Examples

Facilitated Planning Approach for NEPA documents.

1. Programmatic/Site-Specific Decisionmaking with Multiple Objectives and Detailed Consistency Analyses for a USDA Forest Service Timber Sale
2. Programmatic EIS, Incorporating Two Similar Actions (40 CFR 1508.25), Extensive Federal and Intergovernmental Collaboration, Strong Analysis of Purpose and Need
3. Effective Use of Adaptive Management and Monitoring
4. 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.

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.

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.

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

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.