Opinion ID: 3050627
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fuels Categorical Exclusion

Text: The Forest Service developed the Fuels CE in response to the Healthy Forests Initiative, announced by President Bush on August 22, 2002. National Environmental Policy Act Documentation Needed for Fire Management Activities; Categorical Exclusions, 67 Fed. Reg. 77038, 77039 (Dec. 16, 2002) (codified at Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, ch. 30, § 31.2 (10) (2004) (hereinafter, “FSH”)). The Healthy Forests Initiative directed “the Departments of Agriculture and Interior and the Council on Environmental Quality to improve regulatory processes to ensure more timely decisions, greater efficiency, and better results in reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires by restoring forest health.” Id. The Healthy Forests Initiative was prompted by the year 2000 fire season, which was one of the worst in 50 years, with 123,000 fires burning more than 8.4 million acres, more than twice the 10-year national average. Id. The Deputy Chief of the Forest Service announced on September 11, 2002, his intention to establish a categorical exclusion for fuels reduction activities on national forests, and requested data regarding fuels treatment projects from all Regional Foresters. The data call generated for the Fuels CE surveyed 2,500 hazardous fuels reduction and rehabilitation/ stabilization projects involving treatment of more than 2,500,000 acres. On December 16, 2002, the Forest Service gave public notice of and requested comment on the proposed Fuels CE. 67 Fed. Reg. at 77038. The Forest Service received 39,000 comments on the Fuels CE, National Environmental Policy Act Documentation Needed for Fire Management Activities; Categorical Exclusions, 68 Fed. Reg. 33814, 15934 SIERRA CLUB v. BOSWORTH 33815 (June 5, 2003), and published the final Fuels CE on June 5, 2003, id. at 33814. The Fuels CE is designed to reduce and thin hazardous fuels, which are “combustible vegetation (live or dead), such as grass, leaves, ground litter, plants shrubs, and trees, that contribute to the threat of ignition and high fire intensity and/ or high rate of spread.” 67 Fed. Reg. at 77040. “Hazardous fuels reduction involves manipulation, including combustion or removal of fuels, to reduce the likelihood of ignition and/ or to lessen potential damage to the ecosystem from intense wildfire and to create conditions where firefighters can safely and effectively control wildfires.” Id. at 77040-41. The Fuels CE encompasses “[h]azardous 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.” FSH § 1909.15, ch. 30, §31.2 (10).1 Any project proposed under 1 The complete hazardous fuels reduction category is, as follows: [h]azardous 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:

(2) Condition Classes 2 or 3 in Fire Regime Groups I, II, or III, outside the wildland-urban interface; b. Shall be identified through a collaborative framework as described in “A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and Environment 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan”; c. Shall be conducted consistent with agency and Departmental procedures and applicable land and resource management plans; d. Shall not be conducted in wilderness areas or impair the suitability of wilderness study areas for preservation as wilderness; and SIERRA CLUB v. BOSWORTH 15935 the Fuels CE requires a project file and decision memo, consisting of a description of the categorically excluded project, the reasons for invoking the CE, a finding that no extraordinary circumstances exist, and a description of the public involvement. Id. The Fuels CE calls for projects to be identified and prioritized under the Secretary of the Interior and the United States Department of Agriculture’s (“USDA”) “10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan.”2 67 Fed. Reg. at 77042. The 10-Year Plan calls for collaboration at the local, tribal, State and Federal levels, with the amount of collaboration to be “consistent with the complexity of land ownership patterns, resource management issues, and the number of interested stakeholders.” Id. The Fuels CE was preceded by another significant change to the Forest Service Handbook, the addition of language in the extraordinary circumstances section which permits an action to proceed under a CE even when a listed resource condition exists.3 Clarification of Extraordinary Circumstances e. 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. Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, ch. 30, § 31.2 (10) (2004). 2 The 10-Year Plan was developed in response to Congress’s direction in October 2000 that the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior develop a ten-year strategy for implementing the National Fire Plan, and to do so in collaboration with the states most affected by fire. See Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001, 106 Pub. L. No. 291, 114 Stat. 922, 1008-1010 (Oct. 11, 2000) (requesting agencies to prepare a strategic plan detailing their plans to use the nearly $1 billion appropriated to address wildland fire danger, and to investigate the possibility of expedited NEPA compliance procedures). 3 The previous Forest Service Handbook, adopted in 1992, required that “a proposed action may be categorically excluded from documentation in 15936 SIERRA CLUB v. BOSWORTH for Categories of Actions Excluded From Documentation in an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement, 67 Fed. Reg. 54622, 54627 (Aug. 23, 2002). Old Forest Service guidance stated that examples of extraordinary circumstances included, but were not limited to, the presence of the following factors: steep slopes or highly erosive soils; threatened and endangered species or their critical habitat; flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds; Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or National Recreation Areas; inventoried roadless areas; Research Natural Areas; and Native American religious or cultural sites, archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas. FSH § 1909.15, ch. 30, § 31.2 (2) (1992); see also Dep’t of Agric., National Environmental Policy Act; Revised Policy and Procedures, 57 Fed. Reg. 43180, 43208 (Sept. 18, 1992). Now, however, these factors are “resource conditions that should be considered” to determine whether extraordinary circumstances exist, but do not require any particular result. FSH § 1909.15, ch. 30, § 30.3 (2) (2007). The new Handbook grants the Forest Service discretion to determine when an extraordinary circumstance exists, because it provides that “the mere presence of one or more of these resource conditions does not preclude use of categorical exclusions.” Id. Whereas the old Handbook called for production of an EA when one of these conditions was present, the new guidelines call for a preliminary analysis to determine whether there exists “a cause-effect relationship between a proposed action and the potential effect on these resource conditions and [ ] if an environmental impact statement (EIS) or environmental assessment (EA) only if the proposed action . . . [i]s within a category listed in sec. 31.1b or 31.2; and there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the proposed action.” Forest Service Handbook § 1909.15.30.3(2) (1992); see also Dep’t of Agric., National Environmental Policy Act; Revised Policy and Procedures, 57 Fed. Reg. 43180, 43208 (Sept. 18, 1992). SIERRA CLUB v. BOSWORTH 15937 such a relationship exists, the degree of the potential effect of a proposed action on these resource conditions.” Id. The Forest Service developed the new “extraordinary circumstances” provision in response to “[p]ublic and employee confusion” and court decisions which had interpreted the previous rules to require preparation of an EIS whenever any condition was present. See 67 Fed. Reg. at 54623-24; see also Jones v. Gordon, 792 F.2d 821, 828 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that because the elements of the extraordinary circumstances provision were in the disjunctive, “if any of the elements is present, the Service must prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement”).