united states forest department of service agriculture...
TRANSCRIPT
Iterative NEPA and Alternative Development
Lessons Learned from a Learning Team
1
United States Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Outline
• Background • How-To: Best Practices and
Documentation • Examples • Conclusion:
– What We Learned – What About the Future
2
Efficiency Learning Teams • 3 NEPA efficiency learning teams
sought to identify and share best practices on: – Focused EAs – Adaptive management – Iterative NEPA
• Why emphasize NEPA efficiency? – Forest Service prepares more NEPA
analyses than any other agency.
3
Background
Our Team
Betsy Rickards WO/EMC, Director NEPA Services Ken Paur R4, Asst Regional Attorney David Seesholtz WO/R&D, NEPA Research Liaison Anne Davy R1, NEPA Coordinator Sharon Klinkhammer Chippewa NF, NEPA Coordinator Andrea Campbell Coronado NF, NEPA Coordinator Megan Healy WO/EMC, NEPA Specialist Jay Strand Green Mtn NF, NEPA Coordinator David Loomis R2, NEPA Coordinator
4
Background
Iterative NEPA • Problem
– Collaboration difficult in traditional NEPA – Inefficiencies in use of alternatives
• Solution – 36 CFR 220: Iterative NEPA
(2008 Forest Service NEPA Procedures) – Direction to develop meaningful proposals – Focus on issues of concern to the public
Many units hesitated to use this “Iterative” part of
the rule.
5
Background
An iterative approach means we are using a process continually to update and improve our analyses. As we get new information, we incorporate that into the process and update accordingly. I think most of us strive to do that with our process, and I think it improves our overall effectiveness.
What IS “Iterative NEPA”?
6
Background
-- A smart colleague
Our Objectives • Seek-out best practices for:
– Preparing legally sufficient EISs – Efficient NEPA processes
• Make recommendations • Share what we learned
7
Background
What Did We Look At? • EISs and EAs • 40 CFR 1500 (CEQ Regs) • 36 CFR 220 (FS NEPA
Regs) • Guidance from FSH
(1909.15)
8
Background
What Is an Iterative EIS? From 36 CFR 220.5 • May modify proposed
action before DEIS • May consider
incremental changes as alternatives considered
• Shall document incremental changes
9
Background
What Is an Iterative EA? From 36 CFR 220.7 • May include modifications
developed through the analysis process
• May document these incremental changes to the proposed action by reference
10
Background
What Else? From FSH 1909.15, Section14.3 • Incremental changes may be
considered as part of the range of alternatives
• Document in record • Suggestions include:
– Public involvement chronologies – Comparison of alternatives – Decision framework
11
Background
What to Consider
• Complexity • Context and intensity
factors • Documentation in record • More may be necessary
12
How-To: Best Practices
When should you prepare a new alternative - what’s the threshold for
“Iterative Modification”? A? B?
Top Tips • OK to change between draft and
final EIS • Ensure meaningful public
involvement • Iterative NEPA does not suit all
issues • Consider relationship of purpose
and need to incremental changes
14
How To: Best Practices
FACA Compliance Concern: Collaborative
processes need advice from OGC to comply with FACA.
Substantial Iterative
Changes Concern: Adequate public
notice or meaningful opportunity to comment.
Changes After
Proposed Action Concern: Effects are
substantially different than anticipated.
Analysis Extended
Concern: New information or changed circumstances.
Legal Concerns:
What to Manage and Mitigate
15
How To: Best Practices
Collaboration • “Neither collaboration nor the incremental
development and modification of alternatives are required in every case, nor is one a prerequisite for the other.”
– Preamble to the 220 regulations
BUT • Iterative NEPA intended to provide
efficient ways to adjust to the results of collaboration.
16
How To: Best Practices
Documentation 1 • Pre Scoping
– Helps focus scoping comments
– Helps document range of alternatives
– Optional step
Draft Scoping Document
Initial Proposal
Modifications/Rationale
Scoping Proposed Action
17
How To: Documentation
Documentation 2 • Scoping
– What changes were made and why
– Based on scoping efforts
Scoping Summary
Scoped Proposed Action
Modifications/Rationale
Modified Proposed Action
Alternatives
18
How To: Documentation
Documentation 3 • Iterations (both draft and final EIS)
–“Working drafts” of EIS with earlier iterations
–Date each iteration so it can be referenced
–Incorporate by reference • Relevant descriptions and analysis of
proposed action iterations
19
How To: Documentation
Documentation 4 • Draft EIS
–Internal and external concerns
–Relative modifications of proposed action
Draft EIS
Incorporate by reference Pre-Draft Proposed Action
Pre-Draft Alternatives
Modifications/Rationale
Draft Proposed Action
Draft Alternatives
20
How To: Documentation
Documentation 5 • Final EIS
–Summarize draft EIS comments and modifications
–Incorporate by reference post-DEIS and pre-FEIS proposed action iterations
Final EIS
Draft EIS Proposed Action
Draft EIS Alternatives
Modifications/Rationale
Final Proposed Action/ Preferred Alternative
Final Alternatives
21
How To: Documentation
Documentation: Summary
• Document at least four iterations : – Preparation leading up to NOI – Scoping (evolution of the proposed
action) – Draft EIS – Final EIS
22
How To: Documentation
How About Some Examples?
• Pilot Project – Monroe Mountain
• Grand Island Tour Vehicle Garage EA
• Bridgeport Travel Management EIS
23
Examples
24
Examples
Monroe Mountain
25
Examples
Grand Island
1.6.2 Modifications to the Proposed Action
As a result of public involvement, the modifications displayed in Table 1 were made to the Proposed Action (36 CFR 220.7(b)(2)(iii)).
Table 1. Modifications to the Proposed Action Comment Number Public Concern Modification to Proposed Action (PA)
1a, 2b Parking spaces for long-term islander parking should be perpendicular to the road – not diagonal.
Change the Proposed Action from diagonal parking to perpendicular parking.
1b, 5d 10 to 12 spots for long-term islander parking are not enough.
Change the Proposed Action from 10-12 vehicles to 14 vehicles (7 spots on either side of the road).
1c, 2c, 5e The dimensions of the long-term parking area are not given.
Clarify the Proposed Action to describe the dimensions of the long-term parking area to be 60 feet east to west and 65 feet north to south. These dimensions are based on engineer recommendations.
1d, 1i, 2d, 2i
Parking surface material was not specified in the Purpose and Need for both the short and long-term parking lots.
Clarify the Proposed Action to describe road gravel would be used to surface both parking lots.
1f, 2h The 6-hour time limit for short-term islander parking is unacceptably short.
Change to Proposed Action to a 10-hour limit to coincide with the passenger ferry schedule.
5a Fill needs to be brought in to elevate the construction site and access road due to high water in the spring.
Modify the Proposed Action to include placement of fill and drainage structures to address high water table in spring.
5c
The vehicles on the east end of the long-term parking lot may be visible from the backyards of the Carlson and Gendron cottages. The parking lot may need to be moved further west. Fencing may be an option also.
Modify the Proposed Action to require the parking lot be screened by vegetation from the Carlson’s and Gendron’s backyard.
5f
Rotten hazard trees are present in the vicinity of the proposed long-term islander parking lot and could cause damage to parked vehicles
Modify the Proposed Action to include felling of hazard trees.
Bridgeport Travel Management
26
Examples
Summary: What Did We Learn?
Iterative Approach
Enhanced Public
Participation
Decreased Legal
Vulnerability
Increased Agency
Credibility
Administrative Efficiency
27
Conclusion
What About The Future? • eForest • Additional learning • Pilot project • Testing • Interested in joining the Learning
Team? Contact: Betsy Rickards
28
Conclusion
Discussion, Questions?
Thank You!
29