Mt. Baker geothermal leasing nears Forest Service consent decision
2025 Mt. Baker Geothermal Consent to Lease
U.S. Forest Service· Mt. Baker Ranger DistrictU.S. Forest Service project page ↗
Forest ServiceWe track this on the agency’s own system of record, where most on-the-ground decisions live.
This is not a comment period
The comment round on this one is over
What is open now is a pre-decisional objection period. Only individuals and entities that already submitted timely, specific written comments during an earlier public comment opportunity on this project may file an objection (36 CFR 218.5(a)). If you commented, this is your round. If you did not, no filing you send here will be accepted, and the honest thing for us to say is that this door is closed to you rather than to hand you a form.
An organization’s comments count for the organization only. Being a member of a group that commented does not make you eligible; you had to comment in your own name (36 CFR 218.5(c)).
Do not file on our date. Get it from the notice. The objection clock runs from the day the legal notice was published in the forest’s newspaper of record, and that publication date is the exclusive means of calculating it. Objectors may not rely on a date from any other source (36 CFR 218.6(c)). The agency has to post that notice on the web within four days of publishing it (36 CFR 218.7(d)), so it is on the project page.
For what it is worth, the Forest Service comment portal listed September 25, 2026 for this project when we read it. That is the portal’s own field, not the legal notice, and we have not reconciled the two. We would rather show you where it came from than let it stand in for the law.
The groups on this fight
4 groups work Washington
By footprint, from the same match the STAND matchmaker runs; none is linked to this decision in our record yet. Give straight to them; nothing routes through us.
- Cascade Forest Conservancy
Works Washington: they work only in Washington.
- Conservation Northwest
Works Washington: submitted formal comments defending Hanford Reach National Monument during the 2017 federal monument review and publicly opposed any boundary adjustment or rescindment..
- Friends of the San Juans
Works Washington: they work only in Washington.
- Olympic Park Advocates
Works Washington: they work only in Washington.
Every group above is on STAND for Public Lands, with its court record, its filings and who backs it.
The Forest Service is close to approving geothermal leasing rights around Mt. Baker on federal land.
What’s at risk
Only those who submitted written comments during the earlier public participation window may file an objection now. The decision would open National Forest System lands around Mt. Baker to geothermal leasing, putting surface resources in the volcano's backcountry on a path toward potential future exploration and development.
If this goes through
If the Forest Service grants consent, nominated lands around Mt. Baker become available for geothermal leases, setting the legal foundation for future exploration proposals that would be far harder to stop.
Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.
The agency’s case, tested
What the agency argues, and whether its own record backs it
- 4
- Hold up
- 2
- No support given
- 3
- Never analyzed
The Forest Service proposes to consent to the BLM offering 60,097 acres of national forest land around Mount Baker for geothermal leasing, subject to stipulations. It says consent itself has no environmental effects because it authorizes no ground disturbance, and any exploration or development would get its own NEPA review.
“The purpose of this project is for the USFS to consider whether to make 60,097 acres of nominated parcels of NFS lands available for geothermal leasing by the BLM.”
Purpose and Need
Each Ask below goes into your letter when you write it with PLAN on this page, matched to what you tell it about how this land reaches you.
Effects
No support given
The Appendix C stipulations, applied through later site-specific review, will let future projects reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts.
The agency's strongest support is that Appendix C ties each stipulation to plan guidance, and the Waivers, Exceptions, and Modifications section says a waiver may not be approved unless the factors behind a stipulation have changed enough or the operations wouldn't cause unacceptable impacts. Still, the development scenario section says the magnitude and extent of impacts can't be predicted, the document never reports acres under no surface occupancy, and Appendix D says the BLM, not the Forest Service, decides waivers of no surface occupancy and timing stipulations. No analysis shows how much protection will remain once leases are issued.
AskReport acres under each stipulation type by parcel, and explain what limits the BLM's power to waive no surface occupancy and timing stipulations and what role the Forest Service keeps.
The agency’s words, the record and the law +Hide the words
The agency says
“Analysis indicates that, by following the guidance in the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) and other related documents and regulations to determine the stipulations included in EA Appendix C, analysis of future proposals will be able to reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts.”
Appendix D: Response to Comments
Elsewhere in the same document
“Stipulations associated with No Surface Occupancy (NSO) and/or Timing Limitation (TL) can be waived or modified based on approval from the BLM.”
Appendix D: Response to Comments
“The USFS does not have the ability to make NSO areas exempt from waivers or modifications; all such applications would be evaluated at the time they are received.”
Appendix D: Response to Comments
The law
“Resource plans and permits, contracts, and other instruments for the use and occupancy of National Forest System lands shall be consistent with the land management plans.” National Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1604(i) ↗
Effects
No support given
Controlled surface use, plus no surface occupancy only in modeled old growth, adequately protects late-successional reserves; guidance doesn't call for no surface occupancy there.
The agency's strongest support is stipulation MBS-WLD-02. It requires any applicant to submit a plan meeting late-successional reserve objectives through special design, mitigation or relocation. It bars surface occupancy if that plan isn't approved, and it requires development to be neutral or beneficial to late-successional habitat. MBS-BOT-01 adds no surface occupancy for old growth. Still, reserve land covers most of the parcels (the largest Table 2 row alone is 39,720 acres). The document doesn't say how many acres the old growth model will cover, and Appendix D doesn't answer the stand-age figures commenters cited.
AskMap and report acres of old growth under the model, compare them with commenters' stand-age data, and explain why controlled surface use is enough across the late-successional reserves.
The agency’s words and the law +Hide the words
The agency says
“Our LRMP, the 2008 PEIS, the NWFP, and other regulatory guidance documents used in this analysis do not provide for a stipulation of NSO in LSR and they do not define all LSR management areas as old-growth; old-growth will be defined by the OGSI-200 model.”
Appendix D: Response to Comments
The law
“Resource plans and permits, contracts, and other instruments for the use and occupancy of National Forest System lands shall be consistent with the land management plans.” National Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1604(i) ↗
What the document never analyzes
Not analyzed
Volcanic and geologic hazards at Mount Baker
The parcels surround Mount Baker, a 10,778-foot peak with permanent glaciers, and the development scenario includes wells, a power plant and transmission lines, but hazards to that infrastructure are never discussed.
Searched all 58 pages for ‘volcanic’, ‘volcano’, ‘lahar’, ‘eruption’. None appear.
AskDescribe volcanic, mudflow and glacier-related hazards in the parcels and how they'd shape where wells, roads and a power plant could safely go.
Not analyzed
Wildfire risk from development
The parcels are forest of cedar, Douglas-fir, true firs and hemlock, and the development scenario includes site clearing, drilling and transmission lines, yet fire risk is never addressed.
Searched all 58 pages for ‘wildfire’, ‘fire risk’, ‘ignition’. None appear.
AskAssess wildfire ignition risk from drilling, power plant operation and transmission lines, and describe the stipulations or practices that would reduce it.
Not analyzed
Public revenue from leasing
The document cites national energy goals and says parcels would be offered for competitive bid, but never estimates lease or royalty income to the public or local counties.
Searched all 58 pages for ‘royalty’, ‘royalties’, ‘lease revenue’, ‘bonus bid’. None appear.
AskEstimate lease, rental and royalty revenue under the development scenario and explain how any share would reach Whatcom and Skagit counties.
Where its own record backs the agency
AlternativesNo issue justified analyzing any action alternative beyond leasing, leasing with stipulations, or denial.Why it holds +
The agency reasons that without a site-specific proposal, effects are speculative, so the real choices are to lease, lease with stipulations, or deny. Appendix D answers each option commenters raised. Roadless areas already bar new roads under the Roadless Rule, guidance doesn't provide for no surface occupancy across all late-successional reserves, and surface development can still occur outside no surface occupancy areas. Appendix D also explains that the change from 2015 to 2025 came from more tribal consultation and riparian reserves remapped with new data. Those reasons can be disputed, but the document gives them.
The agency says
“Therefore, no issues were identified that would provide a clear reason to develop other action alternatives than to lease, lease with stipulations, or to deny leasing the nominated parcels.”
Substantive Issues Identified for Analysis
Its own record backs it
“A commenter thinks that roadless areas should be NSO instead of CSU, especially roadless areas in Tier 1 Key Watersheds which allow no new roads per the NWFP.”
Appendix D: Response to Comments
EffectsConsenting to lease causes no environmental effects because it authorizes no ground disturbance, and later NEPA review must come before any exploration or development.Why it holds +
The Introduction says the decision only lets the BLM offer parcels for competitive bid, and the Environmental Impacts section says effects would come only with later exploration or development after site-specific review. Nothing in the document shows consent itself disturbs land. Whether the protections set now will hold once leases exist is a separate question, tested below.
The agency says
“The ‘action’ of consenting to lease has no environmental impact on any resource because it does not include any ground-disturbing activities.”
Introduction
Its own record backs it
“This project does not make the decision to grant leases or authorize any exploration or development activities; it only authorizes the BLM to provide the nominated lands for competitive bid.”
Introduction
“Impacts associated with any lease activity would occur only with subsequent geothermal exploration, development, utilization, or reclamation.”
Environmental Impacts
EffectsConsenting to lease will have no effect on species listed under the Endangered Species Act or their designated critical habitat.Why it holds +
The finding rests on consent authorizing no ground disturbance, which the Introduction backs. Appendix D says later proposals would likely need their own consultation, and stipulations add no surface occupancy in whitebark pine habitat and designated critical habitat. Nothing in the document shows consent itself reaching listed species or their habitat.
The agency says
“The USFS has determined that consenting to lease the nominated parcels will have no effect on ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat in the action area.”
Endangered Species Act (Endangered Species Act)
Its own record backs it
“Therefore, additional ESA Section 7 consultation would likely be held for any future actions.”
Appendix D: Response to Comments
“MBS-BOT-04: No Surface Occupancy: to protect mature whitebark pine trees from removal and minimize the removal of seedlings and saplings in all Whitebark Pine habitat modelled as ‘suitable’ or ‘optimal’ by the USFS Region Six Whitebark Pine Maxent Class model.”
Botany
EffectsConsenting to lease won't affect treaty rights or treaty resources of the tribes in the area.Why it holds +
The finding rests on consent authorizing no ground disturbance, which the Introduction backs. The treaty section says future development will require separate NEPA analysis and tribal consultation, and stipulation MBS-CUL-02 adds no surface occupancy for areas important to tribes. The tribes' concern that the BLM could later waive those areas is about future leases, not consent itself, and Appendix D says the BLM will consult tribes before any waiver. Nothing in the document shows consent itself reaching treaty rights or resources.
The agency says
“Consenting to Lease the nominated parcels will not impact any treaty rights or treaty resources.”
1854 Treaty of Medicine Creek and 1855 Treaty of Point Elliot
Its own record backs it
“They have also commented that removing or modifying any tribal-related NSO areas would violate treaties.”
Appendix D: Response to Comments
“BLM will consult with Tribes in determining whether to grant waivers, modifications, and exemptions to NSO stipulations, if requested, during future analysis.”
Appendix D: Response to Comments
Read from the agency’s own decision document ↗, all 58 pages. Every quote is checked word for word against it, a claim marked contradicted stands on a quote from the same document, and a second reading argued the agency’s side of every verdict before it was published. The verdicts are our reading; the quotes are the agency’s. A court can set aside agency action it finds “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” (5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A) ↗), which is why these gaps are worth putting in the record.
What to say
Make these points, in your own words
- I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below.
- The EA flatly states 'There are no reasonably foreseeable short- and long-term effects from the proposed action, either beneficial or adverse,' yet the document itself describes a four-phase Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario involving road construction, drill site development, power plant construction, and electric transmission lines across 60,097 acres. The agency cannot simultaneously claim the RFDS is necessary to evaluate potential impacts and then declare there are no foreseeable effects. This internal contradiction is the core flaw in the document. The agency should either prepare an EIS that analyzes the foreseeable effects disclosed in Table 3, or justify in detail why disclosing a development scenario with roads, wells, and power plants is consistent with a finding of no effects whatsoever.
- The EA acknowledges that the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe was not included in government-to-government consultation until March 26, 2026, months after the September 10, 2025 initiation date for all other tribes, and states that no consultation meeting was ever held with them. Yet the EA relies on tribal consultation as a primary driver of the expanded NSO stipulations. Excluding a federally recognized tribe from the full consultation process while simultaneously citing tribal consultation as a basis for key decisions is procedurally deficient. The agency should reopen and complete meaningful government-to-government consultation with the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe before issuing a final decision.
- The EA states that consenting to lease 'will not impact any treaty rights or treaty resources,' yet multiple tribes commented that geothermal development would 'irreparably harm the treaty-protected natural and cultural resources in their traditional areas' and that 'removing or modifying any tribal-related NSO areas would violate treaties.' The agency's categorical dismissal of treaty impacts at the consent stage, while simultaneously deferring all treaty analysis to future NEPA, means treaty obligations are never analyzed before the land commitment is made. The agency should analyze potential treaty impacts now, before consenting, and not defer that obligation entirely to future site-specific review.
- The EA states that 'cumulative effects analyses are no longer required by statute' and declines to conduct one, yet the document acknowledges that portions of the project area are within North Fork and South Fork Nooksack Tier 1 Key Watersheds, that a prior temperature gradient well was already drilled, and that the 2015 consent to lease previously opened the same general area. Leasing 60,097 acres adjacent to congressionally designated areas in already-stressed Tier 1 Key Watersheds without any cumulative analysis leaves the public and decision-maker with no information about additive effects. The agency should conduct a cumulative effects analysis, or at minimum explain in reasoned detail why existing stressors on Tier 1 Key Watersheds make such analysis unnecessary.
Show all 12 points from the document
- The EA grants NSO status to Late Successional Old Growth (LSOG) areas totaling 1,544 acres under Table 2, but applies only a Controlled Surface Use stipulation to the 39,720 acres of Late Successional Reserve (LSR) land, explicitly stating 'there are no specific LSR stipulations or restrictions' because no site-specific proposal exists. The NWFP standard MM-4 prohibits surface occupancy within Riparian Reserves for geothermal exploration, yet the broader LSR framework receives a weaker CSU that defers all protective decisions to future analysis. The agency should explain why the guiding principle of designing mitigation to 'minimize detrimental effects to late-successional habitat' supports a CSU rather than NSO across LSR acreage, or upgrade the stipulation.
- The EA acknowledges that staffing capacity to monitor and enforce stipulations is a real concern raised by commenters, and responds only that 'Forest Service capacity will be considered when conducting future site-specific analyses.' However, the document contains no analysis of current agency staffing levels, no commitment to minimum monitoring resources, and no contingency if capacity is insufficient. Stipulations are only meaningful if enforced; issuing leases over 60,097 acres with no demonstrated capacity to monitor compliance is an unreasoned leap. The agency should disclose current staffing and monitoring capacity or condition the consent on demonstrated capacity to enforce the stipulations listed in Appendix C.
- The EA determines that the proposed action will have 'no effect' on ESA-listed species or critical habitat and therefore does not initiate Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries. Yet the EA itself discloses that the project area contains Northern Spotted Owl critical habitat, Whitebark Pine (ESA-listed), and drains into habitat for Pacific salmon species. Making a 'no effect' determination on a consent-to-lease covering 60,097 acres that overlaps ESA critical habitat, without formal Section 7 consultation, is legally unsupported on its face. The agency should initiate formal ESA Section 7 consultation, or provide a detailed written justification, supported by the biological evaluation, for why a consent to lease over mapped critical habitat meets the 'no effect' standard.
- The EA states that No Surface Occupancy stipulations can be permanently waived by the BLM if 'the lessee can demonstrate that operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts,' and explicitly states the USFS cannot make NSO areas exempt from waivers. Multiple tribes commented that removing tribal-related NSO areas would violate treaties, and the Nooksack Tribe stated it felt misled in consultation. The EA provides no standard for what constitutes 'unacceptable impacts' in the context of tribal NSO areas, no requirement for tribal consent before a waiver is granted, and no analysis of how treaty obligations interact with the waiver process. The agency should establish explicit criteria protecting tribal NSO areas from waiver without tribal consent, or explain how the waiver standard satisfies treaty and trust responsibilities.
- The EA tiers to the 2008 Programmatic EIS for site-specific effects analysis and incorporates by reference its stipulations and resource effects chapters, yet the PEIS is now 17 years old. The project area includes Baker Lake and drains to multiple Nooksack River forks that support salmon recovery and tribal fisheries. The EA cites 2025 Biological Opinions and 2024 Whitebark Pine programmatic consultations as current planning documents, but makes no finding about whether the 2008 PEIS adequately covers conditions that have changed in nearly two decades, including new LiDAR hydrography data the agency itself says changed the riparian reserve mapping. The agency should assess whether the 2008 PEIS remains adequate to address current resource conditions, or supplement the analysis with updated effects information.
- The EA declines to analyze any impacts to Baker Lake Sockeye and Baker Lake Coho salmon, which a commenter identified as 'arguably the most successful fish recovery in all of Puget Sound,' stating only that fracking is 'beyond the scope' of the current analysis. Yet Baker Lake is identified as a management area within the project parcels in Table 2, covering 1,096 acres. The Magnuson-Stevens determination addresses Pacific Coast Salmon EFH generically without disclosing any analysis of the Baker Lake populations specifically. The agency should supplement the fisheries analysis to address Baker Lake Sockeye and Coho in the Essential Fish Habitat determination, or explain in the record why these populations require no separate analysis.
- Say something only you can say. The law requires the agency to consider and respond to substantive comments, and specifics are what make a comment substantive.
In the agency’s own words
To explore or develop geothermal resources on National Forest lands, the USFS must consent to lease areas nominated by the BLM. This analysis does not authorize ground disturbance, but creates stipulations for authorized leasing areas. https://usfs-public.box.com/s/r56gzyn1msyfvj8md81arv1mo15tgoso
Did the agency answer?
10 issues are on this record. The agency has not published its decision document yet, so each one stays pending until the agency answers.
Issues on the record, awaiting the decision
- PendingThe EA flatly states 'There are no reasonably foreseeable short- and long-term effects from the proposed action, either beneficial or adverse,' yet the document itself describes a four-phase Reasonabl
The EA flatly states 'There are no reasonably foreseeable short- and long-term effects from the proposed action, either beneficial or adverse,' yet the document itself describes a four-phase Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario involving road construction, drill site development, power plant construction, and electric transmission lines across 60,097 acres. The agency cannot simultaneously claim the RFDS is necessary to evaluate potential impacts and then declare there are no foreseeable effects. This internal contradiction is the core flaw in the document. The agency should either prepare an EIS that analyzes the foreseeable effects disclosed in Table 3, or justify in detail why disclosing a development scenario with roads, wells, and power plants is consistent with a finding of no effects whatsoever.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA acknowledges that the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe was not included in government-to-government consultation until March 26, 2026, months after the September 10, 2025 initiation date for all othe
The EA acknowledges that the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe was not included in government-to-government consultation until March 26, 2026, months after the September 10, 2025 initiation date for all other tribes, and states that no consultation meeting was ever held with them. Yet the EA relies on tribal consultation as a primary driver of the expanded NSO stipulations. Excluding a federally recognized tribe from the full consultation process while simultaneously citing tribal consultation as a basis for key decisions is procedurally deficient. The agency should reopen and complete meaningful government-to-government consultation with the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe before issuing a final decision.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA states that consenting to lease 'will not impact any treaty rights or treaty resources,' yet multiple tribes commented that geothermal development would 'irreparably harm the treaty-protected n
The EA states that consenting to lease 'will not impact any treaty rights or treaty resources,' yet multiple tribes commented that geothermal development would 'irreparably harm the treaty-protected natural and cultural resources in their traditional areas' and that 'removing or modifying any tribal-related NSO areas would violate treaties.' The agency's categorical dismissal of treaty impacts at the consent stage, while simultaneously deferring all treaty analysis to future NEPA, means treaty obligations are never analyzed before the land commitment is made. The agency should analyze potential treaty impacts now, before consenting, and not defer that obligation entirely to future site-specific review.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA states that 'cumulative effects analyses are no longer required by statute' and declines to conduct one, yet the document acknowledges that portions of the project area are within North Fork an
The EA states that 'cumulative effects analyses are no longer required by statute' and declines to conduct one, yet the document acknowledges that portions of the project area are within North Fork and South Fork Nooksack Tier 1 Key Watersheds, that a prior temperature gradient well was already drilled, and that the 2015 consent to lease previously opened the same general area. Leasing 60,097 acres adjacent to congressionally designated areas in already-stressed Tier 1 Key Watersheds without any cumulative analysis leaves the public and decision-maker with no information about additive effects. The agency should conduct a cumulative effects analysis, or at minimum explain in reasoned detail why existing stressors on Tier 1 Key Watersheds make such analysis unnecessary.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA grants NSO status to Late Successional Old Growth (LSOG) areas totaling 1,544 acres under Table 2, but applies only a Controlled Surface Use stipulation to the 39,720 acres of Late Successional
The EA grants NSO status to Late Successional Old Growth (LSOG) areas totaling 1,544 acres under Table 2, but applies only a Controlled Surface Use stipulation to the 39,720 acres of Late Successional Reserve (LSR) land, explicitly stating 'there are no specific LSR stipulations or restrictions' because no site-specific proposal exists. The NWFP standard MM-4 prohibits surface occupancy within Riparian Reserves for geothermal exploration, yet the broader LSR framework receives a weaker CSU that defers all protective decisions to future analysis. The agency should explain why the guiding principle of designing mitigation to 'minimize detrimental effects to late-successional habitat' supports a CSU rather than NSO across LSR acreage, or upgrade the stipulation.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA acknowledges that staffing capacity to monitor and enforce stipulations is a real concern raised by commenters, and responds only that 'Forest Service capacity will be considered when conductin
The EA acknowledges that staffing capacity to monitor and enforce stipulations is a real concern raised by commenters, and responds only that 'Forest Service capacity will be considered when conducting future site-specific analyses.' However, the document contains no analysis of current agency staffing levels, no commitment to minimum monitoring resources, and no contingency if capacity is insufficient. Stipulations are only meaningful if enforced; issuing leases over 60,097 acres with no demonstrated capacity to monitor compliance is an unreasoned leap. The agency should disclose current staffing and monitoring capacity or condition the consent on demonstrated capacity to enforce the stipulations listed in Appendix C.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA determines that the proposed action will have 'no effect' on ESA-listed species or critical habitat and therefore does not initiate Section 7 consultation with the U.S.
The EA determines that the proposed action will have 'no effect' on ESA-listed species or critical habitat and therefore does not initiate Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries. Yet the EA itself discloses that the project area contains Northern Spotted Owl critical habitat, Whitebark Pine (ESA-listed), and drains into habitat for Pacific salmon species. Making a 'no effect' determination on a consent-to-lease covering 60,097 acres that overlaps ESA critical habitat, without formal Section 7 consultation, is legally unsupported on its face. The agency should initiate formal ESA Section 7 consultation, or provide a detailed written justification, supported by the biological evaluation, for why a consent to lease over mapped critical habitat meets the 'no effect' standard.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA states that No Surface Occupancy stipulations can be permanently waived by the BLM if 'the lessee can demonstrate that operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts,' and exp
The EA states that No Surface Occupancy stipulations can be permanently waived by the BLM if 'the lessee can demonstrate that operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts,' and explicitly states the USFS cannot make NSO areas exempt from waivers. Multiple tribes commented that removing tribal-related NSO areas would violate treaties, and the Nooksack Tribe stated it felt misled in consultation. The EA provides no standard for what constitutes 'unacceptable impacts' in the context of tribal NSO areas, no requirement for tribal consent before a waiver is granted, and no analysis of how treaty obligations interact with the waiver process. The agency should establish explicit criteria protecting tribal NSO areas from waiver without tribal consent, or explain how the waiver standard satisfies treaty and trust responsibilities.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA tiers to the 2008 Programmatic EIS for site-specific effects analysis and incorporates by reference its stipulations and resource effects chapters, yet the PEIS is now 17 years old.
The EA tiers to the 2008 Programmatic EIS for site-specific effects analysis and incorporates by reference its stipulations and resource effects chapters, yet the PEIS is now 17 years old. The project area includes Baker Lake and drains to multiple Nooksack River forks that support salmon recovery and tribal fisheries. The EA cites 2025 Biological Opinions and 2024 Whitebark Pine programmatic consultations as current planning documents, but makes no finding about whether the 2008 PEIS adequately covers conditions that have changed in nearly two decades, including new LiDAR hydrography data the agency itself says changed the riparian reserve mapping. The agency should assess whether the 2008 PEIS remains adequate to address current resource conditions, or supplement the analysis with updated effects information.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA declines to analyze any impacts to Baker Lake Sockeye and Baker Lake Coho salmon, which a commenter identified as 'arguably the most successful fish recovery in all of Puget Sound,' stating onl
The EA declines to analyze any impacts to Baker Lake Sockeye and Baker Lake Coho salmon, which a commenter identified as 'arguably the most successful fish recovery in all of Puget Sound,' stating only that fracking is 'beyond the scope' of the current analysis. Yet Baker Lake is identified as a management area within the project parcels in Table 2, covering 1,096 acres. The Magnuson-Stevens determination addresses Pacific Coast Salmon EFH generically without disclosing any analysis of the Baker Lake populations specifically. The agency should supplement the fisheries analysis to address Baker Lake Sockeye and Coho in the Essential Fish Habitat determination, or explain in the record why these populations require no separate analysis.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
The reporting behind this
From More Than Just ParksIt’s referred to as Unit 346 in the Twin Mountain II Timber Sale. On the ground, it’s some of the most spectacular old growth we’ve ever witnessed, and it’s marked for clearcutting.
To document and do our part to save America’s greatest old growth forest
More actions that need you
Go deeper, free
See how your members of Congress vote on public lands
Every representative, graded on the votes that decide the fate of parks, forests, and refuges.
Open ↗The mapSee the places under active threat
A live map of the parks, monuments, and wild country in the crosshairs right now.
Open ↗A wrong fact, a dead link, a form that wouldn’t take your letter: one tap and it comes to the people who build PLAN, with this fight attached.
Know an open comment period we are missing, or spotted a wrong deadline? .