Regional Ecosystem Office
333 S.W. First Avenue
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

A question was asked about whether any steps were being taken or proposed to address Aquatic Conservation Strategy issues in light of the recent court rulings in the PCFFA litigation. Mike Crouse, National Marine Fisheries Service, explained that his agency, in conjunction with several others, has been working for several months on a new approach to conducting salmonid consultations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act that addresses the courts' rulings.

During this background presentation, several non-Federal IAC members expressed some frustration about not being provided a paper copy of the overhead slides that were being shown to accompany the presentation. A request was also made for a list of the present members of the IAC (it was pointed out that a comprehensive roster of all IAC members and their alternates is available on the REO website.) Concerns were also voiced about the timeliness of and extent to which the IAC meeting notes were satisfactorily capturing non-Federal IAC members' input that was being provided at committee meetings. These remarks gave rise to a meaningful dialogue that culminated in a statement by then REO Director Steve Odell that he would redouble his efforts to ensure that the REO, in its capacity as staff to the IAC, would work even harder to improve communication with non-Federal IAC members and to seek to ensure prompt completion and dissemination of IAC meeting notes that are fully consistent with the discussion and decisions resulting from each meeting.

A question was also raised about the status of rechartering of the IAC under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. It was explained that the rechartering process is moving forward and that REO will keep the IAC abreast of the latest developments in this area as they occur.

1. Are you in favor of maintaining the IAC in its present basic structural form as an advisory committee operating at the regional level upon the expiration of NWFP MOU II in 2003, or do you see alternative ways to more effectively accomplish the committee's purposes?
2. What should be the primary role(s) of the IAC in the future, given the present stage of NWFP implementation and the possibility of NWFP amendments on the horizon?
3. Should any changes be made to the composition of the IAC in the future?
4. Should any changes be made in the frequency, conduct, or content of IAC meetings?


5. What should the nature of the IAC's relationship be with other NWFP supporting organizations in the future? Such organizations include: RIEC, REO, PACs, IRICC, etc.

The small groups were asked to develop input on their preferences for the roles, processes, composition, and uses of the IAC in the future, using the five framing questions as a backdrop. Each group was provided a facilitator and note-taker to assist in their discussions.

Based on the reports of each of the small groups offered during the meeting, an on-the-spot synthesis of those reports by Chair Elaine Zielinksi, and clarification provided in a follow-up conference call that REO hosted on May 23, the following items reflect the key themes and principal points of advice received from non-Federal IAC members on the topic at hand:

1. Value of IAC

• It was unanimously agreed that the IAC is a valuable entity that provides positive benefits; some members added the caveat that its value would persist only so long as the committee continued to grapple with policy issues, effective communication was maintained, and a regular feedback loop was used to apprize non-Federal members of the manner in which their advice was considered by the RIEC.
• The IAC is the only regional forum that exists in which Federal and non-Federal executives can meet regularly and stay in touch on NWFP issues of importance.
• The regional scale of the committee is appropriate and should be maintained.
  

2. IAC roles

• The primary role of IAC should be to provide a forum in which non-Federal executives can provide advice to Federal regional executives on NWFP policy issues.
• The IAC should also provide some level of information-sharing on important NWFP-related issues, as well as regular opportunities for networking and development of relationships between the non-Federal and Federal members of the committee.

3. IAC composition

• The current composition of the IAC is appropriate and does not warrant adjustment at this time.
• It was suggested that greater use be made of IAC subcommittees, the composition of which could be based on specific issues, geographic area, or level of government.

4. Frequency, conduct, content, and quality of IAC Meetings

• The thrust of input was that non-Federal IAC members generally could support either three or four meetings a year, although a slight preference was expressed for continuing with four so as to avoid four-month lapses between meetings given the possibility of a fast-moving NWFP-related issue emerging of significance to non-Federal members.
• In myriad and varied ways, the need was expressed for improved and additional avenues of communication (e.g., more timely distribution of meeting notes).
• Encourage non-Federal IAC members to meet.

5. IAC relationships with others

• Close relationship and better communication between RIEC, PIEC, IAC, PAC

6. Other

• The "Feedback loop" on how non-Federal IAC input is used by the RIEC should be more clear

Differences

• Role - Policy issues - evaluation and monitoring
• Frequency of meetings and
• COMMUNICATION!

Following the presentation of these common themes, there was some discussion concerning the manner in which input from non-Federal IAC members is presently being synthesized. For example, it was noted that there might be a particularly good and creative idea noted by only one small group which would then presumably not be carried forward as a broadly supported suggestion and may not be explicitly considered by the RIEC to be IAC advice. It was suggested in this vein that perhaps IAC input be solicited and discussed only in the context of the full committee or, if small groups are utilized, that a non-Federal committee member take on the responsibility of consolidating the non-Federal IAC input Noting that time did not permit resolution of such issues, even with respect to the particular IAC feedback provided at the meeting, Steve Odell proposed that REO set up a conference call to allow for further discussion of the matter among interested non-Federal IAC members.

Phase I of the process is primarily a technical effort whereas Phase II is a policy/technical effort to refine de-listing criteria into recovery goals, to develop specific actions to achieve recovery goals, and to estimate the time and cost of recovery implementation. NMFS will appoint Technical Recovery Teams to undertake Phase I tasks and to provide technical input and review for Phase II.

Critique

• Lunch-by-number, missed that
• St. Helens Room!
• Duke it out with larger group
• Concerns over information
• how synthesize input

• Small Groups
• Meetings have gotten better; more worthwhile
• Good ideas

Opening Presentations:
Dr. Jerry Franklin, University of Washington, presented the conceptual origins of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) network of 10 AMAs established in California, Oregon, and Washington. These areas were designed to test technical and social approaches to achieve desired ecological, economic, and other social objectives. AMAs are explicitly recognized as areas where innovation, testing, and experimentation are both expected and appropriate. Locally specific and individualized approaches were to provide various management options. AMA goals set them apart from other land allocations. For instance, management of matrix and reserve lands is grounded in a set of prescriptive, region-wide Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs). There are some questions regarding the extent to which the S&Gs are applicable within AMAs.

Lisa Freedman, Director Strategic Planning, presented AMA management perspectives. She described some of the accomplishments of the AMAs such as creating strong ties with communities and research partners and using innovative approaches to forest management and economic development. AMA plan development brought together interested stakeholders, scientists, and communities who explored opportunities for testing alternative technical and social approaches to forest management, research, monitoring, and enhancing ecological and economic conditions. Recently, AMA land managers and coordinators drafted an AMA Network Strategy and Program of Work which outlines goals and objectives for using AMAs as centers of learning, sharing, and implementing adaptive management concepts. She summarized by saying that while there have been many accomplishments, the overall "performance" of AMAs has fallen short of expectations. She stressed the need to evaluate what can be accomplished with reduced budgets and staff, and match expectations with capabilities.

George Stankey and Bernard Bormann, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, are concluding an evaluation of the AMA network performance for the last seven years. They presented an overview of their draft report which identifies the successes and barriers to success of the AMA network. The barriers included: conflicting definitions of adaptive management, legal constraints, deficiencies in funding, training and organizational leadership, and inability to deal effectively with risk and uncertainty. The performance level of the AMA network has been reduced considerably as a result of these barriers. The report also includes other suggested opportunities for enhancing the effectiveness of the AMA concept, such as: (1) Organization-wide learning has yet to be adapted as reflected in the compart-mentalized approaches to potential learning activities across AMAs in monitoring and inventory activities, and through NEPA-based planning, and (2) Regional leaders need to take lead role in supporting and sustaining learning through adaptive management. A copy of the draft report was distributed to interested participants.

Ward Hoffman, Olympic National Forest AMA coordinator presented his views on the successes, barriers and and lessons learned on the Olympic AMA. The entire forest has become a learning ground with numerous constituents supporting adaptive management principles. The Olympic AMA has had a history of compelling habitat and riparian studies and much involvement by the Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC). As with management of the other AMAs, there have been competing priorities, limited budgets and challenges presented when AMA coordinators have multiple duties assigned. With respect to AMAs in general, there has been a high expectation for the AMAs to charge ahead and precipitate fast changes when the reality is that change is slow due to the nature of Federal processes. This can sometimes lead to an attrition of support for AMAs. It will take time for AMAs to demonstrate their intended effect. In the spirit of testing and validating, 10, 20, or more years are sometimes needed to show change. Ward reminded us that the AMA idea is alive and well on the Olympic National Forest and that "It's the idea, not the allocation" that's important.

IAC Advice Process: Steve Odell framed the topic and the request from the RIEC for IAC advice. The RIEC asked how the AMA experience could be used more effectively for learning and making needed NFP course corrections. The IAC was split into four subgroups which were asked to respond to two of the questions below. Each sub-group presented their findings and highlights were discussed with the full committee. At the presentation, Harv Forsgren helped summarize the comments for each question. A detailed, consolidated list of the comments is available upon request.

1. NEXT STEPS FOR THE AMA NETWORK.

AMAs are an integral and important component of the NFP strategy. They are designed to be centers of learning and experimentation. As indicated in the pre-work and presentations, there is a wide variety of expectations on what should be delivered. We do not have the resources to fully support all ten AMAs. 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?

Synopsis of IAC Advice

• The AMAs and the network should be maintained as centers for learning.
• The RIEC should assume more risk in this land allocation, explore other partnership opportunities (science, management, local public), and consider AMA funding opportunities from ongoing initiatives (e.g., National Fire Plan, County Payments legislation, monitoring, etc.).
• The RIEC should develop support for the AMAs and affirm its commitment to the AMA coordinators and their need to establish an information-sharing network to transfer learning from inside and outside the AMAs.
• Before IAC makes recommendations, baseline information is needed: What is existing support for budgets, personnel? Who are key stakeholders? Is there political support? Regulatory agency support? Research support? Tribal support?
• Before IAC makes recommendations about reducing the number of AMAs, additional information is needed such as: Why were AMAs created? What value, what opportunities will compromised in the future if we reduce the number now? Are AMAs needed at all?
• IAC needs to offer political support for AMAs and help influence the political process to support the AMA effort.


• Evaluate perceived barriers such as the regulatory process. What are real barriers? What are internal barriers? Is communication a problem? There is a need to communicate with local networks, ISC, and national offices.
• Engage the research community to improve the support base for AMAs.
• Recognize short-comings and barriers; reset expectations/refocus sideboards and think about how we will address risk and uncertainty.
• Revisit the role and approach of management and cultivate increased support from a variety of sources.

Synopsis of IAC Advice

• Identify needs, processes, successes, and lessons learned. Expand the audience that you share information with in a purposeful manner and help folks "connect the dots." Use a full spectrum of tools to share information among internal and external customers, consider and define pathways for sharing info (perhaps a flow chart from REO), and provide or create incentives for information sharing.
• IAC should be briefed and provided with information on: best management practices; processes adaptable for management use; and status of AMA activities and adaptive management information (for briefing purposes).
• Research information and lessons learned should be available at centralized location(s) to facilitate ready access by local communities, AMA network, agencies and interested publics. Adaptive management information from other sources should also be maintained at centralized locations(s).
• There is a need for AMAs to pro-actively communicate adaptive management information to agencies at all levels, and other entities engaged in adaptive management.
• There is a need to reference back to the original purpose of each AMA and the "lessons learned" when sharing information.
• Provide and create incentives for information sharing.

Synopsis of IAC Advice

• Lessons learned must be shared. Not only do we need to be able to "connect the dots" but also apply the findings.
• There is a key role here for both IAC and policy/decision-makers to use the forum not only for bringing forward options but for promoting the use of new information and providing guidelines for how that information can be used in our decision-making processes and the current political environment.
• Networking by IAC and decision-makers will help enhance AMA effectiveness and support, and help convey priorities.
• There is a need to increase communication channels including the ISC and networking. It would be helpful to articulate how the AMAs fit in with the priorities of the new administration and how this could be used to enhance AMA effectiveness and support. In this light, we should convey to the new administration how AMAs fit in with priorities.

Synopsis of IAC Advice

• The land management and consulting agencies need to agree on the most appropriate level of risk to be assumed for AMA activities (considering current applicable S&Gs) in order to achieve AMA objectives, and to provide land management agencies with better learning opportunities for application on other land-use allocations.
• REO needs to conduct an analysis and propose recommendations to IAC. Take these findings and then see if they can be supported by others including the new administration.
• Revisit the purpose of AMAs and time frames for results. Is adaptive management happening outside of AMAs? Bring learning back to communities.
• Need to be specific on what the AMAs actually need to do - bridge the goals of economic and social objectives to the short-term actions (re-emphasize economic incentives for and with local communities); focus on "new science information" and use AMA's to test new information; address their educational role.
• Economics (creation of jobs), the degree of partnering, and the "intent" of NWFP should be used as criteria for prioritizing work.
• Use flexible criteria and recognize different audiences and stakeholders involved in each AMA.

• Use PAC's to identify priorities, barriers, and changes needed to re-invigorate AMA's; resolve impediments at lowest administrative level.
• There is a need to stress the role of fire in ecosystems for immediate attention and short-term actions.
• Take findings further into the "So What ?" Communicate the status quo and changes.
• Standards and Guidelines need to be reconfigured (constraints clarified) and rethought before any short-term actions should be taken.
• It's critical to get support and early involvement of the tribes and key stakeholders.
• IAC can help identify learning priorities and objectives and participate in proposal design (and follow through on monitoring implementation).
• IAC can be used as a forum for new information as long as it can be distilled in a broad-based manner or key findings.
• Brief IAC on lessons learned; share the things that worked.
• Need to connect AMA activities, old and new, with other activities outside the AMA allocation and do a better job of marketing success.
• Local expectations were not fulfilled by the AMAs. Need to create jobs for the local community.
• It is critical that we refocus on the NWFP objectives the best we can, which includes recognizing economic and social considerations, needs, and opportunities. We will need to look for opportunities to partnership and resolve impediments at the lowest administrative level.
• AMAs are not the only source of adaptive learning. Adaptive management concepts can and are applied outside of AMAs.
• Now is the time to re-evaluate what is being done, what has happened, and what is needed.
• Look for opportunities to show case on-the-ground incentives.
• AMAs have a special connection to communities that may provide opportunities.

The framework incorporated the best science available and was developed in collaboration with the public and key stakeholders in an "open door" process. Thousands of public comments were considered and used as the basis for alternative development in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Key issues addressed in the framework include old-forest ecosystems, aquatic/riparian ecosystems, fire and fuels management, hardwood ecosystems, and noxious weeds.

Fire burned an average of 43,000 acres per year historically in the planning area, but 78,000 acres per year over the last 10 years. The rate of forest destruction is surpassing the rate of forest growth. Under these conditions, a key challenge in creating the framework was devising a balance of management strategies that would lead to healthier, more fire-resistant forest conditions while providing habitat for sensitive species.

The framework provides for the protection of all old-growth trees in Old-Forest Emphasis Areas as well as providing for California Spotted Owls and other species dependent upon old-growth habitat with special area designations. The framework provides for urban and wildland fire protection by using both mechanical and prescribed fire treatments to reduce ladder and surface fuels in an overall strategy to reduce the risk of wildfire spread across the landscape. The products resulting from these fuels treatments are expected to provide some timber products to local economies.

• Forest Service: Gordon Reeves, Dave Hohler, Keith Reynolds, Thomas Atzet, Mike Furniss, Polly Hays, Glenn Chen, Regional Monitoring Team.
• US Environmental Protection Agency: Phil Larsen, Paul Ringold, Tony Olsen
• National Marine Fisheries Service: Kim Kratz and Michael Tehan
• Bureau of Land Management: Karl Stein
• US Geological Survey: Dave Busch

* Research agency executives include:
Tom Mills, Director, Forest Service - Pacific NW Research Station
Doug Buffington, Regional Director, USGS
Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, Associate Director, EPA - Western Ecology Division

Dave Busch provided background on plan development, how IAC was involved, key areas of comment from IAC reviews, and how review comments were handled in the AREMP final, as well as opportunities for future IAC advice. Reviewers were unanimous in their support for the watershed-based strategy embodied in AREMP. Comments from both Federal and non-Federal organizations fell into a few key areas. The following are major review themes addressed by the Aquatic/Riparian (A/R) work group in the final AREMP document:

• Adaptive Management - A need was identified to clarify text on adaptive management and project-level monitoring. Part of this relates to a need on the part of the agencies to know about the effectiveness of implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs). This would require a monitoring at a different scale than the watershed scale that is the core recommendation in the Plan. Options have been added to AREMP providing RIEC the opportunity to supplement watershed scale monitoring with monitoring of BMPs as the Plan is implemented. AREMP continues to emphasize the importance of linking the IM and EM programs as the fundamental mechanism for associating management actions with their effects. Adaptive management is addressed more completely in AREMP than in previously-produced monitoring plans.

• Biota - Several organizations expressed an interest in monitoring the effectiveness of ACS implementation with respect to biotic responses. Although this was considered as an alternative in the draft, the AREMP final was revised to more fully consider expanding beyond monitoring aquatic habitat to potential options for monitoring biota at different levels of involvement up to the possible monitoring of vertebrates (e.g., salmonids).



• Sampling questions - Some comments revealed a need to clarify the justification for selecting monitoring watersheds via a stratified random sampling of 50 watersheds per year for a total of 250 over a five-year monitoring cycle. Text on rationale for this strategy has been clarified for the AREMP final. Another area that stimulated questions on the part of reviewers was the treatment of non-Federal lands in the monitoring strategy. With extensive input from agency representatives, the section on lands has been completely rewritten since the preliminary final version of AREMP. The Plan recommends collecting field-level information from non-Federal lands. However, options were developed for the contingency that such information may be impractical to obtain.

• Watershed Analysis (WA) - Review of the preliminary final version of the plan revealed a need to better link AREMP to the WA process. The work group has described a strategy that involves information input from Implementation Monitoring of WA to evaluate how implementation of this component is linked to ACS effectiveness.

Dave Busch and Glenn Chen discussed steps being taken to implement AREMP, which include possible opportunities for the IAC to provide policy advice, and for local, State, and Tribal organizations to provide technical advice to assist Plan implementation.

FERC/ACS: Steve Morris made a presentation on FERC/ACS Short-Term Q&A's and Long- Term Questions providing a status report and a description of how IAC advice was and will continue to be used in this project. He reminded the IAC that Bruce Davies (IAC Alternate for the Northwest Indian Fish Commission) has been, and will continue to be, a part of this work group.

AREMP: Several IAC members relayed their appreciation to the Team for developing AREMP. Maria Rea mentioned that California is using the Plan to develop their watershed monitoring strategy and hoped that State and Federal monitoring efforts could be well-coordinated. Bruce Davies made similar comments regarding tribal monitoring programs.

FERC/ACS: RIEC accepted the Short-Term Q&A's last month.

AREMP: Future involvement is anticipated for policy matters pertaining to aquatic/riparian monitoring that will be presented to the IAC, as well as on technical topics through IAC organization representatives to the Regional Implementation Advisory team for AREMP.

FERC/ACS: The FERC/ACS work group is currently concentrating on developing answers to the Long-Term Questions and hopes to provide a product by the June 20 RIEC meeting.