Response to the Journal of Forestry Article: “US Forest Service Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act: Fast, Variable, Rarely Litigated, and Declining”

The Fleischman et al. (2020a) article on US Forest Service (FS) implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) correctly identified a decline in the number of NEPA analyses, but several conclusions were not supported by the data used. After analyzing their and other relevant data, we reached substantially different conclusions. Using FS budget data, we found budgets supporting NEPA analyses to be flat to increasing. Likewise, using FS accomplishment data, we found several FS land-management activities increased as others remained flat or decreased. The three types of NEPA analyses took statistically significant different times to complete, and time to complete analyses declined little over 15 years. We also found that litigation rates varied substantially by NEPA analysis type, resource purpose, and FS region. Conducting NEPA analyses is a necessary step in federal land management. However, resources invested in NEPA analyses represent an opportunity cost, and the success of the FS is better measured by on-the-ground accomplishments rather than number of NEPA analyses produced. Study Implications National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses are required for management of National Forest System (NFS) lands. The Forest Service (FS) devotes substantial effort to conducting NEPA analyses, and the use of NEPA analyses in litigation against NFS management activities is well documented. Land managers and the public need an accurate understanding of how the FS is implementing NEPA. A recent Journal of Forestry article about NEPA assumed that NFS budgets and land management activities declined with the number of NEPA analyses. By contrast, data from the FS shows (1) NFS budgets have been flat to increasing, (2) several NFS accomplishments have been flat to increasing, (3) the time to complete a NEPA analysis varies substantially by the type of analysis, (4) the amount of time the FS takes to complete NEPA analyses has declined very little over the past 15 years, and (5) litigation of NEPA analyses varies by the type of analysis, FS region, and resource purposes. Although conducting environmental analysis is a necessary step in federal land management, completing NEPA analyses is not a substitute for accomplishing on-the-ground management activities, and resources invested in NEPA analyses represent an opportunity cost to the FS.