Enclosed are a proposed agenda and supporting pre-work materials for the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) meeting scheduled for November 1, 2001, from 10:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. in the Gevertz Ceremonial Room of the Embassy Suites Hotel, located at 319 S.W. Pine Street in downtown Portland. Please note that the meeting time is slightly later than our standard IAC meeting time and that which was published in the Federal Register notice for the meeting.

As the enclosed agenda indicates, the meeting has a format similar to the one employed during the February and May 2001 meetings in that most of the time will be devoted to discussing and receiving input from IAC members on relevant policy questions. Broadly framed, the topic on which your input will be sought at the November meeting is the future direction of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP), with a primary focus on how to improve upon the present course of its implementation to more effectively satisfy all five of its underlying fundamental principles. In addressing this general topic, four subjects in particular will be focused on, as follows:

• Aquatic Conservation Strategy
• Survey and Manage
• Procedural requirements and processes attendant to plan implementation
• Interrelationship between conservation and commodity output strategies

As at the February and May meetings, to facilitate the gathering of advice and input on these subjects, we will break into small groups for the bulk of the discussions, groups will report their results to the full committee, and then some further discussion designed to find trends or themes will occur among all members. Because time will not allow for every IAC member to participate in a small group discussion on each of these subjects, you will have an opportunity to discuss two of them in a small-group setting, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. To help ensure that you can participate in small-group discussions that focus on the issues in which you have the greatest interest, we would ask that you complete the attached form to designate your preferences and return it to Kath Collier of the REO via fax by 4:00 p.m. on October 31.

The November agenda also includes a progress report and opportunity to provide feedback on various elements of the NFP Monitoring program as well as an information update on thinning dense, young stands in Late-Successional Reserves toward the advancement of ecological objectives. There will also be a short presentation on a couple of Hot Topics that will include updates on Northwest Forest Plan-related litigation and congressional hearings.

Also, please note that you will be invited again to join us for "Lunch by the Number" at an on-site restaurant at the hotel. And, back by popular demand, there will be bonus-prize questions throughout the meeting, with the featured theme this meeting being recreation on federal lands.

If you have questions about the meeting or enclosed materials, please contact me, your agency representative, or REO Management Analyst Kath Collier (503-808-2179). I look forward to seeing you at the meeting.

Enclosures:

• Proposed Agenda for November 2001 IAC meeting
• Pre-work materials for November 2001 IAC meeting
• Topic/Session Preference sheet (to be returned by 4:00 p.m. on October 31)

cc:
Presenters, REO, PAC DFOs

1680/kc

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Distribution List

Subject: February 1, 2001 Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting Notes

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Distribution List

Status Reports:

• Oregon Agreement Proposal
• FY 2002 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations conference report

AGENDA TOPIC OVERVIEW

Background:

The NFP was developed to address multiple objectives: two of the principal (and most interrelated) ones are providing habitat for Late-Successional and Old Growth (LSOG) forest-associated species and providing for a sustainable and predictable level of timber harvest. The plan relies on its ratio between two basic types of land allocations (Reserves and Matrix) as well as Standards & Guidelines (S&Gs) applicable to each allocation as the primary means by which to achieve both its conservation and commodity objectives.

Reserves. Thirty-six percent of the federal lands within the NFP area were in some sort of independent reserve status even before adoption of the NFP (congressionally reserved areas (30%) and Administratively Withdrawn Areas (6%)). The NFP reserve system includes Late-Successional Reserves (LSRs), Managed Late-Successional Areas (MLSAs), and Riparian Reserves, which increased the percentage of reserves in the NFP area to approximately 80 percent. The NFP reserves have numerous objectives, including protection and enhancement of LSOG forest ecosystems, conservation of habitat for LSOG associated species, maintenance and restoration of riparian structures and functions, providing habitats for riparian-dependent and associated species, enhancing habitats for organisms that are dependent on the area between the upslope and riparian areas, and improving travel for many terrestrial animals and plants.

Matrix. The remaining 20 percent of the NFP area is designated as Matrix or Adaptive Management Areas (AMAs). The primary purpose of the Matrix is to provide for a steady supply of timber that can be sustained over the long-term without degrading the health of the forest or other ecological resources. Consequently, there are a variety of NFP S&Gs and other requirements that apply to management of the Matrix. Examples include: retention of snags, green trees, and down logs, Survey and Manage, and consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service or Fish and Wildlife Service regarding species listed under the Endangered Species Act.

Harvest Levels - PSQ. The NFP defines Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ) as the timber harvest level likely to be achieved on an annual basis and maintained without decline over the long term. The PSQ is predicated on assumptions of a stable land base available for harvest, certain types of forest available for harvest, as well as constraints placed on that harvest. The agencies' plans outline the timing and mix of harvest treatments to be undertaken on Matrix lands. Although certain narrowly constrained harvest can be undertaken in Reserves (e.g., thinning in LSRs to achieve ecological objectives), these are quite limited in scope and, thus, were not designed to contribute to PSQ.

Late-Successional Forest. There are approximately 8 million acres of late-successional forest (80 years and older). The reserves contain approximately 6.9 million acres (86%) of the existing late-successional forest. The remaining 1.1 million acres (14%) of existing late-successional forest is in the Matrix. Old-growth is a subset of late-successional forest that comprises approximately 40% of the foregoing totals. The total amount of late-successional forest is expected to increase over time because the reserve network is many times larger than the area to be harvested in the Matrix.

Late-Successional Forest - Harvest and Growth - NFP Assumptions. The 1.1 million acres of late-successional forest in the Matrix is the overwhelming source of PSQ (90%) for the next few decades while younger Matrix stands mature. Approximately 50% of the PSQ was to be derived from old-growth stands in the early decades of the plan. Consequently, any reduction in the lands available for commercial timber harvest in the Matrix, e.g., through prohibiting harvest of any remaining old-growth forest stands, would result in lowering the sustainable harvest level of the NFP in the absence of any offsetting additional modifications. In this context, it is worth mentioning that many young, dense tree stands in LSRs could benefit from thinning treatments to help develop late-successional conditions and that, as a byproduct of such treatments, some timber could be produced over the next few decades, but it would not be expected to be able to provide a long term sustainable contribution to harvest levels under the NFP over the longer term.

Implementation Experience. The NFP FSEIS calculated the PSQ at 958 million board feet (MMBF). The first three years of the NFP was characterized by a ramp-up period to full PSQ. Since 1998, sales under the NFP have been curtailed primarily because of Survey and Manage and several adverse court rulings. Since 1999, the agencies have offered for sale only 25-30% of the PSQ anticipated by the NFP as timber sales have been based largely on thinning and avoidance of older forests given the difficulties of harvesting in them as a result of Survey and Manage, listed species, protests, and litigation. By 2000, PSQ had fallen by 15% to 811 MMBF, primarily due to increased estimates of the land base covered by riparian reserves. For the past three years, actual harvest has been only a fraction of PSQ, with the timber sales offered in 2000 amounting to approximately 131 MMBF.

Key Issues to Frame IAC Discussion & Input:

• Should modifications to the NFP be considered in light of the difference between the timber outputs originally anticipated and those actually being achieved over the past several years?
• Should the S&Gs underlying the present PSQ under the NFP - those regarding the types of forest stands authorized for harvest and the kinds of treatments allowed - be reconsidered?
• Should the present mix of Land Allocations and/or the land base available for commercial timber harvest be reconsidered in an effort to better satisfy the timber objectives of the NFP?

SURVEY AND MANAGE

Background: The history surrounding the Survey and Manage (S&M) standards and guidelines has its origins in the Forest Service's response to a 1992 court ruling which found that the agency had failed to adequately analyze potentially adverse effects of a northern spotted owl conservation strategy it had adopted on 32 species associated with LSOG forests other than the owl. The Forest Service in turn formed a Scientific Analysis Team to prepare a report on viability assessments and management considerations for all LSOG-associated species in the forests of the Pacific Northwest in 1993.

Building on this earlier effort, viability assessments were then conducted on a total of 1120 species associated with late-successional forests (e.g. fungi, lichens, plants, invertebrates, fish and terrestrial vertebrates) during development of the NFP. This assessment showed that the core components of the NFP conservation strategy (LSR network and other reserves, Aquatic Conservation Strategy) would provide for the persistence of the large majority of the LSOG species assessed. A subset of some 400 species and species groups was identified, however, for which the core components might potentially be inadequate to provide a relatively high likelihood persistence, either because of the species' genuine rarity or, more often than not, a lack of knowledge about the species. The scientists were also asked to identify potential mitigation measures that could be incorporated into the final NFP to increase the likelihood of persistence of the species. Among other things, these measures included what have come to be known as S&M - i.e., various types of surveys for species with management to protect species sites located during surveys. These measures were added to the NFP in the later stages of its development to increase the likelihood of persistence of the 400-plus species.

The S&M measures were amended in January 2001 to add clarity, remove duplication, adjust the levels of management for specific species based on new information (some 70 species were removed from all S&M measures), and establish an annual species review process that will be used for making changes to management in the future. (The 2001 process is in its final phase, and management adaptations are being considered for approximately 90 species in light of new information.) Each species is assigned to one of six management categories based upon criteria related to relative concern for its persistence, distribution, survey practicality, habitat characteristics, and other factors.

Implementation Experience: Certain S&M measures have proven to be quite time consuming, complicated, and expensive. S&M pre-disturbance surveys and management of known sites also can make planning for and carrying out viable timber sales and other ground-disturbing projects difficult. Prior to adoption of the S&M measures, the Fish and Wildlife Service had received petitions to list some of the species now covered by S&M under the Endangered Species Act, and any major revisions to S&M perceived to weaken protection for species might lead to the filing of more such petitions.

Key Issues to Frame IAC Discussion & Input:

1. Is it timely for the agencies to consider changes to the S&M measures given that amendments to the measures were adopted in January 2001 and are in the first year of implementation?

2. Should a lower level of likelihood of persistence be accepted for S&M species to avoid some or all of the expense, time, and impediment to achieving other objectives that can arise from implementing S&M measures at present?

3. Should the agencies look to adopt a totally different approach other than the S&M measures in their management for the conservation of rare and little-known species?

AGGREGATE NUMBER OF PROCESSES ATTENDANT TO NFP IMPLEMENTATION

Background: Agencies must follow or are subject to myriad processes and analytical and procedural requirements in implementing the NFP and projects thereunder. The nature and aggregate number of those processes and requirements influence the manner in which the NFP is implemented by adding varying degrees of value to the decisions reached with respect to how to implement the NFP on the ground in exchange for the marginal time and cost that must be expended to carry out such duties.

For purposes of this discussion, it is helpful to distinguish among four types of processes:

• Procedures which derive from statutes or agency regulations. These include ESA consultation, NEPA analyses, and NFMA/FLPMA planning rules.
• Specific or general procedures or analytical duties required by the NFP. Examples include Watershed Analyses, LSR Assessments, RIEC/REO reviews of certain implementation activities, and the Survey and Manage Annual Species Review Process.
• Procedures that derive from internal administrative guidance the agencies have adopted that is not required by the NFP. These include all-purpose agency administrative procedures as well as procedures developed specifically to support NFP implementation. Examples include ESA consultation streamlining procedures and the process for adjusting Riparian Reserve widths.
• Administrative appeals and litigation procedures. These tend to be quite expensive and time-consuming processes that the agencies often are compelled to carry out as appeals and lawsuits continue unabated against many projects, especially timber sales, that the agencies have made decisions to carry out under the NFP.

Difficulties in implementing the NFP have been identified stemming from the number and overlap of the aggregate number of processes that must be followed to effect implementation, as well as the nature and perceived inflexibility of certain procedural requirements in particular. Questions have been raised as to whether there is sufficient value added by some processes to warrant their continued use. There also is concern that NFP implementation procedures as a whole may be disproportionately burdensome in light of the value they are perceived to add to the quality of decisions being made on the ground. Finally, issues have been raised about procedural redundancies, missed opportunities to streamline or facilitate procedures, and/or the scale at which various procedures are mandated.

Key Issues to Frame IAC Discussion & Input:

1. Is there a need to further examine opportunities to develop criteria to exempt certain actions from RIEC/REO reviews, thereby in effect returning greater discretion and flexibility to field units? On a related note, what about exempting certain narrowly framed modifications to Land Allocations or S&Gs if they were to have been endorsed by the applicable Provincial Advisory Committee?

2. In general, what kinds of issues concerning interpretation or modification of the NFP warrant the interposition of interagency review and input, and at what level?

3. There is an implicit trade-off in many NFP procedures: promoting consistency through issue resolution at a broader scales or providing for greater discretion and flexibility by resolving issues in the field. What is the appropriate balance between these approaches in NFP implementation?

Background: The Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) is designed to restore and maintain the ecological health of watersheds on federal lands within the range of the northern spotted owl. The strategy has four primary components: Watershed Analysis, Watershed Restoration, Riparian Reserves, and Key Watersheds. The ACS also includes nine objectives and specific Standards & Guidelines (S&Gs) written for each of the ACS components designed to achieve those objectives. Riparian Reserves, which are designated alongside streams and in which ground-disturbing activities are limited, help support land-based species in addition to serving aquatic/riparian functions.

Some key requirements of the ACS that help define the relationship among its components include the following:

• Watershed Analysis is required prior to resource management in Key Watersheds.
• Watershed Analysis is required in all Roadless Areas prior to resource management
• Watershed Analysis is required to change Riparian Reserve widths in all watersheds
• No new roads will be built in Roadless Areas in Key Watersheds
• Key Watersheds are the highest priority for Watershed Restoration

Interagency implementation guidance exists for conducting "Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale" and for making adjustments to the widths of riparian reserves. Interpretation and clarification of the ACS is an ongoing process, but the scientific validity of the strategy has not been challenged.

Riparian Reserves: At the time of its adoption, the agencies envisioned that there would be more flexibility to modify riparian reserve widths than is being used. Some additional flexibility may exist to manage within the reserves. Such flexibility depends largely on the validity of ACS consistency determinations, using watershed analysis. Flexibility to modify the riparian reserves may be limited by the NFP requirement to consider the connectivity functions of the reserves for terrestrial species.

Watershed Analysis (WA): The NFP indicates that watershed analysis is to be used as the basis for making ACS consistency determinations for proposed projects and some ongoing projects. The interagency guidance provides authority to make recommendations in Watershed Analysis as well, but not decisions. In addition, courts have interpreted watershed analysis as part of the "best available science" under the Endangered Species Act. In this light, subsequent decisions regarding ACS consistency may need to be more consistent with watershed analysis findings or recommendations.

Key Issues To Frame IAC Discussion & Input: A formal plan amendment likely would be needed if the ACS is modified in any major way. ESA consultation for any changes would probably apply at the Plan level. The following are some potential questions within the issue areas identified above:

1. Given the difficulty the agencies have experienced in modifying Riparian Reserve widths, should greater discretion be provided regarding the types of activities allowed within reserve boundaries so long as such activities are, at a minimum, consistent with ACS objectives?

2. Should the agencies attempt to build greater flexibility into the process for modifying Riparian Reserve widths?

3. What should be the role of Watershed Analysis in implementation of the NFP? In particular, should the analysis include recommendations and, if so, how should they be construed?

Background: The concept of adaptive management acknowledges the need to manage resources under circumstances of varying degrees of uncertainty while adjusting to new information as it becomes available. In the context of the NFP, adaptive management is the process of action-based planning, monitoring, researching, evaluating, and adjusting over time in the light of new information with the objective of improving the implementation and achievement of NFP goals (S&Gs, at E-13).

Key issues: Despite a considerable amount of information of potential relevance to implementation of the NFP that has been generated or come to light since the NFP's adoption, effecting change to management under the NFP has proven difficult. Differences of opinion surrounding the issue of how and whether to make changes to the NFP is similar to the experiences with other ecosystem initiatives in effect across the nation. Issues associated with implementing adaptive management include:

• There is near-universal awareness of adaptive management, but a lack of a shared definition and vision about how to implement it across agencies, programs, and local and regional units.
• The perception that the NFP S&Gs are inflexible due to familiarity with initial interpretations of their meaning, as well as uncertainty about how additional analysis under NEPA, ESA, NFMA, FLPMA, etc. will affect the ability to initiate change.
• Adaptive change has occurred on an ad hoc basis under the NFP, but questions have arisen about whether broader-scale modifications to S&Gs, or broader-scale adaptations to management under existing S&Gs, can be put in place across the region with interagency buy-in.
• There does not appear to be a well-articulated, proactive process for adaptive management, informed by science and focused on seeking out new information in topic areas where there is general agreement about its importance to achieving NFP objectives.
• There are a number of challenges in simply figuring out how to assemble, synthesize, and utilize all sources of pertinent information (i.e., monitoring, research, AMAs, statutory and regulatory changes, organizational or process assessments, etc.) in a clear and efficient manner.

Policy questions/strategies: The May 2001 IAC meeting agenda featured presentations and advice on how Adaptive Management Areas (AMAs) are managed and how to best utilize and share information in the adaptive management process. Small groups discussed the following questions:

• Next steps for the AMA network - Should we look at options for keeping the network as it exists or focus our resources in some other way? For example, reducing the number of AMAs or concentrating resources in fewer areas?
• Information sharing - Does IAC want to be briefed on these lessons? If so, how? What other forums should be used regionally for sharing information on lessons learned or studies underway?
• Using new information - Can the IAC play an active role to help champion case studies or lessons learned to effect needed changes? Should the IAC be used as a forum to bring forward options and recommendations for changes?

Although development of an adaptive management strategy has yet to be achieved, this topic has been identified by the RIEC as an "urgent" priority in the final draft of the FY2002 REO/RMG work plan.