US Forest Service Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act: Fast, Variable, Rarely Litigated, and Declining

Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:p>Abstract</jats:p> <jats:p>This paper draws on systematic data from the US Forest Service’s (USFS) Planning, Appeals and Litigation System to analyze how the agency conducts environmental impact assessments under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). We find that only 1.9 percent of the 33,976 USFS decisions between 2005 and 2018 were processed as Environmental Impact Statements, the most rigorous and time-consuming level of analysis, whereas 82.3 percent of projects fit categorical exclusions. The median time to complete a NEPA analysis was 131 days. The number of new projects has declined dramatically in this period, with the USFS now initiating less than half as many projects per year as it did prior to 2010. We find substantial variation between USFS units in the number of projects completed and time to completion, with some units completing projects in half the time of others. These findings point toward avenues for improving the agency’s NEPA processes.</jats:p>

Regulatory Intensity on Private Forestland and its Relationship with State Characteristics in the United States

“…Conversely, the role of the public in setting and influencing forest policy is much more visible in states with a high proportion of public lands. Since the passage of key environmental laws impacting federal lands (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act and National Forest Management Act of 1976), scrutiny of federal land management actions and challenges to federal actions in court have increased (Keele and Malmsheimer 2018 ; Fleischman et al 2020 ). This increasing role of private citizens in influencing management actions on federal lands may lead to greater social acceptability and implementation of regulations on private lands in states with a high proportion of federal lands, if residents of such states feel more entitled to a role for citizen engagement and direction of management activities on forests.…”

After the vote: climate policy decision-making in the administrative state

“…Administrative procedures typically require U.S. agencies to justify their decisions based on scientific evidence and after public disclosure and consultation (i.e., "notice and comment"). Examples include cost-benefit analyses of new regulations (Dudley, 2020) and environmental impact assessments of agency actions (Fleischman et al, 2020). Bureaucrats typically grapple with diverse, competing perspectives and sources of evidence.…”

Concise or comprehensive? Predictors of impact assessment choices for electric transmission line projects

“…For example, the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that all actions taken or authorized by Federal agencies be assessed for social-ecological impacts. However, the difference between a more detailed environmental impact statement (EIS) and a less intensive environmental assessment (EA) can be a matter of multiple years, millions of dollars, and major differences in documentation and opportunities for public involvement (Fleischman et al, 2020;deWitt, & deWitt, 2008;Eckerd & Heidelberg, 2019;GAO, 2014;Glucker et al, 2013).…”