hnalogo.jpg (103481 bytes)

 

Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society

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.   NEPA’S TWIN AIMS
V.    NEPA’S 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 USDI’s 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.       NEPA’s 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 - XI’s procedural requirements from NEPA Design Group’s 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 Group’s Comments on the Hellgate RAMP/DEIS
NEPA Design Group. February 15, 2001. NEPA Design Group’s Comments on the Hellgate RAMP/DEIS. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Medford District Office, United States Department of Interior. Hugo, OR.
•   Scoping Rogue River’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values, Other Similar Values & Other River Values
Walker, Mike. Preliminary December 8, 2014.  Scoping Rogue River’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values, Other Similar Values & Other River Values (pages 240). Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society, Rogue Advocates, & Goal One Coalition. Hugo, OR.
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 Design’s 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 Committee’s 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 Committee’s Aspirations For Josephine County’s (JO CO’s) JS&PSS Problem/Issue
 
On September 1, 2015 the Exploratory Committee published a letter to JO CO’s safety stakeholders, the citizens of Josephine County, Oregon on its outreach web page. The subject was its aspirations for JO CO’s 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 CO’s 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 environment—has 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 project’s 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. NEPA’s 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 BLM’s 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 CEQ’s 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.     NEPA’S 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 agency’s 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.      NEPA’S 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 court’s 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 NEPA’s "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 BLM’s 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 handbook’s Section 6.8.1.2 Analyzing Effects Methodology provides "A NEPA document must describe the analytical methodology sufficiently so that the reader can understand how the analysis was conducted and why the particular methodology was used."
 
2. Hard Look by EA and EIS ID Teams   The issue is the BLM ID team’s responsibility to describe any significant environmental impacts of a proposed action through a "hard look," and its role to ensure that the BLM’s 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 team’s 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 NEPA’s 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 NEPA’s 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 their’s 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 team’s 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., BLM’s 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 Fogleman’s 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 BLM’s 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 NEPA’s 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 agency’s 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. BLM’s work in the 1980s to Determining Significance of Environmental Issues Under NEPA, and 3. the Hugo Justice System & Public Safety Services Exploratory Committee’s methodology models (see August 7, 2017 consultation letter/email (Section III.A).
(a)  CRAC Method Of Legal Analysis
(b)  BLM’s 1980s Work Determining Issue Significance Under NEPA
(c)  Hugo Justice System & Public Safety Services Exploratory Committee’s Methodology Models
        a) Impact Methodology Model: 2015
        b) NEPA Design Group: 2001
(d)  Synthesis: Potential Method of Analysis
(a) CRAC Method Of Legal Analysis (Observation). The CRAC method of legal analysis includes: Conclusion > Rule > Application > Conclusion
1.  Conclusion. What is the conclusion you want to judge to make after reading your brief?
2.  Rule. What is the law that supports your conclusion?
3.  Application. Explain how the law applies to the issues.
4.  Conclusion. Restate the conclusion to the judge.
(b) BLM’s 1980s Work Determining Issue Significance Under NEPA (Recommendation)
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 man’s activities through a cause, a change agent. This distinguishes an environmental impact from a change in the human environment caused by forces other than man.
• (3) It has a meaning or value separate from the change itself. Depending on the context within which a change takes place, an impact can be positive, negative, beneficial, adverse, good, bad, etc. These types of imprecise, judgmental, and qualitative evaluation are often found in environmental documents with no explanation or substantiation for the evaluation.
Already we have used nine of our 12 vocabulary words (underlined above). The remaining three are types of indicators: structural components, functional processes, and environmental indexes. These 12 words can accommodate environmental impacts describe by virtually any discipline (emphasis added).
Walker’s Comments: The above 12 vocabulary words are described on pages 8 - 9 of the document, A Systematic Interdisciplinary Language For Environmental Analysis Under NEPA (Haug, BLM. 1982). This paper does not take on the "threshold" of significance directly but references 40 CFR 1508.27 and the importance of context of an impact and its relative importance (intensity). Its real contribution is developing a systematic interdisciplinary language (i.e., impact methodology: NEPA, Section 102(2)(B); 40 CFR 1507.3; 40 CFR 1502.24; 40 CRF 1502.22) for environmental analysis compliance with NEPA (i.e., baseline, change agent, component, context, ecosystem, effect, environmental consequence, human environment, impact, index, and indicator).
The Grammar: A Worksheet (see Figure 2. Impact Sentence of Environmental Consequences Worksheet pdf) The "grammar" for our language consists of a single worksheet for organizing and displaying information about environmental consequences. The information at the top of the sheet allows the user systematically to break down a plan, proposed action, or alternatives into smaller increments to identify the actual change agents that will cause impacts (Fig. 2). Each line is designed to read like a simple declarative sentence with a subject, verb, object, and a string of modifiers. The subject is the change agent; the verb is either "increase" or "decrease"; and the object is the indicator being impacted. The change is described by modifiers that include the estimated quantity of change, the units of change, and the probability that this particular estimated change will actually occur (Haug, BLM. 1982, p. 10).
All the columns through Probability represent the factual estimate of the impact. The right hand column, Context or Relative Importance, is available for the user to interpret the meaning of value of that estimated change. The worksheet thus clearly separates the relatively objective estimate of an environmental consequence from the often more subjective meaning of that consequence. This distinction aids in identifying conflicts (and hopefully in resolving them; Haug, BLM. 1982, p. 10).
By thus separating the fact of an impact from its meaning, we eliminate a major source of confusion commonly found in controversies about environmental consequences. Legitimate differences of opinion about the fact of an impact can be specifically addressed and recorded on the worksheet. For instance, arguments about the fact of an impact can be reduced sometimes if probabilities are used. Opposing experts in the same discipline (emphasis added) can state their professional expectations clearly in probabilistic terms about differing estimates of a controversial impact. Arguments over the relative importance, or meaning, of an impact may be less easily resolved, but opposing points of view can still be recorded and displayed for the decisionmaker and the public to see (emphasis added). An example worksheet is presented in Fig. 2, and a set of instructions is listed in Table 3 (Haug, BLM. 1982, pps. 10 & 12)
 
Use of the Methodology We have found that this methodology is extremely flexible, and it seems to satisfy all the criteria listed in Table 1 (Haug, BLM. 1982, p. 12).
 
The methodology forces staff analysts (emphasis added) to organize their information in a clear, concise format so that consequences of several alternative can be compared easily. . . . Environmental analysts (emphasis added) often are not used to quantifying estimates (Haug, BLM. 1982, p. 17).
 
Discussion This auxiliary "language" of environmental analysis . . . allows the disciplinary specialist (emphasis added) complete freedom to estimate and calculate environmental consequences according to state-of-the-art methods in that discipline, but it forces all specialists to describe consequences in a common format based on a common understanding of what an environmental consequence is. The language thus provides a medium of communication between specialists of widely varying disciplines, between an interdisciplinary team and decisionmakers, and between an agency and the general public (emphasis added) (Haug, BLM. 1982, p. 19).
(c) Justice System & Public Safety Services Study Design: 2015 (Study Design) The CEQ regulations and National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP) are fountains of information in defining significance (Sections XI A & K).
 
    •    CRF 1508.27 Significantly. "Significantly" as used in NEPA requires considerations of both context and intensity (Chpt. III).
    •    NAEP. Ca., 2017. Major Cases Interpreting the National Environmental Policy Act, Chpt. III. Palm Desert, CA.
    •    Justice System & Public Safety Services Study Design: 2015: Chapters III, VI, & VII
          http://www.hugoneighborhood.org/justicesystemexploratorycommittee.htm
 
Chapter III, Study Design.  An adequate information assessment/analysis has several elements and a conclusion of adequacy (Scope, p. 6).
• 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., BLM’s approach under Haug, BLM WO Planner (Haug, BLM 1982; 1984a; 1984b). The August 7, 2017 NEPA Review of DCVNRCA’s 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 law—especially 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. 551–559, 701–706, 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 BLM’s 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 public’s 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 BLM’s 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: BLM’s Responsibilities For Public Involvement (PI) Purpose Of National Environmental Procedures Act’s (NEPA) Procedural Mandate Requires Interdisciplinary (ID) Team Members To Be Accessible To The Public
Appendices
Appendix A. National Environmental Procedures Act’s (NEPA) Procedural Requirements
Appendix B. Interdisciplinary Team’s Responsibilities for Public Involvement From BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook H-1790-1 (April 24, 2008)
Appendix C. USDI PEP – Environmental Statement Memorandum No. ESM 13-131 (January 7, 2013)
Appendix D. A Citizen’s Guide to the NEPA: Having Your Voice Heard
Appendix E. The Hard Look and Bald Conclusions
June 21, 2017 EA Public Comments Letter to Allen Bollschweiler, Field Manager Grants Pass Area, Interagency Office, MDO, from Deer Creek Valley Natural Resources Conservation Association (DCVNRCA), RE: Pickett West Forest Management Project EA (DOI-BLM-ORWA-M070-2016-0006-EA)
 
July 17, 2017 Letter to Allen Bollschweiler, Field Manager Grants Pass Area, Interagency Office, MDO, from DCVNRCA, RE: Pickett West Forest Management Project EA and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (DOI-BLM-ORWA-M070-2016-006-EA)
 
December 6, 2017 Letter/Email to State Director BLM Oregon/Washington and BLM MDO: EA/Scoping Public Testimony Comments from Mike Walker, Chair Hugo Justice System & Public Safety Services (JS&PSS) Exploratory Committee, Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society.
 
Subjects
Subject: Public Comments For the DOI-BLM-ORWA-MO70-0006-2016-EA Pickett West Forest Management Project Environmental Assessment (EA)
Subject: BLM’s Responsibilities For Public Involvement (PI) Purpose Of National Environmental Procedures Act’s (NEPA) Procedural Mandate Requires Interdisciplinary (ID) Team Members To Be Accessible To The Public
Appendices
Appendix A. A BLM Planner’s Perspective: BLM Evolutions In Promoting and Enabling Citizen Involvement & Citizen Participation
Walker’s Public Comments are applicable to the Pickett West Forest Project EA, and Public scoping comments on the proposed Clean Slate Forest Management Project, and its future EA and timber sale.
 
2. Clean Slate Forest Management Project Scoping & EA: BLM MDO GPFO
 
a) NEPA Citizen Involvement (CI): BLM MDO GPFO Clean Slate Forest Management Project Scoping, EA, & Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
 
•       November 2017.  BLM MDO GPFO Scoping Information  For Clean Slate Forest Management Project  (DOI-BLM-ORWA-M070-2018-0002-EA)
 
b) Public Written Testimony Comments
 
December 6, 2017 Letter/Email to State Director BLM Oregon/Washington and BLM MDO:  EA/Scoping Public Testimony Comments from Mike Walker, Chair Hugo Justice System & Public Safety Services (JS&PSS) Exploratory Committee, Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society.
Subjects
Subject: Public Comments For the DOI-BLM-ORWA-MO70-0006-2016-EA Pickett West Forest Management Project Environmental Assessment (EA)
Subject: BLM’s Responsibilities For Public Involvement (PI) Purpose Of National Environmental Procedures Act’s (NEPA) Procedural Mandate Requires Interdisciplinary (ID) Team Members To Be Accessible To The Public
Appendices
Appendix A. A BLM Planner’s Perspective: BLM Evolutions In Promoting and Enabling Citizen Involvement & Citizen Participation
Walker’s Public Comments are applicable to the Pickett West Forest Project EA, and Public scoping comments on the proposed Clean Slate Forest Management Project, and its future EA and timber sale.
 
3a. Hellgate Recreation Area Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Hellgate RAMP/DEIS): BLM MDO Grants Pass Resource Area (GPRA):  February 15, 2001 Public Comments
 
The reader is especially referenced to Appendix D, Evaluation Of Significant Impacts Model And Recommended Impact Methodology, if interested in the BLM MDO NEPA Interdisciplinary (ID) Team’s responsibilities. In this case the BLM’s must "Analyzing Effects Methodology" implementing regulations responsibility for its EA and EIS ID team members is identified in the BLM NEPA Handbook, Chapter 6 "NEPA Analysis" (40 CFR 1507.3; BLM. 2008, pps. 33 - 68). "Chapter 6 identifies the essential analytical elements that are common to NEPA analysis, regardless of whether you are preparing an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement." (BLM. 2008, p. ix; Section III.G). The handbook’s Section 6.8.1.2 Analyzing Effects Methodology provides "A NEPA document must describe the analytical methodology sufficiently so that the reader can understand how the analysis was conducted and why the particular methodology was used." The BLM NEPA Handbook has a forward policy of a "common NEPA analysis approach" for both EAs and EISs as it has evolved to expand public involvement (PI) in more phases of the EA analysis process.
Appendix A.    Selected Parts Of BLM’s National Environmental Policy Act Handbook: H-1790-1
Appendix B.    Selected CEQ Regulations For Implementing The Procedural Provisions of The National Environmental Policy Act
Appendix C.    Selected Portions Of CEQ’s 40 Questions
Appendix D.   Evaluation Of Significant Impacts Model And Recommended Impact Methodology
Appendix E.   Comments On Hellgate RAMP/DEIS’s Appendix B — Outstandingly Remarkable Values
Appendix F.    Comments On Hellgate RAMP/DEIS’s Appendix C — Management Standards for the Hellgate Recreation Area, A Recreation Area
Appendix G.    Comments On Hellgate RAMP/DEIS’s Appendix G — Fisheries Factors And Assumptions
Appendix H.    Comments On Hellgate RAMP/DEIS’s Appendices D, E, F, H, and I.
Appendix I.    Detailed Scoping Comments By Environmental Protection Agency On The Hellgate RAMP/DEIS
Appendix J.   NEPA Design Group  Professional Credentials
Several parts of the DEIS were impressive (i.e., issues and alternatives chapters). They cover most issues of public interest in a range of reasonable alternatives. The studies program and its products are also worthy of note; it is obvious that BLM went the extra mile in aggressively developing and implementing this program. We were also impressed with the BLM open house held in Grants Pass that our representatives attended.
 
The affected environment chapter can be vastly improved, by better referencing, incorporation and/or referencing studies program information, exclusion of existing condition information (versus affection conditions) not related to the environmental consequences chapter, and clarifying and expanding baseline information.
 
The environmental consequences chapter needs a total rewrite in terms of complying with the procedural requirements of NEPA. The documentation in the effects chapter reflects a great deal of confusion about the relationship of significant issues, range of alternatives, affected environment, and environmental consequences sections, and especially the purpose of an EIS — "An EIS is intended to provide decisionmakers and the public with a complete and objective evaluation of significant environmental impacts, both beneficial and adverse, resulting from a proposed action and all reasonable alternatives." It is recommended that the deficiencies in the Hellgate RAMP/DEIS be corrected in a supplemental DEIS.
 
There is a strong correlation between the requirements of the W&S Rivers Act (WSRA) and NEPA when it comes to NEPA’s threshold determinations of whether the impacts of a major federal action significantly affects the quality of the human environment. Both acts have concepts of carrying capacity and thresholds performing the same task.
 
3b. Hellgate Recreation Area Management Plan/Final Hellgate RAMP/FEIS: BLM MDO GPRA: April 29, 2003 Public Comments
 
Most of the above February 15, 2001 comments about inadequate procedural requirements on the DEIS are applicable to the FEIS, especially for Chapter 4, the environmental consequences chapter.
•      Logical and Coherent Record
•      Procedural Standards
•      Impact Methodologies
4. Scoping Rogue River’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values, Other Similar Values & Other River Values: 2014 (Scoping ORVs Paper)
•  December 14, 2014 Email/Letter to Outdoor Recreation Planner/Asst. River Manager/Scenic Easement Administrator, Rogue River Program. BLM Grants Pass Interagency Office.
•  Walker, Mike. Preliminary December 8, 2014. Public Comments:   Scoping Rogue River’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values, Other Similar Values & Other River Values (pages 240). Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society, Rogue Advocates, & Goal One Coalition. Hugo, OR.
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 NEPA’s threshold determinations of whether the impacts of a major federal action significantly affects the quality of the human environment. Both acts have concepts of carrying capacity and thresholds performing the same task.
 
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 DCVNRCA’s 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); Kendall’s Concerned Area Residents, 129 IBLA 130, 138 (1994); Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 123 IBLA 302, 308 (1992)) eventually lead back to Cabinet Mountains Wilderness v. Peterson, 685 F.2d 678, 681-82 (D.C. Cir. 1982), and the phrase "convincing case" since its original appearance in Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. U.S. Postal Service, 487 F.2d 1029, 1040 (D.C. Cir. 1973).
 
Rreferences to a "Hard Look and Bald Conclusions" are not comprehensive.  It is not know if they are the final majority opinion of the courts. They are samples of references that the author discovered in his limited web search of the topics.  They are arranged in chronological order (i.e., most recent to oldest), with a special emphasis on the USDI, IBLA as the USDI is the federal department over the BLM (Reference Section X.E, USDI, Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) Decisions and Orders).
 
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 NEPA’s 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 agency’s 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 NEPA’s 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 dispositions—68 percent—reported by CEQ resulted in a judgment favorable to the federal agency being sued or a dismissal of the case without settlement. In 2011, that rate increased to 80 percent if the 18 settlements reported by CEQ were considered successes.44 However, the CEQ data do not present enough case-specific details to determine whether the settlements should be considered as favorable dispositions (emphasis added). The plaintiffs, in most cases, were public interest groups (USGAO. 2014, p.20).
 
Footnote 44. The CEQ surveys identify three types of nonadverse dispositions: (1) judgment for the defendant; (2) dismissal without settlement; and (3) settlement (emphasis added; USGAO. 2014, p.20).
 
3. Methods Of Determining Court Cases Won, Lost, & Settled (Miner. 2014, p. 33)
 
a) Forest Service Win. We coded cases as a Forest Service win, if the final outcome of the case was based on either of the following:
•  Forest Service Win by Judicial Decision. Cases where a court ruled on the merits of the plaintiff’s 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 case’s merits, (3) the plaintiff terminated the case after a judge denied the plaintiff’s 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 plaintiff’s case and found that the Forest Service had done anything incorrectly.
Forest Service Loss by Other Disposition. Cases where (1) the Forest Service withdrew its plans for a project or forest plan (emphasis added) or (2) the court ruled against the USFS on procedural grounds.
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 Service’s 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 District’s 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 BLM’s responsibilities to make interdisciplinary team members accessible to the public.
•  PUBLIC TESTIMONY COMMENTS:  June 20, 2017 Letter/Email to Don Ferguson, Public Information Specialist, BLM Grants Pass Interagency Office from Mike Walker, Chair Hugo Justice System & Public Safety Services (JS&PSS) Exploratory Committee, Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society (see Chapter VII).
A.      Hugo JS&PSS Exploratory Committee’s Written Consultations
 
August 7, 2017, NEPA Review of Deer Creek Valley Natural Resources Conservation Association’s (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 Act’s (NEPA) Procedural Requirements For "Purpose and Need"
 
May 25, 2017. DCV’s & BLM’s Interdisciplinary (ID) Team’s Responsibilities for "Analyzing Effects Methodology" Required By National Environmental Procedures Act’s (NEPA) Procedural Requirements (Social Impacts)
Appendix A. Impact Methodology Model: Procedural Requirements & Basic Impact Methodology Model
Appendix B. Scoping Rogue River’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values: 2014
Attachment 6a. Threshold Determinations Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Fogleman 1987.
Attachment 6b. Selected Information From Threshold Determinations Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Fogleman 1987.
Attachment 7. The National Environmental Policy Act: Background and Implementation. CRS 2005.
Attachment 11. Improving the Process for Preparing Efficient and Timely Environmental Reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act. CEQ 2012.
May 15, 2017. NEPA Procedural Requirements - Compliance Criteria for Significance; Substantive Comments; Purpose & Need
 
BLM NEPA Handbook
•   Purpose and Need Statement, Scoping, Issues.
•   6.2 PURPOSE AND NEED (BLM. 2008. p.35)
•   6.6 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT (BLM. 2008, pps. 49 - 52), 6.6.1 Reasonable Alternatives (BLM. 2008, pps. 49 - 50).
•   Brainstorming the Previous NEPA compliance rules to a real "Purpose and Need from October 2016 Purpose and Need for the Action identified in the Pickett West Forest Management Project EA (draft chapter 1 of EA).
•   QUESTIONS PRESENTATION & STATEMENT OF THE CASE. Deer Creek Association v. US Bureau of Land Management, et al. August 6, 2014. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ??? (what is correct citation?).
May 14, 2017.  National Environmental Procedures Act’s (NEPA) Procedural Requirements:  Significant Cumulative Impacts
 
Appendices
Appendix A. National Environmental Procedures Act’s (NEPA) Procedural Requirements.
Appendix A1. National Environmental Policy Act (1969).
Appendix A2. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the NEPA, 40 C.F.R. parts 1500-1508 (July 30, 1979; updated several times, e.g., 1986, 2011, etc.).
Appendix A3. CEQ’s Forty Questions (March 23, 1981).
Appendix A4. U.S. Department of the Interior’s (USDI) Department Manual (DM) on NEPA (516 DM 1-7). Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 200, Wednesday October 15, 2008 (pages 61292 - 61323); March 18, 1980 #2244; Sept. 27, 1971 #1341; and Sept. 17, 1970 #1222.
Appendix A5. U.S. BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook H-1790-1: January 30, 2008: hard copy; April 24, 2008: Federal Register Notice of Availability; CEQ reference: May 8, 20081).
Appendix A6. Court Precedents.
Appendix B. National Environmental Procedures Act’s (NEPA) Procedural Requirements: "Significant Cumulative Impacts" (From U.S. BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook H-1790-1: January 30, 2008).
Attachments
Attachment 1.  National Environmental Policy Act (1969) (pdf).
Attachment 2.  Executive Order 11514 – Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality. March 5, 1970 (pdf).
Attachment 3.  Executive Order 11991—Environmental Impact Statements. May 24, 1977 (pdf).
Attachment 4.  Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the NEPA, 40 C.F.R. parts 1500-1508 (July 30, 1979; updated several times, e.g., 1986, 2011, etc.) (pdf).
Attachment 5.  CEQ’s Forty Questions (March 23, 1981) (pdf)
Attachment 6a. Threshold Determinations Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Fogleman 1987 (pdf).
Attachment 6b.  Selected Information From Threshold Determinations Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Fogleman 1987 (pdf).
Attachment 7. The National Environmental Policy Act: Background and Implementation. CRS 2005 (pdf).
Attachment 8.  CEQ’s A Citizen’s Guide to the NEPA: Having Your Voice Heard. 2007 (pdf).
Attachment 9. USDI Department Manual on NEPA (516 DM 1-7). October 15, 2008 (pdf).
Attachment 10. BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook H-1790-1: January 30, 2008 (pdf).
Attachment 11. Improving the Process for Preparing Efficient and Timely Environmental Reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act. CEQ 2012 (pdf).
Added Later
Attachment 12. PEP - Environmental Statement Memorandum NO. ESM 13-131  January 7, 2013. Subject: Standard Checklist for Use in Preparing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents and for Complying with NEPA, CEQ, and Departmental Procedures.
Attachment 13. Michaela Noble, OEPC Director. USDI Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance (OEPC), including the OEPC Pacific Northwest Region. Viewed Dec. 2017. OEPC Vision and Mission  to Serve as a Trusted Source and Leader to Ensure Sustainable Utilization and Conservation of Natural, Cultural, and Historical Resources.
May 4, 2017. Broad Sweep Of NEPA’s Procedural Requirements
Appendix A. National Environmental Procedures Act’s (NEPA) Procedural Requirements.
Appendix B. Preliminary Topics of Interest From BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook H-1790-1 (April 24, 2008).
May 1, 2017. BLM’s Responsibilities to Educate the Public And the Public’s Responsibilities to Educate Itself on the Meaning of "Substantive Comments" – BLM NEPA
Appendix A. Be an Individual, Be Unique, Stand Out, Make Noise, That's the Power of Individuals
Appendix B. Substantive Comments BLM NEPA Handbook: 2008.
Appendix C. Preliminary Topics of Interest From BLM NEPA Handbook: 2008.
April 5, 2017.   NEPA Purposes of Josephine County (JO CO) Justice System Public Safety Services (JSPSS) Study Design: 2015 Project:  NEPA Analysis of a Range of Reasonable Citizen Alternatives & Analysis of the Significant Impacts of Those Alts
• NEPA References
• Appendices to Justice System & Public Safety Services Study Design: 2015
• Scoping Rogue River’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values: 2014
• Outreach - Justice System Exploratory Committee
Attachment 1. Numerical Visitor Capacity: A Guide to its Use in Wilderness
Attachment 2. NEPA Design Group’s Comments on the Hellgate RAMP/DEIS: 2001
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 Committee’s written consultations (Section VIII.A), and on its two sets of public comments on EAs (Section VII.A.1.b): June 20 and December 6, 2017).
•   Workshop periods were approximately two hours long.  They were in the morning usually 10:00 a.m. to noon.
 
•   May 12, 2017 NEPA Table Talk Black Forest Restaurant Workshop, 10:00 a.m. - Noon
•   May 19, 2017 NEPA Table Talk Black Forest Restaurant Workshop, 10:00 a.m. - Noon
•   June 21, 2017 Meeting at Walker’s Home
•   Telephone Conference – NEPA Table Talk: June 7, 2017, 10:00 a.m. - noon plus.
•   Telephone Conference – NEPA Table Talk: June 21, 2017, 9:00 a.m.
In hindsight, consider the comparison between the past workshop topics to those covered in the following articles at Sections X.A and X.K.
Knowledge-based Survey for Identifying Best Practice Principles for Environmental Assessments (2013) (pdf)
(15 Priority "1" BPP topics and nine Priority "2" topics identified). Remember the value of these BPP are how to craft written public comments arguments based on standards from the seven sets of NEPA authorities (Chap. III), especially in the BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook H-1790-1: January 30, 2008 (BLM. 2008). The 15 Priority "1" BPPs include three levels of EAs.
BPP1.   Three Levels of Analysis
BPP2.   Description of purpose and need
BPP3.   Description of proposed action and alternatives
BPP4.   Description of Study Areas and Resources
BPP5.   Comparative Impacts on Resources
BPP6.   Topical Outlines
BPP7.   Page limits
BPP8.   Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management
BPP9.    Regulatory/coordination/consultation/compliance
BPP10. Significance Determinations
BPP11. Mitigation Measures and Monitoring
BPP12. Climate Change
BPP13. Adaptive Management
BPP14. Scientific Writing and Communication
BPP15. Public Involvement and Response to Comments
Guidance on Best Practice Principles for Environmental Assessments  (2014) (pdf)
1.   Description of Purpose and Need
2.   Description of Proposed Action and Range of Alternatives
3.   Content
4.   Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management
5.   Regulatory Consultation and Coordination
6.   Determination of Environmental Impact Significance
7.   Extent of Public Involvement

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

I.       Agencies' Obligation to Comply with NEPA to "fullest extent possible"
II.     Reasonable Alternatives
III.    Defining "Significance"
IV.    Defining "Major Federal Action"
V.     Judicial Review of Agency Actions
VI.    Small Federal Handle Issue
VII.   Connected Actions
VIII.  Cumulative Impacts
IX.    Supplementing NEPA Documents
X.     Extraterritorial Application of NEPA
XI.    Standing
XII.  Functional Equivalence Doctrine
XIII. Miscellaneous
A.   CEQ NEPA Regulations
B.   CEQ's Emergency Provision
C.   Disposition of Federal Property/Scope of Analysis
D.   Scope of Analysis/@Psychological Stress@
E.   Classified Information
F.   Readability Issue
G.   Environmental Assessments
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 Committee’s 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 Committee’s Written Consultations (Sections VII.A.1.b) & VII.A.2.b))
•   June 9, 2017 BLM NEPA Handbook
•   May 25, 2017 DCV’s & BLM’s Interdisciplinary (ID) Team’s Responsibilities for "Analyzing Effects Methodology"
•   May 15, 2017 NEPA Procedural Requirements - Significance; Substantive Comments; Purpose & Need
•   May 14, 2017 NEPA Procedural Requirements: Significant Cumulative Impacts
•   May 4, 2017 Broad Sweep Of NEPA’s Procedural Requirements
•   May 1, 2017 BLM’s Responsibilities to Educate the Public And the Public’s Responsibilities to Educate Itself
•  April 5, 2017 NEPA Purposes of Josephine County Justice System Public Safety Services (JSPSS) Study Design: 2015
•  March 13, 2017 NEPA Purposes of Josephine County JSPSS Study Design: 2015 Project
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 agencies—the Forest Service, BLM, FHWA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers within the Department of Defense (DOD)—are generally the most frequent producers of EISs, accounting for 60 percent of the EISs in 2012, according to data in NAEP’s April 2013 report. These agencies account for over half of total draft and final EISs from 2008 through 2012, according to NAEP data (USGAO. 2014, p. 9).
 
Information on the benefits of completing NEPA analyses is largely qualitative. Complicating matters, agency activities under NEPA are hard to separate from other environmental review tasks under federal laws, such as the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act; executive orders; agency guidance; and state and local laws (USGAO. 2014, p. 10).
 
Federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) data collection efforts vary by agency. The Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) NEPA implementing regulations set forth requirements that federal agencies must adhere to, and require federal agencies to adopt their own procedures, as necessary, that conform with NEPA and CEQ’s regulations.1 Federal agencies decide how to apply CEQ regulations in the NEPA process. According to a 2007 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, the CEQ regulations were meant to be generic in nature, with individual agencies formulating procedures applicable to their own projects.2 (USGAO. 2014).   Footnote 1. 40 C.F.R. 1507.3 and 2. The National Environmental Policy Act: Streamlining NEPA (CRS. 2007).
 
The following is just a taste of some NEPA web links.
 
•   There is bunches of information out there.
•   Go get it!

A.      U.S. Council on Environmental Quality

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 Citizen’s Guide to the NEPA: Having Your Voice Heard (pdf)
Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President. December 2007. A Citizen’s Guide to the NEPA: Having Your Voice Heard. Washington, D.C (CEQ. 2007).
 
  Collaboration in NEPA - A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners (pdf)
https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/CEQ_Collaboration_in_NEPA_10-2007
CEQ. October 1, 2007. Collaboration in NEPA - A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners. Council on Environmental Quality’s Interagency Work Group on Collaboration. Washington, D.C. (CEQ. 2007b).

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

One of the primary goals of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)1 is to encourage meaningful public input and involvement in the process of evaluating the environmental impacts of proposed federal actions (emphasis added). This once innovative feature of the 1970 landmark legislation has become routine practice for some NEPA review processes. However, the full potential for more actively identifying and engaging other Federal, Tribal, State and local agencies, affected and interested parties, and the public at large in collaborative environmental analysis and federal decision-making is rarely realized (CEQ. 2007b, p. 1).
 
The purpose of this handbook is to assist those within Federal agencies who are responsible for conducting environmental reviews in expanding the effective use of collaboration as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Among its many conclusions, the NEPA Task Force found that collaborative approaches to engaging the public and assessing the impacts of federal actions under NEPA can improve the quality of decision-making and increase public trust and confidence in agency decisions.2 Agencies responsible for preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or an Environmental Assessment (EA) will find this handbook helpful in identifying and realizing opportunities to collaborate throughout the NEPA process (CEQ. 2007b, p. 1).
 
This handbook discusses how Federal agencies can benefit by working collaboratively with others in the NEPA process. Other planning processes that tie into the NEPA process, such as the state and local long range transportation and land use planning processes, can provide additional opportunities for collaboration. Collaboration requires hard work, commitment, agency leadership, different kinds of skills and resources, and a new way of approaching environmental review processes. The cases referenced throughout the handbook show that federal managers have successfully used collaborative processes in a variety of contexts and that its benefits can be well worth the investment. NEPA practitioners are the primary audience for this handbook; however, all practitioners and decision makers involved in the NEPA process, including planners, engineers, environmental scientists and specialists, and public involvement specialists, will find the handbook helpful. This handbook can also be useful to citizens and citizen groups.3 (CEQ. 2007b, p. 1).
Footnotes
1. 42 U.S.C. sections 4321-4347.
2. Council on Environmental Quality, "NEPA Task Force Report to the Council on Environmental Quality — Modernizing NEPA
Implementation," (September 2003) available at http://www.ceq.eh.doe.gov/ntf.
3. See the Council on Environmental Quality proposed "Citizen’s Guide: A Citizen’s Guide to the National Environmental Policy Act
— Having your Voice Heard," available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/ntf/implementation.html.
•   Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act
http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/publications/cumulative_effects.html   ??
CEQ. January 1, 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act.  On January 1, 1997, the CEQ released a handbook titled Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act, [hereinafter CEQ Cumulative Effects Guidance], which applies to both EAs and EISs, available at.
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.
 
CEQ’s 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 Justice’s 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 department’s 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 ENRD’s 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 BLM’s 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); Kendall’s 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 Agriculture’s Forest Service. The Forest Service’s computer system, known as the Planning, Appeals, and Litigation System, provides information for responding to congressional requests for NEPA data, to support preparation for responding to lawsuits, and about overall project objectives and design. As stated by agency officials, data from the system can be used to identify trends in the preparation of NEPA analyses over time. This information can be valuable to managers in managing overall NEPA compliance and can identify innovative ways to deal with recurring environmental issues that affect projects, according to Forest Service officials. The system also provides tools to help the agency meet NEPA requirements, including automatic distribution of the schedule of proposed NEPA actions, a searchable database of draft EISs, and electronic filing of draft and final EISs to EPA (USGAO. 2014, p. 30)
•  Feasibility Study of Activities Related to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance
U.S. Forest Service, Competitive Sourcing Program Office. August 10, 2007. Feasibility Study of Activities Related to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance. Wash. D.C.
 
•  Twenty Years of Forest Service Land Management Litigation
Miner, Amanda M.A.; Mamsheimer, Robert W.; and Keele, Denise M. January 2014. Twenty Years of Forest Service Land Management Litigation. Journal of Forestry 112(1): 32-40 (Miner Journal of Forestry 2014).
 
U.S. Forest Service, USDA
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/index.htm
 
Ecosystem Management Coordination (EMC)
Environmental Appeals, Objections & Litigation
Resource Information Group (RIG)
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
National Forest Management Act (NFMA)/ Planning
NEPA Services Group (NSG)
Planning and Analysis Group (PAG)
Ecosystem Management Coordination (EMC)
U.S. Forest Service, USDA
Forest Service NEPA Procedures and Guidance
https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/nepa_procedures/index.htm
 
In July 2008, the Forest Service moved its NEPA procedures from directives to regulations to include new provisions that incorporate Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance and to better align Agency NEPA documentation to Agency decision-making processes. Most existing Forest Service NEPA procedures were moved to regulation without substantial change.
•    Federal Register Notice - Final NEPA Procedures
•    Highlights of the Final NEPA Procedures
•    Background on Forest Service NEPA Procedures
•    Q & A's about the Final NEPA Procedures
•    CEQ letter re. NEPA Procedures
National Environmental Policy Act Directives
•    Understanding the Forest Service Directives System
•    FSM 1950, Environmental Policy and Procedures
•    FSH 1909.15 - Contents
Zero Code
Chapter 10, Environmental Analysis
Chapter 20, Environmental Impact Statements and Related Documents
Chapter 30, Categorical Exclusion from Documentation
Chapter 40, Environmental Assessments and Related Documents
Chapter 50, Implementation and Monitoring
Chapter 60, References
Chief's direction to suspend use of Category 10 - Hazardous Fuels Reduction
•     Federal Register Notice - Proposed NEPA Procedures
•     Proposed NEPA Procedures - Summary of Public Comment
•     Proposed NEPA Procedures - Summary of Public Comment
Forest Service Land Management Litigation
 
•   National Environmental Policy Act, Little Information Exists on NEPA Analyses
United States Government Accountability Office. April 2014. Report to Congressional Requesters: National Environmental Policy Act, Little Information Exists on NEPA Analyses (http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/662543.pdf) (USGAO. 2014).
Reporting litigation outcome data similar to CEQ’s, 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 NAEP’s 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’ (NAEP’s) 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 Practice’s efforts for the past year. This annual report is prepared and published through the initiative and volunteer efforts of members of the NAEP’s 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 agency’s compliance is brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (CRS. 2005).
 
  The National Environmental Policy Act:  Streamlining NEPA (pdf)
Congressional Research Service (CRS), The Library of Congress. Updated January 9, 2007. The National Environmental Policy Act: Streamlining NEPA, RL33267. CRS Report for Congress. Linda Luther, Analyst in Environmental Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division. Washington, D.C. (CRS. 2007).
 
  The Role of the Environmental Review Process in Federally Funded Highway Projects:   Background and Issues for Congress (pdf)
Congressional Research Service (CRS), The Library of Congress. April 11, 2012. The Role of the Environmental Review Process in Federally Funded Highway Projects: Background and Issues for Congress, R42479. CRS Report for Congress. Linda Luther, Analyst in Environmental Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division. Washington, D.C. (CRS. 2012).
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 state’s 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 projects—such as roads or bridges—on the human environment. Agencies prepare an EIS when a project will have a potentially significant impact on the environment. They may prepare an EA to determine whether a project will have a significant potential impact. If a project fits within a category of activities determined to have no significant impact—a CE—then an EA or an EIS is generally not necessary. The adequacy of these analyses has been a focus of litigation.
 
GAO was asked to review issues related to costs, time frames, and litigation associated with completing NEPA analyses. This report describes information on the (1) number and type of NEPA analyses, (2) costs and benefits of completing those analyses, and (3) frequency and outcomes of related litigation. GAO included available information on both costs and benefits to be consistent with standard economic principles for evaluating federal programs, and selected the Departments of Defense, Energy, the Interior, and Transportation, and the USDA Forest Service for analysis because they generally complete the most NEPA analyses. GAO reviewed documents and interviewed individuals from federal agencies, academia, and professional groups with expertise in NEPA analyses and litigation. GAO’s findings are not generalizeable to agencies other than those selected.
 
This report has no recommendations. GAO provided a draft to CEQ and agency officials for review and comment, and they generally agreed with GAO’s findings.

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 Court’s 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 Ass’n of Oklahoma (1976).
4.   Kleppe v. Sierra Club (1976).
5.   Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1978).
6.   Andrus v. Sierra Club (1979).
7.   Strycker’s Bay Neighborhood Council, Inc. v. Karlen (1980).
8.   Weinberger v. Catholic Action of Hawaii/Peace Education Project (1981).
9.   Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy (1983).
10. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1983).
11. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council (1989) & Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council (1989).
12. Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society (1992).
13. Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen (2004).
14. Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (2004).
15. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (2008).
16. Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms (2010).
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 industry’s 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 agency’s decision to pursue an action. This focus essentially leaves agencies unaccountable for upholding the substantive element of NEPA and could undermine the Act’s intent, allowing negative environmental consequences and limiting NEPA’s 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 NEPA’s 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 Committee’s 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 don’t check email very often, and I don’t usually answer telephone calls not in the morning. Geez . . . And, if I know you want a prompt response, I will try my best.
 
XI.       ACRONYMS (List)
 
XII.    NEPA REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 2017. December 6, 2017 Letter/Email to State Director BLM Oregon/Washington: EA Testimony Comments from Mike Walker, Chair Hugo Justice System & Public Safety Services (JS&PSS) Exploratory Committee, Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society. 64 pages. Includes Appendix A. BLM Planner’s Perspective: BLM Evolutions In Promoting and Enabling Citizen Involvement (CI) & Citizen (CP) Participation.
 
Citizen Participation (CP) References
• Arnstein, S. 2007. "A Ladder of Citizen Participation." In R. L. Stout, The City Reader (pp. 233-244). London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
• Arnstein, Sherry R. July 1969. "A Ladder of Citizen Participation," JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 216-224.
• IAP2. 2000. IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum. International Association of Public Participation. Louisville, CO.
• IAP2. 2000-2004. IAP2 Public Participation Toolbox. International Association of Public Participation. Louisville, CO.
• IAP2. May 2015. Quality Assurance Standard: For Community Stakeholder Engagement. International Association of Public Participation. Louisville, CO.
Full CP References List Link
Literature Cited: Twenty Years of Forest Service Land Management Litigation
•  Twenty Years of Forest Service Land Management Litigation
Miner, Amanda M.A.; Mamsheimer, Robert W.; and Keele, Denise M. Jan. 2014. Twenty Years of Forest Service Land Management Litigation. Journal of Forestry 112(1):32-40 (Miner Journal of Forestry 2014).

Full Literature Cited List Link