24 C.F.R. § 58.15

Tiering

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Responsible entities may tier their environmental reviews and assessments to eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues at subsequent levels of review. Tiering is appropriate when there is a requirement to evaluate a policy or proposal in the early stages of development or when site-specific analysis or mitigation is not currently feasible and a more narrow or focused analysis is better done at a later date. The site specific review need only reference or summarize the issues addressed in the broader review. The broader review should identify and evaluate those issues ripe for decision and exclude those issues not relevant to the policy, program or project under consideration. The broader review should also establish the policy, standard or process to be followed in the site specific review. The Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the broader assessment shall include a summary of the assessment and identify the significant issues to be considered in site specific reviews. Subsequent site-specific reviews will not require notices or a Request for Release of Funds unless the Certifying Officer determines that there are unanticipated impacts or impacts not adequately addressed in the prior review. A tiering approach can be used for meeting environmental review requirements in areas designated for special focus in local Consolidated Plans. Local and State Governments are encouraged to use the Consolidated Plan process to facilitate environmental reviews.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1979–1982 · leading case: Monarch Chem. Works, Inc. v. Exon, 466 F. Supp. 639 (D. Neb. 1979).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Monarch Chem. Works, Inc. v. Exon, 466 F. Supp. 639 (D. Neb. 1979). · cites it 2× “The City’s decision, taken as a whole, parallels in form the document that would be circulated subsequent to an updated environmental review under 24 C.F.R. § 58.15 (1978). Cost-Benefit Analysis The plaintiff points out the failure of the City to engage in a detailed…”

Maria Mejia v. The United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., & City of Chicago, 688 F.2d 529 (7th Cir. 1982). · cites it 3× “24 C.F.R. § 58.15 . Plaintiffs allege that the City’s environmental review failed to comply with the NEPA’s procedural requirements or to examine, in a meaningful way, whether the Project would have any adverse environmental impacts.”

Young v. Harris, 599 F.2d 870 (8th Cir. 1979). “24 C.F.R. § 58.15 (a). In 1976, the city prepared its environmental assessment of its Community Block Grant-assisted activities, and concluded that they did not constitute action which would significantly affect the human environment.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.