Dear Senator Gorton:

Upon further discussions of our October 8, 1998 letter to you concerning the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, we want to clarify the anticipated schedule and process.

We plan to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS), provide it to the public for comment, analyze the public comments, and publish a final EIS before signing a Record of Decision. Meeting our National Environmental Policy Act Responsibilities and ensuring productive public dialogue will take at least 12 months. The final Record of Decision will not be signed until after September 30, 1999. I hope this clarifies our schedule.

We look forward to working with you to bring this important project to completion. We are sending similar letters to Senator Murray, Wyden, Gordon Smith, Craig, Kempthorne, Baucus, and Burns, and Representatives Robert Smith, Nethercutt, Chenoweth, Crapo, Hill, Dicks, McDermott, and Doc Hastings.

/s/ BRUCE BABBITT	/s/ DAN GLICKMAN
Secretary of the Interior	Secretary of Agriculture

cc:	Frank Murkowski
	George Miller
	Dale Bumpers
	Don Young
	Ralph Regula
	Sidney Yates
	Robert C. Byrd

Facsimile of original letter

The Honorable George R. Nethercutt, Jr.
U.S. House of Representatives
415 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-4705

Dear Congressman Nethercutt:

The Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and WildIife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Environmental Protection Agency have been working on a comprehensive land management strategy, the Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP), that will restore the health of national forests and rangelands, comply with environmental laws, and enhance long-term benefits from public lands in the Basin. The agencies have recently completed their analysis of public comments, including the views of Congress, and have agreed that they should pursue alternative proposals to meet the interests and concerns of the public.

While the findings of the Scientific Assessment are supported by most of the Federal agencies, states, counties, members of Congress, and interest groups, we recognize that the preferred alternative contained in the draft environmental impact statements (DEIS) has been widely criticized. The Federal agencies believe that many of the issues in the Basin can be addressed in a scientifically sound, ecosystem-based manner through the existing forest planning process on a local management area or watershed basis. Indeed, we recognize that this is a basic understanding behind the development of ICBEMP. However, certain. issues are simply larger than the administrative boundaries of the land management units. We cannot logically hold 74 independent managers responsible for addressing landscape level issues that are beyond their control. The findings of the peer-reviewed scientific assessment make clear that there are issues that must be addressed from a basin perspective to manage for long-term sustainability

In response to Congressional concern and more than 83,000 comments received on the DEIS's, the agencies have decided to develop a new approach for the Basin that would be analyzed in a supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) with full public involvement. The new alternative, or alternatives, will address the limited number of issues that must be resolved at the Basin level. This approach will be less complex and less costly, while still meeting scientific standards that will ensure sound management and underpin compliance with environmental laws. Based on the data and analysis that are already available, the regional executives expect that the preparation of a supplemental EIS with improved effects analysis will delay the issuance of a record of decision by six to nine months.

The new ICBEMP approach will include basin-wide direction built around four basic components: aquatic habitat; terrestrial species habitat; landscape health; and human needs, products, and services. These components, and any other basin-level considerations, will be science-based and integrated to support restoration and maintenance objectives Thus, ICBEMP will- focus on the successful management of a limited number of landscape level issues and appropriate application of basin-wide data to individual areas. The aquatic conservation strategy will replace interim strategies such as PACFISH and INFISH. The approach will attempt to guarantee adequate habitat, water quality, and long term viability for steelhead, salmon, bull trout, cutthroat, and other species as they migrate from one administrative unit to another. The aquatic strategy will also address Basin-wide considerations that arise from Clean Water Act responsibilities.

The terrestrial habitat strategy will provide for wide-ranging species such as lynx and wolverine to ensure that adequate habitat with appropriate structure and composition is available across administrative units. Other terrestrial plant and animal species that have limited ranges and require site specific information, such as woodland caribou, will not be addressed in a Basin-wide decision document, but instead at the scale most appropriate to their needs.

Landscape health issues, such as the rapid spread of noxious weeds and the potential for costly, dangerous, and unnaturally large fire events, will be addressed through general objectives and guidance so that budgeting, priority setting, and on the ground activities are well-coordinated and effective. The specific design for most of these activities is appropriately addressed at the sub-basin or local level.

The new approach will address general objectives and guidance concerning support of economic and social needs of people, cultures, and communities and provision of levels of products and services from lands administered by the Forest Service or BLM. This is one of the purposes of ICBEMP as described in the DEIS's, and it is important to ensure that regional guidance considers the appropriate relationship between ecosystem needs of, and outputs from, the Federal lands.

The remaining issues will dovetail to the broader scale strategies through the existing planning processes. The information and analysis in the scientific assessment will be applied, as appropriate, to issues at the sub-basin level, administrative unit level, and watershed level. Provisions that establish step-down protocols for scientific consistency will be available to assist managers in tailoring basin-wide considerations to site-specific conditions. This approach requires local managers to work cooperatively to identify the appropriate scale for issue resolution, including cross-boundary issue resolution, and apply the science and public interests through the existing planning processes as appropriate for each jurisdiction. Public involvement will be used to guide local decisions for agency actions.

The local land manager, coordinating with other Federal agencies, tribal and local governments, and the public, will be responsible for designing and sequencing local restoration activities within the context of the basin-wide strategies. It is our expectation that most actual management decisions will be made at the local level. We have asked that the regional executives develop a plan that can accommodate a range of funding levels so that Congress and the Administration can consider, on an annual basis, the costs and benefits of action and inaction, and set an appropriate pace for restoration and management.

The Forest Service and BLM will continue to consult and conduct environmental analyses on each management activity or project that may affect endangered or threatened species or the environment under the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Once the final EIS and decision are published, we expect to phase out the ICBEMP offices.

Having explained how the regional executives plan to proceed, we would like to address a remaining Congressional concern. Both the Senate and House Interior Appropriations Bills include language that would terminate ICBEMP. The effect of the language would be an additional and unnecessary cost of $25 million, a significant delay in replacing interim strategies with long term management direction, continued uncertainty for resource users in the region, continued deterioration of forest and rangeland health conditions in the area, and likely injunctions against Forest Service and BLM activities throughout the Basin. We strongly oppose the appropriations language for these reasons, and have recommended a veto to the President should this language be included in legislation.

We believe that the agencies are on the right track and should be encouraged to continue working toward a final decision that can address many of the problems in the Columbia Basin. The goals of this project have always been to improve the health of the forests and the rangelands, decrease the threat of catastrophic fire, improve habitat for fish and wildlife, and provide communities with a sustainable level of benefits from public lands. We are optimistic that we can achieve these goals while being responsive to public and Congressional concern. We look forward to working with you in this regard. We are sending identical letters to Senators Gorton, Murray, Wyden, Gordon Smith, Craig, Kempthorne, Baucus, and Burns, and Representatives Robert Smith. Chenoweth, Crapo, Hill, Dicks, McDermott, and Doc Hastings.

/s/ BRUCE BABBITT	/s/ DAN GLICKMAN
Secretary of the Interior	Secretary of Agriculture

The Honorable Frank Murkowski

The Honorable Dale Bumpers

The Honorable Don Young

The Honorable George Miller