Effective Use of Programmatic NEP A Reviews 

I. Introduction 

A. Purpose ofthis Guidance 

B. The Nature of Programmatic NEPA Reviews 

II. Programmatic NEPA Reviews in the Coutidi'on Environmental Quality Regulations 

III. When to Use a Programmatic and Tiered NEP A Review ·. ..: . . . 

:.; ·: . ' 

'•-.; ... : .. ··: 

IV. Practical Considerations for Programmatic Reviews and Documents 

.\ 

A. Detern:tining the Scope of the Programmatic NEP A Review 

=::· 

1. Purpose and Need 

.· . . •. 

2. Scope of Analysis 

3. Th~ Proposed Aq_tion 

··.·.:; .·:':· 

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 

1 
3. Coordination with Other Environmental Reviews 

B. Preparing the Documents 

1. Programmatic Environmental Assessment or Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement? 

2. Level of Detail in Programmatic NEP A Documents 

3. Depth of Impact Analysis in Programmatic NEP A Documents 

C. Mitigation and Monitoring 

D. Handling New Proposals While Preparing a Programmatic NEP A Review 

E. The Decision Document •' .· .. 

V. Subsequent Proposal-Specific NEPA Reviews 

A. Deferred Issues 

B. Tiering NEP A Reviews 

C. New Infmmation and Supplementing Documents 

VI. The Lifespan of a Programmatic NEP A Document 

VII. Conclusions 

APPENDICES 

A: Table of Key Distinctions betwe'en Programmatic and Tiered Analyses 

B: CEQ Regulations and Guidance 

C: Sample Programmatic Analyses 

2 
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 Sta.tement (PElS), 1 w~il as decisions bas~d on a 

subsequent (tiered)2 NEPA review. Programmatic NEPA reviews should result in clearer and 

more transparent decision-making, as well·as provide a be~ter defmed and more expeditious path .• 

toward decisions on proposed actio ~. Agencies are· encouraged to revise or amend their NEP A 

implementing procedures, if necessm~y, to allow fm~analyses at a programmatic level. 

A. Puq)ose:of This Guidance 

·: ... 

This guid~mce 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 NEP A review; it is not limited to a NEP A review for a 

particular program. 3 Programmatic NEPA reviews assess the environmental impacts ofproposed 

1 The terms PEA and PElS are also know by some agencies as generic or tier 1 NEP A review. 

2 "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, nmTOwer, decision focused reviews. See 40 

CFR §§ 1502.20 and 1508.28. 

3 For 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. 

3 
policies, plans, programs, or projects for which subsequent actions will be implemented either 

based on the PEA or PElS, or based on subsequent NEP A reviews tiered to the programmatic 

review (e.g., a site- or project- specific document). Programmatic NEPA reviews designed to 

meet NEP A responsibilities for proposed actions without a tiered review are governed by the 

same regulations and guidance that apply to non-programmatic NEP A reviews. They should be 

developed and their adequacy judged as a stand-alone final NEP A review. This guidance 

addresses both programmatic NEP A reviews that make ~ecisions applicable to subsequent tiered 

NEP A reviews and programmatic NEP A 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.4 On March 6, 2012, 

the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published guidance highlighting the efficiencies 

provided for in the CEQ Regulations Implementing the Procedmal Requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (CEQ Regulations)5 and received feedback from several stakeholders 

4 The NEPA Task Force, Report to the Council on Environmental Quality, "Modernizing NEPA 

Implementation," September 2003, (finding that reliance on programmatic NEP A documents has 

resulted in public and regulatory agency concern that programmatic NEP A documents often 

result in a "shell game" ofwhen 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 NEP A 

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 ofthe Task Force 

was that CEQ develop advice to agencies on the analytical requirements associated with the 

different uses of programmatic NEP A reviews, to foster agreement and consistency between 

agency decisions and public expectations). 

5 Council on Environmental Quality, "Memorandum for Heads of Federal Depatiments and 

Agencies: Improving the Process for Preparing Efficient and Timely Environmental Reviews 

4 
that additional guidance on programmatic and tiered NEP A reviews would provide a valuable 

addition to agency practices and procedures for providing mo"re timely and efficient NEPA 

reviews.

6 .. 

This guidance is designed to provide practitioners with guidance to assist in the 

preparation and proper use of programmatic NEPA eviews, 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 th t explains the use of tiering and its 

place in the NEP A process. 

7 

This new guidance focuses specifically on NEP A reviews and not on other types of 

programmatic analyses. CEQ recognizes that analyses conducted outside the context ofNEPA 

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 NEP A review - an analysis prepared by an agency is not a NEP A programmatic 

review unless that agency is making decisions on a proposed Federal action. This important 

under the National Environmental Policy Act," March 6, 2012, available at 

http://ceq .hss.doe.gov/current_ developments/docs/1m proving_ NEP A_ Efficiencies_ 06Mar20 12. p 

df. 

6 This 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 ofNEPA and the CEQ Regulations, but this document does not 

establish legally binding requirements in and of itself. 

7 Council on Environmental Quality, "Guidance Regarding NEPA Regulations," Memorandum 

for Heads of Federal Agencies, July 28, 1983, available at 

htt p://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/1983/ 1983guid.htm. 

5 
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 informati'on relating to the 

resources. This can be done either through a programmatic NEP A 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. 8 

B. The Nature of Programmatic NEP A Reviews .•. 

A PEA or PElS addresses the general environmental issues and concerns at a broad 

policy or program level, and can effectively frame the scope of subsequent site- and projectspecific proposed Federal ~ct ons. A well-crafted NEPA programmatic review provides 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 applieq to subsequent tiered reviews. 

One advantage of preparing a programmatic NEPA review for repetitive agency activities 

is that the programmatic NEP A review can effectively provide a starting point for the analysis of 

8 Council 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.,_ 

6 
cumulative and indirect impacts. Using such an approach allows an agency to subsequently tier 

to this analysis, and address more narrow, site-specific, details. This avoids repetitive broad 

level analyses in subsequent tiered NEP A 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 NEP A document:· A programmatic NEP A review 

can also be an effective means to narrow the consideration of alternatives and impact discussions 

in a subsequent tiered NEP A review. 

Decisionmakers may also call for a programmatic NEP A 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 ed~ironmental 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 REGULATIONS9 

9 See Appendix B for CEQ Regulations and guidance pertaining to programmatic NEP A 

documents. 

7 
The concept of"programmatic" NEPA reviews is imbedded in the CEQ Regulations 

Implementing the Procedural Requirements ofNEPA (CEQ Regulations) that address analyses 

of "broad actions" and the tiering process. 10 

The CEQ Regulations at 40 CFR §§ 1502.4(b)-(c) state: 

(b) Environmental impact statements may be prepared, and are sometimes .• 

required, for broad Federal actions such as the adoption of new agency 

programs or regulations (§ 1508.18). Agencies shall prepare statements 

on broad actions so that they are relevant to policy and are timed to 

coincide with meaningful points in agency planlling and decision-making. 

(c) When preparing statements on broad actions (including proposals by more 

than one agency), agencie.s.may find it useful to ev.aluate the proposal(s) in 

one of the follo~ing ways: ·:: > 

(1) Geographically, including actions occurring in the same general 

location, such as body of water, region, or metropolitan area. 

(2) Generically, including actions that have relevant similarities, such as 

. common timing, impacts, alternatives, methods of implementation, 

·media, or subject matter. 

(3) By stage ofteclmological development, including Federal or Federally 

assisted research, development or demonstration programs for new 

technologies which, if implemented, could significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment. ... 

10 40 CPR parts§§ 1500-1508. 

8 
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 actio~s, 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."' ·' Appendix A provides a table of key 

distinctions between programmatic and the subsequent tiered NEP A reviews, Appendix B 

provides the CEQ regulations and guidance relevant to programmatic reviews, and Appendix C 

contains examples of successful programmatic NEPA reviews. 

III. WHEN TO USE A PROGRAMMATIC AND TIERED NEPA REVIEW 

Programmatic NEP A reviews add value and efficiency to the decision-making process 

when they inform the scope of'decl ions and subsequent tiered NEP A reviews. Programmatic 

NEPA reviews can facilitate decisions on matters that precede site- or project-specific 

implementation, such as mitigation com~itments for subsequent actions, or narrowing of future 

alternatives. They also provide information and analyses that can be incorporated by reference 

in future NEP A reviews. Programmatic NEP A documents may help an agency look at a large or 

multi-faceted action without becoming immersed in all the details of future site- or projectspecific proposals. Using programmatic and subsequent tiered NEPA reviews effectively will 

allow for a focused review at the proper level. 

11 40 CFR § 1502.4( d). Tiering is described at 40 CFR § 1502.20 and further defined at 40 CFR 

§ 1508.28. 

9 
A programmatic NEP A 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: 

o Rulemaking at National- or regional-level; 

o Adoption of an agency-wide policy; or 

o Redesign of an existing program. 

• Adopting Formal Plans. Decision to adopt formal plans, such as documents that guide or 

prescribe altemative 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: 

o Strategic planning linked to agency resource allocation; or 

o 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: 

o A new agency mission or initiative; or 

10 
o Proposals to substantially redesign existing programs. 

• Approving Multiple Actions. Decision to proceed with multiple projects that are 

temporally or spatially connected and that will have a series of associated concurrent or 

subsequent decisions. Programmatic examples include: 

o Several similar actions or projects in a region oi: nationwide (e.g., a large scale 

corridor project); or 

o 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. 12 CEQ recommends agencies give particul~r consideration to preparing 

\ ,• . 

a PEA or PElS when: (1) initiating or revising a national or i;egional 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 NEP A review may not be a cost effective effort for an agency if the 

effort required to petform 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 NEP A review: (1) could the PEA or PElS be sufficiently forward looking to 

contribute to the agency's basic planning of an overall program?; and (2) does the PEA or PElS 

provide the agency the opportunity to avoid 'segmenting' the overall program from subsequent 

12 National Wildlife Federation v. Appalachian Regional Commission, 677 F.2d 883, 888 (D.C. 

Cir 1981). 

11 
individual actions and thereby avoid unreasonably constricting the scope of environmental 

regulation?13 

IV. PRACTICAL CON SID ERA TIONS 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 NEP A 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 

patticular type of broad action being analyzed; 

• Gathering and analyzing data for broadly scoped actions that potentially affect large 

geographic m·eas; .. ... 

• 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; 

13 Piedmont Environmental Council v. FE.R.C., 558 F.3d 304, 316 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting 

Nat'! Wildlife Fed'n v. Appalachian Reg'! 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). 

12 
• Communicating the opportunities for public engagement in the development of the tiered 

NEP A reviews; and 

• Maintaining the relevancy of programmatic NEP A documents for subsequent tiered 

analyses. 

A. Determining the Utility and Scope of the Programmatic NEP A Review 

Agencies should carefully consider, as eai:~ · as practicable, tbe .benefits of making the 

initial broad decisions and the amount of effmi 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 ofthe PEA or PElS, 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? ··:·· ·.·. 

Wh~t are the meaningfui decision point~ 14 from proposal tlu·ough implementation, and 

where are the most effective points in that continuum to address the potential for effects? 

• What at:e the appropriat~ geographic limits and time fi·ames for this programmatic 

review? 

• Is it necessary to analyze the patiicular 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 NEP A review the best way to do this? For example, a programmatic 

14 40 CFR § 1502.4(b ). ("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 

decision-making"). 

13 
NEP A 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 ofNEPA review should be considered when answering this 

question. 15 

• 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 ite- ~pecific EA or. EIS. The purpose and need for a PEA or a PElS needs to be broad 

enough so as to avoi<;l 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 seeping process and the course for conducting the NEP A review. 

15 40 CFR § 1508.23 ("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 ... A 

proposal may exist in fact as well as by agency declaration that one exists). 

14 
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. 16 A programmatic NEPA review, like project- or site-specific 

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 NEP A review should stati as early as practicable. By 

statiing the planning process early, there should be sufficient time for establishing the reasonable 

scope of actions, alternatives, and imp~Ots in the programma9c review, 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 actio~s, tl e 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.

17 

Projects that have independent utility are not connected actions. 18 

16 40 CFR § 1508.25. 

17 40 CFR § 1508.25(a)(l). 

18 40 CFR § 1508.25(a)(l)(iii). 

15 
• 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 pmis 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 NEP A review. 19 

• 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 NEP A reviews for each of the proposals, 

whether in separate or combined NEP A reviews. 

Similar actions are those which, when viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or 

proposed agency actions, have similm·ities such as timing, impacts, alternatives, or methods of 

implementation.20 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 

19 40 CFR § 1508.25(a)(2). 

20 40 CFR §§ 1508.25(a)(3) and 1502.4 (c). 

16 
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 NEP A 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.21 

Agencies may prepare a single NEP A document to suppoti 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 on~ 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 det~imining the locations and de~igns of one or more proposals to 

implement the broad Federal action . ..The challenge for agencies is to clearly communicate why 

some environmental as~ects are}malyzed i~ greate'i- petail- such as the project- or site-specific 

effects - than others- such as t~ rogrammati · ffects . It is essential to clearly state the 

decisions the agency proposes to make based directly on the PEA or PElS and distinguish the 

analysis of impacts and alternativ.es of the broad programmatic proposals from the project- or 

site-specific proposals. 

4. The Alternatives 

21 40 CFR § 1508.25(a). 

17 
Alternatives in a programmatic NEP A review are expected to reflect the level of the 

broad Federal action being proposed and would include the standard NEPA requirements for 

alternatives.22 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.23 

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 

atiiculating the nature of subsequent tiered decisions, agen~ies can craft the alternatives for a 

programmatic review to focus the scope and development of alternatives for the subsequent 

tiered NEPA documents. By atiiculating the reasoned choice between alternatives, with a ·.. ': .· .. 

discussion of why considered alternatives were not chosen, the range of alternatives in tiered 

NEP A reviews can be appropriately narrowed. Including a brief written discussion of the 

reasons alternatives were eliminated24 should provide the justification for narrowing the range of 

reasonable alternatives to be considered in those tiered NEP A documents. 

5. The Impacts 

22 40 CFR § 1508.25(b) and 1508.9(3)(b). 

23 Council on Environmental Quality, "Fotiy Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA 

Regulations," Question and Answer 3, March 16, 1981, available at 

http:/ /ceq .hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/40/40P l.HTM. 

24 40 CFR § 1502.14(a). 

18 
All NEPA reviews are concerned with three types of reasonably foreseeable impacts: 

direct, indirect, and cumulative.25 The contrast between a programmatic and a project- or sitespecific NEP A review is most strongly reflected in how these environmental impacts are 

analyzed. Because impacts in a programmatic NEP A 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 thatmight result from making broad 

programmatic decisions. Agencies should be clea.r 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 t:egarding standard.mitigation .• 

protocols and/or operating procedures in a programmatic NEP A review and thereby provide a 

framework and scope for the subsequent tiered analysis of envi~onmental 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 quantit/ knd quality .; Discussiot~s of water quantity and quality could then be 

.• :• 

incorporated by reference in tiered NEP A reviews. By identifying potential program impacts 

early, partic·ularly cumulative and indit:ed impacts, programmatic NEPA reviews provide 

oppmtunities to modify program components and avoid or mitigate adverse impacts when 

developing subsequent prqposals. 

B. Collaboration, Public Engagement, and Coordination with Other Environmental 

Reviews 

25 40 CFR §§ 1508.7 and 1508.8. 

19 
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 NEP A 

reviews. Seeping 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 objectiv~s 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 sco~e of subsequent site- and project-specific NEP A reviews. 

Outreach to potentially interested stakeholders should begin as early as possible - even in 

advance of formal seeping periods-to afford the public a meaningful opportunity to comment 

on and shape the NEP A 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 

20 
as subsequent tiered proposals. Early outreach also provides an oppmtunity to develop trust and 

good working relationships that may extend throughout the programmatic and subsequent NEP A 

reviews and continue during the implementation of the proposed action.26 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 a~ 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 foo 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 pan 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.

27 . ·.=:· ., .. ·• 

3. Coordination with Other Environmental Reviews 

The purpose and need statement and the proposed action for the programmatic NEP A 

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 

26 40 CFR § 1501. 7; see also Council on Environmental Quality, "Collaboration in NEP A - A 

Handbook for NEP A Practitioners," October 2007, available at 

http://ceq .hss.doe.gov/nepa/nepapubs/Collaboration _ in_ NEP A_ Oct2007.pdf. 

27 For 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 pmticipation by the interested public. 

21 
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 NEP A analysis and subsequent tiered NEP A analysis suppmi a phased 

decision-making process that allows ce1iain statutory and regulatory compliance to be achieved 

at the programmatic level. The nature of the decision at eachphase and the extent to which it 

may constrain the subseque~t consideratio~ 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. 28 

Provided the PEA or PElS 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 pmiicular decision in a phased or incremental decision-making 

process represents this level of commitment begins with a well formulated description of the 

proposed action. 

29 Agencies should be aware that preparing a programmatic NEP A review is not 

a substitute for compliance with other environmental laws. 

28 N. Alaska Envtl. Ctr. V Lujan, 961 F.2d 886 (9th Cir. 1992). 

29 Friends a/Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F. 3d, 789, 801 (9th Cir. 2003). 

22 
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 Section 1 06 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 bi'?.ad &cision will narrow the 

opportunities for adverse effects in future specific proposals, then the agency may initiate the 

Section 106 process as part of the programmatic' review. This will allow th~ agency to complete 

that process by establishing steps for meeting its responsibility as it implements the broad 

decision and prior to subsequent project- and sit~-specific p~·oposals. 

Agencies should clearly and concisely articulate their intentions to defer pmticular 

environmental review arid consultation requirements for consideration until a subsequent project- . ::: .. · · . ...... .. ··· 

or site-specific proposal is developed. When def~i~·ing 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. ~iered to the programmatic document will 

require authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act prior to constluction, agencies 

should include, after consultati~n ith the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a discussion of the 

range of alternatives that are necessary to demonstrate compliance with the Section 404(b)(l) 

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 site-specific level. 

23 
C. Preparing the Documents 

1. Programmatic Environmental Assessment or Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement? 

Programmatic approaches are usually associated with ElSs and tiered documents more 

typically with proposal-specific EAs. Tiering an EA from a PElS is appropriate when there are 

no new significant affects or considerations and the programmatic NEP A 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 ElS 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, 30 or may tier to an ElS when a 

subsequent site- or project- specific proposal has the potential for a significant impact on the 

environment. . ·. 

Whether the agency prepares a PEA or a PElS, that programmatic review should explain 

how the agency intends to use it to complete future proposal-specific NEPA reviews. 

Reasonably available information that should be provided both during seeping and in the PEA or 

PElS 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. 

30 N Plains Resource Council v. Lujan, 874 F.2d 661, 665-66 (9111 Cir. 1989). 

24 
2. Level of Detail in Programmatic NEPA Documents 

A PEA or PElS addresses the broad environmental consequences relevant at the 

programmatic level. A subsequent tiered EA or EIS will address more patiicularized 

considerations, but can benefit from the programmatic by summarizing and incorporating by 

reference parts of it.31 For example, with the F?:rest Service's prog·rammatic Gypsy Moth 

Supplemental EIS, the PElS 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 PElS analyzed and 

disclosed these risks, and deferred to site"or·project Ieyel 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 seeping. · 

The PEA or PElS rrmst pro ide sufficient detail to foster informed decision-making that 

reflects broad 'environmental co11sequences from a wide-ranging federal program.32 Site- or 

project-specific impacts need not be fully evaluated at the programmatic level when the decision 

·:·:· ··: 

to act on a site development'oi)ts equivalent is yet to be made.

33 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 

31 Nevada v. Dep 't of Energy, 372 U.S. App. D.C. 432 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 

32 Found. On Econ. Trends. v. Heckler, 756 F.2d 143, 159 (D.C. Cir. 1985). 

33 Citizens for Better Foreshy v. US. Dep't of Agriculture, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1059, 1086, (D. Cal. 

2007). 

25 
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.34 

The following considerations may be helpful to determiue the scale and scope of impacts 

to be addressed in a programmatic NEP A 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 expe1tise of the agencies responsible for the proposed 

action informed by the agencies responsible for the potentially impacted resources.

35 

3. Depth of Impact Analysis in Programmatic NEP A 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 

34 Greenpeace v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 F. Supp. 2d 1248, 1276 (D. Wash. 

1999). 

35 Texas Committee on Natural Resources v. Bergland, 573 F. 2d 201 (5 111 Cir. 1978). 

26 
of the decision being made. A programmatic NEP A review should contain sufficient discussion 

of the relevant issues and opposing viewpoints to enable the decisionmaker to take a "hard look" 

at the environmental effects and make a reasoned choice among alternatives.36 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.37 

A broad (e.g., regional) description may suffice for characteriz~ng the affected 

environment in most programmatic NEP A revie'Y.s, .. so long as potenti~lly 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 mor~ qualitative in nature than those fotmd in pr~ject- or site-specific ·, · ... · · .. 

·-:.;'•'·, 

NEP A reviews. •' 

·· .. 

It may be more difficult for an agency to analyze the environmental impacts in depth 

when there is no clear i~dication- no site- or ;roJ"ect-specific proposal pending - for the level of 

activity that may follow a programmatic decision.38 A programmatic NEPA review should 

carefully consider the. scope of bo'th the programmatic and the subsequent tiered NEP A review. 

CEQ's 1981 scoping guidance addressed this issue and the need to be clear about the type of 

programmatic NEP A review. 

36 Natural Resources Defense Council v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827, 838 (D.C. Cir. 1972). 

37 Baltimore Gas and Electric Co v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87 (1983). 

38 40 CFR § 1508.23 

27 
[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 are not addressed in the EIS on the program, but 

are reserved for a later tier of analysis. 39 

Thus, the deferred analysis should be identified and tl).e 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 ofthe 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 equ~rement 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. 40 

For example, in the PElS 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 unce11ainties involved, the PElS 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 

39 Council 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. 

4

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

28 
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. ~ 1

:-: ~{·· 

D. Mitigation and Monitoring 

Programmatic NEPA reviews provide'an\)pportunity for agencies o 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 Section 1 01 of NEP A. 42 

By identifying potential adverse impacts early during the broad programmatic planning, 

programmatic NEP A reviews provide a unique· opportunity to modify aspects of the proposal and :-. .•. 

subsequet?-t tiered proposals to avoid or otherwise mitigate those impacts. A thoughtful and 

broad-based approach to planning for future development can include best management 

practices, standard'6perating 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 

41 Final Environmental Impact Statement, Container Terminal Development Plan, Pmt of Seattle 

Marine Planning & Development Department, 1-17 (October 199 1) (on file with the Council on 

Environmental Quality). 

42 42 U.S.C. § 4331. See also Executive Order 13423 available at 

ceq .eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/Executive Order 13423 .htm. 

29 
subsequent tiered NEP A review would then include those measures to address potentially 

significant impacts and focus on the impacts and mitigation alternatives available at the projector site-specific level that were not considered in the PEA or PElS. 

For example, a Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management PElS 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 wetlanqs or riparian areas.43 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 wou.ld be afforded in designing and permitting 

such facilities. 

Programmatic NEP A 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.44 

43 San Juan Citizens Alliance v. Stiles, 654 F. 3d 1038 (lOth Cir. 2011). 

44 Council on Environmental Quality, "Appropriate Use of Mitigation and Monitoring and 

Clarifying the Appropriate Use of Mitigated Findings of No Significant Impact," Memorandum 

for Heads of Federal Depmtments and Agencies, January 14, 2011, available at 

http :I /ceq. hss. doe.govlcurrent _developments/docs/Mitigation_ and_ Monitoring_ Guidance _14Jan 

2011.pdf 

30 
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 NEP A reviews and the associated documentation. Ranges of results 

inform the public and the decisionmaker about what parameters are a·cceptable 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 conduc~· programmatic NEP A reviews because of the 

risk of delaying ongoing and newly proposed actions. The CEQ Regulations enable interim 

actions to proceed provided cettain crit~ria are met.45 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 project-specific EAs or 

EISs when required PEAs and PEISs are not yet completed.46 Although the CEQ Regulations 

address criteria for interim actions specifically in the context of PEISs, in those cases where part 

45 40 CFR § 1506.1. 

46 40 CFR § 1506.1 (a) and (c). 

31 
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 program is at an investment stage or 

there is a commitment to implementation that will limit future alternatives.47 

The CEQ Regulations state: 

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: 

(1) Is justified independently ofthe program; .... 

(2) Is itselfaccompanied by an adequate environmental impact statement; 

and .... 

(3) Will not prejudice the ultimate decision on the program. Interim action prejudices 

the ultimate decision on the program when it tends to determine subsequent 

development or limit alternatives.48 

Under the first criterion regarding independent justification, agencies may take an interim 

action that the agency dete.rmi,nes 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. 

47 40 CFR § 1502.4(c)(3). 

48 40 CFR § 1506.l(c)). 

32 
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 

PElS 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 NEP A 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 consid.eration of reasonable .· . . ·· 

alternatives. Agencies should take care to distinguish interim actions from ongoing actions. An 

agency does not need to suspend all operations be~~~ e it has elected to prep~~e a programmatic 

NEP A document. For example, in the case of an area-wide· m: site-wide PElS considering a new 

proposed operations plan, ongoing operations within the area or site may continue and such 

ongoing operations w~i..lld be considered under the no action 'alternative in the PElS. 

:·~ F. The Decision Document 

The decision is documented in a Record of Decision (ROD) following preparation of a 

PElS 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 NEP A document as a basis for tiering future NEP A 

reviews, and indicate when any deferred issues will be addressed. 

The programmatic decision document following a PEA or a PElS should provide the 

information required in a ROD. It should include a description of the alternatives considered, the 

33 
envirorunentally preferable alternative, economic and technical considerations, agency statutory 

missions, essential considerations of national policy, and all practicable means to avoid or 

minimize envirorunental 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.49 

V. SUBSEQUENT PROPOSAL-SPECIFIC NEPA REVIEWS 

A. Deferred Issues 

Certain issues may not be addressed in a PEA or PElS, but rather are discussed fully in 

subsequent tiered NEP A 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 decisiorunaker, programmatic NEP A 

reviews should make clear when the analysis of potential envirorunental 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 explai~ 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 

49 40 CFR § 1505.2(c). 

34 
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 opp()ltunities for review and comment 

will take place. 50 The programmatic document should als~, : Jiienever practicable, explain how 

and when the interested patiies will be notified o.f any subsequent reviews. 

B. Tiering NEP A Reviews 

One of the main advantages of a programmatic NEP A .review is the ability to tier . ·~ 

subsequent reviews, such as site- or proposal-spedfi'~ reviews .. 

51 Tie.ring has the advantage of 

not repeating information that has already been c<m~idered at the programmatic level so as to . :;· '• 

focus and expedite the preparation ofthe tiered NEPA review(s). When a PEA or PElS has been 

prepared and an:·a:ction 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 discus ion from the broader statement by reference and 

concentrate on the issu~s specific to the subsequent tiered proposal. 52 

. ··: 

:. 

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, 

50 See 40 CFR §§ 1501.7 (scoping), 1501.4 (public involvement in EAs ), 1506.6 (public 

involvement). 

51 40 CFR § 1502.20. 

52 40 CFR § 1502.20. 

35 
an agency can rely upon the analysis provided in the PEA or PElS. 53 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 NEP A reviews to 

an EIS, there is no batTier to tiering an EIS to an EA prepared in accordance with NEPA, the 

CEQ Regulations, and agency NEP A implementing procedut'es, so long as a sufficient 

explanation for such a11 approach is proffered. A programmatic NEPA review may defer some 

decisions, and make use of tiering and incorporation by reference, and still be considered a "hard 

look." Cases that address "improper tiering" involve situations where an agency attempts to tier ·, 

to a non-NEPA document. 5

4 

Confusion over what level ofNEP A 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 

53 Natural Resources Defense Council v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827, 838 (D.C. Cir. 1972). 

54 Kern 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 pmpose of 

NEPA." InNorthcoast 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." Comts have also held that agencies 

can't properly tier when agencies tier to an outdated PElS (League of Wilderness Defenders v. 

Marquis-Brong, 259 F. Supp. 2d 11 5, 1122-23 (D. OR 2003), or an inadequate or flawed PElS 

(Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 177 F.3d 800, 811 (9th Cir. 1999)). 

36 
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 PElS, and the agency 

presents its reasons for determining that the effects and potential mitigation measures were 

adequately considered in the PElS. Consequently, as an age?cy determines the appropriate ·. 

:·: ·'· 

scope for a PEIS, it should consider the potential for sig~ifica~t ~~te or project-specific impacts 

and the cost/benefit of addressing them programmatically. 

C. New Information and Supplementing Documents 

The CEQ Regulations provide a procedural framewo ~ for keeping environmental 

analyses current. They require agencies to prepare Sllpplements upon determining there is 

significant new information of rele ance to the pt:oposed actio~ r its impacts. 55 The possibility 

of new information arising after an EA or EIS is . .completed exists regardless of whether that 

NEP A rev~ew is a programmatic review. ;,.: .... :· .. · ..... :· . . • .:: 

When new information reaches ah agency, it\ h:ould be initially screened with respect to the 

following considerations: ·· .... · •, ·:· 

• Does the new info1:mation pertain to a programmatic NEP A review that was 

prepared for a now-completed decision-making process? 

55 See 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 environmental impact statement."). 

37 
• Are there any more decisions to be made by the agency that would use the 

original NEPA review to meet all or a portion ofthe agency's NEPA compliance 

responsibilities for any upcoming decision? 

If there are no further decisions to be made, revising the original programmatic NEP A 

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 NEP A 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 s~pplementation is not required~ ~gencies 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 NEP A 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. 56 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. 57 

56 40 CFR § 1502.9. 

57 40 CFR § 1508.27. 

38 
When an agency determines there is a need to supplement a NEP A review, programmatic 

NEP A reviews provide alternative ways to complete that supplementation. The traditional 

approach would be to supplement the base document, the original PEA or PElS. Alternatively, if 

a new tiered NEP A review can include consideration of the programmatic issues, then the tiered .• 

review can also serve as the vehicle for supplementing the:PEi\-or PElS. 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 PElS;·· ·:,·· 

VI. THE LIFESPAN OF A PROGRAMMATIC NEPA DOCUMENT 

·,•, ··: 

Agencies must consider ~d make ea~onab effmi ta anticipate the length oftime the ·. ·., 

programmatic decision and its supporting NEP A review will be maintained and used for ·. 

subsequent tiered reviews. Progi'ammatic 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, 58 establish criteria for evaluating the 

programmatic document for its use as a basis for subsequent proposal-specific NEP A, and 

communicate this to tak <?lder~ . 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. 

58 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 ElS concerns an ongoing program, ElSs that are more 

than 5 years old should be carefully reexamined to determine if the criteria in Section 1502.9 

compel preparation of an EIS supplement). 

39 
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 NEP A reviews provide an opp01tunity 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 

NEP A practitioners in realizing the benefits of programmatic NEP A 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 NEP A procedures established in accordance 

with 40 CFR § 1507.3. 

40 
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. 

Programmatic Level 

Subsequent (e.g., Project- or 

Site-Specific) Tiered Level 

Natur·e of Action Strategic, conceptual 

Construction, operations, site-

·, :::: ... specific actions 

Policy, program, planning, suite of. :-· 

Level of Decision .· Individual project(s) similar projects 

Alternatives Broad, general, research, Specific alternative locations, 

technologies, fiscal measures, 

·.: design, constr~ction, operation, 

socioeconomic, land use allocations permits, site-specific 

Scale of Impacts Macroscopic, for example, at a 

:~;~~\~::; 

Project level, mainly local 

national, regional, or laJ:l.dscape •. 

•. 

level ::::·· ;:;· 

.._-...:··· 

Scope of Impacts Broad in scale and magnitude Localized and specific 

·.: 

Time Scale Long- to medium-terrri (e.g., Medium- to short-term (e.g., 

Regulatory) Permit) . · Y{ ... 

Key Data Existing national or e~ion l Field work, sample analysis, 

Sources statistical and trend data, policy and statistical data, local monitoring 

planning instruments data :: . 

Impacts ·:·<; Qualitati\::e and maybe quantitative Generally quantifiable 

tci. the degree possible (though not always) 

Decision Broad, strategic program, policy, or Detailed, proj ect- or site-specific, 

plan action-oriented 

General, broad suite of potential 

Mitigation 

measures that could apply and Specific, precise measures 

potentially the commitments on applicable to a proposed action 

when they will apply 

41 
Table based on "Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) - cmTent practices, future demands 

and capacity-building needs", a course manual by Maria Rosario Partidario, International 

Association for Impact Assessment Training, 2003. mp@fct.unl.pt 

42 
APPENDIX B: CEQ Regulations and Guidance 

Relevant excerpts from the CEQ Regulations ( 40 CFR parts 1500-1508 available at 

http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepalregslceq/toc_ceq.htm) and CEQ Guidance (available at 

http :I /ceq. eh. doe.govlnepalregs/guidance. html) are provided below: 

40 CFR § 1502.4: Major Federal actions requiring the preparation of environmental 

impact statements. 

:• . 

.. 

(a) Agencies shall make sure the proposal, which is the subject of an environmental impact 

statement, is properly defined. Agencies shall use the criteri? .f~r scope (Sec. 1508.25) to 

determine which proposal(s) shall be the subject of a partic~l~r statement. Proposals or patts of 

proposals, which are related to each other closely enough to be, in effect, a single course of 

action, shall be evaluated in a single impact statement. 

(b) Environmental impact statements may be prepared, and are sometimes required, for broad 

Federal actions such as the adoption of new agency programs or regulations (Sec. 1508.18). 

Agencies shall prepare statements on broad actions so that they are relevant to policy and are 

timed to coincide with meaningful points i_n agency planning and decision-making. 

(c) 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 ofthe following ways: ·, 

:···· 

(1) GeographiCally, including actions ... occurring in the same general location, such as 

body of water, region, or metropolitan area. 

· .. ·:::· 

(2) Genericaliy, including actions which have relevant similarities, such as common 

timing, impacts, alternatives, methods of implementation, media, or subject 

matter. 

(3) 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. 

Statements shall be prepared on such programs and shall be available before the 

program has reached a stage of investment or commitment to implementation 

likely to determine subsequent development or restrict later alternatives. 

(d) Agencies shall as appropriate employ scoping (Sec. 1501. 7), tiering (Sec. 1502.20), and 

other methods listed in Sees. 1500.4 and 1500.5 to relate broad and narrow actions and to avoid 

duplication and delay. 

43 
40 CFR § 1502.20: Tiering. 

Agencies are encouraged to tier their envirorunental impact statements to eliminate repetitive 

discussions of the same issues and to focus on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of 

envirorunental review (Sec. 1508.28). Whenever a broad envirorunental impact statement has 

been prepared (such as a program or policy statement) and a subsequent statement or 

envirorunental assessment is then prepared on an action included within the entire program or 

policy (such as a site specific action) the subsequent statement or envirorunental assessment need 

only summarize the issues discussed in the broader statement and incorporate discussions from 

the broader statement by reference and shall concentrate on the issues specific to the subsequent 

action. The subsequent document shall state where the earlier document is available. Tiering 

may also be appropriate for different stages of actions. (Section 1508.28). 

40 CFR § 1508.18(b): Major Federal action. 

(b) Federal actions tend to fall within one of the following categories: 

(1) Adoption of official policy, such as rules, regulations, and interpretations adopted 

pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.; treaties and 

international conventions or agreements; formal documents establishing an agency's 

policies which will result in or substantially alter agency programs. 

(2) Adoption of formal plans, such as official documents prepared or approved by Federal 

agencies which guide or prescribe alternative uses of Federal resomces, upon which 

future agency actions will be based. 

(3) Adoption of programs, such as a group of conce1ted actions to implement a specific 

policy or plan; systematic and connected agency decisions allocating agency resources to 

implement a specific statutory program or executive directive. 

( 4) Approval of specific projects, such as construction or management activities located in a 

defined geographic area. Projects include actions approved by permit or other regulatory 

decision as well as Federal and Federally assisted activities. 

40 CFR § 1508.25: Scope. 

44 
"Scope" consists of the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered in an 

environmental impact statement. The scope of an individual statement may depend on its 

relationships to other statements (Secs.l502.20 and 1508.28). To determine the scope of 

enviromnental impact statements, agencies shall consider 3 types of actions, 3 types of 

alternatives, and 3 types of impacts. They include: 

(a) Actions (other than unconnected single actions) which may be: 

• ··.·= 

(1) Connected actions, which means that they are closely related and therefore 

should be discussed in the same impact statement. Actions are connected if they: 

(i) Automatically trigger other action~. hi h may require environmental 

impact statements. 

(ii) Cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or 

simultaneously. 

(iii) Are interdependent pai·ts of a larger action and depend on the larger .; 

action for their justification. · ··: \ .. 

(2) Cumulative actions, which whe~:· iewed with other prop6sed actions have 

cumulatively significant impacts and should therefore be discussed in the same 

impact statement. .... · :·. 

(3) Similar actions, which whetf..viewed with qther reasonably foreseeable or 

proposed agency actions, have sirriilarities that .. ~o'\ ide a basis for evaluating their 

environn1ental consequences together, such as common timing or geography. An 

agency may wish to·analyze th~s~.: actions in th~ same impact statement. It should 

do so when the best. way to assess:·a.dequately the combined impacts of similar 

actions or reasonable alternatives 'to such actions is to treat them in a single 

impact statement. 

(b) Alternatives, which include: 

(1) No action alternative. 

(2) Other reasonable courses of actions. 

(3) Mitigation meas~·es (not in the proposed action) . . • ·~.. . 

(c) Impacts, which may be: (1) direct; (2) indirect; (3) cumulative. 

40 CFR § 1508.28: Tiering. 

"Tiering" refers to the coverage of general matters in broader environmental impact statements 

(such as national program or policy statements) with subsequent narrower statements or 

environmental analyses (such as regional or basin-wide program statements or ultimately sitespecific statements) incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely 

45 
on the issues specific to the statement subsequently prepared. Tiering is appropriate when the 

sequence of statements or analyses is: 

(a) From a program, plan, or policy environmental impact statement to a program, plan, or 

policy statement or analysis of lesser scope or to a site-specific statement or analysis. 

(b) From an environmental impact statement on a specific action at an early stage (such as need 

and site selection) to a supplement (which is preferred) or a subsequent statement or analysis at a 

later stage (such as environmental mitigation). Tiering in such cases is appropriate when it helps 

the lead agency to focus on the issues which are ripe for decision and exclude from consideration 

issues already decided or not yet ripe. 

40 CFR § 1506.1(c): Limitations on Actions During NEPA Process 

(c) 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 whi9h may significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment unless such action: 

(1) Is justified independently of the program; 

(2) Is itself accompanied by an adequate environmental impact statement; 

and 

.. 

(3) Will not prejudice the ultimate decision on the program. Interim action prejudices the 

ultimate decision on the program when it tends to determine subsequent development 

or limit alternatives." 

48 Fed. Reg. 34263 (1983): CEQ 1983 Guidance Regarding NEPA Regulations 

Tiering 

Tiering of environmental impact statements refers to the process of addressing a broad, general 

program, policy or proposal in an initial environmental impact statement (EIS), and analyzing a 

narrower site-specific proposal, related to the initial program, plan or policy in a subsequent EIS. 

The concept of tiering was promulgated in the 1978 CEQ regulations; the preceding CEQ 

guidelines had not addressed the concept. The Council's intent in formalizing the tiering concept 

was to encourage agencies, "to eliminate repetitive discussions and to focus on the actual issues 

ripe for decisions at each level of environmental review." (Preamble, FR, Vol. 43, No. 230, p. 

55984, 11 /29/78). 

46 
Despite these intentions, the Council perceives that the concept of tiering has caused a certain 

amount of confusion and uncertainty among individuals involved in the NEPA process. 59 This 

confusion is by no means universal; indeed, approximately half of those commenting in response 

to our question about tiering ("Is tiering being used to minimize repetition in an environmental 

assessment and in environmental impact statements?" 46 FR 41131, August 14, 1981) indicated 

that tiering is effective and should be used more frequently. Approximately one-third of the 

commentators responded that they had no experience with ti~ring upon which to base their 

comments. The remaining commentators were critical of tiering. Some commentators believed 

that tiering added an additional layer of paperwork to the process and encouraged, rather than 

discouraged, duplication. Some commentators thought that the iridusi.on of tiering in the CEQ 

regulations added an extra legal requirement to the NEP A process. Other commentators said that 

an initial EIS could be prepared when issues were too broad to analyze properly for any 

meaningful consideration. Some commentators believed that the concept was simply not 

applicable to the types of projects wit~ which they worked; othei~s were concerned about the 

need to supplement a tiered EIS. Fin:ally, some who responded to our inquiry questioned the 

courts' acceptance of tiered EISs. :·. 

·· .... :·· ··.:.~:·\:·. 

The Council believes that misunderstanding of tiering an9- its phice in the NEPA process is the 

cause of much of this criticism. Tiering, of course, i's by~~ ,;rneans the best way to handle all 

proposals which are subject to NEPA analysis and documentation. The regulations do not require 

tiering; rather, they authorize its e when an age~~y determines it is appropriate. It is an option 

for an agency to use when the natUre· of the proposal lends itself to tiered EIS(s) . .; ... ·· 

Tiering does not add an additiona1legal requirement to the NEP A process. An environmental 

impact statement is required for proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions 

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. In the context ofNEPA, "major 

Federal actions" include adoption of official policy, formal plans, and programs as well as 

approval of specific projects, such as construction activities in a particular location or approval 

of permits to an outside applicant. Thus, where a Federal agency adopts a forma l plan which will 

be executed throughout a pill1:icular region, and later proposes a specific activity to implement 

that plan in the same region, both actions need to be analyzed under NEP A to determine whether 

they are major actions which will significantly affect the environment. If the answer is yes in 

both cases, both actions will be subject to the EIS requirement, whether tiering is used or not. 

The agency then has one of two alternatives: Either preparation oftwo environmental impact 

statements, with the second repeating much of the analysis and information found in the first 

environmental impact statement, or tiering the two documents. If tiering is utilized, the site59 Council 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/198311983guid.htm 

47 
specific EIS contains a summary of the issues discussed in the first statement and the agency will 

incorporate by reference discussions from the first statement. Thus, the second or site-specific 

statement, would focus primarily on the issues relevant to the specific proposal, and would not 

duplicate material found in the first EIS. It is difficult to understand, given this scenario, how 

tiering can be criticized for adding an unnecessary layer to the NEPA process; rather, it is 

intended to streamline the existing process. 

The Council agrees with commentators who stated that there are stages in the development of a 

proposal for a program, plan or policy when the issues are too broad to lend themselves to 

meaningful analysis in the framework of an EIS. The CEQ regulations specifically define a 

"proposal" as existing at, "that stage in the development of ~n a~tion when an agency subject to 

[NEP A] has a goal and is actively preparing to make a decision on one or more alternative means 

of accomplishing the goal and the effects can be meaningfully evaluated." (40 CFR 1508.23, 

emphasis added). Tiering is not intended to force an agency to prepare an EIS before this stage is 

reached; rather, it is a technique to be used as soon as meaningful analyses can [ 48 FR 34268] be 

performed. An EIS is not required before that stage in the development of a proposal, whether 

tiering is used or not. 

The Council also realizes that tiering is not well Sllited to all agency programs. Again, this is why 

tiering has been established as an option for the agency to use, as opposed to a requirement. 

A supplemental EIS is required when an agency makes substantial changes in the proposed 

action relevant to env!~·o~unental concerns, or when 'there are significant new circwnstances or 

information relevant to enviroruneiJ.tal concerns bearing on the proposed action, and is optional 

when an agency otherwise dete1mines to supplement an EIS. (40 CFR 1502.9(c)). The standard 

for supplementing an EIS is not changed by the use of tiering; there will no doubt be occasions 

when a supplement is needed, but the use of tiering should reduce the number of those occasions. . •. 

Finally, some commentators raised the question of comts' acceptability of tiering. This concern is 

understandable, given several case~ which have reversed agency decisions in regard to a •. . ... pmticular programniatic EIS. However, these decisions have never invalidated the concept of 

tiering, as stated in the CEQ regulations and discussed above. Indeed, the courts recognized the 

usefulness of the tiering approach in case law before the promulgation of the tiering regulation. 

Rather, the problems appear when an agency determines not to prepare a site-specific EIS based 

on the fact that a programmatic EIS was prepared. In this situation, the cowts carefully examine 

the analysis contained in the programmatic EIS. A court may or may not find that the 

programmatic EIS contains appropriate analysis of impacts and alternatives to meet the adequacy 

test for the site-specific proposal. A recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Comt of Appeals 

(California v. Block, 18 ERC 1149 (1982)) invalidated an attempt by the Forest Service to make 

a determination regarding wilderness and non-wilderness designations on the basis of a 

48 
programmatic EIS for this reason. However, it should be stressed that this and other decisions are 

not a repudiation of the tiering concept. In these instances, in fact, tiering has not been used; 

rather, the agencies have attempted to rely exclusively on programmatic or "first level" EISs 

which did not have site-specific information. No court has found that the tiering process as 

provided for in the CEQ regulations is an improper manner of implementing the NEP A process. 

In summary, the Council believes that tiering can be a useful method of reducing paperwork and 

duplication when used carefully for appropriate types of plans, programs and policies which will 

later be translated into site-specific projects. Tiering should not be viewed as an additional 

substantive requirement, but rather a means of accomplishing the NEP A requirements in an 

efficient manner as possible. 

46 Fed. Reg. 18,026 (1981): Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National 

Environmental Policy Act Regulations •. 

24a. Environmental Impact Statements on Policies, Plans or Programs. When are EISs required 

on policies, plans or programs? · .. . ... . •.··:· . . · .•. . 

A. An EIS must be prepared if an agency· proposes·to implement a specific policy, to adopt a 

plan for a group of related actions, or to implement a specific statutory program or executive 

directive. Section 1508.18. In addition, the adoption of officiai policy in the form of rules, 

regulations and interpre~ations pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, treaties, 

conventions, or other formal documents establishing governmental or agency policy which will 

substantially alter agency pro ra~s, could require n EIS. Section 1508.1 8. In all cases, the 

policy, plan, 'or program must have the potential 'fqr significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment in order to requil'e an EIS. It hould be noted that a proposal"may exist in 

fact as well as by agency declaration that one exists." Section 1508.23. 

24b. When is an area-wide or overview EIS appropriate? 

A. The preparation of an area-wide or overview EIS may be particularly useful when similar 

actions, viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or proposed agency actions, share common 

timing or geography. For example, when a variety of energy projects may be located in a single 

watershed, or when a series of new energy technologies may be developed through Federal 

funding, the overview or area-wide EIS would serve as a valuable and necessary analysis of the 

affected environment and the potential cumulative impacts of the reasonably foreseeable actions 

under that program or within that geographical area. 

24c. What is the function of tiering in such cases? 

49 
A. Tiering is a procedure which allows an agency to avoid duplication of paperwork through the 

incorporation by reference of the general discussions and relevant specific discussions from an 

environmental impact statement of broader scope into one of lesser scope or vice versa. In the 

example given in Question 24b, this would mean that an overview EIS would be prepared for all 

of the energy activities reasonably foreseeable in a particular geographic area or resulting from a 

particular development program. This impact statement would be followed by site-specific or 

project-specific EISs. The tiering process would make each EIS of greater use and meaning to 

the public as the plan or program develops, without duplication ofthe analysis prepared for the 

previous impact statement. 

50 
Appendix C: Sample Progmmmatic Analyses: 

Example of Broad or 

Programmatic 

Analysis 

Geographic or 

regional action 

Ex: DOT 

"Transportation 

Corridor" Tier I EIS 

Agency policymaking 

Ex: USDA Fruit Fly 

Cooperative Control 

Program Final 

Environmental Impact:. 

Statement (EIS)-200{ 

··:.; .. 

Why Analysis Was 

Used 

The EIS examines 

broad issues such as 

general location, 

mode choice, air 

quality, and land use 

implications of major 

alternatives 

Introduction .. of 

Invasive Fi uit Fly 

species can occur at 

m~dtiple potential. 

sites throughout (he 

United Stgtes. The 

EIS evdiii.i;tes broad :·: 

issues suci1 as. 

p~tenti;h~ ~tions, . 

conti f~trategies, .·:· ;:.:: -: ·:· 

mitigation. measures, 

akd. qumulatrve 

imp'a.C,t.~ avoids 

segm~ntation of 

analyses and provides 

·basic)nformation to 

fCJster efficiency by 

focusing the scope on 

critical issues that 

will be analyzed for 

site-specific 

assessments. 

Trigger for Further 

Analysis or Action 

As site-specific 

projects are 

identified, ea,ch 

project will have a 

separdt~·:: Tf~t: II 

EAIE!,s>· Tie~ lEIS 

specifies decisions·:. 

~ii'hich must be .::. 

resolved in Tier 11 

documents. 

Thi/det~ctidn of a 

non-·nati11e, invasive 

fruit fly sp{!cies 

introduction at··levels 

detJ~Iit tned t; < ~~if.Ji~f~ ;fQr:: .. 

.> ·tablishme~t is the 

·tr_iggerfor agency 

d,ction and the 

preparation of a sitespecific 

environmental 

assessment (EA) 

tiered to the EIS. 

How Stakeholders 

Become Aware of 

Further Analysis or 

Actions 

Each site-specific 

Tier II project will 

have its own public 

involvement 

process, as 

specified in the Tier 

I EIS and ROD. 

Each site-specific 

EA has its 01-vn 

public involvement 

process with 

associated public 

comment period 

51 
Range of activities and 

operations within a 

facility 

Ex: Department of 

Energy (DOE) 

Programmatic Spent 

Nuclear Fuel 

Management and 

Idaho National 

Engineering 

Laboratmy 

Environmental 

Restoration and Waste 

Management 

Programs (DOE/EIS0203, Apri/1995). 

http://energy.gov/node 

/368803 

.· .. 

. •.• .·• . . · . .. :- . 

The EIS supports two 

sets of decisions: (1) 

DOE-wide 

programmatic 

decisions on spent 

nuclearfitel (SNF) 

management 

(Volume 1), and (2) 

site-wide decisions on 

the future direction of 

environmental and 

waste management 

programs at the 

Idaho National 

.. 

'·': 

Engineering 

Laboratmy..(no'rv 

called the idqho 

National 

Laboratmy(INL) 

(Volume 2). This : 

docun ~~t has a : 

"hybrid!'. ~hara ter in 

that it s,·erved to (a) 

inform the broad.: · 

DOE-wide and INL 

s)tf!-wide decisions 

and (b) to ena~le 

implementing 

: .. : .. decisioh,sfor a 

::. defin~d: et of project-

. speclflc actions at 

JNL. 

In the analysis of 

broad DOE-wide 

SNFprogram 

alternatives, the P EIS 

considered the 

individual and 

collective 

environmental 

impacts of ongoing 

activities at JNL and ·. . af.~o feasonably 

foreseeable futitre : 

projects. In addition 

to informing 

il~p.lementC!tion 

d'ecisionsfor a 

defined set ofspecific 

proposed projects at 

INL, other 

foreseeable projects 

also were· analyzed to 

ensure adequate 

·cumulative impacts 

analysis. The 

"trigger " for further 

analysis would be a 

DOE proposal to 

implement one of the 

other specific 

projects. 

If DOE proposes to 

implement a 

.~pecific project, 

additional NEP A 

review (e.g. , an EA 

or EIS) would be 

conducted, with 

appropriate jill'ther 

public 

participation. 

DOE has completed 

several such tiered 

EISs under this 

P EIS (for example, 

DOE issued an EJS 

for the Advanced 

Mixed Waste 

Treatment Facility 

in idaho, DOE/EIS0290, January 

1999: 

http://energy.gov/n 

ode/573151) . 

In addition, DOE 

prepared five 

Supplement 

Analyses per DOE 

NEPA procedures 

(10 CFR 

1021.314(c)). 

Based on these 

analyses, the most 

recent ofwhich was 

issued in 2012, 

DOE determined 

that a supplemental 

or new P EIS was 

not required. 

52 
US. Army's 

Programmatic 

Environmental 

Assessment: 

Army Net Zero 

Installations. 

http://aec.army.mil/Po 

tials/3/nepa/N et_ Zero 

_PEA. pdf 

The PEA evaluates 

various behaviors, 

processes, and 

technologies that can 

be used to achieve 

Net Zero and the 

associated 

environmental 

impacts and 

mitigation. The PEA 

supports the decision 

whether to implement 

Net Zero Army-wide, 

to strategically 

implement Net Zero 

based on mission 

needs and return on 

investment, or.: to ndt' :-: 

implement Net Zero,· 

and itprovides .. ·. 

analysis that ..... 

installations can draw 

on as they explore 

measures and 

processes that can be 

used in their sitespecific analyses. 

The PEA provides an 

analysis of the 

environmental, 

social, and economic 

issues at a 

programmatic level. 

After evaluation of 

mission needs, 

consumptfo~ and 

existing e~ource 

constraints''Cit .·. 

installations, 

potential Net Zero 

projects representing 

a broad spectrum of 

possibfe· en~~gy, 

water and waste 

. related projec;ts may 

be)mpleme'niiq. 

.. •. ··: ··~::·. 

···.:~:~}t:.> 4·:··.· 

All installationspecific actions to 

implement Net Zero 

will require an 

appropriate level of 

supplemental NEP A 

analysis and 

documentation, 

with appropriate 

level of public 

involvement. 

53 
"Technical Program" 

with a combination of 

known elements or 

conditions 

Ex: NASA 's Analyzed common Each new project Supplemental 

environmental launch vehicles, two completes a checklist analyses (where 

assessment for routine common launch sites, to identify launch required) are 

payloads on and broad classes of vehicle, launch site, publicly announced 

expendable launch payload risk. and payload. Any of in a manner similar 

vehicles. Allowed short- these parameters to the original 

turnaround of outside of those listed Programmatic EA 

http://www.nasa.gov/p projects within known in the EA ·would (regional 

df/603832main FINA risks. result in a newspapers, local -

L %20NASA %20Rout supplemental public meetings, 

ine%20Payload%20E analysis (e.g. project etc.) 

A %20Resized. pdf EA). 

National Science The PElS examines Cruise-specific EAs Subsequent cruiseFoundation 's Final the potential impacts ·would be prepared specific NEP A 

Programmatic that may result from when a prop?sed documents or other 

Environmental Impact marine geophysical seismic resear'c/:1 appropriate 

Statement/Overseas seismic surveys activity is not covered environmental :.• 

Environmental Impact conducted from by the P EIS, such as documents would 

Statement f or Marine research vessels in a proposed survey use the framework 

Seismic Research support of scientific that uses a new of the 

funded by the National research. The technology or survey programmatic 

Science programmatic NEPA location not analyzed document and 

Foundation or approach provides a in sufficient detail. include appropriate 

Conducted by the U.S format for a public involvement. 

Geological Survey. comprehensive 

cumulative impacts 

http://www.nsf.gov/ge analysis by taking a 

o/oce/envcomp/usgs- view of marine 

nsf-marine-seismic- geophysical research 

research/nsf-usgs- and survey activities 

final-eis- as a whole. 

oeis 3june201l.pdf 

54