INTERIOR COLUMBIA BASIN ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECT

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project is unique--one of a kind. It is one of the most complex, comprehensive, and sophisticated projects of its kind to date. It is state-of-the-art, unifying our ecosystem management philosophy with current theory in resource management with the most modern GIS, modeling, and resource planning technology.

At the same time, this complex project represents a single, common sense approach to protecting and managing natural resources. By that, I mean this project is built upon the common sense notions that we must understand what we are managing before we manage it. The first rule of tinkering is to save all the pieces and in this project we seek to understand:

* what all the pieces are,
* how healthy the pieces are,
* how one piece affects another,
* how changes have affected individual pieces and the system as a whole,
* how the biological, social, and economic pieces relate to one another; and
* how to sustain production of all the pieces to the benefit of the system as a whole.

An elegantly simple notion: Common sense.

Why has it taken us so long to get here?

Well, really, it hasn't. When I initiated the "Gang of Four" study in 1990 there had been little effort to link policy and science, especially in the Congress.

It was presumed that science and management were working hand in hand: science setting the parameter and developing the information to guide management. But soon we discovered that the fit was not as it should have been. The perceived partnership was more like a troubled marriage. On the surface all seemed well. But while one partner was doing research, the other was off managing, and communications between the two had broken down.

Finally, the courts called us on it and a judge from a city on the other side of the Cascades declared the partnership a hoax and demanded that management stop until it could demonstrate that it was listening to science and research.

That led in part to the "Gang of Four," a team of Jack Ward Thomas, Jerry Franklin, Norm Johnson, and John Gordon, with a good deal of input from Gordon Reeves and Jim Sedell.

When this project began almost four years ago, no one had looked at this crisis as a regional issue. Agencies didn't collaborate. They fought. Data houses were dysfunctional and disconnected. A Geographic Information System capable of looking at a regional ecosystem did not exist just four years ago.

The "Gang of Four" was the final study of an old-growth ecosystem to look at fish and salmon runs as they related to forest management. It was hardly a sophisticated effort, but it was a significant breakthrough in ecosystem planning.

Since then, we've had the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT), the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, and the Southern Appalachian Study, each one a significant step forward.

But this project, which studied the social, biological, and economic vitality of a six-state area is truly unique.

All of you involved in this project are pioneers in conservation. Your efforts have been herculean, and the outcome will be historic. We are proud of your efforts and your partnership and we look forward to the outcome.

That's a macro view of your efforts. It is, if you will, why this effort is nationally significant. And that's one reason I'm here.

But what is the local significance? Why should residents of the communities in this region be interested or concerned? What's in it for them?

Here's my attempt to characterize the macro view--the value of this project which will result in a successful marriage between science and management.

We have seen over the years how catastrophic wildfires, declining salmon runs, and runaway noxious weed invasions present economic threats to small communities. We read these headlines over and over in the newspapers and occasionally we see the images on television. But no one knows how it feels to be affected by these environmental crises, except those communities directly (please pardon the pun) in the line of fire. One community impacted by all of these crises continues to struggle to stay on solid ground. That community is a small town in central Idaho, the town of Council.

Around 800 people live in Council. There are no traffic lights; in fact, the nearest one is about an hour away. Residents who want late-breaking, local news make sure they're on the Avon lady's route. The Fourth of July is a big holiday in Council--that's when the porcupine races are run. And, in Council, people band together during a crisis. When someone is in trouble, the locals think nothing of emptying their pockets and piggy banks to help.

But all the piggy banks in Idaho can't solve Council's latest crisis. This town's economy depends on natural resources: logging, ranching and, to a lesser extent, recreation and mining. Four years ago a nearby copper mine was shut down. The town's main employer, the Boise Cascade sawmill, has been closed for two years. Rock-bottom cattle prices, coupled with uncertainty about federal grazing permits, have prompted some ranchers to go out of business.

The people of Council know how hard this hurts. Many of the residents are forced to commute several hours to work, eating up the time they would normally spend with their families. And many have been forced to move away to larger cities. These factors have devastated the community, changed its whole makeup.

Many of the residents remember way back when. The trout were so thick in Wickiup Creek you could practically walk on their backs, but the pickings are very slim now. They've seen timber harvest levels so high that after the clearcutting, the sediment in Bear Creek was just a little too thin to plow. They've seen a wind-driven forest fire blacken thousands of acres within a 24-hour period, and firefighters weren't able to calm the flames.

The economic uncertainty, the declining fish populations, the rangeland and forest health problems--none of these problems started in Council, Idaho. For that matter, they didn't start in Burns, Oregon; Okanogan, Washington; or Libby, Montana, either. These problems are big and they're interconnected. It stands to reason that successful solutions need to be big and interconnected.

With that in mind, I initiated the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project a little more than three years ago.

Some time ago, Correta Scott King, wife of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. shared four life-guiding principles:

* Build on strengths;
* Identify weaknesses;
* Create opportunities; and
* Strive for the ideal.

I've added one more to that list: Take on the unknown.

Thanks to these principles, this project is providing us with some viable strategies. I'd like to explain why.

Let's start with "take on the unknown."

This scientific assessment covers 144 million acres, an area as large as France. Nobody had ever tackled a project of this size in the United States. Launching this effort was a huge risk. Several questions ran through my mind: was this even doable? Would it be possible to gather meaningful science data over such a large area? Once this huge expanse of data was gathered, would land managers be able to use it? Would we find the answers that we sought? I knew an ambitious effort like this would take time and money. Were the benefits worth the costs?

As I weighed the pros and cons, I realized that not doing the project was even riskier. Without coordinated land management strategies and the ability to accurately display cumulative effects, we were spending more and more time in the courtroom. Without coordinated strategies, salmon continue to die, catastrophic wildfires continue to burn, and unpredictable resource flows continue to cause community struggles. I decided it was worth the risk. We took on the unknown!

The next step was to "build on strengths."

Sound, credible science is our greatest strength. Hundreds and hundreds of scientists gathered to conduct this assessment. They came from universities, federal agencies and state agencies. Their work went through a stringent review process. It was checked and double checked by scientists who were not affiliated with the project.

After the data was gathered and reviewed, we gained more than 170 geographic information systems data layers. These data layers, when overlapped, show us where forests are particularly healthy, where noxious weeds are invading at alarming rates, where salmon could make a comeback and where catastrophic fires are likely to occur.

"Identifying weaknesses" was the third step.

Our biggest weakness was that we had never before developed a complete ecosystem-based approach. There were no road maps, no standardized procedures to follow.

The fourth step: "creating opportunities."

We've had an unprecedented opportunity to build partnerships with people who wanted to help create the future, not just react to it. These people have come from 100 counties, 22 Tribes and four state governments. On top of that, there has been widespread public interest in this project. From the very beginning, we worked to keep them involved and informed; "no surprises" was our operating rule. Generally speaking, people have supported this process. They are understandably anxious about the land management policy that will be set by this project, but they are reserving judgment until they see the final product.

The fifth step: "striving for the ideal."

The ideal we've been striving for is a healthy science/management partnership. Science and management roles are very distinct. Scientists are not positioned to make our decisions. Managers are. It is management's role to ask the right questions, understand answers provided by the scientists and make decisions. Scientists, on the other hand, conduct analyses designed to answer management questions. They can also predict the results of any given management strategy. As the cycle continues, managers will better know what questions to ask. And as the scientists' tools become more finely tuned, they will be better able to answer those questions. The two must work closely, communicate, and collaborate in partnership---each brings what strength it can to this effort.

Perhaps our most daunting task lies ahead -- using this science to implement an ecosystem approach to management. I see a lot of challenges ahead. Again, I want to use the five life principles to explore these future challenges.

This time we'll start with "build on strengths."

When I started counting the strengths we've gained as we've gone through this process, I was amazed. I'll run through a quick list:

• We have a solid science foundation.
• The effort has strong support from the administration.
• There are hundreds of people who have followed the project, as a result of the open process. They have a better appreciation of the ecosystem-based approach that we're trying to achieve.
• New partnerships have been forged between federal agencies on this project. I hope that the relationships between the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, US Fish & Wildlife Service, the Environmental Protection Agency and National Marine Fisheries Service continue to solidify.

Let's identify weaknesses:

Again, we are pioneers in this task. Completing this task will take time and money. The long-term benefits of this project will save time and money. This project will impact a significant amount of federal land. On a national scale, 25 percent of all Forest Service-administered land and 10 percent of the BLM-administered land will be affected. This is a wise investment. If we were to try to make these changes on a unit by unit basis, the cost to taxpayers would easily double. The cost to the community and the resources upon which they depend, are incalculable.

This project has been successful from the standpoint of building relationships, respect, and involvement. Those relationships are not a done deal. They need to remain a priority. We are in a better place because of the broad spectrum the people are involved. We must work with extra effort to bring the project to completion.

What opportunities can we create?

The science has given us a great gift. When we look at a map of the interior Columbia Basin, the management opportunities pop out. We can now seize these opportunities and manage the risks. For example, we know that timber harvest and prescribed burns can reduce the potential for wildfires. However, these tools can also threaten ecological balances. Unless we acknowledge all risks and adjust our strategies accordingly, we won't be able to optimize our opportunities.

What is the ideal that we're striving for?

Collaborative efforts will result in healthier forests and rangelands. Salmon populations will grow stronger. We can create healthier wildlife habitats which could decrease future species listings.

What does all of this mean to a small town in central Idaho?

• It means the risk of wildfire destroying people's homes and the town's municipal property will be lessened.
• It means other ranching and logging families will have a clearer picture of what the future holds. The reality is that harvest and grazing levels may be lower than before, but it will be a sustainable reality.
• It means that those who enjoy fishing may not be able to walk across the backs of the fish any longer, but their grandchildren will be able to brag about a good fishing hole on Wickiup Creek.
• It means after future timber harvests, nobody will be tempted to plow Bear Creek. The trees above the creek will be managed so that they are less susceptible to fire, insects and disease. Future generations will have a timber supply and a healthy stream.

And to all of us it means we have done much in the health and productivity of the resources that we are jointly committed to manage.

If I leave you with only one thought today, let it be this: take on the unknown.

Before this project was launched, land managers based all their decisions on one perspective--the view from the ground. This project gives them a second perspective--a big picture perspective, the view from a mountain top.

Actually using the big picture perspective is a leap into the unknown. It's not part of our standard operating procedure; it's too uncertain. It will be tempting to take this big picture information and chop it into the site-specific pieces that we're used to dealing with. This will defeat the purpose of the project and the benefit of what we've done.

I encourage you to take on the unknown. Take calculated risks. Learn to think at both the fine scale and the broad scale. You will benefit. Our resources will benefit. And the communities they serve, like Council, Idaho, will benefit as well.