Regional Ecosystem Office

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

Memorandum

Date: November 27, 1996

To: Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (See Distribution List)

From: Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director

Subject: Agenda and Prework Materials for the December 1996 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting

Enclosed are the proposed agenda, agenda topic overviews, and status reports for the December 5 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) meeting. The meeting will be held at the Columbia River Red Lion Hotel, 1401 N. Hayden Island Drive, Portland, Oregon 97217 (Phone: 503-283-211 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. The IAC agenda includes the following goals:

• Review and agree on the five proposed IAC meeting dates for calendar year 1997.
• Review the IAC member responses to the questionnaire. Discuss several suggested changes and brainstorm improvements sought for 1997.
• Discuss and accept the FY 1996 Implementation Monitoring Report; discuss and agree to the proposed FY 1997 implementation monitoring issues.
• Dispose of remaining unresolved Joint Planning Team recommendations; discuss and possibly adopt policy principles to be used in future efforts to integrate ecological and economic activities.
• Review the status of the Adaptive Management Area (AMA) program. Review and discuss the proposed charter for an AMA work group to review AMA plans, and criteria to be used in such review.

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.

Enclosure

cc: REO, RCERT, JPT

836/ly

Date: November 27, 1996
Subject: December IAC 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, Center Director, Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey
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

IAC Meeting
Potential Agenda Items
December 5, 1996
Portland, Oregon--9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

Time Duration	Potential Agenda Topics	Topic Purpose	Presenter
9:00 30 min.	Welcome, Change of Chair, Certify the September Meeting Notes, and Review the December Agenda	Complete Official Business and Review the Agenda	Elaine Zielinski, Bob Williams, & Linda Kucera
9:30 15 min.	Propose IAC Meeting Schedule for FY 1997	Propose Meeting Dates	Don & Bob
9:45 45 min.	Evaluation of IAC Processes and Procedures Summary of the Surveys To Date Trial Changes Tentative Definition of Policy Suggested Goal Statements	Information Sharing of Summary, Propose Changes, Definition, and Goal Statements	Don & Bob
10:30	Break
10:50 60 min.	Implementation Monitoring: FY 1996 IM Report FY 1997 Program	Dispose the FY 1996 Report and FY 1997 Program	Dan McKenzie
11:50	Lunch
1:00 45 min.	Discuss Planning Grant Proposal and Close Unresolved Joint Planning Team Recommendations	Dispose of Principles and Unresolved Recommendations	Curt Loop
1:45 60 min.	Adaptive Management Area Presentation	Propose Work Group and Review Criteria	Jim Milestone
2:45	Break
3:05 15 min.	Public Comment	Information Sharing	Linda
3:20 20 min.	Hot Topics	Information Sharing	Linda/All
3:40 15 min.	Review Today's Agreements, Possible Agenda Items for the Next Meeting, and Closing Comments	Confirm Agreements, Potential Future Agenda Items, Close	Don Knowles & Bob Williams
3:55 5 min.	Remarks	Information Sharing	Tom Tuchmann
4:00	Adjourn

December 5, 1996 IAC Meeting

Status Reports

Effectiveness Monitoring Update Riparian Reserve Module Update and Riparian Reserve Width Adjustments To Date

Next IAC Meeting
Possible Agenda Items	Possible Status Reports
Evaluation of IAC Processes and Procedures (Dispose: Changes, Definition of Policy, and Goal Statement) Adaptive Management Area (Dispose: Work Group and Review Criteria) Interagency Strategic Work Plan for FY 1997 through FY 1999 IAC Meeting Schedule for FY 1997 (Dispose: Agree on Meeting Dates)	Effectiveness Monitoring Update IRICC Fish/Hydro Data Standards Phase I and II Update IRICC Vegetation Data Standards Phase I Implementation Update Federal Timber Sale Update Proposed FY 1997 REO Budget

AGENDA IDEAS FOR FUTURE IAC MEETINGS
Suggested Agenda Topic	Topic Suggested By
PAC/PIEC Management of Forest Health Problems	NMFS FWS

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: December 5, 1996

Sponsor: Regional Ecosystem Office Contact/Phone: Don Knowles 503-326-6266

Topic: Proposed IAC Meeting Schedule for FY 1997.

Issue Statement: Attendance at future IAC meetings depends, in part, on agreeing to a set of meeting dates early enough to preclude scheduling conflicts.

Background: The IAC met eight times in calendar year 1995 and six times in calendar year 1996. We are proposing five IAC meetings for calendar year 1997.

Analysis and Options: Proposed 1997 Meeting Dates (all dates fall on the first Thursday of the selected months): 1. February 6, 1997 2. April 3, 1997 3. June 5, 1997 4. August 7, 1997 5. November 6, 1997

Organizational/Funding Implications: NA

REO Staff Proposal: Agree to the dates as proposed. We will also share these dates with the RCERT and look for opportunities for joint meetings.

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

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: December 5, 1996

Sponsor: Regional Ecosystem Office Contact/Phone: Don Knowles 503-326-6266

Topic: Evaluation of IAC Processes and Procedures

Issue Statement: Survey IAC members to evaluate how well the FY 1996 IAC meetings met their needs and recommend future improvements. We have 4 goals for today: 1. Review IAC member comments. 2. Note a few trail changes. 3. Review proposed definition of policy to be used for future IAC adoption. 4. Review proposed goal statements for future IAC adoption.

Background: In response to the discussion at the September IAC meeting regarding the nature of IAC meetings in general, the types of issues addressed at those meetings, the relationship of the IAC to the Provincial Advisory Committees (PACs), and the overall performance of the PACs, a questionnaire (memo dated 10/1/96) was sent to all IAC members.

Analysis and Options: To date, 14 IAC members have responded. For questions number 1 and 2, we have enclosed a table showing the distribution of responses, and we have also included a set of the actual member comments. We have not identified the commenter. For questions 3, 4, and 5, we have included a complete set of responses. Trial Changes Based on a number of member comments, we would like to propose some trial changes for the IAC. One comment was that we need to sharpen the focus and goal for the IAC, within the chartered purpose of "intergovernmental coordination" while implementing the Northwest Forest Plan. 1. Draft Goal Statements: We will bring several alternative goal statements to the IAC meeting for discussion. These statements, in the form of flip-chart sized wall hangings, are intended to serve as a way to focus IAC member discussion during future meetings. We will also use them in the future identification of topics. Our intent is to use these to keep members focused on IAC goals in future meetings. 2. Draft Criteria for Selecting IAC Agenda Topics and Focusing Discussion: Most members agree we need to keep the IAC discussions at the "policy" level, as contrasted to the "technical" or "how to" level. In an effort to agree on what this means, we would propose the following criteria to screen proposed IAC agenda topics: A. Only topics or issues that are interagency or intergovernmental in nature or that are major in scope or geographic impact (e.g., changes to goals or ROD Standards and Guidelines will be addressed by the IAC (Roles and Processes in Adaptive Management memo dated December 14, 1995).

B. We will try to keep all discussion about these topics focused on the following: Whether an action should be taken. Why we may want to take such an action. Who should take the lead. Who to include should be discussed. When is also an appropriate discussion item. C. We will try to avoid discussing, in depth, the following (they are more appropriate as topics for technical sessions or subgroup meetings): What should be done. How it should be done. 3. Improving Communications: Many commentors indicated that the purpose of prior IAC meetings was primarily for the Federal members to communicate their plans to non-Federal (County, State, Tribal) members or to other Federal members. In an effort to improve communications, we suggest that future agenda time be scheduled for County, State, or Tribal presenters. This could be coupled with the development of a strategic list of agenda topics at the next IAC meeting, to be covered during the remainder of 1997. 4. Reducing Paper Flow: The REO distributes too much paper to IAC members, in the view of some commentors. One alternative was to solicit from IAC members a list of materials they would like to be copied with. Another alternative, one we are proposing, is for us to group all IAC mailings into one of three categories, which would be prominently indicated on the transmittal memo or fax. The three categories are: Read in Advance--Meeting Agenda: We would put this on the prework package, for example, see today's transmittal memo. Response Needed: We would put this on documents where IAC member input is being solicited. No Response--Information Only: We would put this on our meeting notes and copies of REO materials we routinely send to IAC members. Other Topics Not Addressed Yet Among the significant list of other topics still to be discussed are: An improved connection to PACs. Additional IAC time spent on economic, as well as ecological topics.

Organizational/Funding Implications: NA

REO Staff Proposal: As indicated above.

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

1. Please indicate your level of satisfaction with the logistical and procedural aspects of IAC meetings during the past year.

	Not Satisfied 1	2	3	Very Satisfied 4	N/R	Total
Meeting Frequency	1	3	5	5		14
Pre-meeting Conference Call		2	5	4	3	14
Pre-meeting Materials (Pre-work)		2	8	4		14
Meeting Room and Hotel Arrangements		1	7	6		14
Meeting Format:
Meeting Handouts			10	3	1	14
Approval of Minutes		1	7	3	3	14
Presentation Quality		1	7	4	2	14
Discussions (Format and Length)		7	4	2	1	14
Use of Hot Topics		3	4	4	3	14
Facilitation	1	3	5	5		14
Review and Selection of Future Topics		3	8	3		14
Summary of Agreements		1	10	2	1	14
Meeting Length		3	7	4		14
Post-meeting Minutes		1	7	4	2	14
Total	2	31	94	53	16	196

Comments or Recommendations:

Need to continue to structure meetings to clearly show purpose of discussion (decision, info., etc.). Should re-look at propose/dispose format to see if still appropriate with meeting frequency. Need to ensure we stick to policy, not technical issues. Reinforce our role as "big picture" thinkers.

We spend too much time on background and not enough time discussing the decision to be made (if required) or other salient parts of an item for discussion only.

Need all materials to be discussed distributed in advance. Also, last minute changes should be clearly noted so don't have to review and compare whole document.

REO should reserve rooms (lodging rooms) at least for non-feds, so as to stay within per diem allowances (also consider issuing blanket travel authorizations to facilitate transportation arrangements).

Should prioritize consistently, to meet long-term objectives of REO.

Consider maintaining a running topical summary--this would facilitate review, preparation, and discussion at IAC meetings. Chrony format is inconvenient in this regard.

Ratings for discussion (format and length) and facilitation are not a reflection on the facilitator as much as the fact that it doesn't appear to be part of her job or anyone else's to keep segments of the meeting focused and moving forward. This may be a result of a lack of agreement on what our purpose is.

More focused time on major issues. Avoid issue clutter.

2. How satisfied are you with the current level of between-meeting follow-up; i.e., the use of policy subgroup meetings, conference calls, etc.?

	Not Satisfied 1	2	3	Very Satisfied 4	N/R	Total
Follow-up by REO		1	8	5		14
Follow-up by IAC Members		4	6	2	2	14
Total	0	5	14	7	2	28

Comments or Recommendations:

I think the use of subgroups, etc., has improved our operation. I don't know about IAC members follow-up.

Policy subgroup idea is very good and seems to be working.

Way too much paper is coming from REO to IAC members. Because of volume, there is insufficient focus on truly critical issues.

3. It is difficult for any single meeting to meet the needs of all participants when the group is as diverse as the IAC, however, there may be opportunities to address members' interests more fully. What procedures (e.g, having counties, states, or tribes host specific meetings) or topics would you like to see incorporated in next year's IAC meetings to meet your needs and address your issues?

Closer connection with PACs--how are we helping or not helping. What can we do differently to help or should we just "get out of the way." Would like to reinforce that communication is a two-way street--many issues that effect forest planning are not being shared such as Tribal proposals for transfers; HCPs signed and underway; salmon/fish initiatives; counties' proposal to transfer lands; etc. Think focus for next year should be monitoring, GIS, putting adaptive management into action (how does it play out in land use planning processes); improving links between economic and ecosystem portions.

I would like to see the group move away from the nitty-gritty details of plan implementation and toward a broad look at how well the plan is meeting its objectives. To accomplish this, it would be helpful to take a programmatic look at various resources areas. This would also help educate your non-Federal partners. Finally, it is important for this group to explore working across ownership boundaries--coordinating, developing partnerships, improving communication. Also bring in social and economic discussions that are currently occurring at CERTs.

More on county, states, and tribes and how they are implementing NFP. More issues which involve the other Federal players instead of just the FS and BLM. More PAC involvement (perhaps get all PAC chairs to attend and devote ½-day to issues they have). More agenda time on implementation and effectiveness monitoring. More agenda time with RCERT agencies.

I think we need to start by asking if the IAC is structured appropriately to provide the advice that is sought. A recent example of an activity being worked outside of the IAC raises this question in my mind. Several Federal agencies have been working with each of the three states on a proposed MOU to improve conservation of Federal and state listed and candidate species (i.e., implementing the ESA on non-Federal lands). The regulation establishing the IAC lists as one of our roles, having discussion to further compliance with the ESA and its regulations. Obviously those behind this proposal saw a better way to promote it--going to each state individually. Maybe this tells us that the IAC is seen as a problem, too slow, and not a place to really make something happen. If this is so, maybe we should admit this and disband--we all have plenty of work to keep us busy. Or maybe it leads us to some ways to improve the IAC so it can provide a forum to work together on such proposals.

The bottom line is that I believe we need to have some serious discussion about what our purpose is and whether as currently constituted we are capable of living up to it.

As far as addressing members interests more fully, I think we need to focus on topics of general interest to as many members as possible. To date we have mostly focused on Federally initiated topics, things Federal agencies need to accomplish. We assume that having a discussion with the IAC means that we have met the mandate "to ensure that such activities (Federal and non-Federal) are complementary" that are key to promoting better integration of forest management. I'll be the first to admit that I haven't put the time into suggesting alternative topics, but broadening who "hosts" meetings is one approach to look at.

Meetings need improved facilitation to sharpen the target discussion. The real value to state and local government should be consultation on policy directions. While the Federal agencies may desire topic-by-topic critique of FEMAT, this is of little or no utility to their "partners."

Another problem is staff support for non-Feds--this can be alleviated by reorganizing minutes along topical lines and providing brief summaries of previous actions and suspension lists. Still need to address landscape issues involving non-Fed lands.

While I have missed both field trips, I strongly encourage the continuation of those types of meetings. I would like to have a discussion on how the IAC sees the long term future for the REO/IAC.

I believe that the government(s) we serve should have the opportunity to sponsor IAC meetings.

Perhaps some of the IAC scheduled meetings should be solely devoted to presentations from representatives or technical teams from government agencies the IAC serves or represents.

Meet once a year in each state--Washington, Oregon, California. Other meetings during the year, meet in Portland.

I'm satisfied with meeting structure.

Better connection between provincial and IAC groups. The usefulness of the provincial gets watered down if not used or planned on how input can be forwarded to IAC for interactive discussions.

Tribes and states have small role in technical assistance to the IAC form. Perhaps we should broaden the participation to include more from states and tribes.

Closer connection between economics and resources. Resource decisions affect economics for not only the land owner but others dependant on that resource. The economics should also be addressed as a part of the decision-making process.

I suggest at beginning of year strategic list of topics to deal with during the year so we can agree in beginning what we will follow on.

Shorter agendas, fewer topics, more strategic.

The IAC has been reluctant to engage on the salmon topic. Discussions on salmon have generally been deferred to the Pacific Salmon Coordinating Council forum, which is comprised only of Federal members. Given that: (1) states, tribes, and counties are major players in salmon conservation efforts; (2) salmon conservation efforts underway in California and Oregon are linked to expected Federal agency performance under the NFP; and (3) additional salmon are likely to be listed in the future; it would seem reasonable to look for opportunities for IAC-level collaboration and coordination of salmon conservation efforts associated with land management actions across all ownerships within the NFP area.

4. The IAC has had several discussions regarding the need to focus on policy issues and how much meeting time to devote to technical aspects related to Northwest Forest Plan implementation. What do you see as an appropriate balance between policy and technical discussions, and what are your suggestions for achieving that balance?

Very little time devoted to technical aspects--just enough to understand issue brought before us for policy decisions. Technical discussions should be handled at staff levels, working groups, REO. Screen issues by REO--utilize expertise of those REO staffers who have held line management type positions to see if issue is policy and should be brought forward. Some subjects we (IAC) just need to be informed of what is being worked on and why. Open ended questions to be IAC are seldom appropriate unless we decide that we want to have a brainstorming session.

This group should focus 90±% of its energies on policy. It does not have the expertise to delve into technical issues.

If a technical discussion is limited to 2 agencies to implementation then perhaps the item should be a status report and not a policy item. There should be more emphasis on policy and less on technical. Technical discussion should be handled by subcommittee with updates.

As part of our discussion about our purpose and how we answer question 3, I think we need to talk about keeping the IAC at the policy level. For your sake and ours I don't think IAC members should personally delve vary far into the technical--we should rely on REO staff and our staff who have the expertise to do the technical work. I think this is an area where careful meeting management and facilitation can help.

If IAC is to warrant the time of senior managers and policy advisors, it should be focus on policy discussions. Technical issues should be addressed by parallel "technical committees" or subcommittees to which agencies could send technical staffs.

RIEC members have large, dedicated staff and do much of leg work while non-feds do not. This will always be a problem and source of frustration for executives who want to focus on big picture issues until some means is found to facilitate involvement of non-feds in substantive development efforts by staff. Every other month meeting schedule doesn't help.

I suggest no more than 40% on technical issues, preferably 25%. It's a function of agenda setting and should be controlled by the Chair and IAC members involved in setting the agenda.

Technical discussions should not be intermingled with policy discussions or decisions.

$100,000 Federal support to enhance the technical ability of the states (Washington, Oregon, and California) and counties to facilitate the development of, and to review and comment on, agency proposals, as well as communicate state and county interests with the Forest Service and BLM and other IAC members.

There needs to be more policy discussion.

This is really based on what kind of issue we are examining. All things blend somewhat (legal, technical, and policy). But the balance is based on the character and size of the issue being considered.

Technical sessions should be limited to policies being addressed unless specifically requested as a topic by the IAC.

The technical should be purely support for policy decisions.

Greater focus on policy issues.

I am generally satisfied with the balance between policy and technical issues addressed by the IAC in the past. The use of technical workgroups with IAC member representation and the use of mid-management level policy groups (like the Watershed Analysis Policy Group) should be continued as a way to have extended technical and policy discussions outside of, yet in support of, IAC policy discussions.

5. Given the chartered purpose of the PACs (the purposes of the IAC and the PACs are very similar), the lack of a specified link between PACs and IAC (there is no direct connection between the IAC and PACs other than through internal communication links or line relationship of some of the members), and the differences in membership composition (there is non-government representation on the PACs), to what extent are the PACs meeting your expectations, and what topics would you like the IAC to address with respect to PACs?

PACs vary in meeting expectations--some seem to be working very well together and in an interagency manner--engaging the various entities represented on the PACs. Think we should ask PACs for suggestions on what they think IAC might address this FY--with a starting point of our ideas on priorities and rationales for those priorities.

It would be helpful to dedicate one meeting a year entirely to PACs, asking for a report on what PACs need to function more efficiently. Reps from PACs and the IAC should plan objectives, the implementation structure, and critical issues not covered by the plan.

There is no formal reporting system from PACs to IAC so it is hard to know what PACs are doing. I would like to know from PACs: (1) What are common barriers to implementation, (2) Relationship between PACs and CERTs, (3) What is working and what isn't working, and (4) How do PACs feel about IAC.

From what I hear, each PAC is operating in its own way to receive input, but not necessarily going anywhere with it. In general, we think the PACs are too large and their mandate too general to accomplish much--perhaps the best summary is that some of the PACs haven't defined a useful niche for themselves in light of all the other groups that meet. Some have tried or currently are trying to define their purpose with varying levels of success. The comments I received covered the spectrum from "disband" to "after 2 years I'm starting to see the usefulness." One person said that the real action is in state and local planning efforts and the Federal agencies are involved with those so the PAC is not necessary.

Agency staff see little or no value in the PACs and are on the verge of discontinuing participation. Unless major re-evaluation is given to the objectives of the IAC and the PACs and, conscious attention given to their interrelationship it is unclear how active state government will be in future committee activities.

Better linking between PACs and R/SCERT activities.

I would like to see some formal evaluation of the individual PAC's success. I am led to believe some are working better than others, but I am not sure that is true and if true, why it's true.

There is a lack of information on past achievements, successes, problems, issues, etc.

It would be helpful to have a PAC give a report to the IAC membership at regular meetings.

A better question would be: What do the PAC's want the IAC to deal with that we are not dealing with now, if anything?

A collective summary of PAC issues needs to be regularly part of the IAC meetings. Coordination of what the collection and hot points are needs to be reviewed and presented by someone (REO?) before each IAC meeting. I really support developing or defining this connection better in 1997.

The PACs are very different in what they feel their scope is. There should be some feedback between the two bodies. The PACs should forward regional concerns to the IAC and the IAC should be able to get feedback from some or all of the PACs on specific issues.

A survey of some other PAC members suggests that some PACs are not meeting our expectations. As a result, our PAC members have placed a low priority on participating in the PAC forums.

One expectation is that the PACs would be a forum where watershed/fish restoration priorities would be established for river basins and watersheds within the province to ensure that limited restoration funds from multiple sources (Federal and non-Federal) were used most efficiently. In fact, this role of the province teams was agreed to by the IAC/RIEC members when interagency restoration policies were adopted in December 1993 and October 1994. We expected that PACs would provide an effective forum to coordinate Federal and non-Federal salmon conservation efforts within the province; e.g., coordination with local watershed councils. Finally, we expected that PACs would serve as a clearinghouse for technical information and provide an efficient coordination forum to discuss the myriad activities, projects, and etcetera that occur within a given province.

These expectations have generally not been realized. Instead, our members report that the PACs are essentially a public relations forum whereby information on FS and BLM. activities are shared with other PAC members. Discussions during PAC meetings are not specific or technical in nature, but rather general and directed to members of the public. Agendas for PAC meetings seem to focus on specific actions proposed by the FS and BLM. There does not appear to be a concerted effort in some PACs to develop consensus positions or to be responsive to concerns identified by other PAC members.

We recommend that the IAC consider strengthening their linkage to the PACs. Specifically, the IAC should develop direction to the PACs, identifying, at a minimum, roles and expectations that were established in the NFP ROD and in previous decisions by the IAC that have not been followed through (e.g., roles and responsibilities for interagency implementing structures, monitoring, restoration, provincial analysis, etc.). The REO should be able to review previous documents and RIEC/IAC decisions to identify these previously established roles and expectations.

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: December 5, 1996

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

Topic: Final Draft: Results of the FY 1996 Implementation Monitoring Program Report.

Issue Statement: The Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) is requested to review and comment on the final draft report. Following concurrence on the report, proposed for the December IAC meeting, it will be transmitted to the agencies for their evaluation and potential follow-up management actions.

Background: Following review of the draft implementation monitoring plan (dated May 30, 1995) and subsequent guidance from the July IAC meeting, the implementation monitoring approach was revised. The major principles of the revised approach were: (1) focus on completion stages of projects/activities, (2) integration with existing agency systems to identify projects/activities for monitoring, (3) prioritization of projects/activities into categories with differing amounts of sampling and review efforts, (4) development of a pilot annual report, and (5) initiation of implementation monitoring and reporting for a pilot with FY 1995 timber sales. 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 (S&Gs). These reviews were conducted by agency personnel-led Provincial Implementation Monitoring Teams (PIMTs), comprised of agency, Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC), and private citizens. A regional implementation monitoring team provided guidance and has prepared the summary report of the findings and recommendations for next year's monitoring efforts. The first draft of this regional report was reviewed by the provincial implementation monitoring teams and some additional reviewers. The current final draft reflects the evaluation and incorporation of those comments. Initial analysis of the PIMTs findings indicates that overall, the Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are consistently implementing the ROD S&Gs that apply to timber sales. In some instances there is room for improvement in the documentation process and interpretation. The results, however, clearly indicate that strong efforts to meet the intent of the NFP within the timber sale program are occurring throughout the region. Although difficult to quantify, careful reading of the PIMTs reports and team participant's critiques reveal that the relationships among participating agencies and with the public were strengthened by the struggle to interpret, then answer, the monitoring questions for each sale. Team members were impressed by the thoroughness and care that typically go into planning FS and BLM timber sales.

The draft report presents the results of the review process and for the timber sale projects. The report provides summaries of the responses for (1) individual questions, (2) questions associated with land use classifications, (3) questions associated with selected S&G areas, and (4) all questions. The initial summation of all the "yes" versus "no" responses to questions regarding conformance with the S&Gs was found to be difficult to interpret. A more detailed analysis of three areas (S&Gs for riparian reserves, coarse woody debris, and snags) aggregated the questions to examine the degree that timber sale projects fully met those S&Gs. The report also contains statistical confidence limits for the estimated percentages of the regional population of timber sales in the summary categories. Based on this year's experience, recommendations are included in the report to improve the implementation monitoring program in the future. Further development of specific guidance dealing with salvage, snags and green tree retention, and coarse woody debris for each province as recommended in the ROD (C-14) is also recommended. For FY 1997, three priority topics for implementation monitoring are recommended: (1) timber sales, (2) roads, and (3) restoration projects. On November 14, a conference call was held to provide an initial briefing on the draft report. The presentation focused on a brief overview of the draft report. One question was raised concerning the large number of "not applicable" responses as summarized in the report. These responses were primarily the result of the review teams designating the "not applicable" category when the S&G was not relevant to the timber sale; e.g., LSR specific S&Gs when reviewing a matrix timber sale. Alternatives to summarize such circumstances will be explored for the FY 1997 report.

Analysis and Options: IAC members and interested parties were requested to review and provide comments by November 29. The review comments will be summarized and presented during the December IAC meeting, at which time the IAC will be asked to approve the report. Following the December IAC meeting, the final report will be submitted to the FS and BLM for follow-up. If management direction to change timber sale procedures is developed by the agencies following review of the report, it will be shared with the IAC in the future.

REO Staff Proposal: The IAC discuss and concur with the final draft report. The action agencies will develop management direction, if appropriate, following review of the report and share that direction with the IAC.

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

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: December 5, 1996

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

Topic: Draft Proposal for the FY 1997 Implementation Monitoring Tasks.

Issue Statement: Numerous references are made to the importance of monitoring to support the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP). This Agenda Topic Overview addresses the proposed tasks for Implementation Monitoring for FY 1997. The IAC will be asked to provide a recommendation on the scope for the FY 1997 efforts at the December IAC meeting.

Background: During FY 1996 the agencies conducted a pilot implementation monitoring effort that selected and reviewed 45 timber sales. The results of that effort are presented in the Final Draft: Results of the FY 1996 Implementation Monitoring Program. As part of that effort, recommendations were solicited from the review teams and the Provincial Advisory Committees (PACs). In addition to summarizing those recommendations, the final draft report identifies the top three priority areas for FY 1997: (1) timber sales, (2) roads, and (3) restoration projects. The approach to implementation monitoring that was evaluated in the pilot was based on the following principles: (1) organization and facilitation by a Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management Regional Implementation Monitoring Team (RIMT), (2) selection of projects for review based on a statistical sub-sample of all projects, (3) development of a questionnaire to help guide and focus the review process, (4) review and reporting on individual projects by interagency Provincial Implementation Monitoring Teams (PIMT) that included public participation, and (5) a regional analysis and reporting of results. Several recommendations for enhancements and increasing efficiencies resulted from the pilot effort and should be incorporated into the FY 1997 efforts.

Analysis and Options: The first option to consider is how many of the recommended areas to implement in FY 1997. During the FY 1996 efforts, timber sales and roads were clearly of the greatest interest and priority. Restoration projects were of high interest, but perhaps not equal to the first two topics. Less consensus existed on a fourth priority topic. It is recommended that the FY 1997 implementation monitoring program address these three areas: timber sales, roads, and restoration projects. The second option to consider is whether to continue the approach evaluated during the FY 1996 pilot. Other potential approaches could be developed that focus on provincial levels (i.e., without the RIMT), greater stratification, selection of a smaller sub-population of sales, or with a different number or composition of reviewers. However, it is recommended that the regional scale continue to be the primary objective of the FY 1997 implementation monitoring effort. Within the option of continuing the statistical approach evaluated during the pilot, there are options for sample size and stratification. The pilot did not stratify timber sales (i.e., only the regional population). Other options include stratifying by land allocation (matrix, LSR, etc.),

sale objectives (salvage, thinning, regeneration) or size. Based on the pilot results it is recommended that the timber sales be stratified by sale size, placing more emphasis on larger sales. However, it is not recommended that additional strata be created and sampled to provide explicit estimates for all land allocation categories. A 10 percent sample (40-60 sales) is recommended as the sample size for the FY 1997 program, based on the assertion that the uncertainties associated with the FY 1996 estimates are acceptable. For the implementation monitoring of roads it is recommended that the efforts be designed patterned on the FY 1996 timber sale pilot. Such an effort would develop an approach that supported a statistical sample of roads and provided regional results. Alternatives to the regional lists of projects, as was done for timber sales, should be evaluated for identifying the population and supporting the sampling. Some potential examples for consideration are: fifth field watersheds and organizational units; e.g., Forest or District. Categories of roads and activities should be considered; i.e., permanent, semi-permanent (in-place more than one season, but removed after sale activity finished), and temporary (in place less than 1 year); or construction, re-construction, maintenance, and decommissioning. Sample size should be selected to provide levels of uncertainty similar to the FY 1996 pilot results. Restoration project implementation monitoring should also be developed based on the approach used in the FY 1996 pilot. Key to the success of this approach will be the development of a sampling scheme, approaches similar to that outlined for roads, above, should be evaluated. The review effort should place greater emphasis on the larger projects and less on smaller less complex projects.

Organizational/Funding Implications: The organizational implications of implementing monitoring for the three priority areas occurs at three levels. At the regional level, this approach requires a RIMT that is adequately staffed with qualified staff. At the provincial level, review teams, with participation from all agency's staff and open to the public and interested parties, will need to be staffed, organized, and supported. The project staff associated with the reviews will need to be available and prepared to facilitate the reviews. Further, the process of evaluating the information and developing a regional report should be supported. Finally, there is an expectation that the provincial report will be reviewed and appropriate management action based on the findings. Based on the costs associated with the FY 1996 effort and assuming as equivalent level of effort for each areas, the FY 1997 effort for the three areas can be expected to cost in the range of $800,000 to $1,000,000. Alternative options could serve to reduce that cost through reduction in scope, effort or potential efficiencies from combining the monitoring efforts.

REO Staff Proposal: The proposal for the FY 1997 implementation monitoring program is to conduct activities in the three areas; timber sales, roads, and restoration. The proposed level of effort is to be determined, and further guidance is needed. We recommend that a policy subgroup meeting be convened at the appropriate time, if needed, to discuss the content and "how to" associated with the FY 1997 implementation monitoring proposal. The major constraints on the level of effort appear to agency staff time at both the regional and local level and financial resources for conducting the reviews.

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

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: December 5, 1996

Sponsor: Regional Ecosystem Office Contact/Phone: Curt Loop 503-326-7002

Topic: Discuss the status of the Planning Grant Proposal and take final action on the remaining Joint Planning Team (JPT) recommendations from the September 19 combined Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) and Regional Community Economic Revitalization Team (RCERT) meeting.

Issue Statement: There are two issues, the first is to review the discussion and outline plans about the Planning Grant Proposal and to close the unresolved IAC Agreements (5) and Follow-up Actions (3) from the September 19 combined IAC and RCERT meeting. The second issue is to discuss and agree on a set of principles for integrating economic and ecological issues.

Background: At the close of the September 19 combined IAC and RCERT meeting, the REO was directed to organize a small group of people to develop a draft planning grant proposal. The purpose of the planning grant proposal was to fund the creation of a local community/non-governmental group to encourage and support local interests in the development of mutually agreed upon outcomes and an implementation strategy for watershed- and community-based efforts. Six people were assembled to formulate the proposal, which was subsequently distributed to the co-chairs of the JPT for comments. The updated planning grant proposal was then included with the agenda and prework materials for the November 14 IAC and RCERT conference call. One day before the conference call, we received word that the intended grantor was withdrawing its support for the proposal. Conversations with the grantor verified that they did not wish to pursue this project. This event greatly changed the direction intended by the IAC and RCERT. Three alternative strategies were formulated and faxed to IAC, RCERT, and JPT members for discussion during the conference call. The three operational strategies involved two variations of pursuing a planning grant option and a new alternative to develop guiding, overarching policy principles which could be agreed upon by the senior level executives and would guide lower level, more detailed activities. In support of this third alternative, several policy principles or tenets were offered for discussion (Enclosure). During the conference call, it was agreed that pursuing the planning grant proposal had little possibility of being successful and that further work in this direction should be discontinued. It was the consensus of the participants that developing a set of policy principles which would serve as an umbrella to guide other agreements and activities offered the greatest opportunity of incorporating the needs and interests of the communities in achieving IAC and RCERT integration objectives. Greg Blomstrom, a member of the JPT, raised the issue that the 5 IAC Agreements and 3 Follow-up Actions from the September 19 meeting needed closure.

Analysis and Options: As a result of the withdrawal of funding support and the conference call discussion, it was agreed that further efforts to develop a planning grant proposal would be discontinued. Following the discussion of the enclosed policy principles, it was also agreed that all agencies would review these principles for possible development and adoption of a set of overarching policy principles to guide IAC, RCERT, and community activities in achieving their integration objectives. It was mentioned that the adoption of a set of principles by the IAC could be a valid response to the letter signed by the Governors from the three states. Greg Blomstrom raised a concern that the 8 IAC agreements and follow-up Actions from the September 19 IAC and RCERT meeting were not finalized and needed closure. The REO agreed to work with Greg and present these 8 items at the December 5 IAC meeting for final action. The following are the five IAC Agreements from the September 19 Issue Summary 1. The IAC and the RCERT took no action on the funding proposals except to agree that there exists no intention to adversely impact county revenues. 2. The IAC took no action to abolish the RCERT. The IAC noted there are value and benefits derived in the region from the RCERT, that this proposal issue was beyond the purview of the IAC, and that this recommendation does not support the goal of enhancing or achieving the economic and ecological outcomes of the NFP. 3. It was agreed that the REO would assemble a small team and work with the agencies to develop a grant proposal which would request nonprofit foundation funding for a planning group to develop the concept of a "network." The planning grant proposal will be distributed to IAC and RCERT members. The IAC members will discuss the planning grant proposal during their November 14 conference call. 4. As a result of the discussion surrounding O&C County revenues, the JPT was requested to amend the appropriate Funding recommendations. 5. No action was taken on the recommendation to dissolve the Joint Planning Team. The 3 Follow-up Actions from the September 19 Issue Summary are: 1. The JPT will revise their recommendations so as to reflect the intentions of the IAC and RCERT not to adversely impact county revenues. 2. The REO will develop a draft version of a planning grant proposal in October 1996 and distribute it prior to November 14. 3. IAC and RCERT members are requested to provide their comments by October 7 (including clarifications and additions of deletions) concerning the JPT presentation and recommendations which are not captured in the Issue Summary.

The following is a brief discussion of each agreement and action: 1. IAC Agreements #1 and #4: In subsequent discussions with Rocky McVay, President of the Association of O & C Counties, substitute language was provided which stated "It is not the intention of the Joint Planning Team to put forth any proposals that would reduce county timber receipt revenues. Nothing in these proposals should be construed as having a negative impact on county revenues." Rocky McVay agreed with the language and indicated that the counties would send out another letter to the Congressional delegation stating their satisfaction with this addition.

2. IAC Agreements #2 and #5: There has been no further discussion by the IAC with regard to recommending termination of the RCERT or abolishment of the JPT. 3. IAC Agreement #3: The REO assembled a team to develop a draft planning grant proposal which was mailed to IAC and RCERT members. The events mentioned above have discontinued any further activity on this effort. 4. Follow-up Action #1: See IAC Agreements #1 and #4 above. 5. Follow-up Action #2: See IAC Agreements #2 and #5 above. 6. Follow-up Action #3: No additional comments have been received.

Organizational/Funding Implications: There are no funding implications involved with these actions.

REO Staff Proposal: For discussion: IAC members were requested to review the enclosed policy principles and be prepared to discuss them at the December 5 IAC meeting. If acceptable, a set of policy principles will be developed and adopted by the members of the IAC. For decision: It is recommended: 1. That the language added to the JPT recommendation (indicating there was never any intention that county timber revenues be reduced be) accepted and IAC Agreements #1 and #4 and Follow-up Action #1 be closed. 2. That no action be taken to recommend the abolishment of the RCERT, and that IAC Agreement #2 be closed. 3. That, since the planning grant proposal effort has been discontinued, IAC Agreement #3 and Follow-up Action #2 be closed. 4. That, since no further comments have been received to update the September 19 Issue Summary, Follow-up Action #3 be closed. 5. That, since the JPT has completed its task, certificates of appreciation be prepared for the JPT members, the JPT be dissolved, and IAC Agreement #5 be closed.

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

 

The following policy principles have frequently been voiced in various discussions concerning a common vision to achieve ecological and economic objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan. They are offered here for review and possible adoption at the December 5 IAC meeting.

a. Agencies agree to promote and support a land-based and community-based effort for watershed restoration.

b. Agencies will designate a policy level person to assist land-based and community-based efforts.

c. Agencies acknowledge and endorse grant funding for community-based support to assist this effort.

d. All participants (agencies, tribes, communities, etc.) must develop and strive to achieve a set of mutually agreed upon outcomes.

e. Land-based and community-based efforts must be focused on achieving the mutually agreed upon outcomes. They must also have the flexibility to implement and test new methods of operation.

f. All parties seek to improve current conditions of watersheds to restore habitat and provide long-term protection to aquatic and riparian resources.

g. It is recognized that watershed health and vitality depend on all partners working together, collaboratively developing an overall assessment of the watershed, setting mutual goals and objectives, and coordinating implementation of protection, management, and restoration efforts.

h. It is recognized that health of watersheds includes and must respond to the social and economic needs and issues of the people of the watershed.

i. All parties recognize that success in accomplishing and maintaining watershed health must be achieved at the local level, involving communities and all interested stakeholders.

j. It is acknowledged that solutions and opportunities vary community by community, and watershed by watershed, and thus must be designed and catered according to the local needs, desires, and opportunities.

Enclosure 11/26/97

Action Topic Overview

Meeting Date: December 5, 1996

Sponsor: Regional Ecosystem Office Contact /Phone: Jim Milestone, 503-326-6270

Topic: A status report and two proposals regarding Adaptive Management Areas.

Issue Statement: 1. Should the IAC accept the recommendations of the REO to charter a work group to review individual AMA plans? Should this be an internal REO work group, or interagency effort including REO staff? 2. Should the IAC accept the REO's recommendations for AMA Plan Review as outlined in the REO criteria memo Review of Adaptive Management Area Plans? (See attached memo).

Background: The Northern Coast Range Adaptive Management Area (FS & BLM) requested the REO to review their new guide this past July. This was the first formal review request the REO had received. The review has since been completed and a response returned. The Northern Coast Range AMA request began a series of REO discussions regarding the role of the REO in reviewing AMA plans. The ROD (D-8) states the role of the REO as follows: "This review will help assure that the plans and projects developed for the various Adaptive Management Areas will be both scientifically and ecologically credible. It will assure that new, innovative approaches are used, that the laws and goals of the plan are met, and that validation monitoring is incorporated. The Regional Ecosystem Office will facilitate and coordinate the implementation of the Adaptive Management Area program." Over the past few months, the REO has developed a memo outlining what criteria is necessary to meet the requirements for AMA plans as explained in the ROD. This memo, when approved by the IAC, will be used as the minimum standard guidelines for all AMA plans. Since July, the REO has begun to establish relationships with AMA coordinators, scientists and area managers from both the FS and the BLM. REO representatives recently attended the AMA Coordinators meeting in Sweet Home, Oregon. Based on discussions with these key people and recent surveys of AMA programs, this time is opportune to develop a work group to flush out key issues and concerns regarding the development and promotion of the AMA program. Analogous to the Late Successional Reserve Work Group, we propose establishing a work group to review AMA plans. The work group would (1) review AMA plans, (2) assist in defining and interpreting ROD requirements for AMA processes and policies, and (3) encourage innovation throughout the AMAs.

Analysis and Options: Charter Work Group Proposal: The REO's proposal for a chartered work group would help provide a quality review process of individual AMA plans. A work group would provide a broad background of expertise and a consistent interpretation of AMA plan requirements.

The REO would like to find ways to further support the AMA program. The work group could address key points that the AMA managers and scientists find discouraging or restrictive. The work group could be used to recommend ways to resolve conflicting interpretations found in the ROD regarding AMAs and address the complex issue of Standards and Guidelines application associated with AMA management. We have a number of ways to establish the work group. The work group could be developed using agency representatives in the REO. We could develop a work group from a broader pool of people assembled from field and Regional Federal staff in Washington, Oregon, and California. We could also add local, state, and tribal members to our AMA work group. The AMA Criteria Memo: The REO has developed a memo which proposes criteria to be used in reviewing AMA plans. The memo synthesizes many different ROD requirements regarding AMA plans. The paper has been reviewed internally by the REO, AMA scientists and AMA coordinators with both the FS and the BLM. The ROD states, "All Adaptive Management Areas will have a plan (ROD, D-7)." The ROD list ten key elements for AMA plans, they include: 1. Shared Vision of the AMA 2. Learning 3. Strategy to guide Implementation Restoration, Monitoring, and Experimental Activities 4. Timber Sale Plan 5. Education 6. Involved Communities 7. Inventory of Community Strategy 8. Coordination of Activities 9. Funding Strategy 10. Integration A detailed explanation of the document will be circulated at the IAC meeting. It is assumed that the AMA work group would further develop the memo and apply it, when final, to submitted plans.

Other Information regarding AMAs: We have attached a number of other informational items relating to AMAs. 1. AMA Status Matrix: The REO, with assistance from all ten AMA representatives and agency coordinators, has developed a matrix displaying the current status of AMA planning and implementation of programs (Appendix A). The AMA status matrix shows: Most AMAs are currently developing their AMA plans. Most AMAs are completing their Watershed Analysis and numerous social, economic and biophysical area assessments. Most AMAs have their Technical Advisory Committee developed, some are using their PACs to fill this role. Research and Monitoring programs are underway in all AMAs. A total of 260 research projects are underway throughout the ten AMAs. Restrictions of S&Gs are primary concerns in the AMAs. While some AMAs have established good constituent relationships, stakeholders and research work, other AMAs are not as far advanced. Some region-wide issues are affecting AMAs, such as the issue of utilization of small diameter trees, riparian reserves and course woody debris requirements. AMAs associated with Experimental Forest and Research Stations appear to be far advanced in monitoring and research programs over those further physically removed from such resources. 2. A list of AMAs: AMAs were established throughout the region. Enclosed is an abbreviated summary from the ROD for each. 3. List of AMA Scientists and Coordinators: Each AMA has a designated coordinator and lead scientist. Enclosed is a directory. 4. Regional Map with AMA Locations. 5. A Draft Charter for the AMA Work Group. 6. The Draft REO Proposed Criteria for Review of AMA Plans.

REO Staff Proposal: The REO recommends the establishment of an interagency work group to review AMA plans and support AMA operations. The REO also recommends that the criteria from the ROD (as reflected in the REO criteria memo) be used by the work group to review AMA plans.

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

Adaptive Management Areas

Learning to Manage & Managing to Learn

1. Olympic.
A 125,000 acre area scattered throughout the Olympic National Forest. Objectives for the Olympic AMA include the development of techniques for increasing the diversity of managed forest and stream habitats and merging social and economic objectives with habitat development practices, largely through the use of innovative silvicultural approaches.

2. Cispus.
A 143,000 acre forest tract near Randle, Morton, and Packwood, Washington in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Cispus AMA emphasizes innovative management of landscapes and watersheds to provide for high quality timber, mature forest ecosystems, aquatic and riparian functions, and recreation opportunities. Management is responsive to the role of people in landscapes and promotes social science research.

3. North Coast Range.
A 250,000 acre area on the Siuslaw National Forest and the Salem District of the BLM. The North Coast AMA emphasizes restoration and maintenance of mature forest habitat. Potential collaborative efforts with the Oregon Department of Forestry, researchers, tribal, and local governments are designed to develop a strategy for the conservation of fisheries and other biodiversity in the northern Oregon Coast Range.

4. Central Cascades.
A 158,000 acre area on BLM and Forest Service lands that includes portions of the South Santiam, Calapooia, and McKenzie watersheds in the Cascade mountains. The Central Cascades AMA focuses on bringing together researchers, communities, and resource managers to answer social and biophysical questions at the ecosystem and landscape level. This area has a long history of cooperative efforts between researchers and land managers at the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest.

5. Little River.
A 91,800 acre site situated on the Umpqua National Forest and the Roseburg District of the BLM. Little River's primary focus is the development of approaches to integration of intensive timber production with restoration and maintenance of high quality riparian habitat.

6. Applegate.
A 324,680 acre area in southwestern Oregon and northern California which lies within the 500,000 acre Applegate watershed, of which 30 percent is in private ownership. It includes lands managed by the Rogue River National Forest, the Siskiyou National Forest and the Medford District of the BLM. The Applegate AMA emphasizes developing and testing a variety of practices for sustainable forests and communities.

7. Goosenest.
A 172,900 acre area located on the Klamath National Forest. The Goosenest AMA focuses on development of ecosystem management approaches for managing pine forests, including objectives related to forest health, production and maintenance of mature forest, riparian habitat, and timber.

8. Hayfork.
A 350,000 acre area made up of BLM lands and parts of the Trinity and Six Rivers National Forests. The Hayfork AMA focuses on the development of innovative approaches to natural resources management, including timber production, maintenance of mature forests and quality riparian habitat, and the development of new social and economic relationships between communities and forests.

9. Snoqualmie Pass.
A 212,700 acre mountainous area east of North Bend and west of Cle Elem along I-90 where checkerboard ownership prevails. The major emphasis of the Snoqualmie Pass AMA is providing mature forests and connective habitat for species moving north and south.

10. Finney.
A 98,400 acre mountainous area about 35 miles south of Canada. Extensive clear-cutting and roading have resulted in significant damage to fisheries resources and water quality. The primary emphasis of Finney AMA is restoration of old-growth forests and riparian habitat.

Olympic AMA

Coordinator:
Ward Hoffman
Olympic National Forest
1835 Black Lake Blvd. SW
Olympia,WA 98512
360/956-2375

Scientist: Andrew Carey
Forest Sciences Lab
3625 93rd Ave. SW
Olympia,WA 98512
360/753-7688

Cispus AMA

Coordinator:
Margaret McHugh
Gifford Pinchot Ntl.Forest
10024 US Hwy. 12, Box 670
Randle,WA 98377
360/497-7565

Scientist: Jim Weigand
PNW Research Station
P.O. Box 3890
Portland, OR 97208-3890
503/321-5905

North Coast Range AMA

Coordinator: Nancy Craft
Siuslaw National Forest
31525 Highway 22
Hebo, OR 97122
503/392-3161

Coordinator: Warren Tausch
BLM Tillamook Resource Area
4610 Third St.
Tillamook, OR 97141
503/815-1100

Coordinator: Belle Verbics
BLM
1717 Fabry Road SE
Salem, OR 97306
503/375-5646

Scientist: Andy Gray
Forestry Sciences Lab
3200 Jefferson Way
Corvallis, OR 97331
541/375-5646

Central Cascades AMA

Coordinator: Diana Bus
BLM
P.O. Box 10226
Eugene, OR 97440-2226
541/683-6633

Scientist: Fred Swanson
Forestry Sciences Lab
3200 Jefferson Way
Corvallis, OR 97331
541/750-7355

Little River AMA

Coordinator:
Barbara Fontaine
Umpqua National Forest
N. Umpqua Ranger Dist.
Glide, OR 97443
541/496-3532

Coordinator:
Dayne Barron
BLM, Roseburg District
777 NW Garden
Valley Blvd.
Roseburg, OR 97470
541/440-4931

Scientist: Mark Huff
PNW Research Station
P.O. 3890
Portland, OR 97208-3890
503/326-2376

Applegate AMA

Coordinator: Su Rolle
BLM, Medford District
3040 Biddle Road
Medford, OR 97504
541/770-2248

Scientist: Mike Amaranthus
Forestry Sciences Lab &
Siskiyou National Forest
200 NE Greenfield Road
P.O. Box 440
Grants Pass, OR 97526
541/471-6581

Goosenest AMA

Coordinator: Tom Farmer
Klamath National Forest
37805 Hwy 97
Macdoel, CA 96058
916/398-4391

Scientists: Kathy Harcksen
PSW Research Station
Silvicultural Laboratory
2400 Washington Ave.
Redding, CA 96001
916/246-5455

Hayfork AMA

Coordinators: Julia Riber & John Veevaert
Shasta-Trinity Ntl. Forest
P.O. Box 1190
Weaverville, CA 96093
916/623-2121

Scientist: Kathy Harcksen
PSW Research Station
Silviculture Laboratory
2400 Washington Ave.
Redding, CA 96001
916/246-5455

Snoqualmie Pass AMA

Coordinator:
Vladimir Steblina
Wenatchee National Forest
P.O. Box 811
Wenachee, WA 98807
509/662-4335

Coordinator: Joe Iozzi
Mt. Baker Snoqualmie
National Forest
2I905 64th Ave West
Mt. Lake Terrace, WA
98043-2278
206/744-3282

Scientist: John Lehmkuhl
Forest Sciences Lab
1133 N. Western Ave.
Wenachee, WA 98801
509/662-4315

Finney AMA

Coordinator: Joe Iozzi
Mt. Baker Snoqualmie
National Forest
21905 64th Ave West
Mt. Lake Terrace, WA
98043-2278
206/744-3282

Scientist: Joe NcNeel
Forest Sciences Lab
4043 Roosevelt Way NE
Seattle, WA 98105
206/685-0883

CHARTER

Group Name: Adaptive Management Area Work Group

Date: December 5, 1996

Purpose: The Adaptive Management Area Work Group will: Review AMA plans. Recommend definitions and interpretations for Record of Decision (ROD) requirements for AMA processes and policies. Encourage innovation throughout AMAs. Scope: The AMA Work Group will have two primary tasks: Organize a Work Group to review AMA plans. Develop a clear, concise interpretation of ROD Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) as they apply to AMAs. Timeline: Prepare AMA plan reviews as individual AMAs submit their plans to the REO. Prepare interpretation and clarification of ROD S&Gs by June 1997. Membership: Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and other intergovernmental or agency representatives yet to be determined. Meeting Schedule: TBD Leadership: Jim F. Milestone, NPS REO Representative Project Teams: TBD Funding: NA Relationship to REO, Organizations, and IAC: Coordination with the Research and Monitoring Committee and other work groups as needed. Statement of Success: Interagency and intergovernmental concurrence has been achieved regarding "how S&Gs apply to AMAs", and on other ROD based issues requiring issue resolution. The AMA Work Group will have reviewed all ten AMA plans submitted to the REO. ROD S&Gs specifically developed for AMAs are fully understood and formal interpretations have been accepted by AMA Coordinators and managers.

 

Regional Ecosystem Office

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

DRAFT DRAFT

Memorandum

Date: November 26, 1996

To: Robert W. Williams, Regional Forester, Forest Service, R-6
G. Lynn Sprague, Regional Forester, Forest Service, R-5
Elaine Y. Zielinski, State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington
Tom Mills, Station Director, Pacific Northwest Research Station
James Space, Station Director, Pacific Southwest Research Station
Ed Hastey, State Director, Bureau of Land Management, California

From: Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director

Subject: Review of Adaptive Management Area Plans

The purpose of this memorandum is to help clarify proposed Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan's (NFP) Record of Decision (ROD) requirement on page D-8, for the REO review of Adaptive Management Area (AMA) plans. The staff at the REO has held extensive discussions concerning our role and review of Adaptive Management Area plans. These discussions have focused on clarifying our role as described in the ROD (D-8):

"This review will help assure that the plans and projects developed for the various Adaptive Management Areas will be both scientifically and ecologically credible. It will assure that new, innovative approaches are used, that the laws and goals of the plan are met, and that validation monitoring is incorporated.

The Regional Ecosystem Office will facilitate and coordinate the implementation of the Adaptive Management Area program. Federal agencies are expected to use the Adaptive Management Areas to explore new ways of working internally and externally."

It is the intention of the REO, not to serve as gate keepers, but to facilitate and coordinate the AMA Program, by assisting the AMAs as needed, to most effectively manage these special areas. The REO views AMAs as unique areas where researchers can work together with management to meet an area's specific goals and objectives. AMAs are encouraged to develop and test new approaches for integration and achievement of ecological, economic, and social objectives. These innovative approaches, where appropriate, could then be shared and applied to other areas to meet the NFP objectives.

It is our view that the REO could assist AMAs in these following ways:

Regional Foresters, State Directors, Station Directors 2

Furthermore, the REO views the entire AMA program at the forefront of how the Federal government should conduct its land management business. This opinion is based on the four cornerstones that AMAs are built upon: adaptive management, partnerships, ecosystem management, and creating sustainable forests and communities. For these reasons, our reviews will be flexible in response to plan differences, and we will continue to encourage innovation and reasoned risk taking.

While there is no schedule outlining due dates for AMAs to produce their respective plans, the ROD does indicate that AMA plans will be completed as activities get underway (ROD, D-5&6). We interpret this to mean that plans will be completed for AMAs during the next few years. The ROD also implies that the status (or level of completion) of the AMA plan should be consistent with the magnitude of proposed activities at any given point in time. That is, the information and level of detail in the AMA plan should be sufficient to support discussions on proposed projects. After initial review of an AMA plan by the REO, subsequent reviews would be necessary only if Standards and Guidelines are proposed for change or significant new information for a plan is developed.

Review Criteria

The ROD states, "All Adaptive Management Areas will have a plan (ROD, D-7)." Whether it is called a plan, a guide, or some other title, the document should, at a minimum, address and provide information on the ten criteria listed on page D-7. The information provided should be presented at a level sufficient to make decisions envisioned by the plan and flexible enough to be tailored to new information that is developed over time. The ten elements include:

1. Shared Vision of the AMA: Identification of the desired future conditions may be developed in collaboration with communities, depending on the area. This section should reflect the general objectives outlined in D-12 thru D-16 of the ROD for each respective AMA. Descriptions could include what the AMA will look like 50 years from now, how the AMA will function and perhaps describe what major restoration and partnership efforts are being proposed. It is appropriate to point out here, that the AMA objectives found in the ROD (D-12 thru D-16) are starting points and could be modified if a better or more suited emphasis is developed by the stakeholders.

2. Learning: This includes social, economic, and political knowledge in addition to biological and physical information. This section could include descriptions of research work needed to accomplish AMA goals and objectives. The plan could describe what research is currently going on in the province, and delineate which research projects are relevant to the goals and objectives of the AMA.

3. Strategy to guide Implementation Restoration, Monitoring, and Experimental Activities: This section could suggest or describe how the monitoring plan will be established, what will be monitored, who will run the monitoring program and how the validation monitoring program will be developed. This section could describe the various types of restoration projects being considered to address problems specific to the AMA. This section could also discuss the AMA's interdisciplinary technical advisory panel that is providing advice to managers and to local communities involved in this planning effort.

In reference to monitoring, we will look for a strategy to apply implementation, effectiveness, and validation monitoring to meet the basic objectives of the ROD's Standards and Guidelines. We believe it is important to have an AMA monitoring and evaluation plan that is sufficiently sensitive to detect relevant ecological changes.

Regional Foresters, State Directors, Station Directors 3

4. Timber Sale Plan: A short-term (3-5 year) timber sale plan and long-term yield projection should be included. Simple matrix type charts can be used outlining proposed locations of timber sales, specific timber treatments, and projected volume. This criteria can also discuss the AMA's strategy for ecosystem management as part of the plan to guide implementation, restoration, monitoring, and experimental activities involving timber sales. A schedule describing when individual watersheds will have their analysis completed, would complement the schedule for short-term timber sale projections.

5. Education: Education of participants (how will people learn from the AMA experience--"Learn to manage, manage to learn," ROD, D-5). This section could describe various types of forums where the stakeholders can learn about the AMA progress and various ways stakeholders can get involved. For example: newsletters, outreach programs, school programs, site tours, children & adult-oriented meetings or presentations, and volunteer-hands on type activities or programs could be used.

6. Involved Communities: This element can be accomplished by listing organizations, special interest groups, businesses, and individual stakeholders that will be influenced, affected or actively involved in the adaptive management program for a particular AMA. In developing this section, it is important to keep in mind the "communities of interests" (national), as well as, the "communities of place" (local and State). Often times the communities of place are the most vocal at public forums, while the communities of interests from a national perspective are not well represented.

7. Inventory of Community Strategy: An inventory of community strategies, resources and partners being used should be included. Building on the "involved community lists," the inventory of community strategies can succinctly describe how various communities plan on advancing adaptive management ideas for the AMA.

8. Coordination of Activities: Include a plan of coordination with overall activities within the province. Using the "involved community" and "inventory of community strategy," the plan can describe any coordinated efforts by the various stakeholders in the promotion of AMAs.

9. Funding Strategy: Include a funding plan (listing funding sources from Federal agencies, alternative funding sources, volunteer programs, private business partnerships, etc.). This section can target foreseeable funding problems and needs and describe how AMA stakeholders may generate sufficient funding to accomplish AMA goals. If political changes are necessary in current rules and legislation, then this would be an appropriate area to outline those problems.

10. Integration: Develop a plan to integrate community strategies and technical objectives. This element is viewed as a marriage of ideas between local communities, businesses, Federal, State, and Tribal groups. If existing problems or conflicts are recognized at this point in the planning, then it may be appropriate to address these conflicts and attempt to lay out a conflict resolution strategy.

Other Discussion Points

Standards and Guidelines

In addition to the ten criteria listed above, the ROD describes other elements that could be addressed in individual AMA plans. Addressing these criteria and elements will help further define plan direction. The REO is particularly interested in reviewing proposed changes or modifications to Standards and Guidelines. The REO will clarify the process for testing and changing Standards and Guidelines, and further refine the interpretation found in the ROD, as to how Standards and Guidelines should be applied in AMAs.

Regional Foresters, State Directors, Station Directors 4

New Information

The concept of adaptive management was specifically incorporated into the Standard and Guidelines, to be implemented for the purposes of maximizing their benefits and efficiencies (ROD, E-13). It is a continuous process of planning, monitoring, researching, evaluating, and adjusting with the objective of improving the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) implementation and achieving the goals of the Standards and Guidelines (ROD, E-12). In this process, "new information" is identified and evaluated, and a determination is made whether to adjust the strategy or goals of the NFP. An example would be modifying Standards and Guidelines to meet the objectives of the AMAs overall strategy.

NEPA

It is our view that unless the Standard and Guidelines are being changed or modified, an AMA plan will not require NEPA analysis. Therefore, a document that discusses the ten criteria is typically all that is necessary for an AMA plan. However, the ROD does provide specific direction for many AMAs, suggesting in some instances that the Standard and Guidelines may be reconsidered, modified, or changed. AMA plans are not decision documents, therefore, AMA plans may propose changes (as in identifying opportunities) and not require NEPA analysis. NEPA analysis would be required when the AMA is ready to analyze potential changes, make recommendations and decisions. NEPA analysis and compliance would be applied to individual project plans as they are proposed.

Area Assessments

AMAs are intended to be prototypes of how forest communities might be sustained (ROD, D-4). AMA plans need to be based on information about historical, current, and desired future conditions of the biophysical, social, and economic aspects of an area. Assessments written on an areas biophysical, social, and economic conditions should be "concise working documents" developed as supplements to an AMA plan. These assessments should be developed to the tailored needs of the AMA stakeholders.

Conclusion

AMA plans should address all ten elements listed on page D-7 (ROD). If insufficient information exist at the time the plan is written, then information describing what the AMA stakeholders are doing to gather the necessary information to address those issues should be included. Most elements of a plan will not necessarily require exhaustive discussions (pages and pages), especially those that exist in small measure or limited influence to the AMA. The plan, however, should provide the reader with confidence that it will move the stakeholders forward towards their scheduled activities, goals and objectives as outlined in the plan..

We hope that this will clarify and assist AMA managers in developing their respective plans. This informational memo's purpose is to lay out the themes that are common to all ten AMAs in a manner that does not restrict the innovative and creative management options available to the stakeholders working on AMA plans. We hope instead, that with this common background, AMA development will continue to flourish in the spirit of adaptive management thinking. In the spirit of adaptive management we expect to learn from the individual AMAs as they submit plans for review. As we learn, it may be appropriate to revisit these criteria and redefine the REO guidelines.

The REO staff is always available to review your draft plans at any time during their development. Please feel free to call me or Jim F. Milestone at the REO, at 503-326-6265, if you have any questions regarding this issue.

cc: REO Reps, RIEC

838/ly

STATUS REPORT

Meeting Date: December 5, 1996	REO Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie 503-326-6250
Topic: Effectiveness Monitoring
Background: In a status report for the September 19 IAC meeting, the assignment through the Research Executives of key agency staff to participate in completing effectiveness monitoring plans was announced. This agreement to make a concentrated effort to complete this effort stemmed from the IAC and RIEC commitment to the monitoring effort that was discussed at the May 30 IAC meeting. The primary scope of the effort remains focused on the overall framework for effectiveness monitoring with emphasis on the Northern Spotted Owl (NSO), Marbled Murrelet (MaMu), Late-Successional Old Growth Habitat (LSOG), and Aquatic/Riparian (A/R). The intent is to complete this phase in development of the monitoring program within a 6-month period (by early 1997).
Status/Update: Since August, 6 groups have been established: a core senior scientist team to provide leadership and direction, 4 work groups to draft plans for the 4 emphasis areas, and a mid-level management group to provide oversight and liaison with the agency executives. For the most part these groups have been meeting monthly in addition to follow up on key monitoring issues. All groups are making significant progress, although their progress is dependent on how much work had been done previously. Work on the NSO and LSOG proposals is nearly complete; the MaMu and A/R are more difficult assignments and considerable work is still needed before draft proposals are completed. At this time all the workgroups are working to meet the schedule established by the Research Executives so that the full set of draft monitoring proposals will be ready for peer and agency review in January/February 1997. Under this schedule it is anticipated that the final edited proposal will be available for presentation to the IAC in the April or May timeframe. Even though the remaining work for some workgroups is greater than others, there is still a considerable amount of work left in all areas and agencies should be aware that assigned staff may be as busy over the next 2-3 months as they have been over the past 2-3 months. Some follow up may also be needed to respond to peer and agency reviews. As part of their responsibility, each group is attempting to identify linkage with other workgroups (e.g., Survey and Manage, Veg Strike, and Fish/Hydro) and with ongoing agency activities (e.g., vegetation surveys) to ensure that costs are reduced while maximum use is made of available information. As part of their effort, the core scientist group is also overseeing 4 pilot monitoring projects to begin to test issues key to the eventual successful implementation of an effectiveness monitoring program. Two of these pilots are testing the use of remote sensing in riparian and terrestrial habitats, and one (yet to be initiated) will be looking at monitoring as part of the adaptive management process. The major emphasis is being placed on the 4th pilot which is being conducted jointly between the Siuslaw NF, Salem and Eugene BLM, and in partnership with PNW, EPA, and FWS. The intent of this pilot is to test the usefulness of aspects of an effectiveness monitoring program to a National Forest or BLM District. This pilot is also incorporating issues related to veg standards (from Veg Strike), fish/hydro standards (from Fish/Hydro), plus using attributes related to spotted owl and marbled murrelet. This pilot will be completed by the end of FY 1997.
In addition, the complexity of ecosystem monitoring has been a major discussion point among participants. As a result, discussions between the core science team, the workgroups, and the mid-level managers have identified a number of key issues that are important to the successful implementation of the monitoring program. Some of these questions relate to the science underlying the monitoring approach, such as the scale or level that the program addresses. Other questions relate to how the program would be managed, for example, there have extensive discussions on how to integrate existing monitoring (or related) data gathering activities to improve cost effectiveness; what type of infrastructure would be most appropriate for managing, analyzing, and reporting monitoring results; how this information should be used in the decision-making process; and how monitoring can be incorporated into the land-management plan revision process. These questions have been relayed to the mid-level managers for consideration. The intent is to have these and related questions addressed prior to completion of the monitoring proposals so they can be considered at the April 1997 IAC meeting. Key Issues: To ensure agency re-commitment to making staff available to complete the current planning effort (mid-level managers, work group leaders, and participating scientists and staff). Initiate a task to develop an implementation plan for the regional effectiveness monitoring. Propose that the mid-level managers and work group leaders develop a proposal for this task. Following development of the regional plan, initiate a task to address local scale effectiveness monitoring needs in conjunction with the pilot project(s) (April 1997). In April 1997, initiate development of regional effectiveness monitoring for Survey and Manage species, social/economic issues, and potentially, validation monitoring.

STATUS REPORT

Meeting Date: December 5, 1996	REO Contact/Phone: Michael Tehan 503-326-6276
Topic: Riparian Reserve Module
Background: At the September 19 IAC meeting, the following agreements were reached: The Riparian Reserve Technical Team's revision of the final draft Riparian Reserve module, which incorporates IAC member comments and Policy Group agreements, will be field tested during the FY 1997 field season. When the field tests are completed, the REO and Technical Team will analyze results of the field test and develop recommendations for the IAC, working through the Policy Group, to revise the module as necessary. A status report will be presented at the December IAC meeting describing agency efforts to date to modify interim reserve boundaries. Status/Update: The Technical Team is close to completing the species information attachment for the final draft of the module. It is still our intention of completing this step and distributing the module to the IAC and agency field units in December 1996. The Forest Service and BLM reported the following Riparian Reserve boundary adjustments to date: BLM District / Project/Watershed Scope of Adjustment National Forest Medford Dist. Golden Panther Reduced interim RRs; net change is 52-acre reduction in Timber Sale interim reserve area. (September 1994) Roseburg Dist. Four Gates Expanded interim RRs by 4.5 acres and reduced interim Timber Sale RRs by 8.5 acres; net change is four-acre reduction in interim reserve area. (February 1996) Okanogan NF Doe Timber Sale RR boundary is being relocated to follow a topographic break to meet multiple objectives; result overall is minor, with both local expansion and contraction of prescribed boundary. Wenatchee NF Round Mountain Environmental analysis completed; decision notice Fire Recovery Project in progress; interim boundaries being expanded to achieve fire recovery goals; net change unquantified. Willamette NF Upper McKenzie Environmental analysis and decision document completed; includes both expansion and contraction of interim boundaries; net change is 7-acre reduction from interim reserve area. Willamette NF Augusta Creek Environmental analysis and decision document complete; net change is 26-acre reduction from interim reserve area.