Chapter II - Review of Wildlife EIS Process 



StafTing and Directing The Wildlife EIS project was coordinated by the EIS Team with 



Methods oversight by the Steering Committee. The EIS Team was led by a 



bureau chief. This organizational structure did not give the team 

 significant authority over other department staff who were assigned 

 tasks related to the project. The EIS Team members struggled with 

 getting non-EIS staff to complete work according to estabhshed 

 deadlines. Attempts were made by the team to get management action 

 to speed the other writers along. Eventually, in October 1993, the team 

 leader wrote a memo to the authors of the species chapters to send in the 

 work they had completed to date and indicated that the remaining work 

 would be assigned to other staff. 



The Steering Committee had individual staff members with a high level 

 of authority within the department but its oversight role was unclear. 

 Eventually the Steering Committee role was clarified in March 1994 as 

 only being advisory. At about this time, the committee was disbanded. 



The EIS Team worked out of the Bozeman regional office because that 

 was the location of the team leader prior to the start of the project. The 

 team made numerous trips to Helena in the first couple of years, often to 

 meet with the Steering Committee. Ifthe team had been located in 

 Helena it may have been able to better run a statewide project. The 

 team would have had more face-to-face contact with upper management 

 and other staff and this may have helped its appearance of authority. 



The first project leader retired in December 1993. He was the prime 

 advocate of the initial EIS approach. When he retired, this EIS 

 approach seemed to stall and later resulted in the EIS Team seeking 

 direction fi-om upper management on how to proceed. A new team 

 leader was named in October 1995. 



Several people involved in the EIS indicated the project lost the active 

 support and encouragement from upper management after the first year 

 or so. This probably contributed to other staffwho assisted with the 

 project placing their EIS work lower on their priority hsts. During 1995 

 and 1996, the project seemed to get more attention from upper 

 management with the EIS Team sending in frequent progress report 



Page 14 



