Eastside Chapter 1 Introduction - U.S. Forest Service · resume acting, or continue to act, as if...

EastsideChapter 1

Introduction

Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1Organization of the DEIS .......................................................................................................... 1Background ............................................................................................................................... 4

Proposed Action............................................................................................................................... 5Purpose of and Need For Action ..................................................................................................... 5

Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 5Need ........................................................................................................................................... 5Management Priorities ............................................................................................................ 10

Public Participation ....................................................................................................................... 10Notice of Intent ........................................................................................................................ 10Scoping Meetings .................................................................................................................... 10Other Meetings, Briefings, Consultations .............................................................................. 11Coordination with Other Governments ................................................................................. 11What’s Next in the Planning Process ...................................................................................... 12Planning Issues ........................................................................................................................ 12Issues, Concerns, and Other Planning Considerations Not Addressed in the Alternatives ............................................................................................................................ 15

Decisions To Be Made .................................................................................................................... 16Planning Considerations ......................................................................................................... 16The ICBEMP Assessment and EIS Process ............................................................................. 18New Information and the Adaptability of Plans ................................................................... 19Decisions That Will Be Made Through This Planning Process ............................................ 19Lands Affected by the Decision .............................................................................................. 21Factors Affecting Selection and Implementation of an Alternative...................................... 21Determination of Significance of Amendment Under the National Forest Management Act .................................................................................................................... 25Planning Criteria Under BLM Planning Regulations ........................................................... 26

Key Terms Used in Chapter 1

Adaptive management ~ A type of natural resource management in which decisions are made as part of an on-going process.Adaptive management involves testing, monitoring, evaluation, and incorporating new knowledge into management approachesbased on scientific findings and the needs of society. Results are used to modify management policy.

Administrative unit ~ An area under the administration of one line officer, such as a District Ranger, Forest Supervisor,or Regional Forester in the Forest Service, and an Area Manager, District Manager or State Director in the Bureau of LandManagement.

Biological diversity (biodiversity) ~ The variety and variability among living organisms and the ecological complexes inwhich they occur.

Eastside Screens ~ Interim management direction establishing riparian, ecosystem, and wildlife standards for timber saleson Forest Service-administered lands in eastern Oregon and Washington.

Ecological integrity ~ In general, ecological integrity refers to the degree to which all ecological components and their interactionsare represented and functioning; the quality of being complete; a sense of wholeness. Absolute measures of integrity do not exist.Proxies provide useful measures to estimate the integrity of major ecosystem components (forestland, rangeland, aquatic, andhydrologic). Estimating these integrity components in a relative sense across the basin, aids in explaining current conditions andprioritizing future management. Thus, areas of high integrity would represent areas where ecological function and processes arebetter represented and functioning than areas rated as low integrity.

Ecological processes ~ The flow and cycling of energy, materials, and organisms in an ecosystem.

Ecosystem-based management ~ Scientifically based land and resource management that integrates ecological capabilitieswith social values and economic relationships, to produce, restore, or sustain ecosystem integrity and desired conditions,uses, products, values, and services over the long term.

Ecosystem health (forest health, rangeland health, aquatic system health) ~ A condition where the parts and functions ofan ecosystem are sustained over time and where the system’s capacity for self-repair is maintained, such that goals foruses, values, and services of the ecosystem are met.

INFISH ~ Interim Inland Native Fish Strategy for the Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest regions (ForestService).

Issue (planning) ~ A matter of controversy, dispute, or general concern over resource management activities or land uses.To be considered a “significant” EIS issue, it must be well defined, relevant to the proposed action, and within the abilityof the agency to address through alternative management strategies.

PACFISH ~ Interim strategy for managing Pacific anadromous fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon andWashington, Idaho, and portions of California.

Planning area ~ Refers to either the Eastside EIS area or the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area.

Project area ~ refers to the entire Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) area, encompassingboth EIS areas.

Products and services ~ The various outputs, including on-site uses, produced from forest and rangeland resources.

Resilience ~ (1) The ability of a system to respond to disturbances. Resiliency is one of the properties that enable thesystem to persist in many different states or successional stages. (2) In human communities, refers to the ability of acommunity to respond to externally induced changes such as larger economic forces.

Restoration ~ Holistic, system-wide actions to modify an ecosystem to achieve a desired, healthy, and functioningcondition. Generally refers to the process of compensating for disturbances on an ecosystem so that the system canresume acting, or continue to act, as if those disturbances were absent. Ecological restoration includes well-laid plans andis targeted toward a specific historical ecosystem model.

Scoping ~ the early stages of preparation of an environmental impact statement, used to solicit public opinion, receivecomments and suggestions, and determine the issues to be considered in the EIS analysis.

Sustainability ~ (1) Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the abilities of future generations to meettheir needs; emphasizing and maintaining the underlying ecological processes that ensure long-term productivity ofgoods, services, and values without impairing productivity of the land. (2) In commodity production, refers to the yield ofa natural resource that can be produced continually at a given intensity of management.

Viable Population ~ A population that is regarded as having the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductiveindividuals to ensure that its continued existence is well distributed in the project area.

For additional terms, see the Glossary.

EASTSIDE DRAFT EIS/CHAPTER 1/PAGE 1

IntroductionThe Eastside Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) presents seven alternatives for managinglands administered by the Forest Service or Bureauof Land Management (BLM) in eastern Oregon andWashington. It is part of the Interior ColumbiaBasin Ecosystem Management Project, which wasinitiated for the following reasons:

◆To identify existing or emerging resourceproblems that transcend jurisdictionalboundaries, such as forest health problemsand declining salmon populations, and topropose potential solutions that can best beaddressed on a large scale.

◆To develop management strategies using acomprehensive, “big picture” approach, anddisclose interrelated actions and cumulativeeffects using scientific methods in an openpublic process.

◆To address certain large-scale issues, such asspecies viability and biodiversity, from alarger context using an interagency team.This method is more cost-effective than each BLMDistrict and National Forest conductingindependent efforts.

◆To respond to President Clinton’s July 1993direction to develop a scientifically-sound,ecosystem-based management strategy forlands administered by the BLM or ForestService east of the Cascade Crest.

◆To replace interim management strategies(PACFISH, Inland Native Fish Strategy, andEastside Screens) with a consistentmanagement strategy.

In response to these developments, managementdirection for Forest Service- and BLM-administeredlands across parts of seven states in the PacificNorthwest was reexamined. The Draft EastsideEIS provides a context for managers to makesound local decisions while considering effects,particularly cumulative effects, at a larger scalethan individual administrative units (NationalForests and Forest Service Ranger Districts; orBLM Districts and Resource Areas).

Two environmental impact statements (EISs) wereprepared for different portions of the area coveredby the Interior Columbia River Basin EcosystemManagement Project (ICBEMP), which is referred toin this EIS as the project area (see Map 1-1).

◆The planning area for the Eastside EISincludes land administered by the BLM orForest Service in the interior Columbia RiverBasin, upper Klamath Basin, and northernGreat Basin that lie east of the crest of theCascade Range in Oregon and Washington.The Eastside EIS covers approximately 30million acres of agency-administered lands(see Map 1-2).

◆The planning area for the Upper ColumbiaRiver Basin EIS includes lands administeredby the BLM or Forest Service in parts ofIdaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, and Utahthat are drained by the Columbia and SnakeRivers. The Upper Columbia River Basin EIScovers approximately 45 million acres ofagency-administered lands.

These Draft EISs were prepared concurrently, ina coordinated manner, and have the same sevenalternatives. Each EIS reflects subregionaldifferences in conditions and trends that exist inone area but not the other. The Record(s) ofDecision for the Eastside EIS will providedirection only for public lands administered bythe BLM or Forest Service in the planning area.The Eastside EIS makes no managementdecisions for any state, local (city or county), orprivate lands in eastern Oregon or Washington.Regulations, policies, or provisions made by stateor local agencies, or private landowners will notbe directly affected by decisions made in theRecord(s) of Decision.

Organization of the DEIS

This chapter describes the proposed action,purpose of and need for the action, and the publicinvolvement process, including planning issues.The last section describes the planning anddecision framework for the Draft EIS, andsubsequent Final EIS and Record(s) of Decision.Chapter 2 characterizes the existing condition ofthe planning area, including trends based onhistorical and current conditions. Sevenalternative management strategies for agency-administered lands in the Eastside planning areaare developed and described in Chapter 3,incorporating the latest scientific information.The possible environmental, social, and economicconsequences of implementing each alternativeare evaluated and displayed in Chapter 4.Chapter 5 lists the preparers of this document;and the tribes, agencies, and organizations that

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION


were consulted and coordinated with, and/or whowere sent copies of the Draft Eastside EIS. TheGlossary, References, and Index can be found atthe end of the document.

Background

In the western portion of the Pacific Northwest, therehas been a long-lasting controversy concerningmanagement of old forests and associated species onfederal lands. This controversy resulted in a gridlockof lawsuits, court rulings, appeals, and protests.The Northwest Forest Plan was completed in 1994 toaddress those issues.

In recent years, a similar controversy has beendeveloping in the interior portion of the PacificNorthwest concerning management of old forests,anadromous fish species, riparian areas, andother resources on federal lands. The traditionalapproach of individual BLM and Forest Serviceoffices addressing single resource issues hassometimes resulted in conflicting managementdirection among agencies and offices, as well asmanagement of competing resource needs. Theincreasing number of appeals and lawsuits overBLM and Forest Service decisions reflect thepublic’s dissatisfaction with the agencies’management of public lands. Interim strategies(PACFISH, Eastside Screens, and Inland NativeFish Strategy), described later in this chapter,were put in place to preserve management optionswhile long-term strategies were developed.

In July 1993, President Clinton directed theForest Service to “develop a scientifically soundand ecosystem-based strategy for management ofeastside forests.” The President’s direction waspart of his plan for ecosystem-based managementin the Pacific Northwest. The strategy initiallycovered National Forest System lands east of thecrest of the Cascade Range in Oregon andWashington. The BLM joined this effort in late1993. In July 1994 the BLM Director and ForestService Chief decided to expand the project areafurther. A separate EIS Team was formed tojointly develop an ecosystem-based managementstrategy for lands administered by the ForestService or BLM in the upper Columbia River Basin.That strategy is presented in the Upper ColumbiaRiver Basin EIS. The area covered by both EISs isreferred to as the “project area” in this document.

To provide the appropriate context for developmentand implementation of these management strategies,the Chief of the Forest Service and Director of the

BLM chartered an interagency team of federalscientists to meet President Clinton’s direction. Thisteam, referred to as the Science Integration Team,was directed to: study biophysical, economic, andsocial systems; examine current and historicalconditions; and explore the probability thatoutcomes from current practices and trends will beconsistent with long-term maintenance of ecosystemhealth and processes.

The Interior Columbia Basin EcosystemManagement Project’s Charter, signed January21, 1994, directed the Science Integration Teamto develop three products:

◆A Framework For Ecosystem Managementin the Interior Columbia Basin includingPortions of the Klamath and GreatBasins, focusing on lands administered bythe Forest Service or BLM. The Framework(Haynes et al. 1996) provides broadconcepts and processes recommended forecosystem analysis, planning, management,and monitoring at various scales. The EISprocesses are consistent with principles inthe Framework.

◆An Integrated Scientific Assessment forEcosystem Management in the InteriorColumbia Basin including Portions ofthe Klamath and Great Basins. TheIntegrated Assessment (Quigley et al. 1996a)examines historical and current biophysical,social, and economic systems on all lands,regardless of ownership. It discusses theprobable outcomes of continuing currentForest Service and BLM managementpractices and trends. Information generatedin the Integrated Assessment and associatedStaff Area Reports (Assessment of EcosystemComponents in the Interior Columbia Basinand Portions of the Klamath and GreatBasins [Quigley and Arbelbide 1997]) wereused as the basis for developing both EISs.

◆Evaluation of EIS Alternatives by theScience Integration Team. The Evaluation(Quigley et al. 1997) analyzes the effects andpracticality of implementing each alternativemanagement strategy. Outcomes of eachalternative were evaluated relative tomaintaining and/or restoring forest andrangeland health and productivity, andmaintaining economic, social, and culturalsystems (including tribal trustresponsibilities). The Evaluation providesan estimate of likely outcomes andcumulative effects from the alternativesacross the entire project area.


As directed in the Project Charter, managementstrategies (or alternatives) in the Eastside andUpper Columbia River Basin EISs are “based onecosystem management concepts; focused onrestoring the health of forest ecosystems;scientifically sound; based on the eastside foresthealth study completed by agency scientists, andother studies; and a multi-agency effort involvingthe public in an open process.” EIS strategiesalso look at rangeland and aquatic/riparianecosystems, and socio-economic needs, such asthose of local communities and American Indians.

Proposed ActionThe Forest Service and BLM propose to developand implement a coordinated, scientificallysound, ecosystem-based management strategyfor lands they administer east of the crest of theCascade Range in Oregon and Washington.

Purpose of andNeed For Action

Purpose

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to take acoordinated approach and to select amanagement strategy that best achieves acombination of the following:

◆Restore and maintain long-term ecosystemhealth and ecological integrity.

◆Support economic and/or social needs ofpeople, cultures, and communities, andprovide sustainable and predictable levels ofproducts and services from lands administeredby the Forest Service or BLM including fish,wildlife, and native plant communities.

◆Update or amend if necessary current ForestService and BLM management plans withlong-term direction, primarily at regional andsubregional levels.

◆Provide consistent direction to assist federalmanagers in making decisions at a landscapelevel within the context of broader ecologicalconsiderations.

◆Emphasize adaptive management over thelong term.

◆Help restore and maintain habitats of plantand animal species, especially those ofthreatened, endangered, and candidatespecies and of special interest to tribes. Thiswould be done primarily by moving towarddesired ranges of landscape conditions at asubregional and regional ecosystem basis.

◆Provide opportunities for cultural,recreational, and aesthetic experiences.

◆Provide long-term management direction toreplace interim strategies (PACFISH, EastsideScreens, and Inland Native Fish Strategy).

◆ Identify where current policy, regulation, law,or organizational structure may act aschallenges to implementing the strategy orachieving desired future conditions.

Need

The alternative management strategies examinedin detail in this EIS are based upon underlyingneeds for:

◆Restoration and maintenance of long-termecosystem health and ecological integrity.There is a need to restore and maintain forest,rangeland, aquatic, and riparian ecosystemhealth and integrity. There is also a need toidentify desired ranges of future landscapeconditions for vegetation structure,composition, and distribution; for hydrologicprocesses and functions; and for aquatichabitat structure and complexity.

◆Supporting the economic and/or socialneeds of people, cultures, and communities,and providing sustainable and predictable

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

Regional, Subregional,and Landscape Levels

In the Purpose and Need sections, regional,subregional, and landscape levels are discussed.These are relative terms that refer to geographicextent. In general, regional refers to the entireplanning area (one EIS) or project area (both EISs).A subregion is geographically smaller than a regionand larger than one administrative unit (aNational Forest or BLM District). A landscape issmaller than a subregion. The specific geographicextent of a region, subregion, or landscapedepends on the issue being addressed.



levels of products and services from ForestService- and BLM-administered lands.There is a need to contribute to the vitalityand resiliency of human communities. Thereis also a need to provide for human uses andvalues of natural resources consistent withmaintaining healthy, diverse ecosystems.

Identification of these needs comes primarilyfrom three considerations:

◆Changed conditions,

◆New information and understandings ofecologic relationships, and

◆Requirements and authority for morecomprehensive, regional and subregionallong-term management direction.

These considerations have developed or becomemore apparent since current land managementplans were signed.

Changed Conditions

The Assessment of Ecosystem Components (AEC)provides information characterizing historicaland current conditions, and associated trends.Throughout the Draft Eastside EIS, historicalconditions are compared to current ecosystemfunctions and components. Society values manyof the changes that have occurred on federallands since historical times, while other changesmay cause concern. Many pre-settlementconditions are not reasonable or possible torecreate due to such factors as dams, urbandevelopment, highways, and land use andownership patterns. Historical conditions arenot a goal; they are needed for reference to help

understand landscape potential, how landscapesevolve, the role of disturbance on the landscape,and human influences on landscapes.Alternatives described in Chapter 3 reflect thisunderstanding and propose strategies that focuson future conditions. The changed conditionssummarized here were taken from theAssessment of Ecosystem Components (Quigleyand Arbelbide 1996b).

Accelerated changes in vegetation patterns, fishand wildlife distributions, terrestrial and aquaticecosystem processes, and human communitieshave occurred in the project area in the pastcentury. A few well-intentioned managementstrategies are responsible for many of thechanges, permanently converting lands andecosystems to something other than what wasthere historically. These change-inducingmanagement strategies include: firesuppression; selective harvest of desirablecommercial tree species; widespread sheep andcattle grazing of rangelands, dry forests, andriparian areas; and development oftransportation systems. In general, duringnatural evolutionary change, native plant andanimal species slowly adapted and becametolerant of changing climates, environments, andhabitats. Many native species are not equippedto adapt to rapid changes in habitat quality,abundance, and distribution. Fire regimeschange, wildlife habitat is fragmented, exoticspecies spread, and introduced fish and wildlifespecies replace native species. As aconsequence, local areas, and larger regionalareas, lose their diversity of plants and animals.People and communities dependent on naturalresources for employment and sustaining theirway of life are affected by subsequent changes infederal land management.

Ecosystem Health

A healthy body is one that works the way it is supposed to. It can do the work asked of it. People ask theirbodies to play sports, dance, cut firewood, or write research papers, for example. These different kinds of workcall for different kinds of strength, endurance, or skill. However, they all require similar basic conditions ofhealth and integrity, such as functioning body parts working together as an integrated system.

The same is true of ecosystems. They do various kinds of work: convert sunlight into plant and animal tissues,sustain life and its many processes, and provide products and places for people. A healthy ecosystem is one thatdoes the work expected of it in terms of environmental, social, and economic goals. To do this, ecosystem partsand functions need to work well.

One of the signs of a heathy ecosystem in good working order is its ability to respond to disturbances such as fires,insects, or floods in a dynamic way. The system absorbs and recovers from disturbances without losing its processes orfunctions, although recovery may take varying amounts of time, or specific conditions may look different afterward. Ifthe ecosystem is healthy, it will continue to produce populations of plants and animals that are diverse and viable,waters that are clear, air that is clean, and soils that are fertile. A sign of an unhealthy ecosystem is the presence ofdisturbances that are too large, intense, or frequent for the system to handle.


Forestlands

In forestlands, harvest of the largest trees wasusually emphasized under traditional forestry.This included removal of shade-intolerantspecies, such as ponderosa pine, that areresistant to fires and droughts, and, in openstands, are resistant to insects and diseases.Fire prevention and suppression changed dryforests with many large, fire-tolerant species andminimal fuel loads, to forests comprised of fewlarge trees, many small patches of dense, small-and medium-sized shade-tolerant trees, andheavy fuel loads. These areas are moresusceptible to fires, insect outbreaks, anddisease epidemics. Fire regime patterns on thelandscape have been converted from low-intensity ground fires that burned in a mosaicand maintained the vegetation pattern andstructure, to homogenous high-intensity crownfires that replaced the vegetation structure.Forests in eastern Oregon and Washington todaycontain trees that are smaller, more shade-tolerant, and less resilient to significantdisturbance events than existed historically.

Rangelands

Rangeland conditions have steadily improvedfrom the heavy season-long use typical in the late1800s and early 1900s. There is, however, needfor improvement. Compared to seasonal rangesand migration patterns used by nativeherbivores, livestock grazing allotments areconfined by fences, which result in highergrazing frequencies and intensities, and alteredrangeland plant communities. Overgrazing ofrangeland riparian areas has resulted inunstable streambanks, reduced bank cover andshade, stream de-watering, increased sedimentinput, and altered channel structures.Livestock, roads, and recreation trails have beena direct conduit for the introduction of exoticplants, which are now widely distributed ascompared to historical conditions. Some highlyflammable exotic grasses, such as cheatgrass,have permanently altered historical fire regimes.These factors have resulted in loss of nativegrasslands and shrublands, expansion ofwoodlands, and conifer encroachment ascompared to historical conditions. These effectsare especially severe in areas that receive 12inches or less of annual precipitation, whererecovery is slow or not at all.

Species Habitats

Old forest structure in the project area hasdeclined by 44 percent on federal lands, andtwice as fast on private lands as compared tohistorical amounts. In particular, the loss of oldsingle-strata forest habitat in ponderosa pine andwestern larch has been significant withconsequent declines of associated wildlifespecies, especially cavity-nesting birds.Grassland habitats have decreased 63 percent,and shrubland habitats have decreased 24percent and have become severely fragmented ascompared to historical conditions. This hasmostly occurred on non-federal lands. Speciesassociated with rangelands have experiencedsignificant declines as a result of those changes.

Species Viability

Management activities on Forest Service- andBLM-administered lands have resulted in adecreased ability of some areas with highendemism (species that are native to, or limited toa certain location) or species diversity to supportviable populations of native species. The ScienceIntegration Team analyzed viability of 173 speciesof vertebrates, 28 plants, and 25 fishes in theproject area. This includes 8 candidate, 13threatened, 11 endangered species, and 2proposed species. Loss or isolation of old forestsand degradation of rangelands by the spread ofexotic species and livestock grazing arecontributing factors.

Aquatic Ecosystems

Aquatic ecosystems (water and associated plantand animal species) in the project area havechanged significantly due to human use. Presentconditions have resulted from the cumulativeeffects of past activities on and off agency-administered lands. Water quality and quantityhave been locally affected by resourcemanagement activities such as timber harvest,livestock grazing, road construction, and mining.Hydrologic function has been locally altered bydams, diversions, water withdrawal, vegetationmanipulation, and alteration of riparian andwetland areas. Changes in hydrologic and riparianconditions on agency-administered lands, inconcert with many other factors, have contributedto changes in the abundance and types of aquaticspecies that inhabit lakes, rivers, and streams.The composition, distribution, and status of fishesin the project area is very different than it washistorically. Many salmon species presentlyinhabit a small portion of their former ranges, while




many non-native species, including importantrecreational species, are widespread. Of the 87native fishes in the project area, 45 are recognizedby state and federal management agencies assensitive or species of special concern, and 12 areeither listed or candidates for listing under theEndangered Species Act.

Human Uses and Values

Social, economic, and biophysical conditions haveundergone rapid change in the past 50 years, andmanagers and the public are confronted with acomplex situation for which no easy answersexist. Based on society’s needs and values,choices were made to promote development, growcrops, raise cattle, build dams, build roads, andharvest timber. The area’s population hasincreased significantly in 50 years, and it appearsthis trend will continue. Values have shiftedamong the American public toward a strongeremphasis on environmental quality and resourceprotection, intensifying controversy about therole of resource use on public lands. Decliningand unpredictable flows of commodities frompublic lands directly affect people in resource-dependent communities through job losses, aswell as having national and regionalconsequences. The increasing number of appealsand lawsuits over Forest Service and BLM landmanagement plan decisions reflect some public’sdissatisfaction with the agencies’ decisions.Recent appeals and lawsuits have focused onregional issues, such as species viability,biodiversity, and related cumulative effects,which have been difficult to address successfullybecause of the absence of a comprehensiveregional look at agency land management.

American Indians were primary users of whateventually became public lands. Tribal rightsand interests in public lands and resourcespersists today; however, traditional use patternshave changed. Examples include changes inaccess and levels of resources as designated intreaties, and competition with non-Indians overresource use.

New Information andUnderstandings

Considerable research, studies, and reportsdocumenting some of these changed conditionswere published recently. A partial list follows:

◆Eastside Forest Ecosystem HealthAssessment (Everett et al. 1994);

◆Assessing Forest Ecosystem Health inthe Inland West (Sampson and Adams,eds. 1994);

◆Distribution of Two Exotic Grasses onIntermountain Rangelands: Status in1992 (Pellant and Hall 1994);

◆Scientific Assessment for EcosystemManagement in the Interior ColumbiaBasin and portions of the Klamath andGreat basins (Quigley et al. 1996a,b);

◆Environmental Assessment for theImplementation of Interim Strategies forManaging Anadromous Fish-producingWatersheds in Eastern Oregon andWashington, Idaho, and Portions ofCalifornia (USDA Forest Service and USDIBureau of Land Management 1994);

◆ Inland Native Fish Strategy EnvironmentalAssessment Decision Notice and Findingof No Significant Impact: Interim Strategiesfor Managing Fish-producing Watershedsin Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho,Western Montana, and Portions of Nevada(USDA Forest Service 1995);

◆Eastside Forests Scientific Society PanelReport to the Congress and President ofthe U.S. on Interim Protection for Late-Successional Forests, Fisheries, andWatersheds (Henjum et al. 1994);

◆Management History of EastsideEcosystems: Changes in Fish HabitatOver 50 Years, 1935-1992 (McIntosh etal. 1991); and

◆Pacific Salmon at the Crossroads: Stocks atRisk from California, Oregon, Idaho, andWashington (Nehlsen et al. 1991).

Requirements or Authority forNew Long-term ManagementDirection

Requirements or authority for permanent,ecosystem-based management direction havecome from: directives; commitments madethrough interim direction; consultation withregulatory agencies; and court orders includingPacific Rivers Council v. Thomas (see Appendix 1-5 formore details). In the Forest Service’s PacificNorthwest Region, Forest Plan Monitoring andEvaluation Reports from 1990 to 1994 alsoindicate the need for long-term management to


resolve monitoring elements that are at or nearthe indicated threshold.

Directives

The following agency-level directives apply toecosystem-based management:

◆Chief of the Forest Service’s June 4, 1992directive, mandating regional foresters andstation directors to undertake ecosystem-based management on National Forestsand Grasslands.

◆President Clinton’s July 1993 directive,mandating the Forest Service to develop ascientifically sound and ecosystem-basedstrategy for management of eastside forests.

◆Director of the BLM’s August 20, 1993 memo,directing all employees to undertake anecosystem-based approach to land management.

◆BLM’s late 1993 directive to develop ascientifically sound and ecosystem-basedstrategy with the Forest Service for eastsideBLM-administered lands, that led todirectives in the Project Charter.

◆Chief of the Forest Service’s 1994decision related to the Forest Service’sWestern Forest Health Initiative.

◆Chief of the Forest Service’s October1994 Forest Service Ethics and Course tothe Future.

Commitments Made ThroughInterim Direction

Three separate interim management strategiesexist in the planning area. Decisions made as aresult of the Interior Columbia Basin EcosystemManagement Project will replace that direction.Those strategies and their commitments for theproject are:

◆PACFISH. Implementation of InterimStrategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon andWashington, Idaho, and Portions of California(February 24, 1995): Calls for a longer-termstrategy to be developed and evaluated forslowing the degradation and beginning therestoration of aquatic and riparianecosystems for anadromous fish.

◆Eastside Screens. Interim ManagementDirection Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem,and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales (May20, 1994; amended June 5, 1995; riparianstandards replaced July 31, 1995): Calls formore definitive long-term direction forecosystem-based management of timbersales on National Forests in eastern Oregonand Washington.

◆INFISH. Inland Native Fish Strategy (July28,1995): Calls for longer-term managementdirection to protect habitat and populations ofresident native fishes outside anadromousfish habitat.

Consultation with RegulatoryAgencies

Each of the alternatives analyzed in this Draft EISis a broad-scale, overview-type approach tomanagement of Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands within the project area. ThisDraft EIS does not analyze on-the-groundimpacts of site-specific management actions.On-the-ground impacts will be assessed insubsequent decision-making before site-specificactions will be taken.

Formal consultation under Section 7 of theEndangered Species Act with the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service will be completed before anydecisions are made on the basis of this EIS.Formal consultation will include the preparationof a Biological Opinion, which will not addressincidental take of listed species because of thebroad-scale nature of the alternatives analyzed inthis EIS. Assessment of incidental take can onlybe accomplished for site-specific actions.

Subsequent proposals for site-specific actions thatimplement the broad-scale, overview-typeapproach to management selected from this EIS,and which “may affect” a listed species, shallrequire consultation with the National MarineFisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService. Those site-specific consultations willassess on-the-ground impacts and will includespecific incidental take statements in the BiologicalOpinion. The National Marine Fisheries Serviceand the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will continueto coordinate with the Forest Service and BLMregarding implementation of the broad-scaleapproach to management selected from this EIS.




Management Priorities

In developing and implementing decisions, theForest Service and BLM are guided by basicprinciples and priorities. Both the Forest Serviceand BLM are multiple-use agencies that promotethe sustainability of ecosystems by ensuring theirhealth, diversity, and productivity. Priorities formanagement will include:

◆Protecting Ecosystems. The agencies willwork to ensure the health and diversity ofecosystems while meeting people’s needs.Special care for fragile or rare ecosystemcomponents will be provided on landsadministered by the Forest Service or BLM.

◆Restoring Deteriorated Ecosystems. TheBLM and Forest Service will improvedeteriorated ecosystems on lands theyadminister, based on scientific understandingand emerging technologies.

◆Providing Multiple Benefits for PeopleWithin the Capabilities of Ecosystems.Within the limitations of ecosystemintegrity, health, and diversity, forests andrangelands also must meet people’s needsfor uses, values, products, and services.

Decisions resulting from this EIS and subsequentactions will be implemented under the threepriorities outlined above. In essence, ecosystemsmust be healthy, diverse, and productive in orderto meet the needs of society today, as well asthose of future generations.

Public ParticipationThe Eastside DEIS was developed with extensivepublic participation. Minimum involvement of thepublic required by the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA), was far exceeded in order todevelop and publish an EIS with few to nosurprises for the public. The scoping processrequired by NEPA (40 CFR 1501.7) was conductedto invite public participation, encourage an openprocess, and determine the significant issues to beaddressed. The Forest Service and BLM soughtinformation, comments, and assistance fromfederal, tribal, state, and local agencies, and fromother groups and individuals interested in oraffected by the proposed action. For a detaileddescription of the public scoping process and asummary of public comments received duringscoping, see Appendices 1-3 and 1-4.

The open process required a significant investmentin time and energy, primarily through preparing forand holding various types of meetings. Thatinvestment is yielding multiple benefits, including:partnerships (and increasing ownership) among thepublic, science, and management; improvedcommunication and coordination; mutual learningby all parties; technology and information transfer;and better understanding of and increasedknowledge about ecosystems.

The open approach adapted and evolved over time.Public meetings, open houses, symposiums,workshops, and a variety of other public processeswere used to achieve this end. Over 80 publicmeetings were held throughout eastern Oregonand Washington. These provided an opportunityfor project personnel to share data, information,and progress with the public. Summaries ofinternal and external meetings have beenaccessible via computer modems, Internet, a toll-free phone number, and 44 information centersthroughout the planning area. Regular mailings toa mailing list of approximately 5,000 helpedprovide information to the public as well.

Through public meetings or mailings, the publicwas involved in development and/or review of thefollowing EIS components: issues; proposedaction; purpose and need; and concepts, themes,and goals for alternatives.

Notice of Intent

The formal scoping period opened withpublication of the Notice of Intent to produce anEnvironmental Impact Statement, which firstappeared in the Federal Register on February 1,1994 (59 FR 4680). It was revised May 23, 1994(59 FR 2662A) to add BLM-administered lands insoutheastern Oregon, and revised August 25,1995 (60 FR 44298) to correct the expectedpublication date for the Draft EIS.

Scoping Meetings

Fifteen scoping meetings for the Eastside EIS wereheld in Oregon and Washington in May and June1994 (see Appendix 1-3), and for the UpperColumbia River Basin EIS in January and February1995. Each set of scoping meetings contributed toa preliminary set of issues, which were combinedto make a final list of issues for both EISs (similarconcerns were grouped where appropriate). Listed


on pages 14 and 15 is the final set of issues with abrief summary of public comments to show therange of opinions expressed. Each issue addresseslands and resources administered by the ForestService or BLM only. All significant issuesidentified during scoping have been considered inthe preparation of this EIS. Appendix 1-4 includesa more complete discussion of why each is anissue, examples of the comments received, andhow preliminary issues for the Eastside EIS wereincorporated into the final set of issues. Appendix1-4 also discusses some topics that cross manyissues, such as species viability and anadromousfish, among others.

Other Meetings,Briefings, Consultations

Many types of meetings were held throughout thedevelopment of the Draft EIS. Appendix 1-3 listsmany of these meetings.

Coordination with OtherGovernments

The Eastside EIS Team used a collaborativeapproach with the Science Integration Team, andelected officials from state, county, and tribalgovernments to develop and analyze a range ofcomprehensive ecosystem-based strategies formanagement of lands in the planning areaadministered by the BLM or Forest Service. Alisting of all government entities that participatedcan be found in Chapter 5.

Federal and State Agencies

The Eastside EIS Team was comprised ofpersonnel from the BLM, Forest Service, U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, EnvironmentalProtection Agency, and Bureau of Mines. Otherfederal agencies involved in development of theEIS included the National Marine FisheriesService, U.S. Geological Survey, and Bureau ofIndian Affairs. Federal cooperating agencies (asdefined in the National Environmental Policy Actimplementing regulations) are the Bureau ofReclamation, Bonneville Power Administration,

and National Park Service. Cooperating agenciesare defined in 40 CFR 1501.6 as federal agenciesthat have legal jurisdiction or special expertisewith respect to environmental issues addressedin the EIS. State, local, and tribal governmentsare encouraged to participate in the process, butare not considered as “cooperating agencies.”

Project personnel met with various state agenciesand representatives of the governors for Oregonand Washington to ensure state concerns wereincorporated into the Eastside EIS. Stateagencies with the responsibility for fish, wildlife,forestry and natural resources, and air and waterwere mostly involved. In addition, senior naturalresource advisors and officials for both Oregonand Washington have maintained a continuingdialogue during development of the Eastside EIS.

Tribal Governments

The project’s Tribal Liaison Group contacted 22individual tribes, 17 of which reside within or haverights and interests in the Eastside planning area.The purpose of the contact was to help develop,based on a government-to-governmentrelationship, a consultation process with each tribeand to work closely and continuously with eachother to integrate tribal rights and interests in theplanning process.

Early tribal involvement and consultation in such acomplex project as the Interior Columbia BasinEcosystem Management Project is a relatively newundertaking. All the tribes contacted haveparticipated to varying degrees and at varioustimes, based in part on differing interpretations ofthe concepts of “involvement” and “consultation”.Although all the tribes have provided at leastinformal feedback upon request and have madesignificant early contributions to this process,some have chosen to provide formal consultationand official tribal comments only upon release ofthe completed Draft EIS. Deciding officials arecommitted to formal government-to-governmentconsultation and are prepared to ensure that alltribes have the opportunity to participate to thedegree and in the way they wish before the FinalEIS and Record of Decision are released.

County Governments

The project area includes all or part of 104counties in 7 states. The Eastside EcosystemCoalition of Counties facilitated the involvement

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION



of counties, assuring that county interests andinput were considered by the Science IntegrationTeam and both EIS Teams. The Coalition wasjointly formed in the summer of 1994 by theAssociation of Counties from Idaho, Montana,Oregon, and Washington. They have beencontinually involved in the planning processthroughout the development of projectdocuments, and have made significantinvestments in the project’s success.

What’s Next in thePlanning Process

Availability of the Draft Eastside EIS for review will beannounced in the Federal Register and in localmedia. Publication of the Notice of Availability opensa comment period for the public to submit commentson the draft. Documents were mailed to those on theDistribution List (see Chapter 5) and any others uponrequest. Public meetings will be held in locations andat times and dates announced in the letteraccompanying this document and in local media.

After analysis and consideration of public commenton the draft, the Final Eastside EIS is expected tobe released in mid 1998. Any ensuing Record(s) ofDecision (RODs) will be issued following this inaccordance with appropriate Forest Service andBLM regulations. The availability of the FinalEastside EIS and ROD(s) will be published in theFederal Register and in local media. Opportunitiesto protest proposed decision(s) (BLM) or appealdecision(s) (Forest Service) will be provided inaccordance with BLM and Forest Serviceregulations and policies.

Planning Issues

Project scoping identified the issues andconcerns people have about public landsmanaged by the BLM or Forest Service in easternOregon and Washington. This information wascollected for several reasons:

◆To help identify what data should becollected for the Draft EIS.

◆To help develop ecosystem managementalternatives for the Draft EIS.

◆To help identify environmentalconsequences that should be addressedin the Draft EIS.

An “issue” for planning purposes is defined as amatter of controversy, dispute, or generalconcern over resource management activities orland uses. To be considered as a “significant”planning issue, it must be well defined, relevantto the proposed action in question, within theability of the agencies to address in the formulationof a range of management alternatives or possiblemitigation measures, and in the environmentalanalysis of the various alternatives. Other factorsused to identify significant issues include thegeographic extent of the issue, how long the issueis likely to be of interest, and the intensity of thelevel of interest or conflict generated by the issue.

The concepts of ecosystem-based managementstress the integration and interrelationships of allparts and functions of an ecosystem, includingthe human component. The issue statements

Figure 1-1 - Steps in the Planning Process

FF

Notice of Intent (NOI)Notice placed in Federal Register

that Forest Service and BLMintend to prepare Eastside EIS

ScopingPublic invited to identify

potential issues, concerns, andopportunities for the EIS

Draft EIS

Public Comment PeriodFollowing notice of Draft EIS

availability in Federal Register

Analysis ofPublic Comments

Final EIS andRecord of Decision (ROD)


listed here therefore exhibit the integration andinterdependence of all resources in each issue.Each paragraph following the issue representssome of the comments received during theEastside scoping process, and are intended toillustrate the varying public opinion.

Issue 1: In what condition shouldecosystems be maintained?

People have varying opinions about what level ofhuman alteration of the landscape and naturalsystems is acceptable, whether change should bemeasured against current or historicalconditions, what time period to consider forhistorical conditions, and what the desired rangeof conditions are and how they should be achieved.Many people prefer restoring ecosystem conditionsto those that existed naturally (historical ranges ofvariability), prior to the extensive impacts ofhuman development on natural systems. Others

feel that people are an integral part of ecosystems;therefore anything people do is part of ecosystemfunction and should be allowed, provided thatoutputs can be sustained over time, and providerevenue and employment. Some people also feelthat federal land management should compensatefor a lack of functioning ecosystem conditions onsome private lands.

Issue 2: To what degree, andunder what circumstances shouldrestoration be active (with humanintervention) or passive (lettingnature take its course)?

Some people believe that the primary function ofpublic lands is as reservoirs for biologicalresources, and therefore should be undisturbed,allowing “nature to take its course.” Othersbelieve they should be used to the fullest extent,as long as productivity and other biologicalfunctions are sustained. There were generallyfour viewpoints expressed regarding active andpassive management:

◆Active management is desirable.

◆Active management is desirable, but not allmanagement techniques are acceptable.

◆Active management is desirable in someareas, but should be limited to areas thatare currently roaded.

◆Passive management is the only acceptablestrategy; human management andintervention is what caused currentproblems in the first place.

Issue 3: What emphasis will beassigned when trade-offs arenecessary among resources,species, land areas, and uses?

Federal land managers have long operated underthe multiple-use philosophy, but controversyexists over dominance of particular uses, and howthese uses are distributed over time and space.Some of these conflicts include consumptiveversus non-consumptive uses, use of roads foraccess versus closing roads to mitigate adverseimpacts on various parts of the ecosystem, andtaking care of the environment regardless of costversus spending only what is necessary to restoredamaged areas. Other matters of controversyinclude which areas should receive priority; which


Commenting on the DEIS

Those who do not comment on the DraftEastside EIS or otherwise participate in this EISprocess may have limited options to appeal orprotest the final decision. Federal courtdecisions have ruled that environmentalobjections that could have been raised at thedraft stage may be waived if not raised untilafter completion of a Final EIS. This is toensure substantive comments and objectionsare made available to the Forest Service andBLM when they can be meaningfullyconsidered and responded to in the Final EIS.

To be most helpful, comments on the Draft EISshould be specific, mentioning particular pages orchapters where appropriate. Comments mayaddress the adequacy of the Draft EIS, the meritsof the alternatives, or the procedures followed inthe preparation of this document as called forunder the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) and its implementing regulations.

Comments received on the Draft EIS, alongwith comments received during scoping or atother stages of this process, will be placed intothe administrative record where they will beavailable for public review. Commentersshould thus be aware that information, such asaddresses and phone numbers, may be viewedand copied by anyone with access to thesepublic files in this open process.



resources and/or resource uses should receivepriority; what amount of protection (including cost)is necessary for threatened, endangered,candidate, and special status species recovery; andhow much weight should social and economiccosts and concerns have regarding speciesprotection and natural resource management.

Issue 4: To what degree willecosystem-based managementsupport economic and/or socialneeds of people, cultures, andcommunities?

Some people believe the federal government hasan obligation to support the economic vitality ofcertain rural communities through predictableaccess to resources on public lands. Othersbelieve there is no mandate to contribute to ruralcommunities, and access should not beguaranteed. Some people feel public landsshould continue to support the creation andmaintenance of jobs, while others believe thatjobs should not be driving public landmanagement. Controversy exists over a balancebetween healthy ecosystems and levels ofcommodities and jobs. Another difference comesfrom potential effects of land managementdecisions on private lands. Some people viewecosystem-based management as a federalgovernment attempt to control private lands,while others see necessity in considering allownerships and resources when developingpublic land management strategies.Disagreement exists over whether public landsshould remain exempt from property taxes, howmuch revenues from production of federalcommodities should be paid to local governments,and if the two should be tied together.

Issue 5: How will ecosystem-based management incorporatethe interactions of disturbanceprocesses across landscapes?

Some people feel wildfire suppression hasresulted in conditions that contribute to largerfires and support the use of fire as amanagement tool. Others are concerned thatprescribed fires sometimes get out of control.There is disagreement over the role that fireplays in ecosystem function. Many concernswere expressed regarding trade-offs between

wildfire and prescribed fire. Air quality andvisibility are important to the American public.Although smoke is generally considered to be themost significant factor affecting air quality andvisibility, understanding of air quality tradeoffsbetween prescribed fire and wildfire is poor.Effects of fire on private property in wildland-urban interface areas, whether timber harvestmimics natural disturbances, and the currentdebate over the costs and benefits of salvagelogging are other controversies.

Issue 6: What types ofopportunities will be availablefor cultural, recreational, andaesthetic experiences?

Some people value public lands for their naturalbeauty, purity, and open spaces for current andfuture generations, or simply to allow wild things aplace to exist. Others value public lands for thecommodities that help to sustain their lifestyle,such as logs for loggers. People become attachedto places that have special meaning to them. Thecontroversy comes when the use they preferconflicts with others, such as a special place forAmerican Indian spiritual use versus a place foroff-highway driving for pleasure. There isconsiderable debate on whether the culturalcharacteristics and traditional practices ofdistinctive groups should be sustained. Increasesin human population and other social factors, suchas an aging population, create pressures onlocations close to public lands.

Issue 7: How will ecosystem-based management contributeto meeting treaty and trustresponsibilities to AmericanIndian tribes?

On significant portions of land administered bythe BLM or Forest Service, American Indiantribes retain rights and privileges under treatiesnegotiated with the United States Government.Tribal rights and interests in the management ofresources sometimes conflict with the interestsof groups with other cultural perspectives. Somecommenters feel that all groups, including tribes,should be given equal consideration, while otherpeople believe the federal government shouldprioritize the resource needs of American Indiansover others’ needs.


Issues, Concerns, andOther PlanningConsiderations NotAddressed in theAlternatives

Many other issues besides those listed abovewere received during the scoping period. Theyfall into two broad categories ∼ issues that wereconsidered in other parts of the EIS process, andissues that were beyond the scope of the EIS. Asdefined above, planning issues are a matter ofcontroversy that can be addressed through themanagement alternatives.

Issues raised that related to development andimplementation of the EIS, public participation,consultation and coordination, and other parts ofthe Interior Columbia Basin EcosystemManagement Project were considered during thedevelopment of the Draft Eastside EIS.

Examples of these types of issues follow:

◆Write your reports and documents so that theaverage person can understand them.

◆Be consistent with state, county, and localplanning, zoning, and regulations.

◆Address how implementation of an ecosystemstrategy may require changes in laws,including the Federal Advisory CommitteeAct and the Endangered Species Act.

◆Many people like the open, honest process andwant it to remain open and accessible.

◆Several ways were suggested to keep thepublic informed on what is happening onthe project.

◆The following agencies or groups should beinvolved in the process, including theBureau of Reclamation, Corps of Engineers,Department of Defense, National BiologicalSurvey, Canadian government, soilconservation districts, and a variety ofgroups including the Klamath-Modocrecreation strategy working group.

◆Provide for peer-review of the Assessmentby non-agency scientists.

Several other issues that were beyond the scopeof the EIS were outside the decision-makers’

authority, fell under other agencies’ jurisdiction,or were beyond the Project Charter. Those issueswere transferred to the appropriate agency ordecision-maker.

Some examples of these comments andresponses follow:

◆Allow species, especially predators, tobecome extinct. (Federal legislation, suchas the Endangered Species Act and theNational Forest Management Act, does notprovide this option for either the ForestService or BLM.)

◆Analyze the size and appropriateness ofwilderness and other congressionally designatedareas. (Existence of congressionallydesignated areas were recognized in theEastside EIS process; however, changing thesize or designation of these areas falls underthe Congress’ authority.)

◆Evaluate the effect of Hanford NuclearReservation operations and superfund siteson ecosystem management. (These factorswere included in the Assessment.Modification of these operations is not withinthe decision-maker’s authority.)

◆The BLM and Forest Service should considerprivate lands in ecosystem management.(Regulation of private lands is not within thedecision-maker’s jurisdiction, and thereforewas not considered in the Eastside EIS.Contributions from private lands wereconsidered as part of the Assessment.)

◆Water quantity issues need to addresswater rights. Water rights and waterquality laws must be followed. (Waterrights and allocation falls under thejurisdiction of state governments.)

◆Protect all old growth, and prohibit allextractive activities (logging, mining, etc.),until the Eastside EIS is final. (Theseissues refer to actions that the Forest Serviceand BLM should take prior to release of aRecord of Decision for the Eastside EIS. TheProject Charter did not provide for anyinterim management actions; therefore theseissues are not within the scope of theProposed Action and were not addressed inthe Eastside EIS.)

◆The uncertainty of implementing decisions fromthe Eastside EIS is a concern. For example, acertain level of resource flows needs to beensured to assist local businesses in




determining their future levels of investment.(Specific levels of resource flows will bedetermined at the field level. The EastsideEIS only described resource flows in terms ofan anticipated range as an output fromimplementing each alternative.)

A synthesis of these comments was included inthe Eastside EIS Team’s Preliminary Issues forthe Development of Alternatives paper, whichwas mailed to the public on November 7, 1994.

Decisions To BeMadeThis section of Chapter 1 provides technicalinformation regarding a planning and decision-making framework. It discusses the nature andstatus of, and implications for, Forest Serviceand BLM planning; what has been accomplishedto date and what will be accomplished betweenpublication of Draft and Final EISs; decisions tobe made; factors affecting implementation; andrequirements of Forest Service and BLMplanning regulations.

Planning ConsiderationsIn order to understand the decisions that will bemade based on this EIS, it is important tounderstand the Forest Service’s and BLM’s multi-stage process for land use planning, the status ofplanning, and the implications that the EastsideRecord(s) of Decision would have for multipleadministrative units.

The Nature of Planning

Under the Forest and Rangeland RenewableResources Planning Act of 1974, the ForestService Chief prepares nationwide RenewableResources Assessment and Program documents(36 CFR 219.4(b)). Under the Federal Land Policyand Management Act of 1976, the BLM Directorprovides guidance, which includes national levelpolicy, for the preparation of resourcemanagement plans (43 CFR 1610.1(a)).

The next planning level involves preparation of aregional guide for each Forest Service region to

address “major issues and management concernswhich need to be considered at the regional level”(36 CFR 219.8(a)). Somewhat parallel to this, theBLM State Director provides State Directorguidance for resource management plan preparation(43 CFR 1610.1(a)).

Next, individual National Forest and BLM landuse plans, and associated EISs, are prepared.For the Forest Service, these are known as forestplans, or “land and resource management plansfor units of the National Forest System” (16 U.S.C.1604(a); 36 CFR 219.10 to 219.27). For the BLM,“resource management plans [are] prepared andmaintained on a resource area basis” (43 CFR1610.1(b)). In eastern Oregon and Washington,the BLM still has a few management frameworkplans in effect. These are the “previousgeneration” of land use plans, which are beingreplaced by resource management plans.

Finally, individual, or activity-level, projects areevaluated through an environmental impactstatement, environmental assessment, orcategorical exclusion, depending on theanticipated significance of environmental impact.The environmental document is approved only ifit is consistent with applicable Forest Service orBLM land use plans and other applicableenvironmental standards (16 U.S.C. 1604(I) and36 CFR 223.30; 43 CFR 1610.5-3). Examples ofthese activity-level projects include timber salesand recreation trails.

Plans for both Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands are designed to be consistentwith national-level agency policies and regulations.BLM plans at the activity level are tiered toresource management plans or managementframework plans, which may be based on StateDirector guidance. Forest Service activity-levelplans must be consistent with forest plans, whichin turn are based on regional guides. Whenneeded, larger-scale multi-regional plans, such asthe Eastside DEIS, may be developed to addressissues that cross jurisdictional boundaries. Foresthealth and anadromous fish species viability aretwo such issues.

When a large-scale plan is prepared formanagement of federal lands on a regional ormulti-regional basis, a broad overview EIS, orprogrammatic EIS, can provide a valuable andnecessary analysis of the affected environmentand potential cumulative effects of the reasonablyforeseeable actions under that program or withinthat geographical area. One or more analyses of


lesser scope or a site-specific EIS or analysis canbe tiered to a programmatic EIS.

To comply with statutory obligations arising fromthe National Forest Management Act, FederalLand Policy and Management Act, NationalEnvironmental Policy Act, Endangered SpeciesAct, Clean Water Act, and other environmentallaws, it is necessary to perform site-specificenvironmental analysis of activities prior tomaking an irreversible or irretrievablecommitment of resources. It is virtuallyimpossible to prepare a Forest Service or BLMland use plan and associated EIS with enoughspecificity to identify and adequately analyze allactivities requiring environmental analysis thatcould occur in the 10-year planning period.

Courts have recognized the difference in thenature of environmental impacts caused by suchprogrammatic decisions, and the NEPAobligations are more limited. One courtcharacterized forest plans in the following way.(This characterization is applicable to BLMresource management plans, as well.)

[A forest plan] is, in essence, aprogrammatic statement of intent thatestablishes basic guidelines and setsforth the planning element that will beemployed by the Forest Service in futuresite-specific decisions.

It provides guidelines and approvedmethods by which forest managementdecisions are to be made for a period of10–15 years. Adoption of the plan doesnot effectuate any on-the-groundenvironmental changes. Nor does itdictate that any particular site-specificaction causing environmental injury mustoccur. (Sierra Club v. Robertson, 28 F3d753 [8th Circuit 1994]).

Thus, regional guides and Forest Service or BLMland use plans are only part of a multiple-leveldecision-making framework. It is the subsequentsite-specific level of decision-making that affectsthe environmental status-quo. Site-specificdecisions are made by local managers (ForestSupervisors, District Managers, District Rangers,Area Managers). These officials and their staffsare familiar with the issues presented and localconditions associated with the affected planningarea and are charged with monitoring andevaluating the land use plan and proposingchanges to it, as necessary, through amendmentand revision.

The Status of Planning

During the late 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s,the BLM and Forest Service releasedcomprehensive land use plans and frameworkdocuments for individual National Forests andGrasslands and portions of BLM Districts.Appendix 1-1 includes a list of these plans andtheir effective date for the Eastside planning area.These plans remain in effect until amended orrevised. The Forest Service is required by theNational Forest Management Act to revise forestplans at least every 10 to 15 years. In general,BLM resource management plans (RMPs) arerevised every 10 years. These management plansincluded general direction and specific land usesfor individual administrative units, with anemphasis primarily on producing outputs ofgoods and services and on protecting ormaintaining required levels of clean air, water,and habitat for viable populations of species. Anyforest plan, resource management plan, ormanagement framework plan currently underrevision is being coordinated with this planningprocess and Draft EIS. The Southeast OregonRMP is one such plan.

Decisions made by the Forest Service and BLMbased on the Eastside EIS are expected to amendexisting land use plans and may amend regionalguides, where they conflict with the newdecisions. The relevant parts of the selectedalternative will become part of these plans andwill guide project decision-making until replacedthrough subsequent amendment or revision.

For the purpose of the analysis and disclosure ofenvironmental impacts, direction from theRecord(s) of Decision for the Eastside EIS isassumed to be in place for approximately 10years. Direction (such as standards applicable toparticular areas) that is specific to eachindividual administrative unit will be revisited atthe time of land use plan revision. Direction(such as broad-scale objectives) that applies tomultiple administrative units will remain in placeto guide future plan amendments and revisions.It is the intent of the agencies that subsequentplan amendments or revisions for individualadministrative units will be designed to meet thisbroad-scale direction.

DECISIONS TO BE MADE



Implications for MultipleAdministrative Units

The process for making programmatic decisionsis described in both Forest Service regulations(36 CFR 219) and BLM regulations (43 CFR 1600).Those processes were designed in the 1970s tofacilitate planning for individual administrativeunits, and to address issues specific to thoseunits. Conversely, the Eastside EIS andresulting decision will focus on broad-scaleissues that cross jurisdictional boundaries. Thisfocus will provide a broad context formanagement strategies that cannot adequatelybe developed at the BLM and Forest Service landuse plan level. The purpose and need for theproposed action is much broader than atraditional Forest Service or BLM land use planand EIS and is based on a different managementapproach ∼ ecosystem-based management.Because of this broader focus, Forest Serviceand BLM planning regulations do not precisely fitthe type of land use plan amendments that willoccur if one of the action alternatives(Alternatives 3 through 7) were selected.

Much of the management direction in this DEIS isapplicable to multiple administrative units inaggregate rather than to individual units. Assuch, it is not possible to reliably predict actions,effects, or outputs for each unit. Moreover,determinations with respect to each administrativeunit that would normally be made as part of theplanning process are not possible. As with manyplanning concepts developed in the late 1970sand early 1980s, the regulations must be appliedto the extent reasonable, given the current broaderfocus on ecosystem-based management andinteragency cooperation as depicted in this EIS.

The ICBEMP Assessmentand EIS Process

What Has Been Accomplishedto Date

The Science Integration Team (SIT) prepared anIntegrated Scientific Assessment for EcosystemManagement in the Interior Columbia Basin andPortions of the Klamath and Great Basins (Quigley

et al. 1996a) and an Assessment of EcosystemComponents in the Interior Columbia Basin andPortions of the Klamath and Great Basins (Quigleyand Arbelbide 1996b), collectively known as theScientific Assessment, and several smallerdocuments. The Science Team also createdseveral databases and computer models. Thedatabases contain information on vegetation,landform, climate, stream inventories, terrestrialspecies relationships, county indicators, andeconomic conditions. The models range fromthose that predict change in vegetation underdifferent disturbance regimes to those thatdescribe resiliency of human communities.Together, the documents, databases, and modelsprovide the basis for an assessment of the projectarea, which was used by the EIS Teams todescribe the Affected Environment (Chapter 2).

Database/information systems/informationgathering for the Interior Columbia BasinEcosystem Management Project generally can becategorized into five groups:

◆databases (more than 20 were acquired ordeveloped);

◆GIS themes or layers (more than 170 weregenerated; see Appendix 4-1);

◆expert panels/workshops (approximately 40were convened);

◆contract reports (more than 130 were used);and

◆current literature reviews.

From an ecological perspective, the ScienceIntegration Team developed an understanding ofthe status, condition, and trends associated withthe components of the ecosystems andeconomies of the project area. Theycharacterized the landscape and vegetationcomponents from a broad perspective,addressing those elements that have beenaltered during the past 100 years. Theydeveloped the concept of the biophysicaltemplate, which is the successional anddisturbance processes in an area together withlandform, soil, water, and climate conditions thatformed the native system in which plants andanimals evolved. Terrestrial wildlife species andtheir habitats within the project area werecharacterized and examined from a broadperspective, bringing forward a reduced list ofspecies that are likely to be at risk. The SIT alsocharacterized and examined aquatic species andtheir habitats within the project area, drawing


from information about species abundance,distribution, diversity, and habitat inferences.

Projections of risk to ecological integrity cameprimarily from a “functional” rather than anintegrated perspective. Elements that affect theaquatic, terrestrial, and landscape systems wereidentified using common databases andassumptions about the future. These findingsand projections provide useful considerations formanagers as they examine future options andestablish management policies.

What is Yet to be Accomplished

Because broad-scale, integrated, ecosystem-based planning and management over such alarge area, as in the Interior Columbia BasinEcosystem Management Project area, representsa new way of thinking, many items were notcompleted from an ecological perspective, as ofthe publication of this Draft EIS. These items, asfollows, will be completed before publication ofthe Final EIS(s).

The level of understanding brought forward withthe models, databases, and GIS themes, makespossible a process of prioritization and integratedrisk assessment that was not possible until now.For example, the EIS Team has adequateinformation to prioritize the most important habitatfor aquatic species persistence. With thatidentification, the disturbance processes that arelikely to affect these areas and that are likely tohave the greatest negative impact on the aquaticsystem can be determined. The result would be anintegrated risk statement related to broad-scaledisturbance processes affecting aquatic systems.

Information is also available to initiate theprocess of grouping terrestrial wildlife species,identifying the most important habitats forterrestrial species persistence, and identifyingdisturbances that cause greatest risk to theircontinued persistence. This information makes itpossible to answer the integrated risk questionsassociated with terrestrial species and theirhabitats related to broad-scale disturbanceprocesses. This should also make it possible toaddress the questions of connectivity andfragmentation regarding the most importanthabitat features for terrestrial species groups.

Addressing the integrated risk questions from anecosystem-based, or landscape, perspectiveallows the integration of aquatic management

strategies with terrestrial management strategiesand an evaluation of the risks associated withbroad-scale disturbances and broad managementdirection/activities across the landscape.

New Information and theAdaptability of Plans

The Scientific Assessment and the Eastside andUCRB EISs may provide significant new informationwithin the meaning of the Council of EnvironmentalQuality regulations and the BLM and Forest Serviceplanning regulations. This may requiresupplementation of NEPA documents, amendmentor revision of plans, or reinitiation of consultationunder the Endangered Species Act. Adjustments inland use plans are crucial to the agencies’ ability tomeet the continuing compliance and newinformation obligations of NEPA and otherenvironmental laws.

Each new piece of information raises newquestions as it answers old ones. Recognizingthis is a key feature of adaptive management.Continually assessing resources by looking at abroader scale, or perspective, as well as at a finerscale will enable managers to address theintegrated risk questions.

The alternatives brought forward in this Draft EIScreate new understanding that will expand in thefuture. It can be thought of as a continuum ofinformation and advances of knowledge. Adaptivemanagement processes will be important fromthe broad scale on down to lower, more site-specific levels. If the ability to assess broad-scaleconditions and risks are combined with adaptiveprocesses on administrative units, then theselected alternative in the Final EIS could betterattempt to manage risks to high-priorityecological and economic resources.

Decisions That Will BeMade Through ThisPlanning Process

The Pacific Northwest Regional Forester andOregon/Washington BLM State Director are thedeciding officials for the Eastside EIS. Bothofficials are located in Portland, Oregon.




Once the Final EIS has been completed, theresponsible officials can decide to:

◆Select one of the alternatives analyzedwithin the Final EIS, including one of the NoAction Alternatives (Alternative 1 or 2); or

◆Modify an alternative (for example, combineparts of different alternatives), as long asthe environmental consequences of themodified action have been analyzed withinthe Final EIS.

The alternative selected for implementation willbe documented in the Record(s) of Decision.

Specific decisions involved in the selection of analternative include adoption of:

◆management goals,

◆a desired range of future conditionsexpected over the next 50 to 100 years,

◆objectives to be used in measuring progresstoward attainment of the management goals,and

◆standards, which are required actions to beused in designing and implementing futuremanagement actions.

A list of guidelines, which are suggestedtechniques that should prove useful in meetingthe objectives, are included in Appendix 3-2. Inaddition, each alternative specifies a range ofmanagement actions (for example, acres ofrangeland improvement) needed to achieve thedesired range of future conditions. Selection ofan alternative does not mandate a specific level ofactivity. However, the identified range ofmanagement actions for the selected alternativewill be used in developing future annual workplans and for monitoring the implementation ofthe ecosystem-based management strategy.

Decision(s) made by the agencies will provide alarge-scale ecological context for Forest Serviceand BLM land use plans. They also will helpclarify the relationship of agency activities toecosystem capabilities and will help developrealistic expectations for the production ofeconomic and social benefits. Most decisions willfocus on regional and subregional issues andestablish desired landscape patterns, structure,and succession and disturbance regimes toaddress the issues. The decision(s) also will helpestablish general direction for management ofhabitat for threatened, endangered, and candidatespecies or communities of species that requireintegrated management across broad landscapes

to assure viability. For the most part, fine-scaledecisions will be deferred to individualadministrative units after appropriate site-specific analysis.

The Record(s) of Decision for the Eastside EIS areexpected to amend current BLM and ForestService land use plans, Forest Service regionalguide, and BLM State Director guidance, wherethey conflict. The relevant parts of the EastsideEIS’s selected alternative will become part of theamended plans and will guide activity-leveldecision-making until replaced throughsubsequent amendment or revision.Management direction and land allocations inexisting plans not directly superseded by theEastside Record(s) of Decision will remain ineffect. The Record(s) of Decision also may changeplanning schedules and funding priorities, andwill identify necessary changes to policy orsuggest modifications to existing laws as neededto implement the decision.

The alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIS includestandards for rangeland health and guidelines forlivestock grazing which are consistent with theBLM’s grazing regulations (43 CFR 4100). Finalstandards for rangeland health and guidelines forlivestock grazing are also being developed by theHealthy Rangelands initiative, a nationwide effortfocusing on rangelands managed by BLM. BLMState Directors are developing these standardsand guidelines in consultation with affectedResource Advisory Councils, Provincial AdvisoryCommittees, and others. These standards andguidelines are expected to be finalized in aseparate document in August 1997. Objectives,standards, and guidelines being analyzed in thisEIS affecting rangeland health and livestockgrazing are compatible with BLM’s HealthyRangeland initiative.

Fundamentals of Rangeland Health wereestablished for the BLM in their new regulationssigned February 22, 1995 (43 CFR 4180). Thesefundamentals, described in the followingparagraph, is the basis to be used to developstandards for rangeland health and guidelines forlivestock grazing on BLM-administered land.

Watersheds are in or are making significantprogress toward properly functioning condition,including uplands, riparian areas and wetlands,and aquatic components; soil and plant conditionssupport infiltration, soil moisture storage, and therelease of water that are in balance with climateand landform; and maintain or improve water


quality, quantity, and the timing and duration offlow. Ecological processes, including thehydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle, and energy floware maintained, or there is significant progresstoward their attainment to support healthy bioticpopulations and communities. Water quantitycomplies with state water quality standards andachieves, or is making significant progress towardachieving, established BLM managementobjectives, such as meeting wildlife habitatrequirements. Habitats are or are makingsignificant progress toward being restored ormaintained for federal threatened, endangered,candidate, or other special status species.

At a minimum, state or regional standardsdeveloped under the fundamentals of rangelandhealth must address the following: watershedfunction; nutrient cycling and energy flow; waterquality; habitat for threatened, endangered,proposed, candidate, and special status species;and habitat quality for native plant and animalpopulations and communities.

Northwest Forest Plan

The planning area for the Eastside EIS overlapswith the easternmost area addressed in theRecord of Decision for Amendments to ForestService and BLM Management PlanningDocuments Within the Range of the NorthernSpotted Owl (Northwest Forest Plan April 13,1994). Map 1-3 shows this overlap. While thealternatives and corresponding analysis in thisEIS include this overlap area, decisions in theNorthwest Forest Plan would not be supercededby Eastside EIS decisions unless subsequentamendments were made per Northwest ForestPlan direction.

Interim Direction

The planning area also overlaps part or all of theland addressed in the Decision Notices forPACFISH, Eastside Screens, and Inland NativeFish Strategy (see Map 1-3). As directed in theProject Charter, the Eastside Record(s) ofDecision will replace those interim strategies.This would include direction for both terrestrialand aquatic ecosystems.

Lands Affected by theDecision

The Eastside decision(s) would provide directiononly for public lands administered by the ForestService or the BLM in the planning area. TheRecord(s) of Decision based on this EIS wouldmake no management decisions for and would notimpose regulations on state, local (city or county),tribal, or private lands in eastern Oregon andWashington. The decisions are not intended toaffect rights, privileges, regulations, policies, orprovisions made by state or local agencies orprivate landowners.

Factors Affecting Selectionand Implementation of anAlternative

Many factors will or may affect implementation of thedecisions made through this planning process. Someof these factors are listed below:

Purpose and Need

The action alternatives (Alternatives 3 through 7)must meet the purpose of and need for the proposedaction, described earlier in this chapter.

Scale of Decision

The broad-scale nature of this planning processdoes not include site-specific decisions. Thosewill be made by local managers (DistrictManagers, Forest Supervisors, Area Managers,and District Rangers) during smaller-scaleplanning processes. Many decisions in thisplanning process are based on information andprojections over periods longer than 10 years.The adequacy and completeness of some types ofdata at this scale require discussion under 40CFR 1502.22. (See the Scale of Decision sectionin Chapter 4.)

Valid Existing Rights

Nothing in this plan can override valid existingrights or permits, such as water rights, mineralleases, mining claims, rights-of-way, livestockgrazing permits, awarded contracts, and specialuse permits; however, to meet the objectives of



an alternative, some reasonable changes may berequired in the way maintenance and operationsare carried out.

Decision Space

In formulating an array of alternatives relating tomanagement of public lands in the planning area, itis important for the decision space to be well definedand understood. That is, the decisions decidingofficials can make (including management activitiesand intensities on lands they administer) and cannot make (including activities on lands they do notadminister), or decisions assigned to another agency(such as changing water rights), which fall understate jurisdiction. The decision space shoulddemonstrate the degree of flexibility formanagement, and expected outcomes of landmanagement actions at the landscape level (on eachForest Service Ranger District or BLM Resource Area).

Various federal and state laws, such as the CleanWater Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered SpeciesAct, and National Forest Management Act haveminimum requirements or conditions(thresholds) that must be attained prior to orwhile conducting management activities. Whilethese thresholds may define the lower limits of adecision space, the upper limit is often boundedby the biological potential, or maximumcapabilities of the land and resources. Thisallows for a range of management optionsbetween the thresholds and the biologicalpotential. Selection of a preferred alternativewithin that range of management options can thenbe focused on social, economic, or specialresource considerations. In general, acombination of social, economic, and resourcevalues will be greatest somewhere short ofmaximizing any one value, except where verylimited opportunities, or rare and sensitivespecies or habitat conditions exist.

Other Planning Efforts (Federal,State, Tribal, and Local)

Other federal agencies, and state, tribal, and localgovernments have been actively involved in thepublic involvement process for this Draft EIS asrequired by the National Environmental PolicyAct, National Forest Management Act, FederalLand Policy and Management Act, and otherregulations. During the comment period on theDraft EIS, there will be further opportunities tosurface and resolve conflicts.

The BLM’s planning regulations require that itsresource management plans be consistent withofficially approved or adopted resource-relatedplans, and the policies and procedures therein, ofother federal, state, and local agencies, andIndian tribes, so long as the resourcemanagement plans would still be consistent withapplicable federal laws and regulations(43 CFR 1610.3-2).

The Council on Environmental Quality regulationsin 40 CFR 1502.16(c) require a discussion of“possible conflicts between the proposed actionand the objectives of federal, regional, state, andlocal (and, in the case of a reservation, Indiantribe) land use plans, policies and controls forareas concerned.” The Federal Land Policy andManagement Act and National Forest ManagementAct require that federal land management agencyplans identify consistencies and inconsistencieswith other land use plans, such as planning andzoning efforts of local governments. The geographicscope of the Eastside and UCRB EISs, involvingover 100 counties in the interior Pacific Northwest,make a consistency review effort more challenging.

One effort undertaken during the planning processto ensure consistency with local planning effortsinvolved the collection and review of many countyland use, economic development, and other planswhich were submitted in late 1994 and early 1995. Asummary report, the County/Community VisionStatement Project, completed in August 1995, for theInterior Columbia Basin Ecosystem ManagementProject, reviewed 32 such plans. The EastsideEcosystem Coalition of Counties assisted Projectstaff by requesting that local governments in theproject area provide copies of their plans for review.State and tribal plans also were considered whenanalyzing cumulative effects.

Relationship to Federal, State,and Local EnvironmentalProtection Laws

The Eastside EIS was prepared withconsideration of relevant laws, policies, andregulations. Decisions must be consistent withmany federal laws, including the Federal LandPolicy and Management Act, National ForestManagement Act, Endangered Species Act, theAmerican Indian Religious Freedom Act, NationalHistoric Preservation Act, the Clean Air Act, andClean Water Act (see Appendix 1-1 for a list of themost relevant federal laws).




Under the Endangered Species Act, federalactivities that may have an effect on threatened orendangered species are subject to consultationwith the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or NationalMarine Fisheries Service. (Departments ofAgriculture [Forest Service], Commerce [NationalMarine Fisheries Service], and Interior [Bureau ofLand Management and U.S. Fish and WildlifeService] Memorandum of Understanding datedMay 31, 1995). Requirements for consultationwill remain in effect under any selectedalternative. If the selected alternative may havean effect on threatened or endangered species,then biological assessment(s), appropriate for thescale of the decision, will be submitted to theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NationalMarine Fisheries Service for consultation.Consultation will be completed prior to anyground-disturbing activities.

Some federal laws contain provisions for stateadministration of specific environmentalprograms or for making state laws applicable tofederal lands and facilities. State and local lawsrelating to the health, safety, and welfare ofpeople apply to activities on federal lands.

Nothing in the alternatives in this Draft EISprecludes compliance or commits the agencies toany action which would violate such legalrequirements. Compliance can be assured atsmaller-scale planning levels.

Federal Trust Responsibilitiesto Indian Tribes

There are 22 federally recognized AmericanIndian tribes within the Interior Columbia BasinEcosystem Management Project Area, 17 ofwhich have interests in the Eastside EIS planningarea. The federal government has a trust andlegal responsibility to American Indian tribes,which comes from commitments made by theUnited States in treaties, executive orders, andagreements. Upholding these tribal rightsspecified in the treaties, executive orders,statutes, and agreements constitutes the federalgovernment’s legal responsibility. The federalgovernment also has a responsibility to consultwith affected tribes whenever its actions affectthe resources upon which tribal hunting, fishing,gathering, and grazing rights depend.

The 17 federally recognized American Indiantribes that have interest in the Eastside planning

area are listed in Table 2-29 in Chapter 2. Otherdiscussions of American Indian tribes are inChapter 2, and in more detail in Appendix 1-2.

Water Rights and Adjudications

Conditions upon which this document is basedare predicated on the availability of instreamflows sufficient to maintain and restore channelconditions, provide for viable aquatic speciessuch as fish, protect recreation flows in wild andscenic river areas, and provide for other needsunder which the National Forests and certainBLM-administered lands were established. It isthe position of the United States that the right touse water for management of public lands wasreserved by the United States when the NationalForests, wildernesses, wild and scenic riverareas, national recreation areas, and certainBLM-administered lands were established.Those reserved water rights, as well as waterrights claimed under state authority, areestablished through water rights adjudicationsand are beyond the scope of this EIS. Theagencies’ ability to meet the purposes for whichthese federal reservations were established, arepredicated on having the minimum amount ofwater necessary for both instream andconsumptive uses. The selected alternative mayhave effects that are different from thosedescribed in this EIS, and may not accomplishthe purpose and need of the proposed action ifsufficient water is not available to manage thepublic lands for their intended purpose.

Mitigation Measures

The alternatives discussed in this Draft EIS weredeveloped to provide various strategies to meetthe purpose and need statement. As a practicalmatter, the environmental effects fromimplementing any of the alternatives in theEastside Draft EIS may require mitigation ofvarious activities at local levels. See Chapter 4for more detail.

Recovery Plans

Recovery plans are technical scientificdocuments prepared by biological experts fromtribes; federal, state, and local agencies; and insome cases the private sector. The plans identifyspecific actions to conserve and recover aparticular species, and develop a plan to


implement such actions. Recovery plans areformulated and carried out by a “recovery team,”which is usually composed of a mix of tribal,governmental, and private sector individuals.

The recovery plan process is one of the key focalpoints of the Secretary of Interior’s efforts underthe Endangered Species Act of 1973, asamended, to conserve and recover listed species.The Endangered Species Act authorized, but didnot require, recovery plans to be developed.Consequently, prior to 1978, recovery planningbecame a low priority within the EndangeredSpecies Act budget process. However, in 1978,the Congress amended the Endangered SpeciesAct, requiring the Secretary of the Interior(through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) todevelop and implement recovery plans for the“conservation and survival” of listed species“unless he finds that such a plan will notpromote the conservation of the species.” TheSecretary was also directed to establish apriority system for development of recoveryplans in which he gives priority to those speciesthat are most likely to benefit from such plans.The Secretary must give public notice andopportunity to comment on proposed recoveryplans and take into account any commentprovided prior to finalizing a recovery plan.

Plant, animal, and fish species that have anapproved recovery plan in the Eastside EIS areainclude the Borax Lake Chub, Lahontancutthroat trout, grizzly bear, woodland caribou,gray wolf, bald eagle, peregrine falcon,MacFarlane’s four-o’clock. For more information,see Appendix 2-1.

Funding

The Record(s) of Decision for this EIS may affectfunding levels; however, decisions on ForestService and BLM funding are made through otherprocesses that are outside the scope of thisplanning process. Alternatives 2 through 7 (inChapter 3) and effects of the alternatives (inChapter 4) assume full funding forimplementation at current funding levels. If fullfunding does not occur, then the rate ofimplementation will be decreased appropriately.

Staffing Levels

Like funding, staffing decisions are madethrough other processes that are outside thescope of this planning process. Standards will bemet at any staffing level; however, the rate ofimplementation will be decreased appropriately ifstaffing levels decrease.

Implementation Feasibility

The feasibility of implementing the selectedalternative, especially the location of thoseactions, must be determined by local ForestService and BLM managers, in light of localcircumstances and conditions.

Determination ofSignificance ofAmendment Under theNational ForestManagement Act

Regional Guides

The BLM does not have a mandatory level ofplanning that corresponds to the regional guidesof the Forest Service. Currently, it appears thatthe objectives and standards in Chapter 3 will beadopted at the Forest and BLM District planninglevels. However, after a Final EIS is preparedand issued, a record of decision can be draftedwhich will make a determination as to whetherany amendments to the regional guide will bemade.

Significant Amendments toForest Plans

The scale of the Scientific Assessment and thisDraft EIS is broad enough that it is neitherfeasible nor appropriate to make fine-scaleamendments to land use plans. With thepossible exception of the aquatic conservationstrategy, the alternatives are not specific toparticular Forests or BLM Districts. None of theaction alternatives would require a change in the




roadless areas described in existing plans. Noallowable sale quantity changes are needed at thislevel of planning. Allowable sale quantitydeterminations will be made in the revisions to ForestService and BLM land use plans.

In the usual forest planning situation, a ForestSupervisor determines the significant issuesidentified in scoping. For the ICBEMP planningprocess, the selection role was assigned to theProject Managers under the supervision of anExecutive Steering Committee, comprised ofRegional Foresters, BLM State Directors, andForest Service Research Station Directors. Theissues identified were neither appropriate norsuitable to address in the detail described in36 CFR 219.12.(b)- (k). Topics such as planningcriteria, inventory data and information collection,analysis of management situation, andformulation of alternatives are controlled by theissues identified in scoping. This Draft EISaccomplished all of the steps in the significantamendment process as appropriate in estimatingeffects of alternatives, evaluation of alternatives,and selection of a preferred alternative. TheProject Managers followed the Northwest ForestPlan process; therefore, the reconciliation withindividual plans will be accomplished at a later date.

Suitable Timber Acres

Figures for acres of suitable timber in individualforest plans, as amended by the anticipateddecision from this EIS, will be adjusted when theplans are revised. Until then, managementactivities must follow the goals, objectives, andstandards from the Eastside EIS, as amendedinto the individual forest plans.

Allowable Sale Quantity

Allowable sale quantity figures for timber harvestwill be adjusted when individual land use plansare revised. Chapter 4 estimates the broad-scalefuture timber sale volume. By the time planrevisions occur, the Forests and BLM Districtswill have experience with applying the objectivesand standards from the anticipated record ofdecision and will be able to make more realisticadjustments to allowable sale quantities.

Roadless Areas

Current forest plans evaluate roadless areas.Wilderness Acts have been enacted for Oregonand Washington with “release” language for

roadless areas. Such language allows multiple-use management on areas not designated aswilderness. The current decision does not needto consider this issue again at this scale;however it will be considered during the forestplan revision processes.

Management Indicator Species

The National Forest Management Act planningregulations require Forest Service planningefforts to establish and address managementindicator species for the planning area.Management indicator species are those plantand/or animal species selected because theirpopulation changes are believed to indicate theeffects of management activities. This requirementis not applicable to BLM. The designation ofmanagement indicator species was made for eachexisting Forest Service regional guide and ForestService land use plan per 36 CFR 219.19(a).Decisions made through this effort will notchange those designations. Upon futureamendment or revision of existing Forest Serviceland use plans, management indicator specieslists will be adjusted, as appropriate, in responseto local conditions and information.

Public Involvement

Public involvement requirements of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act and the National ForestManagement Act have been met and exceeded inthis planning effort.

Disclosure

Disclosure requirements of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act and the NationalForest Management Act have been met in thisplanning effort.

Planning CriteriaUnder BLM PlanningRegulations

Planning criteria, a BLM regulatory requirement,were prepared to guide development of theEastside EIS. In general, planning criteria arebased upon applicable law; BLM Director andState Director guidance; and the results ofpublic participation and coordination with other


federal, state, county, and local governments andIndian tribes. The criteria are:

◆This planning action was driven by thestatement of purpose, described earlier inthis chapter.

◆The alternatives described and analyzed inthis process are (with the exception of theNo Action Alternatives, [Alternatives 1 and2]) responsive to the statement of need,described earlier in this chapter, and to thesignificant issues identified by the public,described earlier in this chapter.

◆This planning action was based on dataprovided in the Integrated Assessment(Quigley et al. 1996a) and Assessment ofEcosystem Components in the InteriorColumbia Basin and Portions of the Klamathand Great Basins (Quigley and Arbelbide


Availability of Planning Records

The Eastside EIS Planning Record includes data, documentation,and information used to prepare this analysis.

Documents may be requested from or viewed at the InteriorColumbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project office in WallaWalla. Local management plans and inventories are available atapplicable BLM and Forest Service offices.

If you would like more information please call (509) 522-4030,(509) 522-4029 (tty), or fax us at (509) 522-4025.

More information can be obtained through the Internet at:

http://www.icbemp.gov

1996b) and on other published, peer-reviewed scientific literature.

◆The alternative management strategiesdescribed in Chapter 3 and analyzed inChapter 4 are not intended to be moredetailed or specific than the Assessmentand other appropriate literaturementioned above.

◆The detail and specificity of the alternativeswas limited to that necessary to addressthe statement of need, described earlier inthis chapter.

Eastside Chapter 1 Introduction - U.S. Forest Service · resume acting, or continue to act, as if...

Documents

Transcript of Eastside Chapter 1 Introduction - U.S. Forest Service · resume acting, or continue to act, as if...