The intent of the presentation was to reacquaint the IAC with this issue; provide a current status update; and begin a process leading to agency decisions for monitoring late-successional old growth, northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, and riparian and aquatic resources. The presentation focused on key aspects of the assignment that will be important during the evaluation of options: (1) the program should provide data that respond to regional level questions about the status and trends of selected resources on Federal lands and (2) a range of options should be provided with differing levels of intensity and cost. To meet these goals, an approach to organizing a monitoring program using a conceptual (or visual) model was applied that will also serve as a template for future monitoring modules. The resultant program is based on obtaining consistent and timely region-wide data on forest vegetation and species habitat; population data to meet ESA needs are also included at least in the near term. Emphasis is placed on attempting a predictive as opposed to a retrospective approach to monitoring, to reduce the time needed to obtain useful answers (to be tested). The program will also rely on existing data-gathering programs and integrate data collection and management to the extent possible to reduce costs. However, the monitoring program, regardless of the options selected, will require long term stable support (staffing and funding) and coordination; institutionalizing a monitoring program into day-to-day activities, including needs for data management, analysis, and reporting, will be critical to a successful program. The work groups are nearing completion of a very difficult task that began over 2 years ago. Proposals with scientific peer review, from 3 of the 4 work groups will be available for consideration in May; the riparian/aquatic issue is not as complete--more time is needed to produce their proposed options. Concurrently, proposals for an interagency task force to develop a regional vegetation map to meet effectiveness monitoring needs will be offered for agency decision (see Issue Summary on vegetation mapping). Efforts to initiate effectiveness monitoring planning for Survey and Manage species, social and economics indicators, and Tribal issues are scheduled for later this fiscal year.

The following questions were addressed:

1. Use of the monitoring framework for other modules (e.g., social and economic) - the conceptual model provides a template for constructing monitoring programs for additional issues because it lays out a stepwise approach to identifying the key points that need to be monitored.

2. Use of predictive monitoring - the intent is to reduce the long lag time necessary to obtain trend information, however, this approach to monitoring will need to be tested to determine feasibility.

3. Knowledge of riparian/aquatic systems - although the agencies have the ability to do adequate assessments with available data, their ability to develop a regional monitoring program is difficult due to a lack of useful methods and differing opinions about what is needed.

4. Involvement of non-Federal interests in monitoring - information about trends on non-Federal lands is important to understanding ecological trends, and contacts have been made with different non-Federal groups (particularly in the riparian/aquatic community) to obtain their input.

The IAC asked that it be included in discussions on selection of monitoring options prior to any final Federal agency decision. This was agreed to and that discussion will be held at the June IAC meeting. The IAC also expressed interest in initiating social and economic monitoring, and it was agreed that this would be initiated later this fiscal year.

The RIEC agreed to include the IAC in discussions prior to the final selection of monitoring options. The RIEC also agreed to consider options for addressing the vegetation mapping needs relative to the monitoring program concurrently with the overall effectiveness monitoring review. Concurrence was given to continuing staff support for each monitoring work group through completion of their products, and to begin work to initiate new work groups for Survey and Manage, social and economic, and American Indians and Their Culture.

With the concurrence of the RIEC, the monitoring work groups will complete the final draft plans. A package containing the overall framework for effectiveness monitoring and specific plans for late-successional old growth, northern spotted owl, and the marbled murrelet will be provided in mid-to-late May for consideration of the monitoring options (note that this date is dependent on completion of the peer review process). Concurrently, briefings will be provided as needed to ensure that adequate information has been provided to support the evaluation and decision process. A 1-day interagency workshop will be held with key agency executives in late May to early June to review each option with the expectation that the agency executives will identify a set of recommendations for IAC consideration at the June IAC meeting.

The objective of the presentation was to identify the effectiveness monitoring requirement for a regional vegetation map. Each component of the effectiveness monitoring plan is based on the assumption that a vegetation map will be available in early FY 1999. Key attributes have been identified that are needed and they are consistent with the vegetation standards agreed to by the RIEC. However, an action plan and assignments are not currently in place to produce a regional vegetation map with these attributes.

It was proposed that options for production of the regional vegetation map be included in the upcoming session (see discussion in effectiveness monitoring issue summary) to consider the options for effectiveness monitoring. The options will identify alternative products and their associated benefits, issues, and costs. These options will focus on support for effectiveness monitoring and provide the larger vegetation map requirements as background for the options. Finally, it was proposed that an external review process would be used to help evaluate the options for meeting the effectiveness monitoring requirements.

General agreement to address this topic during the effectiveness monitoring options session.

The REO/RMG will work with the effectiveness monitoring work groups to clearly identify the requirements for vegetation maps, agency staff, and the vegetation strike team to identify optional processes and products. A review process will be established and proposals presented at the executive meeting on effectiveness monitoring in late May or early June. Presentation to the IAC of the agencies' recommended set of options will be scheduled for the June IAC meeting.

The panel presentation described in these notes followed an April 2 field trip to the Redwood National and State Parks and the Hoopa Valley Tribal Forest where most of the IAC members were able to observe the differences in watershed restoration activities, forest conditions, and learn about Tribal forest practices. That evening a dinner hosted by the Tribe provided an opportunity for the committee members to learn more about the culture of the Tribe and visit with Tribal members and staff. The meeting presentations were in the form of a panel of four speakers:

• Dale Risling, Sr., Chairman, Hoopa Valley Tribal Council (Government-to-government consultation and relationships with self-governance Tribes).
• Nolan Colegrove, Sr., Forest Manager, Hoopa Valley Tribe (Overview of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Forest Management Plan).
• Martha Ketelle, Forest Supervisor, Six Rivers National Forest (Practical observations on day-to-day consultation between Federal and Tribal governments).
• Mike Smith, Deputy Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento Area Office (Challenges facing Sacramento Area Office in meeting its obligations to California Tribes).

Chairman Risling began his presentation with an overview of how Tribes operating under self-governance compacts differ in their relationships to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) from Tribes operating under self-determination contracts and those Tribes still receiving services directly from the BIA. He explained the history of the self-governance movement, and how, from the Hoopa Valley Tribal Council's perspective, the Tribe is now in greater control of its future development than before.

Nolan Colegrove, Sr., presented an overview of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Forest Management Plan, including a comparison of recent harvest levels. He explained how the Tribe has foregone certain economic opportunities from the forest in order to protect culturally and spiritually significant forest resource values. The Tribal forest has been under Tribal management since the late 1980s.

Martha Ketelle explained the Six Rivers National Forest approach to meeting its obligation to consult with the Tribes in the area on a government-to-government basis. She stated that often problems are overcome by making sure the right people; i.e., decision makers, meet to set the tone and identify the desired outcomes. She estimated that of her time as Forest Supervisor is taken with meeting Tribal government officials. By being available and clearly expressing a desire to consult with Tribal governments, Ms. Ketelle helps ensure that the Six Rivers National Forest will successfully meet its trust responsibilities to the Tribes, and creates an atmosphere of mutual consensus on a variety of issues. The Six Rivers National Forest has looked to the Tribes to help it address management issues involving forest resources that are culturally and spiritually important to area Tribes.

There were no specific agreements from this meeting and panel presentation. However, it is instructive to reprint the agreements that arose from the May 1996 meeting which included a panel presentation by the Yakama Indian Nation:

There was general agreement with the REO staff proposal identified in the Action Topic Overview (ATO):

1. The REO, working with IAC Tribal representatives, continues to actively solicit comments and input regarding Tribal review of developed policy/procedures concerning NFP implementation.

2. The REO continues to distribute appropriate documentation and materials to Tribal leaders and key staff in order to expedite the Tribal review process.

3. The REO continues to remain available to brief individual Tribal governments/organizations in order to keep them as informed as possible.

4. The responsible agencies consult with potentially affected Tribes as soon as possible so that implementation policies and/or processes that may affect Tribal rights or resources can be developed collaboratively and cooperatively.

The REO will work with the IAC Tribal representatives to identify appropriate follow-up that will continue the discussions on government-to-government consultation requirements.

The objective of the presentation and discussion was to establish the final guidance for the FY 1997 Implementation Monitoring Plan. The basic outline of the plan was presented and consists of interagency teams, with public participation, that will review timber sale, road, and restoration activities. A total of 40 review sessions will be scheduled. Each review session would potentially include projects in all three topical areas, limited by the number of reviews that can be accomplished in 2 days. The timber sales to be reviewed will be obtained from a stratified random sampling approach, with strata for size (100-1000 MBF, 1000+ MBF) and land allocation (LSR, AMA, and Matrix). Roads will be sampled from two strata, roads associated with timber sales and non-timber sale associated road activities. A potential primary source for restoration projects will be the Jobs-In-The-Woods activities. No requirement to have all provinces represented in the FY 1997 effort is included in the sampling plan. In addition to the province review teams, a regional team will coordinate and facilitate the FY 1997 implementation monitoring activities and reporting.

Optional levels of effort were presented to evaluate the potential increases (increasing the number of review sessions to 60) or decreases (deletion of sampling strata) in the proposed plan.

Three topical areas were discussed: (1) achievement of regional consistency, (2) exclusion of small (less than 100 MBF) timber sales from the reviews, and (3) inclusion of additional informational questions.

Concern was expressed about the ability of the review teams to achieve regional consistency. Planned efforts to address this concern were described: (1) revision and enhancement of the questionnaire to increase the consistency of information recorded, (2) expanded training for the review Team Leaders emphasizing the need for consistency, and (3) a proactive role for the regional team during the review process.

Concern was raised about not sampling the small timber sales. Information from the FY 1996 Pilot was presented that explains that none of the FY 1996 timber sales associated with potential biological concerns rated greater than slight were in the small size category.

Interest was expressed in obtaining additional information from the sample of restoration projects. Economic and project planning information are of interest and potentially could be accommodated within the review sessions. Information requests are to be submitted to the REO for potential inclusion in the provincial team questionnaires.

The IAC agreed with the proposal for the FY 1997 Implementation Monitoring Plan as described based on a total of 40 review sessions.

The RIEC confirmed the guidance and agreed to proceed with the plan as presented.

The regional team will proceed immediately with the finalization of the plan, including identification of projects to be reviewed, establishment of the provincial teams and leaders, and scheduling of the training sessions. Interested IAC members will provide the REO with suggestions for the additional information to be obtained about the restoration projects by May 15.

Dan Chisolm, Tim McKay, and Jim Komar from the California Coast PAC; Barbara Holder, Patrick Higgens, and Mary Fattig from the Klamath PAC; and Sharon Heywood and Mark Stanley from the North West Sacramento PAC.

The PAC panel shared their numerous accomplishments and presented their views about the IAC/PAC relationship.

The panel members gave an overview of accomplishments over the past 18 months. A few examples of accomplishments included monitoring, responding to the salvage bill, sponsoring intergovernmental watershed analysis, participating in a joint PAC/State Community Economic Revitalization Team (SCERT) subcommittee, work on the Klamath Basin Assessment, spearheading a need for social and economic monitoring, and the development of intergovernmental relationships. The PACs appreciated the opportunity to share their work with the IAC.

The three main messages from the panel members to the IAC were:

1. The California PACs are alive and well.

2. All three PACs view their activities as useful and think they should be maintained.

3. Social and economic monitoring should be a regional priority.

Possible Status Reports - June 18-19
Federal Timber Sale Update
Funding for NFP Implementation - Tables to IAC

Possible Status Reports - August 6-7

Possible Status Reports - November 6
Federal Timber Sale Updates