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 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