Regional Ecosystem Office

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

              Memorandum

Date:     March 25, 1996

To:         Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (See Distribution List)

From:     Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director

Subject:  April 1996 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda and Prework

The location for the April 4 meeting of the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) has been changed to Room 350 of the State Capitol Building in Salem, Oregon. This change was made at the request of IAC member Paula Burgess, in order that Governor Kitzhaber could attend a portion of the IAC meeting. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause.

The IAC agenda includes the following goals:

• Reach agreement to adopt the vegetation data standards as proposed in December.
• Review the Riparian Reserve module discussion to be held on April 3. The IAC is to agree on the next steps and associated schedule.
• Discuss current and prospective salmon conservation efforts, focusing on shared objectives, different roles for different levels of government, and ways to improve coordination within those roles.

We still have a Watershed Policy Group meeting scheduled for April 3 in the REO conference room. A proposed agenda is enclosed in this mailing for those that are interested.

The Oregon State Capitol is located in Salem, Oregon, between Court and State Streets, and between the cross streets of 12th and Cottage. From I-5, take Exit 253 west, and follow the signs to the Capitol.

Please let me or Linda Kucera 503-326-6283 know if you have special travel needs.

Enclosure

cc:
REO

647/lak

Date: March 25, 1996
Subject: April 1996 IAC Meeting Agenda and Prework; Riparian Reserve Module Meeting

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 Group, Environmental Protection Agency
Eugene Andreuccetti, Regional Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Bob Graham, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service (Alternate)
Robert W. Williams, Acting 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
Dave Renwald, Wildlife Biologist, 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)
Elizabeth Holmes Gaar, Habitat Branch Chief, 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)
Paul Roush, Wildlife Biologist, Bureau of Land Management, Arcata, CA

April 4--Written Status Reports

• IRICC Fish/Hydro Strike Team Update
• Review of RIEC Priorities and Work Group Product Integration
• Joint Planning Team Update
• Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring Update
• IAC/PIEC Advisory Committee Charter Renewal Update

May 29-30--Potential Agenda Items

• Government-to-Government Consultation
• IRICC Fish/Hydro Strike Team Proposed Recommendations
• Effectiveness Monitoring
• Review of RIEC Priorities and Work Group Product Integration

May 29-30--Potential Status Reports

• Rescission Bill Update
• Joint Planning Team Update
• IRICC Vegetation Strike Team Implementation Strategies

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

TOPIC: IRICC Vegetation Strike Team Recommendations	REO Contact: Duane Dippon 503-952-6014
Issue Statement: Should the vegetation data standards be approved?
Background: At the December 7, 1995, IAC meeting the Vegetation Strike Team presented the process taken to arrive at identifying core data standards and potential implementation steps. The team proposed core standards for Canopy Cover, Forest Canopy Structure, Tree Overstory Size Class, Species, Stand Year of Origin, Potential Vegetation, and Plot Locations. The team also proposed next action items for building the GIS coverage of these elements. The follow up actions for the December meeting were for executives to assess the proposed recommendations within their own organization and request briefings if needed by the Vegetation Strike Team. Additionally, the IRICC was to present more detail (on the costs and organizational commitments associated with the implementation strategies) at the February IAC meeting and seek approval. After the December/January furlough, several meetings were held in February and March by Federal, State, and other interested parties to define potential cooperative efforts for the three major vegetation core standards implementation strategies: - Create an existing vegetation map. - Create a potential vegetation map. - Assemble and maintain all permanent plot data sources in a single GIS coverage. During the last 3 months, no IAC member has requested a follow up briefing by the Vegetation Strike Team. Unofficial comments have indicated a general readiness to adopt the proposed vegetation core standards. The team has been working with a broader set of participants to identify alternative options for carrying out the implementation strategies. A follow up report discussing proposals on implementation strategies, including cost estimates and workload analyses, is expected to be completed in time for the May 29-30 IAC meeting.
Analysis and Options: Continue Present Course of Action: Continue with current independent disjointed efforts to collect and classify data concerning vegetation. Agencies independently spend considerable time and money collecting information. This data cannot easily be shared and does not provide the landscape-wide interagency-ownership view needed for ecosystem management. Adopt a Core Set of Vegetation Elements: Accept the core vegetation standards as proposed. With the end of winter and the beginning of an active data collection field season, agencies have an opportunity to initiate data collection efforts now which meet a commonly held set of standards. This initial level of implementation would not require new funding, but it would require policy direction within each agency. 1. Adopt the standard vegetation data definitions as proposed. 2. Issue policy direction on the required use of standards for collection of new data and for guiding the exchange of data in performance of watershed analysis, LSR assessments, and provincial and regional assessments.
REO Staff Proposal: 1. Adopt the core set of data standards using existing staff currently engaged in similar work within their agencies to develop these products. 2. Continue discussion and staff work toward developing existing vegetation maps, potential vegetation maps, and permanent plot data sources.
ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC: IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other: Review and adopt

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

TOPIC: Riparian Reserve Delineation Module for Section II of the Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis	REO Contacts: Mike Tehan, Ranotta McNair
Issue Statement: Results of the April 3 Watershed Analysis Policy Group meeting will be presented to the full IAC for review and concurrence.
Background: The draft Riparian Reserve Delineation Module was distributed to IAC members on March 11 for review. The extended Watershed Analysis Coordination Team (WACT+) met on March 20 in Olympia, Washington, to discuss the draft module with the technical staffs of IAC members not represented on the Technical Team. The IAC Watershed Analysis Policy Group will meet on April 3 to discuss policy issues associated with the March 11 review draft. Based on the initial comments of IAC members and the results of the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) workgroup integration analysis, the Policy Group will recommend the next steps for completing the module. The full IAC will consider the Policy Group proposal at the April 4 IAC meeting.
Analysis and Options: To de developed at the April 3 Policy Group meeting
REO Staff Proposal: REO will present the results of the Policy Group meeting to the full IAC for review and concurrence.
Organizational/Funding Implications: To be determined.
ACTION REQUIRED BY IAC AND/OR RIEC: IAC Review IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision IAC Concurrence

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

TOPIC: National Marine Fisheries Service's Coastal Salmon Conservation Strategy	NMFS Contact: Garth Griffin REO Contacts: Mike Tehan, Dave Powers
Issue Statement: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is proposing to work with Federal, State, tribal, and local land managers to develop a comprehensive coastal salmon conservation strategy. The purpose of the strategy is to stabilize and rebuild West Coast Pacific salmon populations. Federal Land and Resource Management Plans (Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management), as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP), should be a significant component of the strategy. Complementary salmon conservation efforts for State and private lands, including Clean Water Act related activities, are also an integral component of the strategy. NMFS requests that the IAC task the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) with investigating opportunities to more effectively use NFP implementation forums to better coordinate salmon conservation efforts and achieve salmon habitat conservation goals across all land ownerships.
Background: On September 12, 1994, NMFS published a Federal Register notice of intent to conduct comprehensive coast-wide status reviews of coho, steelhead, pink, chum, sockeye, and chinook salmon and sea-run cutthroat trout. The comprehensive approach will allow NMFS to conduct a thorough assessment of the geographic extent and biological status of west coast salmon populations. In July 1995, NMFS announced its determination on west coast coho salmon--the first of seven coast-wide status reviews. NMFS proposed three evolutionary significant units (ESUs) for protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Their combined range includes all populations from south of the Columbia River to Santa Cruz, California. One ESU from the lower Columbia River/southwest Washington coast, one ESU from Puget Sound were added to the candidate species list, while the sixth ESUs were judged as not requiring any further action at this time. NMFS has also reviewed information indicating that several ESUs of steelhead, both coastal and inland populations, are at risk and could also warrant ESA protection. Congress has directed, through a Conference Report on H.R. 2076, the FY 1996 Appropriation Bill for Commerce, that no funds be used for ESA listing activities, including critical habitat designation, review of petitions to list species and/or revise critical habitat, or other prelisting and listing activities, except for those associated with habitat conservation plans, prelisting conservation, and other activities that will help prevent future listings and implementation of 4(d) rules. Given the critical status of west coast fish stocks, NMFS intends to develop a comprehensive coastal salmon conservation strategy that encompasses both public and private lands and builds on existing public and private initiatives to rebuild stocks.
Background (cont.): Components of the conservation strategy envisioned at this time include: 1. Use the NFP as the fundamental anchor for restoring and maintaining salmon habitat on Federal lands within the range of the northern spotted owl. For habitats on Federal lands outside this range, NMFS will encourage comprehensive management initiatives that espouse tenets of the NFP and will continue to consult with Federal agencies in areas with listed salmon (e.g., Snake and Sacramento River Basins). 2. Support existing and encourage new Federal, State, tribal, and local programs that build partnerships among State, public, and private sectors. Salmon conservation will require strong support of both existing and future watershed protection and restoration efforts on non-Federal land. 3. Support the For-the-Sake of Salmon forum for coordination of non-Federal (State, tribal, and private) initiatives to conserve and restore habitats critical to salmon. 4. Review harvest/hatchery practices and policies for compatibility and consistency with a regional watershed management and conservation strategy to restore sustainable salmon populations for the cultural needs of the Pacific Northwest.
Analysis and Options: The NFP should serve as the cornerstone for any coastal salmon conservation strategy. The elements of the NFP (Key Watersheds, Watershed Analysis, Riparian Reserves, Restoration, Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) Objectives, Late-Successional Reserves, and Standards and Guidelines) collectively represent a sound framework for the conservation of coastal salmon habitat on Federal lands. Complementing these elements are essential coordination forums for ensuring that the elements are effectively implemented--the IAC and Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC), Research and Monitoring Committee (RMC), REO, Province Interagency Executive Committees (PIECs), Province Interagency Advisory Committees (PACs), watershed analysis teams, etc. NMFS believes there are significant opportunities to more effectively use NFP implementation forums to better achieve salmon habitat conservation goals for all lands within the area covered by the NFP. NMFS recommends that the IAC task the REO with investigating opportunities to more effectively use NFP implementation forums to better achieve salmon habitat conservation goals as described above. Upon completing their analysis and developing a range of options, the REO should report their findings back to the IAC for action.

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

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: IRICC Fish/Hydro Strike Team Update	REO Contact: Duane Dippon 503-952-6014
Background: The IRICC Fish/Hydro Strike Team distributed the "Final Proposed Core Data Standards" in January 1996. This document generated a variety of comments, both about the proposed standards and about the level of interagency participation in the development of those standards. Members of the Strike Team have discussed with the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) how to incorporate the comments and resolve the issues of concern. The IRICC Fish/Hydro Strike Team will meet on March 29 to follow up on this topic. Specific meeting objectives are as follows: 1. Clarify Strike Team objectives and efforts to date. 2. Address comments received on the "Final Proposed Core Data Standards." 3. Develop and agree on a process, steps, and a schedule to: Gain IRICC and IAC approval. Involve the Data Coordination Team (DCT) and redefine the DCT role. Address additional data element needs and standards. Identify and define implementation issues.
Status/Update: This block will be updated prior to the April IAC meeting based on the results of the Strike Team meeting on March 29. The current plan is to brief the IAC at their May meeting if the March 29 Strike Team meeting is successful.

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Review of RIEC Priorities and Work Group Product Integration	REO Contact: Don Knowles 503-326-6266
Background: While we continue to meet key targets and timetables, our approach of using interagency work groups has caused several types of problems: Problem Statement #1: Existing work groups are not able to finish their assignments in a timely manner because of competing demands for a few people with unique or valuable skills or because they are waiting for a product from another work group. Problem Statement #2: Existing work groups are not able to coordinate their products or processes with other work groups, as each work group is focused on a single part of Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) implementation. Problem Statement #3: Regional executives who control the resources needed to succeed in NFP implementation are not able to make well-informed interagency or interorganizational resource allocation decisions without the information to be produced as part of this process.
Status/Update: The Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) is reviewing current progress in attaining FY 1996 RIEC priorities (see enclosed) and will recommend adjustments, as needed. The REO is developing this material and will have it prepared by the May meeting.

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Joint Planning Team Update	REO Contact: Curt Loop 503-326-7002
Background: The Joint Planning Team (JPT) held its first meeting on March 7, 1996. In attendance were Nancy Graybeal and Kevin Smith, Co-Chairs; Rocky McVay and Harvey Wolden, County Representatives; Dean Judd and Terry Gorton, State Representatives; Larry Heasty for Gary DeRosa, RCERT Representative; James Anderson and Greg Blomstrom, Tribal Representatives; Van Manning, BLM; Louise Bilheimer, Conservation/Environmental Representative; Tom Nelson, Industry Representative; and Don Knowles and Curt Loop from the Regional Ecosystem Office. Also attending was Jean Logan, from the Vice President's National Performance Review in Washington, D.C.
Status/Update: 1. On March 7, the IAC approved the addition of a fourth representative category for the JPT. That category is for local community input. Lynn Jungwirth was approved as the representative. 2. On the same day, the JPT held its first meeting. After introductions and a review of the JPT charter, the discussion focused on the group's individual expectations for the team. The group understood that the JPT is currently chartered as a short-term endeavor and was not to focus on "fixing the feds" as we all bring strengths and weaknesses to the table. The discussion covered how the team wanted to operate and interact with each other, possible outcomes to be achieved, mechanisms to achieve the outcomes, and ideas for meeting topics. Each member was given a copy of the Natural Resource Partnership, including the proposed outcomes, which is the starting point for discussion for the JPT. 3. On March 12, the Co-Chairs met to develop a mission statement, a set of ground rules for meetings, and an agenda which will be disseminated to the JPT members for review prior to the May meeting. The May meeting will include a decision on these items plus a number of presentations by local groups which will outline different organizational models, successes, and problems. With this information, the JPT can develop a list of items and areas for recommendation to the IAC. 4. The next JPT meeting is scheduled for May 1-2 in Portland, Oregon.

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring Update	REO Contact: Dan McKenzie 503-326-6250
Background: Following the IAC direction from the July meeting, the development of implementation monitoring has been proceeding with efforts to follow that guidance and conduct a review to FY 1995 timber sales. Forty-five timber sales have been randomly selected for review. A summary of those sales was included in the March status report. The primary activities since that report have been directed at conducting the reviews of those timber sales. The IAC review and guidance based on the Draft Effectiveness Monitoring Report (July 21, 1995) has focused efforts on the five emphasis areas: Northern Spotted Owl, Marbled Murrelet, Survey and Manage Species, Late-Successional Old Growth, and Riparian/Aquatic. A work group of senior scientists has been formed and is making limited progress toward development of the next version of the Effectiveness Monitoring Plan.
Status/Update: The Regional Implementation Monitoring Team (RIMT) has been staffed by individuals from Forest Service, R-5 and R-6, and Bureau of Land Management. The RIMT is currently facilitating the formation of the Province Implementation Monitoring Teams (PIMTs), for which team leaders have been identified by the Provincial Interagency Executive Committees through the Designated Federal Official. A training session is scheduled for early April with the team leaders and RIMT to facilitate the formation of the review teams, PIMTs, and to transmit the guidance for team member participation and review procedures. The anticipated schedule for the review of the 45 timber sales is for their completion during May, June, and July. The effectiveness monitoring team has had several organizing meetings and has developed a draft charter and proposed tasks. These materials are being reviewed and, upon concurrence, the team anticipated the allocation of additional staff resources and timely completion of the next draft of the Effectiveness Monitoring Plan. Meetings have also been held with the research executives (Pacific Northwest Research Station, National Biological Service, and Environmental Protection Agency) to address tasks and assignments of staff resources.

STATUS REPORT

TOPIC: IAC/PIEC Advisory Committee Charter Renewal Update	REO Contact: Gary S. Sims 503-326-6274
Background: The charters of the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) and the PIEC Advisory Committees (PAC) are due to expire this coming August. A March 5 memorandum to the IAC membership outlined the rechartering process and timetable. That timetable was identified as: March 7 Provide draft charters to IAC members, requesting review and comment by March 29. March 15 Receive comments from Regional Ecosystem Office Staff and PAC Designated Federal Officials. March 29 Receive comments from IAC members. April 1-5 Finalize draft charters. April 8-12 Finalize charter renewal packages, including proposed Secretarial Decision Memorandum, Federal Register Notice, etc. April 15 Transmit package to Forest Service, Washington, D.C. Five general "minor changes" were identified: 1. A number of the changes are editorial to reflect that we are renewing, rather than establishing, the IAC and PACs. 2. The original PAC charter would be amended to remove the percentage landbase requirements for participation on PACs by State, local, or tribal governments (see 3.a.(8), (9), and (10) of PAC Charter). This means that some units of the governments with less than 10 percent of the area within a province may be eligible to be appointed as members of the PACs. However, the total number of PAC members would remain unchanged. 3. The new language establishes that travel/per diem cost reimbursement may be provided to members or designees to attend subcommittees/work groups meetings (section 5.a). 4. The new language clarifies that "designees" may attend subcommittee/work group meetings on behalf of the official members (section 3.b) and be reimbursed for travel/per diem expenses (section 5.a). 5. We are considering addition of the three Federal research agencies' executives (Environmental Protection Agency, Pacific Northwest Research Station, and National Biological Service) to the Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC). This would improve the relationship between the Research and Monitoring Committee and the RIEC. Again, as this retains the overall structure of the IAC (i.e., non-Federal participants advising Federal executives), this change can be made as part of the renewal process. The IAC members were asked to review and comment on the proposed changes.
Status/Update: Two members have called with comments. Both comments concerned the addition of the research agencies to the RIEC. In the first instance, the member was agreeable to the addition so long as the total number of IAC members remained unchanged. We are still attempting to return the second member's phone call and discuss any concerns with the proposed addition. Additionally, it has been suggested that the charters include language to the effect that current members would continue to serve on their respective committees until their individual resignation or removal by the appointing officer. This would help preclude needing to have all 20 IAC members and over 200 PAC members individually reappointed.