I
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF
THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
MANUAL TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Release
1-1710
I
Subject
Transmittal of the
NEPA
Handbook
1. Explanation of Material Transmitted: The purpose of this Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) Manual Handbook (H-1790-1) is to help comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality's
(CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and the Department of the
Interior NEPA manual. The Handbook is intended for use by BLM officials
responsible for oversight of and compliance with the NEPA within their program
area and BLM personnel responsible for preparing NEPA documents.
Chapter 14, Adaptive Management, has been reserved.
2.
Reports Required: None
3.
Materials Superseded: H-1790-1 Rel. 1-1547
4. Filing Instructions: File directly behind Manual Section material.
Remove:
H-1790-1
All of Rel. 1-1 547
Insert:
H-1790-1
All of Rel.
-
H-1790-1
(Total: 78 Sheets) (Total: 87 sheets)
Director
Bureau of Land Management
TC - i
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
This page intentionally left blank.
TC - iii
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HANDBOOK USER'S GUIDE ............................................................................................................................... IX
CHAPTER 1—NEPA BASICS ..................................................................................................................................1
1.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEPA .............................................................................................................1
1.2 DEPARTMENTAL GUIDANCE AND THIS BLM HANDBOOK...........................................................2
1.3 DOCUMENTS USED TO MEET NEPA REQUIREMENTS.....................................................................2
1.4 THE NEPA APPROACH ............................................................................................................................3
CHAPTER 2—ACTIONS EXEMPT FROM THE NEPA AND EMERGENCY ACTIONS ..............................9
2.1 CONGRESSIONALLY EXEMPT ACTIONS............................................................................................9
2.1.1 CERCLA..................................................................................................................................................9
2.2 ACTIONS MANDATED BY STATUTE....................................................................................................9
2.3 EMERGENCY ACTIONS ........................................................................................................................10
2.3.1 Types of Emergency Actions .................................................................................................................10
2.3.2 Procedures for Emergency Actions.......................................................................................................11
2.3.2.1 Wildfire Suppression Actions ...................................................................................................................... 11
2.3.2.2 Emergency Actions other than Wildfire Suppression................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER 3—ACTIONS REQUIRING NEPA COMPLIANCE........................................................................13
3.1 DETERMINING WHEN THE NEPA APPLIES.......................................................................................13
3.2 PROPOSALS ORIGINATING WITHIN THE BLM ................................................................................13
3.2.1 Policies and Rulemaking.......................................................................................................................14
3.2.2 Land Use Plan (LUP) Development......................................................................................................15
3.3 PROPOSALS SUBMITTED TO THE BLM BY OTHER ENTITIES.......................................................15
3.3.1 Proposals for the BLM to Fund Actions................................................................................................15
3.3.2 Proposals Involving Mineral Estate......................................................................................................16
CHAPTER 4—CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS..................................................................................................17
4.1 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE ENERGY POLICY ACT...........................17
4.2. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
OR THE BLM............................................................................................................................................18
4.2.1 Identifying Potential Categorical Exclusions........................................................................................18
4.2.2 Determining if an Extraordinary Circumstance Precludes Use of a Categorical Exclusion................19
4.2.3 Documentation Requirements...............................................................................................................19
4.2.3.1 Documentation Requirements When Using Hazardous Fuels and Post-Fire Rehabilitation CXs ................ 19
4.2.3.2 Documentation Requirements When Using CXs Not Established by Statute .............................................. 20
CHAPTER 5—USING EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES ..............................................................21
5.1 DETERMINATION OF NEPA ADEQUACY..........................................................................................22
5.1.1 Identifying Existing Environmental Documents....................................................................................22
5.1.2 Reviewing Existing Environmental Documents.....................................................................................23
5.1.3 Document the Review............................................................................................................................24
5.1.4 FONSIs, Decisions, Protests, and Appeals ...........................................................................................25
5.2 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE AND TIERING..........................................................................25
5.2.1 Incorporation by Reference...................................................................................................................26
5.2.2 Tiering...................................................................................................................................................27
5.3 SUPPLEMENTING AN EIS.....................................................................................................................29
5.3.1 When Supplementation is Appropriate..................................................................................................29
5.3.2 When Supplementation is Not Appropriate...........................................................................................30
5.3.3 The Supplementation Process ...............................................................................................................31
5.4 ADOPTING ANOTHER AGENCY’S NEPA ANALYSES.....................................................................31
5.4.1 Adopting Another Agency’s EIS .........................................................................................................31
5.4.2 Adopting Another Agency’s EA..........................................................................................................32
TC - iv
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
CHAPTER 6—NEPA ANALYSIS...........................................................................................................................33
6.1 OUTLINE OF ANALYTICAL STEPS .....................................................................................................33
6.2 PURPOSE AND NEED.............................................................................................................................35
6.2.1 The Role of the Purpose and Need Statement .......................................................................................36
6.2.2 The Decision to be Made.......................................................................................................................36
6.3 SCOPING..................................................................................................................................................38
6.3.1 Internal Scoping .................................................................................................................................39
6.3.2 External Scoping ................................................................................................................................39
6.4 ISSUES......................................................................................................................................................40
6.4.1 Identifying Issues for Analysis...............................................................................................................41
6.4.2 Issues Not Analyzed...............................................................................................................................42
6.5 PROPOSED ACTION...............................................................................................................................42
6.5.1 Description of the Proposed Action ......................................................................................................43
6.5.1.1 Design Features of the Proposed Action ......................................................................................................... 44
6.5.2 Defining the Scope of Analysis of the Proposed Action ........................................................................44
6.5.2.1 Connected Actions..................................................................................................................................... 45
6.5.2.2 Cumulative Actions...................................................................................................................................... 48
6.5.2.3 Similar Actions ............................................................................................................................................... 49
6.6 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT.......................................................................................................49
6.6.1 Reasonable Alternatives........................................................................................................................49
6.6.1.1 Developing Alternatives Under The Healthy Forests Restoration Act......................................................... 51
6.6.2 No Action Alternative .........................................................................................................................51
6.6.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Analysis.........................................................52
6.7 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND USE OF RELEVANT DATA........................................................53
6.7.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................................................53
6.7.2 Use of Relevant Data ............................................................................................................................53
6.8 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...............................................................................................................54
6.8.1 Effects Analysis .....................................................................................................................................54
6.8.1.1 Defining Environmental Effects................................................................................................................... 54
6.8.1.2 Analyzing Effects......................................................................................................................................... 55
6.8.2 Direct and Indirect Effects....................................................................................................................56
6.8.3 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................................................57
6.8.3.1 Cumulative Effects Issues............................................................................................................................ 57
6.8.3.2 Geographic Scope of the Cumulative Effects Analysis................................................................................ 58
6.8.3.3 Timeframe of the Cumulative Effects Analysis ........................................................................................... 58
6.8.3.4 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions..................................................................................... 58
6.8.3.5 Analyzing the Cumulative Effects................................................................................................................ 59
6.8.4 Mitigation and Residual Effects............................................................................................................61
6.9 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND RESPONDING TO COMMENTS......................................................62
6.9.1 Involving and Notifying the Public........................................................................................................63
6.9.2 Comments..............................................................................................................................................65
6.9.2.1 Substantive Comments................................................................................................................................. 65
6.9.2.2 Comment Response...................................................................................................................................... 66
7.1 ACTIONS REQUIRING AN EA...............................................................................................................69
7.2 ACTIONS REQUIRING AN EIS..............................................................................................................69
7.3 SIGNIFICANCE........................................................................................................................................70
CHAPTER 8—PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT............................................................75
8.1 PREPARING TO WRITE AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA)............................................75
8.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................................................76
8.3 EA FORMAT ............................................................................................................................................77
8.3.1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................................77
8.3.2 Purpose and Need for Action and Decision to be Made .......................................................................77
8.3.3 Scoping and Issues................................................................................................................................78
TC - v
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
8.3.4 Proposed Action and Alternatives.........................................................................................................78
8.3.4.1 Description of the Proposed Action .............................................................................................................78
8.3.4.2 Alternatives in an EA................................................................................................................................... 79
8.3.4.2.1 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis......................................................... 80
8.3.4.3 Conformance................................................................................................................................................81
8.3.5 Affected Environment............................................................................................................................81
8.3.6 Environmental Effects...........................................................................................................................81
8.3.7 Tribes, Individuals, Organizations, or Agencies Consulted..................................................................82
8.3.8 List of Preparers ...................................................................................................................................82
8.4 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE................................................................................................82
8.4.1 Significant Impacts -Transitioning from an EA to an EIS.....................................................................82
8.4.2 The Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)....................................................................................83
8.5 THE DECISION RECORD.......................................................................................................................84
8.5.1 Documenting the Decision....................................................................................................................84
8.5.2 Terminating the EA Process...............................................................................................................86
8.6 IMPLEMENTATION................................................................................................................................86
CHAPTER 9—PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT............................................87
9.1 PREPARING TO WRITE AN EIS............................................................................................................87
9.1.1 Develop Preparation Plan ....................................................................................................................87
9.1.1.1 Develop Strategy for Public Involvement and Interagency/Intergovernmental............................................ 88
Coordination and Consultation .......................................................................................................................................88
9.1.2 Publish the Notice of Intent...................................................................................................................88
9.1.3 Scoping..................................................................................................................................................89
9.2 EIS FORMAT............................................................................................................................................91
9.2.1 Cover Sheet...........................................................................................................................................92
9.2.2 “Dear Reader” Letter...........................................................................................................................92
9.2.3 Summary................................................................................................................................................92
9.2.4 Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................92
9.2.5 Chapter 1—Introduction.......................................................................................................................93
9.2.6 Issues.....................................................................................................................................................93
9.2.7 Chapter 2—Proposed Action and Alternatives .....................................................................................93
9.2.7.1 Reasonable Alternatives for an EIS ........................................................................................................... 94
9.2.7.2 Features Common to All Alternatives.......................................................................................................... 94
9.2.7.3 Agency Preferred Alternative....................................................................................................................... 95
9.2.8 Chapter 3—Affected Environment.........................................................................................................96
9.2.9 Chapter 4—Environmental Effects........................................................................................................96
9.2.10 Chapter 5 - Consultation and Coordination .......................................................................................97
9.2.10.1 Public Involvement and Scoping................................................................................................................ 98
9.2.10.2 List of Preparers......................................................................................................................................... 98
9.2.11 Other Material ....................................................................................................................................98
9.3 ISSUING THE DRAFT EIS......................................................................................................................99
9.3.1 File with the EPA..................................................................................................................................99
9.3.2 Notify the Public and Government Agencies of the Availability of the Draft EIS fo r Review
and Comment..................................................................................................................................
99
9.3.3 Distribute the Draft EIS ......................................................................................................................100
9.3.4 Public Meetings and Hearings............................................................................................................100
9.4 THE FINAL EIS............................................................................................................................................101
9.4.1 Abbreviated Final EIS.........................................................................................................................101
9.4.2 Full Text Final EIS..............................................................................................................................101
9.5 SUPPLEMENTS TO DRAFT AND FINAL EISS..................................................................................101
9.6 ISSUING THE FINAL EIS .....................................................................................................................102
9.6.1 Comments Received Following Issue of the Final EIS........................................................................102
9.7 ISSUING THE RECORD OF DECISION..............................................................................................102
9.7.1 ROD Format .......................................................................................................................................103
9.8 TERMINATING THE EIS PROCESS..............................................................................................................104
TC - vi
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
CHAPTER 10—MONITORING ...........................................................................................................................105
10.1 PURPOSES OF AND REQUIREMENTS FOR MONITORING .........................................................105
10.2 DEVELOPING A MONITORING PLAN OR STRATEGY..................................................................106
10.3 IMPLEMENTING MONITORING ........................................................................................................107
CHAPTER 11—AGENCY REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS...........................109
11.1 OBTAINING COMMENTS ON YOUR EIS ..........................................................................................109
11.2 COMMENTING ON ANOTHER FEDERAL AGENCY’S EIS.............................................................109
CHAPTER 12—COOPERATING AGENCIES, JOINT LEAD AGENCIES, AND ADVISORY
COMMITTEES...........................................................................................................................
111
12.1 COOPERATING AGENCY STATUS IN DEVELOPMENT OF NEPA DOCUMENTS ......................111
12.1.1 When Another Agency is Cooperating in Preparation of a NEPA Analysis Document
with the BLM as a Lead ................................................................................................................
112
12.1.2 When the BLM is Cooperating in Preparation of a NEPA Analysis Document
With Another Agency as Lead.......................................................................................................
112
12.1.3 Deciding Whether to be a Cooperating Agency ...............................................................................113
12.1.4 Procedures for Working as a Cooperating Agency..........................................................................113
12.2 JOINT LEAD AGENCIES IN DEVELOPMENT OF NEPA DOCUMENTS.........................................113
12.3 WORKING WITH ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND THE FEDERAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ACT.................................................................................................................................
114
12.3.1 Guidance for Meeting With Groups..................................................................................................115
12.3.2 Alternatives to Chartered Groups ....................................................................................................116
CHAPTER 13—ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES.......................................................................................117
13.1 PUBLISHING NOTICES IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER.....................................................................117
13.1.1 Procedures for Publishing Notices in the Federal Register..............................................................117
13.1.1.1 Publication Requirements.........................................................................................................................118
13.1.1.2 Typing and Format Requirements............................................................................................................ 119
13.1.1.3 Submission Requirements........................................................................................................................ 119
13.1.1.4 Publication Date....................................................................................................................................... 120
13.2 PRINTING EISS......................................................................................................................................120
13.3 FILING EISS WITH THE EPA...............................................................................................................120
13.3.1 Significance of EPA Publication Dates ............................................................................................121
13.3.2 Procedures for Filing with the EPA .................................................................................................121
13.4 RECORDKEEPING PROCEDURES.....................................................................................................122
13.4.1 Environmental Documents and Supporting Records—The Administrative Record....................................... 122
13.4.2 Other Environmental Records...........................................................................................................123
13.5 CONTRACTING NEPA WORK.............................................................................................................124
CHAPTER 14—ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT...................................................................................................127
TC - vii
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
GLOSSARY ......................................................................................................................................................129
ACRONYMS ......................................................................................................................................................137
APPENDIX 1 SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITIES TO BE CONSIDERED......................................................139
APPENDIX 2 USING CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE ENERGY POLICY
ACT OF 2005 ...............................................................................................................................
141
APPENDIX 3 DEPARTMENTAL CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS................................................................145
APPENDIX 4 BLM CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS.......................................................................................147
APPENDIX 5 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS: EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES..........................155
APPENDIX 6 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION DOCUMENTATION FORMAT WHEN USING
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS NOT ESTABLISHED BY STATUTE...................................
157
APPENDIX 7 DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS FOR HAZARDOUS FUELS ACTIONS
AND POST-FIRE REHABILITATION ACTIONS .....................................................................159
APPENDIX 8 WORKSHEET DETERMINATION OF NEPA ADEQUACY (DNA) .......................................161
APPENDIX 9 RECOMMENDED EA FORMAT................................................................................................165
APPENDIX 10 ITEMS TO INCLUDE IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD................................................167
APPENDIX 11 FEDERAL REGISTER ILLUSTRATIONS.................................................................................169
FIGURES
FIGURE 1.1 NEPA SCREENING PROCESS............................................................................................................5
FIGURE 1.2 SCREENING FOR LAND USE PLAN CONFORMANCE .................................................................7
FIGURE 6.1 THE NEPA PROCESS ........................................................................................................................34
FIGURE 6.2 DESIGN FEATURES AND MITIGATION MEASURES...................................................................44
FIGURE 8.1 EA PROCESS ......................................................................................................................................86
FIGURE 9.1 THE EIS PROCESS.............................................................................................................................91
TC - viii
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
This page intentionally left blank.
TC - ix
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
HANDBOOK USER'S GUIDE
The purpose of this Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Manual Handbook (H-1790-1) is to
help us comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on
Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508) and the
Department of the Interior NEPA manual. "We" (BLM) have written it for use by "you," the
reader involved in the NEPA process. The "NEPA process" means all measures necessary for
compliance with the requirements of the Purpose (section 2 of the Act) and the Congressional
Declaration of National Environmental Policy (Title 1 of the Act). Meeting our NEPA
compliance responsibilities requires help from all levels of our agency, including decision-
makers, program managers, specialists, interdisciplinary team members, and BLM contractors.
The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions that are based on
understanding of environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance
the environment (40 CFR 1500.1(c)). Early chapters in this Handbook address the legal
requirements and our analytical approach to complying with the NEPA. We then explain content
requirements of specific types of NEPA compliance documents.
Following the introductory material in Chapter 1, Chapters 2 through 5 address the procedural
determinations of whether a NEPA analysis is necessary and, if so, the degree to which it may be
already covered in an existing NEPA document. Chapter 6 identifies the essential analytical
elements that are common to NEPA analysis, regardless of whether you are preparing an
Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement. Chapters 7 through 9 help
you identify whether an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement is
needed, and describe the various sections of these documents. The remaining Chapters 11
through 15 address monitoring, cooperating agencies, working with advisory committees,
administrative procedures, and adaptive management.
A requirement to meet NEPA compliance is that we encourage and facilitate public involvement
in decisions which affect the quality of the human environment (40 CFR 1500.2(d)).
Information relating to public participation in the NEPA process is contained primarily in
Chapters 6, 8, 9, and 12.
To assist you in carrying out your NEPA responsibilities, this Handbook includes references to
documents contained in the BLM NEPA Handbook Web Guide (Web Guide). The Web Guide
includes copies of official guidance, such as CEQ citations, and provides examples for your use
in complying with the NEPA. For example, an interdisciplinary team preparing an EIS with
tribal or county cooperators can review a number of sample memorandums of understanding
(MOUs) written to identify the responsibilities of cooperating agency status. These MOUs serve
as models, although they are not official guidance. The Web Guide also contains excerpts of
BLM NEPA documents. Other materials include helpful ideas, tools, and techniques for making
the NEPA process more efficient and effective and for adding clarity to the NEPA documents.
References to the Web Guide are shown in this Handbook in blue text.
TC - x
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
This page intentionally left blank.
1
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
CHAPTER 1—NEPA BASICS
General
1.1 Introduction to the NEPA
1.2 Departmental Guidance and this Handbook
1.3 Documents Used to Meet NEPA Requirements
1.4 The NEPA Approach
1.5 Conformance with the Existing Land Use Plan
1.6 Consistency with Other Authorities
GENERAL
This chapter provides an overview of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and related
direction which is pertinent to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) planning and decision-
making process.
1.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEPA
The National Environmental Policy Act was passed by Congress in 1969 and signed into law on
January 1, 1970. This legislation established a landmark national environmental policy which,
among other things, encourages environmental protection and informed decision-making. It
provides the means to carry out these goals by:
• mandating that every Federal agency prepare a detailed statement of the effects of
“major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.”
• establishing the need for agencies to consider alternatives to those actions.
• requiring the use of an interdisciplinary process in developing alternatives and
analyzing environmental effects.
• requiring that each agency consult with and obtain comments of any Federal agency
which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental
impact involved.
• requiring that detailed statements and the comments and views of the appropriate
Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies be made available to the public.
The stated purpose of the NEPA and the mission of the BLM are fully compatible. Our
mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and
enjoyment of present and future generations. This closely mirrors BLM's multiple use and
sustained yield mandates under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The NEPA
declares that the Federal government’s continuing policy is to create and maintain conditions
under which people and nature can exist in productive harmony and fulfill the social, economic,
and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.
2
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
In addition to setting policy goals for environmental planning, the NEPA created the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ), in the Executive Office of the President, to be the “caretaker” of
the NEPA. The CEQ issued final regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of
NEPA (40 CFR 1500–1508) in 1978 (revised in 1986), and added to them in 1981 with a
guidance document titled “Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s NEPA Regulations.”
The NEPA and the CEQ regulations establish procedures to ensure proper consideration of
environmental concerns, but they do not dictate a particular result or decision. The CEQ
regulations also require that agencies “make diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing
and implementing their NEPA procedures” (40 CFR 1506.6(a)).
1.2 DEPARTMENTAL GUIDANCE AND THIS BLM HANDBOOK
The Department of the Interior’s (DOI) NEPA policy is found in the Departmental Manual (DM)
Part 516. Chapter 11 of the manual (516 DM 11) is specific to the BLM's management of the
NEPA process. The DOI, through the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance (OEPC),
also continuously updates a series of environmental statement, review, and compliance
memoranda, which further interpret DM Part 516.
This Handbook contains direction for use by BLM employees from all levels of our organization,
including decision-makers, program managers, specialists, interdisciplinary team members, and
any BLM contractors involved in the NEPA process. "We" (BLM) believe it will help "you" (the
reader) help us in meeting the legal requirements of the NEPA.
For more information see the BLM Planning and NEPA Library Web page.
1.3 DOCUMENTS USED TO MEET NEPA REQUIREMENTS
The BLM uses various types of documents to meet our NEPA requirements. Environmental
analysis documents, which must be made available to the public, include environmental impact
statements (EISs) and environmental assessments (EAs) (40 CFR 1506.6(b)). If a proposed
action will have a significant environmental impact, you must prepare an environmental impact
statement (EIS) (40 CFR 1502.1
). The EIS process is initiated with publication of a notice of
intent (NOI) and requires public scoping. Draft EISs are made available for public review and
comment, and final EISs include our responses to comments received. You must document your
decision on the action in a record of decision (ROD) (40 CFR 1505.2
).
If it is unclear whether the action would have a significant effect, you prepare an environmental
assessment (EA) (40 CFR 1508.9(a)
). If the analysis in an EA shows the action would not have
a significant effect, a “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI) documents that there is no
need for an EIS (40 CFR 1508.13
).
If the proposed action belongs to a category of actions that have no potential for significant
environmental impacts, you may categorically exclude the action from analysis in an EA or EIS
before deciding to implement it. To categorically exclude an action, the proposed action must fit
within the list of statutory, Departmental, or BLM categorical exclusions (CXs) (516 DM
2.3(A)).
3
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
The BLM NEPA procedures also provide for the use of existing NEPA analysis documents. If a
proposed action is adequately covered by an existing EIS or EA, then you may document a
“Determination of NEPA Adequacy” (DNA) (516 DM 11.6
).
1.4 THE NEPA APPROACH
As described by the CEQ regulations, the NEPA “is our basic national charter for protection of
the environment” (40 CFR 1500.1
). According to the regulations, “The NEPA process is
intended to help public officials make decisions that are based on understanding of
environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the
environment” (40 CFR 1500.1(c)). Analysis and disclosure of the effects of a proposed action
and its alternatives are the underlying NEPA principles that move agencies toward achieving this
goal.
Figure 1.1, "NEPA Screening Process," is a flow chart that shows our NEPA screening process.
The NEPA process starts when the BLM has a proposal for action (see section 3.1, Determining
When NEPA Applies). The CEQ regulations require that the NEPA process begin and be
“integrate[d] with other planning at the earliest possible time to ensure that planning and
decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid delays later in the process, and to head off
potential conflicts” (40 CFR 1501.2).
Several factors guide the timing of NEPA analysis and agency decision-making (40 CFR 1502.5
and 1506.1). For example:
– You must finish all of the steps necessary for completing the NEPA process prior to
issuance of a formal decision, to enable you to make a well-informed decision (40 CFR
1505.1(d), 40 CFR 1506.1, 516 DM 1.2(D)).
– You must not authorize any action that would limit the choice of alternatives being analyzed
under the NEPA until the NEPA process is complete (40 CFR 1506.1).
However, this
requirement does not apply to actions previously analyzed in a NEPA document that are
proposed for implementation under an existing land use plan. For instance, an existing plan
will continue to guide the BLM's processing of site-specific permits on existing oil and gas
leases. Drilling permits, sundry notices, and similar authorizations will be allowed as long
as the actions do not exceed limits that were delineated in the existing land use plan (LUP)
and analyzed in the associated NEPA document.
As NEPA analysis documents are not agency decisions, they are not subject to BLM
administrative protest or appeal provisions. However, a decision based on a CX, an EA and
FONSI, or an EIS is an agency action and may be protested or appealed, regardless of the type
of NEPA compliance documentation completed.
4
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
You must prepare NEPA analyses using an interdisciplinary approach, and the disciplines of the
preparers must be appropriate to the scope of the analysis and to the issues identified in the
scoping process (40 CFR 1502.6). The requirement for an interdisciplinary approach is met
when preparer(s) consult with all appropriate sources for the analysis of affected resources. This
may include staff from other BLM offices or other Federal or non-Federal agencies, as needed,
to provide a rational basis for decision-making.
The CEQ regulations require NEPA documents to be “concise, clear, and to the point” (40 CFR
1500.2(b), 1502.4). Analyses must “focus on significant environmental issues and alternatives”
and be useful to the decision-maker and the public (40 CFR 1500.1). Discussions of impacts are
to be proportionate to their significance (40 CFR 1502.2(b)). Similarly, the description of the
affected environment is to be no longer than is necessary to understand the effects of the
alternatives (40 CFR 1502.15). “Most important, NEPA documents must concentrate on the
issues that are truly significant to the action in question, rather than amassing needless detail.”
(40 CFR 1500.1).
5
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Figure 1.1 NEPA Screening Process
6
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
1.5 CONFORMANCE WITH THE EXISTING LAND USE PLAN
All actions approved or authorized by the BLM must conform to the existing land use plan where
one exists (43 CFR 1610.5-3, 516 DM 11.5).
Although it is not a NEPA requirement, the BLM
includes within all its NEPA documents a statement about the conformance of the proposed
action and alternatives with the existing land use plan (LUP). The BLM’s planning regulations
state that the term “conformity” or “conformance” means that “… a resource management action
shall be specifically provided for in the plan, or if not specifically mentioned, shall be clearly
consistent with the terms, conditions, and decisions of the approved plan or amendment” (43
CFR 1601.0-5(b)).
A proposal for an action that has been clearly identified and provided for in the LUP would be
considered to be in conformance with the plan.
If the LUP is silent about an activity, review the plan direction including the broad and
programmatic goals and objectives. In this evaluation, there are four possible conclusions:
1. the activity contributes to meeting plan goals and objectives and is not inconsistent with
the plan, and hence it can be considered to be in conformance;
2. the proposal is not in conformance, but the proposal can be modified to be in
conformance;
3. the proposal is not in conformance, but amendment of the LUP is warranted to allow the
activity; or
4. the proposal is not in conformance, and the proposal does not warrant further
consideration through an LUP amendment.
If you determine that the proposed action does not conform to the LUP, you may modify the
proposal to conform, or consider a plan amendment to allow the action. In the case of
externally-generated proposals, working with the applicant before submission of a proposed
action to suggest modifications to their initial proposal may result in conformance with the LUP.
When a proposal cannot be modified and does not warrant amendment of the LUP, drop the
proposal. (See Figure 1.2, Screening for Land Use Plan Conformance).
7
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Figure 1.2 Screening for Land Use Plan Conformance
8
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
1.6 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER AUTHORITIES
In addition to the BLM’s planning regulations related to LUP conformance, there are a number
of other authorities, such as program-specific guidance and Executive Orders, for you to
remember when considering an action.
We recommend that you document your compliance with other authorities at the same time that
you document NEPA compliance. These other authorities do not constitute NEPA requirements
for analysis, but some contain specific direction about NEPA compliance. More generally, other
authorities may be relevant during several steps of the NEPA process. For example, other laws,
regulations, and policies may be useful to consider in formulating the purpose and need for
action (see section 6.2, Purpose and Need), identifying issues for analysis (see section 6.4,
Issues), formulating alternatives (see section 6.6, Alternatives Development), identifying any
regulatory thresholds (see section 6.8.3.5, Analyzing the Cumulative Effects), and developing
the rationale for decision selection (see sections 8.5.1, Documenting the Decision and 9.7.1,
ROD Format). In addition, other laws and regulations may factor into the determination of
whether effects are significant (see section 7.3, Significance).
The list of supplemental authorities contained in Appendix 1, Supplemental Authorities to be
Considered, is not exhaustive and will change over time. This list is not a checklist for NEPA
compliance, but may be consulted when developing NEPA documents. See section 6.4, Issues
for additional guidance.
9
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
CHAPTER 2—ACTIONS EXEMPT FROM THE NEPA AND
EMERGENCY ACTIONS
General
2.1 Congressionally Exempt Actions
2.2 Actions Mandated by Statute
2.3 Emergency Actions
GENERAL
Some types of actions are or can be exempt from NEPA requirements. However, the NEPA has
broad-reaching applicability, and situations where actions are exempt are rare. In an emergency,
when action must be taken immediately, there are procedures for complying with the NEPA (see
section 2.3, Emergency Actions).
Be aware that even if an action is exempt from the NEPA or if alternative arrangement
procedures are used, you may need to analyze that action as part of a cumulative effects analysis
for a future action (see section 6.8.3, Cumulative Effects).
2.1 CONGRESSIONALLY EXEMPT ACTIONS
Some actions are congressionally exempt from NEPA compliance. This is uncommon and is
applicable only on a case-by-case basis. Review the relevant statutory language to determine the
extent and scope of the action being exempted. Any actions that are outside the scope of a
statutory exemption would require appropriate NEPA analysis. An example of an action that is
congressionally exempt from the NEPA is one where a law directs the BLM to take action, such
as closing an area to a specific use, and the law states that the provisions of the NEPA do not
apply.
2.1.1 CERCLA
It is the position of the Department of Justice that the NEPA is not applicable to cleanups
conducted pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act, 42 U.S.C. sections 9601 et seq. (CERCLA). Requirements for environmental analysis and
public participation during CERCLA cleanups are addressed in the CERCLA Handbook. For
further information regarding this issue, or how it may apply at a particular site, contact the
Office of the Solicitor.
2.2 ACTIONS MANDATED BY STATUTE
If the BLM is required by law to take an action, the NEPA may not be triggered. For example,
Public Law 105-167 mandates the BLM to exchange certain mineral interests. In this situation,
the NEPA would not apply because the law removes the BLM’s decision-making discretion.
Also, if there is a clear and unavoidable conflict between NEPA compliance and another
statutory authority, NEPA compliance is not required. For example, if the timing of another
statutory authority makes NEPA compliance impossible, the NEPA is not triggered.
10
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Be aware however, that some statutorily mandated actions do require NEPA analysis. For
example, an Act may direct the BLM to lease a specific parcel of land, as described in the
preceding example, yet require the BLM to comply with the provisions of the NEPA. We
recommend that you consult with the Office of the Solicitor if there are potential conflicts
between the NEPA and other statutory provisions.
2.3 EMERGENCY ACTIONS
In the event of an emergency situation, immediately take any action necessary to prevent or
reduce risk to public health or safety, property, or important resources (516 DM 5.8). Thereafter,
other than those actions that can be categorically excluded, the decision-maker must contact the
BLM Washington Office, Division of Planning and Science Policy (WO-210) to outline
subsequent actions. The CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1506.11) provide that in an emergency
“alternative arrangements” may be established to comply with NEPA. Alternative arrangements
do not waive the requirement to comply with NEPA, but establish an alternative means for
compliance.
The CEQ regulations for alternative arrangements for dealing with such emergencies are limited
to the actions necessary to control the immediate effects of the emergency. Other portions of the
action, follow-up actions, and related or connected actions remain subject to normal NEPA
requirements, so you must complete appropriate NEPA analysis before these actions may be
taken (40 CFR 1506.11).
The “alternative arrangements” take the place of an EIS and only apply to Federal actions with
significant environmental impacts (see section 7.3, Significance). If the proposed action does
not have significant environmental effects, then the alternative arrangements at 40 CFR 1506.11
do not apply.
If you anticipate the proposed emergency response activity will have significant environmental
effects, we recommend that you assess whether an existing NEPA analysis has been prepared
(e.g., implementing preexisting plans) or whether there is an applicable exemption. For
example, certain Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) response actions are exempt
from the NEPA (see the NEPA Handbook Web Guide).
2.3.1 Types of Emergency Actions
The following actions are typically considered emergency actions, provided they must
immediately be taken to protect public health and safety or important resources:
• cleanup of a hazardous materials spill.
• wildland fire suppression activities related to ongoing wildland fires.
• emergency stabilization actions following wildland fires or other disasters.
11
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Emergency stabilization actions that are not immediately needed to protect public health and
safety or important resources must undergo normal NEPA procedures (40 CFR 1506.11).
Generally, follow-up actions such as fire rehabilitation, abandoned mine land reclamation, or
flood cleanup are not considered emergency actions.
2.3.2 Procedures for Emergency Actions
2.3.2.1 Wildfire Suppression Actions
You must take immediate action to manage all wildfires consistent with land use and fire
management plans. The BLM Washington Office will consult with the OEPC on an annual basis
to discuss anticipated fire suppression activities for the upcoming fire season and any changes in
fire suppression standards and operating procedures. The OEPC will consult with the CEQ, as
appropriate. Prescribed fire projects are not considered wildfire suppression activities, and must
undergo normal NEPA procedures (40 CFR 1506.11).
2.3.2.2 Emergency Actions other than Wildfire Suppression
You must take immediate action to prevent or reduce risk to public health or safety or important
resources (516 DM 5.8). Thereafter, other than those actions that can be categorically excluded,
you must contact the BLM Washington Office (WO-210) to outline subsequent actions. We
recommend that you address the following factors when contacting WO-210 in the event of an
emergency situation:
• nature and scope of the emergency.
• actions necessary to control the immediate effects of the emergency.
• potential adverse effects of the proposed action.
• components of the NEPA process that can be followed and that provide value to
decision-making (e.g., coordination with affected agencies and the public).
• duration of the emergency.
• potential mitigation measures.
The BLM WO-210 will expedite the necessary consultation with the Office of the Solicitor, the
OEPC, and the CEQ for those emergency actions anticipated to have significant environmental
impacts. Once alternative arrangements have been established, the CEQ will provide
documentation describing the alternative arrangements and the considerations on which they are
based. During any follow-up activities, the OEPC and the BLM will jointly be responsible for
consulting with the CEQ. If the BLM action is not expected to have significant environmental
impacts, contact the BLM WO-210. The BLM WO-210 will consult with the OEPC to consider
any appropriate action. The Web Guide provides WO-210 contact information
, including non-
duty hour procedures. Also, see 516 DM 5.8
for guidance on emergencies.
12
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
When time permits, actions that are not categorically excluded and that are not expected to have
significant environmental effects can be analyzed with an environmental assessment. We
recommend that you use the techniques described throughout this handbook to prepare a focused,
concise, and timely environmental assessment:
• narrowly focus the purpose and need.
• limit alternatives to those that would achieve the purpose and need.
• if there is consensus about the proposed action, do not analyze in detail the no action or
other action alternatives.
• tailor public involvement and use informal scoping (telephone calls, on-site discussions
with affected parties) to identify issues of concern.
• limit the analysis to issues of concern.
13
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
CHAPTER 3—ACTIONS REQUIRING NEPA COMPLIANCE
General
3.1 Determining When the NEPA Applies
3.2 Proposals Originating Within the BLM
3.3 Proposals Submitted to the BLM by Other Entities
GENERAL
The NEPA process is initiated when a proposal for Federal action exists. The sections of this
chapter discuss when the NEPA applies for various types of proposals that the BLM considers.
3.1 DETERMINING WHEN THE NEPA APPLIES
A proposal for Federal action triggers the NEPA. The CEQ regulations define major Federal
actions to include adoption of official policy (that is, rules and regulations), adoption of formal
plans, adoption of programs, and approval of specific projects (40 CFR 1508.18). The NEPA
process is initiated when a proposal has been developed by, or submitted to the BLM.
Identification of existing conditions and of possible actions does not trigger the NEPA.
As a Federal agency, the BLM must meet NEPA requirements whenever it is the BLM's decision
that would result in an effect on the human environment, even when the effect would be
beneficial and regardless of who proposes the action or where it would take place (40 CFR
1508.18).
3.2 PROPOSALS ORIGINATING WITHIN THE BLM
The BLM develops land use plans and proposes or approves actions to implement those plans.
The BLM land use plans (LUP) require preparation of an EIS. Amendments of LUPs require an
EA or EIS. The BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) provides additional guidance
for complying with the NEPA for planning actions and implementation actions. Examples of
implementation actions are construction of trails; timber sales; fuels reduction projects; and
development of camping sites. Implementation actions require preparation of an EA or EIS,
unless the action can be categorically excluded (see section 4.2.1, Identifying Potential
Categorical Exclusions).
A BLM proposal is a Federal action when: (1) we have a goal and are actively preparing to
make a decision on one or more alternative means of accomplishing that goal (40 CFR
1508.23); (2) the proposed action and effects are subject to BLM control and responsibility
(40 CFR 1508.18); (3) the action has effects that can be meaningfully evaluated (40 CFR
1508.23); and (4) effects of the proposed action are related to the natural and physical
environment, and the relationship of people with that environment (40 CFR 1508.8; 40 CFR
1508.14).
14
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
3.2.1 Policies and Rulemaking
Federal actions include “Adoption of official policy, such as rules, regulations, and
interpretations …” (40 CFR 1508.18(b)(1)). When we propose a policy, we must evaluate it to
determine whether it is a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment, and thus triggers the need to prepare an EIS (40 CFR 1502.4(b)). This evaluation
involves a three part test to determine whether the following apply: the action must (1) be
federally approved or conducted, (2) major, and (3) have a significant environmental impact.
However, it is not always as clear whether a proposed policy will affect the human environment.
The BLM must evaluate if the proposed action would authorize any activity or commit any
resources, thus affecting the human environment (40 CFR 1508.18).
Adoption of official policy of an administrative, financial, legal, technical or procedural nature is
often too broad, speculative, or conjectural to allow for a meaningful analysis. Such actions may
be categorically excluded (see Appendix 3, Departmental Categorical Exclusions, CX #1.10).
An example of a categorically excluded procedural action is the BLM’s proposed revision of our
Departmental NEPA Manual chapter (516 DM chapter 11; Federal Register, January 25, 2006).
Departmental policy requires that all rulemaking documents be published in the Federal Register
for public comment, and that the notice include a Record of Compliance with a statement
whether the proposed policy would or would not constitute a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment (318 DM 4). This statement may be supported
by:
• an EIS;
• an EA and FONSI;
• an explanation that the action is categorically excluded; or
• an explanation that the action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment, and a detailed statement under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is not required.
An example of rulemaking that required preparation of an EIS is revision to our grazing
regulations is found at 43 CFR part 4100 (Federal Register, December 8, 2003 and July 12,
2006).
Internal BLM projects are held to the same NEPA analysis requirements as externally-
generated projects. It is important not to overlook the analysis requirements of any BLM-
initiated projects, including such relatively low-impact actions as approving a buried
powerline in a previously disturbed area or installing a wildlife guzzler.
15
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
3.2.2 Land Use Plan (LUP) Development
Sections 201 and 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA, 43
U.S.C. 1711-1712) and regulations in 43 CFR part 1600 establish BLM land use planning
requirements. The BLM LUPs are designed to provide guidance for future management actions
and the development of subsequent, more detailed and limited-scope plans for resources and
uses. The BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) provides supplemental guidance for
preparing, revising, amending and maintaining LUPs. Land use plans include both resource
management plans (RMPs) and management framework plans (MFPs).
Development of a new plan (including replacement of a MFP with an RMP) requires preparation
of an EIS, as does revision of an existing LUP (43 CFR 1601.0-6). An existing plan may be
amended to make changes in the terms, conditions and decision of an approved plan. The
amendment process is tailored to the anticipated level of public interest and potential for
significant impacts, and requires preparation of an EA or EIS. An example of an EA-level LUP
amendment is to establish or adjust a herd management area on public lands used by wild
horses, in accordance with the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971. Actions to
maintain LUPs usually may be categorically excluded (see section 4.2.1, Identifying Potential
Categorical Exclusions).
3.3 PROPOSALS SUBMITTED TO THE BLM BY OTHER ENTITIES
Other entities who submit proposals include applicants for use or development of resources on
lands administered by the BLM. Other entities include non-Federal organizations and
individuals, other Federal, State and local agencies, and tribal entities. As part of considering a
proposal submitted to the BLM by others, the decision-maker must determine if it is in
conformance with the LUP (43 CFR 1610.5-3, 516 DM 11.5) and what level or type of NEPA
documentation is required (see section 1.3 Documents Used to Meet NEPA Requirements). The
following are some examples of proposals from outside the BLM:
• applications for a permit to drill, a special recreation permit, a right-of-way grant, or
a grazing authorization
• a proposal by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to control grasshoppers
on lands administered by the BLM.
• a proposal from a State wildlife agency for the BLM to cooperate in restoring wildlife
habitat.
3.3.1 Proposals for the BLM to Fund Actions
Whenever the BLM receives a proposal to fund projects on public lands that we manage, the
NEPA is triggered. Occasionally, the BLM has funds to distribute to non-Federal entities to
perform work on lands not administered by the BLM. If the BLM exercises control over the
implementation of the action such that the effect can be meaningfully evaluated, NEPA analysis
is required. If the BLM distributes the funds according to a predetermined formula or through a
State clearing house for subsequent distribution to projects not individually identified, then the
NEPA is not triggered.
16
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
For example, the BLM has a cooperative agreement with a State agency to fund fuel reduction
projects on private or State lands. If the cooperative agreement describes the criteria to select
the projects but leaves the specifics of project selection to the State agency, then the NEPA is not
triggered. On the other hand, if the BLM is making a decision to fund or not fund a specific
project on lands not administered by the BLM, then NEPA is triggered.
3.3.2 Proposals Involving Mineral Estate
Where the BLM manages both surface resources and subsurface resources, any proposal to
develop locatable or leaseable mineral resources triggers the NEPA. Where the BLM does not
manage both surface and subsurface resources (split estate), whether or not a proposal requires
NEPA compliance depends on the specific situation.
– Proposals where the BLM manages the subsurface resources and another Federal agency
manages the surface. The NEPA is triggered by a proposal to develop the subsurface resource.
The BLM must establish a cooperating agency relationship with the other Federal agency (see
section 12.1, Cooperating Agency Status in Development of NEPA Analysis Documents).
– Proposals where the BLM manages the subsurface resources and the surface is non-Federal.
On split estate lands where the reserved Federal minerals are open to leasing or location (location
is the act of staking a mining claim under the General Mining Law), the NEPA is triggered by an
operator or mining claimant’s proposal to explore for or develop the subsurface resource. The
BLM is responsible for NEPA compliance, and you must document effects on surface and
subsurface resources (40 CFR 1508.8). An exception to this policy refers to Stock Raising
Homestead Act lands and applies only when the surface owner and the mining claimant are the
same party (IM 2005-114; 43 CFR 3809).
– Proposals where the BLM manages the surface and the subsurface is non-Federal. As with
any proposal, the NEPA is triggered by a request for the BLM to authorize surface disturbance.
For example, the BLM is responsible for documenting NEPA compliance for an access road
right-of-way application, regardless of the use for which the access is requested.
17
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
CHAPTER 4—CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS
General
4.1 Categorical Exclusions Established by the Energy Policy Act
4.2 Categorical Exclusions Established by the Department of the Interior or the BLM
GENERAL
Categorical exclusions (CXs) are categories of actions that Federal agencies have determined do
not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (individually or
cumulatively) and for which, therefore, neither an EA nor an EIS is required (40 CFR 1508.4).
A CX is a form of NEPA compliance, without the analysis that occurs in an EA or an EIS. It is
not an exemption from the NEPA.
When using CXs, other procedural requirements
may still apply: for example, tribal consultation,
and consultation under the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Endangered Species Act.
While use of a CX is not subject to protest or
appeal, a decision on the action being taken may be subject to protest and appeal. Consult
program-specific guidance and include applicable protest and appeal provisions with the
documentation of the decision on the action. See the NEPA Handbook Web Guide for program-
specific protest and appeal information.
If there is high public interest in an action that will be categorically excluded, you may elect to
involve the public (for example, through notification or scoping). Public involvement may be
valuable in determining whether extraordinary circumstances apply. There may be program-
specific guidance for public notification of the decision. Even if there is no program-specific
guidance, you may elect to provide public notification of a decision based on a CX, depending
on the public interest in the action.
Though not required, you may elect to prepare an EA for proposed actions otherwise excluded
when the decision-maker believes that an EA would be helpful in planning or decision-making
(40 CFR 1501.3
and 516 DM 3.2(B)). We recommend that you include in the NEPA document
the rationale for completing an EA when a CX could be used.
Guidance for the use of CXs differs for some specific CXs as described below.
4.1 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE ENERGY POLICY ACT
Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 established five statutory CXs that apply only to
oil and gas exploration and development pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act. The CXs do not
apply to geothermal actions. These CXs are listed in Appendix 2, Using Categorical
Exclusions Established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
You are encouraged to apply
categorical exclusions, where
appropriate, because they speed
NEPA compliance (40 CFR
1500.5(k).
18
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
The decision-maker must include in the well file or case file a brief rationale as to why one or
more Energy Act CXs apply. No other documentation for application of Energy Act CXs is
required. These CXs are different in application from the Departmental CXs and the BLM non-
Energy Act CXs. Energy Policy Act CXs do not require review for extraordinary circumstances.
This is because these CXs are established by statute, and their application is governed by that
statute. However, other procedural requirements still apply, such as consultation under the
Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act.
Issue a decision document for the proposed activity. Apply environmental best management
practices (BMPs) and other suitable mitigation measures to permit approvals in accordance with
current national policy. Best Management Practices or conditions of approval can be
implemented with a CX and do not require additional NEPA documentation.
Detailed guidance for using these statutory CXs is described in Appendix 2, Using Categorical
Exclusions Established by the Energy Policy Act 2005.
4.2. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR OR THE BLM
This section outlines procedures for using categorical exclusions established by the Department
of the Interior or the BLM in accordance with CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.4).
4.2.1 Identifying Potential Categorical Exclusions
Verify that the proposed action fits within one of the Departmental CXs (Appendix 3,
Departmental Categorical Exclusions) or a BLM CX (Appendix 4, BLM Categorical
Exclusions). Both the Departmental and BLM lists of CXs need to be reviewed to determine if
the proposed action falls into one of the listed categories, as the two lists are not the same.
Some proposed actions may fit within more than one CX. In determining the appropriate CX to
use, select the CX that most closely matches the objectives of the proposed action and is the most
specific.
Several CXs include acreage limitations (Appendix 3, Departmental Categorical Exclusions
and Appendix 4, BLM Categorical Exclusions). Where multiple treatments are proposed, for
instance, consider the total area treated, rather than adding together overlapping acreage of
different treatments. For example, the BLM CX for vegetation treatment (see Appendix 4, BLM
Categorical Exclusions) includes an acreage limitation of 1000 acres for vegetation
management projects other than prescribed fire. A proposed action of invasive plant removal on
600 acres, followed by mechanical cutting on 500 overlapping acres does not exceed the 1000-
acre limitation. If the mechanical cutting were proposed on 500 acres that did not overlap with
the 600 acres of invasive plant removal, the proposed action would exceed the 1000-acre
limitation.
19
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
4.2.2 Determining if an Extraordinary Circumstance Precludes Use of a Categorical
Exclusion
Extraordinary circumstances preclude the use of a Departmental or BLM CX. Extraordinary
circumstances are those circumstances for which the Department has determined that further
environmental analysis is required for an action, and therefore an EA or EIS must be prepared
(516 DM 2.3(A)(3)). All categorically excluded actions must be subjected to sufficient review to
determine if any of the extraordinary circumstances apply (see Appendix 5, Categorical
Exclusions: Extraordinary Circumstances).
If any extraordinary circumstances apply, an EA or EIS must be prepared (516 DM 2.3(A)(3)).
While there is no requirement for an interdisciplinary process or public involvement when
reviewing whether extraordinary circumstances apply, the decision-maker may choose to do so.
If any of the extraordinary circumstances apply to the proposed action, determine whether the
proposal can be modified to alleviate or resolve the circumstances that are considered
extraordinary. If this can be done, and if applicable, the proponent agrees to the change, then the
proposed action may be modified and categorically excluded. If the proposed action cannot be
modified or the proponent refuses to accept a proposed change, prepare an EA or EIS. If an
extraordinary circumstance indicates there are significant effects, then an EIS must be prepared
(516 DM 4) (see section 7.2, Actions Requiring an EIS).
Some actions may require considerable review to determine whether any extraordinary
circumstances apply. For example, a significant impact on a threatened or endangered species is
an extraordinary circumstance (see Appendix 5, Categorical Exclusions: Extraordinary
Circumstances). It might be readily determined that an action would have some effect on a
threatened or endangered species (which would not necessarily constitute an extraordinary
circumstance). Determining whether that effect would be significant might require considerable
review. If there is uncertainty about whether one or more of the extraordinary circumstances
apply, we recommend that you prepare an EA to determine whether an EIS is required.
If none of the extraordinary circumstances apply to the proposed action (or modified action),
then it may be categorically excluded.
4.2.3 Documentation Requirements
4.2.3.1 Documentation Requirements When Using Hazardous Fuels and Post-Fire
Rehabilitation CXs
Categorical exclusions for hazardous fuels and post-fire rehabilitation (see Appendix 3,
Departmental Categorical Exclusions, #1.12 and #1.13) have specific documentation
requirements. The OEPC requires you to prepare a specific memorandum documenting the use
of these two categorical exclusions and documenting the decision to implement the proposed
project (DM ESM 03-2). The documentation must follow the template provided in Appendix 7,
Documentation Requirements for Hazardous Fuels Actions and Post-Fire Rehabilitation
Actions. You must include this document in the case or project file.
20
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
4.2.3.2 Documentation Requirements When Using CXs Not Established by Statute
For most actions that are categorically excluded, we recommend that you document which
categorical exclusion applies. Documentation would often not be necessary for:
• Actions that have no environmental effect (for example, personnel actions (516 DM 2,
Appendix 1 (1.1)
) or routine financial transactions (516 DM 2 Appendix 1, (1.3))).
• Actions that have negligible environmental effect (for example, nondestructive data
collection (516 DM 2, Appendix 1 (1.6)) or installation of routine signs and markers
(516 DM 11.9 (G.2))). The NEPA Handbook Web Guide provides additional
examples and discussion.
If you document which categorical exclusion applies, you must use the form provided in
Appendix 6, Categorical Exclusion Documentation Format When Using Categorical
Exclusions Not Established by Statute. This form must be included in the case or project file.
This form does not constitute a decision document, and you must issue a decision document that
meets program specific guidance.
21
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
CHAPTER 5—USING EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES
General
5.1 Determination of NEPA Adequacy
5.2 Incorporation by Reference and Tiering
5.3 Supplementing an EIS
5.4 Adopting Another Agency’s NEPA Analyses
GENERAL
You may use existing environmental analyses to analyze effects associated with a proposed
action, when doing so would build on work that has already been done, avoid redundancy, and
provide a coherent and logical record of the analytical and decision-making process.
Address the following questions before using existing environmental analyses:
• Have any relevant environmental analyses related to the proposed action been prepared
(for example, LUP/EIS, programmatic EIS)?
• Who prepared or cooperated in the preparation of the analyses (i.e., the BLM or
another agency)?
• Do any of the existing analyses fully analyze the proposed actions, alternatives, and
effects?
• Are there new circumstances or information that have arisen since the original analysis
was conducted?
The answers to these questions will determine the degree to which you might rely on the existing
NEPA analyses. Use of existing analyses may range from considering them as the basis for
decision-making (following a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) or adoption of another
agency’s NEPA analysis); using components of them (through tiering or incorporation by
reference); or supplementing them with new analysis.
22
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
5.1 DETERMINATION OF NEPA ADEQUACY
Not all new proposed actions will require new environmental analysis. In some instances an
existing environmental analysis document may be relied upon in its entirety, and new NEPA
analysis will not be necessary (516 DM 11.6). The following are examples of some of the
typical situations in which an existing environmental analysis might be relied upon in its entirety.
– An applicant requests a special recreation permit for a 4-wheel vehicle race on an
established route, which is analyzed in an EA, selected in a decision document, and
implemented. Later, another applicant requests a special recreation permit for a
motorcycle race on the same route. Review the existing EA to determine if it adequately
addresses this similar action and if new information and resource concerns have arisen.
– A proposed action for a landscape-scale timber harvest project is analyzed in an EIS and
selected in a ROD. For implementation of a subsequent individual timber sale developed
consistent with the ROD, review the EIS to determine if its analysis adequately addresses
the specific effects of the individual timber sale.
You may also use the DNA to evaluate new circumstances or information prior to issuance of a
decision to determine whether you need to prepare a new or supplemental analysis (see section
5.3, Supplementing an EIS). For example:
A proposed action to construct a road is analyzed in an EIS, but a decision is delayed for
several years until funding becomes available. Before reaching a decision, review the
existing EIS to determine if it is still adequate in light of new information and resource
concerns that may have arisen in the intervening years.
To determine if existing documents are adequate, identify and review each relevant
environmental document, as described below.
5.1.1 Identifying Existing Environmental Documents
A new proposed action may rely on a single or multiple existing NEPA documents. The NEPA
documents that may be relevant include:
• EISs associated with BLM Resource Management Plans.
• EISs or EAs associated with Resource Management Plan Amendments.
• EISs or EAs on BLM programmatic actions.
• EISs or EAs associated with BLM activity plans, projects, or permit approval actions.
• EISs or EAs prepared by other agencies, including those on programmatic, land use,
and activity or project-specific plans or actions, with the BLM as a cooperating agency.
• EISs or EAs prepared by other agencies without the BLM as a cooperating agency.
A Determination of NEPA Adequacy confirms that an action is adequately analyzed
in existing NEPA document(s) and is in conformance with the land use plan.
23
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
If the existing document is an EIS or EA prepared by another agency, the BLM must adopt the
EIS or EA in order to use it for NEPA compliance. Follow the procedures for adoption rather
than a DNA (see section 5.4, Adopting Another Agency’s NEPA Analyses).
5.1.2 Reviewing Existing Environmental Documents
Review existing environmental documents and answer the following questions to determine
whether they adequately cover a proposed action currently under consideration:
• Is the new proposed action a feature of, or essentially similar to, an alternative analyzed
in the existing NEPA document(s)? Is the project within the same analysis area, or if
the project location is different, are the geographic and resource conditions sufficiently
similar to those analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s)? If there are differences,
can you explain why they are not substantial?
• Is the range of alternatives analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s) appropriate with
respect to the new proposed action, given current environmental concerns, interests, and
resource values?
• Is the existing analysis valid in light of any new information or circumstances (such as
rangeland health standard assessments, recent endangered species listings, updated lists
of BLM-sensitive species)? Can you reasonably conclude that new information and
new circumstances would not substantially change the analysis of the new proposed
action?
• Are the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would result from implementation of
the new proposed action similar (both quantitatively and qualitatively) to those analyzed
in the existing NEPA document?
We recommend that your answers be substantive and detailed and contain specific citations to
the existing EA or EIS (see section 5.1.3, Document the Review). If you answer “yes” to all of
the above questions, additional analysis will not be necessary. If you answer “no” to any of the
above questions, a new EA or EIS must be prepared (516 DM 11.6)
. However, it may still be
appropriate to tier to or incorporate by reference from the existing EA or EIS or supplement the
existing EIS (provided that the Federal action has not yet been implemented).
In addition to answering the above questions, evaluate whether the public involvement and
interagency review associated with existing EAs or EISs are adequate for the new proposed
action. In general, where the new proposed action has not already been discussed during public
involvement for the existing EA or EIS, some additional public involvement for the new
proposed action will be necessary. For example,
In the example above of a permit for a motorcycle race relying on the existing EA prepared
for a 4-wheel vehicle race on the same route, provide some additional public involvement
prior a decision on the permit, unless the public involvement for the EA specifically
discussed the motorcycle race.
24
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
In the example above of a timber sale relying on the existing EIS for a landscape-scale
timber harvest project, provide some additional public involvement prior a decision on the
timber sale, unless the public involvement for the EIS specifically described the individual
timber sale.
In the example above of a decision on road construction delayed after preparation of an
EIS, additional public involvement may or may not be necessary depending on the new
information or resource concerns that may have arisen. Evaluate whether additional public
involvement would assist in determining whether the existing EIS is still adequate for the
action.
If you conclude that additional public involvement is necessary, the type of public involvement
is at the discretion of the decision-maker. Public involvement may include any of the following:
external scoping, public notification before or during your review of the existing EA or EIS,
public meetings, or public notification or review of a completed DNA Worksheet (see section
5.1.3, Document the Review).
Some actions may be appropriate to implement with either a DNA or CX. When the new
proposed action is clearly a feature of an action analyzed in an existing NEPA document and the
existing analysis remains valid, a DNA would generally be preferable to using a CX, because a
DNA would rely on a NEPA analysis to support decision making.
5.1.3 Document the Review
The DNA worksheet is not itself a NEPA document. The DNA worksheet documents the review
to determine whether the existing NEPA documents can satisfy the NEPA requirements for the
proposed action currently under consideration. The DNA worksheet can be found in Appendix
8, Worksheet [for] Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA).
When relying on an existing environmental analysis for a new proposed action, we recommend
that you document the review using the DNA worksheet.
When evaluating new circumstances or information prior to issuance of a decision, as described
in section 5.1, Determination of NEPA Adequacy, you may document your review using the
DNA worksheet or in other documents, such as decision documentation or responses to
comments. The Web Guide contains examples of completed DNA worksheets.
25
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
5.1.4 FONSIs, Decisions, Protests, and Appeals
If the new proposed action is a feature of the selected alternative analyzed in an existing EA, you
do not need to prepare a new FONSI because the existing FONSI already made the finding that
the selected alternative would have no significant effects. However, you must prepare a new
FONSI before reaching a decision if the new proposed action is:
1. essentially similar to, but not specifically a feature of, the selected alternative
2. a feature of, or essentially similar to, an alternative that was analyzed in the EA or EIS,
but was not selected.
Be sure to evaluate whether the new FONSI must be made available for public review before
reaching a decision (see section 8.4.2, The Finding of No Significant Impact).
The DNA worksheet is not a decision document. For a new action for which a DNA has been
prepared, you usually must prepare decision documentation consistent with program-specific
guidance.
There may be program-specific guidance for public notification of decisions. Even if there is no
program-specific guidance, you may elect to provide public notification of a decision based on a
DNA, depending on the public interest in the action and the public involvement that was
provided for the existing NEPA analysis.
The signed conclusion in the DNA worksheet is an interim step in the BLM’s internal review
process and does not constitute an appealable decision. The decision on the action being
implemented may be subject to protest or appeal under 43 CFR Part 4 and program-specific
regulations. See the Web Guide for examples of DNA-level decisions.
5.2 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE AND TIERING
Incorporation by reference and tiering provide opportunities to reduce paperwork and redundant
analysis in the NEPA process. When incorporating by reference, you refer to other available
documents that cover similar issues, effects and/or resources considered in the NEPA analysis
you are currently preparing. Incorporation by reference allows you to briefly summarize the
relevant portions of these other documents rather than repeat them.
Tiering is a form of incorporation by reference that refers to previous EAs or EISs.
Incorporation by reference is a necessary step in tiering, but tiering is not the same as
incorporation by reference. Tiering allows you to narrow the scope of the subsequent analysis,
and focus on issues that are ripe for decision-making, while incorporation by reference does not.
You may only tier to EAs or EISs, whereas you may incorporate by reference from any type of
document.
26
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
5.2.1 Incorporation by Reference
The CEQ regulations direct that:
Agencies shall incorporate material into an environmental impact statement by reference
when the effect will be to cut down on bulk without impeding agency and public review
of the action. The incorporated material shall be cited in the statement and its content
briefly described. No material may be incorporated by reference unless it is reasonably
available for inspection by potentially interested parties within the time allowed for
comment. Material based on proprietary data which is itself not available for review and
comment shall not be incorporated by reference (40 CFR 1502.21).
Incorporation by reference is useful in preparing both EAs and EISs. It involves two steps:
citation and summarization.
1. Cite the source of the incorporated material. Give the name of the document and page
numbers where the incorporated material can be found. Make this citation as specific as
possible so there is no ambiguity for the reader about what material is being incorporated.
If unpublished, state where cited material is available.
2. Summarize the incorporated material. Briefly describe the content of the incorporated
material and place it in the context of the NEPA document at hand. For example, if
analysis is incorporated by reference from one NEPA document into another, summarize
the previous analysis, and explain what you conclude based on that previous analysis and
how it relates to the action in question. The summary of the incorporated material must
be sufficient to allow the decision-maker and other readers to follow the analysis and
arrive at a conclusion.
If a document incorporated by reference is central to the analysis in the EIS, circulate the
document for comment as part of the draft. For example, circulate incorporated material with the
draft EIS if it provides the bulk of the analysis, or it addresses effects which are highly
controversial, or if it is likely to provide a basis for the decision (see section 9.7.1, ROD
Format). In such instances, it may be more appropriate to attach the material as an appendix
rather than incorporate it by reference.
Any material may be incorporated by reference, including non-NEPA documents, as long as the
material is reasonably available for public inspection. There are many ways to make
incorporated material available for public inspection, such as mailing the material upon request
or posting the material on the Internet. At a minimum, incorporated material must be available
for inspection in the applicable BLM office. If the material is not or cannot be made reasonably
available, it cannot be incorporated by reference. For example, privileged data that are not
readily available (such as some seismic data, company financial data, cultural inventories) may
be referenced, but not incorporated by reference. Instead, summarize the information as fully as
possible with mention that the privileged information is not available for public review.
27
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
In addition, other material may be simply referenced in a NEPA document, without being
incorporated by reference. Without following the above procedures for incorporation by
reference, such material would not be made part of the NEPA document. It may be appropriate to
simply reference material when it provides additional information for the reader, but is not
essential to the analysis. If such referenced material is otherwise reasonably available (such as
published material including books or journal or newspaper articles), you do not need to make it
available for inspection at the BLM office. If any such material is essential to the analysis in the
NEPA document, incorporate it by reference as described above. See the Web Guide for an
example of incorporation by reference.
5.2.2 Tiering
Tiering is using the coverage of general matters in broader NEPA documents in subsequent,
narrower NEPA documents (40 CFR 1508.28, 40 CFR 1502.20).
This allows the tiered NEPA
document to narrow the range of alternatives and concentrate solely on the issues not already
addressed. Tiering is appropriate when the analysis for the proposed action will be a more site-
specific or project-specific refinement or extension of the existing NEPA document.
Before you tier to a NEPA document, evaluate the broader NEPA document to determine if it
sufficiently analyzed site-specific effects and considered the current proposed action. If so, a
DNA will be more appropriate than a subsequent, tiered NEPA document (see section 5.1,
Determination of NEPA Adequacy).
When preparing a tiered NEPA document:
1. state that it is tiered to another NEPA document;
2. describe the NEPA document to which it is tiered; and
3. incorporate by reference the relevant portions of the NEPA document to which it is
tiered (cite and summarize, as described in section 5.2.1, Incorporation by Reference).
You may tier to a NEPA document for a broader action when the narrower action is clearly
consistent with the decision associated with the broader action. In the tiered document, you do
not need to reexamine alternatives analyzed in the broader document. Focus the tiered document
on those issues and mitigation measures specifically relevant to the narrower action but not
analyzed in sufficient detail in the broader document.
Tiering can be particularly useful in the context of the cumulative impact analysis. A
programmatic EIS will often analyze the typical effects anticipated as a result of the individual
actions that make up a program, as well as the total effects of the overall program. An EA
prepared in support of an individual action can be tiered to the programmatic EIS. You may
prepare an EA for an action with significant effects, whether direct, indirect or cumulative, if the
EA is tiered to a broader EIS which fully analyzed those significant effects. Tiering to the
programmatic EIS would allow the preparation of an EA and FONSI for the individual action, so
long as the remaining effects of the individual action are not significant. If there are new
circumstances or information that would result in significant effects of an individual action not
considered in the EIS, tiering to the EIS cannot provide the necessary analysis to support a
FONSI for the individual action (see sections 7.1, Actions Requiring an EA, and 8.4.2, The
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)).
28
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Note that in some instances, a broader EIS might fully analyze significant effects on some
resources affected by the individual action, but not all resources. The tiered EA for the
individual action need not re-analyze the effects on resources fully analyzed in the broader EIS,
but may instead focus on the effects of the individual action not analyzed in the broader EIS.
The FONSI for such an individual action could rely on the analysis in the broader EIS as well as
the tiered EA, and would explain which parts of the EIS it is relying upon. An EIS would need
to be prepared for the individual action only if there are significant effects that have not been
analyzed in the broader EIS.
For example:
If an LUP EIS analyzed the effects of a typical individual juniper control project and the
total effects of a juniper control program, an individual juniper control project implemented
as part of that overall program would generally be expected to have no significant effects,
beyond those already analyzed in the LUP EIS.
In such instances, focus the EA on determining if, and how, any new circumstances or
information would change the effects anticipated by the EIS. The EA in such instances may also
consider mitigation of effects analyzed in the EA or already analyzed in the broader EIS,
including reducing or avoiding effects that are not significant.
The following are examples of some of the typical situations in which tiering is appropriate.
– LUP/EIS tiered to a programmatic EIS: tiering the analysis of a proposed grazing program
in an LUP to the programmatic EIS for regulations for the fundamentals of rangeland
health. Tiering to the programmatic EIS would allow the LUP EIS to exclude alternatives
that would establish grazing at levels that would not achieve the fundamentals of rangeland
health.
– Activity Plan NEPA document tiered to a LUP/EIS: tiering an allotment management plan
EA to the analysis in the LUP/EIS that analyzed the effects of the livestock management
objectives and management actions for the area. Tiering to the LUP EIS would allow the
allotment management plan EA to exclude alternatives that would set grazing levels
different than those established in the LUP EIS.
– Project-specific NEPA document tiered to Activity Plan NEPA: tiering an EA for building a
fence to an allotment management plan EA. (Note that this action may sometimes be
appropriate with a DNA, as described in Sec. 5.1.) If the allotment management plan
decided to use fencing, as opposed to reducing grazing levels, to exclude cows from
riparian areas, tiering to the allotment management plan EA would allow the fence EA to
exclude alternatives that would reduce grazing levels to reduce riparian impacts.
– Project-specific NEPA document tiered to a LUP/EIS: in the absence of an allotment
management plan, tiering an EA for building a fence to the general analysis of fencing in
the grazing section of the LUP/EIS. (Note that this action may sometimes be appropriate
with a DNA, as described in section 5.1, Determination of NEPA Adequacy).
29
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
5.3 SUPPLEMENTING AN EIS
“Supplementation” has a particular meaning in the NEPA context. The Supreme Court has
explained that supplementation of an EIS is necessary only if there remains major Federal action
to occur. (See Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004)). In the case of
a land use plan, implementation of the Federal action is the signing of a Record of Decision.
You must prepare a supplement to a draft or final EIS if, after circulation of a draft or final EIS
but prior to implementation of the Federal action:
• you make substantial changes to the proposed action that are relevant to environmental
concerns (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)(i));
• you add a new alternative that is outside the spectrum of alternatives already analyzed
(see Question 29b,CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA
Regulations, March 23, 1981); or
• there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental
concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its effects (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)(ii)).
A supplemental EIS must provide a basis for rational decision-making and give the public and
other agencies an opportunity to review and comment on the analysis of the changes or new
information (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(4)). Supplementing is used to meet the purposes of the NEPA as
efficiently as possible, avoiding redundancy in the process.
Supplementation is a process applied only to draft and final EISs, not EAs. If you make changes
to the proposed action; add an alternative outside the spectrum of those already analyzed; or if
new circumstances or information arise that alters the validity of an EA analysis prior to the
implementation of the Federal action, prepare a new EA.
5.3.1 When Supplementation is Appropriate
“Substantial changes” in the proposed action may include changes in the design, location, or
timing of a proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns (i.e., the changes would
result in significant effects outside of the range of effects analyzed in the draft or final EIS).
Adding a new alternative analyzed in detail requires preparation of a supplement if the new
alternative is outside the spectrum of alternatives already analyzed and not a variation of an
alternative already analyzed. For example:
Comments on a draft EIS for a transmission line right-of way suggest an entirely new route
for the right-of-way that would be a reasonable alternative. The new route would result in
effects outside the range of effects analyzed in the draft. Prepare a supplemental draft EIS
to analyze this new route.
30
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Describing additional alternatives that are considered but eliminated from detailed analysis does
not require supplementation.
“New circumstances or information” are “significant” and trigger the need for supplementation if
they are relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action and its effects
(i.e., if the new circumstances or information would result in significant effects outside the range
of effects already analyzed). New circumstances or information that trigger the need for
supplementation might include the listing under the Endangered Species Act of a species that
was not analyzed in the EIS; development of new technology that alters significant effects; or
unanticipated actions or events that result in changed circumstances, rendering the cumulative
effects analysis inadequate.
5.3.2 When Supplementation is Not Appropriate
Supplementation is not necessary if you make changes in the proposed action that are not
substantial (i.e., the effects of the changed proposed action are still within the range of effects
analyzed in the draft or final EIS).
If a new alternative is added after the circulation of a draft EIS, supplementation is not necessary
if the new alternative lies within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS or is a
minor variation of an alternative analyzed in the draft EIS. In such circumstances, the new
alternative may be added in the final EIS. For example:
A draft EIS for an oil field development project analyzed the effects of drilling 500, 1,000,
and 5,000 wells. The addition of a 3,000-well alternative could be analyzed in the final EIS
without a supplemental draft EIS.
Supplementation is not appropriate when new information or changed circumstances arise after
the Federal action has been implemented. If the new information or changed circumstances
impedes the use of the EIS for subsequent tiering for future decision-making, prepare a new EIS
or EA and incorporate by reference relevant material from the old EIS. For example:
An EIS for an oil field development project is prepared and a decision issued. EAs or EISs
prepared for subsequent applications of permit to drill (if they cannot be categorically
excluded) are tiered to the field development EIS. New drilling technology developed after
the preparation of the EIS results in significant impacts not analyzed in the field
development EIS. These changed circumstances do not require that the field development
EIS be supplemented. However, because the EAs or EISs for applications of permit to drill
need the EIS for tiering, you may wish to prepare a new field development EIS.
When new circumstances or information arise prior to the implementation of the Federal action,
but your evaluation concludes that they would not result in significant effects outside the range
of effects already analyzed, document your conclusion and the basis for it. If the new
circumstances or information arise after publication of a draft EIS, document your conclusion in
the final EIS. If the new circumstances or information arise after publication of the final EIS,
document your conclusion in the ROD.
31
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
5.3.3 The Supplementation Process
Supplemental EISs will vary in scope and complexity depending upon the nature of the proposed
changes or new information or circumstances. Supplemental EISs are prepared, circulated, and
filed with the same requirements as EISs, except that supplemental EISs do not require scoping
(40 CFR 1502.9) (see section 9.5, Supplements to Draft and Final EISs). A supplemental EIS
may incorporate by reference the relevant portions of the EIS being supplemented or may
circulate the entire EIS along with the supplemental EIS.
When a supplement is prepared after circulation of a draft EIS, but before preparation of a final
EIS, you must prepare and circulate a draft supplemental EIS and then prepare a final EIS.
When a supplement is prepared after circulation of a final EIS, you must prepare and circulate a
draft supplemental EIS and then prepare and circulate a final supplemental EIS, unless
alternative procedures are approved by the CEQ (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(4))
. Consult with the OEPC
and the Office of the Solicitor before proposing alternative arrangements to the CEQ.
5.4 ADOPTING ANOTHER AGENCY’S NEPA ANALYSES
If an EIS or EA prepared by another agency is relevant to a BLM proposed action, you may
prepare a new EIS or EA and incorporate by reference the applicable portions of the other
agency’s document (see section 5.2.1, Incorporation by Reference). Or you may adopt an EIS or
EA prepared by another agency, after following certain steps described below.
5.4.1 Adopting Another Agency’s EIS
You may use another agency’s EIS for BLM decision-making after adopting the EIS. “An
agency may adopt a Federal draft or final [EIS] or portion thereof provided that the statement or
portion thereof meets the standards for an adequate statement under these [the CEQ] regulations”
(40 CFR 1506.3(a))
. Adopting another agency's EIS reduces paperwork, eliminates duplication,
and makes the process more efficient. You may adopt an EIS that meets all CEQ, DOI, and BLM
requirements for preparation of an EIS. You must prepare your own ROD on adopted EISs
(Question 30, CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March
23, 1981).
If the BLM is a cooperating agency in the preparation of an EIS, you may adopt it without
recirculating the EIS if you conclude that your comments and suggestions have been satisfied (40
CFR 1506.3(c)). For example:
The Forest Service, with the BLM as a cooperator, prepared an EIS for the Biscuit Fire
Recovery Project, which addressed actions on both Forest Service and BLM-managed lands
in Oregon. The BLM adopted the EIS and prepared a separate ROD for actions on BLM-
managed lands.
32
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
If the BLM is not a cooperating agency in the preparation of an EIS, you may adopt it after
recirculating the document consistent with the following requirements:
• If the BLM proposed action is substantially the same as the action covered by the other
agency's EIS, you can adopt the EIS after recirculating the document as a final EIS.
When recirculating the final EIS, you must identify the BLM proposed action (40 CFR
1506.3(b)).
• If the BLM adopts an EIS that is not final within the agency that prepared it, or if the
action the EIS assesses is the subject of a referral or if the adequacy of the EIS is the
subject of judicial action that is not final, the BLM must indicate its status in the
recirculated draft and final EIS (40 CFR 1506.3(c))
.
5.4.2 Adopting Another Agency’s EA
You may use another agency’s EA for a BLM FONSI and BLM decision-making after adopting
the EA, consistent with the following requirements (see CEQ Guidance Regarding NEPA
Regulations, 48 Fed. Reg. 34263 (July 28, 1983)):
• The BLM must independently evaluate the information contained in the EA, and take full
responsibility for its scope and content. You must evaluate the information contained in
the EA to ensure that it adequately addresses environmental impacts of the BLM’s
proposed action and ensure that the EA to be adopted satisfies the BLM’s own NEPA
procedures. If the BLM has acted as a cooperating agency, you must ensure that any
concerns which it has raised during the process of preparing the EA have been adequately
addressed (CEQ Guidance Regarding NEPA Regulations, 48 Fed. Reg. 34263 (July 28,
1983)). An interdisciplinary team may be useful in evaluating another agency’s EA for
adoption.
• If you conclude that environmental impacts are adequately addressed, you must issue
your own FONSI to document your formal adoption of the EA, and your conclusions
regarding the adequacy of the EA (CEQ Guidance Regarding NEPA Regulations, 48 Fed.
Reg. 34263 (July 28, 1983)). In certain limited circumstances, you must publish or
otherwise make the FONSI available for public review for thirty days (see section 8.4.2,
The Finding of No Significant Impact).
• You must prepare your own decision record in accordance with program-specific
requirements following adoption of the EA and the issuance of the FONSI (see section
8.5, The Decision Record).
33
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
CHAPTER 6—NEPA ANALYSIS
General
6.1 Outline of Analytical Steps
6.2 Purpose and Need
6.3 Scoping
6.4 Issues
6.5 Proposed Action
6.6 Alternatives Development
6.7 Affected Environment and Use of Relevant Data
6.8 Environmental Effects
6.9 Public Involvement and Responding to Comments
GENERAL
There are a variety of ways to comply with the NEPA; the scope of your analysis and
documentation will depend on your proposal and its environmental effects. This chapter is
broadly focused on NEPA analysis, not on documentation requirements. The CEQ regulations
prescribe specific steps for the preparation of an EIS. The process of preparing an EA is more
flexible. This chapter describes NEPA concepts and outlines typical steps of NEPA analysis. For
detailed documentation and format requirements for EAs and EISs, see Chapter 8, Preparing an
Environmental Assessment and Chapter 9, Preparing an Environmental Impact Statement.
While the NEPA process is much the same for all BLM actions, some programs have specific
requirements for NEPA analysis. Become aware of and consult program-specific guidance when
beginning the NEPA process.
6.1 OUTLINE OF ANALYTICAL STEPS
For an internally generated project (one in which the BLM is developing the proposed action),
the usual analytical steps for an EA or EIS are as follows:
• Identify the purpose and need for action and describe the proposed action to the extent
known.
• Develop a scoping strategy and conduct scoping.
• Identify issues requiring analysis.
• Refine the proposed action.
• Develop reasonable alternatives to the proposed action.
• Identify, gather and synthesize data.
• Analyze and disclose the impacts of each alternative.
• Identify potential mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts.
Many of these steps are iterative; for example, developing alternatives may lead to the
identification of additional issues requiring analysis. At several points in the process, you may
loop back to an earlier step to make refinements.
34
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
For an externally generated project (one in which a non-BLM party has developed a proposed
action), the analysis steps are the same except that the first step in the process is when you accept
a proposal regarding an action to be taken, and move forward into NEPA analysis.
Figure 6.1 The NEPA Process
35
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
6.2 PURPOSE AND NEED
The CEQ regulations direct that an EIS “…shall briefly specify the underlying purpose and need
to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the proposed action”
(40 CFR 1502.13). The CEQ regulations also direct that EAs “…shall include brief discussions
of the need for the proposal…” (40 CFR 1508.9(b)).
The CEQ regulations do not differentiate the “purpose” of the action from the “need” for the
action. However, distinguishing the “purpose” and the “need” as two separate aspects of the
purpose and need statement may help clarify why the BLM is proposing an action. For many
types of actions, the “need” for the action can be described as the underlying problem or
opportunity to which the BLM is responding with the action. The “purpose” can be described as
a goal or objective that we are trying to reach. Often, the “purpose” can be presented as the
solution to the problem described in the “need” for the action. For example, the “need” for a
culvert replacement project might describe how the existing culvert blocks fish passage; the
“purpose” might be to replace the culvert with one that allows fish passage.
Regardless of whether the “purpose” and the “need” are treated as distinct or synonymous, the
purpose and need statement as a whole describes the problem or opportunity to which the BLM
is responding and what the BLM hopes to accomplish by the action.
We recommend that the purpose and need statement be brief, unambiguous, and as specific as
possible. Although the purpose and need statement cannot be arbitrarily narrow, you have
considerable flexibility in defining the purpose and need for action. To the extent possible,
construct the purpose and need statement to conform to existing decisions, policies, regulation,
or law. The purpose and need for the action is usually related to achieving goals and objectives
of the LUP; reflect this in your purpose and need statement.
The purpose and need statement for an externally generated action must describe the BLM
purpose and need, not an applicant’s or external proponent’s purpose and need (40 CFR
1502.13). The applicant’s purpose and need may provide useful background information, but
this description must not be confused with the BLM purpose and need for action. The BLM
action triggers the NEPA analysis. It is the BLM purpose and need for action that will dictate
the range of alternatives and provide a basis for the rationale for eventual selection of an
alternative in a decision. See the Web Guide for examples of purpose and need statements.
The purpose and need statement should explain why the BLM is proposing action. Note
that you must describe the purpose and need for the action, not the purpose and need for
the document.
36
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
6.2.1 The Role of the Purpose and Need Statement
We recommend that you draft your purpose and need statement early in the NEPA process.
Including a draft purpose and need statement with scoping materials will help focus internal and
external scoping comments. Reexamine and update your purpose and need statement as
appropriate throughout the NEPA process, especially when refining the proposed action and
developing alternatives.
A carefully crafted purpose and need statement can be an effective tool in controlling the scope
of the analysis and thereby increasing efficiencies by eliminating unnecessary analysis and
reducing delays in the process. The purpose and need statement dictates the range of
alternatives, because action alternatives are not “reasonable” if they do not respond to the
purpose and need for the action (see section 6.6.1, Reasonable Alternatives). The broader the
purpose and need statement, the broader the range of alternatives that must be analyzed. The
purpose and need statement will provide a framework for issue identification and will form the
basis for the eventual rationale for selection of an alternative. Generally, the action alternatives
will respond to the problem or opportunity described in the purpose and need statement,
providing a basis for eventual selection of an alternative in a decision.
For example, in the culvert replacement example above (see section 6.2, Purpose and Need), the
scope of the analysis would be narrowed by describing a more specific “purpose” of replacing
the existing culvert to allow cutthroat trout fish passage in the spring; reasonable alternatives
might include analyzing various culvert sizes, or moving the culvert. Conversely, the scope of
the analysis would be broadened by describing a more general “purpose” of improving fish
passage; reasonable alternatives might include culvert removal and road decommissioning.
Examples of purpose and need statements and related decisions are found in the next section,
6.2.2, The Decision to be Made, and examples of combined and separated purpose and need
statements can be found in the Web Guide.
6.2.2 The Decision to be Made
You may include in the purpose and need statement a description of your decision(s) to be made
based on the NEPA analysis. Tying the purpose and need for your proposal to your decision
helps establish the scope for the NEPA analysis. A clear explanation of the decision(s) at hand is
also helpful in public involvement; it helps to set expectations and explain the focus of the
BLM’s NEPA analysis. In describing the BLM’s decision(s) to be made, you must retain the
flexibility to select among alternatives that meet the purpose and need, and are within the BLM’s
jurisdiction (40 CFR 1506.1(a)(2)). As with the purpose and need, the description of the
decision(s) to be made may be broad or narrow.
37
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
For externally generated actions, the
description of the decision(s) to be made
helps differentiate your role in the action
from the external proponent’s role. For
NEPA documents prepared with cooperating
agencies with jurisdiction by law, we
recommend that you explicitly identify the
decisions to be made by each agency (see
section 12.1, Cooperating Agency Status in
Development of NEPA Documents).
Examples:
The following examples are adapted from actual BLM actions. These are not intended to
provide a template to be copied, but as examples for general consideration. Because the purpose
and need statement controls the scope of the analysis and is directly tied to the eventual rationale
for selection, it is important that the purpose and need statement be tailored to the specific action
in question.
An externally generated implementation action. The purpose of the action is to provide the
owners of private land located in Township X South, Range X West, Section X, with legal access
across public land managed by the BLM. The need for the action is established by the BLM’s
responsibility under FLPMA to respond to a request for a Right-of-Way Grant for legal access to
private land over existing BLM roads and a short segment of new road to be constructed across
public land.
Decision to be made: The BLM will decide whether or not to grant the right of way, and if so,
under what terms and conditions.
An internally generated implementation action. The purpose of the action is to modify current
grazing practices on the X Allotment by adjusting timing and levels of livestock use so that
progress can be made toward meeting the fundamentals of rangeland health. The need for the
action is that fundamentals of rangeland health are not being met for watersheds, riparian areas,
and threatened and endangered plants in the X Allotment, based on a current assessment. Active
erosion is evident and exotic annual grasses dominate the understory. The assessment found
that current livestock grazing management practices do not meet the fundamentals of rangeland
health.
Decision to be made: The BLM will decide whether or not to issue a grazing permit with
modifications from the current permit.
A Land Use Plan revision,
(Note: this example is abbreviated from the detail that would
customarily be appropriate for revision of an LUP). The purpose of the X Field Office LUP
revision is to ensure that public lands are managed according to the principles of multiple use
identified in FLPMA while maintaining the valid existing rights and other obligations already
established. The need for the action is that changing resource demands and technology have
changed the type and level of impacts to various resources, as detailed in the LUP evaluation.
Specifically, the emergence of new exploration and extraction technologies in oil and gas
Jurisdiction by law means another
governmental entity (Tribal, Federal, State,
or local agency) has authority to approve,
veto, or finance all or part of a proposal (40
CFR 1508.15). The CEQ regulations
provide for establishing a cooperating
agency relationship with such entities in
develo
p
ment of a NEPA anal
y
sis document.
38
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
development may result in impacts not previously analyzed. Alternatives will address the
availability of unleased lands for future oil and gas leasing; potential stipulations to be attached
to new leases or leases to be reoffered if existing leases are relinquished; and mitigation
measures to be considered in reviewing applications for permits to drill. This need is limited,
because most oil and gas resources in the planning area have already been leased, and the LUP
revision will maintain valid existing rights. The LUP evaluation also noted other changes in
resource conditions and uses that could result in impacts not previously analyzed.
Decision to be made: The BLM will revise the LUP and identify areas available for oil and gas
leasing, leasing stipulations, and mitigation measures to consider in reviewing applications for
permits to drill.
6.3 SCOPING
Scoping is the process by which the BLM
solicits internal and external input on the
issues, impacts, and potential alternatives that
will be addressed in an EIS or EA as well as
the extent to which those issues and impacts
will be analyzed in the NEPA document.
Although it is not required, you may also
elect to scope for issues and impacts
associated with actions under CX or DNA review. Begin considering cumulative impacts during
the scoping process; use scoping to begin identifying actions by others that may have a
cumulative effect with the proposed action, and identifying geographic and temporal boundaries,
baselines and thresholds. Scoping also helps to begin identifying incomplete or unavailable
information and evaluating whether that information is essential to a reasoned choice among
alternatives.
Scoping is one form of public involvement in the NEPA process. Scoping occurs early in the
NEPA process and generally extends through the development of alternatives. (The public
comment period for a DEIS or public review of an EA are not scoping).
Developing the purpose and need statement will enhance the scoping process, even if you have
not yet fully developed a proposed action. A preliminary purpose and need statement will allow
BLM staff, other agencies, and the public to give more focused input on issues or the proposal.
Additionally, sharing what is known about the No Action alternative and the consequences of not
meeting the need for action may facilitate effective scoping comments.
“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.” (40 CFR 1501.7)
39
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
6.3.1 Internal Scoping
Internal scoping is simply the use of BLM and cooperating agency staff to help determine what
needs to be analyzed in a NEPA document. Internal scoping is an interdisciplinary process; at a
minimum, use scoping to define issues, alternatives, and data needs. Additionally, this is an
opportunity to identify other actions that may be analyzed in the same NEPA document. You
may use internal scoping to:
• formulate and refine the purpose and need.
• identify any connected, cumulative, or similar actions associated with the proposal.
• start preparation for cumulative effects analysis.
• decide on the appropriate level of documentation.
• develop a public involvement strategy.
• decide other features of the NEPA process.
6.3.2 External Scoping
External scoping involves notification and opportunities for feedback from other agencies,
organizations, tribes, local governments, and the public. You do not need to conduct external
scoping at the same time as internal scoping; frequently you first conduct some internal scoping
to develop a preliminary range of alternatives and issues. These alternatives and issues may then
be shared during external scoping, and you will likely build upon these preliminary issues as
scoping continues.
External scoping can be used to identify coordination needs with other agencies; refine issues
through public, tribal and agency feedback on preliminary issues; and identify new issues and
possible alternatives. Tribal consultation centers on established government-to-government
relationships, and it is important that you allow sufficient time and use the appropriate means of
contacting tribes when conducting scoping. External scoping serves to build agency credibility
and promote constructive dialogue and relations with tribes, agencies, local governments and the
public.
The CEQ regulations mandate external scoping for EISs, and such scoping has formal
requirements (see section 9.1.3, Scoping). The time-limited scoping period that follows the
publication of a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS is referred to as formal scoping. However,
you should not limit scoping for an EIS to the formal scoping period.
External scoping for EAs is optional. See section 8.3.3, Scoping and Issues for a discussion of
when external scoping is appropriate for an EA.
40
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
External scoping may help identify alternatives to the proposed action, as well as refine the
proposed action. External scoping may result in refinement of issues for analysis. Preliminary
issues may be clarified and new issues identified in the external scoping process. You will use
external scoping to begin identifying past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions by others
that could have a cumulative effect together with the BLM action (see section 6.8.3.4, Past,
Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions). External scoping can be used to identify
permits, surveys, or consultations required by other agencies. Scoping may also generate
information that may be used during the permitting or consultation process.
External scoping methods include but are not limited to: Federal Register notices, public
meetings, field trips, direct mailing, media releases, newsletters, NEPA registers, and email
notifications. You may also seek help from other agencies, organizations, tribes, local
governments, and the public in identifying interested parties that may not yet have been reached
by scoping efforts.
6.4 ISSUES
The CEQ regulations provide many references to “issues,” though the regulations do not define
this term explicitly. At 40 CFR 1501.7(a)(2), 40 CFR 1501.7(a)(3), 40 CFR 1502.1 and
1502.2(b), the CEQ explains that issues may be identified through scoping and that only
significant issues must be the focus of the environmental document . Significant issues are those
related to significant or potentially significant effects (see section 7.3, Significance).
For the purpose of BLM NEPA analysis, an “issue” is a point of disagreement, debate, or dispute
with a proposed action based on some anticipated environmental effect. An issue is more than
just a position statement, such as disagreement with grazing on public lands. An issue:
• has a cause and effect relationship with the proposed action or alternatives;
• is within the scope of the analysis;
• has not be decided by law, regulation, or previous decision; and
• is amenable to scientific analysis rather than conjecture.
Issues point to environmental effects; as such, issues can help shape the proposal and
alternatives. (For externally generated proposals, the proposed action is not developed through
scoping, but other action alternatives are). Issues may lead to the identification of design
features that are incorporated into the proposed action (see section 6.5.1.1, Design Features of
the Proposed Action) or mitigation measures (see section 6.8.4, Mitigation and Residual
Effects).
“Most important, NEPA documents must concentrate on the issues that are truly significant to
the action in question, rather than amassing needless detail.” (40 CFR 1500.1(b))
41
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
6.4.1 Identifying Issues for Analysis
Preliminary issues are frequently identified during the development of the proposed action
through internal and external scoping. Additionally, supplemental authorities that provide
procedural or substantive responsibilities relevant to the NEPA process may help identify issues
for analysis. See Appendix 1, Supplemental Authorities to be Considered, for a list of some
common supplemental authorities. There is no need to make negative declarations regarding
resources described in supplemental authorities that are not relevant to your proposal at hand.
While many issues may arise during scoping, not all of the issues raised warrant analysis in an
EA or EIS. Analyze issues raised through scoping if:
• Analysis of the issue is necessary to make a reasoned choice between alternatives. That
is, does it relate to how the proposed action or alternatives respond to the purpose and
need? (See section 6.6, Alternatives Development).
• The issue is significant (an issue associated with a significant direct, indirect, or
cumulative impact, or where analysis is necessary to determine the significance of
impacts).
When identifying issues to be analyzed, it is helpful to ask, “Is there disagreement about the best
way to use a resource, or resolve an unwanted resource condition, or potentially significant
effects of a proposed action or alternative?” If the answer is “yes,” you may benefit from
subjecting the issue to analysis.
It is useful to phrase issues in the form of questions, as this can help maintain the focus of the
analysis, which would need to answer the questions. For example:
The BLM is analyzing the construction and operation of a wind farm on public lands. “Wildlife”
is not considered an issue—this is too broad for reasonable analysis, and it is not clearly related
to the effects of the action. We suggest, “What would be the effect of the alternatives on sage
grouse nesting?” as a more explicit issue statement.
The Web Guide contains examples of issues identified for analysis.
Entire resources cannot be issues by themselves, but concerns over how a resource may be
affected b
y
the
p
ro
p
osal can be issues.
42
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
6.4.2 Issues Not Analyzed
You need not analyze issues associated with the proposed action that do not meet the criteria
described in section 6.4.1., Identifying Issues for Analysis. We recommend that you document
such externally generated issues along with rationale for not analyzing them in the administrative
record or in the EA or EIS itself. You have more flexibility in tracking internally generated
issues. For example, in a preliminary brainstorming session, it may not be important to record
all issues raised. However, if after careful and detailed consideration you determine not to
analyze an internally-generated issue, we recommend that you document the reasons in the
administrative record, or in the EA or EIS. The detail used to explain why an issue was not
analyzed is largely dependent on how the issue was presented and why you are not analyzing it.
See the Web Guide for an example of how issues not analyzed can be treated in a NEPA
document.
6.5 PROPOSED ACTION
The CEQ regulations state that a “proposal” exists at that stage in the development of an action
when an agency subject to the NEPA has a goal and is actively preparing to make a decision on
one or more alternative means of accomplishing that goal and the effects can be meaningfully
evaluated (40 CFR 1508.23). A “proposed action” may be described as a proposal for the BLM
to authorize, recommend, or implement an action to address a clear purpose and need, and may
be generated internally or externally.
When developing the proposed action, it is important to understand how it will be used in the
environmental analysis. You can use a preliminary description of the proposed action during
scoping to focus public involvement. The proposed action is one possible option to meet the
purpose and need. Alternatives are developed to consider different reasonable paths to take to
accomplish the same purpose and need as the proposed action.
The level of detail used to describe a proposed action will vary by the nature and stage of the
project. For example, the level of detail available at the beginning of a project may be very
limited, but details will be better defined after scoping. The details and description of a proposed
action in a programmatic analysis will be different than one in the analysis of a site-specific
implementation action. The level of detail used in describing the proposed action will influence
the specificity of the analysis and the assumptions made in analyzing the environmental
consequences. The Web Guide contains example descriptions of Proposed Actions.
43
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
6.5.1 Description of the Proposed Action
A detailed description of the proposed action at the outset of the analysis process is beneficial for
many reasons. Clearly described proposed actions can result in:
• more focused and meaningful public input.
• more focused and meaningful internal (BLM) participation.
• more complete identification of issues.
• development of reasonable alternatives.
• sound analysis and interpretation of effects.
• focused analysis.
• a sound and supportable decision.
Detailed descriptions of proposed actions usually include five elements:
1. Who “Who” is the Federal agency that is going to guide the analysis and make the
decision. Even for externally proposed projects, you will be making the decision
to authorize or recommend an action. For externally proposed projects, it is
important to identify the external proponent and their role in implementing your
decision.
2. What “What” is the specific activity or activities proposed. You must provide sufficient
detail in the description of the activities so that the effects of the proposed action
may be compared to the effects of the alternatives, including the No Action
alternative (40 CFR 1502.14(b)). That comparison provides the clear basis for
choice by the decision-maker.
3. How “How” relates to the specific means by which the proposal would be
implemented. Include project design features, including construction activities,
operations, and schedules. It may also be appropriate to include maps,
photographs, and figures. Means, measures, or practices to reduce or avoid
adverse environmental impacts may be included in the proposed action as design
features (see section 6.5.1.1, Design Features of the Proposed Action).
4. When “When” is the timeframe in which the project will be implemented and
completed. If the proposed action has identifiable phases, describe the duration of
those phases. The timing for monitoring integral to the proposed action should
also be described.
5. Where “Where” is the location(s) where the proposed action will be implemented and
should be described as specifically as possible. Maps at a relevant scale may be
provided to support the narrative.
44
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
6.5.1.1 Design Features of the Proposed Action
Design features are those specific means, measures or practices that make up the proposed action
and alternatives. You may identify design features, especially those that would reduce or
eliminate adverse effects after the initial formulation of alternatives, as the impact analysis is
being conducted. In this situation, you may add these design features to the proposed action or
alternatives. Standard operating procedures, stipulations, and best management practices are
usually considered design features. For example, if the proposed action sites a reserve pit for
drilling fluids away from areas of shallow groundwater, this is a design feature, not mitigation.
Because the formulation of alternatives and the impact analysis is often an iterative process, you
might not be able to identify the means, measures or practices until the impact analysis is
completed. If any means, measures, or practices are not incorporated into the proposed action or
alternatives, they are considered mitigation measures (see section 6.8.4, Mitigation and Residual
Effects).
Figure 6.2 Design Features and Mitigation Measures
6.5.2 Defining the Scope of Analysis of the Proposed Action
After initial development of the proposed action, evaluate whether there are connected or
cumulative actions that you must consider in the same NEPA document (40 CFR 1508.25). In
addition, evaluate whether there are similar actions that you wish to discuss in a single NEPA
document. The CEQ regulations refer only to an EIS in discussion of including connected,
cumulative, and similar actions in a single EIS. For an EA, we recommend that you consider
connected or cumulative actions in the same EA, and similar actions may be discussed at your
discretion. Considering connected or cumulative actions in a single EA is particularly important
in the evaluation of significance (see section 7.3, Significance).
Effects Analysis Ongoing
Develop
proposed action
and alternatives.
A
re there design features
that could be
incorporated into the proposed action or
alternatives to reduce or avoid adverse
effects?
A
re there potential mitigation
measures that can avoid or reduce
adverse impacts identified in the
analysis? (These are not
incorporated into the proposed
action.
)
A
nalyze whether or not
there are any residual
effects that remain after
mitigation measures are
applied.
Update proposed
action & alternatives,
if appropriate.
45
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
6.5.2.1 Connected Actions
Connected actions are those actions that are “closely related” and “should be discussed” in the
same NEPA document (40 CFR 1508.25 (a)(1))
. Actions are connected if they automatically
trigger other actions that may require an EIS; cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are
taken previously or simultaneously; or if the actions are interdependent parts of a larger action
and depend upon the larger action for their justification (40 CFR 1508.25 (a)(i, ii, iii))
.
Connected actions are limited to actions that are currently proposed (ripe for decision). Actions
that are not yet proposed are not connected actions, but may need to be analyzed in cumulative
effects analysis if they are reasonably foreseeable.
If the connected action is also a proposed BLM action, we recommend that you include both
actions as aspects of a broader “proposal” (40 CFR 1508.23), analyzed in a single NEPA
document. You may either construct an integrated purpose and need statement for both the
proposed action and the connected action, or you may present separate purpose and need
statements for the proposed action and the connected action. Regardless of the structure of the
purpose and need statement(s), you must develop alternatives and mitigation measures for both
actions (40 CFR 1508.25(b)), and analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of both
actions (40 CFR 1508.25(c)).
For example,
The BLM proposes prescribed burning to attain desired vegetation characteristics. The BLM
also proposes subsequent seeding of the same site to contribute to attaining those same
desired vegetation characteristics, which is a connected action. We recommend that you
include the prescribed burning and seeding as aspects of a broader proposal, analyzed in a
single NEPA document.
If the connected action is an action proposed by another Federal agency, you may include both
actions as aspects of a broader proposal analyzed in a single NEPA document, as described
above. Evaluate whether a single NEPA document would improve the quality of analysis and
efficiency of the NEPA process, and provide a stronger basis for decision-making. Also consider
the timing of the other agency action and the capabilities of the other agency to act as a
cooperating agency or joint lead agency (see sections 12.1 Cooperating Agency Status in
Development of NEPA Documents and 12.2 Joint Lead Agencies in Development of NEPA
Documents).
For example,
The BLM proposes constructing a trail to provide recreation access to BLM-managed lands
from a campground the Forest Service proposes to construct on adjacent Forest Service
lands. The Forest Service campground construction is a connected action. You and the
Forest Service may elect to include the BLM trail construction and the Forest Service
campground construction as aspects of a broader proposal, analyzed in a single NEPA
document, either as joint lead agencies, or with one agency as lead and the other as
cooperating.
46
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
If you do not include the connected action with the proposed action as aspects of a broader
proposal analyzed in a single NEPA document, you must, at a minimum, demonstrate that you
have considered the connected action in the NEPA document for the proposed action (40 CFR
1508.25) (i.e., describe the connected action and its relationship to the proposed action, including
the extent to which the connected action and its effects can be prevented or modified by BLM
decision-making on the proposed action). In this case, a separate NEPA document would need to
be prepared for the connected action. It may be useful to incorporate by reference portions of the
NEPA document completed for the connected action, if available, into the NEPA document for
the proposed action.
A non-Federal action may be a connected action with a BLM proposed action. The consideration
of a non-Federal connected action is limited in your NEPA analysis, because the NEPA process
is focused on agency decision making (40 CFR 1500.1(c), 40 CFR 1508.18, 40 CFR 1508.23).
Therefore, you are not required to include a non-Federal connected action together with a BLM
proposed action as aspects of a broader proposal, analyzed in a single NEPA document.
Proposals are limited to Federal actions (40 CFR 1508.23). You would not have to develop or
present the purpose and need for the non-Federal action, and you are not required to consider
alternatives available to the non-Federal party for its action. If there are effects on BLM managed
resources, it may be useful to develop and suggest alternatives or mitigation for those non-
Federal connected actions (see section 6.8.4, Mitigation and Residual Effects).
As with a Federal connected action, you must, at a minimum, demonstrate that you have
considered the non-Federal connected action in the NEPA document for the proposed action (40
CFR 1508.25) (i.e., describe the connected action and its relationship to the proposed action,
including the extent to which the connected action and its effects can be prevented or modified
by BLM decision-making on the proposed action).
If the connected non-Federal action and its effects can be prevented by BLM decision-making,
then the effects of the non-Federal action are properly considered indirect effects of the BLM
action and must be analyzed as effects of the BLM action (40 CFR 1508.7, 40 CFR 1508.25(c)).
For example,
You receive a right-of-way request from a private company to build a road across BLM-
managed land to provide access to adjacent private land, on which the company plans to
create and operate a quarry. The creation and operation of the quarry cannot proceed
unless the road is constructed. The road cannot be constructed without the grant by BLM of
a right-of-way. The grant of the right-of-way must be analyzed as a BLM action: the BLM
can grant or deny the right-of-way request. The construction of the road and the creation
and operation of the quarry are connected actions.
Alternatives: You must analyze the proposed action of granting the right-of-way, and
consider the alternative of denying the right-of-way (the No Action alternative) and any
other reasonable alternatives related to the right-of-way request. Because the construction
of the road, and the creation and operation of the quarry would not be BLM actions, you do
not need to consider alternatives to the road construction and creation and operation of the
quarry.
47
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Direct and Indirect Effects: You must analyze the direct and indirect effects of granting the
right-of-way. You must also analyze the direct and indirect effects of constructing the road
and creating and operating the quarry, because these effects could be prevented by a BLM
decision to deny the right-of-way request, and therefore are properly considered indirect
effects of the BLM right-of-way grant.
Cumulative Effects: You must analyze the cumulative impact of the right-of-way grant, the
road construction, and quarry creation and operation, taking into account the effects in
common with any other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
If the connected non-Federal action cannot be prevented by BLM decision-making, but its effects
can be modified by BLM-decision-making, then the changes in the effects of the connected non-
Federal action must be analyzed as indirect effects of the BLM proposed action. Effects of the
non-Federal action that cannot be modified by BLM-decision-making may still need to be
analyzed in the cumulative effects analysis for BLM action, if they have a cumulative effect
together with the effects of the BLM action (see section 6.8.3 Cumulative Effects).
For example,
You receive a right-of-way request from a private company to build a road across BLM-
managed land to provide access to adjacent private land, on which the company plans to
create and operate a quarry. In contrast to the example above, the creation and operation
of the quarry could proceed with other, reasonably foreseeable, road access. However,
conditions on the grant by BLM of a right-of-way could modify the effects of the quarry
creation and operation (e.g., right-of-way conditions limiting the amount and timing of haul
could alter the timing of quarry creation activities and consequent effects). The grant of the
right-of-way must be analyzed as a BLM action. The effects of the road construction must
be analyzed as indirect effects of the BLM right-of-way grant. The changes in the effects of
the quarry creation and operation must be analyzed as indirect effects of the conditions on
the BLM right-of-way grant. The unchanged effects of the quarry creation and operation
would be analyzed in the cumulative effects analysis for the BLM action to the extent they
would have a cumulative effect together with the effects of the BLM action.
If the non-Federal action cannot be prevented by BLM decision-making and its effects cannot be
modified by BLM decision-making, the effects of the non-Federal action may still need to be
analyzed in the cumulative effects analysis for BLM action, if they have a cumulative effect
together with the effects of the BLM action (see section 6.8.3 Cumulative Effects). While
analysis of the effects of these non-Federal actions provides context for the analysis of the BLM
action, their consideration in the determination of the significance of the BLM action is limited
(see section 7.3, Significance).
48
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
For example,
You receive a right-of-way request from a private company to build a road across BLM-
managed land to provide access to adjacent private land, on which the company plans to
create and operate a quarry. The creation and operation of the quarry could proceed with
other, reasonably foreseeable, road access. Conditions on the grant by BLM of a right-of-
way would not modify the effects of the quarry creation and operation. The grant of the
right-of-way must be analyzed as a BLM action. The road construction is a connected
action, and its effects must be analyzed as indirect effects of the BLM right-of-way grant.
However, the quarry creation and operation are not connected actions; their effects would
be analyzed in the cumulative effects analysis for the BLM action to the extent they would
have a cumulative effect together with the effects of the BLM action.
6.5.2.2 Cumulative Actions
Cumulative actions are proposed actions which potentially have a cumulatively significant
impact together with other proposed actions and “should be discussed” in the same NEPA
document (40 CFR 1508.25(a)(2)).
If the cumulative action is a BLM or other Federal proposed action, you may include both
actions as aspects of a broader proposal, analyzed in a single NEPA document, as described
above for connected actions.
For example,
The BLM proposes construction of a campground to enhance developed recreation
opportunities. The campground construction would contribute sediment to a nearby
stream. Separately, the BLM proposes a culvert replacement to remove a fish passage
barrier. The culvert replacement would contribute sediment to the same stream. The
culvert replacement is a cumulative action to the campground construction campground
construction and culvert replacement. You may include the campground construction and
culvert replacement as aspects of a broader proposal, analyzed in a single NEPA document.
In this case, separate purpose and need statements for the campground construction and
culvert replacement would likely be more appropriate than attempting to create a single,
integrated purpose and need statement.
If you do not include the cumulative action with the proposed action as aspects of a broader
proposal analyzed in a single NEPA document, you must, at a minimum, demonstrate that you
have considered the cumulative action in the NEPA document for the proposed action (40 CFR
1508.25):
• describe the cumulative action; and
• include analysis of the effects of the cumulative action in the cumulative effects analysis
of the proposed action.
It may be useful to incorporate by reference portions of the NEPA document completed for the
cumulative action, if available, into the NEPA document for the proposed action.
49
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Non-Federal actions which potentially have a cumulatively significant impact together with the
proposed action must be considered in the same NEPA document (40 CFR 1508.25). Identifying
an action as a cumulative non-Federal action is a component of your cumulative effects analysis
of the proposed action (see section 6.8.3, Cumulative Effects).
6.5.2.3 Similar Actions
Similar actions are proposed or reasonably foreseeable Federal actions that have similarities that
provide a basis for evaluating their environmental consequences together with the proposed
action (40 CFR 1508.25(a)(3). Similarities are not limited to type of action; such similarities
include, for instance, common timing or geography. You may include similar proposed actions
as aspects of a broader proposal, analyzed in a single NEPA document, as described above for
connected and cumulative actions, when a single NEPA document would improve the quality of
analysis and efficiency of the NEPA process, and provide a stronger basis for decision-making
If other Federal actions with a common timing or geography are interdependent with the
proposed action, they would be considered as connected actions (see section 6.5.2.1, Connected
Actions). If other Federal actions with common timing or geography would have a cumulative
effect together with the proposed action, they would be considered as cumulative actions (see
section 6.5.2.2, Cumulative Actions).
If you include similar actions as aspects of a broader proposal, analyzed in a single NEPA
document, evaluate the purpose and need and the range of alternatives to ensure that they
adequately address the similar actions.
6.6 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
6.6.1 Reasonable Alternatives
The NEPA directs the BLM to “study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to
recommended courses of action in any proposal that involves unresolved conflicts concerning
alternative uses of available resources;…” (NEPA Sec102(2)(E)).
The range of alternatives explores alternative means of meeting the purpose and need for the
action. As stated in section 6.2.1, The Role of the Purpose and Need Statement, the purpose
and need statement helps define the range of alternatives. The broader the purpose and need
statement, the broader the range of alternatives that must be analyzed. You must analyze those
alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice (40 CFR 1502.14). For some proposals there
may exist a very large or even an infinite number of possible reasonable alternatives. When
there are potentially a very large number of alternatives, you must analyze only a reasonable
number to cover the full spectrum of alternatives (see Question 1b
, CEQ, Forty Most Asked
Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981). When working with
cooperating agencies, your range of alternatives may need to reflect the decision space and
authority of other agencies, if decisions are being made by more than one agency.
50
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
In determining the alternatives to be considered, the emphasis is on what is "reasonable" rather
than on whether the proponent or applicant likes or is itself capable of implementing an
alternative. “Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from the
technical and economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable from
the standpoint of the applicant.” (Question 2a, CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning
CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981). You can only define whether an alternative is
“reasonable” in reference to the purpose and need for the action. See Chapter 8, Preparing an
Environmental Assessment and Chapter 9, Preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for
discussion of reasonable alternatives for an EA and EIS. For externally generated action, the
range of alternatives will typically include at least denying the request (No Action); approving
the request as the proponent proposed; or approving the request with changes BLM makes to the
proponent’s proposal.
For example,
An EIS for an oil field development project has a purpose and need which (in abbreviated
form) is to determine whether to permit oil exploration and development within the project
area consistent with existing leases and to develop practices for oil development consistent
with the land use plan. The EIS would typically analyze at least the following alternatives:
• No Action, which would entail no new drilling beyond what is currently permitted;
• The proponent’s proposal for field development; and
• The proponent’s proposal with additional or different design features recommended by
the BLM to reduce environmental effects. This alternative would include design
features that differ from the proponent’s proposal, such as alternative well locations,
alternative access routes, additional timing or spacing constraints, offsite mitigation,
different methods for treating produced water, horizontal well drilling, or other
technologies.
In some situations it may be appropriate for you to analyze a proposed action or alternative that
may be outside the BLM’s jurisdiction (Question 2b, CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions
Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981). Such circumstances would be
exceptional and probably limited to the broadest, most programmatic EISs that would involve
multiple agencies. For most actions, we recommend that the purpose and need statement be
constructed to reflect the discretion available to the BLM, consistent with existing decisions and
statutory and regulatory requirements; thus, alternatives not within BLM jurisdiction would not
be “reasonable.”
Note: Though not required, a manager may elect to analyze in detail an alternative that might
otherwise be eliminated to assist in planning or decision-making. In such cases, explain in the
NEPA document why you are electing to analyze the alternative in detail.
51
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
6.6.1.1 Developing Alternatives Under The Healthy Forests Restoration Act
The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) (P.L. 108-148) contains provisions for
expedited environmental analysis of projects implemented under its authority. For authorized
projects (see HFRA Section 102 to determine which projects are authorized), HFRA allows
fewer alternatives to be analyzed compared with that which CEQ regulations prescribe.
For areas within the wildland–urban interface and within 1.5 miles of the boundary of an at-risk
community (as defined in Section 101 of HFRA
), you are not required to analyze any alternative
to the proposed action, with one exception: if the at-risk community has adopted a Community
Wildfire Protection Plan and the proposed action does not implement the recommendations in
the plan regarding the general location and basic method of treatments, you are required to
analyze the recommendations in the plan as an alternative to the proposed action.
For areas within the wildland–urban interface, but farther than 1.5 miles from the boundary of an
at-risk community, you are not required to analyze more than the proposed action and one
additional action alternative.
For the two previous scenarios, you are not required to present a separate section called the “No
Action alternative.” However, you must document the current and future state of the
environment in the absence of the proposed action. This constitutes consideration of a No Action
Alternative. Document this in your purpose and need section (HFRA 104(d)).
For authorized HFRA projects in all other areas, the analysis must describe the proposed action,
a No Action alternative, and an additional action alternative, if one is proposed during the
scoping or collaboration process.
Additional information on HFRA can be obtained from the Healthy Forests Initiative and
Healthy Forests Restoration Act Interim Field Guide, February 2004 (see the Web Guide).
6.6.2 No Action Alternative
The CEQ regulations direct that EISs describe the No Action alternative (40 CFR 1502.14(d))
.
HFRA, however, removes this regulatory requirement for actions taken under its authority (see
section 6.6.1.1, Developing Alternatives Under the HFRA). The No Action alternative is the
only alternative that must be analyzed in an EIS that does not respond to the purpose and need
for the action.
The No Action alternative provides a useful baseline for comparison of environmental effects
(including cumulative effects) and demonstrates the consequences of not meeting the need for
the action (see sections 8.3.4.2, Alternatives in an EA, and 9.2.7.1, Reasonable Alternatives for
an EIS for discussion of the No Action alternative for EAs and EISs).
52
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
The description of the No Action alternative depends on the type of action proposed:
– For land use planning actions: The No Action alternative is to continue to implement the
management direction in the land use plan (i.e., the land use plan as written). Any other
management approach should be treated as an action alternative. If, for example, plan
evaluation identifies that implementation has not been in accordance with the management
direction in the land use plan, you may consider continued non-conforming implementation
as an action alternative, if it is a reasonable alternative (see section 6.1.1, Reasonable
Alternatives).
– For internally generated implementation actions: the No Action alternative is not to take
the action.
– For externally generated proposals or applications: the No Action alternative is
generally to reject the proposal or deny the application. (The sole exception to this is for
renewal of a grazing permit, for which the No Action alternative is to issue a new permit
with the same terms and conditions as the expiring permit). The analysis of the No Action
alternative must only analyze what is reasonably foreseeable if the application is denied (see
Question 3, CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations,
March 23, 1981).
The No Action alternative may constitute a benchmark at one end of the spectrum of alternatives.
Therefore, defining the No Action alternative might require reference to the action alternatives
that will be analyzed. A No Action alternative that is outside of BLM jurisdiction or contrary to
law or regulation might be useful to consider as a baseline for comparison. For example, when
revising an LUP that has been implemented and subsequently found legally inadequate, analysis
of continued management under that existing LUP might provide useful comparison in the
analysis of the action alternatives in the revised LUP. The Web Guide provides some examples
of No Action alternatives.
6.6.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Analysis
If you consider alternatives during the EIS process but opt not to analyze them in detail, you
must identify those alternatives and briefly explain why you eliminated them from detailed
analysis (40 CFR 1502.14).
Explain why you eliminated an alternative proposed by the public or
another agency from detailed analysis. We recommend you do the same in an EA. See the Web
Guide for examples of “alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed analysis.”
You may eliminate an action alternative from detailed analysis if:
• it is ineffective (it would not respond to the purpose and need).
• it is technically or economically infeasible (consider whether implementation of the
alternative is likely given past and current practice and technology; this does not require
cost-benefit analysis or speculation about an applicant’s costs and profits).
• it is inconsistent with the basic policy objectives for the management of the area (such
as, not in conformance with the LUP).
• its implementation is remote or speculative.
• it is substantially similar in design to an alternative that is analyzed.
• it would have substantially similar effects to an alternative that is analyzed.
53
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
6.7 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND USE OF RELEVANT DATA
6.7.1 Affected Environment
The affected environment section succinctly describes the existing condition and trend of issue-
related elements of the human environment that may be affected by implementing the proposed
action or an alternative. The CEQ regulations discuss “human environment” at 40 CFR 1508.14;
the term broadly relates to biological, physical, social and economic elements of the
environment. We recommend that the descriptions of the specific elements be quantitative
wherever possible, and of sufficient detail to serve as a baseline against which to measure the
potential effects of implementing an action. The affected environment section of the
environmental analysis is defined and limited by the identified issues.
Your description of the affected environment will provide the basis for identifying and
interpreting potential impacts in a concise manner. Describe the present condition of the affected
resources within the identified geographic scope and provide a baseline for the cumulative
effects analysis. Identifying past and ongoing actions that contribute to existing conditions will
be helpful for the cumulative effects analysis (see section 6.8.3, Cumulative Effects).
Additionally, identify any regulatory thresholds and characterize what is known about stresses
affecting the resources and biological or physical thresholds. These biological or physical
thresholds are often poorly understood; it may be helpful to identify as part of the analysis the
threshold conditions of resources beyond which change could cause significant impacts. This
may not be possible for many resources because of incomplete or unavailable information (40
CFR 1502.22).
Your descriptions of the affected environment must be no longer than is necessary to understand
the effects of the alternatives. Data and analyses in a statement must be commensurate with the
importance of the impact; with less important material, you may summarize, consolidate, or
simply reference the material (40 CFR 1502.15).
6.7.2 Use of Relevant Data
Data and other information used to describe existing conditions and trends may be obtained from
other documents and summarized and incorporated by reference or otherwise appropriately
referenced. You may also obtain data and other information from cooperating agency partners or
other agencies, organizations, or individuals, as identified during scoping.
54
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
The CEQ regulations require the BLM to obtain information if it is “relevant to reasonably
foreseeable significant adverse impacts,” if it is “essential to a reasoned choice among
alternatives,” and if “the overall cost of obtaining it is not exorbitant” (40 CFR 1502.22). If
information essential to reasoned choice is unavailable or if the costs of obtaining it are
exorbitant (excessive or beyond reason), you must make a statement to this effect in the EIS or
EA. In this statement, you must discuss what effect the missing information may have on your
ability to predict impacts to the particular resource. If the information relevant to reasonably
foreseeable significant adverse impacts cannot be obtained because the overall costs of obtaining
it are exorbitant or the means to obtain it are not known, you must include within the EIS or EA:
1. a statement that such information is incomplete or unavailable;
2. a statement of the relevance of the incomplete or unavailable information to
evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human
environment;
3. a summary of existing credible scientific evidence which is relevant to evaluating
the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment,
and
4. the agency's evaluation of such impacts based upon theoretical approaches or
research methods generally accepted in the scientific community. For the
purposes of this section, "reasonably foreseeable" includes impacts which have
catastrophic consequences, even if their probability of occurrence is low, provided
that the analysis of the impacts is supported by credible scientific evidence, is not
based on pure conjecture, and is within the rule of reason.
(40 CFR 1502.22(b)).
6.8 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
6.8.1 Effects Analysis
6.8.1.1 Defining Environmental Effects
Your EA or EIS must identify the known and predicted effects that are related to the issues (40
CFR 1500.4 (c), 40 CFR 1500.4(g), 40 CFR 1500.5(d), 40 CFR 1502.16) (see 6.4 Issues). An
issue differs from an effect; an issue describes an environmental problem or relation between a
resource and an action, while effects analysis predicts the degree to which the resource would be
affected upon implementation of an action.
Effects can be ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components,
structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social,
or health. Effects may also include those resulting from actions that may have both beneficial
and detrimental effects, even if on balance the agency believes that the effects will be beneficial
(40 CFR 1508.8).
The terms “effects” and “impacts” are synonymous in the CEQ regulations (40 CFR
1508.8) and in this handbook.
55
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Analyze relevant short-term and long-term effects and disclose both beneficial and detrimental
effects in the NEPA analysis. We recommend you define the duration of long term and short-
term, as it can vary depending on the action and the scope of analysis. You must consider and
analyze three categories of effects for any BLM proposal and its alternatives: direct, indirect, and
cumulative (40 CFR 1508.25(c)).
To help decision-makers understand how a resource will be affected, focus the discussion of
effects on the context, intensity, and duration of these effects (see section 7.3, Significance).
Your effects analysis must also identify possible conflicts between the proposed action (and each
alternative) and the objectives of Federal, State, regional, local, and tribal land use plans,
policies, or controls for the area concerned (40 CFR 1502.16(c)).
6.8.1.2 Analyzing Effects
The effects analysis must demonstrate that the BLM took a “hard
look” at the impacts of the action. The level of detail must be
sufficient to support reasoned conclusions by comparing the amount
and the degree of change (impact) caused by the proposed action and
alternatives (40 CFR 1502.1). See the Web Guide for recent
examples of how the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) has
dealt with the concept of “hard look.”
Use the best available science to support NEPA analyses, and give greater consideration to peer-
reviewed science and methodology over that which is not peer-reviewed.
Describe the methodology and analytical assumptions for the effects analysis as explained
below:
Methodology:
Your NEPA document must describe the analytical methodology
sufficiently so that the reader can understand how the analysis was conducted and why
the particular methodology was used (40 CFR 1502.24).
This explanation must include a
description of any limitations inherent in the methodology. If there is substantial dispute
over models, methodology, or data, you must recognize the opposing viewpoint(s) and
explain the rationale for your choice of analysis. You may place discussions of
methodology in the text or in the appendix of the document. To the extent possible, we
recommend that the analysis of impacts be quantified.
Analytical documents to support Federal agency decision-making include EISs and EAs, but
neither are considered publications of scientific research subject to peer review. You may
choose to have your NEPA analysis reviewed by members of the scientific community as part
of public review of the document. Such review may be desirable to improve the quality of the
analysis or share information; this does not constitute formal peer-review.
A “hard look” is a
reasoned analysis
containing
quantitative or
detailed qualitative
information.
56
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Assumptions: We recommend that your NEPA document state the analytical
assumptions, including the geographic and temporal scope of the analysis (which may
vary by issue), the baseline for analysis, as well as the reasonably foreseeable future
actions (see section 6.8.3, Cumulative Effects). You must also explain any assumptions
made when information critical to the analysis was incomplete or unavailable (40 CFR
1502.22). See section 6.7.2, Use of Relevant Data, for more discussion of incomplete or
unavailable information.
Analytical assumptions may include any reasonably foreseeable development (RFD)
scenarios for resources, such as RFDs for oil and gas development. A reasonably
foreseeable development scenario is a baseline projection for activity for a defined area
and period of time, and though commonly used in minerals development, these scenarios
may be used for other resources as well. Examples of reasonably foreseeable
development scenarios can be found in the Web Guide.
Clarity of expression, logical thought processes, and rational explanations are more important
than length or format in the discussion of impacts. Following these guidelines will help the
decision-maker and the public understand your analysis.
• Use objective, professional language without being overly technical.
• Avoid subjective terms such as "good," "bad," "positive," and "negative." The term
“significant” has a very specific meaning in the NEPA context (see section 7.3,
Significance). While it is a common descriptor, do not use it in NEPA documents
unless it is intended to take on the NEPA meaning.
• Avoid the use of acronyms.
6.8.2 Direct and Indirect Effects
EAs and EISs must analyze and describe the
direct effects and indirect effects of the
proposed action and the alternatives on the
quality of the human environment (40 CFR
1508.8). The value in requiring analysis of both
direct and indirect effects is to make certain that
no effects are overlooked. Because it can be
difficult to distinguish between direct and
indirect effects, you do not have to differentiate
between the terms. When you are uncertain
which effect is direct and which is indirect, it is
helpful to describe the effects together. Effects
are weighted the same; you do not consider an
indirect effect less important than a direct effect
in the analysis. Examples of direct and indirect
effects can be found in the Web Guide.
Direct effects are those effects “…which are
caused by the action and occur at the same
time and place” (40 CFR 1508.8(a)).
Indirect effects are those effects “…which are
caused by the action and are later in time or
farther removed in distance, but are still
reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may
include growth inducing effects and other
effects related to induced changes in the
pattern of land use, population density, or
growth rate, and related effects on water and
air and other natural systems, including
ecosystems” (40 CFR 1508.8(b)
).
57
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
6.8.3 Cumulative Effects
The purpose of cumulative effects analysis is to ensure that Federal decision-makers consider the
full range of consequences of actions (the proposed action and alternatives, including the No
Action alternative). Assessing cumulative effects begins early in the NEPA process, during
internal and external scoping.
“Analyzing cumulative effects is more
challenging than analyzing direct or
indirect effects, primarily because of the
difficulty of defining the geographic
(spatial) and time (temporal) boundaries.
For example, if the boundaries are defined
too broadly, the analysis becomes
unwieldy; if they are defined too narrowly,
significant issues may be missed, and
decision-makers will be incompletely
informed about the consequences of their actions” (CEQ, “Considering Cumulative Effects
Under the National Environmental Policy Act”).
In addition to the direction described below, the Web Guide contains a list of “Principles of
cumulative effects analysis” that is useful in guiding effective cumulative effects analysis, as
well as examples of cumulative effects. The Web Guide also includes “Steps in cumulative
effects analysis to be addressed in each component of environmental impact assessment” from
the CEQ’s “Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act
(Table 1-5).”
The following sections lay out steps in cumulative effects analysis. This is not a required format
for documentation but is a useful way to think about the process and ensure an adequate analysis.
6.8.3.1 Cumulative Effects Issues
Determine which of the issues identified for analysis (see section 6.4, Issues) may involve a
cumulative effect with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions. If the
proposed action and alternatives would have no direct or indirect effects on a resource, you do
not need a cumulative effects analysis on that resource. Be aware that minor direct and indirect
effects can potentially contribute to synergistic cumulative effects that may require analysis (see
section 6.8.3.5 Analyzing the Cumulative Effects).
For example, the BLM proposes to build a campground near private land where a private utility
company proposes to build and operate a power generation structure. The NEPA document
must analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of your action of constructing a
campground. If the campground construction would affect sage grouse habitat, but have no
effect on air quality, and the power generation structure would affect sage grouse habitat and air
quality, your NEPA document for the campground construction must describe the cumulative
effects on sage grouse habitat, but not on air quality.
The CEQ regulations define cumulative effects
as “…the impact on the environment which
results from the incremental impact of the
action when added to other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless
of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or
person undertakes such actions” (40 CFR
1508.7).
58
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
In another example, the BLM is reviewing a proposal to develop a natural gas field that will
affect air quality but not affect any sensitive plants. The State is proposing a large prescribed
burn, which will affect air quality and a sensitive plant population. The NEPA document needs
to discuss the cumulative effects on air quality, but not on sensitive plants.
6.8.3.2 Geographic Scope of the Cumulative Effects Analysis
We recommend that you establish and describe the geographic scope for each cumulative effects
issue, which will help bound the description of the affected environment (see section 6.7.1,
Affected Environment). Describe in your EA or EIS the rationale for the geographic scope
established. The geographic scope is generally based on the natural boundaries of the resource
affected, rather than jurisdictional boundaries. The geographic scope will often be different for
each cumulative effects issue. The geographic scope of cumulative effects will often extend
beyond the scope of the direct effects, but not beyond the scope of the direct and indirect effects
of the proposed action and alternatives. As noted above, if the proposed action and alternatives
would have no direct or indirect effects on a resource, you do not need to analyze cumulative
effects on that resource.
For example, if a proposal affects water quality and air quality, the appropriate cumulative
effects analysis areas may be the watershed and the airshed.
6.8.3.3 Timeframe of the Cumulative Effects Analysis
We recommend that you establish and describe the timeframe for each cumulative effects
issue—that is, define long-term and short-term, and incorporate the duration of the effects
anticipated. Long-term could be as long as the longest lasting effect. Timeframes, like
geographic scope, can vary by resource. For example, the timeframe for economic effects may be
much shorter than the timeframe for effects on vegetation structure and composition. Base these
timeframes on the duration of the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action and
alternatives, rather than the duration of the action itself. Describe in your EA or EIS the
rationale for the timeframe established.
6.8.3.4 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions
The cumulative effects analysis considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions
that would affect the resource of concern within the geographic scope and the timeframe of the
analysis. In your analysis, you must consider other BLM actions, other Federal actions, and non-
Federal (including private) actions (40 CFR 1508.7)
.
You must consider past actions within the geographic scope to provide context for the
cumulative effects analysis (40 CFR 1508.7)
. Past actions can usually be described by their
aggregate effect without listing or analyzing the effects of individual past actions (CEQ,
Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis, June 24, 2005).
Summarize past actions adequately to describe the present conditions (see section 6.7.1, Affected
Environment).
59
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
In some circumstances, past actions may need to be described in greater detail when they bear
some relation to the proposed action. For example, past actions that are similar to the proposed
action might have some bearing on what effects might be anticipated from the proposed action or
alternatives. You should clearly distinguish analysis of direct and indirect effects based on
information about past actions from a cumulative effects analysis of past actions. (CEQ,
Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis, June 24, 2005).
You must consider present actions within the geographic scope (40 CFR 1508.7). Present
actions are actions which are ongoing at the time of your analysis.
You must include reasonably foreseeable future actions within the geographic scope and the
timeframe of the analysis (40 CFR 1508.7). You cannot limit reasonably foreseeable future
actions to those that are approved or funded. On the other hand, you are not required to
speculate about future actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions are those for which there
are existing decisions, funding, formal proposals, or which are highly probable, based on known
opportunities or trends. Reasonably foreseeable development scenarios may be valuable sources
of information to assist in the BLM’s cumulative effects analysis. When considering reasonably
foreseeable future actions, it may be helpful to ask such questions as:
• Is there an existing proposal, such as the submission of permit applications?
• Is there a commitment of resources, such as funding?
• If it is a Federal action, has the NEPA process begun (for example, publication of an
NOI)?
Analyzing future actions, such as speculative developments, is not required but may be useful in
some circumstances. Including assumptions about possible future actions may increase the
longevity of the document and expand the value for subsequent tiering. For example:
The EIS for oil and gas leasing in the Northwest NPR-A Planning Area in Alaska included
analysis of permanent road construction, even though it is not feasible at this time. By
including assumptions and analysis about such possible future road construction in the
EIS, new NEPA analysis might not be required if such permanent roads become feasible in
the future.
6.8.3.5 Analyzing the Cumulative Effects
For each cumulative effect issue, analyze the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action
and alternatives together with the effects of the other actions that have a cumulative effect.
Cumulative effects analysis will usually need to be addressed separately for each alternative,
because each alternative will have different direct and indirect effects.
60
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
The following structure is not a required format, but may be useful in constructing the
cumulative effects analysis. For each cumulative effect issue:
• Describe the existing condition (see section 6.7, Affected Environment). The existing
condition is the combination of the natural condition and the effects of past actions.
The natural condition is the naturally occurring resource condition without the effects
of human actions. Detailed description of the natural condition may not be possible for
some resources because of incomplete or unavailable information (40 CFR 1502.22)
or may not be applicable for some resources. Describe the effects of past actions,
either individually or collectively, to understand how the existing condition has been
created.
• Describe the effects of other present actions.
• Describe the effects of reasonably foreseeable actions.
• Describe the effects of the proposed action and each action alternatives.
• Describe the interaction among the above effects.
• Describe the relationship of the cumulative effects to any thresholds.
See the Web Guide for an example of cumulative effects analysis.
Figure 6.3 Cumulative Effects
Bars in this graph represent effects of actions.
This graphic most clearly represents additive cumulative effects.
61
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
The analysis of the No Action alternative describes the cumulative effect of past, other present,
and reasonably foreseeable actions, without the effect of the proposed action or action
alternatives. The analysis of the proposed action will include those same effects, as well as the
effects of the proposed action, and thus will demonstrate the incremental difference resulting
from the proposed action. Regardless of how you present the analysis, you must be able to
describe the incremental differences in cumulative effects as a result of the effects of the
proposed action and alternatives (40 CFR 1508.7).
Describe the interaction among the effects of the proposed action and these various past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable actions. This interaction may be:
• additive: the effects of the actions add together to make up the cumulative effect.
• countervailing: the effects of some actions balance or mitigate the effects of other actions.
• synergistic:
the effects of the actions together is greater than the sum of their individual
effects.
How the different effects interact may help determine how you may best describe and display the
cumulative effects analysis. It will often be helpful to describe the cause-and-effect relations for
the resources affected to understand if the cumulative effect is additive, countervailing, or
synergistic.
The cumulative effects analysis provides a basis for evaluating the cumulative effect relative to
any regulatory, biological, socioeconomic, or physical thresholds. Describe how the incremental
effect of the proposed action and each alternative relates to any relevant thresholds.
6.8.4 Mitigation and Residual Effects
Mitigation includes specific means, measures
or practices that would reduce or eliminate
effects of the proposed action or alternatives.
Mitigation measures can be applied to reduce
or eliminate adverse effects to biological,
physical, or socioeconomic resources.
Mitigation may be used to reduce or avoid
adverse impacts, whether or not they are
significant in nature. Measures or practices
should only be termed mitigation measures if
they have not been incorporated into the
proposed action or alternatives. If mitigation
measures are incorporated into the proposed
action or alternatives, they are called design
features, not mitigation measures (see section
6.5.1.1, Design Features of the Proposed
Action). You must describe the mitigation
measures that you are adopting in your decision documentation. Monitoring is required to
ensure the implementation of these measures (40 CFR 1505.2(c)) (see section 10.1, Purposes of
and Requirements for Monitoring).
Mitigation measures are those measures that
could reduce or avoid adverse impacts and
have not been incorporated into the proposed
action or an alternative.
Mitigation can include (40 CFR 1508.20):
• Avoiding the impact altogether by not
taking a certain action or parts of an
action.
• Minimizing impact by limiting the degree of
magnitude of the action and its
implementation
• Rectifying the impact by repairing,
rehabilitation, or restoring the affected
environment.
• Reducing or eliminating the impact over
time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action.
• Compensating for the impact by replacing
or providing substitute resources or
environments.”
62
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
In an EIS, all “relevant, reasonable mitigation measures that could improve the project are to be
identified,” even if they are outside the jurisdiction of the agency (see Question 19b, CEQ, Forty
Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981). When
presenting mitigation measures not within the BLM’s jurisdiction, it is particularly beneficial to
work with other agencies (see Chapter 12, Cooperating Agencies, Joint Lead Agencies, and
Advisory Committees).
Socioeconomic impacts are usually indirect and largely fall on communities and local
government institutions, by definition located outside BLM-managed lands. While some
mitigation strategies are within the BLM’s control, (such as regulating the pace of mineral
exploration and development to minimize rapid, disruptive social change), most mitigation
strategies require action by other government entities—typically cities, counties, and State
agencies. In supporting local and State efforts to mitigate socioeconomic impacts, you “may
provide information and other assistance, sanction local activities, encourage community and
project proponent agreements, and cooperate with responsible officials to the fullest extent
feasible” (BLM Handbook of Socio-Economic Mitigation, IV-2
).
You may need to identify mitigation measures that would reduce or eliminate the effects of a
non-Federal action when it is a connected action to the BLM proposed action (see section
6.8.2.1.1, Connected Non-Federal Actions). For such non-Federal actions, the relevant,
reasonable mitigation measures are likely to include mitigation measures that would be carried
out by other Federal, State or local regulatory agencies or tribes. Identifying mitigation outside
of BLM jurisdiction serves to alert the other agencies that can implement the mitigation. In
describing mitigation under the authority of another government agency, you must discuss the
probability of the other agency implementing the mitigation measures (see Question 19b, CEQ,
Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981).
For an action analyzed in an EA, mitigation can be used to reduce the effects of an action below
the threshold of significance, avoiding the need to prepare an EIS (see section 7.1, Actions
Requiring an EA).
During impact analysis, analyze the impacts of the proposed action (including design features)
and with all mitigation measures (if any) applied, as well as any further impacts caused by the
mitigation measures themselves. Address the anticipated effectiveness of these mitigation
measures in reducing or avoiding adverse impacts in your analysis. Describe the residual effects
of any adverse impacts that remain after mitigation measures have been applied.
6.9 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND RESPONDING TO COMMENTS
Public involvement is an important part of the NEPA process. The level of public involvement
varies with the different types of NEPA compliance and decision-making. Public involvement
begins early in the NEPA process, with scoping, and continues throughout the preparation of the
analysis and the decision.
63
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
6.9.1 Involving and Notifying the Public
The CEQ regulations require that agencies “make diligent efforts to involve the public in
preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures” (40 CFR 1506.6(a)). There are a wide
variety of ways to engage the public in the NEPA process. For EA public involvement, see
sections 8.2, Public Involvement; 8.3.3, Scoping and Issues; and 8.3.7, Tribes, Individuals,
Organizations, or Agencies Consulted. For EIS public involvement, see sections 6.3, Scoping
and 9.2.10.1, Public Involvement and Scoping.
A primary goal of public involvement is to ensure that all interested and affected parties are
aware of your proposed action. Knowing your community well is the first step in determining
the interested and affected parties and tribes. You may already have a core list of those
interested in and potentially affected by the BLM's proposed actions; this may provide a good
starting point. Work with your public affairs officer and other BLM staff, community leaders,
and governmental agencies (Federal, State, and local) to help determine interested and affected
parties and tribes.
Public meetings or hearings are required when there may be substantial environmental
controversy concerning the environmental effects of the proposed action, a substantial interest in
holding the meeting, or a request for a meeting by another agency with jurisdiction over the
action (40 CFR 1506.6 (c)). You may determine that it is efficient to combine public meetings
for the NEPA with hearings required by another law (an example is requirements in the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act that require hearings if certain findings are made
regarding the effects of a proposed action on subsistence). There are more stringent
requirements for conducting the hearing and recording the proceedings. You must maintain
records of public meetings and hearings including a list of attendees (as well as addresses of
attendees desiring to be added to the mailing list) and notes or minutes of the proceedings.
Consult 455 DM 1 for procedural requirements related to public hearings. Check individual
program guidance to determine requirements for public meetings and hearings.
In many cases, people attending field trips and public meetings will be interested and/or affected
parties. Make sure that you have attendance sheets that capture contact information at your field
trips and meetings; these will provide you with a list of people who may want to be contacted
about and involved in the NEPA process. In some cases, those affected by your proposed action
may not be actively engaged in the NEPA process. In these cases, it is still important for you to
reach out to those individuals, parties, or tribes, and we recommend using a variety of methods to
help inform and engage those affected.
The public must be notified of its privacy rights. See IM 2007-092, April 4, 2007.
Include the following statement in all information requesting public comment: “Before
including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying
information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment –including your personal
identifying information –may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us
in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.”
64
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
Notification methods include, but are not limited to: newsletters, Web sites or online NEPA logs,
bulletin boards, newspapers, and Federal Register Notices. EISs have very specific notification
requirements, detailed in Chapters 9 and 13. Also refer to Chapters 4, 5, and 8 for more
discussion of DNAs, CXs, and EAs.
The CEQ regulations explicitly discusses agency responsibility towards interested and affected
parties at 40 CFR 1506.6.
The CEQ regulations require that agencies shall:
(a) Make diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA
procedures
(b) Provide public notice of NEPA-related hearings, public meetings, and the availability of
environmental documents so as to inform those persons and agencies who may be interested or
affected.
In all cases the agency shall mail notice to those who have requested it on an individual action.
In the case of an action with effects of national concern notice shall include publication in the
Federal Register and notice by mail to national organizations reasonably expected to be
interested in the matter and may include listing in the 102 Monitor. An agency engaged in
rulemaking may provide notice by mail to national organizations who have requested that notice
regularly be provided. Agencies shall maintain a list of such organizations.
In the case of an action with effects primarily of local concern the notice may include:
(i) Notice to State and areawide clearinghouses pursuant to OMB Circular A- 95 (Revised).
(ii) Notice to Indian tribes when effects may occur on reservations.
(iii) Following the affected State's public notice procedures for comparable actions.
(iv) Publication in local newspapers (in papers of general circulation rather than legal
papers).
(v) Notice through other local media.
(vi) Notice to potentially interested community organizations including small business
associations.
(vii) Publication in newsletters that may be expected to reach potentially interested persons.
(viii) Direct mailing to owners and occupants of nearby or affected property.
(ix) Posting of notice on and off site in the area where the action is to be located.
(c) Hold or sponsor public hearings or public meetings whenever appropriate or in accordance
with statutory requirements applicable to the agency. Criteria shall include whether there is:
(i) Substantial environmental controversy concerning the proposed action or substantial
interest in holding the hearing.
(ii) A request for a hearing by another agency with jurisdiction over the action supported
by reasons why a hearing will be helpful. If a draft environmental impact statement is to be
considered at a public hearing, the agency should make the statement available to the
public at least 15 days in advance (unless the purpose of the hearing is to provide
information for the draft environmental impact statement).
65
H-1790-1 - NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HANDBOOK – (Public)
BLM MA
NUAL Rel. 1-1710
Supersedes Rel. 1-1547 01/30/2008
(d) Solicit appropriate information from the public.
(e) Explain in its procedures where interested persons can get information or status reports on
environmental impact statements and other elements of the NEPA process.
(f) Make environmental impact statements, the comments received, and any underlying
documents available to the public pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act
(5 U.S.C. 552), without regard to the exclusion for interagency memoranda where such
memoranda transmit comments of Federal agencies on the environmental impact of the proposed
action. Materials to be made available to the public shall be provided to the public without
charge to the extent practicable, or at a fee which is not more than the actual costs of reproducing
copies required to be sent to other Federal agencies, including the Council.
6.9.2 Comments
The BLM has both the duty to comment on other agencies’ EISs and to obtain comments on our
EISs in cases of jurisdiction by law or special expertise. For more discussion of these
requirements, see Chapter 11, Agency Review of Environmental Impact Statements.
Comments on the document and proposed action may be received in response to a scoping notice
or in response to public review of an EA and FONSI or draft EIS. Comments received at other
times in the process may not need a formal response. However, all substantive comments
received before reaching a decision must be considered to the extent feasible (40 CFR 1503.4).
Comments must be in writing (including paper or electronic format or a court reporter’s
transcript taken at a formal hearing), substantive, and timely, in order to merit a written response.
You may receive oral comments at public meetings and workshops – it is helpful to write these
down to revisit during the NEPA process. To ensure that the true intent of the comment is
captured, offer commenters the opportunity to record their comments in writing. The geographic
origin of a comment does not alter whether it is substantive.
The requirements for BLM responses to comments differ between EAs and EISs (see section 8.2,
Public Involvement, and section 9.6.1, Comments Received Following Issue of the Final EIS).
When an EA and unsigned FONSI are made available for public comment, we recommend that
you respond to all substantive and timely comments. You may respond to substantive, timely
comments in the EA or in the decision record. If a substantive and timely comment does not
lead to changes in the EA or decision, you may reply directly to the commenter, and we
recommend that you document the reply in either the EA or the decision record (see section
8.5.1, Documenting the Decision). When preparing a final EIS, you must respond to all
substantive written comments submitted during the formal scoping period and public comment
period (see section 9.4, The Final EIS). You are not required to respond to comments that are
not substantive or comments that are received after the close of the comment period, but you
may choose to reply (516 DM 4.19(A) and (B)) (see section 6.9.2.2, Com