APPENDIX C

Current Laws and 

Management Direction
Page 1 of 10

Appendix C: Current Laws and Management Direction

Management Direction

I. Deschutes Forest Plan and Amendments

A. Experimental Forest Management Area (M16) 

Goal: To provide an area where field research activities are conducted while considering 

other resource values. Administrative coordination between the National Forest System and 

Research within the Forest Service will provide long-term protection of the Forest 

Environment to assure future research needs are met. 

General Theme and Objective: The Pringle Falls Experimental Forest is within the Forest 

boundary and is administered by the Pacific Northwest Research Station. The Experimental 

Forest serves as a field laboratory for research. Experiments are conducted to evaluate the 

effects of silvicultural practices on growth and yield of ponderosa and lodgepole pine. The 

effects of harvesting on soil moisture and other resources are also being evaluated. The role 

of fire in natural ecosystems is being investigated. (LRMP 4-152)

Applicable Standards and Guidelines

Timber

M16-4: There will be no programmed timber harvest in this Management Area.

M16-5: Timber harvest and vegetative manipulation may be allowed in catastrophic situations if

determined as necessary by the Station Director’s Representative. 

The Director of the Pacific Northwest Research Station has determined the proposed thinning and 

fuels reduction activities are necessary so that current and future research opportunities are not 

jeopardized by loss of the forest to insect, disease or wildfire. The EXF project area is considered to 

be at imminent risk to catastrophic loss of the overstory to bark beetles because of the high levels of 

stocking. The term “imminent risk of catastrophic loss” is from the definition in stocking levels for 

the Deschutes National Forest based on the Stand Density Index, and refers to loss of the overstory 

to bark beetles.

Wildlife

M16-6: Should a species listed as threatened or endangered be encountered, the following process 

will apply: 

Determine if the area is essential habitat for the species (nesting habitat, winter roosts) or if 

species’ use of the area is incidental.

Protect essential habitat from adverse modification through curtailment of conflicting activities, 

modification of activities, seasonal restriction of activities, or avoiding the area. Should this 

result in a possible conflict with established research activities, initiate consultations in 

accordance with existing regulations.
Page 2 of 10

A Biological Evaluation/Biological Assessment was prepared for the EXF project. Surveys have 

been conducted for northern spotted owl in 2007, 2008, and 2009. The sound of a male calling was 

detected in 2008. Project Design (Chapter 2.3.4) will minimize disturbance near nesting habitat 

during the nesting period. Consultation with the USFWS has occurred and a the Forest Service 

received a Biological Opinion on January 4, 2010. The USFWS reached a no jeopardy 

determination for the EXF project (FEIS p. 256).

M16-7: Where possible, research activities will protect active nests of raptors (species other than 

T&E) such as goshawks, red-tailed hawks, owls, and golden eagles, during the nesting season 

(March 1 to August 31) by establishing a zone around the nest and restricting activities within that 

zone. The zone could range up to 1⁄4 mile depending on the species and conditions at the site.

The known raptor nest site will be protected as noted in Chapter 2.3.4. 

M16-8: Snags, and the live trees needed for future snags, will be maintained at 60 percent of the 

maximum potential population of cavity-nesting species, except where the objectives of this 

Management Area would be jeopardized.

M16-9: Two dead and downed logs per acre are recommended to be left after research activities 

are completed. Such trees or logs should be greater than 12 inches in diameter on the small end 

and a minimum of 20 feet long.

Project activities are compatible with these standards, as amended by NWFP and Eastside Screens 

(see DEIS Chapter 3.3.3). An active nest site will be protected as noted in Chapter 2.3.4. All snags 

will be retained, except when safety is an issue. 

Threatened and Endangered Plants

M16-16: Use the same procedure for threatened and endangered wildlife.

There are no Threatened and Endangered Plants in the EXF project area, or on the Deschutes 

National Forest. A biological evaluation was completed that considers the potential habitat 

available in the project area.

Fire

M16-20: Prescribed fire will be used only with the approval of the Bend Silviculture Lab Project 

leader. Initial prescribed fire projects should be located along the perimeter of the Experimental 

Forest to protect it from external fires.

M16-21: Fuel treatment methods other than prescribed fire will be dictated by the needs of the 

individual research project.

M16-22: Fuel loadings will be dependent on the research project.

The use of prescribed fire is integrated into the research project design, as approved by the Station 

Director. 

Management Indicator Species

This is not a specific management area; however, the Deschutes LRMP identifies a group of wildlife 

species as management indicator species (MIS). These species were selected because their welfare 

could be used as an indicator of other species dependent upon similar habitat conditions. The species 

selected for the Deschutes National Forest include the redtail hawk, golden eagle, osprey, peregrine 
Page 3 of 10

falcon, northern bald eagle, northern spotted owl, northern goshawk, coopers hawk, sharp-shinned 

hawk, three-toed woodpecker, American marten, osprey, woodpeckers, great gray owl, great blue 

heron, waterfowl, wolverine, elk, mule deer, western big-eared bat, species associated with logs and 

down woody debris, and species associated with various plant communities and successional stages.

A Wildlife Report has been completed that analyzes the potential effects to MIS. Chapter 3 discloses 

the analysis and findings for the MIS that have habitat in the project area. 

C. Northwest Forest Plan

 1. Common to all Allocations

Research (C-4): A variety of wildlife and other research activities may be ongoing and proposed in all 

land allocations. These activities may be assessed to determine if they are consistent with the objectives 

of these standards and guidelines. Some activities (including those within experimental forests) not 

otherwise consistent with the objectives may be appropriate, particularly if the activities will test 

critical assumptions of these standards and guidelines, will produce results important for habitat 

development, or if the activities represent continuation of long-term research. Every effort should be 

made to locate non-conforming activities in land allocations where they will have the least adverse 

effect upon the objectives of these standards and guidelines.

The EXF project is located within the Experimental Forest allocation which was established for the 

purpose of research activities. Where the Experimental Forest overlaps the Sheridan Late Successional 

Reserve allocation, it has been determined that project activities are consistent with the 

recommendations of the LSR Assessment (Chapter 3.2). There will be no adverse effect upon the 

objectives of the Experimental Forest allocation standards and guidelines.

Retention of Old Growth Fragments (C-44): The NWFP requires retention of old growth patches in 

matrix management when little remains in the landscape (5th field watersheds in which federal forest 

lands are currently comprised of 15% or less late-successional forest). The assessment should include 

all allocations in the watershed. 

An assessment of the amount of LSOG was made for the two affected watersheds (see Chapter 3.3.1). 

LSOG within the two subwatersheds totals approximately 30% of the forested acres (nearly 19,000 

acres).

Watershed Analysis (C-3): Watershed analysis is required in all Key Watersheds and all roadless 

areas prior to resource management. Watershed analysis is required to change Riparian Reserve 

widths in all watersheds. 

The EXF Project lies primarily within the Fall River 5th field watershed, which is not a Key Watershed 

and for which no watershed analysis has been completed. Small portions of project units 21 and 22 fall 

within the Crane Prairie 5th field watershed, which was addressed in the Snow Lakes Watershed 

Analysis (USFS 2006). The WA does not specifically address the Experimental Forest. This project 

does not propose any changes in Riparian Reserve widths or work in any roadless area or riparian area.

Aquatic Conservation Strategy (B-10): Complying with the ACSO means that an agency must 

manage riparian-dependent resources to maintain the existing condition or implement actions to restore 

conditions. 
Page 4 of 10

The EXF Project does not involve any activities within Riparian Reserves; there is no surface water or 

riparian areas within the project boundary. B-11 states that the standards and guidelines are designed to 

focus the review of proposed and certain existing projects to determine compatibility with the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy Objectives. The EXF project complies with all standards and guidelines for 

Riparian Reserves (C-31 to C-38), because the project is not within Riparian Reserves and is not within 

a Key Watershed. An assessment of the project’s effects in relation to the nine Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy Objectives was completed for the project and the watershed level. The project does not retard 

or prevent attainment of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives (see FEIS Chapter 3.3.5). 

 2. Administratively Withdrawn (C-2)

Direction in the Deschutes Forest Plan (MA-16) applies when it provides greater benefits to latesuccessional and old-growth forest related species, except where the Northwest Forest Plan provides 

direction specific to management for the northern spotted owl and its habitat (C-3). The EXF project 

complies with all NWFP standards and guidelines that apply to all allocations (see #1 “Common to All 

Land Allocations”). Forest Plan standards are applied through project design for the protection of soil, 

invasive plant prevention, preservation of visual quality, retention of snags, and protection of nest sites.” 

Where LRMP standards are contrary to the research objectives, a Forest Plan amendment is proposed 

(e.g. Eastside Screens amendment, Chapter 2.3.2). 

Experimental Forests are unique because they have been established for the purpose of research. The 

Pringle Falls Experimental Forest was established in 1931 specifically for research in ponderosa pine 

silviculture. The Research activities are currently authorized by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 

Resources Research Act of 1978 (amended). The Act directs the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out 

forest and rangeland renewable resources research, such as that currently under assessment in this EIS.

3. Late Successional Reserve

An LSR Assessment was developed in 1996, and approved by the Regional Ecosystem Office, in order 

to guide land management decisions within the LSR that would achieve this purpose. Specifically the 

objectives of any proposed management within the LSRA are 1) to prevent the loss of current latesuccessional and old-growth habitat due to large scale disturbances; and 2) to accelerate the 

development of late-seral old growth forest characteristics (e.g. snags, logs, large trees, canopy gaps).

The Sheridan LSR Assessment provides recommendations for management actions within the LSR. 

The LSRA was reviewed and approved by the Regional Ecosystem Office in January 1997. All project 

activities within the LSR follow the recommendations of the LSRA. The proposed actions for Unit 33

which is located in the LSR meet the intent and desired conditions of the Cultus Mt. and Sheridan Mt. 

LSRA and will contribute to the perpetuation of late successional habitat. 

The proposal for this overlapping area is to thin the existing stand to within 75% of the upper 

management zone (UMZ) for ponderosa pine, mow brush, and underburn the unit in order to reduce the 

risk of trees dying from bark beetle infestation and/or wildfire. The overlapping area is part of a 

proposed Unit 33 in the Proposed Action Alternative.

Unit 33 is proposed to be treated with a “moderate thinning” strategy whereby the stand will be thinned 

from below to within 75% of the Upper Management Zone (UMZ) for ponderosa pine. This means that 

understory and co-dominant trees will be removed from the stand (i.e. unit) resulting in a less dense 

stand (e.g. a stand density index or SDI that is currently 267 trees per acre will be 152 trees per acre, see 

Study Plan). The thinning will target lodgepole pine first, then grand fir/white fir, small diameter 

ponderosa pine, and lastly small diameter Douglas-fir. Unit 33 is made up of mature ponderosa pine, 

Douglas-fir, and white fir with some inclusions of lodgepole pine (see Figure 14-16 in FEIS). The 
Page 5 of 10

largest trees are ponderosa pine and the desired condition is to reduce the existing tree density per acre 

while retaining these larger ponderosa pine and having a co-dominant canopy of Douglas-fir.

The Sheridan Mt. LSRA defined Management Strategy Areas (MSA) throughout the LSR based on 

plant association groups. Unit 33 contains MSAs B, C, and J. According to the LSRA, thinning and 

fuels reduction needs are immediate and should occur within the first decade after the assessment was 

written and adopted (1997) in order to help protect old growth habitat. Similarly, according to the 

LSRA, commercial thinning is an acceptable strategy or treatment in order to develop late-successional 

old growth habitat in these types of MSAs. Common wildlife indicator species for these three MSAs 

include pileated woodpecker, northern goshawk, white-headed woodpecker, and flammulated owl. The 

proposed actions for Unit 33 would likely promote habitat conditions, specifically larger trees, for these 

species. For other wildlife indicator species within MSAs B and C (northern spotted owl and blackbacked woodpeckers) the activities would not provide habitat for these species because the thinning 

would reduce the multi-storied/structural diversity in the stands that often are a component of spotted 

owl habitat; and would improve the health of the stand and make it less susceptible to the insect attacks 

upon which black-backed woodpeckers often capitalize. 

To summarize, the proposed actions within the 161 acres of LSR are compatible with the LSRA 

completed and approved by the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) in 1997. These proposed actions are 

clearly needed as evidenced by the LSRA recommendations for action to take place within one decade

following the LSRA approval, and will help protect existing habitat as well as aid in the development of 

new habitat for the focal species: pileated woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, northern goshawk, 

and flammulated owl. By treating to 75% UMZ in Unit 33, the stand will not reach UMZ (and risk of 

large-scale disturbance) for 30 to 55 years. Although the proposed actions may help protect habitat for 

the spotted owl and black-backed woodpeckers (both focal species) elsewhere in the LSR, and no NRF 

is removed or degraded from the LSR, they will not help in the development of new habitat for those 

species. The effects of connectivity between LSRs, especially in relation to the effects of other latesuccessional species dispersing, are similar to the spotted owl. Because this project will follow 

recommendations within the LSRA, is clearly needed to reduce risks, and provides for better habitat 

protection for 30 to 55 years, it will not prevent the LSR from playing an effective role in maintaining 

the objectives for which it was established.

The NWFP allows research activities to occur within LSRs following an assessment of consistency with 

LSR objectives (C-18). Research activities that are not consistent with the objectives (including those 

within experimental forests) may even be appropriate, “particularly if the activities will test critical 

assumptions of these standards and guidelines, will produce results important for habitat development, 

or if the activities represent continuation of long-term research.” It is only when the activities are not 

consistent with LSR objectives that equivalent opportunities be sought outside the LSR. In this case, 

however, the proposed activities are found to be consistent with the objectives of the LSR.

D. Eastside Screens

The Revised Continuation of Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem, and 

Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales amended the Forest Plan in 1995. The direction only applies to the 

design and preparation of timber sales on eastside Forests and is often referred to as “Regional 

Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2” or as the “Eastside Screens.” The Eastside Screens contain 

guidelines for management of timber sales in LOS relative to the HRV (ecosystem screen), wildlife 

corridors, snags, coarse woody debris, and goshawk management. The Regional Forester encouraged 

the consideration of Forest Plan amendments in cases where the proposed treatments would move 

landscape conditions towards HRV and provide single story late and old structure in the drier ponderosa 

pine and larch stands.
Page 6 of 10

The Eastside Screens has the following direction:

Historical Range of Variability: Characterize the proposed timber sale and its associated watershed 

for patterns of stand structure by biophysical environment and compare to the Historical Range of 

Variability (HRV). Note that HRV is a reference condition and managing within the historical range 

would provide for those species that survived to the present (Eastside Screens, page 4).

The stand structure for the project area and Fall watershed were determined and are discussed and 

compared to the HRV in Chapter 3.3.1. 

Timber Sale within Late and Old Structure (LOS): Stand structure information for the area east of 

the owl line is discussed in the DEIS in Chapter 3.3.1. Satellite data was used to determine areas that 

may be considered LOS. A Forest Plan amendment is included with both action alternatives because 

the dataset shows a lack of LOS in ponderosa pine dry and mixed conifer wet PAGs where harvest 

activities will take place on approximately 21 acres. The effects of the project on LOS habitat and 

associated species are discussed in Chapter 3.3.3. Because two of the LOS types are below HRV, a 

Forest Plan amendment is included in both action alternatives (see Page 21 of the FEIS).

Connectivity: Connectivity corridors meeting Eastside Screens direction were identified within the 

overall project area connecting to Old Growth Management Areas and to stands classified as LOS. The 

action alternatives would maintain the minimal levels of corridors within the project area (FEIS p. 74).

Snags, GTRs, and Down Logs: Forest Plan direction for snags, green tree replacements, and down 

logs is addressed in the FEIS pp.185-193. The proposed treatments are expected to maintain the 

required level of these habitat elements.

Goshawk: Eastside Screens direct the Forest to protect every known active and historically used 

goshawk nest-site from disturbance. “Historically” refers to known nesting activity occurring at the site 

in the last 5 years. Seasonal disturbance restrictions may be implemented at sites. 30 acres of the most 

suitable nesting habitat surrounding all active and historical nest tree(s) is to be deferred from harvest. 

And a 400 acre “Post Fledging Area” (PFA) is to be established around every known active nest site. 

While harvest activities can occur within this area, retain the LOS stands and enhance younger stands 

toward LOS condition, as possible. 

A goshawk nest has been located within the EXF project area in a control unit (no treatment). The nest 

is located west of the owl line, where the standards and guidelines of the Eastside Screens do not apply. 

The Deschutes LRMP directs protection of the nest site from disturbing activities. A project design 

feature is incorporated into the action alternatives to address this standard (FEIS p. 29).

E. Inland Native Fish Strategy

This amendment (also called INFISH) was intended to provide interim direction to protect habitat and 

populations of resident fish outside of anadromous fish habitat. Standards and guidelines apply to 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) and actions outside of RHCAs that are determined 

through NEPA analysis to potentially degrade RHCAs. The EXF project area contains no RHCAs, and 

is not within a priority watershed under the INFISH. There will therefore be no direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects to RHCAs and the project will not prevent the attainment of RMOs in the watershed.

II. Current Laws and Executive Orders

Development of this Environmental Impact Statement follows implementing regulations of the National 

Forest Management Act (NFMA); Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 219 (36 CFR 219); the 
Page 7 of 10

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); Council of Environmental Quality, Title 40; CFR, Parts 

1500-1508; and Title 36; CFR, Parts 220.

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Research Act of 1978, as amended

This act authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to designate experimental forests and ranges. It also 

authorized research to be conducted: “The Secretary is authorized to conduct, support, and cooperate in 

investigations, experiments, tests, and other activities the Secretary deems necessary to obtain, analyze, 

develop, demonstrate, and disseminate scientific information about protecting, managing, and utilizing 

forest and rangeland renewable resources in rural, suburban, and urban areas.” [16 U.S.C. 1642]

The EXF project takes place within an experimental forest. Through the project, scientific information 

about forest management will be obtained, analyzed and made available to forest managers and the 

public. 

The American Antiquities Act of 1906

This Act makes it illegal to appropriate, excavate, injure or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or 

monument or any object of antiquity, situated on lands owned by the Government of the United States, 

without permission of the Secretary of the Department of the Government having jurisdiction over the 

lands on which said antiquities are situated.

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended

This Act requires Federal agencies to consult with American Indian Tribes, State and local groups

before nonrenewable cultural resources, such as archaeological and historic structures, are damaged or 

destroyed. Section 106 of this Act requires Federal agencies to review the effects proposed projects 

may have on the cultural resources of the analysis area. Following guidelines in a 2003 Regional 

Programmatic Agreement among USDA-Forest Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 

and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, a finding of “Historic Properties Avoided” was 

determined. This finding is based on the practice of avoiding all eligible and unevaluated sites (Chapter 

3.3.10, Cultural Resources).

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

The purposes of this Act are to “provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered 

species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of 

such endangered and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the 

purpose of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section.” The Act also states 

“It is further declared to be the policy of Congress that all Federal departments and agencies shall seek 

to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of 

the purposes of this Act.”

Alternatives 1 would have “No Effect,” Alternative 2 “May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect,” and 

Alternative 3 “May Affect, Is Not Likely to Adversely Affect” the northern spotted owl.

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 will have “No Effect” to the Oregon spotted frog. 

Consultation on the effects to the northern spotted owl have occurred as described in Chapter 4.2.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918

The purpose of this Act is to establish an international framework for the protection and conservation of

migratory birds. The Act makes it illegal, unless permitted by regulations, to “pursue, hunt, take,

capture, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, 

transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, including in this 
Page 8 of 10

Convention...for the protection of migratory birds...or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird” (16 USC 

703). The original 1918 statute implemented the 1916 Convention between the United States and Great 

Britain (for Canada). Later amendments implemented treaties between the Unites States and Mexico, 

Japan, and the Soviet Union (now Russia).

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended

The purposes of this Act are “To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and 

enjoyable harmony between man and his environment, to promote efforts which will prevent or 

eliminate damaged to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to 

enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nations; and 

to establish a Council on Environmental Quality” (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321). The law further states “it is 

the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation, to use all practicable means and 

measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the 

general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive 

harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of the present and future generations 

of Americans. This law essentially pertains to public participation, environmental analysis, and 

documentation.

The EXF project followed the format and content requirements of environmental analysis and 

documentation. The entire process of preparing this draft environmental impact statement was 

undertaken to comply with NEPA. Cumulative effects were assessed and displayed where they occur in 

the manner most informative and logical to display. Also, the depth of analysis was tailored to the 

degree of effect. In many instances within this analysis, past and present activities, including timber 

sales, were included in the existing condition. Foreseeable actions were also addressed if there was a 

proposed action and if it is in the public domain.

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

This final rule describes the National Forest System land management planning framework; establishes 

requirements for sustainability of social, economic, and ecological systems and developing, amending, 

revising, and monitoring land management plans; and clarifies that land management plans under this 

final rule, absent extraordinary circumstances, are strategic in nature and are one stage in an adaptive 

cycle of planning for management of National Forest System lands. The intended effects of the final 

rule are to streamline and improve the planning process by making plans more adaptable to changes in 

social, economic, and environmental conditions; to strengthen the role of science in planning; to 

strengthen collaborative relationships with the public and other governmental entities; and to reaffirm 

the principle of sustainable management consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and other 

authorities. 

The EXF project does not contain any vegetative prescriptions that are considered regeneration harvest.

Project activities are consistent with the Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan and the 

associated amendments including the Northwest Forest Plan for Administratively Withdrawn Lands and 

Late Successional Reserves, and Eastside Screens, as displayed in Chapter 3 and this Appendix. 

The Clean Water Act, as amended in 1977 and 1982

The primary objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the integrity of the Nation’s waters. This 

objective translates into two fundamental national goals: 1) Eliminate the discharge of pollutants into 

the nation’s waters; and 2) Achieve water quality levels that are fishable and swimmable. This Act 

establishes a non-degradation policy for all federally proposed projects. Under Section 303(d) of the 

Clean Water Act, the State has identified water quality-limited water bodies in Oregon. There are no 

waterbodies within the EXF project area. See Chapter 3.3.4 of the DEIS for more information.
Page 9 of 10

The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990

The purposes of this Act are “to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources so as to 

promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population; to initiate and 

accelerate a national research and development program to achieve the prevention and control of air 

pollution; to provide technical and financial assistance to state and local governments in connection with 

the development and execution of their air pollution prevention and control programs; and to encourage 

and assist the development and operation of regional air pollution prevention and control programs.” 

Action alternatives are designed to be consistent with the Clean Air Act. The Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality (DEQ) is responsible for assuring compliance with the Clean Air Act. In 1994, 

the Forest Service, in cooperation with the DEQ, the Oregon Department of Forestry and the Bureau of 

Land Management, signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to establish a framework for 

implementing an air quality program in Northeast Oregon. All prescribed burning is coordinated with 

the DEQ through the State of Oregon smoke management program. All prescribed fire activities 

authorized through this NEPA process would be conducted in compliance with the State of Oregon 

Smoke Management System and would meet smoke management objectives for total emissions 

(Chapter 3.3.2 and 3.3.6).

Executive Orders 11988 and 11990

Direct Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, both short-term and long-term adverse impacts 

associated with the modifications of floodplains and wetlands. All alternatives have no specific actions 

that adversely affect wetlands and floodplains. Proposed activities are compliant with the orders and 

USDA Departmental Regulation 9500-3. See Chapter 3.3.5 of the DEIS for more information.

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960

The Multiple Use – Sustained Yield Act of 1960 requires the Forest Service to manage National Forest 

System lands for multiple uses (including timber, recreation, fish and wildlife, range, and watershed). 

All renewable resources are to be managed in such a way that they are available for future generations. 

The harvesting and use of standing timber can be considered a short-term use of a renewable resource. 

As a renewable resource, trees can be re-established and grown in again if the productivity of the land is 

not impaired. All lands proposed for active management in the EXF analysis area are classified 

“suitable.” Actions proposed comply with LRMP standards and guidelines SL-3 and SL-4, and 

Regional policy (FSM 2520, R-6 Supplement No. 2500-98-1) for maintaining soil productivity (Chapter 

3, Soil Quality).

Migratory Bird E.O. 13186

On January 10, 2001, President Clinton signed an Executive Order (E.O. 13186) titled “Responsibilities 

of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds.” This E.O. requires the “environmental analysis of 

Federal actions, required by NEPA or other established environmental review processes, evaluates the 

effects of actions and agency plans on migratory birds, with emphasis on species of concern.”

To address this order, the Forest follows guidelines from the “Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of 

the East-Slope of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington.” See discussion on pages 117-154

of the DEIS. 

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 
Page 10 of 10

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 will be taken in conjunction 

with the actions.”

To address this order, the Forest follows prevention practices and Forest Plan standards and guidelines 

for the prevention of introduction or spread of invasive plants. This project incorporates project design 

features that come from our standard prevention practices or from Forest Plan standards (see DEIS page 

26).

Civil Rights Impact Analysis

Civil Rights Impact Analysis (CRIA) identifies the potential social impacts of a decision on employees 

and customers, so that these impacts will be considered and appropriately mitigated as part of the 

decision-making process. CRIA is required for any major decision which has a significant social or 

civil rights impact (FSM 1730.3). Decisions include natural resource management decisions that 

potentially impact Forest Service employees or customers. A decision with a significant civil rights 

impact is one that abolishes positions or reduces services or programs offered to the public. The current 

project will not affect employees or customers of the Deschutes National Forest; therefore a CRIA is not 

required.