CHAPTER 1 

Introduction 

Thomas M. Quigley 

Kristine M. Lee 

Sylvia J. Arbelbide 
Quigley, Thomas M., Range Scientist/Economist, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station,

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Walla Walla, WA

Lee, Kristine M., Fisheries/Aquatics Ecology Program Leader, Forest Service, Intermountain Region,

Ogden, UT

Arbelbide, Sylvia J., Geologist, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Minerals Area Management

Director, San Francisco, CA

Introduction
Introduction 

Description of Alternatives 

Mternative 1 (No Action) 

Alternative 2 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 4 

Alternative 5 

Alternative 6 

Alternative 7 

INTRODUCTION 

TABLE OF 

CONTENTS 

Interpreting Rule Sets and Management Emphasis Categories 

Evaluation of Alternatives Process 

Literature Cited 

5 

12 

14 

14 

15 

15 

16 

16 

16 

17 

27 

28 

-.-~.-.-.-.-.Y~...-.-...-.-~.-.-.-.-.-...-.-..~-.-.w.-.w.-.-...w.~...~.~.... 

Introduction 
Introduction
Introduction

In July 1993, as part of his plan for ecosystem

management in the Pacific Northwest, President

Clinton directed the Forest Service ^FS) to "develop a scientifically sound and ecosystem-based

strategy for management of Eastside forests." To

accomplish this, in January 1994, the Chief of the

Forest Service and the Director of the Bureau of

Land Management jointly established the Interior

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

(ICBEMP). The area covered by the ICBEMP

includes lands within the interior Columbia Basin

east of the Cascade crest and those portions of the

Klamath and Great Basins within Oregon (the

Basin) (map 1.1). This area includes over 58.4

million hectares (144.6 million ac), 30.9 million

hectares (76.3 million ac) of which are lands

administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and the U.S. Department of

Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

Three teams were established to accomplish the

project's objectives, a Science Integration Team

(SIT) and two Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) Teams. The EIS teams were established to

prepare Environmental Impact Statements, one

covering the Upper Columbia River basin

(UCRB), those portions of the interior Columbia

River basin in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming,

Nevada, and Utah, and one covering Oregon and

Washington east of the crest of the Cascade Range

(Eastside). These areas are displayed in maps 1.2

and 1.3. Tables 1.1 and 1.2 show the amount of

agency-administered land in each area.' Drawing

on information developed for the assessment, the

EISs were to examine management options for FSand BLM-administered lands in the Basin.

Both EISs were developed with a common set of

alternatives. Decisions resulting from the EISs will

not completely replace existing land and resource

management plans but place the focus on those

broad-scale issues that have been challenging to

address on a unit-by-unit basis. Many conditions

and decisions, most appropriately addressed at the

local level, are not addressed in the EISs.

The Science Integration Team was charged with

developing a scientific framework for ecosystem

management and conducting a scientific assessment of the Basin and an evaluation of EIS alternatives. The document, A Framework for Ecosystem

Management in the Interior Columbia Basin and

Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins (Framework) (Haynes and others 1996), describes the

principles, and planning and analysis processes,

applicable for managing ecosystems in the Basin

at multiple geographic extents and resolutions of

data. An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the

Interior Columbia Basin (Component Assessment)

(Quigley and Arbelbide, in press), and other

documents including An Integrated Scientific Assessment of the Interior Columbia Basin (Integrated

Assessment) (Quigley and others 1996), summarize the assessment process and examine the historical trends, current status and trends, and

projections about the future outcomes and conditions of ecosystems within the Basin. This document, the Evaluation of EIS Alternatives by the

Science Integration Team, looks at the alternatives

developed by the EIS teams in light of the scientific information brought forward in the assessment process. Figure 1.1 provides a flow diagram

for the relationship of the science assessment and

the evaluation of the alternatives to the EISs.

An attempt was made to evaluate a version of the

EIS alternatives in October, 1995. The evaluation

was not totally possible, however, due to the rough

and changing nature of the alternatives, their internal inconsistencies, a lack of specificity and spatial

definition, and the consequent inability to project

viability outcomes for terrestrial and aquatic species.

'The Targhee and Bridger-Teton National Forests and portions of the Caribou National Forest that lie within the boundaries of

both the UCRB and Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem will be excluded from the analysis of effects in the EIS and from decisions

made in the Record(s) ot Decision (ROD). All BLM lands within the boundaries of the UCRB, whether or not they overlap with

boundaries or the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, will be covered by the ROD(s).

Introduction
Map 1.1 -Topography of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project assessment area. The assessment area consists of the planning areas for both the Eastside and UCRB Environmental Impact Statements. 

,...,w,w..,w,w,w,.....,..w.w.w.......w...w.~....~. 

Introduction 
Map 1.2 - BLM- and FS-administered lands in the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area. 

BLM & Forest Service 

Administered Lands 

INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Draft UCRB EIS 

1996 

Forest Service Administered Lands 7 Northern Glaciated Mountains 

BLM Administered Lands 8 Lower Clark Fork 

Water 9 Upper Clark Fork 

EIS Area Border 10 Owyhee Uplands 

Ecological Reporting Unit Border: "1"1 Upper Snake 

Columbia Plateau 12 Snake Headwaters 

Blue Mountains 13 Central Idaho Mountains 
Map 1.3 - BLM- and FS-administered lands in the Eastside EIS area. 

BLM & Forest Service 

Administered Lands 

INTERIOR COLUMBIA 

BASIN ECOSYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT PROJECT 

Draft EASTSIDE EIS 

1996 

Forest Service Administered Lands 3 Upper Klamath 

BLM Administered Lands 4 Northern Great Basin 

Water 5 Columbia Plateau 

EIS Area Border 6 Blue Mountains 

Ecological Reporting Unit Border: 7 Northern Glaciated Mountains 

Northern Cascades 10 Owyhee Uplands 

Southern Cascades 0 Cities and Towns 
Science

Assessment

ElSand

Decision

Evaluation of

Alternatives

Figure 1.1 — Relationship of the Evaluation of Alternatives to the Scientific Assessment and Environmental Impact Statements.

Introduction
Table 1.1 — National Forest and BLM Districts affected by the Eastside EIS.

State National Forest or BLM District Acres Affected1

Oregon Burns BLM District 3,417,000

Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (FS) 6,000

Crooked River National Grassland 117,000

Deschutes National Forest2 1,584,500

Fremont National Forest 1,140,000

Lakeview BLM District 3,382,000

Malheur National Forest 1,459,500

Medford BLM District 500

Mount Hood National Forest 330,500

Ochoco National Forest 847,000

Prineville BLM District 1,648,000

Umatilla National Forest 1,068,500

Vale BLM District 5,043,000

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest3 2,249,000

Winema National Forest 1,037,500

Oregon Total 23,330,000

Washington Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (FS) 8,000

Colville National Forest 1,088,000

Gifford Pinchot National Forest 187,500

Okanogan National Forest 1,497,500

Spokane BLM District 347,000

Umatilla National Forest 311,000

Vale BLM District 10,500

Wenatchee National Forest 2,192,000

Washington Total 5,641,500

Idaho Nez Perce National Forest 4,500

Payette National Forest 4,000

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 131,000

Idaho Total 139,500

Eastside EIS Total 29,111,000

'Acres listed are only those administered by the Bureau of Land Management or the Forest Service.

2Newberry Crater National Volcanic Monument acres included.

'Hells Canyon National Recreation acres included.

Source: ICBEMP GIS data (converted to a 100 x 100 meter grid and rounded to nearest 500 acres). These totals will not match official government land office totals or those shown elsewhere in this document that were calculated from a 1000 x 1000 meter grid (1 krrr).

This table was adapted from the Eastside Preliminary Draft EIS.

Introduction
Table 1.2 — National Forests and BLM Districts addressed by the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS.

State National Forest or BLM District Acres Affected1

Idaho

Montana

Nevada

Utah

Wyoming

UCRB EIS Total

Bitterroot National Forest

Boise National Forest

Caribou National Forest2

Challis National Forest

Clearwater National Forest

Curlew National Forest

Idaho Panhandle National Forest3

Kootenai National Forest

Nez Perce National Forest4

Payette National Forest4

Salmon National Forest

Sawtooth National Forest

Lower Snake River BLM District

Upper Snake River BLM District

Upper Columbia-Salmon Clearwater BLM Districts

Idaho Total

Bitterroot National Forest

Deerlodge National Forest

Flathead National Forest

Helena National Forest

Idaho Panhandle National Forests

Kootenai National Forest

Lolo National Forest

Butte BLM District

Montana Total

Humboldt National Forest

Elko and Winnemucca BLM Districts

Lower Snake River BLM District

Nevada Total

Sawtooth National Forest

Salt Lake BLM District

Utah Total

Caribou National Forest

Rock Springs BLM District

Wyoming Total

470,500

2,573,500

580,000

2,463,000

1,814,500

4,000

2,456,000

45,000

2,111,500

2,354,000

1,687,500

1,691,000

5,169,000

5,017,000

1,550,500

29,987,000

1,115,000

695,000

2,369,500

385,000

27,500

2,207,000

2,075,000

150,000

9,024,000

632,000

1,953,000

49,500

2,634,500

59,000

52,500

111,500

7,000

23,000

30,000

41,787,000

'Acres listed are only those administered by the Bureau of Land Management or the Forest Service.

-'Excludes portion within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

'Includes 119,000 acres in Washington.

'Includes portion assigned to Eastside EIS.

Source: ICBEMP GIS data (converted to 100 x 100 meter grid and rounded to nearest 500 acres). These totals will not match official government

land office totals or those shown elsewhere in this document that were calculated from a 1000 x 1000 meter grid (1 knr).

Adapted from the Upper Columbia River Basin Preliminary Draft EIS.

Introduction 11
While the SIT was attempting to evaluate the

October 1995 version of the alternatives, it was

also completing a classification of river subbasins

(4th-field hydrologic units) for assessment of

integrated forest, range, and aquatic integrity

(Quigley and others 1996). This information contributed to the development of forest and range

clusters, or groups of subbasins with similar broad

biophysical environments, ecological integrity,

amounts of wilderness-like allocations, amounts of

roads, and risks to ecological integrity. The clusters provided the spatial resolution needed to

develop a more specific set of alternatives and a

more comprehensive analysis of effects. The clusters became the basic unit for management

emphasis and the logic behind the prioritization

and allocation of management activities described

in the alternatives. Revised alternatives were developed based on the new approach.

The version of the EIS alternatives under evaluation here was presented to the SIT on February

26, 1996 in a package titled "Alternatives Package

for SIT Evaluation for Eastside and UCRB EISs,"

containing seven alternatives. Referred to as the

February 1996 Preliminary Draft EIS in this document, it is on file as part of the project records

Pertinent information from this document relating to the evaluation is also included, for reference, in appendix I.

(Appendix I is located at the back

of Volume II this document.)

screened to eliminate internal conflict and immediately passed on to the EIS teams. The assumptions used for the evaluation by each SIT staff

area are described in the individual staff area

chapters which follow.

Because of the lack of specificity necessary for

evaluation of the earlier draft, as well as the development of the cluster approach and the staff area

assumptions, the EIS teams adopted an iterative

approach to refining the objectives, standards,

guidelines, and other strategies described in the

EIS alternatives. The concurrent nature of the EIS

development and scientific assessment resulted in

additional information becoming available during

the evaluation of the February 1996 Preliminary

Draft EIS alternatives. The EIS Teams used the

SIT information as a basis to further refine alternatives in later drafts.

Description of Alternatives

Alternative development begins with a statement

of purpose and need for the proposed action. For

the Upper Columbia River Basin (UCRB) and

Eastside (EEIS) EISs, the purpose is to provide a

coordinated approach to a scientifically sound,

ecosystem-based management strategy for lands

-The

I te

During this SIT evaluation process

a number of additional questions

arose about the specifics of the

alternatives. An interactive process

between the SIT and EIS teams

resulted in substantial clarification.

Where there was insufficient detail

in the alternatives to conclude an

evaluation, the SIT made assumptions in order to provide clarification and allow the evaluation to

proceed. Those assumptions were

ie purpose of the proposed action — to provide a scientifically sound, ecosystem-based management strategy: 1) restore and maintain long-term ecosystem health and integrity; 2) support economic and/or social needs of people, cultures and communities, and provide predictable levels of products and services;

3) update current land management plans based on ecosystem management

principles; 4) provide consistent direction at a landscape level; 5) restore and

maintain habitat needs of plant and animal species; 6) provide opportunities for

cultural, recreacional and aesthetic experiences; 7) provide long-term management direction to replace interim strategies; and 8) identify barriers to implementing the strategy or achieving desired conditions.

The need for the proposed action — 1) restore and maintain long-term ecosystem

health and integrity, and 2) support economic and/or social needs of people, cultures and communities, and provide predictable levels of products and services.

'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, Washington, 99362.

Introduction