- Home
Up Outreach Appendices NEPA Press Studies Presentations MALPSS PSS Grants Pass Budgets Courts CI
| |
- NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT:
Information NEPA
Consultations/Workshops
- JUSTICE SYSTEM EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE
Justice System & Public Safety Services Study Design: 2015
-
- Very Draft December 24, 2017 Working Copy (all components
are subject to change)
-
- Outline
-
- I. INTRODUCTION
- II. JUSTICE SYSTEM & PUBLIC SAFETY
SERVICES STUDY DESIGN: 2015
- III. MAIN NEPA AUTHORITIES &
RESPONSIBILITIES: BLM
- IV. NEPAS TWIN AIMS
- V. NEPAS HARD LOOK & BALD
CONCLUSIONS
- A.
Hard Look & Bald Conclusions
- B.
Significant Impacts Methodologies
- C.
Administrative Law to Facilitate Adaptive Management Change?
- VI. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT (CI) IN THE NEPA
PROCESS
- A.
Pickett West Forest Management Project Environmental Assessment (EA)
- B.
Hugo Exploratory Committee Finding on Public Involvement (PI)/CI
- VII. EXAMPLE BLM MDO PUBLIC TESTIMONY COMMENTS,
PROTESTS, APPEALS, & LAWSUITS
- A. Public
Comments on NEPA Environmental Documents: EAs, EISs, & FONSI
- B.
Protests
- C. Appeals
to USDIs Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
- D.
Lawsuits
- E. Methods
Of Determining Court Cases Won, Lost, & Settled
- F. BLM MDO
Statutes & Planning Documents
- VIII. NEPA CONSULTATIONS/WORKSHOPS
- IX. NEPA WEB LINKS
- X. DISCLOSURE
- XI. ACRONYMS
- XII. NEPA REFERENCES
-
- Full Outline (Dec. 18,
2017)
-
- I. INTRODUCTION
A. "Study Design" Main Focus
- 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).
- Justice System & Public Safety Services Study
Design: 2015
- Exploratory Committee, HNA&HS
http://www.hugoneighborhood.org/justicesystemexploratorycommittee.htm
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.
- Outreach 1.2. Arguments For Supporting Study Design,
Outreach
- Justice System & Public Safety Services Study
Design: 2015
- Exploratory Committee, HNA&HS
http://www.hugoneighborhood.org/JSPSS_Outreach.htm
- The purpose of the proposed "Study Design" is to
provide: 1. grass roots opportunities to county citizens for active citizen involvement
(CI), 2. accessibility to information and education, and 3. to better understand the
JS&PSS Issue as the decision-makers. Its potential is to address key issues and
improve current conditions by recognizing gaps that have emerged between the adversarial
pro and con fractions through a largely untried and fundamentally different approach to
identifying public safety solutions.
-
- 2. Purposes Not Part of "Study Design."
Just as important are purposes that are not part of "Study Design" (Study). The
purpose of the study is NOT to recommend an alternative or a decision for citizens of JO
CO and/or county government. It is to identify the public identified issues, range of
alternatives, affected conditions, and the impacts of each alternative evaluated by
condition indicators and standards. The Study will not have a proposed action, preferred
alternative, environmentally preferred alternative, citizen alternative, government
alternative, or recommended decision from the government. It will have a range of
alternative solutions identified by individual members and organizations of the public for
consideration by the collective public.
-
B.
NEPAs Procedural Requirements For JS&PSS Study Design
The Study Design grant application process, as described in
the draft document Justice System & Public Safety Services Study Design: 2015,
includes ideas and opportunities for CI significantly beyond most government assessments.
The procedural requirements for Study Design were adapted
from common federal NEPA impact studies. For example, see chapters VI - XIs
procedural requirements from NEPA Design Groups Comments on the Hellgate
RAMP/DEIS and the public comments on the Hellgate Recreation Area Management
Plan/Final Hellgate RAMP/FEIS - 1. logical and coherent record, 2. procedural
standards, and 3. impact methodologies (Section VII.A.3, Procedural Requirements,
Including Evaluation Of Significant Impacts Model, & Recommended Impact Methodology).
-
NEPA Design Groups Comments on the Hellgate
RAMP/DEIS
NEPA Design Group. February 15, 2001. NEPA Design
Groups Comments on the Hellgate RAMP/DEIS. Prepared for Bureau of Land
Management, Medford District Office, United States Department of Interior. Hugo, OR.
Scoping Rogue Rivers Outstandingly Remarkable
Values, Other Similar Values & Other River Values
Walker, Mike. Preliminary December 8, 2014. Scoping
Rogue Rivers Outstandingly Remarkable Values, Other Similar Values & Other River
Values (pages 240). Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society, Rogue
Advocates, & Goal One Coalition. Hugo, OR.
- The potential public JS&PSS issues focus on the social
and economic impacts. Therefore, impacts on the citizens of JO CO are interpreted
comprehensively to include "economic and social environment," and the
relationship of people with that natural and physical environment. This means the
focus of the study is economic or social effects where the natural and physical will be
studied if there is a link to the publically defined issues, such as the physical
infrastructure needed for a JS&PSS program (e.g., buildings, roads, etc.).
-
C. Unique
Long-Range Impact Study
In a nut shell the proposed Study
Designs output, a Study, is based on formal inventories and an impact methodology
model which promotes informed decision-making through a unique long-range planning
decision process where the citizens are the decision-makers.
II.
JUSTICE SYSTEM & PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES STUDY DESIGN: 2015
A. Hugo Exploratory Committees Web Page
- The JS&PSS Study Design: 2015 "Study
Design" is the main focus of the Hugo JS&PSS Exploratory Committee, HNA&HS.
There are 16 sub-web pages on the main web page of the JS&PSS Exploratory Committee,
HNA&HS. The first three best describe to purpose of Study Design and NEPA as the
foundation for the analyses standards of the study.
- Justice System & Public Safety Services Study
Design: 2015
- Exploratory Committee, HNA&HS
- http://www.hugoneighborhood.org/justicesystemexploratorycommittee.htm
- 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
B.
Hugo Exploratory Committees Aspirations For Josephine Countys (JO
COs) JS&PSS Problem/Issue
On September 1, 2015 the Exploratory Committee published a
letter to JO COs safety stakeholders, the citizens of Josephine County, Oregon on
its outreach web page. The subject was its aspirations for JO COs JS&PSS
problem/issue (part of it follows).
- Outreach 10. Aspiration Letter From Authors Of Study
Design, Outreach
- Justice System & Public Safety Services Study
Design: 2015
- Exploratory Committee, HNA&HS
http://www.hugoneighborhood.org/JSPSS_Outreach.htm
"We reach out to you as a stakeholder with an interest
or concern in defining the JO COs JS&PSS problem/safety issue, and in seeking
solutions for it. For us stakeholders are neighbors with a wide range of abilities, and a
common thread that we are all individuals with hopes and dreams we struggle to fulfill. We
all have the right to live, work, play, recreate, worship, and enjoy the community we live
in."
"An issue is that Congress had repeatedly sent
messages that federal timber payments would be phased out, and this was intended to give
counties time to plan for the change. The payments had been to eligible counties for 1.
loss of property tax revenue, which results from an inability to impose taxes on federally
owned forest lands, and 2. reduction in the amount of logging planned on federal forest
lands. Our aspiration is that the final Study product of the Study Design project be part
of this needed planning. It will document a comparison of the publicly identified range of
alternative solutions for the JS&PSS Issue. The Study will be accomplished by
documenting: 1. the publicly identified issues, range of alternative solutions, and
affected conditions; and 2. analyzing the impacts of each alternative evaluated by
condition indicators and standards through a combination of citizen input and professional
expert investigations."
"Understanding the JS&PSS Issue and designing a
solution are complicated tasks. Our rationale for this position is that there are
substantial differences between Oregon counties in terms of their geographic and
demographic characteristics, historic crime rates, willingness to tolerate certain levels
of crime, and past and present funding of various public safety services."
"Another important issue is how to demonstrate trust
and enhance communication between some of our neighbors and JO CO government. The Study
Design approach primarily relies on citizens to provide insight about how to identify and
manage problems, and formulate their own goals and solutions for the future. It aspires to
emphasize the importance to citizens of knowing they are being heard, of being the
decision-makers that decide their future. As active participants, neighbors at the
grassroots level can gain ownership of Study Design information processes and become
"stakeholder" decision-makers in the range of potential solutions they, as a
group, identified."
"In conclusion, we feel there are
significant unique decision-maker differences between our proposed Study Design and the
usual major impact study. For example, the end result of the Study is information for
informed public decision-making, not a decision by the government."
- Appendices
- Appendix A. Be an Individual, Be Unique, Stand Out, Make
Noise, That's the Power of Individuals
- Appendix B. Justice System & Public Safety Services
Study Design: 2015
- Appendix C. Why Support Another Safety Study?
- III. MAIN NEPA AUTHORITIES
& RESPONSIBILITIES: BLM
-
- The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)the
statute requiring federal agencies to evaluate the potential environmental effects of
proposed projects on the human environmenthas been identified by critics as a cause
of delay for projects because of time-consuming requirements and praised by proponents
for, among other things, bringing public participation into government decision making.1
Under NEPA, all federal agencies generally are to evaluate the potential environmental
effects of actions they propose to carry out, fund, or approve (e.g., by
permit)including the development of infrastructure projects, such as roads and
bridges. Enacted in 1970, NEPA, and the subsequent Council on Environmental Quality
Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA, set out an environmental
review process that has two principal purposes: (1) to ensure that an agency carefully
considers information concerning the potential environmental effects of proposed
development projects and (2) to ensure that this information is made available to the
public.2 NEPA requires federal agencies to analyze the nature and extent of a
projects potential environmental effects and, in many cases, document these
analyses.3 (GLO 2014, p. 1).
- Footnotes
- 1. NEPA applies to federal agency policies, programs,
plans, and projects (40 C.F.R. § 1508.18(b)). The focus of this report is on development
projects.
- 2. Pub. L. No. 91-190 (1970), codified at 42 U.S.C. §
4321-4347. NEPAs congressional declaration of purpose states that the purposes of
the act are "to declare a national policy which will encourage productive and
enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent
or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare
of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources
important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality." 42
U.S.C. § 4321.
- 3. The CEQ "Regulations for Implementing the
Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act" (CEQ regulations), 40
C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508, set out the levels of analysis and documentation for complying
with NEPA. The level of analysis and documentation can take the form of a Categorical
Exclusion (CE), Environmental Assessment (EA), or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Not all CEs are documented at the time the CE is used for a specific proposed project.
- The BLMs main legal NEPA authorities and
responsibilities follow.
-
- A1. The National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969
- A2. The National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (full text)
- B. NEPA Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) Executive Orders (E.O.)
- 1. E.O.
11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality, signed by President Nixon,
March 5, 1970, 35 Federal Register (FR) 4247
- 2. E.O. 11991, Relating to
Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality, signed by President Carter, May
24, 1977, 42 FR 26967
- C. Council on
Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA: 1978
- D. Council on Environmental
Quality Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQs NEPA Regulations: 1981
- E. U.S. Department of the Interior
Regulations for Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act
- F. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Departmental NEPA Manual
- G. BLM National
Environmental Policy Act Handbook H-1790-1: January 30, 2008
IV. NEPAS TWIN AIMS
NEPA has twin aims. First, it places upon an agency
the obligation to consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a
proposed action (emphasis added). Second, it ensures that the agency will
inform the public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its
decision-making process. Congress in enacting NEPA, however, did not require agencies to
elevate environmental concerns over other appropriate considerations. Rather, it
required only that the agency take a "hard look" at the environmental
consequences before taking a major action . . . Congress did not enact NEPA, of
course, so that an agency would contemplate the environmental impact of an action as an
abstract exercise. Rather, Congress intended that the "hard look" be
incorporated as part of the agencys process of deciding whether to pursue a
particular federal action (CRS. 2005, p. 9).
The National
Environmental Policy Act: Background and Implementation (pdf)
- 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).
-
- V.
NEPAS HARD LOOK & BALD CONCLUSIONS
-
A.
Hard Look & Bald Conclusions
-
- A party challenging a FONSI must demonstrate
either an error of law or fact or that the analysis failed to consider a substantial
environmental problem of material significance to the proposed action. The standard by
which the USDI, Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) reviews an EA has been set forth in
numerous decisions (Walker June 20, 2017, Appx. E; Section VII.C). Most basically, an EA
must (Lynn Canal Conservation, Inc. 167 IBLA 136. October 19, 2005):
- (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.
- B. Significant Impacts
Methodologies
-
- The courts qualitative hard look and bald conclusions
can be straight forward or messy, especially as the court is cautious in addressing the
merits of substantive resource decisions and, for example, almost always use the procedure
requirements of NEPA law.
- 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.
1. "Analyzing Effects Methodology"
& Public Access To ID Team Members (Walker, 2017b, pps. 5-6). Public access
to both EA and EIS ID team members is a function of the "Analyzing Effects
Methodology" of information the public needs to understand "significant"
impacts " (Chapter 6, Section 6.8.1.2 "Analyzing Effects" BLM NEPA
Handbook (H-1790-1) (BLM. 2008, p. 55). This public access is part of NEPAs
"twin aims" and the "hard look" NEPA mandate as clarified by the 1983
U.S. Supreme Court in Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc.
The Chapter 6 (BLM NEPA Handbook; BLM 2008. p. ix)
"NEPA Analysis" identifies BLMs must "Analyzing Effects
Methodology" implementing regulations responsibility of its EA and EIS ID team
members (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). The handbooks 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."
2. Hard Look by EA and EIS ID Teams
The issue is the BLM ID teams responsibility to describe any significant
environmental impacts of a proposed action through a "hard look," and its role
to ensure that the BLMs CI/CP program will make diligent efforts to involve the
public in projects covered by NEPA.
a) "Shall" Hard Look by EA and EIS ID
Teams (Walker, 2017b, pps. 6-9) The BLM ID teams mandate is to
utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach (Section 102(2)(A) of NEPA) which will
insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design
arts in planning and in decisionmaking which may have an impact on the human environment
(40 CFR 1508.14).
The NEPA authority and responsibility of the ID team
members is at the center of NEPAs required systematic, interdisciplinary approach.
The BLM management, land use planners, NEPA specialists, and team leaders are not
responsible for identifying and developing methods and procedures for determining
significant impacts (Section 102(2)(B) of NEPA), nor to study the effects of appropriate
alternatives (Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA).
Applying NEPAs required systematic, interdisciplinary
approach is the job of the ID team. Its members may get direction, advice, and/or consul
from management and other specialists, but the authority and responsibility for the
determination of analyzing effects methodologies and their products of significance and/or
non-significance, is theirs alone (BLM. 2008, p. 55). This division of authority
might be thought of like the separation of power among the branches of the national
government. The NEPA structural separation and independence means that neither management
nor the ID team is the boss of the other for their assigned responsibilities: management
decisions and ID team analyses of impacts.
The BLM ID teams responsibility is to determine the
significance (40 CFR 1508.27. Significantly) and/or the non-significance of
"issue" effects/impacts (40 CFR 1508.8. Effects (direct and indirect); 40 CFR
1508.7 Cumulative Impact) to the natural and physical environment and the relationship of
people (i.e., the economic or social effects with that environment; 40 CFR 1508.14; BLM.
2008, pps. 54 - 62).
The ID team members for an EA/EIS must take a "hard
look" at the environmental impacts and consequences, as opposed to reaching bald
conclusions, identify the relevant areas of environmental concern, and make a
convincing case that environmental impacts are insignificant in order to support a
conclusion that an EIS is not required. A party challenging a hard look analysis must
demonstrate either an error of law or fact or that the analysis failed to consider a
substantial environmental problem of material significance to the proposed action. The
standard by which the USDI, Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) reviews an EA has been
set forth in numerous of it decisions, including the U.S. Supreme Court: McDowell v.
Schlesinger, 404 F. Supp. 221, 253 (W.D.Mo. 1975).
A major BLM NEPA handbook problem is the lack of examples
for scoping issues and their analyses methodologies, including threshold determinations as
provided in the early USFS and BLM impact analyses methodologies (i.e., BLMs
approach Systematic Interdisciplinary Language For Environmental Analysis Under
NEPA - Haug, BLM. 1982; Determining Significance of Environmental Issues Under NEPA
- Haug, BLM 1984; A Systematic Interdisciplinary Language For Environmental Analysis
Under the National Environmental Policy Act - Haug, BLM 1984). Also instructive are
examples like Foglemans Threshold Determinations Under the National Environmental
Policy Act, and the USFS Numerical Visitor Capacity: A Guide to its Use in
Wilderness.
- Threshold
Determinations Under the National Environmental Policy Act (Fogleman. 1987a)
(pdf)
- Threshold
Determinations Under the National Environmental Policy Act (Fogleman. 1987b)
(pdf)
- Valerie M. Fogleman. 1987. Threshold
Determinations Under the National Environmental Policy Act. 15 Boston College
Environmental Affairs Law Review. 59 (Fogleman. 1987).
- 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 (USDOA USFS. 2010).
- The current BLM MDO ID team members
responsibilities for analyzing effects methodologies follow (BLM. 2008, p. 55).
- Section 6.8.1.2 Analyzing Effects
Methodology: A NEPA document must describe (emphasis added) the
analytical methodology sufficiently so that the reader can understand how the analysis was
conducted and why the particular methodology was used (40 CFR 1502.24). This
explanation must include a description of any limitations inherent in the methodology. If
there is substantial dispute over models, methodology, or data, you must recognize (emphasis
added) the opposing viewpoint(s) and explain the rationale for your choice of analysis
(emphasis added) "(Chap. 6, Sect. 6.8.1.2 "Analyzing Effects" BLM NEPA
Handbook (BLM. 2008, p. 55).
- 40 CFR 1502.22 Incomplete or Unavailable
Information When an agency is evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse
effects on the human environment in an EIS and there is incomplete or unavailable
information, the agency shall always make clear that such information is lacking (emphasis
added).
- 40 CFR 1502.24. Methodology and
Scientific Accuracy. Agencies shall insure the professional integrity, including
scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses in environmental impact statements.
They shall identify any methodologies used and shall make explicit reference by footnote
to the scientific and other sources relied upon for conclusions in the statement. An
agency may place discussion of methodology in an appendix.
- 40 CFR 1507.3 Agency Procedures. (a)
. . . each agency shall as necessary adopt procedures to supplement these regulations.
When the agency is a department, major subunits are encouraged (with the consent of the
department) to adopt their own procedures.
- The BLMs EA and EIS documents must describe
the analytical methodologies used to determine effects and significantly sufficiently
so that the reader can "understand" how the analyses was conducted and why the
particular methodologies were used (BLM. 2008, pps. 33 - 68).
-
- b) "Shall" Diligent Efforts to Involve the
Public by EA and EIS ID Teams The following CEQ NEPA regulations make it clear that
NEPAs statutory scheme clearly envisions meaningful CI in the NEPA process. The
regulations are also a mandate applicable to, and binding on, all federal agencies,
including BLM, for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500.3).
Further, each agency shall interpret NEPA as a supplement to its existing authority. They
shall review their policies, procedures, and regulations accordingly and revise them as
necessary to insure full compliance with the purposes and provisions of the Act. The
phrase "to the fullest extent possible" in section 102 means that each agency of
the federal government shall comply with that section unless existing law applicable to
the agencys operations expressly prohibits or makes compliance impossible (40 CFR
1500.6).
- 40 CFR 1500.1(b), the purpose of NEPA is to
"ensure that the environmental information made available to public officials and
citizens is of high quality (i.e., includes accurate scientific analysis, expert agency
comments, and public scrutiny).
- 40 CFR 1500.2(b) requires "all
Federal agencies, including BLM, to the fullest extent possible" . . .
"Implement procedures to make the NEPA process more useful to decisionmakers and the
public."
- 40 CFR 1500.2(d) requires "all Federal
agencies, including BLM, to the fullest extent possible" . . . "encourage
and facilitate public involvement in decisions which affect the quality of the human
environment."
- 40 CFR 1501.4(b) requires agencies to involve
the public "to the extent practicable" in preparing an EA.
- 40 CFR 1506.6 Public involvement. Agencies,
including BLM, shall: . . . 40 CFR 1506.6(a) requires that Federal agencies shall
"Make diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA
procedures."
c) Significance. 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).
-
- (1) Standardized Significant Analysis Format For
Issues/Arguments It is recommended that ID Team members consider using a standard
format developed from: 1. CRAC method of legal analysis, 2. BLMs work in the 1980s
to Determining Significance of Environmental Issues Under NEPA, and 3. the Hugo
Justice System & Public Safety Services Exploratory Committees methodology
models (see August 7, 2017 consultation letter/email (Section III.A).
- (a) CRAC Method Of Legal Analysis
- (b) BLMs 1980s Work Determining Issue
Significance Under NEPA
- (c) Hugo Justice System & Public Safety
Services Exploratory Committees 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) BLMs 1980s Work Determining Issue
Significance Under NEPA (Recommendation)
- A Systematic Interdisciplinary Language For
Environmental Analysis Under NEPA (no pdf)
- 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).
-
- A Common Language for Analysis The basis for the
systematic, interdisciplinary language of environmental analysis present is found in the
principal aims of the NEPA regulations and other criteria listed in Table 1. This paper
describes how our approach addresses criteria while attempting to reduce the theefold
problem of predicting impacts, organizing information, and communicating (Haug, BLM. 1982,
p. 4). Table 1 - Criteria for an effective approach to environmental analysis,
documentation, and decisionmaking. Three set of criteria are displayed: (1) principal aims
of NEPA regulations; (2) criteria found in NEPA regulations; and (3) other practical
criteria (Haug, BLM. 1982, original at p. 5).
- 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 mans 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).
Walkers 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).
- Information Is Understood Or Not
- Supporting Arguments Are Made Or Not
- Standard(s) of Review
- Applicable Evidence/Facts
- References and Sources of Information
- Compliance With Adequacy Information Analysis
Elements Or Not
- Early USFS and BLM impact analyses methodologies provided
meaningful threshold determination processes (i.e., BLMs approach under Haug, BLM WO
Planner (Haug, BLM 1982; 1984a; 1984b). The August 7, 2017 NEPA Review of DCVNRCAs
July 2017 EA comments (see Section VIII.A) had Figure 2 above in it which illustrated his
concept of A Systematic Interdisciplinary Language For Environmental Analysis Under
NEPA (Haug. 1984b).
-
Two of the Haug publications have been found in use
by other studies.
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.
It is interesting reading the 2007 Comparing NEPA
Processes Across Federal Land Management Agencies and concluding not much has
changed.
Chapter VI, .Study Design. There
is a high correlation between the requirements of the JS&PSS Design Study impacts
process and the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) and NEPA when it comes to threshold
determinations of whether the impacts of a major action significantly affects the quality
of the human condition. It is interesting and significant that both the WSRA and NEPA
became law in the same year - 1968. They both have principles of carrying capacity and
thresholds performing exactly the same task.
Section A. Procedural
Requirements For JS&PSS Study Design (Study Design, pps. VI 1 - 2; Appendix D1)
Section B. Impact Methods (Study Design, pps.
VI 3 - 6; Appendix D1; Numerical Visitor Capacity: A Guide to its Use in Wilderness).
Significant Impact Methodology (Study Design,
Section VI.B.2).
1. JS&PSS Design Study significant impacts with
indicators and standards.
2. NEPA significant impacts with
indicator and thresholds or standards.
3. NEPA carrying capacity with
indicators and thresholds or standards
4. WSRA user capacities (carrying
capacity) indicators with standards (thresholds).
Section C. Analysis
Documentation & Method (Study Design, p. VI 7).
Section D. Basic Impact Methodology Model (Study
Design, pps. VI 8 - 10; Appendix B1; Appendix D1).
- 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
C. Administrative
Law to Facilitate Adaptive Management Change?
- A Proposal
for Amending Administrative Law to Facilitate Adaptive Management (pdf)
- Craig, Robin K; Ruhl, J B; Brown,
Eleanor D; and Williams, Byron K. July 10, 2017. A Proposal for Amending
Administrative Law to Facilitate Adaptive Management. IOP Publishing Ltd, Environmental
Research Letters, Vol. 12, Number 7 (Craig 2017).
- Abstract.
In this article we examine how federal
agencies use adaptive management. In order for federal agencies to implement adaptive
management more successfully, administrative law must adapt to adaptive management, and we
propose changes in administrative law that will help to steer the current process out of a
dead end. Adaptive management is a form of structured decision making that is widely used
in natural resources management. It involves specific steps integrated in an iterative
process for adjusting management actions as new information becomes available. Theoretical
requirements for adaptive management notwithstanding, federal agency decision making is
subject to the requirements of the federal Administrative Procedure Act, and state
agencies are subject to the states' parallel statutes. We argue that conventional
administrative law has unnecessarily shackled effective use of adaptive management. We
show that through a specialized 'adaptive management track' of administrative procedures,
the core values of administrative lawespecially public participation, judicial
review, and finality can be implemented in ways that allow for more effective
adaptive management. We present and explain draft model legislation (the Model Adaptive
Management Procedure Act) that would create such a track for the specific types of agency
decision making that could benefit from adaptive management (Craig 2017, p. 1).
Decision making by federal agencies has become
circumscribed by a process based largely on comprehensive rational planning and
prescriptive regulation (Ruhl and Fischman 2010). The current decision making process
relies heavily on front-end analytical tools comprehensively conducted and
concluded before a final decision is made. In this approach, agency flexibility is
hampered by extremely detailed impact assessments, sometimes intense public participation
during decision making, and post-decision hard look judicial review (Glicksman and Shapiro
2004). The combined effects of this process, codified in
large part through the federal Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.§§ 551559,
701706, 2012) and its state analogues for state agencies, have been to encourage
agencies to load all potential implications of their actions into single, broadly
comprehensive decisions. Particularly in rule making and large infrastructure funding and
approval decisions, the drive toward comprehensiveness on the front end
strongly encourages agencies to steamroll their decisions through public-comment scrutiny
and judicial-review litigation and then never look back (Ruhl 2005). In such an
environment, reopening a completed decision that has been judicially approved is anathema
to any sane agency. This front-end mode ofdecision making has been subjected to scathing
criticisms that it ossifies agency practices, politicizes agency decisions, and hamstrings
flexibility (e.g. Rubin 2004, Jordan 2000, Seidenfeld 1997, McGarity 1992) (Craig 2017,
pps. 1-2).
Adaptive management offers a much different alternative to
the conventional front-end model of decision
making. In adaptive management, multiple decisions are made, and the timing of those
decisions is spread out into a repetitive process that makes differentiating between the
front end and the back end of decision making much less relevant
(Susskind et al 2012). Rather than make one grand decision and move on, agencies
implementing adaptive management engage in structured decision making that follows an
iterative multi-step process (Craig 2017, p. 2).
VI. CITIZEN
INVOLVEMENT (CI) IN THE NEPA PROCESS
A.
Pickett West Forest Management Project
DOI-BLM-ORWA-M070-2016-0006-EA
This Section VI.A describes the BLM MDO CI effort
to involved the public in the scoping process for the Pickett West Management Project EA.
All the following information was taken from the EA, mostly quotes, with page
numbers referrenced.
Section 1.5.2 Relevant Statutes/Authorities (pps.
16 - 21)
National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (NEPA). Ensures that information on the environmental impacts of any federal
action is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and actions
are taken.
- For a detailed description of the public
involvement strategy employed for this project see Section 1.6 below. Information about
this project was posted on the BLMs ePlanning website, 3,850 notification postcards,
4,300 scoping letters, and 185 EA release letters were mailed to the public during project
planning activities. The BLM hosted an open house public meeting which was attended by 86
members of the public and during the EA release period the BLM intends to conducted 2
field tours. Local county commissioners, the USFWS, and local federally recognized Tribes
were also informed about this project prior to any decisions being made (p. 17).
-
- Section 1.6 Public Involvement (p.
21). The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) directs the BLM to encourage and
facilitate public involvement in the NEPA process to the fullest extent possible (40 CFR
1500.2(d), 40 CFR 1506.6). For this project public involvement has included external
scoping, multiple public notifications before and during the preparation of the EA, a
public meeting and a scheduled field tour, public review and two formal public comment
periods.
-
- Section 1.6.1 Scoping (pps. 21 -
25). Scoping is the process by which the BLM solicits internal and external input on the
issues, impacts, and potential Alternatives that will be addressed in the EA. Scoping
occurs early in the NEPA process and extends through the development of the EA.
-
- To ensure a robust scoping experience a
public information specialist was utilized. The use of a public information specialist
ensured that interested members of the public were engaged timely. The public information
specialist responded to emails, phone calls, and letters; promptly allowing for responsive
and open communication. All letters, emails, postcards, and articles received are
cataloged and contained within the Administrative Project Record.
-
- The International Association for Public
Participation describes the publics role in the public participation process as
occurring on a spectrum, from informing - providing the public with balanced
information to aid in the understanding of the alternatives, to empowerment (emphasis
added) - which places the final decision making in the hands of the public. The Pickett
West project employed a public involvement strategy, which means that the BLM
worked directly with the public throughout the EA process to ensure public concerns were
considered and understood. There were members of the public who expressed an interest in collaboration
which is defined as a partnership with the public in each aspect of the decision
making process, including the development of the alternatives and the identification of a
preferred solution. It is important to highlight that the final decision-making authority
rests with the Grants Pass Field Manager. The BLM considered public comments and developed
alternatives based on information and interactions with the public during the planning
process for this EA.
-
- Internal Scoping (see EA, p.
22)
- External Scoping (EA, pps. 22
- 23) On June 22, 2016 a scoping postcard was sent to approximately 3,850 members of the
public within and adjacent to the Pickett West PA. On October 31, 2016 a Legal Notice was
published in the Grants Pass Daily Courier which initiated the formal scoping period for
the Pickett West project. In addition to the Legal Notice, approximately 4,300 letters
were sent to members of the public within and adjacent to the Pickett West PA.
- Public Meeting (EA, p. 23).
November 19, 2016 Open House Meeting. The team of BLM interdisciplinary specialists, the
Pickett West public information specialist, and the Grants Pass Field Manager were
present. There were approximately 86 members of the pubic in attendance.
- Scoping Comments (EA, pps.
23-24). 30 Day Formal Scoping Period. approximately 629 comments received. Substantive
comments are contained within the Administrative Record. Substantive comments were
organized in one of the following four ways: 1) incorporated into the analysis, 2)
mitigated through the utilization of project design features, 3) responded to in
Appendix B of this EA, or 4) explained why they were not incorporated into the Action
Alternatives and became Issues and Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail.
- Incorporated Comments (EA, p.
24)
- Mitigated Issues (EA, p. 25)
- Appendix Responses (EA, p.
25)
- Issues and Alternatives Not
Analyzed in Detail (EA, p. 25). Similar to the situation described above, comments
that were responded to as Issues and Alternatives Not Analyzed in Detail are technically
or economically infeasible, are inconsistent with policy or objectives, or have already
been decided upon, making them beyond the scope of this analysis. . . . As described
above, the BLM has encouraged and facilitated public involvement during the NEPA process
for this project. The BLM solicited comments through the external scoping process, hosted
an informational public meeting and scheduled field tours, and employed a public
information specialist to ensure the public was engaged timely. Public comment letters and
supporting literature were cataloged, parsed, and considered in the development of this
project.
-
Section 1.7 Issues and
Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail (EA, pps. 25 - 42). This EA
explored and objectively evaluated a range of reasonable alternatives within laws,
regulations and policy. Through the planning process several issues and alternatives were
explored but eliminated from detailed analysis for various reasons. T he Action
Alternatives analyzed for an economically viable proposal with consideration to
environmental effects that meets the purpose and need for the project. An issues or
alternative would not be considered if:
-
It would not meet
the purpose and need;
It would be
technically or economically infeasible; or
It would be
inconsistent with the basic policy or objectives for the management of the area.
-
The following issues and alternatives were
considered by the IDT, but not analyzed in detail.
-
Natural Selection
Alternative (NSA) (EA, pps. 26 - 27)
Rogue River Corridor
(EA, pps. 27 - 29)
Oregon and California
Land Grant Act of 2015 Corridor (EA, pps. 29 - 30)
Applegate Ridge Trail
(ART) (EA, pps. 30 - 33)
Prescribed Burning
Issues-Air Quality, and the Use of Polyethylene Sheeting (EA, pps. 33 - 36)
Air Quality (EA, pps. 33 -34)
Polyethylene (PE) Sheeting - Burning of PE Sheeting (EA, pps. 34 -36)
Carbon and Green House
Gases (EA, pps. 36 -39). Analysis contained within the FEIS represents current
understanding of the relationships between proposed management activities, climate
change, carbon storage, and greenhouse gas emissions. . . .The FEIS upon which the 2016
ROD/RMP was based examined the most recent science regarding climate change, carbon
storage, and greenhouse gas emissions.
Regeneration Harvest
(EA, p. 39).
Late Successional
Reserve/Adaptive Management Reserve (EA, pps. 39 -40).
Economically Infeasible
Units (EA, p. 40).
No Active Management
Treatments (EA, p. 41).
Permanent Road
Construction (EA, p. 41).
No Temporary Routes (EA,
p. 41).
Road Decommissioning
(EA, p. 41).
Northern Spotted Owl:
Recovery Action 32 (RA 32) (EA, pps. 41 -42).
-
B. Hugo
Exploratory Committee Finding on Public Involvement (PI)/Citizen Involvement (CI)
-
1. Best Practice Principles
(BPP): Extent of Public Involvement for EAs. See Section X.K, National
Association of Environmental Professional (NAEP), for information on guidance on
"Best Practice Princiles" for EAs.
- Guidance on Best Practice
Principles for Environmental Assessments
- 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 (NAEP. 2014).
-
BPP 7: Extent of Public Involvement
for EAs (pps. 31 - 34). 40 C.F.R. §§ 1506.6 and 1501.4(b), questionnaire survey
responses, a review of case law, comments from the CEQ, and practitioner experience.
CEQ established public involvement as a primary purpose of
NEPA. 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b) ("NEPA procedures must insure that environmental
information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made. .
."). Public scrutiny is essential to the implementation of NEPA and a cornerstone of
informed decision making. 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b).
The CEQ Regulations at 40 C.F.R, §1506.6 provide agencies
with discretion on how to conduct public involvement in EAs. Each EA is different, and
different circumstances will dictate different public participation approaches. CEQ
Regulations further provide that "[t]he agency shall involve environmental agencies,
applicants, and the public, to the extent practicable
" 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(b).
40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(e)(2).
40 C.F.R. § 1506.6(c)(1). Although this regulation does
not distinguish between EAs and EISs, some courts have inferred that this regulation
applies to EAs, when an agency implements its NEPA procedures. See Theodore Roosevelt
Conservation Partnership v. Salazar, 616 F.3d 497, 519 (D.C. Cir. 2010); California
Trout v. FERC, 572 F.3d 1003, 1016 (9th Cir. 2009).
The CEQ Regulations explicitly address the role of scoping
in preparation of an EIS. See 40 C.F.R. § 1501.7 ("There shall be an early
and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying
the significant issues related to a proposed action. This process shall be termed
scoping."). The CEQ Guidance on Efficient and Timely Environmental Reviews states:
agencies can also choose to take advantage of scoping whenever preparing an EA.
Public involvement, and specifically, scoping, can be
particularly useful when an EA deals with uncertainty or controversy regarding potential
conflicts over the use of resources or the environmental effects of the proposed action or
where mitigation measures are likely to play a large role in determining whether the
impacts will be reduced to a level where a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) can be
made.
This sliding-scale approach may include a combination of
public involvement methods depending on the particular circumstances, and as practicable,
in accordance with 40 C.F.R. §§ 1506.6 and 1501.4(b). These methods include public
involvement in the scoping process, public meetings or hearings or other methods of
information dissemination, or providing the draft EA for public comment, as practicable.
CEQ Task Force on Modernizing NEPA.
CEQ Guidance on Efficient and Timely
Environmental Reviews.
Public commenting on EAs, see Daniel
R. Mandelker et al., NEPA Law and Litigation § 7:14.
The Ninth Circuit, in Bering Strait
Citizens for Responsible Resource Development v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 524
F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2008).
- 2. Exploratory Committee Observations About BLM
MDO Scoping
-
- This section is just started to be developed as the above
Section VI.A was not reviewed until December 18, 2017.
-
- 2. Public Written Testimony Hugo JS&PSS Exploratory
Committee, HNA&HS The Hugo Justice System & Public Safety Services
(JS&PSS) Exploratory Committee (Exploratory Committee), Hugo Neighborhood Association
& Historical Society (HNA&HS), finding is that the BLM MDO has a traditional CI
program public hearings, including review and comment processes. The CI/CP issue is
that the BLM must want to seek participation as much as the participants want to give it,
and citizens are less likely to participate if the BLM cultural environment is not
positive and accepting of input, including written demonstrations that comments are heard
and considered. Knowledgeable citizens not trusting BLM are just as likely to minimally
participate in the CI/CP NEPA processes, and later protest and appeal the BLM decisions.
The motivations of the local BLM MDO managers and ID team members to shape the adoption of
future meaningful CI/CP are the key. This includes the flexibility by BLM management at
the OR/WA and Washington DC offices to encourage innovation within the range of CI/CP
goals (i.e., inform, consult, involve, collaborate, and empower). To get different
results, the BLM needs to move CI/CP beyond its primarily traditional and default emphasis
of inform and consult (Section VII.A.1.b), December 6, 2017 Letter/Email to State Director
BLM OR/WA and BLM MDO, Appx. A).
-
- Public Written Testimony Comments (Section VII.A.1.b))
- No scoping comments.
- June 20, 2017 EA Public Testimony
Comments Letter/Email to BLM Medford on Pickett West Forest Project EA.
- December 6, 2017 Letter/Email to State
Director BLM Oregon/Washington and BLM MDO: EA/Scoping Public Testimony Comments. These
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.
- Oregon Forest Practices Act (FPA). On the other hand,
Walker is extremely grateful for BLMs present implementation of NEPA when compared
another public involvement program per FPA. The FPA sets standards for all commercial
activities involving the establishment, management, or harvesting of trees on Oregon's
forestlands. Oregon law gives the Oregon Board of Forestry primary responsibility to
interpret the FPA and set rules for forest practices. The North Coast State Forest
Coalition in a pamphlet entitled, Oregon
Forestry Federal, State and Private Forest Management Rules and Procedures (NCSFC
2013), provides the "Public Process" rules for private forests compared to
federal and state forests.
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.
- Several years back Walker had a similar experience
in tying to understand the citizen involvement (CI) rules for timber harvesting
"Private Forests" in his backyard per the FPA (i.e., private railroad
right-of-way lands). It turned out that an annual fee in hundreds of dollars
depending on the area of interest was required. The cost and CI process, or lack of it,
were so onerous that he gave up trying to understand and participate in timber harvesting
activities on private lands.
-
- VII. EXAMPLE BLM MDO PUBLIC
TESTIMONY COMMENTS, PROTESTS, APPEALS, & LAWSUITS
-
- A.
Testimony Comments on NEPA Documents
-
40 CRF §1508.10 Environmental
document: "Environmental document" includes the documents specified in §1508.9
(environmental assessment), §1508.11 (environmental impact statement), §1508.13 (finding
of no significant impact), and §1508.22 (notice of intent).
-
1. Pickett West Forest Management Project
Environmental Assessment (EA): BLM Medford District Office (MDO) Grants Pass Field Office
(GPFO)
-
- a) NEPA Citizen Involvement (CI): BLM MDO GPFO Pickett West
Forest Management Project Scoping, EA, & Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
- October 24,
2016. BLM MDO GPFO Scoping, Dear Interested Reader Continuation of External Public
Scoping
- October 24,
2016 (estimated). BLM MDO GPFO Pickett West Forest Management Project
Environmental Assessment (EA) Comment Period May 30, 2017 July 17, 2017 &
Form
- October
2016. BLM MDO GPFO Pickett West Forest Management Project EA (DOI-BLM-ORWA-M070-2016-0006-EA):
Draft Chapter 1 EA
- April 13, 2017.
Meeting between BLM MDO GPFO and the Deer Creek Valley Natural Resources Conservation
Association (DCVNRCA). The DCVNRCA took minutes for its own record. (Need copy of meeting
minutes in pdf format).
- May
2017. BLM MDO GPFO Pickett West
Forest Management Project Environmental Assessment Readers Guide
- May 23, 2017.
BLM MDO GPFO Draft Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Pickett West Forest Management Project
(DOI-BLM-ORWA-M070-2016-0006-EA)
- May
23, 2017. BLM MDO GPFO Field Manager
"Dear Interest Party" Cover Letter for the Final EA and Draft FONSI for the
Pickett West Forest Management Project (DOI-BLM-ORWA-M070-2016-0006-EA)
- May
23, 2017. BLM MDO GPFO Final EA and
Draft FONSI for the Pickett West Forest Management Project
(DOI-BLM-ORWA-M070-2016-0006-EA)
- June 17,
2017. BLM MDO GPFO Pickett West Public Field Tour Announcement & Tour Map (DOI-BLM-ORWA-M070-2016-0006-EA)
-
- - BLM Sponsored Public Hearings? November
2016 Scoping Meeting?
- - Need copy of April 13, 2017 meeting minutes in pdf
format?
- 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: BLMs Responsibilities For Public
Involvement (PI) Purpose Of National Environmental Procedures Acts (NEPA) Procedural
Mandate Requires Interdisciplinary (ID) Team Members To Be Accessible To The Public
- Appendices
- Appendix A. National Environmental Procedures Acts
(NEPA) Procedural Requirements
- Appendix B. Interdisciplinary Teams 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 Citizens 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: BLMs Responsibilities For Public Involvement
(PI) Purpose Of National Environmental Procedures Acts (NEPA) Procedural Mandate
Requires Interdisciplinary (ID) Team Members To Be Accessible To The Public
- Appendices
- Appendix A. A BLM Planners Perspective: BLM
Evolutions In Promoting and Enabling Citizen Involvement & Citizen Participation
- Walkers 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: BLMs Responsibilities For Public Involvement
(PI) Purpose Of National Environmental Procedures Acts (NEPA) Procedural Mandate
Requires Interdisciplinary (ID) Team Members To Be Accessible To The Public
Appendices
Appendix A. A BLM Planners Perspective: BLM
Evolutions In Promoting and Enabling Citizen Involvement & Citizen Participation
- Walkers 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) Teams responsibilities. In
this case the BLMs 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 handbooks 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 BLMs 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 CEQs 40 Questions
- Appendix
D. Evaluation Of Significant Impacts Model And Recommended Impact
Methodology
- Appendix
E. Comments On Hellgate RAMP/DEISs Appendix B Outstandingly
Remarkable Values
- Appendix F.
Comments On Hellgate RAMP/DEISs Appendix C Management Standards
for the Hellgate Recreation Area, A Recreation Area
- Appendix G.
Comments On Hellgate RAMP/DEISs Appendix G Fisheries Factors And
Assumptions
- Appendix H.
Comments On Hellgate RAMP/DEISs 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 NEPAs 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 Rivers 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 Rivers Outstandingly Remarkable Values, Other
Similar Values & Other River Values (pages 240). Hugo Neighborhood Association
& Historical Society, Rogue Advocates, & Goal One Coalition. Hugo, OR.
- There is a strong correlation between the
requirements of the W&S Rivers Act (WSRA) and the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) when it comes to NEPAs 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.
-
- B. Protests
-
- 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 & Illinois Valley Activity Section, Sierra Club. 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. Four chapter covering 253 pages.
- I. Decision Being Protested
- II. Interests of the Parties
- III. Parts of the Plan Being Protested
- IV. Statement of Reasons
- Chapter IV. Statement of Reasons, Section I, The
Environmental Effects of the Action Alternatives Require and EIS based on the
Determination Of Significance (pages 96 - 253 60 percent of the document;
"Intensity. The following discussion is organized around the Ten Significance
Criteria described in 40 CFR § 1508.27(b) as they pertain to the context of the Pickett
West Forest Management project Action Alternatives.").
- 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 DCVNRCAs protest].
C. Appeals to
USDI Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
- Exactly what is meant by actions which
will, or conversely which will not, significantly affect the human environment has not
adequately been developed for BLM (Walker June 20, 2017, Appx. E). The courts have several
standards. The standard by which the USDI, Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) reviews
an EA has been set forth in numerous decisions. Most basically, an EA must (Lynn Canal
Conservation, Inc. 167 IBLA 136. October 19, 2005).
- (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); Kendalls 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).
- D.
Lawsuits
- Unlike other environmental statutes, such as the Clean
Water Act or the Clean Air Act, no individual agency has enforcement authority with regard
to NEPAs implementation. Also, unlike these other laws, while NEPA imposes
procedural requirements, it does not establish substantive standards. This absence of
enforcement authority is sometimes cited as the reason that litigation has been chosen as
an avenue by individuals and groups that disagree with how an agency meets NEPA
requirements for a given project (also see CRS 2011 - NEPA does not contain civil or
criminal enforcement provisions; litigation challenging an agencys compliance is
brought under the Administrative Procedure Act). For example, a group may allege that an
EIS is inadequate, or that the environmental impacts of an action will in fact be
significant when an agency has determined they are not. Critics of NEPA have stated that
those who disapprove of a federal project will use NEPA as the basis for litigation to
delay or halt that project. Others argue that litigation only results when agencies do not
comply with NEPAs procedural requirements (USGAO. 2014, p. 6).
-
- 1. U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
Medford Division
-
- a) February
4, 2014. Owen M. Panner, U.S. District Judge, Order 1:12-cv-1596-CL, In the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon Medford Division
- 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 4th 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
- 3. Judgement/Opinion of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit??
What were the results? Any relationship to Section VII.E.
E. Methods
Of Determining Court Cases Won, Lost, & Settled
1. Introduction. The following is from Twenty
Years of Forest Service Land Management Litigation, and it is applicable to BLM and
the USFS.
- Twenty Years of Forest Service Land Management Litigation (pdf)
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).
- 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
dispositions68 percentreported 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:
- Forest Service Win by Judicial Decision.
Cases where a court ruled on the merits of the plaintiffs case and found that the
Forest Service had not done anything incorrectly.
- Forest Service Win by Other Disposition.
Cases where (1) a court dismissed the case on procedural grounds, (2) the plaintiff
withdrew the case before a judge decided on the cases merits, (3) the
plaintiff terminated the case after a judge denied the plaintiffs request for a
preliminary injunction (emphasis added), or (4) the court dismissed the case after the
plaintiff and defendant agreed to a stipulation for voluntary dismissal.
- 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 plaintiffs 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.
- c) Settlement.
We coded cases as a settlement, if
the parties agreed to a court-approved stipulated agreement to settle their dispute. This
coding scheme retains the benefits of a conservative count of losses by judicial decision,
because if the court found that the Forest Service did anything incorrectly, the case was
coded as a loss; however, the new subcategories allowed us to differentiate more clearly
and precisely between the variety of ways to win and lose a case. In addition, whereas
nonjudicial decision wins and losses are important, a major benefit of this refined coding
is that it allowed us to account for and describe those cases in which a judge ruled on
the merits of the case.
2. Management and Policy Implications (of entire study,
not just "Methods Of Determining Court Cases Won, Lost, & Settled").
Litigation plays an important role in the USDA Forest Service management of the National
Forest System. Recent legislative initiatives to amend the Equal Access to Justice Act
(codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2412 and 5 U.S.C. § 5045), which provides for reasonable
attorney fees and court costs to some qualifying parties prevailing in litigation when the
federal agency cannot demonstrate that its legal position was substantially justified,
illustrate legislators and constituents concerns over the use of litigation to
change managers land management decisions. This article provides forest managers,
stakeholders, and policymakers with accurate information, based on a census of 20 years of
land management cases, to guide management and policy debate and choices. Our findings
indicate that the Forest Service wins nearly two of every three cases decided by judges
and reveal that judges usually decide that plaintiffs have not carried their burden of
demonstrating that the agency failed to comply with its legal mandates or are entitled to
the relief they requested. The increasing settlement of land management litigation,
however, demonstrates that agencies and the US Department of Justice regularly decide that
it is more advantageous to resolve proceedings through mutual agreement than to have a
judge decide the outcome of a controversy. These and other findings provide important
information on the complexity of land management litigation (Miner. 2014, p. 33).
3. Discussion (Miner. 2014, pps. 38 - 39). The Forest
Services lower success rate in cases where plaintiffs advocated for less resource
use (generally initiated by environmental groups compared to cases where greater resource
use was advocated for was not unexpected; the trend appeared in our 2006 analysis. We
hypothesize that the difference is based on two factors. First, there are differences in
the number and purposes of statutes available to plaintiffs seeking less resource use. Not
only are there more statutes available to those suing for less resource use but also these
statutes were written to address deficiencies in public participation processes (e.g.,
NEPA) or to provide additional protection for threatened species (e.g., ESA) and scarce
resources (e.g., NFMA, TWA, and WSRA). (emphasis added)
Thus, environmental groups suing the Forest Service for
less resource use, not only have more statutes available to them than groups seeking more
use of national forest resources, but they also have more statutes that relate directly to
the purposes of their organizations available to them. Second, many of these
statutes also contain significant procedural requirements (e.g., NEPA and ESA).
(emphasis added). Because judges regularly rule on whether federal agencies and others
followed proper procedures, it seems likely that judges are more familiar with these types
of challenges to agency actions and may be more comfortable ruling on procedural
challenges.
Vegetative management, or logging, projects continued to be
the dominant type of management activity involved in Forest Service land management
litigation, representing nearly three times more cases than any other type of management
activity. This is not surprising and likely to continue, given the results of research on
administrative appeals (which are required before litigation can occur), that indicates
that projects involving vegetative management are more likely to be appealed regardless of
other characteristics.
F. BLM MDO
Statutes & Planning Documents
May 23,
2017. BLM MDO GPFO Final EA and Draft FONSI for the Pickett West Forest
Management Project (DOI-BLM-ORWA-M070-2016-0006-EA). The following first two sections on statutes and BLM plans
are from the EA, Section 1.5.2.
-
- Section 1.5.2 Relevant Statutes/Authorities (pps. 16 -
21)
The Grants Pass Field Office has prepared an EA to analyze
the Pickett West Forest Management Project in compliance with the NEPA and other relevant
federal and state laws and regulations (p. 7).
The BLM has a statutory obligation under the Federal
Land Policy Management Act of 1976 which directs that "[t]he Secretary shall
manage the public lands
in accordance with the land use plans developed by him under
section 202 of this Act when they are available
" The Medford Districts
Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (1995 ROD/RMP) guides and directs
management on Medford District BLM-administered lands. For more discussion see Chapter
1.5, Conformance with Law, Regulation & Policy. One of the primary objectives
identified in the 1995 ROD/RMP is implementing the Oregon and California Railroad
Revested Lands Act (O&C Act) that requires the Secretary of the Interior to manage
O&C lands for permanent forest production in accordance with sustained yield
principles (pps. 10 - 11).
Tiering is a form of incorporating by reference that
refers to previous EAs or EISs. Tiering allows the BLM to narrow the scope of the
subsequent analysis, and focus on issues that are ripe for decision-making. Tiering is
appropriate when the analysis for the Action Alternative would be a more site specific or
project specific refinement or extension of the existing NEPA document. The BLM may tier
to a NEPA document for a broader action when the narrower action is clearly consistent
with the decision associated with the broader action (2008 BLM NEPA Handbook 1709-1,
pp. 25-27. Any tiering contained in this EA tiers to the analysis in the 2016
PRMP/FIES (p. 16)
- 1. Statutes
- Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976 (FLPMA)
- National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (NEPA)
- Endangered Species Act of 1973
(ESA)
- Clean Air Act of 1990 (CAA)
- Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of
1974 (as amended in 1986 and 1996)
- Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 as
amended
- National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA), 1966 as amended.
- Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions:
Essential Fish Habitat, 2002.
- Environmental Justice, 1994
- Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as
amended
-
- Supplemental Guidelines
-
- Areas of Critical Environmental
Concern
- Research Natural Areas.
- Hazardous or Solid Waste.
- Prime or Unique Farmlands.
- The Oregon and California Railroad Revested Lands Act
(O&C Act) of 1937 was not identified in the above list of statutes.
-
- 2. BLM Plans
- 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 BLMs
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).
- A. Hugo
JS&PSS Exploratory Committees Written Consultations
August 7, 2017, NEPA
Review of Deer Creek Valley Natural Resources Conservation Associations (DCVNRCA)
July 17, 2017 EA Comments on Pickett West Forest Management Project Environmental
Assessment (EA) and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) (pdf)
- 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 Acts (NEPA) Procedural Requirements For "Purpose and
Need"
-
May 25, 2017. DCVs &
BLMs Interdisciplinary (ID) Teams Responsibilities for "Analyzing Effects
Methodology" Required By National Environmental Procedures Acts (NEPA)
Procedural Requirements (Social Impacts)
- Appendix A. Impact Methodology Model: Procedural
Requirements & Basic Impact Methodology Model
- Appendix B. Scoping Rogue Rivers 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 Acts (NEPA) Procedural
Requirements: Significant Cumulative Impacts
-
- Appendices
- Appendix A. National Environmental Procedures Acts
(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. CEQs Forty Questions (March 23,
1981).
- Appendix A4. U.S. Department of the Interiors
(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 Acts
(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
11991Environmental 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. CEQs 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. CEQs A
Citizens 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 NEPAs Procedural Requirements
- Appendix A. National Environmental Procedures Acts
(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. BLMs Responsibilities to Educate the Public And the Publics
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 Rivers 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 Groups Comments on the
Hellgate RAMP/DEIS: 2001
- March 13,
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
Alternatives and "Senior NEPA Advisor" to DCVNRCA
-
- B.
Workshops
-
- The public consultation and workshop goal was to
form a common baseline of information about the January 30, 2008 BLM National
Environmental Policy Act Handbook H-1790-1 as it was practiced by BLM MDO and the
public, and expressed by the title of this web page, National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA): Information NEPA Consultations/Workshops. The idea was to have a few informal
NEPA "table talk" workshops for from 4 - 6 participants at the Black Forest
Restaurant in Grants Pass, Oregon. The idea took form and was accomplished.
- Workshop topics focused on
subjects covered in the Exploratory Committees 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 Walkers
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
C. Future
Consultations & Workshops?
The general goal of this
work in progress web page, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Information NEPA
Consultations/Workshops, is to provide an educational opportunity to interested
neighbors by providing NEPA research materials that can be checked in order for them to
find their own truth. Interested neighbors include those pro and con of some proposed
federal action. The educational opportunity is to learn how to effectively participate in
the NEPA processes of the government of interest for the purpose of having your voice
heard. Has the rule of law been followed? How to be effective in expressing your issues
and concerns?
The specific public consultation and workshop goal is to
form a common baseline of information and understanding about the January 30, 2008 BLM
National Environmental Policy Act Handbook H-1790-1 as the focus of the public
interested in BLM MDO projects and their association FONSIs, EAs, and EISs. The idea
is to have a few informal NEPA "table talk" workshops for from 4 - 6 student
participants at a Grants Pass, Oregon restaurant. Table Talk means that the
participants will not be a part of any organized presentation with Q & A. Table
Talk is what occurs over lunch on a mutual topic of interest.
General Workshop Parameters. Walker is retired, and
a volunteer leader of the NEPA workshops. The general workshop parameters are designed to
meet his health issues. Deviations require work on the part of the participant to
make it happen.
- Table Talk informal conversations
discussions, and based on homework assignments before the workshop.
- Homework assignments for the first two
workshops: material accessible to all participants web published on this site.
- Workshops designed for from 4 - 6
participants, not counting leaders.
- Location will be a Grants Pass
restaurant that has an availability of tables for from 5 - 8 participants. (e.g, Black
Forest Restaurant, etc.).
- No organized meal Participants
will probably be eating, but that is up to them with individual orders.
- Workshops can be held any day of the
week.
- Workshop periods will normally be from 1
- 2 two hours long.
- Scheduled for the morning, usually
ending no later than noon.
- Workshop Agendas For First Two Workshops & Additional
Possible Workshop Agenda Material
- National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):
Information NEPA Consultations/Workshops
(this web page)
All Workshop
Material: January 30, 2008 BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook H-1790-1
1st Workshop Material: June
20, 2017 EA Public Testimony Comments to BLM MDO GPFO Pickett West Forest
Management Project and EA.
2nd 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.
- - Hugo JS&PSS Exploratory Committees Written
Consultations (Sections VIII.A.1.b) & VIII.A.2.b)).
- - 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
Committees Written Consultations (Sections VII.A.1.b) & VII.A.2.b))
June 9, 2017 BLM NEPA
Handbook
May 25, 2017 DCVs & BLMs
Interdisciplinary (ID) Teams 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 NEPAs
Procedural Requirements
May 1, 2017 BLMs Responsibilities
to Educate the Public And the Publics 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
- 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))
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).
- IX. NEPA WEB LINKS
-
- What web links are NEPA specific to the
purpose of Study Design (Chpt. I)? The following is an attempt to answer the
questions.
-
- The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) for the
U.S. Congress to address the adequacy of NEPA analyses required by all federal agencies on
the potential effects of their projects. "To respond to these objectives, we reviewed
relevant publications, obtained documents and analyses from federal agencies, and
interviewed federal officials and individuals from academia and professional associations
with expertise in conducting NEPA analyses. Specifically, to describe the number and type
of NEPA analyses from calendar year 2008 through calendar year 2012 and what is known
about the costs and benefits of NEPA analyses, we reported information identified through
the literature review, interviews, and other sources. We selected the Departments of
Defense, Energy, the Interior [includes the BLM], and Transportation; and the Forest
Service within the U.S. Department of Agriculture for analysis because they generally
complete the most NEPA analyses." (USGAO. 2014, p. 2).
-
"Under NEPA, federal agencies are to
evaluate the potential environmental effects of projects they are proposing by preparing
either an EA or a more detailed EIS, assuming no Categorical Exclusion (CE) applies.
Agencies may prepare an EA to determine whether a proposed project is expected to have a
potentially significant impact on the human environment.4 If prior to or during
the development of an EA, the agency determines that the project may cause significant
environmental impacts, an EIS should be prepared. However, if the agency, in its EA,
determines there are no significant impacts from the proposed project or action, then it
is to prepare a document a Finding of No Significant Impact that presents
the reasons why the agency has concluded that no significant environmental impacts will
occur if the project is implemented." (USGAO. 2014, p. 3).
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 agenciesthe 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 NAEPs 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 Qualitys (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 CEQs 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
- NEPA.GOV
- National Environmental Policy Act
- https://ceq.doe.gov/
Modernizing NEPA
Implementation (pdf)
The NEPA Task Force. September 2003. Report to The
Council on Environmental Quality, Modernizing NEPA Implementation. Wash. D.C.
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 GUIDANCE
-
- GET INVOLVED
- 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
- NEPA PRACTICE
- Alternative Arrangements
- Federal NEPA Contacts
- Infrastructure
- NEPA Training Links
- NEPA Referrals to CEQ
- Climate Change Resources
- Ecosystem Services
- Environmental Justice
- CEQ PUBLICATIONS
- Cumulative Effects
- Incorporating Biodiversity
- Modernizing NEPA Implementation
- NEPA & EMS
- NEPA CEQA Handbook
- NEPA Effectiveness Study
- NEPA NHPA Section 106 Handbook
- 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
- Council on Environmental Quality
- https://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/
-
- Council on Environmental Quality
- National Environmental Policy Act
- https://ceq.doe.gov/https://ceq.doe.gov/get-involved/citizens_guide_to_nepa.html
-
- GET INVOLVED
- 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 Citizens Guide to the NEPA: Having Your Voice
Heard (pdf)
Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the
President. December 2007. A Citizens 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 Qualitys 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
"Citizens Guide: A Citizens 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.
- See Section X.K, National Association of
Environmental Professionals (NAEP), for information on the following three NAEP
publications.
- 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
- B.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
- EPA
- National Environmental Policy Act
- https://www.epa.gov/nepa
- 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).
- C. Environment and
Natural Resources Division (ENRD)
-
- ENRD
- US. Department of Justice (DOJ)
- https://www.justice.gov/enrd
-
Nearly one-half of the Division's
lawyers bring cases against those who violate the nation's civil and criminal
pollution-control laws. Others defend environmental challenges to government programs and
activities and represent the United States in matters concerning the stewardship of the
nation's natural resources and public lands.
Environmental Challenges to Federal
Programs and Activities
Environment and Natural Resources Division
https://www.justice.gov/enrd/about-division/i-i-envtl-challenges-federal-programs-and-activities
The Division's cases frequently involve allegations
that a federal program or action violates Constitutional provisions or environmental
statutes. Examples include regulatory takings cases, in which the plaintiff claims he or
she has been deprived of property without just compensation by a federal program or
activity, or suits alleging that a federal agency has failed to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by, for instance, failing to issue an environmental impact
statement.
CEQs NEPA litigation survey presents information on
NEPA-based claims brought against agencies in court, including aggregated information on
types of lawsuits and who brought the suits. The Department of Justice defends nearly all
federal agencies when they face NEPA litigation. Such litigation is handled both by the
Department of Justices Environment and Natural Resources Division and by individual
U.S. Attorneys Offices depending upon the agency, the type of case, and the
expertise of the departments personnel. Agency personnel provide the DOJ with the
administrative record that forms the basis of judicial review and provide assistance
throughout the litigation process, as needed (Appx. IV: Sources of NEPA Litigation Data
(USGAO. 2014, p.33).
The ENRDs main clients in this area are the
U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. EPA. It is assumed that BLM is also a main client
as attorneys for the ENRD, DOJ, defended BLM in an October 6, 2014 (90-1-4-13783).
Response Brief of Defendant-appellee BLM in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit (David C. Shilton & Evelyn S. Ying, Attorneys, Appellate Section ENRD U.S.
DOJ) along with BLMs attorney (Brian Perron, Office of the Regional Solicitor,
Pacific Northwest Region USDI.
D. U.S.
Department of the Interior (USDI)
USDI
National Environmental Policy Act
https://www.doi.gov/oepc/resources/nepa-procedures
Department of the Interior
NEPA Information
- Code of Federal Regulations
- Departmental Manual
Other Federal NEPA Information
- 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
-
E. U.S. USDI
Board of Land Appeals
-
- USDI
- Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
- https://www.doi.gov/oha/organization/ibla
-
- The Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
is an appellate review body that exercises the delegated authority of the Secretary of the
Interior to issue final decisions for the Department of the Interior. Its administrative
judges decide appeals from bureau decisions relating to the use and disposition of public
lands and their resources, mineral resources on the Outer Continental Shelf, and the
conduct of surface coal mining operations under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act. Located within the Department's Office of Hearings and Appeals, IBLA is separate and
independent from the Bureaus and Offices whose decisions it reviews.
-
- Office of Hearings and Appeals
- USDI
- https://www.oha.doi.gov:8080/index.html
-
- The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) exercises the
delegated authority of the Secretary of the Interior to conduct hearings and decide
appeals from decisions of the bureaus and offices of the Department of the Interior.
-
- OHA provides an impartial forum for parties who are
affected by the decisions of the Department's bureaus and offices to obtain independent
review of those decisions.
-
- OHA also handles the probating of Indian trust estates,
ensuring that individual Indian interests in allotted lands, their proceeds, and other
trust assets are conveyed to the decedents' rightful heirs and beneficiaries.
-
- OHA is headed by a Director, who reports to the Assistant
Secretary - Policy, Management and Budget through the Deputy Assistant Secretary -
Technology, Information and Business Services.
-
- Hard Look Versus Bald Conclusions Exactly what is
meant by actions which will, or conversely which will not, significantly affect the human
environment has not adequately been developed for BLM (Walker June 20, 2017, Appx. E). The
courts have several qualitative standards that have grown more specific over time. The
standards by which the USDI, Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) reviews an EA has been
set forth in numerous decisions. Most basically, an EA must (Lynn Canal Conservation,
Inc. 167 IBLA 136. October 19, 2005):
- (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);
Kendalls Concerned Area Residents, 129 IBLA 130, 138 (1994); and 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).
-
- The references 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.
-
- IBLA Decisions/Orders (selected)
-
- 2017. NEPA, FLPMA, and Impact
Reduction: an Empirical Assessment of BLM Resource Management Planning and NEPA in the
Mountain West
- 2016. Coalition for Responsible
Mammoth Development, et al. 187 IBLA 141 Decided March 18, 2016
- 2012. Southern Utah Wilderness
Alliance IBLA 2011-165 Decided September 6, 2012
- 2008. Orion Energy, LLC 175 IBLA 81
Decided June 30, 2008
- 2006. Wyoming
Outdoor Council, et al. IBLA 2003-358, 2004-52 Decided September 21, 2006
- 2006. Wilderness Watch, et al. IBLA
2003-72 Decided February 17, 2006
- 2005. Lynn Canal
Conservation, Inc. 167 IBLA 136 Decided October 19, 2005
- 2004. In RE Stratton Hog Timber Sale
IBLA 2001-222 Decided January 23, 2004
- 2003. Lee and Jody Sprout Dick and
Shauna Sprout IBLA 2001-332, 2001-333 Decided July 29, 2003
- 2000. Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands
Center, 153 IBLA 110, 121-22 (2000)
- 2000. Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Gover,
104 F. Supp. 2d 1194 (D.S.D. 2000)
- 1998. Fort Belknap Community Council,
144 IBLA 92, 101-102 (1998)
- 1994. Kendall's Concerned Area
Residents IBLA 90-112 Decided April 15, 1994
- 1992. Southern Utah Wilderness
Alliance. IBLA 89-73 Decided June 25, 1992
- 1990. Idaho Natural Resources Legal
Foundation, Inc., et al. IBLA 88-631 Decided June 21, 1990
- 1990. Rex Kipp, Jr. Justin Kipp. IBLA
88-569 Decided May 30, 1990
- 1987. Idaho Natural Resources Legal
Foundation, Inc. IBLA 86-1391 Decided February 26, 1987
- 1984. In RE Thompson Creek Timber Sale
IBLA 82-1325 Decided June 7, 1984
- 1984. Defenders of Wildlife IBLA
83-464 Decided February 13, 1984
- 1983. Southwest Resource Council,
Inc., 73 IBLA 39 (1983).
- 1983. Lick
Gulch Timber Sale, 72 IBLA 261, 273 n.6, 90 I.D. 189, 196 n. 6 (1983)
- 1983. In RE Lick Gulch Timber Sale
IBLA 81-394 Decided April 28, 1983
- IBLA Appendix E. The
Hard Look and Bald Conclusions (pdf). From June 20, 2017 Letter/Email to BLM
Medford: EA Testimony Comments (See Section VIIA.b) Public Written Testimony Comments).
This paper consists of the highlights of the following IBLA cases.
2017. NEPA, FLPMA, and Impact
Reduction: an Empirical Assessment of BLM Resource Management Planning and NEPA in the
Mountain West
2016. Coalition for Responsible
Mammoth Development, et al. 187 IBLA 141 Decided March 18, 2016
2012. Southern Utah Wilderness
Alliance IBLA 2011-165 Decided September 6, 2012
2008. Orion Energy, LLC 175
IBLA 81 Decided June 30, 2008
2006. Wyoming Outdoor Council,
et al. IBLA 2003-358, 2004-52 Decided September 21, 2006
2006. Wilderness Watch, et al.
IBLA 2003-72 Decided February 17, 2006
2005. Lynn Canal Conservation,
Inc. 167 IBLA 136 Decided October 19, 2005
2004. In RE Stratton
Hog Timber Sale IBLA 2001-222 Decided January 23, 2004
2003. Lee and Jody Sprout Dick
and Shauna Sprout IBLA 2001-332, 2001-333 Decided July 29, 2003
2000. Klamath-Siskiyou
Wildlands Center, 153 IBLA 110, 121-22 (2000)
2000. Rosebud Sioux Tribe v.
Gover, 104 F. Supp. 2d 1194 (D.S.D. 2000)
1998. Fort Belknap Community
Council, 144 IBLA 92, 101-102 (1998)
1994. Kendall's Concerned Area
Residents IBLA 90-112 Decided April 15, 1994
1992. Southern Utah Wilderness
Alliance. IBLA 89-73 Decided June 25, 1992
1990. Idaho Natural Resources
Legal Foundation, Inc., et al. IBLA 88-631 Decided June 21, 1990
1990. Rex Kipp, Jr. Justin
Kipp. IBLA 88-569 Decided May 30, 1990
1988. Elberta M. Taylor Et Al.
IBLA 86-1617 Decided June 14, 1988
1987. Idaho Natural Resources
Legal Foundation, Inc. IBLA 86-1391 Decided February 26, 1987
1984. In RE Thompson Creek
Timber Sale IBLA 82-1325 Decided June 7, 1984
1984. Defenders of Wildlife
IBLA 83-464 Decided February 13, 1984
1983. Baltimore Gas &
Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
1983. Southwest Resource
Council, Inc., 73 IBLA 39 (1983).
1983. Lick Gulch Timber
Sale, 72 IBLA 261, 273 n.6, 90 I.D. 189, 196 n. 6 (1983)
1983. In RE Lick Gulch
Timber Sale IBLA 81-394 Decided April 28, 1983
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), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 908 (1973) [on appeal following
second remand, 484 F.2d 448 2d Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 936 (1974)].
1973. Maryland Capitol Park
and Planning Commission v. U.S. Postal Service, 487 F.2d 1029, 1040 (D.C. Cir. 1973)
F.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
BLM
U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI)
- BLM Planning and NEPA
https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa
Departmental Manual - Managing the NEPA
Process Bureau of Land Management 516 DM 11
(https://elips.doi.gov/ELIPS/DocView.aspx?id=1721)
Programs
https://www.blm.gov/programs
- Programs Overview
- Planning and NEPA
- Energy and Minerals
- National Conservation Lands
- Recreation and Visitor Services
- Wild Horse and Burro
- Lands and Realty
- Public Safety and Fire
- Cultural Heritage and Paleontology
- Natural Resources
- Fish and Wildlife
- BLM Planning and NEPA
- https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa
- Planning 101
- E-Planning (for 2 EAs in BLM MDO GPFO follows)
- What Informs Our Plans
- Public Involvement
- Plans in Development
- Implementing Plans
- E-Planning - Programs: Planning and NEPA
- https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/eplanning
-
- The BLM has instituted an on-line E-Planning portal
that gives the public access to ongoing land-use planning and NEPA documents. You can
search for projects using either map- or text-based searches. The text-based search allows
you to search by topic, such as wildlife, recreation, or energy development.
-
- During the comment periods for these documents, you can
provide your input directly through the portal.
- Explore the National NEPA Register. If you have questions
or can't locate a plan or NEPA document, contact a BLM office near you.
-
- DOI-BLM-ORWA-MO70-0006-2016-EA Pickett West Forest
Management Project
- Environmental Assessment (EA)
BLM MDO GPFO
https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=renderDefaultPlanOrProjectSite&projectId=62604
- The site is non-user friendly as the title of the page can
not be cut and pasted for further use. The project information can be copied.
-
- DOI-BLM-ORWA-M070-2018-0002-EA Clean Slate Timber Sale
BLM MDO GPFO Clean Slate Forest
Management Project
https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=renderDefaultPlanOrProjectSite&projectId=92520
-
- The site is non-user friendly as nothing on
the page can be cut and pasted for further use.
-
- Departmental Manual - Managing the NEPA Process
Bureau of Land Management 516 DM 11
- (https://elips.doi.gov/ELIPS/DocView.aspx?id=1721)
-
- BLM National
Environmental Policy Act Handbook H-1790-1: January 30, 2008
G. U.S.
National Park Service
- Planning, Environment and Public
Comment (PEPC)
- https://parkplanning.nps.gov/
-
- The National Park Service prepares a variety of planning
and environmental documents to help guide management of park. This site provides for
public involvement in the NPS planning process.
-
- Documents by Park - Go directly to a
specific park's list of active projects.
- Policy/Links - Link to NPS policy,
pertinent Director's orders, terminology, and more.
- Park Planning - Find NPS
Planning Program information, Plans and Tools.
- Search Documents - Search by
keyword, park, state, document status, document type, project type or NEPA type.
- H. U.S.
Forest Service (USFS)
- USFS
- Department of the Agriculture (USDA)
- https://www.fs.fed.us/
- Department of Agricultures Forest Service.
The Forest Services 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).
- Reporting litigation outcome data similar to
CEQs, a January 2014 article on Forest Service land management litigation found that
the Forest Service won nearly 54 percent of its cases and lost about 23 percent.45
About 23 percent of the cases were settled, which the study found to be an important
dispute resolution tool. Litigants generally challenged logging projects, most frequently
under the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act. The
article found that the Forest Service had a lower success rate in cases where plaintiffs
advocated for less resource use (generally initiated by environmental groups) compared to
cases where greater resource use was advocated. The report noted that environmental groups
suing the Forest Service for less resource use not only have more potential statutory
bases for legal challenges available to them than groups seeking more use of national
forest resources, but there are also more statutes that relate directly to enhancing
public participation and protecting natural resources (USGAO. 2014, p.21).
-
- Other sources of information also show that the
federal government prevails in most NEPA litigation. For example, Northwest Association of
Environmental Professionals (NAEP) 2012 annual NEPA report stated that the
government prevailed in 24 of the 28 cases (86 percent) decided by U.S. Courts of Appeals.
A NEPA legal treatise similarly reports that "government agencies almost always win
their case when the adequacy of an EIS is challenged, if the environmental analysis is
reasonably complete. Adequacy cases raise primarily factual issues on which the courts
normally defer to the agency. The success record in litigation is more evenly divided
when a NEPA case raises threshold questions that determine whether the agency has complied
with the statute (emphasis added). An example is a challenge to an agency decision
that an EIS was not required. Some lower federal courts are especially sensitive to agency
attempts to avoid their NEPA responsibilities."46 NAEP also provides
detailed descriptions of cases decided by U.S. Courts of Appeals in its annual reports 47
(USGAO. 2014, p.21).
-
Footnotes (USGAO. 2014)
45. Amanda M.A. Miner, Robert W.
Mamsheimer, and Denise M. Keele, "Twenty
Years of Forest Service Land Management Litigation," Journal of Forestry 112,
no. 1 (January 2014). pdf
- 46. Daniel R. Mandelker, with the assistance of Robert L.
Glicksman, Arianne Michalek Aughey, JD, and Donald McGillivray, NEPA Law and Litigation,
2nd ed. (Thomson Reuters/West, Rel. 10, 2012).
- 47. NAEP, Annual NEPA Report 2012 of
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Practice (April 2013). pdf
- I.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)
-
- USDOT
- https://www.transportation.gov/
-
- U.S. Department of Transportation
- Environment
- https://www.transportation.gov/policy/transportation-policy/environment
-
- U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)
-
- Federal Environmental Statutes,
Regulations, and Executive Orders Applicable to the Development and Review of
Transportation Infrastructure Projects
- https://www.transportation.gov/policy/transportation-policy/environment/laws
- USDOT Operating Administration: NEPA Implementing
Procedures and Useful Websites
- Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST)
- 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
- The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
- Office of NEPA Policy & Compliance
- U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
- https://energy.gov/nepa/downloads/national-environmental-policy-act-1969
- 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
- NEPA Success Stories from Lessons Learned Quarterly
Reports
- Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance
- U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
- https://energy.gov/nepa/downloads/nepa-success-stories-lessons-learned-quarterly-reports-0
- Secretarial
Policy Statement on the National Environmental Policy Act (pdf)
- DOE. June 13, 1994. Secretarial Policy Statement on the
National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, D.C. https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/G-DOE-Secy_NEPA_policy.pdf
-
- K. National Association
of Environmental Professionals (NAEP)
- NAEP
- http://www.naep.org/
- 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
This is a membership organization and most of
NAEPs work is not available to non-members. Nevertheless, it is important enough for
what it represents and some of the documents that are available (e.g., some reports: Guidance
on Best Practice Principles for Environmental Assessments, Knowledge-based Survey for
Identifying Best Practice Principles for EAs: Presentation, Knowledge-based Survey for
Identifying Best Practice Principles for EAs, NEPA Case Law Review, Major Cases
Interpreting the National Environmental Policy Act, etc.).
Environmental Practice NAEP Journal
http://www.naep.org/environmental-practice-journal-info
Environmental Practice, the official journal of the NAEP,
provides an open forum to NAEP members and other concerned individuals for the discussion
and analysis of significant environmental issues. Research Articles and Environmental
Reviews and Case Studies appearing in Environmental Practice are peer reviewed and aim for
the highest standards of professional quality. The journal is a member-only benefit and is
available at libraries or by becoming a NAEP member.
NAEP Selected for CEQ Pilot Project - Best Practice
Principles for EAs
http://www.naep.org/bpps-for-eas-to-the-ceq
On August 12, 2014, the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) accepted the final National Association of Environmental Professionals'
(NAEP) Pilot Project Report on Best Practice Principles for Environmental Assessments (hereinafter
BPP for Eas).
- 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
- NAEP Annual National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Report for 2016
- http://www.naep.org/nepa-2016-annual-report
-
- The National Association of Environmental
Professionals (NAEPs) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Practice
(formerly known as the NEPA Working Group) is pleased to present our ninth NEPA Annual
Report. This report contains summaries of the latest developments in NEPA as well as the
NEPA Practices efforts for the past year. This annual report is prepared and
published through the initiative and volunteer efforts of members of the NAEPs NEPA
Practice. The 2016 NEPA Annual Report includes six sections.
- 1. Introduction
- 2. The NEPA Practice in 2016
- 3. Just the Stats on 2016 EISs filed with the
U.S. EPA
- 4. Preparation Times for Environmental Impact
Statements Made Available in 2016
- 5. Recent Congressional Legislation Regarding
NEPA
- 6. 2016 NEPA Cases in the U.S. Courts of Appeal
and Cumulative Impacts Cases
Past issues of the NAEP NEPA Annual Report are available
on the NAEP website for members only. The following four annual NEPA reports were found on
the web.
- ANNUAL NEPA REPORT 2012 of
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Practice (pdf)
- NAEP. April 2013. Annual NEPA Report 2012 of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Practice.
- Submitted to NAEP Board of Directors. Edited by Judith
Charles, Karen Johnson, and Linda Peters. With contributions by Ron Lamb and Joe Trnka,
NEPA Practice Co-chairs, Karen Vitulano, Grace Musumeci, Lucinda Low Swartz, Ron Bass,
Piet and Carole deWitt, Nancy Skinner, Dinah Bear, David Yentzer, Bob Cunningham and
Judith Lee. Palm Desert, CA.
-
- ANNUAL NEPA REPORT 2013 of
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Practice (pdf)
- NAEP. April 2014. Annual NEPA Report 2013 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, Piet and Carole deWitt, Elizabeth Ellis, William G. Malley,
Grace Musumeci, Charles P. Nicholson, Lucinda Low Swartz, Karen Vitulano. Guest Editorial
by The Honorable John D. Dingell. Palm Desert, CA.
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.
- ANNUAL NEPA REPORT 2015 of
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Practice (pdf)
- NAEP. August 2016. Annual NEPA Report 2015 of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Practice. Submitted to NAEP Board of
Directors. Edited by Karen Johnson. With contributions by Ron Lamb, NEPA Practice
Co-chair, Piet and Carole deWitt, Horst Greczmiel, Brock Heogh, P. E. Hudson, Charles P.
Nicholson, Michael D. Smith, Lucinda Low Swartz, and Karen Vitulano 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
- Laws
- Executive Orders (comprehensive)
- Regulations (Useful Electronic Code of Federal Regulations,
e-CFR data is current as of Dec. 14, 2017)
- State NEPA Information (n/a for Oregon)
- Legislative History of NEPA (original documents)
- Agency NEPA Implementing Procedures
L. Association
of Environmental Professionals
AEP
https://ceq.doe.gov/https://www.califaep.org/
The Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) is a
California-based non-profit organization of interdisciplinary professionals including
environmental science, resource management, environmental planning and other professions
contributing to this field. AEP is the first organization of its kind in the USA, and its
influence and model have spawned numerous other regional organizations throughout the
United States, as well as the separate National Association of Environmental Professionals
(NAEP). Its mission is to improve the technical skills of members, and the organization is
dedicated to "the enhancement, maintenance and protection of the natural and human
environment". From inception in the mid-1970s the organization has been closely
linked with the upkeep of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California
being one of the first states to adopt a comprehensive law to govern the environmental
review of public policy and project review (Wikipedia, Viewed December 15, 2017).
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
agencys 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).
- P. United
States Government Accountability Office (USGAO)
-
- USGAO
- https://www.gao.gov/resources/congress/overview
-
- The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an
independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. Often called the
"congressional watchdog," GAO investigates how the federal government spends
taxpayer dollars. The head of GAO, the Comptroller General of the United States.
-
- Our Mission is to support the Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and ensure the
accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people. We
provide Congress with timely information that is objective, fact-based, nonpartisan,
nonideological, fair, and balanced.
-
- Our Core Values of accountability, integrity, and
reliability are reflected in all of the work we do. We operate under strict professional
standards of review and referencing; all facts and analyses in our work are thoroughly
checked for accuracy. In addition, our audit policies are consistent with the Fundamental
Auditing Principles (Level 3) of the International Standards of Supreme Audit
Institutions.
-
- Our Work is done at the request of congressional
committees or subcommittees or is mandated by public laws or committee reports. We also
undertake research under the authority of the Comptroller General. We support
congressional oversight with the following.
-
- Auditing agency operations to determine whether
federal funds are being spent efficiently and effectively.
- Investigating allegations of illegal and improper
activities.
- Reporting on how well government programs and
policies are meeting their objectives.
- Performing policy analyses and outlining options for
congressional consideration.
- Issuing legal decisions and opinions, such as bid
protest rulings and reports on agency rules.
- We advise Congress and the heads of executive
agencies about ways to make government more efficient, effective, ethical, equitable and
responsive.
- Natural Resources and Environment (3,498 items)
Reports and Testimonies - Browse by topic & Number
of Items
https://www.gao.gov/browse/topic/Natural_Resources_and_Environment
- Economic development (357)
- Environmental law (330)
- Environmental monitoring (842)
- Environmental policies (586)
- Environmental protection (561)
- Hazardous substances (536)
- Land management (541)
- Natural resources (493)
- Pollution control (380)
- Program management (313)
- Public lands (351)
- state relations (446)
- Federal-Aid
Highways: Federal Requirements for Highways May Influence Funding Decisions and Create
Challenges, but Benefits and Costs Are Not Tracked (pdf) GAO. December 2008.
Federal-Aid Highways: Federal Requirements for Highways May Influence Funding Decisions
and Create Challenges, but Benefits and Costs Are Not Tracked, GAO-09-36. Report to
Congressional Requesters. Washington, D.C. (https://www.gao.gov/assets/290/284235.pdf)
-
- As highway congestion continues to be a problem in many
areas, states are looking to construct or expand highway projects. When a state department
of transportation (DOT) receives federal funding for highway projects from the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), the projects must comply with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirement, the Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise (DBE) program, and the Buy America program.
-
- Highway
Projects: Some Federal and State Practices to Expedite Completion Show Progress
(pdf)
- GAO. June 6, 2012. Highway Projects: Some Federal and
State Practices to Expedite Completion Show Progress. GAO-12-593. Report to
Congressional Requesters. Washington, D.C. (https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-593)
The process to complete highway projects is complicated
and lengthy due to multiple factors. Specifically, highway projects can involve many
stakeholders, including agencies at all levels of government, nongovernmental
organizations, and the public. These stakeholders perform a number of tasks for
major highway projects, as many as 200 steps from planning to construction but
their level of involvement varies. For example, resource agencies like the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service generally only become involved in a
highway project if it affects the environmental or cultural resources that agency is
tasked with protecting. Additional factors can lengthen project time frames, including the
availability of funding, changes in a states transportation priorities, public
opposition, or litigation.
- 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 projectssuch as
roads or bridgeson 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 impacta
CEthen 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. GAOs 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 GAOs
findings.
Q.
Supreme Court of the United States
- About the Court. "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW" -
These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the
ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the
highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the
Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court
is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and,
thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
- The Supreme Court consists of the Chief Justice of the
United States and such number of Associate Justices as may be fixed by Congress. The
number of Associate Justices is currently fixed at eight (28 U. S. C. §1). Power to
nominate the Justices is vested in the President of the United States, and appointments
are made with the advice and consent of the Senate.
-
- Supreme Court of the United States
(SCOFUS)
- https://www.supremecourt.gov/
-
- The federal court system has three main
levels: district courts (the trial court), circuit courts which are the first level of
appeal, and the Supreme Court of the United States, the final level of appeal in the
federal system (see NAEP. ca., 2017. Major Cases Interpreting the National
Environmental Policy Act, Chpt. III).
-
- SCOFUSblog
http://www.scotusblog.com/
-
- The National
Environmental Policy Act in the U.S. Supreme Court: A Reappraisal and a Peek Behind the
Curtains
- Richard Lazarus. 2012. The National
Environmental Policy Act in the U.S. Supreme Court: A Reappraisal and a Peek Behind the
Curtains. The Georgetown Law Journal [Vol. 100:1507].
The Supreme Court has decided
seventeen cases arising under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the
government has not only won every case, but won almost all of them unanimously.
Commentators routinely cite the drubbing that environmentalists have received in NEPA
cases as evidence of the Courts hostility toward environmental law and
environmentalism. But a close look at the cases, extending beyond what appears in the U.S.
Reports, suggests a very different and more nuanced story. . . . (Lazarus. 2012).
The following SCOFUS cases are listed as provided in Lazarus (2012).
- 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
Assn 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. Stryckers 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).
NEPA in the
Supreme Court: a History of Defeat
Green, Zachary, 2015. NEPA in the
Supreme Court: a History of Defeat. Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North
Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of
Master of Environmental Assessment. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Abstract Since its enactment in 1970, the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has been the focus of seventeen Supreme Court cases.
Government and industry have defeated environmental organizations in each of those
seventeen cases. This begs the question "what does it take to defeat
government/industry in the Supreme Court" on issues applicable to the Act. An
analysis of the seventeen cases shows that the Supreme Court, relying only on the
procedural aspects of NEPA, has favored government and industry due to government and
industrys success at following procedures. The focus on the procedural mandate of
the Act has diminished the substantive mandate into an afterthought. The crux of NEPA
litigation revolves around the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), yet
the results of that statement are only meant to inform, not dictate, an agencys
decision to pursue an action. This focus essentially leaves agencies unaccountable for
upholding the substantive element of NEPA and could undermine the Acts intent,
allowing negative environmental consequences and limiting NEPAs full potential. Over
time, the focal point of each case involved more and more intricate procedural
requirements. This highlights government and industry effectiveness in following the steps
of NEPA and suggests environmental organizations must rely more heavily on litigation
involving the most technical procedural requirements in an effort to defeat government and
industry at the Supreme Court level.
NAEP: Major Cases
Interpreting the National Environmental Policy Act (pdf)
NAEP. Ca., 2017. Major Cases Interpreting the National
Environmental Policy Act. Palm Desert, CA. https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/laws-regulations/Major_NEPA_Cases.pdf
The federal court system has
three main levels: district courts (the trial court), circuit courts which are the first
level of appeal, and the Supreme Court of the United States, the final level of appeal in
the federal system.
- 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)
- R. Public NEPA
Comments Josephine County, Oregon Stakeholders
-
- According to the BLM MDO, the government sent the following
notice on one proposed project, Pickett West project and EA, which had a significant
public response (Section VI.A).
- 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.
- Deer Creek Valley Natural Resources
Conservation Association (DCVNRCA)
-
- A brief search of the web found many references to DCVNRCA,
but no found web page.
- 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/
- X.
DISCLOSURE
-
- This disclosure is a disclaimer from the Justice System
& Public Safety Services (JS&PSS) Exploratory Committee, Hugo Neighborhood
Association & Historical Society.
-
- This disclaimer implies situations that involve some level
of uncertainty, waiver, or risk. It is a defensive measure, used for the purpose of
protection from unwanted claims and liability . . . and most especially credibility of the
Exploratory Committee. Regardless of the disclaimer, the goal of this work in
progress web page, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Information NEPA
Consultations/Workshops, is to provide an educational opportunity to interested
neighbors by providing NEPA research materials that can be checked in order for them to
find their own truth. Neighbors include those pro and con of some proposed federal action
covered by NEPA. The educational opportunity is to learn how to effectively
participate in the NEPA processes of the government of interest for the purpose of having
your voice heard. Has the rule of law been followed?
-
- This draft December 21, 2017 self assigned assessment task
of researching and developing a NEPA web page is recognized as being very incomplete. The
reason for interimly interrupting the development of the web page research project was
NEPAs lengthy history, topic complexity, and the massive amount of information in
the form of policy and technical documents covering its many issues. At 60 pages plus, the
project was already huge and threatened to continue growing beyond the original goal of a
two page reference web site (i.e., the growth was an additional objective of providing a
foundational setting or background for the envisioned simple NEPA consultations/workshops
(Section VIII.B). Even though ceasing the task with the status of a preliminary web page,
an excellent beginning was developed.
- The "?" at the end of Section VIII.C, Future
Consultations & Workshops?, is not that they will not occur, but the unknown future
form and timing. This is the reason for the idea of "interimly interrupting" the
development of the web page. It will continue at times of public interest.
- VIII. NEPA CONSULTATIONS/WORKSHOPS
- A. Hugo JS&PSS Exploratory Committees Written
Consultations
- B. Workshops
- C. Future Consultations & Workshops?
- Circulating back to disclaimer Written differently,
the preliminary NEPA web page was not systematically and comprehensively documented for verification
and reliability of evidence. The development process was ad hoc, and the form grew
organically, not knowing what it would turn into. It is way beyond brainstorming, but is
still a draft working web page, especially as its original purpose was something much
simpler. The original public consultation and workshop goal was to form a common baseline
of information about the January 30, 2008 BLM National Environmental Policy Act
Handbook H-1790-1 (BLM NEPA Handbook) as it was practiced by BLM MDO and the
public, and expressed by the title, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):
Information NEPA Consultations/Workshops. The idea was to have a few informal NEPA
"table talk" workshops for from 4 - 6 participants at the Black Forest
Restaurant in Grants Pass, Oregon. The idea took form and was accomplished (Chap. VIII).
-
- "As practiced" by the public was difficult as the
BLM MDO did not every disclose the specific NEPA procedural rules during any of its
citizen involvement outreach efforts (i.e., most neighbors sharing their issues and
concerns did not even know of the existence of the BLM NEPA Handbook).
-
- The written consultations for group/table talk discussions
(Chap. VIII) would eventually evolve into public testimony comments by the Exploratory
Committee for two EAs: 1. Pickett West Forest Management Project and EA, and 2. Clean
Slate Forest Management Project Scoping and future EA (both in Section VII.A.1.b)). This
was in addition to the intense public involvement already occurring.
- 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 dont check email very
often, and I dont 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.
Worthingtons 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 Citizens 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
Planners 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
|