[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76986-76990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30034]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Final Guidance for Effective Use of Programmatic NEPA Reviews
AGENCY: Council on Environmental Quality.
ACTION: Notice of Availability, Final Guidance for Effective Use of
Programmatic NEPA Reviews.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is issuing its
final guidance on programmatic National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
reviews. This guidance provides clarification on when and how Federal
agencies should use programmatic environmental analyses in accordance
with NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4332, and the CEQ Regulations for Implementing the
Procedural Provisions of NEPA, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508. Guidance on
programmatic NEPA reviews has been requested by the agencies and
attention on programmatic NEPA reviews has increased as agencies
undertake more broad landscape-scale analyses for proposals that affect
the resources they manage. This guidance is designed to assist agency
decisionmakers and the public in understanding the environmental
impacts from proposed large-scope Federal actions and activities and to
facilitate agency compliance with NEPA by clarifying the different
planning scenarios under which an agency may prepare a programmatic,
broad-scale, review. The guidance also addresses how agencies can
prepare such reviews to ensure they are timely, informative, and useful
for advancing decision-making. The goal of this guidance is to
encourage a more consistent approach to programmatic NEPA reviews so
that the analyses and documentation will allow for the expeditious and
efficient completion of any necessary tiered reviews. It builds on
previous guidance that explained the use of tiering and its place in
the NEPA process.
DATES: The guidance is effective December 23, 2014.
ADDRESSES: The Final Guidance for Effective Use of Programmatic NEPA
Reviews is available at White House Web site (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/nepa) and on the
National Environmental Policy Act Web site (www.nepa.gov). Paper copies
are available upon request by contacting the CEQ Associate Director for
National Environmental Policy Act Oversight, 722 Jackson Place NW.,
Washington, DC 20503. Telephone: (202) 395-5750.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Council on Environmental Quality
(ATTN: Horst Greczmiel, Associate Director for National Environmental
Policy Act Oversight), 722 Jackson Place NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Telephone: (202) 395-5750.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Enacted in 1970, the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370, is a fundamental tool used to
harmonize our environmental, economic, and social aspirations and is a
cornerstone of our Nation's efforts to protect the environment. NEPA
recognizes that many Federal activities affect the environment and
mandates that Federal agencies consider the environmental impacts of
their proposed actions before deciding to adopt proposals and take
action.\1\ NEPA environmental reviews (the analyses and documentation
prepared under NEPA) may be on the project-specific or on broader
programmatic level. The analyses in a programmatic NEPA review are
valuable in setting out the broad view of environmental impacts and
benefits for a proposed decision such as a rulemaking, or establishing
a policy, program, or plan. That programmatic NEPA review (e.g.,
Programmatic Environmental Assessment (EA), Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS)) can then be relied upon when agencies make
decisions based on the programmatic EA or programmatic EIS, as well as
decisions based on a subsequent (also known as tiered) NEPA review.
Programmatic NEPA reviews should result in clearer and more transparent
decision-making, as well as provide a better defined and more
expeditious path toward decisions on proposed actions. This guidance
clarifies the use of programmatic NEPA reviews by describing: (1) The
nature of programmatic NEPA reviews; (2) when to use a programmatic and
tiered NEPA review; (3) practical considerations for programmatic
reviews and documents; (4) how to effectively conduct subsequent
proposal-specific NEPA reviews; and (5) the lifespan of a programmatic
NEPA document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A discussion of NEPA applicability is beyond the scope of
this guidance. For more information see CEQ, The Citizen's Guide to
the National Environmental Policy Act, available at https://ceq.doe.gov/nepa/Citizens_Guide_Dec07.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Register notice announcing the draft programmatic
guidance and requesting public comments was published on August 22,
2014.\2\ CEQ appreciates the thoughtful responses to its request for
comments on the draft guidance. Commenters included private citizens,
corporations, environmental organizations, trade associations, federal
agencies, and state agencies. CEQ received twenty-eight public
comments, which are available online at www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/nepa/comments and at www.nepa.gov.
The comments that suggested editorial revisions and requested
clarification of terms are addressed in the text of the final guidance.
Comments that raised policy or substantive concerns are grouped into
thematic issues and addressed in the following sections of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Draft Guidance,
Effective Use of Programmatic NEPA Reviews, 79 FR 50,578, August 22,
2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highlighting the Value of NEPA
Many commenters expressed support for CEQ's efforts to encourage
timely and efficient use of the NEPA environmental review process to
inform agency decision-making. Some commenters asserted that the draft
guidance did not adequately highlight NEPA's value and successes. These
commenters urged CEQ to further discuss how NEPA is an effective tool
for ensuring fully informed decision-making and meaningful public
participation.
CEQ agrees and expanded the introduction of the final guidance to
incorporate a broader discussion of NEPA's role in assisting agencies
in decision-making and providing opportunity for meaningful public
participation. This final guidance was developed to provide for the
consistent, proper, and appropriate development and use of programmatic
NEPA reviews by Federal agencies. It reinforces the process required to
establish opportunities for public involvement, increased transparency,
and informed decision-making.
Applicability to Environmental Assessments
One commenter asked for further explanation as to why programmatic
approaches apply to developing an Environmental Assessment (EA) as well
as Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
[[Page 76987]]
CEQ interprets its regulations as allowing for the use of a
programmatic approach in developing an EA. Neither the NEPA statute nor
CEQ's regulations prohibit programmatic approaches for an EA. Each
federal agency has its own agency NEPA implementing procedures which
adapt the framework established by the CEQ regulations to address
agency specific missions and decision-making authority. Agencies are
encouraged to revise or amend their NEPA implementing procedures, if
necessary, to allow for the use of programmatic EAs and EISs.
Request for More Examples
Many commenters requested additional case studies and examples to
show real-world applications of programmatic NEPA review. Some
commenters also requested examples of where programmatic NEPA review
would not be appropriate. Several commenters requested more examples of
instances where programmatic NEPA review allowed for informed decision-
making, meaningful public involvement, and adequately addressed site-
specific impacts.
To address these comments, CEQ has added more examples and legal
authorities, where appropriate, and tried to provide them wherever they
are helpful and illustrative. If CEQ learns of other helpful examples,
they will periodically be made available on the NEPA.gov Web site.
Concerns About Delay
Some commenters expressed concern over the timeliness and burden of
programmatic NEPA reviews. One commenter stated that tiered
programmatic NEPA reviews may lead to unproductive additional layers of
review and therefore may encourage undue delay, cost, and inefficiency.
This commenter raised an example of how a programmatic review for a
corridor will lead to duplicative review when individual projects are
sited.
The final guidance emphasizes that agencies are given the
discretion to determine whether programmatic NEPA review will be an
effective and efficient way to address environmental impacts. If an
agency determines that a broad-level analysis and review of a proposal
allows informed and meaningful decision-making, the agency should have
the flexibility to do so. Although the commenter argues that a tiered
approach to review constitutes ``delay,'' CEQ finds that in many
situations there is merit in looking at a proposal on a broad level and
then focusing a subsequent, tiered, review on the relevant issues at
the site- or project-specific level. The agency responsible for the
NEPA review should take the timing of the decisions and the
programmatic and subsequent tiered NEPA reviews into account when
determining how best to proceed.
When To Use Programmatic Review
Several commenters requested that CEQ include a test or presumption
about when using a programmatic approach is appropriate. One commenter
advocated for a test as set out by Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390
(1976). Another commenter requested that CEQ include a presumption
against programmatic NEPA review because case-by-case analysis of
projects will provide more robust environmental analysis and public
involvement. Conversely, another commenter urged CEQ to mandate when
agencies should conduct programmatic review for projects that affect a
common geographic region or a suite of similar projects.
CEQ rejects the use of a set test that would be applicable across
all agencies and the use of a default presumption. As written in the
final guidance, agencies have discretion to determine whether a
programmatic approach is appropriate. A default presumption may limit
agency flexibility and be too prescriptive. Kleppe does not establish a
hard line test and, instead, explains that agencies have the technical
expertise and discretion to determine whether a programmatic review is
appropriate. The final guidance explains that each agency should
determine the circumstances in which it is appropriate to prepare
programmatic NEPA documentation. The agency preparing the NEPA review
is responsible for tailoring the review to the type of action involved
while taking into account the potential efficiencies, maximizing
informed decision-making, and ensuring compliance with other laws,
regulations, and policies relevant to the decision at hand.
Programmatic Documents as a Stand-Alone Document
Several commenters raised concerns about whether agencies may
prepare a single NEPA document to support both programmatic and
project-specific proposals. Some commenters have urged CEQ to create a
default presumption that programmatic reviews alone are inappropriate.
The final guidance makes it clear that any Federal agency program
charged with complying with NEPA has the discretion to determine when a
programmatic NEPA review is appropriate. CEQ declines to create a
default presumption but has added language to provide more clarity and
guidance about when a NEPA review includes both programmatic and
project-specific decisions, as well as when a single programmatic NEPA
review is appropriate. For example, a single programmatic NEPA review
may be appropriate when an agency plans to make a broad program
decision. When both programmatic and project-specific decisions are
being made, the NEPA review should be clear in identifying the
decisions and the environmental analysis to support those decisions.
Proper Use of Tiering
A few commenters raised concerns about when a programmatic EIS may
be tiered from a previous programmatic NEPA review. One commenter
expressed that improper tiering to subsequent actions could lead to
delay, an unnecessary use of time and resources, and an improper
substantive analysis of environmental impacts. This commenter, along
with another commenter, requested that any tiered documents are only
required to analyze new impacts that were not previously addressed.
Conversely, another commenter stated that tiered review is the greatest
opportunity for a recognized benefit of programmatic review and that
they should be further encouraged.
The final guidance makes it clear that the Federal agency program
responsible for complying with NEPA has the discretion to determine
whether a programmatic NEPA review is appropriate. A programmatic NEPA
review followed by a tiered NEPA review is appropriate when such an
approach provides a framework for agencies to help public officials
make timely decisions based on an understanding of the environmental
consequences relevant to the decision at hand. As a result, CEQ finds
it inappropriate to establish a presumption that substantive analysis
is unnecessary or should be precluded in subsequent tiered documents.
Finally, new examples have been added that explain that one level of
review may be sufficient in certain cases--such as when an agency
undergoes rulemaking, adopts an agency-wide policy, adopts a formal
plan, or redesigns an existing program--and that a programmatic EA is
not invalidated when the subsequent decision requires preparation of an
EIS.
Tiering From a Programmatic EA With Findings of No Significant Impact
A few commenters expressed concerns about scenarios where an agency
has a PEA that results in a finding of no significant impact (FONSI)
[[Page 76988]]
and then tiers to a subsequent project-specific EIS. One commenter
stated that it seems counterintuitive that a programmatic Environmental
Assessment supported by a FONSI could approve a number or actions that
then lead to a NEPA analysis for a project that has the potential for a
significant impact on the environment.
The final guidance has been modified to contain two examples of how
a programmatic environmental impact statement may tier from a
programmatic EA. One example is that a programmatic EA may be used to
articulate standard mitigation for a suite of similar projects, such as
capturing vented methane. This programmatic EA may result in a FONSI
and project-level construction that goes beyond the mitigation in the
EA will require a programmatic EIS. The other example is that a
programmatic EA may result in a FONSI but a subsequent proposal
represents a unique or unexpected circumstance that raises the
potential for significant impacts. In such a circumstance, a tiered EIS
would not undermine or invalidate the programmatic EA which resulted in
a FONSI. Additionally, the final guidance also makes clear that an
agency should explain in all programmatic NEPA reviews how the agency
intends to use it to complete future proposal-specific NEPA reviews.
Supplementation and New Information
Some commenters raised concerns about when a programmatic review
should be supplemented or when new information would substantially
affect the programmatic analysis. One commenter requested that CEQ
include language that, once a decision is made, there is no obligation
for an agency to supplement a NEPA review. This commenter requested
that in light of Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S.
55 (2004), any decision to approve a plan should be recognized as a
completed decision and no supplements to a programmatic NEPA review are
required.
CEQ has added a footnote in the final guidance to clarify the role
of Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. In that case the United States
Supreme Court noted that an agency must take a ``hard look'' at new
information to determine whether supplementation is necessary. 542 U.S.
at 73 (citing Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360,
370-374 (1989)). The Court distinguished Southern Utah Wilderness
Alliance in that there were no subsequent decisions to be made and
there was no ongoing ``major Federal action'' that required
supplementation. Id.
The final guidance makes it clear that supplementation may be
required when there are more decisions to be made by the agency that
would use the original NEPA review. The programmatic NEPA review
process may defer issues for subsequent tiers of review. Site- or
project-specific impacts might not be fully evaluated at initial tiers
of review when the decision to act on a site development or its
equivalent is yet to be made. Agencies should, when decisions remain to
be made and the Federal action is on-going, consider new information to
determine if that would require updating or supplementing the
programmatic NEPA review.
Another commenter requested language in the final guidance that
requires agencies to carefully reexamine any programmatic NEPA review
that is more than five years-old to determine whether the criteria for
supplementation must be met. This commenter notes that there are many
cases where an agency fails to update a NEPA review even though there
has been no construction or ongoing activity for five years. Another
commenter asked CEQ to have agencies supplement their programmatic
reviews, rather than address the information at the site-specific
level, in situations where new information could affect the impacts of
program as a whole.
CEQ understands these concerns and further refined its discussion
about supplementation. The CEQ regulations provide a procedural
framework for keeping environmental analyses current. They require
agencies to prepare supplements upon determining there is significant
new information of relevance to the proposed action or its impacts. The
final guidance acknowledges that there is a possibility of new
information arising after an EA or EIS is completed that exists
regardless of whether a NEPA review is programmatic. The requirements
to update or supplement a NEPA review remains the same for programmatic
as it does for non-programmatic NEPA reviews.
The Lifespan of Programmatic Documents
Some commenters raised the concern about the lifespan of
programmatic documents and asked for more clarity about when
supplementation or a new programmatic NEPA review will be required.
These commenters pointed out that, while programmatic NEPA reviews may
discuss potential environmental impacts, the information can often
become outdated and cannot be used for subsequent decision-making. One
commenter suggested that the final guidance should mandate that an
agency may not rely on any NEPA document that is more than ten years
old. Another commenter suggested that all programmatic NEPA analysis
should have set triggers for supplementation or expiration dates.
The final guidance clearly states that agencies must consider and
make reasonable efforts to anticipate the length of time the
programmatic decision and its supporting NEPA review will be maintained
and used for subsequent tiered reviews. There is no fixed timeline or
expiration date for programmatic NEPA documents, just as there is no
fixed timeline or expiration date for other types NEPA review. The
final guidance refers to question 32 in CEQ's 40 Most Asked Questions,
which states that as a rule of thumb, if the proposal has not yet been
implemented, or if the EIS concerns an ongoing program, EISs that are
more than five years old should be carefully reexamined to determine if
a supplement is required. The final guidance does encourage agencies to
determine the factors that may result in the need to supplement or
refresh the analysis and communicate this to stakeholders. When a
programmatic review is projected to have a long life span to be used
for subsequent decision-making, the final guidance states that an
agency should pay close attention to the possible effects of new
information.
Alternatives
Several commenters requested more clarity on the appropriate use of
alternative analysis in a programmatic NEPA review. One commenter asked
for a narrower interpretation of what constitutes a ``reasonable
alternative'' so that broad-level NEPA review is not unduly burdened.
Other commenters asked that CEQ place particular emphasis on the
importance of soliciting and considering alternatives developed outside
of the lead agency, especially local government and publically-
developed alternatives. Several commenters suggest that limiting
alternatives or general analysis in one review that is later relied
upon in a subsequent site-specific NEPA review could limit meaningful
and informed decision-making. They urged CEQ to amend the guidance to
prohibit the use of programmatic NEPA reviews to narrow or restrict
future alternatives for activities such as multifaceted actions or
operating plans. Many commenters stated that alternatives and public
involvement should not be narrowed down until site-specific impact
analysis has been carried out.
The final guidance emphasizes that alternatives in a programmatic
NEPA
[[Page 76989]]
review are expected to reflect the level of the Federal action being
proposed and the standard NEPA requirements for alternatives apply.
``Reasonable alternatives'' depend on the nature of the proposal and
the facts of the case. Factors in determining whether an alternative is
reasonable include the purpose and need for the decision and its
effects on the environment and on the affected community(s), as well as
the state of the technologies available to achieve the proposed
outcome. The final guidance makes clear that, by articulating the
reasoned choice between alternatives, with a discussion of why
considered alternatives were not chosen, the range of alternatives in
programmatic NEPA reviews can be appropriately narrowed.
CEQ supports public and local government involvement in the NEPA
process, including the development of alternatives. Non-agency
alternatives can be considered in any NEPA process, regardless of
whether it is programmatic or not, provided they are technically and
economically feasible. The final guidance was revised to clarify that
non-agency alternatives may be considered. Additionally, the final
guidance provides an entire section devoted to public involvement and
collaboration and cooperation among Federal agencies, tribes, and state
and local governments. CEQ's encouragement of working with other
parties includes the development of reasonable alternatives to allow
for informed decision-making.
Cumulative Impacts
Several commenters raised concerns about how to effectively analyze
cumulative effects for each resource in tiered programmatic review
rather than only completing cumulative analysis for the program
overall. These commenters suggest that it is difficult to evaluate
cumulative actions when individual projects are deferred or not
completely conceptualized.
As specifically set out in the CEQ regulations and all CEQ
guidance, the consideration of the potential cumulative impacts of
proposed actions is an important and integral aspect of the NEPA
process. CEQ has modified the final guidance to describe when
cumulative impacts should be analyzed for potentially affected
resources in each level of review. An agency should not solely complete
a cumulative analysis for the broader programmatic review.
Public Involvement
Commenters were most concerned about how programmatic NEPA review
affects public participation and involvement. Several commenters
expressed concern that programmatic NEPA review leads to a ``shell
game'' when there is deferred analysis of specific impacts to
subsequent tiers within the NEPA process. According to these
commenters, deferred analysis may lead to poor meaningful involvement
and an insufficient review of potential environmental impacts. One
commenter asked for CEQ to strengthen guidance language about how to
actively engage the public before and during an agency's programmatic
NEPA review process. Several commenters asked CEQ to emphasize that
agencies must communicate to the public how the programmatic NEPA
review is being used and which issues are deferred for subsequent
tiered NEPA reviews. These commenters noted that where an agency issues
a programmatic NEPA review and a party is interested in challenging its
validity, the agency often responds that the party should wait to raise
concerns at the site-specific level because the agency will address
these concerns at that level. They suggest that is appropriate to raise
issues at the programmatic level where the issues affect the program as
a whole and the issues are not present at each site-specific level, or
where the cumulative impact of the issues is plain at the programmatic
level but is relatively insignificant at the level of the site. Another
commenter raised the issue that broad-level review may create public
participation issues because it is difficult for the public to
understand how a project affects them until the project-specific level.
One commenter also suggested that CEQ mandate that all comment periods
for programmatic NEPA review be extended from 45 days to 90 days.
The final guidance makes it clear that CEQ strongly encourages
public involvement in all programmatic and tiered NEPA reviews. As the
final guidance explains, engaging the public in the environmental
aspects of Federal decision-making is a key policy goal of NEPA and the
CEQ regulations. Public involvement is not limited to the provision of
information by agencies; it should also include meaningful
opportunities for the public to provide comment and feedback on the
information made available. Considering recent advances in information
technology, agencies should consider employing additional measures to
involve the public beyond simply publishing a Federal Register notice.
The final guidance suggests ways to involve the public, such as
engaging non-governmental organizations, citizen's groups, labor
organizations, and trade associations.
The final guidance recognizes that public engagement is
particularly important when developing programmatic NEPA reviews in
order to ensure agency objectives are understood and to make it clear
how a programmatic review will influence subsequent tiered reviews.
Effective public engagement also will help manage expectations with
regard to the purpose and need, the scope of the broad environmental
analyses, and the purpose and need and scope of subsequent site- and
project-specific environmental analyses. The final guidance encourages
outreach to potential stakeholders as early as possible to afford the
public a meaningful opportunity to comment on and shape the
programmatic NEPA review and/or develop alternatives to be considered.
The guidance recognizes that members of the public are less likely to
participate or engage in the commenting process if they do not fully
understand how the outcomes will affect them. It is critical that
agencies provide context and as much information as possible in the
beginning of the public involvement process.
The final guidance has been modified to emphasize that proactive
and robust public participation is encouraged and, when appropriate,
comment periods may need to be extended to ensure meaningful
involvement. CEQ declines to mandate a maximum timeframe for comment
periods because agencies should have the flexibility and discretion to
determine whether the minimum timeframes provided in the CEQ
regulations should be extended to provide time for meaningful review.
The final guidance encourages that an agency supports early public
participation by clearly explaining to the public not only what the
proposed programmatic evaluation is meant to accomplish, but also how
it relates to future actions, and why the public should get involved at
the programmatic stage and not wait for any tiered reviews. The
guidance makes clear that an agency should clearly state which concerns
are addressed at that level of review and which concerns will be
addressed in the tiered NEPA review.
Coordination With Other Environmental Reviews
A few commenters reminded CEQ that NEPA review acts as the
foundation for other statutory reviews such as the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). One commenter
asked for more clarification that a consolidated NEPA
[[Page 76990]]
review generally should form the basis for reviews under all federal
environmental laws that pertain to a given action. Another commenter
requested revisions to include a schedule or other mechanism for
coordinating ESA, Marine Mammal Protection Act, NHPA, and other
interagency consultation processes so as to increase efficiency and
create enforceable timelines. Another commenter asked for additional
discussion about entering into programmatic agreements with other
regulatory agencies such as the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service.
The final guidance recognizes that the purpose and need statement
and the proposed action for the programmatic NEPA review are critical
for determining the compliance requirements under other applicable laws
and regulations, such as ESA, NHPA, and Clean Water Act. Language has
been added to the final guidance to emphasize that an agency should
consider the appropriate level of compliance with other laws for a
programmatic NEPA review, for example by considering programmatic
agreements under the ESA and NHPA, and the potential for a separate,
more focused and specific consultation, for any subsequent tiered NEPA
review.
Hard Look Doctrine
A few commenters asked for further clarification on how the ``hard
look'' doctrine should be met for programmatic NEPA analysis. The final
guidance explains that a programmatic NEPA review should contain
sufficient discussion of the relevant issues and opposing viewpoints to
enable the decisionmaker to take a ``hard look'' at the environmental
effects and make a reasoned choice among alternatives.
The final guidance describes the hard look doctrine in greater
detail and an agency should include a statement in its programmatic
NEPA review that explains rationale as to how various environmental
effects were analyzed given the scope of the programmatic decisions
being made.
Mitigation and Monitoring
Several commenters voiced concerns that the final guidance does not
adequately address mitigation and monitoring. Some commenters noted
that agencies often fail to follow through on mitigation strategies
throughout the programmatic NEPA process, and solely focus on
mitigation at the broad-level review. These commenters also recommend
that agencies be required to incorporate not only monitoring but also
triggers and methods to update mitigation requirements depending on the
monitoring results. Some of these commenters also requested that CEQ
provide more direction about the necessity of mitigation monitoring and
adaptive management in the context of environmental review.
The CEQ regulations provide a framework for mitigating adverse
environmental impacts. Mitigation and monitoring are key components of
NEPA regardless of whether the NEPA process is programmatic. The final
guidance recognizes that programmatic NEPA reviews provide an
opportunity for agencies to incorporate comprehensive mitigation
planning and monitoring strategies into the Federal policymaking
process at a broad or strategic, rather than specific or site-by-site,
level. New language has been added to include recognition that best
management practices, adaptive management practices, and standard
operating procedures may also be incorporated. The final guidance now
notes that adaptive management can provide the basis for an agency to
change the course of implementation without the need for developing
supplemental NEPA reviews and the associated documentation.
(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4332, 4342, 4344 and 40 CFR parts 1500, 1501,
1502, 1503, 1505, 1506, 1507, and 1508)
Dated: December 18, 2014.
Brenda Mallory,
General Counsel, Council on Environmental Quality.
[FR Doc. 2014-30034 Filed 12-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3225-F5-P