Examples

Facilitated Planning Approach for NEPA documents.

Programmatic/Site-Specific Decisionmaking with Multiple Objectives and Detailed Consistency Analyses for a USDA Forest Service Timber Sale

Programmatic EIS, Incorporating Two Similar Actions (40 CFR 1508.25), Extensive Federal and Intergovernmental Collaboration, Strong Analysis of Purpose and Need

Effective Use of Adaptive Management and Monitoring

Effective Integration of an Environmental Management System (EMS) with NEPA and Programmatic/Site Specific Planning and Decisionmaking

The following examples describe innovative processes using Informed Facilitation and the Facilitated Planning Approach:

1. Programmatic/Site-Specific Decisionmaking with Multiple Objectives and Detailed Consistency Analyses for a USDA Forest Service Timber Sale

PROJECT: Proposed Late-Successional Forest, Elk, and Spotted Owl Management in the Sevenmile and Sheep Subwatersheds, Sweet Home Ranger District, Willamette National Forest

AGENCY: U.S. Forest Service, Sweet Home Ranger District, Willamette National Forest, Oregon

INVOLVED PARTIES: Fourteen disciplinary experts from the Sweet Home Range District and Environmental Planning Strategies, Inc.

Innovative Practices Used:

Multi-years of timber sales (programmatic approach) planned in two subwatershed using a site-specific facilitated approach (mylar overlays leading to full GIS system);
Use of agency expertise on the Interdisciplinary Team to ensure practicality, effectiveness, and long-term commitment to implementation and monitoring of the decision, using the Facilitated Approach;
Incorporation of clear quantitative objectives for meeting four related but independent needs for action and their evaluation into the decisionmaking process and document, so the EA is a complete decision package for the decisionmaker
Clear determination and documentation of consistency of the proposed actions, alternatives, and mitigation measures with the Northwest Forest Plan for Management of the Northern Spotted Owl (Option 9 and Appendix A of the ROD), the Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, and the National Forest Management Act;
Focusing the alternatives on the needs for action/objectives and true issues, having only one issue and the objectives for developing alternatives, and the remaining issues to develop site-specific mitigation measures;
Use of the Facilitated Planning Approach allowed all the members of the Interdisciplinary Team to know the details of each others disciplines related to the planning effort, support each others analyses, and assist in planning with the ability for each member to effectively integrate the disciplinary information into the planning effort. This approach also assisted in future planning efforts for watershed analysis and other EAs, creating long-term teamwork and cooperation;
Integration of site-specific prescriptions meeting objectives and protecting resources (sufficiently specific for developing marking guides), and site-specific K-V projects, with priorities and economic analyses ensured a complete decision package for the decisionmaker and personnel involved in implementing the decision;
Protocols for monitoring the effectiveness of the thinning prescriptions in meeting objectives and mitigation for protecting resources was developed collaboratively, incorporated into the EA, and implemented during and after conducting the various timber sales.

Context/Background and Project Description:

The Sweet Home Ranger District identified related two subwatersheds providing opportunity to create old growth forest characteristics, improve elk habitat, and create spotted owl habitat, while meeting forest timber objectives within homogeneous forest stands created by a fire in 1911. Several spotted owls were located within marginal habitat outside of spotted owl protection areas. The District also wanted to learn an efficient and effective interdisciplinary process that could be applied to future EAs and watershed management plans. During this process, the EIS and ROD for the Northwest Forest Plan for Management of the Northern Spotted Owl (Option 9 and Appendix A of the ROD) was ongoing and finally completed.

Using the facilitated approach and mylar overlays, the team communicated to each other the information related to each resource within the area, identifying areas needing management, overlapping areas of conflict, and status of the resources. The team collaboratively developed quantitative management objectives and specific stands that could be managed to meet those objectives for spotted owl habitat, elk habitat, old growth forest characteristics, and timber volume produced. All needs for action and objectives, alternatives, and mitigation measures were evaluated for consistency with the Northwest Forest Plan, the Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, and the National Forest Management Act, and the consistency determinations clearly and concisely documented.

Using the site specific overlays, the interdisciplinary approach, and the results of public involvement, the team identified only one primary issue used to develop alternative means of meeting the objectives, and an additional site-specific seven primary issues (with sub-issues) to develop site-specific mitigation measures. Standards and guidelines from the two plans with which the existing conditions were not consistent were also used to identify resource issues.

The team collaboratively developed alternatives, and applied unique forest management thinning prescriptions and mitigation measures to each forest stand to meet specific objectives for each stand. The effectiveness of each alternative in meeting each of the four quantitative objectives was evaluated and the impacts of each alternative on each of the issues assessed, and clearly documented and compared in the EA. Stand-specific prescriptions (including marking and cutting guides and mitigation measures) were collaboratively developed and documented, and site-specific K-V projects identified, with economic analysis and priorities for implementation.

The team continues to collaboratively and effectively apply this process to other EAs and interdisciplinary analyses, such as watershed analysis, and the District continues to use this EA for preparing timber sales and meeting objectives in these subwatersheds.

Value as a Practice:

The facilitated planning approach, integrating the extensive expertise on the Sweet Home Ranger District, used the systematic interdisciplinary approach, created long-term teamwork and cooperation on the District, resulted in practical and site-specific alternatives and mitigation measures that met quantitative objectives and were consistent with all planning guidance and requirements, and ensured commitment by all resource managers and District management to correct implementation and monitoring.
The facilitated planning approach focused the planning and analysis on site-specific issues and solutions, eliminated “repeat planning,” and resulted in efficient implementation and documented resource protection and management to meet quantitative objectives.
Preparing, reviewing, and correcting the EA by the Interdisciplinary Team concurrently with the progress of the analysis, which focused the analysis, and therefore the document, on the important issues, identified needs for only the specific data and analyses needed, provided a strong foundation for each phase of the analysis, provided for "self-correcting" analyses and documentation, and integrated the disciplines into the analysis effectively.
Incorporating all the information needed for the Forest decisionmaker to make an informed decision, including the evaluation of effectiveness of each alternative in meeting the quantitative management objectives, documented evaluation of consistency with the Northwest Forest Plan, the Willamette National Forest Plan, and the National Forest Management Act, assessment and comparison of environmental impacts of each alternative and mitigation measures for each site-specific issue, detailed management prescriptions for each stand, monitoring protocols, and K-V projects, cost evaluations, and economic analyses into the environmental assessment provided the decisionmaker with the ability to make an informed decision based on both effectiveness and environmental impacts in one concise “decision package.” The detailed EA also provided the personnel responsible for implementation detailed guidance on actual implementation requirements and the rationale for the various stand prescriptions, eliminating the need for developing an implementation plan.

» Back to Top

2. Programmatic EIS, Incorporating Two Similar Actions (40 CFR 1508.25), Extensive Federal and Intergovernmental Collaboration, Strong Analysis of Purpose and Need

PROJECT: Livestock Grazing and Prairie Dog Management for the Rosebud and Cheyenne River Sioux Reservations, South Dakota, Bureau of Indian Affairs

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota

INVOLVED PARTIES: Fourteen disciplinary experts from the BIA and each tribe, and Environmental Planning Strategies, Inc.

Innovative Practices Involved:

Scope of Programmatic EIS included two "similar" actions (40 CFR 1508.25), each with its own Reservation-specific objectives, issues, alternatives, and environmental consequences;
Use of agency and Tribal expertise on the Interdisciplinary Teams to ensure practicality, effectiveness, and long-term commitment to implementation and monitoring of the decision, using the Facilitated Approach;
Full cooperation of BIA with Tribal governments for array of alternatives, consistent with government-to-government relationship;
For the first time, a Federal NEPA document addressed the real need for action (management of livestock grazing for increasing income), rather than killing prairie dogs, which led to development of effective alternatives with fewer environmental impacts;
Incorporation of clear quantitative objectives for the independent needs for action for each Reservation and their evaluation into the decisionmaking process and document, so the EIS is a complete decision package for the decisionmaker;
Detailed summaries of the scientific literature regarding the relationship of the prairie dog ecosystem to range condition and trend and the economics of livestock management, biodiversity in the prairie dog ecosystem, and impacts to the endangered black-footed ferret provided education for the BIA resource managers and decisionmakers, and Tribal government representatives, members, and resource managers, dispelling ecological "myths";
Science-based approaches to the economic analyses, evaluation of ecological diversity, and impacts to the black-footed ferret and its habitat avoided "guaranteed" litigation;
Compliance with the Endangered Species Act for 8 listed species and 7 candidate species was integrated into the EIS, with affirmative concurrence and cooperation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service throughout the process;
The quality of the analyses in the draft EIS resulted in no substantive comments – the final EIS was issued with the edited Executive Summary, comments, and responses to comments only.

Context/Background and Project Description:

The Rosebud and Cheyenne River Reservations requested substantial appropriations from Congress to kill prairie dogs to support their Tribal and member livestock industries. Congress provided the appropriations for FY 1991, with the caveat: "The Bureau should work with the tribes involved and the Fish and Wildlife Service to reorient this program to avoid poisoning wherever possible and develop management programs that will allow coexistence with prairie dog populations." The BIA completed an EA in September 1991, but lacked sufficient funding, personnel, and time to fully analyze the effects of poisoning on prairie dogs and black-footed ferret habitat, as well as on other listed and candidate species. Therefore, the EA focused on the standard approach of poisoning prairie dogs. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a Biological Opinion under the Endangered Species Act stating that the poisoning programs would jeopardize the survival and recovery of the black-footed ferret; the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund and Defenders of Wildlife threatened litigation if the BIA implemented a poisoning program. The BIA decided to select the no action alternative (continue current grazing practices with no prairie dog poisoning) until an EIS was prepared, and reinitiate Section 7 consultation.

Based on preliminary information from the scientific literature prepared for the EA and EIS, in 1992, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal government passed a resolution supporting a management plan for the entire prairie dog ecosystem, including prairie dogs, livestock, and black-footed ferrets, while optimizing Lakota cultural, social, and economic benefits for the people. That same year, the Rosebud Sioux Tribal government passes a resolution supporting a prairie dog control program using both pesticides and range management and opposing any black-footed ferret reintroduction efforts on the Reservation.

With assistance from contracted a range manager, agricultural economist, prairie dog biologist, and NEPA coordinator/facilitator, Tribal and BIA resource managers and economists were facilitated through the planning process specific to each Reservation. The two teams defined the need for action and quantitative objectives for each Reservation and conducted field surveys (with the contracted wildlife biologist) for prairie dog densities and locations, and for sign of black-footed ferret presence. The contracted team made a detailed evaluation and summary of the scientific literature regarding the interrelationship of the prairie dog ecosystem and livestock grazing, range condition and trend, and economics; the contribution of the prairie dog ecosystem to biodiversity of the Great Plains; and the condition and trend of black-footed ferret habitat on each Reservation.

The Teams defined the Reservation-specific objectives and issues based on the scientific literature and field surveys, and developed an array of alternatives specific to each Reservation, based on resolutions passed by and further communication with each Tribal government, consistent with government-to-government relationship policies. Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation chose to continue focusing on management of the prairie ecosystem (seven alternatives); Rosebud Reservation chose to continue focusing on poisoning prairie dogs (four alternatives), even with the strong potential for getting a jeopardy opinion under the Endangered Species Act.

Scientifically-based economic and environmental impact analyses, including analyses and findings required under the Endangered Species Act for 8 listed species and 7 candidate species, were conducted and documented in the draft EIS. Despite controversy, no substantive comments changing the issues, alternatives, or impacts were received. The final EIS consisted of the edited Executive Summary, the comments received, and responses to comments. The BIA selected the prairie ecosystem management alternative for the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation, consistent with Tribal government intent. The Reservation has since received substantial funds from Congress for implementation of the prairie management plan; the Tribe has been recognized by the Federal government for its efforts at raising buffalo for commercial profit and other traditional Lakota efforts consistent with the prairie management plan; and black-footed ferrets were reintroduced onto the Reservation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2000. The no action alternative was selected for the Rosebud Sioux Reservation, as it was the only alternative that did not receive a jeopardy opinion because no prairie dog poisoning was currently occurring. The Rosebud Tribe is currently seeking economic development through other non-traditional ventures, such as commercial hog farms.

Value as a Practice:

The facilitated planning approach, integrating the extensive expertise in the BIA and Tribes, focused the planning and analysis on Reservation-specific issues and alternatives, eliminated “repeat planning,” and resulted in decisions for the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation which have had long-term economic, cultural, and ecological benefits and provided a model for other prairie dog ecosystem management approaches.
Preparing, reviewing, and correcting the EIS by BIA, Tribal, and contracted Interdisciplinary Team concurrently with the progress of the analysis, focused the analysis, and therefore the document, on the important issues, provided a strong foundation for each phase of the analysis, provided for "self-correcting" analyses and documentation, and integrated the disciplines into the analysis effectively (such as combining range condition and trend and livestock management and prairie dog ecosystem management and trends together into a focused economic analysis).
Incorporating into the EIS all the information needed for the BIA decisionmaker and Tribal government representatives to make an informed decision, including the evaluation of effectiveness of each alternative in meeting the quantitative management objectives, assessment and comparison of environmental impacts of each alternative for each Reservation-specific issue, and the Endangered Species Act Section 7 formal consultation requirements provided the decisionmaker with the ability to make an informed decision based on both effectiveness and environmental impacts in one concise “decision package.”

» Back to Top

3. Effective Use of Adaptive Management and Monitoring

PROJECT: Management of Deer-Aircraft Strike Hazard, Ellsworth Air Force Base (EAFB), South Dakota

AGENCY: U. S. Air Force, Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota

INVOLVED PARTIES: Twelve EAFB military and flightline safety and operational personnel, Wildlife Biologists from the private sector (two experts), APHIS Wildlife Services (five experts), and Environmental Planning Strategies, Inc.

Innovative Practices Involved:

Adaptive management approach to alternative development and decisionmaking;
Use of agency expertise on the Interdisciplinary Team to ensure practicality, effectiveness, and long-term commitment to implementation and monitoring of the decision, using the Facilitated Approach;
Incorporation of clear quantitative objectives and their evaluation into the decisionmaking process and document, so the EA is a complete decision package for the decisionmaker
Use of the FONSI as a commitment and checklist for each organization to ensure implementation of the alternative, mitigation, and monitoring
Use of the facilitated NEPA process to leverage the agency expertise, and to reach closure on and commitment to the issues, alternatives, mitigation, monitoring, and implementation in an extremely short period of time.

Context/Background and Project Description:

Ellsworth AFB began to experience safety problems with a resident herd of deer in the flightline, after the flightline security gates were opened in 1991 (after the fall of the Berlin Wall and security measures were relaxed). For 5 years, the Base attempted to resolve the problem, without long-term success.

In four months, NEPA was used to create a team of EAFB NEPA and organizational expertise related to flight and ground safety, and work with deer management experts from state and Federal agencies and the private sector to identify the need, develop quantitative mission objectives, clarify the environmental, safety, mission and health issues, and develop practical and effective alternatives. From a mission standpoint, it was most practical to take an adaptive management phased approach to resolving the problem – implement actions to close the perimeter of the flightline to deer (after removing the deer residing in the flightline); monitor effectiveness. If deer are still entering the flightline by jumping the fence, increase the fence height in appropriate places; monitor the effectiveness. If deer are still using the flightline, take the more drastic measure of fencing and/or destroying the wetland deer habitat located within the flightline.

The same team used an adapted version of the AF Operational Risk Management Process to evaluate alternative and phase effectiveness in meeting objectives, and calculated cost-effectiveness of countermeasures based on experience with deer management to date. Using the combination of the effectiveness in meeting objectives and environmental impacts documented in the EA, the Commander made a decision that is still effective in supporting mission and is continuing to be implemented by the responsible organizations on EAFB.

The Team won a Commander’s Award for Quality Teamwork.

Value as a Practice:

The facilitated interdisciplinary planning approach, using the extensive expertise within the pertinent organizations on base, eliminated stovepipe planning, which resulted in more practical alternatives and mitigation measures, and commitment by all levels in the organizations to implementation and monitoring.
The facilitated planning approach focused the planning and analysis, eliminated “repeat planning,” and resulted in closure in only four months, after five years of good but inconclusive efforts.
The adaptive management approach provided the opportunity to solve the problem with the fewest and most cost-effective actions, with the no resulting environmental impacts.
Preparing, reviewing, and correcting the EA by the team concurrently with the progress of the analysis, focused the analysis, and therefore the document, on the important issues, identified needs for only the specific data and analyses needed, provided a strong foundation and understanding for each analysis phase, provided for "self-correcting" analyses and documentation, and integrated the disciplines into the analysis effectively.
Incorporation of all the information needed for the Commander to make an informed decision, including quantitative safety and cost objectives, and the adapted Operational Risk Management approach, into the environmental assessment provided the Commander with the ability to make an informed decision based on both effectiveness and environmental impacts in one concise “decision package.”
Incorporating the history of the 5-year planning effort and the rationale for alternatives not considered in detail into the environmental assessment avoids future duplication and mistakes by new personnel not involved in the original planning process.
Incorporation of tables documenting all the actions and associated organizational responsibilities into the FONSI provided a concise “checklist” for the Commander’s commitment and all responsible organizations for monitoring and implementation.

» Back to Top

4. Effective Integration of an Environmental Management System (EMS) with NEPA and Programmatic/Site Specific Planning and Decisionmaking

PROJECT: Building and Pavement Demolition and Real Property Excess/Surplus Actions, Ellsworth Air Force Base (EAFB), South Dakota Programmatic/Site Specific Environmental Assessment

AGENCY: U. S. Air Force, Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota

INVOLVED PARTIES: Representatives from 17 Base organizations, two bat experts from state and private agencies, and Environmental Planning Strategies, Inc.

Innovative Practices Involved

Within the legal framework, development of a complete EMS for demolition and excess/surplus of military real property on EAFB, identifying all consecutive and concurrent steps, requirements for compliance with environmental, safety, health, and other Federal and state laws, and evaluation of environmental effects, providing a complete decision and implementation package for these actions;
Use of agency expertise on the Interdisciplinary Team to ensure practicality, effectiveness, cooperation, and long-term commitment to implementation of the EMS, using the Facilitated Approach;
Providing analysis for specific demolition and excess/surplus actions that, with application of the appropriate EMS and associated mitigation measures, would not require additional NEPA compliance (site specific decisions). The EA also provided EMS processes and mitigation measures for future, as yet undefined demolition and excess/surplus actions that, if consistent with the EA, could then be categorically excluded (programmatic decisions);
Use of the FONSI as a commitment and checklist for each organization to ensure implementation of the EMSs, with mitigation measures;
Use of the facilitated NEPA process to leverage the agency expertise, and to reach closure on and commitment to the issues, EMSs, mitigation, and implementation in a short period of time.

Context/Background and Project Description:

Because of mission changes and personnel reductions, Ellsworth AFB had many structures and associated pavement to demolish, and military housing and other former mission-related real property to excess/surplus. AF policy and Federal law provided the framework for disposal of real property. 51 structures and 32 pieces of pavement had already been demolished, with individual NEPA documents. An additional four sites had NEPA compliance for excess/surplus. The EAFB 10-year plan identified an additional 23 structures and 6 pieces of pavement for demolition, and 3 military housing areas and two mission-related facilities to excess/surplus. With further changes in mission, more demolition and excess/surplus actions would occur in the future, and clear action processes and streamlined NEPA processes were needed for efficient and complete actions for the identified and unidentified future demolition and surplus/excess actions.

Using the expertise of the various base organizations who were involved or should have been involved to identify the necessary consecutive and concurrent process components, mitigation measures, and cooperation for any demolition or surplus/excess action ensured complete EMS process for each type of action, cooperation among base organizations, and commitment to implementation. The NEPA analysis provided specific analysis for the identified actions (site specific decisions) and, assuming full implementation of the EMS processes with associated mitigation measures and legal compliance, programmatic analysis for future, as yet unidentified actions.

If consistent with the EMS process, mitigation measures, and impact analyses, future actions can be categorically excluded using existing AF categorical exclusions. EMS processes are being developed for actions involving radiation. To date, 94 demolition and hundreds of excess/surplus actions have been conducted using the EMS processes.

Value as a Practice:

The facilitated interdisciplinary planning approach, using the extensive expertise within the pertinent organizations on base, eliminated stovepipe planning and process “disconnects,” which resulted in development of complete, practical, and well-defined EMS processes for demolition actions and excess/surplus actions and mitigation measures, and commitment by all levels in the organizations to implementation and cooperation.
The facilitated planning approach focused the planning and involvement of appropriate base organizations, eliminated “repeat planning” and multiple NEPA documents, and resulted in closure in less than a year.
The EMS processes ensure consistent evaluation and integration of pertinent environmental, safety, health, and other legal requirements into demolition and excess/surplus actions, with efficient involvement of pertinent base organizations for identifying and resolving problems cooperatively.
Incorporating all the information needed for the Commander to make an informed decision for specific and unidentified future actions, into the environmental assessment provided the Commander with the ability to make an informed decision based on both effectiveness and environmental impacts in one concise “decision package.” The EA is therefore both a programmatic document and a site specific document.
Incorporating the past history of demolition and excess/surplus actions provided the Realty Office with a complete record of all past actions and a foundation for future actions. It was also used by the team to identify process “disconnects” and resolve environmental, safety and health issues that had occurred in the past.
Preparing, reviewing, and correcting the EA by the Interdisciplinary Team concurrently with the progress of the analysis, which focused the analysis, and therefore the document, on the important issues, identified needs for only the specific data and analyses needed, provided a strong foundation for each phase of the analysis, provided for "self-correcting" analyses and documentation, and integrated the disciplines into the analysis effectively.
Incorporating the EMS process tables and associated organizational responsibilities and mitigation measures into the FONSI provided a concise “checklist” for the Commander’s commitment and all responsible organizations for implementation.

» Back to Top