Why is this a good plan?

This plan confronts the modern challenge of forest protection in an urbanizing landscape. We achieved protection for our most treasured forests, while extending to maintain working timberlands against the encroachment of sprawl. This is the best possible plan considering all of the threats to this area.

What is the status of the Blanchard Strategies Group (BSG) agreement—is it a final management plan ready to be implemented by DNR?

The BSG consensus agreement stands as a set of recommendations to Doug Sutherland, the Commissioner of Public Lands, who heads the DNR. The Commissioner is accepting public comment on all aspects of Blanchard Mountain, the BSG recommendations and otherwise, through February. He will likely then make a decision. If he decides to adopt the BSG recommendations, that will be done through some formal instrument, such as a lease agreement or MOU that is expected to be permanent and enforceable.

If the BSG were not to be implemented, what would be the management of Blanchard Mountain?

The DNR has been holding off on logging within the contentious 2,800 acres of Blanchard during recent years. The purpose of the BSG was to find resolution. Had the BSG failed to reach agreement, or if its agreement is rejected by Commissioner Sutherland, one might expect DNR to proceed with developing logging plans through its usual processes. The DNR cannot forever postpone logging in the core without subjecting itself to fairly straight-forward litigation from Skagit County and other trust beneficiaries. Conservation or recreation interests might sue to stop such logging, but it is not clear what law such a suit would attempt to enforce, or that a strong case could be made. This is in contrast to, for instance, the Loomis State Forest lawsuit and settlement, which was based on the Endangered Species Act due to concern for how roads and logging would harm grizzly bears.

Assuming the BSG agreement is implemented by the Commissioner of Public Lands, what is to prevent the next commissioner from throwing it out upon assuming office and starting over?

As noted in the answer above, Commissioner Sutherland’s decision will be executed in a legally enforceable document.

Did the Commissioner of Public Lands stack the deck when he established the BSG—what key organizations or interest groups were not included?

The BSG was impressive in its balanced composition and in its open and transparent process and fair facilitation. Conservation Northwest was joined by Skagit Land Trust and Friends of Blanchard Mountain in representing wildland conservation and recreation interests.  Intermediate roles were played by rep’s of Backcountry Horsemen, who have a major stake in recreation on the mountain, and two people with extensive credentials in a mix of both conservation and resource issues. The other seats were Skagit County, a local forester, a prominent and independent-minded Skagit County citizen, and the DNR itself. The facilitator was John Howell, who has served as president of Cascade Land Conservancy.

Why is the protected core area in the BSG agreement only 1,600 acres?

Because the BSG operated by consensus, the size of the core had to have the agreement of all parties. While Conservation Northwest and its conservation allies had the objective of protecting for most or all of the 2,800 roadless acres, Blanchard Mountain is managed by the DNR on behalf of Skagit County and other trusts, who had a firm stand against much, if any, acres being kept from logging. (The Skagit County Commission is substantially more conservative on resource issues than is, say, Whatcom County. For instance, not only is Skagit County suing the state to try to force more aggressive logging – or a payoff – in the Lake Whatcom watershed, but all three commissioners signed a letter to the Mayor of Bellingham on February 8th, in which they attempt to blame their lawsuit on Conservation Northwest.) Not only were the county and timber representatives opposed to a large core, but DNR itself was strongly motivated against a large core due to its interest in finding ways to continue practicing forestry within the substantial state land base that lies within increasingly urbanizing areas. It is therefore somewhat remarkable that the BSG agreed to protect 1,600 acres, and not at all clear what options exist for aspiring to get a larger protected core.

Why is the corridor to Larrabee so thin?

We could only negotiate a 1,600 acre core. We could have made that corridor much thicker, but only if we were willing to transfer acres from the core. It was a trade off, not an oversight.

How will the trust beneficiaries be compensated?

The BSG is lobbying the Legislature to appropriate funds equal to the value of the timber in the core. These funds will be used by DNR to acquire more timber lands which will then not only be out of the reach of sprawl, but will be managed by DNR for ongoing revenue to the trusts.

The BSG has talked a lot about how the agreement combats sprawl. Through what provisions will this occur, and why is this agreement the place for those issues to be addressed?

The BSG agreement calls for the state Legislature to appropriate an amount equal to the timber value forgone in the core area, and for the DNR to use these funds to expand its ownership by buying private timber lands within and near to the Blanchard Forest. The ultimate objective is to both retain a workable land base for the DNR, and to prevent the conversion of those private lands to subdivisions or other developments. We must not fail to take note that the Chuckanuts have great access to I-5, are close to urban areas, are beautiful, and are clearly facing conversion to residential use. The BSG saw an opportunity to take a bold stand against this loss of our Chuckanut forest base, and used this common ground to make palatable an agreement that neither side (pro or anti logging) would otherwise have accepted. Conservation Northwest’s hope is that the Blanchard agreement provides both an opportunity to educate the public and the Legislature about the threat of timber land lost to development, and momentum towards finding larger solutions for not just our local area but threatened landscape across the state.

What does it mean when it says that the "DNR will acquire the inholdings"?

DNR is to purchase private lands that are within or adjacent to the boundaries of the Blanchard State Forest. These will then become part of the Blanchard State Forest, kept forever as public use and without development

The BSG agreement talks about a protected core area. But the agreement allows for logging and road-building within that area, so in what way is it a protected core?

The BSG recommendations allow for logging within the core under strict conditions that the logging be ecologically beneficial (with timber and revenue as byproducts, not objectives) and that it have the consensus support of an Advisory Committee. Conservation and recreation groups will have seats on that committee. The objective of this logging is to enhance the development of old-growth habitat characteristics by careful thinning within the second-growth forests of Blanchard. While there is abundant science to support these practices as beneficial to wildlife and without substantial harm to soils, streams or other concerns, skeptics remain and will be included on the Advisory Committee. Therefore it is safe to expect that no logging will occur within the core beyond very modest experimental efforts unless these engender wide and enthusiastic support. The agreement is also clear that no roads shall be used in this thinning work except with very limited exceptions called for by a consensus of the committee. Conservation Northwest is extremely confident that these provisions will either be viewed as successful in time, or they will not be exercised.

Where will the DNR log first?

That has yet to be determined.

The BSG agreement is a set of management objectives for Blanchard Mountain. But it also includes language about increasing logging in the Mt. Baker – Snoqualmie National Forest. What’s the connection?

The BSG agreement recognizes Skagit County’s objective of maintaining a land base sufficient to sustain a viable timber industry. Conservation Northwest supports this objective. The loss of timber infrastructure would increase conversion of land to residential development. Such development is far more harmful to ecosystems than is logging. We were therefore eager to find good opportunities for additional timber activity, such as careful thinning within the extensive Finney Adaptive Management Area of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. The Finney was logged heavily 22-40 years ago, and the resulting plantations are not likely to provide habitat for important wildlife on any reasonable time scale unless we undertake active restoration work that is already called for within the Northwest Forest Plan. It was easy for Conservation Northwest to commit to a partnership to advocate for that restoration work.

The BSG agreement talks about future decisions still to be made. Who will make those decisions and when?

The BSG felt that some issues would be best addressed by the Advisory Group that is called for in the recommendations. These include final boundaries (after field checking) and the disposition of three areas known as JJ, CC, and B. JJ and CC were places the DNR was most reluctant to have included in core, while B was where Conservation Northwest was most reluctant to lose from core. Perhaps the committee will explore options for beneficial thinning in JJ and CC, and perhaps additional mitigation for any logging in B.

Why does the BSG agreement include provisions for new roads—won't there be enough logging on Blanchard Mountain without building any new roads?

The area outside of the core is to be managed under existing Forest Practices Rules and the state's Habitat Conservation Plan. This means there will be relatively good protection for riparian areas, some special habitats, and even modest restrictions on slopes highly visible from the highways. These rules do not preclude logging or roadbuilding, and indeed logging without roads is generally cost prohibitive.

What is the definition of a temporary road?

A temporary road is minimal in construction and is removed and revegetated after a single working season.

Wouldn't it be better to have all of Blanchard, and even the entire Chuckanut Range, in a park?

Of course the Chuckanuts are deserving of a giant park, if the substantial funds required for that could be amassed. But for the foreseeable future the leadership of DNR and Skagit County remain committed to timber and financial interests that preclude this option. And by finding agreement where we could, rather than risking everything on a major polarizing campaign, we bring together a coalition that can realistically face up to the immediate threat of sprawl that would forever preclude not just a park, but even the rural forested nature that we now enjoy in the Chuckanuts. Conservation Northwest thinks the BSG agreement strikes the right balance for now, builds community awareness and common purpose and preserves options for the future. There remains much important work, short and long term, for a Chuckanut Municipal Park District to undertake.

How does this relate to a plan to link the Chuckanuts to the Cascades?

Conservation Northwest's strategic plan includes the vision of a habitat corridor linking the Chuckanuts to the Cascades. This agreement gains a core on Blanchard and a linkage to Larrabee State Park, and perhaps momentum for taking the next steps to lands across Interstate 5 and onward toward the Cascades.