NEPA

R E S O U R C E N O T E S

Cartography/

mapping sciences

Fire

Forestry

GIS and GPS

Hazardous

Materials

Human/Social/

Historical

Hydrology

NEPA Compliance

Others

Public Affairs

Range

Recreation/

Interpretation/

Visual Resources

Riparian

Soils/geology

Threatened &

Endangered

Species

Wildlife Biology

Libraries/records

management

Cadastral/

land Records

Resource Note 78

Page 1

NO. 78 DATE 05/17/05

NEPA

R E S O U R C E N O T E S

Cartography/

mapping sciences

Fire

Forestry

GIS and GPS

Hazardous

Materials

Human/Social/

Historical

Hydrology

NEPA Compliance

Others

Public Affairs

Range

Recreation/

Interpretation/

Visual Resources

Riparian

Soils/geology

Threatened &

Endangered

Species

Wildlife Biology

Libraries/records

management

Cadastral/

land Records

NEPA Planning and NEPA Compliance

Tiered Assessments 

Focus Plans and 

Project Investments 

on High-Priority 

Issues

By Jerry Magee, Environmental 

Protection Specialist, BLM, Oregon 

State Office

Background

As broad-scale, cumulative effects 

become increasingly evident across 

certain landscapes, science points to 

the need for broader understandings of ecosystem processes, functions, and interrelationships upon 

which to base our management 

strategies. The resultant shift from 

supply–demand-based to ecosystem-based management has led to 

landscape assessments much larger 

in geographic scope than traditional 

planning efforts. These assessments 

provide broad context for land use 

plans in relation to the broader 

region and to each other. They also 

support establishment of relative 

priorities for management attention within the region and begin 

the process of stepping down science findings through finer scaled 

assessments that inform equivalent 

levels of planning and decision 

making. This tiered assessment process is intended to (1) ensure that 

broad-scale management objectives 

are applied to appropriate landscapes and (2) influence the design 

of on-the-ground projects to meet 

broad-scale—as well as local—goals 

and objectives (Figure).

Discussion

For purposes of this note, ecosystem assessments are tools for gathering relevant, available scientific 

and other information and organizing it in a way that establishes (1) 

meaningful context for subsequent 

action, and (2) a sound basis for 

priority setting. Assessments do not 

make decisions—they do not commit resources or narrow decision 

space. Instead, assessments inform 

our planning and decision-making 

processes.

Importance of Scale. Environmental assessments being conducted 

at the site scale, such as those associated with National Environmental 

Policy Act compliance, can miss 

important interrelationships that 

can only be revealed at broader 

scales. At the same time, broadscale perspectives alone would miss 

important cause–effect relationships 

that can only be seen at finer scales. 

A process for looking at several scales 

would allow broader scale context to 

focus finer scale actions on highest 

priorities for maximum effectiveness. For example, field unit personnel recently showcased a watershed 

restoration “success” story where 

investments in road repair, replacement, and decommissioning paid 

off when the 1996 floods destroyed 

many neighboring watersheds. Upon 

completing a subsequent landscapelevel assessment, they learned that 

the same investment would have 

protected higher resource values 

and a greater proportion of the subbasin had it been applied to other 

watersheds determined to be more 

critical to subbasinwide processes 

and functions.

Process Similarities Among Scales. 

Although assessments at various scales use different types and 

resolutions of data, similarities in 

processes among scales can serve 

to link multiscaled assessments. For 

example:

• Assessments at any scale are stepwise processes of inquiry about 

patterns and relationships leading 

to hypotheses at broader scales, 

testing of those hypotheses with 

more highly resolved information at finer scales and, ultimately, 

designing projects based on 

broad-scale context that helps us 

to answer why we do what we do 

where and when we do it.

Assessment–Planning Links

Assessment Scales Decision Tiers

Midscale

Assessment Land Use Plan

Project Decision

Watershed

Assessment

Site

Assessment

Need for Change

(AMS)

Context

Desired 

Conditions

Context

Effects

Goals and Objectives

Match Validate

Figure. In this example, midscale assessments support the development of Land Use Plans or provide 

information warranting a “need for change” to an existing Plan. Watershed-level assessments match 

Plan objectives to appropriate landscapes and assess the capability of the watershed to meet the objectives. Priorities and recommendations from watershed assessments focus subsequent site assessments 

that determine project locations and ultimately assist with project design and cumulative effects 

analysis.
NEPA

R E S O U R C E N O T E S

Cartography/

mapping sciences

Fire

Forestry

GIS and GPS

Hazardous

Materials

Human/Social/

Historical

Hydrology

NEPA Compliance

Others

Public Affairs

Range

Recreation/

Interpretation/

Visual Resources

Riparian

Soils/geology

Threatened &

Endangered

Species

Wildlife Biology

Libraries/records

management

Cadastral/

land Records

Cadastral/

land Records

Resource Note 78

Page 2

• Assessments are collaborative processes seeking management compatibility out of recognition that 

across any given landscape, landowners and other stakeholders 

have physical, jurisdictional, or 

political influence over the success of each other’s management 

decisions.

• Assessments are issue-driven processes, 

wherein issues focus the scope of 

the assessment, and the intensity 

of the analysis is proportional 

to the complexity of the issues 

involved.

• Assessments are characterization 

processes designed to document 

our understanding of ecosystem 

(biophysical and socioeconomic) 

components; to tie plan direction 

to appropriate landscapes; and 

to set context for subsequent 

efforts within the assessment area. 

The common denominators of 

characterization among scales are

Status—the condition of the ecosystem in relation to historical or 

desired conditions,

Risks—to ecosystem conditions 

from natural events and management actions, and

Opportunities—to conserve or 

restore ecosystem conditions or to 

produce desired outcomes.

• Assessments are priority-setting 

processes wherein logical subunits 

are delineated and prioritized for 

subsequent management attention. Priorities also incorporate 

partner factors, such as funding 

and staffing availabilities and legal 

mandates, to successfully achieve 

collaborative commitments to 

take the next steps together.

• Assessments are iterative processes 

that are supplemented as substantive new information accumulates, 

resource conditions dramatically 

change, or new issues arise that 

are not adequately supported by 

the current assessment.

Assessment Tools. Two assessment tools have been developed 

to assist with mid- and fine-scale 

assessments. Ecosystem Review at the 

Subbasin Scale (1999), or Subbasin 

Review, was designed to assess a 

subbasin (U.S. Geological Survey’s 

[USGS] 4th-field hydrologic unit 

code [HUC]) or group of subbasins 

(totaling about 1–4 million acres) 

to establish context for and prioritize watershed analysis and other 

subsequent management attention 

within the area and support Land 

Use Plan amendments and revisions. The process takes about 3 to 

4 weeks of concentrated staff effort 

over a 2- to 3-month period. Primary steps include issue identification, 

characterization, and development 

of priorities and recommendations. 

The Subbasin Review guide is on 

the Web at: http://www.icbemp.gov/

implement/subbas.shtml.

Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed 

Scale (1995), or Watershed Analysis, 

was developed to assess a watershed 

(USGS 5th- or 6th-field HUC) or 

group of watersheds (totaling about 

15,000–150,000 acres). Watershedscale status, risks, and opportunities 

are assessed to establish context for 

and prioritize the general locations 

and types of appropriate management activities to be considered 

within a watershed, match Land 

Use Plan objectives to appropriate 

landscapes, and assess the capability of the watershed to meet Plan 

objectives. Each analysis takes about 

1 to 3 months. The primary steps 

include general characterization of 

the watershed, issue identification, 

detailed characterization of present 

and reference (or historical) conditions, synthesis and interpretation of 

the information, and development 

of priorities and recommendations. 

The Watershed Analysis guide is 

on the Web at: http://www.reo.gov/

library/reports/watershd.pdf.

Conclusion

Broad-scale, cumulative effects 

and the need for broader understanding of ecosystem processes, 

functions, and interrelationships 

to resolve them have highlighted 

the importance of linking appropriately scaled assessments to 

corresponding planning or decision tiers. Success in these efforts 

depends on maintaining focus at 

the appropriate scale and on issues 

relevant to that scale and resisting 

efforts to “retreat” to the site-scale 

data and approaches specialists are 

most familiar with. Multiscaled 

perspectives provide managers and 

specialists with needed context for 

investing their limited resources 

on the highest priorities, meeting 

local and broad-scale needs, and 

making better-informed decisions 

at all levels.

Contact

Jerry Magee

Environmental Protection Specialist

Bureau of Land Management

Oregon State Office

P.O. Box 2965

Portland, OR 97208

Phone: 503-808-6086

Fax: 503-808-6021

Email: Jerry_Magee@blm.gov

The Bureau of Land Management Resource Notes, 

which are posted on this Web site 

(http://www.blm.gov/nstc/resourcenotes/resnotes.html),

are early announcements of technical and informational 

topics for BLM personnel and their customers. Information contained in this Resource Note has not been 

peer-reviewed. Conclusions and opinions expressed herein 

do not necessarily represent those of BLM. Use of trade 

names does not imply U.S. government endorsement of 

commercial products.

Technical Editor - Deborah Harris 

(Debbie_Harris@blm.gov)

Graphic Designer - Ethel Coontz (Ethel_Coontz@blm.gov)

If you would like to prepare a Resource Note for 

electronic distribution, or if you have an idea or can 

suggest an author for a Resource Note, contact 

NSTC@blm.gov; phone: 303-236-2772) 

with the topic and the 

name of the writer, including mailing address, 

phone number, and e-mail address.

Thank you for your interest in Resource Notes.