50578 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Ambient Air Quality Standard.’’ One 

petition was submitted by the Treasure 

State Resource Industry Association and 

Yellowstone County, and the other 

petition was submitted by the Montana 

Sulphur and Chemical Company (the 

Petitioners). The EPA carefully 

considered these petitions and 

supporting information, along with 

information contained in the 

rulemaking docket, in reaching 

decisions on these petitions. The EPA 

denied the petitions for reconsideration 

in separate letters to the Petitioners 

dated August 14, 2014. The letters 

explain the EPA’s reasons for the 

denials. One of the Petitioners also 

requested that the EPA stay the 

effectiveness of the designations rule, 

pending reconsideration. Because the 

EPA denied the reconsideration 

requests, the EPA also denied the stay 

request. 

DATES: The petitions for reconsideration 

and stay request were denied August 14, 

2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rhonda Wright, Air Quality Policy 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mail code C539–04, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone: (919) 541–1087; email: 

wright.rhonda@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Where can I get copies of this 

document and other related 

information? 

This Federal Register notice, the 

petitions for reconsideration and the 

response letters to the Petitioners are 

available in the EPA’s docket 

established for the rulemaking to 

promulgate the air quality designations 

for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, under Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0233. The 

table below identifies the Petitioners, 

the date the EPA received the petitions, 

the document identification number of 

the petitions, the date of the EPA’s 

responses and the document 

identification numbers for the EPA’s 

responses. 

Petitioner Dates of petitions to the EPA 

Petition: 

document No. 

in docket 

Date of the EPA 

response 

The EPA response: 

document No. in 

docket 

Billings, MO Nonattainment Area 

Montana Sulphur & Chemical Company ... October 4, 2013 .......................... –0356 August 14, 2014 ............ [INSERT No.] 

Treasure State Resource Industry Association and Yellowstone County.November 26, 2013 .................... –0360 August 14, 2014 ............ [INSERT No.] 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the index at http://

www.regulations.gov. Although listed in 

the index, some information is not 

publicly available, e.g., confidential 

business information or other 

information where disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA’s Docket Center, Public Reading 

Room, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, William Jefferson Clinton West 

Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 

Northwest, Room 3334, Washington, DC 

20004. This Docket Center is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the Air Docket 

is (202) 566–1742. 

In addition, the EPA has established 

a Web site for the SO2 designations 

rulemaking at http://www.epa.gov/

so2designations. This Federal Register 

notice, the petitions for reconsideration 

and the response letters to the 

Petitioners are also available on this 

Web site along with other information 

relevant to the designations process. 

II. Judicial Review 

Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act 

indicates which Federal Courts of 

Appeal have venue for petitions for 

review of final actions by the EPA. This 

section provides, in part, that petitions 

for review must be filed in the Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (i) when the agency action 

consists of ‘‘nationally applicable 

regulations promulgated, or final actions 

taken, by the Administrator,’’ or (ii) 

when such action is locally or regionally 

applicable, if ‘‘such action is based on 

a determination of nationwide scope or 

effect and if in taking such action the 

Administrator finds and publishes that 

such action is based on such a 

determination.’’ In the rule establishing 

air quality designations for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS, the EPA determined that the 

actions are of nationwide scope and 

effect for the purposes of section 

307(b)(1). [See 78 FR 47191, 47197 

(August 5, 2013)]. 

The EPA has determined that its 

actions denying these petitions for 

reconsideration also are of nationwide 

scope and effect because they directly 

relate to the SO2 designations 

rulemaking that the EPA previously 

determined is of nationwide scope and 

effect. Thus, any petition for review of 

the final letters denying the petitions for 

reconsideration must be filed in the 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit on or before October 

24, 2014. 

Dated: August 15, 2014. 

Janet McCabe, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air 

Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 2014–20216 Filed 8–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY 

40 CFR Parts 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 

1505, 1506, 1507, and 1508 

Effective Use of Programmatic NEPA 

Reviews 

AGENCY: Council on Environmental 

Quality. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability, Request 

for Public Comments on Draft Guidance 

on Effective Use of Programmatic 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Reviews. 

SUMMARY: The Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) is 

publishing draft guidance on when and 

how Federal agencies can effectively use 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) programmatic reviews. 

Guidance on programmatic NEPA 

reviews has been requested by the 

agencies and attention on programmatic 

NEPA reviews has increased as agencies 

are increasingly undertaking broad 

landscape scale analyses for proposals 

that affect the resources they manage. 

This guidance is designed to assist 

agency decision-makers and the public 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules 50579 

1See Federal Infrastructure Projects, Permitting 

Dashboard, available at http://

www.permits.performance.gov/. 

2See Unified Federal Review, available at http:// 

achp.gov/unified_federal_review.html. 

3Council on Environmental Quality, 

Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments 

and Agencies: Improving the Process for Preparing 

Efficient and Timely Environmental Reviews under 

the National Environmental Policy Act (March 6, 

2012), available at http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/current_

developments/docs/Improving_NEPA_Efficiencies_

06Mar2012.pdf. 

in understanding the environmental 

impacts from proposed large-scope 

Federal actions and activities and to 

facilitate agency compliance with NEPA 

by clarifying the different planning 

scenarios under which an agency may 

prepare a programmatic, broad-scale, 

review. The guidance also addresses 

how agencies can prepare such reviews 

to ensure they are timely, informative, 

and useful for advancing decisionmaking. 

The goal of this guidance is to 

encourage a more consistent approach 

to programmatic NEPA reviews so that 

the analyses and documentation will 

allow for the expeditious and efficient 

completion of any necessary tiered 

reviews. It builds on guidance issued 

since 1981 that explained the use of 

tiering and its place in the NEPA 

process. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

October 9, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The NEPA Draft Guidance 

Documents are available at http://

www.whitehouse.gov/administration/

eop/ceq/initiatives/and http://

www.nepa.gov. Submit electronic 

comments on the NEPA Draft Guidance 

‘‘Effective Use of Programmatic NEPA 

Reviews’’ to http://

www.whitehouse.gov/webform/submitcomments-draft-guidanceprogrammatic-nepa-reviews, or in 

writing to The Council on 

Environmental Quality, Attn: Horst 

Greczmiel, 722 Jackson Place NW., 

Washington, DC 20503. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Council on Environmental Quality 

(ATTN: Horst Greczmiel, Associate 

Director for National Environmental 

Policy Act Oversight), 722 Jackson Place 

NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

Telephone: (202) 395–5750. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This draft 

guidance will apply to Federal agencies 

in accordance with sections 1507.2 and 

1507.3 of the CEQ Regulations 

Implementing the Procedural Provisions 

of the National Environmental Policy 

Act, 40 CFR Parts 1500–1508. The 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321–4370, enacted 

in 1970, is a fundamental tool used to 

harmonize our environmental, 

economic, and social aspirations and is 

a cornerstone of our Nation’s efforts to 

protect the environment. NEPA 

recognizes that many Federal activities 

affect the environment and mandates 

that Federal agencies consider the 

environmental impacts of their 

decisions before acting. Additionally, 

NEPA emphasizes public involvement 

in government actions affecting the 

environment by requiring that the 

benefits and risks associated with 

proposed actions be assessed and 

publicly disclosed. 

CEQ, which is charged with 

overseeing NEPA, recognizes that NEPA 

is a visionary and versatile law that can 

be used effectively to address new 

environmental challenges facing our 

nation and also to engage the public 

widely and effectively. Programmatic 

NEPA reviews are one method of NEPA 

implementation that merits increased 

attention and use to facilitate agency 

compliance with NEPA, and enhance 

the quality of public involvement in 

governmental decisions relating to the 

environment. For example, 

programmatic NEPA environmental 

reviews provide another mechanism for 

agencies to address efforts on improving 

environmental reviews for various 

sectors and types of Federal activities 

such as infrastructure 1 and disaster 

recovery.2 In March 2012, CEQ 

published guidance focused on 

improving the efficiency and timeliness 

of NEPA environmental reviews 3 and 

this guidance provides NEPA 

practitioners with another tool to 

improve the effectiveness and efficiency 

of NEPA reviews. 

CEQ interprets its regulations as 

allowing for the use of a programmatic 

review in an Environmental Assessment 

(EA) as well as in an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS). A programmatic 

NEPA review may be appropriate when 

the action being considered falls into 

any one of the categories of Federal 

actions subject to NEPA, including: (1) 

Adopting official policy; (2) adopting 

formal plans; (3) adopting agency 

programs; and (4) approving multiple 

actions. 

CEQ is seeking public comment on 

this guidance for 45 days. The draft 

guidance and Appendix A which 

provides a table of key distinctions 

between programmatic and the 

subsequent tiered NEPA reviews are 

available for review and comment here 

and at the CEQ Web site at http://

www.whitehouse.gov/administration/

eop/ceq/initiatives/. Appendices B (CEQ 

regulations and guidance relevant to 

programmatic reviews) and C (examples 

of successful programmatic NEPA 

reviews) are also available for review on 

that Web site. CEQ welcomes your 

comments and any suggestions on all 

the Appendices. 

Public comments are requested on or 

before October 9, 2014. CEQ intends to 

make all comments received available 

online without change, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Please do not include any personal 

information or any information that you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise protected as 

part of a public comment. 

Dated: August 14, 2014. 

Michael J. Boots, 

Acting Chair, Council on Environmental 

Quality. 

Effective Use of Programmatic NEPA 

Reviews 

I. Introduction 

A. Purpose of This Guidance 

B. The Nature of Programmatic NEPA 

Reviews 

II. Programmatic NEPA Reviews in the 

Council on Environmental Quality 

Regulations 

III. When to Use a Programmatic and Tiered 

NEPA Review 

IV. Practical Considerations for Programmatic 

Reviews and Documents 

A. Determining the Scope of the 

Programmatic NEPA Review 

1. Purpose and Need 

2. Scope of Analysis 

3. The Proposed Action 

4. The Alternatives 

5. The Impacts 

B. Collaboration, Public Engagement, and 

Coordination With Other Environmental 

Reviews 

1. The Importance of Collaboration and 

Cooperation 

2. Public Involvement 

3. Coordination With Other Environmental 

Reviews 

C. Preparing the Documents 

1. Programmatic Environmental 

Assessment or Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement? 

2. Level of Detail in Programmatic NEPA 

Documents 

3. Depth of Impact Analysis in 

Programmatic NEPA Documents 

D. Mitigation and Monitoring 

E. Handling New Proposals While 

Preparing a Programmatic NEPA Review 

F. The Decision Document 

V. Subsequent Proposal-Specific NEPA 

Reviews 

A. Deferred Issues 

B. Tiering NEPA Reviews 

C. New Information and Supplementing 

Documents 

VI. The Lifespan of a Programmatic NEPA 

Document 

VII. Conclusions 

Appendices 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
50580 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

4The terms PEA and PEIS are also know by some 

Federal agencies as generic or tier 1 NEPA review. 5 ‘‘Tiering’’ refers to an approach where federal 

agencies first consider the broad, general impacts of 

proposed program, plan, policy, or large scope 

project—or at the early stage of a phased proposal— 

and then conduct subsequent, narrower, decision 

focused reviews. See 40 CFR 1502.20 and 1508.28. 6For example, programmatic NEPA reviews are 

used when agencies revise forest or land and 

resource management plans, establish programs to 

eradicate or control invasive species, develop 

infrastructure with a multijurisdictional footprint, 

or develop multiple similar recovery projects 

following a major disaster. 

7Council on Environmental Quality, National 

Environmental Policy Act Task Force Report: 

Modernizing NEPA Implementation (Sept. 24, 2003) 

(finding that reliance on programmatic NEPA 

documents has resulted in public and regulatory 

agency concern that programmatic NEPA 

documents often result in a ‘‘shell game’’ of when 

and where deferred issues will be addressed, 

undermining agency credibility and public trust. 

The report found that the public may fail to 

understand: (1) The significance of the broad 

decisions being analyzed; and (2) that the specific 

details will be provided in subsequent site-specific 

documents. On the other hand, when programmatic 

NEPA documents are focused, some respondents 

fear that some issues and analyses will be deferred 

and ultimately never addressed. The NEPA Task 

Force found that agencies that provide the greatest 

specificity in programmatic documents have the 

greatest difficulty in maintaining the viability and 

durability of these documents. This difficulty 

associated with maintaining document relevancy 

has led some agencies as well as members of the 

public to conclude that preparing programmatic 

NEPA documents is not cost effective. The 

recommendation of the Task Force was that CEQ 

develop advice to agencies on the analytical 

requirements associated with the different uses of 

programmatic NEPA reviews, to foster agreement 

and consistency between agency decisions and 

public expectations), available at http://

ceq.hss.doe.gov/ntf/20030929memo.pdf. 

8Council on Environmental Quality, 

Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments 

and Agencies: Improving the Process for Preparing 

Efficient and Timely Environmental Reviews under 

the National Environmental Policy Act (March 6, 

2012), available at http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/current_

developments/docs/Improving_NEPA_Efficiencies_

06Mar2012.pdf. 

9This guidance is not a rule or regulation, and the 

recommendations it contains may not apply to a 

particular situation based upon the individual facts 

and circumstances. This guidance does not change 

or substitute for any law, regulation, or any other 

legally binding requirement and is not legally 

enforceable. The use of non-mandatory language 

such as ‘‘recommend,’’ ‘‘may,’’ ‘‘should,’’ and 

‘‘can,’’ is intended to describe CEQ policies and 

recommendations. The use of mandatory 

terminology such as ‘‘must’’ and ‘‘required’’ is 

intended to describe controlling requirements 

under the terms of NEPA and the CEQ Regulations, 

but this document does not establish legally 

binding requirements in and of itself. 

10Council on Environmental Quality, Guidance 

Regarding NEPA Regulations, Memorandum for 

Heads of Federal Agencies (July 28, 1983), available 

at http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/1983/

1983guid.htm. 

11Council on Environmental Quality, Guidance 

on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative 

Effects Analysis (June 24, 2005), available at http:// 

ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/Guidance_on_CE.pdf. 

A. Table of Key Distinctions Between 

Programmatic and Tiered Analyses 

B. CEQ Regulations and Guidance 

C. Sample Programmatic Analyses 

I. Introduction 

A programmatic National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

review should assist agency decisionmakers and the public in understanding 

the environmental impacts from 

proposed large scope Federal actions 

and activities. The analyses in a 

programmatic review are valuable in 

setting out the broad view of 

environmental harms and benefits, 

which can then be relied upon when 

agencies make decisions based on the 

Programmatic Environmental 

Assessment (PEA) or Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(PEIS),4 as well as decisions based on a 

subsequent (tiered) 5 NEPA review. 

Programmatic NEPA reviews should 

result in clearer and more transparent 

decision-making, as well as provide a 

better defined and more expeditious 

path toward decisions on proposed 

actions. Agencies are encouraged to 

revise or amend their NEPA 

implementing procedures, if necessary, 

to allow for analyses at a programmatic 

level. 

A. Purpose of This Guidance 

This guidance was prepared to assist 

Federal agencies to improve and 

modernize their use of programmatic 

NEPA reviews (analysis and 

documentation). The term 

‘‘programmatic’’ describes any broad or 

high-level NEPA review; it is not 

limited to a NEPA review for a 

particular program.6 Programmatic 

NEPA reviews assess the environmental 

impacts of proposed policies, plans, 

programs, or projects for which 

subsequent actions will be implemented 

either based on the PEA or PEIS, or 

based on subsequent NEPA reviews 

tiered to the programmatic review (e.g., 

a site- or project- specific document). 

Programmatic NEPA reviews designed 

to meet NEPA responsibilities for 

proposed actions without a tiered 

review are governed by the same 

regulations and guidance that apply to 

non-programmatic NEPA reviews. They 

should be developed and their adequacy 

judged as a stand-alone final NEPA 

review. This guidance addresses both 

programmatic NEPA reviews that make 

decisions applicable to subsequent 

tiered NEPA reviews and programmatic 

NEPA reviews without any subsequent 

review. 

The programmatic approach under 

NEPA has not been fully used for its 

intended purpose and when used, it 

often has not fulfilled agency or 

stakeholder expectations.7 On March 6, 

2012, the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) published guidance 

highlighting the efficiencies provided 

for in the CEQ Regulations 

Implementing the Procedural 

Requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 

Regulations) 8 and received feedback 

from several stakeholders that 

additional guidance on programmatic 

and tiered NEPA reviews would provide 

a valuable addition to agency practices 

and procedures for providing more 

timely and efficient NEPA reviews.9

This guidance is designed to provide 

practitioners with guidance to assist in 

the preparation and proper use of 

programmatic NEPA reviews, and help 

agencies inform and meet public 

expectations for programmatic reviews 

that will enhance the focus and utility 

of public review and comment. It builds 

on guidance issued in 1983 that 

explains the use of tiering and its place 

in the NEPA process.10

This new guidance focuses 

specifically on NEPA reviews and not 

on other types of programmatic 

analyses. CEQ recognizes that analyses 

conducted outside the context of NEPA 

can also play an important role, for 

example, in assessing existing 

conditions. Although these types of 

analyses may be used—either by 

incorporation by reference or as a 

starting point for developing the NEPA 

review—an analysis prepared by an 

agency is not a NEPA programmatic 

review unless that agency is making 

decisions on a proposed Federal action. 

This important distinction was 

explained in previous NEPA guidance 

which referred to a non-NEPA 

programmatic review as a joint 

inventory or planning study: 

In geographic settings where several Federal 

actions are likely to have effects on the same 

environmental resources it may be advisable 

for the lead Federal agencies to provide 

historical or other baseline information 

relating to the resources. This can be done 

either through a programmatic NEPA 

analysis or can be done separately, such as 

through a joint inventory or planning study. 

The results can then be incorporated by 

reference into NEPA documents prepared for 

specific Federal actions so long as the 

programmatic analysis or study is reasonably 

available to the interested public.11

B. The Nature of Programmatic NEPA 

Reviews 

A PEA or PEIS addresses the general 

environmental issues and concerns at a 

broad policy or program level, and can 

effectively frame the scope of 

subsequent site- and project-specific 

proposed Federal actions. A well-crafted 

NEPA programmatic review provides 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules 50581 

12 40 CFR parts 1500–1508. 

13 40 CFR 1502.4(b). 

14 40 CFR 1502.4(c). 

15 40 CFR 1502.4(d). Tiering is described at 40 

CFR 1502.20 and further defined at 40 CFR 1508.28. 

16Appendices B & C available at http://

www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/

initiatives/. 

the basis for broad or high-level 

decisions such as identifying 

geographically bounded areas within 

which future proposed activities can be 

taken or identifying broad mitigation 

and conservation measures that can be 

applied to subsequent tiered reviews. 

One advantage of preparing a 

programmatic NEPA review for 

repetitive agency activities is that the 

programmatic NEPA review can 

effectively provide a starting point for 

the analysis of cumulative and indirect 

impacts. Using such an approach allows 

an agency to subsequently tier to this 

analysis, and address more narrow, sitespecific, details. This avoids repetitive 

broad level analyses in subsequent 

tiered NEPA reviews and provides a 

more comprehensive picture of the 

consequences of possible actions. An 

agency relying on a programmatic NEPA 

review must consider whether the depth 

of analysis needed for a tiered action 

requires adding to, or building on, the 

analysis provided in the programmatic 

NEPA document. A programmatic 

NEPA review can also be an effective 

means to narrow the consideration of 

alternatives and impact discussions in a 

subsequent tiered NEPA review. 

Decision-makers may also call for a 

programmatic NEPA review for other 

reasons. For example, programmatic 

analyses may serve to influence the 

nature of subsequent decisions, thereby 

providing for an integrated and 

sustainable policy, planning framework, 

or program. Programmatic NEPA 

reviews may also support policy- and 

planning-level decisions when there are 

limitations in available information and 

uncertainty regarding the timing, 

location, and environmental impacts of 

subsequent implementing action(s). For 

example, in the absence of certainty 

regarding the environmental 

consequences of future tiered actions, 

agencies may be able to make broad 

program decisions and establish 

parameters for subsequent analyses 

based on a programmatic review that 

adequately examines the reasonably 

foreseeable consequences of a proposed 

program, policy, plan, or suite of 

projects. 

II. Programmatic NEPA Reviews in 

Council on Environmental Quality 

Regulations 

The concept of ‘‘programmatic’’ NEPA 

reviews is imbedded in the CEQ 

Regulations Implementing the 

Procedural Requirements of NEPA (CEQ 

Regulations) that address analyses of 

‘‘broad actions’’ and the tiering 

process.12

The CEQ Regulations state in relevant 

part that environmental impact 

statements may be prepared, and are 

sometimes required, for broad Federal 

actions such as the adoption of new 

agency programs or regulations, and that 

agencies shall prepare statements on 

broad actions so that they are relevant 

to policy and are timed to coincide with 

meaningful points in agency planning 

and decisionmaking.13 The regulations 

also state that when preparing 

statements on broad actions (including 

proposals by more than one agency), 

agencies may find it useful to evaluate 

the proposal(s) in one of the following 

ways: geographically, including actions 

occurring in the same general location, 

such as body of water, region, or 

metropolitan area; generically, 

including actions that have relevant 

similarities, such as common timing, 

impacts, alternatives, methods of 

implementation, media, or subject 

matter; or by stage of technological 

development, including Federal or 

Federally assisted research, 

development or demonstration 

programs for new technologies which, if 

applied, could significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment.14

CEQ interprets its regulations as 

allowing for the use of a programmatic 

approach in developing an EA as well 

as in an EIS. 

CEQ interprets its regulations as 

allowing for the use of a programmatic 

approach in developing an EA as well 

as in an EIS. 

In cases where a policy, plan, 

program, or broad project analysis 

identifies but does not provide 

sufficiently in-depth analysis for 

potential future actions, then 

subsequent analyses are appropriate and 

are referred to as ‘‘tiered’’ analyses. 

Tiering is one way ‘‘to relate broad and 

narrow actions and to avoid duplication 

and delay.’’ 15 Appendix A provides a 

table of key distinctions between 

programmatic and the subsequent tiered 

NEPA reviews, Appendix B provides 

the CEQ regulations and guidance 

relevant to programmatic reviews, and 

Appendix C contains examples of 

successful programmatic NEPA 

reviews.16

III. When to Use a Programmatic and 

Tiered NEPA Review 

Programmatic NEPA reviews add 

value and efficiency to the decisionmaking process when they inform the 

scope of decisions and subsequent 

tiered NEPA reviews. Programmatic 

NEPA reviews can facilitate decisions 

on matters that precede site- or projectspecific implementation, such as 

mitigation commitments for subsequent 

actions, or narrowing of future 

alternatives. They also provide 

information and analyses that can be 

incorporated by reference in future 

NEPA reviews. Programmatic NEPA 

documents may help an agency look at 

a large or multi-faceted action without 

becoming immersed in all the details of 

future site or project-specific proposals. 

Using programmatic and subsequent 

tiered NEPA reviews effectively will 

allow for a focused review at the proper 

level. 

A programmatic NEPA review may be 

appropriate when the action being 

considered falls into one of the four 

major categories of actions to which 

NEPA can apply: 

• Adopting Official Policy. Decision 

to adopt in a formal document an 

official policy that would result in or 

substantially alter agency programs. The 

programmatic analysis for such a 

decision should include a road map for 

future agency actions with defined 

objectives, priorities, rules, or 

mechanisms to implement objectives. 

Programmatic examples include: 

Æ Rulemaking at National- or 

regional-level; 

Æ Adoption of an agency-wide policy; 

or 

Æ Redesign of an existing program. 

• Adopting Formal Plans. Decision to 

adopt formal plans, such as documents 

that guide or prescribe alternative uses 

of Federal resources, upon which future 

agency actions will be based. For 

example, setting priorities, options, and 

measures for future resource allocation 

according to resource suitability and 

availability. Specific programmatic 

examples include: 

Æ Strategic planning linked to agency 

resource allocation; or 

Æ Adoption of an agency plan for a 

group of related projects. 

• Adopting Agency Programs. 

Decision to proceed with a group of 

concerted actions to implement a 

specific policy or plan; e.g., an 

organized agenda with defined 

objectives to be achieved during 

implementation of specified activities. 

Programmatic examples include: 

Æ A new agency mission or initiative; 

or 

Æ Proposals to substantially redesign 

existing programs. 

• Approving Multiple Actions. 

Decision to proceed with multiple 

projects that are temporally or spatially 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
50582 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

17National Wildlife Federation v. Appalachian 

Regional Commission, 677 F.2d 883, 888 (D.C. Cir. 

1981). 

18Piedmont Environmental Council v. F.E.R.C., 

558 F.3d 304, 316 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Nat’l 

Wildlife Fed’n v. Appalachian Reg’l Comm’n, 677 

F.2d 883, 888–89 (D.C. Cir. 1981)) (agency can do 

all individual EISs but not if that is an attempt to 

segment the program and thereby limit regulation; 

if so, a programmatic should have been done). 

19 40 CFR 1502.4(b) (‘‘[a]gencies shall prepare 

statements on broad actions so that they are 

relevant to policy and are timed to coincide with 

meaningful points in agency planning and 

decisionmaking’’). 

20 40 CFR 1508.23 The regulation states that a 

‘‘proposal’’ exists at that stage in the development 

of an action when an agency subject to the Act has 

a goal and is actively preparing to make a decision 

on one or more alternative means of accomplishing 

that goal and the effects can be meaningfully 

evaluated. It goes on to explain that a proposal may 

exist in fact as well as by agency declaration that 

one exists. 

21 40 CFR 1508.25. 

connected and that will have a series of 

associated concurrent or subsequent 

decisions. Programmatic examples 

include: 

Æ Several similar actions or projects 

in a region or nationwide (e.g., a large 

scale corridor project); or 

Æ A suite of ongoing, proposed or 

reasonably foreseeable actions that share 

a common geography or timing, such as 

multiple activities within a defined 

boundary (i.e., Federal land or facility). 

Agencies should exercise their 

judgment and discretion when 

determining whether to prepare a PEA 

or PEIS.17 CEQ recommends agencies 

give particular consideration to 

preparing a PEA or PEIS when: (1) 

Initiating or revising a national or 

regional rulemaking, policy, or program; 

(2) adopting a plan for managing a range 

of resources; or (3) making decisions on 

common elements or aspects of a series 

or suite of closely related projects. 

A programmatic NEPA review may 

not be a cost effective effort for an 

agency if the effort required to perform 

the review is substantially greater than 

the time and effort saved in analyzing 

subsequent proposals or if the lifespan 

of the programmatic NEPA document is 

limited. Agencies usually benefit by 

asking two questions when determining 

whether to prepare a programmatic 

NEPA review: (1) Could the PEA or PEIS 

be sufficiently forward looking to 

contribute to the agency’s basic 

planning of an overall program?; and (2) 

does the PEA or PEIS provide the 

agency the opportunity to avoid 

‘segmenting’ the overall program from 

subsequent individual actions and 

thereby avoid unreasonably constricting 

the scope of environmental 

regulation? 18

IV. Practical Considerations for 

Programmatic Reviews and Documents 

This section provides practical 

guidance to help agencies implement a 

successful programmatic approach. The 

following points will be addressed: 

• Answering the fundamental 

question of what decision(s) does the 

agency need to make; 

• Answering the question of what 

actions would the agency subsequently 

want to take based on the programmatic 

NEPA review; 

• Determining the purpose and need 

of the programmatic proposal to be 

analyzed and decided on and its 

relationship to subsequent tiered level 

proposals and decisions; 

• Defining a practical scope for the 

programmatic review that is appropriate 

to the particular type of broad action 

being analyzed; 

• Gathering and analyzing data for 

broadly scoped actions that potentially 

affect large geographic areas; 

• Coordinating among the multiple 

overlapping jurisdictions and agencies 

that may have a role in assessing or 

determining whether and how a 

subsequent action may proceed; 

• Communicating the scope, content, 

and purpose of a programmatic NEPA 

analysis in a way the parties involved in 

the process and the public can 

understand; 

• Communicating the opportunities 

for public engagement in the 

development of the tiered NEPA 

reviews; and 

• Maintaining the relevancy of 

programmatic NEPA documents for 

subsequent tiered analyses. 

A. Determining the Utility and Scope of 

the Programmatic NEPA Review 

Agencies should carefully consider, as 

early as practicable, the benefits of 

making the initial broad decisions and 

the amount of effort required to perform 

the programmatic review to ensure that 

using the programmatic approach 

facilitates decision-making and merits 

the investment of time and effort. To 

determine the utility of the PEA or PEIS, 

and the scope of analysis, an agency 

may find it helpful to consider: 

• What Federal decisions need to be 

made now and in the future regarding 

the broad Federal action being 

proposed? 

• What are the meaningful decision 

points 19 from proposal through 

implementation, and where are the most 

effective points in that continuum to 

address the potential for effects? 

• What are the appropriate 

geographic limits and time frames for 

this programmatic review? 

• Is it necessary to analyze the 

particular effects of a proposed action at 

a broader scale to facilitate analysis and/ 

or decision-making at a more refined 

(i.e., tiered) level, and is a programmatic 

NEPA review the best way to do this? 

For example, a programmatic NEPA 

review may serve as an efficient 

mechanism to describe Federal agency 

efforts to adopt sustainable practices for 

energy efficiency, reduce or avoid 

greenhouse gas emissions, reduce 

petroleum product use, and increase the 

use of renewable energy including 

bioenergy, as well as other sustainability 

practices. The definition of ‘‘proposal’’ 

for the purposes of NEPA review should 

be considered when answering this 

question.20

• How long will the programmatic 

review continue to provide a relevant 

framework for tiering subsequent 

actions and what factors may result in 

the need to supplement or refresh the 

review? 

1. Purpose and Need 

The purpose and need statement is 

key to developing the NEPA review, as 

it establishes the scope of the analyses, 

range of reasonable alternatives, and 

frames the decision to be made. The 

purpose and need for a programmatic 

review will differ from the purpose and 

need for a project- or site-specific EA or 

EIS. The purpose and need for a PEA or 

a PEIS needs to be broad enough so as 

to avoid eliminating reasonable 

alternatives for a tiered EA or EIS and 

focused enough for the agency to 

conduct a rational analysis of the 

impacts and allow for the public to 

provide meaningful comment on the 

programmatic action. The purpose and 

need sets the tone for the scoping 

process and the course for conducting 

the NEPA review. 

2. Scope of Analysis 

The scope consists of the range of 

actions, the alternatives, and the 

associated impacts to be considered in 

a NEPA review.21 A programmatic 

NEPA review, like project- or sitespecific NEPA reviews, must address 

the potentially significant 

environmental impacts of a proposed 

Federal action. Consequently, the nature 

of the pending decision drives the scope 

of the environmental analyses and 

documentation. The planning process 

for the proposed action and the 

development of a programmatic NEPA 

review should start as early as 

practicable. By starting the planning 

process early, there should be sufficient 

time for establishing the reasonable 

scope of actions, alternatives, and 

impacts in the programmatic review, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules 50583 

22 40 CFR 1508.25(a)(1). 

23 40 CFR 1508.25(a)(1)(iii). 

24 40 CFR 1508.25(a)(2). 

25 40 CFR 1508.25(a)(3) and 1502.4(c). 

26 40 CFR 1508.25(a). 

27 40 CFR 1508.25(b) and 1508.9(3)(b). 

28 46 FR 18026 (addressing in question and 

answer three what is included in a ‘‘no action’’ 

alternative). 

29 40 CFR 1502.14(a). 

30 40 CFR 1508.7 and 1508.8. 

and identifying the decisions the 

programmatic review will support so 

that the level of analysis is clear from 

the start. 

3. The Proposed Action 

In addition to unconnected single 

actions, there are three types of actions 

set out in 40 CFR 1508.25(a) that may 

be analyzed in NEPA reviews, including 

those that are programmatic: connected 

actions, cumulative actions, and similar 

actions. 

Connected actions are those that 

enable other actions that require a 

Federal action, or where the enabled 

action cannot or will not proceed unless 

the underlying action is taken; or are 

interdependent parts of a larger action 

and depend on the larger action for 

justification.22 Projects that have 

independent utility are not connected 

actions.23

• Example: An agency could analyze 

a proposed pesticide aerial application 

program for a large metropolitan area in 

the same NEPA document with related 

actions such as the following: 

equipment purchase and location; 

pesticide purchase, storage methods and 

location; and loading locations that will 

be needed. These are examples of 

connected actions that are 

interdependent parts of the larger 

proposed pesticide aerial application 

program. 

Cumulative actions are those with 

impacts which, when viewed with other 

proposed actions, have the potential for 

cumulatively significant impacts and 

should therefore be discussed 

collectively in the same NEPA review.24

• Example: A proposed pesticide use 

program can be analyzed in conjunction 

with a proposed pest eradication 

program as cumulative actions because 

they have the potential to affect the 

same resources. Note that cumulative 

effects would have to be considered 

when conducting the NEPA reviews for 

each of the proposals, whether in 

separate or combined NEPA reviews. 

Similar actions are those which, when 

viewed with other reasonably 

foreseeable or proposed agency actions, 

have similarities such as timing, 

impacts, alternatives, or methods of 

implementation.25 A programmatic 

NEPA review provides a platform for 

evaluating their environmental 

consequences together. 

• Example: Several energy 

development programs proposed in a 

region of the country are similar actions 

if they have similar proposed methods 

of implementation and best practice 

mitigation measures that can be 

analyzed in the same document. 

Broad Federal actions may be 

implemented over large geographic 

areas and/or a long time frame. 

Programmatic NEPA documents must 

include connected and cumulative 

actions, and the responsible official 

should consider whether it is helpful to 

include a series or suite of similar 

actions.26

Agencies may prepare a single NEPA 

document to support both programmatic 

and project-specific proposals. Such an 

approach may be appropriate when an 

agency plans to make a broad program 

decision, as well as decisions to 

implement one or more specific projects 

under the program. For example, the 

programmatic approach may address 

both the broad impacts of the proposed 

broad Federal action and provide 

sufficiently detailed environmental 

analyses for specific decisions, such as 

determining the locations and designs of 

one or more proposals to implement the 

broad Federal action. The challenge for 

agencies is to clearly communicate why 

some environmental aspects are 

analyzed in greater detail—such as the 

project- or site-specific effects—than 

others—such as the programmatic 

effects. It is essential to clearly state the 

decisions the agency proposes to make 

based directly on the PEA or PEIS and 

distinguish the analysis of impacts and 

alternatives of the broad programmatic 

proposals from the project- or sitespecific proposals. 

4. The Alternatives 

Alternatives in a programmatic NEPA 

review are expected to reflect the level 

of the broad Federal action being 

proposed and would include the 

standard NEPA requirements for 

alternatives.27 In situations where there 

is an existing program, plan or policy, 

CEQ expects that the no-action 

alternative would typically be the 

continuation of the present course of 

action until a new program, plan or 

policy is developed.28

When preparing the programmatic 

NEPA review for a policy, plan, 

program, or project, alternatives can be 

considered at the programmatic level to 

support focusing future decisions and 

eliminating certain alternatives from 

detailed study in subsequent NEPA 

reviews. By clearly articulating the 

nature of subsequent tiered decisions, 

agencies can craft the alternatives for a 

programmatic review to focus the scope 

and development of alternatives for the 

subsequent tiered NEPA documents. By 

articulating the reasoned choice 

between alternatives, with a discussion 

of why considered alternatives were not 

chosen, the range of alternatives in 

tiered NEPA reviews can be 

appropriately narrowed. Including a 

brief written discussion of the reasons 

alternatives were eliminated 29 should 

provide the justification for narrowing 

the range of reasonable alternatives to be 

considered in those tiered NEPA 

documents. 

5. The Impacts 

All NEPA reviews are concerned with 

three types of reasonably foreseeable 

impacts: direct, indirect, and 

cumulative.30 The contrast between a 

programmatic and a project- or sitespecific NEPA review is most strongly 

reflected in how these environmental 

impacts are analyzed. Because impacts 

in a programmatic NEPA review 

typically concern environmental effects 

over a large geographic and/or time 

horizon, the depth and detail in 

programmatic analyses will reflect the 

major broad and general impacts that 

might result from making broad 

programmatic decisions. Agencies 

should be clear about the context of the 

decision to be made and how it relates 

to the intensity of any potential impacts. 

As noted previously, agencies may 

propose decisions regarding standard 

mitigation protocols and/or operating 

procedures in a programmatic NEPA 

review and thereby provide a framework 

and scope for the subsequent tiered 

analysis of environmental impacts. For 

example, proposals for long range 

energy or transportation infrastructure 

programs are potentially good 

candidates for PEAs and PEISs that 

include an assessment of how the 

programs will contribute to or reduce 

water quantity and quality. Discussions 

of water quantity and quality could then 

be incorporated by reference in tiered 

NEPA reviews. By identifying potential 

program impacts early, particularly 

cumulative and indirect impacts, 

programmatic NEPA reviews provide 

opportunities to modify program 

components and avoid or mitigate 

adverse impacts when developing 

subsequent proposals. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
50584 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

31 40 CFR 1501.7; see also Council on 

Environmental Quality, Collaboration in NEPA—A 

Handbook for NEPA Practitioners (October 2007), 

available at http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/nepapubs/ 

Collaboration_in_NEPA_Oct2007.pdf. 

32For example, a good way to reach out to such 

a large and diverse public is through nongovernmental organizations and citizen’s groups. 

These organizations frequently know what their 

constituents care about and they may have effective 

means for communicating with those constituents. 

Agencies are also encouraged to use conference 

calls, web meetings and teleconferences to facilitate 

easy participation by the interested public. 

33N. Alaska Envtl. Ctr. v. Lujan, 961 F.2d 886 

(9th Cir. 1992). 

34 Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F. 

3d, 789, 801 (9th Cir. 2003). 

B. Collaboration, Public Engagement, 

and Coordination With Other 

Environmental Reviews 

1. Importance of Collaboration and 

Cooperation 

The types of actions that agencies 

analyze in programmatic reviews may 

feature some jurisdictional complexity. 

Impacts on state, tribal and private 

lands, and potentially overlapping 

authorities between agencies and 

governments with different missions 

and authorities should be considered in 

programmatic reviews that address 

resources or actions across jurisdictional 

boundaries. Collaboration and 

cooperation among Federal agencies, 

tribes, and state and local governments 

is especially critical for successful 

completion of meaningful programmatic 

NEPA reviews. Scoping early in the 

process provides agency decisionmakers with access to other agencies’ 

and governments’ expertise and can 

help agencies identify broad scale 

issues, develop alternatives for analysis, 

identify the appropriate temporal and 

spatial parameters, and determine the 

appropriate depth of analysis or level of 

detail for the NEPA review. 

2. Public Involvement 

Engaging the public is particularly 

important when developing 

programmatic NEPA reviews in order to 

ensure agency objectives are understood 

and to clarify how a programmatic 

review relates to subsequent tiered 

reviews. Effective public engagement 

also will help manage expectations with 

regard to the purpose and need, the 

scope of the programmatic NEPA 

review, and the purpose and need and 

scope of subsequent site- and projectspecific NEPA reviews. Outreach to 

potentially interested stakeholders 

should begin as early as possible—even 

in advance of formal scoping periods— 

to afford the public a meaningful 

opportunity to comment on and shape 

the NEPA review. 

When the public has a chance to see 

the big picture early it can provide fresh 

perspectives and new ideas before 

determinations are made that will shape 

the programmatic review as well as 

subsequent tiered proposals. Early 

outreach also provides an opportunity 

to develop trust and good working 

relationships that may extend 

throughout the programmatic and 

subsequent NEPA reviews and continue 

during the implementation of the 

proposed action.31 An agency can 

encourage early public participation by 

clearly explaining to the public not only 

what the proposed programmatic 

evaluation is meant to accomplish, but 

also how it relates to future actions, and 

why the public should get involved at 

the programmatic stage and not wait for 

any tiered reviews. Clarity of approach 

is essential to avoid the impression that 

a programmatic NEPA review creates a 

situation whereby the public is too early 

to raise issues in the broader 

programmatic analysis and then too late 

to raise them in any subsequent tiered 

analyses. 

Stakeholders for a programmatic 

review may span multiple states and 

large areas. Consequently, public 

engagement should be well thought 

through to include all the potentially 

interested Federal and state agencies, 

tribes, local governments, private 

organizations, and individual citizens.32

3. Coordination With Other 

Environmental Reviews 

The purpose and need statement and 

the proposed action for the 

programmatic NEPA review are critical 

for determining the compliance 

requirements under other applicable 

laws and regulations, such as the 

Endangered Species Act, National 

Historic Preservation Act, and Clean 

Water Act. They are also critical for 

determining when these other reviews 

must be completed and for developing 

a strategy to address all environmental 

review and consultation requirements in 

a coordinated manner. Coordinating 

compliance with other environmental 

reviews supports a broad discussion, 

facilitates a comprehensive project 

management schedule, provides 

opportunities to meet data, public 

engagement, and documentation 

requirements more efficiently, and 

generally promotes greater transparency 

in Federal decision-making. 

Programmatic NEPA analysis and 

subsequent tiered NEPA analysis 

support a phased decision-making 

process that allows certain statutory and 

regulatory compliance to be achieved at 

the programmatic level. The nature of 

the decision at each phase and the 

extent to which it may constrain the 

subsequent consideration of alternatives 

will help determine an agency’s overall 

environmental compliance 

requirements. NEPA requires a full 

evaluation of all specific impacts when 

the agency proposes to make an 

irreversible and irretrievable 

commitment of the availability of 

resources to a project. This usually 

occurs at the site-specific level.33

Provided the PEA or PEIS has 

sufficient specific data and information, 

it may satisfy other relevant legal 

requirements for site-specific future 

actions, even when there is no 

irreversible or irretrievable commitment 

of resources at the programmatic level. 

The determination of whether a 

particular decision in a phased or 

incremental decision-making process 

represents this level of commitment 

begins with a well formulated 

description of the proposed action.34

Agencies should be aware that 

preparing a programmatic NEPA review 

is not a substitute for compliance with 

other environmental laws. 

For example, approval of land use 

plans that establish future management 

goals and objectives for resource 

management, and the measures to 

achieve those goals and objectives, do 

not necessarily require completion of 

the Section 106 process under the 

National Historic Preservation Act. In 

some cases, an agreement with 

stakeholders, such as a programmatic 

agreement pursuant to sec. 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act, 

demonstrates an agency’s compliance 

requirements for phased decisions being 

analyzed through a programmatic NEPA 

review. For instance, where a Federal 

agency’s broad decision will narrow the 

opportunities for adverse effects in 

future specific proposals, then the 

agency may initiate the sec. 106 process 

as part of the programmatic review. This 

will allow the agency to complete that 

process by establishing steps for 

meeting its responsibility as it 

implements the broad decision and 

prior to subsequent project- and sitespecific proposals. 

Agencies should clearly and concisely 

articulate their intentions to defer 

particular environmental review and 

consultation requirements for 

consideration until a subsequent 

project- or site-specific proposal is 

developed. When deferring these 

requirements, agencies may still need to 

analyze and address related statutory 

requirements to some extent in the 

programmatic document. For example, 

if the subsequent actions tiered to the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules 50585 

35Northern Plains Resource Council v. Lujan, 874 

F.2d 661, 665–66 (9th Cir. 1989). 

36Nevada v. Dep’t of Energy, 372 U.S. App. DC 

432 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 

37 Found. On Econ. Trends. v. Heckler, 756 F.2d 

143, 159 (D.C. Cir. 1985). 

38Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of 

Agriculture, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1059, 1086, (D. Cal. 

2007). 

39 Greenpeace v. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 55 F. Supp. 2d 1248, 1276 (D. Wash. 1999). 

40Texas Committee on Natural Resources v. 

Bergland, 573 F. 2d 201 (5th Cir. 1978). 

41Natural Resources Defense Council v. Morton, 

458 F.2d 827, 838 (D.C. Cir. 1972). 

42Baltimore Gas and Electric Co v. NRDC, 462 

U.S. 87 (1983). 

43 40 CFR 1508.23. 

programmatic document will require 

authorization under sec. 404 of the 

Clean Water Act prior to construction, 

agencies should include, after 

consultation with the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, a discussion of the range 

of alternatives that are necessary to 

demonstrate compliance with the sec. 

404(b)(1) Guidelines, and whether there 

are any practicable alternatives that 

have less adverse impact on the aquatic 

ecosystem—and do not have other 

significant environmental effects—will 

be made at the project-specific or sitespecific level. 

C. Preparing the Documents 

1. Programmatic Environmental 

Assessment or Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement? 

Programmatic approaches are usually 

associated with EISs and tiered 

documents more typically with 

proposal-specific EAs. Tiering an EA 

from a PEIS is appropriate when there 

are no new significant affects or 

considerations and the programmatic 

NEPA review addresses those measures 

that tiered proposals can rely on to 

address and reduce the significance of 

the site- or project-specific impacts. 

An agency may prepare a PEA to 

determine whether an EIS is required or 

when considering a proposal that does 

not have significant impacts at the 

programmatic level. Following a PEA 

that results in a finding of no significant 

impact (FONSI), an agency may tier to 

an EA that results in a finding of no 

significant impact,35 or may tier to an 

EIS when a subsequent site- or projectspecific proposal has the potential for a 

significant impact on the environment. 

Whether the agency prepares a PEA or 

a PEIS, that programmatic review 

should explain how the agency intends 

to use it to complete future proposalspecific NEPA reviews. Reasonably 

available information that should be 

provided both during scoping and in the 

PEA or PEIS includes the expected 

timing of the tiered review(s) as well as 

the issues, and depth of analysis, it is 

expected to consider. At the project- or 

site-specific level, it is necessary to 

consider the potential impacts that have 

not been analyzed and considered in the 

previous programmatic review to which 

it tiers. 

2. Level of Detail in Programmatic 

NEPA Documents 

A PEA or PEIS addresses the broad 

environmental consequences relevant at 

the programmatic level. A subsequent 

tiered EA or EIS will address more 

particularized considerations, but can 

benefit from the programmatic by 

summarizing and incorporating by 

reference parts of it.36 For example, with 

the Forest Service’s programmatic 

Gypsy Moth Supplemental EIS, the PEIS 

analyzed the human health and 

ecological risk assessments for each 

pesticide approved for use in the Gypsy 

Moth Eradication Program thereby 

eliminating the need for such analysis 

when individual spraying projects are 

proposed. The PEIS analyzed and 

disclosed these risks, and deferred to 

site or project level analyses the specific 

application of these risk data to how the 

insecticides would be used in a given 

project (e.g., dose rates, number of 

applications, presence of ‘‘sensitive 

populations’’) and other specific issues 

and concerns raised during scoping. 

The PEA or PEIS must provide 

sufficient detail to foster informed 

decision-making that reflects broad 

environmental consequences from a 

wide-ranging federal program.37 Site- or 

project-specific impacts need not be 

fully evaluated at the programmatic 

level when the decision to act on a site 

development or its equivalent is yet to 

be made.38 Alternatives need only be 

specific enough to make a reasoned 

choice between programmatic 

directions. The alternatives need not 

consider every specific aspect of a 

proposal. For example, a programmatic 

analysis of a plan would not require 

consideration of detailed alternatives 

with respect to each aspect of the plan— 

otherwise a programmatic analysis 

would be impossible to prepare and 

would become a compilation of a vast 

series of site specific analyses.39

The following considerations may be 

helpful to determine the scale and scope 

of impacts to be addressed in a 

programmatic NEPA review: 

• First, what are the appropriate 

scales of the affected environment to be 

analyzed (e.g., watershed, basin, etc.)? 

• Second, what environmental 

impacts are of concern at this scale? 

• Third, what information can be 

garnered about environmental impact 

criteria (thresholds) to assist in 

describing when those impacts are best 

addressed in detail? 

Determining the level of detail 

appropriate to a programmatic analysis 

requires weighing several factors, 

including the extent of the 

interrelationship among proposed 

actions, the scale and scope of any 

subsequent decisions, as well as 

practical considerations of feasibility. 

Resolving these issues will require the 

expertise of the agencies responsible for 

the proposed action informed by the 

agencies responsible for the potentially 

impacted resources.40

3. Depth of Impact Analysis in 

Programmatic NEPA Documents 

The agency is obligated to conduct a 

meaningful impact analysis in 

accordance with NEPA, and that 

analysis should be commensurate with 

the nature and extent of potential 

impacts of the decision being made. A 

programmatic NEPA review should 

contain sufficient discussion of the 

relevant issues and opposing viewpoints 

to enable the decision-maker to take a 

‘‘hard look’’ at the environmental effects 

and make a reasoned choice among 

alternatives.41 There should be enough 

detail to enable those who did not have 

a part in its compilation to understand 

and meaningfully consider the factors 

involved.42

A broad (e.g., regional) description 

may suffice for characterizing the 

affected environment in most 

programmatic NEPA reviews, so long as 

potentially impacted resources are 

meaningfully identified and evaluated. 

Impacts can often be discussed in a 

broad geographic and temporal context 

with particular emphasis on cumulative 

impacts. Those impacts can often be 

shown in a meaningful way by 

displaying a range of potential effects. 

The scope and range of impacts may 

also be more qualitative in nature than 

those found in project- or site-specific 

NEPA reviews. 

It may be more difficult for an agency 

to analyze the environmental impacts in 

depth when there is no clear 

indication—no site- or project-specific 

proposal pending—for the level of 

activity that may follow a programmatic 

decision.43 A programmatic NEPA 

review should carefully consider the 

scope of both the programmatic and the 

subsequent tiered NEPA review. CEQ’s 

1981 scoping guidance addressed this 

issue and the need to be clear about the 

type of programmatic NEPA review. 

[I]f a proposed program is under review, it 

is possible that site specific actions are not 

yet proposed. In such a case, these actions 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
50586 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

44Council on Environmental Quality, 

Memorandum for General Counsels, NEPA 

Liaisons, and Participants in Scoping (April 30, 

1981), available at http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/

regs/scope/scoping.htm. 

45Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (1976). 

46Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

Container Terminal Development Plan, Port of 

Seattle Marine Planning & Development 

Department 1–17 (October 1991) (on file with the 

Council on Environmental Quality). 

47 42 U.S.C. 4331. See also E.O. 13423, 72 FR 

3919 (2007), available at ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ 

Executive_Order_13423.htm. 

48San Juan Citizens Alliance v. Stiles, 654 F.3d 

1038 (10th Cir. 2011). 

49Council on Environmental Quality, 

Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments 

and Agencies: Appropriate Use of Mitigation and 

Monitoring and Clarifying the Appropriate Use of 

Mitigated Findings of No Significant Impact 

(January 14, 2011), available at http://ceq.hss.doe.

gov/current_developments/docs/Mitigation_and_

Monitoring_Guidance_14Jan2011.pdf. 

50 40 CFR 1506.1. 

51 40 CFR 1506.1(a) and (c). 

are not addressed in the EIS on the program, 

but are reserved for a later tier of analysis.44

Thus, the deferred analysis should be 

identified and the intended use of 

tiering made clear at the outset of 

scoping, and articulated in the 

programmatic review. Informing 

participants and the public of the 

expected timing of the tiered review(s), 

as well as the issues and depth of 

analysis, allows them to concentrate on 

the issues at hand, rather than on those 

that will be addressed later. Courts have 

affirmed NEPA’s requirement that 

Federal agencies document the 

environmental impacts of proposed 

broad actions, such as programs, 

recognizing the difficulty in predicting 

the level of activity that will occur and 

that it may not be possible to analyze 

thoroughly the environmental effects of, 

and the resource commitments involved 

in, such a broad proposed activity.45

For example, in the PEIS for the 

Container Terminal Development Plan 

prepared by the Port of Seattle Marine 

Planning & Development Department, 

the port determined that it was 

impossible to know the precise demand 

for container service in the future, and 

therefore it was impossible to predict 

the precise location, type and timing of 

specific facilities and their 

environmental impacts. Recognizing the 

uncertainties involved, the PEIS 

evaluated potential environmental 

impacts and opportunities 

comprehensively by focusing on a 

bounded range of potential activities 

and their impacts. The port’s Container 

Plan projected a low and high range for 

container service demand and a range of 

new or improved facilities. The EIS 

evaluated strategies for meeting low and 

high range demand and the preferred 

alternative based on the plan, providing 

a flexible market-driven approach in 

recognition of the dynamic nature of the 

shipping industry and supply of 

regional container facilities.46

D. Mitigation and Monitoring 

Programmatic NEPA reviews provide 

an opportunity for agencies to 

incorporate comprehensive mitigation 

planning and monitoring strategies into 

the Federal policymaking process at a 

broad or strategic, rather than specific, 

or site-by-site, level. These analyses can 

promote sustainability and allow 

Federal agencies to advance the nation’s 

environmental policy as articulated in 

sec. 101 of NEPA.47

By identifying potential adverse 

impacts early during the broad 

programmatic planning, programmatic 

NEPA reviews provide a unique 

opportunity to modify aspects of the 

proposal and subsequent tiered 

proposals to avoid or otherwise mitigate 

those impacts. A thoughtful and broadbased approach to planning for future 

development can include best 

management practices, standard 

operating procedures and 

comprehensive mitigation measures that 

address impacts on a broad 

programmatic scale (e.g., program-, 

region-, or nation-wide). These can 

expedite the preparation of subsequent 

project- or site-specific proposals by 

establishing siting, design, operational, 

or other relevant implementation 

criteria, requirements, and protocols. 

The subsequent tiered NEPA review 

would then include those measures to 

address potentially significant impacts 

and focus on the impacts and mitigation 

alternatives available at the project- or 

site-specific level that were not 

considered in the PEA or PEIS. 

For example, a Forest Service and 

Bureau of Land Management PEIS for 

coal bed methane development on 

Federal lands in San Juan National 

Forest established siting and 

engineering techniques and best 

management practices to reduce the 

effects of coal bed methane 

development on surface water quality, 

quantity, and use; established a suite of 

mitigation measures for when pipelines, 

roads, or power lines crossed a stream, 

wetland, or riparian area; established 

the development of site-specific 

mitigation plans; and required 

monitoring plans for individual wells 

that would disturb wetlands or riparian 

areas.48 These types of programmatic 

decisions provide valuable information 

for project proponents (e.g., applicants 

for Federal licenses or rights-of-way) as 

they design proposals and 

implementation activities and give the 

public insight into the kinds of 

protections that would be afforded in 

designing and permitting such facilities. 

Programmatic NEPA reviews also 

afford agencies the opportunity to 

develop monitoring programs to address 

impacts on a broad scale. This provides 

agencies the opportunity to ensure that 

mitigation commitments on the 

programmatic level are actually being 

implemented. Further, it allows 

agencies to determine whether the 

mitigation measures achieved the 

environmental outcomes they were 

designed to accomplish.49

Finally, monitoring is critical when 

agencies establish adaptive management 

strategies in a programmatic NEPA 

document to increase their flexibility in 

developing and analyzing subsequent 

resource management proposals. 

Identifying triggers for changing the 

course of implementation and the 

associated effects and analyzing those 

impacts at the programmatic level, can 

allow the agency to change the course 

of implementation without the need for 

developing supplemental NEPA reviews 

and the associated documentation. 

Ranges of results inform the public and 

the decision-maker about what 

parameters are acceptable for continued 

management under the proposed 

adaptive management regime and 

monitoring provides assurance that the 

environmental impacts have been 

adequately considered in the 

programmatic review. 

E. Handling New Proposals While 

Preparing a Programmatic NEPA Review 

Agencies are sometimes reluctant to 

conduct programmatic NEPA reviews 

because of the risk of delaying ongoing 

and newly proposed actions. The CEQ 

Regulations enable interim actions to 

proceed provided certain criteria are 

met.50 Typically, proposed actions of 

relatively limited scope or scale that 

would have local utility may be taken as 

an interim action before completing the 

programmatic analysis. 

The CEQ Regulations address interim 

action criteria for site- or projectspecific EAs or EISs when required 

PEAs and PEISs are not yet completed.51

Although the CEQ Regulations address 

criteria for interim actions specifically 

in the context of PEISs, in those cases 

where part of a proposed action needs 

to proceed while a PEA is being 

prepared, agencies should use the 

criteria in the CEQ Regulations. The 

CEQ Regulations recognize and provide 

for situations where the programmatic 

review is not available when the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules 50587 

52 40 CFR 1502.4(c)(3). 

53 40 CFR 1506.1(c). 54 40 CFR 1505.2(c). 

55See 40 CFR 1501.7 (scoping), sec. 1501.4 

(public involvement in EAs), and sec. 1506.6 

(public involvement). 

56 40 CFR 1502.20. 

57 40 CFR 1502.20. 

58Natural Resources Defense Council v. Morton, 

458 F.2d 827, 838 (D.C. Cir. 1972). 

program is at an investment stage or 

there is a commitment to 

implementation that will limit future 

alternatives.52

The CEQ Regulations state, in relevant part 

that while work on a required program 

environmental impact statement is in 

progress and the action is not covered by an 

existing program statement, agencies shall 

not undertake in the interim any major 

Federal action covered by the program which 

may significantly affect the quality of the 

human environment unless such action: Is 

justified independently of the program; is 

itself accompanied by an adequate 

environmental impact statement; and will 

not prejudice the ultimate decision on the 

program. Finally, the regulations state that 

interim action prejudices the ultimate 

decision on the program when it tends to 

determine subsequent development or limit 

alternatives.53

Under the first criterion regarding 

independent justification, agencies may 

take an interim action that the agency 

determines could be undertaken 

irrespective of whether or how the 

program goes forward, assuming the 

other two criteria are met. For example, 

in cases where an agency is obligated by 

law to carry out a proposed interim 

action, the agency should be able to 

demonstrate that the action has 

independent utility. 

The second criterion makes it clear 

that an EIS must be prepared for a 

proposed interim action that has the 

potential for significant environmental 

impacts. Although completion of a PEIS 

first may be more efficient than 

preparing an adequate EIS for a 

proposed interim action, the agency 

could complete an adequate EIS for the 

interim action. In cases that don’t 

involve significant impacts, an EA 

would be sufficient to provide adequate 

NEPA support to meet this second 

criterion. 

Under the third criterion, agencies 

may take an interim action when they 

determine that the proposed interim 

action would not jeopardize the 

objective consideration of reasonable 

alternatives. Agencies should take care 

to distinguish interim actions from 

ongoing actions. An agency does not 

need to suspend all operations because 

it has elected to prepare a programmatic 

NEPA document. For example, in the 

case of an area-wide or site-wide PEIS 

considering a new proposed operations 

plan, ongoing operations within the area 

or site may continue and such ongoing 

operations would be considered under 

the no action alternative in the PEIS. 

F. The Decision Document 

The decision is documented in a 

Record of Decision (ROD) following 

preparation of a PEIS or a decision may 

be based on a FONSI following 

preparation of a PEA. The decision 

document should clearly explain the 

decision and indicate whether tiered 

analyses will follow. For example, the 

agency should articulate its intentions 

with regard to future decisions, describe 

how the agency will use the 

programmatic NEPA document as a 

basis for tiering future NEPA reviews, 

and indicate when any deferred issues 

will be addressed. 

The programmatic decision document 

following a PEA or a PEIS should 

provide the information required in a 

ROD. It should include a description of 

the alternatives considered, the 

environmentally preferable alternative, 

economic and technical considerations, 

agency statutory missions, essential 

considerations of national policy, and 

all practicable means to avoid or 

minimize environmental harm from the 

alternative selected that were adopted 

or, if not, why not. A monitoring and 

enforcement program should also be 

adopted and summarized for any 

mitigation where that is applicable.54

V. Subsequent Proposal-Specific NEPA 

Reviews 

A. Deferred Issues 

Certain issues may not be addressed 

in a PEA or PEIS, but rather are 

discussed fully in subsequent tiered 

NEPA analysis. These deferred issues 

can include issues that will be 

addressed in additional tribal 

consultations or further National 

Historic Preservation Act Section 106 

consultation, Endangered Species Act 

Section 7 consultation, or other 

determinations and consultations. To 

provide clarity to the public and the 

decision-maker, programmatic NEPA 

reviews should make clear when the 

analysis of potential environmental 

impacts will be deferred. When 

preparing a PEA, it is acceptable for an 

agency to limit its analysis to those 

foreseeable effects resulting from the 

programmatic decision at hand. The 

programmatic document should clearly 

explain that, while there may be other 

effects, they do not affect the 

programmatic decision and full review 

of these issues is being deferred. In this 

case agencies should logically explain 

why there is no effect on the 

programmatic decision, and also 

include sufficient information to 

explain where and when deferred issues 

raised by the public and/or regulatory 

agencies will be addressed. 

The scoping process and subsequent 

public involvement provide an 

opportunity to clarify the triggers for 

determining when subsequent reviews 

and opportunities for review and 

comment will take place.55 The 

programmatic document should also, 

whenever practicable, explain how and 

when the interested parties will be 

notified of any subsequent reviews. 

B. Tiering NEPA Reviews 

One of the main advantages of a 

programmatic NEPA review is the 

ability to tier subsequent reviews, such 

as site- or proposal-specific reviews.56

Tiering has the advantage of not 

repeating information that has already 

been considered at the programmatic 

level so as to focus and expedite the 

preparation of the tiered NEPA 

review(s). When a PEA or PEIS has been 

prepared and an action is one 

anticipated in, consistent with, and 

sufficiently explored within the 

programmatic NEPA review, the agency 

need only summarize the issues 

discussed in the broader statement and 

incorporate discussion from the broader 

statement by reference and concentrate 

on the issues specific to the subsequent 

tiered proposal.57

There are times when an analysis at 

one level is sufficient. For example, 

when the programmatic review has 

taken the required ‘‘hard look’’ at the 

potential environmental impacts, an 

agency can rely upon the analysis 

provided in the PEA or PEIS.58 On the 

other hand, an agency may determine 

that detailed analysis should be deferred 

to the tiered analysis. The programmatic 

review must be clear when issues are 

being deferred, and any subsequent 

tiered documents will need to review 

briefly what level of analysis has been 

considered and whether it is still 

contemporary. 

While CEQ Regulations specifically 

authorize an agency to tier other NEPA 

reviews to an EIS, there is no barrier to 

tiering an EIS to an EA prepared in 

accordance with NEPA, the CEQ 

Regulations, and agency NEPA 

implementing procedures, so long as a 

sufficient explanation for such an 

approach is proffered. A programmatic 

NEPA review may defer some decisions, 

and make use of tiering and 

incorporation by reference, and still be 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
50588 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

59Kern v. BLM, 284 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2002), the 

Court found that, ‘‘tiering to a document that has 

not itself been subject to NEPA review is not 

permitted, for it circumvents the purpose of NEPA.’’ 

In Northcoast Environmental Center v. Glickman, 

the Court found that, ‘‘[a]lthough CEQ procedures 

allow agencies to incorporate by reference certain 

materials to cut down on the bulk of an EIS, they 

cannot ‘tier’ their site-specific EISs to the broader 

POC program where the program itself has not been 

subject to NEPA procedures.’’ Courts have also held 

that agencies can’t properly tier when agencies tier 

to an outdated PEIS (League of Wilderness 

Defenders v. Marquis-Brong, 259 F. Supp. 2d 115, 

1122–23 (D. Or. 2003), or an inadequate or flawed 

PEIS (Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 

177 F.3d 800, 811 (9th Cir. 1999)). 

60See 40 CFR 1505.3 (monitoring), 1502.9 

(supplementation). See also Seattle Audubon 

Society v. Moseley, 798 F. Supp. 1473, (D. Wash. 

1992) (‘‘[a] federal agency has a continuing duty to 

gather and evaluate new information relevant to the 

environmental impact of its actions, even after 

release of an EIS’’). 

61 40 CFR 1502.9. 

62 40 CFR 1508.27. 

63 46 FR 18026 (refer to question 32 in CEQ’s 40 

Most Asked Questions). As a rule of thumb, if the 

proposal has not yet been implemented, or if the 

EIS concerns an ongoing program, EISs that are 

more than 5 years old should be carefully 

reexamined to determine if the criteria in sec. 

1502.9 compel preparation of an EIS supplement. 

considered a ‘‘hard look.’’ Cases that 

address ‘‘improper tiering’’ involve 

situations where an agency attempts to 

tier to a non-NEPA document.59

Confusion over what level of NEPA 

analysis is required for tiered proposals 

may occur when a programmatic EIS is 

complete and the site-specific project 

will have a significant impact as 

indicated in the programmatic 

document. When this occurs, the 

appropriate question is not if there is a 

significant impact from the proposed 

action, but if there is a new significant 

impact that was not already considered 

and addressed in the programmatic 

review. If there are no new significant 

impacts, an EA may be appropriate 

instead of an EIS so long as the aspects 

of the proposed action that involve 

significant effects have not changed 

since the PEIS, and the agency presents 

its reasons for determining that the 

effects and potential mitigation 

measures were adequately considered in 

the PEIS. Consequently, as an agency 

determines the appropriate scope for a 

PEIS, it should consider the potential 

for significant site- or project-specific 

impacts and the cost/benefit of 

addressing them programmatically. 

C. New Information and Supplementing 

Documents 

The CEQ Regulations provide a 

procedural framework for keeping 

environmental analyses current. They 

require agencies to prepare supplements 

upon determining there is significant 

new information of relevance to the 

proposed action or its impacts.60 The 

possibility of new information arising 

after an EA or EIS is completed exists 

regardless of whether that NEPA review 

is a programmatic review. 

When new information reaches an 

agency, it should be initially screened 

with respect to the following 

considerations: 

• Does the new information pertain to 

a programmatic NEPA review that was 

prepared for a now-completed decisionmaking process? 

• Are there any more decisions to be 

made by the agency that would use the 

original NEPA review to meet all or a 

portion of the agency’s NEPA 

compliance responsibilities for any 

upcoming decision? 

If there are no further decisions to be 

made, revising the original 

programmatic NEPA review serves no 

purpose and is not required. If the new 

information is relevant to a future 

decision for which the agency intends to 

rely upon the original programmatic 

NEPA review to meet all or a portion of 

its NEPA compliance responsibilities, 

then the new information must be 

reviewed in order to determine if it has 

any potential effect on the content of the 

original programmatic review, either in 

terms of: (a) The accuracy of the 

previously analyzed impacts (direct, 

indirect or cumulative); or (b) the 

feasibility of the alternatives presented 

or their comparative analysis. If 

supplementation is not required, 

agencies should consider documenting 

that determination which, for example, 

could be done, through a memorandum 

to the record that could be included in 

the administrative record for the 

programmatic NEPA review. 

The agency is responsible for making 

a reasoned determination whether new 

information raises significant new 

circumstances or information regarding 

environmental impacts or involves 

substantial changes in the actions 

decided upon in the programmatic 

analysis.61 When a PEA was used, the 

determination must consider whether 

the PEA and FONSI are sufficient or 

whether an EIS is now necessary. If 

there is a need to supplement, a 

supplemental PEA can address the new 

information and result in a FONSI when 

the agency’s consideration of the 

context and intensity of the effects of 

the programmatic proposal warrant a 

FONSI.62

When an agency determines there is 

a need to supplement a NEPA review, 

programmatic NEPA reviews provide 

alternative ways to complete that 

supplementation. The traditional 

approach would be to supplement the 

base document, the original PEA or 

PEIS. Alternatively, if a new tiered 

NEPA review can include consideration 

of the programmatic issues, then the 

tiered review can also serve as the 

vehicle for supplementing the PEA or 

PEIS. When the new information’s 

effects are limited to potential impacts 

or alternatives associated with the next 

stage, or project- or site-specific 

decision, then the tiered analysis can 

address the new information without 

having to supplement the PEA or PEIS. 

VI. The Lifespan of a Programmatic 

NEPA Document 

Agencies must consider and make 

reasonable efforts to anticipate the 

length of time the programmatic 

decision and its supporting NEPA 

review will be maintained and used for 

subsequent tiered reviews. 

Programmatic documents may become 

outdated depending on the specificity 

and analyses included in them. 

Agencies should determine the factors 

that may result in the need to 

supplement or refresh the analysis,63

establish criteria for evaluating the 

programmatic document for its use as a 

basis for subsequent proposal-specific 

NEPA, and communicate this to 

stakeholders. When a programmatic 

review is projected to have a long life 

span, then the agency should pay close 

attention to the possible effects of new 

information. 

VII. Conclusions 

This guidance is intended to assist 

agencies in preparing PEISs and PEAs 

that address broad, strategic, 

programmatic level analyses. Agencies 

should consider using PEAs and PEISs 

whenever appropriate. Programmatic 

NEPA reviews provide an opportunity 

for considering environmental 

consequences at a broader level and 

enhance the integration of 

environmental concerns and mitigations 

into an agency’s planning procedures. In 

addition, agencies that are able to 

clearly explain how specific, 

outstanding, or future actions will be 

addressed in subsequent tiered 

documents, and how the analyses will 

be vetted publicly, will ensure that the 

public is informed and can improve the 

quality of participation and analysis 

agencies receive from the public, 

thereby enhancing decision-making. 

This guidance also is intended to assist 

NEPA practitioners in realizing the 

benefits of programmatic NEPA reviews. 

It should be used in conjunction with 

the regulations and guidance previously 

issued by CEQ (see relevant excerpts in 

Appendix B) and any applicable agency 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules 50589 

64Maria Rosa ́rio Partida ́rio, Strategic 

Environmental Assessment (SEA)—current 

practices, future demands and capacity-building 

needs (2003) (unpublished manuscript) available at 

http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/EIA/SEA/

SEAManual.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1. 

NEPA procedures established in 

accordance with 40 CFR 1507.3. 

Appendix A: Programmatic and Tiered 

Analyses 

Programmatic and tiered analyses 

differ in their focus and scope. The 

following table indicates the general 

differences between programmatic and 

subsequent tiered analyses.64

Programmatic level Subsequent (e.g., project- or site-specific) tiered 

level 

Nature of Action ....................................... Strategic, conceptual ............................................. Construction, operations, site-specific actions. 

Level of Decision ..................................... Policy, program, planning, suite of similar 

projects.

Individual project(s). 

Alternatives .............................................. Broad, general, research, technologies, fiscal 

measures, socioeconomic, land use allocations.

Specific alternative locations, design, construction, operation, permits, site-specific. 

Scale of Impacts ...................................... Macroscopic, for example, at a national, regional, 

or landscape level.

Project level, mainly local. 

Scope of Impacts ..................................... Broad in scale and magnitude .............................. Localized and specific. 

Time Scale ............................................... Long- to medium-term (e.g., Regulatory) .............. Medium- to short-term (e.g., Permit). 

Key Data Sources .................................... Existing national or regional statistical and trend 

data, policy and planning instruments.

Field work, sample analysis, statistical data, local 

monitoring data. 

Impacts .................................................... Qualitative and maybe quantitative to the degree 

possible.

Generally quantifiable (though not always). 

Decision ................................................... Broad, strategic program, policy, or plan .............. Detailed, project- or site-specific, action-oriented. 

Mitigation ................................................. General, broad suite of potential measures that 

could apply and potentially the commitments 

on when they will apply.

Specific, precise measures applicable to a proposed action. 

[FR Doc. 2014–20199 Filed 8–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3225–F4–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 229 

[Docket No. 140325271–4271–01] 

RIN 0648–BE13 

List of Fisheries for 2015 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) publishes its 

proposed List of Fisheries (LOF) for 

2015, as required by the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The 

proposed LOF for 2015 reflects new 

information on interactions between 

commercial fisheries and marine 

mammals. NMFS must classify each 

commercial fishery on the LOF into one 

of three categories under the MMPA 

based upon the level of mortality and 

serious injury of marine mammals that 

occurs incidental to each fishery. The 

classification of a fishery on the LOF 

determines whether participants in that 

fishery are subject to certain provisions 

of the MMPA, such as registration, 

observer coverage, and take reduction 

plan (TRP) requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

September 24, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the proposed rule, identified by 

‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2014–0040’’ by any of 

the following methods: (1) Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic comments through the 

Federal eRulemaking portal: http://

www.regulations.gov (follow 

instructions for submitting comments). (2) Mail: Submit written comments to 

Chief, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle 

Conservation Division, Attn: List of 

Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver 

Spring, MD 20910. Comments regarding the burden-hour 

estimates, or any other aspect of the 

collection of information requirements 

contained in this rule, should be 

submitted in writing to Chief, Marine 

Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver 

Spring, MD 20910, or to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs at 

OIRA_submissions@omb.eop.gov. Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http://

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information 

(e.g., name, address, etc.) voluntarily 

submitted by the commenter may be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

Confidential Business Information or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields, if you wish to 

remain anonymous). Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or 

Adobe PDF file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

White, Office of Protected Resources, 

301–427–8494; Allison Rosner, Greater 

Atlantic Region, 978–281–9328; Jessica 

Powell, Southeast Region, 727–824– 

5312; Elizabeth Petras, West Coast 

Region (CA), 562–980–3238; Brent 

Norberg, West Coast Region (WA/OR), 

206–526–6550; Kim Rivera, Alaska 

Region, 907–586–7424; Nancy Young, 

Pacific Islands Region, 808–725–5156. 

Individuals who use a 

telecommunications device for the 

hearing impaired may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service at 1–800– 

877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. 

Eastern time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

What is the List of Fisheries? 

Section 118 of the MMPA requires 

NMFS to place all U.S. commercial 

fisheries into one of three categories 

based on the level of incidental 

mortality and serious injury of marine 

mammals occurring in each fishery (16 

U.S.C. 1387(c)(1)). The classification of 

a fishery on the LOF determines 

whether participants in that fishery may 

be required to comply with certain 

provisions of the MMPA, such as 

registration, observer coverage, and take 

reduction plan requirements. NMFS 

must reexamine the LOF annually, 

considering new information in the 

Marine Mammal Stock Assessment 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS