• Presentation & Framing of Issues
• Small Group Discussions

• Plenary Discussion
• Consolidation & Transcription of IAC Advice

Kath Collier

At the November 2000 IAC meeting, the committee also discussed the development of a set of guiding principles for future committee discussions and operations. The REO has gleaned from those discussions a list of proposed principles (in no particular order), as follows:

• •All IAC members (Federal and non-Federal) are full members, have equal standing and voices, and should be invited and encouraged to participate as fully as possible
• •IAC discussions should focus more on policy matters and less solely on information sharing
• •IAC will seek to establish and foster a common understanding of the appropriate roles and inter-relationships of IAC, RIEC, REO, and related entities
• •IAC deliberations will seek to address significant policies relevant to the whole Northwest Forest Plan area while making any appropriate distinctions among States
• •IAC will strive to keep communications among all members open and current, as well as communications with Province Advisory Committees
• •IAC input should be sought as early in the decision-making process as is practicable
• •In carrying out tasks, IAC will strive for clear descriptions of its objectives and expectations as well as more definitive measures of success
• •Federal committee members should explain how IAC advice was considered and/or incorporated into final agency decisions
• •IAC will seek to use a collaborative approach and strengthen ties with related regional planning efforts
• •In its deliberations, IAC should strive for an appropriate balance between the socio-economic and ecological goals of the Northwest Forest Plan

A proposed list of IAC Operating Principles is set forth above, and the IAC will be presented an opportunity to approve their adoption at the meeting.

X IAC Decision Other:

The original NFP Record of Decision (ROD) and Standards & Guidelines (S&Gs) provide for the RIEC or REO to exercise some form of coordination or review responsibilities in 12 different situations. In addition, the recently adopted amendments to the NFP Survey & Manage and related S&Gs added 13 more scenarios in which the RIEC and/or REO is charged with exercising some kind of review responsibility, bringing the total of such tasks to 25.

The topic on which IAC advice is sought involves how the RIEC and REO should carry out their responsibilities in this regard in one particular context, arising from their responsibility to coordinate and/or review proposed amendments to individual national forest or BLM district unit plans that would modify NFP S&Gs.

Specifically, the Northwest Forest Plan ROD provides that:

Amendments of forest or district plans that would modify the standards and guidelines or land use allocations established by this [ROD] will be coordinated through the [RIEC and the REO]. Although decisions concerning implementation or modifications of these standards and guidelines are subject to review by these interagency groups, the [NFP Memorandum of Understanding] acknowledges the line authorities of individual agencies. (ROD, page 58)

Decisions to change land allocations, or [S&Gs] will be made only through the adoption, revision, or amendment of these documents following appropriate public participation, NEPA procedures, and coordination with the [RIEC]. . . . Changes or adjustments to these standards and guidelines may be made through amendments to [management plans for particular national forests or BLM districts]. The authority to change or amend those plans remains as specified in the applicable regulations. The amendments will be reviewed by the [RIEC] to assure consistency with the objectives of these standards and guidelines. (S&Gs, E-18)

A recent court ruling has addressed this issue. In Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Forest Service, plaintiffs challenged a decision by the Gifford Pinchot National Forest to authorize a 300-acre expansion of a ski area and construction of a short spur road in an inventoried roadless area within a Tier 2 Key Watershed, in which the NFP S&Gs prohibit all road construction. The court ruled that the Forest's sending a letter to the REO advising of its intent to amend its management plan so as to revise the roadless area boundaries and assuming that lack of a formal response constituted a tacit "concurrence" in the amendment were "insufficient" to demonstrate that the Forest had adequately coordinated with the REO within the meaning of the NFP ROD.

A. Key Factors in Formulation of Advice

• Coordination/review must be consistent with language in ROD and S&Gs
• Coordination/review cannot be a "veto" of LRMP/RMP amendment - line authority to undertake such amendments (or not) remains with individual agency
• Coordination/review should be more than just lack of an objection given NEA ruling
• Coordination/review must not be too cumbersome, onerous, or lengthy such that it is so expensive or time-consuming that beneficial modifications are not sought
• Responsibility for performing coordination/review vested within RIEC and REO
• Review/Coordination is not for consistency with NFP S&Gs, but for proposed amendments that would modify NFP S&Gs
• Policy development is in initial phase

B. Specific Issues on Which IAC Advice Would Be Most Useful

1. What should be the fundamental nature of the coordination/review?

Array of Potential models:

a. Notice & Opportunity to Be Heard -- RIEC/REO would be presented proposed amendment prior to adoption and provided opportunity for informal interagency weigh-in with no review standard or written product required

b. Deferential Review - would focus on whether individual forests or BLM districts "jumped through all of the right hoops" and considered all appropriate factors under the NFP, but would not conduct independent analysis or findings

c. Independent Review - on basis of facts in administrative record underlying amendment, RIEC/REO would independently analyze amendment and render a finding as to whether pre-established substantive standard had been satisfied

2. What should be the primary focus of the coordination/review?

Array of Possible Options:

1. Consideration of human & economic dimensions

2. Protection of long-term health of forests, wildlife, and waterways

3. Efforts are to be scientifically sound, ecologically credible, and legally responsible

4. Production of predictable and sustainable level of timber sales & non-timber resources that will not degrade or destroy the environment

5. Interagency collaboration

b. Objectives of Key NFP Components at issue in Proposed Amendment ; e.g., S&Gs state that objective of LSRs is "to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems"

c. Assumptions and analysis used in developing ROD, S&Gs, & amendments

Array of possible options:

a. Exemption from coordination/review for amendments with "inconsequential effects on purposes & objectives of NFP"

b. Exemption from coordination/review for amendments unless they would significantly reduce protection for late-successional or old-growth forest related species or aquatic ecosystems

c. Exemption linked to statutory standard (e.g., whether EIS required)

4. Broad process-related Issues

a. Should the decision about what is exempt be subject to REO/RIEC review?

b. Should S&G modifications that fall within exemption criteria be tracked?

c. In coordinating/reviewing S&G amendment, should there be a minimum degree of likelihood employed and, if so, what should it be?

RIEC Decision Other:

• See detailed discussion in previous Agenda Topic Overview, above

2. Analysis of recent science findings (e.g., thinning operations in dense young stands)

• Should management of NFP lands be adjusted in light of research findings?
• At what intensity and frequency should any such adjustments be pursued?
• What are some of the key issues or factors agencies should consider before pursuing any such changes?

3. NFP amendments to overcome implementation obstacles and better meet NFP objectives

• Which, if any, NFP objectives are not being as fully realized as they might be?
• What are the implementation obstacles to more fully realizing such objectives?
• What NFP amendments would provide for overcoming such obstacles?

4. Proposed modifications to Aquatic Conservation Strategy in light of PCFFA court rulings

• Are modifications to ACS timely and appropriate in light of PCFFA rulings?
• If so, what are the major issues that any such modifications should address?

5. Developing options for new approaches to management for rare or little-known species

• Are there credible alternative management approaches that will adequately conserve Survey & Manage species?
• What level of risk is acceptable when managing for conservation of unlisted species about which there is very little information?

6. NFP Adaptive Management guidelines and process for considering new information

• How frequently and on what basis should consideration of adjustments in management be undertaken as a result of new information?
• Should greater use be made of Adaptive Management Areas to test different potential management approaches?

7. Coordination of Northwest Forest Plan with salmon issues and initiatives

• Should any non-member entities involved with salmon-related initiatives or issues be invited to participate to some degree and in some fashion in the meetings and deliberations of REO, RIEC, and IAC?
• Should there be a greater effort to coordinate planning for salmonid species across boundaries (Federal, State, Tribal, County, private)? If so, how?

RIEC Decision Other:

Since May 2000, the agencies issued a Final FY 1999 Timber Sales IM report (December 2000), which supplements previous final reports for FYs 1996, 1997, and 1998. The FY 1999 draft watershed report will be available for review in late February 2001. The draft report on the FY2000 IM results is targeted for June 2001.

FY 2001 Field Monitoring Effort - We will continue to conduct watershed-scale monitoring with a focus on watersheds where ground-disturbing activities have occurred. We will also work toward integrating the IM program with Effectiveness Monitoring considerations.

Key Criteria Considerations for Developing a Five-year Strategy:

• link to effectiveness and other monitoring components
• it is timely to focus on establishing consistency as we have progressed from monitoring activities to issues to watersheds
• continue to build on integrity/cooperation developed with other agencies and public

Process suggested for IAC advice leading to a RIEC Decision

• IAC input on proposed process (February 2001)
• IAC mid-course check (August 2001)
• Progress checks with Monitoring Program Managers
• PAC input (Summer 2001)
• Presentation of Final Draft Strategy to IAC (November 2001)
• RIEC decision on Five-year Strategy (February 2002)

RIEC Decision Other:

The printed ROD will be distributed to Federal agency offices in early February. An implementation team will conduct briefings to agency regional and field offices during February 2001.

RIEC Decision X Other: Information & possible questions