The Justice System & Public Safety Services Study Design: 2015 "Study Design" is the main focus of the Hugo Justice System & Public Safety Services (JS&PSS) Exploratory Committee (Exploratory Committee), Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society (HNA&HS).

1.  Purpose Of Study.   Understanding the JS&PSS Issue and designing the JS&PSS Study are major complicated tasks starting with understanding the values of neighbors. At the heart of a community is a group of people who live in a certain area, and whose common and diverse interests involve the area itself and the people who live there.

1. Public Outreach

2. Appendices to Study Design

3. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

4. Press Releases

5. Letters-To-The-Editor

6. Guest Opinions

7. Media Articles

8. Voters Pamphlets

9. Studies & Information

10. Minimally Acceptable Level Of Public Safety Services (MALPSS)

11. Public Safety Services (PSS)

12. Public Meeting Presentations

13. City of Grants Pass Public Safety Project Reports

14. Josephine County Budgets

15. Citizen Participation in Local Budget Process

16. Courts

•  December 6, 2017 Letter/Email to State Director BLM Oregon/Washington and BLM MDO:   EA/Scoping Public Testimony Comments from Mike Walker, Chair Hugo Justice System & Public Safety Services (JS&PSS) Exploratory Committee, Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society.

(a)  CRAC Method Of Legal Analysis

(b)  BLM’s 1980s Work Determining Issue Significance Under NEPA

(c)  Hugo Justice System & Public Safety Services Exploratory Committee’s Methodology Models

        a) Impact Methodology Model: 2015

        b) NEPA Design Group: 2001

(d)  Synthesis: Potential Method of Analysis

(a) CRAC Method Of Legal Analysis (Observation). The CRAC method of legal analysis includes: Conclusion > Rule > Application > Conclusion

1.  Conclusion. What is the conclusion you want to judge to make after reading your brief?

2.  Rule. What is the law that supports your conclusion?

3.  Application. Explain how the law applies to the issues.

4.  Conclusion. Restate the conclusion to the judge.

(b) BLM’s 1980s Work Determining Issue Significance Under NEPA (Recommendation)

Criteria Found in NEPA Regulations (Table 1; Haug, BLM. 1982, p. 5)

4. Provide high quality information [40 CFR 1500.1(b)]

5. Conduct state-of-the-art analysis [40 CFR 1501.8(b)(1)(iii); 40 CFR 1502.22(b)]

6. Maintain scientific accuracy [40 CFR 1502.24]

7. Product analytic rather than encyclopedic EISs [40 CFR 1500.4(b); 40 CFR 1502.2(a)]

8. Address incomplete or unavailable information [40 CFR 1502.22]

9. Consider risk, uncertainty, and likelihood of impacts [40 CFR 1502.9(a); 40 CFR 1502.22; 40 CFR 1505.1(b); 40 CFR 1508.27]

10. Provide for mitigation and monitoring [40 CFR 1502.14(c); 40 CFR 1502.16(e-h); 40 CFR 1503.3(d); 40 CFR 1505.2(c); 40 CFR 1505.3; 40 CFR 1508.20; 40 CFR 1508.28(b)]

11. Communicate information clearly [40 CFR 1500.4(d); 40 CFR 1502.8]

12. Facilitate decisionmaking [40 CFR 1500.1(b,c); 40 CFR 1501.2(a); 40 CFR 1501.8(b); 40 CFR 1502.1; 40 CFR 1502.2; 40 CFR 1502.22; 40 CFR 1502.23; 40 CFR 1505.1; 40 CFR 1506.1; 40 CFR 1507.2; 40 CFR 1508.23]

 

Vocabulary The vocabulary proposed for environmental analysis (Table 2) begins with the definition of an environmental consequence, impact, or effect; they are synonymous. An environmental consequence has three components (Haug, BLM. 1982, p. 7):

• (1) It is a change of some indicator in the human environment, or ecosystem. This implies some baseline condition from which to perceive or measure the change, and it implies a magnitude and direction for that change.

• (2) It is linked to man’s activities through a cause, a change agent. This distinguishes an environmental impact from a change in the human environment caused by forces other than man.

• (3) It has a meaning or value separate from the change itself. Depending on the context within which a change takes place, an impact can be positive, negative, beneficial, adverse, good, bad, etc. These types of imprecise, judgmental, and qualitative evaluation are often found in environmental documents with no explanation or substantiation for the evaluation.

Already we have used nine of our 12 vocabulary words (underlined above). The remaining three are types of indicators: structural components, functional processes, and environmental indexes. These 12 words can accommodate environmental impacts describe by virtually any discipline (emphasis added).

Walker’s Comments: The above 12 vocabulary words are described on pages 8 - 9 of the document, A Systematic Interdisciplinary Language For Environmental Analysis Under NEPA (Haug, BLM. 1982). This paper does not take on the "threshold" of significance directly but references 40 CFR 1508.27 and the importance of context of an impact and its relative importance (intensity). Its real contribution is developing a systematic interdisciplinary language (i.e., impact methodology: NEPA, Section 102(2)(B); 40 CFR 1507.3; 40 CFR 1502.24; 40 CRF 1502.22) for environmental analysis compliance with NEPA (i.e., baseline, change agent, component, context, ecosystem, effect, environmental consequence, human environment, impact, index, and indicator).

The Grammar: A Worksheet (see Figure 2. Impact Sentence of Environmental Consequences Worksheet pdf) The "grammar" for our language consists of a single worksheet for organizing and displaying information about environmental consequences. The information at the top of the sheet allows the user systematically to break down a plan, proposed action, or alternatives into smaller increments to identify the actual change agents that will cause impacts (Fig. 2). Each line is designed to read like a simple declarative sentence with a subject, verb, object, and a string of modifiers. The subject is the change agent; the verb is either "increase" or "decrease"; and the object is the indicator being impacted. The change is described by modifiers that include the estimated quantity of change, the units of change, and the probability that this particular estimated change will actually occur (Haug, BLM. 1982, p. 10).

All the columns through Probability represent the factual estimate of the impact. The right hand column, Context or Relative Importance, is available for the user to interpret the meaning of value of that estimated change. The worksheet thus clearly separates the relatively objective estimate of an environmental consequence from the often more subjective meaning of that consequence. This distinction aids in identifying conflicts (and hopefully in resolving them; Haug, BLM. 1982, p. 10).

By thus separating the fact of an impact from its meaning, we eliminate a major source of confusion commonly found in controversies about environmental consequences. Legitimate differences of opinion about the fact of an impact can be specifically addressed and recorded on the worksheet. For instance, arguments about the fact of an impact can be reduced sometimes if probabilities are used. Opposing experts in the same discipline (emphasis added) can state their professional expectations clearly in probabilistic terms about differing estimates of a controversial impact. Arguments over the relative importance, or meaning, of an impact may be less easily resolved, but opposing points of view can still be recorded and displayed for the decisionmaker and the public to see (emphasis added). An example worksheet is presented in Fig. 2, and a set of instructions is listed in Table 3 (Haug, BLM. 1982, pps. 10 & 12)

 

Use of the Methodology We have found that this methodology is extremely flexible, and it seems to satisfy all the criteria listed in Table 1 (Haug, BLM. 1982, p. 12).

 

The methodology forces staff analysts (emphasis added) to organize their information in a clear, concise format so that consequences of several alternative can be compared easily. . . . Environmental analysts (emphasis added) often are not used to quantifying estimates (Haug, BLM. 1982, p. 17).

 

Discussion This auxiliary "language" of environmental analysis . . . allows the disciplinary specialist (emphasis added) complete freedom to estimate and calculate environmental consequences according to state-of-the-art methods in that discipline, but it forces all specialists to describe consequences in a common format based on a common understanding of what an environmental consequence is. The language thus provides a medium of communication between specialists of widely varying disciplines, between an interdisciplinary team and decisionmakers, and between an agency and the general public (emphasis added) (Haug, BLM. 1982, p. 19).

(c) Justice System & Public Safety Services Study Design: 2015 (Study Design) The CEQ regulations and National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP) are fountains of information in defining significance (Sections XI A & K).

 

    •    CRF 1508.27 Significantly. "Significantly" as used in NEPA requires considerations of both context and intensity (Chpt. III).

    •    NAEP. Ca., 2017. Major Cases Interpreting the National Environmental Policy Act, Chpt. III. Palm Desert, CA.

    •    Justice System & Public Safety Services Study Design: 2015: Chapters III, VI, & VII

          http://www.hugoneighborhood.org/justicesystemexploratorycommittee.htm

 

Chapter III, Study Design.  An adequate information assessment/analysis has several elements and a conclusion of adequacy (Scope, p. 6).

•  Haug, et al. 1984. Determining Significance of Environmental Issues Under NEPA (Haug. 1984a).

•  Haug, et al. 1984. A Systematic Interdisciplinary Language For Environmental Analysis Under NEPA (Haug. 1984b)

1. BLM USDI. January 1, 1984. Draft Resource management plan/environmental impact statement for the Garnet Resource Area, Butte District, Montana State Office, Bureau of Land Management. United States.

2. BLM USDI. ca. October 1985. Final Wilderness Environmental Impact Statement For The Garnet Resource Area, Butte District, Montana.

3. Marc J. Stern and Michael J. Mortimer. April 12, 2007. Comparing NEPA Processes Across Federal Land Management Agencies, pdf. Department of Forestry, College of Natural Resources, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

•   Numerical Visitor Capacity: A Guide to its Use in Wilderness (pdf).

USDOA, USFS, Rocky Mountain Research Station. October 2010. Numerical Visitor Capacity: A Guide to its Use in Wilderness. Fort Collins, CO).

Chapter VII. Section B. Contract Compliance Impact Methodology

1. Significant Issue

2.  Significant Impact

3.  Affected Condition

4.  Indicator

5. Standard

6. Significance Determination

•   Private Forests. Private land owners are required to inform the state of intended logging plans, but the state does not have the authority to grant or deny approval. The logging plans must adhere to the Oregon Forest Practices Act (FPA), yet there is no requirement for evaluation of impacts of alternatives. The public can pay a [annual] fee to ODF for access [notice] to proposed logging activities in a specific area, but otherwise has little or no opportunity to engage.

•   Oregon Forests. The state must at least comply with the FPA. The Board of Forestry is in charge of the public process in regards to State Forests and are subject to stakeholder and public involvement on all forest action or engagements.

•   Federal Forests. An analysis [NEPA standards] of the significant impacts of logging and associated activities must be weighed and alternatives must be considered for all proposed logging plans. The public has the opportunity to comment on the analysis and participate in the decision making process.

The BLM MDO CI program as expressed by the above actions, may or may not be considered adequate by the public (Section VI).

b) Public Written Testimony Comments

 

June 20, 2017 Letter/Email to BLM Medford: EA Testimony Comments June 20, 2017 Letter/Email to Don Ferguson, Public Information Specialist, BLM Grants Pass Interagency Office from Mike Walker, Chair Hugo Justice System & Public Safety Services (JS&PSS) Exploratory Committee, Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society.

Subjects

Subject: Public Comments For the DOI-BLM-ORWA-MO70-0006-2016-EA Pickett West Forest Management Project Environmental Assessment (EA)

Subject: BLM’s Responsibilities For Public Involvement (PI) Purpose Of National Environmental Procedures Act’s (NEPA) Procedural Mandate Requires Interdisciplinary (ID) Team Members To Be Accessible To The Public

Appendices

Appendix A. National Environmental Procedures Act’s (NEPA) Procedural Requirements

Appendix B. Interdisciplinary Team’s Responsibilities for Public Involvement From BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook H-1790-1 (April 24, 2008)

Appendix C. USDI PEP – Environmental Statement Memorandum No. ESM 13-131 (January 7, 2013)

Appendix D. A Citizen’s Guide to the NEPA: Having Your Voice Heard

Appendix E. The Hard Look and Bald Conclusions

June 21, 2017 EA Public Comments Letter to Allen Bollschweiler, Field Manager Grants Pass Area, Interagency Office, MDO, from Deer Creek Valley Natural Resources Conservation Association (DCVNRCA), RE: Pickett West Forest Management Project EA (DOI-BLM-ORWA-M070-2016-0006-EA)

 

July 17, 2017 Letter to Allen Bollschweiler, Field Manager Grants Pass Area, Interagency Office, MDO, from DCVNRCA, RE: Pickett West Forest Management Project EA and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (DOI-BLM-ORWA-M070-2016-006-EA)

 

December 6, 2017 Letter/Email to State Director BLM Oregon/Washington and BLM MDO: EA/Scoping Public Testimony Comments from Mike Walker, Chair Hugo Justice System & Public Safety Services (JS&PSS) Exploratory Committee, Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society.

 

Subjects

Subject: Public Comments For the DOI-BLM-ORWA-MO70-0006-2016-EA Pickett West Forest Management Project Environmental Assessment (EA)

Subject: BLM’s Responsibilities For Public Involvement (PI) Purpose Of National Environmental Procedures Act’s (NEPA) Procedural Mandate Requires Interdisciplinary (ID) Team Members To Be Accessible To The Public

Appendices

Appendix A. A BLM Planner’s Perspective: BLM Evolutions In Promoting and Enabling Citizen Involvement & Citizen Participation

Walker’s Public Comments are applicable to the Pickett West Forest Project EA, and Public scoping comments on the proposed Clean Slate Forest Management Project, and its future EA and timber sale.

 

2. Clean Slate Forest Management Project Scoping & EA: BLM MDO GPFO

 

a) NEPA Citizen Involvement (CI): BLM MDO GPFO Clean Slate Forest Management Project Scoping, EA, & Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

 

•       November 2017.  BLM MDO GPFO Scoping Information  For Clean Slate Forest Management Project  (DOI-BLM-ORWA-M070-2018-0002-EA)

 

b) Public Written Testimony Comments

 

December 6, 2017 Letter/Email to State Director BLM Oregon/Washington and BLM MDO:  EA/Scoping Public Testimony Comments from Mike Walker, Chair Hugo Justice System & Public Safety Services (JS&PSS) Exploratory Committee, Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society.

Subjects

Subject: Public Comments For the DOI-BLM-ORWA-MO70-0006-2016-EA Pickett West Forest Management Project Environmental Assessment (EA)

Subject: BLM’s Responsibilities For Public Involvement (PI) Purpose Of National Environmental Procedures Act’s (NEPA) Procedural Mandate Requires Interdisciplinary (ID) Team Members To Be Accessible To The Public

Appendices

Appendix A. A BLM Planner’s Perspective: BLM Evolutions In Promoting and Enabling Citizen Involvement & Citizen Participation

Walker’s Public Comments are applicable to the Pickett West Forest Project EA, and Public scoping comments on the proposed Clean Slate Forest Management Project, and its future EA and timber sale.

 

3a. Hellgate Recreation Area Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Hellgate RAMP/DEIS): BLM MDO Grants Pass Resource Area (GPRA):  February 15, 2001 Public Comments

 

The reader is especially referenced to Appendix D, Evaluation Of Significant Impacts Model And Recommended Impact Methodology, if interested in the BLM MDO NEPA Interdisciplinary (ID) Team’s responsibilities. In this case the BLM’s must "Analyzing Effects Methodology" implementing regulations responsibility for its EA and EIS ID team members is identified in the BLM NEPA Handbook, Chapter 6 "NEPA Analysis" (40 CFR 1507.3; BLM. 2008, pps. 33 - 68). "Chapter 6 identifies the essential analytical elements that are common to NEPA analysis, regardless of whether you are preparing an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement." (BLM. 2008, p. ix; Section III.G). The handbook’s Section 6.8.1.2 Analyzing Effects Methodology provides "A NEPA document must describe the analytical methodology sufficiently so that the reader can understand how the analysis was conducted and why the particular methodology was used." The BLM NEPA Handbook has a forward policy of a "common NEPA analysis approach" for both EAs and EISs as it has evolved to expand public involvement (PI) in more phases of the EA analysis process.

Appendix A.    Selected Parts Of BLM’s National Environmental Policy Act Handbook: H-1790-1

Appendix B.    Selected CEQ Regulations For Implementing The Procedural Provisions of The National Environmental Policy Act

Appendix C.    Selected Portions Of CEQ’s 40 Questions

Appendix D.   Evaluation Of Significant Impacts Model And Recommended Impact Methodology

Appendix E.   Comments On Hellgate RAMP/DEIS’s Appendix B — Outstandingly Remarkable Values

Appendix F.    Comments On Hellgate RAMP/DEIS’s Appendix C — Management Standards for the Hellgate Recreation Area, A Recreation Area

Appendix G.    Comments On Hellgate RAMP/DEIS’s Appendix G — Fisheries Factors And Assumptions

Appendix H.    Comments On Hellgate RAMP/DEIS’s Appendices D, E, F, H, and I.

Appendix I.    Detailed Scoping Comments By Environmental Protection Agency On The Hellgate RAMP/DEIS

Appendix J.   NEPA Design Group  Professional Credentials

Several parts of the DEIS were impressive (i.e., issues and alternatives chapters). They cover most issues of public interest in a range of reasonable alternatives. The studies program and its products are also worthy of note; it is obvious that BLM went the extra mile in aggressively developing and implementing this program. We were also impressed with the BLM open house held in Grants Pass that our representatives attended.

 

The affected environment chapter can be vastly improved, by better referencing, incorporation and/or referencing studies program information, exclusion of existing condition information (versus affection conditions) not related to the environmental consequences chapter, and clarifying and expanding baseline information.

 

The environmental consequences chapter needs a total rewrite in terms of complying with the procedural requirements of NEPA. The documentation in the effects chapter reflects a great deal of confusion about the relationship of significant issues, range of alternatives, affected environment, and environmental consequences sections, and especially the purpose of an EIS — "An EIS is intended to provide decisionmakers and the public with a complete and objective evaluation of significant environmental impacts, both beneficial and adverse, resulting from a proposed action and all reasonable alternatives." It is recommended that the deficiencies in the Hellgate RAMP/DEIS be corrected in a supplemental DEIS.

 

There is a strong correlation between the requirements of the W&S Rivers Act (WSRA) and NEPA when it comes to NEPA’s threshold determinations of whether the impacts of a major federal action significantly affects the quality of the human environment. Both acts have concepts of carrying capacity and thresholds performing the same task.

 

3b. Hellgate Recreation Area Management Plan/Final Hellgate RAMP/FEIS: BLM MDO GPRA: April 29, 2003 Public Comments

 

Most of the above February 15, 2001 comments about inadequate procedural requirements on the DEIS are applicable to the FEIS, especially for Chapter 4, the environmental consequences chapter.

•      Logical and Coherent Record

•      Procedural Standards

•      Impact Methodologies

4. Scoping Rogue River’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values, Other Similar Values & Other River Values: 2014 (Scoping ORVs Paper)

•  December 14, 2014 Email/Letter to Outdoor Recreation Planner/Asst. River Manager/Scenic Easement Administrator, Rogue River Program. BLM Grants Pass Interagency Office.

•  Walker, Mike. Preliminary December 8, 2014. Public Comments:   Scoping Rogue River’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values, Other Similar Values & Other River Values (pages 240). Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society, Rogue Advocates, & Goal One Coalition. Hugo, OR.

40 CFR § 1508.27 Significantly. Significantly as used in NEPA requires considerations of both context and intensity:

(a) Context. This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies with the setting of the proposed action. For instance, in the case of a site-specific action, significance would usually depend upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant.

(b) Intensity. This refers to the severity of impact. Responsible officials must bear in mind that more than one agency may make decisions about partial aspects of a major action. The following should be considered in evaluating intensity: [– 10 intensity criteria used in DCVNRCA’s protest].

C.     Appeals to USDI Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)

(1)   Take a hard look at the environmental consequences, as opposed to reaching bald conclusions,

(2)   Identify the relevant areas of environmental concern, and

(3)   Make a convincing case that environmental impacts are insignificant in order to support a conclusion that an EIS is not required.

The three IBLA references for (Lynn Canal Conservation, Inc. (i.e., Lee & Jody Sprout, 160 IBLA 9, 12-13 (2003); Kendall’s Concerned Area Residents, 129 IBLA 130, 138 (1994); Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 123 IBLA 302, 308 (1992)) eventually lead back to Cabinet Mountains Wilderness v. Peterson, 685 F.2d 678, 681-82 (D.C. Cir. 1982), and the phrase "convincing case" since its original appearance in Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. U.S. Postal Service, 487 F.2d 1029, 1040 (D.C. Cir. 1973).

 

Rreferences to a "Hard Look and Bald Conclusions" are not comprehensive.  It is not know if they are the final majority opinion of the courts. They are samples of references that the author discovered in his limited web search of the topics.  They are arranged in chronological order (i.e., most recent to oldest), with a special emphasis on the USDI, IBLA as the USDI is the federal department over the BLM (Reference Section X.E, USDI, Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) Decisions and Orders).

 

Deer Creek Valley Natural Resource Conservation Association (DCVNRCA), Plaintiff,

v. United States Bureau of Land Management, Defendant, And Murphy Company, Intervenor Defendant

 

ORDER. PANNER, District Judge: 1:12-cv-1596-CL

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and Recommendation (#81), and the matter is now before this court.

 

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Plaintiff filed objections ( #83), and defendants have responded to those objections (## 84, 86). I have reviewed the file of this case de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).

 

I have given this matter de novo review. I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation (#81). Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (#19) is DENIED. Intervenor Defendant Murphy Company's Motion for Summary Judgment (#37) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED 4^th day of February, 2014. Owen M. Panner, U.S. District Judge

2. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

 

a) August 6, 2014. Ninth Circuit Case No. 14-35250. OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANT DCVNRCA In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Sean T. Malone & Marianne Dugan, Attorneys at Law for Deer Creek Valley Natural Resources Conservation Association, Plaintiff-appellant.

 

Deer North Vegetation Management Project (Deer North Project) Environmental Assessment (EA) (ER-59-227), Decision Documentation approving the Deer North timber sale (ER-1-28), and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) (ER-29-33) on the Grants Pass Resource Area for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which implemented a portion of the Deer North Project, referred to as the Deer North timber sale.1

 

1. Importantly, there is a distinction between the Deer North Project, which was analyzed in the EA, and the Deer North timber sale, which was authorized by the Decision Documentation. The Deer North Project will apparently be implemented in a piecemeal fashion, of which the Deer North timber sale is but the first of several timber sales to be authorized pursuant to the Deer North Project. See ER-1 ("The Decision Documentation for the Deer North Timber Sale is the first decision to implement forest management activities analyzed under the Deer North Vegetation Management Project Environmental Assessment….").

 

Deer Creek Valley Natural Resources Conservation Association, Plaintiff-appellant v. United States Bureau of Land Management, Defendant-appellee, and Murphy Company, Intervenor-Appellee.

b) October 6, 2014 (90-1-4-13783). RESPONSE BRIEF OF DEFENDANT-APPELLEE BLM In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

David C. Shilton Evelyn S. Ying, Attorneys, Appellate Section Environment & Natural Resources Division U.S. Department of Justice for BLM Defendant-Appellee

 

Deer North Timber Sale, a BLM decision implementing in part forest management activities that the agency analyzed under the Environmental Assessment for the BLM MDO Deer North Vegetation Management Project (Project), pursuant to NEPA.

 

Deer Creek Valley Natural Resources Conservation Association, Plaintiff-appellant

v. United States Bureau of Land Management, Defendant-appellee, and Murphy Company, Intervenor-Appellee

c) October 6, 2014 (Case No. 14-35250). RESPONSE BRIEF OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR-APPELLEE MURPHY COMPANY In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Michael E. Haglund and Julie A. Weis, HAGLUND KELLEY LLP, Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee Murphy Company

 

Deer Creek Valley Natural Resources Conservation Association, Plaintiff-appellant

v. United States Bureau of Land Management, Defendant-appellee, and Murphy Company, Intervenor-Appellee

Executive Summary. "This study provides a comprehensive analysis of USDA Forest Service litigation from 1989 to 2008. Using a census and improved analyses, we document the final outcome of the 1,125 land management cases filed in federal court. The Forest Service won 53.8% of these cases, lost 23.3%, and settled 22.9%. It won 64.0% of the 669 cases decided by a judge based on cases’ merits. The agency was more likely to lose and settle cases during the last 6 years; the number of cases initiated during this time varied greatly. The Pacific Northwest region along with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had the most frequent occurrence of cases. Litigants generally challenged vegetative management (e.g., logging) projects, most often by alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act. The results document the continued influence of the legal system on national forest management and describe the complexity of this litigation." (Miner. 2014, p. 32).

 

2. The federal government prevails in most NEPA litigation, according to CEQ and NAEP data and other legal studies. CEQ annually publishes survey results on NEPA litigation that identify the number of cases involving a NEPA-based cause of action; federal agencies that were identified as a lead defendant; and general information on plaintiffs (i.e., grouped into categories, such as "public interest groups" and "business groups"); reasons for litigation; and outcomes of the cases decided during the year. In general, according to CEQ data, NEPA case outcomes are about evenly split between those involving challenges to EISs and those involving other challenges to the adequacy of NEPA analyses (e.g., EAs and CEs). The federal government successfully defended its decisions in more than 50 percent of the cases from 2008 through 2011. For example, in 2011, 99 of the 146 total NEPA case dispositions—68 percent—reported by CEQ resulted in a judgment favorable to the federal agency being sued or a dismissal of the case without settlement. In 2011, that rate increased to 80 percent if the 18 settlements reported by CEQ were considered successes.⁴⁴ However, the CEQ data do not present enough case-specific details to determine whether the settlements should be considered as favorable dispositions (emphasis added). The plaintiffs, in most cases, were public interest groups (USGAO. 2014, p.20).

 

Footnote 44. The CEQ surveys identify three types of nonadverse dispositions: (1) judgment for the defendant; (2) dismissal without settlement; and (3) settlement (emphasis added; USGAO. 2014, p.20).

 

3. Methods Of Determining Court Cases Won, Lost, & Settled (Miner. 2014, p. 33)

 

a) Forest Service Win. We coded cases as a Forest Service win, if the final outcome of the case was based on either of the following:

b) Forest Service Loss. We coded cases as a Forest Service loss, if the final outcome of the case was based on either of the following:

• Forest Service Loss by Judicial Decision. Cases where a court ruled on the merits of the plaintiff’s case and found that the Forest Service had done anything incorrectly.

• Forest Service Loss by Other Disposition. Cases where (1) the Forest Service withdrew its plans for a project or forest plan (emphasis added) or (2) the court ruled against the USFS on procedural grounds.

•    USDI. 1994. Bureau of Land Management. Medford district PRMP EIS. Medford district proposed record resource management plan environmental impact statement. Portland, OR: Government Printing Office.

•    USDI. 1995. Bureau of Land Management. Medford district record of decision and resource management plan. Portland, OR: Government Printing Office

•    USDI. 2008. Bureau of Land Management. Final environmental impact statement for the revision of the resources management plans of the western Oregon Bureau of Land Management. Portland, OR: Government Printing Office.

•   USDI. August 5, 2016. Bureau of Land Management. Southwestern Oregon record of decision and resource management plan (2016 ROD/RMP). Portland, OR: Government Printing Office.

3.  Handbook Not Referenced in EA As A major CI Education Program For the Public

•    USDI. 2008. Bureau of Land Management. Bureau of Land Management Manual1790-1- BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook. Washington DC: Bureau of Land Management.

VIII.    NEPA CONSULTATIONS/WORKSHOPS

 

The NEPA consultations from March 13, 2017 to June 9, 2017 lead to the June 20, 2017 public comments on the BLM MDO Pickett West Forest Management Project Environmental Assessment (EA), with a focus on BLM’s responsibilities to make interdisciplinary team members accessible to the public.

•  PUBLIC TESTIMONY COMMENTS:  June 20, 2017 Letter/Email to Don Ferguson, Public Information Specialist, BLM Grants Pass Interagency Office from Mike Walker, Chair Hugo Justice System & Public Safety Services (JS&PSS) Exploratory Committee, Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society (see Chapter VII).

FIGURES

Figure 1. Example of Outline Style Enumerations From Chicago Manual of Style

Figure 2. Impact Sentence of Environmental Consequences Worksheet (Haug, BLM. 1982; 1984a; 1984b). THIS IDEA IS CRITICAL

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1. May 25, 2017 Letter/Email to DCVNRCA from Hugo JS&PSS Exploratory Committee, Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society, On Impact Methodology Model (Appendix A).

Attachment 2. February 15, 2001 Comments to BLM From NEPA Design Group On Evaluation of Significant Impacts and Recommended Impact Methodology (Appendix D)

Attachment 6a. Threshold Determinations Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Fogleman 1987.

Attachment 6b. Selected Information From Threshold Determinations Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Fogleman 1987.

Attachment 3. May 2015. Bill Cohen Summit Report: NEPA Summit 2 - 3 December 2014. On December 2 and 3, 2014, the Environmental Law Institute, the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University, and Perkins Coie LLP sponsored a two-day conference on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The conference was entitled the Cohen NEPA Summit.

June 9, 2017. BLM NEPA Handbook, Section 6.8.1.2 Must Describe Analyzing Effects Methodology, & BLM Methodology and Analysis to Determine Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) Targets in the Purpose and Need & Operations Inventory

 

Appendix A. BLM NEPA Handbook: Analyzing Effects Methodologies

Appendix B. BLM "Copper Queen Grove" Forest Inventory

Appendix C. May 15, 2017 Email From Walker to Deer Creek Valley Natural Resources Conservation Association Representatives; Subject: National Environmental Procedures Act’s (NEPA) Procedural Requirements For "Purpose and Need"

 

May 25, 2017. DCV’s & BLM’s Interdisciplinary (ID) Team’s Responsibilities for "Analyzing Effects Methodology" Required By National Environmental Procedures Act’s (NEPA) Procedural Requirements (Social Impacts)

Appendix A. Impact Methodology Model: Procedural Requirements & Basic Impact Methodology Model

Appendix B. Scoping Rogue River’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values: 2014

Attachment 6a. Threshold Determinations Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Fogleman 1987.

Attachment 6b. Selected Information From Threshold Determinations Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Fogleman 1987.

Attachment 7. The National Environmental Policy Act: Background and Implementation. CRS 2005.

Attachment 11. Improving the Process for Preparing Efficient and Timely Environmental Reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act. CEQ 2012.

May 15, 2017. NEPA Procedural Requirements - Compliance Criteria for Significance; Substantive Comments; Purpose & Need

 

BLM NEPA Handbook

•   Purpose and Need Statement, Scoping, Issues.

•   6.2 PURPOSE AND NEED (BLM. 2008. p.35)

•   6.6 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT (BLM. 2008, pps. 49 - 52), 6.6.1 Reasonable Alternatives (BLM. 2008, pps. 49 - 50).

•   Brainstorming the Previous NEPA compliance rules to a real "Purpose and Need from October 2016 Purpose and Need for the Action identified in the Pickett West Forest Management Project EA (draft chapter 1 of EA).

•   QUESTIONS PRESENTATION & STATEMENT OF THE CASE. Deer Creek Association v. US Bureau of Land Management, et al. August 6, 2014. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ??? (what is correct citation?).

May 14, 2017.  National Environmental Procedures Act’s (NEPA) Procedural Requirements:  Significant Cumulative Impacts

 

Appendices

Appendix A. National Environmental Procedures Act’s (NEPA) Procedural Requirements.

Appendix A1. National Environmental Policy Act (1969).

Appendix A2. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the NEPA, 40 C.F.R. parts 1500-1508 (July 30, 1979; updated several times, e.g., 1986, 2011, etc.).

Appendix A3. CEQ’s Forty Questions (March 23, 1981).

Appendix A4. U.S. Department of the Interior’s (USDI) Department Manual (DM) on NEPA (516 DM 1-7). Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 200, Wednesday October 15, 2008 (pages 61292 - 61323); March 18, 1980 #2244; Sept. 27, 1971 #1341; and Sept. 17, 1970 #1222.

Appendix A5. U.S. BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook H-1790-1: January 30, 2008: hard copy; April 24, 2008: Federal Register Notice of Availability; CEQ reference: May 8, 2008¹).

Appendix A6. Court Precedents.

Appendix B. National Environmental Procedures Act’s (NEPA) Procedural Requirements: "Significant Cumulative Impacts" (From U.S. BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook H-1790-1: January 30, 2008).

Attachments

Attachment 1.  National Environmental Policy Act (1969) (pdf).

Attachment 2.  Executive Order 11514 – Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality. March 5, 1970 (pdf).

Attachment 3.  Executive Order 11991—Environmental Impact Statements. May 24, 1977 (pdf).

Attachment 4.  Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the NEPA, 40 C.F.R. parts 1500-1508 (July 30, 1979; updated several times, e.g., 1986, 2011, etc.) (pdf).

Attachment 5.  CEQ’s Forty Questions (March 23, 1981) (pdf)

Attachment 6a. Threshold Determinations Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Fogleman 1987 (pdf).

Attachment 6b.  Selected Information From Threshold Determinations Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Fogleman 1987 (pdf).

Attachment 7. The National Environmental Policy Act: Background and Implementation. CRS 2005 (pdf).

Attachment 8.  CEQ’s A Citizen’s Guide to the NEPA: Having Your Voice Heard. 2007 (pdf).

Attachment 9. USDI Department Manual on NEPA (516 DM 1-7). October 15, 2008 (pdf).

Attachment 10. BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook H-1790-1: January 30, 2008 (pdf).

Attachment 11. Improving the Process for Preparing Efficient and Timely Environmental Reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act. CEQ 2012 (pdf).

Added Later

Attachment 12. PEP - Environmental Statement Memorandum NO. ESM 13-13¹  January 7, 2013. Subject: Standard Checklist for Use in Preparing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents and for Complying with NEPA, CEQ, and Departmental Procedures.

Attachment 13. Michaela Noble, OEPC Director. USDI Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance (OEPC), including the OEPC Pacific Northwest Region. Viewed Dec. 2017. OEPC Vision and Mission  to Serve as a Trusted Source and Leader to Ensure Sustainable Utilization and Conservation of Natural, Cultural, and Historical Resources.

May 4, 2017. Broad Sweep Of NEPA’s Procedural Requirements

Appendix A. National Environmental Procedures Act’s (NEPA) Procedural Requirements.

Appendix B. Preliminary Topics of Interest From BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook H-1790-1 (April 24, 2008).

May 1, 2017. BLM’s Responsibilities to Educate the Public And the Public’s Responsibilities to Educate Itself on the Meaning of "Substantive Comments" – BLM NEPA

Appendix A. Be an Individual, Be Unique, Stand Out, Make Noise, That's the Power of Individuals

Appendix B. Substantive Comments BLM NEPA Handbook: 2008.

Appendix C. Preliminary Topics of Interest From BLM NEPA Handbook: 2008.

April 5, 2017.   NEPA Purposes of Josephine County (JO CO) Justice System Public Safety Services (JSPSS) Study Design: 2015 Project:  NEPA Analysis of a Range of Reasonable Citizen Alternatives & Analysis of the Significant Impacts of Those Alts

• NEPA References

• Appendices to Justice System & Public Safety Services Study Design: 2015

• Scoping Rogue River’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values: 2014

• Outreach - Justice System Exploratory Committee

Attachment 1. Numerical Visitor Capacity: A Guide to its Use in Wilderness

Attachment 2. NEPA Design Group’s Comments on the Hellgate RAMP/DEIS: 2001

•   Workshop topics focused on subjects covered in the Exploratory Committee’s written consultations (Section VIII.A), and on its two sets of public comments on EAs (Section VII.A.1.b): June 20 and December 6, 2017).

•   Workshop periods were approximately two hours long.  They were in the morning usually 10:00 a.m. to noon.

 

•   May 12, 2017 NEPA Table Talk Black Forest Restaurant Workshop, 10:00 a.m. - Noon

•   May 19, 2017 NEPA Table Talk Black Forest Restaurant Workshop, 10:00 a.m. - Noon

•   June 21, 2017 Meeting at Walker’s Home

•   Telephone Conference – NEPA Table Talk: June 7, 2017, 10:00 a.m. - noon plus.

•   Telephone Conference – NEPA Table Talk: June 21, 2017, 9:00 a.m.

In hindsight, consider the comparison between the past workshop topics to those covered in the following articles at Sections X.A and X.K.

• Knowledge-based Survey for Identifying Best Practice Principles for Environmental Assessments (2013) (pdf)

(15 Priority "1" BPP topics and nine Priority "2" topics identified). Remember the value of these BPP are how to craft written public comments arguments based on standards from the seven sets of NEPA authorities (Chap. III), especially in the BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook H-1790-1: January 30, 2008 (BLM. 2008). The 15 Priority "1" BPPs include three levels of EAs.

BPP1.   Three Levels of Analysis

BPP2.   Description of purpose and need

BPP3.   Description of proposed action and alternatives

BPP4.   Description of Study Areas and Resources

BPP5.   Comparative Impacts on Resources

BPP6.   Topical Outlines

BPP7.   Page limits

BPP8.   Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management

BPP9.    Regulatory/coordination/consultation/compliance

BPP10. Significance Determinations

BPP11. Mitigation Measures and Monitoring

BPP12. Climate Change

BPP13. Adaptive Management

BPP14. Scientific Writing and Communication

BPP15. Public Involvement and Response to Comments

• Guidance on Best Practice Principles for Environmental Assessments  (2014) (pdf)

1.   Description of Purpose and Need

2.   Description of Proposed Action and Range of Alternatives

3.   Content

4.   Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management

5.   Regulatory Consultation and Coordination

6.   Determination of Environmental Impact Significance

7.   Extent of Public Involvement

• NAEP:  Major Cases Interpreting the National Environmental Policy Act (2017) (pdf)

I.       Agencies' Obligation to Comply with NEPA to "fullest extent possible"

II.     Reasonable Alternatives

III.    Defining "Significance"

IV.    Defining "Major Federal Action"

V.     Judicial Review of Agency Actions

VI.    Small Federal Handle Issue

VII.   Connected Actions

VIII.  Cumulative Impacts

IX.    Supplementing NEPA Documents

X.     Extraterritorial Application of NEPA

XI.    Standing

XII.  Functional Equivalence Doctrine

XIII. Miscellaneous

A.   CEQ NEPA Regulations

B.   CEQ's Emergency Provision

C.   Disposition of Federal Property/Scope of Analysis

D.   Scope of Analysis/@Psychological Stress@

E.   Classified Information

F.   Readability Issue

G.   Environmental Assessments

•   All Workshop Material: January 30, 2008 BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook H-1790-1

•   1^st Workshop Material: June 20, 2017 EA Public Testimony Comments to BLM MDO GPFO – Pickett West Forest Management Project and EA.

•   2^nd Workshop Material:  December 6, 2017 Public Testimony Comments to State Director BLM Oregon/Washington and BLM MDO & GPFO – Clean Slate Forest Management Project Scoping and future EA.

•   Additional Possible Workshop Agenda Material: Any written material published at this site.  See some following possibilities.

-   Public Comments on two BLM EAs: Pickett West Forest Management Project and EA, and Clean Slate Forest Management Project Scoping and future EA. (Sections VII.A.1.b) & VII.A.2.b)).

-   Public Protest Of BLM MDO Pickett West Forest Management Project and EA (Section VII.B).

-   Other material published on this web page.

Hugo JS&PSS Exploratory Committee’s Written Consultations (Sections VII.A.1.b) & VII.A.2.b))

•   June 9, 2017 BLM NEPA Handbook

•   May 25, 2017 DCV’s & BLM’s Interdisciplinary (ID) Team’s Responsibilities for "Analyzing Effects Methodology"

•   May 15, 2017 NEPA Procedural Requirements - Significance; Substantive Comments; Purpose & Need

•   May 14, 2017 NEPA Procedural Requirements: Significant Cumulative Impacts

•   May 4, 2017 Broad Sweep Of NEPA’s Procedural Requirements

•   May 1, 2017 BLM’s Responsibilities to Educate the Public And the Public’s Responsibilities to Educate Itself

•  April 5, 2017 NEPA Purposes of Josephine County Justice System Public Safety Services (JSPSS) Study Design: 2015

•  March 13, 2017 NEPA Purposes of Josephine County JSPSS Study Design: 2015 Project

•  June 20, 2017 EA Public Testimony Comments Letter/Email to BLM Medford: From Mike Walker, Chair Hugo JS&PSS) Exploratory Committee, HNA&HS.

• June 21, 2017 EA Public Comments Letter to Allen Bollschweiler, Field Manager Grants Pass Area, Interagency Office, MDO, from Deer Creek Valley Natural Resources Conservation Association (DCVNRCA) & Illinois Valley (IV) Section, Oregon Chapter Sierra Club (SC). RE: Pickett West Forest Management Project EA.

• July 17, 2017 Letter to Allen Bollschweiler, Field Manager Grants Pass Area, Interagency Office, MDO, from DCVNRCA & IV Section, Oregon Chapter SC. RE: Pickett West Forest Management Project EA and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact.

•  December 6, 2017 Letter/Email to State Director BLM Oregon/Washington and BLM MDO: EA/Scoping Public Testimony Comments from Mike Walker, Chair Hugo JS&PSS Exploratory Committee, HNA&HS.

Public Protest Of BLM MDO Pickett West Forest Management Project and EA (Section VII.B)

•  September 5, 2017 Protest Letter to Allen Bollschwieler, Field Manager, Grants Pass Resource Area, Medford District BLM, from Deer Creek Valley Natural Resources Conservation Association, RE: Administrative Protest of Decision Record#1 and Associated Pickett West Forest Management Project Environmental Assessment and the Final Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

Footnote 4. The human environment is interpreted comprehensively to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people to that environment (40 C.F.R. § 1508.14). The effects analyzed under NEPA include ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health (40 C.F.R. § 1508.8).

Four agencies—the Forest Service, BLM, FHWA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers within the Department of Defense (DOD)—are generally the most frequent producers of EISs, accounting for 60 percent of the EISs in 2012, according to data in NAEP’s April 2013 report. These agencies account for over half of total draft and final EISs from 2008 through 2012, according to NAEP data (USGAO. 2014, p. 9).

 

Information on the benefits of completing NEPA analyses is largely qualitative. Complicating matters, agency activities under NEPA are hard to separate from other environmental review tasks under federal laws, such as the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act; executive orders; agency guidance; and state and local laws (USGAO. 2014, p. 10).

 

Federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) data collection efforts vary by agency. The Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) NEPA implementing regulations set forth requirements that federal agencies must adhere to, and require federal agencies to adopt their own procedures, as necessary, that conform with NEPA and CEQ’s regulations.¹ Federal agencies decide how to apply CEQ regulations in the NEPA process. According to a 2007 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, the CEQ regulations were meant to be generic in nature, with individual agencies formulating procedures applicable to their own projects.² (USGAO. 2014).   Footnote 1. 40 C.F.R. § 1507.3 and 2. The National Environmental Policy Act: Streamlining NEPA (CRS. 2007).

 

The following is just a taste of some NEPA web links.

 

•   There is bunches of information out there.

•   Go get it!

A.      U.S. Council on Environmental Quality

LAWS & REGULATIONS

The NEPA Statute

Clean Air Act, Section 309

Executive Orders relevant to NEPA analysis

NEPA Code of Federal Regulations

States and Local Jurisdictions with NEPA-like Environmental Planning Requirements (none for Oregon)

Legislative History of NEPA

Congressional White Paper on a National Policy for the Environment

House of Representatives Report on NEPA

Senate Report on NEPA

Conference Report

NEPA Litigation

Case Law Highlights

Agency NEPA Implementing Procedures

CEQ REPORTS

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 & NEPA

Annual Environmental Quality Reports

Cooperating Agency Status Reports

NEPA Litigation Survey

CEQ NEPA Pilot Reports & Rec

Citizen's Guide to NEPA

Collaboration Handbook

Agency EIS Filings

Tribes and NEPA

Success Stories

U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution

National Environmental Conflict Resolution Advisory Committee Report

International EIA

NEPA Non-Government Organizations

 

•   A Citizen’s Guide to the NEPA: Having Your Voice Heard (pdf)

Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President. December 2007. A Citizen’s Guide to the NEPA: Having Your Voice Heard. Washington, D.C (CEQ. 2007).

 

•  Collaboration in NEPA - A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners (pdf)

https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/CEQ_Collaboration_in_NEPA_10-2007

CEQ. October 1, 2007. Collaboration in NEPA - A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners. Council on Environmental Quality’s Interagency Work Group on Collaboration. Washington, D.C. (CEQ. 2007b).

This handbook presents the results of research and consultations by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) concerning the consideration of collaboration in analyses prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It introduces the NEPA practitioner and other interested parties to the issue of collaboration, outlines general principles, presents useful steps, and provides information on methods of collaboration. The handbook is informational and does not establish new requirements for collaboration or public involvement. It is not and should not be viewed as formal CEQ guidance on this matter, nor are the recommendations in the handbook intended to be legally binding (CEQ. 2007b, back of front page).NEPA Study_

One of the primary goals of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)¹ is to encourage meaningful public input and involvement in the process of evaluating the environmental impacts of proposed federal actions (emphasis added). This once innovative feature of the 1970 landmark legislation has become routine practice for some NEPA review processes. However, the full potential for more actively identifying and engaging other Federal, Tribal, State and local agencies, affected and interested parties, and the public at large in collaborative environmental analysis and federal decision-making is rarely realized (CEQ. 2007b, p. 1).

 

The purpose of this handbook is to assist those within Federal agencies who are responsible for conducting environmental reviews in expanding the effective use of collaboration as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Among its many conclusions, the NEPA Task Force found that collaborative approaches to engaging the public and assessing the impacts of federal actions under NEPA can improve the quality of decision-making and increase public trust and confidence in agency decisions.² Agencies responsible for preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or an Environmental Assessment (EA) will find this handbook helpful in identifying and realizing opportunities to collaborate throughout the NEPA process (CEQ. 2007b, p. 1).

 

This handbook discusses how Federal agencies can benefit by working collaboratively with others in the NEPA process. Other planning processes that tie into the NEPA process, such as the state and local long range transportation and land use planning processes, can provide additional opportunities for collaboration. Collaboration requires hard work, commitment, agency leadership, different kinds of skills and resources, and a new way of approaching environmental review processes. The cases referenced throughout the handbook show that federal managers have successfully used collaborative processes in a variety of contexts and that its benefits can be well worth the investment. NEPA practitioners are the primary audience for this handbook; however, all practitioners and decision makers involved in the NEPA process, including planners, engineers, environmental scientists and specialists, and public involvement specialists, will find the handbook helpful. This handbook can also be useful to citizens and citizen groups.³ (CEQ. 2007b, p. 1).

Footnotes

1. 42 U.S.C. sections 4321-4347.

2. Council on Environmental Quality, "NEPA Task Force Report to the Council on Environmental Quality — Modernizing NEPA

Implementation," (September 2003) available at http://www.ceq.eh.doe.gov/ntf.

3. See the Council on Environmental Quality proposed "Citizen’s Guide: A Citizen’s Guide to the National Environmental Policy Act

— Having your Voice Heard," available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/ntf/implementation.html.

•   Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act

http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/publications/cumulative_effects.html   ??

CEQ. January 1, 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act.  On January 1, 1997, the CEQ released a handbook titled Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act, [hereinafter CEQ Cumulative Effects Guidance], which applies to both EAs and EISs, available at.

• Knowledge-based Survey for Identifying Best Practice Principles for Environmental Assessments

• Knowledge-based Survey for Identifying Best Practice Principles for Environmental Assessments: Presentation

• Guidance on Best Practice Principles for Environmental Assessments

Learn About NEPA

What is NEPA?

What is the NEPA review process?

How citizens can comment and participate.

Get a copy of an EIS

EPA's Role in the NEPA Process

NEPA and Environmental Justice

Filing an EIS

NEPA Where You Live

Search the EIS Database

 

• Modernizing NEPA Implementation (pdf)

The NEPA Task Force Report to The Council on Environmental Quality, Modernizing NEPA Implementation. (September 2003).

•   Department of the Interior Bureau NEPA Information

DOI Bureau Contacts

 

•   Bureau of Indian Affairs

BIA Division of Environmental and Cultural Resources Management

Departmental Manual - Managing the NEPA Process – Bureau of Indian Affairs – 516 DM 10

 

•   Bureau of Land Management (see below)

BLM Planning and NEPA

Departmental Manual - Managing the NEPA Process – Bureau of Land Management – 516 DM 11

 

•   Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

BOEM and NEPA

Departmental Manual - Managing the NEPA Process – Minerals Management Service – 516 DM 15

 

•   Bureau of Reclamation

Reclamation NEPA Handbook

Departmental Manual - Managing the NEPA Process – Bureau of Reclamation – 516 DM 14

 

•   National Park Service

NPS Environmental Planning and Compliance Branch

Departmental Manual - Managing the NEPA Process – National Park Service – 516 DM 12

 

•   Office of Native Hawaiian Relations

Departmental Manual - Managing the NEPA Process – Office of Native Hawaiian Relations – 516 DM 7

 

•   Office of Surface Mining

Office of Surface Mining Compliance Documentation

Departmental Manual - Managing the NEPA Process – Office of Surface Mining – 516 DM 13

 

•   US Fish and Wildlife Service

US Fish and Wildlife Service Conservation Planning and NEPA

Departmental Manual - Managing the NEPA Process – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – 516 DM 8

 

•   US Geological Survey

USGS NEPA Purpose and Implementation

Departmental Manual - Managing the NEPA Process – U.S. Geological Survey – 516 DM

(1) Take a hard look at the environmental consequences, as opposed to reaching bald conclusions,

(2) Identify the relevant areas of environmental concern, and

(3) Make a convincing case that environmental impacts are insignificant in order to support a conclusion that an EIS is not required.

Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service. The Forest Service’s computer system, known as the Planning, Appeals, and Litigation System, provides information for responding to congressional requests for NEPA data, to support preparation for responding to lawsuits, and about overall project objectives and design. As stated by agency officials, data from the system can be used to identify trends in the preparation of NEPA analyses over time. This information can be valuable to managers in managing overall NEPA compliance and can identify innovative ways to deal with recurring environmental issues that affect projects, according to Forest Service officials. The system also provides tools to help the agency meet NEPA requirements, including automatic distribution of the schedule of proposed NEPA actions, a searchable database of draft EISs, and electronic filing of draft and final EISs to EPA (USGAO. 2014, p. 30)

•  Feasibility Study of Activities Related to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance

U.S. Forest Service, Competitive Sourcing Program Office. August 10, 2007. Feasibility Study of Activities Related to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance. Wash. D.C.

 

•  Twenty Years of Forest Service Land Management Litigation

Miner, Amanda M.A.; Mamsheimer, Robert W.; and Keele, Denise M. January 2014. Twenty Years of Forest Service Land Management Litigation. Journal of Forestry 112(1): 32-40 (Miner Journal of Forestry 2014).

 

U.S. Forest Service, USDA

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/index.htm

 

Ecosystem Management Coordination (EMC)

Environmental Appeals, Objections & Litigation

Resource Information Group (RIG)

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

National Forest Management Act (NFMA)/ Planning

NEPA Services Group (NSG)

Planning and Analysis Group (PAG)

Ecosystem Management Coordination (EMC)

U.S. Forest Service, USDA

Forest Service NEPA Procedures and Guidance

https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/nepa_procedures/index.htm

 

In July 2008, the Forest Service moved its NEPA procedures from directives to regulations to include new provisions that incorporate Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance and to better align Agency NEPA documentation to Agency decision-making processes. Most existing Forest Service NEPA procedures were moved to regulation without substantial change.

•    Federal Register Notice - Final NEPA Procedures

•    Highlights of the Final NEPA Procedures

•    Background on Forest Service NEPA Procedures

•    Q & A's about the Final NEPA Procedures

•    CEQ letter re. NEPA Procedures

National Environmental Policy Act Directives

•    Understanding the Forest Service Directives System

•    FSM 1950, Environmental Policy and Procedures

•    FSH 1909.15 - Contents

Zero Code

Chapter 10, Environmental Analysis

Chapter 20, Environmental Impact Statements and Related Documents

Chapter 30, Categorical Exclusion from Documentation

Chapter 40, Environmental Assessments and Related Documents

Chapter 50, Implementation and Monitoring

Chapter 60, References

Chief's direction to suspend use of Category 10 - Hazardous Fuels Reduction

•     Federal Register Notice - Proposed NEPA Procedures

•     Proposed NEPA Procedures - Summary of Public Comment

•     Proposed NEPA Procedures - Summary of Public Comment

Forest Service Land Management Litigation

 

•   National Environmental Policy Act, Little Information Exists on NEPA Analyses

United States Government Accountability Office. April 2014. Report to Congressional Requesters: National Environmental Policy Act, Little Information Exists on NEPA Analyses (http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/662543.pdf) (USGAO. 2014).

NEPA Procedures: DOT Order 5610.1C, 44 FR 56420, Oct. 1, 1979

Useful Websites:

Transportation and Climate Change Clearinghouse

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Energy and Environment

It was difficult to web search NEPA for USDOT. It is unknown if the web site entitled, "USDOT Operating Administration: NEPA Implementing Procedures and Useful Websites" is the one most useful to the public.

 

J.      U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

 

Department of Science

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents

https://science.energy.gov/nbl/nepa-documents/

 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

Office of NEPA Policy & Compliance

https://energy.gov/nepa/office-nepa-policy-and-compliance

10 CFR 1021: National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (DOE, 2011)

Office of NEPA Policy & Compliance

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

https://energy.gov/nepa/downloads/10-cfr-1021-national-environmental-policy-act-implementing-procedures-doe-2011

 

NEPA Success Stories and Benefits

Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

https://energy.gov/nepa/nepa-success-stories-and-benefits

National Association of Environmental Professionals

NAEP Headquarters

P.O. Box 10241

Palm Desert, CA 92255

O: 760.636.0065

F: 760.674.2479

Email: lbynder@naep.org

•  Knowledge-based Survey for Identifying Best Practice Principles for Environmental Assessments (pdf)

http://www.naep.org/assets/NAEPGuidanceonBPPsforEAstotheCEQ/comprehensivereportasof20130724.pdf

Canter, Larry, et. al. July 24, 2013. Knowledge-based Survey for Identifying Best Practice Principles for Environmental Assessments. Final Report, pps. 264. CEQ Pilot Study. By NAEP Professionals Steering Committee. Palm Desert, CA.

 

Executive Summary. This report summarizes the results of a Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Pilot Study. The Study was initiated in late fall, 2011, and completed in November, 2012. The focus was on the development of Best Practice Principles (BPPs) which could be utilized in the planning and preparation of Environmental Assessments (EAs). By a very large margin, EAs represent the most commonly used National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance document. The CEQ NEPA regulations, which went into effect on July 30, 1979, identified EAs as a compliance document; however, Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) and their preparation received primary attention. The absence of specific guidance for EAs has created controversy and promoted numerous court cases focused on plaintiff claims of inadequate EAs, and the needs for the preparation of EISs. While court decisions have supported the concept of EAs and the appropriate use of Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSIs), the need for more specific guidance on EAs has been widely recognized. Accordingly, the National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP) proposed that a knowledge-based survey of NEPA practitioners be conducted to identify BPPs for EAs. These results could be used by CEQ in the development of specific EA guidance.

•   Appendix A – CEQ Guidance on EAs

•   Appendix B – Summary of Select Case Law Relevant to Environmental Assessments

•   Appendix C – Fundamental Principles from Other Uses of Environmental Assessment

•   Appendix D – Questionnaire for BPPs in EAs

•   Appendix E – Complete Analysis of All Questionnaires

•   Appendix F – Background Information on Scientific Writing

•  Appendix G – Review of Environmental Assessment Regulations and Guidance in Selected Agencies

•  Knowledge-based Survey for Identifying Best Practice Principles for Environmental Assessments: Presentation (pdf)

http://www.naep.org/assets/NAEPGuidanceonBPPsforEAstotheCEQ/bppsforeasstudy2013presentation.pdf

Canter, Larry, et. April 2,  2013. Knowledge-based Survey for Identifying Best Practice Principles for Environmental Assessments. NEPA Presentation, pps. 23. Palm Desert, CA.

 

At the NAEP 2013 Annual Conference in Los Angeles, Dr. Larry Canter, David Keys and P.E. Hudson presented the initial survey results and data to the membership of the NAEP. This presentation, Knowledge-based Survey for Identifying Best Practice Principles for Environmental Assessments: Presentation focused on the methodology and results of the survey.

 

• Guidance on Best Practice Principles for Environmental Assessments (pdf)

http://www.naep.org/assets/NAEPGuidanceonBPPsforEAstotheCEQ/naep-ceq-finalbppsforeas20140812.pd

NAEP: NEPA Practice. August 12, 2014. Guidance on Best Practice Principles for Environmental Assessments (BPP for EAs), NAEP Report to the CEQ, pps. 41. NAEP Professionals Council on Environmental Quality Pilot Project. Palm Desert, CA.

 

BACKGROUND (NAEP. 2014) The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) released a solicitation in March 2011 inviting Federal agencies and environmental professionals to nominate pilot projects as best examples focused on more efficient and effective implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), those that would improve the quality and transparency of agency decision making. The National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP) responded to the CEQ solicitation with a proposal to develop experience-based Best Practice Principles (BPPs) for preparing effective EAs. The NAEP proposal was one of five (5) Pilot Projects selected by CEQ, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/Press_Releases/NEPA/October_19_2011.

 

The first stage of the Pilot Project focused on design of the questionnaire that would be distributed to a wide range of environmental professionals, and the review of the assembled survey responses. The steering committee presented an overview of the Pilot Project to the NAEP membership at the 2013 Conference, focusing on the methodology and results of the survey. The steering committee developed the final Best Practice Principles for Environmental Assessments after feedback from the Conference and CEQ.

 

In the last phase of the Pilot Project, the NAEP team refined and consolidated the BPPs and conducted quality reviews, including review and input by CEQ. This report focuses on the seven (7) BPPs identified as most important in advancing the effective and efficient development of quality EAs. These Priority One BPPs for EAs are:

• Description of Purpose and Need

• Description of Proposed Action and Range of Alternatives

 

• Content

• Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management

• Regulatory Consultation and Coordination

• Determination of Environmental Impact Significance

• Extent of Public Involvement

The NAEP presents this Guidance on BPPs for EAs to the CEQ with the recommendation that this report be used as a resource material by the Federal agencies as they prepare Eas. NAEP further recommends that individual agencies consider adding agency-specific BPPs to these BPPs.

National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP) NEPA Case Law Review

(https://ceq.doe.gov/laws-regulations/case_law.html)

NAEP: Major Cases Interpreting the National Environmental Policy Act (pdf)

https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/laws-regulations/Major_NEPA_Cases.pdf

• NAEP. ca., 2017. Major Cases Interpreting the National Environmental Policy Act. Palm Desert, CA.

I.        Agencies' Obligation to Comply with NEPA to "fullest extent possible"

II.      Reasonable Alternatives

III.     Defining "Significance"

IV.     Defining "Major Federal Action"

V.      Judicial Review of Agency Actions

VI.     Small Federal Handle Issue

VII.   Connected Actions

VIII. Cumulative Impacts

IX.    Supplementing NEPA Documents

X.     Extraterritorial Application of NEPA

XI.    Standing

XII.   Functional Equivalence Doctrine

XIII. Miscellaneous

    A.  CEQ NEPA Regulations

    B.  CEQ's Emergency Provision

    C.  Disposition of Federal Property/Scope of Analysis

    D.  Scope of Analysis/@Psychological Stress@

    E.  Classified Information

    F.  Readability Issue

    G.  Environmental Assessments

•  ANNUAL NEPA REPORT 2014 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Practice (pdf)

NAEP. June 2015. Annual NEPA Report 2014 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Practice. Submitted to NAEP Board of Directors. Edited by Karen Johnson. With contributions by Ron Lamb and Joe Trnka, NEPA Practice Co-chairs, Ron Bass, Ray Clark, Piet and Carole deWitt, Harold Draper, P. E. Hudson, David Mattern, Grace Musumeci, Charles P. Nicholson, Michael Smith, Lucinda Low Swartz, and Karen Vitulano. Guest Editorial by The Honorable Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan. Palm Desert, CA.

NAEP NEPA Case Law Review

https://ceq.doe.gov/laws-regulations/case_law.html

 

Major Cases Interpreting NEPA

Case review from 2009-2015 is included in NAEP annual reports

LAWS & REGULATIONS

L.     Association of Environmental Professionals

 

AEP

https://ceq.doe.gov/https://www.califaep.org/

M.    Northwest Association of Environmental Professionals (NWAEP)

 

NWAEP

http://www.nwaep.org/

 

The Northwest Association of Environmental Professionals (NWAEP) was founded in 1992 and became an official affiliated chapter of the National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP) in 2005. We are a nonpolitical interdisciplinary organization made up of professionals in Washington and Oregon. Our members include a wide range of environmental professions: environmental management, planning, impact assessment, environmental protection, compliance, research, engineering, design, and education.

 

N.    Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation (RMMLF)

 

RMMLF

https://www.rmmlf.org/

 

Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Special Institute on NEPA:  November 2-3, 2017. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Denver, CO

https://www.rmmlf.org/-/media/Files/conference-full-program-schedules/nepa3news.pdf

 

Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Special Institute on the National Environmental Policy Act, October 28-29, 2010

•   Steven K. Imig, NEPA Case Law Update, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Special Institute on the National Environmental Policy Act, October 28-29, 2010, Paper 12

 

O.     Congressional Research Service (CRS)

 

CRS

https://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/about/

 

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), known as Congress's think tank, is a public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works primarily and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.

Congressional Research Service [CRS] Reports

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/

 

Congressional Research Service Reports on Miscellaneous Topics

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/index.html

 

•   The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):  Background and Implementation (pdf)

Congressional Research Service (CRS), The Library of Congress. November 16, 2005. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Background and Implementation, RL33152. CRS Report for Congress. Linda Luther, Analyst in Environmental Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division. Washington, D.C. NEPA does not contain civil or criminal enforcement provisions; litigation challenging an agency’s compliance is brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (CRS. 2005).

 

•   The National Environmental Policy Act:  Streamlining NEPA (pdf)

Congressional Research Service (CRS), The Library of Congress. Updated January 9, 2007. The National Environmental Policy Act: Streamlining NEPA, RL33267. CRS Report for Congress. Linda Luther, Analyst in Environmental Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division. Washington, D.C. (CRS. 2007).

 

•   The Role of the Environmental Review Process in Federally Funded Highway Projects:   Background and Issues for Congress (pdf)

Congressional Research Service (CRS), The Library of Congress. April 11, 2012. The Role of the Environmental Review Process in Federally Funded Highway Projects: Background and Issues for Congress, R42479. CRS Report for Congress. Linda Luther, Analyst in Environmental Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division. Washington, D.C. (CRS. 2012).

The GAO reported that the vast majority of highway projects are processed as CEs, noting that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) within the Department of Transportation (DOT) estimated that approximately 96 percent of highway projects were processed as CEs.

•  National Environmental Policy Act, Little Information Exists on NEPA Analyses (pdf)

GAO. April 24, 2014. National Environmental Policy Act, Little Information Exists on NEPA Analyses. GAO-14-369. Report to Congressional Requesters. Washington, D.C.

(https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-369)

Why GAO Did This Study. NEPA requires all federal agencies to evaluate the potential environmental effects of proposed projects—such as roads or bridges—on the human environment. Agencies prepare an EIS when a project will have a potentially significant impact on the environment. They may prepare an EA to determine whether a project will have a significant potential impact. If a project fits within a category of activities determined to have no significant impact—a CE—then an EA or an EIS is generally not necessary. The adequacy of these analyses has been a focus of litigation.

 

GAO was asked to review issues related to costs, time frames, and litigation associated with completing NEPA analyses. This report describes information on the (1) number and type of NEPA analyses, (2) costs and benefits of completing those analyses, and (3) frequency and outcomes of related litigation. GAO included available information on both costs and benefits to be consistent with standard economic principles for evaluating federal programs, and selected the Departments of Defense, Energy, the Interior, and Transportation, and the USDA Forest Service for analysis because they generally complete the most NEPA analyses. GAO reviewed documents and interviewed individuals from federal agencies, academia, and professional groups with expertise in NEPA analyses and litigation. GAO’s findings are not generalizeable to agencies other than those selected.

 

This report has no recommendations. GAO provided a draft to CEQ and agency officials for review and comment, and they generally agreed with GAO’s findings.

1.   United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (1973) (SCRAP).

2.   Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad Co. v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (1975) (SCRAP II).

3.   Flint Ridge Development Co. v. Scenic Rivers Ass’n of Oklahoma (1976).

4.   Kleppe v. Sierra Club (1976).

5.   Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1978).

6.   Andrus v. Sierra Club (1979).

7.   Strycker’s Bay Neighborhood Council, Inc. v. Karlen (1980).

8.   Weinberger v. Catholic Action of Hawaii/Peace Education Project (1981).

9.   Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy (1983).

10. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1983).

11. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council (1989) & Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council (1989).

12. Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society (1992).

13. Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen (2004).

14. Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (2004).

15. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (2008).

16. Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms (2010).

1996.   Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 698 (1996)

1996.   Catron County Board of Commissioners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 75 F.3d 1429 (10th Cir. 1996)

1995.   Friends of Fiery Gizzard v. Farmers Home Administration, 61 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 1995)

1983.   Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 462 U.S. 87 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court

1982.   Cabinet Mountains Wilderness v. Peterson, 685 F.2d 678, 681-82 (D.C. Cir. 1982)

1980.   Highland Co-Op. v. City of Lansing, 492 F. Supp. 1372 (W.D. Mich. 1980)

1978.   Sierra Club v. Cavanaugh, 447 F. Supp. 427 (D.S.D. 1978)

1975.   McDowell v. Schlesinger, 404 F. Supp. 221, 253 (W.D.Mo. 1975)

1974.   Hanly v. Kleindienst, 471 F.2d 823, 836 (2d Cir. 1972)

1973.   Maryland Capitol Park and Planning Commission v. U.S. Postal Service, 487 F.2d 1029, 1040 (D.C. Cir. 1973)

1973.   Hiram Clarke Civic Club v. Lynn, 476 F.2d 421 (5th Cir. 1973)

1.   June 22, 2016 scoping postcard sent to approximately 3,850 members of the public.

2.  October 31, 2016 Legal Notice published in the Grants Pass Daily Courier which initiated the formal scoping period for the Pickett West project.

3.  In addition to the Legal Notice, approximately 4,300 letters were sent to members of the public.

4.  November 19, 2016 Open House Meeting with approximately 86 members of the pubic in attendance.

5.  During a 30-day formal scoping period approximately 629 public comments were received by BLM.

Only a few of the hundreds of participating stakeholders submitting public NEPA comments to the BLM MDO were involved and/or identified in the "National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Information NEPA Consultations/Workshop" project.

•  Illinois Valley (IV) Section, Oregon Chapter Sierra Club (SC)

https://oregon2.sierraclub.org/rogue-group/illinois-section

 

•  Hugo Justice System & Public Safety Services (JS&PSS) Exploratory Committee

Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society (HNA&HS)

http://www.hugoneighborhood.org/justicesystemexploratorycommittee.htm

 

•  NEPA: Information NEPA Consultations/Workshops

JS&PSS Exploratory Committee, HNA&HS

http://www.hugoneighborhood.org/NEPA.htm

 

•  NEPA Design Group

 

No Web Page

 

•  Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center (KSWC)

https://www.kswild.org/

 

•  Center for Sustainable Economy (CSE)

http://sustainable-economy.org/

•  June 20, 2017 EA Public Testimony Comments Letter/Email to BLM Medford  –  Pickett West Forest Management Project (PWFMP) and EA

•  December 6, 2017 Public Testimony Comments Letter/Email to State Director BLM Oregon/Washington and BLM MDO   –  Clean Slate Forest Management Project (CSFMP) Scoping and future EA (also on the PWFMP EA)

Verifiability means other researchers and members of the public reading this web page can check where the information comes from and make their own determination if the references or sources are reliable. The goal is not to try and impose "the truth" on the readers, they are not being asked to trust something just because they read it on this web page. Readers are not being asked to trust the information presented here. The goal is to empower them, other members of the public, and researchers through educational materials that can be checked in order for them to find their own truth.

 

Verifiability is related to another core content concept, neutral point of view, which holds that all significant views on a subject be included. Citing reliable sources for any material challenged or likely to be challenged gives readers the chance to check for themselves that the most appropriate sources have been used, and used as well as the applicable evidence available. Information becomes more valuable as it is shared, and less valuable as it is hoarded. Per this view of the Exploratory Committee, any pdf documents, applicable to this NEPA educational project, submitted to the Exploratory Committee, will be considered for publication on this web page.

 

This web page does not provide recommendations to citizens and it is not legal advice. It does not take the place of a lawyer. If citizens use information contained in this working web page, it is their personal responsibility to make sure that the facts and general information contained are applicable to their situation.

 

Mike Walker, Chair

JS&PSS Exploratory Committee

Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society

P.O. Box 1318

Merlin, Oregon 97532

541-471-8271

Email: hugo@jeffnet.org

Web Page: National Environmental Policy Act: Information NEPA Consultations/Workshops

http://www.hugoneighborhood.org/NEPA.htm

Web Page: Justice System Exploratory Committee, Justice System & Public Safety Services Study Design: 2015

http://www.hugoneighborhood.org/

 

p.s. I apologize, but if you sent an email, please follow-up with a telephone call that you sent the email as I don’t check email very often, and I don’t usually answer telephone calls not in the morning. Geez . . . And, if I know you want a prompt response, I will try my best.

 

XI.       ACRONYMS (List)

 

XII.    NEPA REFERENCES

• 1970. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was enacted on January 1, 1970 (NEPA).

• 1978. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). Reprint 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 (CEQ. 2005).

• 1981. Oregon Senator Mark Hatfield. August 3, 1981. U.S. Senate Congressional Record, Building Consensus on National Forest Management, pps. 19388 - 19389. Special recognition by Senator Hatfield was given to Mr. Dick Worthington, the Regional Forester for region six; Mr. Mike Kerrick, the Supervisor of the Willamette National Forest, and Mr. Bob Chadwick, who has organized and led the sessions. Mr. Chadwick is a former Forest Supervisor who currently serves on Mr. Worthington’s staff. Wash., D.C.

• 1982. P.T. Haug, R.W. Burwell, G. Yeager, A. Stein, and B.L. Bandurski. 1982, Preliminary Draft Not For Distribution. A Systematic Interdisciplinary Language For Environmental Analysis Under NEPA. BLM, USDI. Washington, DC (Haug, BLM. 1982) (NAEF).

• 1983. Walker, Michael, Technical Publications Writer & ID Team Member for EAs, BLM Butte Falls Resource Area. September 7, 1983. Preliminary Draft Case Histories Of Court Decisions Concerning Environmental Assessments, 108 pages. Butte Falls Resource Area, USDI BLM MDO. Medford, OR (NAEF).

• 1984. P.T. Haug, R.W. Burwell, A. Stein, and B.L. Bandurski. 1984. Determining Significance of Environmental Issues Under NEPA. Journal of Environmental Management. Vol. 18: 15 - 24 (Haug, BLM. 1984). (NAEF).

• 1984. P.T. Haug, R.W. Burwell, G. Yeager, A. Stein, and B.L. Bandurski. 1984. A Systematic Interdisciplinary Language For Environmental Analysis Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Journal of Environmental Management. Vol. 18: 1-13 (Haug, BLM. 1984). (NAEF).

• 1984. Frantz, Roger; USDA, Forest Service, Southern Region, Georgia; Christensen, Jay USDA, Forest Service, Winema National Forest, Oregon. October

• 1984. The Use of Consensus Methodologies in Natural Resource Planning. A paper presented at the International Union of Forestry Research Organizations Symposium on Forest Management Planning and Managerial Economics, Tokyo, Japan, October 15 - 19, 1984.

• 1987. Valerie M. Fogleman. 1987. Threshold Determinations Under the National Environmental Policy Act. 15 Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review. 59 (Fogleman. 1987).

• 1988. BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook H-1790-1: October 25, 1988.

• 2005. Congressional Research Service (CRS), The Library of Congress. November 16, 2005. The National Environmental Policy Act: Background and Implementation. CRS Report for Congress (CRS. 2005).

• 2007. Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President. December 2007. A Citizen’s Guide to the NEPA: Having Your Voice Heard. Washington, D.C (CEQ. 2007).

• 2008. BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook H-1790-1: January 30, 2008 (BLM. 2008). The BLM NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1) was last updated October 25, 1988 and revisions were necessary to update the information and to reflect current NEPA guidance.

• 2010. USDOA, USFS, Rocky Mountain Research Station. October 2010. Numerical Visitor Capacity: A Guide to its Use in Wilderness. Fort Collins, CO (USDOA USFS. 2010).

• 2012. Council on Environmental Quality. March 6, 2012. Improving the Process for Preparing Efficient and Timely Environmental Reviews Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Memo for Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies. Washington, D.C. 20503 (CEQ. 2012). https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/ceq-regulations-and-guidance/Improving_NEPA_Efficiencies_06Mar2012.pdf.

• 2012. Peterson Nicole. December 2012. Public Participation In Community And Regional Planning (67 pages). Masters of Community and Regional Planning Exit Project Document. School of Planning, Public Policy and Management Department, University of Oregon, pps. Eugene, OR. (Peterson 2012; for full text see web at http://www.hugoneighborhood.org/JSPSS_CI%20Peterson%202012%20UnivofOre%20Public%20Participation.pdf).

• 2013. USDI Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance (OEPC). January 7, 2013. PEP – Environmental Statement Memorandum No. ESM 13-131: Standard Checklist for Use in Preparing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents and for Complying with NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality, and Departmental Procedures. Washington, D.C. (USDI OEPC. 2013).

• 2016. Walker, Mike; Whalen, Jon, Members of Hugo Justice System & Public Safety Services Exploratory Committee, HNA&HS. October 2016. Citizen Participation In The Josephine County Budget Process. Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society. Hugo, OR. http://www.hugoneighborhood.org/ci.htm.

• 2017. June 20, 2017 Letter/Email to BLM Medford: EA Testimony Comments, June 20, 2017 Letter/Email to Don Ferguson, Public Information Specialist, BLM Grants Pass Interagency Office from Mike Walker, Chair Hugo Justice System & Public Safety Services (JS&PSS) Exploratory Committee, Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society. 64 pages.

• 2017. September 5, 2017 Letter to Allen Bollschwieler, Field Manager, Grants Pass Resource Area, Medford District BLM, from Deer Creek Valley Natural Resources Conservation Association, Re: Administrative Protest of Decision Record#1 and Associated Pickett West Forest Management Project Environmental Assessment (DOI-BLM-ORWA-M070-2016-006-EA) and the Final Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Administrative Protest. 253 pages.

• 2017. December 6, 2017 Letter/Email to State Director BLM Oregon/Washington: EA Testimony Comments from Mike Walker, Chair Hugo Justice System & Public Safety Services (JS&PSS) Exploratory Committee, Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society. 64 pages. Includes Appendix A. BLM Planner’s Perspective: BLM Evolutions In Promoting and Enabling Citizen Involvement (CI) & Citizen (CP) Participation.

 

Citizen Participation (CP) References

• Arnstein, S. 2007. "A Ladder of Citizen Participation." In R. L. Stout, The City Reader (pp. 233-244). London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

• Arnstein, Sherry R. July 1969. "A Ladder of Citizen Participation," JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 216-224.

• IAP2. 2000. IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum. International Association of Public Participation. Louisville, CO.

• IAP2. 2000-2004. IAP2 Public Participation Toolbox. International Association of Public Participation. Louisville, CO.

• IAP2. May 2015. Quality Assurance Standard: For Community Stakeholder Engagement. International Association of Public Participation. Louisville, CO.

Full CP References List Link

Literature Cited: Twenty Years of Forest Service Land Management Litigation

•  Twenty Years of Forest Service Land Management Litigation

Miner, Amanda M.A.; Mamsheimer, Robert W.; and Keele, Denise M. Jan. 2014. Twenty Years of Forest Service Land Management Litigation. Journal of Forestry 112(1):32-40 (Miner Journal of Forestry 2014).

Full Literature Cited List Link