What’s the Difference?  

The Forest Plan Proposed by the MLNF

 and the Conservation Alternative

 

All forest plans consist of directions for numerous management situations (e.g., Wildlife, Recreation, Livestock Grazing, Fire, Alpine Area).  This makes sense, given that a forest plan is the blueprint for how the entire Forest will be managed for the next 15 or more years. (The current MLNF plan is 36 years old!) Both the MLNF Draft Management Plan and the Conservation Alternative propose Goals, Desired Conditions, Objectives, Standards, and Guidelines for each management focus:​

​

GOALS

High-altitude statements of intent, usually related to process or interaction with the public.

​

DESIRED CONDITIONS

Ecological, social, and/or economic forest-area characteristics toward which management should be directed. 

​

OBJECTIVES

“Concise, measurable, and time-specific” statements about desired progress toward desired conditions – based on a reasonably foreseeable budget. In other words, what will be done by when.

​

STANDARDS

Mandatory constraints (e.g., “shall not be allowed”) on projects and activities. These are enforceable, binding, and mandatory. The public can hold the MLNF accountable for abiding by their Standards. The Draft MLNF Plan includes very few Standards; the Conservation Alternative proposes many Standards.

​

GUIDELINES

Constraints that are not mandatory.  These are worded as “should,” because Guidelines don’t have to be followed “so long as the purpose of the guideline is met.” The public cannot hold the MLNF accountable when guidelines are not followed.​

​

Both the Draft MLNF Plan and Conservation Alternative include 57 types of management topic, each of which usually has Goals, Desired Conditions, Objectives, Standards, and Guidelines.  The Conservation Alternative and Draft Forest Plan propose starkly different management emphases, and yet the Draft Plan, contrary to National Environmental Policy Act direction, offers no or almost no alternative for most of the 57 forest management  topics.

​

The charts below identify particularly important differences between the Conservation Alternative and Draft MLNF Plan (“Alternative B”). Overall, the two proposals differ dramatically in terms of their likely consequences for MLNF forests, woodlands, wetlands, creeks, shrublands grasslands, alpine area, and wildlife (e.g., native bees, fish, amphibians, birds, small and large mammals). But the MLNF hasn’t compared alternatives for their differing consequences, because they haven’t published more than a few alternative fragments – and almost none from the Conservation Alternative.

​

Please select a few charts to read through and imagine the differences they would make for this climate-stressed Forest over the next 15 or more years. (Note: the one proposed area of management that is not dramatically different from the Conservation alternative is Recreation. But check out, for instance, the Livestock Grazing and Climate charts.)

​

For a more technical definition of each term, see "A Guide to Goals, Desired Conditions, Objectives, Standards, and Guidelines" below.