1062 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service 

RIN 0596–AB86

National Environmental Policy Act 

Documentation Needed for 

Developing, Revising, or Amending 

Land Management Plans; Categorical 

Exclusion

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of proposed National 

Environmental Policy Act implementing 

procedures; request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, is 

requesting comment on a proposed 

revision to its procedures for 

implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) regulations. This proposed 

revision is being made to Forest Service 

Handbook 1909.15, Chapter 30, which 

describes categorical exclusions, that is, 

categories of actions that will not result 

in significant impacts on the human 

environment and which are therefore 

exempt from requirements to prepare 

further NEPA documentation absent 

extraordinary circumstances. The 

proposal would add one such category 

of actions to the agency’s NEPA 

procedures for final decisions on 

proposals to develop, amend, or revise 

land management plans that are 

comprised of five components which 

are desired conditions, objectives, 

guidelines, suitability of areas, and 

special areas for a forest.

This proposal is being published in 

conjunction with the final Forest 

Service planning regulations published 

elsewhere in this part of today’s Federal 

Register. Public comment is invited and 

will be considered in development of 

the final procedure.

DATES: Comments must be received in 

writing by March 7, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments by 

mail to: Content Analysis Team, ATTN: 

Planning CE, USDA Forest Service, P.O. 

Box 22777, Salt Lake City, UT 84122; by 

facsimile to 801–517–1015; or by e-mail 

at planningce@fs.fed.us. Please note that 

the Forest Service will not be able to 

receive hand-delivered comments. If 

you intend to submit comments in 

batched e-mails from the same server, 

please be aware that electronic security 

safeguards on Forest Service and 

Department of Agriculture computer 

systems for prevention of commercial 

spamming may limit batched e-mail 

access. The Forest Service is interested 

in receiving all comments on this 

proposed rule. Therefore, please call 

(801) 517–1020 to facilitate transfer of 

comments in batched e-mail messages. 

Comments may also be submitted via 

the World Wide Web/Internet Web site 

http://www.regulations.gov. Please note 

that all comments, including names and 

addresses when provided, will be 

placed in the record and will be 

available for public inspection and 

copying. The agency cannot confirm 

receipt of comments. Individuals 

wishing to inspect comments should 

call Jody Sutton at (801) 517–1023 to 

schedule an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe 

Carbone, USDA Forest Service, 

Ecosystem Management Coordination, 

(202) 205–0884. Individuals who use 

telecommunication devices for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern 

Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History of Land Management Planning 

and NEPA Compliance 

In developing this categorical 

exclusion the Forest Service took into 

account the experience it has gained 

over the past 25 years from developing, 

amending, and revising land 

management plans; the requirements of 

NEPA and the National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA), the Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations, and the recognition by the 

Supreme Court in Ohio Forestry Ass’n v. 

Sierra Club and Norton v. Southern 

Utah Wilderness Alliance regarding the 

nature of plans themselves. The Forest 

Service has concluded that land 

management plans, plan revisions, or 

plan amendments developed under the 

final Forest Service planning rule 

published elsewhere today’s Federal 

Register comprised of five strategic 

components which do not approve 

projects or activities, do not 

individually or cumulatively result in 

significant effects on the human 

environment. The intended effect of this 

categorical exclusion is to facilitate 

efficient planning and timely 

development, amendment, or revision of 

land management plans. 

The Forest Service’s first planning 

rule published in 1979 required an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

for development of plans, significant 

amendments, and revisions. This 

requirement continued in the revised 

rule adopted in 1982. At the time, the 

Forest Service believed that a NEPA 

analysis and document prepared for a 

plan would suffice for making most 

project-level decisions. However, the 

agency came to understand that this 

approach to complying with NEPA was 

impractical, inefficient, and frequently 

inaccurate. Over the course of 

implementing NFMA during the past 25 

years, the agency has learned that 

environmental effects of projects and 

activities cannot be meaningfully 

evaluated without knowledge of the 

specific timing and location of the 

projects and activities. 

At the time of plan approval, the 

Forest Service does not have detailed 

information about what projects and 

activities will be proposed over the 

expected 15 year life of a plan, how 

many projects will be approved, where 

they will be located, or how they will 

be designed. At the point of plan 

approval, the Forest Service can only 

speculate about the projects that may be 

proposed and budgeted and the natural 

events, such as fire, flood, insects, and 

disease that may occur that will make 

uncontemplated projects necessary or 

force changes in the projects and the 

effects of projects that were 

contemplated. Indeed, the Forest 

Service has learned that over the life of 

a plan it must deal with the unexpected 

and will face numerous situations 

where analyses contained in the EISs 

that accompanied the plan can not be 

relied upon when considering specific 

projects and activities. 

In the course of completing NEPA 

analyses and documentation on the first 

generation of NFMA plans, the Forest 

Service also became more aware of the 

difficulties of scale created by the size 

of the national forests and grasslands. 

The National Forest System includes 

192 million acres, and individual 

planning units, such as the Tongass 

National Forest, may be as large as 17 

million acres. These vast landscapes 

contain an enormous variety of different 

ecosystems which will respond 

differently to the same management 

practices. As the Committee of 

Scientists said on page 26 of the 

Committee of Scientists Report:

Because of the wide variation in sitespecific practices and local environmental 

conditions (e.g., vegetation type, topography, 

geology, and soils) across a given national 

forest or rangeland, the direct and indirect 

effects of management practices may not 

always be well understood or easily 

predicted. (Committee of Scientists Report, 

March 15, 1999, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Washington, DC 193 p.)

Secretary Glickman named the 

Committee of Scientists (COS) on 

December 11, 1997. The charter for the 

COS states that the Committee’s purpose 

is to provide scientific and technical 

advice to the Secretary of Agriculture 

and the Chief of the Forest on 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Notices 1063

improvements that can be made in the 

National Forest System Land and 

Resource Management Planning 

Process. 

Forest Service experience confirmed 

the conclusion in the COS report, 

quoted above showing that it is usually 

infeasible to do meaningful 

environmental analysis for a national 

forest as a whole that is sufficiently site 

specific to allow projects to be carried 

out without further detailed NEPA 

analysis after the plan has been 

approved. 

Even after completing an EIS for 

specific land management plans, the 

agency has found itself preparing much 

more extensive NEPA analysis and 

documentation for specific projects than 

it had anticipated when it adopted the 

1979 and 1982 planning rules. 

Moreover, the extensive changes to 

conditions in the plan area that have 

occurred during the life of each plan, 

including unforeseen natural events 

such as fires and floods, have made it 

increasingly impractical to tier projectlevel NEPA analysis and documentation 

to the plan EIS. The requirements of the 

1979 and 1982 planning rules that 

created an inefficient and ineffective 

system for complying with NEPA. 

The 2000 planning rule continued to 

require an EIS for plan development or 

revision notwithstanding concerns 

raised by the Committee of Scientists. 

The Committee of Scientists said on 

page 117 of the Committee of Scientists 

Report:

Perhaps the most difficult problem is that 

the current EA/EIS process assumes a onetime decision. The very essence of smalllandscape planning is an adaptive 

management approach, based upon 

monitoring and learning. Although smalllandscape planning can more readily do realtime cumulative effects analysis * * *, this 

kind of analysis is difficult to integrate with 

a one-time decision approach. Developing a 

decision disclosure and review process that 

is ongoing and uses monitoring information 

to adjust or change treatments and activities 

will need to be a high priority * * *. 

(Committee of Scientists Report, March 15, 

1999, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Washington, DC 193 p.)

In addition to concern about timely 

and accurate disclosure of 

environmental effects, the agency’s 

experience with planning has 

demonstrated the need to clarify what 

plans, in fact, actually do. Neither the 

1982 nor the 2000 planning rule clearly 

described or contrasted the differences 

between the effects of plans and the 

effects of projects and activities. This 

has been confusing to the public and 

agency employees. Plan components 

have not been applied or interpreted 

consistently throughout the agency, and 

often have been characterized as final 

decisions or actions, rather than 

guidance for projects and activities over 

time. 

The new 2004 planning rule 

(published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register) clarifies that plans will 

generally be strategic rather than 

prescriptive in nature. Plans will have 

five principal components—desired 

conditions, objectives, guidelines, 

suitability of areas and special areas. 

These five components set aspirational 

goals and general guidance for land 

management. They provide flexibility in 

implementation based on changing 

conditions. They do not result in 

specific on-the-ground action.

Desired conditions are the social, 

economic, and ecological attributes 

toward which management of the land 

and resources of the plan area is to be 

directed. Desired conditions are longterm in nature and aspirational, but are 

neither commitments nor final decisions 

approving projects and activities. 

Objectives are concise projections of 

intended outcomes of projects and 

activities to contribute to maintenance 

or achievement of desired conditions. 

Objectives are measurable and timespecific and, like desired conditions, are 

aspirational, but are neither 

commitments nor final decisions 

approving projects and activities. 

Guidelines provide information and 

guidance for the design of projects and 

activities to help achieve objectives and 

desired conditions. Guidelines are not 

commitments or final decisions 

approving projects and activities. 

Suitability of areas is the 

identification of the general suitability 

of an area in an NFS unit for a variety 

of uses. The identification of an area as 

generally suitable for a use or uses is 

neither a commitment nor a decision 

approving activities and uses. 

Special areas are areas within the 

National Forest System designated 

because of their unique or special 

characteristics. The Responsible Official 

in approving a plan, plan amendment, 

or plan revision may designate special 

areas such as botanical areas or 

significant caves. Such designations are 

not final decisions approving projects 

and activities. Plans also may recognize 

special areas designated by statute or 

through a separate administrative 

process. 

While plans will identify the general 

suitability of lands for various uses, they 

typically will not result in final 

decisions on suitable uses with 

accompanying environmental effects. 

Such decisions will occur, if 

appropriate, at the time of project 

approval. Plan objectives, guidelines, 

suitable uses, and special area 

identifications will be designed to 

inform and guide projects and activities, 

so they will more effectively help to 

achieve the desired conditions. 

Decisions approving actions with 

environmental effects that can be 

meaningfully evaluated typically will be 

made when projects or activities are 

designed and approved. In essence, a 

plan simply is a description of a vision 

for the future that, coupled with 

evaluation, provides a starting point for 

project and activity NEPA analysis. 

Therefore, approval of a plan, plan 

amendment, or plan revision typically 

will not have environmental effects that 

can be meaningfully evaluated at the 

time of the plan decision. 

The formulation of plans under the 

final rule as strategic rather than 

prescriptive is further evident in the five 

components of plans under the final 

rule. As described above, none of the 

five components is intended to directly 

dictate on the ground decisions that 

have impacts on the environment. 

Rather, they provide for project and 

activity decisions. 

Statutory and Regulatory Direction and 

Case Law 

NFMA requires the Secretary of 

Agriculture to determine how to comply 

with NEPA during the course of NFMA 

planning. Section 106 (g)(1) of NFMA 

directs the Secretary to specify in land 

management regulations procedures to 

insure that plans are prepared in 

accordance with NEPA, including 

direction on when and for what plans 

an EIS is required (16 U.S.C. 1604 

(g)(1)). The CEQ regulations direct 

Federal agencies to adopt procedures 

that designate major decision points for 

the agency’s principal programs likely 

to have a significant effect on the human 

environment and to assure that the 

NEPA process corresponds with them 

(40 CFR 1505.1(b)). 

Under NEPA and the CEQ regulations, 

an EIS is required for every report or 

recommendation on proposals for 

legislation and other major Federal 

actions significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment (16 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq., 40 CFR 1502.3). The 

CEQ regulations explain that a 

‘‘proposal’’ that can trigger the 

requirement for an EIS exists ‘‘at that 

stage in the development of an action 

when an agency subject to the Act has 

a goal and is actively preparing to make 

a decision on one or more alternative 

means of accomplishing that goal and 

the effects can be meaningfully 

evaluated’’ (40 CFR 1508.23). 

CEQ regulations explain that ‘‘Federal 

actions’’ generally tend to fall within 

1064 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Notices 

several categories. Although these 

categories include adoption of formal 

agency plans within the definition of 

‘‘Federal action’’, not all Federal actions 

are major Federal actions. As applied to 

the final rule, land management plans 

under the 2004 planning rule, as 

evidenced by their five components, are 

strategic and aspirational in nature and 

generally will not include decisions 

with on-the-ground effects that can be 

meaningfully evaluated and thus 

generally will not be ‘‘major Federal 

actions.’’ During plan development, 

amendment or revision, the agency 

generally is not at the stage in National 

Forest planning of proposing actions to 

accomplish the goals in land 

management plans. Proposals for 

actions with effects that can be 

meaningfully evaluated, and which may 

be significant, generally are made at the 

project and activity stage. While a plan 

expresses desired conditions, goals, and 

objectives, the Forest Service does not 

actively prepare to make a decision on 

an action aimed at achieving desired 

conditions, goals, or objectives except in 

extraordinary circumstances, such as 

when the agency proposes projects and 

activities in connection with the plan 

adoption or revision. Thus, the decision 

to adopt, amend, or revise a plan is 

typically not the point in the 

decisionmaking process at which the 

agency is proposing an action likely to 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment.

The approach in this final rule is 

consistent with the nature of Forest 

Service land management plans 

acknowledged in Ohio Forestry Ass’n v. 

Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726 (1998). In 

Ohio Forestry, the Supreme Court held 

that the timber management provisions 

of land management plans are tools for 

further agency planning and guide, but 

do not direct, future management. When 

considering the role of land 

management plans with respect to 

timber harvesting, the Supreme Court 

explained that:

Although the Plan sets logging goals, 

selects the areas of the forest that are suited 

to timber production, and determines which 

‘‘probable methods of timber harvest’’ are 

appropriate, it does not itself authorize the 

cutting of any trees. Before the Forest Service 

can permit the logging, it must: (a) Propose 

a specific area in which logging will take 

place and the harvesting methods to be used; 

(b) ensure that the project is consistent with 

the Plan; (c) provide those affected by 

proposed logging notice and an opportunity 

to be heard; (d) conduct an environmental 

analysis pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, to 

evaluate the effects of the specific project and 

to contemplate alternatives; and (e) 

subsequently make a final decision to permit 

logging, which affected persons may 

challenge in an administrative appeals 

process and in court.

The Supreme Court repeated its 

characterization of analogous plan 

decisions as strategic without any 

immediate on the ground impact in the 

recent SUWA decision: Norton v. 

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 124 

S. Ct. 2373, 2382 (2004). The Supreme 

Court again observed that ‘‘land use 

plans are a preliminary step in the 

overall process of managing public 

lands—‘designed to guide and control 

future management actions and the 

development of subsequent, more 

detailed and limited scope plans for 

resources and uses.’ ’’ In addition, ‘‘a 

land use plan is not ordinarily the 

medium for affirmative decisions that 

implement the agency’s ‘project[ion]s’ ’’

(542 U.S. 13 (2004)). 

Under the Final Rule, plans will 

continue to be strategic in nature, as 

described by the Supreme Court in Ohio 

Forestry and SUWA. As described 

above, the five elements of a plan under 

the planning rule do not authorize sitespecific decisions, but rather 

characterize general future conditions 

and guidance for such decisions. Only 

in extraordinary circumstances will 

project and activity decisions be 

implemented at the time of a plan 

adoption or amendment. 

In accordance with NFMA, NEPA, 

and the CEQ regulations, the final 

planning rule at 36 CFR part 219 et seq.

will ensure that Forest Service NEPA 

analysis and documentation will be 

timed to coincide with meaningful 

stages in agency planning and 

decisionmaking. The planning rule 

emphasizes the clear distinction 

between the adoption or amendment of 

a plan with projects and activities 

having on-the-ground environmental 

effects. In the planning rule, the 

Department clarifies the nature of 

National Forest land management plans, 

and based on the nature of plans, 

specifies which plans, plan 

amendments and plan revisions may be 

categorically excluded from NEPA 

documentation and which may require 

an EIS or an EA. 

Land management plans are strategic 

and aspirational in nature, a reality 

reinforced by the final planning rule. 

Absent extraordinary circumstances, 

plans under the new planning rule will 

not contain final decisions that approve 

projects and activities. Desired 

conditions and objectives are not 

commitments or final decisions 

approving projects and activities in the 

plan area. Guidelines, which are 

intended to provide guidance for project 

design and implementation, have no 

influence until they are applied in a 

project or activity and are not 

commitments or decisions approving 

projects and activities. The 

identification of an area as generally 

suitable for a use is not a commitment 

or decision approving projects and 

activities. Any proposed use in an area 

identified as suitable for that use must 

be considered under agency NEPA 

procedures at the time of a project 

decision. Special areas may be 

designated by statute or through plan 

development, plan amendment, or plan 

revision or a separate administrative 

process under NEPA and other 

applicable laws. 

When a project or activity is proposed 

in connection with a plan adoption, the 

agency will look at whether the project 

or activity itself warrants further nepa 

analysis. Some proposed projects may 

themselves fall within another 

categorical exclusion. In other instances, 

the agency will examine the effect of the 

project on resource conditions, as it 

would in considering any other project, 

in deciding whether an EA or EIS is 

appropriate. 

In summary, none of these plan 

components is permanent or final, in 

that all are subject to reconsideration 

and change through plan amendment or 

plan revision at any time and all 

provide flexibility to respond to on-theground conditions and changing 

circumstances. Should a Responsible 

Official nevertheless choose to include 

projects or activities within the context 

of a plan, plan revision, or plan 

amendment, extraordinary 

circumstances may be present such that 

an EIS or an EA may be required. 

The Proposed Categorical Exclusion 

The CEQ regulations (40 CFR parts 

1500–1508) require that each agency 

establish specific criteria for and 

identification of three types of actions: 

(1) Those that normally require 

preparation of an environmental impact 

statement (EIS); (2) those that normally 

require the preparation of an 

environmental assessment (EA); and (3) 

those that normally do not require either 

an EA or EIS because they ‘‘do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment’’ (40 CFR 1508.4). Actions 

qualifying for this third type of action 

are defined as categorical exclusions 

because they do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant impact 

on the human environment; therefore, 

neither an environmental assessment 

nor an environmental impact statement 

is required (40 CFR 1508.4). 

A categorical exclusion is not an 

exemption from the requirements of 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Notices 1065

NEPA. Categorical exclusions are an 

essential part of NEPA that provide a 

categorical determination that certain 

actions do not result in significant 

impacts, eliminating the need for 

individual analyses and lengthier 

documentation for those actions. 

CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1500.4(p), 

1507.3 and 1508.4 direct agencies to use 

categorical exclusions to define 

categories of actions which do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment and do not require the 

preparation of an environmental 

assessment or an environmental impact 

statement, thereby reducing excessive 

paperwork. Current Forest Service 

procedures for complying with and 

implementing NEPA are set out in 

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15. 

Categorical exclusions are set forth in 

chapter 30 of the FSH. The categorical 

exclusion proposed in this notice would 

require four changes in the chapter 30.

1. A category would be added to 

section 31.2 that would allow 

development, amendment, and revision 

of plan components, or portions thereof, 

to be categorically excluded unless 

extraordinary circumstances exist. 

2. A paragraph would be added to 

section 30.3 to define the extraordinary 

circumstances pertinent to the new 

category. It would specify that the 

inclusion of a project or activity 

decision in a plan component may 

constitute an extraordinary 

circumstance. 

3. A paragraph would be added to 

section 30.3 to clarify that the extensive 

public participation requirements in the 

land management planning regulations 

at 36 CFR 219.9 are sufficient to satisfy 

the scoping requirements currently 

included in section 30.3. 

4. A paragraph would be added to 

section 30.2 to clarify that the plan 

approval document required by the land 

management planning regulations at 36 

CFR 219.7(c) is sufficient to satisfy the 

decision memo requirements of chapter 

30. 

The Department emphasizes that 

project or activity decisions are 

generally not appropriate for inclusion 

in a plan level document. Rather, 

experience has shown that including 

project and activity decisionmaking in 

planning has actually delayed the 

planning and project and activity 

processes without improving natural 

resource management or public 

participation. Thus, by sharpening the 

distinction between planning and 

project and activity decisions, the 

Department expects both better 

planning decisions and more useful and 

timely environmental analysis for 

project and activity decisionmaking. 

Regulatory Certifications 

Environmental Impact 

This proposed categorical exclusion 

would add direction to guide employees 

in the USDA Forest Service regarding 

requirements for National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

documentation for land management 

planning activities. 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. 

Agencies are required to adopt NEPA 

procedures that establish specific 

criteria for, and identification of, three 

classes of actions: those that require 

preparation of an environmental impact 

statement; those that require preparation 

of an environmental assessment; and 

those that are categorically excluded 

from further NEPA review (40 CFR 

1507.3(b)). Categorical exclusions are 

one part of those agency procedures, 

and therefore establishing categorical 

exclusions does not require preparation 

of a NEPA analysis or document. 

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. The 

requirements for establishing agency 

NEPA procedures are set forth at 40 CFR 

1505.1 and 1507.3. The USDA Forest 

Service is providing an opportunity for 

public review and consulted with the 

Council on Environmental Quality 

during the development of this 

categorical exclusion. The 

determination that establishing 

categorical exclusions does not require 

NEPA analysis and documentation has 

been upheld in Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S. 

Forest Service, 73 F. Supp. 2d 962, 972–

73 (S.D. Ill. 1999), aff’d, 230 F.3d 947, 

954–55 (7th Cir. 2000). 

Regulatory Impact 

This proposed categorical exclusion 

has been reviewed under USDA 

procedures and Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review. It has 

been determined that this is not an 

economically significant action. This 

action to issue agency direction will not 

have an annual effect of $100 million or 

more on the economy nor adversely 

affect productivity, competition, jobs, 

the environment, public health or 

safety, nor State or local governments. 

This action will not interfere with an 

action taken or planned by another 

agency. Finally, this action will not alter 

the budgetary impact of entitlements, 

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 

rights and obligations of recipients of 

such programs. 

Moreover, the proposed categorical 

exclusion has been considered in light 

of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and it is hereby 

certified that the proposed categorical 

exclusion will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities as defined by 

the act because it will not impose 

record-keeping requirements on them; it 

will not affect their competitive position 

in relation to large entities; and will not 

affect their cash flow, liquidity, or 

ability to remain in the market. 

Federalism 

The agency has considered this 

proposed categorical exclusion under 

the requirements of Executive Order 

13132, Federalism, and has concluded 

that it conforms with the federalism 

principles set out in this Executive 

Order; will not impose any compliance 

costs on the States; and will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States or 

the relationship between the National 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, the 

agency has determined that no further 

assessment of federalism implications is 

necessary. 

Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13175 of 

November 6, 2000, ‘‘Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments,’’ the agency has assessed 

the impact of this categorical exclusion 

on Indian tribal governments and has 

determined that the categorical 

exclusion does not significantly or 

uniquely affect communities of Indian 

tribal governments. The categorical 

exclusion deals with requirements for 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) documentation for land 

management planning activities and, as 

such, has no direct effect regarding the 

occupancy and use of NFS land. 

The agency has also determined that 

this categorical exclusion does not 

impose substantial direct compliance 

cost on Indian tribal governments. This 

categorical exclusion does not mandate 

tribal participation in NFS planning. 

Rather, the agency planning rule, with 

which this categorical exclusion is 

associated, imposes an obligation on 

Forest Service officials to consult early 

with tribal governments and to work 

1066 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Notices 

cooperatively with them where 

planning issues affect tribal interests.

No Takings Implications 

This proposed categorical exclusion 

has been analyzed in accordance with 

the principles and criteria contained in 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights, and it has been determined that 

the proposed categorical exclusion does 

not pose the risk of a taking of 

Constitutionally protected private 

property. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This categorical exclusion has been 

reviewed under Executive Order 12988 

of February 7, 1996, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform.’’ The agency has not identified 

any State or local laws or regulations 

that are in conflict with this regulation 

or that would impede full 

implementation of this categorical 

exclusion. Nevertheless, in the event 

that such a conflict was to be identified, 

the categorical exclusion would 

preempt State or local laws or 

regulations found to be in conflict. 

However, in that case, (1) no retroactive 

effect would be given to this categorical 

exclusion; and (2) the categorical 

exclusion does not require the use of 

administrative proceedings before 

parties may file suit in court challenging 

its provisions. 

Unfunded Mandates 

Pursuant to title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538), which the President signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, the agency 

has assessed the effects of this proposed 

categorical exclusion on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. This proposed categorical 

exclusion does not compel the 

expenditure of $100 million or more by 

any State, local, or tribal government or 

anyone in the private sector. Therefore, 

a statement under section 202 of the act 

is not required. 

Energy Effects 

This proposed categorical exclusion 

has been reviewed under Executive 

Order 13211, Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. It 

has been determined that this proposed 

categorical exclusion does not constitute 

a significant energy action as defined in 

the Executive order. 

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the 

Public 

This proposed categorical exclusion 

does not contain any additional record 

keeping or reporting requirements or 

other information collection 

requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 

1320 that are not already required by 

law or not already approved for use, and 

therefore, imposes no additional 

paperwork burden on the public. 

Accordingly, the review provisions of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and its 

implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 

1320 do not apply.

Dated: December 22, 2004. 

Dale N. Bosworth, 

Chief.

Note: The Forest Service organizes its 

directive system by alphanumeric codes and 

subject headings. Only those sections of the 

Forest Service Handbook that are the subject 

of this notice are set out here. Reviewers 

wishing to review the entire chapter 30 may 

obtain a copy electronically from the Forest 

Service’s directives Web site on the World 

Wide Web/Internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/

im/directives/.

Forest Service Handbook 

1909.15—Environmental Policy and 

Procedures Handbook 

Chapter 30—Categorical Exclusion From 

Documentation

* * * * *

30.3—Policy 

Redesignate existing paragraphs 3 and 4 as 

paragraphs 4 and 6 and add new paragraphs 

3 and 5 as follows:

* * * * *

3. Development, revision, or amendment of 

land management plans or components, or 

portions thereof, that propose projects or 

activities may constitute an extraordinary 

circumstance. The degree of the effect of the 

project or activity on resource conditions, 

rather than the mere presence of resource 

conditions, determines whether further 

analysis and documentation in an EA or EIS 

is required.

* * * * *

5. If the proposed action is approval of a 

land management plan, plan amendment, or 

plan revision, the public participation 

requirements of 36 CFR 219.9 satisfy the 

scoping requirement of paragraph 4 of this 

section.

* * * * *

31.2—Categories of Actions for Which a 

Project or Case File and Decision Memo Are 

Required 

Add a new paragraph 16 as follows:

* * * * *

16. Development, revision, or amendment 

of land management plan components, or 

portions thereof, pursuant to 36 CFR part 219 

et seq., except where extraordinary 

circumstances exist as defined in section 30.3 

paragraph 3.

* * * * *

32.2—Decision Memo Required 

Add the following as a third unnumbered 

paragraph:

* * * * *

If the proposed action is approval of a land 

management plan, plan amendment, or plan 

revision, the plan approval document 

required by 36 CFR 219.7(c) satisfies the 

decision memo requirements of this chapter.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 05–22 Filed 1–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P