An analysis of a plan to sell part of the Bridger-Teton National Forest headquarters site in Jackson is “meaningless,” “a hollow bureaucratic exercise” and contrary to law, a watchdog group said this week.

The Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance made the comments on an environmental analysis that purports to evaluate the pros and cons of a plan to sell up to 11 acres of Bridger-Teton administrative land on North Cache Street. The organization submitted its comments last week before the deadline for input on the sale proposal.

Regional Forest Service officials have started spending money on the construction of a new office in Big Piney, promising to pay it back from the sale of parcels the Bridger-Teton owns, the group contends. By launching construction in Big Piney, the Forest Service has made up its mind on such sales even before it has concluded a required even-handed analysis of them, the group said.

The arrangement to spend money before completely analyzing sales was revealed in documents the conservation group obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. By spending money before completely analyzing the sale in Jackson, or other sales contemplated of Bridger-Teton land, the Forest Service has precluded Supervisor Kniffy Hamilton from selecting a “no-action” alternative, according to the Conservation Alliance argument.

Federal agency and environmental laws require a decision maker to consider that possible course of inaction, Conservation Alliance representatives said.

Forest Service Region 4 spokeswoman Erin O’Connor rejected the charge.

“With regard to the conveyance process for a portion of the Forest Service’s administrative site on North Cache Street, the Forest Service has followed all applicable laws,” she said. “We have adhered to established agency procedures related to the Forest Service Facilities Realignment and Enforcement Act of 2005 and kept Congress informed as required by the act.”

The Forest Service released a draft environmental document on the land sale Oct. 28, and the final document has yet to be approved. The contract for the Big Piney construction project was awarded Sept. 17.

Photos obtained by the Conservation Alliance show construction equipment on the Big Piney site Oct. 14 and construction in progress Oct. 26.

In a Nov. 30 letter commenting on the environmental analysis of the Jackson sale, Conservation Alliance interim Director Cindy Harger, Public Lands Director Louise Lasley and board Chairman Anthony Stevens call the study meaningless. As support, they point to a paper trail of memos along which regional officials pushed the Big Piney project, the sale of Jackson land and the borrowing of money from other accounts, all to be repaid through a land sale or “conveyance.”

The regional office funding plan began as early as June 23, 2009, when Regional Forester Harv Forsgren and Regional Director of Engineering Keith Simila ordered Hamilton to start the construction of a $1.2 million district office in Big Piney. In a June 23, 2009, letter to Hamilton, Simila outlined a plan that would involve borrowing money from Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in Nevada and California.

Simila asks Hamilton to “please move forward with contracting the [Big Piney] projects” and says, “It is intended that conveyance proceeds from the [Bridger-Teton National Forest] be used for this purpose sometime in [fiscal year] 2010 or beyond.”

In addition to the sale of the North Cache headquarters land, Bridger-Teton also is eying the sale of another piece of property it owns, according to the Conservation Alliance. The federal agency has not finalized any property sales this year, according to its Web site.

The regional office’s request to borrow those Humboldt-Toiyabe funds was subsequently denied by the Forest Service’s Washington office. In late August, Simila found a way to borrow money from Caribou-Targhee National Forest, one that is in the same region as Bridger-Teton.

“The bids came in very low on this [Big Piney] office contract,” he wrote in an e-mail to Linda Blubaugh, a Region 4 budget and financial resources official. “We may have enough conveyance proceeds here in [Region 4] without borrowing money” from Humboldt-Toiyabe, according to documents obtained by the Conservation Alliance.

In a Sept. 2 letter to Hamilton, Forsgren said Bridger-Teton will have to repay the money being used in Big Piney.

“Funding for the project up to the amount of $1,265,000 will be made available to award construction of the base bid,” he wrote. “The funds will be from conveyance proceeds borrowed from other forests in the region. It is understood that the [Bridger-Teton National Forest] will return the borrowed funds once other conveyances on the forest are complete.”

Hamilton is supposed to be have the authority to decide whether to sell headquarters land without interference from the regional office, according to language in the environmental analysis of the proposed Jackson sale.

“The director of lands from Region 4 delegated the authority to the forest supervisor by memorandum, dated Sept. 5, 2008, to convey and develop the administrative sites,” the document says. “Based on the need for action and the effects of the alternatives, the forest supervisor will decide which alternative presented and analyzed is this environmental assessment to select. The forest supervisor will decide whether or not to approve the sale of land and whether or not to construct facilities at the sites.”

Meddling by regional officials has upset that directive, according to the Conservation Alliance.

“Once the Bridger-Teton National Forest supervisor received and accepted the June 23, 2009, instruction from Regional Forest Service official Keith Simila, she no longer had a genuine opportunity to ‘evaluate the alternative of not conveying the administrative site,’ as she was required to do under [the Forest Service Facilities Realignment and Enforcement Act] and [the National Environmental Policy Act],” the Conservation Alliance comment letter says. “... From that day onward, any purported evaluation by the Forest Service of the required ‘no action’ alternative was a hollow bureaucratic exercise because of the regional office’s pre-emptive actions.”

Environmental analysis of such land sales or conveyances are supposed to be made in an atmosphere that allows consideration of a “no action” or no-sale alternative. By pledging money from the sale before such an analysis is completed, the federal agency would be acting contrary to regulations and laws, the Conservation Alliance contends.

The National Environmental Policy Act and the Forest Service Facilities Realignment and Enforcement Act are the laws in question, according to the Conservation Alliance.

“The Bridger-Teton forest supervisor had been deprived by Sept. 2, 2009, of any real chance of following [the Forest Service Facilities Realignment and Enforcement Act’s] mandate that she must evaluate the ‘no action’ alternative of not selling the Bridger-Teton Forest supervisor’s headquarter’s property,” the letter says.

Lasley said in an interview the pressure that Forsgren and Simila exerted on Hamilton to sell the land is a problem.

“The Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance is concerned that documents we’ve seen would indicate the Bridger-Teton is constrained in their options to provide the best decision for the forest and its employees,” she said. “The inability to select the no-action alternative, which seems to be favored by most of the community, is not a viable option for Supervisor Hamilton.”

The proposal to sell all or a portion of the Jackson headquarters has stirred controversy in Jackson since it was discovered more than a year ago. Original proposals to move the headquarters away from Jackson were abandoned, but broad opposition continues against the sale plan.

The Forest Service has said it needs to sell the property to fund the reconstruction of the headquarters building, among other improvements.