Concurrent Sessions VI | April 30 | 2:45 PM – 4:15 PM

Come learn what road blocks a state-wide joint EIR/EIS can have and ways we overcame them including the additional challenges of a world-wide pandemic and completing the project in the new normal.

Topics will include a project overview, taking over a project like this in the middle of the project, how to most efficiently handle personnel changes on the State and Federal Interdisciplinary Team, discussion of project budget and scope creep, managing timelines/schedule, and getting to the finish line. Will also discuss top takeaways for the next project like this including what I would do differently. The example project is the California Wildlife Damage Management EIR/EIS. This unique project conducted a comprehensive analysis/evaluation of agricultural resources, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, human and companion animal health and safety, noise, and public services. It considered all levels of wildlife management (individual, small producers/farmers, local and regional agricultural commissions, wildlife management agencies (regulatory agencies), and the California Department of Food and Agriculture). It serves as an interface between federal, state, and local/regional wildlife specialists. As part of this project an adaptable toolbox was created that allows for local/regional practitioners to develop individualized programs that tier off the programmatic EIR/EIS to make the implementation of local programs more efficient and streamlined.

Session Objectives:

• Identify Project Management strategies that worked prior to the pandemic and post-pandemic as well as ones that don't
• Explore changes to engaging with the public during the public scoping and comment periods
• Analyze the impacts to schedule and budget created by IDT changes
• Examine efficiencies and challenges created by producing a joint NEPA/CEQA document

Jason Reynolds

Speaker Information Coming Soon.

Michelle Ogburn

Speaker Information Coming Soon.

A rulemaking endeavor by an agency is often a routine matter that may not attract much public interest. Sometimes, however, the process is complicated by a reversal of regulations based on an agency's reinterpretation of its laws and policies, or a change in administration that requests a reexamination of an issue. Initially presented as a complex story of how the National Park Service (NPS) reversed course for the third time on the same rule at the 2023 workshop, the resolution of the wildlife rulemaking endeavor offers additional twists and turns providing an insightful story on a quest for a durable decision. In the most recent undertaking, the NPS proposed through rulemaking to prohibit certain sport hunting and trapping methods (specifically, the practice of bear baiting) in all NPS national preserves in Alaska (the 2024 Rule). Bear baiting, along with other certain harvest methods, was previously prohibited through rulemaking in 2015, and then removed from prohibition through rulemaking under a different administration in 2020 (the 2015 Rule and 2020 Rule, respectively), with a novel interpretation of several laws from a federal perspective in 2020. All three rulemaking endeavors generated strong public comment and interest, and the internal surnaming process for the 2024 Rule was lengthy. Multiple review periods and extensive Department comments with extraordinarily tight deadlines resulted in a streamlined final rule, and a carefully written Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The final rule (affectionately referred to internally as "the skinny rule" explicitly addressed only two topics: it prohibited bear baiting for sport hunters (rather than also prohibiting other methods considered inconsistent with sport hunting) and b) it clarified how a firearm can be used in conjunction with trapping. The selected action focused primarily on addressing public safety concerns, and involved a subset of components that were fully analyzed under two alternatives (the proposed action in the public review copy of the EA released for comment in January 2023, along with the draft rule; and a revised preferred alternative developed in response to comments) in the Revised EA. The specific architecture of the final rule and the FONSI were designed to support a durable decision and limit the need or opportunity for future reversals to the rule.

Session Objectives:

• Discuss elements that support durable decision-making
• Review risks of reversing decisions and possible concerns
• Assess tradeoffs between competing department/agency concerns
• Explore the power of effective decision documents for supporting future undertakings

Elizabeth Bella, PhD
Environmental Planning & Compliance Team Lead
National Park Service, Alaska Region 

Speaker Bio Coming Soon.

In 2019, the AEP Climate Change Committee reviewed a database of over 600 climate action plans adopted by cities and counties in the State of California to determine the successes and challenges local governments encountered in the implementation of the plans. The Committee then selected fifty climate action plans considered CEQA qualified plans for an interim review. Finally, the Committee focused on nine climate action plans for in-depth reviews that included a review of each specific greenhouse gas reduction strategy within these plans and monitoring mechanisms to determine which ones were the most successful in reducing emissions. The results were presented in the 2019 AEP White Paper on Best Practices in Climate Action Planning and presented at the NAEP 2019 Annual Conference and Training Symposium.

This Session reviews the changes and progress made in the same climate action plans analyzed in 2019. Specifically, the review included a close look at the various types and differences of greenhouse gas reduction strategies that were successful in agricultural communities, mountain and desert communities, as well as large coastal cities including San Diego, Los Angeles and New York City. The review also looked at large inland cities including Austin Texas and Denver Colorado. Each of these regions had a different focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions that coincides with the economic sectors that dominate the city or county. Based upon the AEP Climate Change Committee review, the panel will provide recommended best practices and how these climate action plans have changed in the last five years. The panel will provide guidance on target setting, reduction strategies, implementation strategies, funding, and monitoring systems used within successful climate action plans for the various regions listed above. The panelists will include updated best practices that are applicable for climate action plans outside of California including reduction target setting that fits into the international efforts and are feasible to achieve.

Objectives of the Session:

• Inform the audience on National trends in climate action planning over the last five years
• Explain the differences in climate action plans within different regions of the Country
• Provide guidance in climate action planning based on a review of the plans over the last five years specific to each region of the County

Michael Hendrix
AEP Climate Change Committee Chair
AEP 

Michael Hendrix is a leading climate change scientist with over 28 years of experience. He has authored 78 climate action plans throughout the United States. Mr. Hendrix is the recipient of the AEP "Professional Achievement Award". AEP recognized that his commitment to balancing the need for development with the need for climate resiliency, reduction of GHGs, is evident through his dedication to resiliency planning, air quality and GHG emissions evaluations and mitigation that significantly reduce potential risks, greenhouse gases and air pollution generated by the expansion of these markets.

Mr. Hendrix is the current Chairperson for the AEP Climate Change Committee. In that capacity, he provides leadership within AEP on climate change risks, resiliency, and GHGs.

Rich Walter
Vice President
ICF

Rich Walter has 30 years of experience in environmental planning, compliance strategy, permitting, and mitigation development and implementation. He serves as project director/environmental lead for environmental planning for large-scale infrastructure projects for public agencies and private clients. Rich has also led ICF's California Municipal Climate Action Planning practice since 2006 which has developed climate action plans, and GHG inventories for hundreds of communities across the U.S., general plan policies for climate change, cost-benefit analyses of emission reduction strategies, climate adaptation studies (including sea level rise), as well as numerous CEQA and NEPA documents addressing GHG emissions and adaptation.

Brian Schuster
Director Air Quality, Climate, Acoustics
ESA 

Brian has over 15 years of management and technical air quality and GHG experience. He has provided Climate Action Plans (CAPs) for public and private agencies. He has authored more than 30 CEQA and NEPA documents. In his CAP work, Brian designs GHG inventories, evaluates GHG reduction measures, authors planning documents, and engages stakeholders through outreach. As Project Manager, Brian led CAP projects for the counties of San Bernardino, Sonoma, Marin, and Los Angeles, and for the City of Ontario. He has also designed a number of interactive excel models for clients, including GHG inventorying tools, a lifecycle GHG waste tool, a health risk assessment screening tool, GHG reduction measure planning tools, and GHG reduction measure implementation tracking tools.

Speaker Information Coming Soon.

Speaker Information Coming Soon.

This study focuses on optimizing LNG rail transport through strategic routing that prioritizes community safety and environmental protection amid rising energy demands. As advancements in extraction technologies like fracking have made liquefied natural gas (LNG) increasingly viable for long-distance transport, the need for effective and safe transportation methods has become critical. Although pipelines primarily facilitate gas transmission in the U.S., many rural areas remain underserved, prompting the American Association of Railroads (AAR) to petition the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) for permission to transport LNG by rail. This petition received temporary authorization in 2020 but was later suspended pending further safety evaluations.The analysis evaluates four representative routes (Wyalusing, PA to Boston, MA; Tioga, ND to Jordan Cove, OR; Tioga, ND to Boston, MA; and Seagraves, TX to Corpus Christi, TX) using modeling software to assess fire and explosion hazards. The findings indicate low derailment risks and speeds not exceeding those proposed by the High-Hazard Flammable Train (HHFT) Rule. The study highlights that several routes traverse densely populated regions, suggesting that avoiding these high-density areas is the most effective strategy for mitigating risks, despite potential increases in delivery times and costs. A risk profiler tool was developed to identify safer routing alternatives that consider hazmat regulations and the needs of underserved communities. The analysis revealed that routes with lower population density and fewer water crossings carry reduced risks; however, these safer options resulted in increases in transportation costs and delivery times.

These findings align with accepted F-N curves, underscoring the need for strict operational controls. Recommendations include implementing the HHFT Rule, which limits train speeds in densely populated areas. Overall, this study aims to provide a framework for LNG rail transport that balances operational efficiency with the safety and well-being of communities and the environment, emphasizing the importance of strategic routing in the evolving LNG transportation landscape.

This session aims to present findings from a comprehensive study on optimizing LNG rail transport, emphasizing routing strategies that enhance community safety and environmental protection. As liquefied natural gas (LNG) becomes an increasingly viable option for long-distance transport due to advancements in extraction technologies, understanding safe transportation methods is crucial, particularly in underserved rural areas. The analysis evaluates four representative routes and employs advanced modeling software to assess fire and explosion hazards, focusing on minimizing risks associated with derailments and accidents.

The objectives of this session include:

• Highlighting Safety Strategies: Discuss the key findings related to derailment risks and the implications of routing through densely populated areas, including recommended speed limits to ensure community safety.
• Exploring Routing Alternatives: Present the development of a risk profiler tool that identifies safer routes by factoring in population density, environmental considerations, and hazmat regulations, illustrating how these routes can reduce overall risk.
• Balancing Costs and Safety: Examine the trade-offs between safer routing options and their impact on transportation costs and delivery times, fostering a discussion on how to prioritize community safety without sacrificing operational efficiency.
• Promoting Best Practices: Advocate for the implementation of regulatory measures such as the High-Hazard Flammable Train (HHFT) Rule, underscoring the necessity for stringent operational controls to safeguard both communities and the environment.

Nicole Anderson
 

Speaker Information Coming Soon.

As the complexities of environmental review and permitting processes continue to grow, new methods and technologies are being explored to enhance the efficiency, accuracy, and inclusivity of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes. We  invite participants to explore how recent advancements in technology (including large language models (LLMs), data standardization, and AI-assisted workflows) can help modernize and streamline NEPA processes. The objective of this session is to make environmental practitioners aware of the potential of using AI in the NEPA process and how AI can be integrated effectively and responsibly to improve efficiency and outcomes. The session keynote will first provide an overview of the current and evolving NEPA landscape, highlighting new technologies, data standards, and advancements to streamline environmental review processes.

Next, two talks on AI will dive into the technical aspects. The first talk, "How AI (LLMs) can streamline NEPA processes," will explain how LLMs can aid human experts in expediting time-intensive environmental review tasks (e.g., information retrieval, public comment processing, application compliance, etc.). The second talk, "Bias, Risk, and Best Practices in AI-Assisted NEPA Workflows," will cover the ethical and procedural considerations of using AI in NEPA processes, addressing the importance of minimizing bias and risk while ensuring transparency and accountability in AI-augmented workflows. The discussion will also cover the standards, tools as regulated by the Biden-Harris Executive Order and National Institute of Standards and Technology to help ensure that the AI applications are safe, secure, and trustworthy.

The Session will then move into three concurrent interactive breakout mini sessions, each focused on a specific case study, to provide attendees a deeper, more curated dive into practical AI applications in NEPA. These mini sessions will provide practical challenges to elicit feedback from practitioners:

Case Study 1 (agency perspective): AI-driven search and summarization to simplify and expedite information retrieval from historical NEPA documents.

Case Study 2 (public perspective): A human-AI workflow for public interaction with NEPA documents, including gathering insights and the comment creation process.

Case Study 3 (project proponent perspective): Application pre-check tool to validate the completeness of the application documents for Agency to review OR/AND Workflow automation software tools to follow set rules and guidelines that enable users to produce preliminary documents.

Following the breakout mini sessions, moderators will gather to share insights and findings with session attendees, fostering a broader understanding of AI's potential across the NEPA landscape. The session will close with concluding remarks, summarizing key takeaways and future opportunities for AI-assisted environmental review.

Learning Objectives

The objective of this Session is to make environmental practitioners aware of the potential of using AI in the NEPA process and how AI can be integrated effectively and responsibly to improve efficiency and outcomes. This interactive Session will be ideal for early- to mid-career professionals in environmental review and regulatory compliance who are interested in leveraging AI to enhance NEPA workflows, minimize manual burdens, and make more informed, data-driven environmental decisions.

Mike Parker
Title
Organization 

Speaker Bio Coming oon

Sameera Horawalavithana
Title
Organization 

Speaker Bio Coming oon