Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Case Study

• Use of NEPA as a vehicle for decision making

• 1987 Draft EIS

• 1990 Final EIS

•----------

• Overlay of Clinton Forest Plan

• Now, a revision due

• Another Overlay: Clinton Roadless Area Initiative

MBSNF Forest Plan-Process & Elements

• Formation of Interdisciplinary Team

• Inventory of Land Attributes– Examples: Wildlife Critical Habitat– Timber Suitability– Old Growth by Elevation

• Development of Resource Capability Analyses by ID Team prior to development of NEPA EIS

The Draft EIS

Ch. 1: Purpose and Need

Ch. 2: Alternatives, including proposed action

• Management strategies, allocation zones, benchmarks, methodology for analysis of opportunity costs & sensitivity analysis, constraints on formulation of alternatives

• Defines alternatives & compares them - outputs, inputs, environmental effects, economic tradeoffs, Noneconomic tradeoffs

The Draft EIS, Cont.Chapter 3 Description of Affected Environment (230 Pages)

• Physical Characteristics

• Human community, native American values, archaeological/historic values

• Scenery, recreation, trails, Wilderness, Wild & Scenic Rivers, Research Natural Areas

• Air Quality

•Minerals

•Land ownership, land use, built environment

Draft EIS, Cont.Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences (197 pages)• Management Activities• Effects common to all alternatives• Effects that vary among alternatives• Relationship - short-term use versus long-run productivity• Irreversible commitments of resources• Probable adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided• Environmental conditions unchanged by the alternatives.

List of Recipients of DEIS

Draft EIS, AppendicesA. Process for identifying issues, concerns, opportunities

B. Description of Analytical Process (260 pages)

C. Analysis of Roadless Areas

D. Standards & Guidelines that differ from Forest Plan

E. Wild & Scenic Rivers

F. Selection of Harvest Cutting Method

G. Plans & Policies of other federal agencies, state and local governments, Indian nations

H. Management Requirements

I. Best management practices for Soil and Water protection

Process after Issuance of DEIS

• Call for Public Comment (including hearings)

• Agency evaluation of public input

• Development of new alternatives in response to public input

• Issuance of Final EIS - contents similar to DEIS but also:

Description of how public input was considered; list of those commenting.

An Overview of the Alternatives-The Mt. Baker Area

A: No Change

I. Market Place Alternative

B. RPA Program Satisfaction

H. DEIS Preferred Alternative

J. FEIS Preferred Alternative

C. Semi-primitive / primitive dispersed recreation, fish & wildlife emphasis

G-Mod. Created by environmentalists

WildlifeHabitat

Deer & Elk Winter Range & Mountain Goat Habitat

Roadless Areas

AreasSuitable

For Timber

Production

OldGrowth

Municipal Watershed

AlternativeA – No Chg.

Brown – Emphasis ontimber management

with roaded dispersedRecreation

Orange – Spotted OwlHabitat Areas

Red – Mature and Oldgrowth timber to

provide habitat forspecies such as

Marten & pileatedWoodpecker

10C – Trail-less areas,Few encounters with others

Alt IMarketPlace

Alternative•Brown – timber

•Red – habitat woodpecker& Marten

•Yellow –visually sensitiveHighway corridors

•Green – roaded recreation &Timber (L.R.)

•Orange – SOHA•Purple – Deer & elk Winter range (timber

Cutting)

Alternative BRPA program

Alternative•Brown – timber

•Red – habitat woodpecker& Marten

•Green – roaded recreation &Timber (L.R.)

•Orange – SOHA•Purple – Deer & elk Winter range (timber

Cutting)•Blue – unique scenic historic,

Biological, botanical, orGeologic features

DEIS Alt. H.Preferred Alt.

•Brown – timber•Yellow – highway/view

corridors•Red – habitat woodpecker

& Marten•Light Green – unroaded

recreation•Dark Green – roaded recreation

& timber (L.R.)•Orange – SOHA

•Purple – Deer & elk Winter range (timber

Cutting)

FEISPreferred

Alt.•Brown – timber

•Yellow – highway/viewcorridors

•Red – habitat woodpecker& Marten

•Light Green – unroaded recreation

•Dark Green – roaded recreation & timber (L.R.)

•Orange – SOHA•Purple – Deer & elk Winter range (timber

Cutting)•Blue – unique scenic historic,

Biological, botanical, orGeologic features

Alt. CSemi-primitiveDispersed rec/

Wildlife•Brown – timber

•Yellow – highway/viewcorridors

•Red – habitat woodpecker& Marten

•Light Green – unroaded recreation

•Orange – SOHA•Blue – unique scenic historic,

Biological, botanical, orGeologic features

Alt GEnvironmentalist

Alternative•Brown – timber

•Yellow – highway/viewcorridors

•Red – habitat woodpecker& Marten

•Light Green – unroaded recreation

•Orange – SOHA•Blue – unique scenic historic,

Biological, botanical, orGeologic features

Actions Subsequent to Issuance of FEIS

• Prepare Forest Plan - how the selected alternative will be implemented

• Record of Decision - legal declaration by Regional Forester that the plan satisfies NFMA

• Challenges to Plan, ROD, FEIS. Revision is Overdue

The Old Growth Battle -ESA Listing, Clinton Forest Plan, Clinton Roadless Area Initiative

Monitoring elements of the Forest Plan

Post-Plan Adoption• Monitoring

- Look at 2007 Monitoring report

• The Northwest Forest Plan taking precedence

• Problems in monitoring due to lack of funds

• New Forest Plan apparently coming

• Congressional adoption of replacement of the 25% fund, skewed payments to Oregon due to Congressional action

A Brand New Start at Forest Plan Revision

Key Questions to Consider Regarding Management of Public Lands

1. Whose interests should be considered? How? Local residents versus distant interested parties?2. How to consider present values versus those of future generations?3. Should “people” be polled? Or just volunteer their input?4. Should planning be bottoms up or tops down?

Key Questions to Consider Regarding Management of Public Lands, continued

5. Should Congress step in even more, or has it gone too far in prescribing management?6. Should lands be managed for cost-effectiveness or should non-economic values be the primary basis for management (e.g. an ecosystem perspective)?7. How should irreversibility's be considered?8? What other values should be considered?