administered by the Forest Service (FS) or Bureau

of Land Management (BLM) in the Basin. The

stated need for this action is to restore and maintain long-term ecosystem health and integrity, to

support the economic and/or social needs of people, cultures, and communities, and to provide

predictable levels of goods and services from

National Forest System and Bureau of Land

Management lands.

Currently, there are 74 existing land and resource

management plans administered by the BLM or

FS within the Basin. Because these plans were not

developed and approved at the same time, or in

concert with one another, they do not necessarily

reflect consistent approaches in land management.

There are several important conceptual differences

between the current plans and the alternatives

developed by the EIS teams.

Alternatives represent potentially different

approaches to meet the purpose and need for

action. Broad goals are defined that remain consistent across the alternatives and outline a common

set of outcomes sought from FS- and BLMadministered lands within the Basin. Each alternative has a broad theme that describes the basic

strategy underlying the alternative. A desired

range of future conditions describes primary vegetation futures for major vegetation categories.

Management emphasis, activity levels, objectives,

standards and guidelines are provided for specific

areas in an effort to achieve the goals and desired

future conditions. To fully understand any given

alternative and its effects requires integrating all

these pieces, as well as interpreting how implementation and monitoring will occur (see

figure 1.1).

Alternative 1 is the "no action" alternative which

would continue management strategies under

existing approved plans with the addition of direction from the Northwest Forest Plan. Current

direction, which includes existing plans plus PACFISH, INFISH, and Eastside Screens is reflected

in Alternative 2. The direction described in

Alternative 1 applies to those areas not covered by

such interim direction. The EIS teams designed

Alternatives 3 through 7 to meet the purpose and

need statement in the EISs. Each of these alternatives examines different ways of responding to the

issue questions identified through the public scoping process. Alternatives 1 and 2 were not

designed fully to satisfy the purpose and need but

to provide the benchmarks required by the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)1

against which to evaluate the "action" alternatives.

There are several differences between existing

plans and the alternatives developed by the EIS

teams. Existing plans were designed primarily on

the assumption that healthy ecosystem conditions

existed. Alternatives 3 through 7 recognize that

the FS and BLM administer some systems that,

for a variety of reasons, no longer exhibit healthy,

functioning conditions. Past timber and livestock

management, past reading practices, and exclusion of fire are examples of activities that have

altered systems. Some of this is desired by society;

some creates long-term challenges. Other events,

such as climate cycles, exotic weed expansion, and

the way in which other lands are managed, influence how FS and BLM lands are administered.

The reverse is also true. These conditions are

more fully considered in Alternatives 3 through 7

than they are under existing plans.

Alternatives 3 through 7 attempt to portray consistent interagency approaches to broad-ranging

issues, such as the decline in cold water fish and

riparian habitat, concerns about late-serai forest,

and the expansion of exotic weed species, as well

as to incorporate the use of ecosystem management principles as they evolve. These alternatives

also incorporate more meaningful participation at

all levels, and recognize the unique needs and

contributions of tribes and local governments.

Existing forest plans are heavily based on evenaged forest management. These plans emphasize

commodity production and mitigate for other

'National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 42 U.S.C. 4321 (note).

Introduction
resource values. Alternatives 3 through 7 rely less

on even-aged forest management and focus on

reversing the decline in large trees and late-serai

forest structure. Timber harvest volume from

existing plans comes from all size classes; most

volume from Alternatives 3 through 7 comes from

smaller size and age classes from either thinnings

or removal of smaller trees to enhance development of residual overstory trees. In addition, these

alternatives rely more heavily on the use of prescribed fire to restore patterns and structures that

are consistent with those in which these elements

evolved.

Under existing plans and current direction, there

is no overall cold water fish and riparian management strategy. Parts of the planning area are covered by direction in existing plans; some parts are

covered by direction in the Northwest Forest Plan,

PACFISH, INFISH, or Eastside Screens. This has

been confusing, and makes consistent approaches

to management, inventory, monitoring, and adaptive management difficult. Alternatives 3 through

7 describe common and consistent approaches to

managing aquatic and riparian resources on lands

administered by the BLM or FS. In addition, the

primary management goals and objectives for

activities in these areas would be to maintain or

improve aquatic/riparian functions and processes.

Strategies in these alternatives also address the

links between riparian areas and uplands, relating

these to overall watershed function.

Vegetation management emphasis on forest lands

would be different from existing plans and current

direction in the "action" alternatives. Whether

considering salvage or working with healthy

forests, these alternatives emphasize appropriate

ecosystem analysis in order to determine desirable

patterns, structure, and composition of vegetation

that consider natural disturbance events and

regimes closely. They emphasize those patterns,

structures, and compositions that are, consistent

with the theme of the alternative, desirable to

carry into the future. Resources in excess of these

needs are available for social and economic benefits to society. A similar approach for vegetation

management on rangelands is also described.

A description of each EIS alternative as it was presented to the SIT in the February 1996 UCRB

and Eastside Preliminary Draft EISs follows.

Alternative 1 (No Action) — Alternative 1

continues management specified under existing

FS and BLM plans. Implementation of this alternative would occur assuming recent budgets. An

analysis of the alternative is a requirement of

NEPA, as well as of BLM and FS planning procedures. This alternative displays the federal agencies' use of existing plans to manage lands and

resources into the future. Existing FS and BLM

plans include Regional Guides, Forest Plans (for

each National Forest), and Resource Management

Plans and Management Framework Plans (for

BLM Resource Areas). The No Action Alternative

includes direction from current land-use plans of

35 National Forests and 17 BLM Districts.

Although substantial variation exists among

agency plans, the general management approach is

to emphasize or accommodate sustained timber,

wood fiber, and livestock forage production in an

environmentally prudent manner while managing

and protecting other resources and values. Timber

and livestock management are integrated and

coordinated with the maintenance or enhancement of wildlife and fish habitat, scenic quality,

recreation opportunities, and other resource values

to achieve overall multiple-use goals and objectives. Management for other resources or values,

such as recreation, wilderness, big game and fish

habitat, or cultural resources is emphasized in

many areas. The existing plans were developed

with little or no attempt to coordinate management with other FS or BLM administrative units.

There also was no attempt to describe cumulative

effects of actions taken over areas larger than the

local unit.

Alternative 2 — This alternative applies recent

interim direction as the long-term strategy for

lands administered by the FS or BLM. The interim direction was developed to retain options for

management of affected Federal lands while the

EISs were being developed. Specific direction is

described in the following Decision Notices:

Introduction
• Implementation of Interim Strategies for

Managing Anadromous Fish-producing

Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington,

Idaho, and Portions of California (PACFISH),

February 24, 1995; Eastside: Applies to all or

parts of Malheur, Ochoco, Okanogan, Umatilla,

and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests and

Prineville, Spokane and Vale BLM Districts.

UCRB: Applies to all or parts of Bitterroot,

Boise, Challis, Clearwater, Nez Perce, Payette,

Salmon, and Sawtooth National Forests and

Coeur d'Alene and Salmon BLM Districts.

• Continuation of Interim Management Direction

Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem and Wildlife

Standards for Timber Sales (Eastside Screens),

May 20, 1994, and amended June 5, 1995.

Riparian standards were replaced by the riparian

management objectives included in the decision

for Inland Native Fish Strategy signed July 28,

1995, for those forests not already covered by

PACFISH riparian standards (see section above);

Applies to all or parts of Colville, Deschutes,

Fremont, Malheur, Ochoco, Okanogan,

Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman and Winema

National Forests.

• Inland Native Fish Strategy, July 28, 1995.

Eastside: Applies to all or parts of Colville,

Deschutes, Fremont, Malheur, Ochoco,

Okanogan, Wallowa-Whitman and Winema

National Forests. UCRB: Applies to all or parts

of Bitterroot, Deerlodge, Flathead, Helena,

Kootenai, Lolo, Boise, Caribou, Challis,

Clearwater, Idaho Panhandle, Payette, Sawtooth,

and Humboldt National Forests.

The interim direction emphasizes protection and

maintenance of aquatic riparian and wildlife

resources while using conservative approaches to

management. All other direction from current

plans would also continue into the future; the

direction described in Alternative 1 applies to

those areas not covered by interim direction.

Alternative 3 — This alternative updates existing FS and BLM plans to be consistent with the

principles of ecosystem management. Changes in

management are prioritized to respond to changing conditions (such as declining forest and rangeland health, local economies at risk, and declining

salmon runs), minimize changes to local plans;

and rely on local public needs and desires. Each

National Forest or BLM unit would emphasize

local public input to determine a desired mix of

uses, services, restoration and management actions

consistent with ecosystem principles which would

be incorporated into the land-use plans. Direct

involvement with state, county, and tribal governments would be used in planning, decision-making, and implementation of programs.

The alternative emphasizes making only minimal

repairs to existing plans that would allow them to

be more effective, integrated, and consistent in the

face of changed ecological conditions and increasing numbers of appeals and lawsuits. Only those

priority conditions that most hinder the effectiveness of existing plans are addressed in this alternative and distinguish it from Alternative 1. The

intent of this alternative is to provide a broader

dimension for and more integrated management

direction about priority large-scale issues that

cross administrative boundaries than Alternatives

1 or 2.

Alternative 4 — This alternative is designed to

aggressively restore ecosystem health based on the

principles of ecosystem management. This would

occur through active management, the results of

which would resemble endemic disturbance

processes such as insects, disease, and fire. The

alternative focuses on short-term vegetation management that would improve the likelihood of

moving toward or maintaining ecosystem processes that function properly in the long term. Under

this alternative, vegetation management is

designed to reduce risks to property, products,

and economic and social opportunities that can

result from large epidemic disturbance events.

Direct involvement with state, county, and tribal

governments would be used in planning, decisionmaking, and implementation of programs.

Priority in this alternative is placed on forest,

rangeland, and watershed health, assuming that

Introduction
healthy streams, wildlife populations, and economic and social benefits would follow. Actions

taken to achieve desired conditions are designed

to produce economic benefits whenever practical.

A wide variety of management tools are available

under this alternative.

Alternative 5 — This alternative emphasizes

production of goods and services, consistent with

the principles of ecosystem management, at the

sub-regional level. Biological capability and economic efficiency are used to determine relative

priority uses for an area, rather than local

demands and traditional uses. Areas that are best

able to produce products, goods or services, or

desired conditions are targeted to do so within the

ecological capability of the area. Other uses are

expected to exist when they do not conflict with

or diminish the priority uses. While a full range of

conditions, products, and services may not be

provided in all localities, the desired range of conditions, products, and services would be met on a

regional basis. Direct involvement with State,

county, and tribal governments would be used in

planning, decision-making, and implementation

of programs.

Under this alternative, both EIS teams (UCRB

and Eastside) identified areas across the project

area best able to produce products, goods, services, or desired conditions, within the ecological

capability of the land. Five major Basin-wide

emphasis areas were considered: timber, livestock,

aquatic resources, wildlife, and recreation. The

assumption used in building this alternative was

that each emphasis area has only one priority

emphasis. Other uses are likely to occur, but any

conflicts would be resolved in favor of the priority

use of the emphasis area. These areas are shown

on maps 1.4 and 1.5.

Alternative 6 — This alternative emphasizes an

adaptive management approach to restoration and

maintenance of ecosystems and provision for the

social and economic needs of people based on the

principles of ecosystem management. While much

knowledge of natural resource management has

been acquired through experience and research,

ecosystems are complex and knowledge about the

functions and processes that make up ecosystems

is limited. Management strategies would be

adjusted based on information gained from continued research and monitoring of ecological,

social, and economic conditions and from direct

input from State, county, and tribal officials.

This alternative is similar to Alternative 4 but

takes a slower, more cautious approach and

implies the use of experimental processes, local

research, and extensive monitoring. Under this

alternative, actions would be implemented on a

broad-scale basis only when previous monitoring

results or scientific research demonstrates that the

actions are effective in achieving desired outcomes. Priorities for restoration would generally

be high hazard or high risk areas that have a high

or moderate potential for successful restoration.

The management direction under this alternative

is similar to that under Alternative 4 except for

the length of time expected to reach desired conditions and the built-in uncertainty about which

management actions would prove to be the most

effective.

Alternative 7 — This alternative emphasizes

reducing risk to ecological integrity and species

viability by establishing a system of reserves with

interconnecting corridors on lands administered

by the BLM or FS. Reserves would be located to

include all representative vegetation types and are

intended to be large enough to contain the most

likely disturbance events (proposed reserve areas

are shown on map 1.6). The level of human use

and management would be low within the

reserves. Ecological disturbance events are expected and would occur naturally within the reserves.

When disturbance events (such as fire or disease)

occur, actions would be taken to reduce the likelihood of the event extending beyond the boundary

of the reserve. Most restoration activities would

occur on lands administered by the FS or BLM

outside reserves. Restoration could occur within

reserves, however, where there is a high risk for

events occurring in the short term that would preclude achieving desired outcomes in the long term

(for example, to maintain habitats for endangered

Introduction
or threatened species or other scarce habitats, or

control erosion by rehabilitating roads). Management outside the reserve boundaries includes an

emphasis on conserving remaining old forest

stands and roadless areas larger than 1,000 acres.

Direct involvement with State, county, and tribal

governments would be used in planning, decisionmaking, and implementation of programs.

Reserves would be selected for their representation

of vegetation and rare animal species. Although

some reserves might be designed around the needs

of single species, the intent would be for reserves

to conserve biodiversity across the landscape and

meet the needs of groups of species or communities. No commercial timber harvest is permitted

inside reserves, but limited silvicultural activities

that could enhance species viability would be

allowed. To improve the long-term conditions for

which the reserve was established, grazing would

be strictly limited. Dispersed, low-impact recreation use would be allowed as long as it did not

affect populations of rare species or their habitat.

Management of reserves would focus on longterm maintenance of native processes and conditions with which plant and animal species have

evolved. Areas adjacent to reserves (buffers) would

be managed to help maintain reserves by avoiding

barriers or breaks in the vegetation that would isolate them. Management would be allowed in

buffers, but road densities would usually be low.

Reserves would be interconnected where possible

by vegetative corridors to allow interchange of

animals. Management would be allowed within

corridors, but habitat conditions that allow for the

dispersal of animals would be important considerations when designing management activities.

Interpreting Rule Sets and

Management Emphasis Categories

The SIT integrated its assessment and organized

subbasins within clusters based on common ecological themes that highlight the similarities of

subbasins, grouped within clusters, while

acknowledging substantive differences among the

subbasins (Quigley and others, 1996, pages 105-

123). Six forest and six rangeland clusters emerged

representing a synthesis of common management

history, resultant conditions, management needs,

opportunities, and potential conflicts across the

landscape. The EIS teams then developed rule sets

to describe the level of various management activities or a general management emphasis that would

be applied to the various clusters under each alternative. (Pertinent excerpts from these rule sets are

included in appendix I.) These management

emphases are: Conserve (C), Restore (R), or

Produce (P). Recognizing that management

emphasis has more variability than can be reflected by these three categories alone, the categories

were refined by adding combinations of emphasis

as follows: Restore-Conserve (R-C), RestoreProduce (R-P), and Produce-Conserve (P-C).

The assignment of the six management emphasis

categories by alternative and cluster is displayed in

tables 1.3 and 1.4. This information also is

depicted in seven alternative strategy maps for forest lands and seven alternative maps for rangeland

(for maps depicting general emphasis areas for forest and range clusters for each of the alternatives,

refer to chapter 2, Landscape Ecology Evaluation

of Alternatives).

For each of the six forest clusters, activity levels of

Low (L), Moderate (M), or High (H) were

assigned for each of the following management

activities: harvest, thin, decrease road density,

watershed restoration, prescribed burning, and

prescribed fire plans. Table 1.5 presents assumptions and definitions for these forest cluster activity levels. Table 1.6 shows a comparison of alternatives by management activity and forest cluster.

For each of the six range clusters, activity levels of

Low (L), Moderate (M), or High (H) were

assigned for each of the following management

activities: graze livestock, improve rangelands,

decrease road density, riparian restoration, prescribed burning, and prescribed fire plans. Table

1.5 presents assumptions and definitions for these

range cluster activity levels. Table 1.7 shows a

comparison of alternatives by management activity and range cluster.

Introduction
Map 1.4 - Management emphasis areas (primary and secondary priorities) for forest clusters under Alternative 5 (FS- and BLM-administered 

lands only). 

Introduction 
Map 1.5 - Management emphasis areas (primary and secondary priorities) for range clusters under Alternative 5 (FS- and BLM-administered 

lands only). 

Introduction 
Map 1.6 - Location of Mternative 7 proposed reserves on BLM- and FS-administered lands. Selection of proposed reserves was based on roadless 

areas greater than 400 hectares (1,000 acres) that were distributed across a range of environments. 

Introduction 
Table 1.3 — Overall management strategy by alternative (summary of general management emphasis by

forest cluster for the Eastside and UCRB EISs).

Forest Cluster 1 2 3

Alternative

4 5 6 7

Eastside

1

2

3

4

5

6

C

P-C

P

P

P

P-C

C

C

P-C

P-C

R-C

C

R-C

R

R

R-P

R

R-C

R-C

R

R

R

R

R

C

R-C

R

P

R

R-P

R-C

R

R

R

R

R-C

C

C

R-C

R-C

R-C

C

UCRB

1

2

3

4

5

6

C

P-C

P

P

P

P-C

C

C

P-C

P-C

R-C

C

R-C

R

R

R-P

R

R-C

R-C

R

R

R

R

R

C

R-C

R

P

R

R-P

R-C

R

R

R

R

R-C

C

C

R-C

R-C

R-C

C

Adapted from the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin Preliminary Draft EISs.

Table 1.4 — Overall management strategy by alternative (summary of general management emphasis by

range cluster for the Eastside and UCRB EISs).

Alternative

Range Cluster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Eastside

1

2

3

4

5

6

P

C

P-C

P

P

P

P-C

C

C

P-C

P-C

P-C

R-P

C

R-C

R-P

R

R-P

R

R-C

R

R

R

R

R-P

C

R-C

P-C

P-C

R-P

R

R-C

R-C

R

R-C

R

R-C

C

C

R-C

C

R-C

UCRB

1

2

3

4

5

6

P

C

P-C

P

P

P

P-C

C

C

P-C

P-C

P-C

R-P

C

R-C

R-P

R

R-P

R

R-C

R

R

R

R

R-P

C

R-C

P-C

P-C

R-P

R

R-C

R-C

R

R-C

R

R-C

C

C

R-C

C

R-C

Adapted from the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin Preliminary Draft EISs.

Introduction
Table 1.5 — Cluster activity level assumptions for Alternatives 3 through 7, with definitions.

Low Moderate

Watershed restoration

(Percent of all forested area treated per decade) 0-3 3-6

Prescribed burning

(Percent of all forested area treated per decade) 0-5 5-9

Prescribed fire plans

(Percent of all forest land with implemented plans per decade) 0-20 20-40

Rangeland

Livestock management

(Percent of all rangeland with improved management) 0-6 6-12

Improve rangelands

(Percent of all rangeland treated per decade) 0-4 4-8

Decrease road density

(Percent of total road miles reduced per decade) 0-25 25-50

Riparian restoration

(Percent of all riparian areas treated per decade) 0-25 25-50

Prescribed burning

(Percent of all rangeland treated per decade) 0-3 3-6

Prescribed fire plans

(Percent of all rangeland with implemented plans per decade) 0-20 20-40

High

Forest land

Harvest (commercial)

(Percent of all forested area treated per decade) Alts. 1, 2, 7> 0-4 4-8

Alts. 3-6> 0-5 5-9

Thin (pre-commercial)

(Percent of all forested area treated per decade) 0-3 3-6

Decrease road density

(Percent of total road miles reduced per decade) 0-25 25-50

8-10

9-11

6-8

50+ (Change in

road density

class)

6-8

9-11

40+

12-20

8-11

50+ (Change in

road density

class)

50-75

6-9

40+

Harvest. All commercial harvest methods (such as single tree selection, group selection, shelterwood, seed tree, overstory removal, clearcut, and

commercial thinning from above or below).

Thin. All pre-commercial thinnings used to alter forest structure, species composition, density, rate of growth, fuel ladders, fire behavior, etc.

Watershed restoration. Includes increased road maintenance, improved road condition (surface and/or drainage), reduced road related erosion,

road obliteration, increased large woody material, riparian plantings, in-channel restoration, etc.

Livestock management. A summation of livestock management variables that affect rangeland health, including: grazing systems, changing riparian grazing management, season of use (length and timing), number of head: change of class, distribution, grazing deferment, and herding.

Improve rangelands. Capital investments such as fencing, stock water improvements, seedings, control of invasion or spread of exotics, and nonfire shrub and juniper control.

Decrease road density. Permanent closure of primarily unsurfaced roads.

Riparian restoration. Includes improving road condition (drainage and/or surface), riparian plantings, in-channel restoration, and riparian

exclosures.

Prescribed burning. Management ignited fire.

Prescribed fire plan. Allows natural ignition fires to burn when in prescription and/or identifies areas that require prescribed burning.

Introduction
Table 1.6 — Activity levels by forest cluster and alternative for the Eastside and UCRB EISs.

Alternative

Action 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Eastside

Forest Cluster 1

Harvest

Thin

Decrease road density

Watershed restoration

Prescribed burning

Prescribed fire plans

L

L

L

L

L

H

L

L

L

M

L

H

L

L

L

M

M

H

L

L

L

M

H

H

L

L

L

M

L

H

L

L

L

M

M

H

L

L

L

L

L

H

Alternative 5 Management Priority: Primitive Recreation/Aquatics

Forest Cluster 2

Harvest

Thin

Decrease road density

Watershed restoration

Prescribed burning

Prescribed fire plans

M

L

L

L

L

H

L

L

L

M

L

H

L

L

M

M

M

H

L

M

M

H

H

H

L

L

L

M

M

H

L

M

M

M

M

H

L

L

M

L

L

H

Alternative 5 Management Priority: Aquatics/Recreation

Forest Cluster 3

Harvest

Thin

Decrease road density

Watershed restoration

Prescribed burning

Prescribed fire plans

Forest Cluster 4

Harvest

Thin

Decrease road density

Watershed restoration

Prescribed burning

Prescribed fire plans

H

M

L

L

L

L

Alternative 5 Management

H

M

L

L

L

L

M

L

L

M

L

L

Priority:

M

M

L

L

L

L

Alternative 5 Management Priority

Forest Cluster 5

Harvest

Thin

Decrease road density

Watershed restoration

Prescribed burning

Prescribed fire plans

Forest Cluster 6

Harvest

Thin

Decrease road density

Watershed restoration

Prescribed burning

Prescribed fire plans

H

M

L

L

L

L

Alternative 5 Management

M

L

L

L

L

L

L

M

M

L

L

L

M

M

M

M

M

L

M

H

M

M

M

M

M

H

M

M

M

M

L

M

H

M

M

M

L

L

H

L

M

H

Aquatics/Timber

M

H

M

L

L

L

M

H

M

M

M

M

H

H

L

L

L

L

M

H

M

M

M

M

L

L

M

L

M

M

: Timber/Wildlife

M

H

H

L

M

M

M

H

H

M

H

H

M

H

M

M

M

H

L

H

M

M

H

H

L

M

H

L

L

M

Priority: Timber/Livestock

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

H

L

L

M

M

L

H

M

L

M

M

M

M

L

L

M

L

L

H

L

L

M

M

L

L

L

L

M

M

Alternative 5 Management Priority: Wildlife/Recreation

Introduction 23
Table 1.6 (continued)

Alternative

Action 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Upper Columbia River Basin

Forest Cluster 1

Harvest

Thin

Decrease road density

Watershed restoration

Prescribed burning

Prescribed fire plans

L L L

L L L

L L L

L M M

L L M

H H H

L

L

L

M

H

H

L

L

L

M

L

H

L

L

L

M

M

H

L

L

L

L

L

H

Alternative 5 Management Priority: Primitive Recreation/Aquatics

Forest Cluster 2

Harvest

Thin

Decrease road density

Watershed restoration

Prescribed burning

Prescribed fire plans

M L L

L L L

L L M

L M M

L L M

H H H

L

M

M

H

H

H

L

L

L

M

M

H

L

M

M

M

M

H

L

L

M

L

L

H

Alternative 5 Management Priority: Aquatics/Recreation

Forest Cluster 3

Harvest

Thin

Decrease road density

Watershed restoration

Prescribed burning

Prescribed fire plans

H M M

M L M

L L M

L M M

L L M

L L L

M

H

M

M

M

M

M

H

M

M

M

M

L

M

H

M

M

M

L

L

H

L

M

H

Alternative 5 Management Priority: Aquatics/Timber

Forest Cluster 4

Harvest

Thin

Decrease road density

Watershed restoration

Prescribed burning

Prescribed fire plans

H M M

M M H

L L M

L L L

L L L

L L L

M

H

M

M

M

M

H

H

L

L

L

L

M

H

M

M

M

M

L

L

M

L

M

M

Alternative 5 Management Priority: Timber/Wildlife

Forest Cluster 5

Harvest

Thin

Decrease road density

Watershed restoration

Prescribed burning

Prescribed fire plans

H L M

M M H

L M H

L L L

L L M

L L M

M

H

H

M

H

H

M

H

M

M

M

H

L

H

M

M

H

H

L

M

H

L

L

M

Alternative 5 Management Priority: Timber/Livestock

Forest Cluster 6

Harvest

Thin

Decrease road density

Watershed restoration

Prescribed burning

Prescribed fire plans

M L L

L L H

L L L

L L L

L L M

L L M

L

H

M

L

M

M

M

M

L

L

M

L

L

H

L

L

M

M

L

L

L

L

M

M

Alternative 5 Management Priority: Wildlife/Recreation

Adapted from the Upper Columbia River Basin and Eastside Preliminary Draft EISs.

Introduction
Table 1.7— Activity levels by forest cluster and alternative for the Eastside and UCRB EISs.

Action

Alternative

123 4 5 6 7

Eastside

Range Cluster 1

Livestock management

Improve rangelands

Decrease road density

Riparian restoration

Prescribed burning

Prescribed fire plans

Range Cluster 2

Livestock management

Improve rangelands

Decrease road density

Riparian restoration

Prescribed burning

Prescribed fire plans

Range Cluster 3

Livestock management

Improve rangelands

Decrease road density

Riparian restoration

Prescribed burning

Prescribed fire plans

Range Cluster 4

Livestock management

Improve rangelands

Decrease road density

Riparian restoration

Prescribed burning

Prescribed fire plans

Range Cluster 5

Livestock management

Improve rangelands

Decrease road density

Riparian restoration

Prescribed burning

Prescribed fire plans

Range Cluster 6

Livestock management

Improve rangelands

Decrease road density

Riparian restoration

Prescribed burning

Prescribed fire plans

L M M M

L L M M

L L L H

L L L M

L L M H

L L M H

Alternative 5 Management Priority: Livestock/Timber

H H H H

L L L L

L L L L

L L L M

L L M H

H H H H

Alternative 5 Management Priority: Recreation/Aquatics

M H H H

L L L M

L L L M

L M M M

L L M H

L L M H

Alternative 5 Management Priority: Recreation/Wildlife

L M M M

L L L M

L L M M

L L L M

L L M M

L L L M

Alternative 5 Management Priority: Wildlife

L M M H

L L M M

L L L L

L L M M

L L M M

L L L M

Alternative 5 Management Priority: Livestock/Recreation

L M M H

L L M H

L L L M

L L M M

L L L L

L L L L

L

L

M

L

M

H

H

L

L

L

M

H

H

M

L

L

M

M

M

L

L

M

L

L

M

L

L

M

L

L

M

M

L

M

L

L

M

M

M

M

H

H

H

L

L

M

M

H

H

M

L

L

M

H

M

M

M

M

L

M

H

L

L

M

M

M

H

M

M

M

L

L

H

L

M

L

M

H

H

L

L

L

L

H

H

L

M

L

L

H

H

L

M

M

L

M

H

L

L

L

M

H

H

L

M

M

L

M

Alternative 5 Management Priority: Livestock/Wildlife

Introduction
Table 1.7 (continued)

Action

Alternative

123 4 5 6 7

Upper Columbia River Basin

Range Cluster 1

Livestock management

Improve rangelands

Decrease road density

Riparian restoration

Prescribed burning

Prescribed fire plans

Range Cluster 2

Livestock management

Improve rangelands

Decrease road density

Riparian restoration

Prescribed burning

Prescribed fire plans

Range Cluster 3

Livestock management

Improve rangelands

Decrease road density

Riparian restoration

Prescribed burning

Prescribed fire plans

Range Cluster 4

Livestock management

Improve rangelands

Decrease road density

Riparian restoration

Prescribed burning

Prescribed fire plans

Range Cluster 5

Livestock management

Improve rangelands

Decrease road density

Riparian restoration

Prescribed burning

Prescribed fire plans

Range Cluster 6

Livestock management

Improve rangelands

Decrease road density

Riparian restoration

Prescribed burning

Prescribed fire plans

L M M M

L L M M

L L L H

L L L M

L L M H

L L M H

Alternative 5 Management Priority: Livestock/Timber

H H H H

L L L L

L L L L

L L L M

L L M H

H H H H

Alternative 5 Management Priority: Recreation/Aquatics

M H H H

L L L M

L L L M

L M M M

L L M H

L L M H

Alternative 5 Management Priority: Recreation/Wildlife

L M M M

L L L M

L L M M

L L L M

L L M M

L L L M

Alternative 5 Management Priority: Wildlife

L M M H

L L M M

L L L L

L L M M

L L M M

L L L M

Alternative 5 Management Priority: Livestock/Recreation

L M M H

L L M H

L L L M

L L M M

L L L L

L L L L

Alternative 5 Management Priority: Livestock/Wildlife

L

L

M

L

M

H

H

L

L

L

M

H

H

M

L

L

M

M

M

L

L

M

L

L

M

L

L

M

L

L

M

M

L

M

L

L

M

M

M

M

H

H

H

L

L

M

M

H

H

M

L

L

M

H

M

M

M

M

L

M

H

L

L

M

M

M

H

M

M

M

L

L

H

L

M

L

M

H

H

L

L

L

L

H

H

L

M

L

L

H

H

L

M

M

L

M

H

L

L

L

M

H

H

L

M

M

L

M

Adapted from the Upper Columbia River Basin and Eastside Preliminary Draft EISs.

Introduction
Evaluation of Alternatives Process

Predicting effects, outcomes, and consequences for

each alternative required an understanding of current conditions and planned activities. Figure 1.1

shows the flow of information and logic used to

project outcomes. The science assessment provided the description of current conditions, risks,

and opportunities at the broad scale within the

Basin. From this the EIS teams assigned management emphasis and activity levels they believed

would appropriately address the risks and opportunities consistent with the underlying theme of

the alternative. This in turn led to establishing

objectives and standards for specific areas, again,

consistent with the underlying theme. Although

these were not fully developed, the evaluation of

effects required understanding, at least to some

degree, how implementation and monitoring

might be forthcoming for each alternative. Where

no specific direction was provided on these subjects, the SIT made assumptions so that outcomes

could be projected.

To evaluate the alternatives, each of the five staff

areas of the SIT (landscape ecology, terrestrial,

aquatic, social, and economic) used methodology

specific to and appropriate for its discipline.

However, this meant necessary differences in evaluation techniques. Consequently, each staff area

chapter contains a description of the methodology, specific to that discipline, used in the evaluation. The SIT was instructed to predict ecological

outcomes of the alternatives without regard to

potential political barriers to implementation.

There is concern among the SIT that potential

challenges to implementation, such as adequate

budget allocations, may occur. The analyses do

not reflect or include these concerns. However,

the concerns were relayed to the EIS teams.

Important changes have occurred in the EIS alternatives between the February 1996 Preliminary

Draft EISs, which were evaluated by the SIT, and

the Draft EISs as they are at the time of this publication. These changes, and their effect on the

evaluation, are summarized in Chapter 8.

The objectives and standards for the EISs, as well

as effects, will continue to evolve until the Final

Environmental Impact Statements and Records of

Decision. The reader is referred directly to the

Upper Columbia River Basin and Eastside EISs

for insights into changes in the objectives and

standards, and subsequent changes in effects, consequences, and outcomes that have occurred since

publication of this document.

Introduction 27
Literature Cited

Haynes, Richard W.; Graham, Russell T.; Quigley,

Thomas M., tech eds. 1996. A framework for

ecosystem management in the interior Columbia River basin including portions of the

Klamath and Great basins. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-GTR-374. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 63 p. (Quigley,

Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Management Project:

Scientific Assessment).

Quigley, Thomas M.; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds.

(in press). An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great basins. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Pordand, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. (Quigley,

Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Management Project:

Scientific Assessment).

Quigley, Thomas M.; Haynes, Richard W.;

Graham, Russell T, tech. eds. 1996. Integrated

scientific assessment for ecosystem management in die interior Columbia basin and portions of die Klamath and Great basins. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-382. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 303 p.

(Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project: Scientific Assessment.)

Introduction