[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 45 (Monday, March 8, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10866-10887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-4945]



[[Page 10865]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part III





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



National Environmental Policy Act Revised Implementing Procedures; 
Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 45 / Monday, March 8, 2004 / 
Notices  

[[Page 10866]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[516 DM 1-15]


National Environmental Policy Act Revised Implementing Procedures

AGENCY: Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Notice of final revised procedures.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice contains the final revised Departmental policies 
and procedures for compliance with the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA), as amended, Executive Order 11514, as amended, and the 
Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations. This action is 
necessary to update these procedures and to make them available to the 
public on the Department's Internet site. These procedures are final 
and will be published in part 516 of the Departmental Manual (DM) and 
will be made available to the public on the Electronic Library of 
Interior Policies (ELIPS). ELIPS is located at http://elips.doi.gov/. 
The bureaus and offices of the Department of the Interior are required 
to use these procedures when meeting their responsibilities under the 
National Environmental Policy Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terence N. Martin, Team Leader, 
Natural Resources Management; Office of Environmental Policy and 
Compliance; 1849 C Street, NW.; Washington, DC 20240. Telephone: 202-
208-5465. E-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: General: These procedures address policy as 
well as procedure in order to assure compliance with the spirit and 
intent of NEPA. They update Interior's policies and procedures in order 
to stay current with changing environmental laws and programs of the 
Federal government. It is the intent of these procedures to provide one 
set of broad Departmental directives and instructions to all bureaus 
and offices of the Department to follow in their NEPA compliance 
activities. In previous publications of these chapters the Department's 
bureaus published appendices to chapter 6 to further describe each 
bureau's compliance program. In order to more efficiently handle these 
appendices in the ELIPS system, it has been decided to republish them 
as new chapters to this DM part. Therefore, new chapters 8 through 15 
which represent the currently existing bureau appendices will be added 
to the Departmental Manual. These chapters have already received public 
review, are final, and are not being republished here today. In the 
near future, each bureau will consider revising its chapter to bring it 
into conformance with the Department's procedures. Any revisions to 
these chapters will be published in the Federal Register for public 
comment. In accordance with 1507.3 of the CEQ Regulations, this 
Department submitted these final revisions to CEQ for their review and 
approval. In a letter, CEQ approved these procedures for final 
publication. The remaining sections of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION will 
provide background, a synopsis of comments and responses, and 
procedural requirements. Following the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION is the 
text of the final procedures.
    Background: On September 4, 2003, the Department published these 
procedures in draft form and invited the public to make comments. All 
comments received to date on this publication have been read, analyzed, 
and considered in the revision process. The procedures have also been 
circulated in the Department for final clearance by each assistant 
secretary. In some cases, responses to public comments or changes made 
as a result of public comments have been further revised during the 
final, internal review and clearance process.
    Comments and Responses: The Department received, reviewed, and 
considered seventeen letters of comment on the September 4, 2003, 
Federal Register notice. There were some comments which focused on 
certain broad issues, and those comments are addressed immediately 
below. We have identified these issues with portions of the publication 
or with a descriptive title. These titles are in all capital letters 
for easy identification. Following these responses, we have 
incorporated the outline of each chapter of the final publication for 
ease of tracking individual comments on specific sections. To find your 
comment, you should proceed to the section of the manual that you 
commented on to see the response. For example, if you made a comment in 
Chapter 3, subpart 4, proceed to the heading 516 DM 3 and find 3.4. In 
each subpart where there are comments, we have paraphrased the comments 
in italics followed immediately by our response in regular type. If 
several reviewers made comments on the same section and a single answer 
is warranted, it is identified as an answer to multiple comments. If a 
chapter subpart is not listed, there were no comments received on that 
subpart.

Supplementary Information Portion of the September 4, 2003, Publication

    In the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the September 4, 2003, 
Federal Register notice, we made the statement that:
    They update our policies and procedures in order to stay current 
with changing environmental laws and programs of the Federal 
government.
    Several reviewers were concerned that this statement needed more 
clarification and seemed to apply a more formal reading of the 
statement than did the Department.
    We intended the statement in a casual manner since, over the last 
twenty three years, there have been a number of new and modified 
environmental requirements at all levels of government. We wish to 
assure all reviewers that this sentence is only a summary expression 
reflecting the intent of the revision to take into account the past 
twenty three years of changing environmental requirements. These 
Departmental procedures originated in 1980 and have become dated both 
in reference to and substantive compliance with newer requirements. 
Agencies often revise their procedures for this reason. Also, the CEQ 
Regulations require agencies to review their procedures [40 CFR 
1507.3(a)]. In addition, the Department has been posting sections of 
its operating manual on the Internet for easy public access. Before 
these chapters can be posted, they must be revised to be useful to our 
bureaus and the public.
    Several reviewers expressed concern that the September 4, 2003, 
Federal Register notice did not explain all of the changes or did not 
provide explicit, highlighted changes.
    We believe that we did provide sufficient explanation of the 
material presented, and we cited the Internet location of the current 
procedures so that anyone wishing to download them and make their own 
comparisons could do so. Further, a contact was given for any questions 
from the public. Any requests for a paper copy of the current chapters 
would have been honored. No such requests were received.
    Several reviewers noted our citation of Executive Order 13212 in 
the supplemental information and expressed concern that this 
represented a particular emphasis on expediting energy projects and 
that the reference to 516 DM 4.16 was incorrect.
    This portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION was merely intended 
to display the various procedural requirements that this publication

[[Page 10867]]

would have had to address had it been a rulemaking. There was no 
intention to indicate any emphasis on the application of Executive 
Order 13212 over any other requirement that applies to the Department. 
The reference to 516 DM 4.16 was an error in publication, and it should 
have been 516 DM 4.17 as the reviewer noted. It has been changed in 
this version.
    Relationship of these revised departmental NEPA procedures to 
current NEPA compliance and Federal financial assistance program 
activities of the Department's Fish and Wildlife Service.
    Several reviewers remain concerned about this publication and its 
perceived increase in workload under the Federal financial assistance 
programs of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The concerns are: (1) 
Federal aid program activities will be subject to an increasing amount 
of environmental assessments when categorical exclusions should be able 
to provide adequate NEPA compliance, (2) EAs should only be used to 
determine if an EIS is necessary under Federal aid grant programs, (3) 
Federal aid grants for maintenance work often receive more 
environmental analysis than is warranted because Federal managers 
return to the base project for their NEPA analysis when only the 
maintenance activity should be examined, and (4) Certain additions to 
Appendix 1--containing the Department's categorical exclusions (CXs) 
need to be made to further the use of CXs in Federal aid programs.
    We appreciate the comments that have been made in this area and 
have reviewed them for any possible changes to the Departmental Manual. 
However, these comments and recommendations are the concern of and 
better answered by the Department's Fish and Wildlife Service. The 
Departmental NEPA procedures serve as umbrella procedures for all of 
the bureaus in the Department and do not provide a level of detail 
sufficient to apply to all the bureaus and their varied mandates, 
missions, and needs.
    The FWS NEPA procedures in the Departmental Manual, which address 
the requirements set forth in 516 DM 6.5, were last published as final 
procedures on January 16, 1997. All public comments were considered and 
were incorporated into the final FWS procedures. The FWS will be 
reviewing and revising as necessary its NEPA guidance following final 
publication of the Departmental Manual.
    Since these comments and recommendations are concerned with the 
program activities of the Fish and Wildlife Service, they have been 
forwarded to that bureau for their use in any future revision of 
Chapter 8.
    One reviewer expressed concern that the department's procedures 
should await the completion of CEQ's guidance arising from the CEQ task 
force report on moderizing NEPA implementation.
    During development of the September 4, 2003, publication, the 
Department was in contact with CEQ staff concerning the new concepts 
and changes that were being written into the manual chapters. CEQ made 
suggestions for improvement and generally indicated that the 
Department's changes were consistent with the information being 
collected for their report, ``Modernizing NEPA Implementation.'' We 
believe that it is unnecessary to wait for CEQ to complete any new 
guidance arising from the report recommendations since the Department 
maintains its own guidance system to further explain or interpret new 
guidance from CEQ or elsewhere. Reviewers are referred to our 
environmental statement memorandum series at http://www.doi.gov/oepc/ememoranda.html.
    One reviewer was concerned with the chapter 1 references to the 
department and its officers interpreting and administering the 
policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States in 
accordance with NEPA.
    We do not believe there is a problem with this language since it is 
consistent with section 102(1) of NEPA.
    One reviewer pointed out that states have public participation 
processes that may be duplicated by the department and create 
confusion.
    The reviewer indicated that the Department should accept State 
public participation processes as adequate and move toward use of 
cooperative agreements to further the Federal/State roles in producing 
NEPA compliance documents. We agree in general and understand that 
several States have adequate public participation programs. The CEQ 
Regulations at 40 CFR 1506.6 require the Department to provide for 
public involvement and this has been a cornerstone of the Department's 
NEPA procedures for many years. To address this comment, we have 
allowed for public involvement to be accomplished through local 
partnerships in 516 DM 1.2B.
    One reviewer commented that DOI should hold its employees fully 
accountable for their actions when carrying out their responsibilities 
during consensus-based management. The reference was to our statement 
concerning Executive Order 12630 in the procedural requirements below.
    We appreciate the comment and can assure reviewers that 
Departmental employees are fully bound by these procedures and 
Executive Order 12630 and are expected to carry out their 
responsibilities accordingly.
    Several reviewers offered comments on the Bureau of Land 
Management's willingness to comply fully with the policy statements of 
516 DM 1.
    All bureaus of the Department are bound by these procedures as well 
as their NEPA procedures set out in their chapters and handbooks. BLM 
has participated vigorously in the development of the Department's new 
procedures and plans to move rapidly toward updating its chapter and 
handbook to conform to the new Departmental procedures. We have 
forwarded these specific comments to the bureau for its information and 
consideration in their revision efforts.
    Several reviewers commented that Federal permitting processes 
remain cumbersome, complex, and unpredictable.
    We agree and believe that we have addressed many of these problems 
to the best of our ability in these chapters. The revisions emphasize 
combining analyses when practicable and, where appropriate, using 
information from one study in another. Both of these techniques should 
help decrease the cumbersomeness, complexity, and unpredictability of 
the NEPA process. The Departmental Manual NEPA chapters provide 
oversight guidance for eight bureaus with very diverse missions and 
statutory authorities, and, therefore, must balance both general and 
specific coverage for a number of issues. Also a specific environmental 
statement memorandum has been issued covering this topic. Reviewers are 
referred to our environmental statement memorandum series at: http://www.doi.gov/oepc/ememoranda.html.
    One reviewer commented directly and others implied in some portions 
of their comments that the revised procedures were a positive step 
forward to improve NEPA implementation in the department.
    We appreciate these comments.
    Several reviewers offered comments proposing no changes to the text 
of the chapters or comments expressing an opinion on the department's 
proposed changes.
    These comments were all read and considered; and, in some cases, 
assisted our revision of specific sections of the procedures or 
supported other reviewers' recommendations. We appreciate the input 
provided in these comments.

[[Page 10868]]

516 DM 1

1.2 Policy

    One reviewer recommended a wording change to 1.2B and 1.2C 
concerning references to section 101 of NEPA and to the definition of 
the human environment in 40 CFR 1508.14.
    We agree and have amended both subparts along with subpart 1.2D.

1.3 General Responsibilities

    One reviewer suggests that our requirements in 1.3D(4) are beyond 
the scope of NEPA.
    We disagree and refer reviewers to sections 102(1), 102(2)(A), 
102(2)(G), 102(2)(H), and 104(1).
    Several reviewers commented on the concept of consensus-based 
management in 1.3D(5).
    Comments were both for and against our use of the concept and also 
offered using the term ``information-based management'' as a 
substitute. Some concern was voiced about compliance with the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and that States may have to provide 
training on Federal laws for which they have no expertise and often 
have no funds to provide any training. We have reviewed the subpart 
again and believe that these concerns are unfounded. We also refer the 
reviewers to our environmental statement memorandum on the Web site 
noted above under the general comment on the NEPA Task Force Report. We 
feel that sufficient flexibility is built into these new concepts to 
make them workable under existing budget conditions at both Federal and 
State levels. Finally, legal review of our consensus-based management 
advises that it is compliant with FACA.
    Several reviewers spoke in support of tiered and transferred 
analyses in 1.3D(6).
    The support is appreciated.
    Several reviewers spoke in support of the adaptive management 
concept introduced in 1.3D(7).
    We appreciate the support.
    One reviewer suggest the addition of the CEQ Regulations to 
1.3E(1).
    We agree and have done so.
    One reviewer suggested that collecting baseline data be added to 
1.3E(3) and adding a similar passage to 4.17C.
    We believe that the general requirement in 1.4A(4) is sufficient to 
bind Departmental managers on this subject.

1.4 Consideration of Environmental Values

    One reviewer voiced support for 1.4A(1).
    We appreciate the support.
    One reviewer voiced support for 1.4A(3).
    We appreciate the support.
    Several reviewers commented on and suggested wording changes to the 
baseline data provision in 1.4A(4).
    The Department understands that baseline data are both necessary to 
environmental analysis and can be controversial from the standpoint of 
determining what the baseline is and how to get those data for a given 
project. We believe that this subpart is appropriate for the Department 
and its bureaus as written. We believe that it is best to provide 
Departmental managers with this overall guidance and let project 
specific NEPA documents and their public comments determine whether 
baseline has been properly defined and documented.
    Several reviewers commented on 1.4A(5) giving support, concerned 
about requiring combined EISs in the same area, and concerned that CXs 
ignore cumulative impacts.
    This provision is written with sufficient flexibility to allow 
Departmental managers to determine the best way to integrate existing 
environmental analyses and data into their NEPA documents and does not 
require combined NEPA documents by several agencies unless that is the 
most efficient and effective method to adequately comply with NEPA. We 
also call attention to extraordinary circumstance 2.6 in 516 DM 2; 
Appendix 2 that is intended to assure that cumulative impacts are not 
ignored when applying CXs.
    One reviewer noted that 1.4A(6) does not and should not require 
completion of all approvals before DOI completes a NEPA document.
    This is understood and Departmental EISs have always identified and 
discussed any remaining approvals needed before an action could be 
taken.
    One comment supported 1.4B.
    We appreciate the comment.

1.5 Consultation, Coordination, and Cooperation With Other Agencies and 
Organizations

    Several comments were made on 1.5A(1) concerning the applicability 
of certain laws such as the Patriot Act and the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act.
    We have reviewed the subpart and have added the qualifier ``to the 
extent allowed by law'' in the second sentence. The comments are well 
founded, but because several other statutes are applicable and 
applicability can vary depending upon the case at hand, we took a more 
general approach to fixing the subpart in a way that provides coverage 
for both current and future laws.
    A reviewer expressed support for 1.5A(3) concerning the use of 
electronic systems but cautioned against total reliance on them.
    We understand the concern that many portions of the public still do 
not have computers or Internet access. Our guidance memorandum on this 
topic (see http://www.doi.gov/oepc/ememoranda.html) and 1.5A(2) 
requires our bureaus to continue providing paper copies of NEPA 
documents to anyone requesting them.
    Two different comments were received on 1.5B(3). One concerned the 
potential exclusion of certain interested parties in projects involving 
international considerations. The other was that DOI would consider 
global implications such as climate change and deforestation in its 
decision-making.
    There is no intent to exclude appropriate interested parties in 
this subpart, and the subpart has been revised accordingly. The subpart 
is a broad statement that the Department will play an appropriate role 
in international environmental issues to the extent it is authorized to 
do so. The subpart recognizes the concepts set forth in section 
102(2)(F) of the Act and further embodied in Executive Order 12114 
(Environmental Impacts Abroad of Major Federal Actions).

1.6 Public Involvement

    A reviewer commented that this section should only be an issue if 
the Federal agency can demonstrate that a State has no public 
participation program.
    As noted above in the general discussion of State public 
participation programs, public participation is required of all Federal 
agencies. It is not our intent to ignore the efforts of State 
governments to fully involve the public nor should our efforts 
duplicate State efforts. The Department is fully aware of 40 CFR 
1500.4(n) which calls for eliminating duplication with State and local 
procedures. Departmental managers are expected to combine their efforts 
with States when it is appropriate, as determined by both governments.
    One reviewer supported 1.6B on NEPA status reporting.
    We appreciate the comment.

516 DM 2

2.1 Purpose

    A reviewer has commented on the seemingly restrictive character of 
the often used phrase: Federal, State, and

[[Page 10869]]

local agencies (including Tribal governments) in this chapter. The 
concern is that other interested parties may not qualify for joint lead 
and cooperating agency roles or for general involvement in NEPA 
compliance activities.
    NEPA is a Federal statute and its provisions, as well as the 
Departmental and bureau procedures, govern DOI's implementation. 
However, this does not preclude the involvement of interested parties 
that are not local governments from participating in scoping and in the 
development of NEPA analyses and documents. The CEQ Regulations at 40 
CFR 1501.2(d)(2) require that Federal agencies consult early with 
appropriate State and local agencies and Indian tribes and with 
interested private persons and organizations when such involvement is 
reasonably foreseeable. There are a number of other places in the 
regulations and this Departmental Manual that provide for public 
involvement and stress public involvement as an important part of full 
NEPA compliance. See also 2.2D and 2.6B. Finally, it is noted that the 
Department did not fairly paraphrase in footnote 4 the meaning of the 
July 1999, September 2000, and January 2002 CEQ guidance on the topic 
of cooperating agencies. We have reviewed our footnote and the CEQ 
guidance and believe that we have properly portrayed CEQ's meaning by 
paraphrasing their discussion urging Federal agencies to more actively 
solicit participation from State and local agencies.

2.2 Apply NEPA Early

    A county reviewer is concerned that 2.2A does not explicitly 
include counties for consultation purposes.
    Please see the response given above in 2.1 to a similar concern. 
Counties are included as units of local government.
    One reviewer has indicated support for subpart 2.2A.
    We appreciate the support.
    One reviewer has indicated support for subpart 2.2B.
    We appreciate the support.
    Several reviewers commented on subpart 2.2D concerned that 
consensus should not be required on any part of the process beyond 
identification of issues and concerned that interested parties who 
decline their participation early may not enter the process at a later 
date.
    We have reviewed the subpart and determined that only minor 
adjustments were needed. The subpart currently handles the subject with 
a moderate approach both promoting the use of consensus-based 
management while recognizing the limits on its use due to statutory, 
regulatory, and policy constraints. Concerning the late introduction of 
issues, we believe the current language is satisfactory and allows the 
individual manager to handle the late introduction of issues and 
alternatives in an appropriate manner. Another specific comment 
requested specific timelines and notice for comment. Again, we believe 
that these procedures should not usurp the local manager's ability to 
work out arrangements with interested parties that fit the individual 
situation.
    One reviewer recommended a new 2.2F that would clearly indicate 
that NEPA applied only to Federal actions.
    We have made this addition.

2.3 Whether To Prepare an EIS

    One reviewer recommended that subpart 2.3A(1) be revised in (b) to 
read as follows:
    Unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available 
resources will not be a sole reason to disallow the use of an otherwise 
acceptable categorical exclusion.
    This arises from a general concern from several reviewers that 
unresolved conflicts should not be a reason for not applying a specific 
categorical exclusion as expressed in extraordinary circumstance 2.3 or 
that unresolved conflicts should even be a criterion for establishing a 
category. There was additional comment that our reference to section 
102(2)(E) of NEPA was also a misinterpretation of the Act.
    We considered these concerns and removed the unresolved conflicts 
criterion in 2.3A(1)(b) but have not removed that same portion of 
extraordinary circumstance 2.3. At least one bureau has indicated that 
this addition to the extraordinary circumstance is necessary in the 
successful application of their categorical exclusions. Finally, we 
believe that our reference to section 102(2)(E) is appropriate and is 
further confirmed in 40 CFR 1507.2(d).
    A reviewer suggested that 2.3A(3) concerning documentation of 
categorical exclusions not include extensive review and documentation 
as noted in the CEQ NEPA Task Force report.
    The subpart calls for ``* * * sufficient environmental review to 
determine whether it meets any of the extraordinary circumstances. * * 
* '' We believe that this is satisfactory language to cover this issue.
    One reviewer expressed support for 2.3D.
    We appreciate the support.
    One reviewer expressed support for 2.3F.
    We appreciate the support.

2.4 Lead Agencies

    One reviewer suggested that 2.4E needs to list statutes in which 
lead agency designations may be required.
    We have researched this and were advised that the Natural Gas Act 
is one statute where the lead agency is designated to be the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission. We do not believe that a change is 
warranted because these statutes will surface in any NEPA proceeding 
where they may have an impact and will not be overlooked. Further, 
these procedures necessarily refrain from publishing lists and other 
specific data which may change periodically and would thereby require 
the Department to revise these procedures. Instead, the Department has 
an environmental guidance memorandum system where data such as this may 
be made available (see http://www.doi.gov/oepc/ememoranda.html).

2.5 Cooperating Agencies

    Several reviewers commented on 2.5D from the standpoint of needing 
high level clearance, use of specific wording from the CEQ Regulations, 
and lack of funding at the local level.
    We have considered these comments and made some changes to the 
subpart to be more specific about what should happen between bureaus 
and cooperating agencies. We believe the subpart now reflects the 
regulations to the best extent possible. As a practical matter, 
cooperating agency arrangements are best made at the local manager's 
level so that work can begin and proceed efficiently without requiring 
and waiting for clearance from higher levels. In the event that 
cooperating agencies do not meet their commitments, higher level 
managers can be brought in at the appropriate time to help resolve any 
differences. On the subject of funding raised by one of the reviewers, 
it is recognized that local governments qualifying for cooperating 
agency status may not always have sufficient funds to participate. The 
CEQ Regulations allow for this in 40 CFR 1501.6(b)(5) and this is taken 
into account in the factors provided with the January 2002 guidance 
memorandum from CEQ, but, unfortunately, some opportunities may be 
missed due to resource limitations.

2.6 Scoping

    A reviewer commented in 2.6A that counties with limited budgets and 
staff should be able to receive direct invitations to scoping meetings.
    We understand the budget constraints that governments may have from 
time to

[[Page 10870]]

time but believe that notices of intent to do an EIS and hold scoping 
meetings are now easily obtained from the Federal Register online. 
Local notifications are often published in newspapers and newsletters.
    Several reviewers offered support for 2.6B, made a suggested 
revision to include State, local, and Tribal governments, and called 
attention to the applicability of a previous comment made on 1.5A(1).
    We appreciate the support and have made the suggested change to the 
extent we felt was necessary. Regarding subpart 1.5A(1), we refer the 
reviewer to the response made there.
    A reviewer offered support for 2.6C.
    Again, we appreciate the support.

2.7 Time Limits

    Several reviewers recommended that 2.7A be strengthened to require 
time limits.
    We believe that the subpart as written best complies with the CEQ 
Regulations on this topic. In 40 CFR 1501.8, CEQ recognized that 
prescribed time limits would be too inflexible. Further, our experience 
with prescribed time limits for the preparation of NEPA analyses and 
documents as well as other Departmental matters show that unforeseen 
events can cause missed deadlines, but that progress continues to be 
made.
    In subpart 2.7B it is recommended that staff should be assembled 
and trained in the type of project to be analyzed.
    We have made minor changes to this subpart to reinforce this 
concept.

Appendix 1

    One reviewer indicated continued opposition to CXs 1.11 and 1.12 
concerning fuels reduction and rehabilitation.
    The comment is noted, but no change will be made since these CXs 
were the subject of previous notice and comment prior to their 
adoption.
    It was also recommended that CX 1.8 be narrowed to exclude minor 
boundary changes and land titles.
    Again, no change will be made since the historical exercise of this 
CX has not uncovered systemic abuse of its use or any reason to re-
evaluate its use.

Appendix 2

    Several reviewers commented on the need for objective standards in 
the extraordinary circumstances and recommended re-wording of several 
of them.
    We have reviewed the extraordinary circumstances with these 
comments in mind and have made several changes to bring about more 
continuity and objectivity. Particularly, we have used the word 
significant as used in the definition of categorical exclusion in 40 
CFR 1508.4. We have also made direct changes to some of them as 
recommended by the public comments. On those recommended word changes 
where we disagreed, we have made no changes. Following are specific 
responses to comments on each extraordinary circumstance.
    2.1--We have substituted the term ``significant impacts'' for the 
term ``significant adverse affects.'' This change acknowledges the fact 
that a categorical exclusion may not be warranted if the proposed 
action may have affects that are largely positive or negative.
    2.2--We have used the phrase ``significant impacts,'' at the 
beginning to help create consistency. We have added migratory birds. We 
have not added the phrase, under Federal ownership or jurisdiction, as 
suggested, because project effects may impact areas adjacent to Federal 
lands.
    2.3--No change.
    2.4--No change. One reviewer did suggest deletion of this 
extraordinary circumstance. However, we have determined that it should 
be retained because our experience has shown that it is sometimes 
needed and used.
    2.5--No change.
    2.6--We revised this to be more consistent with the other 
extraordinary circumstances.
    2.7--We have used the phrase ``significant impacts,'' at the 
beginning to help create consistency.
    2.8--We have used the phrase ``significant impacts,'' throughout to 
help create consistency. We have retained the phrase, proposed to be 
listed, because it is contained in the Endangered Species Act and 
serves to alert analysts, reviewers, proponents, and decision makers of 
the pending possibility of listing.
    2.9--We have made minor modifications.
    2.10--We have made minor modifications.
    2.11--We have added the phrase, on Federal lands, to clarify this 
point.
    2.12--We have made minor modifications.
    Several reviewers expressed continued concern that we do not 
require the presence of an extraordinary circumstance to halt the use 
of a CX but allow the phrase ``* * * have significant adverse effects 
on * * *'' to be the determining factor.
    Experience has shown that the Department must have some leeway in 
this matter to allow local managers to make a determination on whether 
to use a CX. There are those who wish to have no CXs applied and those 
who wish to have more CXs and less EAs and EISs produced. The varied 
missions of the Department call for balancing these competing interests 
to serve the public in the best possible way. We have retained the 
spirit of this section while changing the wording to ``significant 
impact.''

516 DM 3

3.3 Public Involvement

    Several reviewers made comments from differing points of view on 
3.3B.
    We believe that our revised wording is now consistent with the CEQ 
Regulations and the policy statements made earlier in chapter 1 of this 
part.

516 DM 4

4.3 Timing

    One reviewer supports 4.3A.
    We appreciate the support.
    Several reviewers requested a change in 4.3B concerning the 
offshore minerals example.
    Based on the comments and the cited court cases, we have made the 
change.

4.10 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

    One reviewer recommended the addition of an item on the human 
environment.
    We have made a reference to 40 CFR 1508.14 in subpart 1.2D. Such an 
addition in 4.10A would not be consistent with the intent of the 
subpart which describes the commonly used terms when dealing with NEPA 
alternatives.
    One reviewer suggests a revision to 4.10A(2), reasonable 
alternative.
    We decline to make the change since the language was derived from 
Question 2 in CEQ's ``Forty Most Asked Questions'' guidance document.
    One reviewer suggested a change for 4.10A(4), preferred 
alternative.
    We have changed the definition to conform more precisely with that 
given in the ``Forty Most Asked Questions.''
    One reviewer recommended that 4.10A(5), environmentally preferred 
alternative be omitted from the subpart. Further the reviewer indicated 
that the term does not appear in NEPA documentation.
    We disagree and have not omitted the subpart. Both 40 CFR 1505.2(b) 
and the ``Forty Most Asked Questions'' discuss the term.
    A reviewer recommends defining the term, participating communities 
in 4.10D.
    We have opted to change the word ``communities'' to the phrase

[[Page 10871]]

``interested parties'' which is more consistent with other references 
to this topic throughout the chapters.

4.12 Tiering

    One reviewer supports 4.12B.
    We appreciate the support.

4.15 Methodology and Scientific Accuracy

    A reviewer recommended that we add language to 4.15 to identify the 
information quality requirements that were established by Section 515 
of the Treasury and General Government Appropriation Act for Fiscal 
Year 2001.
    We have made this addition.

4.16 Adaptive Management

    One reviewer commented that they support the concept of a working 
group on adaptive management to be set up under the CEQ NEPA Task Force 
report and suggests that DOI wait for the outcome before incorporating 
adaptive management activities into bureau activities.
    We have indicated above in a general comment on the NEPA Task Force 
report that we have the flexibility to react to any changes that arise 
from the working group's recommendations. Some of the Department's 
bureaus already have experience in the use of adaptive management in 
their programs dating back a number of years. The Department is 
comfortable with this addition to the procedures and believes that the 
subpart provides the basics of adaptive management so that any future 
adjustments can be made through our environmental guidance memoranda 
series.
    Another reviewer noted that adaptive management could be used to 
make multiple decisions without doing additional environmental analysis 
and offered a number of references describing adaptive management and 
how it should be used.
    We appreciate the information and will continue to consider it as 
we apply adaptive management. The Department is well aware of the 
possibility that adaptive management could be used to confuse 
environmental issues and lead to possible multiple decisions 
(piecemealing). However, our experience shows that DOI has properly 
used adaptive management to achieve better mitigation in the absence of 
a full knowledge of impacts at the time the analysis is performed.
    A final comment endorsed the change in management approach when 
anticipated mitigation outcomes are not being met.
    We agree.

4.17 Environmental Review and Consultation Requirements

    A reviewer noted support for 4.17C but cautioned that not all 
approvals had to be in place before completing the EIS.
    The text has been modified to show this.

4.19 Response to Comments.

    A reviewer commented that 4.19A and B contradicted other subparts, 
particularly 2.2B and D on involving interested parties early and 
eliminating late input to the NEPA process.
    We have reviewed these subparts, modified both of them, and related 
4.19B to 2.2D. We wish to point out, however, that 2.2D is primarily 
aimed at the late introduction of issues and alternatives and that 
4.19A and B are discussing any late comments regardless of their 
content.

4.25 Proposals for Legislation

    A reviewer expressed support for 4.25B.
    We appreciate the support.

4.26 Time Periods

    A reviewer has recommended the retention of the 60 day review 
period for draft EISs.
    This subpart was changed to mesh properly with the EPA filing 
process. Forty five (45) days is the minimum public comment period for 
draft EISs prescribed by the CEQ Regulations and is counted from the 
publication of EPA's notice of availability. This often means that an 
EIS has been printed and sent to the public as much as five to seven 
days prior to the EPA notice appearing in the Federal Register. So 
receipt by the public is usually coincident with the EPA publication. 
On complex or controversial projects, our bureaus have provided longer 
comment periods (e.g., 60 to 90 days), and they retain this 
flexibility. Therefore, no change has been made.

516 DM 5

5.5 Implementing the Decision

    It was recommended that the word natural be deleted from the 
subpart.
    We disagree and have not made the change. The definition of human 
environment in 40 CFR 1508.14 clearly says that human environment is to 
include the natural and physical environment.

5.8 Emergencies

    A suggestion was made that the phrase: serious resource losses be 
struck from the discussion in this subpart.
    The topic of emergencies was reviewed in the Department in 1997, 
and further guidance was developed for bureaus which included 
additional CEQ guidance on the topic. This guidance is available in an 
environmental statement memorandum, ESM97-3, that is available on the 
Web site noted earlier in this manual. We decided, based upon actual 
emergency experience in the Department in 1997, that the two most 
important points to address in the manual were: (1) Take the action if 
life, property, and resources are threatened and (2) immediately 
consult with the Department and CEQ if there are significant impacts. 
The guidance contained in ESM97-3 uses the phrase, important resource, 
and indicates that importance may reflect economic, social, or cultural 
values. We have changed the subpart to use the term, important 
resources.

516 DM 7

7.4 Types of Reviews

    One reviewer has recommended that the National Historic 
Preservation Act be added to 7.4K.
    We have made this change.
    Procedural Requirements: The following list of procedural 
requirements has been assembled and addressed to contribute to this 
open review process. Today's publication is a notice of final, internal 
Departmental action and not a rulemaking. However, we have addressed 
the various procedural requirements that are generally applicable to 
proposed and final rulemaking to show how they would affect this notice 
if it were a rulemaking.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) it has 
been determined that this action is the implementation of policy and 
procedures applicable only to the Department of the Interior and not a 
significant regulatory action. These policies and procedures would not 
impose a compliance burden on the general economy.

Administrative Procedures Act

    This document is not subject to prior notice and opportunity to 
comment because it is a general statement of policy and procedure [(5 
U.S.C. 553(b)(A)]. However, notice and opportunity to comment is 
required by the CEQ Regulations [40 CFR 1507.3(a)].

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This document is not subject to notice and comment under the 
Administrative Procedures Act, and, therefore, is not subject to the 
analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

[[Page 10872]]

601 et seq.). This document provides the Department with policy and 
procedures under NEPA and does not compel any other party to conduct 
any action.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    These policies and procedures do not comprise a major rule under 5 
U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 
The document will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more and is expected to have no significant economic 
impacts. Further, it will not cause a major increase in costs or prices 
for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local 
government agencies, or geographic regions and will impose no 
additional regulatory restraints in addition to those already in 
operation. Finally, the document does not have significant adverse 
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, 
innovation, or the ability of United States based enterprises to 
compete with foreign based enterprises.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501, 
et seq.), this document will not significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. The 
document does not require any additional management responsibilities. 
Further, this document will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 
million or greater in any year, that is, it is not a significant 
regulatory action under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. These 
policies and procedures are not expected to have significant economic 
impacts nor will they impose any unfunded mandates on other Federal, 
State, or local government agencies to carry out specific activities.

Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this document does not 
have significant Federalism effects; and, therefore, a Federalism 
assessment is not required. The policies and procedures will not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. No 
intrusion on State policy or administration is expected, roles or 
responsibilities of Federal or State governments will not change, and 
fiscal capacity will not be substantially, directly affected. 
Therefore, the document does not have significant effects or 
implications on Federalism.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This document does not require information collection as defined 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Therefore, this document does not 
constitute a new information collection system requiring Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Council on Environmental Quality does not direct agencies to 
prepare a NEPA analysis or document before establishing agency 
procedures that supplement the CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA. 
Agency NEPA procedures are internal procedural guidance to assist 
agencies in the fulfillment of agency responsibilities under NEPA, but 
are not the agency's final determination of what level of NEPA analysis 
is required for a particular proposed action.

Essential Fish Habitat

    We have analyzed this document in accordance with section 305(b) of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and 
determined that issuance of this document will not affect the essential 
fish habitat of Federally managed species; and, therefore, an essential 
fish habitat consultation on this document is not required.

Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    In accordance with Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000, and 
512 DM 2, we have assessed this document's impact on tribal trust 
resources and have determined that it does not directly affect tribal 
resources since it describes the Department's procedures for its 
compliance with NEPA.

Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use

    Executive Order 13211 of May 18, 2001, requires a Statement of 
Energy Effects for significant energy actions. Significant energy 
actions are actions normally published in the Federal Register that 
lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation and may have any 
adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use. We have 
explained above that this document is an internal Departmental Manual 
part which only affects how the Department conducts its business under 
the National Environmental Policy Act. This manual part is not a 
rulemaking; and, therefore, not subject to Executive Order 13211.

Actions To Expedite Energy-Related Projects

    Executive Order 13212 of May 18, 2001, requires agencies to 
expedite energy-related projects by streamlining internal processes 
while maintaining safety, public health, and environmental protections. 
Today's publication is in conformance with this requirement as it 
promotes existing process streamlining requirements and revises the 
text to emphasize this concept (see chapter 4, subpart 4.17).

Government Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (March 15, 1988) and part 
318 of the Departmental Manual, the Department has reviewed today's 
notice to determine whether it would interfere with constitutionally 
protected property rights. Again, we believe that as internal 
instructions to bureaus on the implementation of the National 
Environmental Policy Act, this publication would not cause such 
interference.

(Authority: NEPA, the National Environmental Quality Improvement Act 
of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.); E.O. 11514, March 5, 
1970, as amended by E.O. 11991, May 24, 1977; and CEQ Regulations 40 
CFR 1507.3)

P. Lynn Scarlett,
Assistant Secretary--Policy, Management and Budget.

Department of the Interior--Departmental Manual

    Effective Date:
    Series: Environmental Quality.
    Part 516: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
    Chapter 1: Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality.
    Originating Office: Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.

516 DM 1

1.1 Purpose

    This Chapter establishes the Department's policies for complying 
with title I of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) (NEPA); section 2 of Executive Order 
11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality, as amended 
by Executive Order 11991; Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects 
Abroad of Major Federal Actions; and the regulations of the Council on 
Environmental Quality (CEQ)

[[Page 10873]]

implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508; 
identified in this Part 516 as the CEQ Regulations).

1.2 Policy

    It is the policy of the Department:
    A. To provide leadership in protecting and enhancing those aspects 
of the quality of the Nation's environment which relate to or may be 
affected by the Department's policies, goals, programs, plans, or 
functions in furtherance of national environmental policy;
    B. To the fullest practicable extent, to encourage public 
involvement in the development of Departmental plans and programs 
through State, local, and Tribal partnerships and cooperative 
agreements at the beginning of the NEPA process, and to provide timely 
information to the public to better assist in understanding such plans 
and programs affecting environmental quality in accordance with the CEQ 
Regulations;
    C. To interpret and administer, to the fullest extent possible, the 
policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States 
administered by the Department in accordance with the requirements of 
sections 101 and 102 of NEPA;
    D. To consider and give important weight to environmental factors, 
along with other societal needs, in developing proposals and making 
decisions in order to achieve a proper balance between the development 
and utilization of natural, cultural, and human resources and the 
protection and enhancement of environmental quality (see section 101 of 
NEPA and 1508.14);
    E. To consult, coordinate, and cooperate with other Federal 
agencies and, particularly, State, local, Alaska Native Corporations, 
and Indian tribal governments in the development and implementation of 
the Department's plans and programs affecting environmental quality 
and, in turn, to give consideration to those activities that succeed in 
best addressing State and local concerns;
    F. To be innovative in natural resource protection and to use all 
practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of 
national policy, to improve, coordinate, and direct its policies, 
plans, functions, programs, and resources in furtherance of national 
environmental goals;
    G. To rigorously integrate systematic, interdisciplinary approaches 
into the design of all activities and to base decision making on 
adequate environmental data in order to identify reasonable 
alternatives to proposed actions that will avoid or minimize adverse 
environmental impacts;
    H. Where necessary, to monitor, evaluate, and control activities to 
protect and enhance the quality of the environment and to base decision 
making on monitoring data and evaluation results; and
    I. To cooperate with and assist the CEQ.

1.3 General Responsibilities

    The following responsibilities reflect the Secretary's decision 
that the officials responsible for making program decisions are also 
responsible for taking the requirements of NEPA into account in those 
decisions and will be held accountable for that responsibility:
A. Assistant Secretary--Policy, Management and Budget (AS/PMB)
    (1) Is the Department's focal point on NEPA matters and is 
responsible for overseeing the Department's implementation of NEPA.
    (2) Serves as the Department's principal contact with the CEQ.
    (3) Assigns to the Director, Office of Environmental Policy and 
Compliance (OEPC), the responsibilities outlined for that Office in 
this Part.
B. Solicitor
    Is responsible for providing legal advice in the Department's 
compliance with NEPA.
C. Assistant Secretaries
    (1) Are responsible for compliance with NEPA, Executive Order 
11514, as amended, Executive Order 12114, the CEQ Regulations, and this 
Part for bureaus and offices under their jurisdiction.
    (2) Shall ensure that, to the fullest extent possible, the 
policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States 
administered under their jurisdiction are interpreted and administered 
in accordance with the requirements of NEPA.
D. Heads of Bureaus and Offices
    (1) Must comply with the provisions of NEPA, Executive Order 11514, 
as amended, Executive Order 12114, the CEQ Regulations, and this Part.
    (2) Shall interpret and administer, to the fullest extent possible, 
the policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States 
administered under their jurisdiction in accordance with the 
requirements of NEPA.
    (3) Shall continue to review their statutory authorities, 
administrative regulations, policies, programs, and procedures, 
including those related to loans, grants, contracts, leases, licenses, 
or permits, in order to identify any deficiencies or inconsistencies 
therein which prohibit or limit full compliance with the intent, 
purpose, and provisions of NEPA and, in consultation with the Solicitor 
and the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, shall take or 
recommend, as appropriate, corrective actions as may be necessary to 
bring these authorities and policies into conformance with the intent, 
purpose, and procedures of NEPA.
    (4) Shall monitor, evaluate, and control on a continuing basis 
their activities as needed to protect and enhance the quality of the 
environment. Such activities will include both those directed to 
controlling pollution and enhancing the environment and those designed 
to accomplish other program objectives which may affect the quality of 
the environment. They will develop programs and measures to protect and 
enhance environmental quality. They will assess progress in meeting the 
specific objectives of such activities as they affect the quality of 
the environment.
    (5) Shall, in furtherance of public participation practices (see 
1.2B, above), use consensus-based management \1\ and community-based 
NEPA training \2\ to the extent possible in all NEPA compliance 
activities. Will ensure that the Department's collaborative efforts 
under this part comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 
5 U.S.C., appendix.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Consensus-based management in the NEPA context is the 
inclusion of interested parties with an assurance for the 
participants that the results of their work will be given 
consideration by the decision maker in selecting a course of action. 
It is a logical outgrowth of public participation.
    \2\ Community-based training in the NEPA context is the training 
of local participants with Federal participants in the intricacies 
of the environmental planning and decision making effort as it 
relates to the local community(ies). It should de-mystify the 
process and inform participants how to become effectively involved.
    \3\ To ensure FACA compliance, each bureau and office will 
verify whether FACA applies, and will ensure that the FACA 
requirements are followed anytime the Department utilizes (i.e. 
manages and controls) or establishes a group to be consulted or to 
provide recommendations to a Departmental official.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (6) Shall use tiered and transferred analyses to help avoid 
needless repetition. They will require decision makers to produce NEPA 
documents that save resources and reduce the public's perception that 
NEPA documents merely accomplish compliance with a process and do not 
add to the general knowledge of environmental impacts to natural 
resources.
    (7) Shall use adaptive management (see 516 DM 4.16) to fully comply 
with 40 CFR 1505.2 which requires a monitoring and enforcement program 
to

[[Page 10874]]

be adopted, where applicable, for any mitigation activity.
E. Heads of Regional, Field, or Area Offices
    (1) Must comply with the provisions of NEPA, Executive Order 11514, 
as amended, Executive Order 12114, the CEQ Regulations, and this Part.
    (2) Shall use information obtained in the NEPA process, including 
pertinent information provided by State and local agencies, Indian 
tribal governments, and interest groups, to identify reasonable 
alternatives to proposed actions that will avoid or minimize adverse 
impacts to the human environment while improving overall environmental 
results.
    (3) Shall monitor, evaluate, and control their activities on a 
continuing basis to further protect and enhance the quality of the 
environment.

1.4 Consideration of Environmental Values

A. In Departmental Management
    (1) In the management of the natural, cultural, and human resources 
under its jurisdiction, the Department must consider and balance a wide 
range of economic, environmental, and societal needs at the local, 
regional, national, and international levels, not all of which are 
quantifiable in comparable terms. In considering and balancing these 
objectives, Departmental plans, proposals, and decisions often require 
recognition of complements and resolution of conflicts among 
interrelated uses of these natural, cultural, and human resources 
within technological, budgetary, and legal constraints. Various 
Departmental conflict resolution mechanisms are available to assist 
this balancing effort.
    (2) Departmental project reports, program proposals, issue papers, 
and other decision documents must carefully analyze the various 
objectives, resources, and constraints, and comprehensively and 
objectively evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed 
actions and their reasonable alternatives. Where appropriate, these 
documents will contain or reference supporting and underlying economic, 
environmental, technological, and other societal analyses in language 
that all participants can understand and use.
    (3) The underlying environmental analyses will factually, 
objectively, and comprehensively analyze the environmental effects of 
proposed actions and their reasonable alternatives. They will 
systematically analyze the environmental impacts of alternatives, and 
particularly those alternatives and measures that would reduce, 
mitigate or prevent adverse environmental impacts or that would enhance 
environmental quality. However, such an environmental analysis is not, 
in and of itself, a program proposal or the decision document, is not a 
justification of a proposal, and will not support or deprecate the 
overall merits of a proposal or its various alternatives.
    (4) Environmental analyses shall strive to provide baseline data 
where possible and shall provide monitoring and evaluation tools as 
necessary to ensure that an activity is implemented as contemplated by 
the NEPA analysis. Baseline data gathered for these analyses may 
include pertinent social, economic, and environmental data.
    (5) If proposed actions are planned for the same geographic area or 
are otherwise closely related, environmental analysis should be 
integrated to ensure adequate consideration of resource use 
interactions, to reduce resource conflicts, to establish baseline data, 
to monitor and evaluate changes in such data, to adapt actions or 
groups of actions accordingly, and to comply with NEPA and the CEQ 
Regulations. Proposals shall not be segmented in order to reduce the 
levels of environmental impacts reported in NEPA documents.
    (6) When proposed actions involve approval processes of other 
agencies, the Department shall use its lead role to identify 
opportunities to consolidate those processes.
B. In Internally Initiated Proposals
    Officials responsible for development or conduct of planning and 
decision making systems within the Department shall incorporate 
environmental planning as an integral part of these systems in order to 
ensure that environmental values and impacts are fully considered, 
facilitate any necessary documentation of those considerations, and 
identify reasonable alternatives in the design and implementation of 
activities that minimize adverse environmental impacts. An 
interdisciplinary approach shall be initiated at the earliest possible 
time to provide for consultation among all participants for each 
planning or decision making endeavor. This interdisciplinary approach 
should, to the extent possible, have the capacity to consider 
innovative and creative solutions from all participants.
C. In Externally Initiated Proposals
    Officials responsible for the development or conduct of loan, 
grant, contract, lease, license, permit, or other externally initiated 
activities shall require applicants, to the extent necessary and 
practicable, to provide environmental information, analyses, and 
reports as an integral part of their applications. As with internally 
initiated proposals, officials shall encourage applicants and other 
interested parties to consult with the Department and provide their 
comments, recommendations, and suggestions for improvement.

1.5 Consultation, Coordination, and Cooperation with Other Agencies and 
Organizations

A. Departmental Plans and Programs
    (1) Officials responsible for planning or implementing Departmental 
plans and programs will develop and utilize procedures to consult, 
coordinate, and cooperate with relevant State, local, and Indian tribal 
governments; other bureaus and Federal agencies; and public and private 
organizations and individuals concerning the environmental effects of 
these plans and programs on their jurisdictions or interests. Such 
efforts should, to the extent allowed by law and in accordance with 
FACA, include consensus-based management whenever possible. This is a 
planning process that incorporates direct community involvement into 
bureau activities from initial scoping through implementation of the 
bureau or office decision and, in appropriate cases, monitoring and 
future adaptive management measures. All bureau NEPA and planning 
procedures will be made available to the public.
    (2) Bureaus and offices will use, to the maximum extent possible, 
existing notification, coordination, and review mechanisms established 
by the Office of Management and Budget and CEQ. However, use of these 
mechanisms must not be a substitute for early consultation, 
coordination, and cooperation with others, especially State, local, and 
Indian tribal governments.
    (3) Bureaus and offices are encouraged to expand, develop, and use 
new forms of notification, coordination, and review, particularly by 
electronic means and the Internet. Bureaus are also encouraged to stay 
abreast of and use new technologies in environmental data gathering and 
problem solving.

[[Page 10875]]

B. Other Departmental Activities
    (1) Technical assistance, advice, data, and information useful in 
restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the quality of the environment 
will be made available to other Federal agencies; State, local, and 
Indian tribal governments; institutions; and other entities as 
appropriate.
    (2) Information regarding existing or potential environmental 
problems and control methods developed as a part of research, 
development, demonstration, test, or evaluation activities will be made 
available to other Federal agencies; State, local, and Indian tribal 
governments; institutions; and other entities as appropriate.
    (3) Recognizing the worldwide and long-range character of 
environmental problems and consistent with the foreign policy of the 
United States, appropriate support will be made available (in 
consultation with clearly defined interested parties including Tribal 
governments, if applicable) to initiatives, resolutions, and programs 
designed to maximize international cooperation in anticipating and 
preventing a decline in the quality of the world environment.
C. Plans and Programs of Other Agencies and Organizations
    (1) Officials responsible for protecting, conserving, developing, 
or managing resources under the Department's jurisdiction shall 
coordinate and cooperate with State, local, and Indian tribal 
governments; other bureaus and Federal agencies; and public and private 
organizations and individuals, and provide them with timely information 
concerning the environmental effects of these entities' plans and 
programs.
    (2) Bureaus and offices are encouraged to participate early in the 
planning processes of other agencies and organizations in order to 
ensure full cooperation with, and understanding of, the Department's 
programs and interests in natural, cultural, and human resources.
    (3) Bureaus and offices will use, to the fullest extent possible, 
existing Departmental review mechanisms to avoid unnecessary 
duplication of effort and to avoid confusion by other organizations.
    (4) Bureaus and offices will work closely with other Federal 
agencies to ensure that similar or related proposed actions in the same 
geographic area are fully evaluated to determine if agency analyses can 
be integrated so that one NEPA compliance document can be used by all 
for their individual permitting and licensing needs.

1.6 Public Involvement

    A. Bureaus and Offices, in accordance with 301 DM 2 and this part, 
will develop and implement procedures to ensure the fullest practicable 
provision of timely public information and understanding of their plans 
and programs with environmental impacts including information on the 
environmental impacts of alternative courses of action. This is to 
include public involvement in the development of NEPA analyses and 
documents.
    B. These procedures will include, wherever appropriate, provision 
for public meetings in order to obtain the views of interested parties, 
newsletters, and status reports of NEPA compliance activities. Public 
information shall include all necessary policies and procedures 
concerning plans and programs in a readily accessible, consistent 
format.
    C. Bureaus and offices will also coordinate and collaborate with 
State and local agencies and Indian tribal governments in developing 
and using similar procedures for informing the public concerning their 
activities affecting the quality of the environment.

1.7 Mandate

    A. This Part provides Department-wide instructions for complying 
with NEPA, Executive Orders 11514, as amended by 11991 (Protection and 
Enhancement of Environmental Quality) and 12114 (Environmental Effects 
Abroad of Major Federal Actions), and the CEQ Regulations. The 
provisions of part 516 are intended to establish guidelines to be 
followed by the Department and its Bureaus, Services and Offices. Part 
516 is not intended to, nor does it, create any right, benefit, or 
trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or 
equity by any person or party against the United States, its agencies, 
its officers, or any other person. The provisions of part 516 are not 
intended to direct or bind any person outside the Department.
    B. The Department hereby adopts the CEQ Regulations implementing 
the procedural provisions of NEPA [sec. 102(2)(C)] except where 
compliance would be inconsistent with other statutory requirements. In 
the case of any discrepancies among these procedures and the NEPA 
statute; Executive Orders 11514, 11991, and 12114; or the mandatory 
provisions of the CEQ Regulations, the laws, executive orders, and 
regulations shall govern.
    C. Instructions supplementing the CEQ Regulations are provided in 
chapters 2-7 of this part. Citations in brackets refer to the CEQ 
Regulations.
    D. Instructions specific to each bureau are found in chapters 8 
through 15. This portion of the manual may expand or contract depending 
on the number of bureaus existing at any particular time. In addition, 
bureaus may prepare handbooks or other technical guidance for their 
personnel on how to apply this part to principal programs. In the case 
of any apparent discrepancies between these procedures and bureau 
handbooks or technical guidance, 516 DM 2-7 shall govern.

Department of the Interior--Departmental Manual

    Effective Date:
    Series: Environmental Quality.
    Part 516: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
    Chapter 2: Initiating the NEPA Process.
    Originating Office: Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.

516 DM 2

2.1 Purpose

    This Chapter provides supplementary instructions for implementing 
those portions of the CEQ Regulations pertaining to initiating the NEPA 
process. The numbers in parentheses signify the appropriate citation in 
the CEQ Regulations.

2.2 Apply NEPA Early (40 CFR 1501.2)

    A. Bureaus shall initiate early consultation and coordination with 
other bureaus and any Federal agency having jurisdiction by law or 
special expertise with respect to any environmental issue that should 
be addressed, and with appropriate Federal, State, local and Indian 
tribal governments authorized to develop and enforce environmental 
standards or to manage and protect natural resources.
    B. Bureaus shall also initiate the consultation process with 
interested parties and organizations at the time an application is 
received, or when the bureau initiates action on an agency plan or 
project requiring NEPA analyses and documentation.
    C. Bureaus shall revise or amend program regulations, requirements, 
and directives to ensure that private or non-Federal applicants are 
informed of any environmental information required to be included in 
their applications and of any consultation with other Federal agencies, 
or State, local, or Indian tribal governments required prior to making 
the application. A discussion and a list of these regulations, 
requirements, and directives are found in 516 DM 6.4 and

[[Page 10876]]

6.5. The specific regulations, requirements, and directives for each 
bureau are found in separate chapters of this part beginning with 
chapter 8.
    D. It is imperative that bureaus enlist the participation of all 
interested parties as early as possible and provide any necessary 
community-based training in order to reduce costs, prevent delays, and 
to promote efficiency in the NEPA process. It is the intent of these 
procedures to achieve early consensus on the scope of NEPA compliance 
and the methodologies for collecting needed baseline data. Consensus-
based management [as described in 516 DM 1.5(A)(1)] should be used, as 
appropriate, to facilitate this process including the consideration of 
any publicly developed alternatives. However, the use of consensus-
based management may be restricted or ended based on applicable 
statutory, regulatory, or policy requirements. Further, it is the 
intent of these procedures to facilitate environmental analyses that 
avoid the late introduction of issues and alternatives that should have 
been identified initially during scoping.
    E. Bureaus shall engage in a rigorous interdisciplinary approach at 
the earliest possible time to ensure adequate identification and 
consideration of the wide variety of environmental factors and 
considerations inherent in NEPA compliance activities.
    F. NEPA applies to Department and bureau decision making and 
focuses on major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of 
the human environment.

2.3 Whether To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (40 CFR 
1501.4)

A. Categorical Exclusions (CX) (40 CFR 1508.4)
    (1) Categorical exclusions are defined as a group of actions that 
would have no significant individual or cumulative effect on the 
quality of the human environment and, for which in the absence of 
extraordinary circumstances, neither an environmental assessment nor an 
environmental impact statement is required.
    (2) Based on (1) above, the categories of actions listed in 
Appendix 1 to this Chapter are categorically excluded, Department-wide, 
from the preparation of environmental assessments or environmental 
impact statements. A list of CX specific to bureau programs will be 
found in the bureau chapters beginning with chapter 8. Note that 
1508.18(a) excludes bringing judicial or administrative civil or 
criminal enforcement actions.
    (3) The CEQ Regulations at 40 CFR 1508.4 require agency procedures 
to provide for extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded 
action may have a significant environmental effect thus requiring 
additional analysis and action. The extraordinary circumstances to be 
considered when using categorical exclusions are listed in appendix 2 
of this chapter. Any action that is normally categorically excluded 
must be subjected to sufficient environmental review to determine 
whether it meets any of the extraordinary circumstances, in which case, 
further analysis and environmental documents must be prepared for the 
action. Bureaus are reminded and encouraged to work within existing 
administrative frameworks, including any existing programmatic 
agreements, when deciding how to apply any of the appendix 2 
extraordinary circumstances.
B. Environmental Assessment (EA) (40 CFR 1508.9)
    See 516 DM 3. Decisions/actions which would normally require the 
preparation of an EA will be identified in each bureau chapter 
beginning with chapter 8.
C. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) (40 CFR 1508.13)
    A FONSI will be prepared as a separate covering document based upon 
a review of an EA. Accordingly, the words include(d) in Sec.  1508.13 
will be interpreted as attach(ed) in reference to the EA.
D. Notice of Intent (NOI) (40 CFR 1508.22.)
    An NOI will be prepared as soon as practicable after a decision to 
prepare an EIS and shall be published in the Federal Register, with a 
copy to the OEPC and made available to the affected public in 
accordance with Sec.  1506.6. Publication of an NOI may be delayed if 
there is proposed to be more than three (3) months between the decision 
to prepare an EIS and the time preparation is actually initiated. The 
notice, at a minimum, identifies key personnel, sets forth a schedule, 
and invites early comment. Scoping requests generally announce a 
schedule for scoping meetings where the agencies and the public can 
participate in the formal scoping process. These notices are also 
usually published in the Federal Register and may contain the text of a 
draft scoping document that outlines the actions, alternatives, and 
environmental issues and impacts identified at that time. The draft 
scoping document may also be made available upon request to a contact 
usually named in the notice.
E. Environmental Impact Statement (40 CFR 1508.11)
    See 516 DM 4. Decisions/actions which would normally require the 
preparation of an EIS will be identified in each bureau chapter 
beginning with Chapter 8.
    F. Existing environmental analyses should be used in analyzing 
impacts of a proposed action to the extent possible and appropriate. 
CEQ Regulations encourage agencies to make the best use of existing 
NEPA documents and to avoid redundancy and unneeded paperwork through 
supplementing, incorporating by reference, or adopting previous 
environmental analyses. Use of existing documents carries with it a 
presumption that the bureaus will determine, in a deliberative manner 
and through agency procedures, that existing environmental analyses 
still adequately cover current actions.

2.4 Lead Agencies (40 CFR 1501.5)

    A. The AS/PMB shall designate lead bureaus within the Department 
when bureaus under more than one Assistant Secretary are involved and 
cannot reach agreement on lead bureau status. The AS/PMB shall 
represent the Department in consultations with CEQ or other Federal 
agencies in the resolution of lead agency determinations.
    B. Bureaus will inform the OEPC of any agreements to assume lead 
agency status. OEPC will assist in the coordination and documentation 
of any AS/PMB designations made in 2.4A.
    C. To eliminate duplication with State and local procedures, a non-
Federal agency (including Indian tribal governments) may be designated 
as a joint lead agency when it has a duty to comply with State or local 
requirements that are comparable to the NEPA requirements.
    D. 40 CFR 1501.5 describes the selection of lead agencies, the 
settlement of lead agency disputes, and the use of joint lead agencies. 
While the joint lead relationship is not precluded among several 
Federal agencies, the Department recommends that it be applied 
sparingly and that one Federal agency be selected as the lead with the 
remaining Federal, State, Indian tribal governments, and local agencies 
assuming the role of cooperating agency. In this manner, the other 
Federal, State, and local agencies can work to ensure that the ensuing 
NEPA document will meet their needs for adoption and application to 
their related decision. If

[[Page 10877]]

joint lead is dictated by other law, regulation, policy, or practice, 
then one Federal agency shall be identified as the agency responsible 
for filing the EIS.
    E. Lead agency designations may be required by law in certain 
circumstances.

2.5 Cooperating Agencies (40 CFR 1501.6)

    A. The OEPC will assist Bureaus in determining cooperating agencies 
and coordinate requests from non-Interior agencies.
    B. Bureaus will inform the OEPC of any agreements to assume 
cooperating agency status or any declinations pursuant to Section 
1501.6(c).
    C. Upon the request of the lead agency, any Federal agency with 
jurisdiction by law shall, and any Federal agency with special 
expertise may, be a cooperating agency. Any non-Federal agency (State, 
tribal, or local) may be a cooperating agency by agreement when it has 
jurisdiction by law (40 CFR 1508.15) or special expertise (40 CFR 
1508.26) and meets the requirements of 40 CFR 1501.6. Bureaus will 
consult with the Solicitor's Office in cases where such non-Federal 
agencies are also applicants before the Department to determine 
relative lead/cooperating agency responsibilities.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CEQ guidance to agencies dated July 28, 1999, and January 
30, 2002, urges agencies to more actively solicit participation of 
Federal, State, tribal, and local governments as cooperating 
agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    D. Bureaus and potential cooperating agencies are advised to 
express in a letter and, if necessary, a memorandum of understanding 
their respective roles, assignment of issues, schedules, and staff 
commitments so that the NEPA process remains on track and within the 
time schedule.

2.6 Scoping (40 CFR 1501.7)

    A. The invitation requirement in section 1501.7(a)(1) may be 
satisfied by including such an invitation in the NOI.
    B. Scoping is a process which continues throughout the planning and 
early stages of preparation of an EIS. Bureaus are encouraged through 
scoping to engage State, local, and Tribal governments and the public 
in the early identification of concerns, potential impacts, and 
possible alternative actions. Scoping requires interdisciplinary 
considerations. Scoping is an opportunity to bring agencies and 
applicants together to lay the groundwork for setting time limits, 
expediting reviews where possible, integrating other environmental 
reviews, and identifying any major obstacles that could delay the 
process.
    C. Scoping should encourage the responsible official to integrate 
analyses required by other environmental laws. Scoping should also be 
used to integrate other planning activities for separate projects that 
may have similar or cumulative impacts. Integrated analysis facilitates 
the resolution of resource conflicts and minimizes redundancy.
    D. Through scoping meetings, newsletters, or other communication 
methods, it should be made clear that the lead agency is ultimately 
responsible for the scope of an EIS and that suggestions obtained 
during scoping (see B and C above) are considered to be advisory.

2.7 Time Limits (40 CFR 1501.8)

    A. Time limits are an important consideration and, when used 
diligently, can contribute greatly to a more efficient NEPA process. 
Bureaus are encouraged to set time limits of their own and to respond 
favorably to applicant requests for time limits and set them consistent 
with the requirements of 40 CFR 1501.8. Bureaus should work with 
cooperating agencies and agencies with which they must consult in 
setting time limits and encourage their commitment in meeting the time 
frames established.
    B. When time limits are established, they should reflect the 
availability of personnel and funds. Efficiency of the NEPA process is 
dependent on the management capabilities of the lead bureau, which is 
encouraged to assemble a sufficiently well qualified staff commensurate 
with the type of project to be analyzed to ensure timely completion of 
NEPA documents.

CHAPTER 2; APPENDIX 1

Departmental Categorical Exclusions

    The following actions are CXs pursuant to 516 DM 2.3A(2). 
However, environmental documents will be prepared for individual 
actions within these CX if any of the extraordinary circumstances 
listed in 516 DM 2, Appendix 2, apply.
    1.1 Personnel actions and investigations and personnel services 
contracts.
    1.2 Internal organizational changes and facility and office 
reductions and closings.
    1.3 Routine financial transactions including such things as 
salaries and expenses, procurement contracts (in accordance with 
applicable procedures and Executive Orders for sustainable or green 
procurement), guarantees, financial assistance, income transfers, 
audits, fees, bonds, and royalties.
    1.4 Departmental legal activities including, but not limited to, 
such things as arrests, investigations, patents, claims, and legal 
opinions. This does not include bringing judicial or administrative 
civil or criminal enforcement actions which are outside the scope of 
NEPA in accordance with 40 CFR 1508.18(a).
    1.5 Nondestructive data collection, inventory (including field, 
aerial, and satellite surveying and mapping), study, research, and 
monitoring activities.
    1.6 Routine and continuing government business, including such 
things as supervision, administration, operations, maintenance, 
renovations, and replacement activities having limited context and 
intensity (e.g., limited size and magnitude or short-term effects).
    1.7 Management, formulation, allocation, transfer, and 
reprogramming of the Department's budget at all levels. (This does 
not exclude the preparation of environmental documents for proposals 
included in the budget when otherwise required.)
    1.8 Legislative proposals of an administrative or technical 
nature (including such things as changes in authorizations for 
appropriations and minor boundary changes and land title 
transactions) or having primarily economic, social, individual, or 
institutional effects; and comments and reports on referrals of 
legislative proposals.
    1.9 Policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines that are 
of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural 
nature and whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, 
or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will 
later be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively or case-
by-case.
    1.10 Activities which are educational, informational, advisory, 
or consultative to other agencies, public and private entities, 
visitors, individuals, or the general public.
    1.11 Hazardous fuels reduction activities using prescribed fire 
not to exceed 4,500 acres, and mechanical methods for crushing, 
piling, thinning, pruning, cutting, chipping, mulching, and mowing, 
not to exceed 1,000 acres. Such activities: Shall be limited to 
areas (1) in wildland-urban interface and (2) Condition Classes 2 or 
3 in Fire Regime Groups I, II, or III, outside the wildland-urban 
interface; Shall be identified through a collaborative framework as 
described in ``A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire 
Risks to Communities and the Environment 10-Year Comprehensive 
Strategy Implementation Plan;'' Shall be conducted consistent with 
agency and Departmental procedures and applicable land and resource 
management plans; Shall not be conducted in wilderness areas or 
impair the suitability of wilderness study areas for preservation as 
wilderness; Shall not include the use of herbicides or pesticides or 
the construction of new permanent roads or other new permanent 
infrastructure; and may include the sale of vegetative material if 
the primary purpose of the activity is hazardous fuels reduction.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Refer to the Environmental Statement Memoranda Series for 
additional, required guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1.12 Post-fire rehabilitation activities not to exceed 4,200 
acres (such as tree planting, fence replacement, habitat 
restoration, heritage site restoration, repair of roads and trails, 
and repair of damage to minor facilities such as campgrounds) to 
repair or improve

[[Page 10878]]

lands unlikely to recover to a management approved condition from 
wildland fire damage, or to repair or replace minor facilities 
damaged by fire. Such activities: Shall be conducted consistent with 
agency and Departmental procedures and applicable land and resource 
management plans; Shall not include the use of herbicides or 
pesticides or the construction of new permanent roads or other new 
permanent infrastructure; and Shall be completed within three years 
following a wildland fire.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 2; APPENDIX 2

Categorical Exclusions: Extraordinary Circumstances

    Extraordinary circumstances exist for individual actions within 
CXs which may:
    2.1 Have significant impacts on public health or safety.
    2.2 Have significant impacts on such natural resources and 
unique geographic characteristics as historic or cultural resources; 
park, recreation or refuge lands; wilderness areas; wild or scenic 
rivers; national natural landmarks; sole or principal drinking water 
aquifers; prime farmlands; wetlands (Executive Order 11990); 
floodplains (Executive Order 11988); national monuments; migratory 
birds; and other ecologically significant or critical areas.
    2.3 Have highly controversial environmental effects or involve 
unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available 
resources [NEPA section 102(2)(E)].
    2.4 Have highly uncertain and potentially significant 
environmental effects or involve unique or unknown environmental 
risks.
    2.5 Establish a precedent for future action or represent a 
decision in principle about future actions with potentially 
significant environmental effects.
    2.6 Have a direct relationship to other actions with 
individually insignificant but cumulatively significant 
environmental effects.
    2.7 Have significant impacts on properties listed, or eligible 
for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places as 
determined by either the bureau or office.
    2.8 Have significant impacts on species listed, or proposed to 
be listed, on the List of Endangered or Threatened Species, or have 
significant impacts on designated Critical Habitat for these 
species.
    2.9 Violate a Federal law, or a State, local, or tribal law or 
requirement imposed for the protection of the environment.
    2.10 Have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low 
income or minority populations (Executive Order 12898).
    2.11 Limit access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites 
on Federal lands by Indian religious practitioners or significantly 
adversely affect the physical integrity of such sacred sites 
(Executive Order 13007).
    2.12 Contribute to the introduction, continued existence, or 
spread of noxious weeds or non-native invasive species known to 
occur in the area or actions that may promote the introduction, 
growth, or expansion of the range of such species (Federal Noxious 
Weed Control Act and Executive Order 13112).

Department of the Interior--Departmental Manual

    Effective Date:
    Series: Environmental Quality.
    Part 516: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
    Chapter 3: Environmental Assessments.
    Originating Office: Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.

516 DM 3

3.1 Purpose

    This Chapter provides supplementary instructions for implementing 
those portions of the CEQ Regulations pertaining to EAs.

3.2 When To Prepare (40 CFR 1501.3)

    A. An EA will be prepared for all actions, except those covered by 
a categorical exclusion, those covered sufficiently by an earlier 
environmental document, or those actions for which a decision has 
already been made to prepare an EIS. The purpose of an EA is to allow 
the responsible official to determine whether to prepare an EIS or a 
FONSI.
    B. In addition, an EA may be prepared on any action at any time in 
order to assist in planning and decision making, to aid an agency's 
compliance with NEPA when no EIS is necessary, or to facilitate EIS 
preparation.

3.3 Public Involvement

    A. The public must be provided notice of the availability of EAs 
(40 CFR 1506.6).
    B. Where appropriate, bureaus and offices, when conducting the EA 
process, shall provide the opportunity for public participation and 
shall consider the public comments on the pending plan or program.
    C. The scoping process may be applied to an EA (40 CFR 1501.7).

3.4 Content

    A. At a minimum, an EA will include brief discussions of the 
proposal, the need for the proposal, alternatives [as required by 
section 102(2)(E) of NEPA], the environmental impacts of the proposed 
action and such alternatives, and a listing of agencies and persons 
consulted [1508.9(b)].
    B. In addition, an EA may describe a broader range of alternatives 
and proposed mitigation measures to facilitate planning and decision 
making.
    C. The level of detail and depth of impact analysis should normally 
be limited to the minimum needed to determine whether there would be 
significant environmental effects.
    D. An EA will contain objective analyses that support its 
environmental impact conclusions. It will not conclude whether an EIS 
will be prepared. This conclusion will be made upon review of the EA by 
the responsible bureau official and documented in either a NOI or a 
FONSI.
    E. Previous NEPA analyses should be used in a tiered analysis or 
transferred and used in a subsequent analysis to enhance the content of 
an EA whenever possible.

3.5 Format

    A. An EA may be prepared in any format useful to facilitate 
planning, decision making, and appropriate public participation.
    B. An EA may be combined with any other planning or decision making 
document; however, that portion which analyzes the environmental 
impacts of the proposal and alternatives will be clearly and separately 
identified and not spread throughout or interwoven into other sections 
of the document.

3.6 Adoption

    A. An EA prepared for a proposal before the Department by another 
agency, entity, or person, including an applicant, may be adopted if, 
upon independent evaluation by the responsible official, it is found to 
comply with this Chapter and relevant provisions of the CEQ 
Regulations.
    B. When appropriate and efficient, a responsible official may 
augment such an EA when it is essentially, but not entirely, in 
compliance, in order to make it so.
    C. If such an EA is adopted or augmented, responsible officials 
must prepare their own NOI or FONSI that acknowledges the origin of the 
EA and takes full responsibility for its scope and content.
    D. Adoption or augmentation of an EA shall receive the same public 
participation that the EA would have received if it had originated with 
the adopting or augmenting bureau or office.

Department of the Interior--Departmental Manual

    Effective Date:
    Series: Environmental Quality.
    Part 516: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
    Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Statements.
    Originating Office: Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.

516 DM 4

4.1 Purpose

    This chapter provides supplementary instructions for implementing 
those

[[Page 10879]]

portions of the CEQ regulations pertaining to EIS.

4.2 Statutory Requirements (40 CFR 1502.3)

    NEPA requires that an EIS be prepared by the responsible Federal 
official. This official is normally the lowest-level official who has 
overall responsibility for formulating, reviewing, or proposing an 
action or, alternatively, has been delegated the authority or 
responsibility to develop, approve, or adopt a proposal or action. 
Preparation at this level will ensure that the NEPA process will be 
incorporated into the planning process and that the EIS will accompany 
the proposal through existing review processes.

4.3 Timing (40 CFR 1502.5)

    A. For such actions as broad programmatic decisions, rulemakings, 
or resource management plans, an EIS should be commenced whenever a 
proposed action has been defined. These types of actions can be 
inherently vague and difficult to analyze until the proposed action is 
defined. At that point, concurrent drafting of the proposal and its 
accompanying EIS should be commenced.
    B. The feasibility analysis (go/no-go) stage, at which time an EIS 
is to be prepared for proposed projects undertaken by DOI, is to be 
interpreted as the stage prior to the first point of major commitment 
to the proposal. For example, this would normally be at the 
authorization stage for proposals requiring Congressional 
authorization; the location or corridor stage for transportation, 
transmission, and communication projects; and the leasing stage for 
offshore mineral resources proposals [40 CFR 1502.5(a)].
    C. For situations involving applications to DOI or the bureaus, an 
EIS need not be commenced until an application is essentially complete; 
i.e., any required environmental information is submitted and any 
required advance funding is paid by the applicant [40 CFR 1502.5(b)]. 
Officials shall also inform applicants of any responsibility they will 
bear for funding environmental analyses associated with their 
proposals.

4.4 Page Limits (40 CFR 1502.7)

    Bureaus will ensure that the length of EISs is no greater than 
necessary to comply with NEPA, the CEQ regulations, and this Chapter.

4.5 Supplemental Statements (40 CFR 1502.9)

    A. Supplements are required if an agency makes substantial changes 
in the proposed action relevant to environmental concerns or there are 
significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental 
concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.
    B. A bureau and/or the appropriate program Assistant Secretary will 
consult with the OEPC and the Office of the Solicitor prior to 
proposing to CEQ to prepare a supplemental statement using alternative 
arrangements such as issuing a final supplement without preparing an 
intervening draft.
    C. If, after a decision has been made based on a final EIS, a 
described proposal is further defined or modified and if its changed 
effects are not significant and still within the scope of the earlier 
EIS, an EA, and a FONSI may be prepared for subsequent decisions rather 
than a supplement.

4.6 Format (40 CFR 1502.10)

    A. Proposed departures from the standard format described in the 
CEQ regulations and this Chapter must be approved by the OEPC.
    B. The section listing the preparers of the EIS will also include 
other sources of information, including a bibliography or list of cited 
references, when appropriate.
    C. The section listing the distribution of the EIS will also fully 
describe the consultation and public involvement processes used in 
planning the proposal and in preparing the EIS, if this information is 
not discussed elsewhere in the document. The section will also describe 
the level to which the public contributed usable data for the document.
    D. If CEQ's standard format is not used or if the EIS is combined 
with another planning or decision making document, the section which 
analyzes and compares the environmental consequences of the proposal 
and its alternatives will be clearly and separately identified and not 
interwoven into other portions of or spread throughout the document.

 4.7 Cover Sheet (40 CFR 1502.11)

    The cover sheet will also indicate whether the EIS is intended to 
serve any other environmental review or consultation requirements 
pursuant to section 1502.25. The cover sheet will also identify 
cooperating agencies, the location of the action, and whether the 
analysis is programmatic in nature.

4.8 Summary (40 CFR 1502.12)

    The emphasis in the summary should be on those considerations, 
controversies, and issues that significantly affect the quality of the 
human environment.

4.9 Purpose and Need (40 CFR 1502.13)

    This section shall present the purpose of and need for the agency 
action. The purpose and need shall be described in sufficient detail to 
aid in the development of an appropriate range of alternatives. Care 
should be taken to ensure an objective presentation and not a 
justification.

4.10 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action (40 CFR 1502.14)

    A. The following terms are commonly used in NEPA compliance 
activities and are described below for clarification.
    (1) Range of Alternatives--This term means all reasonable 
alternatives that will be rigorously explored and objectively evaluated 
as well as other alternatives that are eliminated from detailed study 
after providing reasons for their elimination.
    (2) Reasonable Alternatives--This term means alternatives that are 
technically and economically practical or feasible and that meet the 
purpose and need of the proposed action.
    (3) Proposed Action--This term means the agency activity to be 
undertaken. It also means a non-Federal entity's planned activity which 
falls under a Federal agency's authority to issue permits, licenses, 
grants, rights-of-way, or other common Federal approvals, funding, or 
regulatory instruments. The proposed action is generally the earliest 
known description of the action to be taken. The proposed action is not 
necessarily, but may become, during the NEPA process, a preferred 
alternative or an environmentally preferred alternative. The proposed 
action must be fully and clearly described in order to proceed with 
NEPA analysis.
    (4) Preferred Alternative--This term means the alternative which 
the agency believes would fulfill its statutory mission and 
responsibilities, while giving consideration to economic, 
environmental, technical, and other factors. It may or may not be the 
same as the agency's or the non-Federal entity's proposed action.
    (5) Environmentally Preferred Alternative--This term means the 
alternative that will best promote the national environmental policy as 
expressed in NEPA's Section 101 and can be characterized as causing the 
least damage to the biological and physical environment and best 
protect, preserve, and enhance the nation's historic, cultural, and 
natural resources.

[[Page 10880]]

    (6) No Action Alternative--This term has two interpretations. First 
``no action'' means ``no change'' from a current management direction 
or level of management intensity. Second ``no action'' means ``no 
project'' in cases where a new project is proposed for construction. 
Regardless of the interpretation, the ``no action'' alternative is 
required to be analyzed in an EIS.
    B. As a general rule, the following guidance will apply:
    (1) For internally initiated proposals, i.e., for those cases where 
the Department conducts or controls the planning process, both the 
draft and final EIS shall identify the bureau's proposed action.
    (2) For externally initiated proposals, i.e., for those cases where 
the Department is reacting to an application or similar request,
    (a) the draft and final EIS shall identify the applicant's proposed 
action, and
    (b) the draft EIS should also identify the bureau's preferred 
alternative, if one or more exists, and the final EIS should identify 
the bureau's preferred alternative unless another law prohibits the 
expression of a preference.
    (3) Proposed departures from this guidance must be approved by the 
OEPC and the Office of the Solicitor.
    C. Certain mitigation measures can be clearly integral to the 
proposed action and its alternatives and should be incorporated into 
and analyzed as a part of the proposal and appropriate alternatives. 
When this is done, these measures are no longer considered 
independently with other mitigation. Where appropriate, major 
mitigation measures may be identified and analyzed as separate 
alternatives where the environmental consequences are distinct and 
significant enough to warrant separate evaluation.
    D. In practicing consensus-based management during the development 
of an EIS, bureaus should give full consideration to any reasonable 
alternative(s) put forth by participating interested parties. While 
there can be no guarantee that a community's proposed alternative will 
be taken as the agency proposed action, bureaus must be able to show 
that a community's work is reflected in the evaluation of the proposed 
action and the final decision. To be considered, the community's 
alternative must be fully consistent with NEPA, the CEQ Regulations, 
this Departmental Manual part, all applicable Departmental and bureau 
written policies and guidance.

4.11 Appendix (40 CFR 1502.18)

    If an EIS is intended to serve other environmental review or 
consultation requirements pursuant to section 1502.25, any more 
detailed information needed to comply with these requirements may be 
included as an appendix.

4.12 Tiering (40 CFR 1502.20)

    A. Tiering is a tool to prevent repetitive discussions and to focus 
on issues currently before the decision maker. In this process, earlier 
documents from which later documents are tiered, must be reliable and 
kept current. Tiered documents must make a finding that conditions 
described in earlier documents are still in effect or must revise any 
analyses that are out of date.
    B. In some cases, transferring or combining information from 
previous NEPA documents can be done to reduce repetitive discussions 
and duplication of effort (see 4.20, below).
    C. Bureaus must maintain access to such things as: sources of 
similar information, examples of tiered and transferred analyses, a set 
of procedural steps to make the most of tiered and transferred 
analyses, knowledge of when to use previous material, and how to used 
tiered and transferred analyses without sacrificing references to 
original sources.

4.13 Incorporation by Reference (40 CFR 1502.21)

    Citations of specific topics will include the pertinent page 
numbers. All literature references will be listed in the bibliography.

4.14 Incomplete or Unavailable Information (40 CFR 1502.22)

    The references to overall costs in this section are not limited to 
market costs, but include other costs to society such as social costs 
due to delay.

4.15 Methodology and Scientific Accuracy (40 CFR 1502.24)

    Conclusions about environmental effects will be preceded by an 
analysis that supports that conclusion unless explicit reference by 
footnote is made to other supporting documentation that is readily 
available to the public. Bureaus will also follow Departmental 
procedures for information quality as required under Section 515 of the 
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 
2001.

4.16 Adaptive Management

    Adaptive management is a system of management practices based on 
clearly identified outcomes, monitoring to determine if management 
actions are meeting outcomes, and, if not, facilitating management 
changes that will best ensure that outcomes are met or to re-evaluate 
the outcomes. Adaptive management recognizes that knowledge about 
natural resource systems is sometimes uncertain and is the preferred 
method of management in these cases. Bureaus are encouraged to build 
adaptive management practice into their proposed actions and NEPA 
compliance activities and train personnel in this important 
environmental concept.

4.17 Environmental Review and Consultation Requirements (40 CFR 
1502.25)

    A. A list of related environmental review and consultation 
requirements is available from the OEPC (ESM94-14).
    B. If the EIS is intended to serve as the vehicle to fully or 
partially comply with any of these requirements, the associated 
analyses, studies, or surveys will be identified as such and discussed 
in the text of the EIS and the cover sheet will so indicate. Any 
supporting analyses or reports will be referenced or included as an 
appendix and shall be sent to reviewing agencies as appropriate in 
accordance with applicable regulations or procedures.
    C. The draft EIS should list all Federal permits, licenses, or 
approvals that must be obtained to implement the proposal. To the 
fullest extent possible, the environmental analyses for these related 
permits, licenses, and approvals shall be integrated and performed 
concurrently. Although all approvals do not need to be in place to 
complete the NEPA analysis, they do need to be in place before 
implementing the proposed action. Bureaus shall ensure that they have a 
process in place to make integrated analyses a standard part of their 
NEPA compliance efforts.

4.18 Inviting Comments (40 CFR 1503.1)

    A. Comments from State agencies will be requested through 
procedures established by the Governor pursuant to Executive Order 
12372, and may be requested from local agencies through these 
procedures to the extent that they include the affected local 
jurisdictions.
    B. When the proposed action may affect the environment of Indian 
trust or restricted land or other Indian trust resources, trust assets, 
or tribal health and safety, comments will be requested from the Indian 
tribal government unless the Indian tribal government has designated an 
alternate review process.
    C. The comments of other Departmental bureaus and offices must

[[Page 10881]]

also be requested. In order to do this, the preparing bureau must 
furnish copies of the environmental document to the other bureaus in 
quantities sufficient to allow simultaneous review. Bureaus may be 
removed from this circulation following consultation with, and 
concurrence of, a bureau.

4.19 Response to Comments (40 CFR 1503.4)

    A. Preparation of a final EIS need not be delayed in those cases 
where a Federal agency, external to DOI and from which comments are 
required to be obtained [40 CFR 1503.1(a)(1)], does not comment within 
the prescribed time period.
    B. Informal attempts will be made to determine the status of any 
late comments and a reasonable attempt should be made to include the 
comments and a response in the final EIS. As noted in 516 DM 2.2D, the 
late introduction of new issues and alternatives is to be avoided and 
they will be considered only to the extent practicable.
    C. For those EISs requiring the approval of the AS/PMB pursuant to 
516 DM 6.3, bureaus will consult with the OEPC when they propose to 
prepare an abbreviated final EIS [40 CFR 1503.4(c)].

4.20 Elimination of Duplication With State and Local Procedures (40 CFR 
1506.2)

    Bureaus will incorporate in their appropriate program regulations 
provisions for the preparation of an EIS by a State agency to the 
extent authorized in Section 102(2)(D) of NEPA. Eligible programs are 
listed in Appendix 1 to this Chapter.

4.21 Combining Documents (40 CFR 1506.4)

    See 516 DM 4.6D.

4.22 Departmental Responsibility (40 CFR 1506.5)

    A. Bureaus are responsible for preparation of their environmental 
documents and independent evaluation of environmental documents 
prepared by others for a bureau.
    B. A contractor may be used to prepare any environmental document 
in accordance with the standards of 40 CFR 1506.5(c).

4.23 Public Involvement (40 CFR 1506.6)

    See 516 DM 1.2, 1.3, 1.6, and 301 DM 2.

4.24 Further Guidance (40 CFR 1506.7)

    The OEPC may provide further guidance concerning NEPA pursuant to 
its organizational responsibilities (112 DM 4) and through supplemental 
directives (381 DM 4.5B). Current guidance is located in the 
Environmental Memoranda Series periodically updated by OEPC and 
available on the OEPC Web site at http://www.doi.gov/oepc.

4.25 Proposals for Legislation (40 CFR 1506.8)

    The Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, in 
consultation with the OEPC, shall:
    A. Identify in the annual submittal to OMB of the Department's 
proposed legislative program any requirements for, and the status of, 
any environmental documents.
    B. When required, ensure that a legislative EIS is included as a 
part of the formal transmittal of a legislative proposal to the 
Congress.

4.26 Time Periods (40 CFR 1506.10)

    A. The minimum review period for a draft EIS will be forty-five 
(45) days from the date of publication by the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) of the notice of availability.
    B. For those ElSs requiring the approval of the AS/PMB pursuant to 
516 DM 6.3, the OEPC will be responsible for consulting with the EPA 
and/or CEQ about any proposed reductions in time periods or any 
extensions of time periods proposed by the bureaus.

4.27 Emergencies (40 CFR 1506.11)

    See subpart 5.8.

CHAPTER 4, APPENDIX 1

Programs of Grants to States and/or Tribes in Which Agencies Having 
Statewide Jurisdiction May Prepare EISs

1.1 Fish and Wildlife Service

    A. Anadromous Fish Conservation (11.405) \7\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Citations in parentheses refer to the Catalog of Federal 
Domestic Assistance. Citations are current as of 2003. The catalog 
may be viewed at http://cfda.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. Fish Restoration (15.605).
    C. Wildlife Restoration (15.611).
    D. Endangered Species Conservation (15.615).

1.2 National Park Service

    A. Historic Preservation Grants-in-Aid (15.904).
    B. Outdoor Recreation-Acquisition Development and Planning 
(15.916).

1.3 Office of Surface Mining

    A. Regulation of Surface Coal Mining and Surface Effects of 
Underground Coal Mining (15.250).
    B. Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program (15.252).

1.4 Office of Insular Affairs

    A. Economic and Political Development of the Territories and the 
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (15.875).

Department of the Interior--Departmental Manual

    Effective Date:
    Series: Environmental Quality.
    Part 516: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
    Chapter 5: Relationship to Decision Making.
    Originating Office: Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.

516 DM 5

5.1 Purpose

    This Chapter provides supplementary instructions for implementing 
those portions of the CEQ Regulations pertaining to decision making.

5.2 Predecision Referrals to CEQ (40 CFR 1504.3)

    A. Upon receipt of advice that another Federal agency intends to 
refer a Departmental matter to CEQ, the lead bureau will immediately 
meet with that Federal agency to attempt to resolve the issues raised 
and expeditiously notify its Assistant Secretary, the Solicitor, and 
the OEPC.
    B. Upon any referral of a Departmental matter to CEQ by another 
Federal agency, the OEPC will be responsible for coordinating the 
Department's role with CEQ. The lead bureau will be responsible for 
developing and presenting the Department's position at CEQ including 
preparation of briefing papers and visual aids.

5.3 Decision Making Procedures (40 CFR 1505.1)

    A. Procedures for decisions by the Secretary/Deputy Secretary are 
specified in 301 DM 1. Assistant Secretaries should follow a similar 
process when an environmental document accompanies a proposal for their 
decision.
    B. Bureaus will incorporate in their decision making procedures and 
NEPA handbooks provisions for consideration of environmental factors 
and relevant environmental documents. The major decision points for 
principal programs likely to have significant environmental effects 
will be identified in the bureau chapters on ``Managing the NEPA 
Process'' beginning with Chapter 8 of this Part.
    C. Relevant environmental documents, including supplements, will be 
included as part of the record in formal rulemaking or adjudicatory 
proceedings.

[[Page 10882]]

    D. Relevant environmental documents, comments, and responses will 
accompany proposals through existing review processes so that 
Departmental officials use them in making decisions.
    E. The decision maker will consider the environmental impacts of 
the alternatives described in any relevant environmental document and 
the range of these alternatives must encompass the alternatives 
considered by the decision maker.
    F. To the extent practicable, the decision maker will consider 
other substantive and legal obligations beyond the immediate context of 
the proposed action.

5.4 Record of Decision (40 CFR 1505.2)

    A. Any decision documents prepared pursuant to 301 DM 1 for 
proposals involving an EIS shall incorporate all appropriate provisions 
of section 1505.2(b) and (c).
    B. If a decision document incorporating these provisions is made 
available to the public following a decision, it will serve the purpose 
of a record of decision.

5.5 Implementing the Decision (40 CFR 1505.3)

    The terms ``monitoring'' and ``conditions'' will be interpreted as 
being related to factors affecting the quality of the natural and human 
environment.

5.6 Limitations on Actions (40 CFR 1506.1)

    A bureau will immediately notify its Assistant Secretary, the 
Solicitor, and the OEPC of any situations described in section 
1506.1(b).

5.7 Timing of Actions (40 CFR 1506.10)

    For those EISs requiring the approval of the AS/PMB pursuant to 516 
DM 6.3, the responsible official will consult with the OEPC before 
making any request for reducing the time period before a decision or 
action.

5.8 Emergencies (40 CFR 1506.11)

    In the event of an emergency situation, a bureau will immediately 
take any necessary action to prevent or reduce risks to public health 
or safety or important resources. If the agency action has significant 
environmental impacts, a bureau will immediately consult with its 
Assistant Secretary, the Solicitor, OEPC, and (together with OEPC) CEQ 
about compliance with NEPA. Upon learning of the emergency situation, 
the OEPC will immediately notify CEQ. During follow-up activities OEPC 
and the bureau will jointly be responsible for consulting with CEQ. 
Paragraph 1506.11 applies only to the emergency and not to any related 
recovery actions after the emergency has passed. If the agency action 
does not have significant environmental impacts, a bureau will consult 
with OPEC to consider any appropriate action.

Department of the Interior--Departmental Manual

    Effective Date:
    Series: Environmental Quality.
    Part 516: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
    Chapter 6: Managing the NEPA Process.
    Originating Office: Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.

516 DM 6

6.1 Purpose

    This Chapter provides supplementary instructions for implementing 
those provisions of the CEQ Regulations pertaining to procedures for 
implementing and managing the NEPA process.

6.2 Organization for Environmental Quality

    A. Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance. The Director, 
OEPC, reporting to the AS/PMB, is responsible for providing advice and 
assistance to the Department on matters pertaining to environmental 
quality and for overseeing and coordinating the Department's compliance 
with NEPA. (See also 112 DM 4.)
    B. Bureaus and Offices. Heads of bureaus and offices will designate 
organizational elements or individuals, as appropriate, at headquarters 
and regional levels to be responsible for overseeing matters pertaining 
to the environmental effects of the bureau's plans and programs. The 
individuals assigned these responsibilities should have management 
experience or potential, understand the bureau's planning and decision 
making processes, and be well trained in environmental matters, 
including the Department's policies and procedures so that their advice 
has significance in the bureau's planning and decisions. These 
organizational elements will be identified in chapters 8-15, which 
contain all bureau NEPA requirements.

6.3 Approval of EISs

    A. A program Assistant Secretary is authorized to approve an EIS in 
those cases where the responsibility for the decision for which the EIS 
has been prepared rests with the Assistant Secretary or below. The 
Assistant Secretary may further assign the authority to approve the EIS 
if he or she chooses. The AS/PMB will make certain that each program 
Assistant Secretary has adequate safeguards to ensure that the EISs 
comply with NEPA, the CEQ Regulations, and the Departmental Manual.
    B. The AS/PMB is authorized to approve an EIS in those cases where 
the decision for which the EIS has been prepared will occur at a level 
in the Department above an individual program Assistant Secretary.

6.4 List of Specific Compliance Responsibilities

    A. Bureaus and offices shall:
    (1) Prepare NEPA handbooks providing guidance on how to implement 
NEPA in principal program areas.
    (2) Prepare program regulations or directives for applicants.
    (3) Propose and apply categorical exclusions.
    (4) Prepare and approve EAs.
    (5) Decide whether to prepare an EIS.
    (6) Prepare and publish NOIs and FONSIs.
    (7) Prepare and, when assigned, approve EISs.
    B. Assistant Secretaries shall:
    (1) Approve bureau and offices handbooks.
    (2) Approve regulations or directives for applicants.
    (3) Approve proposed categorical exclusions.
    (4) Approve EISs pursuant to 516 DM 6.3.
    C. The AS/PMB shall:
    (1) Concur with regulations or directives for applicants.
    (2) Concur with proposed categorical exclusions.
    (3) Approve EISs pursuant to 516 DM 6.3.

6.5 Bureau Requirements

    A. Requirements specific to bureaus appear as separate chapters 
beginning with chapter 8 of this part and include the following:
    (1) Identification of officials and organizational elements 
responsible for NEPA compliance.
    (2) List of program regulations or directives which provide 
information to applicants.
    (3) Identification of major decision points in principal programs 
for which an EIS is normally prepared.
    (4) List of projects or groups of projects for which an EA is 
normally prepared.
    (5) List of categorical exclusions.
    B. Bureau requirements are found in the following chapters for the 
current bureaus:

[[Page 10883]]

    (1) Fish and Wildlife Service (chapter 8; formerly appendix 1).
    (2) Geological Survey (chapter 9; formerly appendix 2).
    (3) Bureau of Indian Affairs (chapter 10; formerly appendix 4).
    (4) Bureau of Land Management (chapter 11; formerly appendix 5).
    (5) National Park Service (chapter 12; formerly appendix 7).
    (6) Office of Surface Mining (chapter 13; formerly appendix 8).
    (7) Bureau of Reclamation (chapter 14; formerly appendix 9).
    (8) Minerals Management Service (chapter 15; formerly appendix 10).
    C. The Office of the Secretary and other Departmental Offices do 
not have separate chapters but must comply with this Part and will 
consult with the OEPC about compliance activities.

6.6 Information About the NEPA Process

    The OEPC will periodically publish a Departmental list of bureau 
contacts where information about the NEPA process and the status of 
EISs may be obtained. This list will be available on OEPC's Web site at 
http://www.doi.gov/oepc.

Department of the Interior--Departmental Manual

    Effective Date:
    Series: Environmental Quality.
    Part 516: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
    Chapter 7: Review of Environmental Impact Statements and Project 
Proposals Prepared by Other Federal Agencies.
    Originating Office: Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.

516 DM 7

7.1 Purpose

    A. These procedures implement the policy and directives of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 
852, January 1, 1970, NEPA); Section 2(f) of Executive Order No. 11514 
(March 5, 1970); the CEQ Regulations (43 FR 55990, November 28, 1978; 
CEQ); Bulletin No. 72-6 of the Office of Management and Budget 
(September 14, 1971); and provide guidance to bureaus and offices of 
the Department in the review of EISs prepared by and for other Federal 
agencies.
    B. In accordance with 112 DM 4.2F, these procedures further govern 
the Department's environmental review of non-Interior proposals such as 
regulations, applications, plans, reports, and other environmental 
documents which affect the interests of the Department. Such proposals 
are prepared, circulated, and reviewed under a wide variety of statutes 
and regulations. These procedures ensure that the Department responds 
to these review requests with coordinated comments and recommendations 
under Interior's various authorities.

7.2 Policy

    The Department considers it a priority to provide competent and 
timely review comments on EISs and other environmental or project 
review documents prepared by other Federal agencies for their major 
actions which significantly affect the quality of the human 
environment. All such documents are hereinafter referred to as 
``environmental review documents.'' The term ``environmental review 
document'' as used in this chapter is separate from and broader than 
the term ``environmental document'' found in 40 CFR 1508.10 of the CEQ 
Regulations. These reviews are predicated on the Department's 
jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to the 
environmental impact involved and shall provide constructive comments 
to other Federal agencies to assist them in meeting their environmental 
responsibilities.

7.3 Responsibilities

    A. The AS/PMB: Shall be the Department's contact point for the 
receipt of requests for reviews of environmental review documents 
prepared by or for other Federal agencies. This authority shall be 
carried out through the Director, OEPC.
    B. The Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance:
    (1) Shall determine whether such review requests are to be answered 
by a Secretarial Officer, the Director, OEPC, or by a Regional 
Environmental Officer, and determine which bureaus and/or offices shall 
perform such reviews;
    (2) Shall prepare, or where appropriate, shall designate a lead 
bureau responsible for preparing the Department's review comments. The 
lead bureau may be a bureau, Secretarial office, other Departmental 
office, or task force and shall be that organizational entity with the 
most significant jurisdiction or environmental expertise in regard to 
the requested review;
    (3) Shall establish review schedules and target dates for 
responding to review requests and monitor their compliance;
    (4) Shall review, sign, and transmit the Department's review 
comments to the requesting agency;
    (5) Shall consult with the requesting agency on the Department's 
review comments on an ``as needed'' basis to ensure resolution of the 
Department's concerns; and
    (6) Shall consult with the Office of Congressional and Legislative 
Affairs and the Solicitor when environmental reviews pertain to 
legislative or legal matters, respectively.
    C. The Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs: Shall 
ensure that requests for reviews of environmental review documents 
prepared by other Federal agencies that accompany or pertain to 
legislative proposals are immediately referred to the AS/PMB.
    D. Regional Environmental Officers: When designated by the 
Director, OEPC, shall review, sign, and transmit the Department's 
review comments to the requesting agency.
    E. Assistant Secretaries and Heads of Bureaus and Offices:
    (1) Shall designate officials and organizational elements 
responsible for the coordination and conduct of environmental reviews 
and report this information to the Director, OEPC;
    (2) Shall provide the Director, OEPC, with appropriate information 
and material concerning their delegated jurisdiction and special 
expertise in order to assist in assigning review responsibilities;
    (3) Shall conduct reviews based upon their areas of jurisdiction or 
special expertise and provide comments to the designated lead bureau or 
office assigned responsibilities for preparing Departmental comments;
    (4) When designated lead bureau by the Director, OEPC, shall 
prepare and forward the Department's review comments as instructed;
    (5) Shall ensure that review schedules for discharging assigned 
responsibilities are met and promptly inform other concerned offices if 
established target dates cannot be met and when they will be met;
    (6) Shall provide a single, unified bureau response to the lead 
bureau, as directed;
    (7) Shall ensure that the policies of 516 DM 7.2 regarding 
competency and timeliness are carried out; and
    (8) Shall provide the necessary authority to those designated in 
E.1 above to carry out all the requirements of 516 DM 7.

7.4 Types of Reviews

A. Descriptions of Proposed Actions
    (1) Federal agencies and applicants for Federal assistance may 
circulate descriptions of proposed actions for the purpose of 
soliciting information concerning environmental impacts in order to 
determine whether to prepare EISs. Such descriptions of proposed 
actions are not substitutes for EISs.

[[Page 10884]]

    (2) Requests for reviews of descriptions of proposed actions are 
not required to be processed through the OEPC. Review comments may be 
handled independently by bureaus and offices, with the Regional 
Environmental Officer or Director, OEPC, being advised of significant 
or highly controversial issues. Review comments are for the purpose of 
providing informal technical assistance to the requesting agency and 
should state that they do not represent the views and comments of the 
Department.
B. Environmental Assessments
    (1) EAs are not substitutes for EISs. These assessments or reports 
may be prepared by Federal agencies, their consultants, or applicants 
for Federal assistance. They are prepared either to provide information 
in order to make a finding that there are no significant impacts or 
that an EIS should be prepared. If they are separately circulated, it 
is generally for the purpose of soliciting additional information 
concerning environmental impacts.
    (2) Requests for reviews of EAs are not required to be processed 
through the OEPC. Review comments may be handled independently by 
bureaus and offices, with the Regional Environmental Officer or 
Director, OEPC, being advised of significant or highly controversial 
issues. If a bureau requests and OEPC agrees, a control number may be 
assigned with appropriate instructions. Review comments are for the 
purpose of providing informal technical assistance to the requesting 
agency and should state that they do not represent the views and 
comments of the Department.
C. Findings of No Significant Impact
    (1) Findings of No Significant Impact are prepared by Federal 
agencies to document that there is no need to prepare an EIS. A FONSI 
is a statement for the record by the proponent Federal agency that it 
has reviewed the environmental impact of its proposed action (in an 
EA), that it determines that the action will not significantly affect 
the quality of the human environment, and that an EIS is not required. 
Public notice of the availability of such findings shall be announced; 
however, FONSIs are not normally circulated.
    (2) Findings of No Significant Impact are not required to be 
processed through the OEPC. Review comments may be handled 
independently by bureaus and offices, with the Regional Environmental 
Officer or Director, OEPC, being advised of significant or highly 
controversial issues.
D. Notices of Intent and Scoping Requests
    (1) Notices of intent and scoping requests mark the beginning of 
the formal review process. Notices of intent are published in the 
Federal Register and announce that an agency plans to prepare an 
environmental review document under NEPA. Often the NOI and notice of 
scoping meetings and/or requests are combined into one Federal Register 
notice.
    (2) Reviews of notices of intent and scoping requests are processed 
through the OEPC with instructions to bureaus to comment directly to 
the requesting agency. Review comments are for the purpose of providing 
informal technical assistance to the requesting agency and should state 
that they do not represent the views and comments of the Department.
E. Preliminary, Proposed, or Working Draft Environmental Impact 
Statements
    (1) Preliminary, proposed, or working draft EISs are sometimes 
prepared and circulated by Federal agencies and applicants for Federal 
assistance for consultative purposes.
    (2) Requests for reviews of these types of draft EISs are not 
required to be processed through the OEPC. Review comments may be 
handled independently by bureaus and offices with the Regional 
Environmental Officer or Director, OEPC, being advised of significant 
or highly controversial issues. Review comments are for the purpose of 
providing informal technical assistance to the requesting agency and 
should state that they do not represent the views and comments of the 
Department.
F. Draft Environmental Impact Statements
    (1) Draft EISs are prepared by Federal agencies under the 
provisions of Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA and provisions of the CEQ 
Regulations. They are filed with the EPA and officially circulated to 
other Federal, State, and local agencies [see 40 CFR 1503.1(a)] for 
review based upon their jurisdiction by law or special expertise with 
respect to the agency mission, related program experience, or 
environmental impact of the proposed action or alternatives to the 
action [see 7.5A(1)].
    (2) All requests from other Federal agencies for review of draft 
EISs shall be made through the Director, OEPC. Review comments shall be 
handled in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and guidance 
memoranda may be issued and updated by the OEPC.
G. Final Environmental Impact Statements
    (1) Final EISs are prepared by Federal agencies following receipt 
and consideration of review comments. They are filed with the EPA and 
are circulated to the public for an administrative waiting period of 
thirty days and sometimes for comment.
    (2) The Director, OEPC, shall review final EISs to determine 
whether they reflect adequate consideration of the Department's 
comments. Bureaus and offices shall not comment independently on final 
EISs, but shall inform the Director, OEPC, of their views. Any review 
comments shall be handled in accordance with the instructions of the 
OEPC.
H. License and Permit Applications
    (1) The Department receives draft and final environmental review 
documents associated with applications for other Federal licenses and 
permits. This activity largely involves the regulatory program of the 
Corps of Engineers and the hydroelectric and natural gas pipeline 
licensing programs of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    (2) Environmental review of applications is generally handled in 
the same manner as for draft and final EISs. Additional review guidance 
may be made available as necessary to efficiently manage this activity. 
Bureau reviewers should review information on the OEPC Web site and 
consult with the OEPC for the most current review guidance.
    (3) While review of NEPA compliance documents associated with Corps 
of Engineers permit applications is managed in accordance with this 
Chapter, review of Corps of Engineers permit applications is managed in 
accordance with 503 DM 1. Reviewers are referred to that Manual Part 
and to 7.5C.(3) below for the processing of concurrent reviews.
I. Project Plans and Reports Without Associated Environmental Review 
Documents
    (1) The Department receives draft and final project plans and 
reports under various authorities which do not have environmental 
review documents circulated with them. This may be because NEPA 
compliance has been completed, will be completed on a slightly 
different schedule, NEPA does not apply, or other reasons.
    (2) Environmental review of these documents is handled in the same 
manner as for draft and final EISs. Additional review guidance may be 
made available as necessary to

[[Page 10885]]

efficiently manage this activity. Bureau reviewers should review 
information on the OEPC Web site and consult with the OEPC for the most 
current review guidance.
J. Federal Regulations
    (1) The Department circulates and controls the review of advance 
notices of proposed rulemaking, proposed rulemaking, and final 
rulemaking which are environmental in nature, may impact the quality of 
the human environment, and may impact the Department's natural 
resources and programs.
    (2) Environmental review of these documents is handled in the same 
manner as for draft and final EISs. Additional review guidance may be 
made available as necessary to efficiently manage this activity. Bureau 
reviewers should review information on the OEPC Web site and consult 
with the OEPC for the most current review guidance.
K. Documents Prepared Pursuant to Other Environmental Statutes
    (1) The Department receives draft and final project plans prepared 
pursuant to other environmental statutes [e.g., National Historic 
Preservation Act (NHPA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Oil Pollution Act (OPA)], which may not 
have environmental review documents circulated with them.
    (2) Environmental review of these documents is handled consistently 
with the policies and provisions of this part, and in accordance with 
further guidance from the Director, OEPC. Additional review guidance 
may be made available as necessary to efficiently manage this activity. 
Bureau reviewers should review information on the OEPC Web site and 
consult with the OEPC for the most current review guidance.
L. Section 4(f) Documents
    (1) Under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, the 
Secretary of Transportation may approve a transportation program or 
project requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, 
recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State or 
local significance, or land of an historic site of national, State, or 
local significance (as determined by the Federal, State, or local 
officials having jurisdiction over the park, area, refuge, or site) 
only if there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land 
and the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize 
harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or 
historic site resulting from the use.
    (2) Environmental review of Section 4(f) documents is handled in 
the same manner as for draft and final EISs. Additional review guidance 
may be made available as necessary to efficiently manage this activity. 
Bureau reviewers should review information on the OEPC Web site and 
consult with the OEPC for the most current review guidance.

7.5 Content of Comments on Environmental Review Documents

A. Departmental Comments
    (1) Departmental comments on environmental review documents 
prepared by other Federal agencies shall be based upon the Department's 
jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to the agency 
mission, related program experience, or environmental impact of the 
proposed action or alternatives to the action. The adequacy of the 
document in regard to applicable statutes is the responsibility of the 
agency that prepared the document and any comments on its adequacy 
shall be limited to the Department's jurisdiction or environmental 
expertise.
    (2) Reviews shall be conducted in sufficient detail to ensure that 
both potentially beneficial and adverse environmental effects of the 
proposed action and alternatives, including cumulative and secondary 
effects, are adequately identified. Wherever possible, and within the 
Department's competence and resources, other agencies will be advised 
on ways to avoid or minimize adverse impacts of the proposed action and 
alternatives, and on alternatives to the proposed action that may have 
been overlooked or inadequately treated.
    (3) Review comments should not capsulate or restate the 
environmental review document, but should provide clear, concise, 
substantive, fully justified, and complete comments on the stated or 
unstated environmental impacts of the proposed action and, if 
appropriate, on alternatives to the action. Comments, either positive 
or negative, shall be objective and constructive.
    (4) Departmental review comments shall be organized as follows:
    (a) Control Number. The Departmental review control number shall be 
typed in the upper left hand corner below the Departmental seal on the 
letterhead page of the comments.
    (b) Introduction. The introductory paragraph shall reference the 
other Federal agency's review request, including the date, the type of 
review requested, the subject of the review; and, where appropriate, 
the geographic location of the subject and the other agency's control 
number.
    (c) General Comments, if any. This section will include those 
comments of a general nature and those which occur throughout the 
review which ought to be consolidated in order to avoid needless 
repetition.
    (d) Detailed Comments. The format of this section shall follow the 
organization of the other agency's environmental review document. These 
comments shall not comment on the proposed actions of other Federal 
agencies, but shall constructively and objectively comment on the 
statement's adequacy in describing the environmental impacts of the 
action, the alternatives, and the impacts of the alternatives. Comments 
shall specify any corrections, additions, or other changes required to 
make the statement adequate.
    (e) Summary Comments, if any. In general, the Department will not 
take a position on the proposed action of another Federal agency, but 
will limit its comments to those above. However, in those cases where 
the Department has jurisdiction by statute, executive order, memorandum 
of agreement, or other authority, the Department may comment on the 
proposed action. These comments shall be provided in this section and 
may take the form of support for, concurrence with, concern over, or 
objection to the proposed action and/or the alternatives.
B. Bureau and Office Comments
    Bureau and office reviews of EISs prepared by other Federal 
agencies are considered informal inputs to the Department's comments 
and their content will generally conform to paragraph 7.5A of this 
chapter with the substitution of the bureau's or office's delegated 
jurisdiction or special environmental expertise for that of the 
Department.
C. Relationship to Other Concurrent Reviews
    (1) Where the Department, because of other authority or agreement, 
is concurrently requested to review a proposal as well as its EIS, the 
Department's comments on the proposal shall be separately identified 
and placed in front of the comments on the EIS. A summary of the 
Department's position, if any, on the proposal and its environmental 
impact shall be separately identified and follow the review comments on 
the EIS.

[[Page 10886]]

    (2) Where another Federal agency elects to combine other related 
reviews into the review of the EIS by including additional or more 
specific information into the statement, the introduction to the 
Department's review comments will acknowledge the additional review 
request and the review comments will be incorporated into appropriate 
parts of the combined statement review. A summary of the Department's 
position, if any, on the environmental impacts of the proposal and any 
alternatives shall be separately identified and follow the detailed 
review comments on the combined statement.
    (3) In some cases, the concurrent review is not an integral part of 
the environmental compliance review but is being processed within the 
same general time period as the environmental review. If there is also 
an environmental review being processed by the OEPC, there is potential 
for two sets of conflicting comments to reach the requesting agency. 
Bureaus must recognize that this possibility exists and must check with 
the Regional Environmental Officer to determine the status of any 
environmental review prior to forwarding the concurrent review comments 
to the requesting agency. Any conflicts must be resolved before the 
separate comments may be filed. One review may be held up pending 
completion of the concurrent review and consideration of filing a 
single comment letter. A time extension may be necessary and must be 
obtained if a review is to be held up pending completion of a 
concurrent review.
    (4) The Department's intervention in another agency's adjudicatory 
process is also a concurrent review. Such reviews are governed by 452 
DM 2 which must be consulted in applicable cases. The most common cases 
involve the Department's review of hydroelectric and natural gas 
applications of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. In these 
cases, it is recommended that bureaus consult frequently with the 
appropriate attorney of record in the Office of the Solicitor.

7.6 Availability of Review Comments

    A. Prior to the public availability of another Federal agency's 
final EIS, the Department shall not independently release to the public 
its comments on that agency's draft EIS. In accordance with section 
1506.6(f) of the CEQ Regulations, the agency that prepared the 
statement is responsible for making the comments available to the 
public, and requests for copies of the Department's comments shall be 
referred to that agency. Exceptions to this procedure shall be made by 
the OEPC and the Office of the Solicitor.
    B. The availability of various internal Departmental memoranda, 
such as the review comments of bureaus, offices, task forces, and 
individuals, which are used as inputs to the Department's review 
comments is governed by the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) 
and the Departmental procedures established by 43 CFR 2. Upon receipt 
of such requests and in addition to following the procedures above in 
A., the responsible bureau or office shall notify and consult their 
bureau Freedom of Information Act Officer and the OEPC to coordinate 
any responses.

7.7 Procedures for Processing Environmental Reviews

A. General Procedures
    (1) All requests for reviews of environmental review documents 
prepared by or for other Federal agencies shall be received and 
controlled by the Director, OEPC.
    (2) If a bureau or office, whether at headquarters or field level, 
receives an environmental review document for review directly from 
outside of the Department, it should ascertain whether the document is 
a preliminary, proposed, or working draft circulated for technical 
assistance or input in order to prepare a draft document or whether the 
document is in fact a draft environmental review document being 
circulated for official review.
    (a) If the document is a preliminary, proposed, or working draft, 
the bureau or office should handle independently and provide whatever 
technical assistance possible, within the limits of their resources, to 
the requesting agency. The response should clearly indicate the type of 
assistance being provided and state that it does not represent the 
Department's review of the document. Each bureau or office should 
provide the Regional Environmental Officer and the Director, OEPC, 
copies of any comments involving significant or controversial issues.
    (b) If the document is a draft or final environmental review 
document circulated for official review, the bureau or office should 
inform the requesting agency of the Department's procedures in 
subparagraph (1) above and promptly refer the request and the document 
to the Director, OEPC, for processing.
    (3) All bureaus and offices processing and reviewing environmental 
review documents of other Federal agencies will do so within the time 
limits specified by the Director, OEPC. From thirty (30) to forty-five 
(45) days are normally available for responding to other Federal agency 
review requests. Whenever possible the Director, OEPC, shall seek a 
forty-five (45) day review period. Further extensions shall be handled 
in accordance with paragraph 7.7B (3) of this chapter.
    (4) The Department's review comments on other Federal agencies' 
environmental review documents shall reflect the full and balanced 
interests of the Department in the protection and enhancement of the 
environment. Lead bureaus shall be responsible for resolving any intra-
Departmental differences in bureau or office review comments submitted 
to them. The OEPC is available for guidance and assistance in this 
regard. In cases where agreement cannot be reached, the matter shall be 
referred through channels to the AS/PMB with attempts to resolve the 
disagreement at each intervening management level. The OEPC will assist 
in facilitating this process.
B. Processing Environmental Reviews
    (1) The OEPC shall secure and distribute sufficient copies of 
environmental review documents for Departmental review. Bureaus and 
offices should keep the OEPC informed as to their needs for review 
copies, which shall be kept to a minimum, and shall develop internal 
procedures to efficiently and expeditiously distribute environmental 
review documents to reviewing offices.
    (2) Reviewing bureaus and offices which cannot meet the review 
schedule shall so inform the lead bureau and shall provide the date 
that the review will be delivered. The lead bureau shall inform the 
OEPC in cases of headquarters-level response, or the Regional 
Environmental Officer in cases of field-level response, if it cannot 
meet the schedule, why it cannot, and when it will. The OEPC or the 
Regional Environmental Officer shall be responsible for informing the 
other Federal agency of any changes in the review schedule.
    (3) Reviewing offices shall route their review comments through 
channels to the lead bureau, with a copy to the OEPC. When, in cases, 
of headquarters-level response, review comments cannot reach the lead 
bureau within the established review schedule, reviewing bureaus and 
offices shall send a copy marked ``Advance Copy'' directly to the lead 
bureau. Review comments shall also be sent to the lead bureau by 
electronic means to facilitate meeting the requesting agency's 
deadline.
    (4) In cases of headquarters-level response:
    (a) The lead bureau shall route the completed comments through 
channels

[[Page 10887]]

to the OEPC in both paper copy and electronic word processor format. 
Copies shall be prepared and attached for all bureaus and offices from 
whom review comments were requested, for the OEPC, and for the Regional 
Environmental Officer when the review pertains to a project within a 
regional jurisdiction. In addition, original copies of all review 
comments received or documentation that none were provided shall 
accompany the Department's comments through the clearance process and 
shall be retained by the OEPC.
    (b) The OEPC shall review, secure any necessary additional 
surnames, surname, and either sign the Department's comments or 
transmit the Department's comments to another appropriate Secretarial 
Officer for signature. Upon signature, the OEPC shall transmit the 
comments to the requesting agency.
    (5) In cases of field-level response:
    (a) The lead bureau shall provide the completed comments to the 
appropriate Regional Environmental Officer in both paper-copy and 
electronic word processor format. In addition, original copies of all 
review comments received or documentation that none were provided shall 
be attached to the paper copy.
    (b) The Regional Environmental Officer shall review, sign, and 
transmit the Department's comments to the agency requesting the review. 
In addition they shall reproduce and send the Department's comments to 
the regional bureau reviewers. The entire completed package including 
the bureau review comments shall be sent to the OEPC for recording and 
filing.
    (c) If the Regional Environmental Officer determines that the 
review involves policy matters of Secretarial significance, they shall 
not sign and transmit the comments as provided in subparagraph (b) 
above, but shall forward the review to the OEPC in headquarters for 
final disposition.
C. Referrals of Environmentally Unsatisfactory Proposals to the Council 
on Environmental Quality
    (1) Referral to CEQ is a formal process provided for in the CEQ 
Regulations (40 CFR 1504). It is used sparingly and only when all other 
administrative processes have been exhausted in attempting to resolve 
issues between the project proponent and one or more other Federal 
agencies. These issues must meet certain criteria (40 CFR 1504.2), and 
practice has shown that these issues generally involve resource 
concerns of national importance to the Department.
    (2) A bureau or office intending to recommend referral of a 
proposal to CEQ must, at the earliest possible time, advise the 
proponent Federal agency that it considers the proposal to be a 
possible candidate for referral. If not expressed at an earlier time, 
this advice must be outlined in the Department's comments on the draft 
EIS.
    (3) CEQ referral is a high level activity that must be conducted in 
an extremely short time frame. A referring bureau or office has 25 days 
after EPA has published a notice of availability of the final EIS in 
the Federal Register in which to file the referral unless an extension 
is granted per 40 CFR 1504.3(b). The referral documents must be signed 
by the Secretary of the Interior.
    (4) Additional review guidance may be made available as necessary 
to efficiently manage this activity. Bureau reviewers should review 
information on the OEPC Web site at http://www.doi.gov/oepc and consult 
with the OEPC for the most current review guidance.
[FR Doc. 04-4945 Filed 3-5-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-RG-P