Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

Report to the Congress

on the

Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem

Management Project

April 2000

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

United States

Department of

the Interior

Bureau of Land

Management

FOREST SERVICE

P DE

U S ARTMENT OF AGRICULT U RE
 Department of the Interior

As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of

our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest uses of our land

and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our

national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The

Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the

best interest of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian

reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under U. S. administration.

BLM/OR/WA/PT-00/029-1792

 Department of Agriculture

The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on

the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation,

and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.)

should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten

Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (202) 720-5964 (voice

or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Please reply to: Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

G G

P.O. Box 2344 304 N. 8th Street,

Walla Walla, WA 99362 Room 250

(509)522-4030 Fax:(509)522-4025 Boise, ID 83702

TTY:(509)522-4029 (208)334-1770 Fax:(208)334-1769

Dear Reader,

The enclosed Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project (Report to the Congress) was prepared in response to the requirements set forth by the U.S.

Congress in Section 323(a) of the 1998 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, as

modified by Section 335 of the 2000 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

This Report to the Congress is being released for public comment during the public comment period

for the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project’s Supplemental Draft Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS). The 120-day public comment period on the Report to the Congress will

overlap, but extend beyond the 90-day public comment period on the Supplemental Draft EIS. 

Much of the information contained in the Report to the Congress has already been incorporated into

the Supplemental Draft EIS. In fact, for more detailed integrated analysis and the estimation of

effects of management alternatives on the social and economic conditions in the project area, please

refer to the Supplemental Draft EIS.

The report is organized by the four Congressional requirements which are described in the report. 

We encourage your review of and comment on the enclosed report in concert with your review of 

and comment on the Supplemental Draft EIS. We are accepting written comments on the

Supplemental Draft EIS until July 6, and on the Report to the Congress until mid to late August (120

days after the Notice of Availability is published in the Federal Register). You can mail your

comments to SDEIS; P.O. Box 420; Boise, ID 83701-0420, or electronically access the project’s web

site at http://www.icbemp.gov/eis. The response to your comments on both the Supplemental Draft

EIS and the Report to the Congress will be included in the analysis of public comments on the Final

EIS. 

SUSAN GIANNETTINO GEOFF MIDDAUGH

Project Manager Deputy Project

Manager 
This page was left blank intentionally.
Report to the Congress 

on the Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem

Management Project

Lead Agencies:

USDA Forest Service—Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions

USDI Bureau of Land Management—Idaho, Montana, Oregon/Washington

A report on 

< Project implementation decisions; 

< Estimated time and cost to accomplish decisions; 

< Estimated production of goods and services; and 

< Potential for reprogramming to accomplish decisions called for in

project direction.

Prepared by the 

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

Susan Giannettino, Project Manager Geoff Middaugh, Deputy Project Manager

304 North Eighth Street, Room 250 P. O. Box 2344

Boise, Idaho 83702 Walla Walla, Washington 99362

Telephone 208/334-1770 Telephone 509/522-4033

Fax 208/334-1769 Fax 509/522-4025

April 2000
This page was left blank intentionally.
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

i

Introduction ............................................................. 1

Purpose of the Report .................................................. 1

Public Comment on the Report ........................................... 1

Policy, Planning , and Local Project-level Decisions to Implement the Project’s Record of

Decision ............................................................... 3

Overview ........................................................... 3

Decision Space ................................................... 3

Scale of the Decisions .............................................. 5

What the Decision Will Provide ....................................... 5

What the Decision Will Not Provide ................................... 6

Policy Decisions ...................................................... 6

Overview ........................................................ 6

Forest Service Policy ............................................... 6

Bureau of Land Management Policy ................................... 7

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Policy .................................. 7

Effect of the ROD on Policy Decisions .................................. 7

Planning Decisions .................................................... 8

Overview ........................................................ 8

Forest Service Planning ............................................. 8

Bureau of Land Management Planning ................................. 9

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Planning ................................ 9

Integration of the Record of Decision into Existing Planning Direction ......... 9

Local Project-level Decisions ............................................ 9

Overview ........................................................ 9

Effect of the ROD on Local Project-level Decisions and Decision Makers ...... 10

Responsible Officials to Implement the ROD ............................... 10

Overview ....................................................... 10

Forest Service Decision Makers ...................................... 12

Bureau of Land Management Decision Makers .......................... 12

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Decision Makers ......................... 12

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project Decision Makers ..... 12

Decision-making and Analysis Procedures ................................. 13

Decisions ....................................................... 13

Analysis ........................................................ 13

Ecosystem Review at the Subbasin Scale ............................ 15

Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale .......................... 15

Executive Summary

Table of Contents

Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

ii

Site-specific Analysis .......................................... 15

Estimated Time and Costs to Accomplish Decisions ............................. 16

Costs to Accomplish the Decisions ....................................... 16

Overview ....................................................... 16

Estimated Costs .................................................. 16

Estimated Time ..................................................... 17

Reprogramming of Funds .............................................. 17

Implementation Costs and Outputs Summary ............................... 18

Techniques and Assumptions ........................................ 18

Interpretation of Cost Estimates Analysis ............................... 18

Estimated Production of Goods and Services ................................... 19

Relation to the Supplemental Draft EIS ................................... 19

Social and Economic Considerations ..................................... 20

How Social and Economic Effects Were Estimated ........................... 20

Science Advisory Group Economics Effects Analysis .................. 20

Additional EIS Team Effects Analysis ............................. 20

Effects of the Alternatives on Annual Level of Goods and Services ............... 21

Levels of Outputs and Management Activities Expected from the Alternatives ... 21

Livestock AUMs .............................................. 22

 AUM Production Levels ...................................... 22

 Predictability and Sustainability ................................ 24

Timber Volume ............................................... 25

 Timber Production Calculations ................................ 25

 Timber Production Levels .................................... 26

 Predictability and Sustainability ................................ 27

Forest and Rangeland Restoration Activity Levels ..................... 28

 Forest /Woodland Restoration ................................. 28

 Rangeland Maintenance and Restoration ......................... 29

 Prescribed Fire and Fuels Management .......................... 31

Special Forest Products ......................................... 32

Permitted Mineral and Energy Operations .......................... 32

Recreation ................................................... 33

Summary of Output and Activity Levels ................................... 33

Potential Needs for Reprogramming Funds .................................... 34

Reprogramming Issues ............................................. 34

Summary Conclusions .................................................... 35

Literature Cited and Other References

Glossary

List of Preparers
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

iii

Maps

Map 1-1 Project Area ................................................ 4

Figures

Figure 1 Making Project Decisions ..................................... 11

Figure 2 Making Project Decisions Incorporating the ICBEMP ................ 14

Tables

Table 1 Estimated Average Annual Output/Activity Levels, by Alternative ...... 21

Table 2 Projected Animal Unit Months (AUMs), by RAC/PAC and Alternative . . 23

Table 3 Projected Timber Harvest (mmbf), by RAC/PAC and Alternative ....... 25

Table 4 Comparison of Modeling Methods .............................. 26

Table 5 Acres of Projected Forest/Woodland Restoration Activity, by RAC/PAC 

and Alternative ............................................. 28

Table 6 Acres of Projected Post-harvest Planting Activity, by RAC/PAC 

and Alternative ............................................. 30

Table 7 Acres of Projected Pre-commercial Thinning Activity, by RAC/PAC 

and Alternative ............................................. 30

Table 8 Acres of Projected Rangeland Maintenance and Restoration Activity, by

RAC/PAC and Alternative .................................... 31

Table 9 Projected Acres of Prescribed Fire and Fuels Management, by 

RAC/PAC and Alternative .................................... 32

List of Maps, Figures, and Tables
This page was left blank intentionally.
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

Executive Summary

T

his report is in response to the requirements defined in Section 323(a) of the 1998

Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, as modified by Section 335 of the

2000 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The report is organized by,

and outlines the response to, the four report requirements.

• A Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been released by the

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) to disclose for

public review and comment a long-term, comprehensive strategy for managing public

lands in the interior Columbia River Basin. The Supplemental Draft EIS addresses the

critical, broad-scale forest and rangeland health, aquatic and terrestrial species, and

social and economic issues facing the region. A preferred alternative (Alternative S2)

has been identified. Following a Final EIS, a Record of Decision (ROD) will provide

administrative units within the project area direction to more effectively address and

resolve these issues. 

• This report describes the nature of the project’s ROD and characterizes in a general

sense the types of land and resource management policy and planning decisions to be

made when 62 land use plans are updated by the ROD. Since the ICBEMP’s nature is

to provide broad-scale direction to guide federal land management in the project area,

there are no local project-level decisions identified in the Supplemental Draft EIS, and

none are planned to be included in the project’s ROD.

• No new formal decision-making structures will result from the project’s ROD. The

ROD most likely will include increased analysis processes to help local managers make

ecosystem-based decisions that take into account the risk to resources at various scales. 

The standard Forest Service and BLM organizational structure, field managers’

decision-making structure, and methodologies for allocating and establishing priorities

will continue to be used.

• Costs and time estimates for decisions are displayed in the Supplemental Draft EIS and

summarized in this report. Estimates of costs and analysis requirements were made to

guide the evaluation of effects. This is different from what was done in the Draft EISs,

where the effects evaluation drove the cost estimates. The timing for the estimates of

costs and the implementation of the decisions is an average cost per year for ten years.

• Estimated production of goods and services by Resource Advisory Council (RAC) and

Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC) area is provided and discussed. In general,

projections indicate the following outputs and activities:

< Timber harvests are projected to increase at both the basin level and by RAC/PAC

area as a consequence of implementation of restoration under Alternatives S2

and S3. 

< Domestic livestock use of forage could decline. 

< Forest and woodland restoration activity would increase substantially in the first

decade, by up to as much as 40 percent in some cases. 

< Rangeland restoration activity could increase modestly, by approximately nine

percent.

• Funding to implement the decisions in the project’s ROD will come through the

standard process of obtaining appropriations used by the Forest Service, BLM, and U. S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. No reprogramming of fiscal year 2000 appropriations is

requested or anticipated as a result of future implementation of the project’s ROD.

Executive Summary
This page was left blank intentionally.
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

1

Introduction 

T

his report is in response to the requirements defined in Section 323(a) of the 1998

Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (the 1998 Act), as modified by

Section 335 of the 2000 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The report

is organized by, and outlines the response to, the four report requirements (see sidebar).

Section 335 of the 2000 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act modified and

addressed specific portions and timing of Section 323(a) of the 1998 Act, requiring the

Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to submit to the House and Senate Committees on

Appropriations a report that addresses the four major topics.

First, this report describes, by type and responsible official, anticipated land and resource

management decisions associated with the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project (ICBEMP). The report also describes the procedures for implementing decisions in

the project area.

Second, the report provides an estimate of the time frames for and costs of these decisions. It

also includes a statement of the source of funds.

Third, the report contains an estimate of the production of goods and services from the federal

lands managed by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the first

five years, beginning with the date of publication of the Final EIS. Much of the information

in this report is also included in the Supplemental Draft EIS.

Finally, the report provides a description of the decision-making process to be used to

establish priorities in accordance with appropriations, if the requirements cannot be

accomplished with current appropriations levels, adjusted for inflation, and without any

reprogramming of such appropriations.

T

he Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project (Report) is being released at approximately the same time as the project’s

Supplemental Draft EIS. This Report and the Supplemental Draft EIS will be available

for public comment in approximately the same time frames as the formal public

comment period and public meeting schedule announced and released with the Supplemental

Draft EIS. The Supplemental Draft EIS identifies a preferred alternative (Alternative S2). 

This report does not presuppose the selection of this alternative in the development of the

Final EIS and ROD. 

The Supplemental Draft EIS is scheduled to have a 90-day public comment period (April 7 -

July 6, 2000). Section 335 of the 2000 Appropriations Act requires a 120-day comment

period for the Report. The two comment periods are planned to run concurrently to avoid

delays in issuing the Final EIS. Comments received from the public during the comment

period on this Report and comments received from the public on the Supplemental Draft EIS

Purpose of

the Report

Public

Comment

on the

Report

Report to the Congress on the

Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management Project
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

2

will both be analyzed through a content analysis process. Care will be taken in the content

analysis process to distinguish between comments made about the Report, the Supplemental

Draft EIS, or both. Response to comments on this Report and the Supplemental Draft EIS

will be included in the Final EIS for the project. 

1998 Interior and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Language

The 1998 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act required in Section 323:

(a) Prior to the completion of any decision document or the making of any decision related to the final

Environmental Impact Statements (hereinafter “final EISs”) associated with the Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Project (hereinafter the “Project”), the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior

shall prepare and submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives a

report that shall include:

(1) a detailed description of any and all land and resource management planning and policy or project

decisions to be made, by type and by the level of official responsible, and the procedures for such decisions to

be undertaken, by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to

the National Forest Management Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Endangered Species Act,

National Environmental Policy Act and any other applicable law in order to authorize and implement actions

affecting the environment on Federal lands within the jurisdiction of either Secretary in the Project area that

are consistent with the final EISs;

(2) a detailed estimation of the time and cost (for all participating Federal agencies) to accomplish

each decision described in paragraph (1), from the date of initiation of preparations for, to the date of

publication or announcement of, the decision, including a detailed statement of the source of funds for each

such decision and any reprogramming in fiscal year 1998;

(3) estimated production of goods and services from each unit of the Federal lands for the first 5 years

during the course of the decision-making described in paragraph (1) beginning with the date of publication of

the applicable final EIS; and

(4) if the requirements described in paragraphs (1) through (3) cannot be accomplished within the

appropriations provided in this Act, adjusted only for inflation, in subsequent fiscal years and without any

reprogramming of such appropriations, provide a detailed description of the decision-making process that will

be used to establish priorities in accordance with such appropriations.

(b) Using all research information available from the area encompassed by the Project, the Secretaries, to the

extent practicable, shall analyze the economic and social conditions, and culture and customs, of the

communities at the sub-basin level within the Project area and the impacts the alternatives in the draft EISs will

have on those communities. This analysis shall be published on a schedule that will allow a reasonable period

of time for public comment thereon prior to the close of the comment periods on the draft EISs. The analysis,

together with the response of the Secretaries to the public comment, shall be incorporated in the final EISs and,

subject to subsection (a), subsequent decisions related thereto.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as altering or affecting in any manner any provision of applicable

land or resource management plans, PACFISH, INFISH, Eastside screens, and other policies adopted by the

Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management prior to the date of enactment of this Act to protect wildlife,

watershed, riparian, and other resources of the Federal lands.
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

3

Decision Space

D

ecision space defines which decisions the

deciding officials can make (including

management actions and intensities on lands

they administer) and cannot make (including

actions on lands they do not administer), or decisions

assigned to another agency.

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project’s Record of Decision (ROD) applies only to the

lands administered by the Forest Service and the

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the defined

project area. These decisions do not apply to federal

lands in the project area managed by the U. S. Fish and

Wildlife Service or other federal agencies. The project

area is shown on Map 1-1.

For this report, the Forest Service and BLM decisionmaking process is defined to consist primarily of

policy, planning, and local-project types of decisions. 

A description of the general nature of the decisions to

be made through the project’s ROD is located in

Chapter 1 of the Supplemental Draft EIS. In addition, a framework describing the

implementation process for the direction and for amending land use plans is found in

Appendix 10 of the Supplemental Draft EIS.

Requirement #1

(1) a detailed description of any

and all land and resource

management planning and

policy or project decisions to be

made, by type and by the level

of official responsible, and the

procedures for such decisions to

be undertaken, by the Forest

Service, Bureau of Land

Management, and Fish and

Wildlife Service pursuant to the

National Forest Management

Act, Federal Land Policy and

Management Act, Endangered

Species Act, National

Environmental Policy Act and

any other applicable law in

order to authorize and

implement actions affecting the

environment on Federal lands

within the jurisdiction of either

Secretary in the Project area

that are consistent with the

final 

EISs . . .

Policy, Planning, and Local

Project-level Decisions to

Implement the Project’s Record

of Decision

Overview

2000 Interior and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Language

The 2000 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act required in Section 335:

The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior shall:

(1) prepare the report required of them by section 323(a) discussed above, except that the report describing the

estimated production of goods and services for the first five years during the course of the decision may be completed for

either each individual unit of Federal lands or for each of the Resource Advisory Council or Provincial Advisory

Committee units that fall with the Basin area;

(2) distribute the report and make such report available for public comment for a minimum of 120 days; and

(3) include a detailed response to the public comment in any final environmental impact statement associated

with the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project.
Map 1−1.

BLM− and Forest Service−

Administered Lands

INTERIOR COLUMBIA

BASIN ECOSYSTEM

MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Supplemental Draft EIS Area

2000

50 0 50 100 150 miles

50 0 50 100 150 km

C A N A D A

WASHINGTON IDAHO MONTANA

WASHINGTON

OREGON

CALIFORNIA

UTAH

OREGON IDAHO

NEVADA

WYOMING
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

5

The ICBEMP area encompasses 144 million acres, of which 63 million acres are managed by

the Forest Service and BLM and will be affected by the Record of Decision. The broad-scale

nature of the project presents the need for scaled relationships. 

Scale in this context means the time (temporal) and geographic (spatial) dimension of

ecological processes and structures. These can be viewed at multiple scales, depending on the

feature or process to be observed or the desired outcome. Landscape ecologists use the terms

broad-, mid-, and fine-scale, and these terms are used frequently in the project’s Scientific

Assessment (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997; Quigley, Haynes, and Graham 1996) and Draft

EISs (USDA Forest Service/USDI Bureau of Land Management 1997a, 1997b). 

The project uses three levels of geographic scale for analysis and review:

Broad-scale - a large regional area, such as a river basin and typically a multi-state area. 

Mid-scale - a subregional area, such as a group of contiguous subbasins.

Fine-scale - a single landscape, such as a watershed or subwatershed. 

In reality, scales are continuous, much like looking through a camera lens while zooming in

and out to focus on the desired subject or composition of the photo. As scale moves from

broad to fine, the amount of detail increases, but the relationships among larger components

become less visible. Broad-scale maps and data help to understand broad-scale relationships. 

Fine-scale data are difficult and expensive to acquire, and the amount of detail may mask

larger relations or trends. 

Focusing on only one scale can cause errors in decisions, much like what could happen if a

city map is used to find a route across a state. Land managers can assure appropriate and

well-founded decisions by considering them in the context of the broader scale of information

and using the finer scale information to understand the function of ecosystem components

within and affected by the decision.

The ROD will amend 62 existing land use plans of the Forest Service and BLM with

decisions that provide the broad-scale ecological context for subsequent local and project-level

decisions that tier to these land use plans. In addition, it will help clarify the relationship of

agency activities to ecosystem capabilities and help develop realistic expectations for the

production of economic and social benefits. 

The broad-scale planning decisions that will be incorporated into 62 separate land use plans

by the ROD include the following items:

 

< Management goals;

< Management direction, including statements of management intent, objectives to be used

in measuring progress toward attainment of the management goals, and standards, which

are requirements to be used in designing and implementing future management actions;

< A set of geographic delineations, known as “aquatic A1 and A2 subwatersheds” and

“terrestrial T watersheds” were identified and mapped because of their importance for

fish and wildlife and their habitats (see Glossary for definitions);

< Requirements for a monitoring plan, mitigation measures, and other items documented in

the ROD.

Broad-scale management direction will be provided for the Forest Service and the BLM

across the project area for the first time in the ROD. Until completion of the ROD, direction

has been typically at the fine-scale or mid-scale and largely fragmented among planning

units, with neither a common theme nor a common long-term strategy to guide the decisions. 

Local project-level decisions will be deferred to individual administrative units after

appropriately scaled analysis. Those decisions will be made within the context of the broadscale direction disclosed in the Final EIS and stipulated in the ROD. 

Scale of the

Decisions

What the

Decision Will

Provide
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

6

Other decisions are not appropriately made at the scale, or within the scope, of this decision,

and therefore will not be included in the ROD. Examples of these types of decisions include:

< Statutory requirements. The decision would not change the agencies’ responsibility to

comply with the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act (ESA),

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), or any other federal law.

< National policy. The decision would not change the agencies’ obligation to conform with

national policy. No change, for example, would be made in the requirement for all levels

of planning activities to be conducted in close coordination with potentially affected

American Indian tribes.

< Specific allocations of resource products. The allocation of allowable harvest for timber,

or animal unit months (AUMs) of forage for livestock, are made at the individual land

use plan or activity plan level.

< Activity plan level decisions. For example, the amount and restrictions for grazing in a

specific allotment authorized through grazing permits will continue to be determined

locally in consultation with affected parties.

< Funding levels and allocations. The decision addresses broad-scale management

direction, not funding levels. Funding levels and allocations are made through separate

administrative processes that are influenced by this decision but are not directed by it. 

< Local project plan level decisions. Examples include: the actual types, location, and

timing of treatments to eradicate noxious weeds; the location and timing of prescribed

fire activities; the location and timing of road and trail maintenance and rehabilitation

activities. 

< Administrative actions for which a land use plan decision is not needed. For example, a

Memorandum of Understanding regarding collaboration among the five federal agencies

represented on the project’s Regional Executive Steering Committee has been agreed to. 

Also, the agencies have collaborated on and prototyped a basin-wide protocol for

addressing waters listed under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.

Overview

P

olicy decisions for this report are those that have broad application across the agency,

most notably at the national level. Policies take various forms, but national level

policies most commonly are regulations found in the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR). This report does not consider policy that is generated from regional or statelevel organizations. Policy direction may also reside in appropriate Forest Service and BLM

manuals, handbooks, and memoranda. Policy decisions usually are made prior to planning

and local project-level decisions, guiding the development of those decisions.

Forest Service Planning Regulations are covered in the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR

219). Among the regulations are requirements for land use plans to provide for viable

populations of native and desired non-native fish and wildlife species. The Forest Service

Directive System consists of Forest Service manuals and handbooks, which codify the

agency's policies, practices, and procedures. The system serves as the primary basis for the

internal management and control of all programs and the primary source of administrative

direction to Forest Service employees.

Forest Service Manual — Contains legal authorities, objectives, policies, responsibilities,

and instructions needed on a continuing basis by Forest Service line officers and primary staff

in more than one unit to plan and execute assigned programs and activities. The basic

What the Decision

Will Not Provide

Policy

Decisions

Forest Service

Policy
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

7

authority for the chief to issue directives concerning Forest Service operations is found in the

Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR 2.60).

Forest Service Handbook — The principal source of specialized guidance and instruction

for carrying out the direction issued in the Forest Service Manual. Specialists and

technicians are the primary audience of handbook direction. However, some handbooks

include significant procedural direction needed by line officers and/or primary staff officers;

examples include handbooks on land management planning, appeals, litigation, and

environmental analysis. 

The Bureau of Land Management has policy incorporated in the Code of Federal Regulations

(43 CFR 1600) that guides land use planning and other resource decision-making activities. 

National and state-level policy direction is provided through the BLM Directives System,

which includes both temporary and permanent directives. Directives remain in effect until

they are superseded, canceled, or expired. 

Temporary Directives — Include program or activity instruction memoranda and

information bulletins, which are in effect for a specific time only, usually one to two years. 

An instruction memorandum is used to transmit new guidance, procedures, and direction

which must reach BLM employees quickly. They are also used to interpret existing

regulations, existing policies, or instructions when there is not enough time to issue a manual

release.

Permanent Directives — Are included in the BLM Manual System and consist of manuals

that provide program instructions. These instructions are in effect until the manual is revised

or removed from the BLM Manual System.

The BLM Manual System contains BLM program direction. In most cases, the primary

audiences are field and program managers. The BLM Manual System is a permanent record

of written policy and procedural instruction for BLM employees. It contains material having

continuing application to BLM programs. 

The director of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has the overall responsibility for

policy development for the agency. The regional director is responsible for policy

development at the regional level and direction to field offices. Two regions of the USFWS

are within the ICBEMP project area (Regions 1 and 6). Primarily, field supervisors of

Ecological Services Program field offices and project leaders of Fisheries Program field

offices will be involved in working with land managers of the Forest Service and BLM during

implementation of the ROD, including four Ecological Services Program and four Fisheries

Program field offices. In addition, there may be cases where refuge managers of national

wildlife refuges also would be involved.

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service uses methods similar to those of the Forest Service and

the BLM to distribute policy guidance from national or regional offices.

No policy decisions that would change the Code of Federal Regulations have been identified

as necessary to implement the project’s ROD. The decisions outlined in the ROD are within

the national policy direction of the BLM, Forest Service, and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Bureau of Land

Management Policy

U. S. Fish and

Wildlife Service

Policy

Effect of the ROD on

Policy Decisions
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

8

Overview

B

ureau of Land Management and Forest Service management of public lands is guided

by programmatic land use plans and local, project-specific plans. For this report, these

two are categorically defined as “planning” decisions (this section) and local-level

“project” decisions (next section).

Planning decisions for the Forest Service and the BLM are those decisions that formulate and

amend national forest land and resource management plans or BLM resource management

plans and management framework plans. These land use plans were authorized by the

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) and its implementing regulations for

National Forest System lands, and the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976

(FLPMA) and its implementing regulations for BLM- administered lands.

Land use plans, which usually have a 10- to 15-year life, determine management methods,

priorities, and goals for individual national forests and BLM field offices. They set the stage

for local projects, such as timber sales, grazing strategies, and new campgrounds.

Land use plans establish practices to manage and protect resources; they are used by BLM and

Forest Service managers to allocate resources and select appropriate uses for the public lands. 

They set up systems to monitor and evaluate the status of resources and the effectiveness of

management practices over time. Land use plans are designed to be consistent with national

level policies and regulations.

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project’s ROD will amend 62 national

forest and BLM land use plans as specified in Chapter 1 of the Supplemental Draft EIS.

Because the NFMA creates a statutory framework for the management of national forests by

providing for forest planning, land use plans play an important role in daily Forest Service 

management. The Forest Service is required to develop a land and resource management

plan (LRMP) and an accompanying environmental impact statement (EIS) for each national

forest. In addition, the Forest Service has been required to develop regional guides for each

Forest Service Region.

Implementation of the LRMP occurs at the site level. Once the LRMP is in place, local

projects are assessed by the Forest Service. Local projects are designed to be consistent with

LRMPs. For both the LRMPs and local projects, the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) imposes procedural requirements such as the need to prepare an analysis of

environmental effects (categorical exclusions, environmental assessment, or environmental

impact statement) and the process by which the analysis is prepared and documented. 

The Forest Service issued a proposal for revised regulations (Federal Register, October 5,

1999) for implementing land use planning requirements contained in the NFMA. This

proposed regulation would envision: decision-making occurring at the appropriate scale,

increased use of broad-scale assessments, public collaboration, and the integration of science

into land use planning and decision-making. The project’s Draft EISs were formulated prior

to these proposed regulations. The Supplemental Draft EIS has been developed during the

formulation of the proposed regulations, and many of the key elements of planning expressed

through the regulations are already reflected in the Supplemental Draft EIS. The final

regulation is expected in the near future.

Planning

Decisions

Forest Service

Planning
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

9

Land use planning for the BLM is guided by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act

(FLPMA) of 1976. This law specified that the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau

of Land Management, “shall, with public involvement and consistent with the terms and

conditions of this Act, develop, maintain and when appropriate, revise land use plans which

provide . . . for the use of the public lands.”

The BLM land use planning process, like that of the Forest Service, is also specified in

regulation (43 CFR 1600). The primary responsibility to develop and implement resource

management plans (RMPs) is at the local field level of BLM. Most RMPs are developed for

resource areas or combinations of resources areas.

The project’s ROD will not address planning level decisions for any lands managed by the

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The project’s ROD will immediately amend 62 existing land use plans with objectives,

standards, and guidelines that provide the broad-scale ecological context for subsequent

decisions that tier to Forest Service and BLM land use plans. (In the case of the Forest

Service, regional guides may also be amended.) By signing the ROD, the BLM state

directors and Forest Service regional foresters will adopt and commit to implement the

specified direction as stipulated in the ROD and described and analyzed in the Final EIS. 

Management direction and land allocations in existing Forest Service and BLM plans not

directly superseded by the ROD will remain in effect.

The scale of the project’s scientific assessment and EIS is broad enough that it is neither

feasible nor appropriate to make fine-scale decisions; however, it is feasible and appropriate to

use the EIS as the foundation for broad-scale amendments to land use plans. The broad-scale

context of the decisions conveyed through the ROD will influence where, how, and why

certain local project-level decisions will be made by local decision-makers, just as existing

land use plans influence those decisions. 

In their development or revision of Access and Travel Management Plans, national forests

and BLM districts are expected to ensure public involvement including appropriate state,

county, and tribal entities. To address risks identified in road analyses, Access and Travel

Management Plans are required to be developed or updated within ten years of the ROD. 

These Access and Travel Management Plans are expected to identify long-term transportation

needs and road maintenance practices.

In both agencies, land use planning topics—such as planning criteria, inventory data and

information collection, analysis of management situation, and formulation of

alternatives—are controlled by the issues identified in scoping. In future land use plan

amendments and/or revisions, direction from the ICBEMP ROD that has been incorporated

into the plan will, like the rest of that plan direction, form the basis for any subsequent noaction alternative. Other alternatives may present direction that better fits the local scale

and/or addresses issues identified in scoping. 

Overview

L

ocal project-level decisions address on-the-ground activities such as timber harvest,

livestock grazing, and special uses of Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands. 

Any site-level specific decision undertaken by a land manager must demonstrate

consistency with the land management plan for the larger area. Since the ROD will

amend existing land management plans with new direction and decisions, subsequent sitespecific decisions made by land managers (including future permits, contracts, cooperative

U.S. Fish & Wildlife

Service Planning

Bureau of Land

Management

Planning

Integration of 

the ROD into

Existing Planning

Direction

Local

Project-level

Decisions
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

10

agreements, and other instruments) will be required to demonstrate consistency with the land

use plans as amended by the ROD and disclosed in the Final EIS. Tiering local project

decisions to land use plans is current practice for both the BLM and Forest Service. 

Before any local project is initiated, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) also

requires managers to obtain public opinion on and analyze the project’s effect on the physical,

biological, and economic aspects of the human environment prior to making an irreversible

commitment of resources. 

In general, the BLM and Forest Service have a similar approach to the authorization of

activities, the implementation of project plans, and the analysis of a proposal to take an action

on federal lands using NEPA. Nothing in the project’s ROD is projected to alter either

agency’s formal decision-making process.

The project’s ROD will not alter the existing delegations of authority that Forest Service and

BLM officials have to make land use decisions at their field office levels. Local decisionmakers will continue to make project decisions after the appropriate site-specific NEPA

analysis and the appropriate scale of ecosystem analysis as prescribed (either at the subbasin

or watershed levels) or through a programmatic planning process. Figure 1 outlines major

steps in making project-level decisions for the Forest Service. This figure is reprinted from a

recent GAO report on Forest Service decision-making. BLM decision-making follows a

similar process.

The project’s ROD will not make any local project-level decisions. Following are examples of

local project-level decisions:

< Thinning and harvest of forested vegetation,

< Young stand density management,

< Prescribed fire,

< Watershed and riparian restoration activities,

< Road treatments,

< Weeds management,

< Grazing and rangeland management activities,

< Fish and wildlife habitat improvements.

Recent field experience has shown that these types of restoration activities are similar to local

projects currently being undertaken by the BLM and Forest Service. These types of activities

will continue to require analysis and consultation under the National Environmental Policy

Act and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Future decisions will have the benefit of

the analysis at various scales called for in the Supplemental Draft EIS, and certain projectlevel decisions will be influenced in a general sense by the broad-scale direction. The ROD

may help to prioritize and determine where (in which subbasins) some of these activities may

occur; others will continue to be implemented as part of the current program activity plans.

Overview

T

he organizational structure for both the BLM and the Forest Service is a line–staff

organization. Each level has a line officer as decision maker, with the necessary

program staff providing land and resource expertise and administrative and operational

support. Each administrative unit has a defined area of land for which the line officer

is responsible.

Effect of the 

ROD on Local

Project-level

Decisions and

Decision Makers

Responsible

Officials to

Implement

the ROD
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

11

Issue statements explaining proposed action, intended

consequences, and decision under consideration

Solicit comments and identify significant issues

Determine appropriate level of environmental analysis

Develop range of alternatives to address issues

(for EAs and draft EISs)

Identify environmental effects of alternatives, 

including cumulative effects

Select preferred alternative (sometimes optional)

Solicit and respond to comments on all alternatives

Determine if “finding of no significant impact” if applicable

Prepare final EIS if applicable

Prepare decision document and notify public

Identify 

Issues

Identify

alternatives

and their

environmental

effects

Predecision

actions

Decision and

notification

Public and 

outside agencies

Outside 

agencies

Public and 

outside agencies

Public

Locate an area

Determine desired future conditions

Compare with existing conditions to identify actions 

for improvement

Determine if proposed actions are consistent with 

forest plan

From plan 

to project Public

Public and 

outside 

agencies

Making Project Decisions. Reproduced from Forest Service Decision-Making: A Framework for Improving 

Performance. U.S. Congress, General Accounting office, GAO/RCED-97-71. Page 110. 

Issue statements explaining proposed action, intended

consequences, and decision under consideration

Solicit comments and identify significant issues

Determine appropriate level of environmental analysis

Develop range of alternatives to address issues

(for EAs and draft EISs)

Identify environmental effects of alternatives, 

including cumulative effects

Select preferred alternative (sometimes optional)

Solicit and respond to comments on all alternatives

Determine if “finding of no significant impact” if applicable

Prepare final EIS if applicable

Prepare decision document and notify public

Identify 

Issues

Identify

alternatives

and their

environmental

effects

Predecision

actions

Decision and

notification

Public and 

outside agencies

Outside 

agencies

Public and 

outside agencies

Public

Locate an area

Determine desired future conditions

Compare with existing conditions to identify actions 

for improvement

Determine if proposed actions are consistent with 

forest plan

From plan 

to project Public

Public and 

outside 

agencies

Locate an area

Determine desired future conditions

Compare with existing conditions to identify actions 

for improvement

Determine if proposed actions are consistent with 

forest plan

Locate an area

Determine desired future conditions

Compare with existing conditions to identify actions 

for improvement

Determine if proposed actions are consistent with 

forest plan

From plan 

to project Public

Public and 

outside 

agencies

Making Project Decisions. Reproduced from Forest Service Decision-Making: A Framework for Improving 

Performance. U.S. Congress, General Accounting office, GAO/RCED-97-71. Page 110. 
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

12

For the Forest Service, decision makers include the chief, who is the primary official

responsible for all National Forest System lands. A regional forester is responsible for the

subordinate organization of a region. The project area is composed of portions of the

Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest regions. A forest supervisor is the primary

line officer responsible for management of each national forest. There are 23 national forests

in the project area. The forest supervisor has the responsibility to develop a forest plan and

forest plan revisions, although the regional forester is the responsible official who signs plans

and their revisions. The forest supervisor is the responsible official for non-significant forest

plan amendments and for most major decisions on a national forest. The district ranger is the

primary line officer in charge of each ranger district. In the project area, there are 93 ranger

districts. The ranger district is the primary office for program delivery of Forest Service

program activities; the district ranger is responsible for implementing projects in accordance

with the objectives, standards, and guidelines in the land and resource management plan.

For the BLM, the line management organization is composed, in most cases, of three key

decision-makers: the director, state director, and field manager. Some states still have a line

manager called a district manager, who oversees field managers (formerly area managers). 

Within the project area, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho still have district managers, and the

local level of resource decision-maker is the field or area manager. The director is the line

officer responsible for overall management of all public land managed by the BLM. The

director is responsible for strategic direction, policy leadership, legislative and regulatory

involvement, and oversight and evaluation of the subordinate organization structure. A state

director oversees each state office (the BLM’s equivalent of a Forest Service regional office). 

Within the project area, there are three state offices: Oregon and Washington (combined),

Idaho, and Montana. Each state office is responsible for carrying out BLM’s missions within

a specific geographical jurisdiction. The field offices—whether composed of district

managers and field or area managers (in the case of Oregon/Washington and Idaho), or just

field managers (in the case of Montana)—are the local levels of resource decision-making. 

There are 9 BLM districts and 24 BLM field managers in the project area. The BLM

field/area manager is the primary official responsible for developing and implementing

resource management plans. 

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not have the authority to make land management

decisions on public lands managed by the Forest Service or the BLM. However, various

federal environmental laws and treaties (such as the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird

and Treaty Act, Fish and Wildlife Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, National Refuge

Acts, and National Environmental Policy Act) authorize the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

to work with federal land managers. The field offices of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

will, therefore, participate in interagency collaborative efforts to promote, develop, and

implement the direction in the Final EIS and ROD for Forest Service- and BLMadministered lands.

The project is led by an ICBEMP Executive Steering Committee, which includes Forest

Service regional foresters; BLM state directors; Forest Service research station directors;

regional administrators for the Environmental Protection Agency and National Marine

Fisheries Service; and the regional director for the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Although

these officials meet almost monthly to steer the progress of the project, Forest Service and

BLM officials are the responsible officials and will sign the ROD. Each of the land

management executives has maintained individual decision-making authorities and

responsibilities over the lands in his or her respective agency’s jurisdiction. Nothing in the

project’s ROD is projected to change any existing authorities or responsibilities for any of 

the agencies. 

Forest Service

Decision Makers

Bureau of Land

Management

Decision Makers

U. S. Fish and

Wildlife Service

Decision Makers

Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem

Management

Project Decision

Makers
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

13

P

lanning and project-level decisions generally follow a similar procedure. Decisions that

may affect the environment or may invoke irreversible and irretrievable commitment of

resources are required to follow the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

analysis process to disclose likely environmental effects to the public and the 

decision maker.

Both the BLM and the Forest Service have internal procedures that establish steps, rules, and

protocols to follow when conducting analyses and making decisions that address compliance

with laws, regulations, and policies. These procedures are not summarized in this report;

however, nothing in the project’s ROD is intended to alter or change national level guidance

for making decisions. The project’s ROD will provide guidance regarding the analyses

conducted in support of these decisions.

As described earlier, “policy” decisions for this report are classified as national level

decisions, normally involving a formal change in regulation. The adoption or amendment of

a land use plan (a “planning” decision) is considered to be an agency action requiring

compliance with NEPA and various other environmental laws such as the Endangered

Species Act (ESA). 

Decisions for individual, on-the-ground, local projects are also subject to NEPA and ESA

procedural and substantive requirements. Depending on the scope and significance of

environmental impacts of a proposed action, either an environmental assessment or an EIS

must be conducted prior to most activities occurring on the ground. NEPA requires that the

analysis be based on the best available science and that cumulative effects be addressed. The

analyses at various scales, described below, contribute to solid analyses supporting sound

decisions. ESA consultation requirements must also be met where species listed as sensitive,

threatened, or endangered or their habitats are present. 

Figure 1, earlier in this document, illustrates the current general process for making local,

project-level decisions. The project’s Final EIS and ROD will not change this formal

decision-making structure, although as described below, the information and analysis to be

used in the process will be expanded to include hierarchical analysis protocols. Also, the

interaction that the agencies now undertake with states, tribes, and local governments, as well

as with partner federal agencies, will be expanded. 

Figure 2 illustrates the procedures for making project decisions incorporating ICBEMP

direction. Comparison of Figures 1 and 2 shows that under the ICBEMP strategy (Figure 2)

there will exist a more systematic up-front analysis process. Figure 2 shows that projects

identified in the step-down process of Subbasin Review and Ecosystem Analysis at the

Watershed Scale proceed more quickly to the step of “identifying issues.” At the step of

“identifying environmental effects,” efficiencies will be gained from the up-front analyses.

The project’s Scientific Assessment (Quigley, Haynes, and Graham 1996; Quigley and

Arbelbide 1997) displayed that the analysis of the threats to the stability of an ecosystem at

various scales leads to decisions that help reduce the risk to those ecosystems. Analysis at

various scales is a systematic way of gathering, organizing, and understanding information

within a selected geographic area. The general rule provided by science is that analysis will

support better decisions which will decrease the possibility of a mistake, a bad decision, or an

unintended effect. The analysis steps are not an additional decision-making process, but

rather are to provide the information and context necessary to make well-informed decisions

as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The direction shown in the

Supplemental Draft EIS, which is expected to be incorporated into the Final EIS and included

in the ROD, outlines a hierarchy of analysis steps to support planning and local 

project-level decisions. 

Decisionmaking and

Analysis

Procedures

Decisions

Analysis
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

14

Making Project Decisions Incorporating ICBEMP

Issue statements explaining proposed action, intended

consequences, and decision under consideration

Solicit comments and identify significant issues

Determine appropriate level of environmental analysis

Develop range of alternatives to address issues

(for EAs and draft EISs)

Identify environmental effects of alternatives, 

including cumulative effects*

Select preferred alternative (sometimes optional)

Solicit and respond to comments on all alternatives

Determine if “finding of no significant impact” if applicable

Prepare final EIS if applicable

Prepare decision document and notify public

Identify 

Issues

Identify

alternatives

and their

environmental

effects

Predecision

actions

Decision and

notification

Public and 

outside agencies

Outside agencies

Public and 

outside agencies

Public

Land Use Plans as Amended by ICBEMP Record of Decision

Identify priority areas for 

projects in subbasin

Identify and conduct EAWS

for selected areas

Recommendations; Project ideas

*Analyzing the effects of alternatives will be more easily 

accomplished due to SBR and EAWS.

Locate an area

Determine desired future conditions

Compare with existing conditions to identify actions for improvement

Determine if proposed actions are consistent with forest plan

From plan 

to project

N

o

Public and 

outside agencies

Identify and conduct Subbasin Review Process to implement projects until Subbasin

Review is completed for a local area

Is Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale (EAWS) required?

Public

Yes

Making Project Decisions Incorporating ICBEMP

Issue statements explaining proposed action, intended

consequences, and decision under consideration

Solicit comments and identify significant issues

Determine appropriate level of environmental analysis

Develop range of alternatives to address issues

(for EAs and draft EISs)

Identify environmental effects of alternatives, 

including cumulative effects*

Select preferred alternative (sometimes optional)

Solicit and respond to comments on all alternatives

Determine if “finding of no significant impact” if applicable

Prepare final EIS if applicable

Prepare decision document and notify public

Identify 

Issues

Identify

alternatives

and their

environmental

effects

Predecision

actions

Decision and

notification

Public and 

outside agencies

Outside agencies

Public and 

outside agencies

Public

Land Use Plans as Amended by ICBEMP Record of Decision

Identify priority areas for 

projects in subbasin

Identify and conduct EAWS

for selected areas

Recommendations; Project ideas

*Analyzing the effects of alternatives will be more easily 

accomplished due to SBR and EAWS.

Locate an area

Determine desired future conditions

Compare with existing conditions to identify actions for improvement

Determine if proposed actions are consistent with forest plan

From plan 

to project

N

o

Public and 

outside agencies

Identify and conduct Subbasin Review Process to implement projects until Subbasin

Review is completed for a local area

Is Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale (EAWS) required?

Public

Yes

Making Project Decisions Incorporating ICBEMP

Issue statements explaining proposed action, intended

consequences, and decision under consideration

Solicit comments and identify significant issues

Determine appropriate level of environmental analysis

Develop range of alternatives to address issues

(for EAs and draft EISs)

Identify environmental effects of alternatives, 

including cumulative effects*

Select preferred alternative (sometimes optional)

Solicit and respond to comments on all alternatives

Determine if “finding of no significant impact” if applicable

Prepare final EIS if applicable

Prepare decision document and notify public

Identify 

Issues

Identify

alternatives

and their

environmental

effects

Predecision

actions

Decision and

notification

Public and 

outside agencies

Outside agencies

Public and 

outside agencies

Public

Land Use Plans as Amended by ICBEMP Record of Decision

Identify priority areas for 

projects in subbasin

Identify and conduct EAWS

for selected areas

Recommendations; Project ideas

*Analyzing the effects of alternatives will be more easily 

accomplished due to SBR and EAWS.

Locate an area

Determine desired future conditions

Compare with existing conditions to identify actions for improvement

Determine if proposed actions are consistent with forest plan

From plan 

to project

N

o

Public and 

outside agencies

Identify and conduct Subbasin Review Process to implement projects until Subbasin

Review is completed for a local area

Is Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale (EAWS) required?

Public

Yes

Issue statements explaining proposed action, intended

consequences, and decision under consideration

Solicit comments and identify significant issues

Determine appropriate level of environmental analysis

Develop range of alternatives to address issues

(for EAs and draft EISs)

Identify environmental effects of alternatives, 

including cumulative effects*

Select preferred alternative (sometimes optional)

Solicit and respond to comments on all alternatives

Determine if “finding of no significant impact” if applicable

Prepare final EIS if applicable

Prepare decision document and notify public

Identify 

Issues

Identify

alternatives

and their

environmental

effects

Predecision

actions

Decision and

notification

Public and 

outside agencies

Outside agencies

Public and 

outside agencies

Public

Land Use Plans as Amended by ICBEMP Record of Decision

Identify priority areas for 

projects in subbasin

Identify and conduct EAWS

for selected areas

Recommendations; Project ideas

*Analyzing the effects of alternatives will be more easily 

accomplished due to SBR and EAWS.

Locate an area

Determine desired future conditions

Compare with existing conditions to identify actions for improvement

Determine if proposed actions are consistent with forest plan

From plan 

to project

N

o

Public and 

outside agencies

Identify and conduct Subbasin Review Process to implement projects until Subbasin

Review is completed for a local area

Is Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale (EAWS) required?

Public

Yes
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

15

Ecosystem Review at the Subbasin Scale (Subbasin Review)

The first step in the mid-scale analysis process is to complete Ecosystem Review at the

Subbasin Scale (Subbasin Review ). In this brief process, local managers will use existing

information (science assessments, field data, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), etc.) to

validate science information at the ground level; identify priorities and opportunities;

highlight projects that can contribute to ecosystem health; note data gaps and priorities for

future research; and develop strategies for pooling federal, state, and tribal efforts. 

Subbasin Review will provide an opportunity for interagency and intergovernmental

involvement. The entire process for Subbasin Review is provided in the Ecosystem Review at

the Subbasin Scale (Subbasin Review): A Guide for Midscale Ecosystem Inquiry (Draft,

Version 1.0, August 1999)(ICBEMP 1999). 

Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale (EAWS) 

The second step in the analysis process is Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale

(EAWS). This analysis highlights the capabilities and limitations of a given watershed. 

Analysis requirements may vary; however, analysis scope and depth are always determined by

on-the-ground conditions. This analysis will normally use watershed and subwatershed

boundaries; however, using other boundaries that are meaningful and efficient may be

appropriate.

This scale of analysis is intended to:

< Establish a consistent watershed-wide context for water quality conditions and protection

of beneficial uses;

< Provide the hydrologic characterization and identification of pollutant sources;

< Understand actual conditions at a resolution necessary to make judgements about

watershed-scale effects of actions on resources;

< Evaluate potential actions in the context of an overall understanding of the capabilities,

limitations, and risks of a specific watershed;

< Identify watershed level issues and concerns;

< Identify synergisms that can be gained through sequencing activities;

< Refine management standards to fit local conditions and values at risk;

< Identify monitoring needs for watershed-wide effects.

EAWS will also provide an opportunity for interagency and intergovernmental involvement. 

It is an issue-driven process, whereby information from inventories, monitoring reports, or

additional analyses can be added at any time.

Information derived through Subbasin Review and EAWS would be aggregated up to assist in

making programmatic decisions, such as land use plan amendments and revisions, and would

be incorporated into site-specific decisions at lower levels. 

Site-specific Analysis 

The next scale of analysis below EAWS is the site-specific or activity-level analysis for local

projects. This level of analysis usually follows NEPA procedures, including public scoping,

and a site-specific decision document. While it may be feasible to analyze the effects of

groups of activities at the watershed scale, most proposed activities will be analyzed at the

site-specific scale. Under the hierarchy of analysis, this scale of analysis acts as a safety net

for those issues overlooked or appropriately excluded at larger scales, and it provides

site-specific information for determining effects. 

Site-specific analysis has been used extensively since the enactment of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1970, and in accordance with Forest Service NEPA

Manual 1950 and Handbook 1909.15, and BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1. It has been

Definitions

Subbasin ~ A drainage

area of approximately

800,000 to 1,000,000

acres. Examples: Upper

Grande Ronde River, or

the South Fork Salmon

River.

Subwatershed ~ A

drainage area of

approximately 20,000

acres. Example: Profile

Creek.

Watershed ~ A drainage

area of approximately

50,000 to 100,000 acres. 

Examples: McIntyre

Creek, or South Fork

Salmon River.

Hierarchically,

subwatersheds are

contained within a

watershed; watersheds in

turn are contained within

a subbasin.
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

16

proven successful at identifying and addressing local issues and concerns; however, as a

stand-alone level of assessment, it is often difficult to fully understand the broader scale issues

and cumulative effects of individual actions.

Through the direction in the ICBEMP Final EIS, the site-specific analysis process will be

significantly enhanced, predominantly by the context provided by higher scales of analysis

when assessing cumulative effects. To the extent possible, projects will be “batched” for

Endangered Species Act and tribal consultation at the watershed scale. The context provided

by higher scales of analysis will also facilitate this decision-making step. This process should

further identify the monitoring necessary to meet those needs identified during EAWS. 

NEPA implementing regulations require public notification of the availability of all NEPA

documents, and various levels of public involvement are provided for in both Forest Service

and BLM internal procedures. 

As noted earlier, the effect of the Final EIS and ROD on local project-level decisions is best

illustrated by adapting the flow diagram from a 1997 GAO report on Forest Service decisionmaking (Figure 1), and showing where the required analyses will occur under ICBEMP

direction (Figure 2).

Estimated Time and Costs to

Accomplish the Decisions

Overview

T

he assumptions and analysis in the Supplemental Draft

EIS for modeling the costs to accomplish the decisions

described in the Supplemental Draft EIS are provided

below. It is important to note that the actual decisions

that will be made as a result of the ICBEMP can be

implemented at any funding level. The decisions do not

prescribe any particular level of activity or accomplishments.

However, for modeling the effects of the direction, levels of

funding had to be assumed to finance certain amounts of

restoration activities. This section concludes with

information on reprogramming funds for fiscal year 1998 and

a discussion of the implementation costs and output summary

found in the Supplemental Draft EIS. 

The modeling of the effects of the management direction

described in Chapter 3 of the Supplemental Draft EIS

required an assumption of certain amounts of restoration

activities. The effects are displayed in Chapter 4 of the Supplemental Draft EIS. 

Accomplishment of restoration actions (such as pre-commercial thinning or prescribed

burning) requires funding, either through new budget authority or through reallocation of

existing funds. The funding that would be provided would come through the normal process

of budget development and justification currently used by the Forest Service and the BLM. 

To ensure that the funding required to accomplish restoration activities was a reasonable

estimate and projection, the decision makers limited the funding that could be considered

available by the models. 

The models assume that in some cases, more aggressive restoration will be required to

implement Alternatives S2 and S3 than currently occurs under existing management plans as

they have been amended by PACFISH, INFISH, and Eastside Screens (represented in the

Supplemental Draft EiS as the no action alternative S1). To represent current outcomes,

Requirement #2 

(2) a detailed estimation of

the time and cost (for all

participating Federal

agencies) to accomplish

each decision described in

paragraph (1), from the

date of initiation of

preparations for, to the

date of publication or

announcement of, the

decision, including a

detailed statement of the

source of funds for each

such decision and any

reprogramming in fiscal

year 1998 . . .

Costs to

Accomplish

the Decisions

Estimated Costs
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

17

Alternative S1 was modeled with no additional funding for restoration, and Alternatives S2

and S3 were assumed to receive additional funding increases that are realistic in light of the

agencies’ current budget requests, and legislative proposals. 

The total funding appropriated for the Forest Service and the BLM within the project area is

estimated to be $540 million for both agencies—approximately $70 million for the BLM and

$470 million for the Forest Service. These figures include an estimate of funding from the

operating accounts, trust funds and fire preparedness in the project area. Of the combined

total, $135 million will be expended on restoration activities to move existing resource

conditions toward a more desirable condition.

This is the amount of funding used in the models to project outputs (such as board feet) and

outcomes (such as ecosystem condition) for the effects section of the Supplemental Draft EIS. 

Alternative S1, the Supplemental Draft EIS no-action alternative, assumes the

availability of estimated current funding for on-the-ground restoration actions and

assumes the continuation of direction under PACFISH, INFISH, and the biological

opinions ($135 million per year). 

Alternative S2 assumes approximately $202 million in funds expended on restoration

actions each year.

Alternative S3 assumes $182 million in funds expended on restoration actions each year. 

Each alternative also estimates the cost of required step-down analyses (in addition to those

already accomplished through programmatic planning processes and/or through compliance

with NEPA and project consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act). These

are: $18 million for Alternative S1, $13 million for Alternative S2, and $9.5 million for

Alternative S3. 

In summary, while the preferred alternative (Alternative S2) can be implemented at any

funding level, the estimated costs for accomplishing the activity levels of the preferred

alternative as it was modeled is approximately $202 million for both agencies, which will be a

portion of the total budget for the Forest Service and BLM in the project area and about $67

million more for both agencies than the current level of funds expended on restoration

activities.

M

anagement direction from the ICBEMP ROD, which becomes part of the amended

federal land use plans, will guide activity-level decision-making until replaced

through subsequent amendment or revision of these plans. The decisions that would

be undertaken as a result of the ICBEMP ROD are estimated to be in effect roughly

10 to 15 years. Ten years is the basis from which the estimated production of goods and

services is based. Implementation costs are estimates of annual costs, averaged over the first

ten years of implementation.

N

o Final EIS or Record of Decision was completed in fiscal year 1998 due to the

extended public comment period on the Draft EISs. Therefore, there was no need for

reprogramming of funds to accomplish any implementation decision. 

Estimated

Time

Reprogramming of Funds
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

18

Techniques and Assumptions

I

n the Supplemental Draft EIS, because implementation of the alternatives could occur at

any funding level, some additional cost and output information is provided. A team of

budget analysts developed the estimation of costs and outputs summary using standard

budget analysis techniques, which are disclosed in Chapter 4 of the Supplemental Draft

EIS (refer to the information in Tables 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, and 4-60, pages 4-207 to 4-210 of

the Supplemental Draft EIS). The implementation costs and outputs summary represents the

assumed costs for implementing the activities based on the direction in the alternatives, along

with the resulting outputs from these activities. 

The team made assumptions about the amount of overall funding available to undertake the

strategies called for in the alternatives. Four levels of funding are assumed in this analysis of

implementation costs and outputs. One is the estimated current level of funding, used in the

analysis of Alternative S1 and described above. This allows for comparison using a baseline

condition. In addition, three increased increments of funding were selected by the budget

analysts as reasonable increases when compared to the overall budgets for the Forest Service

and the BLM in the project area. The four levels are as follows: 

1. $135.0 million (no new funding) (Table 4-57 in the Supplemental Draft EIS); 

2. $148.5 million ($13.5 million increase) (Table 4-58 in the Supplemental Draft EIS);

3. $168.75 million ($33.75 million increase) (Table 4-59 in the Supplemental Draft EIS);

4. $202 million ($67.0 million increase) (Table 4-60 in the Supplemental Draft EIS). Level

four is comparable to the budget assumption associated with the effects analysis of

Alternative S2, conducted by the Science Advisory Group (SAG) (Quigley 1999). 

The team identified representative management activities (selected outputs) for display.

Through deliberations with policy specialists, the set of variables was determined that

represents specific types of restoration activities and their associated outputs. These categories

of management activities do not directly correlate to the outcomes identified in other portions

of Chapter 4, because they represent a budget analyst’s approach to development of future

funding proposals and were not generated from the variables modeled by the SAG. 

The team identified average total costs for the selected categories of activities across the entire

project area, and they used these average costs to estimate activity costs and associated levels

of outputs. Costs were estimated using historical budget information on file at Forest Service

and BLM offices at the national, regional, state, and national forest/BLM district levels. 

These estimates will be refined in future budget formulation processes.

The team of budget analysts calibrated the associated levels of outputs to the four selected

levels of funding, working from the information available for Alternative S1 (assumed to be

funded at the level identified in Table 4-57, no new funding) and Alternative S2 (assumed to

be funded at the level identified in Table 4-60, $67 million increased funding). Thus, the

alternatives are contrasted at comparable funding levels using the selected management

activity variables.

To avoid misinterpretation of this cost estimates analysis the following information is

offered:

1. The “employment estimated” figure estimates employment that would result from only

4 of the 12 categories of activities: thinning and harvest, young stand density

management, animal unit months (AUMs), and prescribed fire fuel treatments. This

category did not estimate jobs that may result from other activities such as those

associated with fish habitat improvements or wildlife habitat improvements. 

2. The acreage figures for the management activity of prescribed fire/fuel treatments include

burning and mechanical fuel reduction. The total treatment area does not always

correlate with acres actually burned. For example, an area of 10,000 acres can be treated

by prescribed fire restoration activities, but because the management prescription calls for

Interpretation of

Cost Estimates

Analysis

Implementation Costs

and Outputs

Summary
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

19

a desired fire intensity that is light or moderate, 500 acres may have been treated

mechanically before burning and then only 5,000 acres may actually burn. The resulting

mosaic pattern of burned and unburned landscape is generally what is desired.

3. The management activities reflect broad categories of funding for both the Forest Service

and the BLM, and do not directly correlate to the existing budget line items for these

agencies.

4. The levels of output for management activities assume ten-year (short-term) averages.

5. None of the management activities have spatial identity; that is, they cannot be spatially

located at this point in the analysis and cannot be correlated with specific projects,

administrative units, RAC/PAC areas, states, or counties. They are summarized at the

project-area-scale only.

6. Implementation of these management activities is guided by the direction of the

alternatives and thus by the step-down analysis procedures called for in the alternatives.

 

7. Consultation and collaboration requirements have costs, but these are difficult to

estimate. The costs shown here are the costs of collaboration and consultation with

states, tribes, and regulatory agencies, in addition to public participation, collaboration,

and consultation processes already in place for the land management agencies.

8. The output of AUMs is an indirect, not direct, result of management direction. 

Management direction in Alternatives S2 and S3 is not designed to prescribe the levels of

AUMs permitted by the Forest Service and BLM in the project area. Rather, it is

designed to address desired outcomes for landscape health (rangelands, riparian areas,

and so on); these desired outcomes mean that there will likely be adjustments in intensity,

location, timing, and pattern of domestic livestock grazing. These adjustments could

affect total AUMs, but the changes that may result are difficult to predict. 

9. Management direction in Alternatives S2 and S3 is not designed to prescribe production

levels of volume of timber (board feet) from Forest Service- and BLM-administered

lands. Rather, the volume is an output that results from the activities that occur as a

result of management direction.

Estimated Production of Goods

and Services

T

his section of the Report to the Congress is

excerpted directly from the Supplemental Draft

Environmental Impact Statement published in

March 2000. Information in this section is

displayed for all three alternatives as shown in the

Supplemental Draft EIS. It includes only those portions

of the Social–Economic–Tribal component of the

Supplemental Draft EIS related to the estimated

production of goods and services by RAC/PAC areas

within the project area. Information about other aspects of

the social and economic conditions across the project area

are not included in this Report but can be found in the

Supplemental Draft EIS.

For information about employment related to the production of goods and services, see

Chapter 4 of the Supplemental Draft EIS. A table listing counties and communities by

RAC/PAC area is located in Appendix 7 of the Supplemental Draft EIS.

Requirement #3

(3): Estimated production of

goods and services from each

unit of the Federal lands for

the first 5 years during the

course of the decision-making

described in paragraph (1)

beginning with the date of

publication of the applicable

final EIS . . .

Relation to the

Supplemental

Draft EIS
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

20

T

he project area includes 92 counties in parts of four states, with more than 540

communities and involving the homelands of 22 American Indian tribes. The

relationship of social and economic systems to Forest Service- and BLM-administered

lands in the project area is described in the Supplemental Draft EIS. The economic

and social setting of the project area establishes a context for making land use decisions,while

considering human needs and expectations of these lands. 

The Supplemental Draft EIS uses Resource Advisory Council/Provincial Advisory Committee

(RAC/PAC) areas as the base level for displaying estimated biophysical and socio-economic

effects. These 12 RAC/PACs encompass all 540 communities in the project area. The effects

in this section of the Report are displayed by RAC/PAC area and are an estimated annual

average over the first ten years after the Record of Decision is signed. Section 323(a) of the

1998 Interior Appropriations Act requires an estimated production of goods and services over

the first five years. Therefore in each of the tables in this section, the annual average

multiplied by five will provide the requirement of the law. 

The no-action alternative assumes that the level of production that would occur under existing

land use plans has been modified by a variety of factors such as implementation of rangeland

health standards and guides, consultation under ESA, PACFISH, INFISH, and reasonable and

prudent measures or terms and conditions of the Biological Opinions on Land and Resource

Management plans. 

T

he main sources of information for evaluation of the effects of the alternatives in this

Supplemental Draft EIS include: Socioeconomic Evaluation of the EIS Alternatives

(Crone and Haynes 1999), the Economic and Social Conditions of Communities

(Reyna 1998), and Developing Measures of Socioeconomic Resiliency in the Interior

Columbia Basin (Horne and Haynes 1999). This section of Chapter 4 blends the findings of

the economics and social science staffs of the Science Advisory Group with additional

analysis and interpretation provided by the EIS Team. 

The Science Advisory Group’s (SAG) landscape and modeling scientists estimated 10-year

and 100-year outputs that are expected to be produced from the Supplemental Draft EIS

alternatives. Outputs included forage produced for livestock grazing, measured as animal

unit months (AUMs); timber volume harvested; acres of forest/woodland and rangelands

restoration; and acres of prescribed fire and fuels management treatments. The SAG’s

economics staff (Crone and Haynes 1999) analyzed and presented economic activity and

estimated outputs related to implementation of the Supplemental Draft EIS alternatives, and

they calculated employment that would be associated with those output and activity levels. 

Factors used by both the SAG and the EIS Team to estimate effects included existing

conditions, objectives and standards, and modeled management prescriptions. Effects are

estimated by the level of goods and services that may result from the management direction.

The EIS Team economics staff used the evaluation from the SAG, along with the ICBEMP

(1998) and Horne and Haynes (1999) reports to assess, in general terms, potential effects of

the alternatives on local communities. Of particular interest were rural and tribal

communities that are isolated and economically specialized in economic sectors that rely on

resources from, or management of, federal lands.

The broad scale of the modeling and analysis means that management prescriptions in the

model are not tied to specific locations within the basin. It is not appropriate, given the

coarseness of the data base to estimate effects directly by administrative unit, subbasin, or a

smaller unit. As such, the discussion of effects is of necessity relatively broad, and not site- or

area-specific. 

The EIS Team used diverse information relating RAC/PAC areas to counties, subbasins, and

communities. The effects discussions at those levels provide general trends and likely

potential consequences based on community types or groups. However, specific estimates of

How Social

and Economic

Effects Were

Estimated

Science Advisory

Group Economics

Effects Analysis

Social and

Economic

Considerations

Additional EIS

Team Effects

Analysis
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

21

changes in outputs or activity levels for a particular county, administrative unit, or community

will have to come during mid-scale analyses done during the step-down process (such as

Subbasin Review) and revision of Forest Service and BLM land use plans.

O

utputs and activities were analyzed for the next ten years (the short term). For the

economic and social analyses, the output and activity levels projected from the Science

Team’s CRBSUM model in the tenth decade were not carried forward into the

environmental consequences chapter. It was felt that for economic and social

conditions, any attempt to assess effects 100 years into the future would be misleading because

of the many changes that occur to economies and societies over a century. 

The effects on specific communities or counties from changing supplies of timber and forage

for livestock grazing, as well as potential employment through restoration work, could not be

predicted for reasons that have been previously described. However, as noted above, the SAG

and the EIS Team used information that related RAC/PAC areas to counties, subbasins, and

communities to provide general trends and potential consequences at the local level for groups

or types of communities. 

While goods and services provided from Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands

potentially represent a large array of benefits, five major outputs and activities are quantified

here, including two commercially marketable outputs and three types of ecological restoration

activity:

< Livestock animal unit months (AUMs), representing the number of domestic livestock

that graze on Forest Service- and BLM-administered rangelands; 

< Wood volume produced from timber harvest and vegetation management actions

measured in millions of board feet (mmbf); 

< Acres of forest/woodland restoration activity, including planting (reforestation) and precommercial thinning;

< Acres of rangeland restoration activity; and

< Acres of prescribed fire and fuels management treatments to restore vegetation conditions

that more closely reflect historical ranges, and to reduce risk of uncharacteristically

severe wildfires.

Table 1 displays the average annual amount of outputs and activities for each alternative for

the first decade. Next, tables with outputs and activities by RAC/PAC are shown with

discussions of each output or activity. Discussions address how output and activity levels

were determined, the uncertainty associated with their production, and other factors relevant

to interpreting effects of these expected numbers. 

Levels of Outputs

and Management

Activities Expected

from the

Alternatives

Table 1. Estimated Average Annual Output/Activity Levels, by Alternative for Federal Lands in the

Interior Columbia Basin Project Area.1

Output or Activity (units) Alternative S1 Alternative S2 Alternative S3

Animal Unit Months (AUMs) 3,111,000 2,799,000 2,765,000

Timber Harvest Volume (mmbf) 810 990 980

Forest/Woodland Restoration (acres) 142,000 199,000 192,000

Rangeland Restoration (acres) 3,074,000 3,339,000 3,183,000

Prescribed Fire/Fuels Management (acres) 181,000 1,456,000 1,110,000

1AUMs and acres rounded to nearest thousand; mmbf rounded to nearest ten.

Abbreviations used in this table:

 mmbf = million board feet Source: Crone and Haynes 1999.

Effects of the

Alternatives on

Annual Level

of Goods and

Services
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

22

The first priority of Alternatives S2 and S3 is restoration of ecosystems and watersheds. 

Production of market and non-market (priced and non-priced) goods and services for human

use (timber, domestic livestock grazing, recreation, minerals, etc.) is also an important

consideration, but only within the capabilities and limits of healthy ecosystems.

In addition to the timber and livestock grazing benefits quantified above, other benefits would

be provided through restoration activities designed to move current ecosystem conditions to

the desired condition. The expected ecological outcomes from restoration activities are not

easily quantified, either biophysically, culturally, or economically; however, if they were

successfully quantified they would show that valuable direct and indirect benefits (such as

healthier plant and wildlife populations, cleaner water, cleaner air, lower soil productivity

loss) would be provided. Along with ecological benefits, restoration activities also make an

important human contribution through generating employment and economic activity.

Livestock AUMs

AUM Production Levels

Table 2 also shows estimated domestic livestock use on Forest Service- and BLMadministered lands, measured in animal unit months (AUMs), by RAC/PAC for each

alternative. Percentage changes in AUMs from Alternative S1 to Alternatives S2 and S3 are

also shown.

Figures in the table represent estimated annual average use for the first decade after plan

implementation. AUMs were calculated as part of the CRBSUM modeling process, discussed

in the landscape section of Chapter 4 of the Supplemental Draft EIS. Prescriptions designed

to reflect objectives, standards, and management priorities were applied to areas as defined by

each alternative, with resulting effects on the quality, or health, of rangelands estimated by

the model. Investments in rangeland improvements and changes in rangeland management

practices are expected to improve quantity of forage, as well as the quality of the rangelands,

although only the latter was modeled. 

While these modeling estimates do not state the total forage that could be produced in the

basin, the AUMs shown in Table 2 are an estimate of the sustainable grazing that could be

allowed as a consequence of management direction implemented for watershed and ecosystem

protection and restoration. Management direction does not require certain levels of permitted

livestock grazing. Rather, it describes desired rangeland conditions. Therefore, changes in

AUMs are indirect consequences, rather than prescribed outcomes, of this direction. 

Estimated grazing is reported and discussed only for the first decade of plan implementation.
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

23

The projected decline in AUMs does not reflect any possible future changes in the structural

nature of the livestock industry, such as shifts in the share of range feeding compared to

stockyard feeding for cattle, shifts in the culture and economics of ranching, or the

withdrawal and conversion of lands from ranching to other types of development (such as

resorts, housing developments, and the like). Some or all of these types of changes may

occur, with associated effects on the livestock grazing industry in the basin. However, they

are outside the control of the agencies and were not modeled.

Livestock grazing use projected for Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands under

Alternatives S2 and S3, compared to continuation of current management in Alternative S1,

would be expected to decrease 10 percent and 11 percent, respectively. The effect compared

to total grazing use on all ownerships would be much smaller—less than one percent decrease

for either alternative. The projected decline in grazing from implementation of Alternative

S2 or Alternative S3 confirms the USDI/USDA (1994) projection of reductions in grazing use

over the next two decades to protect rangelands from further degradation and to provide

protection for habitats of listed species (see Chapter 2 of the Supplemental Draft EIS). That

process started with the implementation of PACFISH, INFISH, and Healthy Rangelands

direction, and it would continue with implementation of either of the action alternatives.

With Alternatives S2 and S3, all RAC/PACS would see a decline in AUMs on Forest Serviceand BLM-administered lands. The changes in grazing levels from Alternative S1 are not

consistent among the RAC/PACS in magnitude. 

While the overall decrease in grazing levels for the project area is somewhat larger for

Alternative S3 than for Alternative S2, only 7 of the 12 RAC/PACS would actually

Table 2. Projected Animal Unit Months (AUMs), by RAC/PAC and Alternative, Annual Average First

Decade,1 Project Area and All Lands.

Change from S1 Change from S1

Alt. S1 Alt. S2 AUMs % Alt. S3 AUMs %

Project Area (FS/BLM Lands)

 RAC/PACs

 Butte 38,000 34,700 -3,300 -9 34,300 -3,700 -10

 Klamath 42,800 39,300 -3,500 -8 39,700 -3,100 -7

 Deschutes 113,600 95,300 -18,300 -16 91,300 -22,300 -20

 John Day-Snake 347,400 324,100 -23,300 -7 311,500 -35,900 -10

 Southeastern Oregon 765,500 697,800 -67,700 -9 681,100 -84,400 -11

 Lower Snake River 581,000 546,500 -34,500 -6 545,300 -35,700 -6

 Upper Snake River 741,100 609,800 -131,300 -18 616,200 -124,900 -17

 Upper Columbia-Salm.Clearw-R4 365,800 337,200 -28,600 -8 334,400 -31,400 -9

 Eastern Washington 65,100 63,900 -1,200 -2 61,800 -3,300 -5

 Yakima 3,900 3,700 -200 -5 3,800 -100 -3

 Eastern Washington Cascades 12,400 12,300 -100 -1 12,300 -100 -1

 Upper Columbia-Salm.Clearw-R1 34,000 33,700 -300 -1 33,700 -300 -1

 Total - FS/BLM Lands 3,110,600 2,798,300 -312,300 -10 2,765,300 -345,300 -11

All Lands

 Total - All Lands 45,752,000 45,439,600 -312,400 -1 45,406,700 -345,300 -1

Abbreviations used in this table:

RAC = Resource Advisory Council FS = Forest Service

PAC = Provincial Advisory Committee BLM = Bureau of Land Management

R1 = Forest Service Northern Region R4 = Forest Service Intermountain Region

1 Sums of columns may not equal totals because of rounding.

Project Area = Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands. Source: Crone and Haynes 1999.

Management

direction does not

require certain

levels of permitted

livestock grazing. 

Rather, it

describes desired

rangeland

conditions.
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

24

experience greater declines in Alternative S3. Three RAC/PACS would show smaller

declines in Alternative S3 compared to Alternative S2; the other 2 RAC/PACS would see no

difference in grazing levels. These variations between the two alternatives reflect the

differences among RAC/PACS in geographic extent of A1/A2 subwatersheds, T watersheds,

and riparian conservation areas in conjunction with the difference in focus, amount, and

location of restoration activities.

While the total effect on basin-wide grazing use from either Alternative S2 or Alternative S3

would be very small, there could still be impacts at the local level in some areas. Those

ranching operations that are most dependent on grazing Forest Service- and BLMadministered range allotments would be likely to feel a more substantial effect from changes

in AUMs from these lands. 

Predictability and Sustainability of Livestock Production

Although projected grazing use was drawn in part from livestock-oriented management

direction, this direction was assigned to improve ecosystem conditions, not to achieve a

particular livestock production objective. Improving ecological conditions on rangelands

depends on application of grazing systems, managing season of use, and investing in range

improvements, as well as on control of the number of livestock grazed. While Alternative S1

would continue current livestock and grazing management practices under PACFISH,

INFISH, and other existing management direction from land use plans, Alternatives S2 and

S3 would implement more comprehensive, landscape-scale livestock and grazing

management practices. This may introduce additional uncertainty in forage and livestock

production compared to continuation of current practices. As shown in Table 2, changes in

amounts of grazing use could be expected from implementing Alternatives S2 and S3.

Both private livestock operators and the agencies would face some additional costs for

management of rangeland and livestock grazing if either Alternative S2 or S3 were selected,

above those cost increases that have already been incurred with the implementation of

PACFISH, INFISH, and Healthy Rangelands management direction. At this broad scale, it

was not possible to estimate costs for implementing new, potentially more intensive

management practices for livestock operators; however, costs were estimated for the

rangeland restoration and maintenance work associated with each alternative. Those costs

currently average $0.10 per acre; under the action alternatives they are estimated to be $0.40

per acre for high restoration priority subbasins and $0.15 per acre for other subbasins (Crone

and Haynes 1999). Additional mid-scale analysis should provide information on the expected

magnitude of additional costs of rangeland management, livestock grazing, and rangeland

restoration, as well as their distribution between the livestock operators and agencies.

 

If short-term uncertainty for livestock operators is assumed to increase with the

implementation of new management direction, then the most to least predictable alternative in

the short term would be Alternative S1, followed by Alternative S2, and then Alternative S3. 

There would be little difference between Alternatives S2 and S3. The major source of

additional uncertainty in Alternative S3 would be potentially more stringent consultation

requirements and mitigation measures at the individual project and allotment levels, because

Alternative S3 requires less Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale (EAWS) than

Alternative S2. 

Over time, predictability for Alternatives S2 and S3 should improve as new allotment

management plans are completed, rangeland conditions improve, and operators adjust to new

direction. Short-term effects on the ranching industry that could result from proposed

changes include: financially marginal operators departing, financially stable operators

becoming marginal, and larger or more efficient operators buying out smaller or less 

efficient ones. 

Over time,

predictability

should improve as

new allotment

management plans

are completed,

rangeland

conditions

improve, and

operators adjust to

new direction. 
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

25

Timber Volume

Timber Production Calculations

Estimated average annual timber production for the first decade from Forest Service- and

BLM-administered lands, measured in millions of board feet (mmbf), is shown in Table 3 by

RAC/PAC for each alternative. Percentage changes in timber harvest levels from Alternative

S1 to Alternatives S2 and S3 are also shown. 

Timber production was calculated as part of the CRBSUM modeling process, discussed in the

landscape section earlier in this document. Prescriptions reflecting objectives, standards, and

priorities were assigned in the CRBSUM model. Timber production levels were projected 

based on acres to be treated by timber harvesting (commercial thinning and final harvest) to

achieve the objectives of the alternatives. Timber production is not prescribed by the

management direction. It results from the restoration activities conducted to achieve the

desired outcomes expressed in the management direction. Because of the broad-scale basis of

the CRBSUM model and its underlying data, timber harvest levels were projected for the

project area as a whole and for each RAC/PAC area.

Table 3. Projected Timber Harvest (mmbf), by RAC/PAC and Alternative, Annual Average First

Decade,1 Project Area and All Lands.

Change from S1 Change from S1

Alt. S1 Alt. S2 mmbf % Alt. S3 mmbf %

Project Area (FS/BLM lands)

RAC/PACS

Butte 161 174 13 8 172 11 7

Klamath 41 51 10 24 51 10 24

Deschutes 56 57 1 2 59 3 5

John Day-Snake 122 190 68 56 179 57 47

Southeastern Oregon 73 99 26 36 90 17 23

Lower Snake River 42 59 17 40 64 22 52

Upper Snake River 12 14 2 17 14 2 17

Upper Columbia-Salm.-Clearw.-R-4 116 145 29 25 140 24 21

Eastern Washington 49 48 -1 -2 52 3 6

Yakima 0 1 1 nc 1 1 nc

Eastern Washington Cascades 3 4 1 33 5 2 67

Upper Columbia-Salm.-Clearw.-R-1 138 144 6 4 155 17 12

Total FS/BLM Lands 814 986 172 21 981 167 21

All Lands

Total All Lands 3,355 3,528 173 5 3,522 167 5

Abbreviations used in this table:

RAC = Resource Advisory Council FS = Forest Service

PAC = Provincial Advisory Committee BLM = Bureau of Land Management

mmbf = million board feet nc = not calculable

1Sums of columns may not equal totals because of rounding.

Project area = Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands. Source: Crone and Haynes 1999.
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

26

Timber production estimates are based on simulations of natural disturbance and succession

processes (including natural fire and vegetation growth) as well as human management of

fuels and vegetation. This method is different from traditional timber scheduling models (see

Table 4). Refined estimates of timber supply and sustainability need to be completed by

individual national forests and BLM districts as they adjust their land use plans. Until then,

these initial projections provide estimates of the relative differences among the alternatives at

the broad scale. 

As a result of the restoration and maintenance of sustainable ecosystems, most of the

commercially saleable volume in the first decade is expected to come from the large amounts

of forest and woodland restoration work proposed, particularly in Alternatives S2 and S3. 

These trees generally will be smaller and of poorer quality than what typically has been

harvested commercially in the past.

Timber Production Levels

Timber production estimated for Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands under 

Alternatives S2 and S3 compared to Alternative S1, would change by almost the same

amounts, rising by about 172 mmbf and 167 mmbf (approximately 21 percent), respectively. 

The effect compared to total timber production from all ownerships would be much

smaller—an increase of about five percent for either alternative.

With Alternative S2, all RAC/PACS except the Eastern Washington RAC would see an

increase in timber harvest levels compared to Alternative S1. In Alternative S3, all

RAC/PACS would see an increase in timber harvest levels from Forest Service- and BLMadministered lands, compared to Alternative S1. 

Table 4. Comparison of Modeling Methods with Regard to Sustainability and Predictability of Timber

Harvest Levels.

Projecting Timber Outputs in Projecting Timber Outputs in ICBEMP

Conventional Modeling Broad-scale Landscape Disturbance Modeling

Management intensity and timber harvest rates are System is adapted to accommodate new

based on a formal system designed to provide management approaches designed to provide 

predictable timber outputs more predictable landscape disturbance outcomes.

Sustained yield of wood fiber is used as a formal Sustained yield of wood fiber is still important, but

measure of sustainability based on the premise not as a formal measure of sustainability.

that sustained timber yield, properly constrained and Sustainability is more broadly defined to account

mitigated, would sustain the underlying forest for ecosystem functions, processes, and landscape

processes. disturbance.

Assumes static ecosystems. Assumes dynamic ecosystems.

Pattern, timing, and type of disturbance are designed Pattern, timing, and type of disturbance are

to support sustained yield of wood in perpetuity by designed to support desired disturbance patterns

managing the age, size, species, and development and ecosystem processes and conditions by 

of forest growing stock. managing cover types and structural stages 

across the landscape. 
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

27

Among the RAC/PACS, the changes in harvest levels from Alternative S1 are not consistent

in magnitude. While the overall increase for the ICBEMP project area would be similar for

Alternatives S2 and S3, four of the RAC/PACS would experience larger increases in

Alternative S2, compared to Alternative S3. Three RAC/PACS would not change between

the two alternatives, while the others would show smaller increases in Alternative S2

compared to Alternative S3. These variations between the two alternatives reflect the

differences among RAC/PACS in locations and sizes of A1/A2 subwatersheds, T watersheds,

and riparian conservation areas (RCAs) in conjunction with the difference in focus, amount,

and location of restoration activity using timber harvest as a management tool and the size of

the timber resource base. 

While the total effect on basin-wide production of timber from Forest Service- and BLMadministered lands from Alternative S2 or S3 would be relatively small (about a five percent

increase), there would be larger or smaller impacts in some localized areas. Those timber

harvest and milling operations that are most dependent on wood from Forest Service- and

BLM-administered lands would likely feel a more substantial effect from changes in timber

harvest from agency lands. 

Predictability and Sustainability of Timber Harvest Volume Levels

The projected timber harvest volumes displayed in Table 3 are not based on more traditional

timber harvest modeling methods. Rather, they are based on the broad-scale landscape

disturbance and succession approach, which expands the meaning of sustainability to include

all components and processes of ecosystems and to account for the role of disturbance regimes

in shaping how ecosystems change over time. Some key differences between conventional

timber modeling and the landscape approach used in the Supplemental Draft EIS are

displayed in Table 4. Refined estimates of timber supply will be determined when the

selected alternative is incorporated into local Forest Service and BLM land use plans.

Shifting management objectives and silvicultural prescriptions from a timber production

emphasis to a restoration emphasis would change both the nature of the timber product

removed from the forest and the cost of removing it. Log size, log quality, and volume per

acre removed are critical to the profitability of harvest operations and lumber manufacturing. 

Average diameter of trees removed has been shown especially important to the financial

feasibility of a timber sale (Crone and Haynes 1999).

Achieving the projected levels of timber harvest (as shown in Table 3) assumes that all the

estimated available volume will be sold. However, an emphasis on the restoration work

prescribed to produce desirable stand structures and other ecosystem characteristics would

generally result in harvesting smaller diameter trees and producing less volume per acre. 

Restrictions on the removal of large trees will have similar results. As noted earlier, both log

size and volume per acre removed are critical to the profitability of harvest operations and

lumber manufacturing. These factors, along with the use of higher cost logging systems,

would have a higher risk of not being sold than would the prescriptions in Alternative S1. An

unsold timber sale either delays the accomplishment of restoration objectives or shifts the

restoration work from a timber sale to a service contract, which is generally a higher 

cost option.

These factors raise uncertainty about the timber harvest projections under Alternatives S2 and

S3. However, the amount of timber that is offered for sale and how it is marketed are also key

determinants of how much timber is ultimately sold. Differences in marketing practices

among national forests have shown major differences in timber sale success. Therefore,

different marketing approaches can mitigate the uncertainty associated with timber harvest

projections. There is little uncertainty associated with the volume projected for Alternative

S1; it is based on actual timber harvests and is the result of current marketing practices. 

Most of the

commercially

saleable volume in

the first decade is

expected to come

from the large

amounts of forest

and woodland

restoration work

proposed.

While the total

effect on basinwide production of

timber from

FS/BLM lands

would be relatively

small, there would

be larger or

smaller impacts in

some localized

areas. 
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

28

Forest and Rangeland Restoration Activity Levels

Maintenance and restoration of watersheds and terrestrial habitats constitute a major focus of

Alternatives S2 and S3. Restoration work is expected to provide both biophysical and socioeconomic benefits. Ecosystem structure, function, and process would be anchored and

maintained where already in good shape, and will be strengthened and restored where

degradation has occurred. At the same time, restoration project expenditures would provide

additional employment in local areas.

On-the-ground restoration activities that were not modeled will be identified during the stepdown process through national forest/BLM land use planning, Subbasin Review, EAWS, and

site-specific NEPA analyses. These types of restoration activities include road treatments

(decommissioning, closures, storm proofing, and upgrading), and in-stream and stream

channel improvements.

Forest/Woodland Restoration Activity Levels

Forest and woodland restoration activities that were modeled include planting after timber

harvest and pre-commercial thinning. Expected acres of restoration activity to be carried out

each year over the first decade are displayed for the project area and by RAC/PAC in Table 5. 

Percentage changes in acres from Alternative S1 to Alternatives S2 and S3 are also shown.

The total amount of forest/woodland restoration activity, including both harvest and precommercial thinning, would increase substantially compared to Alternative S1: about 40

percent for Alternative S2 and almost 35 percent for Alternative S3.

Table 5. Acres of Projected Forest/Woodland Restoration Activity 1 by RAC/PAC and Alternative,

Average Annual First Decade, 2 Project Area.

% Change % Change

Alt. S1 Alt. S2 from S1 Alt. S3 from S1

Project Area (FS/BLM Lands)

 RAC/PAC

 Butte 26,300 33,700 28 33,400 27

 Klamath 11,300 14,400 27 14,300 26

 Deschutes 12,600 15,400 22 15,000 19

 John Day-Snake 21,400 38,500 80 35,300 65

 Southeastern Oregon 17,600 26,300 49 23,100 31

 Lower Snake River 6,100 10,200 67 10,200 67

 Upper Snake River 2,100 3,700 76 3,500 67

 Upper Columbia-Salm.Clearw.-R4 19,000 24,200 27 23,700 25

 Eastern Washington 7,300 8,600 18 9,200 26

 Yakima 100 100 0 100 0

 Eastern Washington Cascades 600 1,100 83 1,200 100

 Upper Columbia-Salm.Clearw.-R1 17,300 22,500 30 23,000 33

 Total FS/BLM Lands 141,700 198,600 40 192,000 35

Abbreviations used in this table:

 RAC = Resource Advisory Council FS= Forest Service

 PAC = Provincial Advisory Committee BLM= Bureau of Land Management

1

Includes post-harvest reforestation and pre-commercial thinning.

2Sum of columns may not be equal totals because of rounding.

Project Area = Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands. Source: Crone and Haynes 1999
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

29

With Alternatives S2 and S3, all RAC/PACS would see an increase in acres of

forest/woodland restoration activity compared to Alternative S1. 

Among the RAC/PACS, the changes in harvest or restoration levels from Alternative S1 to

Alternatives S2 and S3 are not consistent in magnitude. Most of the RAC/PACS would

follow the basin-wide pattern of more restoration acres under Alternative S2 than Alternative

S3. However, three of the RAC/PACS have fewer projected restoration acres in Alternative

S2 than Alternative S3. The differences by RAC/PAC between the two action alternatives can

be attributed to differences in locations and sizes of A1/A2 subwatershed areas and riparian

conservation areas by alternative, in conjunction with the difference in focus, amount, and

location of restoration activity. In addition, restoration is distributed across 11 more high

restoration priority subbasins in Alternative S3 than in Alternative S2.

Table 6 shows the planting portion of the total forest/woodland restoration activity for the

project area and by RAC/PAC. Acres to be planted are based on the harvest acres requiring

reforestation, as modeled in CRBSUM. At the basin scale, changes in planting from

Alternative S1 to Alternatives S2 and S3 follow the pattern of the total forest/woodland

restoration activity levels, as well as the pattern of timber harvest volume: both alternatives

would show increases from Alternative S1, but Alternative S2 would show a slightly greater

increase than Alternative S3.

Table 7 shows the pre-commercial thinning portion of the total forest/woodland restoration

activity for the project area and by RAC/PAC. At the basin scale, changes in pre-commercial

thinning from Alternative S1 to Alternatives S2 and S3 would follow the pattern of the total

forest/woodland restoration activity levels: both alternatives would show increases from

Alternative S1. In this case, Alternative S2 would have a significantly larger percentage

increase than Alternative S3, although the numeric difference of just under 4,000 acres basinwide is not as large as the percentage difference might suggest. 

In summary, Alternatives S2 and S3, respectively, would increase planting and precommercial thinning acres similarly. Planting would increase just under 28,000 acres for

Alternative S2 and just over 25,000 acres for Alternative S3. Pre-commercial thinning acres

would increase 29,000 acres in Alternative S2 and just over 25,000 acres for Alternative S3. 

(Note that the percentage changes in pre-commercial thinning acres, as shown in Table 7, are

much larger than for planting acres because they begin with a substantially lower base.)

Rangeland Maintenance and Restoration Activity Levels

Rangeland maintenance and restoration activities are currently occurring (Alternative S1). 

However, under the two action alternatives, acres treated each year in the first decade would

increase, by about nine percent in Alternative S2 and four percent in Alternative S3. 

Rangeland restoration activities may include prescribed burning, weed control, mechanical

treatments, thinning, and seeding. Expected acres of restoration activity to be carried out

each year over the first decade are displayed for the project area and by RAC/PAC in Table 8.

For the basin as a whole, rangeland restoration activity would increase from the no-action

alternative for both Alternatives S2 and S3, with Alternative S2 resulting in about 156,000

acres (or about five percent) more restoration than Alternative S3. 

In general, the changes by RAC/PAC between Alternatives S2 and S3 would follow the same

pattern as the project area as a whole. There is a smaller increase, or larger decrease, for

Alternative S3 than for Alternative S2. The exceptions, both relatively minor, would be the

Klamath and the Upper Snake River RACs.

Maintenance and

restoration of

watersheds and

terrestrial habitats

constitute a major

focus of

Alternatives S2 and

S3. Restoration

work is expected to

provide both

biophysical and

socio-economic

benefits. 
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

30

Table 6. Acres of Projected Post-Harvest Planting Activity 1 by RAC/PAC and Alternative, Average

Annual First Decade, Project Area. 2

% Change % Change

Alt. S1 Alt. S2 from S1 Alt. S3 from S1

Project Area (FS/BLM Lands)

 RAC/PAC

 Butte 17,500 19,400 11 19,100 9

 Klamath 10,000 12,400 24 12,400 24

 Deschutes 10,800 12,600 17 12,600 17

 John Day-Snake 19,600 29,600 51 27,800 42

 Southeastern Oregon 15,300 21,300 39 19,100 25

 Lower Snake River 5,400 7,600 41 8,300 54

 Upper Snake River 1,300 1,400 8 1,400 8

 Upper Columbia-Salm.Clearw.-R4 15,300 18,200 19 17,900 17

 Eastern Washington 5,000 5,000 0 5,400 8

 Yakima 0 100 nc 100 nc

 Eastern Washington Cascades 500 600 20 700 40

 Upper Columbia-Salm.Clearw.-R1 11,300 11,700 4 12,500 11

 Total BLM/FS Lands 112,000 139,900 25 137,200 23

Abbreviations used in this table:

RAC = Resource Advisory Council FS= Forest Service

PAC = Provincial Advisory Committee BLM= Bureau of Land Management

nc = not calculable

1Portion of total forest/woodland restoration activity.

2Sum of columns may not be equal totals because of rounding.

Project Area = Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands. Source: Crone and Haynes 1999.

Table 7. Acres of Projected Pre-commercial Thinning Activity 1 by RAC/PAC and Alternative, Average

Annual First Decade, 2 Project Area 

% Change % Change

Alt. S1 Alt. S2 from S1 Alt. S3 from S1

Project Area (FS/BLM Lands)

 RAC/PAC

 Butte 8,800 14,300 62 14,200 61

 Klamath 1,300 2,000 54 1,900 46

 Deschutes 1,700 2,700 59 2,400 41

 John Day-Snake 1,900 8,900 368 7,600 300

 Southeastern Oregon 2,300 5,000 117 4,000 74

 Lower Snake River 800 2,600 225 2,000 150

 Upper Snake River 800 2,200 175 2,100 163

 Upper Columbia-Salm.Clearw.-R4 3,700 6,100 65 5,900 59)

 Eastern Washington 2,300 3,600 57 3,800 65

 Yakima 0 0 nc 0 0

 Eastern Washington Cascades 100 500 400 500 400

 Upper Columbia-Salm.Clearw.-R1 6,000 10,800 80 10,500 75

 Total FS/BLM Lands 29,800 58,800 97 54,900 84

Abbreviations used in this table:

 RAC = Resource Advisory Council FS= Forest Service

 PAC = Provincial Advisory Committee BLM= Bureau of Land Management

1Portion of total forest/woodland restoration activity.

2Sums of columns may not equal because of rounding.

Project Area = Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands. Source: Crone and Haynes 1999.
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

31

Prescribed Fire and Fuels Management

The current ecological condition of many forested areas in the project area and their increased

susceptibility to uncharacteristic wildfire are significant issues being examined through this

EIS. Both action alternatives propose fuels management, prescribed fire, and wildland fire

management direction to begin to move the condition of these forests toward their historical

conditions. This would provide benefits in terms of reducing the risk of uncharacteristic

wildfire and would promote recovery of terrestrial habitat that has been degraded or lost over

the past century or more.

Expected acres of prescribed fire and fuels management activity each year over the first

decade are displayed for the project area and by RAC/PAC in Table 9. Percentage changes in

acres from Alternative S1 to Alternatives S2 and S3 are also shown.

As can be seen from Table 9, substantial increases are proposed in prescribed fire and fuels

management activities for both action alternatives compared to no-action levels. For the basin

as a whole, Alternative S2 would have about 350,000 acres of treatment per year more than

Alternative S3. The increases would also be substantial on a percentage basis.

Table 8. Acres of Projected Rangeland Maintenance and Restoration Activity by RAC/PAC and

Alternative, Average Annual First Decade,1 Project Area .

% Change % Change

Alt. S1 Alt. S2 from S1 Alt. S3 from S1

Project Area (FS/BLM Lands)

 RAC/PAC

 Butte 85,300 115,100 35 97,600 14

 Klamath 84,400 66,200 -22 66,500 -21

 Deschutes 167,100 144,700 -13 135,900 -19

 John Day-Snake 305,000 377,400 24 349,600 15

 Southeastern Oregon 1,115,200 1,144,200 3 1,092,900 -2

 Lower Snake River 445,600 507,800 14 484,600 9

 Upper Snake River 516,900 539,900 4 550,400 6

 Upper Columbia-Salm.Clearw.-R4 278,600 315,600 13 299,600 8

 Eastern Washington 33,000 54,200 64 47,900 45

 Yakima 900 1,000 11 1,000 11

 Eastern Washington Cascades 9,200 11,500 25 9,700 6

 Upper Columbia-Salm.Clearw.-R1 32,700 61,500 88 47,500 45

 Total FS/BLM Lands 3,074,100 3,339,200 9 3,183,300 4

1Sums of columns may not equal totals because of rounding.

Project Area = Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands.

Abbreviations used in this table:

RAC = Resource Advisory Council FS= Forest Service

PAC = Provincial Advisory Committee BLM= Bureau of Land Management Source: Crone and Haynes 1999.
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

32

Special Forest Products 

The effects of the alternatives on various special forest products—such as mushrooms, berries,

ferns, and boughs—were not estimated. As mentioned in Chapter 2, ‘special forest products’

represents a small but growing industry, estimated already to be producing several hundred

million dollars annually in sales. The demand for these products has been growing rapidly,

from both within and outside the project area.

Several national forests and BLM districts have some management controls on harvesting

some types of special forest products. The same type of varying management direction would

continue under Alternative S1. Alternatives S2 and S3 would apply landscape-scale

ecosystem maintenance and restoration objectives to agency lands throughout the basin. 

Because knowledge of special forest products depends on site-specific information, the effects

of management activities on special forest products will be analyzed at a finer scale during the

step-down process (including land use plan adjustments, Subbasin Review and EAWS, and

project-level NEPA analysis). 

Permitted Mineral and Energy Operations

Broad-scale effects on mineral and energy exploration and development were not estimated

for the EIS and can only be inferred from management direction that could hinder potential

operations.

Standards and guidelines to protect aquatic and riparian areas already in place on most Forest

Service- and BLM-administered lands through PACFISH and INFISH, as well as additional

aquatic and riparian protection under Alternatives S2 and S3, may increase the cost of mining

and energy developments by limiting the location (or requiring relocation) of mining

operations and facilities (such as mill buildings, settling ponds, sanitary and solid waste

Table 9. Projected Acres of Prescribed Fire and Fuels Management, by RAC/PAC and Alternative,

Annual Average First Decade,1 Project Area.

Change from S1 Change from S1

Alt. S1 Alt. S2 Acres % Alt. S3 Acres %

Project Area (FS/BLM Lands)

 RAC/PAC

 Butte 24,400 211,800 187,400 768 200,900 176,500 723

 Klamath 13,100 43,300 30,200 231 37,200 24,200 184

 Deschutes 24,300 79,400 55,100 227 80,200 55,900 230

 John Day-Snake 46,400 484,800 438,400 945 366,500 320,100 690

 Southeastern Oregon 33,900 313,000 279,100 823 182,100 148,100 437

 Lower Snake River 2,600 26,100 23,500 904 10,700 8,200 312

 Upper Snake River 3,500 17,300 13,800 394 18,600 15,100 431

 Upper Columbia-Salm.Clearw.-R4 17,700 98,700 81,000 458 84,800 67,100 379

 Eastern Washington 2,600 33,500 30,900 1,188 26,500 23,900 919

 Yakima 0 100 100 nc 0 0 nc

 Eastern Washington Cascades 800 14,300 13,500 1,688 10,800 10,100 1,250

 Upper Columbia-Salm.Clearw.-R1 11,700 134,200 122,500 1,047 91,400 79,700 681

 Total FS/BLM Lands 181,100 1,456,400 1,275,300 704 1,109,900 928,900 513

1Sums of columns may not equal totals because of rounding.

Project Area = Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands.

Abbreviations used in this table:

RAC = Resource Advisory Council FS= Forest Service

PAC = Provincial Advisory Committee BLM= Bureau of Land Management Source: Crone and Haynes 1999.
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

33

structures, and overburden piles). Alternatives S2 and S3 may require relocating access roads

or changing mine design and operation to avoid impacts on riparian areas. 

Recreation

The prediction in the Draft EISs of future recreation use on Forest Service- and

BLM-administered lands was based on the interaction of supply (the number of acres in each

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum [ROS] class) and demand (human population growth and

demographic change). Little change in distribution of acres among ROS classes was

projected in the short term, and change thereafter was predicted to be modest. Population

growth would be the dominant factor affecting the type and amount of recreation uses during

the next 10 years. In the longer term, demographic changes (especially an aging population)

would become increasingly important.

For the Supplemental Draft EIS, the CRBSUM model predicted almost no change in

distribution of ROS acres across the landscape in the short term. Also, changes in road

conditions, locations, and accessibility—critical to the assessment of recreation supply and

use patterns—were not modeled at this broad scale. Potential effects of objectives and

standards to protect and restore aquatic and riparian habitats, such as those for riparian

conservation areas, could not be modeled at the broad scale because they rely on more siteand condition-specific information. 

Therefore, changes in recreation use were not predicted. Changes in recreation supply and

expected use will be estimated and effects evaluated at the mid scale during the step-down

process (Subbasin Review, EAWS, and land use planning), where more specific information

will be available.

< Model projections indicate that domestic livestock use of forage, as measured by

animal unit months (AUMs), could decline, both basin-wide and by all RAC/PACS

(with one minor exception), in the first decade under either Alternative S2 or

Alternative S3, compared to Alternative S1. The estimated decreases could be 10

percent for Alternative S2 and 11 percent for Alternative S3. Reductions in AUMs

could result indirectly from objectives and standards to be implemented for

watershed and rangeland protection and restoration, as well as directly from the

continued historical trend of contraction of the livestock industry in the basin from

other social, cultural, and economic factors

< Timber harvest levels in the first decade are projected to increase at both the basin

level and by all RAC/PACS as the consequence of implementation of either

Alternative S2 or Alternative S3, compared to Alternative S1. Estimated increases

would be just over 21 percent for Alternative S2 and just under 21 percent for

Alternative S3. Harvest level increases would come primarily from commercial

thinning and other harvest activity designed to promote ecosystem and forest stand

restoration (stewardship harvest). While harvest levels would increase in

Alternatives S2 and S3, the size and quality of logs produced would decrease because

of the stand restoration objectives guiding the thinning and harvest activities. Thus,

there is uncertainty about the actual commercial marketability of the total volume of

wood that is projected for harvest.

< Forest/woodland restoration activity (pre-commercial thinning and planting),

measured in acres treated, would increase substantially in the first decade, by 40

percent for Alternative S2 and 36 percent for Alternative S3, compared to

Alternative S1. There would be a modest increase in rangeland restoration and

maintenance: nine percent for Alternative S2 and four percent for Alternative S3. 

With the focus on reducing forest and range susceptibility to uncharacteristic wildfire

and threats to the urban–rural–wildland interface, there would be large increases in

acres treated by prescribed fire and fuels management in the first decade compared to

Alternative S1: seven-fold for Alternative S2 and five-fold for Alternative S3.

Summary of

Output and

Activity Levels
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

34

< Each of the three alternatives has a certain degree of uncertainty and unpredictability

associated with it. The non-traditional broad-scale outcome-based objectives and

standards in Alternatives S2 and S3—designed to achieve restoration and

maintenance of sustainable ecosystems—have not been operationally tested at this

scale before. Therefore, there is uncertainty about the levels of goods and services

(timber harvest and grazing) that are projected, as well as the effectiveness of the

proposed restoration activities in achieving the desired results. On the other hand,

Alternative S1, with its continuation of varying management direction across the

basin, and no systematic requirements for hierarchical ecosystem analysis (Subbasin

Review or EAWS), also faces uncertainty in implementation. There would continue

to be project-by-project and area-by-area consultation and mitigation requirements

for protection of species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), without

broader scale context. Thus, for Alternative S1, the individual mitigation

requirements may be more varied, and more restrictive in total, than the

management direction, A1/A2/T habitat designations, and restoration focus of

Alternatives S2 and S3. 

Potential Needs for Reprogramming Funds

N

o reprogramming of funds is proposed in fiscal year

2000 to implement any of the decisions anticipated

to be in the project’s Record of Decision (ROD). 

Since there will be no local project-level actions

taken as a result of the project’s ROD in fiscal year 2000,

no reprogramming of funds is needed. 

The management direction in the Supplemental Draft EIS

outlines an approach to the broad-scale identification of

priorities to accomplish an efficient allocation of financial

resources at a relatively modest increase of funding. 

Implementation of the Record of Decision will be financed

through the normal process of federal appropriations from

the Congress. As the federal agencies begin to implement

the decisions, they will request changes in emphasis and

funding through the normal appropriations process. They

may also work to accomplish work through strategies such

as partnerships and volunteers. 

 

The alternatives in the Supplemental Draft EIS were developed under the following budget

estimation principles:

< The cost of the alternatives must be realistic relative to current funding levels for the

land management agencies. The alternatives were designed to accommodate a range

of funding levels so that the Congress can annually assess the costs and benefits of

resource management activities and set an appropriate level of restoration and

management. 

< The alternatives in the Supplemental Draft EIS provide direction for prioritizing

restoration and identifying where to address significant issues within the project area

with limited funding.

Requirement #4 

(4): If the requirements

described in paragraphs (1)

through (3) cannot be

accomplished with the

appropriations provided in

this Act, adjusted only for

inflation, in subsequent

fiscal years and without any

reprogramming of such

appropriations, provide a

detailed description of the

decision-making process

that will be used to establish

priorities in accordance with

such appropriations.

Each of the three

alternatives has a

certain degree of

uncertainty and

unpredictability

associated with it.

Reprogramming Issues
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

35

< The pace of implementation will vary with the amount of funding. However, the

emphasis and strategies of each alternative will remain the same regardless of

funding level.

< The selection of the preferred alternative will be based on its emphasis and strategies

and not on funding levels.

< Funding to address restoration issues will be allocated toward the highest priority

restoration subbasins within the project area. If appropriated by the Congress, this

will occur through the course of administrative decision-making and prioritizing of

the land management agencies. 

< The decision-making process to be used to establish priorities in accordance with

such appropriations is consistent with the internal administrative procedures of the

Forest Service and the BLM. 

Summary Conclusions 

T

he Supplemental Draft EIS was developed to provide a long-term, comprehensive

strategy for managing public lands in the interior Columbia River Basin by addressing

the critical, broad-scale forest and rangeland health, aquatic and terrestrial species, and

social and economic issues facing the region. These issues are difficult to address

effectively on an individual national forest or BLM district level. The direction in the

project’s Record of Decision will provide these administrative units with policy and plans to

more effectively address and resolve these issues. 

The nature of the project’s Record of Decision (ROD) is described in this report, along with a

general characterization of the types of land and resource management policy and planning

decisions to be made when 62 land use plans are updated by the ROD. Since the project’s

purpose and need is to provide broad-scale direction to guide federal land management in the

project area, there are no local, project-level decisions identified in the Supplemental Draft

EIS, and none are planned to be made in the Project’s ROD. Direction from the ROD will

influence and inform the types of decisions made at the local level. 

No new formal decision-making structure will result from the project’s Record of Decision. 

The project’s ROD will most likely include increased analysis processes to assist local

managers in making ecosystem-based decisions that take into account the risk to resources at

various scales. The standard Forest Service and BLM organizational structure, field

managers’ decision-making structure, and administrative methodologies for allocating funds

and establishing priorities will continue to be used, although all may be influenced by

additional information provided by the broad-scale information and analysis of the final EIS. 

Implementation cost estimates were made in the Supplemental Draft EIS. Assumptions were

made to guide the analysis of effects in Chapter 4 of the Supplemental Draft EIS. Since no

project-level decisions are planned to be made in the ROD, the estimates of costs for these

types of decisions are not known at this time. Estimates of the costs of activities, analysis,

and other implementation actions will be developed over time by the Forest Service and the

BLM through the normal processes of budget development and budget justification.

The estimated production of goods and services by RAC and PAC in the project area is

provided and discussed. In general, timber harvests are projected to increase at both the basin

level and by RAC/PAC area as a consequence of implementation of restoration activities in

Alternatives S2 and S3. Model projections indicate that domestic livestock use of forage

could decline. Forest and woodland restoration activity would increase substantially in the

first decade, up to as much as 40 percent in some cases. Rangeland restoration activity could

increase modestly, up to approximately 9 percent.

No reprogramming of funds would be called for in the ROD. Implementation budget

appropriations will be requested from the Congress through the normal processes of budget

development and budget justification for the Forest Service and the BLM.

The Supplemental

Draft EIS was

developed to

provide a longterm,

comprehensive

strategy for

managing public

lands in the

interior Columbia

River Basin by

addressing the

critical, broadscale forest and

rangeland health,

aquatic and

terrestrial species,

and social and

economic issues

facing the region. 
This page was left blank intentionally.
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

References - 1

Literature Cited

Crone, L. K.; and Haynes, R. W. 1999. Draft socioeconomic evaluation of the EIS

alternatives (November 1999 draft). In Draft Science Advisory Group effects analysis for the

SDEIS alternatives, internal working draft, Quigley, T. M., tech.ed. Unpublished draft report

available from the Interior Columbia Basin Management Project, Boise, Idaho.

Horne, A. L.; and Haynes, R.W. 1999. Developing measures of socioeconomic resiliency in

the Interior Columbia Basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-453. Portland, Oregon: USDA

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 41 p.

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project [ICBEMP]. 1998. Economic and

social conditions of communities: Economic and social characteristics of interior Columbia

Basin communities and an estimation of effects on communities from the alternatives of the

Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin Draft Environmental Impact Statements. 

BLM/OR/WA/PT-98/006-1792. Portland, Oregon: USDI Bureau of Land Management.

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project [ICBEMP]. 1999. Ecosystem

review at the subbasin scale (subbasin review): A guide for mid-scale ecosystem inquiry. 

Draft August 1999, Version 1.0. 2 vols. Boise, Idaho: Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project.

Quigley, T. M., tech. ed. 1999. Draft Science Advisory Group effects analysis for the SDEIS

alternatives. Internal working draft, June 25, 1999. Unpublished draft report available from

the Interior Columbia Basin Management Project, Boise, Idaho.

Quigley, T. M; and Arbelbide, S. J., tech. eds. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem

components in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great basins. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. 4 vols. Portland, Oregon: USDA Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 2008 p.

Quigley, T. M.; Haynes, R. W.; and Graham, R. T., tech eds. 1996. An integrated scientific

assessment for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia Basin including portions of

the Klamath and Great basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-382. Portland, Oregon: USDA

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 303 p. 

Reyna, N. E. 1998. Economic and social characteristics of communities in the Interior

Columbia Basin. In Economic and social conditions of communities, ICBEMP. 

BLM/OR/WA/PT-98/006-1792. Portland, Oregon: USDI Bureau of Land Management. 

U. S. Department of the Interior [USDI], Bureau of Land Management [BLM]. 1994. 

Rangeland reform ‘94: Final environmental impact statement. Prepared in cooperation with

USDA Forest Service. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. 201 p.

U. S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest Service; and U.S. Department of the

Interior [USDI], Bureau of Land Management [BLM]. 1997a. Eastside draft environmental

impact statement. 2 vols. BLM/OR/WA-PL-96-O37+1792. Walla Walla, Washington:

Interior Columbia Basin Management Project.

Literature Cited and Other

References
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

References - 2

U. S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest Service; and U.S. Department of the Interior

[USDI], Bureau of Land Management [BLM]. 1997b. Upper Columbia River Basin draft

environmental impact statement. 2 vols. BLM/ID-PT-96-021+1610. Boise, Idaho: Interior

Columbia Basin Management Project.

Other Selected References

Crone, L. K.; and Haynes, R. W. In press. Revised estimates for direct effect recreation jobs

in the Interior Columbia River Basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-xxx. Portland, Oregon:

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Frewing-Runyon, L. 1995. Importance and dependency of the livestock industry on federal

lands in the Columbia River Basin, 1995. [draft] Unpublished report on file with the Interior

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Boise, Idaho.

Harris, C.; Brown, G.; and McLaughlin, B. 1996. Rural communities in the inland

northwest—Characteristics of small towns in the interior and upper Columbia River basins,

an assessment of the past and present. Unpublished report on file with the Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Boise, Idaho. 348 p.

Haynes, R. W.; and Horne, A. L. 1997. Economic assessment of the basin. In An assessment

of ecosystem components in the Interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and

Great basins, Quigley, T. M. and Arbelbide S. J.,tech. eds., pp. 1715–1869. Vol. IV. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, Oregon: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station.

McGinnis, W. J.; and Christensen, H. H. 1996. The Interior Columbia Basin: Patterns of

population, employment and income change. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-358. Portland,

Oregon: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 43 p. 

Schlosser, W. E.; and Blatner, K. A. 1994. The wild edible mushroom industry of Idaho,

Oregon, and Washington: A 1992 survey of processors. Unpublished report. Portland,

Oregon: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 26 p.
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

Glossary - 1

Refers to one of the components of the ICBEMP aquatic–riparian–hydrologic strategy. These

areas provide a system of core subwatersheds that are the anchor for recovery and viability of

widely distributed native fishes. Both A1 and A2 subwatersheds include important fish

populations of one or more of the following: known strong populations for the seven key

salmonids; important anadromous fish populations in the Snake River Basin; genetically pure

populations of anadromous fish outside the Snake River Basin; and fringe populations for four

of the key salmonids. A1 and A2 subwatersheds differ in their definition and their

management direction, as described in Chapter 3 of the Supplemental Draft EIS. 

Area designated for the use of a certain number and kind of livestock for a prescribed period

of time.

The amount of feed or forage required by one animal unit (one mature cow of approximately

1,000 pounds, either dry or with calf up to 6 months of age, or their equivalent [one horse,

five domestic sheep]) grazing on a pasture for one month.

(1) In general, the area of land that drains water, sediment, and dissolved materials to a

common point along a stream channel. River basins are composed of large river systems. (2)

In this report, the term refers to the equivalent of a 3rd-field hydrologic unit code, an area of

about nine million acres, such as the Salmon River Basin. It also is used to refer to the

interior Columbia River Basin assessment area (both Forest Service- and BLM-administered

lands and other ownerships) as defined in the Scientific Assessment (Quigley and 

Arbelbide 1997). 

(1) An active, affirmative process that (a) identifies issues and seeks input from appropriate

American Indian governments, community groups, and individuals; and (b) considers their

interests as a necessary and integral part of the BLM*s and Forest Service*s decision-making

process. (2) The federal government has a legal obligation to consult with American Indian

tribes. This legal obligation is based in such laws as Native American Graves Protection and

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), and

numerous other executive orders and statutes. This legal responsibility is, through

consultation, to consider Indian interests and account for those interests in the decision. (3)

The term also refers to a requirement under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for

federal agencies to consult with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine

Fisheries Service with regard to federal actions that may affect listed threatened and

endangered species or critical habitat.

Columbia River Basin Successional Model, developed by the ICBEMP Science Integration

Team to simulate landscape conditions and trends in the project area.

Refers to events that alter the structure, composition, or function of terrestrial or aquatic

habitats. Natural disturbances include, among others, drought, floods, wind, fires, wildlife

grazing, and insects and diseases. Human-caused disturbances include, among others, actions

such as timber harvest, livestock grazing, roads, and the introduction of exotic species.

A community whose employment in one or more industry groups (for example, agriculture,

mining, construction, or manufacturing), as a percentage of total community employment, is

greater than the same percentage for the economic subregion in which the community is

located. For instance, if the jobs in a particular industry group in the economic subregion

make up 5 percent of total employment, but the jobs in the local community in that industry

Glossary

A1/A2 subwatershed

Allotment (grazing)

Animal Unit Month

(AUM)

Basin

Consultation

CRBSUM

Disturbance

Economically specialized

community
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

Glossary - 2

 account for 10 percent of total community employment, the community would be considered

economically specialized in that industry. (See Reyna 1998 for more detail on determining

economic specialization.)

A complete, interacting system of living organisms and the land and water that make up their 

environment; the home places of all living things, including humans.

A condition where the parts and functions of an ecosystem are sustained over time and where

the system*s capacity for self-repair is maintained, such that goals for uses, values, and

services of the ecosystem are met.

Refers to the properties, distribution, and effects of water. Hydrology refers to the broad

science of the waters of the earth—their occurrence, circulation, distribution, chemical and

physical properties, and their reaction with the environment.

Interim Inland Native Fish Strategy for the Forest Service's Intermountain, Northern, and

Pacific Northwest Regions

A term that applies to losses of production or commitment of renewable natural resources. 

For example, while an area is used as a ski area, some or all of the timber production there is

irretrievably lost. If the ski area closes, timber production could resume; therefore, the loss of

timber production during the time the area is devoted to skiing is irretrievable but not

irreversible, because it is possible for timber production to resume if the area is no longer used

as a ski area.

A term that applies to non-renewable resources, such as minerals and archaeological sites. 

Losses of these resources cannot be reversed. Irreversible effects can also refer to effects of

actions on resources that can be renewed only after a very long period of time, such as the loss

of soil productivity.

A community located more than 35 to 50 miles from any town with a population greater than

9,000. Communities with populations between about 1,900 and 9,000 are referred to as

“isolated trade centers.” (See Reyna 1998 for additional details on how isolated communities

were specified.)

A process of collecting information to evaluate whether or not objectives of a project and its

mitigation plan are being realized. Monitoring allows detection of undesirable and desirable

changes so that management actions can be modified or designed to achieve desired goals and

objectives while avoiding adverse effects on ecosystems.

A plant species designated by federal or state law as generally possessing one or more of the

following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or host of

serious insects or disease; or non-native, new, or not common to the United States. According

to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-639), a noxious weed is one that causes disease or

has other adverse effects on man or his environment and therefore is detrimental to the

agriculture and commerce of the United States and to the public health.

In this report and the Supplemental Draft EIS, indicates short-term (10 years or less) and/or

long-term (longer than 10 years) outcome(s) that is (are) expected or desired. Objectives are

more specific than goals, and they focus primarily on conditions or processes we are trying to

achieve or prevent rather than on specific actions or restrictions. Whenever possible, time

periods expected to attain the outcome are specified.

Interim Strategies for Managing Pacific Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern

Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California.

Intentional use of fire under specified conditions to achieve specific management objectives. 

Ecosystem

Ecosystem health

Hydrologic

INFISH

Irretrievable commitment

Irreversible commitment

Isolated community

Monitoring

Noxious weed

Objective (management)

PACFISH

Prescribed fire
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

Glossary - 3

In this report and the Supplemental Draft EIS, refers to Forest Service- and

BLM-administered lands to which decisions in the ICBEMP Record of Decision will apply. It

encompasses both the Eastside and UCRB planning areas as described in the Draft EISs,

minus the areas excluded from the decision space (see the Project Area section in Chapter 1 of

the Supplemental Draft EIS).

Resource Advisory Council/Provincial Advisory Committee. Resource advisory councils

(RACs) were established by the BLM to provide a forum for non-federal partners to engage in

discussion with agency managers regarding management of federal lands. Provincial

advisory committees (PACs) were established by the Forest Service, under the Northwest

Forest Plan, to provide a forum for non-federal groups and individuals to advise and make

recommendations to agency land managers regarding management of federal lands.

The degree to which the integrity of the soil and the ecological processes of rangeland

ecosystems are sustained. 

Holistic actions taken to modify an ecosystem to achieve desired, healthy, and functioning

conditions and processes. Generally refers to the process of enabling the system to resume

acting or continue to act following disturbance as if the disturbances were absent. Restoration

management activities can be either active (such as control of noxious weeds, thinning of

over-dense stands of trees, or redistributing roads) or more passive (more restrictive,

hands-off management direction that is primarily conservation oriented).

Delineated areas that encompass riparian ecosystems (transition areas between terrestrial and

aqatic ecosystems). Management activities in RCAs will be governed by ICBEMP objectives,

standards, and guidelines when the Record of Decision is signed.

The capacity of a soil to produce plant growth, due to the soil*s chemical, physical, and

biological properties (such as depth, temperature, water-holding capacity, and mineral,

nutrient, and organic matter content). 

In this report and the Supplemental Draft EIS, refers to required action, priority, process, or

prescription that addresses how to achieve one or more objective(s). Standards can include

restrictions on or prohibitions from taking an action in certain situations. Compliance with

standards is mandatory.

In this report and the Supplemental Draft EIS, refers to the process of applying broad-scale

science findings and land use decisions to site-specific areas using a hierarchical approach of

understanding current resource conditions, risks, and opportunities.

A drainage area of approximately 800,000 to 1,000,000 acres, equivalent to a 4th-field

hydrologic unit code (HUC). Hierarchically, subwatersheds (6th-field HUC) are contained

within a watershed (5th-field HUC); watersheds in turn are contained within a subbasin

(4th-field HUC). This concept is shown graphically in Chapter 2 in the Supplemental Draft

EIS.

A drainage area of approximately 20,000 acres, equivalent to a 6th-field Hydrologic Unit

Code (HUC). Hierarchically, subwatersheds (6th-field HUC) are contained within a

watershed (5th-field HUC); watersheds in turn are contained within a subbasin (4th-field

HUC). This concept is shown graphically in Chapter 2 of the Supplemental Draft EIS.

A predictable process of changes in structure and composition of plant and animal

communities over time. Conditions of the prior plant community or successional stage create

conditions that are favorable for the establishment of the next stage. The different stages in

succession are often referred to as seral stages.

Cooperative actions such that the total effect is greater than the sum of the effects taken

independently. 

RAC/PAC

Rangeland health

Restoration

Riparian conservation

area (RCA)

Soil productivity

Standard (management)

Step-down

Subbasin

Subwatershed

Succession

Synergism (synergistic)

Project area
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

Glossary - 4

Refers to the procedure of incorporating by reference the analyses of an environmental impact

statement (EIS) of broader scope. For example, a Forest Service project-level EIS could tier

to the analysis in a forest plan EIS; a forest plan EIS could tier to a regional guide EIS.

Terrestrial T watersheds (5th-field HUCs) identified by the EIS Team based on whether they

contained source habitat for one or more of five “Families” of terrestrial species. These five

Families represent groups of species associated with habitats that have declined substantially

in the project area since the historical period. In addition, the pattern of source habitats

within these watersheds is most similar to that found historically. T watersheds alone do not

constitute a network of habitats for terrestrial species; however, they represent one piece of the

overall strategy to maintain and restore networks of habitat for terrestrial species.

(1) The region draining into a river, river system, or body of water. (2) In this report and the

Supplemental Draft EIS, a watershed also refers specifically to a drainage area of

approximately 50,000 to 100,000 acres, which is equivalent to a 5th-field Hydrologic Unit

Code (HUC). Hierarchically, subwatersheds (6th-field HUC) are contained within a

watershed (5th-field HUC); watersheds in turn are contained within a subbasin (4th-field

HUC). This concept is shown graphically in Chapter 2 in the Supplemental Draft EIS.

Watershed

Tier

T watershed
Report to the Congress on the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

Preparers - 1

The following Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

personnel contributed to the preparation of: Report to the Congress on the

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project:

Susan Giannettino,

Project Manager

Boise, Idaho

Geoff Middaugh,

Deputy Project Manager

Walla Walla, Washington

Andy Brunelle

Communications Team Leader

Boise, Idaho

Kathy Campbell

Public Affairs Specialist

Walla Walla, Washington

Mary Carr

Technical Writer-Editor

Olympia, Washington

Chris Hansen-Murray

Economist

Mountlake Terrace, Washington

Deanna Mendiola

Adminstration Team Leader

Boise, Idaho

Shari Whitwell

Computer Specialist

Boise, Idaho

List of Preparers