WSPC04645 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t" public is given it*st insight as to the relative.ight that the deciding " official placed on _nomic efficiency, market and n -market outputs, and responses to specific issues raised by the public. The Secret,1ry's office has placed a great deal of emphasis on the need for a competent 'lnd cOlnprehensive analysis as part of the decisionmaking process. The nOD must <11so explain how the information from that analysis ~JaS used in arriviny at the decision as to the alternative to be selected. If tile selected alternative is not the one which is the most economically ef- @) ficient (has the highest PNV), there is an obligation .in the ROD to explain in a~pro[.lriate detail: (1) the> differpnro between the net value and mix of the ~ 'priced outputs that could be reali zed in implementing al ternative (s) having a higher PNV and the net value and mix of the priced outputs anticipated if tljCt,,\ .;elected alternative were to be implemented, (2) tIle oh;ecti'!os of the se- ~,c,.. tected alternative in terms of priced and non-priced outputs and/or responses M expressed public issues that would not be expected to be realized if the .\ alternative(s) having a higher PNV were implemented, (3) a summilrv in the ROc(~ of tile major trade-offs or differences between (1) and (2) expressed in economic, envi ronmental, physical, and/or other appropr iate quantitative and (d,l\ ljualitative terms; and (4) ~explanation as to why the selected alternative I.!::J is expected to provide greater overall net public benefits than the alterna- tive(s) with a higher PNV. L4 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION The selected alternatives for both the San Juan and the GMUG forest plans au- thorize modest increases in timber sales over volumes that have recently been offered on those forests. For the San Juan, timber sale levels have averaged about 25 million board feet (I-1I-1BF) annually in recent years. However, for the 23 years from 1960 through 1982, the average annual sale level was 50 ~1I>lBF. The selected alternative on the San Juan would provide for a 38 ~1I>IDF average annu.Jl allo\vable s,lle quanti ty during the period of the plan. For the G~lUG, which in recent years has offered for sale an average of about 29 ~1i'1BF per year, tile selected alternative provides an upper .limit for the average annual allO\vable sale quanti ty of 35 MMBF during the period of the plan. It should be pointed out that the allowable sale quantity is the lI1aximum level of timber that can be sold under the plan. Actual sale levels will depend IJpon a number of 'factors, including timber sale funding levels. The allowable sal~ quantity corresponds to what in existing timber management plans is re- ferred to as the allowable harvest. The average annual allowable harvest under the previous lO-year timber management plan for the San Juan was 117 M!'![)F' and for the GMUG was?8 Ml'lBF. So the statement of the appellants that the selected alternatives provide for an ambi tious increase in, timber sale levels is untrue. Compared to existing timber management plans for these forests, the maximum level authorized for both national forests is substantially reduced. Unfortunately, the planning fi\ docuJO<?l1ts do not do a good job of explilininq and comoilring the old ilnnllril ril:..l!9) lSMi1blp h"n!"~r 1""<::3 and the new annual allowable sale quantity. - 7 - 1868 '. . . "C" ....- .. ~""....' ....-....'. .~... ...... ,.1". .... .. .,_ .....___...........