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, Appendices A. 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

Wildlife Habitat

Deer & Elk Winter Range & Mountain Goat Habitat

Roadless Areas

Areas Suitable For Timber Production

Old Growth

Municipal Watershed

Alternative A – No Chg. Brown – Emphasis on timber management with roaded dispersed Recreation Orange – Spotted Owl Habitat Areas Red – Mature and Old growth timber to provide habitat for species such as Marten & pileated Woodpecker 10C – Trail-less areas, Few encounters with others

Alt I Market Place Alternative Brown – timber Red – habitat woodpecker & Marten Yellow –visually sensitive Highway corridors Green – roaded recreation & Timber (L.R.) Orange – SOHA Purple – Deer & elk Winter range (timber Cutting)

Alternative B RPA 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, or Geologic 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)

FEIS 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) Blue – unique scenic historic, Biological, botanical, or Geologic features

Alt. C Semi-primitive Dispersed rec/ Wildlife Brown – timber Yellow – highway/view corridors Red – habitat woodpecker & Marten Light Green – unroaded recreation Orange – SOHA Blue – unique scenic historic, Biological, botanical, or Geologic features

Alt G Environmentalist Alternative Brown – timber Yellow – highway/view corridors Red – habitat woodpecker & Marten Light Green – unroaded recreation Orange – SOHA Blue – unique scenic historic, Biological, botanical, or Geologic 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?