EIS (NFP p. F-51), and a clarifying adage was added to the NFP ROD (p. C-1) that "None of these Standards and Guidelines applies where they would be contrary to existing law or regulation, or where they would require the agencies to take actions for which they do not have authority." On January 23, 1995, a lawsuit was filed by the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) and other environmental groups challenging the mining operations of Gold Quest, Inc., NWF, et al. v. Agpaoa, et al., which raised the claim that the Siskiyou NF was not complying with MM-1 and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) because it was not requiring a POO for every mining operation in Riparian Reserves. In the Stipulation of Dismissal (Settlement Agreement) of NWF v. Agpaoa, the FS agreed to propose and reach a final decision on changes to the management direction for suction dredge mining in Riparian Reserves on the Siskiyou NF, which also requires modification of the applicable Standards and Guidelines or applicable regulation prior to the 1996 mining season. The Siskiyou NF does not have (and will not have in the foreseeable future) the fiscal or personnel resources to require POOs and process the related environmental documentation for all of the small suction-dredging, gold-panning, sluicing, etc., operations on the forest. This would mean that FS minerals administrators would spend the bulk of their time processing paper instead of working directly on the ground with the miners. Therefore, there is a need to modify management direction for riparian areas in a way that will allow the Siskiyou NF to provide protection consistent with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy and the FS minerals regulations, by focusing limited resources on those proposed operations where potentially significant surface disturbance has been determined to be likely, and additional analysis and on-the-ground oversight is deemed necessary and can be truly effective, while at the same time permitting the orderly exploration and production of minerals consistent with National Forest management policies and the General Mining Law of 1872.
Status/Update: The Siskiyou NF proposes to amend the Riparian Reserve Standard and Guideline (MM-1) of the Siskiyou NF LRMP. The EA for amending the Siskiyou NF LRMP was released for public comments January 12. The public comment period ends February 12. A comment period on a complete EA is not required for this type of LRMP amendment. However, in the interest of gaining wider public involvement, we are making this document available for public comment before the Siskiyou NF Forest Supervisor makes a final decision. Because this is a (non-significant) amendment to the Forest Plan without a specific project, any appeals would be under the 217 appeals process. The Preferred Alternative Action (Alternative 3) calls for amending the Riparian Reserve Standard and Guideline, MM-1 of the Siskiyou NF LRMP to remove the requirement that an approved POO and reclamation bond be required for all minerals operations that include Riparian Reserves and to return discretion to the District Ranger to determine when a POO is required for mineral operations within Riparian Reserves. This approach will help attain the objectives of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy by directing administration of mining activities in Riparian Reserves in a manner that has an improved likelihood of protecting such areas. The specific wording of the proposed amendment is found in the description of Alternative 3 in the EA. Further information may be obtained by contacting Arnie Holden, Strategic Planning Staff (503-326-5370) or Norm Day, Recreation, Lands and Minerals Staff (503-326-6705).

 

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Implementation Monitoring	REO Contact: Dan McKenzie
Background: Following review of the draft implementation monitoring plan (dated May 30, 1995) and subsequent guidance from the July IAC meeting, the implementation monitoring approach was revised. The major principles of the revised approach were: 1) focus on completion stages of projects/activities, 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 FY 1995 timber sales. The primary activities since the last status report (September 28, 1995) have focused on planning and conducting a review of FY 1995 timber sales following the revised approach.
Status/Update: Agency tracking system printouts were obtained for all FY 1995 timber sales within the 12 Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) provinces. Approximately 420 individual timber sales were included and 43 sales were randomly selected for review. An additional 2 sales were selected to provide at least one sale from each province. The sampled timber sales are in the following summary categories: Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 13, Forest Service (FS) 32; Matrix 30, Late-Successional Reserve 11, Adaptive Management Area 4; Key Watershed 4; Average volume 1274 MBF, range 5.4 to 9542, BLM average 915 MBF, FS average 1419 MBF; and Washington 9, Oregon 26, and California 10. An Implementation Monitoring Team (IMT) has been staffed by individuals from FS, R-5; FS, R-6; and BLM. In early January the IMT conducted a trial review of a timber sale in the Salem BLM District to evaluate the approach. Currently the IMT is finalizing the review process and developing guidance and the schedule for conducting the reviews. The Designated Federal Officials and all Forest Supervisors and District Managers have been contacted to initiate the selection and establishment of the interagency review teams. PAC and IAC members will be invited to participate. It is anticipated that the field reviews of the FY 1995 timber sales will occur during May, June, and July. A draft final report will be provided to the IAC at the October 1996 meeting. The draft annual report will provide an assessment of the degree that the FY 1995 timber sale activities conformed with the relevant NFP Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs). The report will provide information at the regional scale and, to the extent reasonable, at the province and land allocation scales. The report will also make recommendations for continuing implementation monitoring efforts for timber sales as well as for other activities covered by the NFP S&Gs.

The JPT will work on the following topics, which will be presented to the IAC at a later date.

• Present specific goals and objectives.
• Present specific operating guidelines under which the JPT will function:
  • Review of the proposed outcomes
  • Implications for all stakeholders
• Present a recommendation on how long the JPT expects to need to accomplish its mission. Indicate all intermediate milestones to track progress. Indicate a set of conditions (end game) that indicate the JPT has completed its mission.
• Present a recommendation on how the JPT will include input and information from the three groups--Conservation/Environmental, Labor, and Industry.
• Present a discussion as to the relationship of the JPT with salmon issues.
• Present a discussion of the relationship of the JPT with the PIEC/PACs, as well as other state, tribal, and local governments, resource agencies, private land owners, and watershed and biodiversity councils, and etc.
• Present a discussion of the relationship of the JPT with the REO.

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Joint Planning Team	REO Contact: Curt Loop
Background: During the past four months, the IAC has received several presentations with respect to actions which would more closely integrate the two major components (Ecological and Economic) of the Northwest Forest Plan. On December 7, the IAC also agreed to form a subcommittee, the Joint Planning Team (JPT), to review and recommend areas in which better integration could be obtained. The IAC agreed that the JPT charter, previously agreed on, would be used as the starting point for areas to review.
Status/Update: On February 14, the selection committee met to review the nominations and select the members of the Joint Planning Team (JPT). The following are the results of that meeting: Co-Chairs selected for JPT: Federal Nancy Graybeal, USDA FS Non-federal Kevin Smith, OEDD Individuals selected to be on JPT: RCERT (1) Gary DeRosa States (3) Dean Judd (State of Washington) Kevin Smith (State of Oregon) Terry Gorton (State of California) IAC (FS) Nancy Graybeal (BLM) Van Manning Tribes (3) Don Motanic (Oregon) Greg Blomstrom (California) James Anderson (Washington) County (3) Rocky McVay (Oregon) Francie Sullivan (California) Open (Washington) It was agreed to fill the three positions from Conservation/Environmental, Labor, and Industry at this time. Those selected to be on JPT: Conserv/Envir Louis Bilheimer (Oregon) Labor Roger Reidel (Washington)  Industry Tom Nelson (California) It was recommended that a fourth category, PAC/PIEC/Local Communities, be created and that Lynn Jungwirth be nominated to fill the position. This recommendation will be presented at the IAC meeting for consideration and action. It was agreed that the JPT will meet the afternoon of March 7 from 1:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. Biographies for the selected individuals were mailed to the IAC and RCERT members on February 14.