Regional Ecosystem Office

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

              Memorandum

Date:     May 15, 1996

To:         Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (See Distribution List)

From:     Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director

Subject:  May 1996 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda and Prework

Enclosed are the proposed agenda, agenda topic overviews, status reports, and enclosures for the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) meeting. The meeting will be held May 30 at the Yakima Valley Red Lion, 1507 North 1st Street, Yakima, WA, 98901 (Phone: 509-248-7850 and FAX: 509-575-1694). The Thursday meeting will be from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. In the spirit of the relaxed backdrop for our activities, I would encourage everyone to enjoy dressing casually throughout our activities.

The IAC agenda includes the following goals:

• Present and discuss government-to-government relationships and consultation.
• Review and discuss implementation monitoring efforts.
• Review and discuss effectiveness monitoring efforts.
• Review and discuss implementation of the vegetation data standards.
• Review and discuss the IRICC Fish/Hydro Data Standards Strike Team recommendations.
• Review and agree on today's agreements and possible agenda items for the August meeting.

If you have questions or suggestions about the logistics of the Wednesday field trip (our April 29 memo, Logistics for the May 29 Field Trip - Yakama Indian Nation) or the meeting agenda, please contact your agency representative or Linda Kucera 503-326-6283.

Enclosures (6):
1. Requested Amendment of the Minutes from the April 4, 1996 IAC Meeting.
2. References to Tribes, Treaties, and Trust Responsibility in NFP-Related Documents.
3. Treaty with the Yakima. 1855.
4. A list of federally recognized tribes within the range of the northern spotted owl.
5. Report of the IRICC Fish/Hydrography Strike Team.
6. Summary of funding for the Interior Department under the 1996 Omnibus Appropriations Act.

cc:
REO

671/lak

Date: May 14, 1996
Subject: May 1996 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda and Prework

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Distribution List

California
Terry Gorton, Assistant Secretary, Forestry and Rural Economic Dev., California Resource Agency
Francie Sullivan, Shasta County Supervisor

Oregon
Paula Burgess, Assistant to the Governor for Natural Resources, Office of the Governor
Rocky McVay, Curry County Commissioner

Washington
Amy F. Bell, Deputy Supervisor for Community Relations, WA Dept. of Natural Resources
Carol Jolly, Executive Policy Assistant, Governor's Office (Alternate)
Harvey Wolden, Skagit County Commissioner

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
Eugene Andreuccetti, Regional Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Bob Graham, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service (Alternate)
Michael Collopy, Director, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, National Biological Service
Ken Feigner, Director, Forest and Salmon Group, Environmental Protection Agency
Thomas J. Mills, Station Director, Forest Service, PNW
Thomas Murphy, Director, Environmental Research Laboratory, Environmental Protection Agency
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, USDA Office of Forestry and Economic Assistance (Ex Officio)
William Walters, Deputy Field Director, National Park Service
Robert W. Williams, Acting Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, R-6
G. Lynn Sprague, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, R-5 (Alternate)
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

Written Status Reports for May 30

• Joint Planning Team Update
• Budget--FY 1996 Omnibus Appropriations Act
• Update on Court Cases (Red Folder)
• Pacific Salmon Coordinating Committee--Follow-on to the Kitzhaber Presentation (Red Folder)
• Riparian Reserve Module Update (Red Folder)

Potential Agenda Items for the August 1, 1996, IAC Meeting

• Rescission Bill Update
• IRICC Fish/Hydro Strike Team Recommendations Update
• Federal Timber Sale Update

Potential Information Items and Updates for the August 1, 1996, IAC Meeting

• Joint Planning Team Update
• IAC/PIEC Advisory Committee Charter Renewal Update
• Review of RIEC Priorities and Work Group Product Integration

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: May 30, 1996

Sponsor: Yakama Indian Nation Contact/Phone: Gary S. Sims, BIA Representative to the REO 503-326-6274

Topic: Government-to-Government Relationships and Consultation

Issue Statement: All Federal departments and agencies have the responsibility to affirmatively fulfill, to the fullest extent applicable, the trust responsibility to tribes and to consult with individual tribal governments on a government-to-government basis. The particular form of consultation with an individual tribe will vary from one issue to another and from one tribal government to another. This presentation will emphasize the perspective of the Yakama Indian Nation.

Background: Tribal/Non-Tribal Government Relations Not New. The government-to-government characteristic of the relationships between Tribal and the Federal governments dates back to the first Native American-European contact. From the early days of Native American-European interaction, the sovereign nature of Tribes was recognized. Franciscus de Victoria, in advice to Charles V of Spain on acquiring land in the new world, wrote in 1557 that the "(native peoples) in question were true owners, before the Spaniards came among them, both from public and the private point of view." The Emperors of Spain and their subordinate administrators adopted laws and charters recognizing and guaranteeing the rights of Indian communities. Certain aspects of the theory of Indian title put forward by Victoria were reiterated by writers on international law of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries who were cited as authorities in early Federal litigation on Indian property rights. These ideas of Indian titles were not unique to early Spanish governments. In 1630 the Dutch West India Company was instructed by the Netherland government that any land for colonies in New Netherland would be purchased and agreements would be negotiated with the native peoples. Further, in 1636, Roger Williams entered into a treaty with the Narragansetts for the Rhode Island Plantations. This began a series of treaties between British colonizers and native peoples. Concern for the native peoples was evident from the earliest days of the emerging nation. On July 12, 1775, one of the first acts of the Continental Congress was to declare its jurisdiction over Indian Tribes by creating three departments of Indian Affairs: a Northern, a Southern, and a Middle Department. A commissioner was named for each: Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, and James Wilson. The first treaty, between the United States and an Indian Tribe, was with the Delaware Indians (September 17, 1778). The Northwest Ordinance, passed by the Continental Congress in 1787, established the governing principles between the newly formed United States and Indians, and included the following provision (Article the Third) which recognized Indian lands status and was the genesis of the modern concept of "trust responsibility": The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and in their property, rights and liberty, they never shall be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity shall from time to time be made, for preventing wrongs being done to them; and for preserving peace and friendship with them.

There are a number of citations in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement which provide a current statement of government policy. "Given both traditional and contemporary links between American Indians and forests, it is clear that tribal members depend on public lands and resources for employment, subsistence, and cultural identity. It is recognized that Indian tribes have an interest in Forest Service and BLM administered forest resources and it is emphasized that the Indian rights and interests are not set aside by this SEIS nor does it impose any extra conservation burden on the tribes or Indian reservations. Timber harvest and management on tribal and Indian owned lands are not controlled or modified by this SEIS. The SEIS has examined the potential to impair or restrict the rights of various tribes and finds that none fall into that category." (FSEIS, Summary - American Indian People and Cultures, S-25, and Chapter 2 - The Alternatives, 2-82) "American Indians have occupied the Pacific Northwest region for at lease 12,000 years and perhaps as long as 35,000 years. There are 25 federally recognized tribes in California and 36 in Oregon and Washington. These tribes exercise sovereign governmental authority over both persons and territory on their respective reservations within the range of the northern spotted owl. Of these federally recognized tribes, 25 have treaties with the United States and 10 have Executive orders (Figure 3&4-18). In the treaties, tribes ceded lands to the United States which, in part, comprise National Forests, National Parks, and lands administered by the BLM within the range of the northern spotted owl. The various treaties specify reserved rights for water, gathering berries and roots, hunting, grazing, fishing (including the right to erect stations and temporary housing for curing fish), and to conduct other activities which accompany the preservation and use of those natural and cultural resources. As a result of the Treaties and Executive orders and sovereign status of tribes, the United States and all of its Departments have a trust responsibility maintained through a government-to-government relationship between the parties. "The duty to protect the treaty reserved rights of American Indian tribes is an obligation for all Federal agencies. The adjudication of treaty rights has been the subject of several U.S. Supreme Court cases that reaffirm the duty of the Federal agencies as trustee to protect the tribes' reserved rights in their actions on National Forests and public lands. Those Indian tribes whose official recognition was "terminated" in previous decades, but which has been subsequently restored and recognized by the United States, may also enjoy certain rights which have been restored by congressional statute. "The natural resources within the range of the northern spotted owl are discussed thoroughly earlier in this chapter (of the FEIS), including many resources secured by treaty and others of interest and importance to Indian tribes. Habitat, and therefore the environment, is critical to the protection of those rights, and tribes need to be consulted regarding proposed management activities that may affect levels of plant and animal populations. A number of tribes retain off-reservation rights reserved by treaty when the tribes ceded traditional lands to the United States. These lands have cultural, subsistence and economic importance to tribes. In addition, the tribes in the regions have jointly formed technical assistance staff such as the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC), the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC), the Point No Point Treaty Council (PNPTC), and the Skagit System Cooperative (SSC), to assist them in co-managing important trust resources with state and Federal resource agencies. A recent 1993 draft agreement, known as PACfish, was executed between several of the tribes and organizations, land management agencies, and the Bonneville Power Administration concerning protection of stream habitat and steam flows to increase natural runs of salmonid species.

"In addition to the treaties and rights reserved by various tribes, the Federal agencies must comply with other statutes that concern American Indians. The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA) support the Indian right to practice religious beliefs. In addition, many Federal court cases have adjudicated treaty rights for fishing and other resource uses and generally established rules for how decisions regarding resource conservation should be made. "In general, these principles ensure that state conservation measures will not impair or restrict rights reserved by Indian tribes and their members pursuant to provisions set forth by Treaties or Executive orders unless: (1) the conservation measures are reasonable and necessary for preservation of the species at issue, (2) the conservation purpose of the measures cannot be achieved solely by regulation of non-Indian activities, (3) the conservation measures are the least restrictive available to achieve the required conservation purpose, (4) the conservation measures do not discriminate against Indian activities either as stated or as applied, and (5) voluntary tribal conservation measures are not adequate to achieve the necessary conservation purpose. Although these court decisions are concerned only with the exercise of state authority, it is reasonable to expect that the same principles would apply to the exercise of Federal authority, absent explicit statutory language. "Many Northwest American Indian tribes have beliefs that they were created at or near their present locations at the beginning of time. They used fire and otherwise manage the forest land to create and maintain specific landscapes (Williams 1994). Harvest strategies and techniques were governed by a complex system of social, political, and cosmological mechanisms that served to regulate and distribute resources in a manner which ensured perpetuation of, and access to, culturally important plants and animals. Tribes actively managed the land until it was ceded to the United States through treaties or Executive orders. The many strategies and techniques used by various tribes to managed the many forest resources still have implications for management today. For example, recent research indicates that certain plants may need to be managed by using prescribed fire to maintain their vigor and distribution with the landscape (Blackburn and Anderson 1993)" (FSEIS, Chapter 3&4, pages 314-317). The Record of Decision: The ROD states that the NFP "provides a higher level of protection for American Indian trust resources on public lands than the plans that it amends, and does not impair or restrict the treaties or rights of tribes." (page 54). If particular reserved Treaty Rights are to be affected, it will be only after "[T]he Regional Interagency Ecosystem Office (sic) determines that the restriction is (1) reasonable and necessary for preservation of the species at issue, (2) the conservation purpose of the restriction cannot be achieved solely by regulation of non-Indian activities, (3) the restriction is the least restrictive alternative available to achieve the required conservation purpose, (4) the restriction does not discriminate against Indian activities, either as stated or as applied, and (5) voluntary tribal conservation measures are not adequate to achieve the necessary conservation purpose" (ROD pages 54-55; see also Standards & Guidelines page 16; and FSEIS pages 3&4-316). The ROD continues by stating that as the BLM and Forest Service implement the NFP, they "will identify Indian trust resources that would be affected and identify potential conflicts between proposed federal actions and treaty rights or tribal trust resources.... [C]onflicts will be resolved collaboratively with the affected tribes involved in the planning process, consistent with the federal government's trust responsibilities." (page 55)

There are a variety of other references to tribes, treaties, and trust resources. They are identified in the handout on References to Tribes, Treaties, and Trust Responsibility in NFP-Related Documents. IAC Meeting Presentation: The presentation of the Yakama Indian Nation perspective on government-to-government will be in the form of a panel composed of: Ross Sockzehigh, Chairman, Yakama Tribal Council: government-to-government consultation/trust responsibility from a tribal government perspective. Anthony Washines, Secretary, Yakama General Council: government-to-government perspective of the tribal people from a traditional/cultural point of view. Eric Hansen, Associate Manager, Wildlife Resource Program, Yakama Tribe: technical aspects of consultation with the Federal government. Gary Morishima, Tribal Representative (Intertribal Timber Council) IAC: Indian forestry from a national perspective and an overview of the Indian Forest Management Assessment Team (IFMAT) Report. It is anticipated that there will be time for a dialogue between the panelists and IAC members.

Analysis and Options: Government-to-government consultation between individual tribal governments and Federal agencies will be required as the NFP is implemented. Among the purposes for the presentation is the desire to improve the awareness by Federal employees in the field regarding implementation of the different federal agencies' Indian policies. It is hoped that the field trip and this discussion will lead to a more efficient and effective means of fulfilling tribal consultation requirements in implementing the NFP.

Organizational/Funding Implications: N/A

REO Staff Proposal: 1. The REO, working with IAC tribal representatives, continue to actively solicit comments and input regarding tribal review of developed policy/procedures concerning NFP implementation. 2. The REO continue to distribute appropriate documentation and materials to tribal leaders and key staff in order to expedite the tribal review process. 3. The REO continue to remain available to brief individual tribal governments/organizations in order to keep them as informed as possible. 4. The responsible agencies consult with potentially affected tribes as soon as possible so that implementation policies and/or processes that may affect tribal rights or resources can be developed collaboratively and cooperatively.

Action Required: IAC Review & Discussion IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other: Information

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: May 30, 1996

Sponsor: Regional Ecosystem Office and Research & Monitoring Committee Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie 503-326-6250

Topic: Implementation Monitoring

Issue Statement: To solicit advice on the FY 1996 implementation monitoring plan and ways to increase roles and involvement of PACs in implementation monitoring.

Background: The efforts to conduct implementation monitoring for FY 1995 timber sales is proceeding smoothly. The 45 timber sales to be reviewed have been selected. Each Province has designated a review team leader and they have attended an orientation and training session. The review teams are being assembled and schedules for the reviews developed. The field reviews are planned for May, June, and July, and a final draft report is scheduled for presentation at the September 26 IAC meeting. Several presentations and discussions on implementation (and effectiveness) monitoring have occurred at several PAC meetings. There is a very high interest in monitoring topics by the PAC members, and they have consistently expressed interest in several areas. They are very interested in how priorities have been established and how they could become involved in the process. In addition, the PAC members are concerned about the commitment of resources for conducting monitoring and, again, how they might participate or facilitate adequate funding for monitoring. It is anticipated that following a successful effort on the FY 1995 timber sales, implementation monitoring will be expanded to all projects and activities covered under the NFP standards and guides. Timber sales and roads are the two activities that will be sampled individually and receive the greatest review effort. We anticipate there would be a second category of special interest activities or projects that would also be sampled individually in FY 1996. In general, three criteria appear important in developing the FY 1996 implementation monitoring program: 1) Would implementation monitoring of this activity provide important information to support the NFP?; 2) Has the agency implemented enough actions so that a meaningful review is possible?; and 3) Is there a consolidated list from which a statistically valid sample may be drawn? Some potential topics might include monitoring of flood damage restoration activities compliance with S&Gs; compliance of silvicultural activities in LSRs with prior REO/RIEC reviews or exemptions; comparing the distribution of watershed restoration funding with our key watershed system; tracking Riparian Reserve boundary adjustments, perhaps as part of a pilot test of the Riparian Reserve delineation module; reviewing accomplishments in reducing, or not increasing, road mileage in key watersheds; and perhaps something in the social/economic arena. The remaining activities and projects would be sampled and the results reported as a group. Presentation of the FY 1997 implementation monitoring proposal will be scheduled for the September 26 IAC meeting.

Analysis and Options: As efforts continue to develop the FY 1996 implementation monitoring plans, one option is to actively involve the PACs in the process of identifying priorities and levels of sampling and reporting. Also to be considered is the future participation of the PAC members on the review teams.

Organizational/Funding Implications: Increasing the level of involvement of the PACs in the implementation monitoring efforts will require a greater level of staff support to facilitate the process. Increasing the PAC members' participation will increase the funding requirements to provide for their logistic support.

Action Required: IAC Review & Discussion IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other:

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: May 30, 1996

Sponsor: Regional Ecosystem Office and Research & Monitoring Committee Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie 503-326-6250

Topic: Effectiveness Monitoring

Issue Statement: To (1) inform the IAC of the current status of effectiveness monitoring, (2) reaffirm direction and priorities, and (3) identify resource requirements to continue current efforts.

Background: Current efforts to develop the Effectiveness Monitoring Plan for the NFP continue to refine of the conceptual approach presented in the July 21, 1995, draft. In addition, the guidance received from IAC and RIEC are being followed to continue developing detailed plans for three of five focus areas: Northern Spotted Owl (NSO), Marbled Murrelet (MaMu), and Late-Successional Old Growth Habitat (LSOG); efforts for Survey and Manage (S&M) Species and Riparian/Aquatic (R/A) issues have been delayed due to staff limitations. Further refinement of the effectiveness monitoring questions, the conceptual models for the Northwest forest ecosystem and each component, strategies for selection of measurement indicators and initiation of pilot projects are proceeding. Following completion of these efforts, final IAC and RIEC concurrence will be solicited; then, detailed field monitoring protocols, designs, and reporting strategies will be developed for implementation. Opportunities for peer review are being identified and will be conducted. The briefing will elaborate on the effectiveness monitoring component of an ecosystem monitoring program. This conceptual approach contains both habitat and species monitoring, with greater emphasis on habitat as the key monitoring component over the longer term. The presentation will describe the overall approach, indicate how it can be used for the five emphasis areas, and how it will reduce overall costs and improve overall utility. Greater detail will be provided on the northern spotted owl to illustrate how application of the approach will help answer key monitoring questions and what alternatives are being explored to address issues of uncertainty in results relative to associated monitoring costs. The utility of current monitoring, role of vegetation and fish/hydro data standards, and possible pilot projects will be addressed. Integration of the effectiveness monitoring development efforts with other relevant NFP activities, such as validation monitoring and research, will also be presented. At the current pace of development of effectiveness monitoring, we anticipate the following ability to implement field data collection applicable to the NFP as follows: NSO, FY 1996 continue demographic studies, FY 1997 initiate habitat association modeling; MaMu, FY 1997 continue nesting surveys and initiate habitat association modeling; LSOG, FY 1996 continue ongoing vegetation surveys and conduct pilot to assess use of existing data, FY 1997 initiate initial monitoring for key attributes to support NSO and MaMu tasks; R/A, FY 1996 and 1997 initiate and conduct pilot studies, FY 1998 implement field monitoring; and S&M species, FY 1997 or 1998 initiate pilot studies, FY 1999 implement field monitoring. This schedule reflects the complexity of ecosystem monitoring, further prioritization, and anticipated staff resources to fully develop the monitoring program for the NFP.

Analysis and Options: The presentation will focus on the current status and support needs, the approach being followed, and the anticipated schedule. Absent significant objection or redirection, the development of effectiveness monitoring will proceed as presented. Options to change priorities or schedule will be developed for further considerations if requested.

Organizational/Funding Implications: Immediate recommitment of staff and resources will be required to continue support for this effort. As specific field monitoring tasks are identified and agreed upon, further budgeting and resource commitment will be required. Additional details will be presented at the IAC meeting.

Action Required: IAC Review & Discussion IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other:

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: May 30, 1996

Sponsor: IRICC Contact/Phone: Duane Dippon 503-952-6014

Topic: IRICC Vegetation Data Standards Implementation Team Recommendations

Issue Statement: Identify and present options for implementation of the vegetation data standards adopted at the April meeting.

Background: At the IAC meeting in April, the IAC agreed the agencies should adopt the core set of vegetation data standards. The RIEC executives asked that IRICC continue to staff out implementation options and make a presentation to the IAC in May. The Vegetation Implementation Team is working with the standards defined by the strike team to identify opportunities and costs for the organizations to collaborate in jointly developed vegetation mapping products.

Analysis and Options: The team has continued to research the basic concepts of developing partnerships, sharing costs, and pursuing collaborative efforts. Several meetings have been held by Federal, State, and other interested parties to develop proposals, including cost and workload estimates for the three major vegetation core standards implementation strategies: Create an existing vegetation map (Priority #1 for BLM) Create a potential vegetation map Assemble and maintain all permanent plot data sources into one Geographic Information System coverage Progress has been made to identify several options for implementation. Analysis of options is ongoing and has not been completed to date. Cost estimates to create the various vegetation map products have been determined. The team is working to identify potential partners and estimate possible cost shares. Options recommending a collaborative approach will probably need an organizational structure put in place to resolve acquiring, maintaining, and updating data collection and analysis activities. Work can proceed immediately if the IAC has agreed that a collaborative approach is appropriate. The IRICC recommends that the IAC assign personnel and support an interorganizational team to develop formal partnerships, a detailed work plan, a schedule, and supporting documentation. Organizational/Funding Implications: Funding and implementation schedules are dependent upon the extent of partnerships, cooperative efforts, and agency priorities. Opportunities may exist to redirect some current efforts to fund implementation. Action Required: IAC Review & Discussion IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other:

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: May 30, 1996

Sponsor: IRICC Contact/Phone: Duane Dippon 503-952-6014

Topic: IRICC Fish/Hydro Data Standards Strike Team Recommendations

Issue Statement: Approve adoption of Fish/Hydro data standards and endorse implementation steps. Solicit IAC guidance on the most important needs for development of data standards during Phase II. Reinvigorate the Strike Team for Phase II.

Background: Implementation of the NFP requires an understanding of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems across land ownerships at a variety of scales. The proposed protocols and data standards are for attributes that are collected or measured at the stream reach or site scale. Emphasis is on attributes that are typically collected during stream surveys and aquatic habitat inventories. Stream reach data and aquatic habitat inventory information will be compiled at the 1:24,000 scale of resolution. Implementation of the proposed data standards elements represents the completion of Phase I.

Analysis and Options: Although the completion of Phase I will produce a sharable set of data standards across a broad array of landscapes, additional information may be needed to monitor success/attainment of overall Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives of the NFP. This information may include additional data attributes relevant to other scales such as a portion of a watershed, watershed, or landscape. These additional data needs are not addressed in this proposal but represent the necessary activities of a Phase II data standards effort. Future development will require additional input and coordination with the RMC, IAC, and REO. Until scientists, agency personnel, and policy decision makers agree on the data required, additional standards cannot be defined.

Organizational/Funding Implications: Not significant for Phase I. Unknown at this time for Phase II.

IRICC Proposal: 1. Adoption and implementation of the following standards as set forth in the IRICC Fish/Hydro Strike Team report: Location Identification Channel Type Delineation Channel Gradient Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio Water Temperature Measured Streamflow Habitat Types Large Wood Habitat Type Dimensions Fish & Amph. Presence/Absence Bank Instability Substrate 2. Begin a Phase II process to identify additional information needs and develop data standards. The Phase II effort should integrate related data elements of Survey and Manage, Monitoring, and Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives as well as satisfy the information requirements of consultation and other agency activities needed to implement the NFP. The technical staff needs direction as to which data elements they should develop standards for.

Action Required: IAC Review & Discussion IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other:

STATUS REPORT

Meeting Date: May 30, 1996	REO Contact/Phone: Curt Loop 503-326-7002
Topic: Joint Planning Team
Background: The Joint Planning Team (JPT) held a 2-day working meeting on May 1-2 in the Regional Forester's Conference Room in Portland, Oregon. In attendance were Nancy Graybeal and Kevin Smith, co-chairs; Rocky McVay and Francie Sullivan, County Representatives; Dean Judd and Mark Stanley, State Representatives; James Anderson, Don Motanic, and Greg Blomstrom, Tribal Representatives; Van Manning, BLM; Louise Bilheimer, Conservation/Environmental Representative; Tom Nelson, Industry Representative; Lynn Jungwirth, Community Representative; and Roger Reidel, Labor Representative. Also attending were Don Knowles and Curt Loop from the Regional Ecosystem Office.
Status/Update: 1. After introductions, the group quickly got down to work. First on the agenda was to agree on their operating guidelines and mission statement. Following that, six different groups made presentations about their experiences with implementing the Northwest Forest Plan. The six groups represented the Forest Service (Federal perspective), the States of Oregon and Washington (State perspective), the Applegate Partnership, the Quincy Library Group (local watershed perspective) and the Karuk Tribe (Tribal perspective). Each group gave a summary of their experiences and perspective of the problems and successes they encountered. 2. On day two, the final presentation was made by the Sustainable Nature-based Tourism Project (local perspective). Following the presentations, the JPT discussed all the presentations and identified a variety of possible areas needing improvement or attention. To speed up the process, it was decided that each member would use the identified list of areas as a starting point, return home and talk with their constituents, and add to the list. All of their input will be consolidated and redistributed to all members for review prior to the next JPT meeting. The JPT will hold another meeting, tentatively set for June 17 in Portland, Oregon, at which time the members will refine the consolidated list and begin to prepare their initial recommendations for the IAC and Regional Community Economic Revitalization Team (RCERT). 3. It was suggested that the RCERT and IAC hold a joint meeting in August where the JPT could present their recommendations to a combined audience. Unfortunately, both the IAC and RCERT have entered into contracts to hold their meetings in two different cities during August. We will investigate the possibility of holding a joint IAC/RCERT meeting in September 1996.

STATUS REPORT

Meeting Date: May 30, 1996	REO Contact/Phone: Don Knowles 503-326-6266
Topic: FY 1996 Funding for the Northwest Forest Plan
Background: The FY 1996 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Public Law 104-134, was signed by the President on April 26, 1996. A summary of the funding provisions is included in your prework package.
Status/Update: Also included with your prework package is a table showing additional detail on the FY 1996 funding for implementing the Northwest Forest Plan and the President's funding request for NFP implementation in FY 1997.