Both the EIS and Section 106 processes are being undertaken at an early stage in the NMAAHC’s development, prior to the design phase. One benefit of this timing is that the EIS alternatives and analysis of associated effects on environmental and historic resources can inform the future design. One limitation is that it is difficult to definitively identify effects and mitigations to certain resources in the project area without a more developed or precise design. As a result, the Smithsonian Institution has elected to adopt a tiered EIS process.
What is a tiered EIS?
If a Federal Agency anticipates that the proposed project’s timeline will extend over a lengthy period and will require a phased decision making process, a Federal Agency may choose to identify elements to be carried forward in the near term and identify other elements which will warrant more detailed study in a future environmental document. CEQ Section 1502.20 states that:
Agencies are encouraged to tier their environmental impact statements to eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and to focus on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review (Sec. 1508.28). Whenever a broad environmental impact statement has been prepared… and a subsequent statement or environmental assessment is then prepared on an action included within the entire program or policy (such as a site specific action) the subsequent statement or environmental assessment need only summarize the issues discussed in the broader statement… and shall concentrate on the issues specific to the subsequent action. The subsequent document shall state where the earlier document is available (CEQ, 1978).
How will the Tiered Process work for this project?
As the NEPA and NHPA efforts precede definitive programming and architectural design, the Smithsonian Institution and its NEPA Joint-Lead, NCPC, elected to adopt a two-tiered NEPA process.
The first tier EIS analyzes the potential effects of schematic massing alternatives on the natural and manmade environments including cultural resources, aesthetic/visual resources, groundwater and surface water resources, air quality, noise, transportation, land use, visitor use, communities & businesses, infrastructure and utility services, and public health and security. The alternatives evaluated in Tier 1 are distinguished from each other by their respective massing, height and setback and are described in the DEIS. There will be a second tier EA or EIS that will analyze the effects of specific designs implementing at least one of the alternatives on visual and aesthetic resources, and any other significant effect found to be important to the final decision.
To download the letter describing the terms of the tiered EIS process from the Smithsonian Institution to NCPC, click here.
To download the NCPC response, click here.
To download the handout the described theTier 1 and Tier 2 Elements, click here.