77802 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 

1A Notice of Availability for the 2010 draft 

guidance was published in the Federal Register. 

See 75 FR 8046 (Feb. 23, 2010). 

2For more information on the applicability of 

NEPA, see the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ), ‘‘A Citizen’s Guide to the NEPA,’’ available 

at https://ceq.doe.gov/nepa/Citizens_Guide_

Dec07.pdf. 

3Two of these guidance documents have since 

been finalized. See CEQ, ‘‘Establishing, Applying, 

and Revising Categorical Exclusions under the 

National Environmental Policy Act,’’ (Nov. 23, 

2010), available at https://ceq.doe.gov/ceq_

regulations/NEPA_CE_Guidance_Nov232010.pdf; 

see also CEQ, ‘‘Appropriate Use of Mitigation and 

Monitoring and Clarifying the Appropriate Use of 

Mitigated Findings of No Significant Impact,’’ (Jan. 

14, 2011), available at https://ceq.doe.gov/current_

developments/docs/Mitigation_and_Monitoring_

Guidance_14Jan2011.pdf. 

4CEQ, ‘‘Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration 

of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions,’’ (Feb. 18, 2010), available at 

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

initiatives/nepa/ghg-guidance. 

5All of the public comments can be viewed 

online at www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ 

ceq/initiatives/nepa/comments. 

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY 

Revised Draft Guidance for Federal 

Departments and Agencies on 

Consideration of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and the Effects of Climate 

Change in NEPA Reviews 

AGENCY: Council on Environmental 

Quality. 

ACTION: Notice of availability, request 

for public comments on revised draft 

guidance for Federal Departments and 

Agencies on consideration of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the 

Effects of Climate Change in NEPA 

reviews. 

SUMMARY: The Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) is 

publishing revised draft guidance on 

how National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) analysis and documentation 

should address greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions and the impacts of climate 

change. Many projects and programs 

proposed by, or requiring the approval 

of, the Federal Government have the 

potential to emit or sequester GHG, and 

may be potentially affected by climate 

changes. It follows, under NEPA, that 

Federal decisionmakers and the public 

should be informed about the proposal’s 

GHG emissions and climate change 

impacts. Such information can help a 

decisionmaker make an informed choice 

between alternative actions that will 

result in different levels of GHG 

emissions, or consider mitigation 

measures to reduce the impacts of 

climate change. 

This revised draft guidance 

supersedes the draft guidance CEQ 

issued on February 18, 2010, entitled 

‘‘Draft NEPA Guidance on 

Consideration of the Effects of Climate 

Change and Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions.’’ 1 The February 2010 draft 

guidance specifically did not apply to 

land and resource management 

activities. That distinction is no longer 

retained, and this revised draft guidance 

applies to all proposed Federal agency 

actions subject to NEPA. 

This revised draft guidance: (1) 

Discusses direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts analysis of a 

proposed action’s reasonably 

foreseeable emissions and effects; (2) 

highlights the consideration of 

reasonable alternatives and points to the 

need to consider the short-term and 

long-term effects and benefits in the 

alternatives analysis and mitigation to 

lower emissions; (3) recommends that 

agencies use a reference point to 

determine when GHG emissions warrant 

a quantitative analysis taking into 

account available GHG quantification 

tools and data that are appropriate for 

proposed agency actions; (4) 

recommends that an agency select the 

appropriate level of action for NEPA 

review at which to assess the effects of 

GHG emissions and climate change, 

either at a broad programmatic or 

landscape-scale level or at a project- or 

site-specific level, and that the agency 

set forth a reasoned explanation for its 

approach; (5) counsels agencies to use 

the information developed during the 

NEPA review to consider alternatives 

that are more resilient to the effects of 

a changing climate; and (6) advises 

agencies to use existing information and 

tools when assessing future proposed 

action, and provides examples of some 

existing sources of scientific 

information. 

DATES: Comments should be submitted 

on or before February 23, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The NEPA Draft Guidance 

documents are available at http://

www.whitehouse.gov/administration/

eop/ceq/initiatives/nepa. Comments on 

the ‘‘Revised Draft Guidance for Federal 

Departments and Agencies on 

Consideration of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and the Effects of Climate 

Change in NEPA Reviews’’ should be 

submitted electronically to 

GCC.guidance@ceq.eop.gov, or in 

writing to the Council on Environmental 

Quality, ATTN: Horst Greczmiel, 722 

Jackson Place NW., Washington, DC 

20503. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Horst Greczmiel, Associate Director for 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Oversight, at (202) 395–5750. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Enacted 

by Congress in 1969, the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370, is a fundamental tool 

used to harmonize our environmental, 

economic, and social aspirations and is 

a cornerstone of our Nation’s efforts to 

protect the environment. NEPA 

recognizes that many Federal activities 

affect the environment and mandates 

that Federal agencies consider the 

environmental impacts of their 

proposed actions before deciding to 

adopt proposals and take action.2 On 

February 18, 2010, CEQ announced the 

issuance of three proposed draft 

guidance documents to modernize and 

reinvigorate NEPA, in conjunction with 

the 40th anniversary of the statute’s 

signing into law.3

One of those three draft guidance 

documents, entitled ‘‘Draft NEPA 

Guidance on Consideration of the 

Effects of Climate Change and 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions’’ (hereinafter 

‘‘2010 draft guidance’’), described how 

agencies should analyze GHG emissions 

and climate change impacts in NEPA 

reviews prepared for agency actions.4

CEQ did not propose to make the 2010 

draft guidance applicable to Federal 

land and resource management actions. 

CEQ was not aware of any established 

Federal protocols for assessing land 

management techniques, including 

changes in land use or land 

management strategies, and their effect 

on atmospheric carbon release and 

sequestration at a landscape scale. 

Consequently, the 2010 draft guidance 

invited public comment on how NEPA 

reviews for proposed land and resource 

management actions should take GHG 

emissions and climate change into 

account. CEQ specifically requested 

public comment on seven questions, 

listed in section VI of the 2010 draft 

guidance, regarding the applicability of 

the guidance to land and resource 

management actions. 

CEQ appreciates the thoughtful 

responses to its request for comments on 

the 2010 draft guidance. CEQ received 

more than 100 sets of comments. 

Commenters included private citizens, 

corporations, environmental 

organizations, trade associations, and 

Federal and state agencies. Those 

comments that raised policy or 

substantive concerns have been grouped 

thematically, summarized, and 

addressed in this notice.5

After considering the public’s 

responses to the questions set out 

generally on page 4 and in section VI of 

the 2010 draft guidance, comments on 

the 2010 draft guidance itself, and after 

further consultation with Federal 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 77803 

6 ‘‘Recommendations of the State, Local, and 

Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness 

and Resilience,’’ November 2014, at page 20 

(recommendation 2.7) available at 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/task_

force_report_0.pdf; see GAO report: ‘‘Future Federal 

Adaptation Efforts Could Better Support Local 

Infrastructure Decision Makers,’’ (Apr. 12, 2012), 

available at gao.gov/products/GAO-13-242; see also 

International Center for Technology Assessment, 

Natural Resources Defense Council, and Sierra 

Club, ‘‘Petition Requesting That the Council on 

Environmental Quality Amend its Regulations to 

Clarify That Climate Change Analyses be Included 

in Environmental Review Documents,’’ (Feb. 28, 

2008) (the petition requested CEQ issue guidance 

and the petition to amend the regulations was 

denied on August 7, 2014). 

7Council on Environmental Quality, 

‘‘Environmental Quality: The First Annual Report,’’ 

at 93. 

8See 40 CFR 1502.22. 

9Agencies apply the ‘‘rule of reason’’ to ensure 

that their discussions pertain to the issues that 

deserve study and deemphasize issues that are less 

useful to the decisions regarding the proposal, its 

alternatives, and mitigation options. See 40 CFR 

1500.4(f), 1500.4(g), 1501.7 and 1508.25. 

agencies, CEQ proposes this revised 

draft guidance applicable to all NEPA 

reviews regardless of action or resource. 

The revised draft guidance is provided 

below, after the comment summary and 

response. The first set of comments and 

responses is the Summary of Responses 

to Questions Asked in the 2010 Draft 

Guidance. These refer to the CEQ 

request for public comment on how 

NEPA reviews of proposed land and 

resource management actions should 

consider GHG emissions and impacts of 

climate change. The second set of 

responses to comments, the Summary of 

Comments on the 2010 Draft Guidance, 

are summarized thematically by the 

topic to which they pertain. 

I. Summary of Responses to Questions 

Asked in the 2010 Draft Guidance on 

Whether CEQ Should Issue Guidance 

on the Consideration of GHG Emissions 

From, and Climate Change Effects on, 

Land and Resource Management 

Actions 

Many commenters made a general 

observation that NEPA already requires 

agency consideration of GHG emissions 

and impacts of climate change, by 

mandating that agencies take a hard 

look at all reasonably foreseeable 

impacts of major Federal actions at the 

earliest practicable time as well as 

provide information about the affected 

environment, regardless of the existence 

of established protocols for doing so. 

Commenters also stated that this 

requirement is not subject to agency 

discretion, but is often referred to as the 

‘‘rule of reason.’’ 

Commenters had different views 

about whether the available science 

supports NEPA guidance applicable to 

land and resource management actions. 

Some believe that analysis of the 

climate effects of land and resource 

management actions would likely be 

judged arbitrary and capricious, because 

it is not currently possible to determine 

those effects. In the forestry context, for 

example, those commenters were 

concerned that the carbon benefits from 

sequestration, as well as potential 

indirect GHG emissions, and cumulative 

impacts, would be difficult to calculate 

with any certainty with respect to any 

particular action or set of actions. Other 

commenters cited the ‘‘rule of reason’’ 

by which agencies determine whether to 

prepare an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) based on the usefulness 

of potential new information in the 

decision-making process and noted that 

the 2010 draft guidance properly directs 

agencies to acknowledge the scientific 

limits of their ability to predict climate 

change effects and avoid analyzing 

speculative effects. 

Other commenters urged CEQ to 

apply the guidance to Federal land and 

resource management actions, due to 

the urgency of the climate change threat 

and the possibility that confusion and 

litigation could result if agencies 

independently adopt different 

approaches to NEPA analysis of climate 

impacts for different types of Federal 

actions. Additionally, some commenters 

found it important for agencies not only 

to consider alternatives, including the 

no action alternative, to reduce GHG 

emissions, but also to consider the 

benefits of retaining terrestrial 

ecosystems to sequester and store 

atmospheric carbon to stem the tide of 

global climate change. Analysis of direct 

and indirect emissions from proposed 

Federal forest management actions, they 

believe, will require Federal 

decisionmakers to consider carbon 

emissions and sequestration and 

promote accountability for the Federal 

role in the loss of domestic forestland. 

Response to Comments: 

CEQ is issuing this revised draft 

guidance applicable to all proposed 

Federal agency actions, including land 

and resource management actions, for 

several reasons. CEQ was asked to 

provide guidance on this subject 

informally by Federal agencies and 

formally by a petition under the 

Administrative Procedure Act to 

consider regulations and guidance on 

analyzing GHG emissions and the 

impacts of climate change under 

NEPA.6 CEQ’s consideration of the 

effects of GHG emissions and impacts of 

climate change dates back to CEQ’s first 

Annual Report in 1970, which 

concluded that ‘‘[m]an may be changing 

his weather.’’ 7 By issuing guidance 

applicable to all Federal agencies, CEQ 

aims to ensure consistency and certainty 

about whether and how agencies should 

address GHG emissions and impacts of 

climate change in their NEPA analyses 

and documents. The revised draft 

guidance affirms that NEPA and the 

CEQ Regulations for Implementing the 

Procedural Provisions of NEPA, 40 CFR 

parts 1500–1508 (hereinafter ‘‘CEQ 

Regulations’’), establish a process which 

accounts for uncertainty and requires 

agencies to address the relevance of, and 

ability to obtain, incomplete and 

unavailable information.8 It also 

highlights the existence of widelyavailable tools and methodologies that 

can be used to calculate estimates of 

GHG emissions and carbon storage. 

The revised draft guidance 

emphasizes that the NEPA analysis and 

documentation should present a 

reasonably thorough discussion of 

probable environmental consequences.9

Similarly, this revised guidance affirms 

that agencies should take into account 

both short- and long-term effects and 

benefits of their actions over their entire 

duration. We welcome the public’s 

further comments on this issue. 

1. How should NEPA documents 

regarding long-range energy and 

resource management programs assess 

GHG emissions and climate change 

impacts? 

Several commenters pointed to 

programmatic environmental impact 

statements on long-range energy and 

resource management programs as 

providing the best level for analysis, and 

which could be relied upon in 

subsequent, tiered analyses of specific 

proposed actions if necessary. 

Commenters maintained that such an 

approach would address long-range 

energy and resource management 

program or planning activities guided 

by the terms and mandates of land and 

resource management statutes, such as 

the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act. It would also enable 

agencies to take both short- and longterm impacts of actions or sets of actions 

into account. These commenters 

generally touted this approach as 

offering an effective framework for 

identifying and implementing policy 

choices that would improve the process 

as well as the outcomes. Finally, some 

commenters, focusing on projects or 

activities involving energy production 

and use, recommended the guidance 

clarify that combustion of extracted fuel 

sources should be evaluated, and others 

recommended evaluating a life-cycle 

analysis that considered the entire fuel 

chain. Others stated that such an 

analysis would include actions too far 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

77804 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 

10This is important in avoiding unintended 

consequences of management actions. See ‘‘Global 

Climate Change Impacts in the United States,’’ Karl, 

Thomas R., Melillo, Jerry M., Peterson, Thomas C. 

(eds.) at 156, Cambridge University Press (2009). 

removed from the agencies’ statutory 

obligations to be meaningful for 

decisionmakers. 

Commenters generally recommended 

that CEQ guidance ensure some level of 

consistency in assessing GHGs and 

climate change for land and resource 

management actions, and allow for the 

consideration of tradeoffs between longand short-term impacts and benefits. 

Several commenters proposed that longterm forest and grassland health and 

habitat should be considered when 

assessing short-term emissions from 

proposed land and resource 

management actions.10 The use of 

prescribed burns is an example of where 

balancing long- and short-term impacts 

and benefits are useful to the 

decisionmaker and the public (for 

example, while short-term emissions 

will result, there is the potential for 

long-term benefits for ecosystem health). 

Several commenters expressed the view 

that agencies taking land and resource 

management actions need to be afforded 

sufficient flexibility and discretion to 

develop specific protocols that build on 

existing procedures and experience. 

Response to Comments: 

The revised draft guidance makes it 

clear that agencies should apply their 

best judgment and expertise when 

determining how to consider the level of 

GHG emissions and impacts of climate 

change at the programmatic and projector site-specific level of NEPA analysis 

and documentation. The revised draft 

guidance also provides for agencies to 

use their discretion to determine the 

appropriate comparison and balancing 

of long- and short-term emissions and 

impacts of climate change with other 

long- and short-term resource impacts 

and benefits. The guidance 

acknowledges that there are many 

established tools and methods for GHG 

calculation and provides several 

examples. The revised draft guidance 

calls upon agencies to exercise their 

expert judgment and provide the basis 

for determining whether and how to 

analyze GHG emissions. We welcome 

the public’s further comments on this 

issue. 

2. What should be included in specific 

NEPA guidance for projects applicable 

to the Federal land management 

agencies? and 

3. What should be included in specific 

NEPA guidance for land management 

planning applicable to the Federal land 

management agencies? 

Several commenters expressed the 

concern that without CEQ guidance, 

agencies would overlook or fail to 

analyze GHG emissions and climate 

change impacts. Focusing on land and 

resource management actions, many 

comments referred to both broad, 

programmatic land and resource 

management actions and to more 

focused, project-level land and resource 

management actions. Consequently, 

comments on Questions 2 and 3 are 

presented together, followed by a 

response. 

Several commenters expressed 

concerns that NEPA analysis of climaterelated impacts for site-specific projects 

was much more difficult than analysis 

at the programmatic level because of the 

lack of scientific study and modeling at 

smaller scales and the difficulty in 

establishing a foreseeable causal link 

between emissions associated with 

agency proposed actions and localized 

climate impacts. Several other 

commenters noted that scientific study 

of climate change is increasingly 

focused on regional and localized 

impacts on the environment and human 

populations, and this scientific study 

will continue to expand our knowledge 

of regional and localized impacts. 

Some commenters went on to remind 

CEQ that precise quantification is not 

necessary when analyzing GHG 

emissions and climate change impacts. 

Most commenters on this issue 

maintained that CEQ should stress the 

basic requirements and principles of the 

NEPA process and guide Federal 

agencies to identify and consider 

credible climate information as it 

becomes available. An interagency effort 

to establish a clearinghouse for climate 

change information and modeling was 

proposed by several commenters who 

noted that such a clearinghouse would 

help avoid duplicative efforts and 

ensure a more robust coverage of issues. 

Several commenters pointed to the 

Interagency Climate Change Adaptation 

Task Force and noted that the Task 

Force was studying models to predict 

changes in large-scale vegetation and 

population patterns that should be used 

when assessing the long-term 

environmental effects of climate change 

at a landscape or resource level. One of 

the most commonly-cited 

recommendations for broad scale 

programmatic analyses, as well as 

project specific analyses, was to support 

decision-making that would protect 

landscape linkages that allow species to 

migrate or disperse to a more favorable 

habitat as climate conditions change. 

For analyses that consider a particular 

use or treatment of Federal lands that is 

repeated over a large area, commenters 

maintained that the guidance should set 

the temporal and spatial boundaries for 

analysis based on projected cumulative 

impacts. Additionally, commenters 

noted that agencies conducting analysis 

of permitted activities that contribute to 

climate change, where these activities 

are considered as ongoing management 

practices, should consider the cessation 

of the permitted activity as a reasonable 

alternative. 

A few commenters made specific 

recommendations for agencies that have 

multiple use mandates. For example, 

they asked that the guidance include a 

summary of options or tools for 

measuring the relationships between 

land and water systems and climate 

change, and for considering each 

individual use relative to other multiple 

uses (including fossil fuel extraction, 

electric generation, and transmission). 

Some commenters argued that CEQ 

should direct Federal agencies to use 

cooperative and incentive-based 

programs to address climate change 

because Federal lands should not be 

managed primarily to offset 

unsustainable practices elsewhere. 

Finally, several commenters focused on 

forest management and urged CEQ to 

direct Federal agencies to conduct lifecycle analyses of the effects of timber 

management practices on forest carbon 

pools so that the reasonably foreseeable 

effects of management actions on 

sources and sinks of GHG could be 

considered in conjunction with natural 

disturbance regimes, efforts to maintain 

existing stores of carbon in mature and 

old growth forests (e.g., ‘‘carbon 

banks’’), or re-growing plantations and 

other intensively managed forests to 

earlier conditions. 

Some commenters suggested applying 

general NEPA principles and practices 

to land and resource management 

analyses. Their suggestions included: 

Considering alternatives to mitigate 

emissions and climate change impacts; 

using the best available science and 

credible methodologies; and disclosing 

the methods and assumptions 

underlying the analysis. Other 

commenters provided practical advice 

(such as advocating the use of graphics 

in NEPA documents) while some 

focused on calling for specific types of 

analyses such as life-cycle and 

economic assessment of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 77805 

11Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102–486, 

106 Stat. 2776. 

consequences of GHG emissions and 

global climate change. Further, 

commenters cited the CEQ Regulations 

as providing a method to address 

incomplete or unavailable information. 

Similarly, it was noted that agencies 

engaged in land use and resource 

planning should consider how the 

cumulative effects of implementing the 

proposed plan alternatives will or will 

not adapt to, exacerbate, or mitigate the 

effects of climate change on the affected 

planning area. 

Some commenters favored using 

programmatic analyses for land and 

resource management actions for 

various reasons. Some urged that 

programmatic analyses for land and 

resource management actions that are 

repeated across a region can best assess 

the cumulative impacts on a broad, 

landscape scale. One commenter 

asserted that many Federal land and 

resource management activities are 

repeated with little variation across 

millions of acres of Federal land. Some 

commenters favored programmatic 

analyses to address climate change 

mitigation and consideration of 

alternative technologies and methods at 

the program level, while others called 

for Federal land management agencies 

to develop programmatic NEPA 

analyses that include full life-cycle 

modeling to evaluate the carbon 

released or stored by various types of 

land and resource management 

activities. 

Response to Comments: 

The revised draft guidance sets out 

the broad principles to assist agencies 

when they make determinations on how 

to conduct NEPA analyses with respect 

to the effects of GHGs and climate 

change and calls upon the agencies to 

provide reasoned analyses and an 

explanation of the determinations being 

made. The guidance recognizes the 

current limits of knowledge and science 

and calls upon agencies to consider 

future advancements tailored to the 

types of actions they undertake. 

When using tiered analyses, agencies 

should consider whether and how the 

issues of GHG emissions and climate 

change effects should be addressed in 

NEPA analyses and documentation 

prepared at either or both the 

programmatic and project- or sitespecific level of decision-making. It is 

the agency’s responsibility to: 

Determine the level and detail of 

analysis that is appropriate to the 

decision at hand; to set the temporal 

and spatial boundaries for the analysis 

of GHG emissions, carbon sequestration, 

and climate change; and to determine 

the appropriate level of discussion to 

accompany that information. The 

information should be presented in a 

way that is useful to the public and 

decisionmakers. Agencies should also 

use their expertise and professional 

judgment to determine the appropriate 

comparison and balancing of long- and 

short-term emissions and impacts of 

climate change with other long- and 

short-term resource impacts and 

benefits, and to ensure that this is done 

when dealing with multiple uses. 

In response to the comments received 

on the appropriate range of alternatives, 

the revised draft guidance incorporates 

the NEPA principle that agencies should 

consider a reasonable range of 

alternatives consistent with the purpose 

and need for the proposal, and, if such 

information would be useful to advance 

a reasoned choice, a comparison of 

alternatives and potential mitigation 

that addresses GHG emissions, carbon 

sequestration, and the impacts of 

climate change. This does not dictate 

that the decisionmaker must select the 

alternative with the lowest net level of 

GHG emissions, but simply allows for 

the careful consideration of GHG 

emissions, among all the factors being 

considered by the decisionmaker. 

In response to commenters supporting 

the use of life-cycle analyses for GHG 

emissions, CEQ recommends that 

agencies rely on basic NEPA principles 

and consider all reasonably foreseeable 

effects that may result from their 

proposed actions using reasonable 

temporal and spatial parameters in their 

NEPA analyses rather than engaging in 

analyses that focus on speculative 

downstream emissions. We welcome the 

public’s further comments on the issue 

of life-cycle analyses. 

4. Should CEQ recommend any 

particular protocols for assessing land 

management practices and their effect 

on carbon release and sequestration? 

Many commenters did not support the 

identification of specific protocols by 

CEQ. Some commenters recommended 

against naming specific protocols so as 

not to discourage Federal agencies from 

using other, better-suited protocols or 

from adopting new protocols based on 

scientific advancements. Other 

commenters stated that no specific 

protocol could be recommended 

because of the inadequacy of existing 

science. Instead of focusing on 

consideration of a possible CEQ 

specification of particular protocols, 

commenters generally discussed either 

the existence of current protocols to 

support the issuance of this guidance or 

the absence of existing protocols to 

explain why no guidance should be 

issued. 

In support of the issuance of this 

guidance, in general, many commenters 

cited existing protocols. These 

commenters provided ways to account 

for the consideration of carbon 

emissions and sequestration from land 

and resource management actions, 

including: (1) Existing forest inventory 

data; (2) work being done pursuant to 

the U.S. Department of Energy’s 1605(b) 

guidelines 11; and (3) carbon 

sequestration accounting protocols. 

Also, commenters referenced the 

Climate Action Reserve’s standardized 

measurement protocols. Commenters 

noted that well-developed scientific 

tools, including error estimates, 

confidence intervals, and sensitivity 

analyses, are already available for 

incorporation of uncertainty into 

decision processes. While citing existing 

protocols to support the ability of 

agencies to analyze land and resource 

management actions and their effects on 

carbon release and sequestration, most 

commenters did not support the idea of 

CEQ selecting specific protocols. 

Some commenters noted that, to the 

extent there may remain scientific 

uncertainty with protocols, NEPA 

already provides for how such 

uncertainty should be analyzed 

pursuant to 40 CFR 1502.22. According 

to these commenters, the existence of 

incomplete and unavailable information 

does not alter the NEPA requirement to 

consider scientific information or set 

forth the circumstances surrounding the 

unavailable information. Other 

commenters maintained there is a lack 

of an established Federal protocol for 

assessing the impacts of land and 

resource management actions on 

atmospheric carbon release and 

sequestration at a landscape level, and, 

therefore, no protocol should be 

recommended. Commenters raised 

concerns that current protocols were 

unreliable because they were only in the 

developmental stages. If, however, CEQ 

were to apply a specific protocol, 

commenters raised specific concerns 

that must be addressed. There would 

need to be more Federal research, 

analysis at the programmatic level of 

carbon sinks, consideration of land use 

changes, the establishment of 

appropriate temporal limitations, and 

consideration of biogenic carbon cycles. 

Response to Comments: 

CEQ reviewed all the comments and 

also met with agencies at various sites 

around the country regarding the 

establishment of scientific protocols. 

The meetings with agencies and other 

stakeholders provided valuable insight 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

77806 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 

12See 40 CFR 1502.22(b). 

13Section 1502.22 requires that, if incomplete 

information relevant to reasonably foreseeable 

significant adverse impacts is essential to a 

reasoned choice among alternatives and the overall 

costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant, then that 

information must be included in the EIS. If, 

however, the overall cost of obtaining incomplete 

or unavailable information is exorbitant or the 

means to obtain it are unknown, the agency must 

include in the EIS: (1) A statement that the 

information is incomplete or unavailable; (2) a 

statement of the relevance of the information to 

evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant 

adverse impacts; (3) a summary of relevant existing 

credible scientific evidence; and (4) evaluation of 

the impacts based upon theoretical approaches or 

research methods generally accepted in the 

scientific community. 

14 40 CFR 1502.24 (requiring agencies to ensure 

the professional and scientific integrity of the 

discussions and analyses in environmental impact 

statements). 15See 40 CFR 1508.8(b). 

on existing protocols and those being 

implemented. Some agencies have 

applied GHG emission calculators and 

models when assessing land and 

resource management actions in their 

NEPA reviews. These are done on both 

the landscape and project- or sitespecific levels. Finally, the agencies and 

stakeholders explained that there are 

many protocols, models, and calculators 

that are being developed and they 

expect the protocols and models to 

continue to evolve over time. Agency 

experiences also helped CEQ shape its 

proposal for this revised draft guidance. 

Basic sources of data already exist and 

are set forth in the revised draft 

guidance such as the U.S. Global 

Change Research Program’s National 

Climate Assessment. Further, pursuant 

to Executive Order 13514, Federal 

Leadership in Environmental, Energy, 

and Economic Performance, all agencies 

are required to report their GHG 

emissions at least at an aggregate level. 

Specific parameters and metrics for this 

reporting have been established. These 

sources are examples of studies that 

identify GHG emissions from particular 

actions and effects of climate change at 

various programmatic and project levels 

and can be incorporated by reference 

when appropriate. 

Accordingly, CEQ did not identify 

particular protocols that would be 

required for assessing GHG emissions 

and climate change impacts for specific 

actions; however, examples are 

provided in the revised draft guidance. 

The revised draft guidance allows 

agencies to continue employing 

protocols that are currently working 

well and to apply new scientific 

information to update protocols on an 

ongoing basis when considering new 

projects. Not specifying a particular 

protocol that must be used allows 

agencies to select the most appropriate 

protocols on either a programmatic or 

project level basis, consistent with 

existing and evolving science. The 

guidance reminds agencies to provide a 

reasoned basis for their determinations. 

We welcome the public’s further 

comments on this issue. 

5. How should uncertainties associated 

with climate change projections and 

species and ecosystem responses be 

addressed in protocols for assessing 

land management practices? 

Many commenters stated that the CEQ 

Regulations already provide the 

necessary framework to address 

uncertainties with climate change 

projections and species and ecosystem 

responses.12 Commenters also noted 

that well-developed scientific tools, like 

error estimates, confidence intervals, 

and sensitivity analyses, are available 

for addressing uncertainty with decision 

processes. In addition, some 

commenters expressed a preference that 

agencies consider all factors and not 

simply those that are readily quantified 

using existing tools. Moreover, some 

commenters indicated that uncertainty 

can often be addressed with adaptive 

management. 

Response to Comments: 

In the revised draft guidance, CEQ 

advises Federal agencies to analyze 

GHG emissions and impacts of climate 

change consistent with the CEQ 

Regulations and by using available 

information. Section 1502.22 addresses 

how incomplete or unavailable 

information should be addressed in an 

EIS if it is essential to a reasoned choice 

among alternatives and there are 

reasonably foreseeable significant 

adverse effects on the human 

environment.13 CEQ proposes that 

agencies should analyze reasonably 

foreseeable effects of a proposed action 

in light of incomplete or unavailable 

information when preparing an EA or an 

EIS and not stop developing their NEPA 

reviews to await projected or pending 

studies or methodologies. Agency 

analyses must reflect the reasoning 

behind the agency’s conclusions and, as 

called for in the CEQ Regulations, 

agencies shall ensure the scientific 

integrity of the discussions and analyses 

they prepare.14 We welcome the 

public’s further comments on this issue. 

6. How should NEPA analyses be 

tailored to address the beneficial effects 

on GHG emissions of Federal land and 

resource management actions? 

Many commenters observed that 

under NEPA, agencies are obligated to 

analyze the effects of proposed actions 

and reasonable alternatives, regardless 

of whether the effects are beneficial or 

adverse.15 They contend that the 

anticipated effects of some actions, such 

as thinning forests, production of 

biofuels, or development of alternative 

energy projects, could be beneficial. 

Commenters wrote that the merits of 

agency proposals could be determined 

only after the proposal goes through an 

impartial and rigorous NEPA analysis. 

Some commenters suggested that 

agencies will have to engage in 

substantial literature and project 

reviews in order to consider beneficial 

effects as well as adverse impacts of 

agency action with respect to climate 

change. For example, one commenter 

suggested that NEPA analysis involving 

a new natural gas-fired electric 

generating plant should be informed by 

comprehensive literature review of: The 

life cycle of the plant; releases during 

extraction through pipeline leaks and 

incomplete combustion; life cycles of 

nitrous oxide warming; and ground 

level ozone effects. This commenter 

went on to suggest that such NEPA 

analysis should compare all GHG 

emissions from the preferred option of 

plant construction to the GHG emissions 

produced by alternatives such as 

renewable energy development, rate 

adjustments, and improvements for a 

smarter transmission grid. 

Commenters suggested that the CEQ 

guidance should recommend the use of 

interagency consultation and 

independent, multi-disciplinary 

scientific consultation for NEPA reviews 

involving larger programs, new 

techniques, or complex assessments. 

Other commenters, however, noted 

examples of actions taken based on 

what was believed to be sound 

environmental review, but turned out to 

be premised on faulty information. 

Specifically, commenters raised 

concerns regarding the possible 

implications of such mistaken actions in 

the context of land and resource 

management actions. 

Response to Comments: 

CEQ recommends in the revised draft 

guidance that short- and long-term 

benefits can and should be considered 

as part of the analysis of a proposal and 

alternatives. The agency’s purpose and 

need for action as well as the projected 

timeframe for the effects of the proposed 

action and any proposed mitigation will 

be important to this analysis, and 

agencies should explain how they have 

determined the appropriate lifespan for 

analysis of a project. This approach is 

consistent with the analysis of any 

potential impact under NEPA. For 

example, when analyzing the GHG 

emissions of a proposed prescribed burn 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 77807 

16 40 CFR 1508.27. 

conducted to minimize future 

ecosystem destruction through wildfires 

or insect infestations, agencies should 

consider both the immediate loss of 

stored carbon dioxide (CO2) together 

with the long-term CO2 sequestration 

that a resulting healthy ecosystem will 

provide. This would inform the public 

and the decisionmaker about both the 

detrimental and beneficial impacts of 

the proposal. The revised draft guidance 

clearly indicates that the agency should 

describe how it considered both shortterm actions and long-term effects in 

fully evaluating both beneficial and 

detrimental effects. We welcome the 

public’s further comments on this issue. 

7. Should CEQ provide guidance to 

agencies on determining whether GHG 

emissions are ‘‘significant’’ for NEPA 

purposes? At what level should GHG 

emissions be considered to have 

significant cumulative effects? In This 

Context, Commenters May Wish to 

Consider the Supreme Court Decision in 

Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 524 

(2007). 

Most commenters expressed a 

preference that CEQ should not provide 

guidance to agencies about determining 

whether GHG emissions are significant 

for NEPA purposes. Some commenters 

urged CEQ simply to reaffirm that the 

multi-factor analysis set out in the CEQ 

Regulations is the appropriate way to 

consider significance, and to clarify that 

nothing in the draft GHG guidance 

modifies the CEQ Regulations. Other 

commenters said that CEQ should affirm 

in the introduction of the guidance that 

the level of GHG emissions is only one 

factor among many in determining 

significance. Within the existing NEPA 

framework, it would be inappropriate, 

according to some commenters, to 

establish a quantitative level of GHG 

emissions that would serve as a 

threshold for significance. 

Commenters cited a passage in the 

2010 draft guidance that encourages 

Federal agencies ‘‘to consider, in 

scoping their NEPA analysis, whether 

analysis of the direct and indirect GHG 

emissions from their proposed actions 

may provide meaningful information to 

decisionmakers and the public,’’ and 

raised concerns that the word 

‘‘meaningful’’ could be confused with 

‘‘significant.’’ Other commenters 

observed that CEQ was careful to note 

that the suggested reference point in the 

2010 draft guidance is not ‘‘an absolute 

standard of insignificant effects,’’ or by 

inference, a standard for significant 

effects. 

Many commenters said that the 2010 

draft guidance leaves the question of 

what constitutes a ‘‘significant’’ GHG 

emission level to the Federal agencies, 

to be determined on a case-by-case 

basis. Some commenters supported that 

approach as consistent with current 

NEPA requirements. Other commenters 

said a case-by-case approach: Gives 

agencies an unacceptable level of 

discretion; creates uncertainty for 

applicants and others working with 

Federal agencies; and gives project 

opponents grounds for litigation. 

Finally, CEQ received comments on the 

relevance of Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 

U.S. 497 (2007), and one commenter 

maintained that the case should guide 

CEQ to instruct agencies to reduce 

cumulative effects of GHG emissions 

from their operations. 

Response to Comments: 

The revised draft guidance sets forth 

a reference point of 25,000 metric tons 

CO2-equivalent emissions on an annual 

basis below which a quantitative 

analysis of GHG emissions is not 

recommended unless quantification is 

easily accomplished, taking into 

account the availability of quantification 

tools and appropriate input data. 

Neither the 2010 draft guidance nor this 

revised draft guidance intend the 

reference point to be equivalent to a 

determination of significance. In this 

revised guidance, CEQ reaffirms that 

significance remains subject to the 

standards set forth in CEQ Regulations. 

The CEQ Regulations require 

consideration of both context and 

intensity and set out ten factors that 

should be taken into account.16 These 

include, among others, the degree to 

which the proposal affects public health 

or safety, the degree to which its effects 

on the quality of the human 

environment are likely to be highly 

controversial from a scientific 

perspective (i.e., where there is 

disagreement over what the likely 

effects of an action will be), and the 

degree to which its possible effects on 

the human environment are highly 

uncertain or involve unique or 

unknown risks. This reaffirmation of the 

significance factors should eliminate 

any confusion over the utility of the 

GHG emission reference point in NEPA 

reviews and reasserts existing NEPA law 

and practice. 

As the Supreme Court noted in 

Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 

523–25 (2007), the issues of global 

climate change and GHG emissions 

cannot be addressed in one fell swoop 

and, although CEQ agrees, the guidance 

does not rely upon this case. CEQ 

recognizes that government action 

occurs program-by-program and step-bystep. Therefore, in evaluating the 

potential climate impacts, it is 

important for agencies to assess 

comparative emissions scenarios 

associated with alternatives, in 

situations where these may be 

meaningful to the decision, and pay 

particular attention to the duration of 

expected emissions-producing actions, 

cumulative effects, and the relative scale 

of emissions. We welcome the public’s 

further comments on this issue. 

II. Summary of Comments on 2010 

Draft Guidance 

1. Project-specific Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Qualitative and 

Quantitative Analyses 

a. Climate Change as a ‘‘Global 

Problem’’ 

Many comments on the 2010 draft 

guidance focused on the subject of 

climate change as a global phenomenon. 

Many individuals and groups who 

submitted comments emphasized that 

climate impacts are different from most 

environmental impacts. Commenters 

highlighted that climate change is a 

global problem and there is little (if any) 

relationship between greenhouse gas 

emissions from a project in a particular 

location and the possible environmental 

effects of climate change in that 

location. Instead, it is the total global 

accumulation of greenhouse gas 

emissions over a long period of time 

that matters, according to these 

commenters. The global climate change 

problem, therefore, is much more the 

result of numerous and varied sources, 

each of which might seem to make a 

relatively small addition to global 

atmospheric greenhouse gas 

concentrations. One commenter even 

urged CEQ to provide agencies with a 

suggested statement that would be 

appropriate and sufficient to include in 

their analyses to reflect the notion of 

climate change as a global problem. This 

statement would be: ‘‘[The proposed 

Federal project] may result, directly or 

indirectly, in an increase in greenhouse 

gas emissions. The increase is estimated 

to be approximately __, which 

represents __ % of global greenhouse 

gas emissions. Because greenhouse gas 

emissions and climate change are a 

strictly global phenomenon, and 

because the estimated increase would be 

negligible, impacts of greenhouse gas 

emissions from this project would not 

be significant.’’ Some commenters 

suggested, however, that there are major 

emitters of greenhouse gases and that 

these sources can be segregated from the 

relatively smaller sources, with 

insignificant effects. Commenters urged 

CEQ to clarify which sources are likely 

to be covered and provide definitive 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

77808 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 

17See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. 

NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 558 (1978). 

18See Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Lowe, 

109 F.3d 521, 526 (1997). 

19See Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens 

Council, 490 U.S. 332, 346 (1989). 

20 Id. at 350. 

categorical exclusions (CEs) to those 

that are not, to prevent undue burden to 

not only small entities, but to those 

entities contributing negligible 

emissions. 

Response to Comments: 

This revised draft guidance notes the 

scientific record that has been created 

with substantial contributions from the 

United States Global Change Research 

Program (USGCRP) on the effects of 

GHG emissions and climate change, and 

that NEPA requires Federal agencies to 

support international cooperation by 

recognizing the global character of 

environmental problems and lending 

support to initiatives, resolutions, and 

programs. While it is not useful, for 

NEPA purposes, to link GHG emissions 

from a proposal to specific 

climatological changes to a particular 

site, it is important to discuss these 

connections. When considering the 

GHG emissions, agencies do not need to 

calculate a proposal’s GHG emissions as 

a percentage of nationwide or 

worldwide GHG emissions unless the 

agency determines that such 

information would be helpful to 

decisionmakers and the public to 

distinguish among alternatives and 

mitigations, or that the emissions and 

sequestration associated with a 

proposed action may rise to a significant 

level. Agencies should remain alert to 

those proposal-specific situations where 

the level of GHG emissions compared to 

agency-wide, nationwide, or worldwide 

emissions would provide a helpful 

point of comparison. 

The revised draft guidance 

recommends that agencies address GHG 

emissions and the effects of climate 

change for all proposed actions. If 

revising or updating their NEPA 

implementing procedures, agencies 

should consider whether their 

categorical exclusions and extraordinary 

circumstances and procedures for 

developing environmental assessments 

and environmental impact statements 

take GHG emissions and climate change 

impacts into account. That 

consideration should reflect the 

aggregate nature of the climate challenge 

which decisionmakers will face when 

making relevant choices based on a 

programmatic or project-by-project 

NEPA review. 

b. Project-level Analyses 

Many comments also detailed the 

legal barriers to requiring agencies to 

include in their NEPA analyses a 

discussion of project-level greenhouse 

gas impacts on climate change. They 

cite Dep’t of Transp. v. Public Citizen, 

541 U.S. 752, 767 (2004), where the U.S. 

Supreme Court stated that the obligation 

of an agency to discuss particular effects 

turns on ‘‘a reasonably close causal 

relationship between the environmental 

effect and the alleged cause.’’ These 

same comments stressed that climate 

change is global in nature and the 

attempt to ‘‘qualitatively’’ link proposed 

individual project emissions and 

climate change would be arbitrary and 

speculative. 

Response to Comments: 

In light of the difficulties in 

attributing specific climate impacts to 

individual projects, the revised draft 

guidance provides a framework for 

agencies to use when analyzing GHG 

emissions from and the effects of 

climate change on a proposed action 

and its reasonable alternatives. The 

guidance requires agencies to exercise 

independent judgment and discretion in 

determining whether and how potential 

GHG emissions and climate change 

effects should be disclosed and 

considered in preparing their NEPA 

analyses and documentation. It also 

emphasizes that the extent of agency 

analyses should be proportional to the 

quantity of projected GHG emissions. 

Moreover, if an agency determines that 

evaluating the effects of GHG emissions 

or climate change would not be useful 

to the decisionmaker or the public in 

distinguishing between alternatives or 

mitigations, then the agency should 

document its rationale for not 

conducting such an analysis. 

Furthermore, agencies can rely on basic 

NEPA principles to determine and 

explain reasonable temporal and spatial 

parameters of their analyses to disclose 

the reasonably foreseeable effect that 

may result from their proposed actions. 

However, agencies should still take into 

account the aggregate nature of the 

climate challenge which calls upon 

decisionmakers to make relevant 

choices on a programmatic or projectby-project basis. 

c. Qualitative/Quantitative Analyses 

As to qualitative and quantitative 

analyses, some comments stated that the 

issue merits a greater discussion of the 

‘‘rule of reason’’ that must go into the 

agency’s decision-making process. The 

U.S. Supreme Court has long held that 

NEPA’s mandate is ‘‘essentially 

procedural . . . to insure a fully 

informed and well-considered 

decision,’’ and the Federal agency is left 

with wide discretion to draw the 

conclusions.17 The rule of reason is 

employed to determine whether an 

environmental impact statement 

contains a ‘‘reasonably thorough 

discussion of the significant aspects of 

probable environmental 

consequences.’’ 18 Under this standard, 

the review consists only of ensuring that 

the agency has taken a ‘‘hard look’’ at 

the environmental consequences of the 

decision. The rule of reason, according 

to some comments, should ‘‘take the 

uncertainty and speculation involved 

with secondary impacts into account in 

passing on the adequacy of the 

discussion of secondary impacts.’’ 19

Moreover, the agency is not constrained 

by NEPA from deciding that other 

values outweigh the environmental 

costs.20 The guidance, according to 

these comments, should do a better job 

of discussing how the application of the 

‘‘rule of reason’’ will affect the agency’s 

decision-making process in light of the 

present uncertainty surrounding 

greenhouse gas emissions. Unlike most 

other environmental consequences, 

according to these commenters, the 

analysis of whether a project’s 

greenhouse gas emissions are significant 

cannot be determined by objectively 

comparing the projects emissions to 

commonly accepted scientific 

thresholds. As noted above by some 

comments, there is no consensus about 

the causes and effects of greenhouse 

gases. Consequently, these commenters 

believe that the agency’s determination 

necessarily must be qualitative, not 

quantitative, in nature. Given the global 

scale of the problem as well as the 

limitations of the existing models, it is 

unclear whether a quantitative projectlevel analysis would provide 

meaningful information for decisionmaking. In addition, this type of 

analysis has the potential, according to 

the comments, to mislead 

decisionmakers and the public by 

creating the impression that there are 

meaningful differences among 

alternatives, when in fact there is no 

valid statistical basis for distinguishing 

among them. Their concern is that 

requiring such an analysis would create 

an additional source of complexity, cost, 

delay, and litigation risk, without 

contributing to informed decisionmaking. Qualitative assessments, 

focused on statewide and regional 

trends, have greater potential to provide 

useful information for decisionmakers. 

Some commenters stressed, however, 

that even qualitative assessments, given 

the global nature of climate change, are 

often difficult to accomplish and should 

not be required. Finally, other 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 77809 

21 40 CFR 1502.20, 1508.28. 

commenters felt that particularly in the 

face of the high level of uncertainty 

surrounding the effects of greenhouse 

gases, the guidance should 

unambiguously recognize wide 

discretion by the agencies to determine 

what information is relevant and 

adequate for their analysis. 

Some commenters stated that while 

they value and indeed insist on the 

inclusion of credible scientific 

quantitative analyses when available, 

the lack of availability should not in any 

way deter agencies from engaging in 

professionally accepted qualitative 

assessments and identification of 

appropriate alternatives and mitigation 

strategies. According to these 

comments, because agencies repeatedly 

state that the climate crisis is a classic, 

and the ultimate, cumulative impact 

problem, it is used as an excuse for not 

disclosing their analysis because the 

agency’s sole action will not stop 

climate change by itself, and/or will 

only contribute a ‘‘small’’ amount to 

overall greenhouse gas levels or climate 

impacts when measured quantitatively. 

An exclusive or over emphasis on 

quantitative analysis can in fact increase 

the risk of agencies falling into this trap. 

This is especially true when agencies 

attempt to calculate the increase in 

global temperatures that will result from 

their actions. 

Similarly, some commenters stated 

that because NEPA requires Federal 

agencies to take a ‘‘hard look’’ at the 

potential environmental consequences 

of the proposed action, agencies must 

link the effects of a proposed action 

(and alternatives) to specific 

environmental consequences. 

Commenters maintain that a general 

discussion of an environmental problem 

(e.g., climate change) across a large area 

does not satisfy NEPA. Simply 

quantitatively reporting an area or an 

amount of a resource impacted also does 

not satisfy this ‘‘hard look’’ requirement. 

The guidance, according to these 

commenters, takes exactly this 

quantitative reporting approach. 

Reporting of emission levels is not 

useful, according to these comments, 

and cannot serve as a proxy for an 

analysis of the impacts of greenhouse 

gas emissions on the environment. 

Many comments asked CEQ for 

examples of specific qualitative and/or 

quantitative analyses in NEPA 

environmental analyses. 

Response to Comments: 

This revised draft guidance gives each 

agency responsibility for selecting the 

appropriate level at which to disclose 

the effects of GHG emissions and 

climate change, so long as it sets forth 

a reasoned explanation based on 

accepted science and whether that 

information is helpful for decisions. The 

revised draft guidance recommends that 

agencies use a reference point to 

determine when GHG emissions warrant 

a quantitative analysis taking into 

account the availability of GHG 

quantification tools and input data that 

are appropriate for proposed agency 

actions. Agencies should evaluate 

emissions over the life of the project, 

including a quantitative comparison of 

the GHG emissions of the alternatives if 

this would be useful to decisionmakers 

and the public in deciding among 

alternatives. Such an evaluation would 

take into account the availability of 

reliable calculators for providing 

quantitative or qualitative analyses. As 

previously noted, the aggregate nature of 

the climate change challenge may 

require decisionmakers to consider a 

detailed analysis when making reasoned 

choices among alternatives and 

mitigations. 

d. Other Comments 

Other comments received stressed the 

utility of using programmatic NEPA 

analyses to consider GHG emissions and 

climate. They encouraged CEQ to allow 

the use of a metropolitan planning 

organization, regional greenhouse gas 

analysis, or perhaps even statewide 

greenhouse gas analysis that can be 

incorporated by reference. This kind of 

information may provide a better 

perspective on greenhouse gas 

emissions rather than a specific projectlevel analysis, like a transportation 

project. In fact, some transportation 

commenters observed that the guidance 

should more explicitly recognize the 

applicability of transportation systemlevel analyses and explicitly allow for 

analysis at the transportation planning 

level. 

Response to Comments: 

The revised draft guidance addresses 

the use of programmatic approaches. It 

can be useful to describe agency GHG 

emissions in the aggregate, as part of a 

programmatic analysis of agency 

activities or environmental trends that 

can be incorporated by reference into 

subsequent NEPA analyses for agency 

actions. In addition, Federal programs 

that affect emissions or sinks, and 

proposals such as those related to longrange energy, transportation, and 

resource management programs, may 

lend themselves to a programmatic 

NEPA review. For example, if GHG 

emissions or climate change and related 

effects are included in a broad (i.e., 

programmatic) NEPA review for a 

policy, plan, or program, then the 

subsequent NEPA analyses for project 

level actions implementing that policy, 

program, or plan should tier from the 

programmatic statement and summarize 

the relevant issues discussed in the 

programmatic statement.21 A tiered 

approach is used for many types of 

Federal actions and is particularly 

relevant to addressing proposed land 

and resource management actions. 

When using a tiered approach, agencies 

should determine whether it is 

appropriate to compare GHG emissions 

and assess climate change impacts at 

either or both the programmatic and 

project-specific level of analysis. 

2. Determining a Level of Significance 

and the 25,000 Metric Ton Disclosure 

Threshold 

a. The Level of Significance in NEPA 

Analyses 

CEQ received many comments on the 

25,000 metric ton disclosure threshold 

that the 2010 draft guidance indicated 

may warrant further quantitative or 

qualitative analysis in NEPA reviews. 

Some commenters expressed the view 

that the 25,000 metric ton threshold is 

not explained clearly. These 

commenters interpreted the 2010 draft 

guidance as meaning that the 25,000 

metric ton emission level should serve 

as a threshold indicator for NEPA 

review. Simultaneously, they cited the 

2010 draft guidance as saying that CEQ 

does not propose this as an indicator of 

a threshold of significant effects, but 

rather as an indicator of a minimum 

level of GHG emissions that may 

warrant some description in the 

appropriate NEPA analysis for agency 

actions involving direct emissions of 

GHGs. The commenters found this 

distinction unclear and urged CEQ to 

clarify the distinction. If CEQ intended 

to establish 25,000 metric tons of GHG 

emissions annually as a threshold for 

NEPA analysis of GHG emissions, this 

threshold would sufficiently meet the 

‘‘may have a significant effect’’ standard 

requiring preparation of an EIS. 

Therefore, CEQ must clearly articulate 

this standard in the guidance. Some 

groups implored CEQ to ensure and 

further clarify in the guidance that 

agencies should not equate individual 

project greenhouse gas emissions at or 

above 25,000 metric tons per year as a 

‘‘significant effect’’ warranting the 

preparation of an environmental impact 

statement. According to these 

commenters, some groups may treat the 

guidance limit as a threshold of 

‘‘significance,’’ rather than just a 

reporting or ‘‘meaningful analysis’’ 

standard. This increases the 

uncertainties and the different 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

77810 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 

understandings that various groups will 

attach to the draft guidance. 

Other commenters were adamant that 

the 2010 draft guidance was 

unacceptably vague on the key issue of 

the threshold level of GHG emissions 

that determines the depth of analysis 

required under NEPA. For example, 

they cited the draft guidance that would 

require, ‘‘Federal Agencies to consider, 

in scoping their NEPA analysis, whether 

analysis of the direct and indirect GHG 

emissions from their proposed actions 

may provide meaningful information to 

decisionmakers and the public.’’ Then, 

the commenters noted that CEQ 

attempted to clarify the word 

‘‘meaningful’’ by suggesting that if 

agencies actions are ‘‘reasonably 

anticipated to cause direct emissions of 

25,000 metric tons or more of 

CO2-equivalent GHG emissions on an 

annual basis, agencies should consider 

this an indicator that a quantitative and 

qualitative assessment may be 

meaningful to decisionmakers and the 

public.’’ Some comments indicated that 

it was unclear if the 2010 draft guidance 

attempted to define the term 

‘‘meaningful.’’ Commenters noted that 

CEQ proposed a quantitative reference 

point as an indicator of a level of GHG 

emissions for which an agency ‘‘should’’ 

consider action-specific evaluation of 

GHG emissions and disclosure of that 

analysis in NEPA documents. The 

commenters observed that CEQ was 

careful to note in the 2010 draft 

guidance that the suggested reference 

point is not ‘‘an absolute standard of 

insignificant effects,’’ or by inference, 

not a standard for significant effects. 

Therefore, many commenters said that 

the draft guidance leaves the question of 

what constitutes a ‘‘significant’’ 

greenhouse gas emission level to the 

Federal agencies to be determined on a 

case-by-case basis. This approach, 

according to the commenters, leaves 

agencies with an unacceptable level of 

discretion, entities seeking Federal 

permits with little certainty, and project 

opponents with important litigation 

tools. 

Other commenters urged CEQ to 

reaffirm the multi-factor approach to 

determining significance in NEPA 

regulations and documents. They 

impress upon CEQ to affirm in the 

introduction of the guidance that the 

level of GHG emissions is only one 

factor, among other criteria, that should 

be considered within the existing NEPA 

framework and that evaluation of 

significance under NEPA is done by the 

agency based on the categorization of 

actions in agency NEPA procedures and 

action-specific analysis of the context 

and intensity of the environmental 

impacts as set forth in 40 CFR 1508.27. 

Within the existing NEPA framework, it 

would be inappropriate, according to 

these commenters, in a guidance 

memorandum to establish a single 

factor—a quantitative level of 

greenhouse gas emissions—that would 

be considered to mark significant 

impacts, thereby automatically 

triggering the preparation of an 

environmental impact statement 

without regard to other criteria laid out 

in CEQ’s NEPA regulations. 

Response to Comments: 

This revised draft guidance sets forth 

a reference point of 25,000 metric tons 

CO2-equivalent (CO2-e) emissions on an 

annual basis below which a quantitative 

analysis of the GHG emissions is not 

recommended unless quantification is 

easily accomplished based on the 

availability of quantification tools and 

appropriate input data. 

The 2010 draft guidance did not 

intend the disclosure threshold to be 

equivalent to or substitute for a 

determination of significance. In this 

revised draft guidance, CEQ reaffirms 

that significance remains subject to the 

standards set forth in CEQ Regulations. 

The Regulations require consideration 

of both context and intensity and set out 

ten factors that should be considered. 

These include, among others, the degree 

to which the proposal affects public 

health or safety, the degree to which its 

effects on the quality of the human 

environment are likely to be highly 

controversial, and the degree to which 

its possible effects on the human 

environment are highly uncertain or 

involve unique or unknown risks. This 

reaffirmation of the significance factors 

should eliminate any confusion over the 

utility of the GHG emission reference 

point in NEPA reviews and reasserts 

existing NEPA law and practice. 

b. The 25,000 Metric Tons of CO2

Disclosure Threshold 

Many comments called for the GHG 

disclosure threshold to be raised from 

25,000 metric tons to between 75,000 to 

100,000 metric tons per year in order to 

be consistent with the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (‘‘EPA’’) Tailoring 

Rule. These commenters noted that, in 

fact, 25,000 metric tons represented 

only 5/100.000th of 1 percent 

(0.00005%,) of the 49 billion tons of 

global GHG emissions. In its final, 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(‘‘PSD’’) Tailoring Rule (announced May 

13, 2010), EPA raised the thresholds of 

the PSD and Title V programs 

applicable to GHGs to 75,000 and 

100,000 metric tons per year 

respectively, rather than the 25,000 

metric tons per year identified in the 

initial, proposed rule. The rationale 

provided for the 2010 draft guidance’s 

25,000 metric tons threshold, according 

to these commenters, was that it has 

been used and proposed in rulemakings 

under the Clean Air Act, specifically 

referencing EPA’s Mandatory Reporting 

of Greenhouse Gases Final Rule (40 CFR 

86, 87, 89, et al.). Subsequently, EPA 

finalized the ‘‘Tailoring Rule,’’ 

establishing GHG emissions thresholds 

for certain Clean Air Act permitting 

programs for stationary sources (40 CFR 

51, 52, 70, and 71). There EPA set the 

initial threshold for Clean Air Act 

permitting requirements for GHG 

emissions at 75,000 metric tons CO2-e 

per year. Beginning in July 2011, the 

triggering threshold was raised to 

100,000 metric tons CO2-e per year for 

new sources, but remains at 75,000 

metric tons CO2-e per year for existing 

sources undergoing modifications. Since 

the Tailoring Rule establishes GHG 

emissions thresholds for Clean Air Act 

permitting programs, these commenters 

believed that these thresholds were 

more appropriate indicators of the levels 

of GHG emissions for which an agency 

may consider action-specific evaluation 

of GHG emissions under NEPA than the 

thresholds in the Clean Air Act’s 

reporting program requirements. This is 

because, if EPA does not intend to 

require PSD review or Title V permits 

for a facility, one could easily argue that 

facilities below these thresholds should 

not be required to conduct more indepth environmental impact analyses 

based on their GHG emission. Rather, 

facilities below these thresholds should 

normally meet NEPA requirements 

through an environmental assessment 

resulting in a finding of no significant 

impact. Therefore, many commenters 

urged CEQ to bring the indicator level 

of GHG emissions in the guidance in 

line with the thresholds in EPA’s final 

Tailoring Rule, establishing the 

indicator at 75,000 or 100,000 metric 

tons CO2-e per year. 

Some commenters went so far as to 

say that there should be no analysis of 

GHG emissions in the NEPA context. 

Some stated that there is no reason to 

draw the draft guidance’s 25,000 metric 

tons disclosure threshold from the EPA 

reporting and the Clean Air Act rules, 

for these rules and NEPA serve different 

ends and are considerably different in 

purpose and scope. Because NEPA is 

focused on providing information 

needed to make better decisions, NEPA 

necessarily sweeps in more than just 

those impacts that would violate 

substantive mandates in other laws. 

Thus, agencies should quantify and 

disclose GHG emissions levels and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 77811 

22See Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Lowe, 

109 F.3d 521, 526 (1997). 

consider alternatives that may reduce 

those emissions, regardless of whether 

they ultimately determine that the 

impacts are significant for NEPA 

purposes. Other commenters stated that, 

when compared with nationwide or 

global GHG emissions, a 25,000 metric 

ton disclosure threshold is too low to be 

meaningful for the purposes of a NEPA 

analysis. CEQ’s guidance would be most 

helpful, according to these comments, if 

it indicated that individual project GHG 

emissions typically will be miniscule 

compared to global emissions and so do 

not need to be studied in any substantial 

detail in the NEPA context. The 

guidance should therefore be limited to 

requiring publication of the activity’s 

projected annual GHG emissions levels 

and nothing more. 

In contrast, some commenters noted 

that GHG emissions of less than 25,000 

metric tons may have an adverse effect 

on climate and the environment, 

especially in the context of all 

worldwide emissions. Recent science, 

according to these commenters, suggests 

the target atmospheric level of CO2

should be 350 ppm to achieve climate 

stabilization and avoid disastrous global 

consequences. Given atmospheric levels 

of 389 ppm at the time comments were 

made, commenters stated that we are 

already on a trajectory that is not 

sustainable, and we therefore must 

decrease GHG emissions more rapidly 

and to a greater extent than previously 

thought. Thus, any additional 

contribution of CO2 would be a step 

further from target levels and would 

contribute to a significant cumulative 

effect. These current conditions coupled 

with the potential consequences of 

global warming, according to the 

commenters, further underscore the 

need for recommendation and adoption 

of a zero threshold standard. 

Other comments did not quarrel, per 

se, with the 25,000 metric tons indicator 

proposed in the 2010 draft guidance. 

Rather, they strongly recommended 

CEQ revisit the language used in this 

guidance and either remove the 

language allowing the analysis of 

projects emitting less than 25,000 metric 

tons of CO2, or provide specific 

examples of projects that should be 

subject to this disclosure threshold 

despite falling below the minimum 

threshold. Similarly, the 25,000 metric 

tons reference point was developed for 

use in reporting emissions of stationary 

sources under the Clean Air Act. Some 

commenters detailed that the analysis of 

transportation projects differs greatly 

from that of stationary sources and 

questioned CEQ’s proposal to specify 

one single reference point for all types 

of projects performed or authorized by 

every Federal agency. A comment 

recommended the CEQ guidance be 

revised to recognize that Federal and/or 

state agencies may already have 

developed thresholds/criteria for 

performing GHG analyses and that these 

thresholds/criteria may be more 

appropriate for agency use than the 

25,000 metric tons disclosure threshold 

specified in the draft guidance. 

Response to Comments: 

The revised draft guidance sets forth 

a reference point of 25,000 metric tons 

CO2-equivalent GHG emissions on an 

annual basis below which a quantitative 

analysis of GHG emissions is not 

recommended unless quantification is 

easily accomplished, in light of the 

availability of quantification tools and 

appropriate input data. CEQ strongly 

encourages agencies to use their 

experience and expertise to determine 

when a more detailed analysis of GHG 

emissions is required to ensure that they 

do not expend their analytical and 

environmental review resources on 

those actions for which a quantitative 

analysis is not helpful in analyzing the 

environmental impacts or comparing 

among alternatives and mitigations. 

When an agency determines that a 

quantitative analysis is not appropriate, 

an agency should complete a qualitative 

analysis and explain its basis for doing 

so. We welcome the public’s further 

comments on this issue. 

3. Adaptation and Considering the 

Effects of Climate Change 

a. Comments Indicating That Climate 

Change Effects on Proposed Actions 

Should Not Be a Part of the Guidance 

Some commenters noted that the 2010 

draft guidance suggests that NEPA 

documents should include the effects of 

climate change on the proposed project. 

This type of analysis and discussion, 

according to these commenters, would 

violate the ‘‘rule of reason’’ as it would 

necessarily involve a ‘‘crystal ball 

inquiry’’ into the complex 

interrelationships of ecosystems and 

local climates. Again, the rule of reason 

is employed to determine whether an 

environmental impact statement 

contains ‘‘reasonably thorough 

discussion of the significant aspects of 

probable environmental 

consequences.22

Even the most sophisticated 

climatological modeling, according to 

these commenters, cannot predict 

precisely how the climate in a particular 

area will change and how, for instance, 

water resources will be impacted. 

Because of the limits of climatological 

modeling, any such discussion would 

necessarily be pure conjecture and 

would not provide information helpful 

to decisionmakers or the public. Other 

comments noted that there is presently 

no generally accepted model for gauging 

broad-based climate change, let alone 

assessing how such change (if any) 

affects individual, Federally-permitted 

projects. In the absence of generally 

accepted emissions modeling, these 

commenters believe that advising 

agencies to examine the potential 

impacts of climate change invites 

agencies (and perhaps even the 

individual project analysts within an 

agency) to estimate climate change 

effects by whatever means they think 

reasonable, which would result in 

disparities and even conflicts between 

agencies and analysts inevitable. If the 

draft guidance goes forward as 

proposed, the resulting conflict and 

confusion will cause Federal permits to 

be significantly delayed if not 

completely gridlocked, according to the 

commenters. Some comments called for 

the use of adaptive management in 

localities, as opposed to the issuance of 

guidance for climate change effects. 

These commenters claim adaptive 

management works best when the local 

land managers have as much flexibility 

and tools as possible at their disposal to 

respond to changing conditions. 

Therefore, it was suggested by these 

comments that references to analysis of 

the effects of climate change on the 

project or Federal action be removed 

from the final guidance. 

Response to Comments: 

NEPA is intended to inform decisionmaking by disclosing not only the 

reasonably foreseeable effects of a 

proposed action on the environment, 

but also any effects that environmental 

processes may have on the proposed 

action and on resources anticipated to 

be impacted by the proposed action. As 

such, NEPA supports decision-making 

that helps strengthen Federal resources 

and investments and make them more 

resilient against environmental impacts. 

The revised draft guidance encourages 

agencies to determine whether and to 

what extent to prepare an analysis based 

on the availability of information, the 

usefulness of that information to the 

decision-making process, and the extent 

of the anticipated environmental 

consequences. See also the response to 

the next comment. 

b. Comments Indicating That Climate 

Change Effects on Proposed Actions 

Should Be a Part of the Guidance 

Other commenters believe that the 

effects of climate change should be 

included in the guidance. As the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

77812 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change stated ‘‘climate changes are 

being imposed on ecosystems 

experiencing other substantial and 

largely detrimental pressures.’’ CEQ 

therefore appropriately recognizes, in 

the view of these commenters, that 

‘‘[c]limate change can increase the 

vulnerability of a resource, ecosystem, 

or human community,’’ exacerbating the 

impacts of actions that previously might 

have had more limited effects. These 

commenters believe that this 

recognition and the attendant analysis 

under NEPA is essential in meeting the 

goals of Executive Order 13514 which 

requires Federal agencies to assess their 

risk and vulnerabilities in light of a 

changing climate and in meeting the 

goals of the Interagency Climate Change 

Adaptation Task Force. One comment 

even noted that climate change 

interactions are pervasive, making it 

rarely appropriate, if ever, to confine 

‘‘discussion of climate change in an 

environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement [in] a 

separate section,’’ as CEQ suggested in 

its guidance. Instead, the commenter 

suggested that CEQ should recognize 

that such synergisms are not only 

common, but may render some minor 

impacts significant, either directly or by 

undermining mitigation strategies. This 

integrated consideration should extend 

from impact analysis to shaping 

alternatives and mitigation decisions. 

Agencies, according to the comment, 

should recognize that ecosystems may 

be declining or changing even under a 

‘‘no action’’ alternative, and should 

forecast the likely nature of those 

changes. From this baseline, the 

comment suggested that agencies should 

design and select between alternatives 

with the understanding that reducing 

ecosystem stressors, including those 

resulting from the proposed action, will 

often be necessary in order to limit 

significant environmental impacts. The 

comment emphasized that CEQ should 

provide guidelines to ensure that 

agencies: (a) Analyze the impacts of 

climate change on the affected 

environment and include those effects 

in their baseline for analysis of 

alternatives, mitigation, and in the ‘‘no 

action’’ alternative; (b) include in their 

cumulative effects analysis the impacts 

of climate change on the affected 

environment combined with the 

impacts of the proposed action and 

other reasonably foreseeable effects; and 

(c) include in their alternatives analysis 

actions that may avoid, reduce, and/or 

otherwise ameliorate the direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects of 

climate change and the proposed action 

on the affected environment. 

Some comments indicated that 

climate change should be a 

consideration in project analysis when 

located in areas that are considered 

vulnerable to specific effects of climate 

change within the project’s lifetime. 

Because the impacts from climate 

change are predictions and can vary so 

widely by region, NEPA, according to 

the comments, should be open to 

allowing for differences in analysis. As 

to geographic scale, comments noted 

that climate change effects on 

temperature, stream flow, and 

precipitation patterns are likely to be 

characterized at the regional level and 

interpolated to a more localized level, if 

possible. However, overall, the 

commenters praised the 2010 draft 

guidance for recognizing that there are 

‘‘limitations and variability in the 

capacity of climate models to reliably 

project potential changes at the regional, 

local, or project level.’’ Some other 

comments suggested that at present, 

there are few, if any, downscaling 

models that are sufficiently accurate and 

robust to make useful predictions about 

the effects of climate change on local or 

even regional resources, including 

effects on water availability, at the 

watershed level or at a specific project 

location. Thus, until such downscaling 

models exist, the commenters suggested 

that any analysis of the regional and 

local effects of climate change on water 

resources, among other environmental 

resources, would be purely speculative 

and Federal courts have held that 

Federal agencies should not consider 

speculative effects under NEPA. These 

comments did not categorically rule out 

the assessment of climate change effects 

on projects, but were rather more 

tentative in their recommendations, 

conditioning their recommendations on 

the existence of appropriate models. 

One commenter cited recently 

introduced Federal legislation 

supporting the conduct of regional 

emission analysis and assessing regional 

adaptation to the effects of climate 

change as part of the metropolitan 

transportation planning process. Despite 

the aforementioned limits of the 

methods of assessing climate change 

impacts, one commenter said that it 

would be reasonable to use existing 

studies, such as the New York State 

Energy Research and Development 

Authority’s ClimAID study, to 

qualitatively assess climate change 

effects occurring in a project area. 

As a part of the broader effort to 

assess climate change impacts and 

undertake adaptation, one commenter 

proposed that CEQ direct agencies to 

produce their own specific procedures 

(whether in the form of guidance or 

rulemaking) to explain how they will 

consider environmental impacts on a 

changed environment. Many agencies 

have very specific mandates with very 

specific environmental effects, and 

directing them to tailor this 

consideration to their own efforts 

should produce improved analysis of 

climate changed environments related 

to the agencies’ actions. By having each 

agency conduct its own process, the 

agencies will (1) benefit from input from 

the public that works most closely with 

them; (2) be able to create protocols to 

gather all available and easily 

determined data on changed 

environments in areas under their 

jurisdiction; and (3) consider creating 

protocols to formally cooperate and 

share information with other Federal 

agencies, state and local government, 

and tribes on expected local changes in 

the environment. These commenters 

contend, as noted above, that much 

information is currently fragmented. If 

agencies had a formal procedure for 

continually consulting with other 

agencies, relevant information would be 

dispersed more quickly and effectively. 

Such an approach would require 

agencies that rely on ‘‘adaptive 

management’’ when accounting for 

unknown environmental changes to 

specify a regular procedure for gathering 

information and using that information 

to make decisions going forward, 

including revisiting earlier agency 

actions. 

Other comments, which also called 

for CEQ’s NEPA guidance to incorporate 

climate change effects, requested that 

CEQ limit the consideration of the 

impacts of climate change on proposed 

actions to those actions that will occur 

far enough in the future that changes 

might be both evident and material. It is 

a waste of agency resources and not 

relevant to the agency decision, 

according to these commenters, to 

require a consideration of climate 

change impacts on an action that will be 

concluded in 5, 10 or even 20 years. For 

purposes of NEPA analysis, it was 

suggested that the 2010 draft guidance 

be revised to advise agencies that NEPA 

documents should consider the 

potential impacts of climate change on 

those resources affected by climate only 

when those impacts are expected to 

extend at least beyond 2050. 

Some commenters agreed that the 

observed and projected effects of 

climate change that warrant 

consideration in a NEPA document 

should typically be described as part of 

the proposed action’s ‘‘affected 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 77813 

23See 40 CFR 1502.1. 24See 40 CFR 1508.8. 

environment.’’ 23 However, according to 

these commenters, as the 2010 draft 

guidance correctly recognized, 

‘‘agencies should ensure that they keep 

in proportion the extent to which they 

document their assessment of the effects 

of climate change.’’ In this light, the 

commenters suggested that the draft 

guidance should fully explain how 

climate change effects should be 

considered as part of the ‘‘affected 

environment.’’ For example, the 

commenters requested that the guidance 

distinguish between a project’s GHG 

emission-related effects on the 

environment and the effects of climate 

change on the area covered by a project. 

With respect to the former, climate 

change is a global phenomenon and, as 

recognized by the 2010 draft guidance, 

changes in global temperatures cannot 

be linked to specific sources of 

emissions. Consequently, the guidance 

should recognize that the ‘‘affected 

environment’’ of a GHG emitting project 

cannot be the entire world, and it 

should provide some direction on how 

the ‘‘affected environment’’ will be 

determined for climate change-related 

effects. Other commenters were 

confused as to why CEQ suggested that 

the observed and projected effects of 

climate change warranting 

consideration are most appropriately 

described as part of the current and 

future state of the proposed action’s 

‘‘affected environment.’’ Section 

1502.15 of the CEQ Regulations does not 

suggest, according to these commenters, 

that this section discuss future states of 

the affected environment, but instead 

states that the affected environment 

describe the environment of the area to 

be affected by the project alternatives. 

There is an implicit understanding that 

there is natural change in ecosystems 

and environmental resources; these 

systems and resources are not static. It 

was unclear to commenters why climate 

change effects would best be discussed 

as part of the affected environment 

rather than as a cumulative impact. 

Response to Comments: 

The revised draft guidance proposes 

that climate change effects should be 

considered in the analysis of projects 

that are designed for long-term utility 

and involve resources considered 

vulnerable to specific effects of climate 

change within the timeframe of the 

proposed project’s anticipated useful 

life. The focus of this analysis should be 

on those aspects of the environment 

that, based on the interaction between 

the proposed action and the human 

environment, are affected by the 

proposed action and on the significance 

of climate change on those aspects of 

the environment. Agencies should 

consider the specific effects of the 

proposed action (including the 

proposed action’s effect on the 

vulnerability of affected ecosystems and 

communities), the nexus of those effects 

with projected climate change effects on 

the same aspects of our environment, 

and the implications for the 

environment to adapt to the projected 

effects of climate change. In addition, 

the particular impacts of climate change 

on vulnerable communities may be 

considered in the design of the action or 

the selection among alternatives so that 

the proposed action will be more 

resilient and sustainable and thereby 

have lesser impacts on those 

communities. Using NEPA’s ‘‘rule of 

reason’’ that governs the level of detail 

in any environmental effects analysis, 

agencies should ensure that they keep 

the extent to which they document their 

assessment of the effects of climate 

change in proportion to the potential for 

impacts. 

4. Indirect Effects and Emissions 

CEQ received many comments that 

used the terms ‘‘indirect effects’’ and 

‘‘indirect emissions’’ interchangeably, 

when in fact these two terms have 

distinct meaning. Note that the 

summaries of the comments, below, also 

use the terms interchangeably to reflect 

how these comments were presented to 

CEQ. 

a. Indirect Effects 

Many commenters noted that CEQ 

should clarify the circumstances under 

which it is necessary and appropriate to 

consider the indirect effects of GHG 

emissions. The 2010 draft guidance, 

according to these views, provides little 

instruction on how to analyze 

appropriately the indirect impacts 

(assuming that those impacts are 

brought about as a result of the Federal 

action and are reasonably foreseeable, 

which are prerequisites to analysis 

under NEPA), and could prompt more 

calls for similar modeling exercises. 

CEQ, according to these commenters, 

could provide valuable guidance to 

Federal agencies that such indirect 

impacts, which have been demonstrated 

to be negligible and predominantly 

attributable to other independent 

factors, need not be exhaustively 

analyzed as part of a NEPA review. 

Other commenters thought that agencies 

should be further reminded that the 

indirect effects of a proposed action are 

to be analyzed only if the impact is 

reasonably foreseeable.24 Although they 

commended CEQ for acknowledging 

that any analysis of indirect impacts 

must be bounded by the limits of 

feasibility, they urged CEQ to include 

the ‘‘reasonable foreseeability’’ language 

consistent with 40 CFR 1508.8. 

Additionally, they criticized CEQ for 

not providing an alternative threshold 

for considering indirect effects. 

Commenters noted that given the longterm nature of global warming, it is 

difficult to conceive of a climate change 

situation where the direct effects of a 

decision are significant, but the indirect 

effects are not significant. Other 

commenters agreed with CEQ and stated 

that only direct emissions should be 

considered when determining whether 

an environmental impact statement is 

required for a particular project above 

the threshold. The guidance should 

make clear, according to these 

commenters, that a project’s indirect 

GHG emissions do not constitute a 

‘‘significant impact’’ for two reasons. 

First, according to these commenters, 

these indirect emissions are inherently 

insignificant compared to global GHG 

emissions and do not cause 

‘‘significant’’ impacts. NEPA directs 

Federal agencies to prepare an 

environmental impact statement for 

‘‘major Federal actions significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment.’’ Second, they contend 

that indirect GHG emissions should not 

trigger the requirement that a Federal 

agency prepare an environmental 

impact statement because these indirect 

effects are too remote from the alleged 

cause. These commenters point out how 

the U.S. Supreme Court has held that if 

there is a reasonably close causal 

relationship between the environmental 

effect and the alleged cause, then an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. The court compared this type 

of causation to the tort law doctrine of 

proximate cause; a ‘‘but for’’ causal 

relationship is insufficient for an alleged 

cause to require an environmental 

impact statement for a project. 

Some commenters thought that 

climate change impacts should be 

treated as indirect effects, rather than 

direct effects of GHG emissions. Under 

the CEQ’s regulations, direct effects are 

those caused by the action and occur at 

the same time and place. However, 

because climate change does not occur 

at the same time and place as the GHG 

emissions, these commenters believe 

that these impacts are not properly 

considered ‘‘direct effects.’’ Rather, they 

conclude, it would be more appropriate 

to consider potential climate impacts as 

an indirect effect or cumulative impacts 

of a project’s projected GHG emissions. 

Indirect effects are caused by the action 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

77814 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 

25See 40 CFR 93.152. 

but are removed in time and distance, 

even though the effects are reasonably 

foreseeable. The 2010 draft guidance 

conceded that climate change is the 

result of ‘‘numerous and various small 

sources,’’ and that each of the sources 

only makes a ‘‘relatively small addition 

to the global atmospheric conditions.’’ 

Accordingly, the commenters observed 

that because the climate impacts from 

the emissions from a single project are 

a tiny fraction of the global emissions, 

treatment of these impacts as an indirect 

effect, or a cumulative effect, is more 

appropriate. 

b. Indirect Emissions 

CEQ should clarify its discussion of 

indirect emissions, according to some 

commenters. The guidance, according to 

these commenters, should state that 

only those indirect emissions that are 

reasonably foreseeable as a result of the 

project and meet the necessary level of 

significance, should be considered. 

Emissions, which are theoretical or 

otherwise not dependent on the 

proposed action for their occurrence, 

should be eliminated from the analysis. 

Thus, the final guidance should clarify 

that Federal agencies must recognize 

and discuss the known uncertainties of 

GHG emissions, and as the ability to 

quantify emissions or accurately assess 

the link between emissions and climate 

effects decreases. Some commenters 

suggest that the ‘‘indirect effects’’ 

definition helps establish ‘‘indirect 

emissions.’’ At the same time, they 

emphasize that indirect emissions are 

not akin to indirect effects. Specifically, 

they contend that NEPA requires 

consideration of ‘‘indirect effects’’ 

(limited to non-speculative 

environmental consequences that are 

proximately caused by a major Federal 

action). Commenters maintain that 

‘‘indirect’’ GHG emissions are not truly 

‘‘indirect effects’’ of an action. An 

emission is not an effect, and any 

resulting harm to the environment is the 

environmental consequence of interest 

to an agency. In applying the concept of 

‘‘indirect effects,’’ CEQ, according to 

these commenters, should advise 

agencies that they need not consider 

‘‘indirect’’ GHG emissions unless those 

emissions (1) bear ‘‘a reasonably close 

causal relationship’’ to the major 

Federal action being reviewed; (2) are 

‘‘reasonably foreseeable;’’ and (3) are not 

speculative. Thus, the issue of whether 

to consider ‘‘indirect emissions’’ should 

be governed by the same test applicable 

to ‘‘indirect effects.’’ This clarification, 

they assert, will allow agencies to 

expend their resources wisely and focus 

their analysis without speculating about 

potential indirect emissions not clearly 

associated with or caused by the major 

Federal action being reviewed. 

In terms of clarifying what is meant 

by ‘‘indirect emissions,’’ other 

commenters believe that it may be 

helpful for CEQ to consider adopting, 

with one minor modification, the 

definition of ‘‘indirect emissions’’ from 

the EPA regulations implementing the 

conformity provisions of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) for this purpose.25 The 

conformity regulations apply only to 

emissions of criteria pollutants from 

Federal actions in nonattainment areas. 

Nevertheless, the commenters argue, 

these regulations provide a serviceable 

definition of indirect air emissions that 

has been applied by Federal agencies for 

many years. The conformity regulations 

define ‘‘indirect emissions’’ as those 

emissions that ‘‘(1) [a]re caused by the 

Federal action, but may occur later in 

time and/or may be further removed in 

distance from the action itself but are 

still reasonably foreseeable; and (2) [t]he 

Federal agency can practicably control 

and will maintain control over due to 

the continuing program responsibility of 

the Federal Agency.’’ Under the air 

conformity program, emissions are 

‘‘caused by’’ a Federal action if the 

emissions ‘‘would not otherwise occur 

in the absence of the Federal action.’’ 

Overall, commenters asserted the need 

for the final guidance to clarify what 

CEQ means by ‘‘direct’’ and ‘‘indirect’’ 

emissions versus ‘‘direct’’ and 

‘‘indirect’’ effects. 

In addition to providing clarity on the 

concept of indirect emissions, some 

commenters noted that on page 5 of the 

2010 draft guidance CEQ addressed the 

treatment of ‘‘the energy requirements of 

a proposed action and the conservation 

potential of its alternatives.’’ CEQ went 

on to state that agencies should evaluate 

GHG emissions associated with energy 

use and mitigation opportunities. An 

important additional consideration, 

according to these commenters, would 

be an evaluation of the direct and 

indirect effects of the alternatives 

themselves on potential GHG emissions. 

A few commenters thought CEQ’s 

proposal for indirect GHG emissions 

analysis should be removed in its 

entirety. Indirect GHG emissions 

analysis would encompass sources that 

are upstream and downstream of the 

action, with no discernable limit or 

boundary. Other commenters felt that if 

indirect emissions are not included, the 

Federal goals of energy conservation 

and reduced energy use could not be 

fully realized. Estimating many types of 

indirect emissions, they assert, is 

entirely possible and it is in the project 

design phase where energy efficiency 

measures and access choices can most 

effectively be incorporated. Thus, 

according to these commenters, even a 

brief qualitative analysis of both the 

direct and indirect GHG emissions of a 

proposal may reveal cost-effective 

reduction measures. A well-done 

qualitative analysis may also provide a 

rough quantitative estimate that can 

help the lead agency determine whether 

or not the analysis is adequate. 

Finally, there were some 

transportation issues raised, concerning 

the concept of indirect emissions. The 

introduction to the 2010 draft guidance 

advises agencies to consider in the 

scoping process whether the direct and 

indirect GHG emissions of a proposed 

action may provide meaningful 

information to decisionmakers and the 

public. It is not clear, according to some 

commenters, what would be considered 

direct emissions as opposed to indirect 

emissions for transportation projects. 

The distinction is critical in 

determining how to interpret the 

suggested indicator value. The 

determination of how to define direct 

and indirect impacts for transportation 

projects, and the decision of how to 

apply the indicator value, is best left to 

the discretion of Federal transportation 

agencies, according to these 

commenters. Similarly, for 

transportation infrastructure projects, 

direct and indirect GHG emissions 

should not be defined to include the 

emissions associated with the 

production (drilling, refining, etc.) or 

distribution of fuel to the vehicles that 

use the transportation infrastructure. 

This would place an unreasonable 

burden on transportation agencies, 

according to commenters, and would 

require an analysis that is not completed 

for any other resource evaluated under 

NEPA. Under this approach, the project 

impact should be the increase (or 

decrease) of emissions from the increase 

(or decrease) in vehicles using the 

transportation infrastructure due to the 

project. 

Response to Comments: 

Statutes, Executive Orders, and 

agency policies, establish the Federal 

government commitment to eliminating 

or reducing GHG emissions. Information 

on GHG emissions (qualitative or 

quantitative) that is useful and relevant 

to the decision should be used when 

deciding among alternatives. The 

revised draft guidance reminds agencies 

that, as with all impacts, agencies are 

required to consider reasonably 

foreseeable direct and indirect effects, 

and the cumulative nature of those 

effects when analyzing proposed 

Federal actions. The revised draft 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 77815 

guidance explains that agencies should 

consider the affected environment by 

looking for effects of past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions 

that will increase or change in 

combination with the direct and 

indirect effects of the proposal. 

Agencies should apply the rule of 

reason which states that agencies 

determine whether and to what extent 

to prepare their NEPA reviews based on 

the usefulness of potential information 

to the decision-making process, and to 

focus their analyses on issues that 

deserve study. 

CEQ is rejecting a hard and fast rule 

requiring or prohibiting consideration of 

indirect emissions. The focus should be 

and remains on the foreseeability of 

identifying potential effects and the 

extent of those effects. 

5. Life-cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Many commenters claim CEQ should 

direct Federal agencies to employ lifecycle GHG assessments (including 

consideration of avoided GHG 

emissions) to determine the full GHG 

impacts of proposed agency actions and 

associated private-sector activities and 

processes. The environmental impact of 

the life cycle of the proposed action— 

and not just of the project—must be 

assessed, according to commenters. 

Agencies should be scoping ways not 

only to minimize or mitigate potential 

adverse impacts but to restore and 

improve the environment and 

atmosphere at the same time. There is 

no reasoned justification, according to 

these commenters, for focusing on a 

project’s annual, rather than lifetime, 

emissions as the indicator level of 

significance. Nothing in NEPA, they 

assert, restricts the agencies’ impacts 

analysis to a rate or a one-year time 

scale. If CEQ does not delete the 

discussion of an indicator level from the 

final guidance, according to these 

commenters, it should at least buttress 

its indicator level with a life-cycle or 

life-of-the-project ‘‘volume’’ indicator. 

That level should be set low enough to 

capture actions that may not emit the 

full threshold rate in any given year, but 

would still contribute to the larger 

overall volume of GHG emissions over 

the life of the project. Thus, the 

commenters suggested that if CEQ 

wishes to indicate a level of significant 

emissions, it must ensure that its 

indicator accounts both for the rate and 

volume of the emissions over the life of 

the project. 

One of the commenters recommended 

that CEQ should affirmatively direct 

agencies to assess GHG impacts of 

agency actions in accordance with the 

following guidelines: (1) GHG impacts 

should be assessed on a life-cycle basis, 

as appropriate, taking account of direct, 

indirect, and avoided GHG emissions; 

(2) direction should be provided to use 

peer reviewed and agency life-cycle 

assessment tools and models; (3) GHG 

impacts should not be limited to source 

emissions as reported under EPA’s GHG 

Reporting Rule and other EPA GHG 

inventory tools; (4) the Global Warming 

Potential (‘‘GWP’’) of each GHG should 

be based on the latest consensus 

scientific data, which, as of this date, 

should reflect the GWP values set forth 

in the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth 

Assessment Report; (5) consistent with 

international and EPA precedent, the 

primary focus should be on 

anthropogenic sources of GHGs, 

including fossil CO2 and methane; and 

(6) uncertainties in data, models, 

methods, and resulting calculations 

should be analyzed in assessing direct 

and indirect life-cycle GHG emissions, 

but the existence of such uncertainty 

should not preclude use of life-cycle 

assessment of GHG emission impacts. 

Another commenter contends that if a 

full life-cycle analysis is required, rather 

than using the length of time of all the 

phases and elements of the proposed 

action over its expected life, the 

guidance should also require the 

calculation to include the life of the 

pollutant or the traceable lifetime of the 

effect of the action on the climate, such 

as the sequestration lost through a large 

clear-cutting of forest when selective 

harvesting might have retained more 

carbon in the standing trees and soil. 

Moreover, the commenter stated that 

guidance should be provided to Federal 

agencies to retain existing carbon stores 

in carbon dense systems such as mature 

and old-growth forests. 

CEQ received comments that 

requested further clarification in the 

guidance that a full life-cycle analysis is 

not required (for example, the GHG 

analysis for a highway project should 

not include the emissions associated 

with the manufacturing of the vehicles 

using the transportation facility), at least 

until this type of information becomes 

available. These commenters indicated 

that full life-cycle analyses are not 

readily available at this time and should 

not be used anyway as they will result 

in double counting of emissions among 

various parties. On a related note, 

commenters pointed to several 

provisions of the 2010 draft guidance 

which they thought suggested use of an 

alternative NEPA reference point based 

on a project’s ‘‘lifetime’’ cumulative 

GHG emissions rather than annual 

emissions. The comments highlighted 

the following passage from pages 1 and 

2 of the 2010 draft guidance as an 

illustration of this approach: ‘‘For longterm actions that have annual direct 

emissions of less than 25,000 metric 

tons of CO2-equivalent, CEQ encourages 

Federal agencies to consider whether 

the action’s long-term emissions should 

receive similar analysis.’’ Commenters 

stress that the 2010 draft guidance offers 

no specific reference point based on 

cumulative, lifetime emissions, 

probably because this metric is not used 

in the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Rule, EPA’s Tailoring Rule, the various 

proposals for climate change legislation, 

or any other commonly regarded policy. 

A lifetime emissions standard, 

particularly one with no reference point, 

according to commenters, threatens to 

expand NEPA analysis to a vast new 

array of Federal actions. The recognized 

metric for GHG policy analysis and 

regulatory standard setting, as reflected 

in EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Rule, EPA’s Tailoring Rule, and 

elsewhere, is annual emissions. CEQ, 

according to the commenters, has no 

empirical or legal basis for suggesting a 

NEPA analysis reference point based on 

lifetime, cumulative GHG emissions, 

and this aspect of the proposed 

guidance should be withdrawn in its 

entirety. 

Response to Comments: 

The revised draft guidance states that 

analysis of GHG emissions sources 

should follow the same basic NEPA 

principles and account for all phases 

and elements of an action, including 

both short- and long-term effects and 

benefits, over the expected life of the 

project and the duration of the 

generation of emissions. It is important 

to recognize that agency-proposed land 

and resource management actions can 

result in both carbon emissions and 

carbon sequestration, and agency 

analyses should reflect a comparison of 

net GHG emissions and carbon stock 

changes that are relevant in light of the 

proposed actions and the timeframes 

under consideration. Agencies have 

substantial experience estimating GHG 

emissions and sequestration, and 

numerous tools and methods are 

available to efficiently make such 

estimates. The revised draft guidance 

encourages agencies to use tools for 

quantification when a quantitative 

analysis would be useful for informing 

decisionmakers and the public. When a 

quantitative analysis would not be 

useful, a qualitative analysis should be 

completed, and an agency should 

explain its basis for doing so. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

77816 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 

26See 42 U.S.C. 4332(1). 

27U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Sec. Or. 3226, Section 

1 (Jan. 19, 2001). 

28 Id. 

29 Id. at Section 3. 

6. Preserving the Procedural Mandate of 

NEPA 

Some commenters noted that certain 

statements in the 2010 draft guidance 

could be misinterpreted by other 

Federal agencies and the public as 

creating new, binding substantive or 

procedural obligations. The commenters 

suggested that CEQ should clarify that 

the guidance is not intended to do so. 

These commenters point to the statutory 

language and court decisions, which 

detail that NEPA is an action-informing 

statute, and not an action-forcing 

document. Additionally, some 

comments cited Robertson v. Methow 

Valley Citizens, 49 U.S. 332, 333 (1989), 

where the Court held that ‘‘it is well 

settled that NEPA itself does not impose 

substantive duties mandating particular 

results, but simply prescribes the 

necessary process for preventing 

uninformed-rather than unwise-agency 

action.’’ Statements such as, ‘‘CEQ 

proposes to advise Federal agencies that 

they should consider opportunities to 

reduce GHG emissions caused by 

proposed Federal actions and adapt 

their actions to climate change impacts 

throughout the NEPA process and to 

address these issues in their agency 

NEPA procedures[,]’’ concern certain 

commenters. These commenters also 

point to statements that, when a 

proposed action meets an applicable 

threshold for quantification and 

reporting of GHG emissions, ‘‘CEQ 

proposes that the agency should also 

consider mitigation measures and 

reasonable alternatives to reduce actionrelated GHG emissions.’’ This direction, 

according to the commenters, appears to 

go beyond the scope of NEPA. It goes, 

they contend, beyond describing how 

and when to analyze environmental 

impacts and what environmental 

impacts are to be considered, thereby 

transforming the NEPA process into an 

action-forcing process by advising 

agencies that they need to consider or 

even require agencies to include 

mitigation and adaptation measures as 

part of their decisions. It also appears, 

these commenters contend, to elevate 

considerations of GHG emissions and 

impacts of climate change above other 

environmental impacts for purposes of 

assessing alternatives. Environmental 

assessments or environmental impact 

statements are likely to evaluate a 

number of different environmental 

factors in addition to GHG emissions 

and impacts of climate change which 

may have greater impacts on the 

environment than those produced by 

GHG emissions or climate change, 

according to commenters. Similarly, 

commenters said that a direction to 

consider mitigation and adaptation 

measures may inhibit or restrict agency 

decision-making with respect to other 

alternatives. Other commenters point to 

the same introduction to the 2010 draft 

guidance and indicate that the statement 

on the reduction of GHG emissions 

would include projects requiring 

Federal permit decisions. They are 

concerned that the guidance will be 

used as a backdoor to impose mandatory 

Federal GHG emission reductions, for 

example through mitigation required as 

a quid pro quo in order to obtain a 

finding of no significant impact. The 

goal of reducing GHG emissions through 

mandatory emission limits should be 

accomplished through comprehensive 

national climate legislation, rather than 

through NEPA guidance documents, 

according to these comments. 

Other commenters stressed that NEPA 

can be used to have an influence on 

agencies’ substantive policies. These 

commenters said that NEPA provides 

that ‘‘the policies, regulations, and 

public laws of the United States shall be 

interpreted and administered in 

accordance with the policies set forth in 

this Act.’’ 26 The commenters highlight 

that some agencies have taken a step 

forward, at least at the broad policy 

level. For example, they cite the 

Department of the Interior 

(‘‘Department’’) which, through a 

secretarial order, has acknowledged that 

‘‘climate change is impacting natural 

resources that the [Department] has the 

responsibility to manage and protect.’’ 27

The secretarial order ‘‘ensures that 

climate change impacts are taken into 

account in connection with Department 

planning and decision-making.’’ 28 The 

secretarial order does this by requiring 

the Department to ‘‘consider and 

analyze potential climate change 

impacts’’ when it: Undertakes 

‘‘long-range planning exercises’’; ‘‘set[s] 

priorities for scientific research and 

investigations’’; ‘‘develop[s] multi-year 

management plans’’; ‘‘and/or’’ ‘‘mak[es] 

major decisions regarding the potential 

utilization of resources under the 

Department’s purview.’’ 29 The 

commenter state’s that while the 

Department’s secretarial order can 

certainly be strengthened, in particular 

in terms of its implementation, all 

Federal agencies should be encouraged 

to take similar policy action and to 

ensure that those policies are 

implemented through actual 

management decisions. Indeed, the 

commenters believe that CEQ guidance 

could help raise Federal agencies’ 

comfort level in using their substantive 

and procedural authorities to address 

GHG emissions and climate change. 

These commenters welcomed this 

result. 

Response to Comments: 

The revised draft guidance points out 

that NEPA is intended to promote 

disclosure and consideration of 

potential environmental effects, and to 

provide the opportunity to mitigate 

them. NEPA recognizes that Federal 

activities affect the environment and 

mandates that Federal agencies consider 

the environmental impacts of their 

proposed actions, and any reasonable 

alternatives and mitigations, before 

deciding to take action. The revised 

draft guidance does not create any new 

or additional regulatory requirements 

for project proponents. It simply 

instructs agencies on how to consider 

and address the GHG emissions from 

and the effects of climate change on 

their proposed actions within the 

existing NEPA regulatory framework. 

Climate change impacts will have 

important consequences for the 

resilience of Federal actions, including 

more frequent heat waves and highintensity precipitation events, rising sea 

levels, and more prolonged droughts. 

The revised guidance emphasizes that 

agencies should consider mitigation 

measures and reasonable alternatives to 

reduce action-related GHG emissions in 

the same fashion as they consider them 

for any other environmental effects. 

7. Incomplete or Unavailable Scientific 

Information 

The CEQ guidance on the analysis of 

GHG emissions under NEPA should, 

according to some commenters, make 

clear that NEPA regulatory provisions 

regarding incomplete or unavailable 

information should be appropriately 

used in addressing any analysis of GHG 

emissions. Some commenters have 

serious concerns over the validity of the 

modeling and assessment tools 

currently available for climate change. 

They contend that the CO2 emissions 

estimates from these models are only 

useful for a comparison between 

alternatives. These commenters say that 

the numbers are not necessarily an 

accurate reflection of what true CO2

emissions will be because CO2

emissions are dependent on other 

factors which are not part of the models 

that are currently available. Further, in 

terms of assessment, the comments 

point to uncertainty over assessing an 

individual project’s effect on climate 

change and they place an emphasis on 

the need for better tools to assess the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 77817 

30See Draft 2010 Guidance at p. 8. 

31See ‘‘Synthesis and Assessment Products of the 

U.S. Global Change Research Program’’ at p. 153. 

32 Id. at 155. 

33See 40 CFR 1502.22. 34 40 CFR 1502.22(a). 

climate change effects on a project’s 

environment. Along the same lines, 

other commenters pointed to what they 

perceive as conflicting parts of the 2010 

draft guidance when it mentions that ‘‘ 

. . . environmental documents reflect 

this global context and be realistic in 

focusing on ensuring that useful 

information is provided to 

decisionmakers for those actions that 

the agency finds are a significant source 

of greenhouse gases,’’ but then the 

guidance goes on to refer to ‘‘ . . . the 

scoping process to set reasonable spatial 

and temporal boundaries for this 

assessment and focus on aspects of 

climate change that may lead to changes 

in the impacts, sustainability, 

vulnerability, and design of the 

proposed action and alternative courses 

of action.’’ These comments indicate 

that agencies will be left with the 

daunting task of developing assessment 

protocols and standards to evaluate the 

impact of local actions in a global 

context in the absence of air quality 

standards or models. Given the lack of 

generally accepted protocols for 

modeling climate change, an agency’s 

NEPA procedures, these commenters 

contend, should be limited to: (1) 

Quantifying the project’s reasonably 

anticipated GHG emissions; 

(2) noting that the project’s incremental 

contribution to global GHGs is 

extremely small; and 

(3) observing that there is no standard 

methodology to determine how 

incremental GHG contributions of this 

magnitude translate into effects on 

global climate. 

Some commenters called for CEQ to 

provide more guidance to agencies as to 

how to address uncertainties and to 

recognize that there are very large levels 

of uncertainty associated with the 

relationship between agency actions and 

climate change effects. The range of 

outputs of climate models is huge, 

varying even more in their predictions 

about any particular region. They differ 

in predictions of both temperature and 

precipitation, as well as in seasonal 

trends of each. Therefore, the 

commenters concluded that these 

limitations make scenario uncertainty 

enormous. As a result, they encourage 

CEQ to recommend an approach that 

agencies should follow for handling 

uncertainties under NEPA. That 

approach should include explicit 

acknowledgment of the uncertainties 

and estimates of how they affect 

emission possibilities as well as climate 

change projections, if any. The 

commenters point to the documents that 

CEQ recommends as the ‘‘best scientific 

information available on the reasonably 

foreseeable climate change impacts’’ to 

show that climate change science 

cannot yet establish an agreed-upon 

baseline of environmental conditions to 

track the effects of climate change, and 

likely never will.30 These commenters 

contend that the 2010 draft guidance 

directs Federal agencies to the 

‘‘Synthesis and Assessment Products of 

the U.S. Global Change Research 

Program’’ (‘‘USGCRP’’) as a source of the 

‘‘best scientific information available on 

the reasonably foreseeable climate 

change impacts’’ to identify a baseline. 

However, the commenters point out that 

this latest 2009 Assessment includes an 

entire chapter, ‘‘An Agenda for Climate 

Impacts Science,’’ focusing on what the 

USGCRP does not know about ‘‘climate 

change impacts and those aspects of 

climate change responsible for those 

impacts.’’ 31 Most notably, the 2009 

Assessment indicates that ‘‘agreed-upon 

baseline indicators and measures of 

environmental conditions that can be 

used to track the effects of changes in 

climate’’ do not yet exist.32 The 

commenters contend that without an 

agreed-upon baseline, it is difficult to 

understand how a NEPA analysis (or 

any scientific analysis for that matter) 

can proceed with any accuracy. 

Ultimately, according to the 

commenters, the 2009 Assessment 

highlights significant, and arguably 

insurmountable, shortcomings in 

climate change science that will inhibit 

an agency’s ability to conduct the 

informed and realistic analysis required 

by NEPA. Assuming that climate change 

analysis can be conducted consistent 

with NEPA, the scientific uncertainties 

must be clearly disclosed, according to 

commenters. The comments cite the 

NEPA implementing procedures for 

when an agency is faced with 

‘‘incomplete or unavailable information, 

the agency shall always make clear that 

such information is lacking.’’ 33

Therefore, commenters said that 

because the USGCRP documents show 

that a baseline from which to predict the 

rate, scope, and effects of climate 

change simply does not yet exist, any 

NEPA analysis of climate change and/or 

GHGs must clearly disclose the 

existence of these uncertainties and 

avoid speculative conclusions. CEQ 

guidance should, according to these 

commenters, include a clear statement 

of the uncertainties and provide 

guidance that the statement should be 

included in every NEPA document that 

analyzes climate change. 

Other commenters urge CEQ to wait 

to issue its final guidance because a 

variety of companies, trade 

organizations, small businesses, and 

individuals have recently challenged 

the EPA’s Endangerment Finding in 

Federal court, in addition to several 

other legal challenges to aspects of 

EPA’s regulation of GHGs. These 

challenges come from fifteen states, the 

Southeastern Legal Foundation, 

including sixteen Members of Congress, 

the National Association of 

Manufacturers, and many other groups. 

Some commenters believe strongly that 

CEQ should delay the issuance of its 

guidance. 

Response to Comments: 

The revised draft guidance is clear 

that agencies should use current 

scientific information and 

methodologies for assessing GHGs and 

climate effects. Agencies are reminded 

of Section 1502.22 of the CEQ 

Regulations stating that when evaluating 

reasonably foreseeable significant 

adverse effects on the human 

environment in an environmental 

impact statement, if information 

essential to a reasoned choice among 

alternatives is incomplete and the 

overall costs of obtaining that 

information are not exorbitant, then an 

agency shall obtain and include that 

information.34 If the information does 

not exist or would be too costly to 

obtain, agencies must determine 

whether the adverse effects are 

reasonably foreseeable and significant, 

consistent with section 1508.27 of the 

CEQ Regulations. Agencies will also 

need to set forth the relevant, existing, 

and credible scientific evidence. There 

is a growing body of scientific evidence 

on GHG emissions and impacts of 

climate change that agencies may 

already be able to rely on, provided they 

set forth clear reasoning for using that 

science. 

8. Concerns With Using EPA 

Methodologies 

Many of the comments on the 2010 

draft guidance were directed at the 

25,000 metric ton disclosure threshold. 

Commenters opposing the 25,000 metric 

ton threshold do not believe that this 

threshold has a sound legal or factual 

basis for the purposes to which CEQ 

proposes to apply it. EPA chose the 

threshold for use in the regulation of air 

pollutant emissions from large 

stationary sources that is required under 

the Clean Air Act; this is a program of 

limited scope, applicable to a wellmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

77818 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 

defined and small universe of sources. 

EPA chose this number based on 

administrative necessity, judging that it 

was 1) low enough to pull in the 

majority of large stationary sources of 

greenhouse gas emissions, but also 2) 

high enough to limit the number of 

sources covered that state and local air 

pollution permitting agencies could 

feasibly handle. Administrative 

necessity underlies the EPA thresholds, 

and EPA made a factual case for the 

need for this threshold, based on actual 

staffing, resources needed for permit 

processing, and financial data from state 

and local permitting agencies. CEQ, 

according to the commenters, has not 

presented any comparable data in its 

proposal that would necessitate the 

artificial, non-science-based 25,000 

metric tons per year threshold it 

proposes for its NEPA guidance. 

Without such data or other comparable 

justification, the proposal does not 

reflect a scientific judgment about 

whether a particular quantity of 

emissions will ‘‘meaningfully’’ affect the 

global climate. Similarly, several 

commenters note that the Clean Air Act 

rules and NEPA serve different ends and 

are considerably different in purpose 

and scope. NEPA requires consideration 

and disclosure of impacts to inform 

decision-making and the public, with 

the goal of implementing the nation’s 

environmental policies; the Clean Air 

Act focuses on quantitative standards 

with specific regulatory consequences. 

Therefore, these commenters believe 

that, because NEPA is focused on 

providing information needed to make 

better decisions, NEPA necessarily 

sweeps in more than just those impacts 

that would violate substantive mandates 

in other laws, and therefore, 

inappropriately uses Clean Air Act 

standards. 

Response to Comments: 

The revised draft guidance gives 

agencies the discretion to select the 

appropriate method of analysis for 

assessing the effects of GHG emissions 

and climate change, so long as the 

agency sets forth a reasoned explanation 

based on accepted science and whether 

that information is helpful to inform the 

decisionmaker and the public. The 

revised draft guidance sets forth a 

reference point of 25,000 metric tons 

CO2-equivalent emissions on an annual 

basis below which a quantitative 

analysis of GHG emissions is not 

recommended unless quantification is 

easily accomplished, taking into 

account the availability of quantification 

tools and appropriate input data. CEQ 

strongly encourages agencies to use 

their experience and expertise to 

determine when a more detailed 

analysis of GHG emissions will assist 

with analyzing the environmental 

impacts or comparing among 

alternatives and mitigations. When an 

agency determines that a quantitative 

analysis is not appropriate, an agency 

should complete a qualitative analysis 

and explain its rationale for doing so. 

9. NEPA Inefficiencies 

Many commenters assert that CEQ’s 

2010 draft guidance attempted to 

expand NEPA analyses to include the 

effects of greenhouse gas emissions. 

These commenters claim that expanding 

the scope of NEPA will only serve to 

exacerbate the delays and inefficiencies 

they currently perceive in the 

environmental review and approval 

process. Until these procedural 

inefficiencies of NEPA are addressed, 

these commenters would caution 

against expanding the reach of the 

statute. Specifically, some commenters 

thought that if a quantitative threshold 

were to be implemented, it would be 

duplicative of those that other agencies 

already use in evaluating greenhouse 

gas emissions under their statutory 

authorities and that many of the 

protocols identified in the 2010 draft 

guidance are unreasonably expensive 

and difficult to implement. Other 

commenters argue that the guidance 

would increase the time and expense of 

NEPA reviews while also increasing the 

potential for litigation because the 

guidance fails to create bright lines and 

safe harbors for the scope of NEPA 

reviews. The guidance, in their view, 

proposes uncertain and unclear 

standards for both the situations in 

which NEPA reviews should be 

conducted on the basis of climate 

impacts and the scope of climate 

impacts to be assessed in the NEPA 

reviews. For instance, they point to the 

statement in the 2010 draft guidance 

that the Federal agency’s analysis 

should ‘‘qualitatively discuss the link 

between [the project’s] greenhouse gas 

emissions and climate change.’’ The 

guidance, according to commenters, 

however, provides no examples of what 

this qualitative analysis should involve, 

even as the CEQ acknowledges the 

difficulty in understanding the link 

between an individual facility’s 

emissions and specific climatological 

changes. Similarly, other commenters 

said that despite its legislative history 

and judicial precedent, NEPA has been 

increasingly abused forcing Federal 

agencies to spend time and scarce 

resources defending lawsuits. They 

claim the NEPA guidance issued by 

CEQ will only exacerbate this situation, 

as agencies are ill equipped to address 

GHG and climate change issues. 

According to these commenters, real 

data on climate change is questionable. 

Moreover, the elements that contribute 

to greenhouse gas emissions are so 

integrated into our markets that 

consideration of all of them as part of 

the NEPA review could have 

devastating consequences for every 

aspect of our economy. The result will, 

according to commenters, be longer 

permitting lines, higher project costs, 

and more litigation. At a time when jobs 

are scarce and the economy vulnerable, 

these commenters are concerned that 

the government is creating new barriers 

to economic development. These 

commenters urge CEQ to reconsider this 

guidance and work with stakeholders in 

making necessary reforms to NEPA. 

Reforms such as eliminating delays in 

the permitting process, allowing for 

greater public participation and stronger 

involvement by stakeholders, 

eliminating excessive litigation, and 

facilitating better Federal coordination 

they claim will go a long way to 

reestablishing the appropriate balance 

between economic development and 

environmental preservation. 

Other commenters want CEQ to adopt 

an effective date for the guidance. The 

commenters noted that the 2010 draft 

guidance states: ‘‘CEQ does not intend 

this guidance to become effective until 

its issuance in final form.’’ However, 

they argue that the 2010 draft guidance 

does not address how the guidance in 

final form is to be applied and whether 

CEQ intends to adopt an effective date. 

Although they understand that CEQ 

believes that this guidance merely 

clarifies what NEPA documents should 

already include, they say that the 

guidance explains, for the first time, 

how agencies are to conduct the 

analysis for effects of greenhouse gas 

emissions and climate change. Without 

a clear effective date, draft documents 

will be subject to uncertainty, litigation, 

and delay, even if they include an 

analysis of climate change impacts. 

Because the guidance has the potential 

to cause unnecessary uncertainty, delay, 

and costs to projects that are well 

underway, commenters believe that it is 

critical that CEQ adopt an effective date 

and clarify that the final guidance only 

applies to draft NEPA documents issued 

after the effective date. 

Response to Comments: 

The revised draft guidance will be 

effective immediately once finalized for 

newly proposed actions and is designed 

to help Federal agencies develop their 

analyses of GHG emissions and climate 

change to ensure they are useful. By 

providing a clearer explanation of what 

should be disclosed and considered 

regarding GHG emissions and climate 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 77819 

change, this guidance should lessen 

litigation driven by uncertainty. Finally, 

this revised draft guidance does not 

suggest that agencies retrospectively 

prepare an analysis for decisions 

already made or projects that are 

underway. 

10. Mitigation, Alternatives, and 

Miscellaneous Comments 

a. Mitigation 

i. Types of Mitigation 

Several commenters were concerned 

that the 2010 draft guidance only briefly 

addresses the need for agencies to 

consider mitigation measures and 

reasonable alternatives to reduce actionrelated greenhouse gas emissions. CEQ 

was encouraged to significantly 

strengthen this section. The guidance 

should concentrate more on ensuring 

that useful information is provided to 

decisionmakers regarding alternatives 

and mitigation measures for actions 

with significant greenhouse gases, 

according to these commenters. Many 

commenters also expressed that the 

guidance should focus more attention 

on mitigation than on assessment. 

Commenters would also like more 

discussion of the need to analyze 

mitigation measures. CEQ should 

accordingly provide Federal agencies 

with resources on measures to mitigate 

greenhouse gases. Multiple commenters 

suggested that if CEQ were to provide 

and update a list of mitigation measures, 

the process would be easier for 

individual agencies to implement. CEQ 

was encouraged to assist in developing 

categories of measures that would allow 

agencies to consider alternatives. Some 

mitigation measures, commenters noted, 

particularly offsite mitigation, can be 

implemented for projects regardless of 

project type (California, Massachusetts, 

and New York already do this for their 

State NEPA-like programs). The 

commenters urged CEQ to therefore 

provide a list of both onsite and offsite 

mitigation measures in categories such 

as building design and construction and 

mobile source emissions. One 

commenter stated that explicit guidance 

will be needed regarding which 

greenhouse gas emissions associated 

with energy use (referenced on the 

second paragraph on page 5) should be 

included in the analysis and as potential 

mitigation. Alternatively, CEQ should 

consider directing other Federal 

agencies to take a more direct role in 

providing technical expertise and 

guidance for the development of 

mitigation alternatives, another 

commenter suggested. Finally, one 

commenter proposed that NEPA lead 

agencies should consider not only their 

own authority or control, but also 

consequences of actions under the 

authority of other governmental units 

that are or could be influenced by 

information from the Federal agency. In 

this regard, identification of mitigation 

that could be considered by other 

regulatory authorities would also be 

useful. 

Other commenters assert that CEQ 

should remind agencies of key points in 

the NEPA process that specifically relate 

to the identification of alternatives and 

mitigation measures that reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions and related 

effects. One example given was that 

agencies should perhaps identify 

greenhouse gas mitigation opportunities 

during scoping or as a part of the 

comparison of energy use between 

alternatives under 40 CFR 1502.16(e). 

ii. Discretionary vs. Mandatory 

Mitigation 

Although the 2010 draft guidance 

proposes that mitigation and reasonable 

alternatives be considered to reduce 

action-related greenhouse gas emissions, 

some commenters believe that CEQ 

should explicitly acknowledge that 

adoption of mitigation measures 

considered under NEPA are not per se 

required, and should not be required 

under the NEPA statute. Some of these 

commenters argue that it may not even 

be possible to mitigate GHGs for 

projects. One commenter interpreted the 

language in the guidance to mean that 

agencies should consider, but are not 

required to implement, mitigation 

measures. This commenter suggests that 

it may be appropriate for CEQ to 

encourage the implementation of 

measures to mitigate greenhouse gas 

impacts resulting from a project when 

cost-effective and fitting to the nature of 

the project. 

Conversely, other commenters 

advocate mandatory consideration of 

mitigation, reasoning that a NEPA 

process requirement that enforces a 

mandatory consideration of greenhouse 

gas emissions would establish an 

enforceable obligation on agencies to 

properly evaluate methods to mitigate 

greenhouse gas emissions. One 

commenter requests that CEQ clarify 

that agencies should or must consider 

the direct effects of greenhouse gas 

emissions by ‘‘(1) quantify[ing] 

cumulative emissions . . . (2) 

discuss[ing] measures to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions . . . and (3) 

qualitatively discuss[ing] the link 

between such greenhouse gas emissions 

and climate change (rather than stating 

that ‘‘it would be appropriate’’ to engage 

in such analysis).’’ Overall, there was 

confusion among the many commenters 

on discretionary versus mandatory 

mitigation, and commenters urged CEQ 

to clarify this subject in the final 

guidance. 

iii. Carbon Offsets 

Commenters interpreted the 2010 

draft guidance to infer, but not 

explicitly identify, carbon offsets as a 

potential option available to Federal 

agencies to mitigate GHG emissions. 

Purchasing and subsequently retiring 

carbon offsets from third-party verified 

projects is an established method for 

mitigating GHG emissions, commenters 

reason. They envision that carbon offset 

programs could be integrated into 

mitigation plans developed through the 

NEPA process to compensate for GHG 

emissions associated with Federal 

agency actions. Including specific 

reference to carbon offsets in the 

language of the memorandum, 

according to these commenters, would 

help to provide clarification to agencies 

evaluating possible mitigation 

alternatives as part of their NEPA 

analysis requirements. 

Other commenters took a more 

cautious approach to mitigation through 

carbon offsets. If carbon offsets are 

allowed for GHG emissions mitigation 

under NEPA, commenters state that 

CEQ should provide additional 

guidance on the criteria they must meet 

in order to uphold standards for quality. 

Strict monitoring and public reporting 

requirements required by carbon offset 

projects would ensure that Federal 

greenhouse gas mitigation activities are 

readily quantifiable and transparent to 

the public. Although the comments 

express the possibility that offsets could 

be external to a Federal agency project, 

the location of the offset would be 

important. One comment suggests that 

the NEPA process require that carbon 

offsets be achieved only in local 

markets. For offsets on tribal lands, the 

offset project should support new or 

established tribal programs. Another 

comment recommends against using 

offsets in place of reductions at the 

source as a major component of public 

policy. Similarly, regarding offsite 

mitigation generally, another 

commenter requested CEQ to encourage 

agencies to prioritize onsite mitigation 

measures that avoid or minimize 

emissions, while allowing agencies to 

use offsite measures where onsite 

mitigation is not available. 

iv. Other 

Commenters directed CEQ to review 

the approaches taken by proactive states 

and nations on mitigation and 

alternatives before completing the final 

guidance. Another commenter 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

77820 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 

35See 40 CFR 1502.14(a), (d). 36 Id. 

expressed concerns for funding 

availability for mitigation, stating that 

beyond operational and maintenance 

improvements, current and foreseeable 

funding levels may curtail greenhouse 

gas mitigation options, as well as the 

ability to meaningfully reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions to target 

levels. Some commenters believe the 

guidance should recognize that the 

effectiveness of many mitigation 

measures is still difficult to quantify, 

and that a qualitative discussion would 

be appropriate where analytical tools 

are not yet sufficient to estimate reliably 

greenhouse gas reductions from 

mitigation measures. 

Response to Comments: 

The revised draft guidance advises 

agencies to consider mitigation 

measures and reasonable alternatives 

that reduce GHG emissions. By statutes, 

Executive Orders, and agency policies, 

the Federal Government is committed to 

the goals of energy conservation, 

reducing energy use, eliminating or 

reducing GHG emissions, and 

promoting the deployment of renewable 

energy technologies that are cleaner and 

more efficient. Agencies whose actions 

implicate these goals should consider 

useful and relevant GHG emissions 

information when deciding among 

alternatives. Reasonable alternatives 

that may be considered for their ability 

to reduce or mitigate GHG emissions 

include enhanced energy efficiency, 

lower GHG-emitting technology, 

increasing the use of renewable energy, 

planning for carbon capture and carbon 

sequestration, sustainable land 

management practices, and capturing or 

beneficially using fugitive methane 

emissions. In cases where mitigation 

measures are designed to address the 

effect of climate change, the agency’s 

final decision should identify those 

mitigation measures and the agency 

should consider adopting an 

appropriate mitigation monitoring 

program. 

b. Alternatives 

Many commenters stated that CEQ 

should provide better guidance on how 

Federal agencies must, relative to 

climate change, ‘‘[r]igorously explore 

and objectively evaluate all reasonable 

alternatives’’ and specifically ‘‘[i]nclude 

the alternative of no action.’’ 35 This 

duty is critical, according to 

commenters; operating in concert with 

NEPA’s mandate to address 

environmental impacts, an agency’s 

fidelity to alternatives analysis allows 

agencies to ‘‘sharply define the issues 

and provide a clear basis for choice 

among options by the decisionmaker 

and the public.’’ 36 The commenters 

stated that CEQ should remind Federal 

agencies that they are obligated under 

NEPA to identify, disclose, and analyze 

the effects of alternatives on climate 

change, and identify alternatives/

mitigation that would lessen or 

eliminate those effects. 

Some commenters also request that 

CEQ clarify that the alternatives 

identified are merely suggestions for 

alternatives to GHG-emitting actions 

that may be considered if they are 

reasonable in light of the purpose of the 

action and other technical and 

economic factors. Furthermore, CEQ 

should acknowledge that Federal 

agencies may evaluate these suggested 

alternatives as part of a ‘‘no action’’ 

alternative. CEQ should also clarify, 

according to these commenters, that the 

reasonably foreseeable future condition 

of the affected environment (discussed 

on the third paragraph of page 7) should 

be discussed in the no action 

alternative. One commenter opined that 

the language in the third paragraph of 

page 9 (‘‘all possible approaches to a 

particular project which would alter the 

environmental impact and the costbenefit balance’’) is too strong, and that 

the alternatives considered do not have 

to be exhaustive. The commenter wrote 

that NEPA requires only the 

consideration of reasonable alternatives, 

not all alternatives. A commenter raised 

the concern that if an action creates 

beneficial effects such that a 

quantifiable benefit toward reducing 

GHGs is produced, this could 

conceivably make the no action 

alternative (continuing not to offset 

carbon-based generation) have a 

significant negative comparative effect. 

Since NEPA should help Federal 

agencies understand options that no one 

officer or official is likely to know 

offhand, some commenters 

recommended that a list or category of 

alternative measures, mitigation 

measures, or even legal duties and other 

reasons for choosing the no action 

alternative should be developed under 

CEQ’s convening authority for this 

guidance and its agency-specific 

progeny. Commenters urge that with 

every decision, Federal agencies should 

address: (1) Whether direct GHG 

emissions can be reduced; (2) whether 

indirect or cumulative greenhouse gas 

emissions can be reduced via, e.g., 

improved efficiency of operations; (3) 

whether an agency can take action 

which protects and restores the 

resiliency of the environment to provide 

a means of best withstanding climate 

change impacts; and (4) whether the 

reality of climate change warrants a very 

different management focus for the 

agency, or, at the least, warrants a 

decision not to take a particular action. 

Before recommending an alternative, the 

Federal action agency should, according 

to these commenters, clearly identify 

the likely effects its decision will have 

on net production of GHG emissions. 

Another commenter encourages CEQ to 

require agencies to explain the reasons 

for rejecting alternatives that would 

produce fewer GHG emissions. One 

commenter recommended that CEQ 

should enumerate the indicators an 

agency should use when the agency 

determines it will quantify GHG 

emissions. Specifically, if the agency 

identifies alternatives with significantly 

lower GHG emission potential, 

including the ‘‘no action’’ alternative, 

then all alternatives should be an 

indicator that the agency and the public 

may benefit from a quantification of 

GHG emissions. Some argue that CEQ 

should avoid any policy that would 

allow qualitative consideration of GHG 

emissions where there are more than de 

minimis differences in GHG emissions 

between alternatives. 

Other commenters propose that 

agencies should be directed to look at 

the relative percentage of improvements 

an alternative could produce compared 

to the baseline carbon performance. To 

accurately identify alternatives that will 

best mitigate climate change effects, 

agencies should set an accurate baseline 

that will allow for a fact-based 

comparison of alternatives’ effects and 

the value of mitigation. CEQ guidance 

should then, according to these 

commenters, specifically require that 

the ‘‘no action’’ alternative analysis 

project and evaluate climate change 

impacts on resources over time and 

evaluate the effects of the proposed 

action, as well as the efficacy of 

mitigation measures, against that 

changing baseline. A commenter notes 

that the relative percentage of 

greenhouse gas emissions reductions an 

alternative could produce could be 

compared to the baseline carbon 

performance regardless of absolute 

magnitude of emissions. 

Response to Comments: 

Consideration of a range of reasonable 

alternatives is fundamental to the NEPA 

process, and is meant to ensure that 

agencies have the opportunity to make 

the best informed, and potentially most 

beneficial, decision. NEPA currently 

provides agencies with the ability to 

consider appropriate project alternatives 

and their impacts, including the 

consideration of GHG emissions and 

climate change impacts. The revised 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 77821 

draft guidance preserves agency 

discretion in scoping, analyzing, and 

considering alternatives in NEPA review 

and the tradeoff considerations 

involved, including changes in 

emissions, based on the differing effects 

of those alternatives. If a comparison of 

alternatives based on GHG emissions, 

and any potential mitigation measures 

to reduce emissions, would be useful to 

advance a reasoned choice among 

alternatives and mitigations, then an 

agency should compare the levels of 

GHG emissions caused by each 

alternative—including the no-action 

alternative—and mitigations to provide 

information to the public and 

decisionmaker. 

c. Miscellaneous Comments 

i. The Definition of a Greenhouse Gas 

Commenters requested that the 

definition of GHGs be altered. Multiple 

commenters requested that an allencompassing definition of climate 

forcing agents or precursor emissions be 

added to the guidance, including but 

not limited to black carbon, not just the 

six GHGs defined in Executive Order 

13514. Some commenters recommended 

that the GHG definition should be 

expanded such that Federal agencies 

evaluate all GHGs and precursor 

emissions associated with the wide 

range of activities undertaken or 

authorized by the Federal government, 

including but not limited to 

construction, electricity use, fossil fuel 

use, downstream combustion of fossil 

fuels extracted or refined by the project, 

water consumption, water pollution, 

waste disposal, transportation, the 

manufacture of building materials, land 

conversion, agriculture, logging and 

other forestry practices, and livestock 

grazing. Another commenter stated that 

the CEQ guidance should make clear 

that at least the six GHGs are covered by 

NEPA, but to leave open the possibility 

that additional GHGs may need to be 

addressed in the future, depending on 

the action and current state of scientific 

knowledge. One commenter advised 

that the CEQ guidance should be revised 

to recognize that the six GHGs vary in 

importance depending on the project 

type and agency activity and to clarify 

that not all six of the GHGs need to be 

analyzed for all projects. 

Response to Comments: 

This revised draft guidance includes a 

definition of GHGs in accordance with 

Section 19(i) of Executive Order 13514 

(i.e., carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous 

oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, 

perfluorocarbons, and sulfur 

hexafluoride). The guidance does not 

preclude consideration of additional 

gases or particulates, or the reduction of 

particular emissions such as methane, if 

that information would be useful to the 

decisionmaker and the public in 

considering and advancing a reasoned 

choice among alternatives and 

mitigations. 

ii. Environmental Justice/Vulnerable 

Communities & Ecosystems 

Some commenters emphasized that 

specific environmental justice guidance 

in the context of climate change is 

warranted. These commenters believe 

that the agency consideration of climate 

change impacts on vulnerable 

communities should be required, rather 

than advisory. Other commenters assert 

that Federal agencies responsible for 

making resource decisions on or near 

tribal lands should have explicit 

guidance regarding how to weigh the 

impacts of their decisions on indigenous 

cultural and spiritual ‘‘resources’’ in the 

context of an environment changing due 

to climate change. Another commenter 

reminded CEQ of its responsibilities to 

consult with Native American tribes, 

and responsibilities under Executive 

Order 12898, which established ‘‘the 

Environmental Justice Doctrine.’’ One 

commenter claims that ‘‘vulnerability’’ 

is a vaguely defined term and 

explanations of the statutory authorities 

that justify regulations remain 

unexplained; thereby making 

consideration of impacts on so-called 

vulnerable species and ecosystems 

suspect. 

Response to Comments: 

The revised draft guidance advises 

agencies to consider the particular 

impacts of climate change on vulnerable 

communities where this may affect the 

design of the action or the selection 

among alternatives and mitigations. 

Tribal and Alaska Native communities 

that maintain their close relationship 

with the cycles of nature have observed 

the changes that are already underway, 

including the melting of permafrost in 

Alaska, disappearance of important 

species of trees, shifting migration 

patterns of elk and fish, and the drying 

of lakes and rivers. These climate 

impacts affect the survival of these 

groups and their members in terms of 

both their livelihood and their culture. 

Consequently, agencies should be 

cognizant of the evolving policies and 

information relevant to such changes 

when those changes are important to the 

alternatives and mitigation 

determinations at hand. 

iii. Transportation Concerns 

Transportation agency commenters 

expressed the possible difficulties that 

might occur in the application of the 

guidance. Quantifying cumulative 

emissions over the life of alternatives for 

highway projects may prove difficult for 

projects that are based on a 20-year 

traffic analysis, according to 

commenters. Some commenters stated 

that because the majority of 

transportation projects do not increase 

vehicle miles traveled, they do not 

generate increased GHG emissions. 

Conversely, other commenters strongly 

contend that projects with major sources 

of indirect emissions—most notably 

electricity consumption and vehicle 

miles traveled—should be included in 

the guidance. Analyzing most 

individual transportation projects will 

thus result in the expenditure of scarce 

transportation funds with no benefit 

realized, according to commenters. 

Additionally, a commenter added that it 

is likely that the bulk of text in a NEPA 

document would actually be explaining 

the assumptions and uncertainties 

involved in the analysis, rather than the 

analysis itself. Therefore, the 

commenter questioned whether results 

would provide meaningful information 

that is reliable enough to inform a 

decision between alternatives for a 

specific project. Another comment 

stated that because of large categorically 

excluded actions, simply having to 

determine whether the projects exceed 

the threshold in the guidance may 

significantly delay project delivery 

while offering little program benefit, 

and would be inconsistent with the 

approach to categorical exclusions. 

One transportation commenter 

reported that many transportation 

agencies currently estimate CO2, 

methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), 

and that forcing these agencies to 

estimate the additional three GHGs 

would pose a burden with little 

additional value. Transportation project 

analysts, according to these comments, 

will be required to adapt or develop 

methods to apply the guidance. This 

commenter also noted that none of the 

methods of assessing GHG emissions 

described in the 2010 draft guidance 

appear to be applicable to transportation 

projects. Multiple transportation 

commenters recommend that, as an 

alternative, CEQ provide additional 

guidance for transportation sources in 

the final guidance. One comment also 

requested additional instruction and 

collaboration with Federal agencies on 

particular projects and on agency 

implementation procedures. 

Response to Comments: 

The revised draft guidance states that 

agencies must consider direct, indirect, 

and cumulative effects when analyzing 

major Federal actions, regardless of the 

sector—such as transportation— 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

77822 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 

proposing the action under 

consideration. Agencies addressing 

transportation-related actions should, in 

accordance with the proposed guidance, 

develop the scope of a particular NEPA 

analysis using NEPA’s ‘‘rule of reason’’ 

which allows the analysis to be tailored 

to the specific proposal to take into 

account any particular characteristics of 

the sector involved, and ensures that the 

level of effort expended in analyzing 

GHG emissions or climate change effects 

is reasonably proportionate to the 

importance of climate change related 

considerations to the agency action 

under evaluation. Agencies also have 

the ability to draw from their experience 

and expertise to determine which 

planning level—the broad programmatic 

level or the project- or site-specific 

level—is better suited for addressing 

GHG emissions and climate change 

impacts. Furthermore, agencies have the 

discretion to perform quantitative or 

qualitative analyses, whichever is more 

appropriate, as long as they document 

the rationale behind choosing one form 

of analysis over the other. 

iv. Carbon Sinks 

Some commenters indicated that 

guidance for comprehensive 

consideration of climate change impacts 

under NEPA should include an analysis 

of both GHG emissions and any changes 

to the environmental capacity to 

mitigate additional emissions (e.g., 

estimated inventory of losses and gains 

to local carbon sequestration capacity), 

as this would likely inform the analysis 

of the cumulative impacts of a proposed 

action and its alternatives. Commenters 

suggested that CEQ direct agencies to 

analyze and disclose any emissions, 

degradation, or reduction of 

sequestration or carbon sinks regardless 

of the level of emissions or loss of 

sequestration. Commenters stated that 

agencies must document the steps they 

plan to take to avoid, minimize or 

mitigate greenhouse gas emissions or 

damage to carbon sinks. Where the 2010 

draft guidance discusses Federal 

policies relevant to determining when to 

evaluate greenhouse gas emissions 

(pages 3–4), and the factors that 

agencies should consider as part of their 

greenhouse gas evaluation (pages 4–6), 

these commenters propose that the 

project agency should also be expected 

to consider local, regional, and 

statewide plans to control greenhouse 

gas emissions and related planning 

documents that describe or evaluate 

sources and carbon sinks that could 

contribute to the cumulative effect of 

the project (consistent with CEQ’s 

existing regulations for evaluating the 

environmental consequences of an 

agency’s action in light of existing land 

use plans, policies, and controls, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 1502.16(c)). 

Response to Comments: 

The revised draft guidance reiterates 

that agencies should consider the direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects of GHG 

emissions potentially resulting from 

their proposed actions, as is required for 

any other environmental stressor under 

NEPA. It also states that agencies should 

take into account the expected effects of 

GHG emissions resulting from all phases 

and components over the life of a 

project, including short- and long-term 

adverse and beneficial effects. The 

guidance specifically recognizes that 

land and resource management actions 

are unique since they can produce 

carbon emissions and contribute to 

carbon sequestration. Agencies should 

thus analyze the net GHG emissions and 

climate change effects in light of the 

quantity of emissions and carbon 

sequestration potential, and any other 

factors particular to a proposed land and 

resource management action that would 

inform the decision-making process and 

aid in distinguishing between 

reasonable alternatives and potential 

mitigation measures. Agencies have the 

discretion to determine the type 

(quantitative or qualitative) and level 

(broad programmatic or project- or sitespecific) of analysis that is more 

appropriate, and the analysis should be 

proportional to the amount of GHG 

emissions projected. In addition, 

agencies are encouraged to frame their 

analyses of the effects of GHG emissions 

and climate change within the context 

of agency, state, and local emissions 

reduction goals if it provides useful 

information to the decisionmaker and 

the public. Lastly, agencies should 

incorporate by reference any 

management plans, inventories, 

assessments, and research related to 

potential changes in carbon stocks. 

v. Energy 

A commenter requests that CEQ 

clarify which kinds of Federal projects 

‘‘implicate’’ the goals of energy 

conservation, reducing energy use, 

eliminating or reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions, and promoting renewable 

energy technology. CEQ should provide, 

according to a commenter, guidance 

regarding analysis of the efficiency and 

propriety of the different types of energy 

projects by conducting evaluations of 

Energy Return on Energy Invested 

(‘‘EROEI’’). Another commenter offered 

that while in many cases the adoption 

of low emissions technologies can 

augment the power consumption needs 

and partially reduce the greenhouse gas 

emissions component, the need for 

constant reliable large base load energy 

supply may make total reliance on low 

emitting technologies infeasible at the 

present time. Additionally, another 

commenter suggested that while an 

agency may spend time determining the 

emissions from a gas or oil development 

project on Federal lands, and may even 

decide against continued authorization 

of the project if the projected impact on 

climate change is deemed too great, in 

the absence of that domestic 

development the energy will simply be 

replaced by energy from another part of 

the country or overseas, resulting in the 

same net effect. Ultimately, the net 

effect of restricting domestic oil and gas 

extraction and production may actually 

be increased global greenhouse gases. 

Comments suggest that Federal 

agencies should engage their long-range 

energy and resource management 

programs with four goals in mind, 

consistent with NEPA’s purpose and 

goals: (1) Reducing if not eliminating 

greenhouse gas emissions, taking 

advantage of opportunities to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions sources and 

use greenhouse gas emissions sinks; (2) 

assisting our transition from dirty fossil 

fuels to the responsible and efficient use 

of renewable energy; (3) addressing the 

efficiency and full life-cycle impacts of 

energy-related projects by, for example, 

evaluating and improving upon EROEI; 

and (4) protecting and restoring the 

resiliency of our communities and 

environment to best withstand climate 

change impacts. 

Several commenters requested that 

CEQ should establish exemptions or 

‘‘pre-clear’’ certain actions from any 

disclosure threshold, in an effort to 

advance energy goals. Major Federal 

actions that stem from exceptional 

Federal assistance (e.g., stimulus 

funding) and major Federal actions that 

sequester greenhouse gas emissions 

and/or improve energy efficiency and/or 

meet Federal or state performance 

criteria were proposed for exemption. A 

commenter asks CEQ to distinguish 

between fossil-fuel based and other 

anthropogenic emissions of CO2 versus 

renewable or biogenic emissions of CO2. 

Another commenter requests CEQ to 

advise lead agencies that biogenic CO2

emissions exert no net adverse impact 

on the environment. Several 

commenters urge CEQ to discuss 

hydropower as a positive force in 

offsetting carbon emissions and a major 

component of carbon avoidance in 

producing electricity. 

Response to Comments: 

The revised draft guidance notes that 

NEPA requires Federal agencies to 

recognize the global character of 

environmental problems and lend 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 77823 

37Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Comm., Inc. v. US 

Atomic Energy Comm’n, 449 F.2d 1109, 1119 (D.C. 

Cir. 1971). 

1For purposes of this guidance, CEQ defines 

GHGs in accordance with Section 19(i) of Executive 

Order 13514 (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous 

oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and 

sulfur hexafluoride). Also for purposes of this 

guidance, ‘‘emissions’’ includes release of stored 

GHGs as a result of destruction of natural GHG 

sinks such as forests and coastal wetlands, as well 

as future sequestration capability. The common unit 

of measurement for GHGs is metric tons of CO2

equivalent (mt CO2-e). ‘‘Tons’’ in this guidance 

generally refers to mt CO2-e. 

2The CEQ 2010 draft guidance had carved out the 

question of how land and resource management 

actions should be considered in NEPA reviews. 

That distinction is no longer retained. 

3 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 40 CFR parts 1500–1508. 

4This guidance is not a rule or regulation, and the 

recommendations it contains may not apply to a 

particular situation based upon the individual facts 

and circumstances. This guidance does not change 

or substitute for any law, regulation, or other legally 

binding requirement, and is not legally enforceable. 

The use of non-mandatory language such as 

‘‘guidance,’’ ‘‘recommend,’’ ‘‘may,’’ ‘‘should,’’ and 

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

recommendations. The use of mandatory 

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

intended to describe controlling requirements 

under the terms of NEPA and the CEQ regulations, 

but this document does not establish legally 

binding requirements in and of itself. 

5NEPA recognizes ‘‘the profound impact of man’s 

activity on the interrelations of all components of 

the natural environment.’’ (42 U.S.C. 4331). It was 

enacted to, inter alia, ‘‘promote efforts which will 

prevent or eliminate damage to the environment 

and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare 

of man.’’ (42 U.S.C. 4321). 

6The term ‘‘NEPA review’’ is used to include 

analysis, process, and documentation. While this 

document focuses on NEPA reviews, agencies are 

encouraged to analyze greenhouse gas emissions 

early in the planning and development of proposed 

projects. 

support to initiatives, resolutions, and 

programs designed to address those 

problems. In addition, by statutes, 

Executive Orders, and agency policies, 

the Federal government is committed to 

the goals of energy conservation, 

reducing energy use, eliminating or 

reducing GHG emissions, and 

promoting the deployment of renewable 

energy technologies that are cleaner and 

more efficient. Where a proposal for 

Federal agency action implicates such 

goals, information on GHG emissions 

(qualitative or quantitative) that is 

useful and relevant to the decision 

should be used when deciding among 

alternatives and mitigations. The 

agency’s ‘‘responsibility is not simply to 

sit back, like an umpire, and resolve 

adversary contentions . . . Rather, it 

must itself take the initiative of 

considering environmental values at 

every distinctive and comprehensive 

stage of the process beyond the staff’s 

evaluation and recommendation.’’ 37

Regarding the establishment of a de 

minimis threshold, the revised draft 

guidance sets forth a reference point of 

25,000 metric tons CO2-equivalent 

emissions on an annual basis below 

which a quantitative analysis of GHG 

emissions is not warranted unless 

quantification below that reference 

point is easily accomplished taking into 

account the availability of quantification 

tools and appropriate input data. CEQ 

strongly encourages agencies to use 

their experience and expertise to 

determine when a more detailed 

analysis of GHG emissions will assist 

with analyzing the environmental 

impacts or comparing among 

alternatives and mitigations. When an 

agency determines that a quantitative 

analysis is not appropriate, an agency 

should complete a qualitative analysis 

and explain its basis for doing so. 

Finally, the revised draft guidance 

specifically provides special 

considerations for biogenic sources of 

GHG emissions from land management 

actions and instructs agencies on how to 

account for GHG emissions, carbon 

sequestration potential, and the change 

in carbon stocks that are relevant to 

decision-making in light of the actions 

proposed and the timeframes under 

consideration. It also recognizes that 

such analyses may be more 

appropriately conducted on a broad 

programmatic or landscape-scale level 

that could be tiered to when performing 

project-specific analyses. 

The Revised Draft Guidance 

CEQ issues the following Revised 

Draft Guidance for Federal Departments 

and Agencies on Consideration of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the 

Effects of Climate Change in NEPA 

Reviews. The guidance is provided here 

and is available on the CEQ Web site at 

www.whitehouse.gov/administration/

eop/ceq/initiatives/nepa. 

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

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

1506, 1507, and 1508) 

Dated: December 18, 2014. 

Brenda Mallory, 

General Counsel, Council on Environmental 

Quality. 

The Guidance 

I. Introduction 

The Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) issues this guidance to 

provide Federal agencies direction on 

when and how to consider the effects of 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 1 and 

climate change in their evaluation of all 

proposed Federal actions 2 in 

accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

the CEQ Regulations Implementing the 

Procedural Provisions of NEPA (CEQ 

Regulations).3 The guidance will 

facilitate compliance with existing legal 

requirements under NEPA, thereby 

improving the efficiency and 

consistency of reviews of proposed 

Federal actions for agencies, 

decisionmakers, project proponents, and 

the interested public.4 This guidance is 

designed to encourage consistency in 

the approach Federal agencies employ 

when assessing their proposed actions, 

while also recognizing and 

accommodating a particular agency’s 

unique circumstances. 

Overall, this guidance is designed to 

provide for better and more informed 

Federal decisions regarding GHG 

emissions and effects of climate change 

consistent with existing NEPA 

principles. Climate change is a 

particularly complex challenge given its 

global nature and inherent 

interrelationships among its sources, 

causation, mechanisms of action, and 

impacts; however, analyzing the 

proposed action’s climate impacts and 

the effects of climate change relevant to 

the proposed action’s environmental 

outcomes can provide useful 

information to decisionmakers and the 

public and should be very similar to 

considering the impacts of other 

environmental stressors under NEPA. 

Climate change is a fundamental 

environmental issue, and the relation of 

Federal actions to it falls squarely 

within NEPA’s focus.5 Focused and 

effective consideration of climate 

change in NEPA reviews 6 will allow 

agencies to improve the quality of their 

decisions. Environmental outcomes will 

be improved by identifying important 

interactions between a changing climate 

and the environmental impacts from a 

proposed action, and can contribute to 

safeguarding Federal infrastructure 

against the effects of extreme weather 

events and other climate related 

impacts. 

Agencies meet their NEPA 

responsibilities using a Categorical 

Exclusion (CE), Environmental 

Assessment (EA), or Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS). This guidance 

will help Federal agencies ensure their 

analyses of GHG emissions and climate 

change in an EA or an EIS are useful by 

focusing on assessing those proposed 

actions that involve emissions, or that 

have a long lifespan such that a 

changing climate may alter the 

environmental consequences associated 

with the proposed action. CEQ expects 

that agencies will continue to consider 

potential GHG emissions and climate 

impacts when applying an existing CE 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

77824 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 

7CEQ Memorandum to Heads of Federal 

Agencies, Establishing, Applying, and Revising 

Categorical Exclusions under the National 

Environmental Policy Act, November 23, 2010, 

available at https://ceq.doe.gov/ceq_regulations/

NEPA_CE_Guidance_Nov232010.pdf. 

8 40 CFR 1508.14 (‘‘Human environment’’ shall be 

interpreted comprehensively to include the natural 

and physical environment and the relationship of 

people with that environment). 

9 40 CFR 1500.1(c). 

10See e.g., Idaho Conservation League v. 

Mumma, 956 F.2d 1508, 1519 (9th Cir. 1992). 

11 40 CFR 1500.2, 1502.2. For example, providing 

a paragraph that simply asserts, without qualitative 

or quantitative assessment, that the emissions from 

a particular proposed action represent only a small 

fraction of local, national, or international 

emissions or are otherwise immaterial is not helpful 

to the decisionmaker or public. 

12Environmental Quality: The First Annual 

Report at 93. 

13See U.S. Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Earth 

Systems Research Laboratory, available at http://

www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html. 

14Public Law 101–606. For additional 

information on the Global Change Research 

Program, go to http://www.globalchange.gov. 

USGCRP coordinates and integrates the activities of 

13 Federal agencies that conduct research on 

changes in the global environment and their 

implications for society. USGCRP began as a 

Presidential initiative in 1989 and was codified in 

the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 

101–606). USGCRP-participating agencies are the 

Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, 

Energy, Interior, Health and Human Services, State, 

and Transportation; the U.S. Agency for 

International Development, the Environmental 

Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, the National Science 

Foundation, and the Smithsonian Institution. 

or when establishing a new CE.7 The 

analysis in an EA or EIS should be 

proportionate to the effects of the 

proposed action. More consistent and 

appropriately proportioned NEPA 

reviews can help agencies minimize 

controversy, thereby avoiding potential 

project delays. This guidance should 

also reduce the risk of litigation driven 

by uncertainty in the assessment 

process as it will provide a clearer 

expectation of what agencies should 

consider and disclose. 

Agencies should consider the 

following when addressing climate 

change: 

(1) The potential effects of a proposed 

action on climate change as indicated by 

its GHG emissions; and 

(2) the implications of climate change 

for the environmental effects of a 

proposed action. 

Agencies continue to have substantial 

discretion in how they tailor their NEPA 

processes to accommodate the concerns 

raised in this guidance, consistent with 

the CEQ Regulations and their 

respective implementing regulations 

and policies, so long as they provide the 

public and decisionmakers with 

explanations of the bases for their 

determinations. This approach is on par 

with the consideration of any other 

environmental effects and this guidance 

is designed to be implemented without 

requiring agencies to develop new 

NEPA implementing procedures. CEQ 

recommends that when agencies 

conduct their usual review of their 

NEPA implementing policies and 

procedures, they then make any updates 

they deem necessary or appropriate to 

facilitate their consideration of GHG 

emissions and climate change. 

This guidance also reviews the 

application of other routine and 

fundamental NEPA principles and 

practices to the analysis of GHG 

emissions and climate change. This 

guidance: 

• Discusses direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts analysis of a 

proposed action’s reasonably 

foreseeable emissions and effects; 

• Highlights the consideration of 

reasonable alternatives and points to the 

need to consider the short-term and 

long-term effects and benefits in the 

alternatives analysis and mitigation to 

lower emissions; 

• Recommends that agencies use a 

reference point to determine when GHG 

emissions warrant a quantitative 

analysis taking into account available 

GHG quantification tools and data that 

are appropriate for proposed agency 

actions; 

• Recommends that an agency select 

the appropriate level of action for NEPA 

review at which to assess the effects of 

GHG emissions and climate change, 

either at a broad programmatic or 

landscape-scale level or at a project- or 

site-specific level, and that the agency 

set forth a reasoned explanation for its 

approach; 

• Counsels agencies to use the 

information developed during the NEPA 

review to consider alternatives that are 

more resilient to the effects of a 

changing climate; and 

• Advises agencies to use existing 

information and tools when assessing 

future proposed actions, and provides 

examples of some existing sources of 

scientific information. 

Agencies should apply this guidance 

to the NEPA review of new proposed 

agency actions moving forward and, to 

the extent practicable, to build its 

concepts into on-going reviews. 

II. Background 

A. NEPA Fundamentals 

NEPA is designed to promote 

disclosure and consideration of 

potential environmental effects on the 

human environment 8 resulting from 

proposed actions, and to provide 

decisionmakers with alternatives to 

mitigate these effects. NEPA ensures 

that agencies take account of 

environmental effects as an integral part 

of the agency’s own decision-making 

process before decisions are made. It 

informs decisionmakers by ensuring 

agencies consider environmental 

consequences as they decide whether to 

proceed with a proposed action and, if 

so, how to take appropriate steps to 

eliminate or mitigate adverse effects. 

NEPA also informs the public, 

promoting transparency of and 

accountability for consideration of 

significant environmental effects. A 

better decision, rather than better—or 

even excellent—paperwork is the goal of 

such analysis.9

Inherent in NEPA and the CEQ 

Regulations is a rule of reason which 

ensures that agencies are afforded the 

discretion, based on their expertise and 

experience, to determine whether and to 

what extent to prepare an analysis based 

on the availability of information, the 

usefulness of that information to the 

decision-making process and the public, 

and the extent of the anticipated 

environmental consequences.10 It is 

essential, however, that Federal 

agencies not rely on boilerplate text to 

avoid meaningful analysis, including 

consideration of alternatives or 

mitigation.11

B. Climate Change 

The science of climate change is 

evolving, and is briefly summarized 

here to illustrate the sources of scientific 

information that are presently available 

for consideration. CEQ’s first Annual 

Report in 1970 discussed climate 

change, concluding that ‘‘[m]an may be 

changing his weather.’’ 12 At that time, 

the mean level of atmospheric carbon 

dioxide had been elevated to 325 parts 

per million (ppm). Since 1970, the 

concentration of atmospheric carbon 

dioxide has increased at a rate of about 

1.6 ppm per year (1970–2012) to 

approximately 395 ppm in 2014 (current 

globally averaged value).13

It is now well established that rising 

global atmospheric GHG emission 

concentrations are significantly affecting 

the Earth’s climate. These conclusions 

are built upon a scientific record that 

has been created with substantial 

contributions from the United States 

Global Change Research Program 

(USGCRP), formerly the Climate Change 

Science Program, which informs our 

response to climate and global change 

through coordinated Federal programs 

of research, education, communication, 

and decision support.14 Studies have 

projected the effects of increasing GHGs 

on water availability, ocean acidity, seamstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 77825 

15U.S. Global Change Research Program, Climate 

Change Impacts in the United States: The Third 

National Climate Assessment (Jerry M. Melillo, 

Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe eds.) 

(2014) [hereinafter Third National Climate 

Assessment], available at http://

nca2014.globalchange.gov; Fifth Assessment 

Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change, 2014, available at http://www.ipcc.ch/

report/ar5/index.shtml; see also 

www.globalchange.gov. 

16Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 

202(a) of the Clean Air Act, 74 FR 66496 (Dec. 15, 

2009). See also Standards of Performance for 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary 

Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, 79 FR 

1429–1519 (Jan. 8, 2014). 

17 74 FR 66497–98 (For example, ‘‘[t]he evidence 

concerning how human-induced climate change 

may alter extreme weather events also clearly 

supports a finding of endangerment, given the 

serious adverse impacts that can result from such 

events and the increase in risk, even if small, of the 

occurrence and intensity of events such as 

hurricanes and floods. Additionally, public health 

is expected to be adversely affected by an increase 

in the severity of coastal storm events due to rising 

sea levels.’’). 

18See www.globalchange.gov/climate-change/

impacts-society. 

19 40 CFR 1508.18 (Federal actions that require a 

NEPA evaluation include policies, plans, programs, 

and specific projects. They do not include bringing 

judicial or administrative civil or criminal 

enforcement actions. They also do not include 

actions over which the agency has no discretion or 

control such as ministerial actions carrying out the 

direction of Congress or funding assistance solely 

in the form of general revenue sharing with no 

Federal agency control over the subsequent use of 

the funds.). 

20 40 CFR 1502.16, 1508.9 (providing that 

environmental impact statements and 

environmental assessments must succinctly 

describe the environmental impacts on the area(s) 

to be affected or created by the alternatives under 

consideration). This guidance only addresses 

analyzing the impacts of GHG emissions and 

climate change under NEPA. 

21 40 CFR 1500.1, 1502.24 (requiring agencies to 

use high quality information and ensure the 

professional and scientific integrity of the 

discussions and analyses in environmental impact 

statements). 

22See Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 523– 

25, (2007) (‘‘Agencies, like legislatures, do not 

generally resolve massive problems in one fell 

regulatory swoop. They instead whittle away at 

them over time, refining their preferred approach as 

circumstances change and as they develop a more 

nuanced understanding of how best to proceed.’’). 

23 40 CFR 1500.1(b). 

24 40 CFR 1508.7 and 8 (stating that: (1) NEPA 

analyses shall consider direct and indirect effects 

and cumulative impacts; (2) indirect effects include 

reasonably foreseeable future actions such as 

induced growth and its effects on air and water and 

other natural systems; and (3) cumulative impacts 

consider the incremental addition to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

This NEPA requirement applies to all proposed 

actions and calls for the disclosure of the full range 

of effects that flow from the action, regardless of the 

ability to control or regulate those effects.). See also, 

52 FR 22517 (Jun. 12, 1987) (‘‘The scope of analysis 

issue addresses the extent to which the proposed 

action is identified as a federal action for purposes 

of compliance with NEPA. . . . Once the scope of 

analysis is determined, the agency must then assess 

the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the 

proposed federal action.’’). 

25 40 CFR 1508.27(a), 1508.27(b) (context is the 

situation in which something happens, and which 

gives it meaning; intensity is the severity of impact). 

26 40 CFR 1508.25 (actions are connected if they: 

Automatically trigger other actions which may 

Continued 

level rise, ecosystems, energy 

production, agriculture and food 

security, and human health.15

Based primarily on the scientific 

assessments of the USGCRP and the 

National Research Council, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

has issued a finding that the changes in 

our climate caused by increased 

concentrations of atmospheric GHG 

emissions endanger public health and 

welfare.16 Adverse health effects and 

other impacts caused by elevated 

atmospheric concentrations of GHGs 

occur via climate change.17 Broadly 

stated, the effects of climate change 

observed to date and projected to occur 

in the future include more frequent and 

intense heat waves, more severe 

wildfires, degraded air quality, more 

heavy downpours and flooding, 

increased drought, greater sea-level rise, 

more intense storms, harm to water 

resources, harm to agriculture, and harm 

to wildlife and ecosystems.18

III. Considering the Effects of Ghg 

Emissions and Climate Change 

This guidance is applicable to all 

Federal proposed actions, including 

individual Federal site-specific actions, 

Federal grants for or funding of smallscale or broad-scale activities, Federal 

rulemaking actions, and Federal land 

and resource management decisions.19

Federal agencies, to remain consistent 

with NEPA, should consider the extent 

to which a proposed action and its 

reasonable alternatives contribute to 

climate change through GHG emissions 

and take into account the ways in which 

a changing climate over the life of the 

proposed project may alter the overall 

environmental implications of such 

actions. 

A. Considering the Impacts of the 

Proposed Action 

In light of the difficulties in 

attributing specific climate impacts to 

individual projects, CEQ recommends 

agencies use the projected GHG 

emissions and also, when appropriate, 

potential changes in carbon 

sequestration and storage, as the proxy 

for assessing a proposed action’s 

potential climate change impacts.20 This 

approach allows an agency to present 

the environmental impacts of the 

proposed action in clear terms and with 

sufficient information to make a 

reasoned choice between the no-action 

and proposed alternatives and 

mitigations, and ensure the professional 

and scientific integrity of the discussion 

and analysis.21

CEQ recognizes that many agency 

NEPA analyses to date have concluded 

that GHG emissions from an individual 

agency action will have small, if any, 

potential climate change effects. 

Government action occurs 

incrementally, program-by-program and 

step-by-step, and climate impacts are 

not attributable to any single action, but 

are exacerbated by a series of smaller 

decisions, including decisions made by 

the government.22 Therefore, the 

statement that emissions from a 

government action or approval represent 

only a small fraction of global emissions 

is more a statement about the nature of 

the climate change challenge, and is not 

an appropriate basis for deciding 

whether to consider climate impacts 

under NEPA. Moreover, these 

comparisons are not an appropriate 

method for characterizing the potential 

impacts associated with a proposed 

action and its alternatives and 

mitigations. This approach does not 

reveal anything beyond the nature of the 

climate change challenge itself: The fact 

that diverse individual sources of 

emissions each make relatively small 

additions to global atmospheric GHG 

concentrations that collectively have 

huge impact. 

In addressing GHG emissions, 

agencies should be guided by the 

principle that the extent of the analysis 

should be commensurate with the 

quantity of projected GHG emissions. 

This concept of proportionality is 

grounded in the fundamental purpose of 

NEPA to concentrate on matters that are 

truly important to making a decision on 

the proposed action.23 When an agency 

determines that evaluating the effects of 

GHG emissions from a proposed Federal 

action would not be useful to the 

decision-making process and the public 

to distinguish between the no-action 

and proposed alternatives and 

mitigations, the agency should 

document the rationale for that 

determination. 

Agencies are required to consider 

direct, indirect, and cumulative effects 

when analyzing any proposed Federal 

actions and projecting their 

environmental consequences.24 When 

assessing the potential significance of 

the climate change impacts of their 

proposed actions, agencies should 

consider both context and intensity, as 

they do for all other impacts.25

When assessing direct and indirect 

climate change effects, agencies should 

take account of the proposed action— 

including ‘‘connected’’ actions 26— 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

77826 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 

require environmental impact statements; cannot or 

will not proceed unless other actions are taken 

previously or simultaneously; or are interdependent 

parts of a larger action and depend on the larger 

action for their justification). 27 40 CFR 1508.8. 28CEQ Memorandum to Heads of Federal 

Agencies, Guidance on the Consideration of Past 

Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis, June 24, 

2005, available at https://ceq.doe.gov/nepa/regs/

Guidance_on_CE.pdf. 29 40 CFR 1508.7. 30See 40 CFR 1502.16, 1508.9(b); see also 

Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act, CEQ, January 1997, 

available at https://ceq.doe.gov/publications/

cumulative_effects.html. 

31See 40 CFR 1502.16(c), 1506.2(d). For example, 

see Executive Order 13514, October 5, 2009, 74 FR 

52117, available at www.whitehouse.gov/assets/

documents/2009fedleader_eo_rel.pdf. The 

Executive Order defines scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions 

which are typically separate and distinct from 

analyses and information used in an EA or EIS. 

32 40 CFR 1500.4(b), 1500.4(g) and 1501.7. 

33 40 CFR 1502.24 (requiring agencies to ensure 

the professional and scientific integrity of the 

discussions and analyses in environmental impact 

statements). 

subject to reasonable limits based on 

feasibility and practicality. In addition, 

emissions from activities that have a 

reasonably close causal relationship to 

the Federal action, such as those that 

may occur as a predicate for the agency 

action (often referred to as upstream 

emissions) and as a consequence of the 

agency action (often referred to as 

downstream emissions) should be 

accounted for in the NEPA analysis.27

After identifying and considering the 

direct and indirect effects, an agency 

must consider the cumulative impacts 

of its proposed action and reasonable 

alternatives.28 CEQ does not expect that 

an EIS would be required based on 

cumulative impacts of GHG emissions 

alone. In the context of GHG emissions, 

there may remain a concern that an EIS 

would be required for any emissions 

because of the global significance of 

aggregated GHG emissions. ‘‘Cumulative 

impact’’ is defined in the CEQ 

Regulations as the ‘‘impact on the 

environment that 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 

other actions.’’ 29 Consequently, 

agencies need to consider whether the 

reasonably foreseeable incremental 

addition of emissions from the proposed 

action, when added to the emissions of 

other relevant actions, is significant 

when determining whether GHG 

emissions are a basis for requiring 

preparation of an EIS. 

Agencies can rely on basic NEPA 

principles to determine and explain 

reasonable temporal and spatial 

parameters of their analyses to disclose 

the reasonably foreseeable effects that 

may result from their proposed 

actions.30 For example, a particular 

NEPA analysis for a proposed open pit 

mine could include the reasonably 

foreseeable effects of various 

components of the mining process, such 

as clearing land for the extraction, 

building access roads, transporting the 

extracted resource, refining or 

processing the resource, and using the 

resource. Depending on the relationship 

between any of the discrete elements in 

the process, as well as the authority 

under which such elements may be 

carried out, the analytical scope that 

best informs decision-making may be to 

treat these elements as the direct and 

indirect effects of phases of a single 

proposed action. 

Furthermore, agencies should take 

into account both the short- and longterm effects and benefits based on what 

the agency determines is the life of a 

project and the duration of the 

generation of emissions. For example, 

development of a coal resource on 

Tribal trust lands (requiring the 

approval of a lease by the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs), or approval of solar 

energy development zones may offer 

important short-term socioeconomic 

benefits to a particular community or 

region at the same time that the 

development produces GHG emissions 

with potential long-term climate change 

impacts. Similarly, a prescribed burn of 

forest or grasslands conducted to limit 

ecosystem destruction through wildfires 

or insect infestations may result in 

short-term GHG emissions and loss of 

stored carbon at the same time that a 

restored, healthy ecosystem provides 

long-term carbon sequestration. 

It is important to recognize that land 

management practices such as 

prescribed burning, timber stand 

improvements, fuel load reductions, 

scheduled harvesting, and grazing land 

management can result in both carbon 

emissions and carbon sequestration. 

Biogenic sources of carbon emissions 

from land management activities such 

as vegetation management in the form of 

prescribed burning, timber stand 

improvements and fuel load reductions 

present some unique considerations that 

are not included in fossil fuel source 

analyses and an agency’s evaluation 

should reflect these unique 

considerations. 

For such vegetation management 

practices, NEPA analyses should 

include a comparison of net GHG 

emissions and carbon stock changes that 

would occur with and without 

implementation of the anticipated 

vegetation management practice. The 

analysis should take into account the 

GHG emissions (biogenic and fossil), 

carbon sequestration potential, and the 

net change in carbon stocks that are 

relevant in light of the proposed actions 

and time-frames under consideration. In 

some cases, analysis of climate impacts 

and GHG emissions have been 

considered during larger scale analysis 

supporting policy or programmatic 

decisions. In such cases, calculating 

GHG emissions and carbon stocks when 

implementing specific projects (e.g., a 

proposed vegetation management 

activity) may provide information of 

limited utility for decision makers and 

the public to distinguish between 

alternatives and mitigations. Rather, as 

appropriate, these NEPA analyses can 

incorporate by reference earlier 

programmatic studies or information 

such as management plans, inventories, 

assessments, and research that consider 

potential changes in carbon stocks, as 

well as any relevant programmatic 

NEPA reviews (see discussion in section 

III.C below). 

Finally, when discussing GHG 

emissions, as for all environmental 

impacts, it can be helpful to provide the 

decisionmaker and the public with a 

frame of reference. To provide a frame 

of reference, agencies can incorporate by 

reference applicable agency emissions 

targets such as applicable Federal, state, 

tribal, or local goals for GHG emission 

reductions to provide a frame of 

reference and make it clear whether the 

emissions being discussed are 

consistent with such goals.31 For 

example, Bureau of Land Management 

projects in California, especially joint 

projects with the State, look at how the 

agency action will help or hurt 

California in reaching its emission 

reduction goals under the State’s 

Assembly Bill 32 (Global Warming 

Solutions Act), which helps frame the 

context for the BLM NEPA analysis. 

B. Emissions Analyses 

Agencies should be guided by a ‘‘rule 

of reason’’ in ensuring that the level of 

effort expended in analyzing GHG 

emissions or climate change effects is 

reasonably proportionate to the 

importance of climate change related 

considerations to the agency action 

being evaluated. This concept of 

proportionality is grounded in the 

fundamental purpose of NEPA to 

concentrate on matters that are truly 

significant to the proposed action.32 An 

agency must present the environmental 

impacts of the proposed action in clear 

terms and with sufficient information to 

ensure the professional and scientific 

integrity of the discussion and 

analysis.33

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 77827 

34For example, USDA’s COMET-Farm tool can be 

used to assess the carbon sequestration of existing 

activities along with the reduction in carbon 

sequestration (emissions) of project-level activities, 

available at www.comet-farm.com. 35 40 CFR 1502.23. 

36 40 CFR 1502.21 (material may be cited if it is 

reasonably available for inspection by potentially 

interested persons within the time allowed for 

public review and comment). 

37See Technical Update of the Social Cost of 

Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis (Nov 2013), 

available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/

default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-updatesocial-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impactanalysis.pdf. 

38These land management actions differ from 

biomass production for energy production. 

39See Priority Agenda Enhancing the Climate 

Resilience of America’s Natural Resources, Council 

on Climate Change Preparedness and Resilience, at 

52 (Oct. 2014), available at http://www.whitehouse.

gov/sites/default/files/docs/enhancing_climate_

resilience_of_americas_natural_resources.pdf. 

An agency’s determination regarding 

the type of analysis—quantitative or 

qualitative—to be prepared for any 

proposed action should also be 

informed by the tools and information 

available to conduct the analysis. GHG 

estimation tools have become widely 

available, and are already in broad use 

not only in the Federal sector, but also 

in the private sector, by State and local 

governments, and globally. If tools or 

methodologies are available to provide 

the public and the decision-making 

process with information that is useful 

to distinguishing between the no-action 

and proposed alternatives and 

mitigations, then agencies should 

conduct and disclose quantitative 

estimates of GHG emissions and 

sequestration. For example, tools exist 

that can provide estimates of GHG 

emissions and sequestration for many of 

the sources and sinks potentially 

affected by proposed land and resource 

management actions.34 Tools have been 

developed to assist institutions, 

organizations, agencies, and companies 

with different levels of technical 

sophistication, data availability, and 

GHG source profiles. These widely 

available tools address GHG emissions, 

including emissions from fossil fuel 

combustion and other activities. They 

also typically provide a choice of 

methods so that agencies can, for 

example, devote more time and effort to 

large sources while achieving efficient 

coverage for smaller sources. When 

considering tool options, it is important 

to consider the size of the project, 

spatial and temporal scale, and the 

availability of input data. It is also 

important to consider the investment of 

time and resources required by each 

tool, and agencies should determine 

which tool(s) to use by ensuring that the 

level of effort is reasonably proportional 

to the importance of climate change 

related considerations. When an agency 

determines that a quantitative analysis 

is not appropriate, an agency should 

complete a qualitative analysis and 

explain its basis for doing so. 

Monetizing costs and benefits is 

appropriate in some, but not all, cases 

and is not a new requirement.35 A 

monetary cost-benefit analysis need not 

and should not be used in weighing the 

merits and drawbacks of the alternatives 

when important qualitative 

considerations are being considered. If a 

cost-benefit analysis is relevant to the 

choice among different alternatives 

being considered, it must be 

incorporated by reference 36 or 

appended to the statement as an aid in 

evaluating the environmental 

consequences. When an agency 

determines it appropriate to monetize 

costs and benefits, then, although 

developed specifically for regulatory 

impact analyses, the Federal social cost 

of carbon, which multiple Federal 

agencies have developed and used to 

assess the costs and benefits of 

alternatives in rulemakings, offers a 

harmonized, interagency metric that can 

provide decisionmakers and the public 

with some context for meaningful NEPA 

review. When using the Federal social 

cost of carbon, the agency should 

disclose the fact that these estimates 

vary over time, are associated with 

different discount rates and risks, and 

are intended to be updated as scientific 

and economic understanding 

improves.37

C. Special Considerations for Biogenic 

Sources of GHG Emissions From Land 

Management Actions 

With regard to biogenic GHG 

emissions from land management 

actions such as prescribed burning, 

timber stand improvements, fuel load 

reductions, scheduled harvesting, and 

livestock grazing,38 it is important to 

recognize that these actions contribute 

both carbon emissions and carbon 

sequestration to the global carbon cycle. 

For example, using prescribed fire to 

maintain natural ecosystem resilience is 

a human-caused influence on a natural 

system that both emits GHGs and results 

in enhanced regrowth and biological 

sequestration. Notably, the net effect of 

these agency actions resulting in 

biogenic emissions may lead to 

reductions of GHG concentrations 

through increases in carbon stocks or 

reduced risks of future emissions. In the 

forest management context, for example, 

whether a forest practice is a net carbon 

sink or source will depend on the 

climate region (i.e., growth), the rotation 

length (e.g., southern pine versus old 

growth), and the human activity (e.g., 

salvage logging, wood products, 

bioenergy, etc.). 

Federal land management agencies 

are developing agency-specific 

principles and guidance for considering 

biological carbon in management and 

planning decisions.39 This guidance 

acknowledges the importance of: 

Sustaining long-term ecosystem 

function and resilience even when this 

goal may lead to short-term impacts 

from carbon dioxide emissions; 

considering carbon within the context of 

other management objectives and 

ecosystem service goals; and integrating 

carbon considerations as part of a 

balanced and comprehensive program of 

sustainable management and climate 

change adaptation. 

In addressing biogenic GHG 

emissions, land management agencies 

should include a comparison of net 

GHG emissions and carbon stock 

changes that would occur with and 

without implementation of the proposed 

land management actions. This analysis 

should take into account the GHG 

emissions (biogenic and fossil), carbon 

sequestration potential, and the change 

in carbon stocks that are relevant to 

decision-making that are relevant in 

light of the proposed actions and 

timeframes under consideration. CEQ 

recognizes that land management 

agencies have considered climate 

impacts and GHG emissions to be most 

important in analyses at a forest or 

landscape scale, including 

programmatic NEPA reviews supporting 

policy or programmatic decisions. In 

such cases, land management agencies 

may be able to reasonably conclude that 

calculating GHG emissions and carbon 

stocks for site-specific projects (e.g., a 

proposed forest restoration) would 

provide information that is not useful to 

the public and the decision-making 

process. Rather, as appropriate, sitespecific NEPA analyses can incorporate 

by reference landscape-scale or other 

programmatic studies or analyses, or tier 

to NEPA reviews that considered 

potential changes in carbon stocks (see 

section V.D., Programmatic—Broad 

Based—NEPA Reviews, below). 

D. GHG Emissions That Warrant 

Quantitative Disclosure 

Providing a detailed quantitative 

analysis of emissions regardless of the 

quantity of emissions is not in keeping 

with the rule of reason or the concept 

of proportionality. In considering when 

to disclose projected quantitative GHG 

emissions, CEQ is providing a reference 

point of 25,000 metric tons of CO2-e

emissions on an annual basis below 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

77828 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 

40 40 CFR 1508.27. 

41 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) and (E); 40 CFR 1502.14 

and 1508.9(b). 

42See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), 4332(2)(E), and 40 

CFR 1502.14(f), 1508.9(b). 

43 40 CFR 1508.20, 1508.25 (Mitigation includes 

avoiding the impact, limiting the degree or 

magnitude of the action, reducing or eliminating the 

impact over time. Alternatives include mitigation 

measures not included in the proposed action). 

44Regulatory additionality requirements are 

designed to ensure that a GHG reduction credit is 

limited to an entity with emission reductions that 

are above regulatory requirements. See http://

www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/FAQ_

GenInfoA.htm#Additionality. 

45 40 CFR 1505.3; CEQ Memorandum to Heads of 

Federal Agencies, Appropriate Use of Mitigation 

and Monitoring and Clarifying the Appropriate Use 

of Mitigated Findings of No Significant Impact, 

January 14, 2011, available at https://ceq.doe.gov/ 

current_developments/docs/Mitigation_and_

Monitoring_Guidance_14Jan2011.pdf. 

46 40 CFR 1502.16 and 1508.9 (providing that 

environmental impact statements and 

environmental assessments must succinctly 

describe the environmental impacts on the area(s) 

to be affected or created by the alternatives under 

consideration). 

47See Considering Cumulative Effects (CEQ 

1997), available on www.nepa.gov at https://

ceq.doe.gov/current_developments/docs/

Improving_NEPA_Efficiencies_06Mar2012.pdf. 

48 Id. Agencies should consider their work under 

Executive Order 13653 that considers how capital 

investments will be effected by a changing climate 

over time. 

49See, e.g., http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

report/regions/coasts. 

which a GHG emissions quantitative 

analysis is not warranted unless 

quantification below that reference 

point is easily accomplished. This is an 

appropriate reference point that would 

allow agencies to focus their attention 

on proposed projects with potentially 

large GHG emissions. 

When using this reference point, 

agencies should keep in mind that the 

reference point is for purposes of 

disclosure and not a substitute for an 

agency’s determination of significance 

under NEPA. The ultimate 

determination of significance remains 

subject to agency practice for the 

consideration of context and intensity, 

as set forth in the CEQ Regulations.40

E. Alternatives 

Fundamental to the NEPA process is 

the consideration of alternatives when 

preparing an EIS or an EA.41 The 

requirement to consider alternatives is 

meant to ensure that agencies consider 

approaches with no, or less, adverse 

environmental effects as compared to 

the proposed action or preferred 

alternative. This requirement seeks to 

ensure that each agency decisionmaker 

has the information needed to take into 

account possible approaches to a 

particular project (including the noaction alternative) that would alter the 

environmental impact or the balance of 

other factors considered in making the 

decision. Consideration of alternatives 

provides an opportunity to make the 

best informed, and potentially most 

beneficial, decision. Such decisions are 

aided when there are comparisons 

among preferred and other reasonable 

alternatives in GHG emissions and 

carbon sequestration potential, in tradeoffs with other environmental values, 

and in the risk from and the resilience 

to climate change inherent in a 

proposed design. 

Agencies are required to consider a 

range of reasonable alternatives 

consistent with the purpose and need 

for the proposed action, as well as 

reasonable mitigation alternatives if not 

already included in the proposed action 

(see mitigation discussion below).42

Accordingly, if a comparison of these 

alternatives based on GHG emissions, 

and any potential mitigation to reduce 

emissions, would be useful to advance 

a reasoned choice among alternatives 

and mitigations, then an agency should 

compare the levels of GHG emissions 

caused by each alternative—including 

the no-action alternative—and 

mitigations to provide information to 

the public and enable the decisionmaker 

to make an informed choice. 

F. Mitigation 

Mitigation is an important component 

of an agency’s considerations under 

NEPA, and this is no less true as it 

pertains to climate change. Mitigation, 

by definition, includes considering the 

avoidance of the impacts, minimizing 

them by limiting them, rectifying the 

impact, reducing or eliminating the 

impacts over time, or compensating for 

them.43 Consequently, agencies should 

consider reasonable mitigation measures 

and alternatives as provided for under 

the existing regulations to lower the 

level of the potential GHG emissions. 

As Federal agencies evaluate 

proposed mitigation of GHG emissions 

or of interactions involving the affected 

environment, the quality of that 

mitigation—including its permanence, 

verifiability, enforceability, and 

additionality 44—should be carefully 

evaluated. Among the alternatives that 

may be considered for their ability to 

reduce or mitigate GHG emissions and 

climate effects are enhanced energy 

efficiency, lower GHG-emitting 

technology (e.g., using renewable 

energy), carbon capture, carbon 

sequestration (e.g., forest and coastal 

habitat restoration), sustainable land 

management practices, and capturing or 

beneficially using fugitive GHG 

emissions such as methane. 

Finally, the CEQ Regulations 

recognize the value of monitoring to 

ensure that mitigation is carried out as 

provided in a Finding of No Significant 

Impact or Record of Decision. In cases 

where mitigation measures are designed 

to address the effects of climate change, 

the agency’s final decision should 

identify those mitigation measures and 

the agency should consider adopting an 

appropriate monitoring program.45

IV. Considering the Effects of Climate 

Change on the Environmental 

Consequences of a Proposed Action 

An agency should identify the 

affected environment so as to provide a 

basis for comparing the current and the 

future state of the environment should 

the proposed action or any of its 

reasonable alternatives proceed.46 The 

current and expected future state of the 

environment without the proposed 

action represents the reasonably 

foreseeable affected environment that 

should be described based on available 

climate change information, including 

observations, interpretive assessments, 

predictive modeling, scenarios, and 

other empirical evidence.47 The 

temporal bounds for the future state of 

the environment are determined by the 

expected lifespan of the proposed 

project.48 Agencies should remain 

aware of the evolving body of scientific 

information and its clarification of 

climate impacts at a more localized 

level.49

The analysis of impacts on the 

affected environment should focus on 

those aspects of the human environment 

that are impacted by both the proposed 

action and climate change. Climate 

change can affect the environment of a 

proposed action in a variety of ways. 

Climate change can increase the 

vulnerability of a resource, ecosystem, 

human community, or structure, which 

would then be more susceptible to 

climate change and other effects and 

result in a proposed action’s effects 

being more environmentally damaging. 

For example, a proposed action may 

require water from a stream that has 

diminishing quantities of available 

water because of decreased snow pack 

in the mountains, or add heat to a water 

body that is exposed to increasing 

atmospheric temperatures. Such 

considerations are squarely within the 

realm of NEPA, informing decisions on 

whether to proceed with and how to 

design the proposed action so as to 

minimize impacts on the environment, 

as well as informing possible adaptation 

measures to address these impacts, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 77829 

50The National Research Council is the operating 

arm of the National Academy of Sciences and 

National Academy of Engineering. Through its 

independent, expert reports, workshops, and other 

scientific activities, NRC’s mission is to improve 

government decision-making and public policy, 

increase public understanding, and promote the 

acquisition and dissemination of knowledge in 

matters involving science, engineering, technology, 

and health. For more information about NRC, see 

http://www.nationalacademies.org/nrc/index.html. 

51See Second National Climate Change 

Assessment, USGCRP, 2009, available at http://

www.globalchange.gov/what-we-do. 

52Action that can be implemented as a response 

to changes in the climate to harness and leverage 

its beneficial opportunities (e.g., expand polar 

shipping routes) or ameliorate its negative effects 

(e.g., protect installations from sea level rise). 

National Research Council, Adapting to the Impacts 

of Climate Change (2010), available at http://nassites.org/americasclimatechoices/sample-page/

panel-reports/panel-on-adapting-to-the-impacts-ofclimate-change. 

53Capability to anticipate, prepare for, respond 

to, and recover from significant multi-hazard threats 

with minimum damage to social well-being, the 

economy, and the environment. Id. Ability of a 

social or ecological system to absorb disturbances 

while retaining the same basic structure and ways 

of functioning, capacity for self-organization, and 

capacity to adapt to stress and change. M.L. Parry 

et al., Contribution of Working Group II to the 

Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (2007), available at 

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/

publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg2_

report_impacts_adaptation_and_vulnerability.htm. 

54 42 U.S.C. 4332 (agencies of the Federal 

Government shall . . . utilize a systematic, 

interdisciplinary approach which will insure the 

integrated use of the natural and social sciences and 

the environmental design arts in planning and in 

decision-making); 40 CFR 1501.2 (Agencies shall 

integrate the NEPA process with other planning at 

the earliest possible time); CEQ Memorandum to 

Heads of Federal Agencies, Improving the Process 

for Preparing Efficient and Timely Environmental 

Reviews under the National Environmental Policy 

Act, March 6, 2012, available at https://ceq.doe.gov/ 

nepa/regs/scope/scoping.htm. 

55See Impacts of Climate Change and Variability 

on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: Gulf 

Coast Study, (www.globalchange.gov/browse/

reports/sap-47-impacts-of-climate-change-andvariability-on-transportation-systems-and), and 

Abrupt Climate Change (http://

library.globalchange.gov/sap-3-4-abrupt-climatechange (discussing the likelihood of an abrupt 

change in sea level). 

56See http://sustainability.performance.gov for 

agency sustainability plans, which contain agency 

adaptation plans. See also http://

www.wildlifeadaptationstrategy.gov and http://

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/

ceq/2011_national_action_plan.pdf. 

57See https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/

projects/nepa/5251/42462/45213/NPR-A_FINAL_

ROD_2-21-13.pdf. 

58See 40 CFR 1501.7 (‘‘There shall be an early 

and open process for determining the scope of 

issues to be addressed and for identifying the 

significant issues related to a proposed action. This 

process shall be termed scoping.’’); See also 

Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments 

and Agencies: Improving the Process for Preparing 

Efficient and Timely Environmental Reviews under 

the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 2012), 

available on www.nepa.gov at https://ceq.doe.gov/ 

current_developments/docs/Improving_NEPA_

Efficiencies_06Mar2012.pdf (the CEQ Regulations 

explicitly address scoping for preparing an EIS, 

agencies can also take advantage of scoping 

whenever preparing an EA). 

59 40 CFR 1500.4(b), 1500.4(g) and 1501.7. 

60See 40 CFR 1501.7 (stating that the agency 

preparing the NEPA analysis use the scoping 

process to, among other things, determine the scope 

and identify the significant issues to be analyzed in 

depth) and CEQ, Memorandum for General 

Counsels, NEPA Liaisons, and Participants in 

Scoping (1981), available at https://ceq.doe.gov/

publications/cumulative_effects.html. 

ultimately enabling the selection of 

smarter, more resilient actions. 

According to the National Research 

Council,50 USGCRP, and others, GHGs 

already in the atmosphere will continue 

altering the climate system into the 

future, even with current or future 

emissions control efforts.51 Therefore, 

climate change adaptation 52 and 

resilience 53—defined as adjustments to 

natural or human systems in response to 

actual or expected climate changes—are 

important considerations for agencies 

contemplating and planning actions 

with effects that will occur both at the 

time of implementation and into the 

future. 

As called for under NEPA, the CEQ 

Regulations, and CEQ guidance, the 

NEPA review process should be 

integrated with planning at the earliest 

possible time.54 Decades of NEPA 

practice have shown that a NEPA 

process that is integrated with the 

planning process provides useful 

information that program and project 

planners can consider in the design of 

the proposed action and the 

alternatives. Climate change effects 

should be considered in the analysis of 

projects that are located in areas that are 

considered vulnerable to specific effects 

of climate change, such as increasing 

sea level or other ecological change, 

within the project’s anticipated useful 

life. In such cases, a NEPA review will 

provide relevant information that 

agencies can use to consider alternatives 

with preferable overall environmental 

outcomes. For example, an agency 

considering a proposed action involving 

long-term development of transportation 

infrastructure on a coastal barrier island 

will want to take into account climate 

change to avoid the environmental and, 

as applicable, economic consequences 

of rebuilding should potential climate 

change impacts such as sea level rise 

and more intense storms shorten the 

projected life of the project.55 Given the 

length of time involved in present sea 

level projections, such considerations 

typically will not be relevant to shortterm actions. Individual agency 

adaptation plans and interagency 

adaptation strategies, such as the 

National Fish, Wildlife and Plants 

Climate Adaptation Strategy, and the 

National Action Plan for managing 

freshwater resources in a changing 

climate, provide good examples of 

relevant and useful information that can 

be considered.56

In addition, the particular impacts of 

climate change on vulnerable 

communities may be considered in the 

design of the action or the selection 

among alternatives so that the proposed 

action will be more resilient and 

sustainable and thereby have lesser 

impacts on those communities.57 For 

example, chemical facilities located 

near the coastline could have increased 

risk of spills or leakages due to sea level 

rise or increased storm surges, putting 

local communities and environmental 

resources at greater risk. Finally, 

considering climate change effects can 

help ensure that agencies do not 

generate additional GHGs—or expend 

additional time and funds—if the 

project has to be replaced, repaired, or 

modified. 

V. Traditional NEPA Tools 

A. Scoping and Framing the NEPA 

Review 

To effectuate integrated decisionmaking, avoid duplication, and focus 

the NEPA review, the CEQ Regulations 

provide for scoping.58 In scoping, the 

agency determines the issues that the 

EA or EIS will address and identifies the 

impacts related to the proposed action 

that will be considered in the 

analyses.59 An agency can use the 

scoping process to help it determine 

whether analysis is relevant and, if so, 

the extent of analysis appropriate for a 

proposed action, consistent with the 

purpose and need.60 When scoping for 

the issues associated with the proposed 

agency action that may be related to 

climate change, the nature, location, 

timeframe, and type of the proposed 

action will help determine the degree to 

which consideration of climate 

projections is warranted. Scoping a 

proposed action can help an agency 

determine whether climate change 

considerations warrant emphasis and 

detailed analysis and disclosure, and 

provide a basis for an agency 

determination that a detailed 

consideration of emissions is or is not 

appropriate for a proposed action. 

Consistent with this guidance, 

agencies can develop practices and 

guidance for framing the NEPA review 

by determining whether an 

environmental aspect of the proposed 

action merits detailed analysis and 

disclosure. Grounded on the principles 

of proportionality and the rule of 

reason, such aids can help an agency 

determine the extent to which an 

analysis of GHG emissions and climate 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

77830 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 

61See for example: Matthew P. Thompson, Bruce 

G. Marcot, Frank R. Thompson, III, Steven McNulty, 

Larry A. Fisher, Michael C. Runge, David Cleaves, 

and Monica Tomosy, The Science of 

Decisionmaking: Applications for Sustainable 

Forest and Grassland Management in the National 

Forest System, available at http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/ 

pubs_other/rmrs_2013_thompson_m004.pdf; 

General Technical Report WO–88, July 2013; US 

Forest Service Comparative Risk Assessment 

Framework And Tools, available at http://

www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/fire_science/craft/craft; 

and Julien Martin, Michael C. Runge, James D. 

Nichols, Bruce C. Lubow, and William L. Kendall 

2009. Structured decision making as a conceptual 

framework to identify thresholds for conservation 

and management. Ecological Applications 19:1079– 

1090, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/08- 

0255.1. 

62 40 CFR 1502.21 (material may be incorporated 

by reference if it is reasonably available for 

inspection by potentially interested persons during 

public review and comment). 

63http://www.globalchange.gov/browse/reports. 

64See Third National Climate Assessment. 

65 40 CFR 1502.21, 1502.22. 

66See Climate Models: An Assessment of 

Strengths and Limitations, available at http://data.

globalchange.gov/assets/91/7e/0df45f584b652

ea95e947ef813d0/sap3-1-final-all.pdf. 

67 40 CFR 1502.24 (requiring agencies to ensure 

the professional and scientific integrity of the 

discussions and analyses in environmental impact 

statements). 

68For more information on the Federal 

Interagency Working Group on Environmental 

Justice co-chaired by EPA and CEQ, see http://

www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/interagency/

index.html. 

69President’s Memorandum for the Heads of All 

Departments and Agencies, Executive Order on 

Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice 

in Minority and Low-Income Populations, February 

11, 1994, available at https://ceq.doe.gov/nepa/

regs/eos/ii-5.pdf; Environmental Justice Guidance 

Under the National Environmental Policy Act, CEQ, 

December 1997, available at https://ceq.doe.gov/

nepa/regs/ej/justice.pdf. 

70Such a programmatic study is distinct from a 

programmatic NEPA review which is appropriate 

when the action being considered is subject to 

NEPA requirements and is establishing formal 

plans, establishing agency programs, and approving 

a suite of similar projects. 

71 40 CFR 1502.20, 1508.28. A programmatic 

NEPA review is appropriate when a decision is 

being made that is subject to NEPA, such as 

establishing formal plans, establishing agency 

programs, and approving a suite of similar projects. 

change impacts are useful to the public 

and the decision-making process for 

distinguishing between the no-action 

and proposed alternatives and 

mitigations.61 The agency should 

explain such a framing process and its 

application to the proposed action to the 

decisionmakers and the public during 

the NEPA review and in the EA or EIS 

document. 

B. Incorporation by Reference 

In accordance with NEPA’s rule of 

reason and standards for obtaining 

information regarding reasonably 

foreseeable effects on the human 

environment, action agencies need not 

undertake exhaustive research or 

analysis of potential climate change 

impacts in the project area or on the 

project itself, but may instead 

summarize and incorporate by reference 

the relevant scientific literature.62

Incorporation by reference is of value in 

considering GHG emissions where an 

agency is considering the implications 

of climate change for the environmental 

effects of the proposed action. For 

example, agencies may summarize and 

incorporate by reference the major peerreviewed assessments from the USGCRP 

and underlying technical reports such 

as their Synthesis and Assessment 

Products.63 Particularly relevant are the 

reports on climate change impacts on 

water resources, ecosystems, agriculture 

and forestry, health, coastlines, and 

arctic regions in the United States.64

When using scenarios or climate 

modeling information (including 

seasonal, interannual, long-term, and 

regional-scale predictions), agencies 

should consider their inherent 

limitations and uncertainties and 

disclose these limitations in explaining 

the extent to which they rely on 

particular studies or projections.65

Agencies should take into account that 

the outputs of coarse-resolution global 

climate models, commonly used to 

predict or project climate change 

contingent on a particular emission 

scenario at a continental or national 

scale, may have limitations on how they 

can be used in regional or local impact 

studies.66

C. Using Available Information 

Agencies are expected to make 

decisions using current scientific 

information and methodologies. 

Agencies are not required to conduct 

original research in NEPA analyses to 

fill scientific gaps. Consequently, 

agencies are not expected to await the 

development of new tools or scientific 

information to conclude their NEPA 

analyses and documentation.67

Agencies should exercise their 

discretion to select and utilize the tools, 

methodologies, and scientific and 

research information that are of high 

quality and most appropriate for the 

level of analysis and the decisions being 

made. 

Agencies should be aware of the 

ongoing efforts to address the impacts of 

climate change on human health and 

vulnerable communities. Certain 

groups, including children, the elderly, 

and the poor, are most vulnerable to 

climate-related health effects and 

frequently lack the capacity to engage 

on issues that disproportionately affect 

them. We recommend that agencies 

periodically engage their environmental 

justice experts, and potentially the 

Federal Interagency Working Group on 

Environmental Justice,68 to identify 

interagency approaches to impacts that 

may have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations and 

low-income populations.69

D. Programmatic—Broad Based—NEPA 

Reviews 

Agency decisions can address 

different geographic scales that can 

range from the programmatic or 

landscape level, to the site- or projectspecific level. Agencies sometimes 

conduct analyses or studies at the 

national level or on other broad scales 

(e.g., landscape, regional, or watershed) 

to assess the status of one or more 

resources or to determine trends in 

changing environmental conditions.70

In the context of long-range energy, 

transportation, and resource 

management actions, for example, an 

agency may decide that it would be 

useful and efficient to provide an 

aggregate analysis of GHG emissions or 

climate change effects in a 

programmatic analysis and then 

incorporate by reference that analysis 

into future NEPA reviews. 

A tiered, analytical decision-making 

approach using a programmatic NEPA 

review is used for many types of Federal 

actions 71 and can be particularly 

relevant to addressing proposed land, 

oceanic, and resource management 

plans. Under such an approach, a broadscale programmatic NEPA analysis is 

conducted for actions such as USDA 

Forest Service land and resource 

management plans, Bureau of Land 

Management resource management 

plans, or Natural Resources 

Conservation Service conservation 

programs. Subsequent NEPA analyses 

for site-specific decisions—such as 

projects that implement land, oceanic, 

and resource management plans—are 

tiered from the broader programmatic 

analysis, drawing upon its basic 

framework analysis to avoid repeating 

analytical efforts for each tiered 

decision. Examples of project- or sitespecific actions that can benefit from a 

programmatic NEPA review include: 

Constructing transmission towers; 

conducting prescribed burns; approving 

grazing leases; granting a right-of-way; 

authorizing leases for oil and gas 

drilling; authorizing construction of 

wind turbines; and approving hard rock 

mineral extraction. 

A programmatic NEPA review may 

also serve as an efficient mechanism to 

describe Federal agency efforts to adopt 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 2014 / Notices 77831 

72See Executive Order 13514—Federal 

Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and 

Economic Performance, 74 FR 52117–52127 (Oct. 5, 

2009); Executive Order 13423, Strengthening 

Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation 

Management, 72 FR 3919 (Jan. 26, 2007), available 

at www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-01-26/pdf/07- 

374.pdf. 

73Recommendations of the State, Local, and 

Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness 

and Resilience, November 2014, at page 20 

(recommendation 2.7), available at 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/task_

force_report_0.pdf; GAO report: Future Federal 

Adaptation Efforts Could Better Support Local 

Infrastructure Decision Makers, April 12, 2012, 

available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13- 

242; see also the International Center for 

Technology Assessment, Natural Resources Defense 

Council, and Sierra Club Petition Requesting that 

the Council on Environmental Quality Amend its 

Regulations to Clarify that Climate Change Analyses 

be Included in Environmental Review Documents, 

February 28, 2008. 

sustainable practices for energy 

efficiency, GHG emissions avoidance or 

reduction, petroleum product use 

reduction, and renewable energy use, as 

well as other sustainability practices.72

While broad department- or agencywide goals may be of a far larger scale 

than a particular program or proposed 

action, an analysis that informs how an 

action affects that broader goal can be of 

value. 

VI. Conclusion and Effective Date 

This guidance document informs 

Federal agencies on how to apply 

fundamental NEPA principles to the 

analysis of climate change through 

assessing GHG emissions and the effects 

of climate change for Federal actions 

subject to NEPA. It identifies 

opportunities for using information 

developed during the NEPA review 

process to take into account appropriate 

adaptation opportunities. Applying this 

guidance will promote an appropriate 

and measured consideration of GHG 

emissions and the effects of climate 

change in the NEPA process through a 

clearer set of expectations and a more 

transparent process, thereby informing 

decisionmakers and the public and 

resulting in better decisions. This 

guidance also addresses questions 

raised by other interested parties.73

Agencies are encouraged to apply this 

guidance to all new agency actions 

moving forward and, to the extent 

practicable, to build its concepts into 

currently on-going reviews. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30035 Filed 12–23–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3225–F5–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2