CHAPTER 6 

An Estimate of the 

Social Consequences 

of Alternatives in the 

Eastside and Upper 

Columbia River Basin 

Preliminary Draft 

Environmental Impact 

Statements 

James A. Burchfield 

Stewart D. Alien 

Stephen E McCooI 
James A. Burchfield, Sociologist, U.S. Forest Service, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project, Walla Walla, Washington

Stewart D. Allen, Sociologist, U.S. Forest Service, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project, Walla Walla, Washington

Stephen F. McCool, Social Scientist, U.S. Forest Service, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project, Walla Walla, Washington

788 Social
TABLE OF 

CONTENTS 

Introduction 

Methodology 

Evaluation Variables 

Evaluation Process 

Estimates of Social Consequences 

Effects on Predictability 

Criteria 

Relevant objectives and standards 

Results 

Monitoring mad mitigation 

Effects on Access to Decision-Making 

Criteria 

Relevant objectives and standards 

Results 

Monitoring and mitigation 

Effects on Private Lands 

Criteria 

Relevant objectives and standards 

Results 

Monitoring and mitigation 

Effects on Communities and Quality of Life 

Jobs and income 

Payments to counties 

Recreation and access to public lands 

Scenery 

Community resiliency 

763 

764 

764 

765 

767 

767 

767 

768 

769 

769 

770 

77O 

770 

771 

772 

772 

773 

773 

773 

774 

775 

775 

776 

777 

778 

779 

Social 
762 Social

Results 779

Monitoring and mitigation 784

Effects of Alternatives on American Indian Tribes 785

Trust responsibilities 786

Access to public lands 787

Quality of water and land 788

Opportunities for economic growth 789

Culturally significant plant and animal communities 790

Air quality 790

Places 791

Monitoring and mitigation 792

Conclusions 792

Acknowledgements 795

References 796

Appendix 6-A. List of panel participants 799

Appendix 6-B. ROS, Scenic integrity and road density classes soi
Social 763

Introduction

^^^^^^^•IM^^HIHIIHIHBH^^^^^^^^^HBHH^^^^^MHHMHHHHKi^H^Kftfiit' - n

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Manage- text for interpreting their comments. The main secment Project (ICBEMP) is a combined science and tion of the report is the evaluation of consequences,

management effort of the Forest Service (FS) and organized by the evaluation criteria. A short conBureau of Land Management (BLM). The project elusions section provides direction for future

developed two large-scale Environmental Impact efforts. In addition, the report contains detailed

Statements (EISs) in two planning areas called the descriptions of the panel process, notes taken durEastside (EEIS) and Upper Columbia River Basin ing the panels, workbooks completed by panelists,

(UCRB). The Eastside area covers lands adminis- and written information provided panelists to help

tered by the Forest Service or BLM in eastern Ore- guide their judgments. Most of the information in

gon and Washington, while the UCRB area covers diis chapter is extracted from that report,

lands in nearly all of Idaho, western Montana, and „. „ ,

small portions of adjacent states. The EISs were

 The

.

 Boll

.

e Cf.nt

.

er

 reports authors state that

written in response to a variety of complex and

 read"s should be aware

 ^fl**" dlj

cus

j

slon

 °f .

controversial situations on these federally adminis- social consequences should be considered prelimitered lands, including declines in forest health, nary because little of the information essential in

increasing scarcity of anadromous and inland cold- predicting social consequences was available at

water fisheries, rangeland reform, increasing risk of

 the

 «me of their involvement Additional mformai- c j L • i j • tion on impacts and outputs from the other SI 1 catastrophic fire, and the social and economic con- \ • r \ • / • • i

sequences of these conditions. The EISs describe evaluations of alternatives (economics, terrestrial,

seven alternatives, five of which are approaches to aquatics landscape ecology) would be needed

i before changes in those systems could be translated

implementing ecosystem management. . n- , , • , ^ • , into effects on people and social systems. Even with

The project's Science Integration Team (SIT) evalu- the availability of additional information, however,

ated die consequences of these alternatives as estimating the effects of the alternatives on people

defined in the Preliminary Draft Environmental and social systems was hampered by lack of inforImpact Statements (EISs) (USDA, USDI 1996a, mation on how, when, where, and by whom eco1996b).' The ICBEMP contracted with The Bolle system management activities on public lands

Center for People and Forests, University of Mon- would take place. The ICBEMP s large scope and

tana, to conduct an evaluation of die social conse- scale, in addition to the programmatic nature of

quences of the alternatives. The contract report, the decisions to be made, prevented accurate estiavailable to die public as part of the project record,2

 mation of many effects that are commonly

begins by discussing the framework used to assess addressed in social impact assessments at smaller

social consequences, followed by the criteria used to scales of analysis. Public comment on the project's

evaluate the alternatives and a description of the Draft EISs' should provide additional insight and

panel process conducted for die evaluation. An data on peoples' expectations and perceptions

overview of the panels' conclusions provides con- regarding likely social effects.

'Analysis of the seven alternatives is based on the definitions found in the preliminary draft version of the Environmental Impact

Statements (February 1996). Detailed information cited in this chapter pertaining to the Preliminary Draft EISs is reproduced in

appendix I of this document.

2The Bolle Center for People and Forests contract report (Burchfield and others 1996), on file with: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project, 112 E. Poplar, Walla Walla, WA 99362.

3The Draft Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin Environmental Impact Statements are slated to be released to the public for

comment in 1997.
The first section of this chapter summarizes meth- impacts. Focus groups and expert opinion were

ods used to evaluate the social consequences of two methods specifically identified as appropriate

the alternatives, including the evaluation variables or recommended tools for examining all 13 variused and the evaluation process (how the social ables listed in table 6.1.

panels explored likely social effects of the alterna- _. „ „ . . .

tives). The second portion of this chapter presents ^he Forest F^ystem Management Assessment

the results organized by evaluation criterion.

 Team

 <FEMAT) (1993>

 examined the conse

-

Suggested strategies for monitoring social effects ^ue^

es of

 £? management options in response to

are also included in each "Results" section. problems of Pacific Northwest National Forests.

1 he social assessment focused on impacts or the

mm . m ^m m _-*_. options on communities, American Indians, recre-

"•'**••***•Wlffgy ation opportunities, scenery, amenities, and subsisThe social evaluation of alternatives was guided by

 tence

-

 A maJor

 conclusion of the assessment was

recent literature on social impact assessment and

 that

 "communities desire stability, predictability

review of major issues confronting BLM- and FS-

 and

 certainty (FEMAT 1993)." In addition, it was

administered lands within the Basin.4 While the reported that "communities feel they are not a part

scientific and technical literature is increasingly

 of

 decisions that affect their well-being; they want

extensive, it indicates that social impact assess- agencies to be more responsive to their concerns

ment processes should use a variety of information (FEMAT 1993)." These conclusions point to the

sources and consider certain dimensions of human

 need to

 consider impacts of Federal land manageexperience. This section describes the frame-

 ment

 options on community viability and access

work, criteria, and methods used to evaluate the

 to federal

 decision-making processes,

alternatives. jn implementing the recommendations of

t

 . •»/• • i_i FEMAT, its accompanying Final Supplemental

Evaluation Variables EIS (FEMAT 1994) also completed an assessment

The literature on large-scale, programmatic, EIS,

 of imPacf «> the human

 population That analysocial evaluation variables could not be described

 s? Deluded quantitative estimates of impacts to

as voluminous. In the limited number of analyses timber-based employment, but did not address

that have been conducted, the evaluation tends to recreation-based industry employment,

be qualitative and not quantitative because data Consideration was given to the impacts to cornand modeling techniques, particularly with respect rnumties judged to be at higher risk and more

to direct social effects, are not available. The liter-

 llkel

y

 to

 experience unemployment, increased

ature, however, does suggest the types of variables P0^' ^TM^. ^rupuon m the absence of

that should be evaluated in a broad-scale social assistance. The Final Supplemental EIS also

impact assessment. examined impacts to American Indian peoples

and cultures, particularly with respect to impacts

Jakes and Harms (1995) conducted a roundtable of disturbance on fisheries and cultural sites.

to assess the socioeconomic effects of implement- -TM i- T- • i ^ • i A i • i l l 1 h e rorest Service Economic an d Social Analysis

ing ecosystem management throughout the ., . . ., .c ' XT • i c A c u- • Handbook (FSH 1909.17) also identifies a num- National forest system. As part of this exercise, , r • 11 i • i \ \ \

they identified 13 key impact variables, which ber of variables to be included when assessing

they grouped into six classes (table 6.1). Round- social impacts. These variables include lifestyles,

table participants also made recommendations for

 attlt

,

udes> beliefs and

 values, social organization

appropriate use of a variety of tools to assess (including community stability), population,

The Basin is defined as those portions of the Columbia River basin inside the United States east of the crest of the Cascades and

those portions of the Klamath River basin and the Great Basin in Oregon.

764 Social
land-use patterns, and civil rights. This handbook Evaluation PfOCCSS

also specifies that "the concern is not whether data

are quantitative or qualitative in nature but with The principal method used by the Bolle Center to

the direction of the impact (as opposed to the evaluate impacts was the use of panels consisting

increment)." of members of the public selected to represent the

diversity of values and interests potentially affectPerceptions of the participants in the social panels, ecj by the proposed alternatives. In addition,

as described below, and the literature, and the EIS members representing many American Indian

scoping sessions were used to develop the list of tribes with interests in natural resources also

variables used to evaluate the alternatives. The SIT formed a panel to examine the alternatives. Two

proposed a set of criteria involving communities, of the paneis focused on each of the EIS planning

recreation and scenery, and quality of life as start- ^eas [Eastside (EEIS) and Upper Columbia River

ing points for discussion of effects. The social pan- Basin (UCRB)] and the third panel focused on

els (described in detail in the next section) validat- American Indian issues. The evaluation and dised several criteria, rejected some, and added still cussions of these three panels provided the priothers in the development of a final set of vari- marV)

 but not the sole, source of social impacts

ables. This process was conducted specifically to data.

identify the issues considered important to the

panelists: (1) effects on small, rural communities Panel participants included members of affected

and quality of life; (2) effects on predictability of public groups, consultants, academic scientists,

flows of goods and services from public lands; (3) sociologists, state agency representatives, county

effects on public access to federal decision making; commissioners, representatives from various pub-

(4) effects on private property; and (5) effects on lie land management industries, and members of

additional concerns specific to American Indians.

 l4

 American Indian tribes (see appendix 6-A for a

The section "Estimates of Social Consequences" "st of panel members),

discusses each of these variables in greater detail. Jhe pands were designed ^ provi(k ^ Bolle

Center with an understanding of the types of

Table 6.1. Types of socioeconomic variables of interest for evaluation when implementing ecosystem

management.

Variable Class Variable

Impacts on the Economy Employment

Economic Health

Economic Structure/Activity

Impacts on Recreation and Aesthetics Recreation/Aesthetics

Amenity Values

Impacts on Social and Cultural Quality of Life

Social Vitality/Stability

Impacts on Forest Products Timber Product Outputs

Non-timber Product Outputs

Impacts on Management Participatory Planning

Leadership in Management

Economic Efficiency

Impacts on Ecosystem Health and Productivity Ecosystem Health and Productivity

Source: Jakes and Harms 1995.

Social 785
social effects likely to result from implementation processes) tended to be effects that were not easy

of the preliminary draft EIS alternatives from the to quantify,

standpoints of a broad ranee of people and inter- ...

ests who care about the Basin and public land

 Two

 Pnm^ f f mP

n

,

ons mh?,ent

 «°

 the

 Panel

L

management. Panel members were asked to make Process were: ^ Pane[}

sts could

 understand each

individual evaluations regarding the desirability of Alternative and its implications, and (2) budget to

those anticipated effects, and then to discuss them "npkm«u each alternative would be provided,

with other panel members. The intent was not to «^1 for nmber harves«

n

g

 when

 * flat-line budhave panelists reach any type of consensus regard- Set

 ^TM?"00 was used-

ing likely effects or their acceptability, but instead Effects identified in the social analysis of the alterto become better acquainted with a range of atti- natives have high levels of uncertainty, primarily

tudes, beliefs, and values regarding the alternatives because the EISs cover a broad geographic scope,

and their social effects. The resulting discussions, vet project implementation that results in specific

as shown in the Bolle Center report transcripts, outcomes would be applied on a local level,

provide great insight into peoples' concerns. Information on implementation was not available,

Several days prior to convening the panel, partici- resulting in much uncertainty in panelists' evalupants were provided informational briefings

 atl

,

ons

 ff dividual alternatives. Panelists

describing the purpose and the need for the EISs,

 b

,

elieved that'he methods used

.

to lmPleme/« the

the proposed ICBEMP action, descriptions of alternative objectives were as critical to undereach of the seven alternatives, and summaries of

 st*ndm& social

 Consequences as the objectives

additional information. Panelists also were given emse ves.

two chapters from McCool and others (in press) The SIT recognized that panel participants may

(one dealing with communities, and the other have difficulty attaining an understanding of the

with environmentally-based amenities) that project subject matter at a level that would enable

included appropriate scientific literature, and pri- them fully to judge outcomes given the short perimary and secondary data. They also received pri- od of time allowed. Considering this, the panel

mary data on changes in recreation opportunities, process effectively narrowed the scope of concerns

road densities, scenic integrity, timber volume, into a defined set of issues and provided insight

grazing animal unit months (AUMs), and associ- into perceptions and values held by stakeholders,

ated jobs for review prior to convening the panel This was considered invaluable to the SIT, which

(The Bolle Center report appendices contain the has the final responsibility for judgments on

complete set of information provided to panelists; outcomes.

Burchfield and others 1996).

In addition to information from the panel process,

As part of the panel's working process, partici- the results discussed below were derived from the

pants were requested to complete workbooks con- draft version of the economic and social assesscerning each of the alternatives; questions were ments

 (Haynes and Home, in press; McCool and

based on the original evaluation criteria. Once others, in press) in An Assessment of Ecosystem

each panel commenced, the agenda was modified Components in the Interior Columbia River Basin

based on panelists' concerns. They established per- and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins

sonal concerns of importance and qualitatively (Quigley and Arbelbide, in press) and data outidentified an array of potential social impacts, puts

 produced from computer simulations of the

doing their best to identify the range of probable alternatives dealing with scenic integrity, road densocial impacts rather than precisely quantifying ^ ^J recreation opportunities,

them. Issues that panel participants identified as

important (for example, access to decision-making

788 Social
EstilHfltGS Of SOCidl variables such as annual sale quantity (ASQ),

ConSOdllAnCeS which has been viewed by the Forest Service as a

maximum capability but by others as an actual

This section identifies potential social conse- target, have compounded the issue.

quences of the alternatives, both in terms of _ . n r .

c I- j i i i i- Random, fluctuating patterns or outputs and conresponses rrom panelists an d through th e applica- .. . ii-i f -i

.

 r

 r i -i 11 • r • n • i dmons on public lands can pose many social

tion or other available information, Potential ..

 r

 . r . .

 f

. ,,-,., .

. , j • j • • problems not ust tor industries and their ability

social consequences are presented via descriptions

 r

 . . ' . ... , r

r ufu i . . . ., TJU U to plan and adapt to market conditions, but ror

or each or the evaluation criteria identified by the

 r

. . ,

r

 ~. 1^, 1 i

• workers and others arrected. Ranchers who graze

' cattle on Federal lands have come to view allotFffiprt* «n Piwlirtahilitv

 ments as a Pr

°Pertv rig

ht' suggesting that high

fcttects on 1 readability levels of predictability come with this right.

The predictability of flows of goods and services However, others have suggested that this is not an

resulting from the alternatives is an issue apart accurate perception, and that allotments should

from the actual periodic amount of goods and ser- be more flexible. Recreation industries and visitors

vices that would be provided under each alterna-

 are

 also concerned about predictability. Outfitting

tive. This is an issue for ecosystem management in

 an^ guiding industries depend on Federal manparticular for two main reasons. First, ecosystem agement to allow their businesses to continue,

management recognizes that limits to predictabili-

 botrl in terms

 of their ability to use Federal lands

ty exist (Haynes and others 1996); this acknowl-

 as weU as the

 conditions of those lands. Recreaedgment then raises into question the ability to «onal visitors assume that the places they have

predict flows of goods and services from those always visited and cared about on Federal lands

ecosystems accurately. Second, ecosystem manage- will continue to provide the types of experiences

ment is based on the principle of managing to

 the7 have had in the

 P3". sometimes for

achieve desired ecosystem conditions, functions, generations.

and processes—not to achieve targeted levels of Predictability is also an important concern to

goods and services, which are viewed as byprod- American Indians, who have seen subsistence, ritucts of restoring and maintaining healthy ecosys- ^ and ^^ resources dwindle and in

terns. Ecosystem management deals with these SQme ca$es be diminated Aether. Panelists repissues through adaptive management-continual resenting counties expressed concerns about the

adjustment of management activities based on predictability of payments to counties through

newly acquired knowledge. This continual adjust- yarious revenue.sharing programs-money used

ment implies a lack of long-torn predictabihty b loca, ernments to n roads and

regarding flows of goods and services, as well as schook A kck of predictability in pavments to

ecosystem conditions. counties, as well as a drop in the actual payment

These, and other factors such as recent wide flue- level, has been and will continue to be a problem

tuations in flows of goods and services, emphasize

 for

 those counties that depend on revenue sharing

the importance of predictability as an ecosystem

 for

 significant portions of their budgets,

management issue. This is reflected in the purpose Critefia _ There afe many way$ tQ addfess

and need issues, and goal statements in the pre- dictability of natural resource flow or availability,

hmmary draft Environmental Impact Statements. The variability in the supply of dmber or other

During the ICBEMP, the issue of predictability resource commodities being extracted from

has been voiced by diverse interests, although the Federal lands is one way to address predictability,

issue is most commonly brought up in the context Increased levels and types of opportunities for

of timber harvest levels. Past confusions about public involvement provide another manner of

Social 767
addressing predictability. The rationale behind tables 3-12 (Guideline SE-G16

). Limit annual

this assumes that stakeholders, working in concert variations in timber production by no more

widi die agencies over time, will come to com- than plus or minus 15 percent for Alternatives

mon understandings regarding the likelihood that 3 and 5, plus or minus 25 percent for

various activities will actually be implemented. Alternative 4, plus or minus 50 percent for

For example, timber industry representatives Alternative 7, and plus 10 or minus 20 perwould gain a better understanding of the likeli- cent for Alternative 6.

hood that a given timber sale would be appealed, .

and could work with the agency and potential

 T^e

 Accompanying Standard SE-S1 mandates

appellants to reduce this likelihood. achieving this direction unless an exemption is

granted from the Regional Foresters or Bureau or

A third way to address predictability of resource Land Management State Director based on "cirflow is through the various measures proposed to cumstances which make the objective "unattainrestore ecosystem health. One way this could able." The wording of this objective appears to

affect predictability is to reduce the risk of cata- accept the greatest uncertainty (that is, lack of

strophic fires that have the potential to change predictability) under Alternative 7 because timber

anticipated flows of many types of goods and ser- production would have the widest allowable range

vices suddenly. A fourth way is that by achieving of variability; predictability would be allowed to

better compliance with endangered species laws, vary second-most under Alternative 4.

resource flows would be less likely to be disrupted Alternatives 3 and 5 are designed to allow the

by successful appeals based on agency non-com- greatest predictability, while Alternative 6 is

pliance. A related hypothesis is that by achieving designed to allow more predictability under rather

long-term ecosystem health, resource uses at sus- than over anticipated harvest levels. The wording

tainable levels would be more likely to be achieved of Objective SE-O3 appears to value stability in

over the long term. One philosophy of ecosystem harvest levels over increases in them, capping

management is that long-term health would lead increases over anticipated harvest levels as well as

to greater predictability of a wider range of soci- limiting reductions,

etal benefits, including not just commodity pro- . .. ..

duction opportunities but recreation and ameni- ^he ^«numves would address predictability

ties, fish and wildlife habitat, and clean water.

 through

 pubhc participation with one objective

that would apply only to Alternatives 3 through 7:

Relevant objectives and standards — Alter- ^,^,,^1 1 ,• ,-,., •

natives 3 through 7 contain an objective that JE-O11: To h

f

elP acihle

y

e

 greater P^f1^

direcdy addresses the predictability of timber har- for outcomes from lands managed by the FS

ii or BLM and better public ownership or decisions, by providing increased levels and types

SE-035: Avoid large shirts in commercial of opportunities for involvement of the pubactivity that cause rapid changes in demand lie. Within 1 year develop and implement a

for labor (gain or loss of jobs) and capital systematic approach to seeking the knowledge

(investments in plant and equipment) by and opinions of a broad range of stakeholders

offering commercial timber for sale at an through methods that encourage discussion,

amount consistent with the volume available understanding, and resolution of issues,

from the acreage of timber harvest planned in

5

SE-03 indicates Social and Economic - Objective, followed by the specific objective number cited (Chapter 3, Preliminary Draft

EISs; appendix I in this document) (USDA and USDI 1996a, 1996b).

6

SE-G1 indicates Social and Economic - Guideline, followed by the specific guideline number cited (USDA and USDI 1996a,

1996b).

768 Social
The Economics chapter (5) of this document, lack of predictability in timber harvest levels over

while containing several analyses relevant to the recent years (for example, when actual harvest levpredictability issue, did not directly address it as a els were far lower than the levels anticipated due

factor that would vary by alternative. The alterna- in large part to likely or successful appeals over

lives were expected to differ in the levels of threatened and endangered species and habitat

employment or other measures produced, but conditions). Panelists saw little potential for this

estimates about the relative predictability of those scenario to change under the existing manageoutputs were not made. The perceptions of panel ment direction. The ratings of Alternative 7

participants regarding predictability constitute the appeared to be predicated on the likelihood that

main source of information about potential this would be a socially divisive alternative that

effects. could lead to uncertainty regarding implementan . . . . . tion. Of the remaining alternatives, Alternative 4 Results — Several panel participants questioned was jud d M ide ^ most staWe levds of

the value of the predictability criterion while oth- ^ ^ h ^ [n ^ moderate rather than

ers felt it was very important. Although the panel ^ ^ Uncertainty about output stability

discussion focused on predictability of the supply was ^^ ^ Alternadve 5 due to lists'

of timber harvest, grazing opportunities and, to uncertainties about general applications and

some extent recreation opportunities, the pre- ^^ under ^ ^^^ Alternatives 3 and 6

dictabi hty of achieving desired biophysical condi- wefe med between these extremes

tions also was a primary social concern. Readers

should consult the Aquatic, Terrestrial, and Panelists' conversations reflected this same patLandscape chapters of this document for pre- tern, as did the UCRB planning area panelists'

dictability projections of those conditions. completion of the worksheet evaluating the pre-

_. ,. . ... r ,. r . . dictability of goods and services under

The predictability of supplies of goods and ser- Alternatives 2, 4, and 7. Nearly all of the UCRB

vices would tend to be consistent across the alter- area ^ fated Altemative 4 as more likd to

natives The exception is that Alternatives 3 to 7 duce dictable levels of ds and services

would differ in the amount of variability m am- than Alternative 2, especially over the long term,

ber production with Alternative 7 showing the ft ^ ^ ^ , ^ Altemadve 4 WQuld

greatest allowable annual variance (± 50%) and be more ^ M duce dictable (and hi h)

Alternatives 3, 5, and 6 showing the least annual levejs of ds and services wer ^ $hort tefm ^

variance (± 25% for Alternatives 3 and 5, and +10 ^ becau$e rf ^ w hef antid ted levels of

or -20% for Alternative 6). acdvity Neafly ^ panelists> howeyer) made k

In completing the workbooks, panelists rated the clear that this was based on the assumption that

likelihood of alternatives achieving stability in adequate funding would be available—which

outputs from federally administered lands. many panelists doubted would actually be the

Stability implies that flows would be consistent case. This is a clear example of the difficulty in

and predictable, rather than simply flowing pre- predicting social effects in the absence of specific

dictably (that is, output flows could fluctuate information regarding a proposed action,

widely, but would do so in predictable cycles). Monitoring and mitigation — One of the

The concepts are similar because the issue is not main issue$ addressed b lanni effom in

the level of goods and services provided but the ^ Rasin ^ ^ relationshi of lanned m acma,

extent to which they are assured. Cities, outputs, and consequences. Given that

Panelists rated Alternatives 1, 2, and 7 as the least predictability is a great concern, monitoring

likely to produce stable flows of outputs. The low becomes a critical element of the ecosystem-based

ratings of Alternatives 1 and 2 were based on the alternatives. Monitoring is needed not only to

Social 769
assess whether resource outputs are within the discourse. Members of all three panels expressed

range expected, but also to determine if predicted frustration, saying the current decision-making

annual outputs are close to those actually occur- process has left people behind, resulting in manring. A major question revolves around the geo- agement practices that are not acceptable,

graphical scale of predictability; should it be mon- Panelists believed that involving people in meanitored at the EIS area level, or at some finer scale? ingful ways calls for effectively documenting and

A possible mitigation strategy would be to con- responding to public concerns, providing adevene a panel of experts and publics to deal with quate opportunities to listen, and showing a comthis question. mitment to follow through with public decisions

about public lands. These elements are viewed as

Effects OH Access tO Decision- the cornerstones of successful, implementable

Nf «llting management, and are especially important given

that ecosystem management cannot be accomIn Social Assessment of the Basin, McCool and oth- plished without people working together across

ers (in press) concluded that social scientists, agencies, jurisdictions, and ownerships (Smith and

members of the public, and federal agencies con- others 1995). A clear preference was shown

cur that ecosystem management requires greater among panelists not to rely on the court system to

levels of public participation, especially for collab- make decisions, but to work things out jointly on

orative efforts that foster mutual learning and the a local level,

search for consensus on complex, contentious nat- .

ural resource and public land management issues. Relevant objectives and standards — AlterA related debate is the role of the public, local and

 natives l and 2 address

 Public involvement and

state governments, and other stakeholders in pub- participation in a variety of ways. Techniques and

lie land management—specifically whether the commitment to involving the public vary widely

appropriate role is to provide information, work

 across the Basin> from the

 minimum required by

toward consensus, or share in the decision process. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of

1970 to substantial efforts designed to actively

Wondolleck and Yaffee (1994), among others, seek out public knowledge, values, and opinions

have identified many ongoing efforts, some initi- for application to public land management deciated by the agencies and some that began as grass- sions. For areas of the Basin that overlap regions

roots efforts of citizens concerned about resource covered by the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA and

management in a given region, that have success- USDI 1994), Province Advisory Committees have

fully expanded public participation in resource been formed to address resource management

management decisions and implementation. issues. For other portions of the project area, the

Current trends suggest that the public is demand- Forest Service and BLM have created Resource

ing more meaningful participation in public-land Advisory Committees (RACs) to provide recomdecisions, which suggests that agencies can either mendations on a subregional scale,

choose to accommodate these desires or ignore

them, with the latter choice presenting substantial Alternatives 3 through 7 contain additional direcrisks to the maintenance of public support.

 tlon' Several

 objectives directly mention new ways

to promote public involvement:

Criteria — The UCRB area panel called this

public involvement criterion "enfranchisement,"

 SE-°9: To mcrease

 Pubhc ownership of deciwhile the EEIS area panel called it "access to deci-

 Slons' begm

 §reater collaboration through

sion making," but it was significant that both increased intergovernmental coordination

groups used terms other than "public involve-

 wlth load' state> and tnbal

 governments, and

mem" or "participation." This shows that the role mteragency coordination with other federal

of the public is being redefined through societal agencies in planning, implementation, and

770 Social
monitoring efforts in order to seek the knowl- out. Alternative 7 was viewed less positively due

edge and opinions from governmental to the restricted decision space available—the

agencies. reserves, with most activities prohibited, were per-

_,. . . „ . . .„„ _.. . . ceived to have little or no room for public partici1 he related standard (ot-b4) requires national • „ r j • •

r i r.T i * i- • .

 M i pation in management decisions,

forests and BLM districts to sign memorandums

of understanding (MOUs) or similar agreements One of the most important concerns expressed by

with local, state, and tribal governments within 2 American Indian panel members was consultayears, to describe how they will work together to tion, which was viewed not as an event, but as an

accomplish mutual objectives. Another objective ongoing process. Indian panelists emphasized the

(SE-O11) directs agencies to provide increased importance of agency willingness to sit at the

levels of opportunities for involvement; methods same table and discuss how trust and treaty

that encourage discussion, understanding, and res- responsibilities could be met through public land

olution of issues are especially emphasized. management activities. Their primary message,

,. . „ . ,_ . .... . . repeated again and again, was "You have not lisAlternatives 3 through 7 contain additional provi- tened)

 ^ eyen when haye> we haye nQt been

sions for public participation, including ecosystem heard „ R di lanm action$ Qn ^^

analysis at the watershed scale. The goal is to ^^ dists said ^ tfibes need M be

involve people who care about a given watershed involyed Qn an Qn j ^ ^ consultation

in the inventory of social economic, physical, and extendi b ond the requirements of NEPA.

biological resources in individual watersheds, and ^^ indicated ^ from ^ ^

also to help set ob ectives tor the management or • XTCTJA • * -u i i j i •

. i i AI -» i • tive, NhPA is not a tribal law and consultation

those watersheds. Alternative 3 s theme contains vu u -u u u .. u c j • u-

.... . . i • i r with the tribes should not be forced into this conan additional emphasis on the involvement of ^ panelist$ ived consukation to be a con.

local residents but without additional standards, dnual ^ ^ ^^ m dedsions that reflea

while Alternative 5 contains language about coor- ^ concerns> ^^ ^ ^ nsibil_

dmation at the regional scale. ides. wkhin ^ stream of dialogue> there is room

Results — EEIS and UCRB area panel members to talk about NEPA and individual projects,

did not view Alternatives 1 and 2 as making Tribal panelists were especially concerned that

changes in existing patterns of access to decision tribes had been consulted late in the process, after

making, one of the most important reasons why many decisions had been made and the scope of

these alternatives were viewed as unacceptable. the decision already narrowed.

The additional provisions of Alternatives 3 Alternatives 3 through 7, if implemented as

through 7 at least provided hope that significant ^^ and foUowed thro h ^ f , M

changes would be made. The groups were not b,ic ici don; ultirnatelv result in

talking about holding more public meetings but f ^^ acc abili and blic ownership

about the need for dramatic change in how deci- of decisions. Even if decisions are not completely

sions are made. Panelists were concerned that the acceptable) they would be better understood,

details or public participation were not provided

in an implementation plan, so they could not McCool and others (in press) found support at

judge the actual level of agency commitment. the national as well as the local level for paying

Until these details are known, for many the role more attention to the people who would be most

of the public will remain words on paper that affected by local public land management decihave little meaning. Panelists viewed Alternative 4 sions—perceived by most to be local and regional

as more likely than Alternative 2 to promote local residents. However, national organizations have

participation and ownership in federal land man- raised concerns about equity if an increased

agement decisions, but only if faithfully carried emphasis is placed on local participation. In evaluSocial 771
ating this concern for possible inequity, it is absence of legislative change, the agencies could

important to recognize that agencies cannot legal- explore the need for additional advisory groups

ly abdicate decision authority. In addition, the established under FACA. However, the real need

Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 may be for additional institutions and mechanisms

(FACA)7 was designed to mitigate this and similar for cross-jurisdictional coordination of manageconcerns by providing balanced membership in ment activities, including public representation,

advisory groups. The issue of local, regional, and „. . .

national balance is always a consideration even in

 Thj: commitment to consultation with American

groups not formally chartered under FACA, and a Indian tribes w,U have to be demonstrated before

number of approaches to addressing this concern ««"

 becom^ effective. As one panelist described

have been successfully implemented. We cannot have trust without responsibility, and

the rederal Government has not behaved responMitigation and monitoring — Monitoring sibly." This is one reason tribal panelists were

public access to decision making should involve extremely skeptical of objectives related to consulnot just counting the number of meetings or par- tation. The effectiveness of consultation needs to

ticipants, but measures of the perceptions of par- be measured by tribal members' evaluation of

ticipants regarding their role in the decision-mak- whether consultation goals are being met.

ing process and acceptability of the outcome.

Mechanisms for sharing decision making could be Effects On Private Lands

explored and implemented on a trial basis. Paying

public participants for their time and energy, as

 The

 ICBEMP is designed to result in new direcwell as their actual expenses, may be needed to

 tion for

 management of lands administered by the

obtain consistent, high levels of participation.

 FS or BLM in the Basin> through eventual

Monitoring is an especially effective way of amendment of some or all of the 74 plans curinvolving the public; people may not always have

 rentl7 used to

 manage these lands. Information

the time to become involved in lengthy planning released by the project has repeatedly stated that

efforts, but may wish to be active in checking

 there wil1 be n° attempts to address management

whether the agencies did what they agreed to do,

 of

 Private lands through the process. However, the

and whether those actions were effective. alternatives may affect private lands in several

ways. First, changes in management of public

Although recent changes in FACA make involve- lands can affect the supply of and demand for

ment of local, state, and tribal governments more goods and services - not just on public lands but

possible, there are no additional provisions for on those private lands capable of providing similar

public participation on an ongoing basis. The goods and services. An example provided by the

agencies could explore possible changes to FACA panelists was that greatly reduced timber harvest

that would allow groups of stakeholders to meet on public lands can increase pressure to harvest

with agencies regularly, while still maintaining the private lands. These interactions may be complex,

balance of representation and avoiding the abuses and depend on many factors outside the control

that FACA was designed to prevent. In the

'Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770; 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2) was passed to control the growth and

operation of the numerous boards, committees, commissions, councils and other similar groups that had been established to

advise officers and agencies in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Advisory committees are a group, established or

utilized by the Executive Branch, to obtain advice or recommendations for the Executive Branch. FACA requires the group to be

chartered and that it operate in accordance with the terms of FACA. The functions of guiding and coordination the administration of FACA reside with the Administrator of the General Services Administration (E.O. 12024 of 12/1/77; reprinted at 5

U.S.C. Appendix 2). GSA has issued regulations for agencies on management of advisory committees [41 CFR 101-6.1001 to

101-6.1035 (1990)]. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-4, § 204) exempts intergovernmental communications with federal officials and state, local and tribal elected officials for purposes of exchanging views, information, or advice

relating to intergovernmental responsibilities or administration.

772 Social
of federal land management agencies. Second, pri- SE-O8: Reduce the risk of life and property

vate lands adjacent to public lands may be more loss due to wildfire and decrease future wilddirectly affected; the preliminary draft EISs fire suppression costs by actively managing

describe many emerging difficulties in managing wildland fuels on areas of FS- and BLMthe urban/wildland interface area, including fire administered lands within or adjacent wildprotection, trespass, and wildlife conflicts. This land/urban interface areas.

issue gains importance given the current and pro- , , , „ , . ,„„ „„, „ r ..

j i • • • u n • u r A related Standard (oh-M) calls tor coordinating

ected population increases in the Basin, much or .... . . . . . „. .

 &

i • i . ... i • • c this objective with local governments. Ihealterna- which is likely to occur in interface areas. .' ° . r ..

fives do not propose any other processes tor direct

Because ecosystems do not necessarily start and involvement of private lands, such as incentives

stop at public land boundaries, achieving the goals for landowners to work toward mutual ecosystem

of restoring ecosystem health may not be possible health objectives,

by managing public lands alone. In the project ._ . ... .. . r . ..

area, just over half the acreage is administered by Other actlvltlf

s cal

,

led for

,

m

 Alternatives 3

the FS or BLM. FEMAT (1993) recommended

 through 7 indirectlX involve

 private lands; for

that "federal agencies be encouraged to provide

 examPle' fcosystem assessment at the watershed

leadership by moving beyond the limits of federal

 scale mvolves

 inventory of «sources and condijurisdictions to engage states, tribes, forest indus-

 tlons m TM«rsheds at the local level. Conditions

try, and other private forest managers as equal and across watersheds are studied in this process to

essential partners in discussing their relative roles PTMld*

 a C°mext f°r management

L°

f Federal

in sustaining the region's forests and communi-

 landj.b

/ assessing interactions with resources and

ties." Such statements, however, inspire great con- conditions located on non-Federal lands. It is reccern among some segments of the public, who '^M JJUSt

 u ^8 COndm°

nS

 °n n°

n

"

view ecosystem management as a possible intru-

 Federal lands can be

 controversial,

sion on private property rights. Results — Panelists identified a mix of potential

Criteria — Because the intent is to refine man- f ects on P»vate lands. In particular, Alternative

agement on Forest Service- and BLM-adminis-

 7 was

 TMwed."

 havm8 a gr

^

ater effect comPared

tered lands only, there is little mention of objec- TMh *e existing situation because it could shift

tives addressing private lands. This and the lack of the social burden of providing timber, grazing,

some types of critical information (such as species

 and

 f "f ^ of recreation opportunities to pnviability) make it difficult to distinguish the

 vate

 l^ds One panelist commented that when

effects of the alternatives on private property Pnvate lands ^ave Prevlously become the domibeyond the concerns expressed by panelists.

 nant

 ^urce of timber, the incentive has been to

However, some criteria that could indirectly help

 over CUIwhlle

 P"ces are *"&>. ^admg to longgauge the effects of alternatives include the degree ^fTM TM Productmt

y

 and

 ecosystem

to which actions are coordinated between public

and private ownerships, the degree to which wild- Creation of large reserves could increase the

land fire risks are reduced, and the number and attraction of the Basin for quality of life migrants

type of incentives extended to private landowners wno would enjoy the recreational and scenic

to attain mutually beneficial objectives. amenities and other characteristics associated with

Relevant objectives and standards — One of

 resTM' This

 could increase land values, which

the only directly applicable objectives applies to

 might en5ourage

 subdivision and settlement of

Alternatives 3 through 7: the interface areas and lead to loss of agricultural

land in some locations. It also was viewed as having the potential to increase conflicts between

Social 773
long-time residents and newcomers who may have interface areas, increasing the likelihood that other

different value systems. Other effects mentioned problems and conflicts could develop.

included increased smoke from wildfires left to „. r . . . i 1 he success or restoring ecosystem health under

all alternatives may depend in part on actions

Some of the same effects were projected under taken by private landowners. The lack of positive

Alternative 4, in part due to its decrease from cur- incentives for private landowners to participate

rent levels of timber harvest and grazing opportu- voluntarily may detract from this effort. The sucnities. Panelists also mentioned that tightening cess of public participation efforts undertaken

regulation of Federal lands to protect endangered under Alternatives 3 through 7 has the potential

species could have the effect of allowing less to determine local landowners' willingness to parrestriction on private lands. In addition, greater ticipate in ecosystem management. Involvement

predictability of resource supply and the reduced of local governments in a meaningful way also

risk of catastrophic fires could allow private tim- could advance cooperation among Federal and

ber owners to better manage their lands. Over the non-Federal land managers. Successful consultalong term, improvements in ecosystem health tion with Indian tribes could lead to increased

were viewed as increasing property values and the coordination of management activities,

desirability of the Basin as a place to live and visit. . , ... . . ,

Alternative 4, then, was generally viewed as hav- Monitoring and mitigation — As suggested

ing fewer adverse effects on private property com- previously, the presence of positive incentives to

pared with Alternative 7.

 heIP achieve ecosYs

^

m

 health voluntarily, coupled

with a strong and effective public participation

American Indian panelists voiced great concern at program and increased access to decision making,

the prospect of being asked to "shoulder the con- could encourage private landowners to work with

servation burden that the United States left by the Federal, state, and local governments to identify

wayside of resource exploitation." Panelists cited a and achieve mutually agreeable ecosystem objecplanned U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) tives.

rule that describes contributions from non-Federal . „ . .

lands as necessary to meet conservation objectives. Monitoring effects on private lands would have to

One member put it this way: "USFWS plans to

 be temPered b7 de

«

res

 of private landowners to

include Indian lands without regard to the special maintain privacy. Data collection efforts would

status of Indian trust lands under Federal law." A need <? be accomplished by individuals who are

critical and related issue for the tribes was the

 tmsted

 TMd not assoc'f ^ w«

h

 regulatory authorsevere restrictions on treaty-protected fisheries that |ty; participation could be voluntary to assure that

have been made because of past and ongoing individuals maintain proprietary decision-making

resource exploitation for economic purposes.

 authont

y

 over

 ^ actlons taken on thelr lanck

The potential for shifting impacts from public to Monitoring efforts would benefit from an initial

private lands could be mitigated by close coordi-

 dialogue wldl

 Pnvate ^ndowneK *"d their assocination with local landowners and local govern-

 atlons

 °n what ^Pes of information would be

ments. Alternative 3, which would focus attention mutually agreeable to track over time. An examion local coordination (but in unspecified ways),

 natlon

 of existing arrangements of public/private

could prove more successful at accomplishing this. partnerships could be helpful to understand the

conditions that have led to successful cooperation

Increased protection of wildland/urban interface in the past,

areas from wildfire would undoubtedly protect

property and lives, but could also have the effect

of encouraging additional development in the

774 Social
Effects On Communities and demonstrated that these non-use values can be

Ollfllitv of Life substantial, such as in the case of unroaded areas.

As described in McCool and others (in press), Generalizing the: effects of the alternatives on

there are many definitions of "community." In communities and quality of life must be recogthis chapter, as in the above-cited document, the

 mzed as hl^ Problematic. Not only do commuprimary definition is a spatially-defined place such

 nltles

 ^ ^^

 m <erms of sff« econ

«

mi<;

I T ii u i cnn ii structure, setting, and relationship to federally

as a town, and specifically the nearly 500 small, ' 7 .

 r

 , • , • i •• • L • L n • \A managed natural resources, they are nested within

rural communities within the Basin. Management . , , r • , • A i r rcjii j u -ii cc larger levels or social organization. A host or

or Federal lands could potentially affect commu-

 &

 - .

 &

. .. . ^ i i i i

nities in several ways: (1) through provision of exogenous factors-m addition to Federal land

employment and income opportunities; (2) management policy-may affect their future,

ii r • • J tven communities i n close proximity t o rb - o r

through support o r community attractiveness an d T.T •» * i • • 11 1 • -i

i i- rrr • • • c • BLM-administered lands may experience entirely

general quality or lire via provision or recreation, ..„. rr r . , •

uiu r j -i JIT i • different effects from the same alternative,

scenery, healthy forests an d wildlife populations, n-iii r • i - i

i i - I /2 \ i u u Because o f high levels o f uncertainty about impleand clean air and water; (3) through revenue shar- . r°. . . , , , -i,

j i/.\ u u u i c mentation of the alternatives and how they will

ing payments; and (4) through the placement or . . _ .

 7

.

c j i i i i i • i MI j translate into errects at the community scale, prerederal employees that share their skills and ener- rriii i

• • rr • dictions of the consequences or federal land mangies in civic affairs. . •/»

agement actions on specific communities, or even

Quality of life can be loosely identified as the categories of communities, cannot be made with

combination of economic, political, psychological, confidence at the Basin scale.

social, cultural, and environmental characteristics . ... .

i -i -j > 11 u • A 1 he next sections describe concerns at the cornthat contributes to residents well-being. An area . . . .

• i_ i . i I- ri-r -i • • i munity scale, and how they are addressed by the with a high quality or We contributes positively to . •>. ' _ . ' .. r..r

 /

i c. . . f-j--j i i • • u alternatives for five relevant quality-or-lire ractors:

the functioning of individuals, resulting in the . . .. /~\

i_. • r j • u u i- • • • (U obs and income, (2) payments to counties,

person being satisfied with the living experience in ; r > . i , ,. , ^ ,/\

the community. Areas with high quality of life

 (3)

 ^creation and access to public lands 4)

tend to attract new residents. A serious concern

 scTM^> TMd (5) comin

u

umt

y «f ^«K* Following

• i r u i • • i this is a discussion of the panel evaluations and

among residents of small, rural communities relat- . . . .

v

 . . r

• ,. rrr- u • c • u other data relevant to estimating the types or

ed to quality or lire is the question of equity, that . .... i i i • j

is, Who loses and who benefits under each of the

 c^n

g

es

 '^7 to occur under each alternative and

proposed alternatives.

 the

 Panels ^uMons of those chang

es

-

T.J ii ji i i • i- riT f Jobs and income — Communities in the Basin

Federal lands also play a role in quality or lire ror

 J

 . . ., ,

• j run - AJ- j- tend to rely heavily on natural resources as a cntinonresidents or the Basin. As discussed in .

 }

 r

j

 . .. . „ AX /- i j u /• ^Jr J j cal component of economic diversity. For exam- McCool and others (in press) and Haynes and . _

 y

r

 . . . . . _

7

 .

u /• \ i • • i pie, 71 of the communities in the Basin were

others (in press), people may visit or move to the

 v

 . . . ...

T> • • i r u j • L determined to have high employment (10% or Basin in the future, based in part on the presence .. . ,

&

 .*.' . , .. „„. r i f c j i i j c T i greater) in wood products industries, while 321 or

and management or Federal lands, tven it people

 &

. ' . . T . . . j • • u n • L i the communities in the project area were deterdo not visit the Basin, they can value its resources . . ... ^ ' /,„„/ \

and conditions for many reasons, including the

 mmed to

,

have

 £!f

h

 employment 10% or greater)

possibilities of visiting there in the fiature, the

 m agriculture Reliance on Federal lands varies,

knowledge that Basin resources will be available

 but

 ^especially substantial for timber harvest m

for fliture generations, and the value associated

 mTM** identified in the Economics chapter (5)

• LI • D • LI- i j j or this document. 1 he changes in employment with knowing Basin public lands and resources are .... . r . . ° . ,^J

L ,^i e r L- j /c • \ likely to result rrom the alternatives have many

there. Chapter 5 or this document (Economics)

 7

 .. „. ... . . _/

corresponding effects within communities. 1 he

Social 77S
main effects are on workers employed by affected employment; (2) that are geographically isoindustries, their families, and on other employ- lated; and (3) that are not gaining substantial

ment sectors that derive secondary income from employment opportunities in other industries,

those workers. A broader concern is how those These areas are henceforth referred to as prichanges translate into effects on communities. ority areas. Prioritize activities on tables 3-12

_. „. . . . . i . and 3-13 in these areas to promote such cusThe effects of changes in jobs on community t uses

 ^ ^ ^ fiew ^^ m ^

vitality are influenced by several intervening van- • •'

ables. These include the resiliency of the community, the presence of wood processing and manu- SE-S2: Priority areas shall be established in

facturing facilities in the community, availability the Record of Decision. Changes to priority

of job retraining programs, community activities areas shall occur by amendments to land use

to prepare for change and/or strategies to attract plans. Priority areas shall be reassessed every 5

new business and industry, proportion of the years to determine if conditions warrant a

county budget dependent on federal resource rev- change in priority areas designation,

enue sharing programs, population growth and „. n - .. .. . „.

migration patterns into and out of the communi-

 These reflect a concern for

 Distributive effects, recty, and the stability of projected harvestable tim-

 O8mzm8 ** somf communities will be more

ber flows. As mentioned previously, however, the

 stron& ^ected *** others'

number and variability of these intervening vari- Payments to Counties — County governables coupled with the sheer number of small ments provide many community services in rural

communities in the Basin prohibit identifying areas, from police and fire protection to road

employment impacts of the alternatives on spe- maintenance, libraries, and other social services,

cific communities. Local school districts, which operate as indepenThe alternatives would call for a wide variety of

 dent

 units of government in each of the seven

activities that would generate employment oppor- *tates m <h

L

eBasm' are an ad«J'»onal

 "£titunoruil

tunities, including new types and levels of restora-

 flxture wlth

r

m

 communities. Schools offer highly

tion activities. Most traditional employment-gen- important focal points for community cohesion,

crating activities would also continue under the

 sm^ ^ SUPP^ c°mTMTMV educational needs as

alternatives, although with some changes in levels

 wel1

 **

 culturai

 ^ ati

let'c

 ^61"

5 that draw the

and types of outputs. community together. Both county governments

and school districts in the Basin are the recipients

The preliminary draft EISs propose additional of federal revenue sharing payments, based on the

objectives and standards for economic opportuni- amount of Federal land in the county and the

ties on federally administered lands, specifically value of the commodities extracted in a given

targeting communities and areas judged most at year. The higher the harvest value, the more

risk because of their location, economic structure, money returned to roads and to schools.

and reliance on resources managed by the BLM . ... -_-, . . . . r r . .

po Schmidt (1995) examined levels of federal revenue

sharing in counties within the Basin over recent

SE-O5: Emphasize customary economic uses years to understand the significance of both PILT

in rural communities or geographic areas (payments in lieu of taxes) and 25 Percent Fund

identified as less economically diverse and payments in supporting these important commumore dependent on outputs of goods and nity institutions. Schmidt reported that 31 counservices from Forest Service- and BLM- ties in the Basin receive additional benefits based

administered lands based on: (1) where these on the receipts from the 25 Percent Fund. The

uses generate a substantial percent of local majority of counties in the Basin receive baseline

77S Social
PILT payments of $0.75 per acre regardless of appendix 6-B, table 6B. 1 for ROS projections

harvest revenue. within the Basin by alternative). The presence or

... . ... ...„ „ absence of roads is the primary determinant in

Analyses conducted for the preliminary draft EISs RQS classificationS; and blocks of land ter

showed that at least 20 counties in the project than 2>5QQ acres (1)012 ha) ^ $ize ^ are mofe

area (6 in eastern Oregon 1 in eastern Washing- than one.half mile (Q g ^ from a road are ^

ton, and 13 in Idaho; analysis not completed for sified ^ primitive/semi-primitive.

Montana and other Basin states) rely on federal

revenue sharing payments for more than 10 per- In their Economics Assessment of the Basin, Haynes

cent of their total budgets. Of these 20 counties, and Home (in press) stated that roaded natural

15 were rated as low on an economic diversity opportunities are used for about 75 percent of the

scale, suggesting that they are particularly vulnera- recreational use on Federal lands in the Basin,

ble to changes in federal revenue sharing. However, the large amount of primitive and semi-

,. . , . _ . primitive recreation opportunity in the Basin is

Alternatives 1 and 2 do not propose any new u j • j u • i

. . . iii - i • noteworthy an d provides substantial economic

objectives or standards relating to revenue sharing i c 1- i L • u

r

 ' „ . . . .. .. ° . „ . . _

&

 value. From a national perspective the region has a

from Federal lands, but Alternatives 3 through 7 comparative advantage in the amount of primicontain one objective that is based on the assump- tive/semi.pr

imitive recreation opportunities-the

tion that ecosystem management leads to n • L i • u- -ui j

. i- i-i - i- ... i Basin has more large areas in this wildland-type

increased predictability regarding activities that i -c • _u u • i. •

.

r

 „'

 &

. . f classification than any other region in the contigenerat & e income on Federal lands: i TT •„ j c. , TU u-

 nental United states. 1 hese areas combine excepSE-010: Improve stability of Federal pay- tional scenery with an experience of solitude that

ments to local governments to contribute to draws visitors from a national and international

long-term budget consistency and planning of constituency.

local government revenues through increased Ch in road man nt> such ^ closures

predictability (SE-01) of goods and services and decommissioning) may decrease accessibility

rrom Federal lands. for both rQaded ^^ and primitive/serni.primi.

Recreation and access to public lands — uve opportunities. An additional issue surroundAccess to public lands and recreation opportuni- ing the question of access deals with the capability

ties are important components of quality of life of people with disabilities to use facilities and proand contribute to the vitality of small communi- grams provided on federally administered lands,

ties in the Basin. Many residents live in the Basin The alternatives do not address the concern of

because they enjoy recreational opportunities access for people with disabilities.

found on federally administered lands. The eco- TL. r • jncic u IL-

~. r

 :

 . . . . . The preliminary draft EISs have several ob ectives

nomic errects or recreation activity are consider- , \ \ \ \ • • r

...._ . . T T ' T T .. and one standard that relate to provision or recreable in the basin, and Haynes and Home (in • • • * i • i j T j

... .„ ' . ' , ,. , , ation opportunities. Alternatives 1 and 2 do not

press v ) identified recreation as the highest value use • u- • j j i c

CT,' . . . .,„.— , rf . contain new objectives or standards (except for

of Federal lands in the Basin The Recreation SE-O12), so the objectives SE-O13 through SEOpportumty Spectrum (ROS) was the tool used Q15 , Qm tQ Alternatives

 3 throu h 7

in this analysi 1 s to measure variation among alter- Ai • i j i •• L L

 . . . . . ° . Alternatives 1 and 2 anticipate that the recreation

natives in recreation opportunities in the Basin. i i -n u • j -VL r>/-vc-j T L r • i objectives in existing plans will be carried out.

1 he ROb identities the type or recreational experience available to a visitor. Within the ICBEMP SE-O12: (Alternatives 1-3) Manage for a

the seven standard ROS categories have been broad range of resource-dependent, land and

collapsed to three groupings: primitive/semi- water-based recreation opportunities to proprimitive, roaded natural, and rural/urban (see vide a variety of recreation experiences and

Social 77?
outcomes. (Alternative 4) In addition, identi- high quality scenic backdrop helps to attract new

fy opportunities to capitalize on restoration businesses, and growth in the Basin can be related

efforts by creating new opportunities for low- to the high quality amenities in the region, of

impact, nature-appreciative recreation and which scenery is an integral part (Rasker 1995).

tourism. (Alternative 5) In areas where recre- Population growth in high amenity recreation

ation is the primary emphasis, emphasize the counties in the Basin (Johnson and Beale 1995)

most appropriate recreation and tourism has been a major driver of economic growth and

opportunities that reflect current and project- job opportunities (Haynes and Home, in press),

ed demand and from which public lands are . . . . .

best suited. (Alternative 6) Same as

 Scenlc mteg.nt

y

 1S the tQo1 USed m thls

 ^Sls »

Alternative 4; in addition, identify opportuni-

 mea?ure

 variation among alternatives of the qualities to capitalize on restoration efforts by ere- * °f scenerv

 " the Basm' Scenic integrity refers

ating new opportunities for low-impact, [° ^f visual mtactness of a landscape, which is

nature-appreciative recreation and tourism. ^ased larf

lv on

 the evidence of human distur-

(Alternative 7) In areas outside reserves, same bance The more evident the human alterations of

as Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Provide additional

 naturaUv ev°lvl

,

n

g

 or naturall

y

 aPPea

«

n

g ^f

• • c ... j ... . scapes are, the lower the scenic integrity. In developportumties tor primitive and semi-primitive ? . . . . . . ° J

 , ,

recreation in reserves °Pm8

 an exlstmg scemc

 integrity inventory for the iccicdiiuii ill icacivcd. T/~«T»r^i IT\ IT' i r *

ICBbMl, classihcations used hve categories: very

SE-S5: (Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6) Use the high (settings where the landscape is visually

ROS or other appropriate agency direction to intact with only minute deviations), high (settings

guide inventory and management to meet where the landscape appears intact), moderately

goals for recreation settings and experiences. high (settings where the landscape appears slightly

(Alternative 7) Outside reserves, same as fragmented), moderately low (settings where the

above. Manage reserves for primitive and landscape appears fragmented) and low (settings

semi-primitive settings. where the landscape appears heavily fragmented)

... . . . . (see appendix 6-B, table 6B.2 for scenic integrity

SE-013: Identify opportunities to provide projections by alternative),

public access tor land and water-based recreation purposes. The preliminary draft EISs contain several objecr r ,-~,/ - , , ,. tives that directly address scenery as it relates to

SE-014: Foster and strengthen partnerships ^ of ^ ^ ^ Basm Note ^ there [s on£

between public and private sectors to raise the objectiye for Mtsaatims l and 2> but three differ.

quality and quantity of recreation and mt objectives for Alternatives 3 through 7.

tourism facilities and services, to avoid duplication, and to share resources. SE-O17: (Alternatives 1 and 2) Meet estab-

„„ _. . , ... lished visual quality objectives based on manSE-015: Take actions that will lead to recre- nt ind les and techni from the

ation programs operating m a financially self- applicable agency visual landscape managesupportmg manner. ment system.

Scenery - Communities are affected by the sur- objectives for Alternatives 3 through 7 include:

rounding scenic condition because an attractive

natural setting contributes to perceptions of com- SE-O16: Enhance scenic integrity in areas

munity desirability. Overall, scenic conditions currently rated as low or moderately low by

within the Basin are very good, with several major implementing management activities for forportions of the Basin representing perhaps the est and range vegetation and road densities at

most visually intact areas within the contiguous the levels described in tables 3-12.

United States (Galliano and Loeffler 1995). A

778 Social
SE-O17: Maintain the highest level of scenic SE-O6: Within 3 years support rural commuintegrity and decrease short- and long-term nities in their efforts to become more resilient

risks from wildfire by implementing activities by implementing policies which favor local

for forest and range vegetation and road den- labor, resources, and knowledge and local use

sities at the levels described in tables 3-12. of resources, from Forest Service and BLM-

^^,0 TM i iii 1 1 administered lands i n th e implementation o f

oh-tj 18: Protect human health and decrease Oi- • ecru cc OT cc <">a cc no

. . . • i r i i i • Objectives bh-Ul, oh-Uz, csr,-(J3, oh-Uo,

short- and long-term risks or degraded air d SE O18

quality from wildfire by implementing vegetation management activities at the levels in SE-O7: Within 3 years support local stratetables 3-12. gies that enhance social and economic condi-

_ . ... „. .-_-,„. ,„ . dons in rural communities. Define a federal

Community resiliency - The ICBEMP has fole whkh ^.^ [n [d[ devel.

used the term community resiliency to refer to a Opmental, tourism, and recreational activities

community* abihty to respond and adapt to ^ hd diyersify ^ economies and

change. In their literature review of critical com- ^ ^ of ^

munity characteristics, Harris and others (1996)

identified a number of characteristics that could Results — This section discusses some of the

help to determine a community's resiliency: com- likely social effects of the alternatives on commumunity character; cohesiveness; services and infra- nities, based on the panels' evaluations, the ecostructure; autonomy; economic diversity; resource nomic evaluation of alternatives (Chapter 5), and

dependence; attractiveness to business; quality of estimates of outputs generated by the ICBEMP..

life; leadership; effectiveness of community gov- The discussion is a running narrative rather than

ernment; and preparedness for the future. discrete sections with their own estimates,

_ ..... . . . although an attempt is made to follow the organiCommunity resiliency is an important intervening ^^ of

 ^ ious ^^ This wa$ done

variable in the assessment of the impacts of alter- because SQ effects ^^ ^ Qt o,

nauves on communities However, the resiliency of ^ Qthers mat k seemed inaccurate to treat

some communities could also be affected directly them a$ ^^ elemems Another consideration

by the alternatives, particularly due to changes in ^ ^ • ds[on ^sodaKd with estimating

opportunities for employment. The focus here on eflfeas at such a sm^ scaJe (communities) based

smaUer communities is based on the assumption Qn such a broad scde of acdons (the Basin)> cou.

that larger communities with currently high levels kd whh ^ kck of information about crkical

of resiliency will not be greatly affected by Federal implementation variables,

land management actions within the range or

activity proposed under the alternatives. This does In the Economics chapter of this document,

not mean diat groups of families or individual Haynes and Home provide analysis of effects on

members of larger communities are not affected by jobs and income for several natural resourcechanges in flows of resource commodities and related economic sectors under the alternatives,

other goods and services from federally adminis- Although those data are presented at the county

tered lands, but simply that smaller communities, level rather than the community level, which can

because of their tendency to possess lower levels of mask differential effects on diverse communities

economic diversity and resiliency, may be more within the same county, they have implications

sensitive as a whole to changing conditions. for community-scale effects.

Objectives and standards specific to community Haynes and Home (in the Economics chapter of

resiliency relate to Alternatives 3 through 7: this document) conclude that effects of the alternatives on jobs within the range industry would

Social 1W
be relatively small (< 100 jobs for all alternatives scale, not directly discussed in the above-cited

except Alternative 7), although all alternatives Economics chapter. In particular, the greatest risks

would lead to fewer jobs related to changes in fed- would be expected in timber-dependent commueral range management. The greatest effects iden- nities that are relatively isolated and that do not

tified would be loss of approximately 300 jobs have diverse economic structures. This is a cumuwithin the UCRB planning area under Alternative lative impact, because in most cases timber sectors

7. Effects on recreation-related activity on Federal in those communities have already experienced

lands was expected to be positive under all alter- downturns, with the accompanying social stress

natives, ranging from 3,700 more jobs provided for workers, families, and other community resiunder Alternative 5 to 8,000 more jobs provided dents: "persistent poverty, increased commuting,

under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7. Effects on emigration of community members, the breaking

timber-related employment showed the greatest up of family and community support networks,

variability by alternative. Alternatives 2 through 7 changes in leadership, low morale, uncertainty,

would reduce employment levels from those heightened conflicts among groups within cornexpected under Alternative 1, from 5,900 fewer munities, deep cuts in school budgets are all facjobs under Alternative 5 to about 9,200 fewer tors that result from shifts in forest policies if

jobs under Alternative 7. In their economic analy- community needs are not addressed" (FEMAT

sis, the authors go on to suggest that job losses 1993). A community's resiliency is a critical intermay be greater than these numbers indicate, based vening variable in determining the length and the

on the assumption that between 9 and 15 percent intensity of negative effects. These effects are most

of the timber volume projected may not actually likely to be evident in communities having the

be sold, and due to other factors such as the rela- lowest relative levels of social and economic

tively small size of timber expected to be offered. resiliency which, as described in McCool and oth-

~. , i . i - , ers (in press), is estimated to be about 5 percent

Given the current and projected economic growth of ^ ^^ ^ communhies in the Basin.

in the Basin and the total number or current jobs

(approximately 1.5 million), the changes projected Panelists in the EEIS and UCRB areas were

to result from the alternatives are not likely to ere- uncertain how the alternatives may affect commuate significant social effects associated with nities, although there was a general sentiment that

employment opportunities, when measured at the the current plans, as represented by Alternatives 1

Basin or EIS planning area scales. The economic and 2, did not resolve key issues. Declines of forevaluation of alternatives (Chapter 5) suggests that est health and fish populations, and the potential

changes will be negligible at the trade center scale negative consequences of wildland fires did not

as well. The authors identified 17 counties whose appear to be adequately addressed by Alternatives

economic resiliency is likely to be affected by the 1 and 2, making it likely that these alternatives

alternatives, with about half of those counties los- would be less socially acceptable than Alternatives

ing and about half gaining resiliency (measured by 3 through 7. Panelists recognized that vitality of

economic diversity). That evaluation also identi- small communities is partly a function of their

fied 16 counties containing 29 timber-dependent economic activity, which is in turn affected by the

communities; Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 are number of people that reside or visit a communiexpected to have negative effects on the timber ty. Haynes and Home (in press) have identified

sectors in those counties; Alternative 5 is expected population growth as an important indicator in

to lead to less negative effects in eight counties. predicting economic activity, and since population

_. , . . r • • • 11 growth in the 1990s has been strong in the Basin,

Given this information, it is reasonable to expect h ides one iece rf evidence ^ Ae ec(mo_

that the most significant positive and negative Qn a iond ^ [s formi wdl. More

effects will manifest themselves at the community important to paneiists was the anticipated change

7W Social
in the relationship of people to the landscape that therefore is contrary to direction of the project,

could be brought by in-migration, especially in Alternative 1 may have provided more government

terms of recreation pressure. None of the alterna- revenue sharing funds, but it is questionable that

tives appeared to panelists to be adequately this could have been sustained in the long run.

addressing recreation demand and the pressure it There are no proposed objectives and standards

would place on resource management. dealing with enhancing community resiliency in

either Alternative 1 or 2, reinforcing perceptions

For small ruralI communities in the Basin, contm- ^ ^ communities no lon can access ded.

ued removal of timber from Federal lands and sion-making processes affecting their futures,

access to rangelands tor grazing is viewed as a significant issue. Alternative 1, which is the no Some panelists argued that the focus on the proaction alternative in both the EEIS and UCRB duction of timber as a measure to identify cornplanning areas, represents a policy direction that munity impacts only continued a management

has been significantly modified and to which a emphasis that traditionally has been unbalanced

return is not possible. At the Basin level, har- and has favored commodities over investments in

vestable timber volume is expected to decline over amenities, while recreation may be the biggest

the current situation (see the Economics chapter growth area in the Basin (a perception confirmed

of this document) under all alternatives, although by data reported in Haynes and Home, in press),

we note that information supplied by the EIS However, under current federal mechanisms for

teams displays such a range of timber volume that collections, recreation does not pay its way, and

the alternatives may or may not differ on this vari- thus, remains under-valued.

able. In the EEIS area, Alternative 2 (which can ,rr . . . . . .r r i i-'ii j -uj u i- lr funded at appropriate levels and ir systems for

be more realistically described as the current poll- . r vv Y , ,. , ,

cy direction) yields the highest average timber

 mcome fro

.

m

,

 recreatl

 °n were established recreharvest volume. Of the ecosystem-based alterna-

 a"on could be viewed as a commod"7- The lack

tives, Alternative 5 results in the lowest decrease in °f reven"

e

 «?""»

 tO COUntles fj°m the 25' .

volume from Alternative 2. In the UCRB area,

 Percfn

<;Ful]

d

 Pay

ment crftes

 «^incentives for

Alternatives 3 and 5 yield the highest volumes,

 loca^ of[1Cials t0 suPp

°

rt

 alternatives to reduce

which are significantly above levels in Alternative

 tlmber ha.7est

 volumes Alternative 7 would cre2. In terms of range forage (see the Economics

 ate a slgnificant dr°P-<fin

 ^nds to those

 coun

-

chapter of this document), all alternatives, except °fJ^?8 "^1"" u"8 payment

L

S m ^f?

for Alternative 7, show modest declines in animal

 of PILT

 Decreases in umber volume that would

unit months and Federal range dependent jobs.

 occu* "nder

 Alternative 7 could be counterbalanced by increases in prices, thus the effects are

Alternative 1 has not been implemented as uncertain. Only Alternative 1 would provide levels

planned, resulting in substantial decreases in of revenue sharing in the 25-Percent-Fund that

employment in the wood products industry and are close the fund's payments to counties provided

increased uncertainty for communities. Some over the past decade. It is unclear what the effects

panel participants felt that the social impacts of of Alternative 4 may be on revenue sharing. While

reductions in timber harvesting in the Basin have timber harvest levels are projected to decrease

already occurred. Odier participants suggested that from the current situation, prices may rise, leading

trade offs between timber jobs and commercial to potentially no net change in revenues to county

fishing jobs were implied in die alternatives. governments, depending on market conditions.

Implementation of Alternative 1 may negatively „ •• , • , -^ , , , • r

affect recreation and tourism because of declines in

 Pan

,

ehsts

 fs°

 lden

«

fied that the

 extraction of nonfish habitat. Alternative 1 also does not fit into the traditional forest resources and the access to these

philosophy of ecosystem-based management, and "fources m becoming more of an economic issue.

Greater returns to the Federal treasury may be

Social 781
provided by some non-timber forest products than were made specifically for the existing roadless

by the harvest of wood products. These "special" areas, so this conclusion is speculative.

forest products also present cross-cultural conflicts, . . - ...... .

based on different uses and/or harvesting tech-

 Changes m ^TMTM of

j

arf/a m bo

|

th,PTMnmve/

.

niques associated with ethnic groups. None of the semi-primitive and loaded/natural ROSs are relaalternatives addressed the contributions to com- "^

 m°de

T

st und",al

 Alternatives and are localmunities of non-timber forest products. Impacts to |fd

 ^ the Lower ^ark

 Fork a

«

d Southe

A

r

"

cultural groups (such as Hispanics and Asians/

 Cascades Eco1^ ReP°T8 U"u * u *'

Pacific Islanders), who may use federally adminis- "f

 5 (see a

PPendlx 6'^- A<jross the Basin,

tered natural resources for non-traditional forest Alternative 5 represents a reduction of appro*-

products, are unknown because estimates of har- "^ 77,000 hectares (214,890 acres) in pnmivestability of culturally salient plants and animals tive/semi-pnmmve classes over the current situawere not available from the ICBEMP.

 tlon' ?ata

 provided by the economics staff suggests that this amount or conversion will have litRoad density measures provide de facto estimates tie effect on net economic benefits of recreation at

of access to federally administered lands for a vari- the Basin level,

ety of purposes, including access to plant and ani- _ ..... . .

mal species and culturally important sites for Recreational use is projected to increase dramat,-

American Indian tribes, access to non-traditional ^. P3^"1 IesP°TMe to,

 r

f °g P°P"!atlons ,

forest products and access to a variety of recre-

 wlthm the

L

Bas

L

m and

 Partly because of increased

ational opportunities. In the EEIS area, the pro-

 tou"sm

,' TMhlch 1S an economic development pollportion of land in the highest road-density classes <*

 of dl Ac states

,

m

 *c Basm'

 Chan8es m [°ad

(> 1.7 miles /sq. mile) would decrease significantly management involve decommissioning or obhterunder Alternatives 3, 4, and 7. There are no major

 atl°n

 °/the road surface, therefore, reductions in

changes in road densities in the other alternatives ^oads do "? Provide/

O

J.increased opportunities

(see appendix 6-B, table 6B.3 for road density pro-

 f°r

 hiking hunting, fishing or mountain biking

jections by alternative). Under all of the alterna- *at have been dependent on a road-like trail surtives there would be no increases in the lowest

 face' Reductions in road density could potentially

road-density classes, suggesting that access in gen-

 mcrease r,°ad

 f^10' TM demand for "atu

f

ral

eral would continue at current levels. Apparently resource-based recreation increases, but fewer

much of this decrease would come from relatively f^f

 of road

 ^ avallab>

 Such

 "««**« may

small timber harvest on spur roads, while major

 lead to

 Congestion, conflict and decreased air

thoroughfares would remain open. In the UCRB quality because of increased dust production,

area, only Alternatives 6 and 7 result in changes in

 Such

 obliterations, however, may lead to less sediroad densities. These alternatives would lead to 12 Dentation entering streams, which subsequently

and 14 percent reductions, respectively, in the

 could ha^e a P°ative affect on fish populations

proportion of roads in the "high/extremely high" ^ result m 8reater fismng opportunities. The

density classes, with no changes in the lower road- alternatives may have no discernable affect on

density classes.

 access for dlsabled

 Persons'

The amount of area and number of roadless areas, Panelists commented that the effect of managewould be unaffected by the proposed alternatives.

 ment

 ^10TM °n communities has often been cast

Under Alternative 7, 40 percent of the federally ^ a trade °ff between

fl

 recreatlon and

 traditional

administered land in the Basin would be desig-

 U!5S; thls

r

 doe

j

s not reflect the

 complementary

nated as reserves. This designation, accompanied ^ffects °f roads to recrf

tlon acc

L

ess'LAe fandm§

by lack of prescribed fire management, may sig-

 for road

 maintenance from timber harvests, and

nificantly change the vegetative composition and

 the

 "ew types of harvest techniques to maintain

character of these roadless areas. No projections

 scemc

 characteristics.

782 Social
Related to scenic condition, Alternatives 3, 4, and values, but much lower scores on social cohesion

7 would lead to relatively sizeable proportional and economic diversity. Towns in this group have

increases in lands of "high" and "very high" scenic considerably less population than those in the first

integrity classes in the next decade within the grouP- The number of towns in this group is

EEIS planning area (appendix 6-B). These alterna- slightly lower than the number in the first group,

tives then would be expected to enhance the via- This type of community may lack the economic

bility of communities located in the nearby area base to deal with change successfully, but this

by making their surrounding settings more visual- could be compensated for by forward-thinking

ly attractive. In the UCRB planning area, the situ- civic leaders and the presence of amenities,

ation is somewhat more complex. Nearly two- _,... . r ..,.« . .

thirds of the federally administered lands in this Jhe

 th

u

ird

 ^ of community identified tends to

area are currently rated as "high" or "very high" in Jife the lowest sc°

res on

 ^1 of,

the

 measures

scenic integrity with many of these lands lying

 The

y

 are

 intermediate in population (though closwithin designated wilderness and other protected

 er m ^ the smallest rather than

 ]he larj

est

,

areas. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would cause some-

 towns)' The

L

Se

 ">mmunl'ies may find it difficult

what of a decrease in scenic integrity and Alterna-

 to c°Pe wlth

_

 change bfauif *ey have few curtive 7 would promote a modest increase (appendix

 rent s"en/ths on whlch to bu

_

lld

- TM« 6TMP «>n6-B). Therefore, in the UCRB area, we would

 tams far^wer towns

 than either of the other

expect to see community viability affected only in grouP

s

'

 Mm&TMn

 could be targeted to these

a minor way, from shifts in scenic integrity. communities, following further analysis.

It would be useful to group communities based ^uch of the panels' discussion centered on

on the five scales that were used to define resilien- Alternatives 1,2,4, and 7 because they seemed to

cy (economic structure, civic leadership, social £ave the most meaning and were understood best,

cohesion, preparedness for the future, and ameni-

 Panellfs tended to havea more dlf^ult time

 ,

ties), in order to identify the different paths to ^fy^ ^ ^^

 dcmentS

 °f

 Alternat

,

lves 3'

I- • -I- i i • i- • r j i 5, and 6. Alternative 4 was viewed by panelists as

achieving resiliency and the implications for deal- , . ... .... ,

 7 K

. ,

ing with change. As a preliminary step in this

 havmS hlSher

 social acceptability than either

effort, ICBEMP staff conducted a series of cluster Alternatives 1 or 2. It was suggested that Alternaanalyses (SPSS Inc. 1989). The results suggested

 nve

 * m^

 llkel>'TMalt m greater economic diverthat it is useful to think of three types or groups ^ becaus

u

e nc^ rf storatfon

 ^f ,

would be

of communities with respect to resiliency. accomplished. This alternative could also increase

m-migration to the Basin and its smaller commuThe first group had the highest scores for all five nities, which could result in higher levels of social

factors that make up the resiliency index; these conflict because new residents may bring with

were communities viewed by their leaders as them different value systems. Because Alternative

attractive, economically diverse, socially cohesive, 4 involves substantial restoration activity, and

and having strong civic leadership. These commu- such activity requires a funding level that is uncernities also tend to be larger in population and tain, it is difficult to evaluate its effects on

exhibit the greatest economic diversity. This group employment and communities, although objectends to contain a larger number of communities tives and standards identify a preference for local

than the other two groups. These communities hiring (as they do for Alternatives 3 through 7).

presumably have a number of different character- Not enough information was provided to deteristics that will allow them to meet new challenges mine if marketed timber volume under restorasuccessfully. tion-focused management would be profitable or

„. . .. ... . of sufficient stability for the private sector to make

The second group of communities had compara- long.term investments such as the development of

bly high scores on civic leadership and amenity n£w processing plams MtemaAve 4> however)

Social 783
may provide employment opportunities by the However, panelists disagreed about establishing

government and private sectors, thereby keeping priority areas based on isolation and employment

youth residing in smaller communities at home growth in other industries, suggesting that these

and reducing out-migration. Restoration of range- criteria were too limiting for mitigation programs,

lands may increase forage availability, thereby and implying that the Federal Government was

resulting in a positive effect to ranchers, assuming forsaking small communities. Under Alternative 3

the increased forage can be utilized by cattle. small communities would receive a larger share of

.. . . ,,i ,. , the benefits because they would have a strong

Alternative 7 was viewed by the panelists as hay- ^^ ^ ,ocal resource m mem decisions

&

 This

ing many potentially negative impacts It was felt does not necessaril mean tjfat increased timber

that Alternative 7 carried a greater likelihood or \ • u i IL- - 1-1 1

. . . °. ... harvesting would result, only that it is more likely

catastrophic events that could move outside the 11 i \ \\\ \\ \ K Tr L • \ TM. ... • r that local needs would be addressed. If the jobs

reserves. This would increase uncertainty for created b Mtemadn 4 materiaiize; ^ if a priori.

humans. Alternative 7 may increase scenic integri- b iyen M load ^ w ac lish restoratiori)

ty7 and quality or lire tor many, yet could also lead L n • • u c n

 . i . . . . . o , then smaller communities may benefit as well,

to potential increases in m-migration. buch

increases in population growth may lead to more The distribution of effects under Alternatives 5

subdivisions, thereby increasing population densi- and 6 are unclear. Alternative 6 may have the

ty, habitat fragmentation, and wildfire hazard. same effects as Alternative 4, but they would

Panelists were concerned that such subdivisions occur over a longer timeframe. Longer timeframes

would not pay for the government services needed may increase the uncertainty associated with

by residents. Alternative 7 may also involve much implementation of this alternative, reducing its

smaller staffing levels for the FS and BLM, which social acceptability. Alternative 7 could shift benecould lead to negative effects such as the availabil- fits well away from smaller communities to the

ity of skills and knowledge for managing change nation as a whole. The costs, in terms of resource

in local communities, and substantial reductions commodity processing jobs, increased variability

in resource-based revenue sharing. On the other in commodity flows, and increased risk of wildside, some panelists felt that Alternative 7 may fire, may be borne by smaller communities,

force communities to reconsider their economic Communities that currently have low levels of

futures, thereby increasing their resiliency. resiliency may be particularly affected. However,

„. „ . . . • i i i. .1 . some communities would be expected to benefit,

Finally, there may be an inequitable distribution ^ much would d d Qn how ^^ ^

of costs and benefits among the alternatives. matrix ^ wefe ^^ m d.

Under Alternative 1, smaller rural communities

may receive much of the economic benefit (in Monitoring and mitigation — The ability to

terms of jobs and employment) generated by tim- monitor changes will require agreeing about

her harvesting activity and the use of below-cost appropriate indicators of community vitality

timber sales. Alternative 2, because of the restric- among agencies and representatives of other public

tive interim measures (such as those in PACFISH and private institutions. The very process of identi1995), could place more of the cost on small fying these indicators could be a positive first step

communities, primarily because jobs would be in understanding die manner in which Federal

lost in the resource commodity industries. Specific lands interact widi communities and effect quality

objectives for enhancing community resiliency are of life at finer scales. Measurement would be

established under Alternatives 3 through 7, in advanced by cooperative efforts to collect and

order to confront potential changes in the distrib- communicate information among a wide range of

ution of costs and benefits. stakeholders, such that greater trust in the quality

of information collected could be generated.

784 Social
Policy decisions about the appropriateness of fed- Effects of Alternatives OH

eral agency interventions to mitigate changes in American Indian Tribes

resource flows to rural communities will need to

be made via a process that is open to public par- American Indian tribes have long occupied the

ticipation and addresses the issue of equity—both Basin and their interests and rights are defined in

within and between the community .groups iden- a series of treaties signed in the Nineteenth

tified in the previous section of this chapter. Century. These rights and interests have been

Typically, efforts to deal with a changing business interpreted and enforced in a variety of court

environment involve retraining programs support- decisions and congressional actions. Each tribe has

ed with public funds. Yet, a climate of declining an individual identity and relationship with the

budgets across government programs will require United States Government. Aggregating Individrealistic projections of available funds and their ual tribal interests for the entire Basin may overpotential distribution. Past experience suggests shadow specific concerns of individual tribes,

that retraining programs, although they may ulti- Nevertheless, American Indian tribes have a nummately provide economic benefits, still have their ber of common interests and concerns which may

social costs, especially for people whose occupa- be affected differently by the alternatives.

tions and lifestyles are intertwined with natural . . .. . . . j i I- I j In examining tribal interests in the west, rianes

resources and public lands. /,nnc\ • j L i • i j (1995) recognized that key issues revolve around

An evaluation of programs that have been offered sovereignty, trust status, self-determination, selfto former timber workers in western Oregon and governance, access to sacred places, and harvest of

Washington as a result of the President's Forest traditional foods and medicine. Several of these

Plan (USDA and USDI 1994) may be helpful in same issues were brought forward in the panel sesthe design of transition strategies. Additional sion of tribal representatives to assess the conseresearch, such as surveying workers who have and quences of implementing the EEIS and UCRB

have not participated in retraining, would help to EISs. The areas of interest that the panel

further define the costs and benefits of such pro- addressed in relation to these two EISs focused on

grams. Monitoring federal payments to counties seven major areas: (1) trust responsibilities, (2)

and the resulting effects, especially on counties access to public lands, (3) quality of water and

most dependent on federal revenue sharing, could land, (4) opportunities for economic growth, (5)

suggest targets and approaches for mitigation culturally significant plant and animal communistrategies. Local governments should be active ties, (6) air quality, and (7) places. Each of these

participants in this process. interest areas will be examined below as criteria

„. _ . „ ... . , , ... for evaluating the proposed alternatives.

1 he Community Selr-Assessment workshops held

in one-half of the Basin's small, rural communities The tribal panel had difficulty accepting not only

(Harris and others 1996) provide a starting point the format of the EISs, but the evaluation process

for further efforts that could involve more com- as well. The panel entered the evaluation process at

munity residents and work toward finding collec- the "end" of the initial developmental phase of the

tive solutions to collective problems. Such groups project and within a context of a long history of

could also play a valuable role in monitoring the what they view as inequitable solutions of their

effects of implementation, working to reduce neg- interests. Not only had Indians lost their traditionative effects and capitalizing on positive ones. The al uses of lands over the period of conquest and

role of the FS and BLM in this effort could be forced relocation to reservations, they felt they had

determined on a community-by-community basis, not been treated fairly in the application of mandepending on the needs and desires of community agement decisions. Executive Orders by the Presileaders and other participants. dent to live up to obligations to the tribes are perceived to have been ignored or applied in inconSocial 785
sistent fashion. There appears to be little account- Trust responsibilities in the Basin are related to: (1)

ability when transgressions occur, and no incen- natural resources on reservations and ceded lands,

tives have been proposed to evaluate whether or and in traditional use areas regardless of their locanot tribal interests are being addressed. Plans and tion; (2) rights associated with access to certain

programs for management are perceived as driven areas, plants and animals off-reservation; (3) the

by the supply of outputs that are valued by others, right to self-determination (self-governance); and

but these programs are not holistic or guided by (4) the right to social well-being. These responsiobjectives to support the lifeways of the tribes. bilities are applied to many resources and lands

.„.. . .... . . . . . administered by the FS and BLM.

whole system divisions that are inherent in the

structure of an EIS document and the paradigm Evaluation of alternatives — The effects of

of science run counter to the manner in which alternatives can be only understood within the

tribes view themselves and their relationship with context of historical relationships between the

the environment. Although several panelists tribes and the U.S. Government. Therefore, this

appreciated the fact that a watershed approach section contains substantial description of tribal

was being used in the ICBEMP, there was a strong viewpoints on this relationship and how it influsentiment that an EIS was a clumsy and inappro- ences estimates of effects.

priate vehicle to make decisions about the diverse TT/-DD i- • j n CTC

interests of people.

 The EEISand UCRB preliminary draft EISs contain two objectives to guide federal agency actions

Trust responsibilities — The Federal Govern- regarding their relationship to tribal interests for

ment's obligation to honor its trust relationship Alternatives 3 through 7. Each of these objectives

and fulfill its treaty commitments is known as its contains one standard that identifies a process by

trust responsibility (Pevar 1992). The competition which federal management actions are to be

and conflict between native and Euro-American undertaken. The objectives and standards do not

people in the 1800s resulted in a treaty-making apply to Alternatives 1 or 2.

period between tribes and the United States T-^,m ^ i i IT- I i

Government. Upon signing treaties with Ameri- I'01 : To h,

eIP meet

 J^f . .

can Indians, the government assumed a legal Governments responsibility (to) maintain a

obligation in which the Indians trusted the government-to-government relationship with

United States to fulfill promises given in exchange ^d f<;

derall

y ^«gff^ tribes (agencies

for their land. In the 1831 Supreme Court deci-

 wll{] devel

J°P "f^g^1

 relationships to

sion, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia,* Chief Justice understand and incorporate tribal needs

Marshall characterized American Indian tribes as

 mterests' *** f *P

f

 tat'°n

,

S

, "

"domestic dependent nations" with a government management (and will) allow cooperative

or nation-state status and a special relationship to

 actmtles where

 *««

 m shared

 goak

the United States (Cohen 1982). Pre-existing T-S1: (1) Agencies shall consult with all

rights which were not specifically granted to the affected federally recognized tribes on projects

United States through treaties or agreements or at the proposal stages, and at other stages as

which were not expressly terminated by Congress appropriate. (2) Agencies should consult with

continue to this day, and even a treaty that is all federally affected Indian tribes/communisilent regarding hunting and fishing rights implic- ties on (a) project at proposal stages, and at

itly reserves those rights (Menominee Tribe v. other stages as appropriate.

United States? see Getches and others 1993).

"Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 8 L.Ed. 25 (1831).

'Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 391 U.S. 404, 88 S.Ct. 1705, 20 L.Ed.2d 697 (1968).

10T-Ol indicates Tribal Interests - Objective, followed by the specific objective number cited (Chapter 3, Preliminary Draft EISs;

see appendix I in this document) (USDA and USDI 1996a, 1996b).

7m Social
T-O2: To help meet the Federal Government's residents of the Basin with a tradition of evaluatresponsibility toward tribes, maintain and/or ing actions over multiple generations, the tribal

restore habitat conditions at or above a level representatives on the panel see the FS and BLM

capable of supporting healthy, sustainable, approach as transitory, fulfilling the bureaucratic

and usable quantities of species/resources by needs of the current situation instead of the needs

implementing activities in Tables 3-12 and of future generations.

3-13.

An additional issue of concern regarding the fulT-S1: (1) Agencies shall assess habitat condi- fillment of trust responsibilities related to the

tions (using biological evaluations or other capacity for federal land management agencies to

means) and discuss assessments with affected intervene with state governments on behalf of the

tribes at the earliest practical stage in planning tribes. Particularly concerning the issue of water

a project. (2) Agencies shall assess habitat quality, tribal representatives believe that they are

conditions (using biological evaluations or operating at a disadvantage with state government

other means) where a habitat has an identified agencies, and that Federal trust responsibilities

social or traditional importance to an affected regarding the maintenance of water quality and

tribe or American Indian community, such as quantity should extend to advocacy activities with

root fields or fishing grounds. other institutional units of government.

Consultation with the tribes is an essential com- Alternatives 1 and 2 were the least acceptable to

ponent of operationalizing trust responsibilities the tribes in meeting the trust responsibility critebut there may be significant differences in what rion. They do not explicitly provide mechanisms -

consultation means to the tribes and the U.S. for a consultation process and continued the busiGovernment. Undoubtedly, consultation may vary ness-as-usual approach to establishing priorities

according to the norms and cultural preferences of for management action. Current plans do not

individual tribes. The tribal panel felt that consul- contain mechanisms to improve working relationtation on this project was not achieved because ships between the Forest Service, BLM, and the

their input was not incorporated until late in the tribes, and from their perspective this lack of a

project, thereby calling into question the sincerity cooperative framework is unacceptable. Alternaof the proposed objectives and standards. lives 3 through 7 were viewed as an improvement

„.. . T .... . . . in the respect that they at least acknowledged a

The American Indian tribal panel unanimously need w myolye tribes -m management planning.

agreed that none of the proposed alternatives The tribes haye been e ted from restricdons

would meet the Federal Governments trust of ^ Federal Adyi Committee Act but feel

responsibilities to the tribes in the Basin. The ^ {h haye tQ ^^ collaboradve lan.

tribes communicated clearly that trust is a term • cc f t i - - i i i i ninR errorts.

that they interpret as responsible behaviors in the

management of natural resources. In the view of Access to public lands — Access to federally

the panel, the U.S. Government has allowed administered lands is important for American

unacceptable levels of degradation of the lands Indian tribes in order to uphold the rights to

and waters entrusted to federal agencies for resource uses that are reserved under treaties,

management. These resource uses involve, but are not limited

„ , • r i -i i ill

 to> activities such as gathering culturally signifiFrom the perspective of the tribal pane , the alter- cam knt

 .^ m in hund iceS)

natives do little to address fundamental treaty- and ^ use of ceremonial sites. Since the form of

identified concerns regarding the quantity and a(xess ^ the$e resources ^ eyolyed w indude

quality of water, the harvestabihty offish popula- Ae use of motor yehicles> ^ opportunities for

tions, deer hunting opportunities, and the avail- ^ members w use roads haye become a JM

ability or roots and berries. Further, as long-term

Social 78?
of interest to tribes when issues of road manage- ances, there is no visible mechanism in any of the

ment arise. alternatives to provide redress for administrative

, . . ... .... . restrictions or the location of developments that

Access also involves the ability of tribes to contin- haye med barriers to tribal uses. Alternatives

ue usual and customary uses in places where l ^ 2 coM ide •mmased recreational

administrative restrictions have been placed for access and use of culmrall important sites> ten.

other management objectives. For example the ^ harmi these ^

restrictions placed on land uses in Research

Natural Areas may constrain traditional tribal-use Individual responses of panelists to the acceptabilpatterns. Special designations of places may also ity of alternatives regarding access reveal that

be accompanied by behavioral constraints, such respondents are either very certain or somewhat

that limits on the types of uses (for example, certain that Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 will harm

horseback riding and camping), the number of tribal interests (Alternative 3 was viewed by panvisitors, or the duration of visitation may be con- elists as largely a continuation of current managesidered a restriction of access. ment practices with only slight modifications).

_ , . r . . _ .. . . Panelists felt that Alternatives 4 through 7 were

Evaluation of alternatives — Panelists thought more ac ble> h due to the ch that

that Alternatives 1 and 2 would not meet tribal ^ anticipated in resource conditions through

interests for adequate access. Tribal representatives restoration and conservation measures,

view these alternatives as Hawed, since the existing

plans were not produced with provisions for ade- Quality of water and land — The effects of

quate tribal consultation over access and other current land-use activities on water quality and

important issues. Panelists felt that opportunities quantity are of paramount interest to the tribes in

for Indians to hunt or use resources in traditional the Basin, as water is viewed as the most sacred of

ways were not considered in current plans; these substances (Hanes 1995). Water is often characplans created zones for resource emphases that did terized as the bloodline that runs through the land

not coincide with tribal-use patterns. As a result, (Meyer 1983). Ritual activities almost always

panelists felt that traditional pathways to resources involve water, and the supply of clean water is

have been obliterated by activities such as the seen as the foundation of a sustained tribal lifefencing-off land or other developments; this has way. Clean water is also used in processing food,

particularly disrupted activities such as grazing. since immersion in water for leaching is a cornLand exchanges with other private property own- mon practice. Factors such as sediment delivery to

ers or special use provisions have blocked access to streams, channel morphology, water temperature,

places of cultural significance. Fees charged for streamside riparian zones, point and non-point

camping and other use restrictions have placed contamination, water quantity, and flow timing

limitations on the ability of tribes to use locations are of key interest.

that retain cultural significance. „„ ... r , i i- Water rights issues are fundamental to water qualiPanelists stated that current plans contain restric- ty and quantity concerns. Two types of water

tions on access that should not apply to the tribes. rights are pertinent to tribal water issues. One is

For example, one panelist stated that the restric- related directly to water associated with reservation of parties on horseback to no more than 12 tions to sustain tribal lifeways, and the second is

horses (in designated wilderness) has constrained instream flow to sustain off-reservation treaty

the usual and customary uses of certain areas, resources (most notably fisheries). Although cersince tribes did not necessarily travel in groups tain water rights in die Basin have been established

with 12 horses or less. Although Alternatives 3 by case law (see Winters Doctrine versus Winans"

through 7 offer additional consultation assur- case), many water rights issues remain unresolved.

"Winters Doctrine refers to Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908); the Winans case, United States v. The Winans, 198 U.S.

371, helped define the nature and extent of Indian reserved water rights.

788 Social
The next decade or two may reveal to what extent low incomes characterize the living conditions of

reserved rights are defined (Hanes 1995). families on tribal reservations in the Basin, and

.. . . . . .. .. .„ . the vitality of rural tribal communities is a major

Although land quality was identified as a concern concem of triba] representatives. Tribai business

of the tribal panelists, it was not thoroughly enterprises include wood processing facilities and

addressed in evaluating alternatives. Issues of othef businesses associated with resource extrac.

interest regarding land quality included the mam- ^^ The ^^ m fish lations has had

tenance of site productivity and the containment iye effects Qn ^ ^ ^ derive income

of erosion, as well as concerns over forest health from fisheries> and h has huft ^ subsistence

conditions. potential of tribal members.

Evaluation of alternatives — Panelists did not From a ^^ ctive> economic ^ that

observe substantial differences among alternatives focus ^ Qn mo returns from invest.

in meeting their interests m the maintenance of ments do nQt sem a ^ accounting Of the

water and land quality. Alternatives 4 through 7 contributions of natural resources to the human

would promote a higher level of restoration than experierice. There is a sentiment among tribes that

current plans. None of the alternatives would deal thefe [g ^ in kable access to economic oppor.

directly with the states regarding their regulatory ^^ ^ ^^ ^ ms that resuh

authority over the management of water resources. from ^ man at of Federal lands-counties

The panelists expressed a preference for broadly receive K based on the 25-Percent-Fund

applied standards across the Basin to ensure not and pin; but ^ trfbes do not recdve similar

only mstream flows and water quality protection, benefits Reyenue ^ su ^ educadon of

but also oversight to protect the quality of {Mdtm was identified as an im tant need.

groundwater and the recharge or subsurface

aquifers. Evaluation of alternatives — Estimates of the

. .... . .. effects of alternatives on employment in the timThe protection of soil structure and long-term bef Qr recreation seaors were not avaikble for

productivity of terrestrial resources is a concern of consideration by panelists. While information

the tribes Alternatives 1 and 2 would do little to about emplovmem was provided, it was not

address these concerns in terms of controlling ero- disaggregated below the EIS plannin ^. The

sion from roads and streambank stabilization. continuation of the current land- and resource-use

Alternatives 4, 6, and 7 would offer greater oppor- ^ as sed under Altematives l w 3>

tumty to prevent sod erosion and sedimentation would nQt meet ^, ctations for eco.

m streams via the effort to restore and/or conserve nomic owfh mnities. With fish la.

major portions of the landscape. Current plans, as dons and Qther oducdve dements of the namral

represented by Alternative 1, would not effectively landsc in decline) tribal anelists indicated that

achieve conditions more suitable for fish, although excessive kvels of extractions are beginning to take

the direction in Alternative 2 would provide ^ ^ Qn namfid ms Qne ^ com_

greater protection for riparian and aquatic habi- memed( «We ar£ inst, m Qn sl

tats. Alternauves 1 to 3, because of their less per- Qn ^ and extractions on sacred lands. I

vasive approach in addressing cumulative effects wodd object ^ mQK j in and road buildin «

or past actions, would not be as acceptable to

tribes as the other alternatives. At the same time, some tribes chose to manage

_ . . - . , timber, and the timber resources on reservations Opportunities for economic growth - ide income M some of

 ^ tribes The ^^

Economic conditions for tribal members are some essed undef Mtma!dve 4 (to ovide for

of the most difficult for any population group restoration via commercial timber harvests) were

within the Basin. High unemployment rates and more acceptable to panelists than the other j^.

Social 789
natives. However, panelists felt that there was not provided to panelists. Alternatives 1 to 3 were recenough information about appropriate levels of ognized by all tribal panelists as alternatives that

harvests, the location of harvests, and the mix of would least meet the needs of tribes, since it is

uses to evaluate the effects of Alternative 4 fully. anticipated that under current plans habitat conTribal panelists also had concerns about Alterna- ditions would continue to decline. Panelists felt

tive 4 being implemented so that it would not that Alternatives 4 through 7 would provide the

adversely affect tribal interests. most acceptable effects on native plant, animal,

... . . , . and fish species when panelists provided individNone of the alternatives appear to contain objec- ^ ns£S to the ^natives. Alternatives 4

ayes or standards that focus on the economic th h ? would not licitl ote the

diversification of tribal communities. The fact improvement of habitat for grizzly bears, but the

that objectives were presented for timber-depen- maintenance of bear populations was identified by

dent communities suggested to the panelists that .^ ^ H. h, im tant Alternative 7 is

there continues to be an inequitable amount of yiewed b SQme ^^ entatives „ the most

attention being focused on one type of com- hive h w dea, wkh ^ man nt of

mumty versus another. habhat for wide ^^ of species> since h would

Culturally significant plant and animal provide reserve areas that would reduce the

communities — Plant and animal communities impacts of management.

form but one part of the whole set of relationships The ^^ m mem approach to restoration as

between a group of people, their culture, and the proposed under Alternative 4 may contain both

environment Culturally significant elements of ible iye ^ [t[ve ^ ^ ^^

the Indian hfeway cannot be identified, catego- representatives expressed a desire for more thornzed, and managed separately. The importance of , consuhation and ^ is Some tribal mem.

plants and animals can only be measured in the bers sed concem about «acdve» m _

cultural context in which they occur.12 The con- ment> based Qn ^ ^^ record of ps ^

cept of ethno-habitat refers to how a culture clas- RLM man nt interventions. Alternative 4

sifies and organizes a landscape, and the health of be ffl . in a kive direcdon regarding

this habitat may reflect its capacity to support nat- H ^ man ent ^ other activhies ^^

urally evolving plant and animal communities. ^^ concems> but pandists thought there

In the context of ecosystem management on would need to be a reorientation on the focus of

Federal lands in the Basin, culturally important restoration toward tribal concerns. In general,

plant and animal communities can be understood panelists thought restoration would not go far

as those places where useable and adequate quan- enough, and because of the flexibility built into

tities of culturally significant species are obtain- the watershed analysis under Alternative 4, the

able for American Indian tribes. Huckleberry effort to mimic natural processes had the potential

patches, root fields, fishing grounds and stations, to go either way. Restoration activities could be

and hunting districts represent these places in the unsuccessful, and there was a concern that they

Basin. could create further damage. It was observed that

the time needed for restoration is much longer

Evaluation of alternatives — Information indi- than the timeframe of the plan,

eating how the harvestability of culturally important plant and animal communities would be Air quality — Air quality standards identified

affected under each of the alternatives was not under the Clean Air Act of 1955 provide a useful

context for the maintenance of air quality, but

12Personal communication. 1996. Mary Keith. Tribal Liaison, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112 E.

Poplar, Walla Walla, Washington, 99362.

798 Social
there are different cultural differences in how vari- Places — To American Indian tribes the totality

ous types of pollutants or paniculate matter are of the regional landscape has importance, and all

interpreted. For example, smoke from some forest landscape components participate in a system of

fires is not viewed as pollution by tribes, since fire complex inter-relationships. Places of importance

is a natural process providing renewal and regen- are created by an intersection of nature, social

eration. On the other hand, excessive levels of relations, and meaning (Hanes 1995, Williams

smoke, which is produced by wildfires that con- 1995). The Indian population of the northern

sume high levels of accumulated fuels in over- montane region is characterized by a strong, longstocked forest stands, are not perceived to be term, spiritual attachment to the land. The full

healthy. Another contributor to air quality degra- range of resources needed to sustain lives and

dation is dust, which has been introduced mainly culture was found each in its own place, and

through roads. The lack of maintenance of roads Indian people have accrued a "detailed, encycloor the lack of proper surfacing increases dust and pedic knowledge of their environment" (Hunn

raises concerns for tribes on the quality of the 1990).

environment. .

Localism, or the identification or a person and a

Evaluation of alternatives — Information on place, has been a key factor in the traditional

smoke production was not available to panelists northern montane Indian lifeway. Place names

for any of the alternatives. Panelists felt, however, relay traditional knowledge of land and resources

that Alternatives 1 to 3 could produce excessive by referring to plants and animals that characteramounts of smoke during large-scale wildfire ize a location, the actions of people at a location,

events. Restoration activities in Alternatives 4 the spiritual role of the location, or some other

through 7 were perceived by tribes to be an important attribute of the site. The historical

improvement over current conditions, and the depth of these relationships and strong cultural

long-term effects of restoration would improve air identifications must be acknowledged as they

quality. In the short term, restoration efforts reflect more than a place name veneer on the

under Alternatives 4 through 6 would keep more landscape. The importance of place to tribes in

roads open than Alternative 7, which could create the region can be viewed as a hierarchical orderadditional levels of dust. ing, from the broadest geographic scale to the

~., , ... . . . smallest. Expectations of what "meaning" each

Inbal representatives in the panel session related a • , , . ° , . ,.

, , . ,. ,

 r

 ,. . , order place conveys to the community and mdiconcern that there is little coordination between • j i i j • i • i j

.„,,,„, , . i i n r vidual are shared within each group and create an

the BLM, rb, state agencies, and the bureau or . c, , , u u if JL

T j- A rr • /r,TA \ j- i • i image or now these places should be and what

Indian Affairs (BLA) regarding the operational , ° , ,, .,

 rTM , „_,.,..

c -LJL- A i -L they should provide (Tuan 1977).

aspects of prescribed burning. Among the tribes, ' r

this lack of coordination allows for little pre- The FS and BLM are responsible for the protecdictability in expectations for smoke emission or tion of cultural sites on lands under their managethe resulting habitat conditions for species that ment (as these are protected by law); but there is a

may benefit from burning. There was a feeling poor inventory of cultural sites and frequently

that prescribed burns frequently do not create these cultural values, the panelists felt, are not suffood and forage for animals. The Forest Service is ficiently respected to generate protective measures,

perceived to be motivated to practice prescribed . r

burning in order to help livestock operations or to Evaluation of alternatives — The tribal panpromote forest regeneration for plantations, and

 ellsts felt that the effects of resource

 development

not to benefit deer, elk, and other native ungu-

 on the sPmtual and cultural

 q^ties of the land

lates of interest to tribes.

 have

 damaged the relationships between tribes

and the land. The change in the character of the

land through management interventions and

Social 791
developments as represented by Alternatives 1 and poses. Standards could deal with how tribal con2 would diminish the value of places to tribes, sultation will proceed, assuming such standards

since the important features that made many are jointly developed with the tribes. These more

places special to tribes have been irreversibly localized efforts would offer tribes a more promialtered. For instance, root fields have been re- nent role in describing tribal interests and assessplaced by grazing uses, or berry production areas ing the potential effects posed by proposed

have been converted to production forestry. actions.

Campgrounds have been placed on usual and cus- ., . n. ...

tomary sites. One panelist described an example Tribal interests are in conflict with the current

where a telecommunications site has completely definition over the beneficial uses of water, which

transformed a tribal sacred site, destroying its *WTM from *'

 tribal

 PersP

ectlve•» be

 *n>ngly

cult ral alue biased toward consumptive uses. Water management across states is not consistent, with some

The panelists felt that the continuation of current state laws offering greater levels of regulation of

plans, as reflected in Alternatives 1 and 2, would water flows and quality than others, and some

not acknowledge the significance of place attach- providing useful operational guidelines, such as

ment or create mechanisms to inventory places so Best Management Practices (BMPs), to protect

that significant cultural values could be main- water resources. Objectives and standards could be

tained. None of the alternatives attempt to recover developed requiring greater interaction among the

the damage done to resources from road building tribes, states and Federal Government about water

and the other cumulative effects of management. quality and quantity issues.

They also do not identify policies to recover or . .

restore damage to culturally important sites, nor Monitoring could include processes to assess what

do they contain standards to ensure more com- Prof

ress the trl

r

bes

.

and

 Federal Government have

plete historical interpretations of the use of land

 made ln cons"ltat,ye venues, the ways to improve

resources over time; although there is legislation

 such

 Protocols'

 and methods to

 evaluate them,

that is designed to provide such direction. Tribal .

panelists believe that culturally significant trails, as COI1CIUSIOIIS

tlcted of Served' "^^ "^8"^'

 PK>

~

 The SIT

 examined the results of the panel

' " ' processes addressing social consequences and was

Mitigation and monitoring — Indian inter- in agreement with the major outcomes. Table 6.2

ests in regard to public land management issues summarizes these major outcomes using qualitaare pervasive, and because of the diversity of tribal «ve descriptors to show how the alternatives

groups in the region and the many legal events would likely affect the social indicators if implethat have occurred in the past, a more detailed mented. These judgments were based heavily on

and systematic accounting of tribal interests for the results of the panels but also on McCool and

each tribal government would be more appropri- others (in press), and Haynes and Home (in

ately performed as individual administrative units press) and the authors' understanding of the

of federal agencies pursue subsequent land-use alternatives,

planning exercises. Table g 2 use$ ^^ acceptabilitV) defmed ^ ^

Objectives and standards under Alternatives 3 increased likelihood of a favorable public attitude

through 7 would provide for consultation, but toward an alternative and its social effects, as its

additional standards may be needed to furnish standard. This does not mean that all segments of

assurances to the tribes. For example, a standard the public will feel this way, but that on balance,

could address development and implementation more people and interests are likely to express

of tribal advisory groups for consultation pur- positive attitudes than negative ones. Making a

792 Social
Social 793

summary judgment on social acceptability is an Despite these caveats and considerations, it is a

uncertain task at best; responses received during valid task to consider social acceptability at this

the public comment period on the Draft EISs are point. It would make sense to do this not just for

obviously a better indicator of acceptability. In the social variables, but for all other evaluation

addition, each of the evaluation criteria has many criteria as well. Another option for summarizing

facets, some of which may be viewed more posi- social consequences would have been to rate the

tively or negatively than others; this also makes it effects themselves, such as estimating whether predifficult to summarize acceptability with a single dictability would increase or decrease under a

index. For example, each of the criteria includes given alternative, and then provide an indepenconsiderations about equity—who is expected to dent rating of its acceptability.

benefit, who is expected to not be affected, and „. „ . . . . . . . . . . i • j n: r • • rmally, it should be clear that the language and who is expected to suffer from a given action or

 }' . . . • r , j. . i . i . i, • • tone or this evaluation are more suggestive or the

condition—which is problematic t o summarize r .... .. . . 1 1 i

• i • i • j types or errects likely to occur, rather than concluwith a single index. • T i i • • • i i • • sive. In addition, many typical evaluation criteria

Acceptability also is not a dichotomous variable, used in social impact assessments at the project

but one that should be thought of as having sever- level are not possible to address adequately at this

al levels. Past projects have defined levels used to scale. However, the resulting uncertainty about

describe effects of public land management. For social effects could be mitigated through monitorexample, one project defined the levels as: effect is ing social indicators developed jointly through

unacceptable without significant mitigation; effect public and private coordination at the project

is acceptable with minor changes; effect is accept- scale. Because ecosystem management is designed

able without mitigation; and effect is acceptable to be an adaptive process, monitoring plays a critand desirable (USDA 1991). ical role in adjusting activities or objectives to

meet existing or emerging social, economic, and

biophysical objectives.
Table 6.2. Summary of social evaluation of the alternatives. This table summarizes the major panel outcomes using q

tfk ability

1

) to show how the alternatives would likely affect the social indicators if implemented.

^* Alternative

Evaluation Criteria 123 4 5 

o* Effects on Predictability 11 Jl Uncertain ft I

a

91 Effects on Access to Decision Making U- U IT ft ft 

Effects on Private Land U U- ft Uncertain Unce

Effects on Communities and Quality of Life U U- ft ft Unce

Effects on American Indian Tribes:

Trust Responsibilities li U U ft Unce

Access to Public Lands U II U- ft Unce

Quality of Water and Lands U- U U- Unce

Opportunities for Economic Growth U U- -0- ft Unce

Culturally Significant Plant and Animal Communities U U U ft Unce

Air Quality li U U ft Unce

Culturally Significant Places U \L U ft Unce

'Social acceptability is defined as an increased likelihood of a favorable public attitude toward an alternative and its social effects.

-li = negative effect; ff = positive effect; Uncertain = uncertain of the effect.