INTERIOR COLUMBIA BASIN ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECT

I received my first call to potentially be the science leader in what was being called an Eastside Assessment in August 1993. Jeff Blackwood received his first call about that same time asking if he would take the lead on the Eastside Project for the management side. Jeff and I met to discuss what all this might mean and how we might organize to accomplish such a task. At the time I was the Manager of the Blue Mountains Natural Resources Institute and had found myself acting in Jack Ward Thomas' absence while he led assessments in the "Spotted Owl Territory." Jeff Blackwood was the Forest Supervisor on the Umatilla National Forest.

Over the next several months concepts began to take shape concerning how to accomplish this task. Jack Ward Thomas, who was on his way to Washington, D.C. to be named Chief offered advice. From this rather innocent beginning came the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project.

The real beginnings of the Columbia Basin Project were the recognition of forest health, declining salmon habitat and populations, and old forest structures east of the Cascade crest in Oregon and Washington. The Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) considered ecosystems within the range of the northern spotted owl, but received considerable pressure to also study the forests of eastern Oregon and Washington concurrently. In the end, FEMAT was dedicated to the westside, but in announcing the Northwest Forest Plan, President Clinton directed the Forest Service to take the lead in developing a scientifically-sound, ecosystem-based strategy for managing the forests and rangelands of the eastside.

It was this direction that Jeff Blackwood and I began to wrestle with and develop a charter that would become our marching orders.

The charter for the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (Project) was signed in January 1994 by the Chief of the Forest Service (FS) and the Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). It directed a framework for ecosystem management, a scientific assessment, environmental impact statements addressing FS and BLM administered lands within the basin, and an evaluation of the Environmental Impact Statements by the science team. The Project area includes portions of seven states, 100 counties, nearly 25% of the FS administered lands nationally, and 10% of the BLM administered lands nationally. The 145 million acre area extends from the continental divide and Yellowstone National Park on the east to the crest of Cascades and Crater Lake National Park on the west.

I started gathering around me people who were some of the best in their fields. Those who took on special assignments with science leadership responsibilities include: Russ Graham, Sylvia Arbelbide, Danny Lee, Jim Sedell, Jack Williams, Richard Haynes, Amy Horne, Wendel Hann, Paul Hessburg, Mark Jensen, Jim Burchfield, Steve McCool, Becky Gravenmier, Dick Holthausen, John Lehmkuhl, and Bruce Marcot. These individuals each led a cast of technical and scientific expertise that is second to none. An expanded list of all those who were instrumental in making this happen would include several hundred.

This list would have to include not only the science team members directly, but also the administrative staff, writers, editors, computer specialists, communication team, tribal liaisons, environmental impact statement team members, and all those who worked on short-term assignments to accomplish specific tasks. All were vital to the process. Jeff Blackwood, Steve Mealey, Pat Geehan, and I served as a Project Management Team during much of the assessment period. We struggled, we argued, we challenged each other and the science products are more robust because of it.

I respect all these individuals for their depth of understanding, hard work, insights, dedication against the greatest of odds, perseverance, and ability to put together what I consider to be an information landmark that will serve the agencies and the people of the Basin well into the next century. I personally pay you tribute. I hope that none of us will personally take credit for this work--it is truly a team accomplishment.

Let me restate the bottom line from our assessment.

First, there are tremendous opportunities within the Basin to restore ecosystems and provide goods, services, and conditions desired by society. But in addition to opportunities there are considerable risks associated with realizing them. Risks come in the form of fire, insect epidemics, sediment into critical fish habitat, shifting product flows, and invading noxious weeds, to name a few.

Second, considerable variability exists in terms of conditions, trends, and response to disturbance. We will argue strongly that "one size does not fit all" in addressing the risks and opportunities of the Basin. If one wants to gain the benefits associated with restoration, it will require consideration of risks that vary across the Basin, vary within watersheds, and vary at individual sites.

Third, systems within the Basin are dynamic. They will change with or without action. This is different from some ecosystems that will remain in a rather similar state for several hundred years in the absence of human disturbance. It requires attention to human actions and attention to the lack of human action. Taking no action in essence is a prescription for the ecosystems of the Basin to change from what they are now. Many of those changes are induced and accelerated by past actions, but are now a force that requires attention to detail.

We have brought forward for the first time an assessment of broad ecological integrity and socioeconomic resiliency. These are a reflection of conditions that society can discuss, refine, and make decisions regarding their maintenance, enhancement, or change. The science results have not been about what is good or what is bad. In most instances, realizing an opportunity for one element of the ecosystem creates risks for other elements. For example, roads are a necessary element in realizing benefits for society and in managing the ecosystem, they provide many benefits. Yet roads are found to be strongly associated with the absence of large snags, the spread of noxious weeds, and sediment in spawning gravels. The science has not found that roads are "bad" and the absence of roads is "good." Likewise, we found that approximately 45% of the FS- and BLM-administered lands within the Basin are currently rated as having low ecological integrity. This is not intended to be a statement of good or bad. Many of these areas may be exactly where society wants them to be. Areas we have found to be low in their socioeconomic resiliency may include the wealthiest counties on a per capita basis. The science does not suggest this is "bad," it provides a statement of how easily it might adapt to a downturn in its principle economic sectors. The assignment of good or bad is a value judgment that is made within the policy arena not the science arena.

There is more science synthesized and analyzed within the scientific reports than can possibly be absorbed during a single workshop or conference. I encourage you to study it in more depth. It is not perfect, but it is a beginning. The challenge is to expand from here to enhance your personal understanding and participate in the discussions about how the natural resources of the Basin might be managed in the future. Use the existing science as a platform from which to base discussions, set policy, and design to enhance understanding. The science will never be totally complete.

Forest Service and BLM managers are well positioned to make decisions with a strong science basis. We have engaged the regional federal executives in a dialog about conditions, options, and outcomes so they are better informed and understand the risks and opportunities better within the Basin than at anytime in history, and possibly for any region of the United States. The discussions are not left to wrangling among functional staff members. The important decisions within the Basin demand that enlightened decision makers interact with the public, tribes, elected officials, agency staff, and interest groups to determine future ecosystem management direction for FS and BLM administered lands within the Basin.

Science is the glue that holds the pieces of ecosystem management together. It is a new role for science, one that most scientists will find uncomfortable. We must adopt a new way of thinking about what we do, why we do it, and how we interact. It requires skills that reach beyond the statistical design, the analytical technique, and the peer review comments. If we cease to advance new understandings and to push the horizon of our learning through integrative research then we are destined to fail to see the pieces upon which ecosystem management depends interlock. Jack Ward Thomas has argued that this is the time when the gladiators enter the arena armed with disparate messages designed to tear apart those things which might seal a complete picture. I hope this is not true. The people and the resources of the Basin deserve more than this. For the gladiators the battle is everything. To them it is more important that a battle exists than how resources are managed and people interact with their environment.

I started the conference with a quotation by Abraham Lincoln: "If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it." We do know where we are and where we are tending. We have examined different options of what to do and how to do it. Now we need to make those formal decisions of where in the future we want to be. Let's do it quickly so our trend is not toward more species at risk, more risk of catastrophic fire, and increased uncertainty in economic outcomes.

We now bring closure to a massive science endeavor, but with that, we open a new phase in the relationship of science, management, and the public. Our work is not over, but its form will change. Thanks to all of you who helped make this workshop a success and who care so deeply about the future of ecosystems within the Basin.

I leave you with this thought: The ultimate outcome for natural resources in the Basin will depend on how we interact personally and collectively across disciplinary lines, across administrative lines, and across our personal value lines.