34.2 Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project
499
34.2.2 Assessment Challenges
No sooner had the charter been developed, assessment plans completed, and time tables established,
than additional forces started to influence the assessment. The central portions of Idaho contained
tributaries of the Columbia River that were included in PACFISH. These guidelines were expiring 18 months from when issued, requiring land
management agencies to adopt permanent direction
before they expired. To develop these guidelines,
the FS needed a mid-scale assessment of central
Idaho and asked the SIT to provide this information. Just as the assessment commenced, the scope
of the project was enlarged and assessment plans
were modified and time lines adjusted. Even with
these changes, optimism in the SIT prevailed that
the products would be completed on time and
within budget.
Once plans were revised to supply mid-scale information for PACFISH in central Idaho, the project changed again when Forest Plan revisions on
National Forests in Idaho and western Montana became an issue. For these revisions, the forests could
use the broad-scale assessment provided by the
SIT, but would likely need mid-scale information
similar to the data being collected for eastern Oregon and Washington. The chief of the Forest Service instructed the National Forests in western
Montana and Idaho in the Columbia Basin to use
the same approach as the forests of eastern Oregon
and Washington to revise their Forest Plans. Also,
the BLM director included all BLM-administered
lands in western Montana and Idaho in the project.
Once again the charter was amended and assessment plans and time lines were adjusted to include
all the interior Columbia Basin in both the midscale and broad-scale assessments. With these
modifications, over 58.3 million hectares were included in the assessment area (Figure 34.1).
34.2.3 Environmental Impact Statements
A planned component of the ICBEMP was the
quick assemblage of information for the decisionmaking processes of the BLM and FS. In the original charter, an EIS team was assembled in Walla
W alIa, Washington, for completing a decision document for managing BLM- and FS-administered
lands in eastern Oregon and Washington (Haynes
et aI., 1996). This team was separate from the SIT,
but worked closely with the SIT to ensure that the
information could be rapidly used in an EIS. Very
quickly, members of the SIT started playing dual
roles, in both the EIS and the assessment. In addition, one SIT product was a scientific evaluation of
the EIS alternatives. This product could not be
started by the SIT without the EIS team providing
alternatives, and the EIS team could not provide
the alternatives until the SIT provided the assessment. This was the first of numerous conflicts between the EIS and SIT teams trying to complete
their products simultaneously.
To complete the EIS for the upper Columbia
Basin (Idaho and western Montana), another team
was formed and located in Boise, Idaho. This required the SIT to coordinate their efforts with both
the EIS team in Walla Walla, Washington, and the
EIS team in Boise, Idaho. As the project increased
in scope, the size of the SIT increased, as did the
executive board. It now included the FS regional
foresters from the N orthem and Intermountain Regions, the director of the Rocky Mountain Research
Station, and the BLM state directors from Idaho
and Montana. The ICBEMP, one of the largest assessment and decision-making processes ever attempted by the BLM or FS, had the potential to affect the management of large amounts of public
lands in the West. The people living and working
in the basin became concerned about the size of the
project and its potential impacts.
34.2.4 Open Process
The ICBEMP was committed to an open process,
with all interested parties having access to the information and procedures of the SIT. In concept,
this was an excellent idea, but working with observers presented difficulty for many SIT members.
In addition, since people throughout the basin did
not have equal access to the work being conducted
in Walla Walla, Washington, the project held frequent public information meetings throughout the
basin. Another challenge was helping stakeholders
to distinguish between the EIS (decision document)
in which public involvement is required and the assessment (not a decision document).
The ICBEMP provided information and progress
reports to other agencies and local, state, and national government officials. The time and effort required to complete the assessment and participate
in informational meetings, open houses, and briefings were substantial. A high degree of coordination with the public information staff and the tribal
liaison helped to alleviate the demands.
In addition to public involvement procedures,
ICBEMP teams also needed to comply with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). This required continual consultation with federal attorneys. These attorneys advised ICBEMP teams on
499
34.2.2 Assessment Challenges
No sooner had the charter been developed, assessment plans completed, and time tables established,
than additional forces started to influence the assessment. The central portions of Idaho contained
tributaries of the Columbia River that were included in PACFISH. These guidelines were expiring 18 months from when issued, requiring land
management agencies to adopt permanent direction
before they expired. To develop these guidelines,
the FS needed a mid-scale assessment of central
Idaho and asked the SIT to provide this information. Just as the assessment commenced, the scope
of the project was enlarged and assessment plans
were modified and time lines adjusted. Even with
these changes, optimism in the SIT prevailed that
the products would be completed on time and
within budget.
Once plans were revised to supply mid-scale information for PACFISH in central Idaho, the project changed again when Forest Plan revisions on
National Forests in Idaho and western Montana became an issue. For these revisions, the forests could
use the broad-scale assessment provided by the
SIT, but would likely need mid-scale information
similar to the data being collected for eastern Oregon and Washington. The chief of the Forest Service instructed the National Forests in western
Montana and Idaho in the Columbia Basin to use
the same approach as the forests of eastern Oregon
and Washington to revise their Forest Plans. Also,
the BLM director included all BLM-administered
lands in western Montana and Idaho in the project.
Once again the charter was amended and assessment plans and time lines were adjusted to include
all the interior Columbia Basin in both the midscale and broad-scale assessments. With these
modifications, over 58.3 million hectares were included in the assessment area (Figure 34.1).
34.2.3 Environmental Impact Statements
A planned component of the ICBEMP was the
quick assemblage of information for the decisionmaking processes of the BLM and FS. In the original charter, an EIS team was assembled in Walla
W alIa, Washington, for completing a decision document for managing BLM- and FS-administered
lands in eastern Oregon and Washington (Haynes
et aI., 1996). This team was separate from the SIT,
but worked closely with the SIT to ensure that the
information could be rapidly used in an EIS. Very
quickly, members of the SIT started playing dual
roles, in both the EIS and the assessment. In addition, one SIT product was a scientific evaluation of
the EIS alternatives. This product could not be
started by the SIT without the EIS team providing
alternatives, and the EIS team could not provide
the alternatives until the SIT provided the assessment. This was the first of numerous conflicts between the EIS and SIT teams trying to complete
their products simultaneously.
To complete the EIS for the upper Columbia
Basin (Idaho and western Montana), another team
was formed and located in Boise, Idaho. This required the SIT to coordinate their efforts with both
the EIS team in Walla Walla, Washington, and the
EIS team in Boise, Idaho. As the project increased
in scope, the size of the SIT increased, as did the
executive board. It now included the FS regional
foresters from the N orthem and Intermountain Regions, the director of the Rocky Mountain Research
Station, and the BLM state directors from Idaho
and Montana. The ICBEMP, one of the largest assessment and decision-making processes ever attempted by the BLM or FS, had the potential to affect the management of large amounts of public
lands in the West. The people living and working
in the basin became concerned about the size of the
project and its potential impacts.
34.2.4 Open Process
The ICBEMP was committed to an open process,
with all interested parties having access to the information and procedures of the SIT. In concept,
this was an excellent idea, but working with observers presented difficulty for many SIT members.
In addition, since people throughout the basin did
not have equal access to the work being conducted
in Walla Walla, Washington, the project held frequent public information meetings throughout the
basin. Another challenge was helping stakeholders
to distinguish between the EIS (decision document)
in which public involvement is required and the assessment (not a decision document).
The ICBEMP provided information and progress
reports to other agencies and local, state, and national government officials. The time and effort required to complete the assessment and participate
in informational meetings, open houses, and briefings were substantial. A high degree of coordination with the public information staff and the tribal
liaison helped to alleviate the demands.
In addition to public involvement procedures,
ICBEMP teams also needed to comply with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). This required continual consultation with federal attorneys. These attorneys advised ICBEMP teams on