9629

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9629
• Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Title: Selected NEPA Documents.
• USFW Year: 1993.
• USFW - Doc Type: \
• Copyright Material: NO

87
D. Tiering. CEQ's NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.20) encourage tiering
EISs. Tiering, however, is not a substitute for the adequate assessment of
sitespecific environmental effects. For example, a programmatic EIS must
consider cumulative, direct, and indirect impacts; however, this may result
in less detailed assessments of impacts than would be addressed on a site-
specific EIS.
E. Discussion of Inconsistencies with State and Local Plans.
CEQ's NEPA regulations~j40~CFR 1506.2(d)] require an EIS to discuss any
inconsistencies the proposed action may have with an approved State or
local plan or law, and to address the extent to which the lead agency plans
to reconcile its proposed action with the plan or law. Service comments on
EISs should address key .State and local planning efforts which have Service
involvement in development, review, and/or approval. Some of these are
listed below.
(1) Management and habitat acquisition plans funded by Dingell-Johnson
(D-J) :and Pittman-Robertson (P-R), Land and Water Conservation Act,
section 6 (Endangered Species Act) cooperative agreements, or through other
grant programs.
(2) Coastal Zone Management Plans.
(3) State and local wetland and floodplain management plans.
(4) Coastal Barriers Resources Act, as amended.
(5) .Habitat conservation planning under section 10(a)(1)(B), recovery plans,
and recovery actions, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
(6) State water quality standards.
F. Service Reviews should be Total and Comprehensive.
(1) EIS reviews should include consideration of total, long-term
ecological impacts, including any direct and secondary (or indirect)
impacts. Also, Service reviewers should consider any cumulative effects,
or possible project segmentation which could mask cumulative effects.
(2) The Service should provide consistent positions. Do not contradict
earlier statements unless project alternatives, impacts, or conditions have
substantially changed; or significant new data are available. Any
significant change in Service position must be substantiated (justified) in
writing.
(3) Service reviews must represent the views of all Service program areas.
Any uncompleted or unresolved reviews or consultations under other statutes
must be indicated/summarized in the Service's comments.
3.4 Comments on Draft EISs. The Service should review and comment on an
agency's draft EIS to ensure that fish and wildlife resources are
adequately considered in their programs and plans. A sample DOI letter