Regional Ecosystem Office

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

               Memorandum

Date:      August 29, 1996

To:          Intergovernmental Advisory Committee and Regional Community Economic Revitalization Team Members (See Distribution Lists)

From:      Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director

Subject:  Agenda and Prework Materials for the September 1996 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee and Regional Community Economic Revitalization Team Meeting

Enclosed are the proposed agenda, agenda topic overviews, status reports, and an enclosure for the September 19 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) meeting. The meeting will be held at the Red Lion Hotel, Columbia River, 1401 N. Hayden Island Drive, Portland, Oregon 97217 (Phone: 503-283-2111 or 206-696-2565 and Fax: 503-283-4718). You may phone the hotel 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 on the west side of I-5 at Exit 308, Jantzen Beach.

The IAC meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. in the Klamath Room with Regional Community Economic Revitalization (RCERT) members joining the meeting at 1:00 p.m. for the Joint Planning Team presentation. Arrangements have been made for the Federal members of the RCERT to meet in the Wallowa Room from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

The IAC agenda includes the following goals:

• Review and accept the recommendations for revising and field testing the final draft Riparian Reserve module.
• Share information about consultation approaches on Federal land management actions for listed anadromous fish species.
• Discuss and agree on a revised schedule for completion of the FY 1996 Implementation Monitoring report and recommendations for the FY 1997 program.
• Review and discuss Joint Planning Team recommendations to better integrate and facilitate the accomplishments of the Northwest Forest Plan's economic and ecological objectives.
• Review and agree on today's agreements and possible agenda items for the December meeting.

If you have questions or suggestions about the logistics or the meeting agenda, please contact your agency representative, or Linda Kucera at 503-326-6283.

Enclosures

cc: REO, JPT

761/lk/ly

Date: August 29, 1996
Subject: September IAC and RCERT 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, 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

Updated 5/15/96

Date: August 29, 1996
Subject: September IAC and RCERT Meeting Agenda and Prework

Regional Community Ecomonic Revitalization Team Distribution List

Co-Chair
John Gilman, Small Business Administration
Bob Rheiner, Bureau of Land Management

Members
Anne Berblinger, Economic Development Administration
Ken Brooks, Environmental Protection Agency
Ray Brown, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Melissa Carlson-Price, Commissioner, State of Washington
Steve Clauson, Forest Service, Region 5
Charlie Krebs, Forest Service, Region 6
Steve Cornacchia, County Commissioner, State of Oregon
Gary DeRosa, Department of Labor-ETA
John Humphrey, Department of Labor-ETA
Scott Duff, USDA/RECD, State of Oregon
Mike Reyna, USDA/RECD, State of California
Nancy Gloman, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Terry Gorton, Resources Agency, State of California
Mark Stanley, Resources Agency, State of California
Lyla Houglum, USDA Extension
Patrick Corcoran, USDA Extension
Dean Judd, Governor's Rural Community Assistance Team, State of Washington
Karin Berkholtz, Governor's Rural Community Assistance Team, State of Washington
Donald Motanic, Intertribal Timber Council
Jack Peters, Housing and Urban Development
Judith Moses, Housing and Urban Development
Bill Scott, Oregon Economic Development Department
Tom Brumm, Oregon Economic Development Department
Francie Sullivan, County Supervisor, State of California

Regional Ecosystem Office
Don Knowles
Curt Loop

ACTION TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: September 19, 1996

Sponsor: Regional Ecosystem Office Contact/Phone: Mike Tehan, 503-326-6276

Topic: Riparian Reserve Module for Section II of the Federal Guide for Watershed Analsysis (Guide)

Issue Statement: Should the IAC accept the recommendations for revising and field testing the final draft Riparian Reserve module, as agreed to and forwarded by the Watershed Analysis Policy Group? If the IAC agrees with the recommended approach, the next point of involvement by the IAC on this topic would be at the end of FY 1997 when the results of the module field test, including analysis and recommendations by the REO and Riparian Reserve Technical Team, would be presented for discussion and action.

Background: The Watershed Analysis Policy Group met on July 31 and reviewed the comments received from IAC members on the final draft Riparian Reserve module. The Policy Group concurred with the REO recommendations for addressing all but two of the issues raised. There was extensive discussion of these remaining two policy issues: Should the module be considered "mandatory" or should it be field tested before making this decision? How should non-Federal lands be addressed in the module?

Analysis and Options: The Policy Group recommends the following: 1. Should the module be considered mandatory? Before the IAC recommends whether the module should be required for all watershed analyses and all Riparian Reserve changes, a field test of the module should be conducted during the FY 1997 field season. The Forest Service and BLM should solicit volunteer field units for testing the module. In addition to identifying a small number of field units to test the module (2 National Forests and 2 BLM Districts were suggested), the draft module should also be circulated widely and all units encouraged to apply it as needed. Each test team should include members from partner agencies and governments and a member(s) of the Technical Team that developed the draft module. Using feedback from the module tests, the REO and Technical Team Leader should develop recommendations for the IAC Policy Group on a required set of elements or steps for site-specific Riparian Reserve analyses. The required elements should build on the Record of Decision (ROD) requirements. Possible elements include: Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives, terrestrial species effects, cumulative effects, risk assessment, etc. As with other aspects of ecosystem analyses, the level of detail required to analyze Riparian Reserves should be determined by the responsible agency official, with appropriate interorganizational and intergovernmental coordination. In addition to these agreements, there were two additional recommendations from Policy Group members for which Policy Group agreement was not reached: One member recommended that riparian reserve adjustments associated with the module test be limited to intermittent stream reserves. It was recognized that this would be more restrictive than the ROD. One member recommended that the IAC direct the Provincial Advisory Committees (PACs) to conduct interagency reviews of decisions to adjust Riparian Reserve boundaries. This would be in addition to the requirement for interagency involvement in watershed and site-scale analyses of Riparian Reserves (as described in the ROD, the Guide and NEPA).

2. Consideration of non-Federal lands There was general recognition that some consideration on non-Federal lands was essential for a complete understanding of ecological processes and functions associated with the Riparian Reserve network in a watershed, especially with respect to cumulative effects and defining the relative conservation contribution of Riparian Reserves on Federal lands to the watershed as a whole. A number of specific sensitivities associated with non-Federal lands were acknowledged. These include the perception that any evaluation of non-Federal lands during watershed analysis, however cursory, might be perceived by some land owners as a surreptitious attempt to impose Federal management objectives on non-Federal land. Sensitivity associated with the collection and use of information on non-Federal lands was also noted. It was reiterated that data acquisition from non-Federal land owners must be on a voluntary basis; that incentives should be provided, where possible, to encourage non-Federal land owner participation in watershed analysis; and due consideration be given to how information on non-Federal lands is used in the analysis. It was agreed that the Technical Team would develop language that is both responsive to suggestions for clarifying the role of non-Federal lands in the technical analysis steps of the module, while remaining consistent with previous IAC policy decisions on non-Federal lands as reflected in Section I of the Guide (Section I, pages 10 and 11). We should retain the process currently described in the module for calculating the area of interim Riparian Reserves on intermittent streams for the 10 percent guideline associated with the proposed level 1 analysis; i.e., only Riparian Reserves on Federal lands in the watershed are considered.

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

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee

Status Report

Topic: Consultation on Federal Land Management Actions for Listed Anadromous Fish Species	Date: September 19, 1996
Issue: Now that Umpqua River cutthroat trout (URCT) have been listed as an endangered species and steelhead have joined coho salmon as proposed for listing, what approaches are being used for consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)?
Background: Despite the fact that the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) was specifically designed to protect resident and anadromous fish habitat and to reverse the trend of aquatic habitat degradation, the ESA consultation on the FSEIS did not address anadromous fish because none of the species potentially affected by the NFP had been proposed or listed as of the Record of Decision (ROD) May 19, 1994 effective date. On August 9, 1996, NMFS announced its final rule listing Umpqua River cutthroat trout as an endangered species, and proposed to list 10 of 15 population segments (Evolutionarily Significant Units or ESUs) of coastal steelhead as threatened or endangered. In July, 1995 NMFS proposed to list 3 of 6 coastal coho salmon ESUs as threatened or endangered (final rule has not been published). The Federal agencies have generally recognized that the NFP, with its 4-part Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) (key watersheds, watershed analysis, riparian reserves, and restoration) constitutes a sound framework for conserving anadromous fish habitat on Federal lands within the NFP area. However, the adequacy of the NFP for avoiding jeopardy to listed/proposed anadromous fish species has not yet been established in any programmatic consultations on the Forest Service (FS) or Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Land Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) that were amended by the NFP. The Federal regional executives began discussing strategies for programmatic consultation on the NFP in December 1994, both within the Regional Interagency Executive Committee and Pacific Salmon Coordinating Committee forums. The Level 1, 2, 3, and 4 interagency teams formed under the May 31, 1995 consultation streamlining agreement (FS, BLM, NMFS, FWS) have jointly developed an overall consultation approach that has been approved by their regional executives.
Update: FS Region 5, BLM, and NMFS Southwest Region are in the process of conferring on the FS and BLM LRMPs in California, as amended by the NFP. Biological assessments have been submitted to NMFS. NMFS is in the process of writing the conference report. If proposed species are listed in the future, the conference report can be easily converted into a biological opinion. FS Region 6, BLM, and NMFS Northwest Region (Oregon and Washington) are currently consulting on "on-going actions" (including proposed first quarter FY 1997 actions) for LRMPs that fall within the URCT ESU (Umpqua, Siuslaw, and Siskiyou National Forests; Roseburg, Coos Bay, Medford, and Eugene BLM Districts). The intent is for NMFS to complete a single biological opinion on these actions by September 9, 1996, the effective date of the URCT rulemaking. In addition to the consultation for "on-going" actions, there will be a phase I programmatic consultation on LRMPs, as amended by the NFP, that are within the URCT ESU. The target date for completion is November 30. Key elements of the phase I programmatic consultation include: A description of how the LRMPs have been amended by the NFP standards and guidelines and land allocations, including the ACS and comprehensive monitoring strategies. This and all subsequent consultations will be conducted in accordance with the interagency MOA on consultation streamlining. In carrying out the streamlined consultation process, the agencies will use the agreed upon interagency process for making effects determinations, which includes a key for determining whether projects are likely to adversely affect listed species and a matrix of elements for interpreting the ACS objectives. Monitoring is an essential element. There are several levels and types of monitoring that will be essential to define. Using the knowledge and experience gained from the phase I consultation for Umpqua River cutthroat trout, there will be a phase II programmatic consultation/conference on the remainder of the LRMPs within the NFP area for listed/proposed anadromous fish species.

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: September 19, 1996

Sponsor: Research & Monitoring Group/Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie, 503-326-6250

Topic: Implementation Monitoring

Issue Statement: Establish a revised schedule for completion of the FY 1996 Implementation Monitoring report (reviewing timber sales), and for agreeing on FY 1997 Implementation Monitoring program.

Background: The FY 1996 Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) Implementation Monitoring program consisted of a review of 45 timber sales to evaluate their compliance with the NFP Standards & Guidelines. These reviews were conducted by agency personnel-led provincial implementation monitoring teams, comprised of agency, Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC), and private citizens. A regional implementation monitoring team provided guidance and is preparing the summary report of the findings and recommendations for next year's monitoring efforts. Previously, the FY 1996 report and FY 1997 recommendations were scheduled to be presented during an October 1996 IAC meeting, with decisions and guidance during the December 1996 meeting. This schedule would have accommodated planning and implementation of the FY 1997 efforts. Following guidance from the Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) and the May 30, 1996 IAC meeting, review and input from the PAC's was sought on the recommendations for the FY 1997 efforts. In addition, the August IAC meeting was cancelled and the the October IAC meeting was rescheduled to September. As a result, the draft report of the FY 1996 accomplishments and the FY 1997 program will not be available for presentation at the September IAC meeting. The next IAC meeting is scheduled for December 1996. If we follow the prior "propose and dispose" agreement, the FY 1997 implementation monitoring efforts would not be reached until the first IAC meeting of 1997. This results in a FY 1997 schedule that will be difficult to incorporate into the FY 1997 work plans and schedules.

Analysis and Options: In order to maintain the schedule and allow time for review by all interested parties, one option is to depart from the strict "propose and dispose" process. This option would include sending the final draft report on the FY 1996 results and the FY 1997 program to the IAC no later than November, one month prior to the December meeting. This could constitute the "propose" process. Any issues pertaining to the FY 1997 program could be disposed of at the December meeting. This schedule would also permit review by the Research & Monitoring Committee, REO, and PACs prior to the final draft being submitted to IAC. A second option would be to follow the existing "propose and dispose" process. Agencies could initiate planning and implementation efforts for the FY 1997 efforts prior to "disposal" of the report and recommendations by IAC at the first IAC meeting in 1997. This option has the advantage of preserving the IAC process and accommodating the preparation for the FY 1997 season. However, changes to incorporate IAC guidance and RIEC direction could potentially introduce inefficiencies or delays in the FY 1997 efforts.

Organizational/Funding Implications: N/A

REO Staff Proposal: The first option is recommended to accommodate review, meeting and planning schedules.

Action Required: IAC Review & Discussion IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision

 

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: September 19, 1996

Sponsor: Joint Planning Team (JPT) Contact/Phone: Curt Loop, 503-326-7002

Topic: Presentation of the Joint Planning Team Recommendations

Issue Statement:  Should the IAC and RCERT agree to several JPT recommendations to better integrate efforts to achieve the economic and ecological objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP)?

Background: The JPT has held several working meetings and conference calls over the past several months preparing proposals to better integrate and facilitate the accomplishment of the NFP's economic and ecological objectives. On September 19, they will present three proposals for discussion at a combined meeting of the IAC and RCERT. The first proposal presents a concept of networking and facilitating information flow between and among local communities and Federal and State agencies, providing support to the communities and partnerships, and having an advocate for regulatory and policy change. The second proposal covers recommended changes to funding mechanisms and policies. The third proposal deals with methods of better integrating the economic and ecological objectives for the NFP. A complete copy of the proposals are attached for you review prior to the combined meeting on September 19.

Action Required: IAC Review & Discussion IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision

 

Scope of the Joint Planning Team (JPT):

The following quote from the JPT charter as a subcommittee to the IAC outlines the charge to the JPT:

"Using the outcomes in the Natural Resource Partnership, propose to the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) and the Regional Community Economic Revitalization Team (RCERT) specific long, intermediate, and short term outcomes. Proposed outcomes will be discussed with local groups before being presented to the IAC and RCERT. The JPT will draw information from stakeholder groups, consult with State, tribal, and local governments to improve coordination and cooperation to achieve outcomes; recommend task and performance measures along with timelines to achieve outcomes, and recommend use of subcommittees, demonstration projects, administrative and congressional waivers or statutory changes."

Results of JPT Deliberations:

The JPT recommendations center around three key topics: (1) creating a network/learning center to implement partnership-based ecosystem management, (2) increasing agency funding and budget flexibility through administrative and statutory changes to rules and laws, and (3) integrating socio-economic issues into the activities of the IAC.

The JPT also recommends that the JPT terminate after the presentation to the IAC and RCERT is complete.

Examples of Issues Driving the Recommendations:

1. Effective natural resource partnerships should be community-based. Public/private partnerships need to be increased by creating mechanisms and incentives for participation by private land managers and owners.

2. Agencies or committees involved in implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) have not always addressed all three aspects of ecosystem management: social, ecological, and economic.

3. The prior pool of skilled forest laborers will be difficult to replace, as employment in forest management and related industries has declined significantly.

4. Federal procurement regulations are cumbersome and restrictive; e.g., agency contracting officials are personally liable for mistakes on contracts and purchases.

5. Many stakeholders believe there is a need to group short duration projects into one long term project (a stewardship contract). However, multi-year stewardship contracts require changes in budgeting procedures and/or financial management principles.

6. Some NFP treatments such as precommercially thinning stands in Late-Successional Reserves would be far easier to implement if the contractors could have the material in partial payment for services.

7. Agencies have been required to have (but should not need) an Annual Public Interest Waiver to limit bidding on NFP projects to NFP dislocated workers.

8. End users of water from public lands are not contributing to the maintenance of watersheds.

9. Funding for watershed restoration is too directly linked to appropriations, there is a need to find alternative methods of funding for agreed on restoration work.

10. Barriers need to be broken by doing such things as grouping agency funds to implement projects and multi-year budgeting.

11. Forest Service timber sale collections are limited solely to reforestation and are not designed to fund watershed restoration, even in Tier 1 Key Watersheds.

Proposal: Community-Based Partnerships for Ecosystem Management a Network Working for More Effective Partnerships, Adaptive Learning, and Advocacy.

Introduction:
The Joint Planning Team (JPT) recommends a strategy to help build community-based partnerships for ecosystem management by providing a working and information network for community-based efforts and the Interagency Advisory Committee (IAC), the Regional Community Economic Revitalization Team (RCERT) and policy makers and management responsible for implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision (ROD) and the Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative (NWEAI). The network, assisted by a small staff, will synthesize and document lessons learned through community-based partnerships, assist in barrier-busting, and advocate the changes in institutions, policies and statutes which will help reach the goal of a integrated, sustainable ecology and economy.

It is the recommendation of the JPT to seek a private non-profit foundation fund to implement this proposal. Preliminary discussions with private foundations have been favorable.

The JPT recommendation is based on these assumptions:

All stakeholders nurture the growth and effectiveness of efforts to link sound ecosystem management with the health of workers, businesses and communities. These community-based partnerships are helping to define and develop mechanisms and incentives for participation in ecosystem management by private land managers, local civic and business leaders and the line staff of Federal agencies. As long as community ecosystem management works toward achieving sound ecological results, partnerships should be given greater flexibility in defining how those results are achieved. The achievements of these partnerships should be shared and they should receive focused assistance through the efforts of the IAC and the RCERT.

Background:
In some partnership efforts, such as the Applegate Partnership, various watershed groups and some of the Jobs in the Woods and Jobs for the Environment projects, laudable efforts are being made to create partnerships between public and private land managers, environmental organizations and community leaders to manage public and private lands in a cooperative, mutually-beneficial manner that creates economic opportunity and has positive benefits for ecosystems. In these cases, valiant efforts are being made, especially by Federal land managers to provide as much flexibility as is legally possible and funding that is available to nurture these partnerships.

More intensive focus and support by all stakeholder agencies is needed for the existing partnerships in helping them achieve ecological and economic goals by eliminating administrative and statutory barriers and lack of funding. More effective cooperation between levels of government, between agencies and between government and the private sector is needed. Regional, State and national policy makers must intensify their efforts to give greater "flexibility with accountability" to local partnerships and devolve greater authority downward to agency staffs who are members of partnerships. "Fences" between funds should be lowered in order to strategically focus dollars where they can best meet the efforts to achieve partnership goals. Waivers may be needed in the short term and funding laws may need to be changed in the long term. Contracting and procurement regulations may need to be waived in the short term and possibly changed for the long term. All of these efforts will require that we as public and private land managers, environmentalists, economic developers and communities find a new way to do business together.

Proposal:
The JPT recommendation provides a strategy for building partnership-based ecosystem management. It is comprised of these pieces.

1. Development of a network that helps community-based partnerships, land management and regulatory agencies achieve mutually-beneficial ecological and economic goals.

a. The network will be assisted by a network coordinator, a research/learning coordinator, and an administrative assistant.

b. Public agencies will assign staff to work on the network who will assist partnerships and agencies to break down any barriers. The agencies members will report directly to top leadership of the national, regional and state executives.

2. An adaptive learning strategy through which local partnerships will share experiences with network staff in order to communicate to all stakeholders (including IAC/RCERT, Multi-Agency Command, and Interagency Steering Committee).

3. Research/monitoring of the project to provide documentation to the IAC/RCERT.

4. A small advisory committee will oversee the work of the network staff. The advisory committee will be composed of the Chair of the IAC, one representative agreed-upon by the participating States and one member selected from a community partnership. The research/learning coordinator will work closely with the Research and Monitoring Committee to include socio-economic evaluation in implementing of the Northwest Forest Plan.

Partnership-based ecosystem management network and clearinghouse:
A Community-based Partnerships for Ecosystem Management Network, which is regionally-based and staffed by a network coordinator, a research/learning coordinator and an administrative assistant will provide on-going communication linkages between the partnerships throughout the three-State region and with agencies. The network will not be another layer that requires reporting to, but rather, it will provide support and service to the community partnerships and the government agencies.

Agency staff will come together as needed to address issues and problems raised in this project. It is important for national, regional, and state managers to monitor and assist with the process. The Joint Planning Team and partnerships will identify sources of private foundation funding that can pay for the expenses of the network to enable the partnerships and public agencies to work together of specific tasks.

The purpose of the network is to provide a direct link between policy-makers, managers and partnerships as they work together to solve problems and take advantage of opportunities to develop ecosystem management that achieves complimentary ecological and economic goals. The network will be a catalyst for finding new ways to do business together and for breaking down barriers; it will be a synthesizer of lessons learned, and will document those for others to utilize; and it will be an advocate for creating changes in institutions, policies and statutes that will help us reach our goal of an integrated, sustainable ecology and economy.

The network staff will assist the partnerships and the agencies to locate and seek funding for capacity-building, customized training opportunities for partnerships and land management agency staff in areas such as leadership development, interest-based bargaining, team-building, ecology, business and economic development, and other subjects identified by the partnerships and the agencies. The network staff will have the capacity to administer grant funds for the above purposes. The network will help partnerships break down barriers the partnership has identified. The staff of the network will work directly with the agencies to resolve these barriers. The agencies will work with partnerships to find incentives that encourage the private sector to increase participation in coordinated ecosystem management. The barrier-busting effort may involve direct communication with Congressional and State legislative bodies and Governors offices of the three States, as well as the Federal administration. To accomplish these tasks, the network staff will be housed in a non-governmental organization and have the ability to communicate with a wide range of policy makers.

The network coordinator will have primary oversight responsibilities for the project and management of the network and clearinghouse. This will include development of strong communications linkages between the target participating partnerships and the governmental agencies and between the partnerships. The product of this communication will be action items for the agencies or partnerships in either resolving barriers or documenting successes that can be utilized by other partnerships. The network coordinator will assist communities in obtaining training needs identified by the partnerships and/or consultant support they require to achieve the identified objectives. It will be the responsibility of the network coordinator to organize coalitions who will advocate for statutory changes needed to help the partnership achieve their goals. The network coordinator will assist the partnerships in linking their efforts with other on-going local, State and regional organizations focused on achieving complimentary economic and ecological goals. The network coordinator will assist the research/evaluation coordinator in documenting the progress and challenges faced by the partnerships and the agencies.

Research and Monitoring:
The research/learning coordinator will provide on-going monitoring of the project and progress toward achieving the results, and will provide technical assistance to the partnerships and agencies. The coordinator will provide information on the progress of this project to the IAC/RCERT. The coordinator will create a network that will provide information to community partnerships and agencies on successes and barriers in achieving ecosystem management.

Selection of local partnerships:
The Joint Planning Team, with the assistance of a small, privately-funded planning grant, will initially find existing natural resource partnerships in each State (preferably associated with an existing Adaptive Management Area) who are willing to undertake intensive efforts in reaching their partnership's ecological and economic goals by working as a team with people who can change policies and practices at the State, regional and national levels. Community partnerships will be sought who are ready to work with the Federal and State agencies to better direct existing funds in ways that work for the communities and their ecosystems. It is critical that partnerships have an opportunity to "self-select" their participation and once they are included they should also be involved in the development of the network. A process will need to be developed where interested partnerships can apply to participate through their districts and Provincial Advisory Committees (PAC). The network staff will make final recommendations on the participating partnerships to the IAC/RCERT.

Role of the public agencies:
Public agencies will identify and assign staff to work on the network and who will assist partnerships and agencies to break down any barriers that stand in the way of achieving agreed-upon goals. The agencies must be empowered by national and regional policy makers and managers to assist the partnerships. The agencies members will report directly to top leadership of the national, regional and State executives.

A creative, "can-do" action-oriented attitude will prevail. Agencies will refuse to be held back by tradition. Sanctioned risk-taking will be rewarded by agency management. Meetings will only be held to identify results that need to be achieved and approve and report on actions taken to achieve those results. The goals and recommended actions will originate at the partnership level but will be consistent will all applicable environmental and labor/employment laws.

It is important to the success of this effort that the managers and policy-makers of the Federal and State land management agencies empower the agencies, the network staff and the partnerships to solve problems and break-down barriers to achieving economic and ecological goals.

It is advisable to seek an initial private foundation "planning grant" that can provide resources to conduct the search for partnerships willing to undertake this project. The planning grant funds could be used to enable the partnerships, together with appointed representatives of the RCERT/IAC, to design this project in a way that will be most useful to the partnerships and to developing the relationship with the agencies. During the planning stages, it would be advisable to hire on a contract-basis a coordinator to work with the partnerships and the agencies in designing the final project while pursuing multiple funding sources for the project.

Issue/Opportunity:
Increase funding flexibility and availability in order to effectively support ecosystem restoration needs and associated local social and economic opportunities.

1. Change existing Sale Area Betterment (SAB) provisions of the Knutson-Vandenberg (V-K) Act to allow the Forest Service (FS) to accomplish the highest priority restoration work within a watershed.

Discussion:
The current K-V authority restricts SAB actions to projects within the defined sale-area boundary. The intent of this provision was to improve the functions and health of the biological systems. Targeting the funds to the highest-priority restoration needs within the watershed, as defined in a completed watershed analysis, would improve the effectiveness and responsiveness of these funds.

Action:
IAC recommend the expansion of SAB authority within the K-V Act to complete highest-priority restoration work within the watershed (includes projects on both Federal and non-Federal lands). Use of K-V funds on non-Federal lands would require cost share provisions, agreement for long-term protection of investment, comprehensive watershed analysis, existence of an active watershed council or equivalent, and a process to meet NEPA requirements. Assign FS the responsibility to complete or facilitate the completion of the implementation strategy and associated legislative language.

2. Provide agencies the authority to use a portion of the receipts from special forest products, areas designated as LSRs, and recreation use. The funds would be returned to the program and locale that generated the receipts.

Discussion:
Agencies currently lack authority to utilize revenues from some forest products and other resource programs for the development and management of the program. However, there may be significant land management needs and opportunities with many of these programs that are constrained by budget levels.

For example, the total special forest products program has generated approximately 2.4 to 2.5 million dollars in receipts and associated economic activity on an average over the last 3 years between FS and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within the States of Oregon and Washington; with approximately 2/3 of this program being from non-convertible products (Christmas trees, poles, herbs, mushrooms, etc.). Since the financing of this program competes for limited funding, the program level is constrained below the demand for the products. Units that have been able to elevate this program in their priorities have experienced increases in receipts of nearly 100 percent. Full implementation could have the potential of creating 300-400 additional jobs and generate approximately 5 million dollars of additional economic activity.

If legislation was changed to allow the agencies to utilize a portion of these receipts (e.g., 50 percent) and the assumptions made regarding potential opportunities for program expansion are accurate, overall receipts to the Federal government would remain at or near historical levels, jobs and business opportunities for local communities could be elevated, and adequate financing could be maintained to ensure that the program is managed properly, protecting the value of the resources and capitalizing on new and emerging opportunities.

Note: Initial funding would be needed to complete the needed analysis and research on the potential and associated affects of program level modifications in this area.

In addition to special forest products, agencies should have the authority to utilize receipts from volume from LSRs. Currently, agencies must use annual funds appropriated for timber sales to finance management activities within LSRs. Prescriptions and treatments within LSR's are not for the purpose of timber volume but for ecosystem health with the actual volume obtained not counted against the probable sale quantity (PSQ) targets (non-chargeable volume). Thus, an agency's ability to accelerate LSR treatments are constrained by annual appropriations. As with special forest products, providing the agencies the ability to utilize receipts from LSRs would enable the agencies to accelerate forest health management actions and provide increased employment opportunities. If the legislation change was crafted properly, it may have little affect on overall receipts to the Treasury (e.g., if agencies were only allowed to retain 50 percent of the receipts but the change resulted in a doubling of action/volume, the net effect would be neutral).

Action:
IAC/RCERT approve the recommendations to use a portion of special forest products, LSR, and recreation receipts in support of these programs within the locale they are generated. Receipts will be focused towards management activities and economic opportunities within the local area. IAC assign FS and BLM the responsibility to complete an implementation plan and any proposed legislation required.

3. Create a recurring restoration TRUST fund to finance or assist in financing high-priority restoration projects.

Discussion:
Since all levels and entities receive benefits from healthy ecosystems, we advocate that any such funding system must encourage and seek funding from all levels (Federal, State, county, city, business, etc.). Trust fund must be designed to best meet the needs, interests, and opportunities. Trust funds could be set up at the State level, national, or through a private trust.

Federal source: Commit x percent of total receipts from Federal lands to be provided to a fund to support restoration efforts off Federal lands on a match basis; i.e., will be provided to the States provided States match to a certain level. Assuming the funds are provided to private landowners on a 50/50 match and that States and Federal maintain a 50/50 match, each dollar generated by either the State or Federal would generate 4 dollars of work; or would increase current forest stewardship funding.

State source: A portion of licensing receipts to restoration fund, declaration on State tax forms to direct money to restoration work, and/or taxation on timber exports.

County source: Increased authority to use a portion of current "receipts to county" for restoration fund (currently limited to schools and roads for FS receipts).

Action:
IAC/RCERT approve the basic concept of the trust fund. IAC charter a group to develop and analyze options and associated legislation action needed for creation, funding, and management of trust fund(s). Group to consider the needs and interest of all interested parties (States, tribes, counties, etc.) and the opportunities to use and/or link to other or existing trust funds.

4. Increase flexibility and authority for Federal agencies to enter into cooperative agreements on a consistent, equitable, and logical basis.

Discussion:
Each of the Departments (Interior and Agriculture) are guided by different authorities and requirements as it pertains to agreements with non-Federal partners. Simply that the regulations and requirements are different causes inefficiencies since processes and agreements can not be standardized. Also, the level and definition of what is required on a cost share basis varies considerably among agencies.

Public Law 94-148, referred to as the Uhlman Bill, provides the FS the authority to enter cooperative agreements with agencies, organizations, and individuals if it is determined that the public interest will be benefitted. PL 94-148 requires that benefits are derived, but does not require monetary compensation from the cooperator. This law empowers and gives discretion to Federal line officers to enter into such agreements when the public interest is benefitted. While PL 94-148 restricts this authority to only 4 activities, the list includes training and manpower programs and forest protection (which would seem to logically include restoration activities). This authority is also restricted currently to the Department of Agriculture.

Action:
IAC/RCERT approve proposal to expand PL 94-148 to include BLM. BLM to assemble group to complete drafting of legislative wording and strategy.

5. Encourage increased participation by non-Federal land owners and managers in integrating efforts and packaging projects.

Discussion:
Create a trust fund that encourages broad based participation (see recommendation 4 above) would provide a financial base to encourage non-Federal land participation in watershed restoration. But in addition to financial considerations, land owners need to become more knowledgeable of the opportunities and benefits of their participation.

Actions:
1. IAC/RCERT suggest States evaluate opportunities for tax credits or other financial incentives for private landowners to complete watershed restoration efforts.

2. IAC/RCERT encourage watershed, land- and community-based partnerships and efforts (land management agencies have initiated a watershed approach effort/strategy -- e.g., Siuslaw watershed).

6. Modifications to existing State and Federal budgeting and accounting systems to support longer term projects and commitments.

Discussion:
The transition to a multi-year, end-result, "stewardship" approach requires a change in budgeting procedures with either a multi-year budget or the ability to modify financial management principles as they relate to the obligation of funds. Under the existing annual driven budget system, any effort to link projects over a number of years on a desired result (e.g., health of stand), requires the partners to obligate all the costs in the first year, even though the contract may span 4-5 years. While the overall cost of the project/effort may be less, State and Federal partners lack the funding to incur such up-front obligations.

In addition to the above issue, changing management from an annual to a longer term basic requires an up-front investment in project and program planning. Both of the land management agencies are currently scrambling to stay on top of the annual requirements. To adequately support a multi-year concept will require agencies to move beyond a 1-year-planning cycle--logically out to 4-6 years-- which requires increased budgetary capability/flexibility.

Action:
IAC/RCERT convene a special work group to summarize existing budget authorities and capabilities among all partners and develop proposals to deal with the issue of multi-year management and the ability to increase flexibility and responsiveness of the budget systems. Rather than attempting to modify the annual Congressional budget process (no small task), this issue might have opportunities to be resolved by examining accounting techniques and requirements (e.g., eliminating the need to obligate total commitment in year one and only obligate anticipated expenditures for the year, or include a annual termination clause).

7. Provide agencies the authority to use "goods for services" for targeted areas.

Discussion:
Managing and awarding "ecosystem" focused "Stewardship" contracts may often times involve the linking of goods and services into one contract; for example, pruning and boughs. However, land management agencies currently lack the authority to combine these into one contract. In addition to the lack of contractual authority, without a change in budget rules and authorities, which currently prohibits exchanging goods for services, combining these into one contract may often create significant financial adversity to the agencies and their ability to maximize restoration activities. For example, even if the agencies had the authority to link a small timber sale contract with pre- and post-work, under current fiscal regulations, the agency (in this case, the FS) would be unable to utilize the potential timber receipts for K-V authorized activities (authority that would be available if the timber sale was a separate project), and would be required to utilize and obligate all the services within the contract with appropriated funds. This action would result in a reduction in funds to resource management activities with a corresponding increase in receipts to the treasury. While the net affect to the government may be positive, the land management agencies would incur a reduction in budget levels.

Action:
IAC/RCERT recommend to Federal agencies to formulate implementation strategy that provides local line officers with authority to use "goods for service" authority. It is recommended that the attempt to obtain such authority be targeted for those areas that are deemed appropriate rather than a universal authority.

8. Establishment of an ongoing ability to provide training and skill development.

Discussion:
Currently JPTA funds are limited to "displaced workers" and cannot be used for existing workers; thus there is currently no external funding available for ongoing training needs. There are two distinct options to deal with the above issue: (1) Create some type of trust fund to support these needs, or (2) institutionalize training as a normal component of business (similar to education system with teacher skills).

Our concern with the concept of a "trust fund" for training is that while it may address the issue of SUPPLY of trained workers, it does not address DEMAND. Thus, the creation of such a trust fund may provide the opportunity to provide training, if it is not viewed as needed by industry and the agencies, we may be creating a supply without the demand. To be effective, supply and demand of higher skilled workers must be completed in a comprehensive fashion.

Actions:
IAC/RCERT agree on the need to complete an assessment of the current situation and associated implementation options and strategies. RCERT to assume lead to: (1) Assess demand for increased skills, and (2) develop the needed strategy to support the demand/needs.

9. PILOT

Discussion:
The 90's are the age of "pilots" and "reinventing" government, and of experimenting with new processes and concepts. The President's National Performance Review effort has already establish the USDA FS as a "pilot" agency and appears to be more than open to new thoughts and suggestions. Where better to pilot the concept of the government acting as one, meeting the needs of the citizens of the area, of working in harmony with other State and local governments and other entities, BUT in the area of effective utilization of receipts?

Action:
IAC/RCERT charter a group to develop a pilot proposal using the approved set of outcomes as the foundation of the proposal.

Proposal: Integrating Economic Issues into the Activities of the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee

Whereas economic and ecological issues need integration at all levels and the Intergovernmental Advisory committee (IAC) is an appropriate forum for this integration to achieve the goals of the Northwest Forest Plan and Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative, the Joint Planning Team recommends that socio-economic issues be integrated into the on-going activities of the IAC.

The purpose of this proposal is to:

• Suggest ways the IAC can work on plans to more rapidly achieve complementary ecological and economic results.
• Develop closer linkages between the managerial and policy making organizations and community partnerships.
• Provide greater opportunity for all parties involved to better achieve the ecological, social, and economic goals of the Northwest Forest Plan.

By integrating the achievement of both socio-economic and ecological goals in IAC activities, the pace of overall implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan will be accelerated. With an accelerated pace of implementation, the mutual benefits of watershed restoration and community recovery will be achieved sooner.

Recommendations to IAC:

• Assume responsibility of the socio-economic implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan and eliminate the Regional Community Economic Revitalization Team (RCERT).
• Encourage and facilitate closer cooperation and coordination between State CERTs and PACs.
• Identify barriers to achieve ecosystem management and actions needed to be taken to resolve those barriers. (A national Interagency Steering Committee (ISC) and Multi-Agency Command (MAC) partnership will be necessary to achieve the reductions of identified barriers. The ISC and MAC should consider integrating their efforts as well).
• Highlight successes achieved by the Northwest Forest Plan and consideration of how those successes can be applied elsewhere throughout the region.
• Conduct field trips to illustrate first-hand the successes and problems confronting resource dependent communities and resource areas.
• Review efforts being made by the States to recover coastal and other salmon runs and discussion of how the Northwest Forest Plan can assist those efforts.
• Include socio-economic measures of success in evaluation criteria , as appropriate, in LSR Assessments, Adaptive Management Areas, and Research and Monitoring Committee activities.
• Support the development of a Community-based Partnership for Ecosystem Management Network to more closely link efforts of community partnerships, land management and regulatory agencies and policy makers. Provide information on successful efforts through the network.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)

Status Report

Meeting Date: September 19, 1996	REO Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie, 503-326-6250
Topic: Effectiveness Monitoring
Background: Following a status report and IAC discussion during the May 30 meeting, the Research Directors agreed to accept the responsibility to support the planning effort and work with the REO/RMC to assign staff and resources to complete the Effectiveness Monitoring (EM) Plan. The primary scope of this effort is concentrating on the overall framework for effectiveness monitoring and the five emphasis areas: Northern Spotted Owl (NSO), Marbled Murrelet (MaMu), Late Successional Old Growth Habitat (LSOG), and Aquatic/Riparian (A/R); efforts for Survey and Manage (S&M) Species have been delayed.
Status/Update: Working with the Research Executives and Agency staff, the REO/RMC have been successful in identifying and gaining commitment for key staff. Confirmation letters were sent from PNW, PSW, NBS and EPA to staff on August 2. Key leaders for the groups are: Barry Noon (PSW, Senior Effectiveness Monitoring Team), Joe Lint (BLM, NSO team), Sarah Madsen ( FS-R6, MaMu), Miles Hemstrom (FS-R6, LSOG), and Bob House (BLM, A/R). Additional staff have been assigned to support each of the team leaders. Barry Mulder (FWS) has been assigned to temporarily fulfill the EM coordinator role until the NBS position on the REO/RMG is filled. It is anticipated that these "core" teams will involve other agency and non-Federal scientists and experts as they move forward to develop the plans. The need for a mid-level managers group for effectiveness monitoring was identified and planning initiated for the group. This group along with the RMC will oversee and guide the development of effectiveness monitoring to support the Northwest Forest Plan. Participation by IAC parties on the RMC or the Effectiveness Monitoring teams is invited. The Senior Effectiveness Team and Team Leaders met in Portland, OR, on August 28 to continue the EM efforts and facilitate the development and scheduling for the efforts over the next 6 months. It is anticipated that the products from these teams will be peer reviewed as well as by the REO/RMC and mid-level managers group, prior to being presented to the IAC.