The Forest Plan Revision Process involves numerous steps.  The steps require extensive documentation.   Many of the documents that have or will be produced  for public review and comment are described below.  

1. Need for Change: By law, Forest Plans must be revised every 10 to 15 years. To begin a revision of the 1986 Forest Plans of the Chippewa and Superior National Forests, a Need For Change evaluation occurred during 1994-1996. Results of monitoring implementation of each Plan were reviewed, along with public issues, appeals, lawsuits, new scientific information, changes in public demand and land conditions. Thirty eight potential topics were identified, with 21 topics that could effectively be addressed through a plan revision. In May 1996 a mailing to over 1500 individuals and organizations asked what level of concern was perceived for each broad topic, and what direction should be changed. In November 1996, a public workshop helped review reference papers and further define issues on the 12 most controversial topics.

2. Notice of Intent:  The second step, following the determination that there was a need for change to existing Forest Plans, was to prepare a Notice of Intent to Revise the Forest Plans. Using the topic-specific proposals of Task Teams, reference papers, workshop results and public input, a single integrated proposal for how the Forest Plans might be revised was issued in August 1997. Public comments were requested and summarized in a Content Analysis Report, May 1998.

3. Development of Alternatives: This step of revision involves the development of a range of alternatives that address identified management problems in different ways.  Each alternative is to emphasize a reasonable way to resolve the management issues as though it were a separate Forest Plan.  The Chippewa-Superior Forest Plan Revision process is currently at this step. Seven preliminary alternatives were developed during public and employee workshops during 1998, based on a variety of themes. While all alternatives provide a wide range of multiple uses, goods and services, they respond to the issues needing change in different ways and describe a different desired future condition. New information, changed land conditions such as the 1999 Blowdown event, political and policy changes, and continued refinement resulted in detailed maps of each Alternative.  Maps of these preliminary alternatives were provided at public meetings during 2000 and early 2002.

Documents available on the web include descriptions of the management areas and alternatives, and maps of the alternatives.

• Management Area and Alternative Fact Sheet
• Chippewa Maps of Alternatives
• Superior Maps of Alternatives

4. Analysis of Effects:  Each alternative proposed to revise the Forest Plans will generate environmental effects. The amounts (outputs) of products, goods and services as well as the results (outcomes) will differ with each alternative. During 2002, computer modeling will be used to discover some effects of applying the economic, social and ecological constraints described for each alternative. The measurable and descriptive results of this analysis are disclosed in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which is provided for public comment. This document is anticipated for release during Fall 2002.

• Fact Sheets

5. Draft EIS and Draft Forest Plans: One draft Environmental Impact Statement and two draft Forest Plans (specific to the Chippewa or to the Superior National Forest) will be provided for public comment. A draft environmental impact statement must describe the purpose and need for revision, how issues were determined, compares the analysis of alternatives, and identifies a preferred alternative. National Planning Regulations of 1982 guide the process and content of the Chippewa and Superior’s plan revisions. The Regional Forester (located in Milwaukee Wisconsin) is the approving official.

6. Final EIS, revised Forest Plans, and Record of Decision: To complete the revision process, Forest Service responses to all public comments must be included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The preferred alternative may be adjusted based on these comments. Other documents published at this time include two Forest Plans that will replace the 1986 Forest Plans, and a Record of Decision, which describes how and why the decision was made to implement the selected alternative.