Comments on Freemuth’s piece in HCN

Some of these comments sounded worthy of discussion. I was intrigued by the concept that somehow collaboration avoids NEPA and other legal requirements. I guess I was having trouble imagining collaborating at any level on anything  that ultimately results in decisions that violate legal requirements- because the legal nexus is the decision.  Can someone help me understand this concern further?

3 thoughts on “Comments on Freemuth’s piece in HCN”

  1. Hi Sharon

    I dont think any collaboration can avoid NEPA compliance unless Congress decides to essentially act on the collaboration and either exempt it from NEPA or say that certain agreements meet NEPA compliance..thats usually very hard to do.


  2. Oh, so perhaps this concern is related only to Tester-style Congressional approaches. However, Congress bypassing NEPA in other ways (besides collaborative land designation) should then also be of concern. I guess what I’m saying is it doesn’t sound like it’s really collaboration, but bypassing NEPA that’s the problem.

    But Congress always “bypasses” NEPA- they get public opinion directly from the public through letters, emails etc. For example, there’s a roadless bill in Congress now, there are legislated categorical exclusions and land exchanges that also are related to public land management. And Congress acts all the time without NEPA so I am not clear what exactly the concern with “collaboration” is.

  3. I think people dont like collaboration either because they are purists who dont want to “give” at all, or because it changes the venue and they have less ability to influence the outcome…NEPA can be tool to frustrate as well as provide information and accountability.


Leave a Comment

Discover more from The Smokey Wire : National Forest News and Views

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading