The role of scientists in land management planning has long been controversial in the Pacific Northwest. Issues include the balance of scientists involved in the process, confusion over appropriate roles for scientists and managers, and the degree of interaction among scientists, managers, and citizens. In addition, it has been difficult to sustain interaction among scientists and managers throughout what is often a prolonged and tumultuous process.

The most recent model in western Oregon was FEMAT. Although selected specialists from the management agencies participated, FEMAT was predominately a team of scientists, and policy-makers were specifically excluded from the process. Repercussions from the FEMAT/NWFP model of scientist involvement have been numerous, both positive and negative. Other models of scientist-manager interaction have been tried more recently in the Pacific Northwest (e.g., ICBEMP, Tongass Forest Plan Revision), also with their own advantages and disadvantages. Despite shortcomings, these efforts indicate that analysis quality and management credibility can be substantially enhanced by judicious involvement of scientists.

The RMP Steering Committee has affirmed that the RMP revision process should include specific roles and tasks for scientists, and that interested citizens and cooperators should have opportunities to review the scientific basis of the RMP analysis and to suggest science findings for our consideration (RMP Steering Committee meeting, February 13, 2005).

Objectives

The BLM hopes to create a sustained dialog among scientists and managers throughout the RMP revision process that respects the roles and enhances the understanding of both parties. Involvement of scientists in the RMP revision process should:

• Provide the BLM with an understanding of current scientific knowledge
• Provide assurance that the analytical process is founded on credible assumptions and uses appropriate methodologies
• Provide specialized sources of expertise not otherwise available
• Provide innovative scientific perspectives concerning management approaches to meet RMP objectives
• Provide assurance that relevant science is considered, reasonably interpreted, and accurately presented; and that uncertainties and risks are acknowledged and documented
• Share relevant information and knowledge with interested citizens, interest groups, cooperators, and media

State-of-the-science reviews

The BLM will establish cooperative agreements with scientists with recognized expertise in the relevant field to conduct a “State-of-the science” review for selected major issues and questions. The purpose of these reviews is to assess the state of the knowledge and identify areas of agreement and areas of uncertainty for complex issues central to the RMP revisions. These reviews will include a survey and synthesis of the existing literature, identify questions that are the subject of ongoing scientific investigations, and suggest a range of reasonable assumptions and interpretations relevant for RMP revisions. Reports will be prepared in a format suitable for review and use by the RMP planning team, and, if suitable, may be further developed for publication. These reviews will help focus and support the analysis of planning team specialists, and identify potential tools to help conduct resource analyses. See attachment for a description of planned reviews.

Informal consultations

RMP IDT members face significant challenges analyzing the effects of alternatives. Informal consultations and small group meetings have been organized among IDT members and scientists to provide early and rapid feedback regarding proposed analysis methods. Draft descriptions of proposed analytical methods were shared with scientists, and the scientists responded with suggestions to improve methods. The following disciplines and scientists have assisted the BLM through informal consultations

• Climate change - Ron Neilsen (PNW)

• Fish - Kelly Burnett (PNW), Jason Dunham (USGS), Gordie Reeves (PNW)

• Hydrology - Gordon Grant (PNW)

• Landscape ecology - Tom Spies (PNW

• Social and economic - Richard Haynes (PNW)

• Soils - Paul Adams (OSU), Jim Boyle (OSU), Steve Perakis (USGS), Stephen Schoenholtz (OSU)

• Timber harvest systems - Loren Kellogg (OSU)

• Timber growth and yield modeling - David Hann (OSU)

• Wildlife - Joan Hagar (USGS)

Science Advisory Team

A. Purpose and operations

A Science Advisory Team (SAT) consisting primarily of federal scientists will be formed to enhance the quality and credibility of RMP revision analyses. Provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) sharply limit the participation of nonfederal scientists. The primary purpose of the SAT is to provide advice to the BLM that improves the quality of the RMP revisions and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The team is not expected to provide an independent certification of science consistency. Specific tasks and the anticipated schedule are described below. The BLM RMP Science Liaison will facilitate the SAT and serve as the primary point of contact among the SAT and the BLM.

The SAT will generally conduct business in a reactive mode reviewing material and answering questions relevant to the RMP revisions on request from the BLM. The SAT will also be free to suggest methods by which the quality and credibility of the revision analysis process may be improved. Depending on the nature of the task and the consent of both the team and the BLM, the SAT will work in both informal and formal modes. In addition, members of the SAT may be asked to participate in 1-2 public events (e.g., field tours, meetings, workshops) where aspects of the revision process are being discussed. Documentation of SAT proceedings and products will be freely available on the RMP website, and SAT products will be shared with RMP Cooperators and others with an expressed interest.

B. Selection

The SAT has been selected. Members are:

• Sarah Crim - National Forest System, Region 6 - Timber modeling

• Doug Drake - Oregon Department of Environmental Quality - Water quality, monitoring

• Joan Hagar - USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center - Wildlife ecology

• Chris Jordan - NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center - Fish biology

• Tom Spies - Pacific Northwest Research Station - Forest ecology, landscape ecology

• Fred Swanson - Pacific Northwest Research Station - Geology, landscape ecology, watershed processes

• John Cissel - BLM - Team coordination

C. Tasks 

1.  Review planning criteria

The Science Team is providing advice to the BLM planning team regarding the analytical procedures described in the Planning Criteria. Science Team reviews address three questions:

1. Are the analytical questions sufficient to address the purpose and need?
2. Are the assumptions well founded and adequately disclosed?
3. Are the analytical approaches sufficient to answer the analytical question?

The Science Team provided oral feedback directly to the planning team early in the process of criteria development, and is now working on a written report due March 17, 2006.

2.  Review preliminary alternatives

The Science Team will provide advice to the planning team regarding the preliminary alternatives prior to full development and analysis of their effects. The Science Team will address three questions:

1. Does the range of alternatives encompass the range of strategies appropriate to meet the purpose and need?
2. Are the management actions appropriate to achieve the objectives of each alternative?
3. Are there key ideas missing?

The Science Team will soon begin working on a written report addressing these questions, and expects to complete the report by April 3, 2006.

3.  Provide input to alternative evaluation criteria

The Science Team will meet with the planning team to provide input to the development of alternative evaluation criteria in May or June of 2006, and will document these recommendations in a short report thereafter.

4.  Review draft alternative effects assessment

The Science Team will review draft alternative effects assessments for identified major issues prior to publication in the Draft EIS according to the following criteria:

• Was all the relevant scientific information considered?

• Were all the significant assumptions acknowledged?

• Were risks adequately and fairly documented?

•  Are the conclusions consistent with known science?

The Science Team will conduct this review when preliminary results are available, scheduled for summer and fall of 2006. Review results will be compiled into a short report.

5.  Evaluate alternatives with respect to evaluation criteria

The Science Team will review the alternative effects analysis and provide input to the BLM regarding the ability of each alternative to meet the purpose and need of the plan revisions and other evaluation criteria. The purpose of this task is to assist the BLM with identifying or building a preferred alternative for the Draft EIS.

6. Monitoring plan review

The Science Team will review a draft monitoring plan before publication in the Draft EIS for technical quality. The team may be asked to recommend specific monitoring questions and methods to include in the monitoring plan.

7. EIS changes review

The Science Team will likely be asked to review the BLM’s response to technical or science-related questions raised during the public input period following release of the Draft EIS. The Science Team will use the same criteria listed above for effects assessment reviews. Findings and recommendations will be documented in a form suitable for potential inclusion as an appendix in the Final EIS.

D. Schedule

1. Team formed - October 1, 2005
2. Analytical methodology review - October 2005-March 2006 (5-7 days)
3. Effects assessment review - April-June 2006 (5-7 days)
4. Monitoring plan review - Fall 2006 (2-3 days)
5. EIS changes review - 2007 (5-7 days)

Technical support to alternative development

Many scientists in the region have extensive experience translating broad concepts into management strategies. Involvement of scientists in the alternative development process can broaden the range of options and identify innovative ways to integrate management approaches to achieve RMP objectives. The BLM has several ongoing collaborations that could become venues for science input to alternative development, including:

·        Engagement with the CLAMS team to help develop management scenarios to assess the role of BLM lands in the Coast Range

·        Engagement with the CFER program on a broad range of management-related studies

·        Development of landscape scenario modeling tools for the Coos Bay and Medford districts

·        Collaboration with PNW and OSU scientists in the Density Management Study

·        Collaboration with PNW and R6 in the Central Cascades AMA to fulfill terms of the Settlement Agreement regarding active landscape management

The BLM will work to capitalize on these collaborations through brainstorming exercises, field trips, workshops, or other appropriate means to provide concepts and strategies for consideration in RMP alternatives. The BLM will also work with the CLAMS and CFER teams to quickly obtain broad-scale assessment of potential alternatives as applied on specific landscapes using their landscape simulation models.

Attachment