-
January 2008 

BLM/WO 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

National Environmental Policy Act Program

Office of the Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and Planning (WO-200) 

1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop 1050LS 

Washington, DC 20240 

email: NEPA@blm.gov 

Available at BLM’s Printed Materials and Distribution Section (PMD) 

Fax Number 303-236-0845 or BLM_NCS_PMDS@blm.gov 

Cover Photograph – Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument by Peg Sorensen
TC - iii 

H-1790-1 ­ NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

HANDBOOK USER'S GUIDE ............................................................................................................................... IX

CHAPTER 1—NEPA BASICS ..................................................................................................................................1

1.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEPA .............................................................................................................1

1.2 DEPARTMENTAL GUIDANCE AND THIS BLM HANDBOOK...........................................................2

1.3 DOCUMENTS USED TO MEET NEPA REQUIREMENTS.....................................................................2

1.4 THE NEPA APPROACH ............................................................................................................................3

CHAPTER 2—ACTIONS EXEMPT FROM THE NEPA AND EMERGENCY ACTIONS ..............................9

2.1 CONGRESSIONALLY EXEMPT ACTIONS ............................................................................................9

2.1.1 CERCLA..................................................................................................................................................9

2.2 ACTIONS MANDATED BY STATUTE....................................................................................................9

2.3 EMERGENCY ACTIONS ........................................................................................................................10

2.3.1 Types of Emergency Actions .................................................................................................................10

2.3.2 Procedures for Emergency Actions.......................................................................................................11

2.3.2.1 Wildfire Suppression Actions ...................................................................................................................... 11

2.3.2.2 Emergency Actions other than Wildfire Suppression................................................................................... 11

CHAPTER 3—ACTIONS REQUIRING NEPA COMPLIANCE........................................................................13

3.1 DETERMINING WHEN THE NEPA APPLIES.......................................................................................13

3.2 PROPOSALS ORIGINATING WITHIN THE BLM ................................................................................13

3.2.1 Policies and Rulemaking.......................................................................................................................14

3.2.2 Land Use Plan (LUP) Development......................................................................................................15

3.3 PROPOSALS SUBMITTED TO THE BLM BY OTHER ENTITIES.......................................................15

3.3.1 Proposals for the BLM to Fund Actions................................................................................................15

3.3.2 Proposals Involving Mineral Estate......................................................................................................16

CHAPTER 4—CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS..................................................................................................17

4.1 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE ENERGY POLICY ACT...........................17

4.2. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

OR THE BLM............................................................................................................................................18

4.2.1 Identifying Potential Categorical Exclusions........................................................................................18

4.2.2 Determining if an Extraordinary Circumstance Precludes Use of a Categorical Exclusion................19

4.2.3 Documentation Requirements ...............................................................................................................19

4.2.3.1 Documentation Requirements When Using Hazardous Fuels and Post-Fire Rehabilitation CXs ................ 19

4.2.3.2 Documentation Requirements When Using CXs Not Established by Statute .............................................. 20

CHAPTER 5—USING EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES ..............................................................21

5.1 DETERMINATION OF NEPA ADEQUACY..........................................................................................22

5.1.1 Identifying Existing Environmental Documents....................................................................................22

5.1.2 Reviewing Existing Environmental Documents.....................................................................................23

5.1.3 Document the Review............................................................................................................................24

5.1.4 FONSIs, Decisions, Protests, and Appeals ...........................................................................................25

5.2 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE AND TIERING..........................................................................25

5.2.1 Incorporation by Reference...................................................................................................................26

5.2.2 Tiering...................................................................................................................................................27

5.3 SUPPLEMENTING AN EIS.....................................................................................................................29

5.3.1 When Supplementation is Appropriate..................................................................................................29

5.3.2 When Supplementation is Not Appropriate ...........................................................................................30

5.3.3 The Supplementation Process ...............................................................................................................31

5.4 ADOPTING ANOTHER AGENCY’S NEPA ANALYSES.....................................................................31

5.4.1 Adopting Another Agency’s EIS .........................................................................................................31

5.4.2 Adopting Another Agency’s EA ..........................................................................................................32

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
TC - iv 

H-1790-1 ­ NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

CHAPTER 6—NEPA ANALYSIS...........................................................................................................................33

6.1 OUTLINE OF ANALYTICAL STEPS .....................................................................................................33

6.2 PURPOSE AND NEED.............................................................................................................................35

6.2.1 The Role of the Purpose and Need Statement .......................................................................................36

6.2.2 The Decision to be Made.......................................................................................................................36

6.3 SCOPING ..................................................................................................................................................38

6.3.1 Internal Scoping .................................................................................................................................39

6.3.2 External Scoping ................................................................................................................................39

6.4 ISSUES......................................................................................................................................................40

6.4.1 Identifying Issues for Analysis...............................................................................................................41

6.4.2 Issues Not Analyzed...............................................................................................................................42

6.5 PROPOSED ACTION...............................................................................................................................42

6.5.1 Description of the Proposed Action ......................................................................................................43

6.5.1.1 Design Features of the Proposed Action ......................................................................................................... 44

6.5.2 Defining the Scope of Analysis of the Proposed Action ........................................................................44

6.5.2.1 Connected Actions..................................................................................................................................... 45

6.5.2.2 Cumulative Actions...................................................................................................................................... 48

6.5.2.3 Similar Actions ............................................................................................................................................... 49

6.6 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................................49

6.6.1 Reasonable Alternatives........................................................................................................................49

6.6.1.1 Developing Alternatives Under The Healthy Forests Restoration Act......................................................... 51

6.6.2 No Action Alternative .........................................................................................................................51

6.6.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Analysis.........................................................52

6.7 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND USE OF RELEVANT DATA ........................................................53

6.7.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................................................53

6.7.2 Use of Relevant Data ............................................................................................................................53

6.8 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...............................................................................................................54

6.8.1 Effects Analysis .....................................................................................................................................54

6.8.1.1 Defining Environmental Effects................................................................................................................... 54

6.8.1.2 Analyzing Effects......................................................................................................................................... 55

6.8.2 Direct and Indirect Effects ....................................................................................................................56

6.8.3 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................................................57

6.8.3.1 Cumulative Effects Issues ............................................................................................................................ 57

6.8.3.2 Geographic Scope of the Cumulative Effects Analysis................................................................................ 58

6.8.3.3 Timeframe of the Cumulative Effects Analysis ........................................................................................... 58

6.8.3.4 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions..................................................................................... 58

6.8.3.5 Analyzing the Cumulative Effects................................................................................................................ 59

6.8.4 Mitigation and Residual Effects ............................................................................................................61

6.9 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND RESPONDING TO COMMENTS......................................................62

6.9.1 Involving and Notifying the Public........................................................................................................63

6.9.2 Comments..............................................................................................................................................65

6.9.2.1 Substantive Comments................................................................................................................................. 65

6.9.2.2 Comment Response...................................................................................................................................... 66

CHAPTER 7 — DETERMINING WHETHER AN EA OR EIS IS APPROPRIATE .......................................69

7.1 ACTIONS REQUIRING AN EA...............................................................................................................69

7.2 ACTIONS REQUIRING AN EIS..............................................................................................................69

7.3 SIGNIFICANCE........................................................................................................................................70

CHAPTER 8—PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT............................................................75

8.1 PREPARING TO WRITE AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA)............................................75

8.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................................................76

8.3 EA FORMAT ............................................................................................................................................77

8.3.1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................................77

8.3.2 Purpose and Need for Action and Decision to be Made .......................................................................77

8.3.3 Scoping and Issues ................................................................................................................................78

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
TC - v 

H-1790-1 ­ NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

8.3.4 Proposed Action and Alternatives.........................................................................................................78

8.3.4.1 Description of the Proposed Action ............................................................................................................. 78

8.3.4.2 Alternatives in an EA ................................................................................................................................... 79

8.3.4.2.1 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis......................................................... 80

8.3.4.3 Conformance................................................................................................................................................ 81

8.3.5 Affected Environment............................................................................................................................81

8.3.6 Environmental Effects ...........................................................................................................................81

8.3.7 Tribes, Individuals, Organizations, or Agencies Consulted..................................................................82

8.3.8 List of Preparers ...................................................................................................................................82

8.4 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE................................................................................................82

8.4.1 Significant Impacts -Transitioning from an EA to an EIS.....................................................................82

8.4.2 The Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) ....................................................................................83

8.5 THE DECISION RECORD.......................................................................................................................84

8.5.1 Documenting the Decision ....................................................................................................................84

8.5.2 Terminating the EA Process ...............................................................................................................86

8.6 IMPLEMENTATION................................................................................................................................86

CHAPTER 9—PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ............................................87

9.1 PREPARING TO WRITE AN EIS............................................................................................................87

9.1.1 Develop Preparation Plan ....................................................................................................................87

9.1.1.1 Develop Strategy for Public Involvement and Interagency/Intergovernmental............................................ 88

Coordination and Consultation ....................................................................................................................................... 88

9.1.2 Publish the Notice of Intent...................................................................................................................88

9.1.3 Scoping..................................................................................................................................................89

9.2 EIS FORMAT............................................................................................................................................91

9.2.1 Cover Sheet ...........................................................................................................................................92

9.2.2 “Dear Reader” Letter...........................................................................................................................92

9.2.3 Summary................................................................................................................................................92

9.2.4 Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................92

9.2.5 Chapter 1—Introduction .......................................................................................................................93

9.2.6 Issues.....................................................................................................................................................93

9.2.7 Chapter 2—Proposed Action and Alternatives .....................................................................................93

9.2.7.1 Reasonable Alternatives for an EIS ........................................................................................................... 94

9.2.7.2 Features Common to All Alternatives.......................................................................................................... 94

9.2.7.3 Agency Preferred Alternative....................................................................................................................... 95

9.2.8 Chapter 3—Affected Environment.........................................................................................................96

9.2.9 Chapter 4—Environmental Effects........................................................................................................96

9.2.10 Chapter 5 - Consultation and Coordination .......................................................................................97

9.2.10.1 Public Involvement and Scoping................................................................................................................ 98

9.2.10.2 List of Preparers ......................................................................................................................................... 98

9.2.11 Other Material ....................................................................................................................................98

9.3 ISSUING THE DRAFT EIS......................................................................................................................99

9.3.1 File with the EPA ..................................................................................................................................99

9.3.2 Notify the Public and Government Agencies of the Availability of the Draft EIS fo r Review 

and Comment ..................................................................................................................................99

9.3.3 Distribute the Draft EIS ......................................................................................................................100

9.3.4 Public Meetings and Hearings............................................................................................................100

9.4 THE FINAL EIS............................................................................................................................................101

9.4.1 Abbreviated Final EIS.........................................................................................................................101

9.4.2 Full Text Final EIS..............................................................................................................................101

9.5 SUPPLEMENTS TO DRAFT AND FINAL EISS ..................................................................................101

9.6 ISSUING THE FINAL EIS .....................................................................................................................102

9.6.1 Comments Received Following Issue of the Final EIS........................................................................102

9.7 ISSUING THE RECORD OF DECISION ..............................................................................................102

9.7.1 ROD Format .......................................................................................................................................103

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
TC - vi 

H-1790-1 ­ NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

9.8 TERMINATING THE EIS PROCESS..............................................................................................................104

CHAPTER 10—MONITORING ...........................................................................................................................105

10.1 PURPOSES OF AND REQUIREMENTS FOR MONITORING .........................................................105

10.2 DEVELOPING A MONITORING PLAN OR STRATEGY..................................................................106

10.3 IMPLEMENTING MONITORING ........................................................................................................107

CHAPTER 11—AGENCY REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS ...........................109

11.1 OBTAINING COMMENTS ON YOUR EIS ..........................................................................................109

11.2 COMMENTING ON ANOTHER FEDERAL AGENCY’S EIS .............................................................109

CHAPTER 12—COOPERATING AGENCIES, JOINT LEAD AGENCIES, AND ADVISORY

COMMITTEES...........................................................................................................................111

12.1 COOPERATING AGENCY STATUS IN DEVELOPMENT OF NEPA DOCUMENTS ......................111

12.1.1 When Another Agency is Cooperating in Preparation of a NEPA Analysis Document

with the BLM as a Lead ................................................................................................................112

12.1.2 When the BLM is Cooperating in Preparation of a NEPA Analysis Document 

With Another Agency as Lead.......................................................................................................112

12.1.3 Deciding Whether to be a Cooperating Agency ...............................................................................113

12.1.4 Procedures for Working as a Cooperating Agency ..........................................................................113

12.2 JOINT LEAD AGENCIES IN DEVELOPMENT OF NEPA DOCUMENTS.........................................113

12.3 WORKING WITH ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND THE FEDERAL ADVISORY 

COMMITTEE ACT.................................................................................................................................114

12.3.1 Guidance for Meeting With Groups ..................................................................................................115

12.3.2 Alternatives to Chartered Groups ....................................................................................................116

CHAPTER 13—ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES.......................................................................................117

13.1 PUBLISHING NOTICES IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER.....................................................................117

13.1.1 Procedures for Publishing Notices in the Federal Register..............................................................117

13.1.1.1 Publication Requirements......................................................................................................................... 118

13.1.1.2 Typing and Format Requirements............................................................................................................ 119

13.1.1.3 Submission Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 119

13.1.1.4 Publication Date ....................................................................................................................................... 120

13.2 PRINTING EISS......................................................................................................................................120

13.3 FILING EISS WITH THE EPA...............................................................................................................120

13.3.1 Significance of EPA Publication Dates ............................................................................................121

13.3.2 Procedures for Filing with the EPA .................................................................................................121

13.4 RECORDKEEPING PROCEDURES .....................................................................................................122

13.4.1 Environmental Documents and Supporting Records—The Administrative Record....................................... 122

13.4.2 Other Environmental Records...........................................................................................................123

13.5 CONTRACTING NEPA WORK.............................................................................................................124

CHAPTER 14—ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT...................................................................................................127

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
TC - vii 

H-1790-1 ­ NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

GLOSSARY ......................................................................................................................................................129

ACRONYMS ......................................................................................................................................................137

APPENDIX 1 SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITIES TO BE CONSIDERED......................................................139

APPENDIX 2 USING CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE ENERGY POLICY 

ACT OF 2005 ...............................................................................................................................141

APPENDIX 3 DEPARTMENTAL CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS................................................................145

APPENDIX 4 BLM CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS .......................................................................................147

APPENDIX 5 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS: EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES ..........................155

APPENDIX 6 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION DOCUMENTATION FORMAT WHEN USING 

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS NOT ESTABLISHED BY STATUTE...................................157

APPENDIX 7 DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS FOR HAZARDOUS FUELS ACTIONS

AND POST-FIRE REHABILITATION ACTIONS .....................................................................159

APPENDIX 8 WORKSHEET DETERMINATION OF NEPA ADEQUACY (DNA) .......................................161

APPENDIX 9 RECOMMENDED EA FORMAT................................................................................................165

APPENDIX 10 ITEMS TO INCLUDE IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD ................................................167

APPENDIX 11 FEDERAL REGISTER ILLUSTRATIONS.................................................................................169

FIGURES 

FIGURE 1.1 NEPA SCREENING PROCESS............................................................................................................5

FIGURE 1.2 SCREENING FOR LAND USE PLAN CONFORMANCE .................................................................7

FIGURE 6.1 THE NEPA PROCESS ........................................................................................................................34

FIGURE 6.2 DESIGN FEATURES AND MITIGATION MEASURES...................................................................44

FIGURE 8.1 EA PROCESS ......................................................................................................................................86

FIGURE 9.1 THE EIS PROCESS.............................................................................................................................91

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
TC - viii 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

This page intentionally left blank. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
TC - ix 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

HANDBOOK USER'S GUIDE 

The purpose of this Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Manual Handbook (H-1790-1) is to 

help us comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508) and the 

Department of the Interior NEPA manual. "We" (BLM) have written it for use by "you," the 

reader involved in the NEPA process. The "NEPA process" means all measures necessary for 

compliance with the requirements of the Purpose (section 2 of the Act) and the Congressional 

Declaration of National Environmental Policy (Title 1 of the Act). Meeting our NEPA 

compliance responsibilities requires help from all levels of our agency, including decisionmakers, program managers, specialists, interdisciplinary team members, and BLM contractors. 

The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions that are based on 

understanding of environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance 

the environment (40 CFR 1500.1(c)). Early chapters in this Handbook address the legal 

requirements and our analytical approach to complying with the NEPA. We then explain content 

requirements of specific types of NEPA compliance documents. 

Following the introductory material in Chapter 1, Chapters 2 through 5 address the procedural 

determinations of whether a NEPA analysis is necessary and, if so, the degree to which it may be 

already covered in an existing NEPA document. Chapter 6 identifies the essential analytical 

elements that are common to NEPA analysis, regardless of whether you are preparing an 

Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement. Chapters 7 through 9 help 

you identify whether an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement is 

needed, and describe the various sections of these documents. The remaining Chapters 11 

through 15 address monitoring, cooperating agencies, working with advisory committees, 

administrative procedures, and adaptive management. 

A requirement to meet NEPA compliance is that we encourage and facilitate public involvement 

in decisions which affect the quality of the human environment (40 CFR 1500.2(d)). 

Information relating to public participation in the NEPA process is contained primarily in 

Chapters 6, 8, 9, and 12. 

To assist you in carrying out your NEPA responsibilities, this Handbook includes references to 

documents contained in the BLM NEPA Handbook Web Guide (Web Guide). The Web Guide 

includes copies of official guidance, such as CEQ citations, and provides examples for your use 

in complying with the NEPA. For example, an interdisciplinary team preparing an EIS with 

tribal or county cooperators can review a number of sample memorandums of understanding 

(MOUs) written to identify the responsibilities of cooperating agency status. These MOUs serve 

as models, although they are not official guidance. The Web Guide also contains excerpts of 

BLM NEPA documents. Other materials include helpful ideas, tools, and techniques for making 

the NEPA process more efficient and effective and for adding clarity to the NEPA documents. 

References to the Web Guide are shown in this Handbook in blue text. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
TC - x 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

This page intentionally left blank. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 1 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

CHAPTER 1—NEPA BASICS 

General 

1.1 Introduction to the NEPA 

1.2 Departmental Guidance and this Handbook 

1.3 Documents Used to Meet NEPA Requirements 

1.4 The NEPA Approach 

1.5 Conformance with the Existing Land Use Plan 

1.6 Consistency with Other Authorities 

GENERAL 

This chapter provides an overview of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and related 

direction which is pertinent to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) planning and decisionmaking process. 

1.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEPA 

The National Environmental Policy Act was passed by Congress in 1969 and signed into law on 

January 1, 1970. This legislation established a landmark national environmental policy which, 

among other things, encourages environmental protection and informed decision-making. It 

provides the means to carry out these goals by: 

• mandating that every Federal agency prepare a detailed statement of the effects of 

“major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 

• establishing the need for agencies to consider alternatives to those actions. 

• requiring the use of an interdisciplinary process in developing alternatives and 

analyzing environmental effects. 

• requiring that each agency consult with and obtain comments of any Federal agency 

which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental 

impact involved. 

• requiring that detailed statements and the comments and views of the appropriate 

Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies be made available to the public. 

The stated purpose of the NEPA and the mission of the BLM are fully compatible. Our 

mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and 

enjoyment of present and future generations. This closely mirrors BLM's multiple use and 

sustained yield mandates under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The NEPA 

declares that the Federal government’s continuing policy is to create and maintain conditions 

under which people and nature can exist in productive harmony and fulfill the social, economic, 

and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
2 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

In addition to setting policy goals for environmental planning, the NEPA created the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ), in the Executive Office of the President, to be the “caretaker” of 

the NEPA. The CEQ issued final regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of 

NEPA (40 CFR 1500–1508) in 1978 (revised in 1986), and added to them in 1981 with a 

guidance document titled “Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s NEPA Regulations.” 

The NEPA and the CEQ regulations establish procedures to ensure proper consideration of 

environmental concerns, but they do not dictate a particular result or decision. The CEQ 

regulations also require that agencies “make diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing 

and implementing their NEPA procedures” (40 CFR 1506.6(a)). 

1.2 DEPARTMENTAL GUIDANCE AND THIS BLM HANDBOOK 

The Department of the Interior’s (DOI) NEPA policy is found in the Departmental Manual (DM) 

Part 516. Chapter 11 of the manual (516 DM 11) is specific to the BLM's management of the 

NEPA process. The DOI, through the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance (OEPC), 

also continuously updates a series of environmental statement, review, and compliance 

memoranda, which further interpret DM Part 516. 

This Handbook contains direction for use by BLM employees from all levels of our organization, 

including decision-makers, program managers, specialists, interdisciplinary team members, and 

any BLM contractors involved in the NEPA process. "We" (BLM) believe it will help "you" (the 

reader) help us in meeting the legal requirements of the NEPA. 

For more information see the BLM Planning and NEPA Library Web page. 

1.3 DOCUMENTS USED TO MEET NEPA REQUIREMENTS 

The BLM uses various types of documents to meet our NEPA requirements. Environmental 

analysis documents, which must be made available to the public, include environmental impact 

statements (EISs) and environmental assessments (EAs) (40 CFR 1506.6(b)). If a proposed 

action will have a significant environmental impact, you must prepare an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) (40 CFR 1502.1). The EIS process is initiated with publication of a notice of 

intent (NOI) and requires public scoping. Draft EISs are made available for public review and 

comment, and final EISs include our responses to comments received. You must document your 

decision on the action in a record of decision (ROD) (40 CFR 1505.2). 

If it is unclear whether the action would have a significant effect, you prepare an environmental 

assessment (EA) (40 CFR 1508.9(a)). If the analysis in an EA shows the action would not have 

a significant effect, a “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI) documents that there is no 

need for an EIS (40 CFR 1508.13). 

If the proposed action belongs to a category of actions that have no potential for significant 

environmental impacts, you may categorically exclude the action from analysis in an EA or EIS 

before deciding to implement it. To categorically exclude an action, the proposed action must fit 

within the list of statutory, Departmental, or BLM categorical exclusions (CXs) (516 DM 

2.3(A)). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 3 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

The BLM NEPA procedures also provide for the use of existing NEPA analysis documents. If a 

proposed action is adequately covered by an existing EIS or EA, then you may document a 

“Determination of NEPA Adequacy” (DNA) (516 DM 11.6). 

As NEPA analysis documents are not agency decisions, they are not subject to BLM 

administrative protest or appeal provisions. However, a decision based on a CX, an EA and 

FONSI, or an EIS is an agency action and may be protested or appealed, regardless of the type 

of NEPA compliance documentation completed. 

1.4 THE NEPA APPROACH 

As described by the CEQ regulations, the NEPA “is our basic national charter for protection of 

the environment” (40 CFR 1500.1). According to the regulations, “The NEPA process is 

intended to help public officials make decisions that are based on understanding of 

environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the 

environment” (40 CFR 1500.1(c)). Analysis and disclosure of the effects of a proposed action 

and its alternatives are the underlying NEPA principles that move agencies toward achieving this 

goal. 

Figure 1.1, "NEPA Screening Process," is a flow chart that shows our NEPA screening process. 

The NEPA process starts when the BLM has a proposal for action (see section 3.1, Determining 

When NEPA Applies). The CEQ regulations require that the NEPA process begin and be 

“integrate[d] with other planning at the earliest possible time to ensure that planning and 

decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid delays later in the process, and to head off 

potential conflicts” (40 CFR 1501.2). 

Several factors guide the timing of NEPA analysis and agency decision-making (40 CFR 1502.5 

and 1506.1). For example: 

– You must finish all of the steps necessary for completing the NEPA process prior to 

issuance of a formal decision, to enable you to make a well-informed decision (40 CFR 

1505.1(d), 40 CFR 1506.1, 516 DM 1.2(D)). 

– You must not authorize any action that would limit the choice of alternatives being analyzed 

under the NEPA until the NEPA process is complete (40 CFR 1506.1). However, this 

requirement does not apply to actions previously analyzed in a NEPA document that are 

proposed for implementation under an existing land use plan. For instance, an existing plan 

will continue to guide the BLM's processing of site-specific permits on existing oil and gas 

leases. Drilling permits, sundry notices, and similar authorizations will be allowed as long 

as the actions do not exceed limits that were delineated in the existing land use plan (LUP) 

and analyzed in the associated NEPA document. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
4 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

You must prepare NEPA analyses using an interdisciplinary approach, and the disciplines of the 

preparers must be appropriate to the scope of the analysis and to the issues identified in the 

scoping process (40 CFR 1502.6). The requirement for an interdisciplinary approach is met 

when preparer(s) consult with all appropriate sources for the analysis of affected resources. This 

may include staff from other BLM offices or other Federal or non-Federal agencies, as needed, 

to provide a rational basis for decision-making. 

The CEQ regulations require NEPA documents to be “concise, clear, and to the point” (40 CFR 

1500.2(b), 1502.4). Analyses must “focus on significant environmental issues and alternatives” 

and be useful to the decision-maker and the public (40 CFR 1500.1). Discussions of impacts are 

to be proportionate to their significance (40 CFR 1502.2(b)). Similarly, the description of the 

affected environment is to be no longer than is necessary to understand the effects of the 

alternatives (40 CFR 1502.15). “Most important, NEPA documents must concentrate on the 

issues that are truly significant to the action in question, rather than amassing needless detail.” 

(40 CFR 1500.1). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 5 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Figure 1.1 NEPA Screening Process 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
6 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

1.5 CONFORMANCE WITH THE EXISTING LAND USE PLAN 

All actions approved or authorized by the BLM must conform to the existing land use plan where 

one exists (43 CFR 1610.5-3, 516 DM 11.5). Although it is not a NEPA requirement, the BLM 

includes within all its NEPA documents a statement about the conformance of the proposed 

action and alternatives with the existing land use plan (LUP). The BLM’s planning regulations 

state that the term “conformity” or “conformance” means that “... a resource management action 

shall be specifically provided for in the plan, or if not specifically mentioned, shall be clearly 

consistent with the terms, conditions, and decisions of the approved plan or amendment” (43 

CFR 1601.0-5(b)). 

A proposal for an action that has been clearly identified and provided for in the LUP would be 

considered to be in conformance with the plan. 

If the LUP is silent about an activity, review the plan direction including the broad and 

programmatic goals and objectives. In this evaluation, there are four possible conclusions: 

1. the activity contributes to meeting plan goals and objectives and is not inconsistent with 

the plan, and hence it can be considered to be in conformance; 

2. the proposal is not in conformance, but the proposal can be modified to be in 

conformance; 

3. the proposal is not in conformance, but amendment of the LUP is warranted to allow the 

activity; or 

4. the proposal is not in conformance, and the proposal does not warrant further 

consideration through an LUP amendment. 

If you determine that the proposed action does not conform to the LUP, you may modify the 

proposal to conform, or consider a plan amendment to allow the action. In the case of 

externally-generated proposals, working with the applicant before submission of a proposed 

action to suggest modifications to their initial proposal may result in conformance with the LUP. 

When a proposal cannot be modified and does not warrant amendment of the LUP, drop the 

proposal. (See Figure 1.2, Screening for Land Use Plan Conformance). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 7 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Figure 1.2 Screening for Land Use Plan Conformance 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
8 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

1.6 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER AUTHORITIES 

In addition to the BLM’s planning regulations related to LUP conformance, there are a number 

of other authorities, such as program-specific guidance and Executive Orders, for you to 

remember when considering an action. 

We recommend that you document your compliance with other authorities at the same time that 

you document NEPA compliance. These other authorities do not constitute NEPA requirements 

for analysis, but some contain specific direction about NEPA compliance. More generally, other 

authorities may be relevant during several steps of the NEPA process. For example, other laws, 

regulations, and policies may be useful to consider in formulating the purpose and need for 

action (see section 6.2, Purpose and Need), identifying issues for analysis (see section 6.4, 

Issues), formulating alternatives (see section 6.6, Alternatives Development), identifying any 

regulatory thresholds (see section 6.8.3.5, Analyzing the Cumulative Effects), and developing 

the rationale for decision selection (see sections 8.5.1, Documenting the Decision and 9.7.1, 

ROD Format). In addition, other laws and regulations may factor into the determination of 

whether effects are significant (see section 7.3, Significance). 

The list of supplemental authorities contained in Appendix 1, Supplemental Authorities to be 

Considered, is not exhaustive and will change over time. This list is not a checklist for NEPA 

compliance, but may be consulted when developing NEPA documents. See section 6.4, Issues 

for additional guidance. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 9 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

CHAPTER 2—ACTIONS EXEMPT FROM THE NEPA AND 

EMERGENCY ACTIONS 

General 

2.1 Congressionally Exempt Actions 

2.2 Actions Mandated by Statute 

2.3 Emergency Actions 

GENERAL 

Some types of actions are or can be exempt from NEPA requirements. However, the NEPA has 

broad-reaching applicability, and situations where actions are exempt are rare. In an emergency, 

when action must be taken immediately, there are procedures for complying with the NEPA (see 

section 2.3, Emergency Actions). 

Be aware that even if an action is exempt from the NEPA or if alternative arrangement 

procedures are used, you may need to analyze that action as part of a cumulative effects analysis 

for a future action (see section 6.8.3, Cumulative Effects). 

2.1 CONGRESSIONALLY EXEMPT ACTIONS 

Some actions are congressionally exempt from NEPA compliance. This is uncommon and is 

applicable only on a case-by-case basis. Review the relevant statutory language to determine the 

extent and scope of the action being exempted. Any actions that are outside the scope of a 

statutory exemption would require appropriate NEPA analysis. An example of an action that is 

congressionally exempt from the NEPA is one where a law directs the BLM to take action, such 

as closing an area to a specific use, and the law states that the provisions of the NEPA do not 

apply. 

2.1.1 CERCLA 

It is the position of the Department of Justice that the NEPA is not applicable to cleanups 

conducted pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act, 42 U.S.C. sections 9601 et seq. (CERCLA). Requirements for environmental analysis and 

public participation during CERCLA cleanups are addressed in the CERCLA Handbook. For 

further information regarding this issue, or how it may apply at a particular site, contact the 

Office of the Solicitor. 

2.2 ACTIONS MANDATED BY STATUTE 

If the BLM is required by law to take an action, the NEPA may not be triggered. For example, 

Public Law 105-167 mandates the BLM to exchange certain mineral interests. In this situation, 

the NEPA would not apply because the law removes the BLM’s decision-making discretion. 

Also, if there is a clear and unavoidable conflict between NEPA compliance and another 

statutory authority, NEPA compliance is not required. For example, if the timing of another 

statutory authority makes NEPA compliance impossible, the NEPA is not triggered. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

10 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Be aware however, that some statutorily mandated actions do require NEPA analysis. For 

example, an Act may direct the BLM to lease a specific parcel of land, as described in the 

preceding example, yet require the BLM to comply with the provisions of the NEPA. We 

recommend that you consult with the Office of the Solicitor if there are potential conflicts 

between the NEPA and other statutory provisions. 

2.3 EMERGENCY ACTIONS 

In the event of an emergency situation, immediately take any action necessary to prevent or 

reduce risk to public health or safety, property, or important resources (516 DM 5.8). Thereafter, 

other than those actions that can be categorically excluded, the decision-maker must contact the 

BLM Washington Office, Division of Planning and Science Policy (WO-210) to outline 

subsequent actions. The CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1506.11) provide that in an emergency 

“alternative arrangements” may be established to comply with NEPA. Alternative arrangements 

do not waive the requirement to comply with NEPA, but establish an alternative means for 

compliance. 

The CEQ regulations for alternative arrangements for dealing with such emergencies are limited 

to the actions necessary to control the immediate effects of the emergency. Other portions of the 

action, follow-up actions, and related or connected actions remain subject to normal NEPA 

requirements, so you must complete appropriate NEPA analysis before these actions may be 

taken (40 CFR 1506.11). 

The “alternative arrangements” take the place of an EIS and only apply to Federal actions with 

significant environmental impacts (see section 7.3, Significance). If the proposed action does 

not have significant environmental effects, then the alternative arrangements at 40 CFR 1506.11 

do not apply. 

If you anticipate the proposed emergency response activity will have significant environmental 

effects, we recommend that you assess whether an existing NEPA analysis has been prepared 

(e.g., implementing preexisting plans) or whether there is an applicable exemption. For 

example, certain Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) response actions are exempt 

from the NEPA (see the NEPA Handbook Web Guide). 

2.3.1 Types of Emergency Actions 

The following actions are typically considered emergency actions, provided they must 

immediately be taken to protect public health and safety or important resources: 

• cleanup of a hazardous materials spill. 

• wildland fire suppression activities related to ongoing wildland fires. 

• emergency stabilization actions following wildland fires or other disasters. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 

 

 11 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Emergency stabilization actions that are not immediately needed to protect public health and 

safety or important resources must undergo normal NEPA procedures (40 CFR 1506.11). 

Generally, follow-up actions such as fire rehabilitation, abandoned mine land reclamation, or 

flood cleanup are not considered emergency actions. 

2.3.2 Procedures for Emergency Actions 

2.3.2.1 Wildfire Suppression Actions 

You must take immediate action to manage all wildfires consistent with land use and fire 

management plans. The BLM Washington Office will consult with the OEPC on an annual basis 

to discuss anticipated fire suppression activities for the upcoming fire season and any changes in 

fire suppression standards and operating procedures. The OEPC will consult with the CEQ, as 

appropriate. Prescribed fire projects are not considered wildfire suppression activities, and must 

undergo normal NEPA procedures (40 CFR 1506.11). 

2.3.2.2 Emergency Actions other than Wildfire Suppression 

You must take immediate action to prevent or reduce risk to public health or safety or important 

resources (516 DM 5.8). Thereafter, other than those actions that can be categorically excluded, 

you must contact the BLM Washington Office (WO-210) to outline subsequent actions. We 

recommend that you address the following factors when contacting WO-210 in the event of an 

emergency situation: 

• nature and scope of the emergency. 

• actions necessary to control the immediate effects of the emergency. 

• potential adverse effects of the proposed action. 

• components of the NEPA process that can be followed and that provide value to 

decision-making (e.g., coordination with affected agencies and the public). 

• duration of the emergency. 

• potential mitigation measures. 

The BLM WO-210 will expedite the necessary consultation with the Office of the Solicitor, the 

OEPC, and the CEQ for those emergency actions anticipated to have significant environmental 

impacts. Once alternative arrangements have been established, the CEQ will provide 

documentation describing the alternative arrangements and the considerations on which they are 

based. During any follow-up activities, the OEPC and the BLM will jointly be responsible for 

consulting with the CEQ. If the BLM action is not expected to have significant environmental 

impacts, contact the BLM WO-210. The BLM WO-210 will consult with the OEPC to consider 

any appropriate action. The Web Guide provides WO-210 contact information, including nonduty hour procedures. Also, see 516 DM 5.8 for guidance on emergencies. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
12 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

When time permits, actions that are not categorically excluded and that are not expected to have 

significant environmental effects can be analyzed with an environmental assessment. We 

recommend that you use the techniques described throughout this handbook to prepare a focused, 

concise, and timely environmental assessment: 

• narrowly focus the purpose and need. 

• limit alternatives to those that would achieve the purpose and need. 

• if there is consensus about the proposed action, do not analyze in detail the no action or 

other action alternatives. 

• tailor public involvement and use informal scoping (telephone calls, on-site discussions 

with affected parties) to identify issues of concern. 

• limit the analysis to issues of concern. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 13 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

CHAPTER 3—ACTIONS REQUIRING NEPA COMPLIANCE 

General 

3.1 Determining When the NEPA Applies 

3.2 Proposals Originating Within the BLM 

3.3 Proposals Submitted to the BLM by Other Entities 

GENERAL 

The NEPA process is initiated when a proposal for Federal action exists. The sections of this 

chapter discuss when the NEPA applies for various types of proposals that the BLM considers. 

3.1 DETERMINING WHEN THE NEPA APPLIES 

A proposal for Federal action triggers the NEPA. The CEQ regulations define major Federal 

actions to include adoption of official policy (that is, rules and regulations), adoption of formal 

plans, adoption of programs, and approval of specific projects (40 CFR 1508.18). The NEPA 

process is initiated when a proposal has been developed by, or submitted to the BLM. 

Identification of existing conditions and of possible actions does not trigger the NEPA. 

A BLM proposal is a Federal action when: (1) we have a goal and are actively preparing to 

make a decision on one or more alternative means of accomplishing that goal (40 CFR 

1508.23); (2) the proposed action and effects are subject to BLM control and responsibility 

(40 CFR 1508.18); (3) the action has effects that can be meaningfully evaluated (40 CFR 

1508.23); and (4) effects of the proposed action are related to the natural and physical 

environment, and the relationship of people with that environment (40 CFR 1508.8; 40 CFR 

1508.14). 

As a Federal agency, the BLM must meet NEPA requirements whenever it is the BLM's decision 

that would result in an effect on the human environment, even when the effect would be 

beneficial and regardless of who proposes the action or where it would take place (40 CFR 

1508.18). 

3.2 PROPOSALS ORIGINATING WITHIN THE BLM 

The BLM develops land use plans and proposes or approves actions to implement those plans. 

The BLM land use plans (LUP) require preparation of an EIS. Amendments of LUPs require an 

EA or EIS. The BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) provides additional guidance 

for complying with the NEPA for planning actions and implementation actions. Examples of 

implementation actions are construction of trails; timber sales; fuels reduction projects; and 

development of camping sites. Implementation actions require preparation of an EA or EIS, 

unless the action can be categorically excluded (see section 4.2.1, Identifying Potential 

Categorical Exclusions). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

14 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Internal BLM projects are held to the same NEPA analysis requirements as externallygenerated projects. It is important not to overlook the analysis requirements of any BLMinitiated projects, including such relatively low-impact actions as approving a buried 

powerline in a previously disturbed area or installing a wildlife guzzler. 

3.2.1 Policies and Rulemaking 

Federal actions include “Adoption of official policy, such as rules, regulations, and 

interpretations ...” (40 CFR 1508.18(b)(1)). When we propose a policy, we must evaluate it to 

determine whether it is a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 

environment, and thus triggers the need to prepare an EIS (40 CFR 1502.4(b)). This evaluation 

involves a three part test to determine whether the following apply: the action must (1) be 

federally approved or conducted, (2) major, and (3) have a significant environmental impact. 

However, it is not always as clear whether a proposed policy will affect the human environment. 

The BLM must evaluate if the proposed action would authorize any activity or commit any 

resources, thus affecting the human environment (40 CFR 1508.18). 

Adoption of official policy of an administrative, financial, legal, technical or procedural nature is 

often too broad, speculative, or conjectural to allow for a meaningful analysis. Such actions may 

be categorically excluded (see Appendix 3, Departmental Categorical Exclusions, CX #1.10). 

An example of a categorically excluded procedural action is the BLM’s proposed revision of our 

Departmental NEPA Manual chapter (516 DM chapter 11; Federal Register, January 25, 2006). 

Departmental policy requires that all rulemaking documents be published in the Federal Register 

for public comment, and that the notice include a Record of Compliance with a statement 

whether the proposed policy would or would not constitute a major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human environment (318 DM 4). This statement may be supported 

by: 

• an EIS; 

• an EA and FONSI; 

• an explanation that the action is categorically excluded; or 

• an explanation that the action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human environment, and a detailed statement under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is not required. 

An example of rulemaking that required preparation of an EIS is revision to our grazing 

regulations is found at 43 CFR part 4100 (Federal Register, December 8, 2003 and July 12, 

2006). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 

 15 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

3.2.2 Land Use Plan (LUP) Development 

Sections 201 and 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA, 43 

U.S.C. 1711-1712) and regulations in 43 CFR part 1600 establish BLM land use planning 

requirements. The BLM LUPs are designed to provide guidance for future management actions 

and the development of subsequent, more detailed and limited-scope plans for resources and 

uses. The BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) provides supplemental guidance for 

preparing, revising, amending and maintaining LUPs. Land use plans include both resource 

management plans (RMPs) and management framework plans (MFPs). 

Development of a new plan (including replacement of a MFP with an RMP) requires preparation 

of an EIS, as does revision of an existing LUP (43 CFR 1601.0-6). An existing plan may be 

amended to make changes in the terms, conditions and decision of an approved plan. The 

amendment process is tailored to the anticipated level of public interest and potential for 

significant impacts, and requires preparation of an EA or EIS. An example of an EA-level LUP 

amendment is to establish or adjust a herd management area on public lands used by wild 

horses, in accordance with the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971. Actions to 

maintain LUPs usually may be categorically excluded (see section 4.2.1, Identifying Potential 

Categorical Exclusions). 

3.3 PROPOSALS SUBMITTED TO THE BLM BY OTHER ENTITIES 

Other entities who submit proposals include applicants for use or development of resources on 

lands administered by the BLM. Other entities include non-Federal organizations and 

individuals, other Federal, State and local agencies, and tribal entities. As part of considering a 

proposal submitted to the BLM by others, the decision-maker must determine if it is in 

conformance with the LUP (43 CFR 1610.5-3, 516 DM 11.5) and what level or type of NEPA 

documentation is required (see section 1.3 Documents Used to Meet NEPA Requirements). The 

following are some examples of proposals from outside the BLM: 

• applications for a permit to drill, a special recreation permit, a right-of-way grant, or 

a grazing authorization 

• a proposal by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to control grasshoppers 

on lands administered by the BLM. 

• a proposal from a State wildlife agency for the BLM to cooperate in restoring wildlife 

habitat. 

3.3.1 Proposals for the BLM to Fund Actions 

Whenever the BLM receives a proposal to fund projects on public lands that we manage, the 

NEPA is triggered. Occasionally, the BLM has funds to distribute to non-Federal entities to 

perform work on lands not administered by the BLM. If the BLM exercises control over the 

implementation of the action such that the effect can be meaningfully evaluated, NEPA analysis 

is required. If the BLM distributes the funds according to a predetermined formula or through a 

State clearing house for subsequent distribution to projects not individually identified, then the 

NEPA is not triggered. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

16 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

For example, the BLM has a cooperative agreement with a State agency to fund fuel reduction 

projects on private or State lands. If the cooperative agreement describes the criteria to select 

the projects but leaves the specifics of project selection to the State agency, then the NEPA is not 

triggered. On the other hand, if the BLM is making a decision to fund or not fund a specific 

project on lands not administered by the BLM, then NEPA is triggered. 

3.3.2 Proposals Involving Mineral Estate 

Where the BLM manages both surface resources and subsurface resources, any proposal to 

develop locatable or leaseable mineral resources triggers the NEPA. Where the BLM does not 

manage both surface and subsurface resources (split estate), whether or not a proposal requires 

NEPA compliance depends on the specific situation. 

– Proposals where the BLM manages the subsurface resources and another Federal agency 

manages the surface. The NEPA is triggered by a proposal to develop the subsurface resource. 

The BLM must establish a cooperating agency relationship with the other Federal agency (see 

section 12.1, Cooperating Agency Status in Development of NEPA Analysis Documents). 

– Proposals where the BLM manages the subsurface resources and the surface is non-Federal. 

On split estate lands where the reserved Federal minerals are open to leasing or location (location 

is the act of staking a mining claim under the General Mining Law), the NEPA is triggered by an 

operator or mining claimant’s proposal to explore for or develop the subsurface resource. The 

BLM is responsible for NEPA compliance, and you must document effects on surface and 

subsurface resources (40 CFR 1508.8). An exception to this policy refers to Stock Raising 

Homestead Act lands and applies only when the surface owner and the mining claimant are the 

same party (IM 2005-114; 43 CFR 3809). 

– Proposals where the BLM manages the surface and the subsurface is non-Federal. As with 

any proposal, the NEPA is triggered by a request for the BLM to authorize surface disturbance. 

For example, the BLM is responsible for documenting NEPA compliance for an access road 

right-of-way application, regardless of the use for which the access is requested. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 17 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

CHAPTER 4—CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS 

General 

4.1 Categorical Exclusions Established by the Energy Policy Act 

4.2 Categorical Exclusions Established by the Department of the Interior or the BLM 

GENERAL 

Categorical exclusions (CXs) are categories of actions that Federal agencies have determined do 

not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (individually or 

cumulatively) and for which, therefore, neither an EA nor an EIS is required (40 CFR 1508.4). 

A CX is a form of NEPA compliance, without the analysis that occurs in an EA or an EIS. It is 

not an exemption from the NEPA. 

When using CXs, other procedural requirements 

may still apply: for example, tribal consultation, 

and consultation under the National Historic 

Preservation Act and the Endangered Species Act. 

While use of a CX is not subject to protest or 

appeal, a decision on the action being taken may be subject to protest and appeal. Consult 

program-specific guidance and include applicable protest and appeal provisions with the 

documentation of the decision on the action. See the NEPA Handbook Web Guide for programspecific protest and appeal information. 

You are encouraged to apply 

categorical exclusions, where 

appropriate, because they speed 

NEPA compliance (40 CFR 

1500.5(k). 

If there is high public interest in an action that will be categorically excluded, you may elect to 

involve the public (for example, through notification or scoping). Public involvement may be 

valuable in determining whether extraordinary circumstances apply. There may be programspecific guidance for public notification of the decision. Even if there is no program-specific 

guidance, you may elect to provide public notification of a decision based on a CX, depending 

on the public interest in the action. 

Though not required, you may elect to prepare an EA for proposed actions otherwise excluded 

when the decision-maker believes that an EA would be helpful in planning or decision-making 

(40 CFR 1501.3 and 516 DM 3.2(B)). We recommend that you include in the NEPA document 

the rationale for completing an EA when a CX could be used. 

Guidance for the use of CXs differs for some specific CXs as described below. 

4.1 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE ENERGY POLICY ACT 

Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 established five statutory CXs that apply only to 

oil and gas exploration and development pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act. The CXs do not 

apply to geothermal actions. These CXs are listed in Appendix 2, Using Categorical 

Exclusions Established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

18 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

The decision-maker must include in the well file or case file a brief rationale as to why one or 

more Energy Act CXs apply. No other documentation for application of Energy Act CXs is 

required. These CXs are different in application from the Departmental CXs and the BLM nonEnergy Act CXs. Energy Policy Act CXs do not require review for extraordinary circumstances. 

This is because these CXs are established by statute, and their application is governed by that 

statute. However, other procedural requirements still apply, such as consultation under the 

Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act. 

Issue a decision document for the proposed activity. Apply environmental best management 

practices (BMPs) and other suitable mitigation measures to permit approvals in accordance with 

current national policy. Best Management Practices or conditions of approval can be 

implemented with a CX and do not require additional NEPA documentation. 

Detailed guidance for using these statutory CXs is described in Appendix 2, Using Categorical 

Exclusions Established by the Energy Policy Act 2005. 

4.2. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR OR THE BLM 

This section outlines procedures for using categorical exclusions established by the Department 

of the Interior or the BLM in accordance with CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.4). 

4.2.1 Identifying Potential Categorical Exclusions 

Verify that the proposed action fits within one of the Departmental CXs (Appendix 3, 

Departmental Categorical Exclusions) or a BLM CX (Appendix 4, BLM Categorical 

Exclusions). Both the Departmental and BLM lists of CXs need to be reviewed to determine if 

the proposed action falls into one of the listed categories, as the two lists are not the same. 

Some proposed actions may fit within more than one CX. In determining the appropriate CX to 

use, select the CX that most closely matches the objectives of the proposed action and is the most 

specific. 

Several CXs include acreage limitations (Appendix 3, Departmental Categorical Exclusions 

and Appendix 4, BLM Categorical Exclusions). Where multiple treatments are proposed, for 

instance, consider the total area treated, rather than adding together overlapping acreage of 

different treatments. For example, the BLM CX for vegetation treatment (see Appendix 4, BLM 

Categorical Exclusions) includes an acreage limitation of 1000 acres for vegetation 

management projects other than prescribed fire. A proposed action of invasive plant removal on 

600 acres, followed by mechanical cutting on 500 overlapping acres does not exceed the 1000-

acre limitation. If the mechanical cutting were proposed on 500 acres that did not overlap with 

the 600 acres of invasive plant removal, the proposed action would exceed the 1000-acre 

limitation. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 

 

 19 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

4.2.2 Determining if an Extraordinary Circumstance Precludes Use of a Categorical 

Exclusion 

Extraordinary circumstances preclude the use of a Departmental or BLM CX. Extraordinary 

circumstances are those circumstances for which the Department has determined that further 

environmental analysis is required for an action, and therefore an EA or EIS must be prepared 

(516 DM 2.3(A)(3)). All categorically excluded actions must be subjected to sufficient review to 

determine if any of the extraordinary circumstances apply (see Appendix 5, Categorical 

Exclusions: Extraordinary Circumstances). 

If any extraordinary circumstances apply, an EA or EIS must be prepared (516 DM 2.3(A)(3)). 

While there is no requirement for an interdisciplinary process or public involvement when 

reviewing whether extraordinary circumstances apply, the decision-maker may choose to do so. 

If any of the extraordinary circumstances apply to the proposed action, determine whether the 

proposal can be modified to alleviate or resolve the circumstances that are considered 

extraordinary. If this can be done, and if applicable, the proponent agrees to the change, then the 

proposed action may be modified and categorically excluded. If the proposed action cannot be 

modified or the proponent refuses to accept a proposed change, prepare an EA or EIS. If an 

extraordinary circumstance indicates there are significant effects, then an EIS must be prepared 

(516 DM 4) (see section 7.2, Actions Requiring an EIS). 

Some actions may require considerable review to determine whether any extraordinary 

circumstances apply. For example, a significant impact on a threatened or endangered species is 

an extraordinary circumstance (see Appendix 5, Categorical Exclusions: Extraordinary 

Circumstances). It might be readily determined that an action would have some effect on a 

threatened or endangered species (which would not necessarily constitute an extraordinary 

circumstance). Determining whether that effect would be significant might require considerable 

review. If there is uncertainty about whether one or more of the extraordinary circumstances 

apply, we recommend that you prepare an EA to determine whether an EIS is required. 

If none of the extraordinary circumstances apply to the proposed action (or modified action), 

then it may be categorically excluded. 

4.2.3 Documentation Requirements 

4.2.3.1 Documentation Requirements When Using Hazardous Fuels and Post-Fire 

Rehabilitation CXs 

Categorical exclusions for hazardous fuels and post-fire rehabilitation (see Appendix 3, 

Departmental Categorical Exclusions, #1.12 and #1.13) have specific documentation 

requirements. The OEPC requires you to prepare a specific memorandum documenting the use 

of these two categorical exclusions and documenting the decision to implement the proposed 

project (DM ESM 03-2). The documentation must follow the template provided in Appendix 7, 

Documentation Requirements for Hazardous Fuels Actions and Post-Fire Rehabilitation 

Actions. You must include this document in the case or project file. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

20 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

4.2.3.2 Documentation Requirements When Using CXs Not Established by Statute 

For most actions that are categorically excluded, we recommend that you document which 

categorical exclusion applies. Documentation would often not be necessary for: 

• Actions that have no environmental effect (for example, personnel actions (516 DM 2, 

Appendix 1 (1.1)) or routine financial transactions (516 DM 2 Appendix 1, (1.3))). 

• Actions that have negligible environmental effect (for example, nondestructive data 

collection (516 DM 2, Appendix 1 (1.6)) or installation of routine signs and markers 

(516 DM 11.9 (G.2))). The NEPA Handbook Web Guide provides additional 

examples and discussion. 

If you document which categorical exclusion applies, you must use the form provided in 

Appendix 6, Categorical Exclusion Documentation Format When Using Categorical 

Exclusions Not Established by Statute. This form must be included in the case or project file. 

This form does not constitute a decision document, and you must issue a decision document that 

meets program specific guidance. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 21 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

CHAPTER 5—USING EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES 

General 

5.1 Determination of NEPA Adequacy 

5.2 Incorporation by Reference and Tiering 

5.3 Supplementing an EIS 

5.4 Adopting Another Agency’s NEPA Analyses 

GENERAL 

You may use existing environmental analyses to analyze effects associated with a proposed 

action, when doing so would build on work that has already been done, avoid redundancy, and 

provide a coherent and logical record of the analytical and decision-making process. 

Address the following questions before using existing environmental analyses: 

• Have any relevant environmental analyses related to the proposed action been prepared 

(for example, LUP/EIS, programmatic EIS)? 

• Who prepared or cooperated in the preparation of the analyses (i.e., the BLM or 

another agency)? 

• Do any of the existing analyses fully analyze the proposed actions, alternatives, and 

effects? 

• Are there new circumstances or information that have arisen since the original analysis 

was conducted? 

The answers to these questions will determine the degree to which you might rely on the existing 

NEPA analyses. Use of existing analyses may range from considering them as the basis for 

decision-making (following a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) or adoption of another 

agency’s NEPA analysis); using components of them (through tiering or incorporation by 

reference); or supplementing them with new analysis. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

22 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

5.1 DETERMINATION OF NEPA ADEQUACY 

A Determination of NEPA Adequacy confirms that an action is adequately analyzed 

in existing NEPA document(s) and is in conformance with the land use plan. 

Not all new proposed actions will require new environmental analysis. In some instances an 

existing environmental analysis document may be relied upon in its entirety, and new NEPA 

analysis will not be necessary (516 DM 11.6). The following are examples of some of the 

typical situations in which an existing environmental analysis might be relied upon in its entirety. 

– An applicant requests a special recreation permit for a 4-wheel vehicle race on an 

established route, which is analyzed in an EA, selected in a decision document, and 

implemented. Later, another applicant requests a special recreation permit for a 

motorcycle race on the same route. Review the existing EA to determine if it adequately 

addresses this similar action and if new information and resource concerns have arisen. 

– A proposed action for a landscape-scale timber harvest project is analyzed in an EIS and 

selected in a ROD. For implementation of a subsequent individual timber sale developed 

consistent with the ROD, review the EIS to determine if its analysis adequately addresses 

the specific effects of the individual timber sale. 

You may also use the DNA to evaluate new circumstances or information prior to issuance of a 

decision to determine whether you need to prepare a new or supplemental analysis (see section 

5.3, Supplementing an EIS). For example: 

A proposed action to construct a road is analyzed in an EIS, but a decision is delayed for 

several years until funding becomes available. Before reaching a decision, review the 

existing EIS to determine if it is still adequate in light of new information and resource 

concerns that may have arisen in the intervening years. 

To determine if existing documents are adequate, identify and review each relevant 

environmental document, as described below. 

5.1.1 Identifying Existing Environmental Documents 

A new proposed action may rely on a single or multiple existing NEPA documents. The NEPA 

documents that may be relevant include: 

• EISs associated with BLM Resource Management Plans. 

• EISs or EAs associated with Resource Management Plan Amendments. 

• EISs or EAs on BLM programmatic actions. 

• EISs or EAs associated with BLM activity plans, projects, or permit approval actions. 

• EISs or EAs prepared by other agencies, including those on programmatic, land use, 

and activity or project-specific plans or actions, with the BLM as a cooperating agency. 

• EISs or EAs prepared by other agencies without the BLM as a cooperating agency. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 23 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

If the existing document is an EIS or EA prepared by another agency, the BLM must adopt the 

EIS or EA in order to use it for NEPA compliance. Follow the procedures for adoption rather 

than a DNA (see section 5.4, Adopting Another Agency’s NEPA Analyses). 

5.1.2 Reviewing Existing Environmental Documents 

Review existing environmental documents and answer the following questions to determine 

whether they adequately cover a proposed action currently under consideration: 

• Is the new proposed action a feature of, or essentially similar to, an alternative analyzed 

in the existing NEPA document(s)? Is the project within the same analysis area, or if 

the project location is different, are the geographic and resource conditions sufficiently 

similar to those analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s)? If there are differences, 

can you explain why they are not substantial? 

• Is the range of alternatives analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s) appropriate with 

respect to the new proposed action, given current environmental concerns, interests, and 

resource values? 

• Is the existing analysis valid in light of any new information or circumstances (such as 

rangeland health standard assessments, recent endangered species listings, updated lists 

of BLM-sensitive species)? Can you reasonably conclude that new information and 

new circumstances would not substantially change the analysis of the new proposed 

action? 

• Are the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would result from implementation of 

the new proposed action similar (both quantitatively and qualitatively) to those analyzed 

in the existing NEPA document? 

We recommend that your answers be substantive and detailed and contain specific citations to 

the existing EA or EIS (see section 5.1.3, Document the Review). If you answer “yes” to all of 

the above questions, additional analysis will not be necessary. If you answer “no” to any of the 

above questions, a new EA or EIS must be prepared (516 DM 11.6). However, it may still be 

appropriate to tier to or incorporate by reference from the existing EA or EIS or supplement the 

existing EIS (provided that the Federal action has not yet been implemented). 

In addition to answering the above questions, evaluate whether the public involvement and 

interagency review associated with existing EAs or EISs are adequate for the new proposed 

action. In general, where the new proposed action has not already been discussed during public 

involvement for the existing EA or EIS, some additional public involvement for the new 

proposed action will be necessary. For example, 

In the example above of a permit for a motorcycle race relying on the existing EA prepared 

for a 4-wheel vehicle race on the same route, provide some additional public involvement 

prior a decision on the permit, unless the public involvement for the EA specifically 

discussed the motorcycle race. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

24 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

In the example above of a timber sale relying on the existing EIS for a landscape-scale 

timber harvest project, provide some additional public involvement prior a decision on the 

timber sale, unless the public involvement for the EIS specifically described the individual 

timber sale. 

In the example above of a decision on road construction delayed after preparation of an 

EIS, additional public involvement may or may not be necessary depending on the new 

information or resource concerns that may have arisen. Evaluate whether additional public 

involvement would assist in determining whether the existing EIS is still adequate for the 

action. 

If you conclude that additional public involvement is necessary, the type of public involvement 

is at the discretion of the decision-maker. Public involvement may include any of the following: 

external scoping, public notification before or during your review of the existing EA or EIS, 

public meetings, or public notification or review of a completed DNA Worksheet (see section 

5.1.3, Document the Review). 

Some actions may be appropriate to implement with either a DNA or CX. When the new 

proposed action is clearly a feature of an action analyzed in an existing NEPA document and the 

existing analysis remains valid, a DNA would generally be preferable to using a CX, because a 

DNA would rely on a NEPA analysis to support decision making. 

5.1.3 Document the Review 

The DNA worksheet is not itself a NEPA document. The DNA worksheet documents the review 

to determine whether the existing NEPA documents can satisfy the NEPA requirements for the 

proposed action currently under consideration. The DNA worksheet can be found in Appendix 

8, Worksheet [for] Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA). 

When relying on an existing environmental analysis for a new proposed action, we recommend 

that you document the review using the DNA worksheet. 

When evaluating new circumstances or information prior to issuance of a decision, as described 

in section 5.1, Determination of NEPA Adequacy, you may document your review using the 

DNA worksheet or in other documents, such as decision documentation or responses to 

comments. The Web Guide contains examples of completed DNA worksheets. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 25 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

5.1.4 FONSIs, Decisions, Protests, and Appeals 

If the new proposed action is a feature of the selected alternative analyzed in an existing EA, you 

do not need to prepare a new FONSI because the existing FONSI already made the finding that 

the selected alternative would have no significant effects. However, you must prepare a new 

FONSI before reaching a decision if the new proposed action is: 

1. essentially similar to, but not specifically a feature of, the selected alternative 

2. a feature of, or essentially similar to, an alternative that was analyzed in the EA or EIS, 

but was not selected. 

Be sure to evaluate whether the new FONSI must be made available for public review before 

reaching a decision (see section 8.4.2, The Finding of No Significant Impact). 

The DNA worksheet is not a decision document. For a new action for which a DNA has been 

prepared, you usually must prepare decision documentation consistent with program-specific 

guidance. 

There may be program-specific guidance for public notification of decisions. Even if there is no 

program-specific guidance, you may elect to provide public notification of a decision based on a 

DNA, depending on the public interest in the action and the public involvement that was 

provided for the existing NEPA analysis. 

The signed conclusion in the DNA worksheet is an interim step in the BLM’s internal review 

process and does not constitute an appealable decision. The decision on the action being 

implemented may be subject to protest or appeal under 43 CFR Part 4 and program-specific 

regulations. See the Web Guide for examples of DNA-level decisions. 

5.2 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE AND TIERING 

Incorporation by reference and tiering provide opportunities to reduce paperwork and redundant 

analysis in the NEPA process. When incorporating by reference, you refer to other available 

documents that cover similar issues, effects and/or resources considered in the NEPA analysis 

you are currently preparing. Incorporation by reference allows you to briefly summarize the 

relevant portions of these other documents rather than repeat them. 

Tiering is a form of incorporation by reference that refers to previous EAs or EISs. 

Incorporation by reference is a necessary step in tiering, but tiering is not the same as 

incorporation by reference. Tiering allows you to narrow the scope of the subsequent analysis, 

and focus on issues that are ripe for decision-making, while incorporation by reference does not. 

You may only tier to EAs or EISs, whereas you may incorporate by reference from any type of 

document. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

26 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

5.2.1 Incorporation by Reference 

The CEQ regulations direct that: 

Agencies shall incorporate material into an environmental impact statement by reference 

when the effect will be to cut down on bulk without impeding agency and public review 

of the action. The incorporated material shall be cited in the statement and its content 

briefly described. No material may be incorporated by reference unless it is reasonably 

available for inspection by potentially interested parties within the time allowed for 

comment. Material based on proprietary data which is itself not available for review and 

comment shall not be incorporated by reference (40 CFR 1502.21). 

Incorporation by reference is useful in preparing both EAs and EISs. It involves two steps: 

citation and summarization. 

1. Cite the source of the incorporated material. Give the name of the document and page 

numbers where the incorporated material can be found. Make this citation as specific as 

possible so there is no ambiguity for the reader about what material is being incorporated. 

If unpublished, state where cited material is available. 

2. Summarize the incorporated material. Briefly describe the content of the incorporated 

material and place it in the context of the NEPA document at hand. For example, if 

analysis is incorporated by reference from one NEPA document into another, summarize 

the previous analysis, and explain what you conclude based on that previous analysis and 

how it relates to the action in question. The summary of the incorporated material must 

be sufficient to allow the decision-maker and other readers to follow the analysis and 

arrive at a conclusion. 

If a document incorporated by reference is central to the analysis in the EIS, circulate the 

document for comment as part of the draft. For example, circulate incorporated material with the 

draft EIS if it provides the bulk of the analysis, or it addresses effects which are highly 

controversial, or if it is likely to provide a basis for the decision (see section 9.7.1, ROD 

Format). In such instances, it may be more appropriate to attach the material as an appendix 

rather than incorporate it by reference. 

Any material may be incorporated by reference, including non-NEPA documents, as long as the 

material is reasonably available for public inspection. There are many ways to make 

incorporated material available for public inspection, such as mailing the material upon request 

or posting the material on the Internet. At a minimum, incorporated material must be available 

for inspection in the applicable BLM office. If the material is not or cannot be made reasonably 

available, it cannot be incorporated by reference. For example, privileged data that are not 

readily available (such as some seismic data, company financial data, cultural inventories) may 

be referenced, but not incorporated by reference. Instead, summarize the information as fully as 

possible with mention that the privileged information is not available for public review. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 27 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

In addition, other material may be simply referenced in a NEPA document, without being 

incorporated by reference. Without following the above procedures for incorporation by 

reference, such material would not be made part of the NEPA document. It may be appropriate to 

simply reference material when it provides additional information for the reader, but is not 

essential to the analysis. If such referenced material is otherwise reasonably available (such as 

published material including books or journal or newspaper articles), you do not need to make it 

available for inspection at the BLM office. If any such material is essential to the analysis in the 

NEPA document, incorporate it by reference as described above. See the Web Guide for an 

example of incorporation by reference. 

5.2.2 Tiering 

Tiering is using the coverage of general matters in broader NEPA documents in subsequent, 

narrower NEPA documents (40 CFR 1508.28, 40 CFR 1502.20). This allows the tiered NEPA 

document to narrow the range of alternatives and concentrate solely on the issues not already 

addressed. Tiering is appropriate when the analysis for the proposed action will be a more sitespecific or project-specific refinement or extension of the existing NEPA document. 

Before you tier to a NEPA document, evaluate the broader NEPA document to determine if it 

sufficiently analyzed site-specific effects and considered the current proposed action. If so, a 

DNA will be more appropriate than a subsequent, tiered NEPA document (see section 5.1, 

Determination of NEPA Adequacy). 

When preparing a tiered NEPA document: 

1. state that it is tiered to another NEPA document; 

2. describe the NEPA document to which it is tiered; and 

3. incorporate by reference the relevant portions of the NEPA document to which it is 

tiered (cite and summarize, as described in section 5.2.1, Incorporation by Reference). 

You may tier to a NEPA document for a broader action when the narrower action is clearly 

consistent with the decision associated with the broader action. In the tiered document, you do 

not need to reexamine alternatives analyzed in the broader document. Focus the tiered document 

on those issues and mitigation measures specifically relevant to the narrower action but not 

analyzed in sufficient detail in the broader document. 

Tiering can be particularly useful in the context of the cumulative impact analysis. A 

programmatic EIS will often analyze the typical effects anticipated as a result of the individual 

actions that make up a program, as well as the total effects of the overall program. An EA 

prepared in support of an individual action can be tiered to the programmatic EIS. You may 

prepare an EA for an action with significant effects, whether direct, indirect or cumulative, if the 

EA is tiered to a broader EIS which fully analyzed those significant effects. Tiering to the 

programmatic EIS would allow the preparation of an EA and FONSI for the individual action, so 

long as the remaining effects of the individual action are not significant. If there are new 

circumstances or information that would result in significant effects of an individual action not 

considered in the EIS, tiering to the EIS cannot provide the necessary analysis to support a 

FONSI for the individual action (see sections 7.1, Actions Requiring an EA, and 8.4.2, The 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
28 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Note that in some instances, a broader EIS might fully analyze significant effects on some 

resources affected by the individual action, but not all resources. The tiered EA for the 

individual action need not re-analyze the effects on resources fully analyzed in the broader EIS, 

but may instead focus on the effects of the individual action not analyzed in the broader EIS. 

The FONSI for such an individual action could rely on the analysis in the broader EIS as well as 

the tiered EA, and would explain which parts of the EIS it is relying upon. An EIS would need 

to be prepared for the individual action only if there are significant effects that have not been 

analyzed in the broader EIS. 

For example: 

If an LUP EIS analyzed the effects of a typical individual juniper control project and the 

total effects of a juniper control program, an individual juniper control project implemented 

as part of that overall program would generally be expected to have no significant effects, 

beyond those already analyzed in the LUP EIS. 

In such instances, focus the EA on determining if, and how, any new circumstances or 

information would change the effects anticipated by the EIS. The EA in such instances may also 

consider mitigation of effects analyzed in the EA or already analyzed in the broader EIS, 

including reducing or avoiding effects that are not significant. 

The following are examples of some of the typical situations in which tiering is appropriate. 

– LUP/EIS tiered to a programmatic EIS: tiering the analysis of a proposed grazing program 

in an LUP to the programmatic EIS for regulations for the fundamentals of rangeland 

health. Tiering to the programmatic EIS would allow the LUP EIS to exclude alternatives 

that would establish grazing at levels that would not achieve the fundamentals of rangeland 

health. 

– Activity Plan NEPA document tiered to a LUP/EIS: tiering an allotment management plan 

EA to the analysis in the LUP/EIS that analyzed the effects of the livestock management 

objectives and management actions for the area. Tiering to the LUP EIS would allow the 

allotment management plan EA to exclude alternatives that would set grazing levels 

different than those established in the LUP EIS. 

– Project-specific NEPA document tiered to Activity Plan NEPA: tiering an EA for building a 

fence to an allotment management plan EA. (Note that this action may sometimes be 

appropriate with a DNA, as described in Sec. 5.1.) If the allotment management plan 

decided to use fencing, as opposed to reducing grazing levels, to exclude cows from 

riparian areas, tiering to the allotment management plan EA would allow the fence EA to 

exclude alternatives that would reduce grazing levels to reduce riparian impacts. 

– Project-specific NEPA document tiered to a LUP/EIS: in the absence of an allotment 

management plan, tiering an EA for building a fence to the general analysis of fencing in 

the grazing section of the LUP/EIS. (Note that this action may sometimes be appropriate 

with a DNA, as described in section 5.1, Determination of NEPA Adequacy). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 29 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

5.3 SUPPLEMENTING AN EIS 

“Supplementation” has a particular meaning in the NEPA context. The Supreme Court has 

explained that supplementation of an EIS is necessary only if there remains major Federal action 

to occur. (See Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004)). In the case of 

a land use plan, implementation of the Federal action is the signing of a Record of Decision. 

You must prepare a supplement to a draft or final EIS if, after circulation of a draft or final EIS 

but prior to implementation of the Federal action: 

• you make substantial changes to the proposed action that are relevant to environmental 

concerns (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)(i)); 

• you add a new alternative that is outside the spectrum of alternatives already analyzed 

(see Question 29b,CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA 

Regulations, March 23, 1981); or 

• there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental 

concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its effects (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)(ii)). 

A supplemental EIS must provide a basis for rational decision-making and give the public and 

other agencies an opportunity to review and comment on the analysis of the changes or new 

information (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(4)). Supplementing is used to meet the purposes of the NEPA as 

efficiently as possible, avoiding redundancy in the process. 

Supplementation is a process applied only to draft and final EISs, not EAs. If you make changes 

to the proposed action; add an alternative outside the spectrum of those already analyzed; or if 

new circumstances or information arise that alters the validity of an EA analysis prior to the 

implementation of the Federal action, prepare a new EA. 

5.3.1 When Supplementation is Appropriate 

“Substantial changes” in the proposed action may include changes in the design, location, or 

timing of a proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns (i.e., the changes would 

result in significant effects outside of the range of effects analyzed in the draft or final EIS). 

Adding a new alternative analyzed in detail requires preparation of a supplement if the new 

alternative is outside the spectrum of alternatives already analyzed and not a variation of an 

alternative already analyzed. For example: 

Comments on a draft EIS for a transmission line right-of way suggest an entirely new route 

for the right-of-way that would be a reasonable alternative. The new route would result in 

effects outside the range of effects analyzed in the draft. Prepare a supplemental draft EIS 

to analyze this new route. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

30 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Describing additional alternatives that are considered but eliminated from detailed analysis does 

not require supplementation. 

“New circumstances or information” are “significant” and trigger the need for supplementation if 

they are relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action and its effects 

(i.e., if the new circumstances or information would result in significant effects outside the range 

of effects already analyzed). New circumstances or information that trigger the need for 

supplementation might include the listing under the Endangered Species Act of a species that 

was not analyzed in the EIS; development of new technology that alters significant effects; or 

unanticipated actions or events that result in changed circumstances, rendering the cumulative 

effects analysis inadequate. 

5.3.2 When Supplementation is Not Appropriate 

Supplementation is not necessary if you make changes in the proposed action that are not 

substantial (i.e., the effects of the changed proposed action are still within the range of effects 

analyzed in the draft or final EIS). 

If a new alternative is added after the circulation of a draft EIS, supplementation is not necessary 

if the new alternative lies within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS or is a 

minor variation of an alternative analyzed in the draft EIS. In such circumstances, the new 

alternative may be added in the final EIS. For example: 

A draft EIS for an oil field development project analyzed the effects of drilling 500, 1,000, 

and 5,000 wells. The addition of a 3,000-well alternative could be analyzed in the final EIS 

without a supplemental draft EIS. 

Supplementation is not appropriate when new information or changed circumstances arise after 

the Federal action has been implemented. If the new information or changed circumstances 

impedes the use of the EIS for subsequent tiering for future decision-making, prepare a new EIS 

or EA and incorporate by reference relevant material from the old EIS. For example: 

An EIS for an oil field development project is prepared and a decision issued. EAs or EISs 

prepared for subsequent applications of permit to drill (if they cannot be categorically 

excluded) are tiered to the field development EIS. New drilling technology developed after 

the preparation of the EIS results in significant impacts not analyzed in the field 

development EIS. These changed circumstances do not require that the field development 

EIS be supplemented. However, because the EAs or EISs for applications of permit to drill 

need the EIS for tiering, you may wish to prepare a new field development EIS. 

When new circumstances or information arise prior to the implementation of the Federal action, 

but your evaluation concludes that they would not result in significant effects outside the range 

of effects already analyzed, document your conclusion and the basis for it. If the new 

circumstances or information arise after publication of a draft EIS, document your conclusion in 

the final EIS. If the new circumstances or information arise after publication of the final EIS, 

document your conclusion in the ROD. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 31 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

5.3.3 The Supplementation Process 

Supplemental EISs will vary in scope and complexity depending upon the nature of the proposed 

changes or new information or circumstances. Supplemental EISs are prepared, circulated, and 

filed with the same requirements as EISs, except that supplemental EISs do not require scoping 

(40 CFR 1502.9) (see section 9.5, Supplements to Draft and Final EISs). A supplemental EIS 

may incorporate by reference the relevant portions of the EIS being supplemented or may 

circulate the entire EIS along with the supplemental EIS. 

When a supplement is prepared after circulation of a draft EIS, but before preparation of a final 

EIS, you must prepare and circulate a draft supplemental EIS and then prepare a final EIS. 

When a supplement is prepared after circulation of a final EIS, you must prepare and circulate a 

draft supplemental EIS and then prepare and circulate a final supplemental EIS, unless 

alternative procedures are approved by the CEQ (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(4)). Consult with the OEPC 

and the Office of the Solicitor before proposing alternative arrangements to the CEQ. 

5.4 ADOPTING ANOTHER AGENCY’S NEPA ANALYSES 

If an EIS or EA prepared by another agency is relevant to a BLM proposed action, you may 

prepare a new EIS or EA and incorporate by reference the applicable portions of the other 

agency’s document (see section 5.2.1, Incorporation by Reference). Or you may adopt an EIS or 

EA prepared by another agency, after following certain steps described below. 

5.4.1 Adopting Another Agency’s EIS 

You may use another agency’s EIS for BLM decision-making after adopting the EIS. “An 

agency may adopt a Federal draft or final [EIS] or portion thereof provided that the statement or 

portion thereof meets the standards for an adequate statement under these [the CEQ] regulations” 

(40 CFR 1506.3(a)). Adopting another agency's EIS reduces paperwork, eliminates duplication, 

and makes the process more efficient. You may adopt an EIS that meets all CEQ, DOI, and BLM 

requirements for preparation of an EIS. You must prepare your own ROD on adopted EISs 

(Question 30, CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 

23, 1981). 

If the BLM is a cooperating agency in the preparation of an EIS, you may adopt it without 

recirculating the EIS if you conclude that your comments and suggestions have been satisfied (40 

CFR 1506.3(c)). For example: 

The Forest Service, with the BLM as a cooperator, prepared an EIS for the Biscuit Fire 

Recovery Project, which addressed actions on both Forest Service and BLM-managed lands 

in Oregon. The BLM adopted the EIS and prepared a separate ROD for actions on BLMmanaged lands. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
32 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

If the BLM is not a cooperating agency in the preparation of an EIS, you may adopt it after 

recirculating the document consistent with the following requirements: 

• If the BLM proposed action is substantially the same as the action covered by the other 

agency's EIS, you can adopt the EIS after recirculating the document as a final EIS. 

When recirculating the final EIS, you must identify the BLM proposed action (40 CFR 

1506.3(b)). 

• If the BLM adopts an EIS that is not final within the agency that prepared it, or if the 

action the EIS assesses is the subject of a referral or if the adequacy of the EIS is the 

subject of judicial action that is not final, the BLM must indicate its status in the 

recirculated draft and final EIS (40 CFR 1506.3(c)). 

5.4.2 Adopting Another Agency’s EA 

You may use another agency’s EA for a BLM FONSI and BLM decision-making after adopting 

the EA, consistent with the following requirements (see CEQ Guidance Regarding NEPA 

Regulations, 48 Fed. Reg. 34263 (July 28, 1983)): 

• The BLM must independently evaluate the information contained in the EA, and take full 

responsibility for its scope and content. You must evaluate the information contained in 

the EA to ensure that it adequately addresses environmental impacts of the BLM’s 

proposed action and ensure that the EA to be adopted satisfies the BLM’s own NEPA 

procedures. If the BLM has acted as a cooperating agency, you must ensure that any 

concerns which it has raised during the process of preparing the EA have been adequately 

addressed (CEQ Guidance Regarding NEPA Regulations, 48 Fed. Reg. 34263 (July 28, 

1983)). An interdisciplinary team may be useful in evaluating another agency’s EA for 

adoption. 

• If you conclude that environmental impacts are adequately addressed, you must issue 

your own FONSI to document your formal adoption of the EA, and your conclusions 

regarding the adequacy of the EA (CEQ Guidance Regarding NEPA Regulations, 48 Fed. 

Reg. 34263 (July 28, 1983)). In certain limited circumstances, you must publish or 

otherwise make the FONSI available for public review for thirty days (see section 8.4.2, 

The Finding of No Significant Impact). 

• You must prepare your own decision record in accordance with program-specific 

requirements following adoption of the EA and the issuance of the FONSI (see section 

8.5, The Decision Record). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 33 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

CHAPTER 6—NEPA ANALYSIS 

General 

6.1 Outline of Analytical Steps 

6.2 Purpose and Need 

6.3 Scoping 

6.4 Issues 

6.5 Proposed Action 

6.6 Alternatives Development 

6.7 Affected Environment and Use of Relevant Data 

6.8 Environmental Effects 

6.9 Public Involvement and Responding to Comments 

GENERAL 

There are a variety of ways to comply with the NEPA; the scope of your analysis and 

documentation will depend on your proposal and its environmental effects. This chapter is 

broadly focused on NEPA analysis, not on documentation requirements. The CEQ regulations 

prescribe specific steps for the preparation of an EIS. The process of preparing an EA is more 

flexible. This chapter describes NEPA concepts and outlines typical steps of NEPA analysis. For 

detailed documentation and format requirements for EAs and EISs, see Chapter 8, Preparing an 

Environmental Assessment and Chapter 9, Preparing an Environmental Impact Statement. 

While the NEPA process is much the same for all BLM actions, some programs have specific 

requirements for NEPA analysis. Become aware of and consult program-specific guidance when 

beginning the NEPA process. 

6.1 OUTLINE OF ANALYTICAL STEPS 

For an internally generated project (one in which the BLM is developing the proposed action), 

the usual analytical steps for an EA or EIS are as follows: 

• Identify the purpose and need for action and describe the proposed action to the extent 

known. 

• Develop a scoping strategy and conduct scoping. 

• Identify issues requiring analysis. 

• Refine the proposed action. 

• Develop reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. 

• Identify, gather and synthesize data. 

• Analyze and disclose the impacts of each alternative. 

• Identify potential mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts. 

Many of these steps are iterative; for example, developing alternatives may lead to the 

identification of additional issues requiring analysis. At several points in the process, you may 

loop back to an earlier step to make refinements. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
34 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

For an externally generated project (one in which a non-BLM party has developed a proposed 

action), the analysis steps are the same except that the first step in the process is when you accept 

a proposal regarding an action to be taken, and move forward into NEPA analysis. 

Figure 6.1 The NEPA Process 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 35 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

6.2 PURPOSE AND NEED 

The CEQ regulations direct that an EIS “...shall briefly specify the underlying purpose and need 

to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the proposed action” 

(40 CFR 1502.13). The CEQ regulations also direct that EAs “...shall include brief discussions 

of the need for the proposal...” (40 CFR 1508.9(b)). 

The CEQ regulations do not differentiate the “purpose” of the action from the “need” for the 

action. However, distinguishing the “purpose” and the “need” as two separate aspects of the 

purpose and need statement may help clarify why the BLM is proposing an action. For many 

types of actions, the “need” for the action can be described as the underlying problem or 

opportunity to which the BLM is responding with the action. The “purpose” can be described as 

a goal or objective that we are trying to reach. Often, the “purpose” can be presented as the 

solution to the problem described in the “need” for the action. For example, the “need” for a 

culvert replacement project might describe how the existing culvert blocks fish passage; the 

“purpose” might be to replace the culvert with one that allows fish passage. 

Regardless of whether the “purpose” and the “need” are treated as distinct or synonymous, the 

purpose and need statement as a whole describes the problem or opportunity to which the BLM 

is responding and what the BLM hopes to accomplish by the action. 

We recommend that the purpose and need statement be brief, unambiguous, and as specific as 

possible. Although the purpose and need statement cannot be arbitrarily narrow, you have 

considerable flexibility in defining the purpose and need for action. To the extent possible, 

construct the purpose and need statement to conform to existing decisions, policies, regulation, 

or law. The purpose and need for the action is usually related to achieving goals and objectives 

of the LUP; reflect this in your purpose and need statement. 

The purpose and need statement for an externally generated action must describe the BLM 

purpose and need, not an applicant’s or external proponent’s purpose and need (40 CFR 

1502.13). The applicant’s purpose and need may provide useful background information, but 

this description must not be confused with the BLM purpose and need for action. The BLM 

action triggers the NEPA analysis. It is the BLM purpose and need for action that will dictate 

the range of alternatives and provide a basis for the rationale for eventual selection of an 

alternative in a decision. See the Web Guide for examples of purpose and need statements. 

The purpose and need statement should explain why the BLM is proposing action. Note 

that you must describe the purpose and need for the action, not the purpose and need for 

the document. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 

36 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

6.2.1 The Role of the Purpose and Need Statement 

We recommend that you draft your purpose and need statement early in the NEPA process. 

Including a draft purpose and need statement with scoping materials will help focus internal and 

external scoping comments. Reexamine and update your purpose and need statement as 

appropriate throughout the NEPA process, especially when refining the proposed action and 

developing alternatives. 

A carefully crafted purpose and need statement can be an effective tool in controlling the scope 

of the analysis and thereby increasing efficiencies by eliminating unnecessary analysis and 

reducing delays in the process. The purpose and need statement dictates the range of 

alternatives, because action alternatives are not “reasonable” if they do not respond to the 

purpose and need for the action (see section 6.6.1, Reasonable Alternatives). The broader the 

purpose and need statement, the broader the range of alternatives that must be analyzed. The 

purpose and need statement will provide a framework for issue identification and will form the 

basis for the eventual rationale for selection of an alternative. Generally, the action alternatives 

will respond to the problem or opportunity described in the purpose and need statement, 

providing a basis for eventual selection of an alternative in a decision. 

For example, in the culvert replacement example above (see section 6.2, Purpose and Need), the 

scope of the analysis would be narrowed by describing a more specific “purpose” of replacing 

the existing culvert to allow cutthroat trout fish passage in the spring; reasonable alternatives 

might include analyzing various culvert sizes, or moving the culvert. Conversely, the scope of 

the analysis would be broadened by describing a more general “purpose” of improving fish 

passage; reasonable alternatives might include culvert removal and road decommissioning. 

Examples of purpose and need statements and related decisions are found in the next section, 

6.2.2, The Decision to be Made, and examples of combined and separated purpose and need 

statements can be found in the Web Guide. 

6.2.2 The Decision to be Made 

You may include in the purpose and need statement a description of your decision(s) to be made 

based on the NEPA analysis. Tying the purpose and need for your proposal to your decision 

helps establish the scope for the NEPA analysis. A clear explanation of the decision(s) at hand is 

also helpful in public involvement; it helps to set expectations and explain the focus of the 

BLM’s NEPA analysis. In describing the BLM’s decision(s) to be made, you must retain the 

flexibility to select among alternatives that meet the purpose and need, and are within the BLM’s 

jurisdiction (40 CFR 1506.1(a)(2)). As with the purpose and need, the description of the 

decision(s) to be made may be broad or narrow. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 37 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

For externally generated actions, the Jurisdiction by law means another 

description of the decision(s) to be made governmental entity (Tribal, Federal, State, helps differentiate your role in the action or local agency) has authority to approve, from the external proponent’s role. For veto, or finance all or part of a proposal (40 NEPA documents prepared with cooperating CFR 1508.15). The CEQ regulations agencies with jurisdiction by law, we provide for establishing a cooperating recommend that you explicitly identify the agency relationship with such entities in decisions to be made by each agency (see development of a NEPA analysis document. 

section 12.1, Cooperating Agency Status in 

Development of NEPA Documents). 

Examples: 

The following examples are adapted from actual BLM actions. These are not intended to 

provide a template to be copied, but as examples for general consideration. Because the purpose 

and need statement controls the scope of the analysis and is directly tied to the eventual rationale 

for selection, it is important that the purpose and need statement be tailored to the specific action 

in question. 

An externally generated implementation action. The purpose of the action is to provide the 

owners of private land located in Township X South, Range X West, Section X, with legal access 

across public land managed by the BLM. The need for the action is established by the BLM’s 

responsibility under FLPMA to respond to a request for a Right-of-Way Grant for legal access to 

private land over existing BLM roads and a short segment of new road to be constructed across 

public land. 

Decision to be made: The BLM will decide whether or not to grant the right of way, and if so, 

under what terms and conditions. 

An internally generated implementation action. The purpose of the action is to modify current 

grazing practices on the X Allotment by adjusting timing and levels of livestock use so that 

progress can be made toward meeting the fundamentals of rangeland health. The need for the 

action is that fundamentals of rangeland health are not being met for watersheds, riparian areas, 

and threatened and endangered plants in the X Allotment, based on a current assessment. Active 

erosion is evident and exotic annual grasses dominate the understory. The assessment found 

that current livestock grazing management practices do not meet the fundamentals of rangeland 

health. 

Decision to be made: The BLM will decide whether or not to issue a grazing permit with 

modifications from the current permit. 

A Land Use Plan revision, (Note: this example is abbreviated from the detail that would 

customarily be appropriate for revision of an LUP). The purpose of the X Field Office LUP 

revision is to ensure that public lands are managed according to the principles of multiple use 

identified in FLPMA while maintaining the valid existing rights and other obligations already 

established. The need for the action is that changing resource demands and technology have 

changed the type and level of impacts to various resources, as detailed in the LUP evaluation. 

Specifically, the emergence of new exploration and extraction technologies in oil and gas 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
38 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

development may result in impacts not previously analyzed. Alternatives will address the 

availability of unleased lands for future oil and gas leasing; potential stipulations to be attached 

to new leases or leases to be reoffered if existing leases are relinquished; and mitigation 

measures to be considered in reviewing applications for permits to drill. This need is limited, 

because most oil and gas resources in the planning area have already been leased, and the LUP 

revision will maintain valid existing rights. The LUP evaluation also noted other changes in 

resource conditions and uses that could result in impacts not previously analyzed. 

Decision to be made: The BLM will revise the LUP and identify areas available for oil and gas 

leasing, leasing stipulations, and mitigation measures to consider in reviewing applications for 

permits to drill. 

6.3 SCOPING 

Scoping is the process by which the BLM “There shall be an early and open process solicits internal and external input on the for determining the scope of issues to be issues, impacts, and potential alternatives that addressed and for identifying the will be addressed in an EIS or EA as well as significant issues related to a proposed the extent to which those issues and impacts action. This process shall be termed 

will be analyzed in the NEPA document. scoping.” (40 CFR 1501.7) Although it is not required, you may also 

elect to scope for issues and impacts 

associated with actions under CX or DNA review. Begin considering cumulative impacts during 

the scoping process; use scoping to begin identifying actions by others that may have a 

cumulative effect with the proposed action, and identifying geographic and temporal boundaries, 

baselines and thresholds. Scoping also helps to begin identifying incomplete or unavailable 

information and evaluating whether that information is essential to a reasoned choice among 

alternatives. 

Scoping is one form of public involvement in the NEPA process. Scoping occurs early in the 

NEPA process and generally extends through the development of alternatives. (The public 

comment period for a DEIS or public review of an EA are not scoping). 

Developing the purpose and need statement will enhance the scoping process, even if you have 

not yet fully developed a proposed action. A preliminary purpose and need statement will allow 

BLM staff, other agencies, and the public to give more focused input on issues or the proposal. 

Additionally, sharing what is known about the No Action alternative and the consequences of not 

meeting the need for action may facilitate effective scoping comments. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 39 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

6.3.1 Internal Scoping 

Internal scoping is simply the use of BLM and cooperating agency staff to help determine what 

needs to be analyzed in a NEPA document. Internal scoping is an interdisciplinary process; at a 

minimum, use scoping to define issues, alternatives, and data needs. Additionally, this is an 

opportunity to identify other actions that may be analyzed in the same NEPA document. You 

may use internal scoping to: 

• formulate and refine the purpose and need. 

• identify any connected, cumulative, or similar actions associated with the proposal. 

• start preparation for cumulative effects analysis. 

• decide on the appropriate level of documentation. 

• develop a public involvement strategy. 

• decide other features of the NEPA process. 

6.3.2 External Scoping 

External scoping involves notification and opportunities for feedback from other agencies, 

organizations, tribes, local governments, and the public. You do not need to conduct external 

scoping at the same time as internal scoping; frequently you first conduct some internal scoping 

to develop a preliminary range of alternatives and issues. These alternatives and issues may then 

be shared during external scoping, and you will likely build upon these preliminary issues as 

scoping continues. 

External scoping can be used to identify coordination needs with other agencies; refine issues 

through public, tribal and agency feedback on preliminary issues; and identify new issues and 

possible alternatives. Tribal consultation centers on established government-to-government 

relationships, and it is important that you allow sufficient time and use the appropriate means of 

contacting tribes when conducting scoping. External scoping serves to build agency credibility 

and promote constructive dialogue and relations with tribes, agencies, local governments and the 

public. 

The CEQ regulations mandate external scoping for EISs, and such scoping has formal 

requirements (see section 9.1.3, Scoping). The time-limited scoping period that follows the 

publication of a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS is referred to as formal scoping. However, 

you should not limit scoping for an EIS to the formal scoping period. 

External scoping for EAs is optional. See section 8.3.3, Scoping and Issues for a discussion of 

when external scoping is appropriate for an EA. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
40 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

External scoping may help identify alternatives to the proposed action, as well as refine the 

proposed action. External scoping may result in refinement of issues for analysis. Preliminary 

issues may be clarified and new issues identified in the external scoping process. You will use 

external scoping to begin identifying past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions by others 

that could have a cumulative effect together with the BLM action (see section 6.8.3.4, Past, 

Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions). External scoping can be used to identify 

permits, surveys, or consultations required by other agencies. Scoping may also generate 

information that may be used during the permitting or consultation process. 

External scoping methods include but are not limited to: Federal Register notices, public 

meetings, field trips, direct mailing, media releases, newsletters, NEPA registers, and email 

notifications. You may also seek help from other agencies, organizations, tribes, local 

governments, and the public in identifying interested parties that may not yet have been reached 

by scoping efforts. 

6.4 ISSUES 

The CEQ regulations provide many references to “issues,” though the regulations do not define 

this term explicitly. At 40 CFR 1501.7(a)(2), 40 CFR 1501.7(a)(3), 40 CFR 1502.1 and 

1502.2(b), the CEQ explains that issues may be identified through scoping and that only 

significant issues must be the focus of the environmental document . Significant issues are those 

related to significant or potentially significant effects (see section 7.3, Significance). 

For the purpose of BLM NEPA analysis, an “issue” is a point of disagreement, debate, or dispute 

with a proposed action based on some anticipated environmental effect. An issue is more than 

just a position statement, such as disagreement with grazing on public lands. An issue: 

• has a cause and effect relationship with the proposed action or alternatives; 

• is within the scope of the analysis; 

• has not be decided by law, regulation, or previous decision; and 

• is amenable to scientific analysis rather than conjecture. 

Issues point to environmental effects; as such, issues can help shape the proposal and 

alternatives. (For externally generated proposals, the proposed action is not developed through 

scoping, but other action alternatives are). Issues may lead to the identification of design 

features that are incorporated into the proposed action (see section 6.5.1.1, Design Features of 

the Proposed Action) or mitigation measures (see section 6.8.4, Mitigation and Residual 

Effects). 

“Most important, NEPA documents must concentrate on the issues that are truly significant to 

the action in question, rather than amassing needless detail.” (40 CFR 1500.1(b)) 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 41 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

6.4.1 Identifying Issues for Analysis 

Preliminary issues are frequently identified during the development of the proposed action 

through internal and external scoping. Additionally, supplemental authorities that provide 

procedural or substantive responsibilities relevant to the NEPA process may help identify issues 

for analysis. See Appendix 1, Supplemental Authorities to be Considered, for a list of some 

common supplemental authorities. There is no need to make negative declarations regarding 

resources described in supplemental authorities that are not relevant to your proposal at hand. 

While many issues may arise during scoping, not all of the issues raised warrant analysis in an 

EA or EIS. Analyze issues raised through scoping if: 

• Analysis of the issue is necessary to make a reasoned choice between alternatives. That 

is, does it relate to how the proposed action or alternatives respond to the purpose and 

need? (See section 6.6, Alternatives Development). 

• The issue is significant (an issue associated with a significant direct, indirect, or 

cumulative impact, or where analysis is necessary to determine the significance of 

impacts). 

When identifying issues to be analyzed, it is helpful to ask, “Is there disagreement about the best 

way to use a resource, or resolve an unwanted resource condition, or potentially significant 

effects of a proposed action or alternative?” If the answer is “yes,” you may benefit from 

subjecting the issue to analysis. 

Entire resources cannot be issues by themselves, but concerns over how a resource may be 

affected by the proposal can be issues. 

It is useful to phrase issues in the form of questions, as this can help maintain the focus of the 

analysis, which would need to answer the questions. For example: 

The BLM is analyzing the construction and operation of a wind farm on public lands. “Wildlife” 

is not considered an issue—this is too broad for reasonable analysis, and it is not clearly related 

to the effects of the action. We suggest, “What would be the effect of the alternatives on sage 

grouse nesting?” as a more explicit issue statement. 

The Web Guide contains examples of issues identified for analysis. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

42 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

6.4.2 Issues Not Analyzed 

You need not analyze issues associated with the proposed action that do not meet the criteria 

described in section 6.4.1., Identifying Issues for Analysis. We recommend that you document 

such externally generated issues along with rationale for not analyzing them in the administrative 

record or in the EA or EIS itself. You have more flexibility in tracking internally generated 

issues. For example, in a preliminary brainstorming session, it may not be important to record 

all issues raised. However, if after careful and detailed consideration you determine not to 

analyze an internally-generated issue, we recommend that you document the reasons in the 

administrative record, or in the EA or EIS. The detail used to explain why an issue was not 

analyzed is largely dependent on how the issue was presented and why you are not analyzing it. 

See the Web Guide for an example of how issues not analyzed can be treated in a NEPA 

document. 

6.5 PROPOSED ACTION 

The CEQ regulations state that a “proposal” exists at that stage in the development of an action 

when an agency subject to the NEPA 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 (40 CFR 1508.23). A “proposed action” may be described as a proposal for the BLM 

to authorize, recommend, or implement an action to address a clear purpose and need, and may 

be generated internally or externally. 

When developing the proposed action, it is important to understand how it will be used in the 

environmental analysis. You can use a preliminary description of the proposed action during 

scoping to focus public involvement. The proposed action is one possible option to meet the 

purpose and need. Alternatives are developed to consider different reasonable paths to take to 

accomplish the same purpose and need as the proposed action. 

The level of detail used to describe a proposed action will vary by the nature and stage of the 

project. For example, the level of detail available at the beginning of a project may be very 

limited, but details will be better defined after scoping. The details and description of a proposed 

action in a programmatic analysis will be different than one in the analysis of a site-specific 

implementation action. The level of detail used in describing the proposed action will influence 

the specificity of the analysis and the assumptions made in analyzing the environmental 

consequences. The Web Guide contains example descriptions of Proposed Actions. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 43 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

6.5.1 Description of the Proposed Action 

A detailed description of the proposed action at the outset of the analysis process is beneficial for 

many reasons. Clearly described proposed actions can result in: 

• more focused and meaningful public input. 

• more focused and meaningful internal (BLM) participation. 

• more complete identification of issues. 

• development of reasonable alternatives. 

• sound analysis and interpretation of effects. 

• focused analysis. 

• a sound and supportable decision. 

Detailed descriptions of proposed actions usually include five elements: 

1. Who “Who” is the Federal agency that is going to guide the analysis and make the 

decision. Even for externally proposed projects, you will be making the decision 

to authorize or recommend an action. For externally proposed projects, it is 

important to identify the external proponent and their role in implementing your 

decision. 

2. What “What” is the specific activity or activities proposed. You must provide sufficient 

detail in the description of the activities so that the effects of the proposed action 

may be compared to the effects of the alternatives, including the No Action 

alternative (40 CFR 1502.14(b)). That comparison provides the clear basis for 

choice by the decision-maker. 

3. How “How” relates to the specific means by which the proposal would be 

implemented. Include project design features, including construction activities, 

operations, and schedules. It may also be appropriate to include maps, 

photographs, and figures. Means, measures, or practices to reduce or avoid 

adverse environmental impacts may be included in the proposed action as design 

features (see section 6.5.1.1, Design Features of the Proposed Action). 

4. When “When” is the timeframe in which the project will be implemented and 

completed. If the proposed action has identifiable phases, describe the duration of 

those phases. The timing for monitoring integral to the proposed action should 

also be described. 

5. Where “Where” is the location(s) where the proposed action will be implemented and 

should be described as specifically as possible. Maps at a relevant scale may be 

provided to support the narrative. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 

44 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

6.5.1.1 Design Features of the Proposed Action 

Design features are those specific means, measures or practices that make up the proposed action 

and alternatives. You may identify design features, especially those that would reduce or 

eliminate adverse effects after the initial formulation of alternatives, as the impact analysis is 

being conducted. In this situation, you may add these design features to the proposed action or 

alternatives. Standard operating procedures, stipulations, and best management practices are 

usually considered design features. For example, if the proposed action sites a reserve pit for 

drilling fluids away from areas of shallow groundwater, this is a design feature, not mitigation. 

Because the formulation of alternatives and the impact analysis is often an iterative process, you 

might not be able to identify the means, measures or practices until the impact analysis is 

completed. If any means, measures, or practices are not incorporated into the proposed action or 

alternatives, they are considered mitigation measures (see section 6.8.4, Mitigation and Residual 

Effects). 

Figure 6.2 Design Features and Mitigation Measures 

Effects Analysis Ongoing 

Develop 

proposed action 

and alternatives. 

Are there design features that could be 

incorporated into the proposed action or 

alternatives to reduce or avoid adverse 

effects? 

Are there potential mitigation 

measures that can avoid or reduce 

adverse impacts identified in the 

analysis? (These are not 

incorporated into the proposed 

action.) 

Analyze whether or not 

there are any residual 

effects that remain after 

mitigation measures are 

Update proposed applied.

action & alternatives, 

if appropriate. 

6.5.2 Defining the Scope of Analysis of the Proposed Action 

After initial development of the proposed action, evaluate whether there are connected or 

cumulative actions that you must consider in the same NEPA document (40 CFR 1508.25). In 

addition, evaluate whether there are similar actions that you wish to discuss in a single NEPA 

document. The CEQ regulations refer only to an EIS in discussion of including connected, 

cumulative, and similar actions in a single EIS. For an EA, we recommend that you consider 

connected or cumulative actions in the same EA, and similar actions may be discussed at your 

discretion. Considering connected or cumulative actions in a single EA is particularly important 

in the evaluation of significance (see section 7.3, Significance). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 45 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

6.5.2.1 Connected Actions 

Connected actions are those actions that are “closely related” and “should be discussed” in the 

same NEPA document (40 CFR 1508.25 (a)(1)). Actions are connected if they automatically 

trigger other actions that may require an EIS; cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are 

taken previously or simultaneously; or if the actions are interdependent parts of a larger action 

and depend upon the larger action for their justification (40 CFR 1508.25 (a)(i, ii, iii)). 

Connected actions are limited to actions that are currently proposed (ripe for decision). Actions 

that are not yet proposed are not connected actions, but may need to be analyzed in cumulative 

effects analysis if they are reasonably foreseeable. 

If the connected action is also a proposed BLM action, we recommend that you include both 

actions as aspects of a broader “proposal” (40 CFR 1508.23), analyzed in a single NEPA 

document. You may either construct an integrated purpose and need statement for both the 

proposed action and the connected action, or you may present separate purpose and need 

statements for the proposed action and the connected action. Regardless of the structure of the 

purpose and need statement(s), you must develop alternatives and mitigation measures for both 

actions (40 CFR 1508.25(b)), and analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of both 

actions (40 CFR 1508.25(c)). 

For example, 

The BLM proposes prescribed burning to attain desired vegetation characteristics. The BLM 

also proposes subsequent seeding of the same site to contribute to attaining those same 

desired vegetation characteristics, which is a connected action. We recommend that you 

include the prescribed burning and seeding as aspects of a broader proposal, analyzed in a 

single NEPA document. 

If the connected action is an action proposed by another Federal agency, you may include both 

actions as aspects of a broader proposal analyzed in a single NEPA document, as described 

above. Evaluate whether a single NEPA document would improve the quality of analysis and 

efficiency of the NEPA process, and provide a stronger basis for decision-making. Also consider 

the timing of the other agency action and the capabilities of the other agency to act as a 

cooperating agency or joint lead agency (see sections 12.1 Cooperating Agency Status in 

Development of NEPA Documents and 12.2 Joint Lead Agencies in Development of NEPA 

Documents). 

For example, 

The BLM proposes constructing a trail to provide recreation access to BLM-managed lands 

from a campground the Forest Service proposes to construct on adjacent Forest Service 

lands. The Forest Service campground construction is a connected action. You and the 

Forest Service may elect to include the BLM trail construction and the Forest Service 

campground construction as aspects of a broader proposal, analyzed in a single NEPA 

document, either as joint lead agencies, or with one agency as lead and the other as 

cooperating. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
46 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

If you do not include the connected action with the proposed action as aspects of a broader 

proposal analyzed in a single NEPA document, you must, at a minimum, demonstrate that you 

have considered the connected action in the NEPA document for the proposed action (40 CFR 

1508.25) (i.e., describe the connected action and its relationship to the proposed action, including 

the extent to which the connected action and its effects can be prevented or modified by BLM 

decision-making on the proposed action). In this case, a separate NEPA document would need to 

be prepared for the connected action. It may be useful to incorporate by reference portions of the 

NEPA document completed for the connected action, if available, into the NEPA document for 

the proposed action. 

A non-Federal action may be a connected action with a BLM proposed action. The consideration 

of a non-Federal connected action is limited in your NEPA analysis, because the NEPA process 

is focused on agency decision making (40 CFR 1500.1(c), 40 CFR 1508.18, 40 CFR 1508.23). 

Therefore, you are not required to include a non-Federal connected action together with a BLM 

proposed action as aspects of a broader proposal, analyzed in a single NEPA document. 

Proposals are limited to Federal actions (40 CFR 1508.23). You would not have to develop or 

present the purpose and need for the non-Federal action, and you are not required to consider 

alternatives available to the non-Federal party for its action. If there are effects on BLM managed 

resources, it may be useful to develop and suggest alternatives or mitigation for those nonFederal connected actions (see section 6.8.4, Mitigation and Residual Effects). 

As with a Federal connected action, you must, at a minimum, demonstrate that you have 

considered the non-Federal connected action in the NEPA document for the proposed action (40 

CFR 1508.25) (i.e., describe the connected action and its relationship to the proposed action, 

including the extent to which the connected action and its effects can be prevented or modified 

by BLM decision-making on the proposed action). 

If the connected non-Federal action and its effects can be prevented by BLM decision-making, 

then the effects of the non-Federal action are properly considered indirect effects of the BLM 

action and must be analyzed as effects of the BLM action (40 CFR 1508.7, 40 CFR 1508.25(c)). 

For example, 

You receive a right-of-way request from a private company to build a road across BLMmanaged land to provide access to adjacent private land, on which the company plans to 

create and operate a quarry. The creation and operation of the quarry cannot proceed 

unless the road is constructed. The road cannot be constructed without the grant by BLM of 

a right-of-way. The grant of the right-of-way must be analyzed as a BLM action: the BLM 

can grant or deny the right-of-way request. The construction of the road and the creation 

and operation of the quarry are connected actions. 

Alternatives: You must analyze the proposed action of granting the right-of-way, and 

consider the alternative of denying the right-of-way (the No Action alternative) and any 

other reasonable alternatives related to the right-of-way request. Because the construction 

of the road, and the creation and operation of the quarry would not be BLM actions, you do 

not need to consider alternatives to the road construction and creation and operation of the 

quarry. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 47 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Direct and Indirect Effects: You must analyze the direct and indirect effects of granting the 

right-of-way. You must also analyze the direct and indirect effects of constructing the road 

and creating and operating the quarry, because these effects could be prevented by a BLM 

decision to deny the right-of-way request, and therefore are properly considered indirect 

effects of the BLM right-of-way grant. 

Cumulative Effects: You must analyze the cumulative impact of the right-of-way grant, the 

road construction, and quarry creation and operation, taking into account the effects in 

common with any other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

If the connected non-Federal action cannot be prevented by BLM decision-making, but its effects 

can be modified by BLM-decision-making, then the changes in the effects of the connected nonFederal action must be analyzed as indirect effects of the BLM proposed action. Effects of the 

non-Federal action that cannot be modified by BLM-decision-making may still need to be 

analyzed in the cumulative effects analysis for BLM action, if they have a cumulative effect 

together with the effects of the BLM action (see section 6.8.3 Cumulative Effects). 

For example, 

You receive a right-of-way request from a private company to build a road across BLMmanaged land to provide access to adjacent private land, on which the company plans to 

create and operate a quarry. In contrast to the example above, the creation and operation 

of the quarry could proceed with other, reasonably foreseeable, road access. However, 

conditions on the grant by BLM of a right-of-way could modify the effects of the quarry 

creation and operation (e.g., right-of-way conditions limiting the amount and timing of haul 

could alter the timing of quarry creation activities and consequent effects). The grant of the 

right-of-way must be analyzed as a BLM action. The effects of the road construction must 

be analyzed as indirect effects of the BLM right-of-way grant. The changes in the effects of 

the quarry creation and operation must be analyzed as indirect effects of the conditions on 

the BLM right-of-way grant. The unchanged effects of the quarry creation and operation 

would be analyzed in the cumulative effects analysis for the BLM action to the extent they 

would have a cumulative effect together with the effects of the BLM action. 

If the non-Federal action cannot be prevented by BLM decision-making and its effects cannot be 

modified by BLM decision-making, the effects of the non-Federal action may still need to be 

analyzed in the cumulative effects analysis for BLM action, if they have a cumulative effect 

together with the effects of the BLM action (see section 6.8.3 Cumulative Effects). While 

analysis of the effects of these non-Federal actions provides context for the analysis of the BLM 

action, their consideration in the determination of the significance of the BLM action is limited 

(see section 7.3, Significance). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

48 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

For example, 

You receive a right-of-way request from a private company to build a road across BLMmanaged land to provide access to adjacent private land, on which the company plans to 

create and operate a quarry. The creation and operation of the quarry could proceed with 

other, reasonably foreseeable, road access. Conditions on the grant by BLM of a right-ofway would not modify the effects of the quarry creation and operation. The grant of the 

right-of-way must be analyzed as a BLM action. The road construction is a connected 

action, and its effects must be analyzed as indirect effects of the BLM right-of-way grant. 

However, the quarry creation and operation are not connected actions; their effects would 

be analyzed in the cumulative effects analysis for the BLM action to the extent they would 

have a cumulative effect together with the effects of the BLM action. 

6.5.2.2 Cumulative Actions 

Cumulative actions are proposed actions which potentially have a cumulatively significant 

impact together with other proposed actions and “should be discussed” in the same NEPA 

document (40 CFR 1508.25(a)(2)). 

If the cumulative action is a BLM or other Federal proposed action, you may include both 

actions as aspects of a broader proposal, analyzed in a single NEPA document, as described 

above for connected actions. 

For example, 

The BLM proposes construction of a campground to enhance developed recreation 

opportunities. The campground construction would contribute sediment to a nearby 

stream. Separately, the BLM proposes a culvert replacement to remove a fish passage 

barrier. The culvert replacement would contribute sediment to the same stream. The 

culvert replacement is a cumulative action to the campground construction campground 

construction and culvert replacement. You may include the campground construction and 

culvert replacement as aspects of a broader proposal, analyzed in a single NEPA document. 

In this case, separate purpose and need statements for the campground construction and 

culvert replacement would likely be more appropriate than attempting to create a single, 

integrated purpose and need statement. 

If you do not include the cumulative action with the proposed action as aspects of a broader 

proposal analyzed in a single NEPA document, you must, at a minimum, demonstrate that you 

have considered the cumulative action in the NEPA document for the proposed action (40 CFR 

1508.25): 

• describe the cumulative action; and 

• include analysis of the effects of the cumulative action in the cumulative effects analysis 

of the proposed action. 

It may be useful to incorporate by reference portions of the NEPA document completed for the 

cumulative action, if available, into the NEPA document for the proposed action. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 

 49 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Non-Federal actions which potentially have a cumulatively significant impact together with the 

proposed action must be considered in the same NEPA document (40 CFR 1508.25). Identifying 

an action as a cumulative non-Federal action is a component of your cumulative effects analysis 

of the proposed action (see section 6.8.3, Cumulative Effects). 

6.5.2.3 Similar Actions 

Similar actions are proposed or reasonably foreseeable Federal actions that have similarities that 

provide a basis for evaluating their environmental consequences together with the proposed 

action (40 CFR 1508.25(a)(3). Similarities are not limited to type of action; such similarities 

include, for instance, common timing or geography. You may include similar proposed actions 

as aspects of a broader proposal, analyzed in a single NEPA document, as described above for 

connected and cumulative actions, when a single NEPA document would improve the quality of 

analysis and efficiency of the NEPA process, and provide a stronger basis for decision-making 

If other Federal actions with a common timing or geography are interdependent with the 

proposed action, they would be considered as connected actions (see section 6.5.2.1, Connected 

Actions). If other Federal actions with common timing or geography would have a cumulative 

effect together with the proposed action, they would be considered as cumulative actions (see 

section 6.5.2.2, Cumulative Actions). 

If you include similar actions as aspects of a broader proposal, analyzed in a single NEPA 

document, evaluate the purpose and need and the range of alternatives to ensure that they 

adequately address the similar actions. 

6.6 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT 

6.6.1 Reasonable Alternatives 

The NEPA directs the BLM to “study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to 

recommended courses of action in any proposal that involves unresolved conflicts concerning 

alternative uses of available resources;...” (NEPA Sec102(2)(E)). 

The range of alternatives explores alternative means of meeting the purpose and need for the 

action. As stated in section 6.2.1, The Role of the Purpose and Need Statement, the purpose 

and need statement helps define the range of alternatives. The broader the purpose and need 

statement, the broader the range of alternatives that must be analyzed. You must analyze those 

alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice (40 CFR 1502.14). For some proposals there 

may exist a very large or even an infinite number of possible reasonable alternatives. When 

there are potentially a very large number of alternatives, you must analyze only a reasonable 

number to cover the full spectrum of alternatives (see Question 1b, CEQ, Forty Most Asked 

Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981). When working with 

cooperating agencies, your range of alternatives may need to reflect the decision space and 

authority of other agencies, if decisions are being made by more than one agency. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
50 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

In determining the alternatives to be considered, the emphasis is on what is "reasonable" rather 

than on whether the proponent or applicant likes or is itself capable of implementing an 

alternative. “Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from the 

technical and economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable from 

the standpoint of the applicant.” (Question 2a, CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning 

CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981). You can only define whether an alternative is 

“reasonable” in reference to the purpose and need for the action. See Chapter 8, Preparing an 

Environmental Assessment and Chapter 9, Preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for 

discussion of reasonable alternatives for an EA and EIS. For externally generated action, the 

range of alternatives will typically include at least denying the request (No Action); approving 

the request as the proponent proposed; or approving the request with changes BLM makes to the 

proponent’s proposal. 

For example, 

An EIS for an oil field development project has a purpose and need which (in abbreviated 

form) is to determine whether to permit oil exploration and development within the project 

area consistent with existing leases and to develop practices for oil development consistent 

with the land use plan. The EIS would typically analyze at least the following alternatives: 

• No Action, which would entail no new drilling beyond what is currently permitted; 

• The proponent’s proposal for field development; and 

• The proponent’s proposal with additional or different design features recommended by 

the BLM to reduce environmental effects. This alternative would include design 

features that differ from the proponent’s proposal, such as alternative well locations, 

alternative access routes, additional timing or spacing constraints, offsite mitigation, 

different methods for treating produced water, horizontal well drilling, or other 

technologies. 

In some situations it may be appropriate for you to analyze a proposed action or alternative that 

may be outside the BLM’s jurisdiction (Question 2b, CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions 

Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981). Such circumstances would be 

exceptional and probably limited to the broadest, most programmatic EISs that would involve 

multiple agencies. For most actions, we recommend that the purpose and need statement be 

constructed to reflect the discretion available to the BLM, consistent with existing decisions and 

statutory and regulatory requirements; thus, alternatives not within BLM jurisdiction would not 

be “reasonable.” 

Note: Though not required, a manager may elect to analyze in detail an alternative that might 

otherwise be eliminated to assist in planning or decision-making. In such cases, explain in the 

NEPA document why you are electing to analyze the alternative in detail. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 51 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

6.6.1.1 Developing Alternatives Under The Healthy Forests Restoration Act 

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) (P.L. 108-148) contains provisions for 

expedited environmental analysis of projects implemented under its authority. For authorized 

projects (see HFRA Section 102 to determine which projects are authorized), HFRA allows 

fewer alternatives to be analyzed compared with that which CEQ regulations prescribe. 

For areas within the wildland–urban interface and within 1.5 miles of the boundary of an at-risk 

community (as defined in Section 101 of HFRA), you are not required to analyze any alternative 

to the proposed action, with one exception: if the at-risk community has adopted a Community 

Wildfire Protection Plan and the proposed action does not implement the recommendations in 

the plan regarding the general location and basic method of treatments, you are required to 

analyze the recommendations in the plan as an alternative to the proposed action. 

For areas within the wildland–urban interface, but farther than 1.5 miles from the boundary of an 

at-risk community, you are not required to analyze more than the proposed action and one 

additional action alternative. 

For the two previous scenarios, you are not required to present a separate section called the “No 

Action alternative.” However, you must document the current and future state of the 

environment in the absence of the proposed action. This constitutes consideration of a No Action 

Alternative. Document this in your purpose and need section (HFRA 104(d)). 

For authorized HFRA projects in all other areas, the analysis must describe the proposed action, 

a No Action alternative, and an additional action alternative, if one is proposed during the 

scoping or collaboration process. 

Additional information on HFRA can be obtained from the Healthy Forests Initiative and 

Healthy Forests Restoration Act Interim Field Guide, February 2004 (see the Web Guide). 

6.6.2 No Action Alternative 

The CEQ regulations direct that EISs describe the No Action alternative (40 CFR 1502.14(d)). 

HFRA, however, removes this regulatory requirement for actions taken under its authority (see 

section 6.6.1.1, Developing Alternatives Under the HFRA). The No Action alternative is the 

only alternative that must be analyzed in an EIS that does not respond to the purpose and need 

for the action. 

The No Action alternative provides a useful baseline for comparison of environmental effects 

(including cumulative effects) and demonstrates the consequences of not meeting the need for 

the action (see sections 8.3.4.2, Alternatives in an EA, and 9.2.7.1, Reasonable Alternatives for 

an EIS for discussion of the No Action alternative for EAs and EISs). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

52 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

The description of the No Action alternative depends on the type of action proposed: 

– For land use planning actions: The No Action alternative is to continue to implement the 

management direction in the land use plan (i.e., the land use plan as written). Any other 

management approach should be treated as an action alternative. If, for example, plan 

evaluation identifies that implementation has not been in accordance with the management 

direction in the land use plan, you may consider continued non-conforming implementation 

as an action alternative, if it is a reasonable alternative (see section 6.1.1, Reasonable 

Alternatives). 

– For internally generated implementation actions: the No Action alternative is not to take 

the action. 

– For externally generated proposals or applications: the No Action alternative is 

generally to reject the proposal or deny the application. (The sole exception to this is for 

renewal of a grazing permit, for which the No Action alternative is to issue a new permit 

with the same terms and conditions as the expiring permit). The analysis of the No Action 

alternative must only analyze what is reasonably foreseeable if the application is denied (see 

Question 3, CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, 

March 23, 1981). 

The No Action alternative may constitute a benchmark at one end of the spectrum of alternatives. 

Therefore, defining the No Action alternative might require reference to the action alternatives 

that will be analyzed. A No Action alternative that is outside of BLM jurisdiction or contrary to 

law or regulation might be useful to consider as a baseline for comparison. For example, when 

revising an LUP that has been implemented and subsequently found legally inadequate, analysis 

of continued management under that existing LUP might provide useful comparison in the 

analysis of the action alternatives in the revised LUP. The Web Guide provides some examples 

of No Action alternatives. 

6.6.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Analysis 

If you consider alternatives during the EIS process but opt not to analyze them in detail, you 

must identify those alternatives and briefly explain why you eliminated them from detailed 

analysis (40 CFR 1502.14). Explain why you eliminated an alternative proposed by the public or 

another agency from detailed analysis. We recommend you do the same in an EA. See the Web 

Guide for examples of “alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed analysis.” 

You may eliminate an action alternative from detailed analysis if: 

• it is ineffective (it would not respond to the purpose and need). 

• it is technically or economically infeasible (consider whether implementation of the 

 alternative is likely given past and current practice and technology; this does not require 

 cost-benefit analysis or speculation about an applicant’s costs and profits). 

• it is inconsistent with the basic policy objectives for the management of the area (such 

as, not in conformance with the LUP). 

• its implementation is remote or speculative. 

• it is substantially similar in design to an alternative that is analyzed. 

• it would have substantially similar effects to an alternative that is analyzed. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 

 53 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

6.7 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND USE OF RELEVANT DATA 

6.7.1 Affected Environment 

The affected environment section succinctly describes the existing condition and trend of issuerelated elements of the human environment that may be affected by implementing the proposed 

action or an alternative. The CEQ regulations discuss “human environment” at 40 CFR 1508.14; 

the term broadly relates to biological, physical, social and economic elements of the 

environment. We recommend that the descriptions of the specific elements be quantitative 

wherever possible, and of sufficient detail to serve as a baseline against which to measure the 

potential effects of implementing an action. The affected environment section of the 

environmental analysis is defined and limited by the identified issues. 

Your description of the affected environment will provide the basis for identifying and 

interpreting potential impacts in a concise manner. Describe the present condition of the affected 

resources within the identified geographic scope and provide a baseline for the cumulative 

effects analysis. Identifying past and ongoing actions that contribute to existing conditions will 

be helpful for the cumulative effects analysis (see section 6.8.3, Cumulative Effects). 

Additionally, identify any regulatory thresholds and characterize what is known about stresses 

affecting the resources and biological or physical thresholds. These biological or physical 

thresholds are often poorly understood; it may be helpful to identify as part of the analysis the 

threshold conditions of resources beyond which change could cause significant impacts. This 

may not be possible for many resources because of incomplete or unavailable information (40 

CFR 1502.22). 

Your descriptions of the affected environment must be no longer than is necessary to understand 

the effects of the alternatives. Data and analyses in a statement must be commensurate with the 

importance of the impact; with less important material, you may summarize, consolidate, or 

simply reference the material (40 CFR 1502.15). 

6.7.2 Use of Relevant Data 

Data and other information used to describe existing conditions and trends may be obtained from 

other documents and summarized and incorporated by reference or otherwise appropriately 

referenced. You may also obtain data and other information from cooperating agency partners or 

other agencies, organizations, or individuals, as identified during scoping. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 

54 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

The CEQ regulations require the BLM to obtain information if it is “relevant to reasonably 

foreseeable significant adverse impacts,” if it is “essential to a reasoned choice among 

alternatives,” and if “the overall cost of obtaining it is not exorbitant” (40 CFR 1502.22). If 

information essential to reasoned choice is unavailable or if the costs of obtaining it are 

exorbitant (excessive or beyond reason), you must make a statement to this effect in the EIS or 

EA. In this statement, you must discuss what effect the missing information may have on your 

ability to predict impacts to the particular resource. If the information relevant to reasonably 

foreseeable significant adverse impacts cannot be obtained because the overall costs of obtaining 

it are exorbitant or the means to obtain it are not known, you must include within the EIS or EA: 

1. a statement that such information is incomplete or unavailable; 

2. a statement of the relevance of the incomplete or unavailable information to 

evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human 

environment; 

3. a summary of existing credible scientific evidence which is relevant to evaluating 

the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment, 

and 

4. the agency's evaluation of such impacts based upon theoretical approaches or 

research methods generally accepted in the scientific community. For the 

purposes of this section, "reasonably foreseeable" includes impacts which have 

catastrophic consequences, even if their probability of occurrence is low, provided 

that the analysis of the impacts is supported by credible scientific evidence, is not 

based on pure conjecture, and is within the rule of reason. 

(40 CFR 1502.22(b)). 

6.8 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 

6.8.1 Effects Analysis 

6.8.1.1 Defining Environmental Effects 

Your EA or EIS must identify the known and predicted effects that are related to the issues (40 

CFR 1500.4 (c), 40 CFR 1500.4(g), 40 CFR 1500.5(d), 40 CFR 1502.16) (see 6.4 Issues). An 

issue differs from an effect; an issue describes an environmental problem or relation between a 

resource and an action, while effects analysis predicts the degree to which the resource would be 

affected upon implementation of an action. 

The terms “effects” and “impacts” are synonymous in the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 

1508.8) and in this handbook. 

Effects can be ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, 

structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, 

or health. Effects may also include those resulting from actions that may have both beneficial 

and detrimental effects, even if on balance the agency believes that the effects will be beneficial 

(40 CFR 1508.8). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 55 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Analyze relevant short-term and long-term effects and disclose both beneficial and detrimental 

effects in the NEPA analysis. We recommend you define the duration of long term and shortterm, as it can vary depending on the action and the scope of analysis. You must consider and 

analyze three categories of effects for any BLM proposal and its alternatives: direct, indirect, and 

cumulative (40 CFR 1508.25(c)). 

To help decision-makers understand how a resource will be affected, focus the discussion of 

effects on the context, intensity, and duration of these effects (see section 7.3, Significance). 

Your effects analysis must also identify possible conflicts between the proposed action (and each 

alternative) and the objectives of Federal, State, regional, local, and tribal land use plans, 

policies, or controls for the area concerned (40 CFR 1502.16(c)). 

6.8.1.2 Analyzing Effects 

The effects analysis must demonstrate that the BLM took a “hard 

look” at the impacts of the action. The level of detail must be 

sufficient to support reasoned conclusions by comparing the amount 

and the degree of change (impact) caused by the proposed action and 

alternatives (40 CFR 1502.1). See the Web Guide for recent 

examples of how the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) has 

dealt with the concept of “hard look.” 

A “hard look” is a 

reasoned analysis 

containing 

quantitative or 

detailed qualitative 

information. 

Use the best available science to support NEPA analyses, and give greater consideration to peerreviewed science and methodology over that which is not peer-reviewed. 

Analytical documents to support Federal agency decision-making include EISs and EAs, but 

neither are considered publications of scientific research subject to peer review. You may 

choose to have your NEPA analysis reviewed by members of the scientific community as part 

of public review of the document. Such review may be desirable to improve the quality of the 

analysis or share information; this does not constitute formal peer-review. 

Describe the methodology and analytical assumptions for the effects analysis as explained 

below: 

Methodology: Your NEPA document must describe the analytical methodology 

sufficiently so that the reader can understand how the analysis was conducted and why 

the particular methodology was used (40 CFR 1502.24). This explanation must include a 

description of any limitations inherent in the methodology. If there is substantial dispute 

over models, methodology, or data, you must recognize the opposing viewpoint(s) and 

explain the rationale for your choice of analysis. You may place discussions of 

methodology in the text or in the appendix of the document. To the extent possible, we 

recommend that the analysis of impacts be quantified. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

56 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Assumptions: We recommend that your NEPA document state the analytical 

assumptions, including the geographic and temporal scope of the analysis (which may 

vary by issue), the baseline for analysis, as well as the reasonably foreseeable future 

actions (see section 6.8.3, Cumulative Effects). You must also explain any assumptions 

made when information critical to the analysis was incomplete or unavailable (40 CFR 

1502.22). See section 6.7.2, Use of Relevant Data, for more discussion of incomplete or 

unavailable information. 

Analytical assumptions may include any reasonably foreseeable development (RFD) 

scenarios for resources, such as RFDs for oil and gas development. A reasonably 

foreseeable development scenario is a baseline projection for activity for a defined area 

and period of time, and though commonly used in minerals development, these scenarios 

may be used for other resources as well. Examples of reasonably foreseeable 

development scenarios can be found in the Web Guide. 

Clarity of expression, logical thought processes, and rational explanations are more important 

than length or format in the discussion of impacts. Following these guidelines will help the 

decision-maker and the public understand your analysis. 

• Use objective, professional language without being overly technical. 

• Avoid subjective terms such as "good," "bad," "positive," and "negative." The term 

“significant” has a very specific meaning in the NEPA context (see section 7.3, 

Significance). While it is a common descriptor, do not use it in NEPA documents 

unless it is intended to take on the NEPA meaning. 

• Avoid the use of acronyms. 

6.8.2 Direct and Indirect Effects 

EAs and EISs must analyze and describe the 

direct effects and indirect effects of the 

proposed action and the alternatives on the 

quality of the human environment (40 CFR 

1508.8). The value in requiring analysis of both 

direct and indirect effects is to make certain that 

no effects are overlooked. Because it can be 

difficult to distinguish between direct and 

indirect effects, you do not have to differentiate 

between the terms. When you are uncertain 

which effect is direct and which is indirect, it is 

helpful to describe the effects together. Effects 

are weighted the same; you do not consider an 

indirect effect less important than a direct effect 

in the analysis. Examples of direct and indirect 

effects can be found in the Web Guide. 

Direct effects are those effects “...which are 

caused by the action and occur at the same 

time and place” (40 CFR 1508.8(a)). 

Indirect effects are those effects “...which are 

caused by the action and are later in time or 

farther removed in distance, but are still 

reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may 

include growth inducing effects and other 

effects related to induced changes in the 

pattern of land use, population density, or 

growth rate, and related effects on water and 

air and other natural systems, including 

ecosystems” (40 CFR 1508.8(b)). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 

 57 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

6.8.3 Cumulative Effects 

The purpose of cumulative effects analysis is to ensure that Federal decision-makers consider the 

full range of consequences of actions (the proposed action and alternatives, including the No 

Action alternative). Assessing cumulative effects begins early in the NEPA process, during 

internal and external scoping. 

“Analyzing cumulative effects is more The CEQ regulations define cumulative effects 

challenging than analyzing direct or as “...the impact on the environment which indirect effects, primarily because of the results from the incremental impact of the difficulty of defining the geographic action when added to other past, present, and (spatial) and time (temporal) boundaries. reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless For example, if the boundaries are defined of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or too broadly, the analysis becomes person undertakes such actions” (40 CFR unwieldy; if they are defined too narrowly, 1508.7). significant issues may be missed, and 

decision-makers will be incompletely 

informed about the consequences of their actions” (CEQ, “Considering Cumulative Effects 

Under the National Environmental Policy Act”). 

In addition to the direction described below, the Web Guide contains a list of “Principles of 

cumulative effects analysis” that is useful in guiding effective cumulative effects analysis, as 

well as examples of cumulative effects. The Web Guide also includes “Steps in cumulative 

effects analysis to be addressed in each component of environmental impact assessment” from 

the CEQ’s “Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act 

(Table 1-5).” 

The following sections lay out steps in cumulative effects analysis. This is not a required format 

for documentation but is a useful way to think about the process and ensure an adequate analysis. 

6.8.3.1 Cumulative Effects Issues 

Determine which of the issues identified for analysis (see section 6.4, Issues) may involve a 

cumulative effect with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions. If the 

proposed action and alternatives would have no direct or indirect effects on a resource, you do 

not need a cumulative effects analysis on that resource. Be aware that minor direct and indirect 

effects can potentially contribute to synergistic cumulative effects that may require analysis (see 

section 6.8.3.5 Analyzing the Cumulative Effects). 

For example, the BLM proposes to build a campground near private land where a private utility 

company proposes to build and operate a power generation structure. The NEPA document 

must analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of your action of constructing a 

campground. If the campground construction would affect sage grouse habitat, but have no 

effect on air quality, and the power generation structure would affect sage grouse habitat and air 

quality, your NEPA document for the campground construction must describe the cumulative 

effects on sage grouse habitat, but not on air quality. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 

 

58 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

In another example, the BLM is reviewing a proposal to develop a natural gas field that will 

affect air quality but not affect any sensitive plants. The State is proposing a large prescribed 

burn, which will affect air quality and a sensitive plant population. The NEPA document needs 

to discuss the cumulative effects on air quality, but not on sensitive plants. 

6.8.3.2 Geographic Scope of the Cumulative Effects Analysis 

We recommend that you establish and describe the geographic scope for each cumulative effects 

issue, which will help bound the description of the affected environment (see section 6.7.1, 

Affected Environment). Describe in your EA or EIS the rationale for the geographic scope 

established. The geographic scope is generally based on the natural boundaries of the resource 

affected, rather than jurisdictional boundaries. The geographic scope will often be different for 

each cumulative effects issue. The geographic scope of cumulative effects will often extend 

beyond the scope of the direct effects, but not beyond the scope of the direct and indirect effects 

of the proposed action and alternatives. As noted above, if the proposed action and alternatives 

would have no direct or indirect effects on a resource, you do not need to analyze cumulative 

effects on that resource. 

For example, if a proposal affects water quality and air quality, the appropriate cumulative 

effects analysis areas may be the watershed and the airshed. 

6.8.3.3 Timeframe of the Cumulative Effects Analysis 

We recommend that you establish and describe the timeframe for each cumulative effects 

issue—that is, define long-term and short-term, and incorporate the duration of the effects 

anticipated. Long-term could be as long as the longest lasting effect. Timeframes, like 

geographic scope, can vary by resource. For example, the timeframe for economic effects may be 

much shorter than the timeframe for effects on vegetation structure and composition. Base these 

timeframes on the duration of the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action and 

alternatives, rather than the duration of the action itself. Describe in your EA or EIS the 

rationale for the timeframe established. 

6.8.3.4 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions 

The cumulative effects analysis considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

that would affect the resource of concern within the geographic scope and the timeframe of the 

analysis. In your analysis, you must consider other BLM actions, other Federal actions, and nonFederal (including private) actions (40 CFR 1508.7). 

You must consider past actions within the geographic scope to provide context for the 

cumulative effects analysis (40 CFR 1508.7). Past actions can usually be described by their 

aggregate effect without listing or analyzing the effects of individual past actions (CEQ, 

Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis, June 24, 2005). 

Summarize past actions adequately to describe the present conditions (see section 6.7.1, Affected 

Environment). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 59 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

In some circumstances, past actions may need to be described in greater detail when they bear 

some relation to the proposed action. For example, past actions that are similar to the proposed 

action might have some bearing on what effects might be anticipated from the proposed action or 

alternatives. You should clearly distinguish analysis of direct and indirect effects based on 

information about past actions from a cumulative effects analysis of past actions. (CEQ, 

Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis, June 24, 2005). 

You must consider present actions within the geographic scope (40 CFR 1508.7). Present 

actions are actions which are ongoing at the time of your analysis. 

You must include reasonably foreseeable future actions within the geographic scope and the 

timeframe of the analysis (40 CFR 1508.7). You cannot limit reasonably foreseeable future 

actions to those that are approved or funded. On the other hand, you are not required to 

speculate about future actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions are those for which there 

are existing decisions, funding, formal proposals, or which are highly probable, based on known 

opportunities or trends. Reasonably foreseeable development scenarios may be valuable sources 

of information to assist in the BLM’s cumulative effects analysis. When considering reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, it may be helpful to ask such questions as: 

• Is there an existing proposal, such as the submission of permit applications?

• Is there a commitment of resources, such as funding?

• If it is a Federal action, has the NEPA process begun (for example, publication of an 

NOI)? 

Analyzing future actions, such as speculative developments, is not required but may be useful in 

some circumstances. Including assumptions about possible future actions may increase the 

longevity of the document and expand the value for subsequent tiering. For example: 

The EIS for oil and gas leasing in the Northwest NPR-A Planning Area in Alaska included 

analysis of permanent road construction, even though it is not feasible at this time. By 

including assumptions and analysis about such possible future road construction in the 

EIS, new NEPA analysis might not be required if such permanent roads become feasible in 

the future. 

6.8.3.5 Analyzing the Cumulative Effects 

For each cumulative effect issue, analyze the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action 

and alternatives together with the effects of the other actions that have a cumulative effect. 

Cumulative effects analysis will usually need to be addressed separately for each alternative, 

because each alternative will have different direct and indirect effects. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
60 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

The following structure is not a required format, but may be useful in constructing the 

cumulative effects analysis. For each cumulative effect issue: 

• Describe the existing condition (see section 6.7, Affected Environment). The existing 

condition is the combination of the natural condition and the effects of past actions. 

The natural condition is the naturally occurring resource condition without the effects 

of human actions. Detailed description of the natural condition may not be possible for 

some resources because of incomplete or unavailable information (40 CFR 1502.22) 

or may not be applicable for some resources. Describe the effects of past actions, 

either individually or collectively, to understand how the existing condition has been 

created. 

• Describe the effects of other present actions. 

• Describe the effects of reasonably foreseeable actions. 

• Describe the effects of the proposed action and each action alternatives. 

• Describe the interaction among the above effects. 

• Describe the relationship of the cumulative effects to any thresholds. 

See the Web Guide for an example of cumulative effects analysis. 

Figure 6.3 Cumulative Effects 

Bars in this graph represent effects of actions. 

This graphic most clearly represents additive cumulative effects. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 61 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

The analysis of the No Action alternative describes the cumulative effect of past, other present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions, without the effect of the proposed action or action 

alternatives. The analysis of the proposed action will include those same effects, as well as the 

effects of the proposed action, and thus will demonstrate the incremental difference resulting 

from the proposed action. Regardless of how you present the analysis, you must be able to 

describe the incremental differences in cumulative effects as a result of the effects of the 

proposed action and alternatives (40 CFR 1508.7). 

Describe the interaction among the effects of the proposed action and these various past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions. This interaction may be: 

• additive: the effects of the actions add together to make up the cumulative effect. 

• countervailing: the effects of some actions balance or mitigate the effects of other actions. 

• synergistic: the effects of the actions together is greater than the sum of their individual 

effects. 

How the different effects interact may help determine how you may best describe and display the 

cumulative effects analysis. It will often be helpful to describe the cause-and-effect relations for 

the resources affected to understand if the cumulative effect is additive, countervailing, or 

synergistic. 

The cumulative effects analysis provides a basis for evaluating the cumulative effect relative to 

any regulatory, biological, socioeconomic, or physical thresholds. Describe how the incremental 

effect of the proposed action and each alternative relates to any relevant thresholds. 

6.8.4 Mitigation and Residual Effects 

Mitigation includes specific means, measures 

or practices that would reduce or eliminate 

effects of the proposed action or alternatives. 

Mitigation measures can be applied to reduce 

or eliminate adverse effects to biological, 

physical, or socioeconomic resources. 

Mitigation may be used to reduce or avoid 

adverse impacts, whether or not they are 

significant in nature. Measures or practices 

should only be termed mitigation measures if 

they have not been incorporated into the 

proposed action or alternatives. If mitigation 

measures are incorporated into the proposed 

action or alternatives, they are called design 

features, not mitigation measures (see section 

6.5.1.1, Design Features of the Proposed 

Action). You must describe the mitigation 

measures that you are adopting in your decision documentation. Monitoring is required to 

ensure the implementation of these measures (40 CFR 1505.2(c)) (see section 10.1, Purposes of 

and Requirements for Monitoring). 

Mitigation measures are those measures that 

could reduce or avoid adverse impacts and 

have not been incorporated into the proposed 

action or an alternative. 

Mitigation can include (40 CFR 1508.20): 

• Avoiding the impact altogether by not

taking a certain action or parts of an

action. 

• Minimizing impact by limiting the degree of 

magnitude of the action and its 

implementation 

• Rectifying the impact by repairing, 

rehabilitation, or restoring the affected 

environment. 

• Reducing or eliminating the impact over 

time by preservation and maintenance 

operations during the life of the action. 

• Compensating for the impact by replacing 

or providing substitute resources or 

environments.” 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
62 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

In an EIS, all “relevant, reasonable mitigation measures that could improve the project are to be 

identified,” even if they are outside the jurisdiction of the agency (see Question 19b, CEQ, Forty 

Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981). When 

presenting mitigation measures not within the BLM’s jurisdiction, it is particularly beneficial to 

work with other agencies (see Chapter 12, Cooperating Agencies, Joint Lead Agencies, and 

Advisory Committees). 

Socioeconomic impacts are usually indirect and largely fall on communities and local 

government institutions, by definition located outside BLM-managed lands. While some 

mitigation strategies are within the BLM’s control, (such as regulating the pace of mineral 

exploration and development to minimize rapid, disruptive social change), most mitigation 

strategies require action by other government entities—typically cities, counties, and State 

agencies. In supporting local and State efforts to mitigate socioeconomic impacts, you “may 

provide information and other assistance, sanction local activities, encourage community and 

project proponent agreements, and cooperate with responsible officials to the fullest extent 

feasible” (BLM Handbook of Socio-Economic Mitigation, IV-2). 

You may need to identify mitigation measures that would reduce or eliminate the effects of a 

non-Federal action when it is a connected action to the BLM proposed action (see section 

6.8.2.1.1, Connected Non-Federal Actions). For such non-Federal actions, the relevant, 

reasonable mitigation measures are likely to include mitigation measures that would be carried 

out by other Federal, State or local regulatory agencies or tribes. Identifying mitigation outside 

of BLM jurisdiction serves to alert the other agencies that can implement the mitigation. In 

describing mitigation under the authority of another government agency, you must discuss the 

probability of the other agency implementing the mitigation measures (see Question 19b, CEQ, 

Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981). 

For an action analyzed in an EA, mitigation can be used to reduce the effects of an action below 

the threshold of significance, avoiding the need to prepare an EIS (see section 7.1, Actions 

Requiring an EA). 

During impact analysis, analyze the impacts of the proposed action (including design features) 

and with all mitigation measures (if any) applied, as well as any further impacts caused by the 

mitigation measures themselves. Address the anticipated effectiveness of these mitigation 

measures in reducing or avoiding adverse impacts in your analysis. Describe the residual effects 

of any adverse impacts that remain after mitigation measures have been applied. 

6.9 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND RESPONDING TO COMMENTS 

Public involvement is an important part of the NEPA process. The level of public involvement 

varies with the different types of NEPA compliance and decision-making. Public involvement 

begins early in the NEPA process, with scoping, and continues throughout the preparation of the 

analysis and the decision. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 63 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

The public must be notified of its privacy rights. See IM 2007-092, April 4, 2007. 

Include the following statement in all information requesting public comment: “Before 

including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment –including your personal 

identifying information –may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us 

in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.” 

6.9.1 Involving and Notifying the Public 

The CEQ regulations require that agencies “make diligent efforts to involve the public in 

preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures” (40 CFR 1506.6(a)). There are a wide 

variety of ways to engage the public in the NEPA process. For EA public involvement, see 

sections 8.2, Public Involvement; 8.3.3, Scoping and Issues; and 8.3.7, Tribes, Individuals, 

Organizations, or Agencies Consulted. For EIS public involvement, see sections 6.3, Scoping 

and 9.2.10.1, Public Involvement and Scoping. 

A primary goal of public involvement is to ensure that all interested and affected parties are 

aware of your proposed action. Knowing your community well is the first step in determining 

the interested and affected parties and tribes. You may already have a core list of those 

interested in and potentially affected by the BLM's proposed actions; this may provide a good 

starting point. Work with your public affairs officer and other BLM staff, community leaders, 

and governmental agencies (Federal, State, and local) to help determine interested and affected 

parties and tribes. 

Public meetings or hearings are required when there may be substantial environmental 

controversy concerning the environmental effects of the proposed action, a substantial interest in 

holding the meeting, or a request for a meeting by another agency with jurisdiction over the 

action (40 CFR 1506.6 (c)). You may determine that it is efficient to combine public meetings 

for the NEPA with hearings required by another law (an example is requirements in the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act that require hearings if certain findings are made 

regarding the effects of a proposed action on subsistence). There are more stringent 

requirements for conducting the hearing and recording the proceedings. You must maintain 

records of public meetings and hearings including a list of attendees (as well as addresses of 

attendees desiring to be added to the mailing list) and notes or minutes of the proceedings. 

Consult 455 DM 1 for procedural requirements related to public hearings. Check individual 

program guidance to determine requirements for public meetings and hearings. 

In many cases, people attending field trips and public meetings will be interested and/or affected 

parties. Make sure that you have attendance sheets that capture contact information at your field 

trips and meetings; these will provide you with a list of people who may want to be contacted 

about and involved in the NEPA process. In some cases, those affected by your proposed action 

may not be actively engaged in the NEPA process. In these cases, it is still important for you to 

reach out to those individuals, parties, or tribes, and we recommend using a variety of methods to 

help inform and engage those affected. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
64 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Notification methods include, but are not limited to: newsletters, Web sites or online NEPA logs, 

bulletin boards, newspapers, and Federal Register Notices. EISs have very specific notification 

requirements, detailed in Chapters 9 and 13. Also refer to Chapters 4, 5, and 8 for more 

discussion of DNAs, CXs, and EAs. 

The CEQ regulations explicitly discusses agency responsibility towards interested and affected 

parties at 40 CFR 1506.6. The CEQ regulations require that agencies shall: 

(a) Make diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA 

procedures 

(b) Provide public notice of NEPA-related hearings, public meetings, and the availability of 

environmental documents so as to inform those persons and agencies who may be interested or 

affected. 

In all cases the agency shall mail notice to those who have requested it on an individual action. 

In the case of an action with effects of national concern notice shall include publication in the 

Federal Register and notice by mail to national organizations reasonably expected to be 

interested in the matter and may include listing in the 102 Monitor. An agency engaged in 

rulemaking may provide notice by mail to national organizations who have requested that notice 

regularly be provided. Agencies shall maintain a list of such organizations. 

In the case of an action with effects primarily of local concern the notice may include: 

(i) Notice to State and areawide clearinghouses pursuant to OMB Circular A- 95 (Revised). 

(ii) Notice to Indian tribes when effects may occur on reservations. 

(iii) Following the affected State's public notice procedures for comparable actions. 

(iv) Publication in local newspapers (in papers of general circulation rather than legal 

papers). 

(v) Notice through other local media. 

(vi) Notice to potentially interested community organizations including small business 

associations. 

(vii) Publication in newsletters that may be expected to reach potentially interested persons. 

(viii) Direct mailing to owners and occupants of nearby or affected property. 

(ix) Posting of notice on and off site in the area where the action is to be located. 

(c) Hold or sponsor public hearings or public meetings whenever appropriate or in accordance 

with statutory requirements applicable to the agency. Criteria shall include whether there is: 

(i) Substantial environmental controversy concerning the proposed action or substantial 

interest in holding the hearing. 

(ii) A request for a hearing by another agency with jurisdiction over the action supported 

by reasons why a hearing will be helpful. If a draft environmental impact statement is to be 

considered at a public hearing, the agency should make the statement available to the 

public at least 15 days in advance (unless the purpose of the hearing is to provide 

information for the draft environmental impact statement). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 

 65 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

(d) Solicit appropriate information from the public. 

(e) Explain in its procedures where interested persons can get information or status reports on 

environmental impact statements and other elements of the NEPA process. 

(f) Make environmental impact statements, the comments received, and any underlying 

documents available to the public pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 

(5 U.S.C. 552), without regard to the exclusion for interagency memoranda where such 

memoranda transmit comments of Federal agencies on the environmental impact of the proposed 

action. Materials to be made available to the public shall be provided to the public without 

charge to the extent practicable, or at a fee which is not more than the actual costs of reproducing 

copies required to be sent to other Federal agencies, including the Council. 

6.9.2 Comments 

The BLM has both the duty to comment on other agencies’ EISs and to obtain comments on our 

EISs in cases of jurisdiction by law or special expertise. For more discussion of these 

requirements, see Chapter 11, Agency Review of Environmental Impact Statements. 

Comments on the document and proposed action may be received in response to a scoping notice 

or in response to public review of an EA and FONSI or draft EIS. Comments received at other 

times in the process may not need a formal response. However, all substantive comments 

received before reaching a decision must be considered to the extent feasible (40 CFR 1503.4). 

Comments must be in writing (including paper or electronic format or a court reporter’s 

transcript taken at a formal hearing), substantive, and timely, in order to merit a written response. 

You may receive oral comments at public meetings and workshops – it is helpful to write these 

down to revisit during the NEPA process. To ensure that the true intent of the comment is 

captured, offer the commenter the opportunity to record his or her comment in writing. The 

geographic origin of a comment does not alter whether it is substantive. 

The requirements for BLM responses to comments differ between EAs and EISs (see section 8.2, 

Public Involvement, and section 9.6.1, Comments Received Following Issue of the Final EIS). 

When an EA and unsigned FONSI are made available for public comment, we recommend that 

you respond to all substantive and timely comments. You may respond to substantive, timely 

comments in the EA or in the decision record. If a substantive and timely comment does not 

lead to changes in the EA or decision, you may reply directly to the commenter, and we 

recommend that you document the reply in either the EA or the decision record (see section 

8.5.1, Documenting the Decision). When preparing a final EIS, you must respond to all 

substantive written comments submitted during the formal scoping period and public comment 

period (see section 9.4, The Final EIS). You are not required to respond to comments that are 

not substantive or comments that are received after the close of the comment period, but you 

may choose to reply (516 DM 4.19(A) and (B)) (see section 6.9.2.2, Comment Response). 

However, be cautious about not responding to untimely comments from agencies with 

jurisdiction by law or special expertise (see section 11.1 Obtaining Comments on Your EIS). 

6.9.2.1 Substantive Comments 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

66 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Substantive comments do one or more of the following: 

• question, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of information in the EIS or EA. 

• question, with reasonable basis, the adequacy of, methodology for, or assumptions 

 used for the environmental analysis. 

• present new information relevant to the analysis. 

• present reasonable alternatives other than those analyzed in the EIS or EA. 

• cause changes or revisions in one or more of the alternatives. 

Comments that are not considered substantive include the following. 

• comments in favor of or against the proposed action or alternatives without reasoning 

that meet the criteria listed above (such as “we disagree with Alternative Two and 

believe the BLM should select Alternative Three”). 

• comments that only agree or disagree with BLM policy or resource decisions without 

justification or supporting data that meet the criteria listed above (such as “more 

grazing should be permitted”). 

• comments that don’t pertain to the project area or the project (such as “the government 

should eliminate all dams,” when the project is about a grazing permit). 

• comments that take the form of vague, open-ended questions. 

Examples of substantive comments can be found in the Web Guide. 

6.9.2.2 Comment Response 

The CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1503.4 recognize several options for responding to substantive 

comments, including: 

• modifying one or more of the alternatives as requested. 

• developing and evaluating suggested alternatives. 

• supplementing, improving, or modifying the analysis. 

• making factual corrections. 

• explaining why the comments do not warrant further agency response, citing cases, 

authorities, or reasons to support the BLM’s position. 

Preparing to Respond to Comments 

When you anticipate receiving a large number of comments, we recommend that you develop an 

organized system for receiving and cataloging comments before the comments start arriving. 

Training (formal or informal) to ensure that staff understand their responsibilities and the 

system’s organization may be valuable. For proposals that may have a large number of 

comments, we recommend that you develop a systematic way to track substantive comments and 

the BLM’s response, such as in a searchable database. Commenters may wish to know how the 

BLM responded to their comments; having a well-organized means of determining this will 

facilitate the process. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 67 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Responding to Substantive Comments 

You may respond to comments in several ways: 

• write a letter to the commenter and record your response in the administrative record. 

• present the comment and your response in the NEPA document. 

• present the comment and your response in the decision document. 

The CEQ recommends that responses to substantive comments should normally result in changes 

in the text of the NEPA document, rather than as lengthy replies to individual comments in a 

separate section (see Question 29a, CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA 

Regulations, March 23, 1981). If the comments are made with respect to the BLM decision, you 

may respond to the comments in the decision documentation or Record of Decision rather than in 

the EIS or EA. 

A short response to each substantive comment and a citation to the section or page where the 

change was made may be appropriate. Similar comments may be summarized and one response 

given to each group of similar comments; this approach is especially useful when a large number 

of comments is received. 

If public comments on a draft EIS identify impacts, alternatives, or mitigation measures that 

were not addressed in the draft, the decision-maker responsible for preparing the EIS must 

determine if they warrant further consideration. If they do, the decision-maker must determine 

whether the new impacts, new alternatives, or new mitigation measures must be analyzed in 

either the final EIS or a supplemental draft EIS (see Question 29b, CEQ, Forty Most Asked 

Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981) (see section 5.3, 

Supplementing an EIS). Similarly, we recommend that the decision-maker responsible for 

preparing an EA consider whether public comments identify impacts, alternatives or mitigation 

measures that warrant preparation of a new EA. 

Comments that express a professional disagreement with the conclusions of the analysis or assert 

that the analysis is inadequate may or may not lead to changes in the NEPA document. When 

there is disagreement within a professional discipline, a careful review of the various 

interpretations is warranted. In some instances, public comments may necessitate a reevaluation 

of analytical conclusions. If, after reevaluation, the decision-maker responsible for preparing the 

EA or EIS does not think that a change is warranted, we recommend that your response provide 

the rationale for that conclusion. Thorough documentation of methodology and assumptions in 

the analysis may improve the reader’s understanding of the BLM’s analytical methods, and may 

reduce questions (see section 6.8.1.2, Analyzing Effects). 

Responding to Nonsubstantive Comments 

You are not required to respond to nonsubstantive comments such as those comments merely 

expressing approval or disapproval of a proposal without reason. However, you may wish to 

acknowledge the comment, and may do so in a variety of methods, including but not limited to 

sending postcards, letters, or email responses. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
68 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

This page was intentionally left blank. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 69 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

CHAPTER 7—DETERMINING WHETHER AN EA OR EIS IS 

APPROPRIATE 

7.1 Actions Requiring an EA 

7.2 Actions Requiring an EIS 

7.3 Significance 

7.1 ACTIONS REQUIRING AN EA 

Actions are analyzed in an EA if the actions are not categorically excluded, not covered in an 

existing environmental document, and not normally subject to an EIS. Use the EA analysis to 

determine if the action would have significant effects; if so, you would need to prepare an EIS. 

If the action would not have significant effects, prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) (see section 8.4.2, The Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)). If you have 

already decided to prepare an EIS, you do not need to first prepare an EA (see section 7.2, 

Actions Requiring an EIS). 

An EA may demonstrate that a proposed action would have effects that are significant but could 

be reduced or avoided through mitigation. You may use a mitigated FONSI rather than an EIS if 

you are able to reasonably conclude, based on the EA analysis, that the mitigation measures 

would be effective in reducing effects to nonsignificance. The FONSI must clearly identify 

whether the mitigation measures are needed to reduce effects to nonsignificance. You must 

describe the mitigation measures you are adopting in the decision documentation, and must 

provide monitoring to ensure the implementation of these measures (see section 10.2, 

Developing a Monitoring Plan or Strategy). 

You may prepare an EA for an action that has some significant impacts if the EA is tiered to a 

broader EIS which fully analyzed those significant impacts (see section 5.2.2, Tiering). For such 

a tiered EA, you must document in the FONSI a determination that the potentially significant 

effects have already been analyzed, and no other effects reach significance. Only significant 

effects that have not been analyzed in an existing EIS will trigger the need for a new EIS. 

Note: Though not required, a decision-maker may elect to prepare an EA for an action that is 

categorically excluded or covered by an existing environmental document to assist in planning or 

decision-making. In such cases, explain in the EA why you are electing to prepare an EA. 

7.2 ACTIONS REQUIRING AN EIS 

Actions whose effects are expected to be significant and are not fully covered in an existing EIS 

must be analyzed in a new or supplemental EIS (516 DM 11.8(A)). You must also prepare an 

EIS if, after preparation of an EA, you determine that the effects of the proposed action would be 

significant and cannot be mitigated to a level of nonsignificance (see section 7.1, Actions 

Requiring an EA). If you determine during preparation of an EA that the proposed action would 

have significant effects and cannot be mitigated to a level of nonsignificance, you do not need to 

complete preparation of the EA before beginning preparation of an EIS (516 DM 11.7(E)) (See 

section 8.4.1, Significant Impacts – Transitioning from an EA to an EIS). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
70 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

The following actions normally require preparation of an EIS: 

(1) Approval of Resource Management Plans. 

(2) Proposals for Wild and Scenic Rivers and National Historic Scenic Trails. 

(3) Approval of regional coal lease sales in a coal production region. 

(4) Decision to issue a coal preference right lease. 

(5) Approval of applications to the BLM for major actions in the following categories: 

(a) Sites for steam-electric power plants, petroleum refineries, synfuel plants, and 

industrial structures 

(b) Rights-of-way for major reservoirs, canals, pipelines, transmission lines, 

highways and railroads 

(6) Approval of operations that would result in liberation of radioactive tracer materials or 

nuclear stimulation 

(7) Approval of any mining operation where the area to be mined, including any area of 

disturbance, over the life the mining plan is 640 acres or larger in size. 

“If, for any of these actions it is anticipated that an EIS is not needed based on potential 

impact significance, an environmental assessment will be prepared....” (516 DM 11.8(B) 

and (C)). 

Note: Though not required, a decision-maker may elect to prepare an EIS for an action that does 

not have significant effects to assist in planning or decision-making. In such cases, explain in the 

Notice of Intent and the EIS why you are electing to prepare an EIS. 

7.3 SIGNIFICANCE 

Whether an action must be analyzed in an EA or EIS depends upon a determination of the 

significance of the effects. “Significance” has specific meaning in the NEPA context and you 

must use only this meaning in NEPA documents. 

Significance is defined as effects of sufficient context and intensity that an environmental 

impact statement is required. The CEQ regulations refer to both significant effects and 

significant issues (for example, 40 CFR 1502.2(b)). The meaning of significance should 

not be interpreted differently for issues than for effects: significant issues are those issues 

that are related to significant or potentially significant effects. 

The CEQ regulations explain in 40 CFR 1508.27: 

“‘Significantly’ as used in the NEPA requires considerations of both context and 

intensity: 

(a) Context. This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several 

contexts such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected 

interests, and the locality. Significance varies with the setting of the proposed action. 

For instance, for a site-specific action, significance would usually depend upon the 

effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Both short-term and long-term 

effects are relevant. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 71 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

(b) Intensity. This refers to the severity of effect. Responsible officials must bear in 

mind that more than one agency may make decisions about partial aspects of a major 

action....” (40 CFR 1508.27). 

Note that to determine the severity of effect, you must look at direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects (40 CFR 1508.25(c)). 

The CEQ regulations include the following ten considerations for evaluating intensity. 

Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(1)). In analyzing the 

intensity of effects, you must consider that effects may be both beneficial and adverse. Even 

if the effect of an action will be beneficial on balance, significant adverse effects may exist. 

For example, removal of a dam may have long-term beneficial effects on an endangered fish 

species. However, the process of removing the dam may have short-term adverse effects on 

the fish. 

The consideration of intensity must include analysis of both these beneficial and adverse 

effects, not just a description of the net effects. Only a significant adverse effect triggers the 

need to prepare an EIS. 

Public health and safety (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(2)). You must consider the degree to which 

the action would affect public health and safety which may require, for example, evaluation 

of hazardous and solid wastes, air and water quality. In the context of evaluating 

significance, consideration of these resource effects should describe their relation to public 

health and safety. Economic or social effects are not intended by themselves to require 

preparation of an environmental impact statement (40 CFR 1508.14.). 

Unique characteristics of the geographic area (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(3). “Unique 

characteristics” are generally limited to those that have been identified through the land use 

planning process or other legislative, regulatory, or planning process; for example: 

• prime and unique farmlands as defined by 7 CFR 657.5. 

• caves designated under 43 CFR 37. 

• wild and scenic rivers, both designated and suitable. 

• designated wilderness areas and wilderness study areas. 

• areas of critical environmental concern designated under 43 CFR 1610.7-2. 

Degree to which effects are likely to be highly controversial (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(4)). You 

must consider the degree to which the effects are likely to be highly controversial. 

Controversy in this context means disagreement about the nature of the effects, not 

expressions of opposition to the proposed action or preference among the alternatives. 

There will always be some disagreement about the nature of the effects for land 

management actions, and the decision-maker must exercise some judgment in evaluating the 

degree to which the effects are likely to be highly controversial. Substantial dispute within 

the scientific community about the effects of the proposed action would indicate that the 

effects are likely to be highly controversial. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
72 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Degree to which effects are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks (40 CFR 

1508.27(b)(5)). You must consider the degree to which the effects are likely to be highly 

uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. As with controversy, there will always be 

some uncertainty about the effects of land management actions, and the decision-maker 

must exercise some judgment in evaluating the degree to which the effects are likely to be 

highly uncertain. Similarly, there will always be some risk associated with land 

management actions, but the decision-maker must consider whether the risks are unique or 

unknown. (Refer to the Web Guide for examples of both risks that are unique or unknown, 

and risks that are not). 

Consideration of whether the action may establish a precedent for future actions with 

significant impacts (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(6)). You must consider the degree to which the 

action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a 

decision in principle about a future consideration. You must limit this consideration to 

future actions that are reasonably foreseeable, not merely possible (see section 6.8.3.4, Past, 

Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions). 

Consideration of whether the action is related to other actions with cumulatively 

significant impacts (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(7)). You must consider whether the action is 

related to other actions with cumulatively significant effects (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(7). Other 

actions are “related” to the action if they are connected or cumulative actions (see sections 

6.5.2.1, Connected Actions and 6.5.2.2, Cumulative Actions). You must analyze the effect 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of who undertakes such 

other actions, in the cumulative effects analysis for the proposed action. This analysis 

provides the context for understanding the effects of the BLM action (see section 6.8.3, 

Cumulative Effects). In determining the significance of the BLM action, you count only the 

effects of the BLM action together with the effects of connected and cumulative actions to 

the extent that the effects can be prevented or modified by BLM decision making (see section 

6.5.2.1 Connected Actions). 

For example: 

The BLM proposes to construct a trail to provide recreation access to BLM-managed lands 

from a campground the Forest Service proposes to construct on adjacent Forest Service 

lands. The Forest Service campground is a connected action (see section 6.5.2.1, 

Connected Actions). In this example, you must count the effects of both the BLM trail 

construction and the Forest Service campground construction in determining significance. 

The BLM proposes to construct a campground, which would contribute sediment to a 

nearby stream; the BLM proposes to replace a culvert, which would contribute sediment to 

the same stream. The culvert replacement is a cumulative action (see section 6.5.2.2, 

Cumulative Actions). In this example, you must count the effects of both the campground 

construction and the culvert replacement in determining significance. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 73 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

The BLM receives a right-of-way request for access for timber harvest on adjacent private 

land. The timber harvest on private land would be a connected action, because the timber 

harvest and the right-of-way request are interdependent parts (see section 6.5.2.1, 

Connected Actions). Whether you count the effects of the timber harvest in determining the 

significance of the right-of-way grant would depend on whether the effects of the timber 

harvest could be prevented by BLM decision making (see section 6.5.2.1. Connected 

Actions). In this example, that determination would likely depend on whether the private 

party has other reasonable access for timber harvest (see section 6.6.3, Alternatives 

Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Analysis for discussion of “reasonable”). 

 If the private party has no other reasonable access (and therefore the harvest could 

not proceed without the right-of-way grant), the effects of the timber harvest would 

count towards the significance of the right-of-way grant. If the private party has no 

other reasonable access, the No Action alternative (i.e., denying the right-of-way 

request) would assume that the timber harvest would not occur. In this case, the 

effects of the timber harvest would be part of the incremental difference in cumulative 

effects between the No Action alternative (denying the right-of-way request) and the 

Proposed Action (granting the right-of-way). 

 If the private party has other reasonable access, the effects of the timber harvest 

would not count towards the significance of the right-of-way grant. The No Action 

alternative would assume that the timber harvest would occur using the other 

reasonable access. In this case, the effects of the timber harvest would not be part of 

the incremental difference in cumulative effects between the No Action alternative 

and the Proposed Action (see section 6.8.3.5, Analyzing the Cumulative Effects). 

Scientific, cultural, or historical resources, including those listed in or eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic Places (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(8)). This 

factor represents a specific sub-set of the factor, “unique characteristics of the 

geographic area.” Significance may arise from the loss or destruction of significant 

scientific, cultural, or historical resources. For resources listed in or eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic Places, significance depends on the degree 

to which the action would adversely affect these resources. 

Threatened or endangered species and their critical habitat (40 CFR 

1508.27(b)(9)). Significance depends on the degree to which the action would 

adversely affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act or their designated 

critical habitat. A determination under the Endangered Species Act that an action 

would adversely affect a listed species or critical habitat does not necessarily equate 

to a significant effect in the NEPA context. The NEPA analysis and ESA effects 

determinations have different purposes and use slightly different analytical 

approaches (for example, regarding connected actions, reasonably foreseeable 

actions, and cumulative effects). Although ESA documents, such as biological 

assessments and biological opinions, provide useful information, you must base your 

evaluation of the degree to which the action would adversely affect the species or 

critical habitat on the analysis in the EA. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
74 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Any effects that threaten a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements 

imposed for the protection of the environment (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(10)). This 

factor will often overlap with other factors: for example, violations of the Clean 

Water Act or Clean Air Act would usually involve effects that would adversely 

affect public health and safety. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 75 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

CHAPTER 8—PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

General 

8.1 Preparing to Write an Environmental Assessment (EA) 

8.2 Public Involvement 

8.3 EA Format 

8.4 Determination of Significance 

8.5 The Decision Record 

8.6 Implementation 

GENERAL 

An environmental assessment is a tool for determining the “significance” of 

environmental impacts; it provides a basis for rational decision making. 

The steps for performing an EA-level analysis follow the NEPA analysis steps laid out in 

Chapter 6, NEPA Analysis. This chapter builds on the foundation laid in Chapter 6 and 

provides specific direction and guidance for preparing an EA. Chapter 8, Preparing an 

Environmental Assessment also addresses the transition steps necessary to shift to preparation of 

an EIS when an EA process identifies significant effects or the likelihood of significant effects 

(see section 8.4.1, Significant Impacts – Transitioning from an EA to an EIS). 

8.1 PREPARING TO WRITE AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) 

An EA is intended to be a concise public document that provides sufficient evidence and analysis 

for determining the significance of effects from a proposed action (40 CFR 1508.9) and that 

serves as a basis for reasoned choice. Based upon the EA analysis, either an EIS or a FONSI 

will be prepared. 

The CEQ has advised agencies to keep EAs to no more than approximately 10-15 pages 

(Question 36a, CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 

23, 1981). Concise and well-written documents foster effective communications with the public 

and informed decision-making. This handbook was developed to assist in streamlining NEPA 

documents while retaining their informative character, and provides suggestions and tools for 

preparing concise EAs. 

You may reduce the length of the EA by thoughtful crafting of the purpose and need for action; 

developing a proposed action that specifically addresses the purpose and need; and maintaining 

focus on the relevant issues. Consistent focus on the issues associated with the proposed action 

will help you identify reasonable alternatives and potential effects. Other streamlining 

techniques include the use of tiering and incorporation by reference (see section 5.2, 

Incorporation by Reference and Tiering). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
76 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

A longer EA may be appropriate when a proposal is so complex that a concise document cannot 

meet the goals of 40 CFR 1508.9 or when it is extremely difficult to determine whether the 

proposal could have significant environmental effects. Carefully consider complex proposals 

and the criteria for when an EIS may be appropriate (see Chapter 7, Determining Whether an 

EA or an EIS is Appropriate), rather than proceeding with a lengthy EA just to avoid the EIS 

process. 

8.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

You must have some form of public involvement in the preparation of all EAs. The CEQ 

regulations do not require agencies to make EAs available for public comment and review. In 

certain limited circumstances, agencies are required to make FONSIs available for public review 

(40 CFR 1501.4(e)(2) (see section 8.4.2, The Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)). The 

CEQ regulations direct agencies to encourage and facilitate public involvement in the NEPA 

process to the fullest extent possible (40 CFR 1500.2(d), 40 CFR 1506.6). This means that while 

some public involvement is required in the preparation of an EA, you have the discretion to 

determine how much, and what kind of involvement works best for each individual EA. For 

preparation of an EA, public involvement may include any of the following: external scoping, 

public notification before or during preparation of an EA, public meetings, or public review and 

comment of the completed EA and unsigned FONSI. The type of public involvement is at the 

discretion of the decision-maker. When you need to prepare many EAs for similar projects in a 

short timeframe, it may be helpful to prepare a programmatic EA to cover those projects and to 

facilitate focused public involvement 

Before and during the preparation of the EA, be very thoughtful about the level of public 

involvement that may be necessary with respect both to the decision to be made and the analysis 

of the environmental consequences of that decision. As discussed in section 6.9, Public 

Involvement and Responding to Comments, consider providing for public involvement very 

early in the process. It is helpful to prepare a public involvement strategy that allows you to 

adjust the amount and nature of public participation throughout the analysis process. In the 

strategy, identify the objectives for public involvement to assist in determining the need for, level 

and nature of that involvement. 

Internal scoping, while not considered public involvement, is used to set the stage for external 

scoping if the decision-maker determines that it is necessary. Internal and external scoping are 

introduced in section 6.3, Scoping and discussed in more detail in section 8.3.3, Scoping and 

Issues. Internal scoping is integral to the preparation of all environmental assessments. 

In addition to public involvement in the preparation of EAs, you must notify the public of the 

availability of a completed EA and FONSI (40 CFR 1506.6(b)). In addition, some FONSIs must 

be made available for a 30-day public review, as described in section 8.4.2, The Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI). In situations that do not require public review of the FONSI, the 

unsigned FONSI and completed EA may be released for public review at the decision-maker’s 

discretion. Section 8.4.2, The Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) discusses the 

preparation of FONSIs and provides information regarding their release for public review. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 

 77 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

8.3 EA FORMAT 

The CEQ regulations state that an EA must contain brief discussions of the need for the proposal, 

the alternatives considered, the environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives, and 

a listing of agencies and persons consulted (40 CFR 1508.9 (b)). Also, the BLM requires certain 

information in the EA, and there may be particular program-specific requirements for an EA. 

Refer to the Web Guide for a current description of program-specific requirements related to 

EAs. Content and format requirements for EA-level LUP amendments can be found in the 

BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1. 

We recommend that you organize an EA so that the flow of information is logical and easy to 

follow. The following recommended EA format is intended to present the analytical information 

in a manner that both informs decision-making and enhances general reader understanding of the 

proposal, the analysis process, and the results. This recommended format is provided in outline 

form in Appendix 9, Recommended EA Format. 

8.3.1 Introduction 

Provide the following identifying information at the beginning of an EA, or in the introduction: 

• Title, EA number, and type of project. Consult the appropriate State, District, or 

Field Office guidance regarding the assignment of EA numbers. 

• Location of proposal. Identify the general location of the proposed action (details of 

the location are in the proposed action). Use maps where appropriate to assist in 

identifying the specific location of the proposed action. 

• Name and location of preparing office.

• Identify the subject function code, lease, serial, or case file number (where 

applicable). Identify, for example, the right-of way case file number, the application 

for a permit to drill identifier, etc. 

• Applicant name (where applicable). The applicant's address may also be included. 

(Note: Applicant name and address may be protected under the Privacy Act: refer to 

program-specific guidance and the exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act, 

which is referenced in the Web Guide). 

The EA introduction also typically includes background information that provides context for the 

purpose and need statement. 

8.3.2 Purpose and Need for Action and Decision to be Made 

As discussed in section 6.2.1, The Role of the Purpose and Need Statement, the purpose and 

need statement frames the range of alternatives. We recommend that you develop the purpose 

and need statement very early in the NEPA process and include it in scoping. 

We recommend including a section in the EA that describes the “Decision to be Made.” 

Describing the decision to be made clearly spells out the BLM’s decision space and the focus of 

the NEPA analysis; in addition, it may serve as a vehicle for describing the nature of other 

decisions that will be made by other entities in order to implement the proposed action and any 

alternatives. Refer to the discussion and examples in section 6.2.1, The Decision to be Made. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 

 

78 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

8.3.3 Scoping and Issues 

The topics of internal and external scoping are introduced in section 6.3, Scoping. Internal 

scoping, as discussed, is used to formulate the purpose and need; identify connected, similar and 

cumulative actions associated with the proposal; begin preparations for the cumulative effects 

analysis; determine the appropriate level of documentation; and prepare a public participation 

strategy. While external scoping for EAs is optional (40 CFR 1501.7), the benefits of external 

scoping for an EA are essentially the same as for an EIS, as discussed in section 6.3.2, External 

Scoping. 

When evaluating the need for scoping, consider factors such as: the size or scale of the proposed 

action; whether the proposal is routine or unique; who might be interested or affected; and 

whether or not external scoping has been conducted for similar projects and what the results have 

been. It is up to the decision-maker to determine the need for and level of scoping to be 

conducted. We recommend that you document in the EA your rationale for determining whether 

or not to conduct external scoping. If you conduct external scoping, document the scoping 

process, the comments received, and the issues identified and how they were addressed in the 

EA. If you receive numerous comments, a summary of the comments may suffice for the EA; 

however, be sure to retain the comments and to document their disposition in the administrative 

record. See sections 8.3.7, Tribes, Individuals, Organizations, or Agencies Consulted, and 

8.5.1, Documenting the Decision, for additional discussions regarding public involvement and 

managing comments. 

Regardless of the level of scoping conducted, we recommend that you identify and document 

issues associated with the proposed action (see sections 6.3, Scoping and 6.4, Issues). As 

discussed in section 6.4.1, Identifying Issues for Analysis, you do not need to analyze all issues 

identified in the scoping process. Analyze an issue if its analysis will help in making a reasoned 

choice among alternatives, or if it is, or may be, related to a potentially significant effect. In 

addition, the decision-maker may elect to analyze other issues to assist in planning or decisionmaking. In such cases explain in the EA why you are electing to identify the issue for analysis. 

8.3.4 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

You must describe the proposed action and alternatives considered, if any (40 CFR 1508.9(b)) 

(see sections 6.5, Proposed Action and 6.6, Alternative Development). Illustrations and maps 

can be used to help describe the proposed action and alternatives. The sub-sections below 

provide detailed guidance for how to describe the proposed action and how to develop and 

describe appropriate alternatives. 

8.3.4.1 Description of the Proposed Action 

Provide a description of the proposed action (see section 6.5, Proposed Action for guidance). 

Generally describe the relationship between the purpose and need and the proposed action. To 

identify potential connected and cumulative actions that may need to be included with the 

proposed action, refer to sections 6.5.2.1, Connected Actions and 6.5.2.2, Cumulative Actions. 

Be sure to include design features specific to the proposed action (see section 6.5.1.1, Design 

Features of the Proposed Action). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 79 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

8.3.4.2 Alternatives in an EA 

EAs shall “...include brief discussions...of alternatives as required by section 102(2)(E),...” (40 

CFR 1508.9(b)). Section 102(2)(E) of the NEPA provides that agencies of the Federal 

Government shall “study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended 

courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses 

of available resources.” 

Although the regulation at 40 CFR 1508.9(b) makes no specific mention of the No Action 

alternative with respect to EAs, the CEQ has interpreted the regulations generally to require 

some consideration of a No Action alternative in an EA. The CEQ has issued guidance stating: 

“you may contrast the impacts of the proposed action and alternatives with the current condition 

and expected future condition in the absence of the project. This constitutes consideration of a 

no-action alternative as well as demonstrating the need for the project.” (CEQ Memorandum to 

Federal NEPA Contacts: Emergency Actions and NEPA (September 8, 2005), CEQ 

Memorandum to Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of Interior: Guidance for Environmental 

Assessments of Forest Health Projects (December 9, 2002)). Therefore, at a minimum, your EA 

must include documentation of the current and future state of the environment in the absence of 

the proposed action. This discussion does not need to be a separate section called “No Action 

Alternative,” but can be part of the environmental effects section of the EA to show the change 

in effects brought about by the proposed action or alternatives. Examples of how to do this can 

be found on the web guide. 

You may analyze the No Action alternative with the same level of treatment as the proposed 

action and any action alternatives, if this will assist in your decision-making. In such cases, it 

may be clearer to provide this analysis in a separate analysis of the No Action alternative in an 

environmental effects section. Including such a separate analysis may provide a useful context 

for comparing environmental effects of the various alternatives, and demonstrates the 

consequences of not meeting the need for the action. 

You must consider alternatives if there are unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of 

available resources (40 CFR 1508.9(b)). There are no unresolved conflicts concerning 

alternative uses of available resources if consensus has been established about the proposed 

action based on input from interested parties, or there are no reasonable alternatives to the 

proposed action that would be substantially different in design or effects. (However, the analysis 

of effects may result in new issues that require development and consideration of another 

alternative). 

Consensus about the proposed action may be established by conducting scoping for the proposed 

action, but it may also be possible to establish consensus through other means of public 

involvement. For example, scoping and/or public comments on a programmatic NEPA 

document may provide a basis for concluding that there is consensus about a subsequent specific 

action that is tiered to the programmatic document. Document the basis for concluding that there 

is consensus about a proposed action and identify the interested parties that participated in the 

consensus-building process. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

80 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Many conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources are resolved in existing land 

use plan (LUP) and other programmatic decisions. Such programmatic decisions often establish 

“basic policy objectives for management of the area,” which may ultimately limit the 

“reasonable” alternatives to a proposed action to implement an LUP or programmatic decision 

(see section 6.6.1, Reasonable Alternatives). The purpose and need statement for 

implementation actions may be constructed in the context of the existing LUP or programmatic 

decisions; thus, alternatives that are not in conformance typically will not be “reasonable.” 

However, some proposed actions and alternatives will intentionally not be in conformance with 

the LUP because the intent is to amend or revise LUP direction; hence the alternatives are 

reasonable to analyze. 

If alternatives relevant to the proposed action have been described and analyzed in a previous 

environmental document, it may be sufficient to incorporate by reference the description and 

analysis from the previous document (see section 5.2, Incorporation by Reference and Tiering). 

In addition, you may use tiering to reduce the range of alternatives (see section 5.2, 

Incorporation by Reference and Tiering, for further discussion of tiering). 

In addition, for EAs, you need only analyze alternatives that would have a lesser effect than the 

proposed action. However, be cautious in dismissing an alternative from analysis in an EA 

because it would have a “greater effect.” For many management actions, characterizing the 

overall effects of alternatives as “lesser” or “greater” will be difficult, because alternatives will 

often have lesser effects on some resources and greater effects on other resources when 

compared to the proposed action. 

For projects proposed under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) (P.L. 108­

148), refer to specific guidance regarding analysis of alternatives in section 6.6.1, Reasonable 

Alternatives, as it provides guidance different from that included in this section. 

While analysis of alternatives is not always required in EAs, a decision-maker may choose to 

analyze alternatives in detail to assist in identifying trade-offs or in decision-making and 

planning. In such cases, explain in the EA why you are electing to analyze the alternative in 

detail. 

8.3.4.2.1 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis 

We recommend that the EA contain a description of alternatives to the proposed action that were 

considered but not analyzed in detail. Include alternatives that were recommended by members 

of the public or agencies but dismissed from detailed analysis after preliminary investigation. 

Document the reasons for dismissing an alternative in the EA (see section 6.6.3, Alternatives 

Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis for additional discussion). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 

 

 81 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

8.3.4.3 Conformance 

In this section, discuss whether or not the proposed action is in conformance with the land use 

plan; identify directly relevant laws, regulations, policies, program guidance, and local 

permitting requirements that are germane to the proposed action. An exhaustive list or 

discussion of all applicable laws or regulations is not appropriate. 

We recommend that you also evaluate and disclose whether or not any alternatives considered 

are in conformance with the land use plan and as described above. Determining “conformance” 

early in the process will indicate if a plan amendment is necessary to implement an alternative. 

8.3.5 Affected Environment 

We recommend that the EA contain a brief description of the environment likely to be affected 

by the proposed action or alternatives. Limit the description of the affected environment to that 

information relevant to understanding the effect(s) of the proposed action or alternative (see 

sections 6.7.1, Affected Environment and 6.7.2, Use of Relevant Data). You may present the 

affected environment description as its own section, or combined with environmental effects. 

8.3.6 Environmental Effects 

The EA must describe and provide the analysis of environmental effects of the proposed action 

and each alternative analyzed in detail (40 CFR 1508.9(b)). An issue identified through internal 

or external scoping must be analyzed if analysis is necessary to : 

• make a reasoned choice among alternatives (if any), or 

• determine the significance of effects (see section 6.8, Environmental Effects). 

The effects analysis must address direct, indirect and cumulative effects related to each issue (see 

section 6.8, Environmental Effects). Tiering to a broader NEPA analysis may limit the need for 

analysis, especially cumulative effects analysis (see section 6.8.3, Cumulative Effects). 

Discussion of impacts may either be organized by alternative with impact topics as subheadings 

or by impact topic with alternatives as subheadings. Generally, if impacts to a particular 

resource for one alternative are the same as another alternative, make reference to that section in 

the EA rather than repeating the information. 

The EA must also identify and analyze mitigation measures, if any, which may be taken to avoid 

or reduce potentially significant effects (see Question 39, CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions 

Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981). You must describe and analyze the 

anticipated effectiveness of mitigation measures and any direct, indirect, and cumulative effects 

that remain after the application of all mitigation measures—that is, residual effects. Although 

described and analyzed in the body of the EA, the mitigation measures that will be implemented 

are explicitly adopted in the decision record. Refer to section 6.8.4, Mitigation and Residual 

Effects for additional information regarding mitigation measures. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 

 

82 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

8.3.7 Tribes, Individuals, Organizations, or Agencies Consulted 

The EA must list tribes, individuals, organizations, and agencies consulted (40 CFR 1508.9(b)). 

Long contact lists may be referenced or provided in an appendix to the EA. It may be 

appropriate to provide brief statements regarding the purpose for the contacts and the results. 

You may include comments received from tribes and the public in this section, though you may 

also include them in the discussion of scoping and issues earlier in the EA, or describe them in 

the decision record (see sections 8.3.3, Scoping and Issues and 8.5.1, Documenting the 

Decision). If large numbers of substantive comments are received, you may summarize them in 

the EA or decision record, but you must retain the comment letters in the administrative record. 

It is important that you not only evaluate and summarize the substantive comments, but be able 

to demonstrate that you considered them. 

8.3.8 List of Preparers 

We recommend that you provide a list of the specialists who prepared the EA and their area of 

expertise. 

8.4 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE 

Based upon the analysis, provide a determination as to whether or not the selected alternative 

will have significant environmental effects (see section 7.3, Significance). This determination 

yields different results, as outlined below. 

8.4.1 Significant Impacts -Transitioning from an EA to an EIS 

If you determine that the effects of the alternative you wish to select are significant, you cannot 

approve the action unless it is either analyzed in an EIS or modified to avoid significant effects. 

In the event that you determine an EIS is necessary, draw the EA preparations to a close (retain 

all documents). You must publish in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an 

EIS (refer to section 13.1, Publishing Notices in the Federal Register). You may integrate the 

information assembled and analysis completed for the EA into the EIS and use it for scoping for 

the EIS. Information related to how and when scoping was conducted for the EA, the results, 

and any comments received can still be very helpful. However, the scoping for the EA does not 

take the place of the scoping required after publication of the NOI for the EIS unless a public 

notice for scoping for the EA said that preparation of an EIS was a possibility and that comments 

would still be considered (see Question 13, CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning 

CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981). 

When transitioning to an EIS, organize materials used for the EA so that pertinent portions may 

be integrated into the EIS. As discussed above, information about the scoping process and 

issues, contact lists used for scoping, and comments received may be especially helpful. 

Discussions from the EA of the purpose and need, proposed action and alternatives may 

streamline the initiation of the EIS process. Descriptions of the affected environment and the 

analyses of effects, including assumptions and methodologies, may also be directly incorporated 

into the EIS. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 83 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

8.4.2 The Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) 

The FONSI is a document that explains the reasons why an action will not have a significant 

effect on the human environment and, why, therefore, an EIS will not be required (40 CFR 

1508.13). The FONSI must succinctly state the reasons for deciding that the action will have no 

significant environmental effects (40 CFR 1508.13, Questions 37a, CEQ, Forty Most Asked 

Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981). The FONSI need only 

provide a basis for the conclusion that the selected alternative(s) will have no significant effect. 

Alternatives that are not selected but may have significant effects do not trigger the preparation 

of an EIS nor do they have to be described in the FONSI. We recommend that the FONSI 

address the relevant context and intensity factors described in section 7.3, Significance. 

There are two situations when a FONSI is prepared: 

• EA analysis shows that the action would have no significant effects. 

• EA analysis shows that the action would have no significant effects beyond those 

already analyzed in an EIS to which the EA is tiered (see section 5.2.2, Tiering). 

You may find that your action has significant effects and still reach a FONSI, 

provided that those significant effects were fully analyzed in the EIS to which your 

EA tiered (see section 5.2.2, Tiering). In this case, we recommend that you state in 

the FONSI that there are no significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the EIS to 

which this EA is tiered. 

The EA must be attached to the FONSI or incorporated by reference into the FONSI (40 CFR 

1508.13, Question 37a, CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA 

Regulations, March 23, 1981). The FONSI must note any other relevant environmental 

documents related to the findings, and must be signed and dated by the decision-maker (40 CFR 

1501.7(a)(5), 40 CFR 1508.13). The FONSI is not the authorizing document for the action: the 

decision record is the authorizing document. 

Some FONSIs must be made available for a 30-day public review before the determination of 

whether to prepare an EIS (40 CFR 1501.4 (e)(2); also see 40 CFR 1501.4 (e)(1)). Public review 

is necessary if or when: 

• the proposal is a borderline case, (such as when there is a reasonable argument for 

preparation of an EIS) 

• it is an unusual case, a new kind of action, or a precedent-setting case, such as a first 

intrusion of even a minor development into a pristine area 

• there is either scientific or public controversy over the effects of the proposal 

• it involves a proposal that is similar to one that normally requires preparation of an EIS 

You must also allow a period of public review of the FONSI if the proposed action is 

construction in a wetland or would be located in a floodplain. (Question 37b, CEQ, Forty Most 

Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981, citing E.O. 11990, sec. 

2(b) and E.O. 11988, sec. 2(a)(4)). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

84 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

In addition, the decision-maker may decide to release the unsigned FONSI and EA for public 

review and comment even if the proposal does not meet the criteria described above. Consider 

the complexity of the project and issues, as well as the level of public interest, in determining the 

length of review and comment period. Releasing the documents for public review and comment 

is typically done to allow the public, agencies and tribes the opportunity to respond to the 

analysis of impacts and to further long-term collaborative efforts. 

If you release the EA and FONSI for public review, we recommend that you not sign the FONSI 

until the public review is completed and any necessary changes made to the EA. Include a 

discussion of comments received on the EA and FONSI and their disposition in the decision 

record (see 8.5.1, Documenting the Decision). 

The FONSI is signed before issuance of the decision record. The FONSI must not be combined 

with the EA or decision record, although these may be attached to each other (516 DM 2.3(C)). 

No format requirement exists for a FONSI; however, a suggested format and examples are 

provided in the Web Guide. 

8.5 THE DECISION RECORD 

Neither the EA nor the FONSI is a decision-making document. Decisions regarding proposed 

actions analyzed in an EA are documented in accordance with program-specific requirements. 

While the NEPA does not require a specific decision document regarding actions for which an 

EA has been completed, the BLM has chosen to use the “decision record” (DR) to document the 

decision regarding the action for which the EA was completed. The decision cannot be 

implemented until the DR is signed. Refer to section 8.3.6, Environmental Effects and Chapter 

10, Monitoring, for discussion of mitigation and monitoring to be included in the DR. Check for 

and follow program-specific requirements on the content and format of a DR. If there are no 

program-specific requirements for the DR or if they are only general, use the guidance in section 

8.5.1, Documenting the Decision to organize the content and format of the DR. 

8.5.1 Documenting the Decision 

Organize the DR using the content outline below: 

1. Identify compliance with major laws pertinent to the decision, such as the Endangered 

Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and the Clean Water Act. Also describe 

conformance with the LUP, and other applicable laws, regulations, and policies. 

2. Identify the selected alternative. Describe as precisely as possible specific features of the 

decision, or incorporate by reference the description of the selected action in the EA. 

Identify mitigation and monitoring measures that have been selected to be implemented. 

While incorporating by reference to describe the alternative and mitigation measures is 

encouraged, the specifics of what is being approved must be made clear. The DR must also 

identify any limitations on when the decision may be implemented. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 85 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

3. Reference the FONSI indicating that the action has been analyzed in an EA and found to 

have no significant impacts, thus an EIS is not required. 

4. Summarize the public involvement undertaken and comments received and describe how 

substantive comments were considered in making the decision (see also sections 6.9.2, 

Comments, and 8.3.7, Tribes, Individuals, Organizations, or Agencies Consulted). 

Note: We recommend that you address timely comments received on the EA or FONSI 

during review, and that you document your responses, as described below: 

a. Integrate comments that provide substantive new information relevant to the analysis, 

FONSI or decision be integrated into the EA (which becomes a “new” EA), with any 

changes to the FONSI reflected in a new FONSI, and the comment and its import 

acknowledged in the DR. If the EA and FONSI are substantively changed, the new EA and 

FONSI may need to be circulated for public review and comment. It is within the decisionmakers’ discretion to determine whether or not to circulate the new EA and FONSI for 

public review and comment. 

b. Substantive comments that provide minor corrections or updates to the EA may be 

simply integrated into the EA and acknowledged in the DR. There typically will be no need 

to re-circulate the EA and FONSI for public review and comment; however, that 

determination is left to the discretion of the decision-maker. 

c. If a substantive comment does not lead to changes in the EA, FONSI or DR, you may 

reply directly to the commenter. For this situation, we recommend that you document your 

reply in the administrative record. 

d. While you are not required to respond to non-substantive comments, you may wish to 

acknowledge them. See section 6.9.2.2, Comment Response for methods to acknowledge 

comments. 

5. Explain the rationale for the decision, explaining how the selected alternative addresses the 

purpose and need for action and why it was selected over other alternatives. Include all 

program-specific requirements. 

6. Describe protest and appeal opportunities. 

7. The decision-maker must sign and date the DR. 

8. You must provide notice of the signed DR, FONSI, and EA (40 CFR 1506.6(b), Question 

38, CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 

1981) (see section 6.9.1, Involving and Notifying the Public). 

The Web Guide provides several examples of Decision Records and an optional format. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
86 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

8.5.2 Terminating the EA Process 

When you terminate the EA process prior to completion, complete your administrative record, 

documenting the reason or reasons for aborting the process. If you have given public notice of 

the EA process, inform interested persons and parties that you are terminating the EA process. 

8.6 IMPLEMENTATION 

A decision may not be implemented until the FONSI and DR have been signed and all other 

program-specific procedural requirements have been met (such as applicable protest and appeals 

procedures). 

Implementation of the action, including any mitigation and monitoring measures adopted in the 

decision record, must be in accordance with the decision described in the DR. Program-specific 

guidance regarding protest and appeal provisions and timing of implementation relative to public 

notification can be found in the Web Guide. 

Figure 8.1 EA Process 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 87 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

CHAPTER 9—PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT

General 

9.1 Preparing to Write an EIS 

9.2 EIS Format 

9.3 Issuing the Draft EIS 

9.4 The Final EIS 

9.5 Supplements to Draft and Final EISs 

9.6 Issuing the Final EIS 

9.7 Preparing and Issuing the Record of Decision 

9.8 Terminating the EIS Process 

GENERAL 

The steps for performing an EIS-level analysis follow the NEPA analysis steps laid out in 

Chapter 6, NEPA Analysis. This chapter should be consulted as the BLM begins and works 

through the analytical process. 

9.1 PREPARING TO WRITE AN EIS 

9.1.1 Develop Preparation Plan 

You must develop a preparation plan (also referred to as “prep plan”) before initiating an EIS for 

land use plans (BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1610-1, pages 17–18, March 11, 2005). 

We recommend that you develop a preparation plan for other EISs. The preparation plan 

facilitates coordination between participants involved in the preparation of the EIS and those 

with approval and oversight responsibility. A properly prepared preparation plan provides the 

foundation for the entire planning process by identifying the issues to be addressed; the skills 

needed to address the issues; a preliminary budget that can be used for cost estimates; important 

legal, regulatory and policy guidance; and available and needed data and metadata. 

Appendix F-1 in the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1 describes in detail what goes 

into a preparation plan for an LUP; the contents may be tailored to fit any action effort involving 

an EIS. We recommend that preparation plans contain the following information and discrete 

sections: 

• Introduction and Background 

• Anticipated Issues and Management Concerns 

• Important Legal, Regulatory and Policy Guidance 

• Data and GIS Needs, Including Data Inventory 

• Participants in the Process 

• Process for EIS Development 

• Schedule 

• Communications Strategy 

• Budget 

Links to examples of a non-LUP prep plan and an LUP or EIS prep plan can be found in the Web 

Guide. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 

88 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

9.1.1.1 Develop Strategy for Public Involvement and Interagency/Intergovernmental 

Coordination and Consultation 

The public involvement and interagency or intergovernmental coordination and consultation 

strategy is an integral part of the EIS process. We recommend that it be described in the 

preparation plan and that it remain flexible. 

We recommend that the public involvement strategy: identify tribes, individuals, organizations 

and other agencies known to be interested or affected by the proposed action; identify agencies 

with special expertise or jurisdiction by law; identify possible cooperating agencies (see Chapter 

12, Cooperating Agencies, Joint Lead Agencies, and Advisory Committees); identify the role, if 

any, of the BLM Resource Advisory Council; identify schedules for scoping, including public 

meetings, and timing for electronic and postal mail notifications; identify the process for tracking 

and recording public involvement and include lists of contacts. The public involvement strategy 

will likely be updated during the EIS process. 

Public notice (see section 6.9.1, Involving and Notifying the Public for a discussion on the 

various ways the public can be notified) must be provided for any EIS-related meetings or 

hearings (40 CFR 1506(b) (see sections 9.3.2, Notify the Public and Government Agencies of 

the Availability of the Draft EIS for Review and Comment; 9.4.2, Full Text Final EIS; 9.7, 

Issuing the Record of Decision; and 13.1, Publishing Notices in the Federal Register for 

additional guidance). The BLM must also provide public notice of the availability of the draft 

and final EIS documents, as well as the Record of Decision (40 CFR 1506(b), Question 34a, 

CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981)). 

Ensure the public involvement strategy is sensitive to language or cultural barriers. Hold 

meetings in ways that accommodate cultural traditions, values and methods of communication. 

Follow the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA). See Chapter 

12, Cooperating Agencies, Joint Lead Agencies, and Advisory Committees for additional 

information on the FACA. 

9.1.2 Publish the Notice of Intent 

Publishing the Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register begins the formal scoping process 

and serves as the official legal notice that the BLM, or when the BLM is the lead agency, the 

BLM and its cooperators, are commencing an EIS. The NOI must include: 

• A description of the purpose & need, the draft proposed action, & possible alternatives, 

if available. For some BLM-initiated actions, where the proposed action has not yet 

been developed in detail, the reason for initiating the EIS must be clearly stated. 

• A description of the agency’s proposed scoping process; this should include whether, 

when, and where any scoping meetings will be held. If the time and place of scoping 

meetings is not known, the NOI must state how the time and place will be announced. 

• The name and address of the BLM contact for the proposed action and EIS (40 CFR 

1508.22). 

• For planning documents, also identify preliminary planning issues and planning 

criteria. (See the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook, H-1601-1, pages 18–19, March 

11, 2005). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 89 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

The BLM requires that the NOI be formatted in accordance with Federal Register guidance on 

notices (see section 13.1, Publishing Notices in the Federal Register). An example of an NOI 

can be found in the Web Guide. Check program guidance for any additional information that 

must be included in the NOI. For example, there is a specific format for a call for nominations 

for oil and gas leasing. See the Web Guide for an example of an NOI that also includes a call for 

nominations for oil and gas. 

A revised NOI may be required if there are any substantial changes to the proposed action or if 

substantial new circumstances or information arise that relate to the proposal or its impacts, such 

that the BLM would essentially be starting over with the NEPA process. Minor changes may be 

addressed in the Notice of Availability (NOA) for the draft EIS. 

Additional guidance on publishing notices in the Federal Register for EISs can be found in 

Chapter 13, Administrative Procedures. Contact your State office for current briefing and 

approval procedures for NOIs and NOAs. 

9.1.3 Scoping 

Scoping is the process required by the CEQ for EISs by which the BLM solicits input on the 

issues and impacts that will be addressed in a NEPA document as well as the degree to which 

those issues and impacts will be analyzed. The intent of scoping is to focus the analysis on 

significant issues and reasonable alternatives, to eliminate extraneous discussion, and to reduce 

the length of the EIS. No guidance is provided by the CEQ for the length of scoping periods. 

Check individual program guidance for any prescribed minimum periods. 

Scoping must be conducted both internally with appropriate BLM staff, and externally with 

interested and affected public, agencies, tribes, and organizations (40 CFR 1501.7) (see section 

6.3, Scoping for more discussion of scoping). 

Formal public scoping begins following publication of an NOI. Informal internal and external 

scoping may occur before the formal scoping period begins. Scoping can provide valuable 

information in identifying issues related to cumulative effects. 

The CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1501.7 require the following in an agency’s scoping process: 

• Invite participation from affected Federal, State, local, and tribal organizations and 

interested persons. 

• Determine the scope or extent of the EIS and the significant issues to be analyzed. 

Scoping is valuable in identifying connected, cumlative, and similar actions. 

• Eliminate those issues raised that are not related to potentially significant impacts or 

those that have been covered in other environmental documents. Make assignments 

for preparation of the EIS between the lead and cooperating agencies. 

• Identify any environmental documents being prepared that have relevance to, but are 

not part of, the scope of this EIS. 

• Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements. 

• Discuss the relationship between the timing of the preparation of the EIS and the 

agency’s tentative planning and decision-making schedule. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
90 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

In addition to publishing the NOI in the Federal Register, we recommend a notice announcing 

the beginning of the formal scoping process be published in local newspapers and be sent to 

interested agencies, organizations, and other stakeholders. 

Prepare a scoping report that discusses the issues raised during the scoping process, the issues to 

be addressed in the EIS, the issues that will not be addressed in the EIS and why (see section 6.4, 

Issues), a list of participants in the scoping process, and the views of those participants. See the 

Web Guide for an example of a scoping report. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 91 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Figure 9.1 The EIS Process 

9.2 EIS FORMAT 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710 

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008 
 

 

 

 

92 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

This section outlines a suggested format for an EIS, although the specific elements and their 

order should remain flexible. For example, in some instances it may be desirable to combine 

chapters three and four in this outline into one chapter. The BLM Land Use Planning Handbook 

provides a recommended format for planning-related EISs. 

9.2.1 Cover Sheet 

The cover sheet must not exceed one page and must include: 

• a list of responsible agencies including the lead agency and any cooperating agencies. 

• the title and location of the proposed action that is the subject of the statement. 

• the name, address, and telephone number of the BLM contact person. 

• designation of the statement as a draft, final, or supplemental. 

• a one-paragraph abstract of the statement that identifies significant impacts and 

alternatives to the proposed action or proposal. 

• the date by which comments must be received. (40 CFR 1502.11) 

It is optional to include the name and title of the person responsible for preparing the EIS and the 

decision-maker for the action. 

9.2.2 “Dear Reader” Letter 

You may use a letter signed by the decision-maker responsible for preparing the EIS to request 

review and comment on the draft. You may use this letter to inform the reader of other details 

pertinent to the review. For example, if you anticipate an abbreviated final EIS, the letter may 

suggest that the reader retain the draft for reference. Make sure you include the privacy language 

discussed in section 6.9, Public Involvement and Responding to Comments. Be specific about 

what you want the reader to focus on, but remember that the reader can decide which areas to 

address. See the Web Guide for an example of a Dear Reader letter. 

9.2.3 Summary 

The EIS must contain a summary identifying the areas of controversy (including issues raised by 

agencies and the public), the issues to be resolved (including the choice among alternatives), and 

the major conclusions of the analysis. The summary normally must not exceed 15 pages, and 

must focus on the key points of each section (40 CFR 1502.12). 

9.2.4 Table of Contents 

Ensure that the table of contents is sufficiently detailed to allow the reader to quickly locate 

major subject matter in the EIS, particularly specific impact topics and alternatives analyzed in 

the document. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 

 

 93 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

9.2.5 Chapter 1—Introduction 

This chapter includes the following: 

• purpose and need; and we recommend you include decisions to be made (see section 

6.2, Purpose and Need); 

• the general location, including maps when appropriate; 

• major authorizing laws and regulations; 

• an explanation of the relationship of the proposed action to BLM policies, plans, and 

programs; 

• the relationship to non-BLM policies, plans, and programs—including discussions of 

any land use planning or zoning statutes or requirements that may affect or limit the 

proposal. You must identify or reference any germane land use planning or zoning 

statutes or requirements (40 CFR 1502.16(c), 40 CFR 1506.2(d)). An exhaustive list 

of all applicable laws and regulations is not appropriate; and 

• a list of all Federal permits, licenses, and other entitlements that must be obtained in 

implementing the proposal (40 CFR 1502.25(b)). It is optional to list authorizing 

actions by State and local entities. To the fullest extent possible, the environmental 

analyses for these related permits, licenses, and approvals must be integrated and 

performed concurrently (40 CFR 1502.25, 40 CFR 1506.2(b). 

9.2.6 Issues 

Issues may be raised by the public, other agencies, or the BLM throughout the NEPA analysis 

process. See section 6.4, Issues, for a complete discussion of issues. Include in the 

administrative record or the EIS supporting documentation indicating why an identified issue 

was not analyzed. 

The section of the EIS describing the issues for analysis (and issues identified, but not analyzed) 

may be organized into its own chapter, as an appendix, or may be presented within other chapters 

of the EIS. 

9.2.7 Chapter 2—Proposed Action and Alternatives 

The EIS must describe the proposed action and alternatives (40 CFR 1502.14) (see sections 6.5, 

Proposed Action and 6.6, Alternatives Development). The EIS must consider a range of 

reasonable alternatives, including the Proposed Action and No Action alternative, and provide a 

description of alternatives eliminated from further analysis (if any exist) with the rationale for 

elimination (40 CFR 1502.14(a)). The CEQ regulations direct that an EIS include a description 

of the No Action alternative (40 CFR 1502.14(d)) (see section 6.6.2, No Action Alternative). 

The No Action alternative is the only alternative that must be analyzed in an EIS that does not 

respond to the purpose and need for the action. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

94 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

This chapter must also document: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

design features that would minimize potentially significant impacts (40 CFR 

1502.14(f)); 

LUP conformance (except for EISs prepared for approval, amendment, or revision of 

 LUPs) (516 DM 11.5);

the BLM’s preferred alternative(s), if one or more exists (40 CFR 1502.14(e); and 

summary of effects (usually in a table) (40 CFR 1502.14) (see section 9.2.9, 

Environmental Effects) 

9.2.7.1 Reasonable Alternatives for an EIS 

The CEQ regulations direct that an EIS “rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all 

reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives that were eliminated from detailed study, briefly 

discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated” (40 CFR 1502.14(a): see also NEPA Sec. 

102(2)(C)(iii)). 

For projects proposed under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108–148) refer to 

specific guidance regarding analysis of alternatives in section 6.6.1, Reasonable Alternatives. 

The CEQ regulations also direct that an EIS “...include reasonable alternatives not within the 

jurisdiction of the lead agency” (40 CFR 1502.14(c)) (see section 6.6.1, Reasonable 

Alternatives). When there are multiple agencies cooperating to develop one EIS for several 

agency-specific decisions, the alternatives should be developed to ensure that each agency will 

be able to develop its ROD from the FEIS. 

9.2.7.2 Features Common to All Alternatives 

Describe features that are common to all alternatives. These features need only be described in 

detail once. For example, identify common features in the description of the proposed action and 

cross-reference to that description in the discussion of each alternative to which they apply. 

Another option is to describe common features under a separate heading. 

Common features typically include standard operating procedures and other BLM requirements 

prescribed by law, regulation or policy. This may also include a description of relevant laws, 

regulations, required permits, licenses, or approvals. 

For a land use plan amendment or revision we recommend that you include management 

direction carried forward from the existing plan. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 95 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

9.2.7.3 Agency Preferred Alternative 

The CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1502.14(e) direct that 

an EIS “...identify the agency's preferred alternative or 

alternatives, if one or more exists, in the draft statement 

and identify such alternative in the final statement 

unless another law prohibits the expression of such a 

preference.” The preferred alternative may be 

Note that BLM planning 

regulations at 43 CFR 1610.4–7 

require identification of the 

preferred alternative in a draft 

EIS for a resource management 

plan. 

identified in an explanatory cover letter to the draft EIS 

or within the text. The final EIS must identify the preferred alternative unless another law 

prohibits the expression of such a preference. Publication of an EIS without identifying the 

preferred alternative must be approved by the OEPC and the Office of the Solicitor (516 DM 

4.10(b)(3)). 

The identification of a preferred alternative does not constitute a commitment or decision in 

principle, and there is no requirement to select the preferred alternative in the ROD. The 

identification of the preferred alternative may change between a draft EIS and final EIS. Various 

parts of separate alternatives that are analyzed in the draft can also be “mixed and matched” to 

develop a complete alternative in the final as long as the reasons for doing so are explained. 

Selection in the ROD of an alternative other than the preferred alternative does not require 

preparation of a supplemental EIS if the selected alternative was analyzed in the EIS. In any 

case, you must provide the rationale for selection in the ROD (40 CFR 1502(b)). 

When an EIS is prepared jointly, the lead agency with responsibility for preparing the EIS and 

ensuring its adequacy is responsible for identifying the agency’s preferred alternative (see 

Question 4c, CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 

23, 1981). Whereas the BLM must work with cooperators and other interested parties to 

encourage consensus on a preferred alternative, the preferred alternative in the EIS represents the 

preference of the lead agency. Cooperators and other interested parties can express their 

preferences through scoping and comments on the draft EIS. The BLM will occasionally 

prepare an EIS with another Federal agency as “joint lead” agencies (40 CFR 1506.2(b)). In 

such circumstances, the joint lead agencies must work towards reaching consensus about the 

preferred alternative. If consensus cannot be reached, we recommend that each joint lead agency 

clearly identify their preferred alternative and explain the basis for their preference and why 

consensus could not be reached. (See section 12.2, Joint Lead Agencies in Development of 

NEPA Documents). 

The proposed action may be, but is not necessarily, the BLM’s preferred alternative. For 

internally proposed actions implementing the LUP, the proposed action will often end up as the 

BLM’s preferred alternative. For external proposals or applications, the proposed action may not 

turn out to be the BLM’s preferred alternative, because the BLM will often present an alternative 

that would incorporate specific terms and conditions on the applicant. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 

96 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

9.2.8 Chapter 3—Affected Environment 

You must provide brief description of the environment likely to be affected by the proposed 

action or alternatives. Limit the description of the affected environment to that information 

relevant to understanding the effect(s) of the proposed action or alternative (see sections 6.7.1, 

Affected Environment and 6.7.2, Use of Relevant Data). You may present the affected 

environment description as its own section, or combined with environmental effects. 

If the EIS will be used to document compliance with any supplemental authorities, some of 

which are listed in Appendix 1, Supplemental Authorities to be Considered, it may be 

necessary to provide a description of the resources of concern. 

9.2.9 Chapter 4—Environmental Effects 

The EIS must describe and provide the analysis of environmental effects of the proposed action 

and each alternative analyzed in detail (40 CFR 1502.16). Describe the assumptions and 

assessment criteria used in analyzing impacts. Identify any time-frames, rates of change, and 

other common data applied to the analysis. Explain assumptions used when information critical 

to the analysis was incomplete or unavailable. Include relevant reasonably foreseeable 

development scenarios for certain programmatic EISs and for cumulative effects analysis. See 

section 6.8.1.2, Analyzing Effects for a discussion of when methodologies must be discussed in 

the main text and when they may be placed in an appendix. See section 6.7.2, Use of Relevant 

Data, for a discussion of incomplete or unavailable information. 

“The discussion will include the environmental impacts of the alternatives including the 

proposed action, any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the 

proposal be implemented, the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and 

the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible or 

irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposal should it be 

implemented” (40 CFR 1502.16). 

Discussion of impacts may either be organized by alternative with impact topics as subheadings 

or by impact topic with alternatives as subheadings. Generally, if impacts to a particular 

resource for one alternative are the same as another alternative, make reference to that section in 

the EIS rather than repeating the information. 

Based on the effects analysis in this chapter, develop a summary comparison of effects by 

alternative and include the summary in the section that describes the alternatives in Chapter 2. 

You must describe direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of each alternative (40 CFR 

1508.25(c)). We recommend that you quantify the effects analysis as much as possible and 

describe effects in terms of their context, duration, and intensity. Base the analysis of impacts on 

the assumption that all standard operating procedures and other standard BLM-wide 

requirements will be followed in implementing the proposed action and alternatives unless 

changes in such practices are specifically being addressed in the analysis or considered in an 

alternative. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 97 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

You must consider long-term impacts and the effect of foreclosing future options. Describe the 

relation between short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of 

long-term productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources that 

would be involved in the proposal if it is implemented (40 CFR 1502.16). 

All “relevant, reasonable mitigation measures that could improve the project are to be 

identified,” even if they are outside the jurisdiction of the agency (See Question 19b, CEQ, Forty 

Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981). See section 

6.8.4, Mitigation and Residual Effects, for more discussion of mitigation measures including the 

difference between these measures and design features of the alternatives. If mitigation 

measures are identified, those measures must be analyzed “even for impacts that by themselves 

would not be considered significant” (See Question 19a, CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions 

Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981). Analyze and compare the effectiveness 

of mitigation measures proposed and the effects if the project were to proceed without 

mitigation. Include an assessment of any residual direct, indirect, or cumulative effects that will 

remain after application of the mitigation measures. 

Question 5b, CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, 

March 23, 1981. 

5b. Is the analysis of the “proposed action” in an EIS to be treated differently from the 

analysis of alternatives? 

A. The degree of analysis devoted to each alternative in the EIS is to be substantially 

similar to that devoted to the “proposed action.” Section 1502.14 is titled “Alternatives 

including the proposed action” to reflect such comparable treatment. Section 1502.14(b) 

specifically requires “substantial treatment” in the EIS of each alternative including the 

proposed action. This regulation does not dictate an amount of information to be provided, 

but rather, prescribes a level of treatment, which may in turn require varying amounts of 

information, to enable a reviewer to evaluate and compare alternatives. 

9.2.10 Chapter 5 - Consultation and Coordination 

Include a brief history of the public involvement (including scoping) undertaken, a list of 

agencies (including cooperating agencies) and organizations consulted, a list of preparers and 

their expertise, and a list of recipients of the EIS. In the final EIS, include a response to 

comments section. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 

 

98 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

9.2.10.1 Public Involvement and Scoping 

• Summarize the scoping process, including efforts to involve the public in preparation of the 

EIS. Briefly describe the scoping meetings (when, where, how many, topics), the major 

issues that arose during scoping if they have not been discussed in Chapter 1, and the 

comments received. 

• Include names of any Federal, State, or local agencies, major organizations or individuals 

consulted. 

• Identify any unresolved environmental issues or conflicts discussed during scoping. 

• Include a list of all agencies, organizations, and people to whom you will send copies. This 

list may be organized alphabetically under “Federal agencies,” “State and local agencies,” 

“Indian tribes,” “organizations,” and “individuals.” If this list of individuals is excessively 

long, you may place it in the administrative record instead of the EIS, but note in the EIS 

that a complete list is found in the administrative record. In the final EIS, provide an 

updated list of recipients, as necessary, to indicate who will be receiving the final EIS. 

Although not required, you may find it to be useful to provide a discussion of the government-togovernment consultation process that was followed during the EIS process. The BLM Handbook 

H-8120-1 contains examples of program guidance for Native American consultation, and the 

BLM Manual 8120, Tribal Consultation Under Cultural Resources, provides detailed guidance 

for this consultation. See the Web Guide for a copy of H-8120-1. 

9.2.10.2 List of Preparers 

The EIS must include a list of individuals, including names and qualifications, primarily 

responsible for preparing the document or significant supporting reports (40 CFR 1502.10(h) and 

40 CFR 1502.17). 

9.2.11 Other Material 

• The last section of the EIS may include a bibliography, glossary, index of key words, 

and appendices. 

• The bibliography includes a list of references cited in the EIS, including written 

material and personal communications. 

• Define in a glossary, using plain language, any technical or other terms not 

understandable to an average lay reader. Either in the glossary or in a separate list 

define any acronyms used in the EIS. 

• You must include an alphabetically ordered index that contains enough key words 

from the EIS to allow the reader to find the information (see Questions 26a and 26b, 

CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 

1981). 

• Appendices are for support of critical analyses in the EIS. An appendix is not a data 

bank or library for total reference support, but contains only major substantiating data, 

essential relevant descriptions of environmental components, or other information 

necessary for complete use of the EIS for analytical or decision-making purposes. You 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 

 99 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

may keep other supporting material in the administrative record and make it available 

if requested, instead of including it as an appendix. 

9.3 ISSUING THE DRAFT EIS 

Once approved, print the draft EIS, file it with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and 

issue it for public review and comment. See Chapter 13, Administrative Procedures, for 

information on printing the draft EIS. 

9.3.1 File with the EPA 

File the draft EIS with the EPA in accordance with procedures identified in Chapter 13. The 

EPA will then publish notice of the filing in the Federal Register. The date the EPA notice 

appears in the Federal Register initiates the public review period. Consult program-specific 

guidance for additional requirements regarding filing procedures. 

9.3.2 Notify the Public and Government Agencies of the Availability of the Draft EIS for 

Review and Comment 

You must provide public notification of the availability of the draft EIS, and that notification 

must include publication of a notice of availability (NOA) in the Federal Register for actions 

with effects of national concern (40 CFR 1506.6(b)). You must publish an NOA in the Federal 

Register for a draft EIS prepared for a LUP or LUP amendment (BLM Land Use Planning 

Handbook H-1601-1). The CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1503.1 require that the BLM obtain 

comments from Federal agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise; and that we 

request comments from appropriate State and local agencies, tribes, and any agency that requests 

a copy of the EIS). There are no content or format requirements for an NOA other than those 

associated with the preparation of notices for publication in the Federal Register (see section 

13.1, Publishing Notices in the Federal Register). In addition to announcing the availability of 

a document and the public review period, where applicable, the NOA will generally identify the 

purpose and need of the action, describe the proposed action and alternatives, and indicate the 

dates and location of public meetings on the document. Consult program-specific guidance for 

any other content requirements. A sample notice is shown in Appendix 11, Federal Register 

Illustrations. Sample NOAs for draft and final EISs are available in the Web Guide. Check 

with your State NEPA coordinator and Public Affairs Chief for information about the 

appropriate documentation to include with your NOA. Public affairs will also assist with 

procedures for notifying appropriate members of the Congressional Delegation from your State. 

The public comment period for all draft EISs must last at least 45 days (516 DM 4.26), but some 

programs require longer comment periods. For example, a draft EIS for a LUP or LUP 

amendment must be available for a 90-day comment period (BLM Land Use Planning Handbook 

H-1601-1, page 23). Check program guidance requirements. 

A press release is usually prepared for national media, local media, or both to announce the 

availability of the draft and to announce any public meetings or hearings. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 

100 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

9.3.3 Distribute the Draft EIS 

“Agencies shall circulate the entire draft and final environmental impact statements except for 

certain appendices as provided in Sec. 1502.18(d) and unchanged statements as provided in Sec. 

1503.4(c). However, if the statement is unusually long, the agency may circulate the summary 

instead, except that the entire statement shall be furnished to: 

(a) Any Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to 

any environmental impact involved and any appropriate Federal, State or local agency 

authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards. 

(b) The applicant, if any.

 (c) Any person, organization, or agency requesting the entire environmental impact 

statement. 

(d) In the case of a final environmental impact statement any person, organization, or 

agency which submitted substantive comments on the draft. 

If the agency circulates the summary and thereafter receives a timely request for the entire statement 

and for additional time to comment, the time for that requestor only shall be extended by at least 15 

days beyond the minimum period” (40 CFR 1502.19). 

Distribute the draft EIS before or on the same day copies are transmitted to the EPA for filing 

(see section 13.3.2, Procedures for Filing with the EPA for more discussion). Provide two 

copies to the BLM Library at the National Science and Technology Center in Denver and two 

copies to the BLM Planning Office in Washington, D.C. (WO-210). The standard distribution of 

EISs to other Interior and Federal agencies is described in the Web Guide. You must make 

copies available to any requesting party (40 CFR 1505.5(f)). Make sufficient copies available 

for review in appropriate BLM offices, including the State Office, and for distribution to those 

who request a copy during the review period. The use of Web sites to distribute draft and final 

EISs and RODs is encouraged, as is the use of compact disks or other electronic media. 

However, do not underestimate the number of paper copies that will be needed; there are still 

many people who will want a paper copy. The State NEPA coordinator can provide guidance on 

this process. The BLM may charge requesting parties the cost of production for a document 

copy in a particular format or in multiple copies. 

9.3.4 Public Meetings and Hearings 

You may hold public meetings or hearings to receive comments on the draft EIS. (See section 

6.9.1, Involving and Notifying the Public). You must maintain records of public meetings and 

hearings including a list of attendees (as well as addresses of attendees desiring to be added to 

the mailing list) and notes or minutes of the proceedings. Consult 455 DM 1 for procedural 

requirements related to public hearings. Check individual program guidance to determine 

requirements for public meetings and hearings. See section 6.9.2, Comments, for a discussion of 

how to manage and process comments on the draft. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 

 101 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

9.4 THE FINAL EIS 

Following public review of the draft EIS, the lead agency prepares a final EIS (unless a decision 

is made to terminate the EIS). 

9.4.1 Abbreviated Final EIS 

In deciding whether an abbreviated EIS is appropriate, consider the extent of the changes made 

to the EIS as a result of comments on the draft. If you make only minor changes to the draft EIS 

in response to comments, then you may prepare an abbreviated final EIS. An abbreviated final 

EIS only contains a cover sheet, an explanation of the abbreviated EIS, copies of substantive 

comments received on the draft, responses to those comments, and an errata section with 

specific modifications and corrections to the draft EIS made in response to comments (40 CFR 

1503.4). Abbreviated EISs require that the reader have access to both the draft and the final EIS. 

Because a draft EIS is usually required to understand changes in an abbreviated EIS, send the 

appropriate number of draft EISs with the abbreviated final EIS to the EPA when filing the final. 

See the Web Guide for examples of abbreviated EISs. 

9.4.2 Full Text Final EIS 

If you make major changes to the draft EIS, the final EIS should be a complete full text 

document. The content of a full text document is substantially the same as the corresponding 

draft EIS except that it includes copies of substantive comments on the draft EIS, responses to 

those comments and changes in or additions to the text of the EIS in response to comments (40 

CFR 1503.4). A full text final EIS may incorporate by reference some of the text or appendices 

of the draft EIS (see section 5.2.1, Incorporation by Reference). 

9.5 SUPPLEMENTS TO DRAFT AND FINAL EISs 

See section 5.3, Supplementing an EIS, for a discussion of when to supplement a draft or final 

EIS. The standard procedural and documentation requirements for preparing an EIS described in 

this chapter also apply to supplementing an EIS, with the following exceptions: 

• Additional scoping is optional (40 CFR 1502.9 (c)). 

• We recommend that the supplemental EIS identify the EIS being supplemented on the 

cover page, and explain the relationship of the supplement to the prior analysis early in 

the text. 

• We recommend that the supplemental EIS identify the changes in the proposed action 

or the new information or changed circumstances that require the BLM to prepare the 

supplement. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

102 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

• The OEPC and the Office of the Solicitor must be consulted before proposing to the 

CEQ to prepare a final supplement without preparing an intervening draft (516 DM 

4.5(B)). 

You must circulate a supplement in the same manner as a draft or final EIS (40 CFR 1502.9(c)). 

If there is good reason to believe the interested and affected public will have a copy of the draft 

or final EIS, you only need to circulate the supplement. If you do not circulate the EIS being 

supplemented with the supplement, it must be reasonably available for public inspection (40 

CFR 1506.6(f)). 

9.6 ISSUING THE FINAL EIS 

Once the final EIS is prepared, print it, file it with the EPA, and distribute it to the public. (See 

Chapter 13, Administrative Procedures for guidance on printing, filing, and distributing the 

EIS.) You must provide public notification of the availability of the final EIS, and that 

notification must include publication of a notice of availability (NOA) in the Federal Register 

for actions with effects of national concern (40 CFR 1506.6(b)). You must publish an NOA in 

the Federal Register for a final EIS prepared for a LUP or LUP amendment (BLM Land Use 

Planning Handbook H-1601-1). (See section 13.1, Publishing Notices in the Federal Register 

for guidance on publishing notices). The State NEPA coordinator and Public Affairs Chief can 

provide information about the appropriate documentation to include with an NOA. The date the 

EPA notice appears in the Federal Register initiates the required minimal 30-day availability 

period. Although this is not a formal public comment period, you may receive comments. Also 

note that while you may have requested comment from agencies with jurisdiction by law or 

special expertise, you do not need to delay preparation and issuance of the final EIS when such 

agencies do not comment within the prescribed timeframe (516 DM 4.19(A)). 

9.6.1 Comments Received Following Issue of the Final EIS 

Any comments received may be addressed in the ROD. However, review any comments on the 

final EIS, to determine if they have merit; for example, if they identify significant new 

circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bear upon the proposed 

action. If so, the decision-maker preparing the EIS must determine whether to supplement the 

draft or the final EIS or if minor changes can be made to the existing EIS. Refer to section 9.5, 

Supplements to Draft and Final EISs, when supplementing a draft or final EIS. Check program 

guidance for additional review requirements. For example, there is a 60-day Governor’s 

consistency review requirement for LUPs (BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-01, 

pages 24-25). 

9.7 ISSUING THE RECORD OF DECISION 

A ROD is prepared to document the selected alternative and any accompanying mitigation 

measures. The ROD is must be signed by the decision-maker. The ROD may be integrated with 

any other record prepared by the BLM (40 CFR 1505.2). Examples would be findings for 

floodplains required by E.O.11988 and for wetlands required by E.O. 11990. No action 

concerning a proposal may be taken until the ROD has been issued, except under conditions 

specified in 40 CFR 1506.1 (see section 1.4, The NEPA Approach). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 103 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Except as described below, the ROD cannot be issued until the later of the following dates: 

• 90 days after the publication of the EPA’s notice of filing of the draft EIS. 

• 30 days after publication of the EPA’s notice of filing of the final EIS (40 CFR 

1506.10(b)). 

You must provide public notification of the availability of the ROD, and that notification must 

include publication of a notice of availability (NOA) in the Federal Register for actions with 

effects of national concern (40 CFR 1506.6(b), Question 34a, CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions 

Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981). You must provide a copy of the ROD 

to those who have requested it (40 CFR 1506.6(b), Question 34a, CEQ, Forty Most Asked 

Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981). We recommend that you 

provide a copy of the ROD to substantive commenters on the draft or final EIS and to others 

known to have a strong interest in the proposal(s). Generally, the funding office in Washington 

will specify WO or other distribution requirements. For example, a copy of the decision 

documents for LUPs or plan amendments must be provided to WO-210 (Planning and Science 

Policy). Consult program-specific guidance for additional requirements on the distribution of 

RODs or records which incorporate RODs. 

If the decision is subject to 30-day appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA), then the 

ROD may be issued at the same time the final EIS is filed (40 CFR 1506.10(b)). This allows 

both 30-day periods to run concurrently. If the ROD is issued at the same time the final EIS is 

filed, the EIS must identify and explain the appeal provisions. If the ROD is issued in full force 

and effect, then it cannot be issued until 30 days after publication of the EPA’s notice of filing 

the final EIS (40 CFR 1506.10(b)(2)). 

Consult program specific guidance for any additional requirements regarding protest and appeal 

procedures and preparation of RODs. 

9.7.1 ROD Format 

A suggested format which satisfies the ROD content requirements specified in 40 CFR 1505.2, is 

provided below. The Land Use Planning Handbook provides a recommended format for 

planning-related RODs. There is also an example of a ROD in the Web Guide.

 Introductory Material. A cover sheet that provides introductory material may be prepared. 

This includes the title, project or case file identification number, preparing office and 

office location, cooperating agencies, signatures, date of signatures, and titles of the 

responsible and concurring officials. 

 Summary. A summary is needed only if the ROD exceeds 10 pages. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
104 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Decision. Include a concise description of the approved action. Identify all important 

aspects of details of the decision. Provide a clear description of what is and what is not 

being approved. Attach to the ROD stipulations and other design features that are part 

of the decision or incorporated by reference. Present any committed mitigation 

measures and related monitoring and enforcement activities, if any, for the selected 

alternative (see Chapter 10, Monitoring). Indicate whether all practicable mitigation 

measures have been adopted. You must identify any mitigation measures which were 

not selected with a brief explanation of why such measures were not adopted (40 CFR 

1505.2(a)). 

 Alternatives. Identify all of the alternatives considered. When it is necessary to summarize 

the alternatives, thematic descriptions including major aspects may be helpful. You 

must identify the the environmentally preferable alternative in this section (40 CFR 

1505.2 (b)). The environmentally preferred alternative best promotes the national 

environmental policy in Section 101 of the NEPA. This is ordinarily the alternative 

that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment and best 

protects, preserves and enhances the resources that are present. (See Question 6a, 

CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 

1981). 

 Management Considerations. Provide the rationale for the decision. Discuss factors which 

were important and relevant to the decision (40 CFR 1505.2 (b)). Explain how the 

alternatives respond to the purpose and need for the action. 

 Public Involvement. Briefly describe efforts to seek public views throughout the EIS 

process. 

9.8 Terminating the EIS Process 

When you terminate the EIS process without completing a Record of Decision, complete your 

administrative record, documenting the reason or reasons for aborting the process. Publish a 

notice in the Federal Register, referencing the relevant Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS and 

stating that you are terminating the EIS short of completion. If you have already published a 

draft EIS, we recommend that you inform all who commented on the draft that you are ending 

the process and briefly explain why. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 105 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

CHAPTER 10—MONITORING 

General 

10.1 Purposes of and Requirements for Monitoring 

10.2 Developing a Monitoring Plan or Strategy 

10.3 Implementing Monitoring 

GENERAL 

Monitoring can provide important information, including whether decisions were implemented 

as designed, their effectiveness in achieving desired outcomes and the effectiveness of mitigation 

measures. Monitoring can also determine whether the impact analysis was accurate. In certain 

instances, as described below, monitoring is required. 

10.1 PURPOSES OF AND REQUIREMENTS FOR MONITORING 

The level and intensity of monitoring varies according to the purpose being served. In 

developing a NEPA-related monitoring program, carefully consider the following purposes of 

monitoring. 

To Ensure Compliance with Decisions 

We recommend monitoring to ensure that actions taken comply with the terms, conditions, 

and mitigation measures identified in the decision. This monitoring may identify 

underlying reasons for non-compliance. You must provide compliance monitoring where 

mitigation measures are required to reach a FONSI. 

To Measure the Effectiveness or Success of Decisions and the Accuracy of Analysis 

While not required by the NEPA, monitoring can be implemented to determine if the 

decisions are achieving intended environmental objectives, and whether predicted 

environmental effects were accurate. This could include the validation of conceptual 

models and assumptions used in the analysis. 

To Determine How to Modify Decisions if the Purpose and Need or Desired Outcomes Are Not 

Being Achieved. 

If decisions are not meeting the purpose and need or achieving desired outcomes, 

monitoring may be used to identify necessary changes.

In a record of decision (ROD), a monitoring and enforcement program shall be adopted and 

summarized where applicable for any mitigation (40 CFR 1505.2(c)). The ROD must identify 

the monitoring and enforcement programs that have been selected and plainly indicate that they 

were adopted as part of the agency’s decision (see Question 34c, CEQ, Forty Most Asked 

Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981). The ROD must delineate the 

monitoring measures in sufficient detail to constitute an enforceable commitment, or incorporate 

by reference the portions of the EIS that do so (see Question 34c, CEQ, Forty Most Asked 

Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
106 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

The decision record on an EA may also impose requirements for mitigation and related 

monitoring and enforcement activities. Monitoring activities which are adopted in a decision 

record must be implemented as specified. 

In situations where there is incomplete or unavailable information relevant to reasonably 

foreseeable significant adverse impacts essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives, and it 

is not feasible to obtain that information prior to making a decision, we recommend that you 

establish a monitoring program to assess resources or values that may be impacted in order to 

determine if subsequent action needs to be taken. 

We recommend that you coordinate monitoring that stems from the NEPA analysis process with 

other BLM monitoring activities. The BLM Manual 1734 - Inventory and Monitoring 

Coordination, provides additional guidance on the BLM’s inventory and monitoring programs. 

10.2 DEVELOPING A MONITORING PLAN OR STRATEGY 

Except for monitoring activities specifically addressed in the decision document, the responsible 

manager has discretion in scheduling monitoring activities, determining monitoring approaches 

or methodologies, and establishing monitoring standards. We recommend a written monitoring 

plan that incorporates monitoring schedules, approaches, and standards. Consider Bureau-wide 

and program specific monitoring policies and strategies in developing a monitoring plan (see 

BLM Manual 1734, Inventory and Monitoring Coordination). 

We recommend that you consider the following factors when developing a monitoring plan. 

Coverage – We recommend that you tailor the scope of monitoring activities to meet the 

intended purpose of monitoring. For example, monitoring activities may be limited to 

determining if the action is implemented as planned (compliance monitoring), or they may be 

designed to also include determination of whether the action is meeting goals and objectives 

(effectiveness monitoring). 

Frequency – The establishment of specific time frames are recommended for each 

monitoring activity. 

Intensity/Complexity – The intensity and complexity of monitoring activities will vary 

according to the issues at hand and with the purpose of the monitoring. For example, 

compliance monitoring to determine if an action is being implemented as described in the 

decision document may be relatively simple. However, determining whether implementation 

of an action is achieving complex ecological objectives, would involve more complex 

monitoring techniques and analysis. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 107 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

10.3 IMPLEMENTING MONITORING 

It is important that managers establish priorities for implementing monitoring activities. The 

following are situations or circumstances that warrant high priority for monitoring and that 

should be considered in determining important cases: 

• A ROD adopts mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts (monitoring 

required). 

• Decisions authorize actions involving new or untested procedures or methods, or 

involve a high degree of uncertainty regarding the effects of the procedure or method. 

• Effects are based on incomplete or unavailable information. 

• Uncertainty exists about the interactive effects of multiple resources or uses. 

• The decision may affect highly sensitive or important resource values. 

Agencies may provide for monitoring to assure that their decisions are carried out and 

should do so in important cases (40 CFR 1505.3). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
108 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

This page intentionally left blank. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 109 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

CHAPTER 11—AGENCY REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENTS 

11.1 Obtaining Comments on Your EIS 

11.2 Commenting on Another Federal Agency's EIS 

11.1 OBTAINING COMMENTS ON YOUR EIS 

When preparing an EIS, you must obtain the comments of any Federal agency which has 

jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved (40 

CFR 1503.1(a)(1)). We recommend responding to comments from these agencies, even if the 

comments are untimely. However, you do not need to delay the preparation and issuance of a 

final EIS when such agencies do not comment within the prescribed timeframe (516 DM 

4.19(A)). 

11.2 COMMENTING ON ANOTHER FEDERAL AGENCY’S EIS 

When the BLM has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to a project’s 

environmental impacts, the BLM must comment on the EISs of other Federal agencies (40 

CFR1503.2). The BLM may be asked to review or provide comment on other environmental 

documents as well. If the BLM does not have comments on an EIS where it has jurisdiction by 

law or special expertise, it must reply to that effect. (Generally, if the BLM has jurisdiction by 

law or special expertise, the BLM will be a cooperating agency in the NEPA process. See 

Chapter 12, Cooperating Agencies, Joint Lead Agencies, and Advisory Committees.) 

The OEPC coordinates review of other agencies’ EISs and assigns agency responsibilities for 

review. This includes setting the schedule for review and requesting extensions. 

When a cooperating agency comments on a BLM document, or when the BLM is a cooperating 

agency, the comment must (40 CFR 1503.3): 

• describe alternative methods for analyzing impacts if it criticizes methodology in the EIS. 

• specify mitigation measures it finds acceptable if it criticizes the level of impact. 

Guidance for reviewing and commenting on NEPA documents that are prepared by other 

agencies but that may affect BLM-managed resources is provided in 516 DM 7. This chapter of 

the manual describes the roles and responsibilities of the Department and agencies, how different 

reviews are handled, and the content and process for performing such reviews. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
110 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

This page intentionally left blank. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 111 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

CHAPTER 12—COOPERATING AGENCIES, JOINT LEAD AGENCIES, 

AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES 

General 

12.1 Cooperating Agency Status in Development of NEPA Documents 

12.2 Joint Lead Agencies in Development of NEPA Documents 

12.3 Working with Advisory Committees and the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

GENERAL 

This chapter discusses means for consulting with and obtaining the views of appropriate entities 

as part of the NEPA process. 

12.1 COOPERATING AGENCY STATUS IN DEVELOPMENT OF NEPA 

DOCUMENTS 

The CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1501.6) provide for and describe both lead and cooperating 

agency status, and emphasize agency cooperation early in the NEPA process. Upon request of 

the lead agency, any other Federal agency which has "jurisdiction by law" shall be a cooperating 

agency. Jurisdiction by law means the other agency has authority to approve, veto, or finance all 

or part of the proposal (40 CFR 1508.15). For example, the Federal Communication 

Commission approves applications for BLM communication facilities and has NEPA procedures 

(47 CFR 1.1301 to 1.1319) for the preparation of environmental documents associated with such 

applications. The BLM or FCC may participate as either lead or cooperating agency in the 

preparation of these documents. You must contact FCC and agree on appropriate lead and 

cooperating agency status. 

In addition, any other Federal agency which has "special expertise" with respect to any 

environmental issue which will be addressed by the NEPA analysis may participate as a 

cooperating agency. Special expertise means "...statutory responsibility, agency mission, or 

related program experience" (40 CFR 1508.26). When the BLM is a lead agency, another 

agency may request that we designate it a cooperating or joint lead agency. Any State, tribal, or 

local agency with jurisdiction by law or special expertise may by agreement be a cooperating 

agency (40 CFR 1508.5; 516 DM 2.5c). Cooperating agency status is most commonly applied to 

preparation of an EIS, but may also be applied to an EA (DM ESM02-2). 

The BLM publication “A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships” (2005) 

defines the lead agency–cooperating agency relationship and explores ways to create 

more effective government partnerships in the preparation of NEPA documents and 

land use plans. 

Requirements for working with cooperating agencies were added to the BLM’s planning 

regulations in 2005 (43 CFR 1601.0-5, 1610.3-1, and 1610.4). Our Land Use Planning 

Handbook (H-1601-1) provides additional guidance for collaborative planning and preparation of 

an EIS or EA for approval, amendment, or revision of an LUP. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710 

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008 
 

112 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

12.1.1 When Another Agency is Cooperating in Preparation of a NEPA Analysis 

Document with the BLM as a Lead 

You must invite eligible governmental entities (Federal, State, local, and tribal) to participate as 

cooperating agencies when preparing an EIS (516 DM 2.5(e)). You must also consider any 

requests by eligible governmental entities to participate as a cooperating agency with respect to a 

particular EIS, and will either accept or deny such requests. If such a request is denied, the BLM 

will inform the other agency and state in writing, within the EIS, the reasons for such denial. 

Throughout the preparation of an EIS, you must collaborate, to the fullest extent practicable, 

with all cooperating agencies, concerning those issues relating to their jurisdiction or special 

expertise (516 DM 2.5(f)). Prepare a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with any 

cooperating agency, clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of each agency. 

12.1.2 When the BLM is Cooperating in Preparation of a NEPA Analysis Document 

With Another Agency as Lead 

Functioning as a cooperating agency in preparation of an EIS or EA provides you several 

advantages: 

– You may adopt the EIS without recirculating it when, after an independent review of the 

analysis, you conclude that your comments and suggestions have been satisfied (40 CFR 

1506.3(c)). 

– You, and the lead agency, may save staff time and dollars when compared to each agency 

preparing its own document. 

– You can ensure that the NEPA analysis document meets all Departmental and BLM 

requirements or standards. 

– Expanding the scope of a NEPA analysis to consider connected and cumulative actions of 

all cooperating agencies into a single document improves overall interagency coordination. 

– Agencies working cooperatively help the public to participate effectively and efficiently. 

The public involvement in the NEPA process takes place in the larger context of multiple 

agencies. Thus, the public can better understand the entire scope of a proposal, rather than 

being presented with a piece of it now and another piece later. The public can participate 

effectively with fewer meetings to attend and letters to write. 

– You can ensure that the NEPA analysis specifically addresses the action that you must 

consider before making your decision. This avoids the struggle to adapt another agency’s 

documentation to fit our proposed action. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 113 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

12.1.3 Deciding Whether to be a Cooperating Agency 

When another Federal agency intends to prepare a NEPA analysis document, and you have a 

related decision to make, formally ask to be a cooperating agency as early as possible. You must 

notify the OEPC of either the acceptance or rejection of a cooperating agency request (516 DM 

2.5(B)). 

If another agency asks you to be a cooperating agency in preparation of a NEPA document for an 

action in which the BLM has jurisdiction by law, you must be a cooperating agency (40 CFR 

1501.6). 

If another agency asks you to be a cooperating agency in preparation of a NEPA analysis 

document in which the BLM has special expertise, you may elect to be a cooperating agency. In 

deciding, consider what resources you have to commit to the document preparation. 

12.1.4 Procedures for Working as a Cooperating Agency 

An interagency memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the BLM and the lead agency 

must be prepared (516 DM 2.5(G)). It must identify a BLM contact and specify any special 

resource needs, data requirements, and issues that need to be addressed in the analysis. The 

MOU must also identify the responsibilities of the lead and cooperating agencies (a sample 

MOU is in the Web Guide). 

We recommend that the BLM be identified as a cooperating agency in the notice of intent (NOI) 

published in the Federal Register, and that the BLM be identified as a cooperating agency in the 

NEPA analysis document, preferably on the cover sheet. 

After adopting the NEPA document, the BLM must issue its own decision (and FONSI for an 

EA) (Questions 30, CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, 

March 23, 1981), CEQ Guidance Regarding NEPA Regulations, 48 Fed. Reg. 34263 (July 28, 

1983)) (see section 5.4, Adopting Another Agency’s NEPA Analysis). This may be done in an 

individual decision document or in a decision document signed by more than one agency, as long 

as it is clear that only the BLM decision-maker is making a decision regarding resources under 

BLM authority. 

12.2 JOINT LEAD AGENCIES IN DEVELOPMENT OF NEPA DOCUMENTS 

In order to eliminate duplication while satisfying NEPA and comparable State and local 

requirements, the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1506.2(b)) encourage Federal agencies to be joint 

leads with State and local agencies. When two agencies have approximately equal pieces of a 

proposal being considered and want to make this situation clear to their respective partners, they 

may agree to be joint lead agencies. 

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) must be signed by both agencies, clearly defining the 

roles and responsibilities of each (516 DM 2.5(G)). Only one agency must be identified as the 

agency responsible for filing the EIS with the EPA. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
114 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

We recommend that the agencies be identified as joint lead agencies in the NOI and in the NEPA 

documents. We recommend that the cover sheet clearly identify the joint leads, and the logos of 

both agencies be displayed on the cover of the NEPA documents. 

We recommend that an EIS preparation plan be developed and signed by both agencies, and 

identify such things as: the decisions to be made by each agency, the make up of the core team 

and ID team and their responsibilities, estimated budget and financial obligations of each agency, 

review responsibilities, and tentative schedules. 

You must issue your own ROD for an EIS, and your own FONSI and decision record for an EA. 

(Questions 30, CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 

23, 1981), CEQ Guidance Regarding NEPA Regulations, 48 Fed. Reg. 34263 (July 28, 1983)) 

This applies to any Federal lead or cooperating agency, and all other cooperating agency 

procedures apply as well. This may be done in an individual decision document or in a decision 

document signed by more than one agency, as long as it is clear that only the BLM decisionmaker is making a decision regarding resources under BLM authority. 

12.3 WORKING WITH ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND THE FEDERAL ADVISORY 

COMMITTEE ACT 

The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) was enacted to reduce narrow special-interest 

group influence on decision-makers, to foster equal access to the decision-making process for the 

general public, and to control costs by preventing the establishment of unnecessary advisory 

committees. The FACA applies whenever a statute or an agency official establishes or uses a 

committee, board, commission or similar group for the purpose of obtaining advice or 

recommendations on issues or policies within the agency official’s responsibility. 

See H-1601-1, Appendix B for determining when the FACA applies, FACA requirements, and 

avoiding violations of the FACA. More in-depth information can also be found in the BLM 

FACA Guidebook, available from the BLM ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) and Conflict 

Prevention Program, in hard copy and online at www.blm.gov/adr. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 115 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

12.3.1 Guidance for Meeting With Groups 

If participants with the BLM in a The BLM’s managers and staff must understand 

collaborative group are solely Federal, the provisions of the FACA both when they are 

State, tribal, or local government gathering public input for decision-making 

employees operating in their official processes and when they are working in 

capacities, the group is exempt from the collaborative efforts. In essence, any time a 

administrative requirements of the FACA. group will be consulted or will be providing 

recommendations to a BLM official, the BLM 

If participants include nongovernmental should verify whether the FACA applies and, if 

members and they will meet regularly or so, ensure that the FACA requirements are 

formally, there are a number of followed. 

circumstances that will require a FACA 

charter. 

– The BLM establishes, manages, or controls the group. A FACA charter is usually necessary 

if the BLM will be making decisions on or otherwise controlling group membership, 

sending out meeting invitations, or hosting the meeting. 

– The BLM also manages or controls the group’s agenda, takes a leadership role in the group, 

and facilitates the meetings. Funding the group or holding a disproportionate number of the 

group’s meetings on BLM property may also be seen as indicators of management or 

control. 

– A FACA charter may be necessary if the BLM is seeking group advice or specific group 

recommendations to the agency from a nongovernmental group. 

If the BLM wishes to have a central role in the formation and agenda of the group, consider 

pursuing a charter for a FACA committee. Refer to the Office of the Solicitor for additional 

information. 

To avoid the need for a FACA charter, publicize the meetings of the group, and open group 

membership to all. 

Meetings of collaborative community working groups should adhere to general open 

government criteria. For example: invite the public to meetings; publish timely notice in local 

forums; accept public comments; and keep records of group meeting minutes, attendance, 

and other documents used by the group. Even when meetings with other governmental 

agencies are exempt from the FACA, BLM employees should be aware of State “open 

meetings” laws or similar County ordinances. For example, an LUP strategy session 

attended by BLM representatives and a quorum of County Commissioners may need to be 

open to the public. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
116 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

12.3.2 Alternatives to Chartered Groups 

– The BLM can establish a working group with solely governmental entities—other Federal, 

State, tribal, and local government employees working in their official capacities. 

– One of the non-Federal entities involved can take the lead in organizing and setting up the 

group. The FACA only applies to Federal agencies, so if a tribal, State, county, or local 

agency or public interest group is willing to put the collaborative group together, control 

membership, and set up meetings, the BLM can participate without violating the FACA. 

– In some situations, the BLM can form a working group as a subcommittee of a preexisting 

Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) or other FACA-chartered advisory committee. Make 

sure the working group always reports to the RAC or chartered committee and not directly 

to the BLM. 

– Sometimes group advice is not the desired outcome— the BLM only needs input from a 

variety of public stakeholders. Or sometimes the BLM needs to educate the community 

about its programs and decisions. Here, the best approach may be to hold town hall-style 

meetings with open public participation. Such meetings will not violate the FACA as long 

as the BLM is not seeking group advice, but rather is sharing information or seeking a range 

of advice from individuals. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 117 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

CHAPTER 13—ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES 

General 

13.1 Publishing Notices in the Federal Register 

13.2 Printing EISs 

13.3 Filing EISs With The EPA 

13.4 Recordkeeping Procedures 

13.5 Contracting NEPA Work 

GENERAL 

There are a number of administrative requirements associated with NEPA analysis. This chapter 

discusses how to publish the required Federal Register notices, print EISs, prepare the 

administrative record, and store environmental records. Additionally, this chapter provides 

guidance on using contractors to assist with NEPA analysis or documentation. 

13.1 PUBLISHING NOTICES IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER 

You must publish various notices in the Federal Register during the course of the NEPA 

process: 

• a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register (40 CFR 1501.7). 

• a notice of availability (NOA) for draft, final, and supplemental EISs for land use plans and 

land use plan amendments, and for actions with effects of national concern (BLM Land Use 

Planning Handbook H-1601-1, 40 CFR 1506.6(b)(2)). You must file EISs with the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), who publishes its own Federal Register notice 

(see section 9.3.1, File with the EPA). 

• an NOA for RODs for actions with effects of national concern (40 CFR 1506.6(b)(2)). 

• notices announcing NEPA-related hearings, public meetings, or the availability of EAs and 

FONSIs on issues of national concern (40 CFR 1506.6(b)(2)). 

Offices should follow the most current guidance on review and submission of Federal Register 

notices. 

13.1.1 Procedures for Publishing Notices in the Federal Register 

The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has established procedures and formats to be used 

when preparing a notice for publication. Individuals should consult the latest version of the 

Document Drafting Handbook prepared by the OFR for detailed guidance on the preparation of 

notices for publication in the Federal Register. The handbook can be found online at: 

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/write/handbook/. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

118 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

13.1.1.1 Publication Requirements 

A Federal Register notice should include the following items: 

1. The billing code. The billing code is assigned by the Government Printing Office and can 

be obtained from the BLM’s printing officer. It must appear on each document submitted 

for publication. 

2. Headings. Each notice should begin with headings that identify the BLM and the subject 

matter of the notice. Headings for a notice should be in this format: 

• Department Name (DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR). 

• Subagency Name (Bureau of Land Management). 

• Agency Docket Number (optional). 

• Subject Heading. 

3. Authority citations. You must cite the authority that authorizes you to issue your notice; 

you are encouraged to use the shortest form possible. This may appear in narrative form 

within the text or in parentheses on a separate line following the text. 

4. Text. The text of the notice may be organized in any logical format, but the OFR 

recommends the preamble format, shown below: 

• AGENCY: 

• ACTION: 

• SUMMARY: 

• DATES: 

• ADDRESSES: 

• FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: 

• SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

5. Signature. Notices must be signed by an authorized official. There must be three copies, 

each with original signatures, preferably in blue ink (this helps OFR determine that the 

signatures are original and not photocopies). The signature block should not be on a page 

by itself. 

See the illustrations provided by the Federal Register in Appendix 11, Federal Register 

Illustrations. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 119 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

13.1.1.2 Typing and Format Requirements 

(Refer to Appendix 11, Federal Register Illustrations) 

– Documents must be prepared on 8 1⁄2′′ × 11′′ bond paper or photocopy. 

– Documents must be typed on one side of the paper and double-spaced. Any quoted 

material, footnotes, and notes to tables may be single-spaced. 

– Documents must have one-inch margins on the top, bottom, and right side of the page. On 

the left side, the margin will be one and one-half inches wide. 

All headings must be typed flush with the left margin. Section headings must be typed out 

in full on a line separate from the text and underlined. Pages of the document must be 

numbered consecutively, starting with the second page. 

The following items must be typed in all capital letters (see illustrations):

 (a) FEDERAL REGISTER 

(b) Name of Agency (but not the name of the subagency. i.e., DEPARTMENT OF 

THE INTERIOR, Bureau of Land Management) 

(c) Preamble captions 

– The use of abbreviations, symbols, and style must be in accordance with guidance in the 

Document Drafting Handbook prepared by the OFR. 

– All signatures must be original and appear on a page with text. The name and title of the 

individual who signs the notice must by typed directly below the signature line. No secondparty signatures will be accepted. 

13.1.1.3 Submission Requirements 

– The Federal Register notice may or may not need to be submitted and reviewed by the 

Washington Office or the Department. Review current policy before submitting the notices 

to the OFR, to ensure compliance with requirements. 

– The notice must be submitted in triplicate to the OFR. Duplicate originals are 

recommended (each original is signed in ink, preferably blue, by the issuing official). It is 

permissible to submit one original and two copies (each with an original signature), or it is 

also acceptable to submit one original and two certified copies. Certified copies must 

include the name and title of the issuing official typed or stamped on the copy, a statement 

that reads “Certified to be a true copy of the original document,” and the signature of the 

certifying official. 

– See the Web Guide for the current mailing addresses of the OFR. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

120 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

13.1.1.4 Publication Date 

Notices are published in the Federal Register on the third business day after they are received by 

the OFR (for example, if the notice is received and accepted on a Monday, the notice will be 

published on Thursday). 

13.2 PRINTING EISs 

Prepare all EISs for printing in accordance with the BLM Manual Section 1551. Work closely 

with your external affairs staff and your state printing specialist when preparing to print an EIS. 

Send two hard copies of the final EIS and the ROD to the BLM Library at the National Science 

and Technology Center in Denver. 

13.3 FILING EISs WITH THE EPA 

You must file all draft, final, and supplemental EISs with the EPA (40 CFR 1506.9). The 

Federal Register publishes a notice prepared by the EPA every Friday. The notice lists all draft, 

final, and supplemental EISs received and filed with the EPA during the previous week. 

Whereas the EPA only publishes notices for EISs on Fridays, the Federal Register publishes 

daily. The BLM strives to publish the BLM notice for an EIS on the same Friday as the EPA 

notice publishes. The BLM notice should not be published before the EPA notice. For further 

discussion on publishing notices in the Federal Register, see section 13.1, Publishing Notices in 

the Federal Register. 

The filing procedures for delegated EISs are slightly different from the filing procedures for 

nondelegated EISs, as discussed in section 13.3.2, Procedures for Filing with the EPA. 

– A delegated EIS is one for which the decision authority on the proposed action rests by 

delegation with a single Assistant Secretary or subordinate officer. 

– A nondelegated EIS is one for which the decision authority on the proposed action 

requires the approval of more than one Assistant Secretary (or bureaus under more than 

one Assistant Secretary), OR is an EIS reserved or elevated to the Secretary (or Office of 

the Secretary) by expressed interest of the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, the Chief of Staff, 

the Solicitor, or the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget, OR is of a 

highly controversial nature or one in which the Secretary has taken a prominent public 

position in a highly controversial issue, OR faces a high probability of judicial challenge 

to the Secretary. 

The Web Guide contains a general schedule for the filing and publishing of Federal Register 

notices. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 121 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

13.3.1 Significance of EPA Publication Dates 

The date that the EPA notice appears in the Federal Register also serves as the official date for 

announcing the availability of a draft, final, or supplemental EIS, and starting the required 

comment and protest periods. 

– For draft EISs, this starts the public review period. 

– For final EISs, this notice initiates the 30-day period during which implementation cannot 

occur (see section.9.3.1, File with the EPA). 

– For land use planning actions, the EPA notice starts the 30-day protest period (40 CFR 

1506.10). 

13.3.2 Procedures for Filing with the EPA 

The following procedures will ensure timely publication of the EPA notice for both delegated 

and nondelegated EISs. For a nondelegated EIS, however, the OEPC approves and files the EIS 

with the EPA. When you are working on a nondelegated EIS, consult with the OEPC early 

regarding the schedule and preparation of the EIS. 

1. Prepare a transmittal letter to the EPA. For a draft EIS, indicate the length of the public 

review period. The BLM may request a specific date for the EIS to be listed in the EPA’s 

Federal Register notice (Friday publication dates only). (For nondelegated EISs, the 

transmittal letter is signed by the OEPC. Before the EIS is sent to the EPA, it must be 

approved and cleared to print by the OEPC). 

2. Mail or deliver to the EPA the transmittal letter and five copies of the EIS (draft, final, or 

supplemental) with a complete distribution list of individuals and organizations to whom the 

EIS is being distributed. (Arrangements may be made with the EPA and the printer for 

direct distribution of the EIS to the EPA to save time). 

The distribution list does not need to include addresses, and may be either printed in the EIS 

or inserted in the EIS. Send the letter, EISs, and distribution lists to the current addresses 

listed in the Web Guide. 

The EPA maintains a Web site with information and addresses associated with submitting 

EISs, see the Web Guide for this information. 

3. Ensure that the transmittal letter and required attachments are sent to the EPA in sufficient 

time to guarantee that Federal Register publication occurs on the intended date and that 

public review requirements are satisfied (section 9.3.2, Notify the Public and Government 

Agencies of the Availability of the Draft EIS for Review and Comment). The documents 

must be received by the EPA at least five business days before the date the notice will 

appear in the Federal Register. Documents must also be received in the Office of Federal 

Activities before 2:30 pm to be logged as received for that business day. (The Office of 

Federal Activities coordinates the EPA’s review of all Federal EISs). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

122 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

4. Concurrent with the transmittal to the EPA, provide a copy of the transmittal letter, 

including the distribution list, and three copies of the EIS to the Office of Environmental 

Policy and Compliance (OEPC), 1849 C Street NW (2342-MIB), Washington, DC 20240. 

Contact the OEPC at 202-208-3891 to obtain the Environmental Statement control number. 

Immediately provide the Environmental Statement control number to the EPA. The EPA 

will not prepare a notice to publish in the Federal Register without the Environmental 

Statement control number. 

5. Before or on the same day copies are transmitted to the EPA, distribute copies of the EIS to 

individuals or organizations included on the distribution list. If the printer is mailing the 

EISs, arrange the shipping dates with the printer. 

13.4 RECORDKEEPING PROCEDURES 

13.4.1 Environmental Documents and Supporting Records—The Administrative Record 

The administrative record is the paper trail that documents the BLM’s decision-making process 

and the basis for the BLM’s decision. The administrative record establishes that you complied 

with relevant statutory, regulatory, and agency requirements, demonstrating that you followed a 

reasoned decision-making process. It is imperative that the BLM maintain complete and wellorganized files (indexed or searchable) of environmental documents and supporting records in its 

administrative record. Such documents and records may be either hard copy or electronic. 

Begin compiling and organizing the administrative record as early in the NEPA process as 

possible. Official file copies of BLM environmental documents and supporting records must be 

maintained by the originating office. Environmental documents include: 

• environmental assessments (EAs) 

• findings of no significant impact (FONSIs) 

• environmental impact statements (EISs) 

• notices of intent (NOIs) 

• Records of decision (RODs) 

•

(40 CFR 1508.10, Question 34a, CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA 

Regulations, March 23, 1981). 

Supporting records consist of material generated or used in the preparation of environmental 

documents. As a guiding principle, these records must demonstrate both the process and 

information used to reach the final decision. Such records include, but are not limited to: 

• mailing lists 

• summaries of public meetings (including attendance lists) 

• records pertaining to consultations 

• documents or studies incorporated by reference 

• technical reports prepared by staff 

• materials submitted by applicants 

• records of contractual work related to the project 

• cost recovery forms and records 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

 123 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

A more complete list of potential supporting records can be found in Appendix 10, Items to 

Include in the Administrative Record. The Web Guide includes a PowerPoint presentation on 

developing an administrative record. 

Not all information in the administrative record is necessarily available to the public; information 

that is confidential must be marked as such. 

We recommend you keep administrative records as long as you plan to rely upon that NEPA 

analysis. The originating offices are to retain the official file copies of the NEPA document and 

its supporting record. These documents are not to be stored indeterminately; the documents may 

be destroyed when superseded, obsolete, or no longer needed for administrative or reference 

purposes (BLM Manual 1220, Appendix 2). At least one copy of draft, final, and supplemental 

EISs and RODs must be available in the lead State Office or Washington program office, as 

appropriate. 

The lead State Office (or Washington program office, for programmatic or legislative 

environmental analyses) must determine where and for how long copies of environmental 

documents and documents incorporated by reference must be maintained. In accordance with 

the National Archives Records Administration, the BLM follows a General Records Schedule for 

management of its records, including NEPA records. This schedule is found in the BLM Manual 

1220, Records and Information Management, Appendix 2—GRS/BLM Combined Records 

Schedules, which is available in the Web Guide. 

In some instances, program-specific guidance identifies distribution and availability 

requirements. For example, grazing operator case files are permanent records, and have their 

own schedule for storage in the field before being moved to the Federal Records Center, and on 

to the National Archives Records Administration. The BLM records that may contain Indian 

fiduciary trust records are to be treated as permanent records, and you must coordinate these 

through BLM records administrators. 

13.4.2 Other Environmental Records 

Your office may have environmental records that do not fall under the scope of environmental 

documents as defined above (for example, categorical exclusion review records, or reviews done 

to determine adequacy of an existing NEPA document). The originating office must also keep 

these environmental records in an official file, as discussed in section 13.4.1, Environmental 

Documents and Supporting Records—The Administrative Record. 

For records relating to the review of other agency environmental documents, the BLM office that 

actually assembles comments and prepares the response should maintain official files. Thus, 

when the BLM is assigned as a lead agency for the Department in responding to other Federal 

agency’s EISs, the State Office or Washington program office assigned to prepare the response 

maintains the official files (including all support material) for both the BLM and the Department. 

The cutoff for these files is the end of the fiscal year in which the review was completed. The 

documents may be destroyed two years after this cutoff date, as long as they are not needed for 

any purposes (BLM Manual 1220, Appendix 2). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
124 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

13.5 CONTRACTING NEPA WORK 

Contracting may be used for the preparation of a NEPA document or for certain portions of the 

analyses. Contracting an environmental document does not eliminate the BLM’s active role in 

the NEPA process; you must still put forth substantial efforts to develop the contract, meet 

frequently with the contractor, review all products, and develop necessary partnerships with 

counties, the state, Tribes, other Federal agencies, and other BLM offices. The contractordeveloped work becomes your work: you are responsible for all content within NEPA document 

and the supporting materials, which must be included in the administrative record. Additionally, 

decisions and findings are those of the BLM, not of the contractor, and these must reflect a 

review of underlying NEPA document. As such, we recommend that you prepare the findings 

and decision records, not the contractor. 

The CEQ provides guidance for contracting EAs and EISs at 40 CFR 1506.5(b) and (c). The 

BLM may permit an applicant to prepare the EA. An applicant may also pay a contractor to 

prepare an EA (this is called third-party contracting). When an applicant or contractor prepares 

an EA, the BLM must independently evaluate the information submitted and its accuracy, and 

the environmental issues. Though the applicant or contractor prepares the EA, the BLM is 

responsible for the scope and content of the EA. 

The CEQ provides more specific guidance for contracting an EIS. The BLM remains 

responsible for all of the content within the EIS. Additionally, the BLM or a cooperating agency 

(ies) must select the cooperator, and a conflict of interest disclaimer must be included in the EIS. 

The CEQ speaks directly to this requirement at 40 CFR 1506.5(c): 

It is the intent of these regulations that the contractor be chosen solely by 

the lead agency, or by the lead agency in cooperation with cooperating 

agencies, or where appropriate by a cooperating agency to avoid any 

conflict of interest. Contractors shall execute a disclosure statement 

prepared by the lead agency, or where appropriate the cooperating agency, 

specifying that they have no financial or other interest in the outcome of the 

project. If the document is prepared by contract, the responsible Federal 

official shall furnish guidance and participate in the preparation and shall 

independently evaluate the statement prior to its approval and take 

responsibility for its scope and contents. Nothing in this section is intended 

to prohibit any agency from requesting any person to submit information to 

it or to prohibit any person from submitting information to any agency. 

While the CEQ only requires this disclaimer for EISs, we recommend including such statements 

in your contractor-prepared EAs as well. Additionally, when using third-party contracting, we 

recommend an MOU between the BLM and the applicant. This MOU must: 

• establish the roles and responsibilities of each party; and 

• specify that all costs of using a contractor in the preparation of the NEPA document will 

be borne by the applicant. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 125 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

There are two principle approaches for contracting environmental documents: standard federal 

contracting procedures (competitive procurement), and third party contracting. Procurement of 

contracts is subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR 1.6). Third party contracting 

may be used most effectively for non-Bureau energy initiatives (for example, power plants and 

certain rights-of-way). The key element in both approaches is the BLM control of analytical 

standards used, of the products produced, and of the schedule. Work with your procurement 

personnel early in the process when considering contracting. See the NEPA Web guide for more 

information and suggestions on contracting. 

The BLM Washington Office or your State Office may establish policy related to contracting 

NEPA work. We recommend working with your State NEPA coordinators to ensure that any 

applicable guidance is used in this process. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
126 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

This page intentionally left blank. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 127 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

CHAPTER 14—ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

[Chapter Reserved for Adaptive Management] 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
128 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

This page intentionally left blank. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Glossary - 129 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Glossary 

affect—to bring about a change. As a verb, affect is most commonly used in the sense "to 

influence" or "impact." The adjective "affected" means acted upon or influenced. 

alternatives—other options to the proposed action by which the BLM can meet its purpose and 

need. The BLM is directed by the NEPA to “study, develop, and describe appropriate 

alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved 

conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources....” (NEPA Sec 102(2)E) 

alternative arrangements—where emergency circumstances make it necessary to take an action 

with significant environmental impact, the Federal agency taking the action may consult with 

Council on Environmental Quality about alternative arrangements to observing the provisions of 

their regulations to implement the NEPA. Such arrangements must be limited to actions 

necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency. Other actions remain subject to 

NEPA review (40 CFR 1506.11). 

appeal—an opportunity, provided by the Secretary of the Interior, for a qualified person to 

obtain a formal review, by an independent board, of the procedures and authority followed by an 

Interior agency in making a decision. 

at-risk community—In summary, a group of homes or structures for which a significant threat 

to human life or property exists as a result of a wildland fire. When using the NEPA provisions 

of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, the definition of “at-risk community” in the Act must be 

used. See Title 1, Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148), or The Healthy 

Forests Initiative and Healthy Forests Restoration Act Interim Field Guide, February 2004 

(available online at www.healthyforests.gov). 

categorical exclusion—a category of actions (identified in agency guidance) that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and for which 

neither an environmental assessment nor an EIS is required (40 CFR 1508.4). 

community wildfire protection plan—In summary, a collaborative plan developed by State and 

local governments and communities, in conjunction with adjacent Federal land-management 

agencies, which identifies areas and priorities for hazardous fuels reduction treatments on 

Federal and non-Federal lands. When using the NEPA provisions of the Healthy Forests 

Restoration Act, the definition of “community wildfire protection plan” in the act must be used. 

See Title 1, Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148), or The Healthy Forests 

Initiative and Healthy Forests Restoration Act Interim Field Guide, February 2004 (available 

online at www.healthyforests.gov). 

conformance—means that a proposed action shall be specifically provided for in a land use plan 

or, if not specifically mentioned, shall be clearly consistent with the terms, conditions, and 

decisions of the approved plan or amendment. The BLM policy requires that a statement of land 

use plan conformance be included in a NEPA compliance document. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Glossary - 130 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

connected action—those actions that are “closely related” and “should be discussed” in the 

same NEPA document (40 CFR 1508.25 (a)(1)). Actions are connected if they automatically 

trigger other actions that may require an EIS; cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are 

taken previously or simultaneously; or if the actions are interdependent parts of a larger action 

and depend upon the larger action for their justification (40 CFR 1508.25 (a)(1)). Connected 

actions are limited to actions that are currently proposed (ripe for decision). Actions that are not 

yet proposed are not connected actions, but may need to be analyzed in cumulative effects 

analysis if they are reasonably foreseeable. 

cooperating agency—assists the lead Federal agency in developing an EA or an EIS. A 

cooperating agency may be any agency that has special jurisdiction by law or special expertise 

for proposals covered by the NEPA (40 CFR 1501.6). Any Federal, State, tribal, or local 

government jurisdiction with such qualifications may become a cooperating agency by 

agreement with the lead agency. 

cumulative action—proposed actions, which, when viewed with the proposed action, potentially 

have cumulatively significant impacts related to one or more identified issues. Cumulative 

actions “should be discussed” in the same NEPA document (40 CFR 1508.25(a)(2)). 

cumulative effect—“...the impact on the environment which results from the incremental 

impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions” (40 CFR 

1508.7 and 1508.25). 

decision-maker—the BLM official who has been delegated authority to approve an action and is 

responsible for issuing a decision to implement a proposed action. Synonyms include authorized 

official, authorized officer, responsible official, and responsible manager. 

decision record (DR)—the BLM document associated with an EA that describes the action to be 

taken when the analysis supports a finding of no significant impact. 

delegated EIS—an EIS for which the decision authority for the proposed action rests by 

delegation with a single Assistant Secretary or a subordinate officer. 

departmental policy—a policy established by the U.S. Department of the Interior 

design features—measures or procedures incorporated into the proposed action or an 

alternative, including measures or procedures which could reduce or avoid adverse impacts. 

Because these features are built into the proposed action or an alternative, design features are not 

considered mitigation. 

Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA)—an interim step in the BLM’s internal analysis 

process that concludes that a proposed action is adequately analyzed in an existing NEPA 

document (an EIS or EA). Where applicable, the determination also addresses conformance with 

an approved land use plan. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Glossary - 131 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

direct effect—“. . . those effects which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and 

place” (40 CFR 1508.8(a). 

effect—impact to the human environment brought about by an agent of change, or action. 

Effects analysis predicts the degree to which the environment will be affected by an action. The 

CEQ uses both the terms “effect” and “impact” in the NEPA regulations; these terms are 

synonymous in the NEPA context. As a noun, other synonyms include consequence, result and 

outcome. Effects can be both beneficial and detrimental, and may be direct, indirect, or 

cumulative. 

emergency action—immediate steps or response taken by the BLM to prevent or reduce risk to 

public health or safety or important resources. 

externally generated proposal—a proposal that has been developed by an individual or group 

external to the BLM. 

extraordinary circumstances—those circumstances for which the Department has determined 

that further environmental analysis is required for an action, and therefore an EA or EIS must be 

prepared. 

Federal action—a BLM proposal is a Federal action when: (1) the proposal is at a stage in 

development where we have a goal and are actively preparing to make a decision on one or more 

alternative means of accomplishing that goal (40 CFR 1508.23); (2) the proposed action and 

effects are subject to BLM control and responsibility (40 CFR 1508.18); (3) the action has 

effects that can be meaningfully evaluated (40 CFR 1508.23); and (4) effects of the proposed 

action are related to the natural and physical environment, and the relationship of people with 

that environment (40 CFR 1508.8; 40 CFR 1508.14). 

Federal Register—the official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices of Federal 

agencies and organizations, as well as executive orders and other presidential documents. The 

Federal Register is published by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)—a finding that explains that an action will not 

have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, an EIS will not be required (40 CFR 

1508.13). 

hard look—a reasoned analysis containing quantitative or detailed qualitative information. 

human environment—includes the natural and physical environment and the relationship of 

people with that environment. When economic or social effects and natural or physical 

environmental effects are interrelated, then the analysis must discuss all of these effects on the 

human environment (40 CFR 1508.14). 

implementation action—an action that implements land use plan decisions. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Glossary - 132 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

incorporation by reference—citation and summarization in a NEPA document of material from 

another reasonably available document that covers similar actions, issues, effects, or resources. 

indirect effect—effects that “...are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed 

in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth-inducing 

effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density, 

or growth rate, and related effects on water and air and other natural systems, including 

ecosystems” (40 CFR 1508.8(b)). 

internally generated proposal—a proposal developed by the BLM. 

impact—see “effect” 

issue—a point or matter of discussion, debate, or dispute about the potential environmental 

effects or impacts, of an action. Issues point to environmental effects and may drive the 

development of alternatives to the proposed action. 

jurisdiction by law—means another governmental entity (Federal, State, tribal, or local agency) 

has authority to approve, veto, or finance all or part of a proposal (40 CFR 1508.15). The CEQ 

guidance provides for establishing a cooperating agency relationship with such entities in 

development of a NEPA analysis document. 

land use plan—a set of decisions that establish management direction for land within an 

administrative area, as prescribed under the planning provisions of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act; an assimilation of land-use-plan level decisions developed through the 

planning process outlined in 43 CFR part 1600, regardless of the scale at which the decisions 

were developed. The term includes both Resource Management Plans and Management 

Framework Plans (H-1601-1, Glossary, page 4). 

legislation—includes a bill or legislative proposal to Congress developed by or with the 

significant cooperation and support of a Federal agency, but does not include requests for 

appropriations (40 CFR 1508.17). 

Legislative EIS—an environmental impact statement prepared on proposals made by Federal 

agencies for legislation that significantly affects the quality of the human environment. The term 

"legislation" in this context does not include proposed legislation initiated by Congress or 

Federal agency requests to Congress for appropriations. Rather, it includes any bill or legislative 

proposal submitted to Congress that is developed by or has the significant cooperation and 

support of a Federal agency (i.e., the Federal agency is the primary proponent of the legislation). 

Special rules apply to the preparation and review of legislative EISs. (40 CFR 1506.8) 

may—you are free to decide whether or not to follow the guidance described. 

Mitigated FONSI—a finding that explains that an action will not have significant effects 

because of the adoption of mitigation measures and, therefore, an EIS would not be required. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Glossary - 133 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

mitigation—measures or procedures which could reduce or avoid adverse impacts and have not 

been incorporated into the proposed action or an alternative. Mitigation can be applied to reduce 

or avoid adverse effects to biological, physical, or socioeconomic resources. 

must—you are required to follow the guidance described. 

nondelegated EIS—an EIS for which the decision authority on the proposed action requires the 

approval of more than one Assistant Secretary (or bureaus under more than one Assistant 

Secretary); OR an EIS reserved or elevated to the Secretary (or Office of the Secretary) by 

expressed interest of the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, the Chief of Staff, the Solicitor, or the 

Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget; OR an EIS of a highly controversial 

nature or one in which the Secretary has taken a prominent public position in a highly 

controversial issue; OR an EIS that faces a high probability of judicial challenge to the Secretary. 

notice of availability (NOA)—the Federal Register notice that an EIS (draft or final) or record 

of decision is available. Publication of a notice of filing of an EIS by the Environmental 

Protection Agency formally begins the public comment period. A NOA may also be published 

for an EA. 

notice of intent (NOI)—this Federal Register notice announces that an environmental impact 

statement or an EA-level land use plan amendment will be prepared. Publication of this notice 

formally starts the scoping process. 

preferred alternative—the alternative the BLM believes would reasonably accomplish the 

purpose and need for the proposed action while fulfilling its statutory mission and 

responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, environmental, technical and other factors. 

This alternative may or may not be the same as the BLM’s or the proponent’s proposed action. 

proposal—the stage in the development of an action when a Federal agency 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 (40 CFR 1508.23). When the BLM receives 

or makes a proposal, the NEPA process begins. 

proposed action—a proposal for the BLM to authorize, recommend, or implement an action to 

address a clear purpose and need. A proposal may be generated internally or externally. 

protest—an opportunity for a qualified party to seek an administrative review of a proposed 

decision in accordance with program-specific regulations. For example, a protest may be filed 

with the Director of the BLM for review of a proposed resource management plan or plan 

amendment (43 CFR 1610.5-2),or a proposed grazing decision may be protested for review by 

the authorized officer (43 CFR 4160.2). 

reasonably foreseeable action—actions for which there are existing decisions, funding, formal 

proposals, or which are highly probable, based on known opportunities or trends. 

reasoned choice – a choice based on a hard look at how the proposed action or alternatives 

respond to the purpose and need. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Glossary - 134 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

recommend— unless you have a good rationale for not doing so, you must follow the guidance 

described. 

record of decision (ROD)—the decision document associated with an EIS (40 CFR 1505.2). 

regulation—an official rule. Within the Federal government, certain administrative agencies 

(such as the BLM) have a narrow authority to control conduct within their areas of responsibility. 

A rule (also called a regulation or rulemaking) is a statement you publish in the Federal Register 

to implement or interpret law or policy (see Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551(4) 

(“’rule’ means the whole or a part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability 

and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the 

organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency...”)). A rule is generally 

published as a proposed rule and then as a final rule. Once a rule is published in final, it is 

codified in the Code of Federal Regulations and remains in effect until it is modified by 

publication of another rule. (318 DM 1). 

residual effects—those effects remaining after mitigation has been applied to the proposed 

action or an alternative. 

resource management plan—(also known as Land Use Plan or Management Framework Plan). 

A set of decisions that establish management direction for land within an administrative area, as 

prescribed under the planning provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976, as amended, P.L. 94-579, 90 Stat. 2743; an assimilation of land use plan-level decisions 

developed through the planning process outlined in 43 CFR 1600, regardless of the scale at 

which the decisions were developed. 

ripe for decision—the circumstance existing when a contemplated action has reached the time 

when the facts have developed sufficiently to permit an intelligent and useful decision to be 

made. A Federal action is “ripe for decision” as soon as the agency receives or makes a proposal 

(40 CFR 1502.5). 

scope—the extent of the analysis in a NEPA document. 

scoping (internal and external)—the process by which the BLM solicits internal and external 

input on the issues and effects that will be addressed, as well as the degree to which those issues 

and effects will be analyzed in the NEPA document. Scoping is one form of public involvement 

in the NEPA process. Scoping occurs early in the NEPA process and generally extends through 

the development of alternatives (the public comment periods for EIS review are not scoping). 

Internal scoping is simply the use of BLM staff to decide what needs to be analyzed in a NEPA 

document. External scoping, also known as formal scoping, involves notification and 

opportunities for feedback from other agencies, organizations and the public. 

significance—see “significant impact.” 

significant impact—effects of sufficient context and intensity that an environmental impact 

statement is required. The CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1508.27(b) include ten considerations for 

evaluating intensity. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Glossary - 135 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

similar action—BLM actions which, when viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or 

proposed Federal actions, have similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their 

environmental consequences together, such as common timing or geography. When it stands to 

improve the quality of analysis and efficiency of the NEPA process, similar actions may be 

analyzed in a single NEPA document. (40 CFR 1508.25) 

special expertise—means another governmental (Federal, State, tribal, or local) agency who has 

statutory responsibility, agency mission, or related program experience (40 CFR 1508.26). The 

CEQ guidance provides for establishing a cooperating agency relationship with such entities in 

development of a NEPA analysis document. 

substantive comment—a comment that does one or more of the following: 

questions, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of information in the EIS or EA; questions, with 

reasonable basis or facts, the adequacy of, methodology for, or assumptions used for the 

environmental analysis; presents reasonable alternatives other than those presented in the EIS or 

EA; or prompts the BLM to consider changes or revisions in one or more of the alternatives. 

supplementation— the process of updating or modifying a draft or final EIS if, after circulation 

of a draft or final EIS but prior to implementation of the Federal action: 

• you make substantial changes to the proposed action that are relevant to environmental 

concerns (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)(i)); 

• you add a new alternative that is outside the spectrum of alternatives already analyzed 

(see Question 29b, CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, 

March 23, 1981); or 

• there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental 

concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its effects (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)(ii)). 

third-party contracting—contracting for the preparation of NEPA documents that is funded by 

the non-BLM proponent of an action. The BLM must still approve this analysis. 

tiering—using the coverage of general matters in broader NEPA documents in subsequent, 

narrower NEPA documents, allowing the tiered NEPA document to narrow the range of 

alternatives and concentrate solely on the issues not already addressed. 

we—as used in this Handbook, refers to the BLM. 

wildland–urban interface—In summary, the area where structures and other human 

development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland. When using the NEPA provisions 

of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, the definition of “wildland urban interface” in the Act 

must be used. See Title 1, Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148), or The 

Healthy Forests Initiative and Healthy Forests Restoration Act Interim Field Guide, February 

2004 (available online at www.healthyforests.gov). 

you—when used in the Handbook, refers to BLM staff and contractors responsible for NEPA 

compliance. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Glossary - 136 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

This page was intentionally left blank. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Acronyms - 137 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Acronyms 

APD—application for permit to drill 

BLM—U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

BMP—best management practices 

CEQ—Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

CX—categorical exclusion 

DM—Departmental Manual 

DNA—Determination of NEPA Adequacy 

DR—decision record (for an EA) 

EA—environmental assessment 

EIS—environmental impact statement 

E.O.—executive order 

EPA—Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA—Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

ESM—Environmental Statement Memoranda 

FACA—Federal Advisory Committee Act 

FONSI—finding of no significant impact 

GIS—geographic information system 

HFRA—Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 

IBLA—Interior Board of Land Appeals 

IM—Instruction Memorandums [or memoranda] 

MOU—memorandum of understanding 

NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended 

NOA—notice of availability 

NOI—notice of intent 

OEPC—U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

P.L.—public law 

RAC—Resource Advisory Committee 

RFD—reasonably foreseeable development 

RMP—resource management plan 

ROD—record of decision (for an EIS) 

WO—BLM Washington Office 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 2 - 138 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

This page was intentionally left blank. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 2 - 139 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

APPENDIX 1 

Supplemental Authorities To Be Considered

The NEPA is only one of many authorities that contain procedural requirements that pertain to 

treatment of elements of the environment when the BLM is considering a Federal action. The 

following list includes some of the other authorities that may apply to BLM actions. 

Element Authority Manual 

Section 

Air Quality The Clean Air Act as amended (42 USC 7401 et seq.) 7300 

Cultural Resources National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 USC 

470) 8100 

Fish Habitat Magnuson-Stevens Act Provision: Essential Fish Habitat 

(EFH): Final Rule (50 CFR Part 600; 67 FR 2376, January 

17, 2002). NA 

Forests and 

Rangelands 

Migratory Birds 

Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148) 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 USC 

703 et seq.) 

NA 

NA 

Native American 

Religious 

Concerns 

Threatened or 

Endangered 

Species 

Wastes, Hazardous 

or Solid 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (42 USC 

1996) 

Endangered Species Act of 1983, as amended (16 USC 

1531) 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (43 

USC 6901 et seq.) Comprehensive Environmental Repose 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (43 

USC 9615) 

8100 

6840 

9180 

9183 

Water Quality 

Drinking–Ground 

Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (43 USC 300f et 

seq.) 

Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 USC 1251 et seq.) 

7240 

9184 

Wild and Scenic 

Rivers 

Wilderness 

Environmental 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended (16 USC 1271) 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 

USC 1701 et seq.); Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 USC 1131 

et seq.) 

E.O. 12898, "Environmental Justice" February 11, 1994 

8014 

8500 

NA 

BLM MANUAL 

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 

Rel. 1-1710 

01/30/2008 
Appendix 2 - 140 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Element Authority Manual 

Section 

Justice 

Floodplains E.O. 11988, as amended, Floodplain Management, 5/24/77 7260 

Migratory Birds 

Wetlands-Riparian 

Zones 

E.O. 131186, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to 

Protect Migratory Birds” January 10, 2001 

E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands 5/24/77 

NA 

6740 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 2 - 141 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

APPENDIX 2 

Using Categorical Exclusions 

Established by 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005

The Energy Policy Act (P.L. 109-58) prescribes the following five categorical exclusions (CX) 

for activities whose purpose is for exploration or development of oil or gas: 

1. Individual surface disturbances of less than five acres so long as the total surface 

disturbance on the lease is not greater than 150 acres and site-specific analysis in a 

document prepared pursuant to the NEPA has been previously completed. 

2. Drilling an oil and gas well at a location or well pad site at which drilling has occurred 

within five years prior to the date of spudding the well. 

3. Drilling an oil or gas well within a developed field for which an approved land use plan 

or any environmental document prepared pursuant to NEPA analyzed drilling as a 

reasonably foreseeable activity, so long as such plan or document was approved within 

five years prior to the date of spudding the well. 

4. Placement of a pipeline in an approved right-of-way corridor, so long as the corridor 

was approved within five years prior to the date of placement of the pipeline. 

5. Maintenance of a minor activity, other than any construction or major renovation of a 

building or facility. 

Specific instructions for using these five CXs are identified below. 

1. Individual surface disturbances of less than five acres so long as the total surface 

disturbance on the lease is not greater than 150 acres and site-specific analysis in a 

document prepared pursuant to the NEPA has been previously completed. 

Use of this CX requires the decision-maker to do three things before applying this exclusion to 

any authorization. First, the decision-maker must determine that the action under consideration 

will disturb less than five acres on the site. If more than one action is proposed for a lease (for 

example, two or more wells), each activity is counted separately and each may disturb up to five 

acres. Similarly, the five-acre limit must be applied separately to each action requiring discrete 

BLM action, such as each APD, even though for processing efficiency purposes the operator 

submits for BLM review a large Master Development Plan addressing many wells. 

Second, the decision-maker must determine that the current unreclaimed surface disturbance 

readily visible on the entire leasehold is not greater than 150 acres, including the proposed 

action. This would include disturbance from previous rights-of-way issued in support of lease 

development. If one or more Federal leases are committed to a BLM-approved unit or 

communitization agreement, the 150-acre threshold applies separately to each lease. For larger 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 2 - 142 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

leases, the requirement for adequate documentation would be satisfied with a copy of the most 

recent aerial photograph in the file with an explanation of recent disturbance that may not be 

shown on the aerial photos. Maps, tally sheets, or other visual aids may be substituted for aerial 

photographs. 

Finally, this CX includes the requirement of a site-specific NEPA document. For the purposes of 

this CX, a site-specific NEPA analysis can be either an exploration and/or development EA/EIS, 

an EA/EIS for a specific Master Development Plan, a multi-well EA/EIS, or an individual permit 

approval EA/EIS. The NEPA document must have analyzed the exploration and/or development 

of oil and gas (not just leasing) and the action/activity being considered must be within the 

boundaries of the area analyzed in the EA or EIS. The NEPA document need not have addressed 

the specific permit or application being considered. 

This CX may also be applied to geophysical exploration activities provided the above 

requirements have been met. For example, if an oil and gas exploration and development EIS 

analyzes the site-specific impacts of 3D geophysical exploration within the oil and gas field, this 

CX may apply to subsequent 3D geophysical activities conducted within the field. 

The above requirements, that is, the five acre threshold, 150 acre unreclaimed disturbance limit, 

and a site-specific NEPA document that addressed oil and gas development, are the only 

applicable factors for review pursuant to this statute, but all must be satisfied in order to use this 

CX. 

2. Drilling an oil and gas well at a location or well pad site at which drilling has occurred 

within five years prior to the date of spudding the well. 

The well file narrative to support use of this CX must state the date when the previous well was 

completed or the date the site had workover operations involving a drilling rig of any type or 

capability; this also includes completion of any plugging operations. A “location or well pad” is 

defined as a previously disturbed or constructed well pad used in support of drilling a well. 

“Drilling” in the context of, “Drilling has occurred within five years” refers to any drilled well 

including injection, water source, or any other service well. Additional disturbance or expansion 

of the existing well pad is not restricted as long as it is tied to the original location or well pad. 

This exclusion does not extend to new well sites merely in the general vicinity of the original 

location or well pad. 

If the operator delays in spudding the new well and the time period between the previous well 

completion and spudding exceed five years, the operator must suspend preparation for drilling 

operations until the BLM completes NEPA compliance for the proposed well and issues a new 

decision on the APD. Therefore, the APD must contain a condition of approval (COA) stating 

that "If the well has not been spudded by (the date the CX is no longer applicable), this APD will 

expire and the operator is to cease all operations related to preparing to drill the well.” 

The above requirements, that is, the drilling of a well at an existing location or well pad and the 

five year limitation are the only two applicable factors for review pursuant to this statute, but 

must both be satisfied in order to use this CX. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 2 - 143 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

3. Drilling an oil or gas well within a developed field for which an approved land use plan or 

any environmental document prepared pursuant to NEPA analyzed drilling as a reasonably 

foreseeable activity, so long as such plan or document was approved within five years prior 

to the date of spudding the well. 

The proposed well must be within a developed oil and gas field. A developed field is any field in 

which a “confirmation well” has been completed. Normally, this is after the third well in a field. 

The pending APD must also be within the reasonably foreseeable development scenario (RFD) 

used in either a land use plan EIS or subsequent developmental EA or EIS. Finally, the new well 

must be spudded within five years of that previous NEPA document. This provision applies to 

“any environmental document” that analyzed drilling, meaning any document adopted by any 

Federal agency pursuant to the NEPA, regardless of whether it was adopted by the BLM. 

Because the 5-year period is again tied to the spudding of the pending well, the APD must 

contain a COA that if no well is spudded by the date the CX is no longer applicable, the APD 

will expire, thus requiring the operator to obtain a new APD. For example, "If the well has not 

been spudded by (the date the categorical exclusion is no longer applicable), this APD will 

expire and the operator is to cease all operations related to preparing to drill the well.” 

Full field development EISs do not need to be prepared where the development envisioned was 

analyzed in the land use plan EIS. As long as the development foreseen does not exceed the 

number of wells and/or surface disturbance analyzed in the prior NEPA document, no additional 

NEPA documentation is required because of changes in the density of development. 

All of the following requirements must be met to use this CX. 

(1) The proposed APD is within a developed oil or gas field. A developed field is defined 

as any field in which a confirmation well has been completed. 

(2) There is an existing NEPA document (including that supporting a land use plan) that 

contains a reasonably foreseeable development scenario encompassing this action. 

(3) The NEPA document was finalized or supplemented within five years of spudding the 

well. 

4. Placement of a pipeline in an approved right-of-way corridor, so long as the corridor was 

approved within five years prior to the date of placement of the pipeline. 

The 5-year time period is to be calculated from the date the decision was made approving the 

corridor, including any amendments to the corridor. The time period extends to the date 

placement of any portion of the new pipeline is concluded, provided that placement activities 

began within the 5-year period. If the operator delays in beginning to place the pipeline, and the 

time period between the approval of the corridor and placement exceeds five years, the 

authorized officer must suspend the right-of-way authorization until the BLM completes NEPA 

compliance for the proposed right-of-way and issues a decision. To avoid problems, the right-ofway must contain a term or condition that provides for the suspension of the authorization if 

placement does not begin before the last date that the CX is available, thus requiring the operator 

to obtain a new right-of-way. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 2 - 144 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Existing right-of-way corridors of any type can be used for new pipeline placement, such as the 

burial of a pipeline or pipeline conduit in an existing roadbed or along a power line right-of-way, 

could qualify for the exclusion. The term “right-of-way corridor” in Section 390 is not limited to 

those authorized under 43 CFR 2800, but is a more generalized term that applies to any type of 

corridor or right-or-way (whether on or off lease) approved under any authority or vehicle of the 

BLM, including Sundry Notices. Additional disturbance or width needed to properly or safely 

install the new pipeline may be authorized under this exclusion if it is within the approved rightof-way corridor. Creation of a new right-of-way completely outside and not overlapping into a 

portion of the existing corridor is not authorized. 

The above requirements, that is, the placement of a pipeline in an existing corridor of any type 

and placement of the pipe within five years of approval (or amendment), are the only two 

applicable factors for review pursuant to this statute and both must be satisfied to use this CX. 

Other types of new right-of-way applications cannot be excluded from NEPA analysis under this 

exclusion, for example, above ground power lines, or new roads; however, existing right-of-way 

corridors, such as roads, may be used for new pipeline or pipeline conduit in an existing roadbed. 

5. Maintenance of a minor activity, other than any construction or major renovation of a 

building or facility. 

This CX applies to maintenance of minor activities, such as maintenance of the well or wellbore, 

a road, wellpad, or production facility. The exclusion does not cover construction or major 

renovation of a building or facility. The addition of a compressor or a gas processing plant 

would therefore not be eligible for this CX. 

Note: CX numbers one through four reference prior approvals made following NEPA analysis. 

Field Offices must apply the same or more effective mitigating measures considered in the parent 

NEPA documents to all actions approved under any CX. Additionally, BMPs are to be applied 

as necessary to reduce impacts to any authorization issued, regardless of the NEPA analysis or 

exclusion used. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 3 - 145 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

APPENDIX 3 

Departmental Categorical Exclusions

The following actions are categorical exclusions (CXs) pursuant to 516 DM 2, Appendix 1. 

However, individual actions must be subjected to sufficient review to determine if any of the 

extraordinary circumstances listed in Appendix 5, Categorical Exclusions: Extraordinary 

Circumstances apply. If any of the extraordinary circumstances apply, an EA or an EIS must be 

prepared. In addition, see Appendix 4, BLM Categorical Exclusions for a list of BLM 

excludable activities. 

1.1 Personnel actions and investigations and personnel services contracts. 

1.2 Internal organizational changes and facility and office reductions and closings. 

1.3 Routine financial transactions including such things as salaries and expenses, 

procurement contracts (in accordance with applicable procedures and Executive Orders for 

sustainable or green procurement), guarantees, financial assistance, income transfers, audits, 

fees, bonds, and royalties. 

1.4 Departmental legal activities including, but not limited to, such things as arrests, 

investigations, patents, claims, and legal opinions. This does not include bringing judicial or 

administrative civil or criminal enforcement actions which are outside the scope of NEPA in 

accordance with 40 CFR 1508.18(a). 

1.5 Reserved. 

1.6 Nondestructive data collection, inventory (including field, aerial, and satellite surveying 

and mapping), study, research, and monitoring activities. 

1.7 Routine and continuing government business, including such things as supervision, 

administration, operations, maintenance, renovations, and replacement activities having limited 

context and intensity (e.g., limited size and magnitude or short-term effects). 

1.8 Management, formulation, allocation, transfer, and reprogramming of the Department's 

budget at all levels. (This does not exclude the preparation of environmental documents for 

proposals included in the budget when otherwise required.) 

1.9 Legislative proposals of an administrative or technical nature (including such things as 

changes in authorizations for appropriations and minor boundary changes and land title 

transactions) or having primarily economic, social, individual, or institutional effects; and 

comments and reports on referrals of legislative proposals. 

1.10 Policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines that are of an administrative, financial, 

legal, technical, or procedural nature and whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, 

or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to the NEPA 

process, either collectively or case-by-case. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 3 - 146 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

1.11 Activities which are educational, informational, advisory, or consultative to other 

agencies, public and private entities, visitors, individuals, or the general public. 

1.12 Hazardous fuels reduction activities using prescribed fire not to exceed 4,500 acres, and 

mechanical methods for crushing, piling, thinning, pruning, cutting, chipping, mulching, and 

mowing, not to exceed 1,000 acres. Such activities: Shall be limited to areas (1) in wildland– 

urban interface and (2) Condition Classes 2 or 3 in Fire Regime Groups I, II, or III, outside the 

wildland–urban interface; Shall be identified through a collaborative framework as described in 

“A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the 

Environment 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan;” Shall be conducted 

consistent with agency and Departmental procedures and applicable land and resource 

management plans; Shall not be conducted in wilderness areas or impair the suitability of 

wilderness study areas for preservation as wilderness; Shall not include the use of herbicides or 

pesticides or the construction of new permanent roads or other new permanent infrastructure; and 

may include the sale of vegetative material if the primary purpose of the activity is hazardous 

fuels reduction. 

1.13 Post-fire rehabilitation activities not to exceed 4,200 acres (such as tree planting, fence 

replacement, habitat restoration, heritage site restoration, repair of roads and trails, and repair of 

damage to minor facilities such as campgrounds) to repair or improve lands unlikely to recover 

to a management approved condition from wildland fire damage, or to repair or replace minor 

facilities damaged by fire. Such activities: Shall be conducted consistent with agency and 

Departmental procedures and applicable land and resource management plans; Shall not include 

the use of herbicides or pesticides or the construction of new permanent roads or other new 

permanent infrastructure; and Shall be completed within three years following a wildland fire. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 4 - 147 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

APPENDIX 4 

BLM Categorical Exclusions 

The following actions are designated as categorical exclusions (CXs) pursuant to 516 DM 11.9. 

Before any action described in the following list is used, the list of “extraordinary 

circumstances” described in Appendix 5, Categorical Exclusions: Extraordinary 

Circumstances must be reviewed for applicability. If any of the extraordinary circumstances are 

applicable to the action being considered, either an EA or an EIS must be prepared for the action. 

When no “extraordinary circumstances” apply, the following activities do not require the 

preparation of an EA or EIS. In addition, see Appendix 3, Departmental Categorical 

Exclusions for a list of DOI-wide CXs. 

The following actions are designated as categorical exclusions. The subject headings are for 

organizational purposes only - any program may use any of the CXs. 

A. Fish and Wildlife 

1. Modification of existing fences to provide improved wildlife ingress and egress. 

2. Minor modification of water developments to improve or facilitate wildlife use (e.g., 

modify enclosure fence, install flood valve, or reduce ramp access angle). 

3. Construction of perches, nesting platforms, islands, and similar structures for wildlife 

use. 

4. Temporary emergency feeding of wildlife during periods of extreme adverse weather 

conditions. 

5. Routine augmentations, such as fish stocking, providing no new species are introduced. 

6. Relocation of nuisance or depredating wildlife, providing the relocation does not 

introduce new species into the ecosystem.

7. Installation of devices on existing facilities to protect animal life, such as raptor 

electrocution prevention devices. 

B. Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Energy 

1. Issuance of future interest leases under the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands, 

where the subject lands are already in production. 

2. Approval of mineral lease adjustments and transfers, including assignments and 

subleases. 

3. Approval of unitization agreements, communitization agreements, drainage agreements, 

underground storage agreements, development contracts, or geothermal unit or 

participating area agreements. 

4. Approval of suspensions of operations, force majeure suspensions, and suspensions of 

operations and production. 

5. Approval of royalty determinations, such as royalty rate reductions. 

6. Approval of Notices of Intent to conduct geophysical exploration of oil, gas, or 

geothermal, pursuant to 43 CFR 3150 or 3250, when no temporary or new road 

construction is proposed. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 4 - 148 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

C. Forestry 

1. Land cultivation and silvicultural activities (excluding herbicide application) in forest tree 

nurseries, seed orchards, and progeny test sites. 

2. Sale and removal of individual trees or small groups of trees which are dead, diseased, 

injured, or which constitute a safety hazard, and where access for the removal requires no 

more than maintenance to existing roads. 

3. Seeding or reforestation of timber sales or burn areas where no chaining is done, no 

pesticides are used, and there is no conversion of timber type or conversion of non-forest 

to forest land. Specific reforestation activities covered include: seeding and seedling 

plantings, shading, tubing (browse protection), paper mulching, bud caps, ravel 

protection, application of non-toxic big game repellant, spot scalping, rodent trapping, 

fertilization of seed trees, fence construction around out-planting sites, and collection of 

pollen, scions and cones. 

4. Pre-commercial thinning and brush control using small mechanical devices. 

5. Disposal of small amounts of miscellaneous vegetation products outside established 

harvest areas, such as Christmas trees, wildings, floral products (ferns, boughs, etc.), 

cones, seeds, and personal use firewood. 

6. Felling, bucking, and scaling sample trees to ensure accuracy of timber cruises. Such 

activities: 

a. Shall be limited to an average of one tree per acre or less, 

b. Shall be limited to gas-powered chainsaws or hand tools, 

c. Shall not involve any road or trail construction, 

d. Shall not include the use of ground based equipment or other manner of timber 

yarding, and 

e. Shall be limited to the Coos Bay, Eugene, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem 

Districts and Lakeview District - Klamath Falls Resource Area in Oregon. 

7. Harvesting live trees not to exceed 70 acres, requiring no more than 0.5 mile of 

temporary road construction. Such activities: 

a. Shall not include even-aged regeneration harvests or vegetation type conversions. 

b. May include incidental removal of trees for landings, skid trails, and road 

clearing. 

c. May include temporary roads which are defined as roads authorized by contract, 

permit, lease, other written authorization, or emergency operation not intended to 

be part of the BLM transportation system and not necessary for long-term 

resource management. Temporary roads shall be designed to standards 

appropriate for the intended uses, considering safety, cost of transportation, and 

impacts on land and resources; and 

d. Shall require the treatment of temporary roads constructed or used so as to permit 

the reestablishment by artificial or natural means, or vegetative cover on the 

roadway and areas where the vegetative cover was disturbed by the construction 

or use of the road, as necessary to minimize erosion from the disturbed area. 

Such treatment shall be designed to reestablish vegetative cover as soon as 

practicable, but at least within 10 years after the termination of the contract. 

Examples include, but are not limited to: 

a. Removing individual trees for sawlogs, specialty products, or fuelwood. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 4 - 149 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

b. Commercial thinning of overstocked stands to achieve the desired stocking level 

to increase health and vigor. 

8. Salvaging dead or dying trees not to exceed 250 acres, requiring no more than 0.5 mile of 

temporary road construction. Such activities: 

a. May include incidental removal of live or dead trees for landings, skid trails, and 

road clearing. 

b. May include temporary roads which are defined as roads authorized by contract, 

permit, lease, other written authorization, or emergency operation not intended to 

be part of the BLM transportation system and not necessary for long-term 

resource management. Temporary roads shall be designed to standards 

appropriate for the intended uses, considering safety, cost of transportation, and 

impacts on land and resources; and 

c. Shall require the treatment of temporary roads constructed or used so as to permit 

the reestablishment, by artificial or natural means, of vegetative cover on the 

roadway and areas where the vegetative cover was disturbed by the construction 

or use of the road, as necessary to minimize erosion from the disturbed area. 

Such treatment shall be designed to reestablish vegetative cover as soon as 

practicable, but at least within 10 years after the termination of the contract. 

d. For this CX, a dying tree is defined as a standing tree that has been severely 

damaged by forces such as fire, wind, ice, insects, or disease, and that in the 

judgment of an experienced forest professional or someone technically trained for 

the work, is likely to die within a few years. Examples include, but are not limited 

to: 

(i) Harvesting a portion of a stand damaged by a wind or ice event. 

(ii) Harvesting fire damaged trees. 

9. Commercial and non-commercial sanitation harvest of trees to control insects or disease 

not to exceed 250 acres, requiring no more than 0.5 miles of temporary road construction. 

Such activities: 

a. May include removal of infested/infected trees and adjacent live 

uninfested/uninfected trees as determined necessary to control the spread of 

insects or disease; and 

b. May include incidental removal of live or dead trees for landings, skid trails, and 

road clearing. 

c. May include temporary roads which are defined as roads authorized by contract, 

permit, lease, other written authorization, or emergency operation not intended to 

be part of the BLM transportation system and not necessary for long-term 

resource management. Temporary roads shall be designed to standards 

appropriate for the intended uses, considering safety, cost of transportation, and 

impacts on land and resources; and 

d. Shall require the treatment of temporary roads constructed or used so as to permit 

the reestablishment, by artificial or natural means, of vegetative cover on the 

roadway and areas where the vegetative cover was disturbed by the construction 

or use of the road, as necessary to minimize erosion from the disturbed area. 

Such treatment shall be designed to reestablish vegetative cover as soon as 

practicable, but at least within 10 years after the termination of the contract. 

Examples include, but are not limited to: 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 4 - 150 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

(i) Felling and harvesting trees infested with mountain pine beetles and 

immediately adjacent uninfested trees to control expanding spot infestations; 

and 

(ii) Removing or destroying trees infested or infected with a new exotic insect 

or disease, such as emerald ash borer, Asian longhorned beetle, or sudden 

oak death pathogen. 

D. Rangeland Management 

1. Approval of transfers of grazing preference. 

2. Placement and use of temporary (not to exceed one month) portable corrals and water 

troughs, providing no new road construction is needed. 

3. Temporary emergency feeding of livestock or wild horses and burros during periods of 

extreme adverse weather conditions. 

4. Removal of wild horses or burros from private lands at the request of the landowner. 

5. Processing (transporting, sorting, providing veterinary care, vaccinating, testing for 

communicable diseases, training, gelding, marketing, maintaining, feeding, and trimming 

of hooves of) excess wild horses and burros. 

6. Approval of the adoption of healthy, excess wild horses and burros. 

7. Actions required to ensure compliance with the terms of Private Maintenance and Care 

agreements. 

8. Issuance of title to adopted wild horses and burros. 

9. Destroying old, sick, and lame wild horses and burros as an act of mercy. 

10. Vegetation management activities, such as seeding, planting, invasive plant removal, 

installation of erosion control devices (e.g., mats/straw/chips), and mechanical 

treatments, such as crushing, piling, thinning, pruning, cutting, chipping, mulching, 

mowing, and prescribed fire when the activity is necessary for the management of 

vegetation on public lands. Such activities: 

a. Shall not exceed 4,500 acres per prescribed fire project and 1,000 acres for other 

vegetation management projects; 

b. Shall not be conducted in Wilderness areas or Wilderness Study Areas; 

c. Shall not include the use of herbicides, pesticides, biological treatments or the 

construction of new permanent roads or other new permanent infrastructure; 

d. May include temporary roads which are defined as roads authorized by contract, 

permit, lease, other written authorization, or emergency operation not intended to 

be part of the BLM transportation system and not necessary for long-term 

resource management. Temporary roads shall be designed to standards 

appropriate for the intended uses, considering safety, cost of transportation, and 

impacts on land and resources; and 

e. Shall require the treatment of temporary roads constructed or used so as to permit 

the reestablishment, by artificial or natural means, of vegetative cover on the 

roadway and areas where the vegetative cover was disturbed by the construction 

or use of the road, as necessary to minimize erosion from the disturbed area. 

Such treatment shall be designed to reestablish vegetative cover as soon as 

practicable, but at least within 10 years after the termination of the contract. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 4 - 151 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

11. Issuance of livestock grazing permits/leases where: 

a. The new grazing permit/lease is consistent with the use specified on the previous 

permit/lease, such that 

(i) the same kind of livestock is grazed, 

(ii) the active use previously authorized is not exceeded, and 

(iii) grazing does not occur more than 14 days earlier or later than as specified 

on the previous permit/lease, and 

b. The grazing allotment(s) has been assessed and evaluated and the Responsible 

Official has documented in a determination that the allotment(s) is 

(i) meeting land health standards, or 

(ii) not meeting land health standards due to factors that do not include 

existing livestock grazing. 

E. Realty 

1. Withdrawal extensions or modifications, which only establish a new time period and 

entail no changes in segregative effect or use. 

2. Withdrawal revocations, terminations, extensions, or modifications; and classification 

terminations or modifications which do not result in lands being opened or closed to the 

general land laws or to the mining or mineral leasing laws. 

3. Withdrawal revocations, terminations, extensions, or modifications; classification 

terminations or modifications; or opening actions where the land would be opened only 

to discretionary land laws and where subsequent discretionary actions (prior to 

implementation) are in conformance with and are covered by a Resource Management 

Plan/EIS (or plan amendment and EA or EIS). 

4. Administrative conveyances from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to the State 

of Alaska to accommodate airports on lands appropriated by the FAA prior to the 

enactment of the Alaska Statehood Act. 

5. Actions taken in conveying mineral interest where there are no known mineral values in 

the land under Section 209(b) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

(FLPMA). 

6. Resolution of class one color-of-title cases. 

7. Issuance of recordable disclaimers of interest under Section 315 of FLPMA. 

8. Corrections of patents and other conveyance documents under Section 316 of FLPMA 

and other applicable statutes. 

9. Renewals and assignments of leases, permits, or rights-of-way where no additional rights 

are conveyed beyond those granted by the original authorizations. 

10. Transfer or conversion of leases, permits, or rights-of-way from one agency to another 

(e.g., conversion of Forest Service permits to a BLM Title V Right-of-way). 

11. Conversion of existing right-of-way grants to Title V grants or existing leases to FLPMA 

Section 302(b) leases where no new facilities or other changes are needed. 

12. Grants of right-of-way wholly within the boundaries of other compatibly developed 

rights-of-way. 

13. Amendments to existing rights-of-way, such as the upgrading of existing facilities, which 

entail no additional disturbances outside the right-of-way boundary. 

14. Grants of rights-of-way for an overhead line (no pole or tower on BLM land) crossing 

over a corner of public land. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 4 - 152 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

15. Transfers of land or interest in land to or from other bureaus or federal agencies where 

current management will continue and future changes in management will be subject to 

the NEPA process. 

16. Acquisition of easements for an existing road or issuance of leases, permits, or rights-ofway for the use of existing facilities, improvements, or sites for the same or similar 

purposes. 

17. Grant of a short rights-of-way for utility service or terminal access roads to an individual 

residence, outbuilding, or water well. 

18. Temporary placement of a pipeline above ground. 

19. Issuance of short-term (3 years or less) rights-of-way or land use authorizations for such 

uses as storage sites, apiary sites, and construction sites where the proposal includes 

rehabilitation to restore the land to its natural or original condition. 

20. One-time issuance of short-term (3 years or less) rights-of-way or land use authorizations 

which authorize trespass action where no new use or construction is allowed, and where 

the proposal includes rehabilitation to restore the land to its natural or original condition. 

F. Solid Minerals 

1. Issuance of future interest leases under the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands 

where the subject lands are already in production. 

2. Approval of mineral lease readjustments, renewals, and transfers including assignments 

and subleases. 

3. Approval of suspensions of operations, force majeure suspensions, and suspensions of 

operations and production. 

4. Approval of royalty determinations, such as royalty rate reductions and operations 

reporting procedures. 

5. Determination and designation of logical mining units. 

6. Findings of completeness furnished to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement for Resource Recovery and Protection Plans. 

7. Approval of minor modifications to or minor variances from activities described in an 

approved exploration plan for leasable, salable, and locatable minerals (e.g., the approved 

plan identifies no new surface disturbance outside the areas already identified to be 

disturbed). 

8. Approval of minor modifications to or minor variances from activities described in an 

approved underground or surface mine plan for leasable minerals (e.g., change in mining 

sequence or timing). 

9. Digging of exploratory trenches for mineral materials, except in riparian areas. 

10. Disposal of mineral materials, such as sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, cinders, and 

clay, in amounts not exceeding 50,000 cubic yards or disturbing more than 5 acres, 

except in riparian areas. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 4 - 153 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

G. Transportation 

1. Incorporation of eligible roads and trails in any transportation plan when no new 

construction or upgrading is needed. 

2. Installation of routine signs, markers, culverts, ditches, waterbars, gates, or cattleguards 

on/or adjacent to roads and trails identified in any land use or transportation plan, or 

eligible for incorporation in such plan. 

3. Temporary closure of roads and trails. 

4. Placement of recreational, special designation, or information signs, visitor registers, 

kiosks, and portable sanitation devices. 

H. Recreation Management 

1. Issuance of Special Recreation Permits for day use or overnight use up to 14 consecutive 

nights; that impacts no more than 3 staging area acres; and/or for recreational travel along 

roads, trails, or in areas authorized in a land use plan. This CX cannot be used for 

commercial boating permits along Wild and Scenic Rivers. This CX cannot be used for 

the establishment or issuance of Special Recreation Permits for “Special Area” 

management (43 CFR 2932.5). 

I. Emergency Stabilization 

1. Planned actions in response to wildfires, floods, weather events, earthquakes, or landslips 

that threaten public health or safety, property, and/or natural and cultural resources, and 

that are necessary to repair or improve lands unlikely to recover to a managementapproved condition as a result of the event. Such activities shall be limited to: repair and 

installation of essential erosion control structures; replacement or repair of existing 

culverts, roads, trails, fences, and minor facilities; construction of protection fences; 

planting, seeding, and mulching; and removal of hazard trees, rocks, soil, and other 

mobile debris from, on, or along roads, trails, campgrounds, and watercourses. These 

activities: 

a. Shall be completed within one year following the event; 

b. Shall not include the use of herbicides or pesticides; 

c. Shall not include the construction of new roads or other new permanent 

infrastructure; 

d. Shall not exceed 4,200 acres; and 

e. May include temporary roads which are defined as roads authorized by contract, 

permit, lease, other written authorization, or emergency operation not intended to 

be part of the BLM transportation system and not necessary for long-term 

resource management. Temporary roads shall be designed to standards 

appropriate for the intended uses, considering safety, cost of transportation, and 

impacts on land and resources; and 

f. Shall require the treatment of temporary roads constructed or used so as to permit 

the reestablishment by artificial or natural means, or vegetative cover on the 

roadway and areas where the vegetative cover was disturbed by the construction 

or use of the road, as necessary to minimize erosion from the disturbed area. 

Such treatment shall be designed to reestablish vegetative cover as soon as 

practicable, but at least within 10 years after the termination of the contract 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 4 - 154 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

J. Other 

1. Maintaining land use plans in accordance with 43 CFR 1610.5-4. 

2. Acquisition of existing water developments (e.g., wells and springs) on public land. 

3. Conducting preliminary hazardous materials assessments and site investigations, site 

characterization studies and environmental monitoring. Included are siting, construction, 

installation and/or operation of small monitoring devices such as wells, particulate dust 

counters and automatic air or water samples. 

4. Use of small sites for temporary field work camps where the sites will be restored to their 

natural or original condition within the same work season. 

5. Reserved. 

6. A single trip in a one month period for data collection or observation sites. 

7. Construction of snow fences for safety purposes or to accumulate snow for small water 

facilities. 

8. Installation of minor devices to protect human life (e.g., grates across mines). 

9. Construction of small protective enclosures, including those to protect reservoirs and 

springs and those to protect small study areas. 

10. Removal of structures and materials of no historical value, such as abandoned 

automobiles, fences, and buildings, including those built in trespass and reclamation of 

the site when little or no surface disturbance is involved. 

11. Actions where the BLM has concurrence or co-approval with another DOI agency and 

the action is categorically excluded for that DOI agency. 

12. Rendering formal classification of lands as to their mineral character, waterpower, and 

water storage values. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 5 - 155 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

APPENDIX 5

Categorical Exclusions: 

Extraordinary Circumstances 

Before any non-Energy Act CX is used, you must conduct sufficient review to determine if any 

of the following extraordinary circumstances apply (516 DM 2, Appendix 2). If any of the 

extraordinary circumstances are applicable to the action being considered, either an EA or an EIS 

must be prepared for the action. Part 516 of the Departmental Manual (516 DM 2, Appendix 2) 

states that extraordinary circumstances exist for individual actions within CXs which may: 

2.1 Have significant impacts on public health or safety. 

2.2 Have significant impacts on such natural resources and unique geographic characteristics 

as historic or cultural resources; park, recreation or refuge lands; wilderness areas; wild 

or scenic rivers; national natural landmarks; sole or principal drinking water aquifers; 

prime farmlands; wetlands (Executive Order 11990); floodplains (Executive Order 

11988); national monuments; migratory birds; and other ecologically significant or 

critical areas. 

2.3 Have highly controversial environmental effects or involve unresolved conflicts 

concerning alternative uses of available resources [NEPA Section 102(2)(E)]. 

2.4 Have highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental effects or involve unique 

or unknown environmental risks. 

2.5 Establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision in principle about future 

actions with potentially significant environmental effects. 

2.6 Have a direct relationship to other actions with individually insignificant but 

cumulatively significant environmental effects. 

2.7 Have significant impacts on properties listed, or eligible for listing, on the National 

Register of Historic Places as determined by either the bureau or office. 

2.8 Have significant impacts on species listed, or proposed to be listed, on the List of 

Endangered or Threatened Species, or have significant impacts on designated Critical 

Habitat for these species. 

2.9 Violate a Federal law, or a State, local, or tribal law or requirement imposed for the 

protection of the environment. 

2.10 Have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low income or minority populations 

(Executive Order 12898). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 5 - 156 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

2.11 Limit access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites on Federal lands by Indian 

religious practitioners or significantly adversely affect the physical integrity of such 

sacred sites (Executive Order 13007). 

2.12 Contribute to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of noxious weeds or nonnative invasive species known to occur in the area or actions that may promote the 

introduction, growth, or expansion of the range of such species (Federal Noxious Weed 

Control Act and Executive Order 13112). 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix 6 - 157 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

APPENDIX 6 

Categorical Exclusion Documentation Format When Using 

Categorical Exclusions Not Established by Statute

A. Backgound 

BLM Office: _________________________ Lease/Serial/Case File No.: _______________ 

Proposed Action Title/Type: _____________________________________________________ 

Location of Proposed Action: ____________________________________________________ 

Description of Proposed Action: ___________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

B. Land Use Plan Conformance 

Land Use Plan Name: _______________________ Date Approved/Amended:_____________ 

The proposed action is in conformance with the applicable LUP because it is specifically 

provided for in the following LUP decision(s): ________________________________________ 

_____ The proposed action is in conformance with the LUP, even though it is not specifically 

provided for, because it is clearly consistent with the following LUP decision(s) (objectives, 

terms, and conditions): __________________________________________________________ 

C: Compliance with NEPA: 

The Proposed Action is categorically excluded from further documentation under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in accordance with 516 DM 2, Appendix 1, ______________ 

[Insert appropriate CX number and text, or a paraphrase of the text] or 516 DM 11.9, _________ 

[Insert appropriate CX number and text, or a paraphrase of the text]. 

This categorical exclusion is appropriate in this situation because there are no extraordinary 

circumstances potentially having effects that may significantly affect the environment. The 

proposed action has been reviewed, and none of the extraordinary circumstances described in 

516 DM2 apply. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

Appendix 6 - 158 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

I considered _________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________ [Insert any pertinent 

design features incorporated into the project design, or relevant situations discussed during 

project design, and explain why there is no potential for significant impacts]. 

D: Signature 

Authorizing Official: _________________________________ Date: __________________ 

 (Signature) 

Name: ________________________________ 

Title: __________________________________ 

Contact Person 

For additional information concerning this CX review, contact [Insert contact name, title, office 

name, mailing address, and telephone number]. 

Note: A separate decision document must be prepared for the action covered by the CX. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 7 - 159 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

APPENDIX 7 

Documentation Requirements for Hazardous Fuels Actions 

and Post-Fire Rehabilitation Actions 

Decision Memorandum on Action and for Application of: 

Departmental Categorical Exclusion 1.12 (or 1.13 or both) 

Project Name 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau Name 

Bureau Field Station (State Office, Regional Office, etc.) 

County, State 

Description of the Proposed Action and the Purpose and Need for the Action 

[Provide a description of the proposed action and the purpose and need for the action. Provide 

any pertinent facts such as: applicable legal land description, statutory citations, and other 

agency involvements.] 

Plan Conformance 

[State that the Proposed Action is consistent with any land and resource management plans as 

required by appropriate Federal, State, or local statutes having a bearing on the decision.] 

[State that the Proposed Action was designed in conformance with all bureau standards and 

incorporates appropriate guidelines for specific required and desired conditions relevant to 

project activities.] [insert findings for other applicable laws.] 

Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

[State that the Proposed Action is categorically excluded from further documentation under the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in accordance with 516 DM 2, Appendix 1, 1.12 (or 

1.13 or both).] [insert reasons.] 

[State that the application of this categorical exclusion is appropriate in this situation because 

there are no extraordinary circumstances potentially having effects which may significantly 

affect the environment.] [Clearly state that none of the exceptions apply. If any apply, then the 

categorical exclusions cannot be utilized.] [State that these extraordinary circumstances are 

contained in 516 DM 2, Appendix 2.] 

I considered [insert any pertinent situations that were brought up during the design of the 

activities and explain why there is no potential for significant effects]. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 7 - 160 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Persons and Agencies Consulted 

[Explain how the public was made aware of this proposed activity. Describe people and 

agencies consulted regarding the development of the action and steps taken based on this 

consultation.] 

Decision and Rationale on Action 

I have decided to implement [insert description of actions, including mitigation measures and 

reference any maps and drawings]. These actions meet the need for action. In addition, I have 

reviewed the plan conformance statement and have determined that the proposed action is in 

conformance with the approved land use plan and that no further environmental analysis is 

required. 

Implementation Date 

This project will be implemented on or after [insert implementation date and identify any 

conditions related to implementation]. 

__________________________________________ ________________ 

[Insert deciding official’s name] Date 

[Insert deciding official’s title] 

Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities 

[State whether the decision is or is not subject to administrative appeal. If it is subject to appeal, 

provide the citation of the appeal rules and provide appeal information.] 

Contact Person 

For additional information concerning this decision, contact [Insert contact name, title, office 

name, mailing address, and telephone number]. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 8 - 161 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

APPENDIX 8 

Worksheet 

Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

OFFICE:

TRACKING NUMBER:

CASEFILE/PROJECT NUMBER: 

PROPOSED ACTION TITLE/TYPE: 

LOCATION/LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 

APPLICANT (if any): 

A. Description of the Proposed Action and any applicable mitigation measures 

B. Land Use Plan (LUP) Conformance 

LUP Name* Date Approved _______________ 

Other document Date Approved _______________ 

Other document Date Approved _______________ 

* List applicable LUPs (for example, resource management plans; activity, project, 

management, or program plans; or applicable amendments thereto) 

The proposed action is in conformance with the applicable LUP because it is specifically 

provided for in the following LUP decisions: 

The proposed action is in conformance with the LUP, even though it is not specifically provided 

for, because it is clearly consistent with the following LUP decisions (objectives, terms, and 

conditions): 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 8 - 162 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

C. Identify applicable National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents and other 

related documents that cover the proposed action. 

List by name and date all applicable NEPA documents that cover the proposed action. 

List by name and date other documentation relevant to the proposed action (e.g., biological 

assessment, biological opinion, watershed assessment, allotment evaluation, and monitoring 

report). 

D. NEPA Adequacy Criteria 

1. Is the new proposed action a feature of, or essentially similar to, an alternative analyzed 

in the existing NEPA document(s)? Is the project within the same analysis area, or if the 

project location is different, are the geographic and resource conditions sufficiently similar 

to those analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s)? If there are differences, can you 

explain why they are not substantial? 

Documentation of answer and explanation: 

2. Is the range of alternatives analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s) appropriate with 

respect to the new proposed action, given current environmental concerns, interests, and 

resource values? 

Documentation of answer and explanation: 

3. Is the existing analysis valid in light of any new information or circumstances (such as, 

rangeland health standard assessment, recent endangered species listings, updated lists of 

BLM-sensitive species)? Can you reasonably conclude that new information and new 

circumstances would not substantially change the analysis of the new proposed action? 

Documentation of answer and explanation: 

4. Are the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would result from implementation 

of the new proposed action similar (both quantitatively and qualitatively) to those analyzed 

in the existing NEPA document? 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
 

Appendix 8 - 163 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Documentation of answer and explanation: 

5. Are the public involvement and interagency review associated with existing NEPA 

document(s) adequate for the current proposed action? 

Documentation of answer and explanation: 

E. Persons/Agencies /BLM Staff Consulted

 Name Title Resource/Agency Represented 

Note: Refer to the EA/EIS for a complete list of the team members participating in the 

preparation of the original environmental analysis or planning documents. 

Conclusion (If you found that one or more of these criteria is not met, you will not be able to 

check this box.) 

Based on the review documented above, I conclude that this proposal conforms to the applicable 

land use plan and that the NEPA documentation fully covers the proposed action and constitutes 

BLM’s compliance with the requirements of the NEPA. 

Signature of Project Lead 

Signature of NEPA Coordinator 

Signature of the Responsible Official: Date 

Note: The signed Conclusion on this Worksheet is part of an interim step in the BLM’s internal 

decision process and does not constitute an appealable decision. However, the lease, permit, or 

other authorization based on this DNA is subject to protest or appeal under 43 CFR Part 4 and 

the program-specific regulations. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 8 - 164 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

This page intentionally left blank. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 9 - 165 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

APPENDIX 9 

Recommended EA Format 

Following is a suggested, but optional, outline for an EA. Refer to Chapter 8, Preparing an 

Environmental Assessment for descriptions of the content for these EA sections or chapters. 

1. Introduction 

• Identifying Information 

• Purpose and Need for Action 

• Scoping and Public Involvement and Issues 

2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

• Description of Proposed Action 

• Description of Alternatives Analyzed in Detail 

• Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail 

3. Affected Environment 

4. Environmental Effects 

• Direct and Indirect Effects 

• Cumulative Effects 

• Residual Effects 

5. Tribes, Individuals, Organizations, or Agencies Consulted 

6. List of Preparers 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 9 - 166 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

This page intentionally left blank. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 10 - 167 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

APPENDIX 10 

Items to Include in the Administrative Record 

The administrative record needs to demonstrate all of the factors considered and the process used 

in reaching a decision. The record must also document public involvement in the process. Be 

aware that some documents in the Administrative Record are subject to the Freedom of 

Information Act and Privacy Act (consult your FOIA Officer). Note this on the document itself, 

and indicate it in the database. (If the administrative record is used in lawsuits, protests, and so 

forth, and if information is not filed in the administrative record, the courts or the IBLA may 

consider that it did not happen.) 

Administrative records may include (but are not limited to) these documents: 

General Information 

• Federal Register Notices 

• Interdisciplinary Team or Project Team Membership 

• Preparation Plans 

• Contract Information (if the project is contracted) 

Public Information 

• Public Involvement Plans 

• Public Information Documents (letters, notices) 

• News Reports and Clippings 

• General Correspondence 

• Meeting and Workshop Records (attendance lists, announcements) 

• Scoping Report 

• BLM Responses to Comments (if not included in the environmental document) 

• Protests or appeals and the BLM’s responses 

• Mailing Lists 

• Public Comments (from all phases of the project) 

External Communications 

• Other Federal Agencies 

• Cooperating Agencies 

• Tribes 

• State Agencies 

• Local Agencies 

• Elected Officials (Governor, County commissioners, city officials, and so forth) 

• Organizations 

• Individuals 

• Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests and Responses (maintained by the FOIA 

Officer) 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 10 - 168 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Internal Communications 

• Project Management Correspondence 

• Interdisciplinary Team–Project Team Correspondence (meeting notes, agendas) 

• FOIA exempt documents 

• Quality Assurance Determination 

Background Material/Supporting Information 

• Data 

• Data Standards 

• Metadata 

• References 

• Analyses (of alternatives, environmental consequences) 

• Appendixes 

• Special Reports (ACEC Report, Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenarios, 

Mineral Assessments, Wild and Scenic River Suitability Assessments) 

• Biological Assessments or Opinions 

• Section 106 Consultation 

Environmental Documents 

• Draft EIS 

• Final EIS 

• Record of Decision or Decision Record 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 11 - 169 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

APPENDIX 1 1 

Federal Register Illustrations 

These illustrations were adopted from the Office of the Federal Register’s Federal Register 

Document Drafting Handbook, October 1998 Revision. 

Illustration 1: Federal Register Format Requirements 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 11 - 170 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Illustration 2: Sample Notice 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 11 - 171 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Illustration 2: Sample Notice (Continued) 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 11 - 172 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Illustration 3: Guidance on Writing a Federal Register Notice 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 11 - 173 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

Illustration 3: Guidance on Writing a Federal Register Notice (Continued) 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Appendix 11 - 174 

H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public) 

This page intentionally left blank. 

BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710

Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008