Previous
This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Mis-scans identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Thomas M. Quigley
Kristine M. Lee
Sylvia J. Arbelbide
Quigley, Thomas M., Range Scientist/Economist, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station,
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Walla Walla, WA
Lee, Kristine M., Fisheries/Aquatics Ecology Program Leader, Forest Service, Intermountain Region,
Ogden, UT
Arbelbide, Sylvia J., Geologist, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Minerals Area Management
Director, San Francisco, CA
Introduction
INTRODUCTION
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Introduction
5
Description of Alternatives
12
Mternative 1 (No Action)
14
Alternative 2
14
Alternative 3
15
Alternative 4
15
Alternative 5
16
Alternative 6
16
Alternative 7
16
Interpreting Rule Sets and Management Emphasis Categories
Evaluation of Alternatives Process
Literature Cited
17
27
28
-.-~.-.-.-.-.Y~...-.-...-.-~.-.-.-.-.-...-.-..~-.-.w.-.w.-.-...w.~...~.~....
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
In July 1993, as part of his plan for ecosystem
management in the Pacific Northwest, President
Clinton directed the Forest Service ^FS) to "develop a scientifically sound and ecosystem-based
strategy for management of Eastside forests." To
accomplish this, in January 1994, the Chief of the
Forest Service and the Director of the Bureau of
Land Management jointly established the Interior
Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project
(ICBEMP). The area covered by the ICBEMP
includes lands within the interior Columbia Basin
east of the Cascade crest and those portions of the
Klamath and Great Basins within Oregon (the
Basin) (map 1.1). This area includes over 58.4
million hectares (144.6 million ac), 30.9 million
hectares (76.3 million ac) of which are lands
administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and the U.S. Department of
Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
Three teams were established to accomplish the
project's objectives, a Science Integration Team
(SIT) and two Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) Teams. The EIS teams were established to
prepare Environmental Impact Statements, one
covering the Upper Columbia River basin
(UCRB), those portions of the interior Columbia
River basin in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming,
Nevada, and Utah, and one covering Oregon and
Washington east of the crest of the Cascade Range
(Eastside). These areas are displayed in maps 1.2
and 1.3. Tables 1.1 and 1.2 show the amount of
agency-administered land in each area.' Drawing
on information developed for the assessment, the
EISs were to examine management options for FSand BLM-administered lands in the Basin.
Both EISs were developed with a common set of
alternatives. Decisions resulting from the EISs will
not completely replace existing land and resource
management plans but place the focus on those
broad-scale issues that have been challenging to
address on a unit-by-unit basis. Many conditions
and decisions, most appropriately addressed at the
local level, are not addressed in the EISs.
The Science Integration Team was charged with
developing a scientific framework for ecosystem
management and conducting a scientific assessment of the Basin and an evaluation of EIS alternatives. The document, A Framework for Ecosystem
Management in the Interior Columbia Basin and
Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins (Framework) (Haynes and others 1996), describes the
principles, and planning and analysis processes,
applicable for managing ecosystems in the Basin
at multiple geographic extents and resolutions of
data. An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the
Interior Columbia Basin (Component Assessment)
(Quigley and Arbelbide, in press), and other
documents including An Integrated Scientific Assessment of the Interior Columbia Basin (Integrated
Assessment) (Quigley and others 1996), summarize the assessment process and examine the historical trends, current status and trends, and
projections about the future outcomes and conditions of ecosystems within the Basin. This document, the Evaluation of EIS Alternatives by the
Science Integration Team, looks at the alternatives
developed by the EIS teams in light of the scientific information brought forward in the assessment process. Figure 1.1 provides a flow diagram
for the relationship of the science assessment and
the evaluation of the alternatives to the EISs.
An attempt was made to evaluate a version of the
EIS alternatives in October, 1995. The evaluation
was not totally possible, however, due to the rough
and changing nature of the alternatives, their internal inconsistencies, a lack of specificity and spatial
definition, and the consequent inability to project
viability outcomes for terrestrial and aquatic species.
'The Targhee and Bridger-Teton National Forests and portions of the Caribou National Forest that lie within the boundaries of
both the UCRB and Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem will be excluded from the analysis of effects in the EIS and from decisions
made in the Record(s) ot Decision (ROD). All BLM lands within the boundaries of the UCRB, whether or not they overlap with
boundaries or the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, will be covered by the ROD(s).
Introduction
Map 1.1 -Topography of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project assessment area. The assessment area consists of the planning areas for both the Eastside and UCRB Environmental Impact Statements.
,...,w,w..,w,w,w,.....,..w.w.w.......w...w.~....~.
Introduction
Map 1.2 - BLM- and FS-administered lands in the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area.
BLM & Forest Service
Administered Lands
INTERIOR COLUMBIA
BASIN ECOSYSTEM
MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Draft UCRB EIS
1996
Forest Service Administered Lands
7
Northern Glaciated Mountains
BLM Administered Lands
8
Lower Clark Fork
Water
9
Upper Clark Fork
EIS Area Border
10
Owyhee Uplands
Ecological Reporting Unit Border:
"1"1 Upper Snake
Columbia Plateau
12 Snake Headwaters
Blue Mountains
13
Central Idaho Mountains
Map 1.3 - BLM- and FS-administered lands in the Eastside EIS area.
BLM & Forest Service
Administered Lands
INTERIOR C O L U M B I A
BASIN E C O S Y S T E M
M A N A G E M E N T PROJECT
Draft EASTSIDE EIS
1996
Forest Service Administered Lands
3
Upper Klamath
BLM Administered Lands
4
Northern Great Basin
Water
5
Columbia Plateau
EIS Area Border
6
Blue Mountains
Northern Glaciated Mountains
Ecological Reporting Unit Border:
7
Northern Cascades
10 Owyhee Uplands
Southern Cascades
0
Cities and Towns
Science
Assessment
ElSand
Decision
Evaluation of
Alternatives
Figure 1.1 — Relationship of the Evaluation of Alternatives to the Scientific Assessment and Environmental Impact Statements.
Introduction
Table 1.1 — National Forest and BLM Districts affected by the Eastside EIS.
Acres Affected1
State
National Forest or BLM District
Oregon
Burns BLM District
Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (FS)
Crooked River National Grassland
Deschutes National Forest2
Fremont National Forest
Lakeview BLM District
Malheur National Forest
Medford BLM District
Mount Hood National Forest
Ochoco National Forest
Prineville BLM District
Umatilla National Forest
Vale BLM District
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest3
Winema National Forest
Oregon Total
3,417,000
6,000
117,000
1,584,500
1,140,000
3,382,000
1,459,500
500
330,500
847,000
1,648,000
1,068,500
5,043,000
2,249,000
1,037,500
23,330,000
Washington
Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (FS)
Colville National Forest
Gifford Pinchot National Forest
Okanogan National Forest
Spokane BLM District
Umatilla National Forest
Vale BLM District
Wenatchee National Forest
Washington Total
8,000
1,088,000
187,500
1,497,500
347,000
311,000
10,500
2,192,000
5,641,500
Idaho
Nez Perce National Forest
Payette National Forest
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Idaho Total
Eastside EIS Total
4,500
4,000
131,000
139,500
29,111,000
'Acres listed are only those administered by the Bureau of Land Management or the Forest Service.
2
Newberry Crater National Volcanic Monument acres included.
'Hells Canyon National Recreation acres included.
Source: ICBEMP GIS data (converted to a 100 x 100 meter grid and rounded to nearest 500 acres). These totals will not match official government land office totals or those shown elsewhere in this document that were calculated from a 1000 x 1000 meter grid (1 krrr).
This table was adapted from the Eastside Preliminary Draft EIS.
Introduction
Table 1.2 — National Forests and BLM Districts addressed by the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS.
Acres Affected1
State
National Forest or BLM District
Idaho
Bitterroot National Forest
Boise National Forest
Caribou National Forest2
Challis National Forest
Clearwater National Forest
Curlew National Forest
Idaho Panhandle National Forest3
Kootenai National Forest
Nez Perce National Forest4
Payette National Forest4
Salmon National Forest
Sawtooth National Forest
Lower Snake River BLM District
Upper Snake River BLM District
Upper Columbia-Salmon Clearwater BLM Districts
Idaho Total
Montana
470,500
2,573,500
580,000
2,463,000
1,814,500
4,000
2,456,000
45,000
2,111,500
2,354,000
1,687,500
1,691,000
5,169,000
5,017,000
1,550,500
29,987,000
Bitterroot National Forest
Deerlodge National Forest
Flathead National Forest
Helena National Forest
Idaho Panhandle National Forests
Kootenai National Forest
Lolo National Forest
Butte BLM District
Montana Total
1,115,000
695,000
2,369,500
Nevada
Humboldt National Forest
Elko and Winnemucca BLM Districts
Lower Snake River BLM District
Nevada Total
632,000
1,953,000
49,500
2,634,500
Utah
Sawtooth National Forest
Salt Lake BLM District
Utah Total
Wyoming
385,000
27,500
2,207,000
2,075,000
150,000
9,024,000
59,000
52,500
111,500
Caribou National Forest
Rock Springs BLM District
Wyoming Total
7,000
23,000
30,000
41,787,000
UCRB EIS Total
'Acres listed are only those administered by the Bureau of Land Management or the Forest Service.
-'Excludes portion within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.
'Includes 119,000 acres in Washington.
'Includes portion assigned to Eastside EIS.
Source: ICBEMP GIS data (converted to 100 x 100 meter grid and rounded to nearest 500 acres). These totals will not match official government
land office totals or those shown elsewhere in this document that were calculated from a 1000 x 1000 meter grid (1 knr).
Adapted from the Upper Columbia River Basin Preliminary Draft EIS.
Introduction
11
While the SIT was attempting to evaluate the
October 1995 version of the alternatives, it was
also completing a classification of river subbasins
(4th-field hydrologic units) for assessment of
integrated forest, range, and aquatic integrity
(Quigley and others 1996). This information contributed to the development of forest and range
clusters, or groups of subbasins with similar broad
biophysical environments, ecological integrity,
amounts of wilderness-like allocations, amounts of
roads, and risks to ecological integrity. The clusters provided the spatial resolution needed to
develop a more specific set of alternatives and a
more comprehensive analysis of effects. The clusters became the basic unit for management
emphasis and the logic behind the prioritization
and allocation of management activities described
in the alternatives. Revised alternatives were developed based on the new approach.
screened to eliminate internal conflict and immediately passed on to the EIS teams. The assumptions used for the evaluation by each SIT staff
area are described in the individual staff area
chapters which follow.
Because of the lack of specificity necessary for
evaluation of the earlier draft, as well as the development of the cluster approach and the staff area
assumptions, the EIS teams adopted an iterative
approach to refining the objectives, standards,
guidelines, and other strategies described in the
EIS alternatives. The concurrent nature of the EIS
development and scientific assessment resulted in
additional information becoming available during
the evaluation of the February 1996 Preliminary
Draft EIS alternatives. The EIS Teams used the
SIT information as a basis to further refine alternatives in later drafts.
The version of the EIS alternatives under evaluaDescription of Alternatives
tion here was presented to the SIT on February
Alternative development begins with a statement
26, 1996 in a package titled "Alternatives Package
of purpose and need for the proposed action. For
for SIT Evaluation for Eastside and UCRB EISs,"
the Upper Columbia River Basin (UCRB) and
containing seven alternatives. Referred to as the
Eastside (EEIS) EISs, the purpose is to provide a
February 1996 Preliminary Draft EIS in this doccoordinated
approach to a scientifically sound,
ument, it is on file as part of the project records
ecosystem-based
management strategy for lands
Pertinent information from this document relating to the evaluation is also includ-Theie purpose of the proposed action — to provide a scientifically sound, ecosysed, for reference, in appendix I.
I tem-based
te
management strategy: 1) restore and maintain long-term ecosys(Appendix I is located at the back
tem health and integrity; 2) support economic and/or social needs of people, culof Volume II this document.)
During this SIT evaluation process
a number of additional questions
arose about the specifics of the
alternatives. An interactive process
between the SIT and EIS teams
resulted in substantial clarification.
Where there was insufficient detail
in the alternatives to conclude an
evaluation, the SIT made assumptions in order to provide clarification and allow the evaluation to
proceed. Those assumptions were
tures and communities, and provide predictable levels of products and services;
3) update current land management plans based on ecosystem management
principles; 4) provide consistent direction at a landscape level; 5) restore and
maintain habitat needs of plant and animal species; 6) provide opportunities for
cultural, recreacional and aesthetic experiences; 7) provide long-term management direction to replace interim strategies; and 8) identify barriers to implementing the strategy or achieving desired conditions.
The need for the proposed action — 1) restore and maintain long-term ecosystem
health and integrity, and 2) support economic and/or social needs of people, cultures and communities, and provide predictable levels of products and services.
'On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112 E. Poplar, Walla Walla, Washington, 99362.
Introduction
Continue