INTERIOR COLUMBIA BASIN ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECT

BACKGROUND

Why was this Project necessary?

* To address broad resource issues that transcend federal administrative boundaries, using an interagency approach.

* To address land and resource issues from a scientifically sound, ecosystem based approach which experience, resource and legal precedence have found can be more successful.

* To be more cost effective by addressing issues in a larger context, rather than individually on each administrative unit.

* To provide a consistent approach to decision making in federal land management.

What has the Project produced?

-A wealth of information found in the scientific assessment that characterizes social, economic and ecological conditions, trends, risks and opportunities throughout the interior Columbia River Basin, an area over 145 million acres.

-Over 170 data layers and 20 data bases available for future planning and implementation.

-Draft alternative ecosystem (land) management strategies to further public discussion and policy decisions. These management strategies are based on the most current scientific information available.

-Strengthened relationships between states, tribal and county governments in developing the draft strategies.

What is the benefit of doing this Project?

Consolidating efforts, bringing together specialists from multiple agencies and geographic areas reduces duplication of effort and provides a catalyst for comprehensive, more defensible assessments, Environmental Impact Statements and decisions by land management agencies. As a result, a better product is expected for a reduced cost than what could occur unit by unit. In addition, administrative units will have more consistent and coordinated information and approaches to use in managing natural resources.

This approach should reduce vulnerability to legal challenges. If the 47 administrative units within the Basin plan independently of each other, inevitable inconsistencies between plans, new information, and issues about cumulative effects can create legal vulnerabilities.

What are the resource benefits?

Forests are less susceptible to fire and disease, provide clean water, habitat for fish and wildlife, recreation, cultural uses and predictable and sustainable natural resources. This basin-wide perspective will allow land management agencies to develop strategies and prioritize activities among their various administrative units to resolve forest, rangeland and riparian health problems.

The Assessment and the Environmental Impact Statements describe the opportunities and risks in sustaining healthy ecosystems and providing goods and services (i.e., recreation, timber, grazing). They also provide a better understanding of cumulative effects.

What are the percentages of state, federal, and private land within the analysis area?

The Interior Columbia Basin analysis area is approximately 144,480,000 acres. This geographical area includes the interior Columbia River Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins.

Total BLM and National Forest lands: 74,777,000 acres (52%)
Total state and other Federal lands: 9,845,000 acres (6%)
Total Tribal lands: 5,473,000 acres (4%)
Total private lands: 54,375,000 acres (38%)

Totals: 144,480,000 acres (100%)

For the BLM, this represents 10% of the lands they administer nationally. For the Forest Service, it represents 24% of the National Forest System.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statements cover approximately 72 million acres of BLM and National Forest lands.

SCIENCE

How do you intend to incorporate the findings from the scientific assessment into management direction for on-the-ground activities?

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service intend to incorporate the science findings into management direction through decisions from the Eastside EIS and the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS. In addition, the agency field units are receiving training on the scientific assessment and its findings so that they can begin to use the information now.

What does the science assessment show?

The science assessment recognizes that significant change has occurred in forest rangelands and watersheds. The assessment shows conditions, status, and trends associated with ecologic, economic, and social systems. Broad descriptions of future options are provided together with results, outcomes, and potential consequences.

How much and what kind of data and information were available for the science effort?

The science assessment used a mix of existing data from a variety of sources as well as creating new data. No field inventory or extensive research was conducted to gather new data. The assessment interprets work already done and synthesized and integrated existing information. Some characterization work was necessary using aerial photography to fill gaps and get a common, consistent set of data. Over 170 different Geographic Information System (GIS) data layers were developed in support of the scientific assessment.

Some data for use in the scientific assessment came from agency sources, such as Forest Service, BLM, US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Geological Survey, states, Indian tribes and public sources such as county economic data. Data existed in a combination of reports, databases, research, and geographic information systems (GIS) data.

Numerous existing studies, such as the Eastside Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment (Everett, et al.) and the Eastside Forests Scientific Society Panel (Henjum, et al.), were used extensively in the Scientific Assessment.

DRAFT EISs

When will the Draft Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) be available to the public? How will the public be able to comment on the Draft EISs?

Mailing of the Draft EISs will begin the week of May 12. For those who have not requested Draft EISs, copies will be available at both Project offices and at the BLM and Forest Service administrative units throughout the Basin. The Draft EISs will be available on the Internet through the Project homepage (http\\www.icbemp.gov) in mid-May. We are also exploring the possibility of accepting comments on the Draft EISs electronically.

How long is the comment period for the Draft EISs?

The comment period will be 120-days beginning when the Draft EISs are available in the middle of May. The comment period would end the middle of September.

Will briefings be scheduled to explain the Draft EISs?

There will be many opportunities to learn about the Draft EISs. A Basin-wide teleconference is planned in mid-June to present the Draft EISs and answer questions. During July and August, there will be a series of public meeting/open houses throughout the Basin, tailored to meet local community needs. Additional presentations will be made, by request, during the comment period.

How will states, counties, Resource Advisory Councils, tribes and other partners be involved during the comment period?

We will continue our intergovernmental coordination work with state, tribal and county governments, and Resource Advisory Committees. Some of these entities are planning opportunities for public interaction and comment that the Project will help support.

When do you expect to release the Final Environmental Impact Statements and Records of Decisions?

We expect the Final EISs to be release during the summer of 1998. The Records of Decisions will follow within two to three months following the release of the Final DEISs.

Who will sign the Records of Decisions?

Regional executives from BLM and Forest Service are planning to sign the Records of Decisions. The land management executives include three BLM state directors from Oregon/Washington, Idaho and Montana, and three regional foresters from the Northern, Intermountain and Pacific Northwest Regions.

Will the Records of Decisions immediately amend existing BLM and Forest Service land management plans?

Yes, the Records of Decisions will immediately amend the portions of the 74 BLM and Forest Service management plans subject to the decision. The primary focus of these decisions is at the broad scale, focusing on issues such as forest health, range health, and fish and wildlife protection, which transcend administrative boundaries. BLM and Forest Service units will need to reconcile any differences between the new direction and their existing plans.

How will the Records of Decisions affect the land management revision process?

Some individual BLM Districts and National Forests are already on a schedule for revision of their land management plans and will incorporate final decisions from this process into their planning process. We expect that the decisions from this Project will streamline the revision process because broad scale issues will have been addressed in a consistent manner.

How does the Draft EIS address Clean Water Act requirements?

The Draft EISs contain an aquatic conservation strategy that is comprised of specific aquatic and riparian objectives and standards, including riparian buffers for streams, lakes, and wetlands, anti-degradation of existing high quality waters, and compliance with State and tribal water quality standards. All projects must meet adopted state and tribal water quality standards.

How do the Draft EISs address waters that don't meet water quality standards?

Each state in the Project area has published lists of water bodies not meeting water quality standards. Section 303 (d) of the Clean Water Act requires that such listed waters must be addressed through management plans and a total maximum daily load (TMDL) allocation that would return the water body to compliance with the standards. Standards in the DRAFT EIS require Forest Service and BLM to incorporate the state priority lists for 303 (d) waters into the priority setting process at the sub-basin and watershed scales. Projects must comply with TMDL's as they are developed.

Are the EISs developing new Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) for each National Forest within the planning area?

No, the Project is not developing new allowable sale quantities. That work will be done by individual forests where the appropriate information exists during their forest plan revision process. The Draft EISs do contain relative estimates of timber outputs by alternative.

Will decisions from the EISs change existing livestock grazing permits.

No, existing permits will not be changed with the Records of Decisions. However, over time, permits will be adjusted if they are not consistent with the direction in the Records of Decisions.

What is the impact on traditional commodity outputs (timber, livestock production) from BLM and Forest Service administered lands?

Long-term commodity outputs vary by Draft EIS alternative and will depend on which alternative is finally selected. In general, most of the seven alternatives show a slight to moderate increase in timber harvest volume over the current situation (the last three years) but lower than the 10 year average. However, tree species and size may differ. The one noted exception is Alternative 7, which shows lower timber levels than current. Livestock production does not vary significantly from alternative to alternative, with again Alternative 7 being the one exception. Alternative 7 does not allow timber harvesting or grazing within reserves.

How long will it take to fully implement this strategy and reach the expected commodity outputs?

After a final decision is made, assuming adequate budgets, we anticipate it may take up to 1-3 years to fully implement the strategy and reach the expected level of commodity outputs and restoration activities.

Have rural communities been considered in developing your strategy?

Yes, rural communities have been considered. The Scientific Assessment and the Draft EISs focused on broadscale social and economic conditions and trends in the Basin but also examined the characteristics and conditions of the 387 small rural communities in the study area. This was done in part with 1990 US Census data on all communities and, in part, with in-depth, detailed data from a survey of 198 communities conducted in the spring of 1995. In addition, economic profiles were prepared for many of communities, both large and small, within the Basin.

Some believe you have not adequately described potential impacts to communities. Are you going to address this concern?

The level of detail of the impacts to local communities has been a concern of many including the Eastside Ecosystem Coalition of Counties. The broadscale nature of these Draft EISs does not allow us to accurately describe impacts to individual communities. However, the regional executives are committed to exploring ways to further clarify impacts to rural communities before they make decisions.

Can we afford to implement the final strategy? How will it be funded?

We cannot afford NOT to restore the ecosystems that we all very much depend on. But we will need to find funding sources in addition to federally appropriated dollars to get the work done.

What happens if you don't get the money needed for implementation?

If the final decision is not fully funded, then the rate of implementation will be reduced appropriately for all activities. Standards must still be followed.

Will this effort provide a schedule and a blueprint to guide forest and rangeland restoration activities?

The project will establish a comprehensive "blueprint" which will guide not only the development of forest and rangeland restoration activities but also aquatic restoration for many years to come. The Draft EISs will display alternatives with varying levels of activities such as timber harvest, thinning, prescribed fire, watershed and riparian restoration, and weed management.

Specific schedules will be developed on a local basis, based on local resource conditions and collaboration with local governments, tribes, resource users and interested publics.

Will this Project impact/prevent future ESA listings?

By moving to an ecosystem approach to land management, where we are looking at all the pieces and how they interact with each other, over time we should be more successful in preventing future listings. In addition, this approach should provide for the recovery of plant and animal species currently listed that rely heavily on habitat found on BLM and National Forest administered lands.

What impact will the final decisions have on private lands within the Basin?

Decisions apply only to BLM and National Forest lands. So there would not be any direct impacts.

Will the Records of Decisions require additional planning before on-the-ground activities can occur?

The requirement for additional review and analysis varies by Draft EIS alternative. Alternatives 3 through 7 do require additional review and analysis before some activities can occur. The requirement varies by the kind of activity being proposed and where it is located.

Will the public be involved in these new planning processes?

Yes, the public can participate if they choose.