76986 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 2014 / Notices 

1A discussion of NEPA applicability is beyond 

the scope of this guidance. For more information 

see CEQ, The Citizen’s Guide to the National 

Environmental Policy Act, available at https://

ceq.doe.gov/nepa/Citizens_Guide_Dec07.pdf. 

2National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Draft 

Guidance, Effective Use of Programmatic NEPA 

Reviews, 79 FR 50,578, August 22, 2014. 

Dated: December 18, 2014. 

Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30037 Filed 12–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY 

Final Guidance for Effective Use of 

Programmatic NEPA Reviews 

AGENCY: Council on Environmental 

Quality. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability, Final 

Guidance for Effective Use of 

Programmatic NEPA Reviews. 

SUMMARY: The Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) is issuing 

its final guidance on programmatic 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) reviews. This guidance provides 

clarification on when and how Federal 

agencies should use programmatic 

environmental analyses in accordance 

with NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4332, and the 

CEQ Regulations for Implementing the 

Procedural Provisions of NEPA, 40 CFR 

parts 1500–1508. Guidance on 

programmatic NEPA reviews has been 

requested by the agencies and attention 

on programmatic NEPA reviews has 

increased as agencies undertake more 

broad landscape-scale analyses for 

proposals that affect the resources they 

manage. This guidance is designed to 

assist agency decisionmakers and the 

public in understanding the 

environmental impacts from proposed 

large-scope Federal actions and 

activities and to facilitate agency 

compliance with NEPA by clarifying the 

different planning scenarios under 

which an agency may prepare a 

programmatic, broad-scale, review. The 

guidance also addresses how agencies 

can prepare such reviews to ensure they 

are timely, informative, and useful for 

advancing decision-making. The goal of 

this guidance is to encourage a more 

consistent approach to programmatic 

NEPA reviews so that the analyses and 

documentation will allow for the 

expeditious and efficient completion of 

any necessary tiered reviews. It builds 

on previous guidance that explained the 

use of tiering and its place in the NEPA 

process. 

DATES: The guidance is effective 

December 23, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The Final Guidance for 

Effective Use of Programmatic NEPA 

Reviews is available at White House 

Web site (http://www.whitehouse.gov/

administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/

nepa) and on the National 

Environmental Policy Act Web site 

(www.nepa.gov). Paper copies are 

available upon request by contacting the 

CEQ Associate Director for National 

Environmental Policy Act Oversight, 

722 Jackson Place NW., Washington, DC 

20503. Telephone: (202) 395–5750. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Council on Environmental Quality 

(ATTN: Horst Greczmiel, Associate 

Director for National Environmental 

Policy Act Oversight), 722 Jackson Place 

NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

Telephone: (202) 395–5750. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Enacted in 

1970, the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321– 

4370, is a fundamental tool used to 

harmonize our environmental, 

economic, and social aspirations and is 

a cornerstone of our Nation’s efforts to 

protect the environment. NEPA 

recognizes that many Federal activities 

affect the environment and mandates 

that Federal agencies consider the 

environmental impacts of their 

proposed actions before deciding to 

adopt proposals and take action.1 NEPA 

environmental reviews (the analyses 

and documentation prepared under 

NEPA) may be on the project-specific or 

on broader programmatic level. The 

analyses in a programmatic NEPA 

review are valuable in setting out the 

broad view of environmental impacts 

and benefits for a proposed decision 

such as a rulemaking, or establishing a 

policy, program, or plan. That 

programmatic NEPA review (e.g., 

Programmatic Environmental 

Assessment (EA), Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)) 

can then be relied upon when agencies 

make decisions based on the 

programmatic EA or programmatic EIS, 

as well as decisions based on a 

subsequent (also known as tiered) NEPA 

review. Programmatic NEPA reviews 

should result in clearer and more 

transparent decision-making, as well as 

provide a better defined and more 

expeditious path toward decisions on 

proposed actions. This guidance 

clarifies the use of programmatic NEPA 

reviews by describing: (1) The nature of 

programmatic NEPA reviews; (2) when 

to use a programmatic and tiered NEPA 

review; (3) practical considerations for 

programmatic reviews and documents; 

(4) how to effectively conduct 

subsequent proposal-specific NEPA 

reviews; and (5) the lifespan of a 

programmatic NEPA document. 

The Federal Register notice 

announcing the draft programmatic 

guidance and requesting public 

comments was published on August 22, 

2014.2 CEQ appreciates the thoughtful 

responses to its request for comments on 

the draft guidance. Commenters 

included private citizens, corporations, 

environmental organizations, trade 

associations, federal agencies, and state 

agencies. CEQ received twenty-eight 

public comments, which are available 

online at www.whitehouse.gov/

administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/

nepa/comments and at www.nepa.gov. 

The comments that suggested editorial 

revisions and requested clarification of 

terms are addressed in the text of the 

final guidance. Comments that raised 

policy or substantive concerns are 

grouped into thematic issues and 

addressed in the following sections of 

this notice. 

Highlighting the Value of NEPA 

Many commenters expressed support 

for CEQ’s efforts to encourage timely 

and efficient use of the NEPA 

environmental review process to inform 

agency decision-making. Some 

commenters asserted that the draft 

guidance did not adequately highlight 

NEPA’s value and successes. These 

commenters urged CEQ to further 

discuss how NEPA is an effective tool 

for ensuring fully informed decisionmaking and meaningful public 

participation. 

CEQ agrees and expanded the 

introduction of the final guidance to 

incorporate a broader discussion of 

NEPA’s role in assisting agencies in 

decision-making and providing 

opportunity for meaningful public 

participation. This final guidance was 

developed to provide for the consistent, 

proper, and appropriate development 

and use of programmatic NEPA reviews 

by Federal agencies. It reinforces the 

process required to establish 

opportunities for public involvement, 

increased transparency, and informed 

decision-making. 

Applicability to Environmental 

Assessments 

One commenter asked for further 

explanation as to why programmatic 

approaches apply to developing an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) as well 

as Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 2014 / Notices 76987 

CEQ interprets its regulations as 

allowing for the use of a programmatic 

approach in developing an EA. Neither 

the NEPA statute nor CEQ’s regulations 

prohibit programmatic approaches for 

an EA. Each federal agency has its own 

agency NEPA implementing procedures 

which adapt the framework established 

by the CEQ regulations to address 

agency specific missions and decisionmaking authority. Agencies are 

encouraged to revise or amend their 

NEPA implementing procedures, if 

necessary, to allow for the use of 

programmatic EAs and EISs. 

Request for More Examples 

Many commenters requested 

additional case studies and examples to 

show real-world applications of 

programmatic NEPA review. Some 

commenters also requested examples of 

where programmatic NEPA review 

would not be appropriate. Several 

commenters requested more examples 

of instances where programmatic NEPA 

review allowed for informed decisionmaking, meaningful public 

involvement, and adequately addressed 

site-specific impacts. 

To address these comments, CEQ has 

added more examples and legal 

authorities, where appropriate, and tried 

to provide them wherever they are 

helpful and illustrative. If CEQ learns of 

other helpful examples, they will 

periodically be made available on the 

NEPA.gov Web site. 

Concerns About Delay 

Some commenters expressed concern 

over the timeliness and burden of 

programmatic NEPA reviews. One 

commenter stated that tiered 

programmatic NEPA reviews may lead 

to unproductive additional layers of 

review and therefore may encourage 

undue delay, cost, and inefficiency. 

This commenter raised an example of 

how a programmatic review for a 

corridor will lead to duplicative review 

when individual projects are sited. 

The final guidance emphasizes that 

agencies are given the discretion to 

determine whether programmatic NEPA 

review will be an effective and efficient 

way to address environmental impacts. 

If an agency determines that a broadlevel analysis and review of a proposal 

allows informed and meaningful 

decision-making, the agency should 

have the flexibility to do so. Although 

the commenter argues that a tiered 

approach to review constitutes ‘‘delay,’’ 

CEQ finds that in many situations there 

is merit in looking at a proposal on a 

broad level and then focusing a 

subsequent, tiered, review on the 

relevant issues at the site- or projectspecific level. The agency responsible 

for the NEPA review should take the 

timing of the decisions and the 

programmatic and subsequent tiered 

NEPA reviews into account when 

determining how best to proceed. 

When To Use Programmatic Review 

Several commenters requested that 

CEQ include a test or presumption 

about when using a programmatic 

approach is appropriate. One 

commenter advocated for a test as set 

out by Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 

390 (1976). Another commenter 

requested that CEQ include a 

presumption against programmatic 

NEPA review because case-by-case 

analysis of projects will provide more 

robust environmental analysis and 

public involvement. Conversely, 

another commenter urged CEQ to 

mandate when agencies should conduct 

programmatic review for projects that 

affect a common geographic region or a 

suite of similar projects. 

CEQ rejects the use of a set test that 

would be applicable across all agencies 

and the use of a default presumption. As 

written in the final guidance, agencies 

have discretion to determine whether a 

programmatic approach is appropriate. 

A default presumption may limit agency 

flexibility and be too prescriptive. 

Kleppe does not establish a hard line 

test and, instead, explains that agencies 

have the technical expertise and 

discretion to determine whether a 

programmatic review is appropriate. 

The final guidance explains that each 

agency should determine the 

circumstances in which it is appropriate 

to prepare programmatic NEPA 

documentation. The agency preparing 

the NEPA review is responsible for 

tailoring the review to the type of action 

involved while taking into account the 

potential efficiencies, maximizing 

informed decision-making, and ensuring 

compliance with other laws, 

regulations, and policies relevant to the 

decision at hand. 

Programmatic Documents as a StandAlone Document 

Several commenters raised concerns 

about whether agencies may prepare a 

single NEPA document to support both 

programmatic and project-specific 

proposals. Some commenters have 

urged CEQ to create a default 

presumption that programmatic reviews 

alone are inappropriate. 

The final guidance makes it clear that 

any Federal agency program charged 

with complying with NEPA has the 

discretion to determine when a 

programmatic NEPA review is 

appropriate. CEQ declines to create a 

default presumption but has added 

language to provide more clarity and 

guidance about when a NEPA review 

includes both programmatic and 

project-specific decisions, as well as 

when a single programmatic NEPA 

review is appropriate. For example, a 

single programmatic NEPA review may 

be appropriate when an agency plans to 

make a broad program decision. When 

both programmatic and project-specific 

decisions are being made, the NEPA 

review should be clear in identifying the 

decisions and the environmental 

analysis to support those decisions. 

Proper Use of Tiering 

A few commenters raised concerns 

about when a programmatic EIS may be 

tiered from a previous programmatic 

NEPA review. One commenter 

expressed that improper tiering to 

subsequent actions could lead to delay, 

an unnecessary use of time and 

resources, and an improper substantive 

analysis of environmental impacts. This 

commenter, along with another 

commenter, requested that any tiered 

documents are only required to analyze 

new impacts that were not previously 

addressed. Conversely, another 

commenter stated that tiered review is 

the greatest opportunity for a recognized 

benefit of programmatic review and that 

they should be further encouraged. 

The final guidance makes it clear that 

the Federal agency program responsible 

for complying with NEPA has the 

discretion to determine whether a 

programmatic NEPA review is 

appropriate. A programmatic NEPA 

review followed by a tiered NEPA 

review is appropriate when such an 

approach provides a framework for 

agencies to help public officials make 

timely decisions based on an 

understanding of the environmental 

consequences relevant to the decision at 

hand. As a result, CEQ finds it 

inappropriate to establish a 

presumption that substantive analysis is 

unnecessary or should be precluded in 

subsequent tiered documents. Finally, 

new examples have been added that 

explain that one level of review may be 

sufficient in certain cases—such as 

when an agency undergoes rulemaking, 

adopts an agency-wide policy, adopts a 

formal plan, or redesigns an existing 

program—and that a programmatic EA 

is not invalidated when the subsequent 

decision requires preparation of an EIS. 

Tiering From a Programmatic EA With 

Findings of No Significant Impact 

A few commenters expressed 

concerns about scenarios where an 

agency has a PEA that results in a 

finding of no significant impact (FONSI) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

76988 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 2014 / Notices 

and then tiers to a subsequent projectspecific EIS. One commenter stated that 

it seems counterintuitive that a 

programmatic Environmental 

Assessment supported by a FONSI 

could approve a number or actions that 

then lead to a NEPA analysis for a 

project that has the potential for a 

significant impact on the environment. 

The final guidance has been modified 

to contain two examples of how a 

programmatic environmental impact 

statement may tier from a programmatic 

EA. One example is that a programmatic 

EA may be used to articulate standard 

mitigation for a suite of similar projects, 

such as capturing vented methane. This 

programmatic EA may result in a FONSI 

and project-level construction that goes 

beyond the mitigation in the EA will 

require a programmatic EIS. The other 

example is that a programmatic EA may 

result in a FONSI but a subsequent 

proposal represents a unique or 

unexpected circumstance that raises the 

potential for significant impacts. In such 

a circumstance, a tiered EIS would not 

undermine or invalidate the 

programmatic EA which resulted in a 

FONSI. Additionally, the final guidance 

also makes clear that an agency should 

explain in all programmatic NEPA 

reviews how the agency intends to use 

it to complete future proposal-specific 

NEPA reviews. 

Supplementation and New Information 

Some commenters raised concerns 

about when a programmatic review 

should be supplemented or when new 

information would substantially affect 

the programmatic analysis. One 

commenter requested that CEQ include 

language that, once a decision is made, 

there is no obligation for an agency to 

supplement a NEPA review. This 

commenter requested that in light of 

Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness 

Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004), any 

decision to approve a plan should be 

recognized as a completed decision and 

no supplements to a programmatic 

NEPA review are required. 

CEQ has added a footnote in the final 

guidance to clarify the role of Southern 

Utah Wilderness Alliance. In that case 

the United States Supreme Court noted 

that an agency must take a ‘‘hard look’’ 

at new information to determine 

whether supplementation is necessary. 

542 U.S. at 73 (citing Marsh v. Oregon 

Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 

360, 370–374 (1989)). The Court 

distinguished Southern Utah Wilderness 

Alliance in that there were no 

subsequent decisions to be made and 

there was no ongoing ‘‘major Federal 

action’’ that required supplementation. 

Id. 

The final guidance makes it clear that 

supplementation may be required when 

there are more decisions to be made by 

the agency that would use the original 

NEPA review. The programmatic NEPA 

review process may defer issues for 

subsequent tiers of review. Site- or 

project-specific impacts might not be 

fully evaluated at initial tiers of review 

when the decision to act on a site 

development or its equivalent is yet to 

be made. Agencies should, when 

decisions remain to be made and the 

Federal action is on-going, consider new 

information to determine if that would 

require updating or supplementing the 

programmatic NEPA review. 

Another commenter requested 

language in the final guidance that 

requires agencies to carefully reexamine 

any programmatic NEPA review that is 

more than five years-old to determine 

whether the criteria for supplementation 

must be met. This commenter notes that 

there are many cases where an agency 

fails to update a NEPA review even 

though there has been no construction 

or ongoing activity for five years. 

Another commenter asked CEQ to have 

agencies supplement their 

programmatic reviews, rather than 

address the information at the sitespecific level, in situations where new 

information could affect the impacts of 

program as a whole. 

CEQ understands these concerns and 

further refined its discussion about 

supplementation. The CEQ regulations 

provide a procedural framework for 

keeping environmental analyses current. 

They require agencies to prepare 

supplements upon determining there is 

significant new information of relevance 

to the proposed action or its impacts. 

The final guidance acknowledges that 

there is a possibility of new information 

arising after an EA or EIS is completed 

that exists regardless of whether a NEPA 

review is programmatic. The 

requirements to update or supplement a 

NEPA review remains the same for 

programmatic as it does for nonprogrammatic NEPA reviews. 

The Lifespan of Programmatic 

Documents 

Some commenters raised the concern 

about the lifespan of programmatic 

documents and asked for more clarity 

about when supplementation or a new 

programmatic NEPA review will be 

required. These commenters pointed out 

that, while programmatic NEPA reviews 

may discuss potential environmental 

impacts, the information can often 

become outdated and cannot be used for 

subsequent decision-making. One 

commenter suggested that the final 

guidance should mandate that an 

agency may not rely on any NEPA 

document that is more than ten years 

old. Another commenter suggested that 

all programmatic NEPA analysis should 

have set triggers for supplementation or 

expiration dates. 

The final guidance clearly states that 

agencies must consider and make 

reasonable efforts to anticipate the 

length of time the programmatic 

decision and its supporting NEPA 

review will be maintained and used for 

subsequent tiered reviews. There is no 

fixed timeline or expiration date for 

programmatic NEPA documents, just as 

there is no fixed timeline or expiration 

date for other types NEPA review. The 

final guidance refers to question 32 in 

CEQ’s 40 Most Asked Questions, which 

states that as a rule of thumb, if the 

proposal has not yet been implemented, 

or if the EIS concerns an ongoing 

program, EISs that are more than five 

years old should be carefully 

reexamined to determine if a 

supplement is required. The final 

guidance does encourage agencies to 

determine the factors that may result in 

the need to supplement or refresh the 

analysis and communicate this to 

stakeholders. When a programmatic 

review is projected to have a long life 

span to be used for subsequent decisionmaking, the final guidance states that an 

agency should pay close attention to the 

possible effects of new information. 

Alternatives 

Several commenters requested more 

clarity on the appropriate use of 

alternative analysis in a programmatic 

NEPA review. One commenter asked for 

a narrower interpretation of what 

constitutes a ‘‘reasonable alternative’’ so 

that broad-level NEPA review is not 

unduly burdened. Other commenters 

asked that CEQ place particular 

emphasis on the importance of 

soliciting and considering alternatives 

developed outside of the lead agency, 

especially local government and 

publically-developed alternatives. 

Several commenters suggest that 

limiting alternatives or general analysis 

in one review that is later relied upon 

in a subsequent site-specific NEPA 

review could limit meaningful and 

informed decision-making. They urged 

CEQ to amend the guidance to prohibit 

the use of programmatic NEPA reviews 

to narrow or restrict future alternatives 

for activities such as multifaceted 

actions or operating plans. Many 

commenters stated that alternatives and 

public involvement should not be 

narrowed down until site-specific 

impact analysis has been carried out. 

The final guidance emphasizes that 

alternatives in a programmatic NEPA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 2014 / Notices 76989 

review are expected to reflect the level 

of the Federal action being proposed 

and the standard NEPA requirements for 

alternatives apply. ‘‘Reasonable 

alternatives’’ depend on the nature of 

the proposal and the facts of the case. 

Factors in determining whether an 

alternative is reasonable include the 

purpose and need for the decision and 

its effects on the environment and on 

the affected community(s), as well as 

the state of the technologies available to 

achieve the proposed outcome. The 

final guidance makes clear that, by 

articulating the reasoned choice 

between alternatives, with a discussion 

of why considered alternatives were not 

chosen, the range of alternatives in 

programmatic NEPA reviews can be 

appropriately narrowed. 

CEQ supports public and local 

government involvement in the NEPA 

process, including the development of 

alternatives. Non-agency alternatives 

can be considered in any NEPA process, 

regardless of whether it is programmatic 

or not, provided they are technically 

and economically feasible. The final 

guidance was revised to clarify that nonagency alternatives may be considered. 

Additionally, the final guidance 

provides an entire section devoted to 

public involvement and collaboration 

and cooperation among Federal 

agencies, tribes, and state and local 

governments. CEQ’s encouragement of 

working with other parties includes the 

development of reasonable alternatives 

to allow for informed decision-making. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Several commenters raised concerns 

about how to effectively analyze 

cumulative effects for each resource in 

tiered programmatic review rather than 

only completing cumulative analysis for 

the program overall. These commenters 

suggest that it is difficult to evaluate 

cumulative actions when individual 

projects are deferred or not completely 

conceptualized. 

As specifically set out in the CEQ 

regulations and all CEQ guidance, the 

consideration of the potential 

cumulative impacts of proposed actions 

is an important and integral aspect of 

the NEPA process. CEQ has modified 

the final guidance to describe when 

cumulative impacts should be analyzed 

for potentially affected resources in each 

level of review. An agency should not 

solely complete a cumulative analysis 

for the broader programmatic review. 

Public Involvement 

Commenters were most concerned 

about how programmatic NEPA review 

affects public participation and 

involvement. Several commenters 

expressed concern that programmatic 

NEPA review leads to a ‘‘shell game’’ 

when there is deferred analysis of 

specific impacts to subsequent tiers 

within the NEPA process. According to 

these commenters, deferred analysis 

may lead to poor meaningful 

involvement and an insufficient review 

of potential environmental impacts. One 

commenter asked for CEQ to strengthen 

guidance language about how to actively 

engage the public before and during an 

agency’s programmatic NEPA review 

process. Several commenters asked CEQ 

to emphasize that agencies must 

communicate to the public how the 

programmatic NEPA review is being 

used and which issues are deferred for 

subsequent tiered NEPA reviews. These 

commenters noted that where an agency 

issues a programmatic NEPA review and 

a party is interested in challenging its 

validity, the agency often responds that 

the party should wait to raise concerns 

at the site-specific level because the 

agency will address these concerns at 

that level. They suggest that is 

appropriate to raise issues at the 

programmatic level where the issues 

affect the program as a whole and the 

issues are not present at each sitespecific level, or where the cumulative 

impact of the issues is plain at the 

programmatic level but is relatively 

insignificant at the level of the site. 

Another commenter raised the issue that 

broad-level review may create public 

participation issues because it is 

difficult for the public to understand 

how a project affects them until the 

project-specific level. One commenter 

also suggested that CEQ mandate that all 

comment periods for programmatic 

NEPA review be extended from 45 days 

to 90 days. 

The final guidance makes it clear that 

CEQ strongly encourages public 

involvement in all programmatic and 

tiered NEPA reviews. As the final 

guidance explains, engaging the public 

in the environmental aspects of Federal 

decision-making is a key policy goal of 

NEPA and the CEQ regulations. Public 

involvement is not limited to the 

provision of information by agencies; it 

should also include meaningful 

opportunities for the public to provide 

comment and feedback on the 

information made available. 

Considering recent advances in 

information technology, agencies should 

consider employing additional measures 

to involve the public beyond simply 

publishing a Federal Register notice. 

The final guidance suggests ways to 

involve the public, such as engaging 

non-governmental organizations, 

citizen’s groups, labor organizations, 

and trade associations. 

The final guidance recognizes that 

public engagement is particularly 

important when developing 

programmatic NEPA reviews in order to 

ensure agency objectives are understood 

and to make it clear how a 

programmatic review will influence 

subsequent tiered reviews. Effective 

public engagement also will help 

manage expectations with regard to the 

purpose and need, the scope of the 

broad environmental analyses, and the 

purpose and need and scope of 

subsequent site- and project-specific 

environmental analyses. The final 

guidance encourages outreach to 

potential stakeholders as early as 

possible to afford the public a 

meaningful opportunity to comment on 

and shape the programmatic NEPA 

review and/or develop alternatives to be 

considered. The guidance recognizes 

that members of the public are less 

likely to participate or engage in the 

commenting process if they do not fully 

understand how the outcomes will 

affect them. It is critical that agencies 

provide context and as much 

information as possible in the beginning 

of the public involvement process. 

The final guidance has been modified 

to emphasize that proactive and robust 

public participation is encouraged and, 

when appropriate, comment periods 

may need to be extended to ensure 

meaningful involvement. CEQ declines 

to mandate a maximum timeframe for 

comment periods because agencies 

should have the flexibility and 

discretion to determine whether the 

minimum timeframes provided in the 

CEQ regulations should be extended to 

provide time for meaningful review. 

The final guidance encourages that an 

agency supports early public 

participation by clearly explaining to 

the public not only what the proposed 

programmatic evaluation is meant to 

accomplish, but also how it relates to 

future actions, and why the public 

should get involved at the programmatic 

stage and not wait for any tiered 

reviews. The guidance makes clear that 

an agency should clearly state which 

concerns are addressed at that level of 

review and which concerns will be 

addressed in the tiered NEPA review. 

Coordination With Other 

Environmental Reviews 

A few commenters reminded CEQ 

that NEPA review acts as the foundation 

for other statutory reviews such as the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA). One commenter asked for more 

clarification that a consolidated NEPA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

76990 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 2014 / Notices 

review generally should form the basis 

for reviews under all federal 

environmental laws that pertain to a 

given action. Another commenter 

requested revisions to include a 

schedule or other mechanism for 

coordinating ESA, Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, NHPA, and other 

interagency consultation processes so as 

to increase efficiency and create 

enforceable timelines. Another 

commenter asked for additional 

discussion about entering into 

programmatic agreements with other 

regulatory agencies such as the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The final guidance recognizes that the 

purpose and need statement and the 

proposed action for the programmatic 

NEPA review are critical for 

determining the compliance 

requirements under other applicable 

laws and regulations, such as ESA, 

NHPA, and Clean Water Act. Language 

has been added to the final guidance to 

emphasize that an agency should 

consider the appropriate level of 

compliance with other laws for a 

programmatic NEPA review, for 

example by considering programmatic 

agreements under the ESA and NHPA, 

and the potential for a separate, more 

focused and specific consultation, for 

any subsequent tiered NEPA review. 

Hard Look Doctrine 

A few commenters asked for further 

clarification on how the ‘‘hard look’’ 

doctrine should be met for 

programmatic NEPA analysis. The final 

guidance explains that a programmatic 

NEPA 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. 

The final guidance describes the hard 

look doctrine in greater detail and an 

agency should include a statement in its 

programmatic NEPA review that 

explains rationale as to how various 

environmental effects were analyzed 

given the scope of the programmatic 

decisions being made. 

Mitigation and Monitoring 

Several commenters voiced concerns 

that the final guidance does not 

adequately address mitigation and 

monitoring. Some commenters noted 

that agencies often fail to follow through 

on mitigation strategies throughout the 

programmatic NEPA process, and solely 

focus on mitigation at the broad-level 

review. These commenters also 

recommend that agencies be required to 

incorporate not only monitoring but also 

triggers and methods to update 

mitigation requirements depending on 

the monitoring results. Some of these 

commenters also requested that CEQ 

provide more direction about the 

necessity of mitigation monitoring and 

adaptive management in the context of 

environmental review. 

The CEQ regulations provide a 

framework for mitigating adverse 

environmental impacts. Mitigation and 

monitoring are key components of 

NEPA regardless of whether the NEPA 

process is programmatic. The final 

guidance recognizes that programmatic 

NEPA reviews provide an opportunity 

for agencies to incorporate 

comprehensive mitigation planning and 

monitoring strategies into the Federal 

policymaking process at a broad or 

strategic, rather than specific or site-bysite, level. New language has been 

added to include recognition that best 

management practices, adaptive 

management practices, and standard 

operating procedures may also be 

incorporated. The final guidance now 

notes that adaptive management can 

provide the basis for an agency to 

change the course of implementation 

without the need for developing 

supplemental NEPA reviews and the 

associated documentation. 

(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4332, 4342, 4344 and 

40 CFR parts 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1505, 

1506, 1507, and 1508) 

Dated: December 18, 2014. 

Brenda Mallory, 

General Counsel, Council on Environmental 

Quality. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30034 Filed 12–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3225–F5–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Judicial Proceedings since Fiscal Year 

2012 Amendments Panel (Judicial 

Proceedings Panel); Notice of Federal 

Advisory Committee Meeting 

AGENCY: Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing this notice to announce the 

following Federal Advisory Committee 

meeting of the Judicial Proceedings 

since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments 

Panel (‘‘the Judicial Proceedings Panel’’ 

or ‘‘the Panel’’). The meeting is open to 

the public. 

DATES: A meeting of the Judicial 

Proceedings Panel will be held on 

Friday, January 16, 2015. The Public 

Session will begin at 9:00 a.m. and end 

at 5:00 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia, 333 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Courtroom #20, 6th Floor, 

Washington, DC 20001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Julie Carson, Judicial Proceedings Panel, 

One Liberty Center, 875 N. Randolph 

Street, Suite 150, Arlington, VA 22203. 

Email: whs.pentagon.em.mbx.judicialpanel@mail.mil Phone: (703) 693–3849. 

Web site: http://jpp.whs.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

public meeting is being held under the 

provisions of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., 

Appendix, as amended), the 

Government in the Sunshine Act of 

1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 

41 CFR 102–3.150. 

Purpose of the Meeting: At this 

meeting, the Judicial Proceedings Panel 

will deliberate on the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 

(Pub. L. 112–239), as amended, Section 

576(a)(2) requirement to conduct an 

independent review and assessment of 

judicial proceedings conducted under 

the Uniform Code of Military Justice 

involving adult sexual assault and 

related offenses since the amendments 

made to the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice by section 541 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2012 (Pub. L. 112–81; 125 Stat. 

1404), for the purpose of developing 

recommendations for improvements to 

such proceedings. The Panel is 

interested in written and oral comments 

from the public, including nongovernmental organizations, relevant to 

this tasking. 

Agenda: 

• 8:30 a.m.–9:00 a.m. Administrative 

Session (41 CFR 102–3.160, not 

subject to notice & open meeting 

requirements) 

• 9:00 a.m.–4:45 p.m. Panel 

Deliberations on Initial JPP Report 

• 4:45 p.m.–5:00 p.m. Public Comment 

Availability of Materials for the 

Meeting: A copy of the January 16, 2015 

meeting agenda or any updates to the 

agenda, to include individual speakers 

not identified at the time of this notice, 

as well as other materials presented 

related to the meeting, may be obtained 

at the meeting or from the Panel’s Web 

site at http://jpp.whs.mil. 

Public’s Accessibility to the Meeting: 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 

102–3.140 through 102–3.165, and the 

availability of space, this meeting is 

open to the public. Seating is limited 

and is on a first-come basis. 

Special Accommodations: Individuals 

requiring special accommodations to 

access the public meeting should 

contact Ms. Julie Carson at 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES