Regional Ecosystem Office

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

               Memorandum

Date:      January 24, 1997

To:          Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (See Distribution List)

From:      Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director

Subject:  Agenda and Prework Materials for the February 1997 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting

Enclosed are the proposed agenda, agenda topic overviews, and status reports for the February 6 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: 503-283-2111 or 206-696-2565 and Fax: 503-283-4718). You may phone the hotel to make your reservations (request the government rate) and arrange 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.

Our agenda for this meeting is not as full as most. However, our discussion at this meeting will substantially determine the topics for our IAC meetings during the remainder of 1997 and provide the foundation for determining the desired future relationship between the IAC and Provincial Advisory Committees. Please note that we project a 3:00 p.m. adjournment for the meeting.

The IAC meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. in the Willamette Room. The IAC agenda includes the following goals:

• IAC Operations and Processes: Based on discussion with IAC members, we plan additional discussion and preliminary agreement on future meeting locations, agenda topics, and increased non-Federal participation in meetings. We are attempting to contact all of the non-Federal members of the IAC prior to the meeting, soliciting suggestions for future meeting locations, agenda topics, and ways for non-Federal members to increase their communications to the Federal agencies.

• Provincial Advisory Teams (PACs): We will review what the Record of Decision says about provincial teams and their relationship to the IAC. We will also distribute a draft questionnaire designed to evaluate possible future IAC/PAC relationships.

• Implementation Monitoring (IM): Following up on our presentation in December, the Regional Interagency Implementation Monitoring Team has developed additional information to share concerning the results of the FY 1996 pilot project.

• Riparian Reserve Module: At long last, we plan to distribute the Riparian Reserve Module which is ready for testing.

• Adaptive Management Areas (AMAs): We have assembled a core team to begin review of AMA plans and completed final edits on the work group charter and criteria memo. A brief overview is in order.

• Status Reports (3) are included in the package for Effectiveness Monitoring, Federal Timber Sale Program, and Implementation of the IRICC Fish/Hydro Data Standards Strike Team Recommendations.

 

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 865/ly

Date: January 24, 1997
Subject: February IAC Agenda and Prework

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Distribution List

California
Terry Gorton, Assistant Secretary, Forestry and Rural Economic Dev., California Resource Agency
Mark Stanley, Member of Resources Agency Task Force for Forestry & Rural Economic Development
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)
John D. Buffington, Western Region Chief Biologist, BRD, U.S. Geological Survey
Michael Collopy, Center Director, BRD, U.S. Geological Survey (Alternate)
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
Robert Lackey, Associate Director, Envir. 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)
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 1/22/97

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW - Discussion Paper

Meeting Date: February 6, 1997
Contact/Phone: Gary S. Sims 503-326-6274

Topic: Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)/Provincial Advisory Committees (PACs) Relationships

Issue Statement: Discuss and determine what the relationship between the IAC and PACs should be.

Background: The results of the survey of IAC members included a number of comments concerning the relationship between the IAC and the different PACs (Attachment 1, copies of attachments referenced in this paper will be available at the IAC meeting. If you would like a copy of any of the attachments before the meeting contact Gary S. Sims at 503-326-6284). Discussion of the survey results at the December IAC meeting resulted in identification of follow-up actions to be taken by the REO, which included working with the IAC to clarify its expectations from PACs.

Analysis: When the IAC members completed a recent questionnaire a number of comments were made regarding the PACs and their relationships to the IAC (Attachment 1). Those comments may be summarized as concerns that:

• PACs may not be fulfilling their anticipated roles.
• There is a general lack of coordination of PAC activities, emphasis, direction, etc.
• A lack of direction from the IAC to PACs.
• A lack of a way to effectively communicate problems, needs, requests from PACs to IAC.
• Uncertainty if the IAC should play a more active role with the PACs (or would that get in the way and, in fact, make things worse).

Those concerns prompted the IAC to request the REO to:

• Review the ROD discussion on IAC and PACs.
• Review Agency, REO, and IAC documentation and discussion regarding any guidance concerning regional/provincial committee relationships.
• Based on results of the first two activities, describe the anticipated and current IAC/PAC relationships.
• Draft a questionnaire to survey all PAC members regarding their desired or recommended future IAC/PAC relationships.

Background.

Review of ROD and S&G Language. The idea of intergovernmental committees to help facilitate the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) predates the ROD (see Attachment 2 for ROD citations and Attachment 3 for Agency/Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) documentation and direction). There is only one reference to provincial teams (no references to "provincial committees") in the ROD⁽¹⁾ and two (including a definition or description) in the Standards and Guidelines⁽²⁾ (S&Gs). There are numerous references to the Regional Interagency Executive Committee. In each instance the reference concerns intergovernmental groups or committees.

Both the ROD and the S&Gs identify the RIEC as having a general oversight role to provide broad guidance, clarify issues for provincial teams, review certain provincial proposals, communicate with (and be overseen by) the National Interagency Steering Committee, and make recommendations to responsible land management and consultation agencies. The Implementation Section (E) of the S&Gs identifies the RIEC and the Province Teams as being composed of Federal, State, and Tribal governments representatives. The RIEC is identified as providing direction to the Provincial Teams. Further, the RIEC "will continue to develop and refine the appropriate role" of the Provincial Teams.

It is important to note that in order to comply with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) the anticipated advisory bodies described in the ROD and the S&Gs (i.e., the RIEC and the Provincial Teams⁽³⁾) were formed as FACA-chartered advisory committees. Therefore, when reading the ROD and the S&Gs, references to the RIEC should be usually understood to mean what is now the IAC and references to Provincial Teams should usually be interpreted to mean Provincial Advisory Committees (PACs).

ROD and S&Gs identified responsibilities of the RIEC/IAC. The ROD and the S&Gs describe a wide variety of responsibilities of the RIEC/IAC concerning providing direction to Provincial Teams/PACs and reviewing provincial-level NFP implementation. The following is a summarization of those references (see Attachment 2 for more comprehensive descriptions. NOTE: A number of these items have been delegated to the REO; e.g., review of thinning, silviculture, and salvage activities in LSRs. However the RIEC/IAC has the ultimate responsibility):

• Changes to survey and manage species categorization or strategies (ROD, page 37 and C-6).
• Recommending needed changes to assure continuing attainment of plan purposes (ROD, page 37).
• Approval of REO review of thinning and other silviculture treatment proposals in LSRs (ROD, page 49, 56-57).
• Determination of the necessity of restricting tribal treaty rights (ROD, page 54 and C-16).
• Coordination with field units (PACs?) on amendments to forest or district plans that modify the S&Gs or land use allocations (ROD, page 58 and E-18).
• Approve salvage in LSRs (ROD, page 66).
• Review, and potentially modify, research projects that are potentially inconsistent with other S&Gs or pose an unacceptable risk to Key Watersheds or Riparian Reserves (ROD, page C-4, C-19, and C-38).
• Initial direction and continuing review regarding AMAs (ROD, page D-5).
• Coordination of S&G modification in AMAs and development of specific AMA S&Gs. (ROD, page D-12).
• Involvement in adjusting strategies or goals at the regional level (ROD, page E-15).
• Refer unresolvable issues to the Interagency Steering Committee (ROD, page E-15)
• Provide direction to the REO, Province Teams/PACs, and RMC (ROD, page E-16).
• Work with the Regional Community Economic Revitalization Team (ROD, page E-16).
• Responsible for the reviews and actions referred to the REO (ROD, page E-16).
• Continually develop and refine the appropriate role for Province Teams/PACs at the level of the physiographic province, AMAs, or specific watersheds (ROD, page E-17).
• Assure coordinated and effective implementation of S&Gs and support development and implementation for future or revised Land and Resource Management Plans (ROD, page E-18).
• Review proposed plan amendments to assure consistency with S&G objectives (ROD, page E-18)

RIEC/IAC Direction to Provincial Teams/PACs. The "Final Roles and Responsibilities for Interagency Organizational Structure," (dated November 17, 1993) states that the RIEC will, in part, "Provide direction to the Regional Ecosystem Office, Provincial Teams, and the Research and Monitoring Committee." (Attachment 3). It also lists the following roles and responsibilities for the Provincial Teams/PIECs/PACs:

• Develop direction at the provincial level, consistent with the President's Plan and refined to meet specific biogeographical needs of the province.
• Encourage and facilitate information exchange and complementary ecosystem management among provincial stakeholders and Federal and non-Federal landowners.
• Ensure consistency for projects and analyses within and between provinces.
• Produce provincial monitoring reports.
• Obtain and provide data to REO GIS library.
• Prepare biological assessments to expedite programmatic Endangered Species Act consultation.
• Encourage pre-listing conservation agreements.
• Facilitate local involvement.

There are a number of memoranda and other documents that reflect the above roles, and relationships between the RIEC/IAC and Provincial Teams/PACs. On October 25, 1995, the IAC Chair in response to IAC direction, wrote a memo to all PACs outlining how routine communication with the PACs would be conducted and how PACs could forward issues which were causing implementation of the NFP to be more difficult than intended. (See Attachment 3)

The RIEC/IAC either through the use of the REO or as a deliberative body has a responsibility to assure consistency of NFP implementation across the region, while providing for local variation where appropriate. In that regard it is important to provide to the PACs sufficient information so that there is mutual understanding regarding their responsibilities.

The question, therefore, based on the above referenced responses of the IAC membership to the recent questionnaire is: has that been sufficient guidance/information for the PACs to be able to provide meaningful evaluations and recommendations to local land management and consultation agencies while helping to ensure consistent ecosystem management across all landscapes.

While there have been questionnaires sent to Designated Federal Officials (DFOs) from the Regional Office of the Forest Service and State Office of the Bureau of Land Mangement, and to individual committee members of some of the PACs from the DFOs, most of the questions have concerned operational aspects of the local committees and not relationships with the IAC. Because of the huge investment in time, personnel, and funding the IAC member organizations have invested in local participation with PACs there is understandable concern about whether or not those committees are meeting their intended function.

Follow-up Questionnaire. By initiating a questionnaire to all PAC members across the region the IAC will be able to both assess how communications with the PACs are working and if the PACs are receiving (or providing) sufficient guidance to ensure consistent NFP interpretation and implementation across the region. The questionnaire should address current assessments of PACs/IAC relationships, how those relationships can be improved, and topics for future IAC/PAC coordination that would be helpful to PACs.

Draft Questionnaire. Because of the number of members in the 12 PACs (some 300) it is important to try to develop a questionnaire that can be easily reviewed and evaluated. "Open-ended" questions should be limited.

The following questions would be answered with a 1 to 4 ranking (1= lowest , 4= highest/1=never, 4=always) unless otherwise noted:

1. Discussions at PAC meetings concern the NFP and its implementation. (1-4)
2. There is sufficient communication with the IAC to understand what is expected of us. (1-4)
3. The DFO shares IAC meeting notes with the PAC. (1-4)
4. The DFO/member agencies have made IAC/RIEC/agency direction affecting local implementation understandable. (1-4)
5. I know who my PACs REO contact is. (Y/N)
6. I understand what other PACs are doing. (1-4)
7. It is important to know what other PACs are doing. (1-4)
8. I would prefer More/Less communication with the IAC.
9. I would prefer More/Less direction from the IAC.
10. If there should be more communication and/or direction from the IAC to the PACs, how would that best be accomplished? (Comment as specifically as possible.)
Future IAC/PAC Coordination Topics
11. Please rank the following potential IAC/PAC coordination items in order of importance as subjects that would help your PAC during the next year (1= lowest, 4= highest):

___ Provincial level refinement of S&Gs.
___ Ways to aggregate provincial level information to a regional scale.
___ Implementation or effectiveness monitoring.
___ Other specific programmatic themes:

___ Salmon, listing.
___ Salmon, conservation plans.
___ HCPs development/approval.
___ Proposed/actual land transfers.
___ AMA plans/management activities within/adjacent to provinces.
___ Ecosystem management/economic priorities (development and follow-up).
___ Other governmental (Tribes, States, Counties, Federal) plans/activities within/adjacent to provinces and how to integrate them with FS/BLM provincial management activities.
___ Province-level implementation and effectiveness monitoring plans and activities.
___ Evaluation of individual PAC success.

Attachment 1: Results of IAC member survey regarding comments made about IAC/PAC relations.
Attachment 2: ROD and Standards and Guidelines references to RIEC and Provincial Teams.
Attachment 3: Agency and IAC guidance/direction memos and documentation.
Attachment 4: Memorandum of Understanding for Forest Ecosystem Management.
Attachment 5: Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Charter.

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Meeting Date: February 6, 1997

Sponsor: RMC/REO Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie 503-326-6250

Topic: Review Evaluation of FY 1996 Implementation Monitoring Pilot Results

Background: At the December 1996 meeting, the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) recommended additional analysis of the results in the draft monitoring report to assess the significance of the finds and provide management recommendations. The preliminary results of those efforts will be presented to the IAC. With IAC concurrence, the report will be finalized and transmitted to the agencies for their consideration, including recommendations for management actions.

Update: At the December 1996 IAC meeting, the draft report "Results of the FY 1996 (Pilot Year) Implementation Monitoring Program" was presented and discussed. In general, the review comments and the discussions were in three categories: (1) editorial comments and suggestions; (2) technical issues; and (3) questions and suggestions for linking results, and the assessment of their importance, with recommendations for follow-up management actions. The major guidance to emerge during the discussion was a recommendation to form an interagency group to assess the significance of the results and provide management recommendations in the final report. An overriding aspect of the draft report and its the presentation concerned the correct interpretation of the summary statistics in the report. Inconsistency in answering the questions, particularly due to inadequate guidance and different assumptions on the part of the review teams about the questionnaire led to difficulty in interpretation of the simple statistical summaries. The IAC recommended additional efforts to resolve these inconsistencies and provide a relevant foundation for the assessment of importance and follow-up management recommendations. An interagency group has met and assessed the results in the draft report. The group reviewed all the "No" responses in an effort to understand their significance. That effort resulted in the identification of 48 responses that indicated Standards & Guides were not fully met. The group then assessed their importance by providing a judgment as to their potential for ecological impact. The results of that exercise are: failed to meet, positive effects (6) failed to meet, no effects (16) failed to meet, slight to low effects (12) failed to meet, medium-high effects (4) failed to meet, unknown effects (4) failed to meet-unattainable, none-slight effects (6) These results will be combined with the recommendations in the draft report to form the recommended management actions. The process for completing the Pilot Implementation Monitoring Report is proposed as follows: completion of the report by the interagency group, including review by the RMC and REO representatives and additional staff as appropriate, and publication of the report following revision based on the comments. The end of February is the anticipated publication date for the report. IAC guidance for the FY 1997 Implementation Monitoring program was provided at the December 1996 meeting. Planning efforts have been initiated and it is anticipated that the FY 1997 plan will be distributed to the IAC members for their information around the April meeting. REO Staff Proposal: As stated above the REO proposes that the RMC/REO be the final review process for completing this report. REO staff will facilitate the reviews by additional interested parties as warranted by the issues and levels of interest. Action Required: IAC Review & Discussion IAC Recommendation RIEC Decision Other:

CHARTER

Group Name: Adaptive Management Area Work Group

Date: February 6, 1997

Purpose: The Adaptive Management Area (AMA) Work Group will: Review AMA plans. Recommend definitions and interpretations for Record of Decision (ROD) requirements for AMA processes and policies. Encourage and support innovation throughout AMAs. Scope: The AMA Work Group will have three primary tasks: Organize a process to review AMA plans. Develop a clear, concise recommended interpretation of ROD Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) as they apply to AMAs. Assist AMAs upon request, and support longer-term needs as identified in AMA plans. Timeline: Prepare AMA plan reviews as individual AMAs submit their plans to the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO). Develop a complete list of ROD S&G issues by June 1997, along with an analysis of their significance and recommended interpretations. Prepare responses to agencies and individual AMA Coordinator requests on policy issues within a timely and reasonable period to facilitate implementation and maintain effectiveness as a work group. Membership: Pending identification of other intergovernmental representatives, the following "core team" has been contacted and is engaged in AMA plan reviews. Tim Tolle, Forest Service Roger Clark, Forest Service, PNW Research Station Jerry MaGee, Bureau of Land Management Jim F. Milestone, National Park Service, REO Representative Cay Ogden, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Other intergovernmental or agency representatives yet to be determined Meeting Schedule: Monthly for the first year, and then evaluate and schedule as necessary. Leadership: Jim F. Milestone, REO NPS Representative Project Teams: ROD S&G issues, other teams as needed. Funding: N/A Relationship to REO, Organizations, and IAC: Coordination with the Research and Monitoring Committee and other work groups as needed. Statement of Success: The AMA Work Group will have reviewed all 10 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, agency managers, and stakeholders.

Regional Ecosystem Office

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

Memorandum

Date: January 22, 1997

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

From: Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director

Subject: Review of Adaptive Management Area Plans

The purpose of this memorandum is twofold. First, 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 second purpose of this memo is to identify planning themes common to all 10 AMAs in a manner that supports the innovative and creative management options available to the stakeholders working on AMA plans. The staff at the REO has held extensive discussions concerning our role and review of AMA plans. These discussions have focused on clarifying our role as described in the ROD , page 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."

Rather than serving as gate keepers, the REO intends to facilitate and coordinate the AMA program, by assisting the AMAs as needed, to most effectively manage these special areas. The ROD established 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 the following ways:

1. Encourage innovative approaches developed with local support within each of the 10 AMAs.
2. Ensure rigorous scientific experiments and research with a commitment to needed documentation and validation monitoring
3. Ensure the NFP remains viable.

Furthermore, the REO views the entire AMA program as being at the forefront of how the Federal government conducts its land management business. This view reflects the four cornerstones for AMAs: 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 the ROD establishes no schedule of due dates for AMAs to produce their 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 Standard and Guidelines (S&Gs) 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's called a plan, a guide, or some other title, the document should 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 the ROD ( D-12 thru D-16) for each respective AMA. Descriptions could include what the AMA will look like fifty 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 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 and monitoring is currently going on in the province, and delineate which relevant research and monitoring projects are planned to be pursued.

3. Strategy to Guide Implementation Restoration, Monitoring, and Experimental Activities: This section needs to describe how risk-taking approaches can be balanced by a sound and rigorous program to monitor and evaluate results. This section should 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 the planning effort. In addition, it will be critical to explain how the appropriate regulatory agency representatives are participating in the implementation process (e.g., FWS, NMFS, and EPA).

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&Gs. We believe it is important tohave an AMA monitoring and evaluation plan that is sufficiently sensitive to detect relevant ecological changes.

4. Timber Sale Plan: A short-term (3-5 year) timber sale plan and long-term yield projection could 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 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, page 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 and 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).

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 strategies," the plan can describe any coordinated efforts by the various stakeholders in the promotion of AMAs.

9. Funding Strategy: If appropriate, include a funding plan (listing funding sources, support and assistance from Federal and State 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 AMA plan direction. The REO is particularly interested in reviewing proposed changes or modifications to S&Gs. The REO chartered AMA Work Group will clarify the process for testing and changing S&Gs, and further refine the interpretation found in the ROD as to how S&Gs should be applied in AMAs.

New Information
The concept of adaptive management was specifically incorporated into the NFP (ROD, page E-13). It is a continuous process of planning, monitoring, researching, evaluating, and adjusting with the objective of improving the NFP implementation and achieving the goals of the S&Gs (ROD, page 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 S&Gs to meet the objectives of the overall AMA strategy.

National Environmental Policy Ac
It is our view that unless the S&Gs 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 S&Gs may be reconsidered, modified, or changed. AMA plans are generally not decision documents, therefore, AMA plans may propose changes (as in identifying opportunities) and still not require NEPA analysis. NEPA analysis would be required when the AMA is ready to analyze potential changes, and 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, page 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 area's 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 in the ROD, page D-7. If insufficient information exists for a specific element at the time the plan is written, then the plan should describe what the AMA stakeholders are doing to gather the necessary information to address this particular issue. Elements of an AMA plan will be expected to address topics with sufficient detail to provide the reader with confidence that it will move the stakeholders forward toward their scheduled activities, goals, and objectives as outlined in the plan.

We hope that this will clarify and assist AMA Coordinators 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 supports the innovative and creative management options available to the stakeholders working on AMA plans. With this common background, AMA plan 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 review 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
IAC
AMA Coordinators
AMA Work Group Members
RMC

STATUS REPORT

Meeting Date: February 6, 1997	REO Contact/Phone: Dan McKenzie 503-326-6250
Topic: Effectiveness Monitoring
Background: During the December 1996 IAC meeting, Tom Mills, PNW presented a summary of several Effectiveness Monitoring (EM) key issues. A subsequent meeting of the Research Executives and key EM staff reviewed the current status and schedules of the senior and four work groups.
Status/Update: Summary of current status for the individual work groups: (1) the Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) group is preparing for an internal review and then an external peer review and anticipate a document for presentation at the April IAC meeting; (2) the Late-Successional Old-Growth (LSOG) group is close to a draft for peer review and anticipates presentation at the April IAC meeting; (3) the Marbled Murrelet (MaMu) group is attempting to get their draft done on a similar schedule, but has less "in hand" at the moment and may not be ready for presentation in April; (4) the Aquatic/Riparian (A/R) group is in the early formulation stage of an interagency product and it is unlikely that a reviewed draft will be available for the April meeting. The Research Executives stressed their appreciation for the effort and progress, and reiterated the need for options, not just take-it-or-leave-it packages. General agreement that the presence of the manager's sponsor group is helping and working well. Time is requested for presentations at the April IAC meeting for decisions on those items that are ready [NSO, LSOG, MaMu(?)] and status updates on others [Aq/Rip, MaMu(?)]. The April presentations will also provide information on the Survey and Manage Species and Social/Economic work group status and schedules.

STATUS REPORT

Meeting Date: February 6, 1997	REO Contact/Phone: Dale Guenther, 503-326-7133
Topic: Federal Timber Sale Program
Background: The selected alternative in the Record of Decision calls for an estimated probable sale quantity (PSQ) of 1.1 billion board feet from lands administered by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management within the range of the northern spotted owl. Both agencies are working toward implementation of a timber sale program that will meet full PSQ in FY 1997, with intervening goals of 60% in 1995 and 80% in 1996.
Status/Update: Members of the IAC have requested a quarterly update of timber volume offered and harvest accomplishments to date. The status report is depicted below.

 

As of October 1, 1996:

---------- FY94 --------- ---------- FY95 --------- ------------ FY96 ------------------------

Volume (MMBF) Volume (MMBF) Volume (MMBF)

Harvested Offered Harvested Offered Harvested Offered Target

BLM 154.5 18.5 97.0 128.0 225.0 190.0 180

USFS 851.0 233.0 410.8 492.0 Region 5 86.3 58.9 141

Region 6 415.3 510.0 507

------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------- -----

1005.5 251.5 507.8 620.0 726.6 758.9 828

STATUS REPORT

Meeting Date: February 6, 1997	REO Contact/Phone: Dale Guenther, 503-326-7133
Topic: Implementation of IRICC Fish/Hydro Data Standards Strike Team Recommendations, and development of Phase II standards.
Background: During the May 30, 1996 IAC meeting, Dale Guenther presented the results of the IRICC Fish/Hydro Strike Team. These recommendations include the adoption of a core set of data standards covering fisheries and hydrography, adoption of a standard method for uniquely identifying water bodies, the implementation of these standards, and a proposed strategy for continued development of data standards under a Phase II concept. Standards developed under Phase II would be a refinement and extension of the above Phase I core standards for land management agencies. They would also be used to meet the consultation needs of the regulatory agencies. These recommendations were then adopted July 15 through correspondence to the Regional Ecosystem Office.
Status/Update: The IRICC Fish/Hydro Strike Team has successfully begun the implementation of the Phase I standards. A water Geographic Information System (GIS) coverage for the Pacific northwest has been compiled for use by all agencies. Stream inventory protocols have been modified to encompass the agreed standards. Applications have been developed to link the database and GIS systems. This will enable agencies to easily attach their specific information to a universal coverage, allowing for wide area analysis and sharing of information across agencies. This package has been tested on several Forest Service National Forests and Bureau of Land Management Districts. Full implementation will occur in Spring of 1997. The continued development of standards through the phase II process has not begun. A large part of the Phase II standards will be based on the Survey and Manage protocols. These protocols have not yet been completed.

1. "In order to coordinate the activities of the various Federal agencies that are involved, we have established an interagency structure that includes the Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC), the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO), and provincial teams. These groups will oversee the necessary monitoring and research to continuously seek new information and understanding of the complexities involved in managing the old-growth and late-successional forest ecosystem in the Pacific northwest." (ROD, page 4)

2. (1) "Each administrative unit will continue to be responsible for the collection, compilation, and analysis of much of the data gained through monitoring activities. Province teams and the REO will compile and analyze information at larger scales." (ROD, page E-2)

(2) "Province Teams. These teams consist of representatives of Federal agencies, States, American Indian tribes, and others. These teams will provide or coordinate analyses at the province level that can provide the basis for amendments to Forest and District Plans and will provide monitoring reports for provinces. Province teams will also encourage and facilitate information exchange and complementary ecosystem management among Federal and non-Federal land managers. The Interagency Steering Committee and the Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) will continue to develop and refine the appropriate role for these teams at the level of physiographic provinces, Adaptive Management Areas, or specific watersheds." (Included is a chart showing the relationship between the Province Teams and RIEC, with a note that states: "Although they receive direction from the RIEC, the Research and Monitoring Committee and Province Teams will report to the RIEC through the Regional Ecosystem Office.") (ROD, page E-17)

3. Both bodies, as described in the ROD and the S&Gs were anticipated to be intergovernmental advisory bodies. For example the ROD (page 35) states:

"There are several references in this decision, and in the Standards and Guidelines, to authority to be exercised by the RIEC and the REO. We do not intend to suggest that the RIEC and REO may exercise the decision-making authority that is vested in any of the land management agencies or the consultation agencies. Instead, a primary role of the RIEC and REO is to review proposed actions and determine whether those actions are consistent with the objectives of this decision. In making those determinations, the RIEC and the REO function in an advisory capacity, and the land management agencies and consultation agencies retain the decision-making authority that is vested in them by statute."

There is a similar clarification in the ROD, page E-16:

"The decision-making responsibility of the RIEC described in these standards and guidelines is generally limited to interpretation of standards and guidelines. Individual land management and consultation agencies retain the decision-making authority that is vested in them by statute."