Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Similar to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Writing Environmental Assessments (EAs), Part 2 of 3 - Helen Clough and Judy Kurtzman
Similar to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Writing Environmental Assessments (EAs), Part 2 of 3 - Helen Clough and Judy Kurtzman (20)
More from rshimoda2014
More from rshimoda2014 (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Writing Environmental Assessments (EAs), Part 2 of 3 - Helen Clough and Judy Kurtzman
- 1. NEPA - Writing Environmental Assessments, Part 2 River Management Society Denver, Colorado April 17, 2014 1
- 2. Review • Purpose and Need • Scoping • Public Involvement 2
- 3. Alternatives • Different ways to achieve purpose and need • Ways to address/resolve issues • Provide basis for choice, to compare impacts • Explore/evaluate all reasonable Topic Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Agriculture Renew leases Renew leases Eliminate leases Veg. mgmt. weed mgmt. Improve riparian Same as B. Water quality No special Provide facilities Same as B. mgmt. Rocky Gulch No access Walk-in Season public Access vehicle access 3
- 4. Alternatives • Equal treatment of all alternatives considered in detail • Must include no action and proposed action • Full range must be considered • Built in mitigation/stipulations • Often have criteria for developing 4
- 5. No action alternative • No change from current management • Not do the proposed action • Is a reference point 5
- 6. Alternatives Chapter • Briefly describe all alternatives eliminated from further evaluation. • Compare the alternatives and impacts of each by summarizing how they differ in a matrix. • Identify the preferred alternative. 6
- 7. Alternatives Chapter • Introduction explaining this chapter describes and compares the alternatives for completing the project. • Describes the “no action” alternative. • Describes all “reasonable” alternatives. • Include all outputs and required mitigation measures. • Explain the process used to generate the alternatives “selection criteria.” 7
- 8. Exercise 3 • Review EA ~ Parts of Chapter 2 • Discuss as a group the strengths and weaknesses of the chapter – focus on alternatives table. • Did they adequately describe the no action alternative using it as a baseline condition for comparison with the other alternatives? • Did they adequately describe the action alternatives giving a clear understanding what the actions were? • Were the selection criteria included? • Were the alternatives presented in a comparative form 8
- 9. CEQ Regulations § 1502.24 Methodology and scientific accuracy. • “Agencies shall insure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses in environmental impact statements. They shall identify any methodologies used and shall make explicit reference by footnote to the scientific and other sources relied upon for conclusions in the statement. An agency may place discussion of methodology in an appendix.” 9
- 10. Chapter 3 Affected Environment • Description of relevant resources • Explain current (baseline) condition: • Explain current trends for resources/communities by comparing current conditions to a prior baseline condition • Helps readers understand the ability of the resource /community to withstand impacts • Helps readers understand what it will take to improve the resource’s/community’s condition • Use photographs when possible 10
- 11. Northern Plains Resource Council, Inc. v. Surface Transportation Board,___F.3d___(9th Cir.2011)(LowSwartz,Linda. Summaryof2011NEPACases) • Baseline data: “Petitioners also contend that the TRRC II and III EIS documents do not provide adequate baseline data to assess the impacts of the railroad. Petitioners take issue with the Board's analysis concerning the pallid sturgeon, sage grouse, fish and aquatic resources, other wildlife, and sensitive plants. Because the TRRC III FSEIS does not provide baseline data for many of the species, and instead plans to conduct surveys and studies as part of its post-approval mitigation measures, we hold that the Board did not take a sufficiently ‘hard look’ to fulfill its NEPA-imposed obligations at the impacts as to these species prior to issuing its decision.” 11
- 12. Chapter 3 Affected Environment • Description of relevant resources • Explain boundaries for the resource. • In discussion include boundaries for direct/indirect and cumulative impacts • Include information on past and present actions that brought the resource to its current conditions. 12
- 13. Chapter 3 Affected Environment • Description of relevant resources • Describe the methods used to determine current condition. • Quantify results whenever possible using measurement indicators (e.g., kilometers/miles, decibels) • Describe the measurement indicators • Use benchmarks when necessary: 50km = 31mi • 140dB = loudest recommended exposure • Current Condition = 115dB (Loud Rock Concert) 13
- 14. Northern Plains Resource Council, Inc. v. Surface Transportation Board,___F.3d___(9th Cir.2011)(LowSwartz,Linda. Summaryof2011NEPACases) • Reliance on “stale data”: “Petitioners also contend that the Board relied on stale data in making its TRRC III environmental impacts analysis. Board admits that it was unable to conduct on-the-ground surveys as part of the EIS process. The Board cites the property rough terrain, rural location, and limited access due to private property as the reasons that it was unable to conduct on-the-ground surveys. The Board instead relied on aerial surveys and photography, along with data from TRRC I and TRRC II. We agree with Petitioners that the Board's reliance on this data does not constitute a ‘hard look’ under NEPA.” 14
- 15. Chapter 3 Affected Environment • Description of relevant resources • Put the most emphasis on the resources, ecosystems, or communities that are likely to experience the most important impacts. • Use the scoping process to identify the resources, ecosystems, or communities of most concern (e.g., through analysis or public comments). • Be careful to not over analyze ~ remember ~ analytic rather than encyclopedic (CEQ § 1502.2(a)) 15
- 16. Exercise 4 • Review EA ~ Chapter 3 • Discuss as a group the strengths and weaknesses of the chapter. • Did the discussion of the issues clearly explain the current conditions, past impacts that have affected the resources, and the geographic boundaries and timeframes used to determine current conditions? • Did the discussion of the issues describe measurement indicators and methodologies used to determine the current conditions? • Do you understand the trend of the resource (i.e., stable, declining or improving)? 16
- 17. Environmental Consequences • Basis for comparison of impacts of each alternatives • Effect =impact • Environmental change due to implementing an alternative • Assessing or analyzing is a process • Displaying in the results of analysis is the document • Not a justification – objective analysis Context: Site-specific – Activities that would result in effects that occur in the immediate vicinity of the Lost Valley Campground and trail. Local – Activities that would result in effects beyond the immediate vicinity of the Lost Valley Campground and trail, but are limited to the Clark Creek basin. Regional – Activities that would result in effects beyond the Clark Creek basin, but contained within Buffalo National River. 17
- 18. Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences • CEQ § 1502.16 • Introduction explaining this chapter describes impact levels to each relevant resource • Discuss the following types of impacts: • Direct, indirect, and cumulative • Short- and long-term • Irreversible and irretrievable • Explain the methods used to predict potential impacts and measurement indicators used 18
- 19. Direct Impacts • Direct impacts (CEQ § 1508.8) • Effects occur at the same time and place as the triggering action. • Direct effects are caused by the agency’s action. 19
- 20. Indirect Impacts • Indirect impacts (CEQ §1508.8) • Indirect effects are caused by the proposed action and its alternatives, but they occur at a later time and distance from the triggering action 20
- 21. Cumulative Impacts “Cumulative impact…the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (CEQ § 1508.7) 21
- 22. Cumulative Impacts Effects Analysis — focus on the direct and indirect effects resulting from the actions of your proposal and alternatives. Cumulative Effects Analysis — Puts the direct and indirect effects from you proposal in context with effects of other projects overlapping in time and space with your proposal. 22
- 23. Summary • Alternatives • No Action Alternative • Affected Environment • Environmental Consequences 23
Editor's Notes
- Helen
- Helen Tuesday we covered an overview of NEPA, described the importance of defining the purpose and need for the proposed action – why we are doing the NEPA document!! We discussed public involvement and scoping. Getting people involved at the beginning and throughout the project. We mentioned the need to reach out to those who disagree with what you are proposing and make sure they are heard. In this session where we will cover alternatives, affected environment, and introduce environmental consequences Any outstanding questions or comments from the last session that just can’t wait??
- Helen Alternatives are where we often get ourselves into trouble – the CEQ regulations say we must have a “reasonable range of alternatives.” The table at the bottom of this slide is a very abbreviated version of some of the components of the alternatives from the Teton River EA. This is typical of alternatives in a plan. If you have 3 alternatives - not every single component will vary among each alternatives.
- Helen - Top bullet–critical statement–if the alternatives are fully considered – they should be treated equally. So often we see no action and a proposed action then one or two “straw” alternatives – it is obvious that the decision maker would not select these. It is better to just have an action and a no action than that situation – but usually there is more than one way to meet your purpose & need. Building alternatives is often a very iterative process – one of my favorite ways to built alternatives is to brainstorm different ways to achieve our objectives and address our issues. After these ideas have been fleshed out a little, then we build them into logical groupings of actions. This works very well for a complex proposed action – such as a plan. As we come up with ideas for an action – and begin the analysis – we often modify the action. For example, in this case all types of boats were launched along a section of the current river. Trailered boats were launched at a gravel ramp which washed away in flooding. Alternative C was developed to separate those users using boat trailers (probably mostly motor boats) from those not using trailers and to locate facilities on more stable sections of the river where periodic flooding was less likely to damage facilities. Constructing facilities including defining a parking area – defines the areas of use, minimizes resource damage. Some criteria that may have been used in developing these alternatives probably included: reducing or eliminating resource impacts, improving visitor safety, reducing visit conflicts and congestion . . .
- Helen No action alternative is required as it is the reference point for comparing the proposed action and other action alternatives. If the proposed action is to build something – such as a boat ramp and parking lot – the no action alternative would be to not build the boat ramp and parking lot. In the case of our management plan EA, the no action alternative is to continue managing the area in the way it has been managed – not to suddenly not manage the area. The no action alternative is the only alternative that may not be “reasonable” – for example if the proposed action is to fix a situation where there are adverse resource and/or public safety impacts – it may not be viable – but still must be included.
- Helen - Part of the range of alternatives can include those not considered in detail – For our Teton River Canyon EA, the creation of a new state park had been discussed during the planning process, but was not included for reasons explained in the EA. Often this is a good place to explain why an alternative that some segment of the public may really like but is inconsistent with agency mandates, or would have significant adverse resource impacts, is not carried forward. It shows the public that we have considered what they wanted and explains why we are not carrying it forward. As you can see in the document, alternatives are usually compared in a matrix that outlines the components of the alternative. Also, often there is a matrix in an EA (required in an EIS) that compares the environmental consequences of the alternatives. The preferred alternative is typically identified. The only time when this is not the case is if the agency really does not have one – normally only the case for outside proposals. Discuss pros and cons of only having action/no action alternative. Briefly discuss differences of agency generated action vs. outside generated action.
- Helen The Teton River Canyon EA explains briefly on page 2-1 how the alternatives were developed from provided during the public involvement and Tribal consultation process. Additional information about the input is also found in Chapter 4 of this EA, Consultation and Coordination.
- Helen In the interest of time, you have a few pages of the alternatives chapter. Look at the language on pages 2-1 and 2-2 and on the table for the topics of agricultural and grazing leases and rare, threatened and endangered species and critical habitat. Answer the 4 questions as best as you can from the info provided.
- Judy
- Judy
- Judy
- Judy
- Judy
- Judy
- Judy
- Judy
- Helen This is the core of the EA or EIS – what NEPA is all about – if we do A or B, x, y, or z will happen. The words effect and impact can be used interchangeably. Two key steps assessing – analysis – then documenting – both are very important but you cannot write it up until you have done the analysis. Analysis needs to be objective – if there are inconsistencies in information – explain.
- Helen
- Helen Removal of x square feet of riparian vegetation. Also need to say what this means, increase in erosion estimated at yy cubic feet per/year. Removal of 1 red tailed hawk nest.
- Helen What does having one less nesting pair of hawks mean about the population
- Helen In the last few years there has been a lot of emphasis on cumulative impact analysis. Past actions – essentially the situation today, what will happen because of our proposed action and alternatives, and what will happen because of past and proposed an other actions in the area. Reasonably foreseeable – means that the action is in a plan – not just speculative –something that might happen. See page 3-13. Cumulative impacts due to increased public access increasing potential for weed infestation and fire. One NEPA trainer points out that cumulative impacts are really the result of the direct and indirect impacts – think about it.
- Helen
- Judy