Biggest Land Grab Ever -- 30 Million Acres

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE CONCERNS THE BIGGEST ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECT EVER UNDERTAKEN ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. THE PROJECT AND THE PROJECT PROCESS ARE SO LARGE THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TRY TO COVER IT IN DEPTH OR OFFER ANYTHING BUT A FRACTION OF THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS AND OFFER COMMENT. PLEASE UTILIZE THE INFORMATION AS A STARTING POINT FOR LEARNING, GET THE DOCUMENTS ORDERED, ATTEND THE NOTED MEETINGS, AND DIG IN. CONTACT CGNW OR PFW FOR MORE INFORMATION. INTERIOR COLUMBIA BASIN ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECT INTRODUCTION

In July of 1993, President Clinton directed the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U. S. Forest Service to develop a scientifically sound, ecosystem-based management strategy for lands they administer in the Columbia River Basin. As a result, the two land management agencies joined in a new collaborative effort to form the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. The project area for the project includes approximately 144 million acres in portions of seven states (see map). The BLM and the Forest Service manage over 72 million acres in this region. The Eastside planning area encompasses approximately 30 million acres of land of land administered by either the Forest Service or the BLM in Eastern Oregon and eastern Washington and the Upper Columbia River Basin planning area encompasses approximately 42 million acres administered by the agencies in Idaho, western Montana and Wyoming, and northern Nevada and Utah. Separate Draft Environmental Impact Statements (DEISs) have been prepared for the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin planning areas.

The "Eastside" and "Upper Columbia River Basin" management plans have been consolidated into one massive planning project called the "Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project." This process has been proposed as a step toward 'restoring' the 'biological integrity' of our forested areas. While no one knows what that 'biological integrity' means, most people think we should have lots of it. After a contentious beginning, a contentious process, and a contentious fight to finish the project, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for this unprecedented seven state mega-ecosystem has been released. What was to be a short term, relatively inexpensive process has taken four years and cost well over $35,000,000.

ALTERNATIVE 4 CHOSEN The managing agencies have indicated Alternative 4 as the preferred alternative. This alternative's theme, according to the DEIS: "Aggressively restores ecosystem health through active management using an integrated ecosystem management approach. Priority is placed on forest, rangeland, and watershed health. Actions are designed to produce economic benefits whenever practical." NOW WHAT? The comment deadline for the Upper Columbia River Basin and Eastside projects is currently February 6. This means that we have until February 6th to analyze, interpret, understand and attempt to modify the single most important planning document ever presented to our region. WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THIS PROJECTS IMPACT? With the scope and scale of the undertaking, the nebulous nature of much of the information, and the uncertainty of the definitions of terms used in the conclusions, ascertaining impact is not going to be easy. For instance, exactly how the final decision document will impact existing or continuing resource planning in the region is not fully known - and a quick call to your local BLM or Forest Service office will verify this lack of understanding even within the managing agencies. We do know that the final decision will 'amend' all existing BLM and Forest Service plans. We do know that from the date of decision forward all planning within the region will be done within the parameters set by the final document. We're not sure that this type of umbrella planning and amending of plans is legal - and neither is the Forest Service or the BLM - but in 1997 this does not seem to be a major deterrent to executive branch bureaucracies.We do know that, whether the process is legal or not, political reality dictates that we get involved in the public comment process on this project and involve our elected officials on our behalf. We must use this opportunity to define ecosystem 'management' in such a way as to protect our culture or, just as has happened in the forests of the west coast, someone else will define 'ecosystem' without management - and our communities simply won't belong here anymore. We do know that, in the history of resource planning, no planning process of this size and scope has ever been attempted - let alone implemented and that the local level managers are scared to death of this document and what it will do to their ability to manage. We do know that this project is setting the stage for other major, similar projects throughout the nation.

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE SCIENCE USED IN FORMULATING THE ALTERNATIVES? Much of the science used in the analysis seems to validate what many scientists have said for some time and what many of us who live in the area have claimed for years. There is more risk to the environment, at this point in history, in letting nature `take it's course' than there is in human intervention and management. For instance, the document states that intensive management is necessary for our forests and must include logging and thinning to reduce the fuel loading from decades of fire suppression. This fuel removal must take place prior to the introduction of an aggressive prescribed fire regime and ignoring this need will result in catastrophic, huge, hot fires. However, the science is only `good' if it makes it through the political process and is actually acted upon. Many fear that the science will be used to provide a smokescreen of good intentions while the intensive management is planned for - but never budgeted for and never implemented. Further, some of the science smacks of philosophy or religion and could really provide us with problems in the years ahead. For instance, the term `ecosystem health' is defined, in the draft glossary for ecosystem management as: `The state of an ecosystem in which processes and functions are adequate to maintain diversity of biotic commensurate with those initially found there.' This provides a straight-on look at what the DEIS is attempting to do - take our lands back to pre-European settlement conditions (1850). In the DEIS, ecological integrity is defined: "In general, ecological integrity refers to the degree to which the elements of biodiversity and the functions that link them together and sustain the entire system are complete and capable of performing desired functions; the quality of being complete; a sense of wholeness. Absolute measures of integrity do not exist." .

QUESTIONABLE CONCLUSIONS Surrounding the elements of good science in the DEIS are some startling conclusions that force us to ask questions about the intent of those drafting the final plan. Are they using the science to confirm predetermined agendas within this administration? Many people believe there is ample evidence to prove this sad claim. For instance, throughout the planning process and the discussion of alternatives, roads are assumed to be `bad' contributors to `declining' watersheds. With no specific data for specific road effects as a foundation, Alternative 4 requires road `densities' to be lowered throughout the area. Rather than deal with individual road systems, the plan calls for widespread, systematic road destruction under every alternative. In the Kootenai National Forest's planning `cluster', Alternative 4 calls for road density reductions of 25-50% IN THE FIRST DECADE ALONE, even though the forest has already reduced roads by over 50% in the last decade in order to deal with changing requirements for grizzly bear recovery. The impact of this type of planning on recreation access and patterns of use are not discussed nor is the ability to access the resource areas for management when the roads are gone addressed. DEFINING MOMENT We have a process steam rolling toward us that is either going to crush the analysis paralysis now plaguing resource management in our area or provide the preservation obstructionist community it's finest tool for socially engineering resource communities out of existence. There has never been a more critical need for public participation in resource planning for the Intermountain Region. We have rangelands and forests that are begging to be managed. The ICBEMP process will be instrumental in defining that management and determining themanager. We have to live with the definitions and have a stake in being the manager sowe had better be at the table of debate. WHAT SHOULD WE DO?

COMMENT Study and comment on the draft EIS. Some discussion points and questions concerning the draft: JUST A FEW POINTS TO PONDER BACKGROUND AND QUESTIONS:

1. WHO'S DEFINITION OF `ECOSYSTEM' ARE WE MANAGING FOR?

BACKGROUND: The term 'ecosystem' is an ill-defined one - it means different things depending on your particular point of interest and can be as big as the planet or as small as a rotting log. One individual site can be in an infinite number of `ecosystems' at once. The Draft Glossary for ecosystem management lists 12 different definitions for `ecosystem'. Many definitions for 'ecosystem' management boundaries in forests recognize historic disturbance patterns - drainages that have histories of stand regeneration through single event fire losses for example. This ICBEMP `ecosystem' is a drainage roughly the size of France.

QUESTION(S): Would you define `ecosystem'? How many ecosystems are there in the Kootenai National Forest? In the Columbia Basin? Could you provide us a map of exactly which ecosystem the ICBEMP proposes to manage? If the term 'ecosystem' is not yet defined will we have to wade through twenty years of definition in the court system to obtain action on the ground? Won't each action planned face a barrage of legal challenges based upon some view of `ecosystem' or `ecological integrity' that does not match the planners view? If the agencies are going to treat humans as a part of the ecosystem, why does the Draft Ecosystem Management Glossary define `ecosystem composition' to exclude humans?

2. WHAT IS `ECOSYSTEM HEALTH'? `ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY'?

BACKGROUND: The term `ecosystem health' is defined, in the draft glossary for ecosystem management as: `The state of an ecosystem in which processes and functions are adequate to maintain diversity of biotic commensurate with those initially found there.' This provides a straight-on look at what the DEIS is attempting to do - take our lands back to pre-European settlement conditions (1850). In the DEIS, ecological integrity is defined: "In general, ecological integrity refers to the degree to which the elements of biodiversity and the functions that link them together and sustain the entire system are complete and capable of performing desired functions; the quality of being complete; a sense of wholeness. Absolute measures of integrity do not exist."

QUESTION(S) Would you define `ecological integrity' with a human component? What, exactly, will our forests look like when we have achieved a `healthy' ecosystem with ecological integrity? With several million people living in the planning area, will we ever be able to meet the definition of ecosystem health if it means going back to pre-settlement conditions? How was the time period of magical `health' or integrity chosen? Why not 1650, or 1320, or 2500 B.C.? How benign was Native American management of our forested areas for the 20,000 years prior to European arrival? Will our community economic and cultural base need to be removed to restore pre-existing conditions? Many believe that it is physically and politically impossible to recreate a static condition of ecological integrity if the definition requires turning back the clock 150 years and ignoring humans as a part of the ecosystem. Won't this project set us up for process and planning failure? How will you measure our success or failure? Our feeling of `wholeness'?

3. FIRE, FIRE, EVERYWHERE?

BACKGROUND: Forest scientists agree that an aggressive program of fuel removal needs to be undertaken if we are going to avoid catastrophic losses of timber and range lands in the coming decades. To reduce fire danger, aggressive talk must be backed with aggressive action.

QUESTION(S): Does this document provide the basis for that action? Exactly how aggressive can the proposed management regime be when we are ripping out the roads - the very infrastructure from which we can access the resources? Does the removal of roads indicate an incredibly heavy reliance on wildfire management in the coming decades? If so, will this reliance run aground with the new EPA air standards? How many `safe burning' days per year are there in the Kootenai? Assuming an aggressive reintroduction of fire into our public lands through prescribed burning, how much commercial timber will be lost in this process?

4. THE CALL FOR ROAD CLOSURES

BACKGROUND: Throughout the planning process and the discussion of alternatives, roads are assumed to be `bad' contributors to `declining' watersheds. With no specific data for specific road effects as a foundation, Alternative 4 requires road `densities' to be lowered throughout the area. Rather than deal with individual road systems, the plan calls for widespread, systematic road destruction under every alternative. In the Kootenai National Forest's planning `cluster', Alternative 4 calls for road density reductions of 25-50% IN THE FIRST DECADE ALONE, even though the forest has already reduced roads by over 50% in the last decade in order to deal with changing requirements for grizzly bear recovery.

QUESTION(S): Why are percentage reductions in roads used rather than studying the ground based reality in site-specific analysis? Which roads will be closed on the Kootenai? What will be the impact on recreation access and patterns of recreational use after the road closures?

5. JUNK SOCIO-ECONOMICS

BACKGROUND: The science behind the social and economic analysis is horrendous. The planning process used much of the work of Dr. Tom Powers from the University of Montana in drawing conclusions and the results do not reflect reality. Since the beginning of the project there has been a thread of disrespect for existing cultures within the region and the DEIS bears the fruit of this bias. It was assumed at the start that our areas must transition from resource economies to service economies and that recreation and scenic viewing will provide for the economic foundation of our future. In a most glaring example of junk economics, the plan concludes that scores of towns like Libby, Troy and Eureka, Montana, are not timber dependent. It also states that many of our rural areas are not economically resilient but the painful transition from resource economy to service economy can, must, and will be achieved.

QUESTION(S): If humans are important in the planning, why did the socio-economic analysis not receive the same rigor of study as the other areas covered in the DEIS? Does the planning team really believe that Libby is not timber dependent?If we are not currently timber dependent, why will the transition away from timber be necessary or painful? There is currently a peer review of the socio-economic information being done by the University of Montana and others at the request of county governments - how will this information be used?

6. WHAT HAPPENED TO MINING?

BACKGROUND: Mining is virtually ignored throughout the document. It is a huge part of the economy of the intermountain west and the document treats the industry as if it does not (or should not) exist.

QUESTION(S): Why is mining virtually ignored throughout the document?

7. HOW MUCH IS THAT DOGGY IN THE WINDOW?

BACKGROUND: A similar large scale process was undertaken by the Clinton Administration in 'settling' the spotted owl debate. A public relations campaign has been aggressively pursued to claim that the process 'worked' - but discussions with our peers and discussions with the federal land managers on the ground yields a different conclusion. The forest service has received less than 50% of the required funding to implement the program and has testified in congress that if they were to receive all of the funding they would not have sufficient, trained personnel to implement. Relief moneys for retraining have not hit the streets of the towns impacted.

QUESTION(S): What assurance do we have that we will not get the same treatment as our west coast friends? Do you have the personnel or the budget to attempt implementing Alternative 4?

8. UNCERTAIN CERTAINTY

BACKGROUND: One of the stated reasons for completing this project and implementing an Alternative is to grant the impacted communities certainty and stability in the planning process. However, the DEIS, Ch. 4 pages 169-174, states that: `for grazing - Alternatives 3-7 would introduce additional uncertainty compared to continuation of current practices; for timber - Alternatives 3-7 would make short term projections of future timber supply more uncertain...and that it will be difficult in the future to achieve predictable supplies of timber from Federal lands.' QUESTION(S): How can the claim of certainty be made when the DEIS states that certainty will be decreased? How will our families and our communities benefit from the increased uncertainty predicted by the DEIS?

9. GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY

BACKGROUND: For several decades, the Kootenai N. F. has been providing products for the most consumptive society on Earth. Our society does not seem to be cutting back on resource consumption, in fact, consumption by most measures is still going up. Under the ICBEMP, production of products will be nothing more than an uncertain `by-product' of `restoration' activities.

QUESTION(S): How does this project address our global responsibility of commodity production for a consuming domestic society and a growing world population? Does this document analyze the global environmental, economic, and social implications of transferring any of the burden of production away from the federal lands of the Columbia Basin to 'somewhere' else on Earth?

10. PRIVATE LAND

BACKGROUND: The planning team continues to state that the document deals only with the 72 million acres of public land in the area. The 72 million of private is supposedly not going to be impacted by the plan. However, when quizzed on this issue, some on the planning team have stated in public meetings that it is really difficult to tell how the private land will be impacted.

QUESTION: How will private land be impacted by this plan? What in the plan assures the claim of no impact?

IMMEDIATE ACTION Many elected officials of the impacted area are involving themselves in this debate. The most critical action we can take on the local and federal levels are: 1.Support the involvement of your county commission in the process. The counties have had a ring side seat in much of the process and have been instrumental in shutting down efforts to defund the process because of their belief that they had better control over the management determinations of federal land if they stayed in this process than if they stepped away from it. Now, with the DEIS in hand, they are alarmed and armed with questions. There is a movement within the counties to demand new socio-economic analysis and confirm definitions of local empowerment through the implementation of the project. Call you county commission and ask for their involvement and their help - they are the grassroots most important level of government in changing this document. 2.Ask that your local officials convene a local public meeting with level representatives of the ICBEMP Team in attendance. The planners said that they want local involvement - let's give it to them.

HOW DO I GET INFORMATION? To become informed on the issue you need a copy of the ICBEMP documents. To get your copy of the DEIS contact one of the following and ask for full documents on the ICBEMP draft EIS: EASTSIDE EIS TEAM 112 EAST POPLAR STREET WALLA WALLA, WASHINGTON 99362 (509)522-4030, (509)522-4029 FAX

UPPER COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN EIS TEAM 304 N. 8TH STREET, ROOM 250 BOISE, IDAHO 83702 (208) 334-1770, (208) 334-1769 FAX

For additional information contact CGNW at (406)293-8844, 293-4739 FAX, presented by Bruce Vincent, President Alliance for America AFA Home page AFA Index page

Please direct comments on this page to allianceam@aol.com