The National Environmental Policy Act Wyoming County Commissioners November 28, 2012

1. Rocky Mountain Region The National Environmental Policy Act Wyoming County Commissioners November 28, 2012

2. Introduction to Cooperation in the U.S. Forest Service NEPA Process • Project Development • Scoping • Draft EIS – Development & Review • Final EIS • Project Implementation and Monitoring

3. Our Mission: Sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests to meet the needs of present and future generations.

4. National Environmental Policy Act It is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local governments,to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations

5. National Environmental Policy Act • Basic National Charter for the protection of the environment. • "the most important and far-reaching environmental and conservation measure ever enacted by Congress“ • Adopted by 25 states and 80 countries

6. National Environmental Policy Act • Actions required • Environmental Impact Statements for major federal actionssignificantly affecting the environment. • Informed decisions • Involved public • Council on Environmental Quality

7. National Environmental Policy Act • Process • Proposal (County initiated and County authority) • Scoping (issues, alternatives – County input) • Draft EIS (effects analysis, County assistance) • County / Public Comments – substantive, not Q&A • Final EIS • Decision • Implementation and Monitoring (HFRA)

8. Proposal • Projects initiated by County • Projects subject to County authority • Agency initiated projects • Projects initiated by others

9. Scoping • Forest Service requires for all projects, not just EISs. • Can be used to determine cooperating agencies/assignments • Alternatives • Set time limits for: • Scoping/EIS/Decision • Counties, State agencies, or public can request time limits

10. Draft EIS • Alternatives • Based on scoping, not every conceivable option • Consider value added to decision making, including cost to the public for analysis • Implementability and Reasonableness • Incremental improvement of proposed action • Less polarizing • More efficient

11. Analysis of Alternatives • Can use County expertise • Based on sideboards provided by scoping • Depth of analysis provided by scoping • More info and analysis means less $$ to ground • Direct, Indirect, Cumulative

12. Draft EIS review • County/Public comments • More in depth County involvement can be included with or without cooperating agency role • County can assist in public involvement / public meetings / joint County/Forest service meetings • County can assist in response to comments

13. Decision Rationale • Explains why the Forest Service made the decision • Demonstrates hard look and informed decision

14. Implementation • Official Cooperating Agency process ended • Counties can be involved in project implementation outside of cooperating agency process • Multi Party monitoring (HFRA and other processes) • Implementation • Effectiveness

15. What’s good interagency/public involvement? Appropriate time and $ Needs to be constant ongoing, not limited to NEPA process Two way communication Emphasize local elected officials Minimize “voting” Clear, plain language Above all, have an effect on the decision

16. What does FS need work on? • Cost management • Time management • Mission creep • Climate change • Plain language

17. CEQ NEPA Effectiveness Study “NEPA's most enduring legacy is as a framework for collaboration between federal agencies and those who will bear the environmental, social, and economic impacts of their decisions.”

18. NEPA for the 21st Century • Agency staffs have become more diverse. • Enhanced the transparency of agency analyses and decision making.

19. NEPA for the 21st Century

20. THANKS!! David Loomis Environmental Planner Rocky Mountain Region 303 275 5008 dloomis@fs.fed.us