500
what processes should be used to ensure that FACA
was not violated and that policies included in the
National Forest Management Act and the National
Environmental Policy Act were followed. Therefore, ICBEMP members carefully documented all
mktings. The recorded minutes and all project documents became the official record of the project.
34.2.5 The Assessment
The changing scope, the open process, and the EISs
all influenced the assessment. As the assessment
increased in size, the optimism of completing the
project on time and within budget continued, but
time lines and budget projections changed. Large
numbers of people throughout the basin were recruited to supply information and data for the assessment. Panels, committees, and work groups
worked thousands of person-days preparing both a
mid-scale and broad-scale assessment of the entire
basin. The public, local governments, other agencies, and the EIS teams continually asked additional
questions that the SIT tried to answer, while simultaneously addressing the major policy questions that it was chartered to answer.
One goal was to conduct an integrated assessment among the different disciplines. Past assessment efforts, such as the Eastside Health report
(Everett et al., 1994) andFEMAT (1993), were presented as individual reports by discipline. This assessment would be integrated among disciplines
throughout the process. However, this was more
difficult than expected and added further to the
complexity and progress of the assessment. The different staff areas were accustomed to their own data
collection, analysis, terminology, and presentation
of results. This was more noticeable between the
social-economic sciences and the biological sciences. These differences made integration difficult
and often made communication among staffs awkward. Also, completing an integrated assessment
proved arduous when spatial scales used by the social and economic teams did not conform to spatial scales used by the terrestrial and landscape
teams. Even within the biological sciences, inventories and procedures used to describe the animal
resources did not always conform to techniques and
procedures needed to describe plant communities.
Not only did differing spatial scales confound the
coordination among the different disciplines, but
different temporal scales made integration difficult.
For example, the social and economic staffs were
accustomed to projecting into the future for short
time periods (20 years or less), while the landscape
staff used multiple decades. These differences
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project
within the SIT also led to many changes in approaches and analysis techniques.
To overcome some of these problems, the SIT
divided the basin into areas that had similar biophysical characteristics (called ecological reporting
units). This integration technique provided a way
to rate basin condition as to ecological integrity and
social resiliency. Likewise, integrated scenarios of
different management strategies were developed
and used to determine potential consequences and
outcomes of applying these scenarios on federally
administered lands in the basin. The scenarios were
designed to address or bound the many possible
management directions that could be used on the
basin's natural resources.
34.2.6 Information Management
The GIS staff assembled, analyzed, and displayed
large quantities of geographical information. The
ICBEMP primarily used available information, but
new data generated by all staffs required input,
checking, and validation. Often these tasks were
completed by teams throughout the basin and coordinated through the GIS staff in Walla Walla. The
changing scope of the project and continual request
for different data and analysis needs caused several
false starts in data collection and analysis. This
group did an excellent job of assembling the
tremendous amount of data, but it was an expensive and time-consuming process.
The ICBEMP started in January 1994 with the
expectation that the science products would be
completed within a year. The changes in scope and
analysis delayed the first product, "The Framework" (Haynes et aI., 1996) until June 1996, two
and one-half years after the project began. The "Integrated Scientific Assessment" was available in
September 1996, and "An Assessment of Ecosystem Components" was finished in June 1997
(Quigley et al., 1996; Quigley and Arbelbide,
1997). The assessment, even with all the challenges, provided excellent products that contained
substantial information and insight on the overall
condition of the basin. The following are some of
the highlights from the assessment.
34.3 Assessment Results
The basin covers about the 8% of the United States,
an area nearly the size of Texas. Of the 58 million
hectares assessed, 31 million ha are administered
by 35 National Forests and 17 BLM Districts
(Quigley et aI., 1996) (Figure 34.1). The remain-
what processes should be used to ensure that FACA
was not violated and that policies included in the
National Forest Management Act and the National
Environmental Policy Act were followed. Therefore, ICBEMP members carefully documented all
mktings. The recorded minutes and all project documents became the official record of the project.
34.2.5 The Assessment
The changing scope, the open process, and the EISs
all influenced the assessment. As the assessment
increased in size, the optimism of completing the
project on time and within budget continued, but
time lines and budget projections changed. Large
numbers of people throughout the basin were recruited to supply information and data for the assessment. Panels, committees, and work groups
worked thousands of person-days preparing both a
mid-scale and broad-scale assessment of the entire
basin. The public, local governments, other agencies, and the EIS teams continually asked additional
questions that the SIT tried to answer, while simultaneously addressing the major policy questions that it was chartered to answer.
One goal was to conduct an integrated assessment among the different disciplines. Past assessment efforts, such as the Eastside Health report
(Everett et al., 1994) andFEMAT (1993), were presented as individual reports by discipline. This assessment would be integrated among disciplines
throughout the process. However, this was more
difficult than expected and added further to the
complexity and progress of the assessment. The different staff areas were accustomed to their own data
collection, analysis, terminology, and presentation
of results. This was more noticeable between the
social-economic sciences and the biological sciences. These differences made integration difficult
and often made communication among staffs awkward. Also, completing an integrated assessment
proved arduous when spatial scales used by the social and economic teams did not conform to spatial scales used by the terrestrial and landscape
teams. Even within the biological sciences, inventories and procedures used to describe the animal
resources did not always conform to techniques and
procedures needed to describe plant communities.
Not only did differing spatial scales confound the
coordination among the different disciplines, but
different temporal scales made integration difficult.
For example, the social and economic staffs were
accustomed to projecting into the future for short
time periods (20 years or less), while the landscape
staff used multiple decades. These differences
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project
within the SIT also led to many changes in approaches and analysis techniques.
To overcome some of these problems, the SIT
divided the basin into areas that had similar biophysical characteristics (called ecological reporting
units). This integration technique provided a way
to rate basin condition as to ecological integrity and
social resiliency. Likewise, integrated scenarios of
different management strategies were developed
and used to determine potential consequences and
outcomes of applying these scenarios on federally
administered lands in the basin. The scenarios were
designed to address or bound the many possible
management directions that could be used on the
basin's natural resources.
34.2.6 Information Management
The GIS staff assembled, analyzed, and displayed
large quantities of geographical information. The
ICBEMP primarily used available information, but
new data generated by all staffs required input,
checking, and validation. Often these tasks were
completed by teams throughout the basin and coordinated through the GIS staff in Walla Walla. The
changing scope of the project and continual request
for different data and analysis needs caused several
false starts in data collection and analysis. This
group did an excellent job of assembling the
tremendous amount of data, but it was an expensive and time-consuming process.
The ICBEMP started in January 1994 with the
expectation that the science products would be
completed within a year. The changes in scope and
analysis delayed the first product, "The Framework" (Haynes et aI., 1996) until June 1996, two
and one-half years after the project began. The "Integrated Scientific Assessment" was available in
September 1996, and "An Assessment of Ecosystem Components" was finished in June 1997
(Quigley et al., 1996; Quigley and Arbelbide,
1997). The assessment, even with all the challenges, provided excellent products that contained
substantial information and insight on the overall
condition of the basin. The following are some of
the highlights from the assessment.
34.3 Assessment Results
The basin covers about the 8% of the United States,
an area nearly the size of Texas. Of the 58 million
hectares assessed, 31 million ha are administered
by 35 National Forests and 17 BLM Districts
(Quigley et aI., 1996) (Figure 34.1). The remain-