At AFRC one of our most important tools – and one of the most important services we offer our members – is our legal program. AFRC not only advocates for responsible forest management on public lands by working directly with the agency and interested stakeholders. We also have a legal team that aggressively defends good projects in court when challenged by opponents of active management.
Last week, I was at the Federal Courthouse in Eugene to observe oral arguments of a legal challenge to one of those projects. Within minutes of walking into the courtroom, I was struck by the irony of the exercise. To my left, to my right, directly in front of me, and directly behind me were 20-foot high wood-paneled walls (probably manufactured locally by an AFRC member). The lawyers – including the environmental plaintiffs – were sitting behind ornate wood desks and the audience sat on wood benches and wood chairs. The judge called the hearing to order by wrapping the gavel made of wood on her, wait for it, wood dais.
And the topic of discussion for the day: is it ok to use some of the billions of trees in Oregon, a renewable resource, to make the very things right in front of our faces?
After the judge thanked legal counsel for their extensive briefing materials, which amounted to hundreds of pages of legal analysis, maps, and discussion of all the steps the Forest Service undertook to design the project, the “show” began. Not knowing the intimate details of the project (AFRC monitors 45 national forests and BLM units on 75 million acres of public land), I was anxious to understand the premise of the plaintiff’s legal challenge. I was waiting for the fireworks.
Was the plaintiff going to claim the Forest Service was planning a massive “clearcut” of “old growth” near a favorite campground? Such accusations always get the public’s attention.
Or, perhaps the plaintiff would argue the Forest Service was planning to authorize logging on the banks of Umpqua River near a well-known fishing hole? That would get people fired up.
Or, maybe the plaintiff was simply going to claim that managing a tiny fraction of the Umpqua National Forest would mean the extinction of the spotted owl? I mean, no judge wants to greenlight the extirpation of an entire species, right?
As it turns out, the legal challenge had little to do with the substance of the proposed project at all. In fact, the project was aimed at thinning overstocked forests, restoring meadows, and making the landscape more resilient to fire. The project was also planned on forestlands zoned as “Matrix” – the very lands intended for timber production under the Northwest Forest Plan. I was confused. So, what’s the problem? Isn’t this exactly what environmental activists want the Forest Service to be doing?
The problem, according to the plaintiff, was the process. The Forest Service had only spent hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars preparing an “Environmental Assessment” (EA). The plaintiff argued such analysis and public outreach was insufficient – the Forest Service should have prepared a longer, more expensive document called an “Environmental Impact Statement” (EIS). Forget that an EA is more than legally sufficient to disclose the impacts of the project to the public. Forget the Forest Service made changes to the project to accommodate concerns from the public. The plaintiff wanted an EIS (the same document used when analyzing a massive, permanent infrastructure project like building an interstate), not an EA.
Why, you ask? That’s the question the judge was trying to get to the bottom of. The Forest Service had already completed a comprehensive, multi-year, six-figure, taxpayer-funded EIS for the overarching forest plan that governs management of the entire Umpqua National Forest. Should the Forest Service be required to complete a second EIS for every project that is tied to the forest plan?
Would such a requirement lead to significant changes to the project? Highly unlikely. The requirement would lead to the very same outcomes but take significantly more time and cost more money.
Would such a requirement encourage more members of the public to learn more about the project and engage with the Forest Service? No. In fact, the opposite is likely to occur. The public will be even less likely to read a 500 – 1,000 page document than a 200-page document. Public disclosures required by the National Environmental Policy Act should be more accessible and consumable by the average person interested in public lands, not less so.
So, what is the whole point of this exercise?
As someone who served in Federal government for eight years, I deeply respect the checks and balances of our government. Holding our government accountable, demanding that it be transparent, and petitioning the government when it blatantly violates the law provides the very foundation of our democracy.
But in this case, and in dozens of cases AFRC defends in court, that rarely seems to be the point of the legal challenge. It’s not about the owl. It’s not about clean water. It’s not about public access, or even about “protecting” our forests. Unfortunately, all too often, legal challenges focus on extremely technical components of the process, rather than on the substance of the project and whether or not the project violates the well-intended Federal statutes to protect the public, the environment, and those that depend on our public lands.
And that’s not a good thing for the judicial system (what happens when there’s a truly legitimate claim or grievance?), for engaging and educating the public about land management decisions, the taxpayer who foots the bill for the legal proceedings and often the plaintiffs’ attorney fees, the morale and expertise of the Forest Service, or for the timely and science-based management of Federal forests in response to climate change, fires, disease, and insect infestations.
We need a better process. There has to be a more equitable way of holding our government accountable while not incentivizing or rewarding obstructionist behavior. At AFRC, we want to work with those truly interested in a different, more efficient, more accessible, more transparent approach. -Travis Joseph
As AFRC’s field forester in western Oregon I am responsible for reviewing vegetation management projects with a timber harvest component across four national forests. All four of these Forests provide some level of timber products every year as a component of these projects. I stress the word ‘component’ here as these are integrated projects, meaning that their objectives are numerous and diverse. A garden-variety project may aim to improve wildlife habitat, expand recreation opportunities, and provide timber products. A good project strives to strike a balance of these diverse objectives and offer up a sort of symbiotic relationship amongst them. Naturally, the first step in achieving this symbiosis is to identify and acknowledge the various objectives. For many years, the Forest Service took this first step in a straightforward and tacit manner: they knew what their objectives were and they listed them in no particular order. Over the past few years I have noticed a change. The change is simple: the omission of timber as an explicit objective alongside the other objectives. Timber products are still being provided on these projects, they’re just not being acknowledged in the blueprints. It’s almost as though the Forest Service is a bit ashamed of harvesting and selling logs.
Faced with this trending practice of veiling timber harvest from small-scale projects, I decided to turn to the forum where the agency is most visible and accessible at the large-scale: their website. This is where most people would go if they were interested in what the Forest Service does and what its mission is. Sure enough, the agency’s mission is identified clearly on the web: The mission of the USDA Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. Like most mission statements, this one is a bit abstract. What are these “needs” that our generation gets from our forests? Fast-forwarding past my trudge through the agency’s webpage I came to the conclusion that our generation apparently does not need wood products; at least not according to the Forest Service, otherwise I would have been able to locate the word “wood” or “timber” somewhere on their website. I read about other resources: air, water, soil, recreation, wildlife, etc. In this regard, the Forest Service’s website mirrors those vegetation management projects that I review in western Oregon. By that I mean they provide wood products to the American public, they just don’t like to boast about it.
I suppose in an age where it seems that image is everything and substance is an afterthought, the Forest Service’s policy of hiding the fact that they permit the cutting of trees to provide wood products to the American public shouldn’t come as a shock. Although it does to me. Why not take pride in the fact that they are providing a renewable resource that every member of the public uses every day? Why not take pride in the fact that this provision comes via integrated projects that achieve a swath of other resource objectives? These are loaded questions of course. I’m not that naïve. The cutting down of trees, regardless of the reason, makes most people at worst distraught and at best a bit uncomfortable. This is fine. What isn’t fine is that the lead government agency tasked with providing the nation with all of its needs from our national forests seems to be tailoring it’s messaging to assuage these sentiments rather than tailoring it to reflect what the nation’s needs actually are. In other words, their website, and the messaging it contains, seems to be handling the public with kids gloves. Not only is this approach disingenuous, and a bit insulting to their audience, but it’s also leading down a questionable path. If the Forest Service treats their timber products resource with such shame, why shouldn’t the rest of the American public? -Andy Geissler
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance is typically the most costly part of implementing any type of vegetation management project on federally managed land. Documents exceeding 200 pages are commonplace to comply with NEPA. In 2015 the Roseburg District of the Bureau of Land Management completed one such analysis called Olalla-Camus. This analysis focused on treatments designed to fulfil the BLM’s O&C mandate to provide a sustained production of timber on lands allocated for such production as directed by their 1994 Resource Management Plan. Like all NEPA documents completed by federal agencies attempting to conduct active forest management and timber harvest, Olalla-Camus included an in-depth analysis on everything from wildlife habitat to carbon storage and beyond. The timber sales analyzed under this document were estimated to provide about 16 MMBF of timber.
Next month the BLM will be offering the only timber sale generated off the Olalla-Camus EA for a total of 6.7 MMBF. The remaining 10 MMBF considered in this EA will never be implemented. This is due to the BLM’s new management plan completed in 2016, inconveniently finalized between the publication of the Olalla-Camus EA and the planned implementation of the treatments it considered. Like the 1994 RMP, the 2016 RMP set aside many acres where sustained timber production cannot occur. The only difference is that these “set-aside” acres grew exponentially. Part of this “growth” includes the majority of the land included in the Olalla-Camus EA. The BLM could have included a “grandfather clause” that would allow projects conceived and analyzed under the old management plan to move forward, but they didn’t. The unfortunate result is the worst type of government waste-investments consuming large sums of money and time being squandered. -Andy Geissler
The months of December, January and February are very important to sawmills trying to get their winter decks of logs in before the rains and wet conditions of spring arrives. These months of winter logging provide sub-freezing temperatures that allows loggers to operate over frozen ground conditions in the forests and remove the timber with little damage to the soil and to the roads they are driving on.
During these winter months, sawmills must deck up enough logs in their yards to allow them to operate during the months of March, April and part of May when conditions in the forests are wet and the soil and roads are too moist to operate on. Winter logging can be tough on equipment and tough on the loggers working in the woods, often in sub-zero temperatures. Equipment can freeze up, more breakdowns occur during this time, and with the deep snow and ice, accidents are more prevalent.
So the next time you see a log truck going down the road with snow on top of the logs, think about the loggers working hard in the woods helping the sawmills get in their winter decks before the spring breakup takes place and all of the loggers and their equipment have to exit our Forests.
Below are some pictures from Vaagen Brothers Lumber log yard, as they are building up their winter decks. On a recent trip to the Colville and Kettle Falls area, the temperatures were dropping to -15 degrees Fahrenheit.
I was in the middle of writing this piece when Russ Vaagen posted “Roads are not the Enemy” on his blog, theforestblog.com. At first I thought about scraping my article but after reading his, I think the two pieces are complementary to each other. Mine is from the perspective of a forest engineer who has spent most of my career dealing with forest roads, both new construction and maintenance. Nearly all this work was on private and state trust lands in Washington State. I think this provides a unique perspective on the forest road issue, especially on U.S. Forest Service lands.
If you look around much of the road infrastructure – road surfacing, culverts, bridges, etc. of federal forests are crumbling away, much as we see across the federal highway system. For the most part this is not due to a lack of will or desire on the part of the hard-working field level staff of the Forest Service. Really, it is mostly due to the significant underfunding of road maintenance needs nationally on the Forest Service road system. This lack of maintenance of key infrastructure, admittedly primarily built for timber but providing access now for a broad range of users, has and continues to have negative impacts on access and the environment. Failed culverts, washed out roads, plugged ditches, and aging culverts and bridges are just a few examples of the type of issues impacting water resources or limiting access. Often cutting off recreational and economic opportunities in the forest.
What can we do about this?
Many people look at the success of the Washington State Forest Practices Road Maintenance and Abandonment Plan (RMAP) process and wonder if it can be applied elsewhere. Perhaps even on the National Forest? According to a Washington Forest Protection Association 2015 report, private forest landowners and state lands (mostly DNR Trust Lands) have spent over $300 million dollars since the year 2001 in Washington state, “resulting in removal or repair of more than 5,600 barriers to fish migration, which has restored nearly 3,900 miles of historic fish habitat.” While this figure primarily captures the investment in fish passage, there is another monetary metric that was not well captured in how DNR collects data.
That metric is non-fish passage road maintenance work, such as adding or installing larger cross drain culverts, road surfacing upgrades, and road abandonment. Additionally, there is the routine maintenance, not tracked through the RMAP program. Ongoing road grading work, culvert and ditchline cleaning, and road side vegetation management. All work to maintain a transportation system not only for regulatory reasons but also operational reasons.
As an engineer, I have spent much of my career identifying, designing, and complying this type of work. I have lost track of the number of truckloads of culverts I have overseen the installation of, but it is a substantial number. Private landowners and DNR trust lands have and are investing millions of dollars into the ongoing maintenance and upgrades of their transportation systems. This benefits, water quality, provides economic benefit from the work, and in many cases, enhances recreational access.
Is this a potential model for Forest Service transportation systems?
Ultimately, yes! A similar model on Forest Service lands can be developed, but some hurdles need to be overcome. Roads are such a contentious issue, especially on the National Forests. Can interest groups with such diverse opinions, those that want to keep every road and those who would like to see significantly less if not all roads obliterated come together on common ground? Some roads may need to go away, but conversely there may need to be new permanent road constructed to maintain access needs. Relocating roads out of flood plains or similar areas to higher ground are one example of the need to build new road while eliminating some existing road. Can agreement be reached?
Funding is the major road block to getting work done. Some Forests are using Stewardship dollars to conduct restoration level road maintenance, but this does not meet the overall need. Private and state trust lands harvested trees to pay for much of the RMAP work they conducted. A similar program can be used on Forest Service grounds, while still meeting ecological goals and within the confines of federal land management regulations. But it will require increasing “pace and scale” while also seeing congress add more funds to the Forest Service budget to accomplish this work.
In the end a new model needs to be built for the Forest Service because it is the right thing to do for many stakeholder interests. The RMAP program grew out of the Washington State Forest Practices Forest and Fish HCP. It was an effort to balance the needs of water quality and fish habitat with a viable and sustainable forest products industry. An effort that to date appears to be very successful on state and private forest land ownership.
On Forest Service lands this work would not only benefit access needs for recreation and vegetation management but also water quality and fish habitat. A successful program would enhance the environment while helping to maintain and enhance the economic infrastructure of road maintenance, logging, and milling. This could go a long way in working to create family wage jobs in rural communities. – Matt Comisky
Managing forest stands to put them on a trajectory that will increase their resiliency to wildfire, insect & disease, and climate change seems to be at the forefront of both the Forest Service’s (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) priorities over the past few years. This concept is often characterized as “forest restoration” by both agencies. The importance and validity of this priority is illustrated well in the current state of the federal forests of southwest Oregon. A century of fire suppression in the region has resulted in a level of fuel accumulation that puts these forests at the risk of wildfires that would burn at unnatural levels of intensity. The remedy to these issues is simple but often controversial: removing the in-growth; essentially cutting and removing the trees that have grown due to a century of fire suppression. In fact, a paper titled A new approach to evaluate forest structure restoration needs across Oregon and Washington, USA published in Forest Ecology and Management in 2014 by the Nature Conservancy and others, describes these conditions and remedies for southwest Oregon. Here, the authors describe much of the lands in southwest Oregon as having “moderate to high active restoration needs”. The authors of this paper determined that these “forest restoration needs were dominated by the need for thinning” and that “disturbance alone cannot restore forest structure”.
The nice thing about such a remedy is that it addresses multiple resource objectives. It restores forest stands to a more resilient condition while also providing timber products to the local industry. Unfortunately, these types of forest treatments are often unimplementable. The obstacles appear to be the management plans and regulatory guidance that direct the actions of the very agencies (USFS & BLM) that aim to prioritize such treatments.
In a recent environmental assessment published by the Medford BLM district the agency stated: due to competing management objectives, some stands proposed for treatment (approximately 23% of the proposed treatment acres) would not meet the long-term objectives of shifting the trajectory of stands to more optimal growth and resiliency. How is it that the objectives of the management plan of an agency whose priority is to increase forest resiliency conflict with actions that would increase forest resiliency?
One of these objectives is the recovery of the northern spotted owl (NSO), which is a species listed as threatened under the endangered species act. BLM vegetation management projects, and subsequent timber sales, must always consider the effects of said project to the NSO and its habitat. These effects are often measured by the level of forest canopy retained after any vegetation management is applied due to the NSO’s need for some closed canopy conditions. However, in southwest Oregon where current closed canopies are unnaturally high due to the aforementioned fire suppression, the presumed habitat needs of the NSO conflict with the treatments necessary to meet the needs of forest resiliency. The same environmental assessment referenced above goes on to state: retaining canopy cover in select stands would not allow for forest health objectives to be met.
A rational mind would think that a native species of fauna would thrive in a setting composed of native levels of flora. In other words, if the “natural” condition of forested stands in southwest Oregon is one of lower forest canopy density, shouldn’t those species of wildlife dependent on them thrive under such conditions? The answer, according to vegetation management projects like the one referenced above, seems to be no. Reconciliation of this strange relationship would be a neat trick. -Andy Geissler
Since the inception of the Northwest Forest Plan in 1994 the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management in Western Oregon have limited their timber management paradigm to one of nearly exclusive thinning of young forest stands where post-harvest residual closed forest canopies make regeneration of Douglas-fir impossible. This is an ecological truth: Douglas-fir seedlings need at least partial, but preferably full sunlight to grow and thrive. AFRC has often clamored regarding the near-sighted nature of this management regime and questioned its long-term sustainability. In recent months some federal agencies have come to terms with the same truth that AFRC and most foresters who practice their trade in the Pacific Northwest know well: you can’t thin forever.
The Salem BLM District recently published an environmental assessment that considered just how long they could manage their timber resources with a young stand thinning-only approach. The results were disturbing but not surprising. The EA, dated April, 2016 read: At the current rate of harvest it is likely the Salem District will exhaust most commercial thinning options in 40-80-year-old stands in a little over a decade. In other words, the BLM timber program as we have come to know it, will expire in ten years on the Cascades Resource Area without a major shift in management practices. And really, this timeline is likely pretty similar on other BLM Resource Areas, give or take five years.
I for one was elated when I read this. It’s a gloomy outlook, but at least it’s realistic. It’s akin to the longtime addict finally accepting that they are indeed an addict: Until the BLM overcomes the state of denial and accepts that their past twenty-year thinning-only regime is ultimately unsustainable then the likelihood of altering the trend is grim. It appears that the Cascades Resource Area is on the path to recovery. Perhaps an intervention is warranted for other Resource Area’s, or the Forest Service for that matter. –Andy Geissler
It is often said that the BLM is not managing their lands sustainably and they are “over-cutting”. Elsewhere in this blog we have explained how one determines the amount of timber that can be sustained over time. Using those concepts, is the BLM overcutting? The answer is, it depends. It depends on if the BLM is managing its land consistent with the assumptions made in doing the sustained yield calculation.
For example, if the sustained yield calculation was based on managing 2 million acres and was one billion board feet per year and for various reasons the BLM felt it could only manage 1.5 million acres and they still were selling one billion board feet then, yes, they would be overcutting IF all 2 million acres were established and maintained under the same assumptions as were made when doing the sustained yield calculation. If on the other hand, the 1.5 million acres contained a higher volume than the managed stand used in the sustained yield calculation, they would not be overcutting and could maintain a sale level of one billion board feet until that excess inventory was gone. Are you confused yet?
Let’s use an example. Using the process described in the previous blog, the BLM calculates that the average acre within the one billion board foot sustained yield calculation was based on growing a 21” tree in 60 years for an average volume per acre of 40,000 bf. If the 2 million acres within their land base consisted entirely of stands under 60 years old and were being managed in a manner that their volume per acre at 60 years was 40,000 bf, then if they continued to harvest one billion board feet per year when their land base was reduced by 25% then they would be overcutting. If the land base is reduced by 25%, the sustained yield would go down 25% to 750,000 bf if the potential of all acres is identical.
Now let’s assume that the 1.5 million acres the BLM is left with after removing 25% from the land base contained stands that were older than 60 and contained 80,000 bf/ac. This is way more than what is expected under the sustained yield scenario. In this case, every acre cut contains twice the volume of a sustained yield acre. The BLM would not be overcutting if they maintained a harvest of one billion board feet. They could actually harvest 1.5 billion BF for 60 years from those 1.5 million acres at which time they would have to reduce their harvest to 750,000 bf which is what the managed stands can sustain over time.
Another instance where they could harvest above their sustained yield level is if they aren’t managing their lands using the land management practices that were assumed to be used when doing the sustained yield calculation. For instance, they might not plant areas with the same genetic characteristic, might not apply fertilizer, might not control stocking or might not regenerate and plant new trees as assumed in the sustained yield calculation. Under these conditions, the lands would not be growing as anticipated and they could be over cutting.
The industry is worried that this might be the case as the BLM has not followed the management practices that were assumed when they did their sustained yield calculation 20 years ago. Since the NWFP was adopted, the BLM has not regenerated and planted new trees as anticipated but rather relied on thinning existing stands to produce their ASQ. While this has increased the standing inventory beyond what was anticipated, it has created a 20 year age gap that will affect future sustained yield calculations.
The BLM has never “over-cut” their lands as the vast majority of their stands contain way more volume than the sustained yield acre as in the example above. Claims that they are doing so are merely attempts to discredit the agency and deceive the general public and have no basis in reality. -Ross Mickey
The lands (and the trees that grow on them) managed by the USFS and BLM are governed by numerous laws that require these lands to be managed sustainably. The O&C Act, which governs the management of over 2 million acres of federally owned forestland in western Oregon, is very specific on this point. It states that the O&C lands “shall be managed . . . for permanent forest production, and the timber thereon shall be sold, cut, and removed in conformity with the principal of sustained yield for the purpose of providing a permanent source of timber supply”. So what is the “principle of sustained yield”?
In its simplest form, this means that the federal agencies cannot cut more trees than it can grow. The next question is how one knows that they are doing this? That’s complicated. It is done by collecting reams of field data which are compiled and feed into computer models developed by teams of PhD’s from a wide range of specialties. Understanding the interplay between all of these biological, social and technical factors form the basis of Forestry Programs developed by our major universities. Short of that, I will give you my synopsis of a Sustained Yield 101 course. I will start by assuming that I own ten acres of land and want to grow Christmas trees to supplement my income. These same principle apply to growing trees to produce building materials.
To determine my “sustained yield” of Christmas trees, the first thing I need to know is the productivity of the soil. My ten acres consists of one acre of really good soil, eight acres of OK soil and one acre of rather poor soil. The next thing I need to know is how long it will take to grow the size of Christmas tree I want to sell. To determine this I need to know the characteristics of the trees I am going to plant (genetics), what supplements I might add to the soil (fertilizers), what management practices I will employ as the trees grow (thinning, weed control, etc.) and how big of a tree I want to grow. I then combine the soil productivity and the tree data to find out how long it will take to grow the size of tree I want and how many trees per acre I can expect to have.
Doing this I find that I can grow 1,500, six foot trees in five years on my one acre of really good soil, 1,250 trees on my OK soil and 750 trees on my poor soil.
I decide to start small and just plant my one acre of good soil. What is my sustained yield? Well it is 1,500 trees every five years. Most of the time, sustained yield is displayed on an annual basis and is referred to as the Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ). This is because our federal forestland is also managed under another forestry principle which is called “non-decline, even flow management”. What this does is ensure that the communities and businesses that rely on a predictable, constant supply of timber will not be hurt by huge swings in the amount of timber being sold every year. On our case, it means that instead of selling 1,500 trees every five years we would sell 300 trees every year. (1,500 divided by five years) Our ASQ would then be 300 trees.
What would happen if I wanted to plant all ten acres? I could grow 1,500/acre on one acre, 1,250 /acre on eight acres and 750/acre on one acre. Doing the math, this pencils out to 12,250 trees every five years or an ASQ of 2,450 trees. In order for this to truly be sustainable, 300 trees would come off the one good soil acre, 2,000 from my eight OK soil acres and 150 from my one acre of poor soil. I would also have to immediately replant the acres that I cut. Planting baby trees is the heart of sustained yield management.
As you can see, calculating the sustained yield combines many factors and is based on the assumption that you start with bare land. What happens to the sustained yield when you start with land that already has trees on them? The answer is…nothing. Sustained yield is calculated on the potential growth based on the myriad of factors mentioned above. What existing trees do determine is when you can start selling at the sustained yield level. In our Christmas tree example, we can’t start until five years from now. When our federal agencies ask the same question, they look at the size of the inventory that they start with and determine if it can be metered out at the sustained yield level. If not, they must lower their ASQ until such time as the inventory is sufficient to maintain the sustained yield level. If the inventory is very high, they could actually sell more than their sustained yield level for a period of time but the principle of non-decline, even flow prohibits this. -Ross Mickey
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) states in its 2007 publication A Citizens Guide to NEPA that “The environmental assessment (EA) is intended to be a concise document that briefly provides sufficient evidence and analysis”. In an attempt to meet that guidance and to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Medford BLM District compiled 1,559 pages of environmental analysis in 2016 in order to implement that year’s vegetation management program; a program that generated less than 60% of the District’s assigned timber outputs. So much for brief and concise.
So how did the Medford District digress from this simple guidance by the CEQ? How did brief and concise morph into embellished and verbose? The answer can partially be found by skimming through the 170 pages of written protests received in 2016 by the Medford BLM in response to the 1,559 pages of analysis. Many of the points embedded in these protests begin with phrasing such as “the EA failed to consider…” or “insufficient analysis in the EA…” Apparently not everyone shares the vision of brevity that the CEQ had in 2007; perhaps brevity is not in everyone’s best interest. The Code of Federal Regulations permits anyone the right to file a written protest to any BLM forest management decision. The Code of Federal Regulations does not however limit or cap the scale of these protests. In other words, you as a citizen can submit a ten-page protest or a 100-page protest; or a thousand-page protest for that matter. This last scenario is a bit absurd and may seem to be an exercise in futility, but considering that the BLM has taken the position that every single protest point embedded in each protest demands its own written response, you might reevaluate; that is if it’s in your interest to generate more paperwork for the BLM.
To illustrate, put yourself in the shoes of a BLM NEPA writer who just completed a 418 page EA (if you don’t believe me follow this link), who then, in response to the recently completed mammoth document, receives over 60 pages of protests with over 80 individual protest points embedded that warrant written response. The term blinded by paperwork comes to mind, or more accurately mired in paperwork. Now, put yourself in the shoes of an opponent/protestor of the BLM’s forest/timber management program. Suddenly the mire you created for the BLM doesn’t seem so bad, or futile. If halting the BLM’s timber management program is unattainable surely slowing it down is the next best thing.
As for our aforementioned BLM NEPA writer: following what must be an exhausting exercise in defending and justifying the recently completed 418-page behemoth in writing, and with the stack of last year’s EA’s, protests, and protest responses still sitting on your desk, that BLM NEPA writer gets started on writing next year’s EA’s. Make no mistake, the excessive and constantly expanding verbiage generated for each new BLM EA is indeed a function of years and years of protests demanding more and more verbiage. And really, what better way to undermine an agency’s ability, and desire for that matter, to operate efficiently than to force that agency into generating more paperwork? With 2017’s timber sale program just around the corner I can already hear the opposition to that program cracking their knuckles in anticipation.
–Andy Geissler, AFRC Western Oregon Forester