The Preferred Alternative (Alternative A) in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) does not change the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS).

The Preferred Alternative provides language that more clearly articulates the intent of the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision.

There is a need to implement all parts of the Northwest Forest Plan. Currently, some timber harvesting and watershed restoration projects are not being done because of unclear language and resulting interpretations of the ACS objectives.

Nine years’ experience implementing the Northwest Forest Plan and recent court rulings that address the ACS have highlighted the need to clarify language in the Northwest Forest Plan ROD related to the ACS.

The ACS was developed to restore and maintain ecological health of watersheds on federally-managed lands within the Northwest Forest Plan area. The four components of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (Riparian Reserves, Key Watersheds, Watershed Analysis, and Watershed Restoration) provide the basis for protection of watershed health.

The primary area in need of clarification is within the Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision, Attachment A, Appendix B, page B-10, second paragraph related to ACS objectives. The ACS objectives provide a framework for managing aquatic ecosystems at the watershed and landscape (i.e. multiple watershed) scale and were not intended to be a hard set of criteria to be applied equally at all spatial scales of concern (site or project, watershed, province, region). However, that paragraph has been interpreted to imply that the ACS objectives are a hard set of criteria that should be applied equally at all spatial scales, including the site or project scale.

Citing from a Biological Opinion from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and from FEMAT, the U.S. District Court of Western Washington interpreted the Northwest Forest Plan as requiring that, "not only must the ACS objectives be met at the watershed scale…each project must also be consistent with ACS objectives, i.e. it must maintain the existing condition or move it within the range of natural variability." Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association v NMFS), 71 F Supp2d 1063, 1069 (W. Wash. 1999).

If this rationale were to be applied to land management projects implemented under the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), it could be understood to mean that no disturbance can be allowed at the site-scale, since this would not "maintain the existing condition" at that site. Under such an interpretation, even projects designed to restore aquatic and riparian habitat in the long-term would not be allowed, since they can cause some level of adverse effect in the short-term.

The Preferred Alternative in the Final SEIS would clarify that the ACS objectives are intended to be met at the fifth – field watershed or larger scale, and not at the project level scale. A fifth-field watershed ranges from approximately 30 to 150 square miles (20,000 to 100,000 acres). The standards and guidelines in the Northwest Forest Plan, which include riparian buffers and other protective measures, are designed to meet the ACS objectives over time. This allows projects that have short term impacts, such as watershed restoration projects and timber sales, to move forward as long as they comply with all of the protective measures specified in the standards and guidelines. The agencies will continue to monitor watersheds over time to assure watershed conditions are moving towards attainment of ACS objectives.

The Preferred Alternative in the ACS Final SEIS would remove some of the uncertainty in project design by clearly establishing compliance with the ACS standards and guidelines (in Sections C and D of Attachment A of the Record of Decision) as the relevant project design criteria. As a result of the Preferred Alternative, opportunities to integrate timber sales and restoration projects may increase.

The Preferred Alternative is also less likely to result in projects that are stopped or delayed due to appeals and litigation based on interpretations of the ACS. Some increase in timber sales toward meeting Northwest Forest Plan objectives would be expected. Without clarifying the intent of the ACS, the agencies will continue to be constrained in their ability to achieve the sustainable and predictable level of timber sales envisioned under the Northwest Forest Plan.