Appendix A –Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Executive Orders

1

Appendix A – Compliance with Laws, Regulations and 

Executive Orders

This appendix describes how the action alternative complies with applicable state and federal laws, 

regulations, and policies.

The Preservation of Antiquities Act, June 1906 and the National Historic Preservation Act, as 

amended, October 1966 – Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 

(amended in 1976, 1980, and 1992) is the foremost legislation governing the treatment of historic 

properties (a.k.a. heritage or cultural resources) during project planning and implementation. Other 

legal framework used to consider the effects of the action alternative on heritage resources are listed 

below:

36 CFR Part 800 (Protection of Historic Properties), 

36 CFR Part 63 (Determination of Eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places), 

36 CFR Part 296 (Protection of Archaeological Resources), and

Sacred Sites Executive Order 13007

The 1995 Programmatic Agreement (PA) between the USDA Forest Service PNW, the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation, and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) Regarding Cultural 

Resource Management in the State of Oregon by the USDA Forest Service (amended in 2004) provides a 

process by which the Forest Heritage Specialist may certify that the Forest has complied with Section 

106 of NHPA for the project. 

The Lang Dam Cultural Resource Inventory Report project file was reviewed by a Forest Heritage 

Specialist. In accordance with this PA, an appropriate inventory was conducted during the summers of 

2014 and 2015 and was documented under the “Cultural Resource Inventory Report for the Lang Dam 

Project Area”. Through project design, all known cultural sites in the Area of Potential Effect (APE) were 

protected by avoidance, resulting in a determination of “Historic Properties Avoided Determination”. 

Documentation was provided to SHPO and concurrence for this project was received by SHPO on copies 

were retained on file in the Forest and District Heritage files. 

Should previously unknown cultural resource sites or objects be discovered during project activities, 

contract provisions would provide protection. All activities in the vicinity of the find would cease 

immediately, while the McKenzie River Ranger District Archaeologist is notified to assess the find.

The importance of consultation and coordination with Indian Tribes was affirmed through Presidential 

Memoranda in 1994, 2004 and 2009, and in Executive Order “Consultation and Coordination with Indian 

Tribal Governments” EO 13084, issued in 1998 and replaced by EO 13175 in 2000, as well as in 

numerous statutes and policies. The value of collaboration is fully recognized within the USDA for all of 

its constituents, including Tribes. (USDA Department Regulation: 1350-

002, http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/tribalrelations/documents/policy/consultation/Final_DR.pdf)

The Endangered Species Act (ESA), December 1973 – The ESA establishes a policy that all federal 

agencies would seek to conserve endangered and threatened species of fish, wildlife, and plants. 

Biological Evaluations for plants and wildlife have been prepared which describe possible effects and 
Appendix A –Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Executive Orders

2

impacts of the proposed action on sensitive and other species of concern that may be present in the 

project area. 

The 1995 Programmatic Agreement (PA) between the USDA Forest Service PNW, the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation, and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) Regarding Cultural 

Resource Management in the State of Oregon by the USDA Forest Service (amended in 2004) provides a

process by which the Forest Heritage Specialist may certify that the Forest has complied with Section 

106 of NHPA for the project. 

In accordance with this PA, an appropriate inventory was conducted during the summers of 2013 and 

2014 and was documented under the “Cultural Resource Inventory Report for the Lang Dam Project 

Area”. Through project design, all known cultural sites in the Area of Potential Effect (APE) were 

protected by avoidance, resulting in a determination of “Historic Properties Avoided” on January 26, 

2016. SHPO concurred with the Forest Service finding on February 16, 2016. Documentation has been 

retained in the Forest and District Heritage.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 1976 (MSA) – The Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires the identification of habitat “essential” to 

conserve and enhance the federal fishery resources that are fished commercially. The Pacific Fishery 

Management Council designated Essential Fish Habitat for Chinook, coho, and Puget Sound pink salmon 

in their Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan, issued September 27, 2000. The interim final 

rule implementing the Essential Fish Habitat provision of the MSA (62 FR 66531) requires federal 

agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service for any action that may adversely affect 

Essential Fish Habitat. 

An essential fish habitat assessment was done for this project under this act. The project was found “not 

likely to adversely affect” essential fish habitat and no consultation was required.

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 1976 - NFMA reorganized, expanded, and otherwise 

amended the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, which called for the 

management of renewable resources on national forest lands. The National Forest Management Act 

requires the Secretary of Agriculture to assess forest lands, develop a management program based on 

multiple-use, sustained-yield principles, and implement a resource management plan for each unit of 

the National Forest System. It is the primary statute governing the administration of national forests.

There are several important sections within the act, including Section 1 (purpose and principles), Section 

19 (fish and wildlife resources), Section 23 (water and soil resources), and Section 27 (management 

requirements that relate to perspective project planning).

The action alternative was developed to be in full compliance with NFMA via compliance with the 

Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1990), as amended. Throughout the 

environmental analysis and various specialist reports in the project record, there are references to 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines and how those standards and guidelines were met in the various 

aspects in the design of the action alternative. 

Appropriate public disclosure and opportunity to comment has occurred in the form of public scoping 

and the associated comment period. 

Forest Plan Consistency – Actions analyzed in the Lang Dam Project EA are consistent with a broad 

range of Forest Plan standards and guidelines that have been discussed and disclosed throughout the 
Appendix A –Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Executive Orders

3

document. The treatments associated with the project are consistent with the goals and management 

direction analyzed in the Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan FEIS and 

Record of Decision. Road improvements are designed to be consistent with the 1994 Northwest Forest 

Plan amendments to the Forest Plan and the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.

Survey and Manage – The proposed action alternative complies with the Northwest Forest Plan as 

amended by the 2001 Record of Decision and standards and guidelines for amendments to the survey 

and manage, protection buffer, and other mitigation measures standards and guidelines. Predisturbance and site management were consistent with the January 2001 species list. See the Botany 

and Wildlife sections of Lang Dam EA and the project record for full discussions.

Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy - The Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) is an 

integral part of the Northwest Forest Plan and was developed to maintain and restore the ecological 

health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems on public lands through implementation of four 

components: 1) Riparian Reserves 2) key watersheds 3) watershed analysis 4) watershed restoration. 

Based on the analysis presented in Appendix C of the EA, the ACS Objectives would be met in the action 

alternative.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1969 – NEPA establishes the format and content 

requirements of environmental analysis and documentation. Preparation of the Lang Dam EA was done 

in compliance with these requirements.

Wilderness Act, 1964, as amended 1978) - The Wilderness Act established the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. The Secretary of the Interior was directed to review every roadless area of 5,000 

acres or more and every roadless island within the National Wildlife Refuge and National Park systems 

for possible inclusion. The act also included some National Forest lands in the system and directed the 

Secretary of Agriculture to recommend others. Over 100 million acres have been included in the 

National Wilderness Preservation System to date. No project activities are proposed in designated 

Wilderness, potential Wilderness, or Inventoried Roadless Areas.

The Clean Water Act, 1987 – This act establishes a non-degradation policy for all federally proposed 

projects. Compliance with the Clean Water Act would be accomplished through planning and application 

and monitoring of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Based on the analysis presented in this EA, Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements for the South and Middle Santiam watersheds would be met 

in each alternative (See Aquatics Section 3.12 and Appendix C: ACSO).

Clean Air Act Amendments, 1977 – The action alternative was designed to meet the National Ambient 

Air quality standards through avoidance of practices that degrade air quality below health and visibility 

standards. This project is consistent with the 1990 Clean Air Act and the 1977 Clean Air Act and its 

amendments (see Fire/Fuels section).

Civil Rights Act, 1964 – In regards to consumers, civil rights, minority groups, and women, contracting 

procedures would ensure that projects made available to contractors through this project would be 

advertised and awarded in a manner that gives proper consideration to minority and women-owned 

business groups. Because of this consideration, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects 

to consumers, civil rights, or minority groups with implementation of the action alternative.

Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, Public Law 91-173, as amended by Public Law 95-164. 

Development of Rock Quarries would conform to the requirements of the act, which sets forth 
Appendix A –Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Executive Orders

4

mandatory safety and health standards for each surface metal or nonmetal mine. The purpose for the 

standards are to protect life by preventing accidents and promoting health and safety.

Executive Order 13186: Migratory Birds – This Executive Order directs federal agencies to avoid or 

minimize the negative impact of their actions on migratory birds and to take active steps to protect birds 

and their habitat. This Executive Order also requires federal agencies to develop Memorandum of 

Understandings (MOU) with the US Fish and Wildlife Service to conserve birds, including taking steps to 

restore and enhance habitat, prevent or abate pollution affecting birds, and incorporating migratory 

bird conservation into agency planning processes whenever possible. A Memorandum of Understanding 

was signed between the USDA Forest Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service in 2009 to complement 

the January 2001, Executive Order. The purpose of this MOU is, “to strengthen migratory bird 

conservation by identifying and implementing strategies that promote conservation and avoid or 

minimize adverse impacts on migratory birds through enhanced collaboration between the Parties, in 

coordination with State, Tribal, and local governments.”

The Lang Dam project area contains populations of migratory land birds typical of the Western 

Cascades. See the Effects to Migratory Birds subsection within the Wildlife section of the EA for further 

discussion of effects to migratory birds and migratory bird species of concern identified by US Fish and 

Wildlife Service.

Executive Orders 11988 and 11990: Floodplains and Wetlands – Executive Order 11988 requires 

government agencies to take actions that reduce the risk of loss due to floods, to minimize the impact of 

floods on human health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values 

provided by floodplains. Proposed treatments would not occur within active floodplains. 

EO 11990 requires government agencies to take actions that minimize the destruction, loss, or 

degradation of wetlands. Streamside riparian areas, seeps, springs, and other wet habitats exist in the 

Lang Dam project area. These areas would either be avoided or managed according to the amended 

Willamette Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Riparian Reserves would also be protected with design 

features and no harvest buffers. As a result, proposed treatments would be consistent with Executive 

Orders 11988 and 11990.

Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species - This 1999 order requires federal agencies whose actions may 

affect the status of invasive species to identify those actions and within budgetary limits, “(i) prevent the 

introduction of invasive species; (ii) detect and respond rapidly to and control populations of such 

species... (iii) monitor invasive species populations... (iv) provide for restoration of native species and 

habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded;...(vi) promote public education on invasive 

species... and (3) not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote 

the introduction or spread of invasive species... unless, pursuant to guidelines that it has prescribed, the 

agency had determined and made public... that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the 

potential harm caused by invasive species; and that all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk 

of harm would be taken in conjunction with the actions.”

The action alternative implements the direction from the Willamette Forest Plan and the Integrated 

Weeds Management EA. The action alternative includes design criteria which would limit the spread of 

invasive weeds. These include the cleaning of off-road equipment between infested work sites, pretreating roads before road maintenance, and road reconstruction, re-vegetating all disturbed areas with 

native seed, and monitoring weed infestations following treatments.
Appendix A –Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Executive Orders

5

Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice

On February 11, 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898. This order directs Federal 

agencies to address environmental justice by identifying and disclosing the effects of the proposed 

activities on minority and low-income populations. The effects of the alternatives on the economic 

conditions of the State and county are disclosed in the Economics section of this chapter. 

According to 2013 statistical data for Lane County, about 10% of the population is made up of minorities.

Unemployment and poverty in the county is higher than the State average. The project occurs well away 

from any large population center that would be directly affected by the project. Several small 

communities are located along the haul routes, some of which may see an increase in business during 

logging operations and an increase in traffic. The ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities may also 

contribute to log truck traffic; overall, this increase in traffic may be measurable, but would not be 

comparable to the logging that occurred in the area in the late 1980s. No other adverse direct, indirect, 

or cumulative effects to these communities are expected to occur.

Areas that would be treated by the project may have some recreational value, as described in the 

recreation section. Where there is dispersed recreation, the effects to those recreating in the area would 

be greatest. Minority groups or low-income groups that use these areas may be impacted during logging 

operations by the increase in log truck traffic. These groups may choose to recreate elsewhere. Adverse 

impacts to these groups would end when logging and other connected actions are completed. Overall, 

none of the action alternatives imposes any other additional hardships on minority or low-income 

communities; therefore, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to environmental 

justice with any action alternative. Alternatives would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to 

any low-income or minority populations that utilize the area for recreation.

Executive Order 12962: Recreational Fishing – The June 7, 1995, Executive Order requires government 

agencies to strengthen efforts to improve fisheries conservation, provide for more and better 

recreational fishing opportunities, develop a new policy to promote compatibility between the 

protection of endangered species and recreational fisheries, and develop a comprehensive Recreational 

Fishery Resources Conservation Plan. The Lang Dam action alternative would protect sport fishing 

opportunities in adjacent streams by implementing no-treatment buffers of 180 feet.

Executive Order 13443: Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation – The August 17, 

2007, Executive Order requires Federal agencies “to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of 

hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat.” The proposed 

treatments would open up canopies with the potential to improve forage for game species and provide 

better hunting opportunities for the public.

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential – Some form of energy would be necessary for 

projects requiring use of mechanized equipment. Treatment units would involve both heavy and small 

machines for cutting, yarding, and processing potential forest products during the implementation 

period. Projects such as road reconstruction and maintenance would require heavy machinery for a 

small amount of time. Both possibilities would result in relatively minor energy consumption. 

Prime Lands - The Secretary of Agriculture issued memorandum 1827 which is intended to protect 

prime farm lands and rangelands. The project area does not contain any prime farmlands or rangelands. 

Prime forestland is not applicable to lands within the National Forest System. National Forest System 

lands would be managed with consideration of the impacts on adjacent private lands. Prime forestlands 

on adjacent private lands would benefit indirectly from a decreased risk of impacts from wildfire. There 
Appendix A –Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Executive Orders

6

would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse effects to these resources and thus are in 

compliance with the Farmland Protection Act and Departmental Regulation 9500-3, “Land Use Policy”.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects – Implementation of any of the alternatives, including the no action 

alternative, would inevitably result in some adverse environmental effects. The severity of the effects 

would be minimized by adhering to the direction in the management prescriptions, standards and 

guidelines in Chapter IV of the Willamette Forest Plan, and design features proposed in this document. 

Potential adverse environmental effects are discussed under each resource section.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Effects – “Irreversible" commitment of resources refers to a loss of future 

options with nonrenewable resources. An "Irretrievable" commitment of resources refers to loss of 

opportunity due to a particular choice of resource uses. 

The soil and water protection measures identified in the Forest Plan standards and guidelines, Design 

Features in this document, and Best Management Practices are designed to avoid or minimize the 

potential for irreversible losses from the proposed management actions. 

No irreversible and /or irretrievable loss of soils or geologic resources is anticipated, beyond that which 

has been previously identified in the Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 

as amended. See the Lang Dam Soils report for discussion of soils and geologic stability.

Concerning threatened and endangered plant, wildlife, and fish species, a determination has been made 

that the proposed action would not result in irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that 

foreclose formulation or implementation of reasonable or prudent alternatives.

In regards to the action alternative, tree removal would result in an irretrievable loss of the value of 

removed trees for wildlife habitat, soil productivity, and other values. No irreversible loss of soil should 

occur due to extensive design features associated with treatment activities and prescribed fire (e.g. 

tractor treatment only on slopes less than approximately 30 percent, etc.).

Alternative 1 (no action) would present an irretrievable loss of growth to individual trees within the 

untreated, overstocked forest. The ability to protect forest and structures within the project area from 

stand-replacing fire could be irretrievably lost as well. There would be the potential for irreversible loss 

of timber value due to declining tree diameter growth related to crowded stand conditions and loss of 

potential growth from insects and disease.

Other Jurisdictions – There are a number of other agencies responsible for management of resources 

within the Lang Dam project area. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is responsible for 

management of fish and wildlife populations; the Forest Service manages the habitat for these animals. 

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has been contacted regarding this analysis.

A memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Forest Service and Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality (DEQ) (reauthorized 2014) outlines DEQ and Forest Service responsibilities for 

water quality protection under the Clean Water Act. As outlined in the MOU, DEQ completed the 

Willamette Basin Water Quality TMDL in September 2006, and the Willamette and Umpqua National 

Forests jointly completed a Water Quality Restoration Plan for all its managed lands in the North 

Santiam, South Santiam, McKenzie, Middle Fork Willamette, and Coast Fork Willamette sub-basins in 

April 2008. This Water Quality Restoration Plan (WQRP) serves as the TMDL Implementation Plan for the 

Willamette Basin TMDL pursuant OAR chapter 340, division 42. This WQRP outlines the use of both the 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA 1994) and the Northwest Forest Plan 
Appendix A –Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Executive Orders

7

Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategies (Updated 2012) as the basis for protecting and 

recovering stream shade in riparian areas, thereby protecting and enhancing water quality. 

Through the use of Riparian Reserve no-treatment buffers, this project fully complies with Clean Water 

Act requirements as outlined in the DEQ/Forest Service MOU.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the Oregon Department of Forestry are responsible 

for regulating all prescribed burning operations. The USDA Forest Service Region 6 has a Memorandum 

of Understanding with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department of Forestry, 

and the USDI Bureau of Land Management regarding limits on emissions, as well as reporting

procedures. All burning would comply with the State of Oregon's Smoke Management Implementation 

Plan and, for greater specificity, see the memorandum of understanding mentioned above.