Focused Environmental Assessments. Things we learned as a learning team

Transcription

1 Focused Environmental Assessments Things we learned as a learning team

2 What is a Focused EA? Focused EAs are a process Focus on what is truly relevant Certainty of impacts Proposal s non-significant effects Analysis tied to issues & alternatives Succinct only necessary information Meets legal requirements

3 What is Required in an EA? Need for the proposal Alternatives Environmental effects Agencies and persons consulted

4 What can I Drop or Minimize? Table of Contents Project Summary Background NEPA process language List of document preparers

5 What else can I drop or minimize? Public involvement chronologies Eliminated alternatives Affected environment Comparison of alternatives No Action Alternative option

6 What else can I drop or minimize? Legal findings and compliance Specialist Reports Appendices

7 Focused EAs in the Alaska Region Ken Post Regional Environmental Coordinator Alaska Region 7

8 Goose Bay Public Recreation Cabin Construction Glacier Ranger District Chugach National Forest 8

9 Goose Bay Public Recreation Cabin Construction Glacier Ranger District Chugach National Forest EA was done in June 2009 Followed the Owen Schmidt (former OGC attorney) model Writing the Perfect EA/FONSI 9

10 Goose Bay Public Recreation Cabin Construction Glacier Ranger District Chugach National Forest Proposal was to remove old cabin at one site and build new one at a different location It wasn t a CE so it had to be an EA 10

11 Goose Bay Public Recreation Cabin Construction Glacier Ranger District Chugach National Forest Issues at old cabin: Cultural resources Salmon streams = Bear encounters Poor boat anchorage Handicap accessibility Resources analyzed: Heritage Fisheries Wildlife Recreation Plants 11

12 Goose Bay Public Recreation Cabin Construction Glacier Ranger District Chugach National Forest What worked well Lessons learned: No controversy - no public comments at all Well-known impacts No one asked for in-depth analysis Familiarity with team members 12

13 Goose Bay Public Recreation Cabin Construction Glacier Ranger District Chugach National Forest Other thoughts: Management did not constrain the approach used for the EA Fairly independent team Had to take longer resource reports and pull together the much briefer core information needed for the EA No appeal 13

14 Goose Bay Public Recreation Cabin Construction Glacier Ranger District Chugach National Forest Tailor analysis to the situation--nepa is a thinking person s game: Focus on the issues that are truly important Do not go overboard trying to anticipate every possible issue. 14

15 Goose Bay Public Recreation Cabin Construction Glacier Ranger District Chugach National Forest EA = 11 pages FONSI/DN = 5 pages For more information: Josh Milligan jmilligan@fs.fed.us 15

16 Commercial Harvest of Spruce Tips Sitka Ranger District Tongass National Forest 16

17 Commercial Harvest of Spruce Tips Sitka Ranger District Tongass National Forest Proposal included: Authorizing Special Forest Products permits for the collection of spruce tips used for brewing beer Initial harvest of 2000 lbs./yr. with allowance up to 10,000 lbs./yr. depending on monitoring results. Project area = Sitka Ranger District Harvest areas 5 contiguous acres Monitoring harvest areas 17

18 Commercial Harvest of Spruce Tips Sitka Ranger District Tongass National Forest Didn t fit a CE category Alternatives: No Action no spruce tip harvest Proposed Action 18

19 Commercial Harvest of Spruce Tips Sitka Ranger District Tongass National Forest Effects: EA listed resources determined to not be affected and documented (e.g. no TE species in project area, etc.) Resources with associated issues addressed in EA Resource reports were short (< 10 pgs.) and contained only essential information 19

20 Commercial Harvest of Spruce Tips Sitka Ranger District Tongass National Forest Notable: Very limited info on effects of spruce tip harvest on vegetation Used study on pruning branches as substitute pruning more extreme harvesting technique than tip removal Pruning not detrimental to tree growth No objections 20

21 Commercial Harvest of Spruce Tips Sitka Ranger District Tongass National Forest EA = 6 pages FONSI/DN = 6 pages For more info: T.J. Witherspoon (907)

22 Focused EAs in the Alaska Region Began a regional road trip teaching Focused EAs in January 2013 R10 is a small region - easy to get the word out Visited almost every district face to face Readily embraced by NEPA staff and others Had examples from Chugach National Forest 22

23 Focused EAs in the Alaska Region Taught in conjunction with CE training If it s not a CE, then it s an EA Provided side-by-side examples of CEs and EAs to compare projects that were trying to shoehorn projects into CEs because they didn t want to do EAs 23

24 Focused EA Successes Region 2: Rocky Mountain Region

25 Pole Mountain Vegetation Project Laramie Ranger District Medicine Bow National Forest Interdisciplinary project to improve wildlife habitat and range quality, reduce fuels, and increase ecosystem resiliency. Some support, some potential controversy. 25

26 Pole Mountain Vegetation Project Laramie Ranger District Medicine Bow National Forest Proposal included: Prescribed fire and mechanical treatment on >8,000 acres of pine, mixed conifer, and aspen stands. Experimental treatment of brush within ¼ miles of defined treatment units. Constrained scope of project: did not include travel management component. 26

27 Pole Mountain Vegetation Project Laramie Ranger District Medicine Bow National Forest Issues: Hiding cover for big game and birds Over-browsing in treated aspen stands Introduction and spread of invasive species Smoke impacts to nearby communities EA focused only on these issues and projected effects to treated vegetation. 27

28 Pole Mountain Vegetation Project Laramie Ranger District Medicine Bow National Forest Lessons Learned! Modified the proposed action and did not analyze no action alternative. Design features and avoidance areas in place of some specialist reports. Specialist reports generally <10 pages, most report content not included in EA. EA and decision include robust monitoring plan. Enough flexibility to work with cooperators. 28

29 Pole Mountain Vegetation Project Laramie Ranger District Medicine Bow National Forest 9 months from scoping to decision. Substantive comments on proposal; comments addressed in EA without formal response to comments document. No objections to draft decision. EA/FONSI: 22 pages DN: 12 pages 29

30 Focused EAs - Challenges Change may be Challenging Keep project scope focused Write shorter or no specialist reports Effects discussion different than for EIS 30

31 Keys to Success Start with the legal minimums for EAs 1. Need for proposal 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 3. Analysis commensurate with effects 4. Agencies and Persons Consulted 31

32 Keys to Success Low complexity If there were a CE More may be necessary Applies to all projects 32

33 Tips & Techniques to consider Focus on relevant issues and key findings Use design criteria to minimize alternatives and impacts Support the FONSI Limit number of alternatives Focus on purpose of NEPA 33

34 Tips & Techniques to consider Briefly identify unaffected resources and provide rationale Tier to existing NEPA Incorporate by reference Format? Appendices?

35 What about the Future? eforest Additional learning and more discussion Success stories

36 Discussion, Questions? Thank You