February 2002 IAC Meeting Notes

Regional Ecosystem Office 333 S.W. First Avenue P.O. Box 3623 Portland, Oregon Website: www.reo.gov E-Mail: REOmail@or.blm.gov Phone: 503-808-2165 FAX: 503-808-2163
	Memorandum
To:	Interagency Advisory Committee (see distribution list)
From:	Stephen J. Odell, Executive Director
Subject:	February 2002 IAC Meeting Note

Enclosed please find notes briefly summarizing the discussions and decisions reached during the meeting of the Interagency Advisory Committee (IAC) on February 7, 2002. The principal topic on which the meeting focused was the Future Direction of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), which was addressed through small-group discussions and reporting, a plenary discussion, and a synthesis of the IAC’s input. A recapitulation of these steps is included in these notes as well as concise reports on two Hot Topics that were presented at the meeting, an update on litigation related to the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) and a progress report on various monitoring issues. If you have any questions or concerns about the enclosed meeting notes, please do not hesitate to contact me or Kath Collier, REO Management Analyst, at 503-808-2179. Thank you for your ongoing participation in providing valuable input and advice to improve NWFP implementation.

Enclosure: February 2002 IAC Meeting Notes

cc: REO, DFOs1
1714/kc

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Distribution List

California
Mary D. Nichols, Secretary, California Resources Agency, State Government representative
Maria Rea, California Resources Agency, State Gov’t (Alternate)
Francie Sullivan, California Counties representative
John Wolley, California Counties (Alternate)

Oregon
Peter Green, Governor’s Forest Policy Advisor, State Gov’ representativer
Lance Clark, Resource Analyst, State Government (Alternate)
Rocky McVay, Oregon Counties representative

Washington
Robert Nichols, Senior Exec. Policy Assistant, State Government
Karin Berkholtz, State Government (Alternate)
John Mankowski, State Government (Alternate)
Albert McKee, Washington Counties representative

Tribes
Merv George, Jr., Exec. Director, CA Indian For. & Fire Mgmt Council>
David Herrera, Fisheries Mgr, NW Indian Fisheries Commission
   Bruce Davies, Policy Analyst, NW Indian Fisheries Com. (Alternate)
   Jim Anderson, Exec. Dir., NW Indian Fisheries Com. (Alternate)
   Katie Krueger, Envir. Policy Analyst, Quileute Tribe (Alternate)
George SmithIntertribal Timber Council
   Theodora Strong, Yakama Nation (Alternate)
   Gary Morishima, Intertribal Timber Council (Alternate)

Federal Agencies
Anne Badgley, Regional Dir, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Rowan Gould, Deputy Reg. Dir., U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Steve Thompson, Acting CA/NV Op Office Mgr, FWS
Col. Randall J. Butler Dist Engr, U.S. Army Corps of Engrs
   Davis Moriuchi, Dep Dist Commander, U.S. Corps of Engrs
Art EckDeputy Regional Director, National Park Service
   Kathy Jope, Natural Resources Team Leader, NPS
   Jim Shevock, Associate Regional Director, NPS (Alt)
Harv ForsgrenRegional Forester, Forest Service, R-6
   Nancy Graybeal, Deputy Regional Forester, FS, R-6
   Jack Blackwell, Regional Forester, FS, R-5
   Kent Connaughton, Deputy Regional Forester, FS , R-5
Bob GrahamNatural Resources Conservation Service
Anne KinsingerRegional Biologist, USGS Western Region
   Ronald E. Kirby, Director, USGS Ecosystem Science Center
Robert LohnReg Adm, National Marine Fisheries Service
   Mike Crouse, Acting Asst. Reg Adm, NMFS (Alt)
Thomas J. MillsStation Director, Forest Service, PNW
   Becky Gravenmier, Forest Service, PNW (Alt)
Jennifer Orme-ZavaletaWestern Ecology Division, EPA
   Robert Lackey, Western Ecology Division, EPA (Alt)
Dave Powers, Environmental Protection Agency
Stan Speaks, Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs
   Alex Whistler, Portland Area Office, BIA (Alt)
   Ron Jaeger, Area Director, Sacramento Area Office, BIA
Elaine ZielinskiState Director, OR/WA, Bureau of Land Mmgt
   Ed Shepard, Deputy State Director, OR/WA, BLM
   Michael Pool, State Director, CA, BLM
   Paul Roush, Wildlife Biologist, BLM, Arcata, CA

ISSUE SUMMARY

REO Contact/Phone: Steve Odell/503-808-2166

Topic: Future Direction of the Northwest Forest Plan - Round 2

Issue Statement: To gather input and advice from non-Federal IAC members regarding the future direction of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) and to discuss their highest priorities for potential changes to improve the strategy’s performance in meeting all of its objectives.

Summary of Discussion: An introductory segment provided an overview of ongoing RIEC processes and views on the present course of NWFP implementation, reviewed a set of bullets synthesizing input from the last IAC meeting (outlined in the meeting notes), and discussed several NWFP-related proposals being advocated by other interested entities. Overview - Regional Forester Harv Forsgren briefly retraced various steps that have been taken since February 2001 when the IAC suggested examination of potential modifications to the NWFP as an IAC meeting discussion topic. The IAC first addressed the topic at its November 2001 meeting. The discussion at that meeting generally focused on potential improvements that could be made in three key NWFP areas (Aquatic Conservation Strategy, the cumulative procedural requirements and processes attendant to NWFP implementation, and the interrelationship between conservation and commodity output strategies reflected in the NWFP). Since that time, the RIEC has continued with its ongoing efforts to develop a series of potential options for changes to the NWFP that could improve its implementation so that it can more effectively achieve the full suite of objectives on which it was developed. Steve Odell then reviewed the key elements of the discussion and follow-up synthesis from the November 2001 IAC meeting. He also outlined the principal points contained in several other proposals for how to improve NWFP implementation and results that have been put forward recently by a variety of sources. These points were composited onto flip charts (table 1) and were made available as a starting point for the IAC’s small-group discussions. There was some discussion regarding the first element in the ACS sheet A general support for changing the ACS..." It was suggested that this would better reflect the discussion if it was worded "general support for improving the implementation of the ACS...."

Small Group Discussions - The room was broken into two small groups each of which was provided with a facilitator and note-taker. Each group independently developed a process for discussion that was to culminate in a voting exercise to generally identify the top 5-7 ideas or items that the group believed would do the most to improve NWFP implementation. Under this framework, one small group identified overarching concerns, a vision statement, and additional options (table 2). The other group discussed each of the elements and went through a series of votes to arrive at a listing of its top 5-7 elements (table 3).

Synopsis - Harv wrapped up with a synopsis of what he heard emerging from the discussions and reports of the small groups. He began by noting that unanimity did not necessarily exist on the answers to some key underlying questions such as "Is something broken?" and "what are we trying to fix?" He also observed that the priorities that non-Federal IAC members had expressed generally appeared to be in alignment with the RIEC’s fundamental goals for improving upon the present course of NWFP implementation. The principal themes Harv stated that he heard woven throughout the IAC’s discussions included the following:
-- there continues to be support for the five fundamental principles underlying the NWFP
-- there appears to be general support for the basic substantive components of the NWFP
-- procedural issues need to be addressed and look for opportunities to reduce process
-- watershed analysis, monitoring, and adaptive management are important elements
-- Seek to increase flexibility and discretion in NWFP implementation
-- Carefully examine potential modifications to Riparian Reserves and Survey & Manage Other broadly supported positions included the view that the NWFP essentially represents a social contract setting forth the general levels of timber harvest and kinds of natural resource protections that citizens can expect will be met on the Federal lands covered by the strategy. " significant challenge is to avoid implementation paralysis and support all of the NWFP objectives. Harv summarized by saying "Simple and cheap" options probably aren’t there. Other members added suggestions to focus dollars on areas where they would produce the greatest return and shifting more dollars to monitoring and adaptive management efforts. The group was challenged to consider if any of the suggested changes would really make a difference in reducing implementation costs, increasing Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ), or eliminating or streamlining implementation processes. Some IAC members suggested that they could increase PSQ, while others said that costs could actually rise in the short term due to expected litigation and transaction costs. It was recognized that there are tradeoffs with each approach, but that attempting to improve NWFP implementation should be pursued. It was further stated that only portions of the NWFP need to be revised, not the whole plan.

Several members also noted the need and desirability of conducting outreach for the NWFP and suggested that this might be accomplished via email updates, newsletters, or the like.

Next Steps (who/what/when): The REO will examine whether there are opportunities for any further meaningful and timely IAC discussion on these issues at future meetings and will seek to communicate any major developments with committee members in the interim.

Table 1. Key elements from November 2001 IAC Discussion and various other proposals Note: Some items are followed by a parenthetical notation. The notation identifies the number of dots the item received in the first round of voting and any comments captured on the flip chart. (#Fed/Non-Fed indicator; comment). In addition, some items include 1 or 2 asterisks which indicates that one or both of the small groups agreed that this element should be included in the top 5-7 items.

Elements of 11/01 IAC input
re: Aquatic Conservation Strategy

*IAC expressed general support for improving implementation of the ACS, which some committee members believed should be accomplished through changes to the strategy, with a preference expressed for changes that are science-based, make better use of the information being gathered through monitoring and other means, and are equitable in terms of their effects.
*There is general support for greater discretion to accomplish ACS objectives, but need to avoid unintended consequences (i.e., loosening S&Gs for adjusting riparian reserve widths may diminish the positive benefits derived from habitat protection for riparian-dependent species).
*Need to clarify role of watershed analysis in the planning process.
*Look at documentation requirements and determine whether they are an impediment or discourage change. Adjust requirements as needed. (1F; specific to Riparian Reserves)

Elements of 11/01 IAC input
re: Cumulative Processes & Procedures
*Need more information on process/ procedural requirements and evaluation of each process and feedback from the field prior to adopting reduction in process.
*Re-examine exemptions, level of process and documentation should match the level of controversy. (2F)
*Decision authority should be pushed down, but decisions should be tracked. Elements of 11/01 IAC input re: Conservation & Commodity Outputs
*The NWFP is a social contract that recognizes the importance of timber outputs as well as a balance between the five principal objectives. (3N;4F) The IAC expressed an openness to looking at a variety of ways to meet the objectives (e.g., Land "Allocations, shorter rotations, etc.)
*The focus should be on outcomes with greater discretion given to the local manager, but need to keep the whole picture in front of us.
*Review S&Gs to see if they contribute to or hinder achievement of outcomes. (1F)
*Need public support for identified changes. This would require education and communication.
*Need to rebuild support for the NWFP both internally and externally. (2N)

Non-IAC Ideas re: Land Allocations
*Amend direction for O&C lands to remove reserve land allocations and S&M protection measures to maximize timber harvest consistent with ESA no-jeopardy standard (8N;1F) *Land exchanges between public and private landowners should be pursued (1F)
*Re-examine Land Allocation designations, with particular focus on including more old-growth forests and Roadless Areas in LSRs and including more second-growth and already managed areas in Matrix

Non-IAC Ideas of a General Nature

*Historical record does not support premise that inability to produce anticipated level of timber sales under NWFP is primarily due to problems with S&Gs
*Any major revisions to NWFP should not undermine the other conservation measures that have been approved in substantial reliance on NWFP (e.g., HCPs on non-Federal lands) (1F) *Watershed Analysis, adaptive management, and monitoring are critical components of NWFP and should not be abandoned (3N;7F**)
*Goal of predictable & sustainable timber sales in NWFP area is proper, but should only be achieved in tandem with achieving other fundamental objectives of NWFP (3F)

Non-IAC Ideas re: Survey & Manage
*Scale back S&M Program by: deleting species persistence objective for S&M species from NWFP removing requirement for development of Management Recommendations prohibiting protective measures for any S&M species on O&C lands excluding management for fungi, plants, or non-vertebrates on any NWFP lands
*Consider alternative approaches to Survey & Manage with clearly defined criteria for determining species viability (1N;6F*)
Non-IAC Ideas re: Endangered Species Act
*Revise NWFP Biological Opinions for salmonid species to de-couple finding of ACS consistency and no-jeopardy call under ESA
*Conduct 5-year status review of northern spotted owl and revise critical habitat
*Conduct 5-year status review of marbled murrelet and re-evaluate "distinct population segment" and whether to revise critical habitat
*Review ESA consultation regulations to streamline, expedite, and improve process, esp. as to "may affect" consultation trigger
Non-IAC Ideas
re: LSOG Forests
*Utilize adaptive management to protect all remaining LSOG forests in NWFP area under existing authority of S&Gs *Protect most or all remaining LSOG forests to maintain at least their current proportion across landscape (1F) *Strategy should use preserves with rationalized boundaries to protect LSOG forests and represent range of forested ecosystems in the region *Protect all remaining old-growth forest stands (2N)

Non-IAC Ideas re: Aquatic Conservation Strategy

*Part of problems with NWFP implementation stem from inadequate Watershed Analyses
*Activities in Riparian Reserves may be proper so long as they are field-verified on a site-by-site basis and there is commitment to long-term monitoring of results (4N;1F**)
*Reducing standards for modifying Riparian Reserve widths will not benefit species or resolve RIEC’s concerns
*Amend NWFP to correct misinterpretations of ACS in recent court rulings

Non-IAC Ideas re: Management
*Make further investments in ecosystem restoration activities such as road maintenance and removal, restoration of aquatic systems, and ecological restoration in plantations (2N;4F) *Use "lower-intensity" management in all suitable non-old-growth stands *To extent possible and within the range of natural variability, maintain natural disturbances such as fire to sustain ecological processes in forest-management practices (1N;1F)

Non-IAC Ideas re: Process/Analysis
*Conduct thorough administrative reassessment of NWFP and re-examine science on which it is based
*Conduct regional assessments of forest management practices to evaluate impacts of shifting regional patterns of timber harvesting
*Explore alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in light of experience gained through adoption of NWFP
*A formalized approach for Adaptive Management should be developed and applied in evaluating effects (5N;5F**) *Streamline procedural requirements under statutes such as NEPA, ESA, and NFMA so that all substantive statutory conservation requirements can be addressed at single stage in decision-making process (5N;6F**)

Table 2. Discussion and agreements captured from one Small Group.

Overarching Concerns
* Need for neutral objective evaluation of all NWFP objectives (when we develop the questions); economics of timber harvesting when looking at options
*Need t o recognize trade-off of simple (more restrictive plan vs flexible, discretionary (and costly) plan.
*Lack of large scale analysis (and synthesis) of watershed analyses across the Region
Vision Statement
* Need for one overarching goal for a plan
* Need for ecosystem-based plan with underlying/interlocking goals of timber production and species habitat protection. (Additional options)
* Changes should be focused on administrative and analysis-paralysis before changes in S&Gs and science tools (6N;6F)
* Evaluate ACS issues in context of specific watershed in AMAs rather than sweeping changes. (5N;4F)

Table 3. General Notes and agreements captured from other Small Group.

General Flip Chart Notes
* Plan wide BO says if ACS met listed fish requirements met
* Judge said if that’s true, NMFS needs to check proposed actions’ conformance with ACS, not just believe BLM/FS NEPA consistency call
* Suggested that ACS references from the plan-wide BO be removed.
* Amending S&Gs to put ACS consistency determination at watershed scale, not "all scales" Question regarding Watershed Analysis: Is it that they are inadequate, or just (appropriately) different? Is it being used effectively (lots of watershed analysis going on)? Monitoring needed; but watch the balance.
Note: Process for changing riparian reserve (RR) widths requires terrestrial species consideration. Proposal is de-link* this aspect of the RRs, to water-shed analysis do serve as full basis for revising reserves. *A S&G change that could trigger re-analysis of overall species persistence

Freeing up what can happen in RRs might be easier than the analysis required to change the widths. But RR widths were supposed to be "interim"; need to settle on a reasonable way to "finalize"; e.g., there was no intent to make these permanent. Discussion: One size does not fit all; need more ecological-based final RR width (output-based).

RE: Retaining all remaining old-growth (OG) - note that total OG Acreage is increasing on Federal lands? What happens if OG becomes off-limits too? Is this an issue, or is public just thinking the existing? Practical issues - any OG in a sale makes it controversial. Are some mills or products dependent upon OG?

Isn’t ingrowth within reserves enough? Are old growth reserves sustainable? Getting large fires. RE: O&C - O&C law required these lands to be managed for timber production, to benefit local communities; USFS lands managed under National Forest Management Act Note: Safety net affects county payments for six years, so no county loss until 2007.

Results of preference exercise Top Five (not necessarily in order):
* The NFP is a social contract that recognizes the importance of timber outputs as well as a balance between the 5 principle objectives (4;3)
* Streamline procedural requiremnts under statutes such as ESA, NEPA, & NFMA so that all substantive statutory conservation requirements can be addressed at single stage in decision process. (4;4)
* Activities in RRs may be proper so long as they are field-verified on a site-by-site basis & there is a commitment to long-term monitoring of results (3;2)
* Watershed analysis, Adaptive Management, and monitoring are critical components of NFP and should not be abandoned. (3;4)
* Consider alternative approaches to S&M with clearly defined criterion for determining species viability. (1;3)
Other items receiving some support: " Make further investment in ecosystem restoration activities such as road maintenance and removal restoration of aquatic systems, and ecological restoration on plantations (1;2) Amend direction for O&C lands to remove reserve land allocations and S&M protection, to max. timber consistent. With ESA non-jeopardy standard. (1;1)
* To the extent possible, and within the range of natural variability, maintain natural disturbances, such as fire to sustain ecological processes in forest management practices. (0;1)
* Need to rebuild support for the NFP both internally and externally (1;0)
* A formalized approach for Adaptive Management should be developed and applied in evaluating effects. (0;0)

HOT TOPICS NOTES
Update on NWFP-related Litigation - Steve Odell provided a brief overview of a court case recently filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Douglas Timber Operators, Inc. v. Secretary of Agriculture, Civ. No. 01-6378-AA. The action, brought by Douglas Timber Operators, Inc. (DTO) and American Forest Resource Council (AFRC), involves four claims challenging the legality of the amendments to the Survey & Manage Standards & Guidelines the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior adopted in January 2001 (S&M amendments). The four claims allege that the S&M amendments: (1) violate the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act to the extent that they are designed to conserve non-vertebrate species on National Forest System lands because those statutes only provide authority to manage such lands for the conservation of vertebrate species; (2) violate the Oregon and California Lands Act (O&CLA) because they are designed to conserve S&M species to the exclusion or limitation of timber production; (3) violate NFMA and regulations issued thereunder by calling for the development of Management Recommendations for each S&M species without requiring compliance with the procedural and analytical requirements for amending Forest Service regional guidelines under NFMA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and (4) violate the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and regulations issued thereunder by providing for Management Recommendations to be developed for each S&M species without mandating compliance with the procedural and analytical requirements for amending BLM’s Resource Management Plans and NEPA. Steve also quickly noted the recent decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in which the court ruled (1) that an Incidental Take Statement issued under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act must be predicated on a finding of actual incidental take and (2) that several Incidental Take Statements pursuant to which the Service imposed terms and conditions on management activities were arbitrary and capricious where there was no evidence that an ESA-listed species existed on the land in question or no evidence that a take would occur if such activities were carried out.

Progress report on Monitoring Issues - Dave Busch of the Research and Monitoring Group provided a brief overview of monitoring program highlights, including: (a) ongoing efforts to develop an Implementation Monitoring five-year strategy, which eventually will be presented to the IAC for consideration and feedback; (b) aquatic-riparian effectiveness monitoring and the progress being made to collaborate more effectively between Federal and non-Federal efforts in this area; and (c) Tribal effectiveness monitoring, for which a proposed implementation strategy will soon be circulated to the tribes within the area of the NWFP for review and comments.

STATUS REPORTS

An opportunity was provided for IAC members to ask questions about the Status Reports that were provided in the prework materials for the meeting, which addressed (1) Survey & Manage Management Recommendation revisions being developed to better accommodate National Fire Plan projects and (2) the Umpqua Land Exchange Project. No questions were raised.

HOUSEKEEPING MATTERS

Certification of November 2001 IAC Meeting Notes: The November 2001 IAC meeting notes were certified with one exception. In particular, there was an objection raised to one of the bullet statements synthesizing the IAC comments on the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) during that meeting. In the notes as circulated, the bullet in question reads in relevant part that "IAC expressed an openness and general support for changing the ACS, expressing a preference for changes that a re science-based, make better use of the information being gathered through monitoring and other means, and are equitable in terms of their effects." The objection stemmed from the concern that there are members of the IAC who do not generally support changing the ACS from its current form; as an alternative, the objector suggested that the phrase "general support for changing the ACS" be changed to "general support for improving the implementation of the ACS." Building on this suggestion, and in an attempt to reflect the full spectrum of views on the matter expressed at the November 2001 IAC meeting, the bullet has been rewritten as follows: "IAC expressed general support for improving implementation of the ACS, which some committee members believed should be accomplished through changes to the strategy, with a preference expressed for changes that are science-based, make better use of the information being gathered through monitoring and other means, and are equitable in terms of their effects." The IAC will be presented with another opportunity to certify the November 2001 IAC Meeting Notes, as amended in accordance with the foregoing, at the May 2002 IAC meeting.

Suggestion for Future Potential IAC Meeting Topic(s):

"Rocky McVay suggested exploring the differences between Oregon & California Lands Act, which applies to BLM lands, and the National Forest Management Act, which applies to Forest Service lands, and implications for management arising from the different statutory frameworks

End-of-Meeting Comments and Suggestions:

Non-Federal IAC members were really listened to
Appreciation for the really weighty topics committee members were given to address
Support was expressed for the location, esp. that it was near the Portland Airport
Acoustics were poor
Phone connection with member didn’t work well
It was suggested that Federal IAC members contact one of the Non-Federal members to review the agenda and help prepare them for the meeting/topic.
Suggestion was made for IAC members to gather for an informal breakfast before meetings
Request to get travel information, prework materials, and notes out earlier
Get alternates here
RSVP before the meeting
Everyone missed Francie!

Meeting Attendees:
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee & Alternates
Berkholtz, Karin Acting Representative State of Washington
Crouse, Mike Acting Representative National Marine Fisheries Service
Forsgren, Harv Representative Forest Service, R-6
George, Merv Representative CA Indian Forest & Fire Mgmt Council
Gould, Rowan Acting Representative U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Gravenmier, Becky Acting Representative Pacific Northwest Research, Forest Service
Green, Peter Representative State of Oregon
Herrera, Dave Representative NW Indian Fisheries Commission
Kinsinger, Anne Representative USGS, Western Region Research
Mabery, Ken Acting Representative National Park Service
McKee, Al County Commissioner WA Counties
McVay, Rocky County Commissioner OR Counties (Via Speaker Phone)
Odell, Steve Designated Federal Official Exec. Dir., Regional Ecosystem Office
Powers, Dave Representative Environmental Protection Agency
Rea, Maria Representative State of California
Shepard, Ed Acting Representative Bureau of Land Management
Whistler, Alex Acting Representative Bureau of Indian Affairs
Regional Ecosystem Office/Research & Monitoring Group (Staff to IAC)
Benson, Gary Representative Pacific Northwest Research, Forest Service
Busch, Dave Acting Representative USGS-BRD
Collier, Kath Facilitator Regional Ecosystem Office
Denton, Ken Representative Forest Service
Guenther, Dale GIS Administrator Regional Ecosystem Office
McKenzie, Dan Representative EPA Research
Morris, Steve Representative National Marine Fisheries
Pietrzak, Debbie Representative Bureau of Land Management
Watson, Jay Representative U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Ystad, Laurie Secretary Regional Ecosystem Office
Other Attendees
Anderson, Kathy Forest Service
Branson, Tom; Bureau of Indian Affairs
Brown, Susan Jane Gifford Pinchot Task Force
Davies, Bruce NW Indian Fish Commission
Golightly, Chris CRITFC
Kirby, Ron USGS, Western Region
Murphy, Lynn Student Helper
Roush, Paul Bureau of Land Management

Table 1. Key elements from November 2001 IAC Discussion and various other proposals Note: Some items are followed by a parenthetical notation. The notation identifies the number of dots the item received in the first round of voting and any comments captured on the flip chart. (#Fed/Non-Fed indicator; comment). In addition, some items include 1 or 2 asterisks which indicates that one or both of the small groups agreed that this element should be included in the top 5-7 items.
Elements of 11/01 IAC input re: Aquatic Conservation Strategy IAC expressed general support for improving implementation of the ACS, which some committee members believed should be accomplished through changes to the strategy, with a preference expressed for changes that are science-based, make better use of the information being gathered through monitoring and other means, and are equitable in terms of their effects. There is general support for greater discretion to accomplish ACS objectives, but need to avoid unintended consequences (i.e., loosening S&Gs for adjusting riparian reserve widths may diminish the positive benefits derived from habitat protection for riparian-dependent species). Need to clarify role of watershed analysis in the planning process. Look at documentation requirements and determine whether they are an impediment or discourage change. Adjust requirements as needed. (1F; specific to Riparian Reserves)	Elements of 11/01 IAC input re: Cumulative Processes & Procedures Need more information on process/ procedural requirements and evaluation of each process and feedback from the field prior to adopting reduction in process. Re-examine exemptions, level of process and documentation should match the level of controversy. (2F) *Decision authority should be pushed down, but decisions should be tracked.	Elements of 11/01 IAC input re: Conservation & Commodity Outputs The NWFP is a social contract that recognizes the importance of timber outputs as well as a balance between the five principal objectives. (3N;4F) The IAC expressed an openness to looking at a variety of ways to meet the objectives (e.g., Land "Allocations, shorter rotations, etc.) The focus should be on outcomes with greater discretion given to the local manager, but need to keep the whole picture in front of us. Review S&Gs to see if they contribute to or hinder achievement of outcomes. (1F) Need public support for identified changes. This would require education and communication. *Need to rebuild support for the NWFP both internally and externally. (2N)
Non-IAC Ideas re: Land Allocations Amend direction for O&C lands to remove reserve land allocations and S&M protection measures to maximize timber harvest consistent with ESA no-jeopardy standard (8N;1F) Land exchanges between public and private landowners should be pursued (1F) Re-examine Land Allocation designations, with particular focus on including more old-growth forests and Roadless Areas in LSRs and including more second-growth and already managed areas in Matrix Non-IAC Ideas of a General Nature* Historical record does not support premise that inability to produce anticipated level of timber sales under NWFP is primarily due to problems with S&Gs Any major revisions to NWFP should not undermine the other conservation measures that have been approved in substantial reliance on NWFP (e.g., HCPs on non-Federal lands) (1F) Watershed Analysis, adaptive management, and monitoring are critical components of NWFP and should not be abandoned (3N;7F) Goal of predictable & sustainable timber sales in NWFP area is proper, but should only be achieved in tandem with achieving other fundamental objectives of NWFP (3F)	*Non-IAC Ideas re: Survey & Manage* Scale back S&M Program by: deleting species persistence objective for S&M species from NWFP removing requirement for development of Management Recommendations prohibiting protective measures for any S&M species on O&C lands excluding management for fungi, plants, or non-vertebrates on any NWFP lands Consider alternative approaches to Survey & Manage with clearly defined criteria for determining species viability (1N;6F) Non-IAC Ideas re: Endangered Species Act* Revise NWFP Biological Opinions for salmonid species to de-couple finding of ACS consistency and no-jeopardy call under ESA Conduct 5-year status review of northern spotted owl and revise critical habitat Conduct 5-year status review of marbled murrelet and re-evaluate "distinct population segment" and whether to revise critical habitat Review ESA consultation regulations to streamline, expedite, and improve process, esp. as to "may affect" consultation trigger	Non-IAC Ideas re: LSOG Forests Utilize adaptive management to protect all remaining LSOG forests in NWFP area under existing authority of S&Gs Protect most or all remaining LSOG forests to maintain at least their current proportion across landscape (1F) Strategy should use preserves with rationalized boundaries to protect LSOG forests and represent range of forested ecosystems in the region Protect all remaining old-growth forest stands (2N) Non-IAC Ideas re: Aquatic Conservation Strategy Part of problems with NWFP implementation stem from inadequate Watershed Analyses Activities in Riparian Reserves may be proper so long as they are field-verified on a site-by-site basis and there is commitment to long-term monitoring of results (4N;1F*) Reducing standards for modifying Riparian Reserve widths will not benefit species or resolve RIEC’s concerns *Amend NWFP to correct misinterpretations of ACS in recent court rulings
Non-IAC Ideas re: Management Make further investments in ecosystem restoration activities such as road maintenance and removal, restoration of aquatic systems, and ecological restoration in plantations (2N;4F) Use "lower-intensity" management in all suitable non-old-growth stands *To extent possible and within the range of natural variability, maintain natural disturbances such as fire to sustain ecological processes in forest-management practices (1N;1F)	Non-IAC Ideas re: Process/Analysis Conduct thorough administrative reassessment of NWFP and re-examine science on which it is based Conduct regional assessments of forest management practices to evaluate impacts of shifting regional patterns of timber harvesting Explore alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in light of experience gained through adoption of NWFP A formalized approach for Adaptive Management should be developed and applied in evaluating effects (5N;5F*) Streamline procedural requirements under statutes such as NEPA, ESA, and NFMA so that all substantive statutory conservation requirements can be addressed at single stage in decision-making process (5N;6F**)