Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> Hi.
I'm-- again, I'm David
Pritchett from the Nevada State
Office in Reno.
How are you all doing after
lunch?
Funny.
Doing funny after lunch.
So a lot of us hear about NEPA,
or some people I heard yesterday
say NEPA.
I'm going to go over what the
basic law is and why Federal
agencies deal with it, and it's
an acronym, of course, and
I'll-- I'm going to provide
four potential definitions and
then we'll pick what N-E-P-A
really stands for in a couple
minutes.
The presentation is a little
thick, but hopefully the speaker
is more animated.
So, this is-- this is me.
I joined BLM a few months ago
after working at some other
agencies who approached the law
in their own unique agency way,
too.
So, NEPA is a Federal law from
1970 and we remember our
history, there's a lot of other
major environmental legislation
that passed through Congress.
Clean air.
Clean water.
Environmental protection.
Review through EPA.
Overall it's our most
fundamental law about
environmental protection and
planning.
The language here from the
original legislation is a little
poetic, but over time it's very
specific what it means.
All Federal agencies are
responsible to implement the law
and manage it, and from the
original legislation here it's
also in this handout sheets that
are sort of going around.
The whole basic point here, to
quote the law, is to utilize a
systematic interdisciplinary
approach that will inspire the
integrated use of the natural
and social sciences and design
arts in planning-- and
decision-making that have a
man's on environment.
So women came later, apparently,
the way the law was written.
But it's the environment,
everything out there.
So NEPA is the National
Environmental Protection Act.
Is it the nasty Environmental
Protection Agency?
Is it the National Environmental
Policy Act?
Or is it never ever propose
anything for people who needed a
NEPA document for their project?
NEPA is policy act, not
protection act, which is a
common mistake people in classes
miss on their exams, and I'll
explain why it's a policy, not
really a necessary outcome.
Basically NEPA is a process
about the Federal decision maker
before a decision is made, like
a permit or a right of way or to
approve a plan.
These are decisions agencies
make, and to use the language of
the law, the deciding agency has
to take a hard look-- that's
the phrase in the law-- at the
action alternatives to what
could happen, the environmental
effects, and possibly mitigation
to reduce the adverse effects.
Basically in NEPA it's about
disclosure and those great,
fantastic Environmental Impact
Statements are a way to
coordinate other kinds of
Federal legal compliance under
an umbrella.
So like using this example with
my umbrella picture, there's a
whole suite of Federal laws that
often apply, and under NEPA it's
a way to sort of address
everything in a single document
so people don't wonder if
something got missed.
So here's a few examples from a
transportation project, you
know, about how other Federal
laws for, say, drinking water or
hazardous material or clean air,
all kinds of issues could be
encapsulated through what we
call the NEPA process.
And to review, under the law,
agencies prepare a detailed
statement for major Federal
actions significantly affecting
the quality of the human
environment, and that could
almost mean anything, but over
time kind of honing down what
applies and what doesn't apply
has been done through the
process, and the basic point
here is that NEPA is about
disclosure, not necessarily
rules about standards to make a
decision.
But it's about knowing how the
decision is made.
And there are some court cases
that help define the disclosure
function of NEPA, like this
upper one, it's a procedural
mechanism to ensure
consideration of environmental
concerns.
It does not mandate a particular
result.
And in another case from 1989 in
the lower quote, NEPA merely
prohibits uninformed rather than
unwise agency action.
So, essentially, an agency could
decide in the end all kinds of
things, but under the National
Environmental Policy Act
everyone has to be really aware
of why the decision was made and
what the consequences of
decision could be and what the
other options were.
But it doesn't prevent bad
decisions.
It merely allows informed
decisions, whatever they may be.
So over time we have some
details that have evolved over
the decades to really hone down
how agencies like Bureau of Land
Management go about the process,
and I'm just quoting some
examples here.
You know, we have nationwide
regulations through this obscure
little agency called the council
for environmental quality that
defines a lot of the details of
how the law works.
Department of Interior has
guidance for people, the
bureaus, including BLM have
their own policy book.
There's a picture of the cover
there that staff look at all the
time.
It was last revised in 2008.
And for even more detail there
is a website called the NEPA web
guide which helps everyone
interpret how do we interpret
the manual which is how we
interpret the policy.
So there's a lot of specificity
over time in how we Federal
bureaucrats process the whole
law.
So, again, when an agency does
something, it's called an
action, and that could be a
project, a program, a permit
decision, promulgating a rule.
All kinds of things are
collectively called an action,
and we all know examples of what
BLM does... permits, right of
ways, land transfers.
These are all actions that are
subject to this review process.
Here's some examples.
Policies, plans, programs,
projects.
These are generally the options
here.
And when we make decisions, we
have a document and a product--
I call them products-- for how
to follow the process with
different kinds of documentation
and verification.
So this is the long list for the
bureaucrats is this list.
There's a decision product
called a categorical exclusion,
a determination of NEPA
adequacy, notice of intent,
Environmental Assessment, a
FONSI, Henry Winkler's
character, FONSI, Finding of No
Significant Impact, but from the
public's perspective there's a
lot to this alphabet soup.
What we hear about from the
public perspective is potential
project or proposed action can
be reviewed and have one of
three possible outcomes about
how the process is met, and one
is called-- these are kind of
names I'll bring up later.
One is a called a categorical
exclusion, a CE or XC, a more
complex review is through a
document called an Environmental
Assessment.
And a more complex product with
more public involvement required
is an Environmental Impact
Statement, which could be a lot
of paper and a lot of megabytes
on a file for a complex project.
And we love process here.
This is a chart-- you can't
really read in complete detail,
of course-- but it helps us how
to figure out how to navigate
all these different outcomes of
the NEPA process, and basically
we start with a description of
what we're doing and then a
series of decisions, like this
flowchart indicates, whether the
project has an effect in the
environment, "yes" or "no."
If yes, you start looking at a
planning process.
If no, you see if a current
exclusion may apply.
Anyway, it's a little thick, but
this is how we make sense of how
the sausage is made in the
review process.
For some quick examples, some
actions by Federal agencies are
so routine they're kind of--
they have minimal environmental
impacts, and they could qualify
for what we call an exclusion, a
categorical exclusion.
Simple things like roads or
funding actions that kind of are
routine and don't have something
on the ground that's really
significant.
So there's a product called a
categorical exclusion that's
sometimes an option except under
what we call extraordinary
circumstances, and here's a list
of some examples of how an
exclusion may not apply, and,
therefore, you do a more complex
analysis.
For example, are unique natural
resources of historic and
cultural value affected?
Then this first option doesn't
apply.
Are sensitive or endangered
species affected?
The answer is "yes" or "no."
If yes, then you do the next
level of analysis.
But my point is, we have
specific questions to sort of
get to the answer of a complex
process that the original law
set up.
So if we're doing a more detail
analysis, there's a lot of
things the public can
participate in and also helps
craft how the agencies look at
fulfilling the intent of the
law, and one process which a lot
of us have heard about, of
course, is called scoping, and
that's where agency staff and
sometimes requesting the public
or other agencies ask to just
put out some ideas about what
could be the effect on the
environment, something out on
the landscape.
It's called scoping.
I'm going to get to this a
little more later.
And sometimes there's a
regulated procedure where a
request goes out to the public.
Say there's a 15 or 30-day
window period to send back
ideas.
There's say a road proposal or a
mine proposal or something.
Besides what the staff may know,
what the public may have as
input, is invited through the
scoping process.
And the key thing about scoping
is not general opinions, but to
raise specific issues, and
they're called issues, like what
is a point of disagreement,
debate, dispute?
What are uncertainties?
And this helps shape what the
NEPA document, the analysis, may
address.
Another key component throughout
the whole process is called
formulation of alternatives, and
these-- an alternative is a way
to get to the point of the
question.
Say the idea-- say a potential
project is an electric
transmission line from point A
to B.
The alternatives could be
different pathways on the
landscape to get there.
So a range of alternatives are
brought up in the analysis, and
under the law, one of the
alternatives is called the no
action alternative.
So everything else can be sort
of put in comparison for the
status quo.
So it's all kind of relative
effect.
Another sort of basic component
that people hear about in the
NEPA universe is what is the
affected environment.
So the document will describe
current conditions, the trend of
the resource, you know, like
wildlife populations, water
quality trends, air pollution,
you know-- these are kind of
the issues we know about as
baseline, and then another
component of the report is
called an analysis of
environmental consequences about
if the project or different
alternatives for the project
were implemented what are the
effects?
And then those are put in the
discussion to help the final
decision.
It's a little thick here, but
here's some examples.
Now, an environment-- in
environmental consequences, you
got to sort of think ahead as a
team.
In the cartoon here there's a
baby nursery there next to the
predatory dingo farm.
Should you think ahead about
approving the permit for the
child nursery next to the
coyotes, DINGOES, wolves or
whatever.
You have to think ahead like
that.
In a more serious line, here's
some examples of how the NEPA
process may look at questions,
and this one is overly general,
but sometimes it shows up in
reports.
Here's something about air
quality and emissions, and if
you can see the text here, which
is from a real document a while
ago, in another state, you know,
the discussion is about would
depend on the length of the
pipeline, could do this, could
do that.
It's a little vague and probably
would not survive a legal
challenge.
Just as an example, there's a
better approach when you look at
the environmental consequence or
the impact, you look at sort of
the worst possible, the maximum
level of activity, and here's a
geothermal example.
Emission of so much carbon
dioxide per hour per year.
You're starting to get
quantitative, which is a key
outcome of a successful report.
You got some numbers to work
with so you can figure out the
kind of impact.
Another example, here's one
about some pesticide or
herbicide use.
This one, instead of worst case
scenario, is sort of typical
scenario, because you may not
know at the exact moment.
You can see from the description
we're talking about droplet
sizes, herbicide volume, the
size of the equipment.
This is great stuff for a report
because it takes out the
ambiguity.
That's just an example of simple
or hard ways to write up this
part of the analysis.
So, again-- this is a more
simple diagram.
NEPA is a process that the
agencies use, and they follow a
series of "yes" or "no"
decisions, more or less, on a
flowchart, and that helps define
whether we know the
environmental impact is
significant, like bad, really
bad, it's called significant,
and if it is or is not, that
helps define the complexity of
the analysis in the report.
So-- let's try some examples
here.
So say we have an idea, a
proposed action in the upper
left part of our flowchart,
thinking-- you know, the first
question is does an existing
categorical exclusion apply?
If yes, and it has no other
extraordinary circumstances,
that list I showed before, you
know, then the categorical
exclusion document can be
prepared fairly easily and then
the process is done.
If that's not an option, but if
some other environmental review
document, another Environmental
Assessment or Environmental
Impact Statement exists, then
maybe the action already is
covered, as we say.
So the second column here, you
could just write a finding
called a DNA, determination of
NEPA adequacy, that just sort of
says we've already looked at
this and this is already part of
the old description.
If things are less certain,
could the effect be significant
or not, there's a two-tiered
process, and one level of
analysis produces something
called an EA, Environmental
Assessment, and that analysis
sort of based on what I showed
before gets to whether the
impacts are significantly
adverse or not.
And sewed preparing an
Environmental Assessment is
focused sort of answering that
question.
And you could see at the lower
right diagonal arrow, if the
answer is yes after some level
of analysis, then a more
thorough report called a Federal
Environmental Impact Statement
is done.
If the impacts are still not
significant, then the agency
makes a determination, a
decision, through a product
called a FONSI, Finding of No
Significant Impact.
And once people work on these
projects, this pathway becomes
really instinctive about how
things work.
So I'm just going to run through
a few examples of one kind of
document we see a lot called an
Environmental Assessment, which
is why sometimes they take a
while and they're complex, and
they occupy some staff time, is
because there's sort of required
elements, and the purpose--
remember, point of NEPA is
disclosure and public awareness.
So the document has to describe
what the proposal is, and for
BLM, is the proposal already
consistent with an existing
Resource Management Plan?
That's an important revelation
in the document process.
And the NEPA process also helps
invite public review and public
participation and disclose the
environment affected, potential
impacts, and it also can
describe ways to reduce the
impacts through mitigation
measures.
Like I said in the chart before,
if some of the impacts are
definitely significant, then
it's guidance about preparing a
more complex Environmental
Impact Statement.
So to get really wonky here,
which I'll not dwell on more
than half a minute, but we also
have sort of a required table of
contents or outline of what goes
in an Environmental Assessment
document and that helps shape
the thinking of the agency
people who prepare them, because
over time the outline and the
content and who is doing it,
where, what and why are all
routine components so we don't
leave things out.
And there's sort of now pretty
clear rules about how you set up
one of these documents.
And eventually at the end
there's sort of a formal finding
document called a Decision
Record or a Finding of No
Significant Impact, which is
where the agency declares, yes,
we met the requirements and
here's our decision that it's
analyzed, and then the Federal
action can happen, like the
permit or the right of way or
whatever.
So from a-- from a lot of your
audience here more than the
public perspective, there's a
lot of opportunities to get
involved in the process and
provide input.
There's a document that's real
easy to find at many websites
called the citizen's guide to
the NEPA from 2011, there's
documents the staff use but
anyone can look them up, called
the NEPA handbook.
When an agency contemplates
something they often have to put
a Federal Register notice and
BLM and other agencies will
issue a news release, so there
will be ways to find that way.
We have a process called
E-planning through our BLM
website where whatever is going
on at the different BLM
districts has a list of ongoing
planning projects, and people
can go there and find out the
status of things.
And the method of participating
is people can provide input as
an individual, as a
nongovernmental organization, or
if they're part of an agency,
you know, local, state or other
Federal agency, they all have a
way to provide input through
meetings that invite comments
and through formal commenting
when a draft document is made
available.
So, my point here is there's a
lot of opportunities to jump in
the process, and it's better--
the earlier the better.
So when people provide comments,
they have to be substantive,
which is sort of a phrase under
the law, and instead of just
expressing a like or dislike for
an industry or the location or
whatever, the way to really have
a comment addressed that the
agencies have to do is to make
the comment really stay on
point.
So, for example, in the list
here, does the accuracy-- is
the accuracy of the document
correct or incorrect?
Was the method accurate, but was
the method done sound?
These are all the kinds of
opportunities for input that do
get a response in the revised
document.
And another key component that's
especially critical in the whole
process is which alternatives to
the project were put in the
analysis, and can people think
of other alternatives that get
to the same purpose?
So back to public comment for
substantive comments, there's a
lot of venues here.
This is a quick list.
The way the agencies go about
their process, they often will
publish a notice sort of
inviting ideas.
There's a draft document, a
final document.
For some sometimes in an
Environmental Assessment there's
a window between the publication
of the document and then the
final decision, which is the
opportunity to revise the
decision before it goes final.
There's a whole process to deal
with cooperating agencies.
The picture here is from a book
we published a couple years ago
about how to work with other
agencies, especially field
trips, and as I mentioned
before, we're really ramping up
use of our website through a
system called E-planning,
electronic planning, and the
NEPA register.
So if you look around at our BLM
website, you can find different
documents in progress and find
the right venue to comment
should you like to.
So, again, on public comment,
there's the original
notification.
There's comment on the draft
document.
And comments between the final
document and the final decision
by the agency.
A lot of focus of public
comments, back to our procedural
flowchart, is what is a
significant impact and what is
not?
And the process, like-- has
specific element called
mitigation measures.
Mitigation means really to make
something not as bad as it could
be.
That's right from Latin, meaning
to soften up.
So a key part in our planning
process is often when an impact
is described, is it significant
or not?
And if it looks to be
significant, the project can
incorporate mitigation measures
right up front.
So that could be like how to
reduce noise, how to reduce
dust, how to limit maybe times
of the year to avoid
disturbances to wildlife, things
like that, and by incorporating
elements into the project from
the start, the agency making the
decision can conclude with these
mitigation measures part of the
effort.
The overall project can still be
found to have no significant
impacts, and that helps the
process go along.
If still in the end you look at
our flowchart on the right side,
if still in the end the final
project does have significant
environmental impacts, the
report-- or the Environmental
Impact Statement just describes
it, admits it, and everybody
knows about it, and then the
decision by the agency can still
happen.
But it's all in full disclosure.
And this gets me to some
emerging policy with-- through
BLM-- my interpretation is
we're interpreting farther and
wider what makes good
mitigation, and there's a policy
that's like a draft form a year
ago looking at mitigation from a
regional perspective, and this
diagram just sort of shows
our-- we love flowcharts.
It sort of shows our thought
process about how to look at
existing regional plans as a way
to apply to a specific project
that's being analyzed under
NEPA.
And the open-ended questions are
sort of how far and how wide can
mitigation occur for a
particular project?
This picture is kind of the most
extreme theory out there.
We've got ecoregions in western
North America, kind of similar
conditions on the ground, and
that sort shapes where that a
potential mitigation effort
could happen in a broader
context rather than making a
decision that could leave doubt
with the public.
So just something that's going
out there, and for large
projects it's pretty handy to
have this policy basis.
So for that I'll conclude for
now.
This is my contact information
at the Nevada office.
I work closely with someone else
you may have heard of,
Marguerite Adams, who has been
there a long time, and we share
a lot of duties about helping
people at our BLM and Field and
District Offices coordinate our
projects and to help our people
in the field when they comply
with the National Environmental
Policy Act.
So that's all I have for now.
Do we have any questions?
>> Can you define significant?
>> That question comes up all
the time.
You know, what is a significant
impact?
Because the policies are pretty
clear.
Is it significant or less than
significant?
But there's no appendix with a
chart telling you the answer.
And significance, for an impact,
is really the context.
Sometimes a decision is easy
where, say, like there's a water
quality standard or an air
pollution standard, and if a
project, something really big,
may result-- the analysis-- if
it may show that the threshold
is exceeded, then it's kind of
easy to make a policy decision,
yes, it's significant, because
the whole county is out of
compliance with dust emissions,
for a hypothetical example.
Other times, like in the
emerging universe of the sage
grouse conservation and the
draft plans, we're starting to
get a good idea about where the
best sage grouse habitat is, and
there's lots of maps, and a
policy decision could be based
on, well, there's like too much
stuff going on too close to too
many sage grouse breeding
habitat sites, Lex, and it's put
in context, and how much is too
much is still the context of
whether it's a project that's in
a big area or a small area.
Say, for wildlife, is the
disturbance ongoing, or is it
short term?
These are the elements that get
to the call of whether it's
significant or not.
And that's not a clear answer
because there really is no clear
answer a lot of times, but
it's-- ultimately it's up to
the specific people at the
Federal agency doing the action
to make the finding.
If we remember our flowchart of
different types of analyses, an
Environmental Assessment as a
way to look at the project must
draw conclusion of no
significant impact.
Or it must incorporate a lot of
mitigation measures so the
impacts are reduced so they're
no longer significant.
The other pathway is to prepare
an Environmental Impact
Statement which essentially can
admit, yes, it has some
significant impacts for whatever
the issue may be, but the
decision-- the action or the
decision by the agency could
still happen in full awareness
that some impacts may be
significant.
Like what I showed before-- so
more things have better
mitigation.
We have emerging policies
through regional mitigation
about some of these-- some of
these regions could be pretty
big-- about if you have the
option to look farther and wider
for mitigation options, then the
impacts will be less than
significant because we have more
options on how to mitigate it.
I wish there were a simple chart
sometimes, you know, but there's
not.
>> I see you have-- one of the
slides depicts the time frame
for public comment and that kind
of thing.
Is there a guideline or time
frame for BLM to develop those
phases?
So once you submit an
application, is there laws or
rules that say you have to have
something done by so many days?
>> Not really, because-- there
is no-- usually there's no set
schedule because the analysis
required could be simple or
complicated, or it may take
field data or several seasons.
You know, some projects are
really-- they require a NEPA
document but the project is
really simple, and so those
could be done in a few months.
Some, like a major mine or giant
solar power facilities near
LasVegas that send power to
half of North America, those can
take longer, except when they
have high priority from the
President.
Then they go fast.
There was some of that a few
years ago before my time.
But there is no set schedule
because the kind of project
could be so different.
But it does-- the public review
process does have a certain
window period when people can
comment.
>> Anything else?
>> I have two questions.
One of my and then one of my
members asked me to ask how many
project alternatives need to be
analyzed.
But my question is: who makes
the decision?
Is it a team of experts?
Is it higher level than the
state?
Who makes the decision?
Like I say the other one was how
many--
>> alternatives?
Well, sort of the artful
outcomes of the-- one of the
artful outcomes of the law is
not that it-- like I showed
earlier about disclosure, it's
not that it's like a regulation,
but it's-- NEPA is more of a
process, and part of the process
is that the purpose of the
project or the action-- the
purpose has to be defined in a
not too narrow, not too
specific, but the purpose like
transmit electricity from point
A, B and C, and the alternatives
could be different ways to route
the lines.
Have lots of small towers.
Put it under ground.
There's all kinds of
alternatives that could come
out.
>> 2, 11--
>> I'm getting there.
>> So the point is-- I need
hard--
>> There is no hard numbers.
The point is, the artful part of
the law is that it's a process
to come up with a good decision.
So you need to look at the
purpose of the proposal, and
sometimes it seems like there's
like one sensible alternative--
what comes up a lot is say you
have a pipeline.
Put it along the highway because
it's already disturbed ground.
That's an alternative.
And then like I was in a class
yesterday about this, another
alternative could be, take the
short route, which may not be
follow the road, but go through
a sensitive bird habitat, but
it's the short route.
Well, that alternative could get
on the list, but it probably
would not get a lot of analysis
because the adverse impacts are
so obvious.
So in this example, there were,
say, besides the alternative of
doing nothing, which we have to
do, we've got three potential,
for this hypothetical pipeline,
there's like three potential
alternatives, but there is no
set number except you have to do
one project.
You have to analyze no project
to put it all in relative
comparison.
And that's the minimum.
But that doesn't mean it's a
good decision in the process
because if the-- remember, NEPA
is about disclosure and making
good decisions.
So if not a few options, like
three, three or four, if these
options are not analyzed, it's
hard to know if a good decision
was made because it's not
compared to anything.
There's a part for the wonky
level seminar, there's a section
where potential alternatives
that never got much study still
have to be explained, you know,
like this pipeline could have
put-- put it through the rare
bird habitat, or it could have
gone through the creek of
cutthroat trout but we didn't
analyze those because that's
crazy to go through endangered
species habitat.
But you put that in the report
so then the public knows at
least somebody thought of it,
and, therefore, the pipeline
along the road, which some
people may not like, is still a
smart decision.
So I-- when I used to work for
another Federal agency, we were
looking at mining in Florida.
We had 20 alternatives on our
initial list, and we cut that
down to six, and we had lively
staff discussions about which
six made the list.
But it sort of depends, like the
other question, this is the art
of NEPA, about the context and
the complexity about how many
alternatives that get to the
same answer still make sense to
analyze.
So in the strict sense, you can
have only two, but that's not
very wise because it leaves open
questions that things may have
been ignored.
I like to think for a moderately
complex one, four or five feels
good because you have some
confidence you've looked at a
range of options.
>> I wanted to get my other
prong-- my actual question, who
decides--
>> Who decides?
Well, at Bureau of Land
Management, the decision-making
authority is delegated to our
Field Offices and our District
Offices.
In my observation, I haven't
read a policy document yet about
that, it just makes sense
because there's a lot of routine
stuff that still has to be
analyzed.
You know, a road, a pipeline, a
grazing permit.
There's just a lot of
high-volume, hopefully
low-intensity analysis, and the
idea is that people in the field
kind of know what's going on and
can decide and analyze and know
how to make the good decision in
the end.
So-- but the way the process
works is actually a government
official by name and title who
signs the document is often the
one held accountable when people
challenge it.
So it could be the Field Manager
or the district Director as a
kind of standard way I've
observed we do things at BLM in
Nevada, but other agencies do
things differently and they
often have a top-down
decision-making authority.
Like it could be the top
official in the whole state is
the one who signs you on, or an
oil pipeline from North Canada
to NewOrleans, you know, could
be the Secretary of State, could
be the one who signs it.
But, yeah, it's sort of
delegated for efficiency.
But what we do great at the
Nevada office is that when
projects get complicated,
there's a whole bunch of nerds
at the State Office who know
hydrology or birds or air
quality, and they'll get the
draft document through the
miracles of email, we get the
draft document, and we'll help
the people in the field write a
better product.
So there's often a lot of
fingers in the pie, but
eventually it's one person in
the field who is a decider.
>> Okay.
That's good.
>> Thanks.
>> [inaudible] grazing subgroup,
and the question was how much is
enough and how much is too much?
And when we're making those
recommendations, we didn't have
a good answer to that question,
which influenced what our
recommendations are.
We certainly understand there's
trade-offs, and it seems like
EAs have been getting a little
bit longer every year.
DEQ guidance has 10 to 15 pages,
which would be a nice easy read,
but reading 150 pages, and I
know BLM personnel who's on the
ground who should be spending a
lot of time in the field, that
comes at an expense when we're
writing a 150-page document.
That's one of the concerns I
have, and I don't know what
BLM's direction is, but is there
any way to kind of scale those
things back and put the
necessary information in without
overkilling it?
>> Well, you're getting to a
point that people notice all the
time, and, in fact, sort of
the-- the oversight agency, the
council on environmental
quality, issued a policy
document a couple of years ago
reminding people, you don't have
to make this that complicated.
Just deal with what you need to
deal with and not go on with
endless background about life
since people hunted bison with
pointed sticks, which some
people have too much background.
So we're supposed to make them
streamlined and to the point,
and the art of it is how you're
defining the initial Federal
action or the project, and if
the project is kind of
open-ended, or vague, then the
analysis has to be kind of
complex.
So an element of an
Environmental Assessment or
impact statement is called the
purpose and need statement,
which has to be broad enough to
allow different options to get
to the outcome but not so broad
that almost anything seems like
it could satisfy the need, and,
you know, I was in a class
earlier this week, and there
were examples like, the purpose
of the project is to provide
electricity to citizens of the
United States.
Well, like, a lot of things
could do that, when all they
really meant was a 10 kilometer
transmission line in the middle
of Utah or something.
So a way to make the documents
more concise is to really know
what you're asking for, and at
the same time, when we go
through scoping, sort of people
get together and think about the
issues, they need to stay on
point about what the issue
really may be, and there's--
it's called-- they're called
issue statements.
So, say for a grazing permit as
a potential decision, the
question to be analyzed needs to
be specific in the form of a
question, not like: how will
this affect the water?
It should be: a spring is--
downstream there is a spring or
two, and the water level seems
to go up and down.
So how will grazing, or
whatever, affect that spring
water table?
And then people know what to
chew on specifically because
they learn this great question
through the scoping process.
They know what to focus on-- in
the Environmental Assessment.
And there's more and more
examples of if the document is
defined really well up front,
and then it analyzes it and
answers the question, it's
really hard for someone on the
outside to challenge it because
it did what it said it was going
to do.
But to your other point,
Environmental Assessments are
often getting bigger and bigger
and bigger, and when is it
really the same as an
Environmental Impact Statement
is an awfully fuzzy boundary and
it's something my colleagues and
I talk about all the time.
I often think in the long term
just preparing an EIS,
Environmental Impact Statement,
from the beginning actually
could save time in the long run.
If they're going to do a
400-page analysis anyway, the
way things go, just admit it up
front.
Just depends on the project,
but-- it's the investment up
front to really define what
you're doing, which, therefore,
reduces vulnerability that the
analysis wasn't good enough.
And a lot of really big
documents are because it's too
broadly defined.
>> So maybe I'll just follow up
on that, and maybe something
from the District Managers would
be helpful.
You know, if you know your
people are sitting there writing
150-page document when they
could be writing a 10 to 15-page
document, but you're the ones
who are on that decision, you
know, is there any way to scale
that back so they get that time
to go out and actually do the
monitoring in the field, do
those things, or is that never
going to happen?
>> [inaudible]
>> You know, part of this entire
process that we're discussing
here has to do with data
collection, information
collection, because, after all,
without the information, without
the monitoring, you can't do the
analysis.
So, generally, before or during
the process of going through
NEPA, there has to be an
investment in the monitoring and
the data collection for the
analysis.
So it's all connected.
>> Yeah, you know, in our
grazing subgroup was put
together to help make
recommendations for BLM to get
morning of those EA's done,
those permits processed, and I'm
just thinking, if I'm sitting--
if I'm a Range Specialist
sitting in the office writing a
150-page document there's
something else I'm not able to
get done.
But if I could get that done in
10 to 15 pages and I could get
started on the next one so I
could get caught up, that would
make sense to me.
And so I guess I'm asking, do
you guys see that as an
inefficiency?
Can we address that?
Can we make things more concise
so we can get ahead?
>> Well, I think-- you know,
NEPA-- it is what we make it,
and generally it's evolved over
the last number of years in
response to litigation and
appeals, and every time there's
a decision that's made, and
routinely we get challenged on
NEPA, and I'm talking broadly as
an organization, if a judge
determines we failed to comply
in one or more instances, then
we go back and we address that
and it generally adds to the
analysis.
So that we can continue to be
defensible.
But I think-- from my
perspective, there's always ways
to become more efficient, and
that's a direct-- has a direct
relationship to how effective
we're managing our offices,
because we all have conflicting
priorities, staffing limitations
but we still have a
responsibility to get the job
done.
So, yeah, there's ways to be
more efficient opinion I think
in Nevada we've talked as an SLT
in many instances about how to
become more efficient in our
processes.
But, yeah-- I-- on a side
note, my predecessor, on his way
to retirement, Jerry Smith, gave
me an EA from 1974, and it was a
one-page document, and it was a
checklist.
We're going to do this.
This is the Federal action.
Does wildlife exist?
"yes" or "no."
That was the analysis.
And it was a one-pager, and I've
got it in my office.
So we've come a long way since
then, I would imagine.
>> We've had some updated
guidance since then.
>> Yes, that's the company line
right there.
Updated guidance.
>> I'll offer in here, one way
for sort of routine actions to
be analyzed quickly is where
people in the field could have
good access to high-quality
products to use as a template,
and I was in a class earlier
this week where people brought
their draft EAs, Environmental
Assessments, and they were
comparing what they had written
up or what they inherited from
someone in their office who has
been recycling a document for
five years, you know, save under
a different name, and we
compared it to sort of like an
ideal efficient, concise one,
and all kinds of revelations
came out about how to stop
running around in verbal or
written circles, how to stop
chasing your tail to here's some
concise language, just use it
routinely, and at the Nevada
State Office in our districts,
we're tightening up how to share
documents through E-planning,
the NEPA register, which the
public can get to as well, and
so we're going to be more aware
of who is doing what out there
in the field, because we can
find successful EAs that get
to the point and don't take a
lot of time instead of
entry-level staff kind of
rethinking it all the time.
So I'll just pitch it for better
statewide coordination and file
transfers as a way to be more
efficient.
It was very illustrative the
last couple days in this class
about people bringing their
documents and some people were
way off point.
And they leave the agency
vulnerable in the end if the
document missed the point, it
could be challenge, and so
everyone is kind of anticipating
that.
>> One more?
>> All right.
Do you have a quick one?
>> I do have a quick one.
>> The gentle woman from Carson
City.
>> So Raul told us this morning
that the greater sage grouse
amendment had 15,000 comments.
So that's a challenge that BLM
is going to have to deal with.
So can you talk to us about do
more comments support a
particular position-- do more
comments that support a
particular position influence
agencies' decision?
>> Well, in the broad sense
that's sort of policy and
politics, but under NEPA, no.
More comments-- more comments
or redundant comments do not
change the facts.
So say in the sage grouse plan,
which just closed the public
comment period, it could have
5,000 comments that specify, we
think your map is wrong because
of this, this and this.
One person who can explain why
the map is wrong is helping BLM
just as well as 10,000 people
saying the map is wrong.
If the bird is or is not there,
it is or is not there.
And it's not-- it's not a
democracy under a NEPA analysis.
It's just the facts.
So one clarification of a fact
is just as good as a thousand.
As we know, in big, high-profile
proposals, people just say, I
love sage grouse, I hate sage
grouse, I love horses, I hate
horses, too many horses, not
enough horses, whatever.
It's still-- it still only
needs to hit the point once to
have the document reevaluate
between the draft and the final.
So this comes up a lot, and
it's-- it just sort of
highlights that NEPA is a
decision-making process, not a
final policy interpretation.
It's just that the decision has
to be informed.
Okay.
Thanks.
>> And that's our time.
[applause]
>> My next presentation will
have more cartoons, more
animation, and more maps.
>> Thank you.
>> Actually, that is right.
We ended just on time.
So now what we're going to do is
get into your break-out
sessions.
Unfortunately, we've only got
two rooms, this one here and
then Gallery 3.
So what I would ask that if,
whichever RAC has the large
amount of members here, they
could take Gallery 3.
I'll let you guys fight it out.
But they take Gallery 3 and the
other two could meet up.
Because I know the Southern
Nevada contingent is fairly
small this year.
We've got two hours for your
break-out session.
We start the public comment
period at 4:00 p.m.
So we would like you back by
then.
We're also going to be serving
snacks at about 2:30.
>>> Yes, sir?
>> [inaudible] given as how the
appointment, reappointment
letters have yet to be issued,
and we may or may not meet
quorum requirements, and one of
the key actions for this meeting
is election of officers, how can
we proceed on those items on our
individual RAC agendas?
>> If there are decisions to be
made right now and you don't
have a quorum, then you could
defer the decision until the
nomination letters come through
and hold your votes via email or
some other method, and you can
just have the discussion now in
terms of what you want to speak
to.
>> Okay.
We'll sort through that, and
unless my RAC throws something
at me, we would like to offer
the following recommendation
that historically we had the
Tri-RAC in November and the
appointments coincided with that
period of time and enabled us to
put together work plans at the
beginning of the year and begin
implementation of them in the
appropriate calendar year.
Here we are in February for the
Tri-RAC.
We don't have all the
appointments and our RAC fully
functional.
So a strong recommendation to
interior, please, that it would
be really good to have the
appointments in place by the
time we have the Tri-RAC and
push the thing back into the
tail end of the preceding year.
You guys good with that?
>> Yep.
>> Apparently my RAC concurs.
So...
>> Thank you for the input.
That's one thing we have
discussed at the State Office is
ways to streamline the
nomination process and hopefully
reduce the amount of time it is
taking.
All right.
You're free to go to your
breakout sessions.