189 



g) At least one alternative should reflect a continuation of current 

 management direction and resource output levels (the "no action" 

 alternative) . 



h) Each alternative shall represent the most cost efficient management 

 prescriptions that can meet the objectives of that alternative. 



1) As a minimum, each alternative must display the condition and uses 



resulting from the long-term implementation of that management direction, 

 the timing and flow of the resulting goods and services, the associated 

 costs and benefits, the resource management standards and guidelines, and 

 the overall purpose of that alternative. 



The Forest Plan IDT, In assuring that the NFMA requirements for alternative 

 formulation are met, must pay particular attention to the experience gained 

 from previous plans. Current planning efforts have resulted in numerous 

 appeals and have involved considerable time and effort. One of the major 

 problems identified through the appeal process has been the lack of a 

 sufficient range of alternatives. The tendency has been to limit the range of 

 alternatives to those most acceptable to a 'prudent' forest manager. From an 

 internal Forest Service perspective this may appear to be a rational and 

 efficient approach to the planning process. However, this can result in a 

 failure to consider and document a full range of reasonable alternatives, and 

 thus a failure to meet the intent of NEPA. Another common point of criticism 

 has been inadequate EIS displays, or an Inadequate evaluation of the cumulative 

 effects and the flow of goods and services associated with an alternative. 

 Such displays are critical to the evaluation of the alternatives In that they 

 ensure that the long-term consequences of an alternative are considered in the 

 planning process. 



J 



3. Documenting Alternative Formulation 



The Forest Plan IDT will need, to formulate a broad range of reasonable 

 alternatives that adfress major public issues, management concerns , and 

 resour ce use and development opportunities. / ~(Refer to FSM 1$££.13 for the 

 minimum requirements for foraulatlng alternatives.) For each alternative 

 analyzed, the Forest Plan IDT will need to document the: 



a) overall management approach and resource emphasis; 



b) management goals and objectives and how they relate and respond to 

 identified Issues, concerns, and opportunities; 



c) standards and guidelines necessary to achieve the alternative; 



d) relationship of the alternative to benchmarks and how it falls within the 

 range of management opportunities defined by the benchmarks; 



e) FORPLAN constraints Imposed, the rationale for these constraints, the 

 constraint analysis (that is, an assessment of the costs of the 

 constraint), and an evaluation indicating that the constraints were the 

 most cost effective means to achieve the objectives of each alternative; 



f) forest plan alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study 

 and the rationale for this elimination; and 



g) forest plan alternatives considered In detail. 



•~\r\ rm 



