Regional Ecosystem Office
333 SW 1st P.O. Box 3623
Portland, Oregon 97208-3623
Website: www.reo.gov E-Mail: REOmail@or.blm.gov
Phone: 503-808-2165 FAX: 503-808-2163

Memorandum

Date:

May 17, 2005

To:

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (see attached distribution list)

From:

/s/Anne Badgley, Executive Director

Subject:

INTERGOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES FOR APRIL 21, 2005

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC)
April 21, 2005 Meeting Agenda

Time

Topics

Purpose

Presenter

8:00

• Introductions, Housekeeping
• Agenda Review
• Recognition

Housekeeping

Facilitator
Anne Badgley
Jon Martin

8:30

Public Comment Period

Facilitator

8:45

Opening

9:00

• Potential Implications
• Additional considerations from IAC members
• Discussion

Stage setting for advice

Nancy Molina

9:45

• Process overview
• Form completion

Recommendation Discussion and Data Collection

Moderated discussion
Anne Badgley

10:30

BREAK (and tally)

10:45

• Results of the Feedback process
• Next Steps

Summary of the Data Collected

Moderated discussion
Anne Badgley

11:30

• Summer Field Trip
  Other Hot topics/News for all

Information sharing/planning

Dave Gibbons/
Paul Roush
Committee members

11:50

• Future meeting dates & topics
• Assignment/Agreement/Recommendation review

Housekeeping

Facilitator

11:55

Closing Remarks

Elaine Brong

12:00

Adjourn

Topic: OPENING REMARKS

Presenter: Elaine Brong, Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) Chair

Summary of Discussion: IAC Chair Elaine Brong opened the meeting and emphasized the opportunity to take advantage of the time together discussing key findings from the science conference and sharing ideas about priorities and potential activities. Several staff were recognized for their efforts and contributions to the 10-year monitoring reports and to the Science Conference. An asterisk has been placed next to their names on the attached meeting roster.

Topic: SCIENCE CONFERENCE DISCUSSION

Moderator: Anne Badgley, REO Executive Director

Issue: The agenda included several discussions related to the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Science Conference and 10-year Monitoring Management Implications presented at the conference. The discussion was kicked off by Nancy Molina who presented a summary of potential management implications and assisted in a discussion of the key findings.

The goal: The goal of this exercise was to obtain a quick "snapshot" from the IAC members of topics that should be considered in the short- and long-term based on the information received at the Science Conference. This discussion was not anticipated to be a fully complete or definitive recommendation from the group (the IAC, for instance, had not had an opportunity to fully discuss some of the issues raised in the Tribal presentation made earlier in the week). All of the issues and comments, including the Tribal presentation and other related topics raised during the IAC meeting, were heard by the Management Implications team and will be used to inform discussions in the final Management Implications report.

Summary: IAC members found the science information to be timely and worthwhile, and they appreciated the opportunity to attend the conference. They discussed conference findings, management considerations, and potential priorities, and focused on nine key topics and findings (numbered 2 thru 10) presented by Nancy Molina:

2. Late-Successional Old-Growth (LSOG) in fire-prone areas: There appear to be more effective objectives and approaches for LSOG management in the high frequency and mixed fire regime areas based on new fire ecology and old-growth information.

3. Watershed Conditions: New information on dynamics of watersheds that suggests there may be more effective ways to conserve riparian and aquatic resources.

4. Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Goals: Many of the NWFP goals cannot be achieved solely on Federal lands – other ownerships (and policy frameworks) also make essential contributions.

5. Additional Factors & Considerations: The NWFP does not explicitly consider some significant factors affecting the conditions of forest resources (e.g., global climate change, invasive species, other vegetation types, etc.).

6. Regional Monitoring: Lack of specific targets made monitoring interpretations difficult; 10-years is not adequate to see significant changes, and what new questions need to be asked?

7. Adaptive Management: The vision for "adaptive management" has been partly fulfilled. There has not been as much "experimentation," with subsequent learning, as was hoped for, partly due to a perceived or real lack of flexibility.

8. Collaboration: Collaboration among constituents has been a key accomplishment, the need for collaboration continues, and many "lessons learned" can be gleaned from our experiences.

9. Human Dimensions: Timber harvest expectations not met; predictions of how local communities and the economy would respond to the Plan, did not always materialize. The Federal role in the timber economy and in the well-being of local communities is different than originally thought. A lot of additional significant influences were not factored in.

10. Post-Fire Activities: The policy is unclear, and there are significant gaps in information.

During the discussion, the IAC identified topics for further consideration by the RIEC – some were included as facets of the original topics, while others were added as separate topics.

11. Monitoring funding and importance. (combined with #6)
12. Examine the reserve strategy, roles and how we can manage these, impact of the loss of hardwoods.
13. Communication with PACS and PIECS. (combined with #8)
14. Tribal considerations.
15. Tell story of affect of legal requirements and litigation on plan implementation.
16. Focus on areas of greatest risk, best science, least process and most flexibility.
17. Evaluate how managers will be able to incorporate regional plan components into local plans.
18. Consider lessons learned from the California NWFP review.
19. Evaluate the timing and opportunities of converging NOAA/FWS recovery planning into BLM/FS land use plans.

The IAC discussion highlighted diverse perspectives of individual members, and reflected their shared desire to meet broad NWFP goals. Following is a summary of discussion comments grouped by general topic.

Collaboration: [Note correction to the RAC definition below - 6/13/05 KC/REO]

• There is support for making more use of stewardship contracts.
• Resource Advisory Councils Committees (RACs) could be more effective than Provincial Advisory Committees (PACs) in support of stewardship and healthy forests. The RACs have access to Title II funds, so there is a clear link to decisions on the ground.
• Look beyond federal land boundaries; some actions and programs on state and private lands, such as Habitat Conservation Plans, may rely on protective measures being implemented on federal lands.
• RACs and PACs need to be collaborative.
• Explore more opportunities for Tribal involvement in stewardship contracts. Tribal members can provide information and perspectives based on traditional Tribal forest management.

• There is support for dealing with Adaptive Management Area (AMA) structural impediments. Either make the AMAs effective and viable, or discontinue them.
• Look for learning opportunities across the landscape, not just within AMAs. For example, there is support for large scale experiments on the Biscuit Fire to obtain information about post-fire conditions and responses.
• Concern was expressed that flexibility envisioned under the NWFP could not be utilized effectively. There is a need to clarify how flexibility can be used, and when plan amendments are (or are not) required.
• There is support for utilizing AMAs to explore alternative management approaches, including traditional Tribal management of forest lands, and changes to watershed management.

• Look at the overall role of reserves, not just the role of reserves in dry provinces.
• Questions were raised regarding the management of LSRs. A need was expressed to take system dynamics into account, and to examine other changes such as decreased open edge and the loss of hardwoods.
• There is interest in increasing flexibility in Riparian Reserve management. A suggestion was made to experiment in limited areas (e.g., in AMAs) before applying broadscale changes.
• The issue of invasive species needs to be addressed in reserves and across the broader landscape.

• Ensure information from the science conference is communicated to PACs and RACs, and provide a feedback loop with these groups while looking at potential changes. PACs and RACs could gather local landowner and community input.
• Look for opportunities to use science as a bridge to build trust and improve communication.
• There is a need to translate conservation strategies (i.e., step them up or down) so they can be applied meaningfully at multiple scales.
• In developing communication points, incorporate messages from the science conference, the 2003 review conducted by the Forest Service in Region 5, and other sources.
• When laws or external factors unduly interfere with plan implementation, tell the story (e.g., how NEPA process requirements affected the basket weaver proposal).
• The timing of BLM and Forest Service land and resource management plan revision processes, and NOAA-Fisheries and potential U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service recovery planning efforts was noted. There was interest in coordinating these efforts and in developing a communication strategy that builds on this convergence of ideas and processes.
• We have information now that we did not have in 1994. We need to clearly articulate our response to the new information.

IAC Advice/Recommendations: Following individual comments and discussion, the IAC looked at overarching themes and developed a list of potential priorities for further consideration and follow-up by the RIEC (see attachment 2). IAC members ranked findings and potential management implications in priority order under both a short-term (before December 31, 2005) and long-term (after December 31, 2005) time frame. Fifteen Federal members and 11 non-Federal members participated in the exercise.

Overall Priorities: Overall, there was support for focusing efforts in areas where there is a high likelihood of success, where significant improvements can be made, where risks associated with inaction are high, where science is available to inform decisions, and where the agencies have flexibility and authority to act. Highest priority items identified included (in priority order): adaptive management (#7), work in fire prone areas (#2 and #10), review of the regional monitoring program (#6), watershed conditions (#3), human dimension impacts during the first ten years of the implementation of the NWFP (#9), additional issues not originally considered in the development of the NWFP (i.e., climate change and invasive species) (#5), revisiting the goals of the NWFP (#4), and improvements in the collaborative process (#8).

Short-term Priorities: IAC members identified work in fire prone areas (#2 and #10) and adaptive management (#7) as the most important short-term topics. The next two short term review topics included the regional monitoring program (#6) and human dimension impacts during the first ten years of the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan (#9).

Long-term Priorities: IAC members identified watershed conditions (#3) as their top long-term priority. This topic was rated differently by Federal and non-Federal members (Federal members rated it high; non-Federal rated it low). Non-Federal members surfaced concerns regarding the impacts of potential changes to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy or modifications to the Riparian Reserve boundaries. It was suggested that changes be first pilot-tested in Adaptive Management Areas before being applied on a wider scale. The regional monitoring program (#6) and adaptive management (#7) were identified as the next two high priority topics by both Federal and non-Federal IAC members. Additional issues not originally considered in the development of the NWFP (i.e., climate change and invasive species) (#5), human dimension impacts during the first ten years of the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan (#9) and revisiting the goals of the NWFP (#4) were identified next as priorities. Work in fire prone areas (#2 and #10) and collaboration (#8) were the final two long-term priorities.

Next Steps: The Federal members expressed appreciation for the candid and informative IAC discussion. The Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) will be discussing the science findings and potential management implications in light of IAC members’ advice and recommendations. Initial follow-up discussions were scheduled at the RIEC meeting later in the afternoon.

Topic: REGION 5 PROPOSED FIELD TRIP FOR IAC

Presenter: Dave Gibbons, FS Region 5 Alternate

Notes: The IAC is interested in the August field trip to California currently scheduled for August 16-18, 2005. These dates may be adjusted depending upon member availability. Three areas are under consideration for the field trip, including a visit to an AMA and the Hoopa tribal lands. Dave will continue to do research on logistics and itinerary, and he will firm up a proposal for the RIEC by the June meeting.

Topic: Upcoming Barred Owl Workshops

Presenter: Kristi Young (FWS REO Representative)

Notes: U.S. Fish and Wildlife provided additional information regarding an upcoming workshop: Barred Owl ecology and management options scheduled for June 14 - 15, 2005 in Arcata, California. If you are interested in additional information please contact: Kristi Young (FWS REO Representative) at 503-808-2178.

Topic: IAC RECOMMENDATION STATUS REPORT

REO Contact: Kath Collier (REO)

Background: This status report has been included as part of agreements reached at previous IAC meetings with respect to tracking IAC recommendations. Items that were previously reported as complete have been dropped from the list. Status updates have been included for your information.

1. Future IAC Field Trip: IAC members previously discussed a field trip to northern California in 2005. Status: At the April 21, 2005 IAC, the committee reaffirmed the desire for a field trip and the REO staff are working on potential agenda items and advisory opportunities; Dave Gibbons (FS, R5) is helping with logistics. IN PROGRESS

4. Proposal for creating a NWFP Social Science Working Group: Written recommendations were received April 21, 2005 at the IAC meeting from Lynn Jungwirth, Watershed Research and Training Center, Hayfork, CA). Status: This proposal was forwarded to the Interagency Monitoring team for further consideration. IN PROGRESS

5. Tribal monitoring recommendations: Written recommendations were received from IAC member Merv George at the April 21, 2005 IAC meeting. Status: A copy of the recommendations was given to Nancy Molina at the meeting for potential inclusion in the Management Implications report. IN PROGRESS

Allen, Dave (FWS)

Fontaine, Tom (EPA, Corvallis)

Motanic, Donald (ITC)

Badgley, Anne (REO)

George Jr., Merv (CIFFMC)

Mottice, Mike (BLM)

Birch, Kevin (OR Dept. of Forestry)

Gibbons, Dave (FS, R5)

Pool, Michael (BLM, CA)

Blackwell, Jack (FS, R5)

Goodman, Linda (FS, R6)

Powers, Dave (EPA)

Brong, Elaine (BLM, OR/WA)

Graham, Bob (NRCS)

Quigley, Tom (PNW)

Clark, Lance (State of OR)

Kinsinger, Anne (USGS)

Shevock, Jim (NPS, VCB)

Clement, Kathy (FS, R5)

Mankowski, John (WA Dept. of FWS)

Smith, George (ITC)

Connaughton, Kent (FS, R5)

Mason, Garland (FS, PSW)

Tuttle, Crawford (CA Resources Agency)

Crouse, Mike (NOAA Fisheries)

McKee, Albert (WA Assn. of Counties)

Westberg, Rory (NPS)

Davies, Bruce (NWIFC)

McVay, Rocky (Assn. of OR/CA Counties)

Woolley, John (California Counties)

Detrich, Phil (FWS, CA)

PRESENTERS

*Martin, Jon (FS, R6)

*Molina, Nancy (BLM)

Prather, Dick (BLM)

STAFF

Busch, Dave (USGS, REO)

Jenkins, Laurie Lee (NPS, REO)

Morris, Steve (NOAA, Fisheries, REO)

Collier, Kath (REO)

Loomis, Becky (REO)

Pietrzak, Debbie (BLM, REO)

*Gravenmier, Becky (PNW, REO)

Mohoric, Shawne (FS, R5)

Young, Kristi (FWS, REO)

OTHERS

*Barbour, James R.

*Grinspoon, Elizabeth

*Moeur, Melinda

*Bormann, Bernard

*Haynes, Richard W. (PNW)

*Molina, Randy

*Brookes, Martha

Hussey, Tom (FS, R6)

*Palmer, Craig

*Charnley, Susan

Johnson, Terry (BLM)

Powell, Douglas S. (FS, WO)

*Davis, Raymond

*Kiester, A. Ross

*Raphael, Martin G.

*Donoghue, Ellen

*Lanigan, Steven H. (FS, R6)

*Reeves, Gordon H.

*Freedman, Lisa (FS, R6)

*Lint, Joseph (BLM)

*Spies, Thomas A.

Gabrielson, John (EPA)

Matecko, Al (FS, R6)

Stouder, Deanna J. (FS, WO)

*Gallo, Kirsten

McVay, Tim (NW Environ. Center; Coast PAC)

Weingardt, Bernie (FS, R5)

Topic: FS and BLM PLAN REVISION PRESENTATIONS

Presenters: Lisa Freedman, Director, Resource Planning and Monitoring, FS R6; Dick Prather, BLM Project Manager, Western Oregon Resource Management Plan Revisions; and Kathy Clement, Director, Ecological Planning, FS R5

REO Contacts: Shawne Mohoric (FS), Debbie Pietrzak (BLM)

Issue: On the evening of April 20, 2005, IAC members were invited to attend an informational presentation regarding revisions of Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land and resource management plans (LRMPs) within the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) area.

Summary: Updates were provided with respect to several LRMP revisions scheduled in the NWFP area. Key similarities and differences between FS and BLM planning processes and schedules were noted. Planning updates will be provided at future IAC meetings as needed. IAC members are welcome to contact the following individuals for further information regarding specific plan revision efforts:

• FS, Region 6: Shawne Mohoric, 503-808-2175
• FS, Region 5: Kathy Clement, 707-562-8957
• BLM, Western Oregon: Dick Prather, 503-808-6627
• BLM, Northern California: Paul Roush, 707-825-2301