National Environmental Policy Act Documentation Needed for Developing, Revising, or Amending Land Management Plans; Categorical Exclusion, 75481-75495 [E6-21370]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 241 (Friday, December 15, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75481-75495]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-21370]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Final directive.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Forest Service is revising procedures for implementing the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Council on Environmental 
Quality (CEQ) regulations. The procedures are being revised through 
issuance of a final directive that amends Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 
1909.15, chapter 30. This chapter describes categorical exclusions; 
that is, categories of actions which do not individually or 
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and 
therefore, normally do not require further analysis and documentation 
in either an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact 
statement (EIS). The amendment adds one such category of actions to the 
Agency's NEPA procedures for final decisions on proposals to develop, 
amend, or revise land management plans.

DATES: Effective Date: This amendment is effective December 15, 2006

ADDRESSES: The new Forest Service categorical exclusion is set out in 
FSH 1909.15, chapter 30, which is available electronically via the 
World Wide Web/Internet at https://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives. Single 
paper copies are available by contacting Anthony Erba, Forest Service, 
USDA, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff (Mail Stop 1104), 1400 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1104. Additional 
information and analysis can be found at https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Erba, USDA Forest Service, 
Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff, (202) 205-0895. 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:

Background

    On January 5, 2005, the Forest Service published the 2005 planning 
rule (70 FR 1023) establishing procedures for National Forest System 
compliance with the NFMA. That planning rule provided that approval of 
a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision may be categorically excluded 
from National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation in 
accordance with Forest Service NEPA procedures. On the same date, the 
Forest Service published a proposed amendment to its NEPA procedures to 
provide for such a categorical exclusion. Specifically, the categorical 
exclusion proposed on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 1062) would require four 
changes in chapter 30 of FSH 1909.15.
    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 32.2 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.
    In response to comments on the proposed categorical exclusion and 
to clarify meaning, three revisions were made to the original proposal 
as follows.
    1. The wording of the category to be added to section 31.2 was 
changed to remove the phrase ``except where extraordinary circumstances 
exist'' because the phrase is not necessary. The following wording was 
added to further clarify the actions that meet this category's 
definition: ``that provide broad guidance and information for project 
and activity decision-making in a National Forest System unit.'' 
Consistent with the Supreme Court decision in Ohio Forestry Ass'n v. 
Sierra

[[Page 75482]]

Club (523 U.S. 726 (1998)), the Agency further refined the category by 
adding language stating that ``[p]roposals for actions that approve 
projects and activities, or that command anyone to refrain from 
undertaking projects and activities, or that grant, withhold or modify 
contracts, permits or other formal legal instruments'' are outside the 
scope of this category. The Agency also added that such proposals for 
action shall be considered separately under Forest Service NEPA 
procedures.''
    2. The paragraph to be added to section 30.3 defining the 
extraordinary circumstances pertinent to the new category for land 
management plans was deleted. The Agency added wording to the existing 
paragraph 2 further clarifying when extraordinary circumstances exist. 
This definition of extraordinary circumstances applies to any proposed 
action, including proposals to develop, amend, or revise land 
management plans. The added wording makes it clear that there must be a 
cause-effect relationship between the proposed action and any potential 
effects to the listed resources, and if such a relationship exists, the 
degree of the effect resulting from the cause-effect relationship 
determines whether extraordinary circumstances exist: ``The mere 
presence of one or more of these resource conditions does not preclude 
use of a categorical exclusion. It is (1) The existence of a cause-
effect relationship between a proposed action and the potential effect 
on these resource conditions and (2) if such a relationship exists, it 
is the degree of the potential effect of a proposed action on these 
resource conditions that determines whether extraordinary circumstances 
exist.''
    A final decision on a proposed action is viewed as causing effects 
on the resources listed in section 30.3(2) when effects may occur 
without additional action by the agency other than routine 
administrative actions implementing the decision. For projects and 
activities, the final decision point is typically the decision to 
approve the project or activity, typically accompanied by a final 
environmental impact statement, environmental assessment, or 
categorical exclusion determination. There would normally be a ``cause-
effect relationship'' between the project or activity and the 
environmental impacts. For example, there would normally be a ``cause-
effect relationship'' between the decision to approve a timber sale and 
the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on the environment of the 
timber sale project.
    However, for land management plans developed under the 2005 
planning rule, a cause-effect relationship of this nature typically 
does not exist. For example, to establish a ``cause-effect 
relationship'' for a land management plan, plan revision, or plan 
amendment, it is not sufficient to find that one or more plan 
components increase or decrease the likelihood of effects from future 
actions on one of the resources listed in section 30.3(2). Rather, it 
is necessary to conclude that a plan component by itself, without 
further analysis and decision-making by the agency, will either allow 
otherwise disallowed, or prohibit otherwise unprohibited, actions by 
the agency or other parties that may have effects on the listed 
resources.
    In all cases, it is the agency's intent that the existence or non-
existence of a ``cause-effect'' relationship continues to be 
established by the professional judgment of the responsible official 
based on available information and that no statistical, mathematical, 
or other formal method of proof is required.

History

    The Forest Service is responsible for managing 192 million acres of 
national forests, national grasslands, and other areas, known 
collectively as the National Forest System (NFS). The Chief of the 
Forest Service, through a line organization of regional foresters, 
forest or grassland supervisors, and district rangers, manages the 
surface resources and, in some instances, the subsurface resources of 
those lands. Management is guided by land management plans prepared in 
accordance with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) (16 U.S.C. 
1600 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 219). The first 
implementing regulations were adopted in 1979 and revised in 1982. The 
implementing regulations adopted in 2005 replace the 1982 regulations.
    The NFMA requires the Secretary to promulgate regulations 
``specifying procedures to insure that land management plans are 
prepared in accordance with the [NEPA] including, but not limited to, 
direction on when and for what plans an environmental impact statement 
* * * shall be prepared'' (16 U.S.C. 1604 (g)(1)). In the implementing 
regulations adopted in 1979 and 1982, the Secretary required that 
environmental impact statements be prepared when developing plans, 
significant plan amendments, and plan revisions. The Forest Service 
believed this would provide a more efficient and effective overall 
planning process.
    As a means of achieving NFMA land management objectives, the 1979 
and 1982 planning rules included a requirement that the planning 
process include development of multiple alternative plans to identify 
``the alternative that comes nearest to maximizing net public benefits 
* * *'' (36 CFR 219.12(f), September 30, 1982, as amended). The Forest 
Service took the approach of requiring multiple alternatives even 
though nothing in the NFMA (or any other substantive statute directing 
management of the National Forest System) demands that the Forest 
Service develop or consider alternative management regimes or 
alternative programs when developing land management plans, plan 
amendment, or plan revisions. The NFMA alternatives were to include a 
range of resource outputs, projects and activities, and expenditure 
levels. The 1982 planning rule also established requirements for an 
``analysis of the management situation'' and ``benchmark analyses.'' 
These were used to define a range of resource production possibilities 
for various alternatives. The formulation of alternatives was intended 
to help the decision-maker maximize the use of various resources, 
consistent with the protection of other resources and objectives. The 
Forest Service believed at that time that plans were essentially a 
collection of 15 year's worth of projects.
    Both the 1979 and 1982 planning rules required that alternatives be 
compared using the range of hypothetical resource outputs that could 
occur under each alternative. Each alternative contained standards and 
guidelines that would be analyzed when applied to hypothetical projects 
and activities. Interdisciplinary teams developing plans comparatively 
analyzed the effects of plan alternatives based on forecasts and broad 
predictions of future conditions and budgets. These teams completed 
this analysis despite other factors (e.g., budget limits, changes in 
land conditions) that made it unlikely that potential output levels 
would be realized. The Forest Service essentially speculated about 
hypothetical projects and activities over a 15-year period.
    The Forest Service believed the most efficient planning approach 
was to integrate the 1982 rule's regulatory requirement to formulate 
alternatives to maximize net public benefit with the NEPA alternative 
requirement (i.e., 40 CFR 1502.14). Given the massive resources devoted 
to approving, amending, and revising plans, the Agency believed that if 
EISs were prepared at the point of developing plans, plan amendments, 
and plan revisions, those EISs also would

[[Page 75483]]

generally be sufficient for the approval of future proposed projects 
and activities. If a plan EIS was not adequate for a project or 
activity approval, the Agency believed that any additional NEPA 
analysis and documentation needed would tier to or supplement the 
analysis in the plan EIS.

Forest Service Experience With Plan-Level NEPA Under The 1982 Planning 
Rule

    As the Forest Service gained experience with land management 
planning, it became clear that the Agency view that plans were 
essentially a collection of 15 years' worth of projects and decisions 
was incorrect. Many of these hypothetical projects and activities could 
not be accurately predicted and never occurred because of circumstances 
that were beyond the control of the Agency; such as, budget levels and 
changed land conditions. The Agency also learned that this view was not 
compatible with adaptive management principles (e.g., monitoring, plan 
amendments, or plan revisions).
    Throughout the 27 years of land management planning, the Agency 
also learned that tiering from the environmental analysis in plan EISs 
did not provide nearly as much useful information at the project or 
activity level as the Agency had expected. The effects analysis in Plan 
EISs was often too general to meet analytical needs for projects and 
activities. The effects analysis conclusions did not remain current 
over the life of a plan. In addition, typically because of public input 
and litigation, the Forest Service found that additional analysis and 
documentation in EAs and EISs was still necessary for projects and 
activities. The Forest Service found itself preparing much more site-
specific NEPA documentation for projects than it had anticipated when 
it adopted the 1979 and 1982 planning rules. The relevant analysis 
typically had to be redone in a project-level NEPA analysis before 
proposals for projects and activities were approved. Meaningful 
analysis of a project's effects could not be done until the project 
design, the project location's environmental conditions, and the 
management direction applicable to the project based on the project 
design were known.
    When the Agency has attempted to rely solely on a plan EIS to 
disclose the effects for subsequent on-the-ground actions, courts 
pointed out the weaknesses associated with this strategy. For example, 
the Eldorado National Forest created an off-road vehicle (ORV) 
management plan for the forest without conducting a forest-wide 
environmental analysis, instead relying on the EIS completed for the 
1989 land management plan for the ORV plan. In Center for Sierra Nevada 
Conservation v. Berry (No. 2-02-325 LKK/JFM (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2005), 
a Federal district court concluded:

    The LRMP EIS did not analyze the programmatic environmental 
impacts of a designated-route-only ORV trail system in Eldorado, nor 
did it analyze the environmental impacts of any particular ORV 
routes in the Forest or of permitting travel off of designated 
routes * * * Therefore, the Forest Service's duty under NEPA was not 
satisfied by tiering the ORV plan to the LRMP's EIS.

    In reaching this conclusion, the district court emphasized the 
strategic nature of plans, referencing the Norton v. Southern Utah 
Wilderness Alliance, 124 S.Ct. 2373 (2004) (SUWA), case (``Such land 
use plans are `not ordinarily the medium for affirmative decisions that 
implement the Agency's projections,' rather, they guide the development 
of future, more detailed plans.'' 124 S.Ct. 2373, 2382 (2004)).
    Land management plans developed under the 2005 planning rule will 
typically be strategic and aspirational. In 1998 and 2004, the Supreme 
Court issued decisions that support the Forest Service's conclusion 
that its land management plans developed under the 2005 planning rule 
typically will not have independent environmental effects, and thus, 
will not have significant environmental effects. In Ohio Forestry Ass'n 
v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726 (1998), the Supreme Court recognized that, 
in contrast to proposals for actions that approve projects and 
activities, the land management plan provisions at issue ``do not 
command anyone to do anything or to refrain from doing anything; they 
do not grant, withhold, or modify any formal legal license, power, or 
authority; they do not subject anyone to any civil or criminal 
liability; they create no legal rights or obligations'' (523 U.S. at 
733 (1998)). In SUWA, the Supreme Court's description of the Bureau of 
Land Management's (BLM's) land use plan, developed under the Federal 
Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), is in accord with Forest 
Service land management plans developed under the 2005 planning rule. 
The Supreme Court noted that the BLM's land use plans are ``tools by 
which `present and future use is projected' * * * [and] generally a 
statement of priorities,'' 124 S.Ct. 2373 at 2382-83 (2004) (citation 
omitted; emphasis added by Supreme Court). The Court also noted that 
BLM's plans are normally not used to make site-specific implementation 
decisions.
    In 1988, even before Ohio Forestry, the Chief of the Forest Service 
established, in response to appeals on plans for the Idaho Panhandle 
and Flathead National Forests that land management planning for 
National Forest System units involves two levels of decisions: (1) 
Approval of plans or amendments and revisions to plans that provide 
frameworks for project decision-making; and (2) project or activity 
decisions. Thus, the Forest Service recognizes the distinction between 
a plan's strategic framework and project decision-making in plan and 
project documents.
    Other case law also has recognized the strategic nature of land 
management plans. In Swan View Coalition v. Turner, 824 F. Supp. 923 
(D. Mont. 1992), the court noted the nature of plans:

    [T]he Forest Plan is a broad framework for the management of a 
National Forest which does not directly commit to development. 
Allowing for additional review at each subsequent stage of 
development recognizes both the managerial purpose of a Forest Plan 
to provide mechanisms for monitoring and regulating future 
development as well as its inherent limitations in predicting what 
development will actually occur.

    Finally, other Federal agencies have recognized the strategic 
nature of broad planning documents and that meaningful analysis of 
environmental impacts of these documents is difficult, if not 
impossible. In 1986, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
(USFWS) clarified the nature of recovery plans and adopted a 
categorical exclusion for them. The USFWS determined the categorical 
exclusion was appropriate because:

    Recovery plans are broad planning documents * * * Recovery plans 
typically do not propose specific actions, but instead set forth 
general policies for management and treatment of the species. For 
these reasons, meaningful analysis of the environmental impacts of a 
recovery plan is usually difficult, if not impossible * * * In 
addition, recovery plans impose no obligations on any agency, 
entity, or persons to implement the various tasks listed in the plan 
* * * any recovery actions set forth in a recovery plan that are to 
be carried out by Federal agencies will be subjected to NEPA 
analysis at the time they actually are ``proposed'' within the 
meaning of NEPA.

(November 5, 1986 Memorandum to Regional Directors) (emphasis added). 
While the purposes of USFWS recovery plans and Forest Service land 
management plans are different, the strategic nature of the plans is 
very similar. Like USFWS recovery plans, Forest Service land management 
plans

[[Page 75484]]

typically impose no obligations on any agency, person, or entity and 
any projects or activities in the plan area will be subject to NEPA 
analysis and documentation at the time they are proposed.

Forest Service Response to Experience

    As a result of this experience under the 1979 and 1982 planning 
rules, the Forest Service made a number of changes in the 2005 planning 
rule that are pertinent to the use of a categorical exclusion for 
planning. The 2005 planning rule modified and clarified the nature of 
land management plans, emphasizing their strategic and aspirational 
nature. Plans under the 2005 planning rule will have five principal 
components: desired conditions, objectives, guidelines, suitability of 
areas, and special areas (36 CFR 219.7(a)(2)). Plans under the 2005 
rule will describe desired conditions and objectives for the plan area, 
and provide guidance for future decision-making. Plans under the 2005 
rule typically will not include proposals for actions that approve 
projects and activities, or that command anyone to refrain from 
undertaking projects and activities, or that grant, withhold or modify 
contracts, permits or other formal legal instruments. (The five 
principal components are described further in the next section of this 
preamble.)
    The planning process under the 2005 planning rule now emphasizes 
public participation and collaboration, and allows for consideration of 
plan options in an iterative fashion in which those options are 
developed and narrowed successively. The 2005 planning rule no longer 
requires the parallel development and analysis of multiple 
alternatives, and their comparison based on the analysis of projected 
and hypothetical projects and activities, to identify the alternative 
that comes nearest to maximizing ``net public benefits.''
    The 2005 planning rule creates an expectation that elements 
sometimes found in plans under the 1982 planning rule, will now be 
uncommon. The 2005 rule, together with Agency NEPA procedures, 
establishes specific requirements for those plans where these uncommon 
elements do occur. For example, plans developed under the 1982 planning 
rule sometimes included specific final decisions (such as oil and gas 
leasing) or decisions establishing specific prohibitions (such as 
decisions prohibiting motorized vehicles in certain areas). In 
contrast, plans under the 2005 planning rule typically will not include 
proposals for actions that approve or prohibit projects and activities. 
Proposals for actions that approve projects and activities, or that 
command anyone to refrain from undertaking projects and activities, or 
that grant, withhold or modify contracts, permits or other formal legal 
instruments, are outside the scope of this category for land management 
plans and will be considered separately under Forest Service NEPA 
procedures (i.e., further analysis and documentation in an EA or EIS or 
application of a categorical exclusion (e.g., proposals to repair an 
administrative site or conduct a limited timber harvest that are 
covered by categorical exclusions 3 in section 3.12 and 12 in section 
3.2 respectively)).
    Given these changes in the nature of the planning process and the 
nature of plans themselves, the Forest Service has concluded that 
actions approving, amending, or revising a land management plan under 
the 2005 planning rule that provides broad guidance and information for 
project and activity decision-making do not individually or 
cumulatively have significant effects on the human environment (40 CFR 
1508.4). Plan components typically cannot be linked in a cause-effect 
relationship over time and within a geographic area to effects on the 
human environment without proposals for actions that approve projects 
and activities, or that command anyone to refrain from undertaking 
projects and activities, or that grant, withhold or modify contracts, 
permits or other formal legal instruments. Therefore, the Forest 
Service concludes that such actions can be categorically excluded from 
analysis and documentation in an EA or EIS, absent extraordinary 
circumstances, as provided in Agency NEPA procedures. This final 
directive establishes a category for plans (i.e., Planning CE) in the 
Forest Service NEPA Handbook (FSH 1909.15).

Examples of Plan Components Under the 2005 Planning Rule

    The following 2005 planning rule plan component examples illustrate 
why future actions must be proposed before any effects on the human 
environment can be analyzed and occur. These examples demonstrate that 
the plan components under the 2005 rule generally will not approve 
projects and activities or command anyone to refrain from undertaking 
projects and activities, or grant, withhold or modify contracts, 
permits or other formal legal instruments.
    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 (36 CFR 219.7(2)(i)). The desired 
conditions illustrate how the desired landscape would look or function. 
Desired conditions will not describe the precise activities to be 
undertaken to bring the forest to those conditions. Desired conditions 
in the approved plan, plan amendment, or plan revision do not approve 
projects and activities, or command anyone to refrain from undertaking 
projects and activities, or grant, withhold or modify contracts, 
permits or other formal legal instruments. The following is an example 
of how a desired condition regarding certain vegetation and species 
habitat and recreation opportunities will be expressed under the 2005 
planning rule:

    Watersheds in this management area are dominated by oak-
grasslands. On upper slopes and ridges across this area, grasslands 
(less than 10 percent tree canopy closure) and open oak woodlands 
(10-60 percent tree canopy closure) are interspersed in variable 
mixtures. In general, tree density increases as one moves down 
slope, but densities are variable and transitions gradual. Snag and 
den tree densities average three stems per acre on a watershed 
basis. Native grasses and forbs dominate understories. Most mid and 
lower slopes have open oak forests (60-80 percent tree canopy 
closure), with understories containing oak regeneration in 
sufficient numbers to provide for sustaining oak on these sites over 
time. Multi-layered mixed hardwood mesophytic and riparian forests 
occur on lower slopes, where, because of topography and moisture, 
understory fires burn at low intensities or not at all. Within 
riparian corridors, vegetative filter strips have 80 percent total 
ground cover comprised of grasses, or forbs. In riparian areas, 
flooding is the primary disturbance factor.
    In upland portions of this management unit, diverse grass and 
grass-forb understories provide diverse and abundant herbage, seeds, 
and insects. Open canopies and the use of periodic fire create this 
understory condition. This understory condition also supports a 
diverse assemblage of wildlife. Rare species that are adapted to 
open forests and grasslands, but have declined due to land-use 
changes and the alteration of these habitats, are present and 
distributed in numbers that will provide for self-sustaining 
populations. These include Henslow's sparrow, whippoor-will, 
southern prairie aster, barbed rattlesnake-root, buffalo clover, and 
prairie parsley. Small mammals, such as deer mice (Peromyscus spp.), 
voles, and rabbits are abundant, supporting increased populations of 
predators, such as raptors, foxes, and bobcats.
    Generally unmodified natural environments characterize this area 
and users have the opportunity to experience a moderate degree of 
independence, closeness to nature, solitude, and remoteness, with 
some areas generally suitable for motorized opportunities and others 
for non-motorized opportunities. Satisfactory recreational 
experience is provided for at least 70 percent

[[Page 75485]]

of forest visitors annually, as determined from comment forms that 
show ratings of ``acceptable'' or higher. This area contributes to 
economic sustainability by providing special interest areas for 
birders, who frequently use quality outfitter guides for birding 
tours.

    This type of a description states a vision for the desired 
condition of the forest. Desired conditions provide a context for 
future proposed projects or activities. Projects and activities will be 
developed to help achieve or maintain one or more of the desired 
conditions of the plan.
    To be consistent with the plan, a future proposed project or 
activity can (1) Maintain or help achieve one or more desired future 
conditions, or (2) be neutral to relevant desired conditions. The 
statement of desired conditions will typically influence the choice and 
design of future proposed projects and activities in the plan area. The 
influence desired conditions have on the direct, indirect, and 
cumulative effects of future projects or activities is not known and 
cannot be meaningfully analyzed until such projects or activities are 
proposed by the Agency.
    Objectives are concise projections of measurable, time-specific 
intended outcomes (36 CFR 219.7(a)(2)(ii)). These outcomes typically 
result from approved projects or activities. Objectives state 
aspirations to guide the future proposed projects and activities for 
the plan area to help maintain or achieve the desired conditions. Even 
though objectives identify outcomes aimed at achieving or maintaining 
desired conditions in the plan area and time frames based on current 
and past trends of Agency capacity (i.e., budget and personnel), they 
still are aspirational in nature. Objectives in the approved plan, plan 
amendment, or plan revision do not approve projects and activities, or 
command anyone to refrain from undertaking projects and activities, or 
grant, withhold or modify contracts, permits or other formal legal 
instruments. A binding commitment to these objectives would be 
impossible since Agency budgets for any given year are not known. 
Examples of objectives to achieve the desired conditions expressed in 
the example above are:

Restore 150 acres of nesting and foraging habitat for neotropical 
migrant birds in 3-5 years.
Create 100 acres of Henslow's sparrow habitat within 10 years.
Decommission about two miles of routes each year. Non-system roads 
that may be causing environmental damage are prioritized for route 
decommissioning or rehabilitation.

    While objectives describe aspirations in the plan area to help 
achieve desired conditions, they will not create a binding commitment 
to undertake future proposed projects and activities. Objectives will 
not set the location, timing, or method of any future proposed project 
or activity. Rather, they provide strategic benchmarks that are helpful 
in evaluating progress toward desired conditions. Projects and 
activities are typically developed and designed to achieve one or more 
of the objectives of the plan. Objectives help guide the responsible 
official set priorities for future proposed projects to meet the 
desired conditions. For example, the plan objective for creating 
Henslow's sparrow habitat guides the responsible official to look for 
the best location to propose projects that create habitat for Henslow's 
sparrow. The responsible official may compare the existing conditions 
with the desired conditions described for several watersheds before 
developing a proposal to create Henslow's sparrow habitat. The 
responsible official can then choose the location to develop a proposed 
project that contributes to the desired conditions.
    To be consistent with the plan, a project or activity can (1) Help 
make progress toward one or more objectives, or (2) be neutral to 
relevant objectives. Objectives will typically influence the choice and 
design of projects or activities in the plan area. The influence 
objectives have on the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of 
future projects or activities is not known and cannot be meaningfully 
analyzed until such projects or activities are proposed by the Agency.
    Guidelines provide information and guidance that will be applied to 
future proposed projects or activities to contribute to achieving or 
maintaining desired conditions (see 36 CFR 219.7(a)(2)(iii)). The term 
``guideline'' represents general guidance that will be adopted or, if 
necessary, adapted, based on site-specific conditions and 
circumstances. Guidelines in the approved plan, plan amendment, or plan 
revision do not approve projects and activities, or command anyone to 
refrain from undertaking projects and activities, or grant, withhold or 
modify contracts, permits or other formal legal instruments. Examples 
of guidelines which would guide the design of projects or activities to 
help achieve the desired conditions and objectives will be expressed in 
terms like the following:

    Human activity in neotropical migrant bird nesting habitat areas 
should be excluded during a period of March 15 to May 15 with the 
exception of through travel routes.
    For restoration activities, mechanical equipment should not be 
used within 20 feet of riparian buffers.
    Low impact techniques should be emphasized in dispersed 
recreation areas. The use of ``Use Tread Lightly'' techniques ought 
to be employed in education and interpretation.

    In the nesting habitat guideline example above, the guideline 
indicates how future proposed projects or activities involving the bird 
habitat would typically be designed, namely, human presence should be 
avoided at the designated times. This guideline example does not 
command anyone to undertake or refrain from undertaking any project or 
activity. Rather, guidelines describe parameters for activities in the 
area, recognizing that the site-specific NEPA and other analyses 
conducted during future project and activity decision-making may 
support adjustment of the guideline in certain circumstances. Thus, 
guidelines will typically influence the development of an Agency 
proposal for future projects and activities in the plan area. The 
influence guidelines have on the direct, indirect, and cumulative 
effects of future projects or activities is not known and cannot be 
meaningfully analyzed until such projects or activities are proposed by 
the Agency.
    Guidelines are intended to be adaptable to changing conditions and 
circumstances. Future proposed projects and activities typically will 
be designed in accord with applicable plan guidelines. However, if the 
responsible official determines that it is appropriate to adapt the 
guidelines based on specific conditions or circumstances, the 
responsible official will describe and document the reason for the 
proposed adjustment and explain the relationship to desired conditions 
and objectives in the project-level environmental analysis and decision 
documents. In such cases, a plan amendment typically will not be 
required.
    The use of the term ``guideline'' in the Forest Service's 2005 
planning rule emphasizes the strategic nature of plans under the rule. 
In the 1982 planning rule and the first round of plans, the planning 
term used was ``standards and guidelines.'' Standards and guidelines 
were part of the plan's overall management direction that guided 
management activities on a National Forest System unit. Some plans and 
plan revisions under the 1982 planning rule term mandatory direction as 
``standards'' and general direction with latitude for implementation as 
``guidelines.'' Others do not make a distinction between standards and 
guidelines. For purposes of the

[[Page 75486]]

discussion that follows, the term ``standards and guidelines'' refers 
to management direction provided under the 1982 planning rule.
    To clarify the strategic nature of plans, the Forest Service 
adopted the term ``guidelines'' in the 2005 planning rule. Under the 
2005 rule, plans typically will not have standards and guidelines as 
defined under the 1982 planning rule. The term ``guideline'' under the 
2005 planning rule represents general guidance that will be applied 
based on site-specific conditions and circumstances to future proposed 
projects and activities. Guidelines will be used to design projects or 
activities to contribute to achieving a plan area's desired conditions.
    Retaining, Revising, or Removing Existing Standards and Guidelines. 
During development, amendment, or revision of plans under the 2005 
planning rule, the responsible official must consider whether to 
retain, revise, or remove existing standards and guidelines.
    The plan approval document will describe the extent to which 
standards and guidelines from the existing plans are retained or 
revised and the required evaluation report will identify the decision 
document, or portion of such document, in which the standards and 
guidelines were approved, and any prior environmental analysis which 
pertains to such standards and guidelines. Typically, no further NEPA 
analysis is required at the time of plan amendment or revision for 
previously analyzed standards and guidelines that are retained or 
revised. The influence of such standards and guidelines on the direct, 
indirect or cumulative effects of future projects and activities will 
be analyzed at the time such projects and activities are proposed. 
However, in limited instances the agency may propose to retain an 
existing or revised standards and guidelines that command the agency or 
others to undertake or refrain from undertaking projects and 
activities. Such a proposal is outside the scope of the category and 
shall be considered separately under Forest Service NEPA procedures, at 
which point the agency shall determine whether any previous 
environmental analysis pertaining to the retained or revised standards 
and guidelines is still adequate or whether it needs to be 
supplemented.
    When standards and guidelines are removed, the required evaluation 
report will identify which standards and guidelines are removed and 
provide a rationale for the removal. Typically no further NEPA analysis 
is required at the time of plan amendment or revision to remove 
standards and guidelines. The influence of the removal of standards and 
guidelines on the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of future 
projects and activities will be analyzed at the time projects and 
activities are proposed. However, in limited instances a proposal by 
the agency to remove standards and guidelines may result in an 
immediate environmental impact because the removal would allow projects 
and activities to occur or require them to stop occurring without a 
subsequent proposed action by the agency. Such a proposal is outside 
the scope of this category and shall be considered separately under 
Forest Service NEPA procedures.
    For the suitability of areas plan component, areas within a 
National Forest System unit will be identified as generally suitable 
for various uses that are compatible with desired conditions and 
objectives for that area (36 CFR 219.7(a)(2)(iv)). As stated in the 
preamble to the 2005 Planning Rule, a land management plan will 
identify general suitability of areas for various uses. The 
identification of an area as generally suitable for various uses does 
not approve projects or activities, command anyone to refrain from 
undertaking projects and activities, or grant, withhold or modify 
contracts, permits or other formal legal instruments. Identification of 
suitable land areas is not a final determination of the suitability of 
an area for a future proposed project or activity. The identification 
of generally suitable land areas is guidance for future project or 
activity decision-making. The influence general suitability 
identification has on the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of 
future projects or activities is not known and cannot be meaningfully 
analyzed until such projects and activities are proposed by the agency.
    In accordance with NFMA, the 2005 planning rule requires the 
responsible official to identify lands within the plan area as not 
suitable for timber production. This identification is not a proposal 
for action prohibiting timber harvest projects or activities. Salvage 
timber sales and timber harvest activities necessary for other 
multiple-use purposes may occur in these areas if proposed and approved 
in the future. There are no effects from identification of areas as not 
suitable for timber production. The identification influences the 
development of future proposals for projects and activities. The 
influence the identification has on the direct, indirect, and 
cumulative effects of future projects and activities is not known and 
cannot be meaningfully analyzed until future projects or activities are 
proposed.
    Suitable areas can be identified in several ways, including maps 
and/or narrative descriptions. Examples of suitability identifications 
are:

    Areas along, and within 200 feet of, designated motorized travel 
routes are generally suitable for dispersed camping (e.g., camping 
outside designated campgrounds).
    Areas identified for dispersed recreation are generally suitable 
for non-motorized recreational use including camping, photography, 
hiking, fishing, and hunting.
    Dispersed recreation areas are generally suitable for timber 
harvest (including salvage), for multiple-use purposes and to 
achieve desired vegetation conditions. These areas are generally 
suitable for commercial use of nontimber forest products.

    Identification of generally suitable land areas is guidance that 
helps a land manager and user understand which areas generally are 
suitable for uses based on compatibility with desired conditions for a 
given area. For example, a dispersed recreation area's desired 
condition would be described as typically undeveloped, or minimally 
developed, highlighting the area's opportunities for non-motorized 
recreation. As shown above, this particular area is identified as 
generally suitable for non-motorized activities, such as camping, 
photography, hiking, fishing, and hunting. This identification, 
however, does not approve specific activities or prohibit activities 
that have not been identified as a generally suitable use for the area. 
A future proposed project for a use not identified as a generally 
suitable use may be approved if appropriate based on site-specific 
analysis and if the proposed project is consistent with other plan 
components. Although not required for approval of the proposed project, 
the site-specific NEPA analysis and documentation may lead the 
responsible official to believe uses of the type approved are generally 
suitable for the area and propose an amendment to the plan to identify 
such uses as generally suitable for the area.
    Special areas are identified or designated for their unique or 
special characteristics (36 CFR 219.7(a)(2)(v)). There are four ways 
special areas may be addressed during plan development, amendment, or 
revision:
    1. An area previously designated may be identified.
    2. The responsible official may make a preliminary administrative 
recommendation for a Congressional designation (e.g., a wilderness or 
Wild and Scenic Rivers segment).
    3. The responsible official may make a preliminary recommendation 
for an

[[Page 75487]]

administrative designation (e.g., Research Natural Area).
    4. The responsible official may designate an area (e.g., geological 
areas).
Special Areas Previously Designated
    The responsible official may identify in the Plan Set of Documents 
an area previously administratively or Congressionally designated. This 
does not require analysis under NEPA. The effects of such designated 
areas were assessed and considered when the designation was approved.
Preliminary Administrative Recommendation for Congressional Designation
    The responsible official may make a preliminary administrative 
recommendation for Congressional designation (e.g., a wilderness or 
Wild and Scenic Rivers segment) in the plan approval document. This is 
a preliminary recommendation based on inventory and evaluation 
procedures documented in Forest Service directives. The directives for 
wilderness evaluation are in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1923 and 
Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12, chapter 70. The directives for 
Wild and Scenic River evaluation are in FSM 1924 and FSH 1909.12, 
chapter 80. This recommendation is a preliminary administrative 
recommendation that will receive further review and possible 
modification by the Chief of the Forest Service, the Secretary of 
Agriculture, and the President of the United States. As a matter of 
Forest Service policy, if the Chief decides to forward preliminary 
administrative wilderness recommendations to the Secretary, an 
appropriate NEPA document will accompany the recommendations.
    If the Department decides to make a final recommendation for a 
congressional designation, the appropriate NEPA analysis and 
documentation will accompany the legislative proposal for designation.
Recommendation for Administrative Designation
    The plan responsible official may also make a recommendation to 
their supervisor for administrative designation that can be acted on by 
that supervisor or a higher authority within the Department. For 
example, Research Natural Areas (RNAs) can be recommended by a Forest 
or Grassland Supervisor and may be designated by the Regional Forester 
with concurrence by the Station Director. For further examples, see FSH 
1909.12, section 11.15, exhibit 1 for a list of special area 
designation authorities. The appropriate NEPA analysis and 
documentation will be prepared when the responsible official with the 
designation authority is considering a proposal to designate an area. 
It is at this point in the administrative designation process that 
direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed administrative 
designation can be meaningfully analyzed.
Designation of a Special Area
    The responsible official also may designate a special area during 
plan development, amendment, or revision. The types of special areas 
that the responsible official can designate are those with the 
following characteristics: Scenic, geological, botanical, zoological, 
paleonotological, historical, and recreational (see FSM 2372). 
Designating a special area that simply identifies one or more of these 
characteristics, and also includes a plan component developed for that 
particular area, may occur without further NEPA analysis and 
documentation. For example, a geological area with outstanding 
formations or unique geological features of the earth's development 
(e.g., caves, fossils, dikes, cliffs, or faults) may be identified and 
have a desired condition plan component developed when designated by a 
responsible official. See FSH 1909.12, section 11.15, exhibit 1.
    Some proposed special area designations may include a prohibition 
on projects or activities in those areas. If the proposed designation 
includes a prohibition that commands anyone to refrain from undertaking 
projects and activities in the area, or that grants, withholds or 
modifies contracts, permits or other formal legal instruments, that 
proposed designation will be considered separately from the plan under 
Forest Service NEPA procedures. For example, if a proposal did 
designate a geological area as a special area that includes a direct 
prohibition on rock climbing to protect a plant species, appropriate 
NEPA consideration would be required for that proposed designation.
    Examples of plan recommendations for special area designation are:

    The Responsible Official recommends the Blue Gulch area for 
Wilderness designation. This area is north of the Bald Mountain 
Wilderness area and includes approximately 10,000 acres with a 
boundary map attached to this approval document. This recommendation 
is a preliminary administrative recommendation that will receive 
further review and possible modification by the Chief of the Forest 
Service, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the President of the 
United States. The Congress has reserved the authority to make final 
decisions on wilderness designation.
    The Responsible Official recommends Highway 13 through the Blue 
Gulch area as a scenic byway because it possesses outstanding views 
and scenic corridor. However, the actual designation authority 
resides with the Chief. If the Chief decides to designate the area, 
a separate administrative process will be used.

    An example of plan special area designation is:

    The Responsible Official designates the Blue Gulch area as a 
geological area because it possesses outstanding caves, fossils, and 
cliffs.

    Requirements of other laws are not considered plan components under 
the 2005 planning rule. However, plans will cross-reference these 
requirements to facilitate land management.

Forest Service Review of EISs Completed for Plan Revisions Under the 
1982 Planning Rule

    In response to comments on the proposed categorical exclusion, the 
Forest Service conducted a review of EISs and RODs for plan revisions 
under the 1982 planning rule (see ``Results of the Review of Revised 
Land and Resource Management Plan Environmental Impact Statements'' in 
the Administrative Record). The following conclusions resulted from the 
review.
     The reviewed text in the plan EISs focused on hypothetical 
projects and activities or on specific prohibitions. Several reviewed 
EISs described effects as being related to a plan's management 
direction, but the effects were projected effects from hypothetical 
projects and activities under various plan alternatives or the effects 
of management area prescriptions, in the form of standards that 
prohibit activities.
     The reviewed RODs and EISs pointed out that a project's 
site-specific effects depend on the future proposed project design, the 
environmental conditions of the specific location, and the application 
of the plan's standards and guidelines to the future proposed project. 
It is at this point that the influence of standards and guidelines on 
the effects of the future proposed project can be meaningfully 
evaluated.
     Several of the reviewed RODs contained specific final 
decisions (e.g., prohibiting motorized cross-country travel, 
prohibiting boat use on a specific river segment) that will not 
normally be included in development, amendment, or revision of land 
management plans under the 2005 planning rule. Those specific final 
decisions were identified and their effects analyzed in the plan EIS.

[[Page 75488]]

    The final environmental impact statement (FEIS) review conclusions 
further reinforce the Forest Service's determination, based on 27 years 
experience with land management planning under the 1982 planning rule, 
that plans under the 2005 planning rule that provide broad information 
and guidance for project and activity decision-making may appropriately 
be categorically excluded from analysis and documentation in an EA or 
EIS. It also helped clarify the extraordinary circumstances that would 
require further NEPA analysis.

Conclusion

    For the reasons set forth herein, the Forest Service has concluded 
that plans may be categorically excluded from documentation in an EA or 
EIS as established in these final directives agency NEPA procedures, 
absent extraordinary circumstances.
    To further confirm the determination, the Forest Service prepared 
an EA for the proposed revision of the Cimarron and Comanche National 
Grasslands portion of the Pike and San Isabel National Forest land 
management plan. The Grasslands portion of that plan is being revised 
using the 2005 planning rule. Based on the EA, the Responsible Official 
concluded that the proposed plan revision would have no significant 
effects and recorded this finding in a Finding of No Significant Impact 
(FONSI) (December 2005, https://www.fs.fed.us/r2/psicc/projects/forest_
revision/draft_gr_ea.pdf). The Grasslands proposed plan dated 
December 21, 2005 does not propose approval of any project or activity 
or command anyone to refrain from undertaking projects and activities, 
or grant, withhold or modify contracts, permits or other formal legal 
instruments. The plan components will provide a strategic framework 
with broad information and guidance--they will not compel any changes 
to the existing environment. Thus, without a proposal for action that 
approves projects and activities, or that commands anyone to refrain 
from undertaking projects and activities, the plan components cannot be 
linked in a cause-effect relationship over time and within the 
geographic area to effects on air quality; threatened and endangered 
species; significant scientific, cultural, and historic resources; 
water quality; nor other resources. Therefore, the plan will not have a 
significant effect on the quality of the human environment. The 
Grasslands plan will be approved later in calendar year 2007. The 
proposed plan and Environmental Assessment and Finding of no 
Significant Impact (FONSI) are hereby incorporated into the 
administrative record for the categorical exclusion (CE).

Comments on the Proposal

    The Forest Service provided a 60-day comment period on the proposed 
land management planning categorical exclusion (Planning CE) (70 FR 
1062; Jan. 5, 2005). The Forest Service received 55,000 comments in 
3,334 responses (letters, form letters, and petitions). All suggestions 
and comments have been reviewed and considered in preparation of this 
notice of the final amendment. The Planning CE has been modified in 
response to comments and the modified text of the CE can be found at 
the end of this notice.
    Public comment on the proposed Planning CE addressed a wide range 
of topics. Many comments discussed Forest Service management in 
general. Other respondents commented on the 2005 planning rule. The 
preamble to the 2005 planning rule (70 FR 1023, January 5, 2005) 
provides discussion that responds to these comments on the 2005 
planning rule.
    Some respondents supported the proposed CE for planning; most did 
not. Following are summaries of their comments on the proposed Planning 
CE and the Forest Service responses to those comments.

Comments on the Process Used To Promulgate the Categorical Exclusion

    Comment--Extension request for comment period: Several respondents 
requested an extension to the 60-day comment period. They requested the 
comment period remain open until 60 days after publication of the 
interim directives for planning, which were published on March 23, 2005 
(see 70 FR 14637). The requestors believed that the extension was 
needed so that they could better understand how the 2005 planning rule 
and the categorical exclusion proposal relate to each other.
    Response: The 2002 proposed planning rule introduced the concept of 
using a categorical exclusion for land management planning. The public 
had a 90-day opportunity to comment then on this concept. Therefore, 
the Planning CE was not a new idea when the public was asked to comment 
on it in the January 5, 2005 Federal Register notice (70 FR 1023, 
1062). Accordingly, the Forest Service did not find it necessary to 
extend the proposed Planning CE comment period beyond the March 7 
closing date.
    Comment--National Environmental Policy Act compliance: Some 
respondents claimed that failure to analyze the proposed categorical 
exclusion with an environmental impact statement is a violation of the 
NEPA. They stated that the impacts of adopting a CE in place of an EIS 
for every land management plan are significant. Others stated that the 
cumulative effect of the proposed Planning CE, along with other 
recently adopted CEs, such as the salvage and Healthy Forest 
Restoration Act categorical exclusions, would allow Forest Service 
actions to occur without any environmental analysis.
    Response: The CEQ does not direct agencies to prepare a NEPA 
analysis or document, including a cumulative effects analysis, before 
establishing Agency procedures that supplement the CEQ regulations for 
implementing NEPA. The requirements for establishing Agency NEPA 
procedures are set forth in CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1505.1 and 
1507.3. The Forest Service provided an opportunity for public review 
and consulted with the CEQ 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, 954-56 (7th Cir. 2000).
    The Forest Service believes that the point in the planning process 
when direct, indirect and cumulative effects occur and can be 
meaningfully analyzed is when projects and activities, or actions that 
command anyone to refrain from undertaking projects and activities, or 
that grant, withhold or modify contracts, permits or other formal legal 
instruments are proposed. The Agency continues to require scoping for 
proposed actions even if the proposed action is covered by one of the 
categorical exclusions listed within the Forest Service NEPA 
procedures. If the Agency determines that there are extraordinary 
circumstances that warrant further analysis, then further appropriate 
NEPA analysis and documentation is required.
    Comment--Extraordinary circumstance definition: A number of 
respondents said that the Forest Service did not clearly define what 
extraordinary circumstance would require the Agency to prepare an EA or 
EIS when developing, amending, or revising a land management plan. They 
also said that without a clear definition, inconsistency would be 
guaranteed when determining whether an EIS was required for a land 
management plan.
    Response: The Forest Service agrees that the proposed extraordinary 
circumstance definition was not clear.

[[Page 75489]]

Accordingly, the Agency is revising the policy section (30.3) in this 
final directive to clarify when extraordinary circumstances apply to 
land management plan proposals or to proposals for projects or 
activities,
    In the proposed directive (FSH 1909.15, chapter 30), the Agency 
stated that projects or activities proposed as part of plan 
development, amendment, or revision may constitute an extraordinary 
circumstance. In the final directive, the Agency defined the category 
more narrowly to exclude proposed actions that approve projects and 
activities or that command anyone to refrain from undertaking projects 
and activities, or that grant, withhold or modify contracts, permits or 
other formal legal instruments from the scope of the category. The 
Agency then adopted the existing definition of extraordinary 
circumstances for actions approving plans, plan amendment, and plan 
revisions. The Agency also added wording to the existing paragraph 2 
further clarifying when extraordinary circumstances exist for a 
proposed action: ``The mere presence of one or more of these resource 
conditions does not preclude use of a categorical exclusion. It is (1) 
The existence of a cause-effect relationship between a proposed action 
and the potential effect on these resource conditions and (2) if such a 
relationship exists, it is the degree of the potential effect of a 
proposed action on these resource conditions that determines whether 
extraordinary circumstances exist.'' This added wording clarifies that 
a proposed action (a land management plan, plan amendment, or plan 
revision, or a project or activity) must involve a determination 
whether the proposed action has an effect on any of the listed resource 
conditions, and, if so, whether the potential degree of the effect 
warrants further analysis and documentation in an EA or an EIS.
    A summary of the changes made to the final directive is found 
earlier in this preamble under ``Background.''
    Comment--Independent scientific review: One respondent expressed 
the concern that the Forest Service developed the Planning CE without 
the benefit of recommendations from a committee of scientists.
    Response: In developing this categorical exclusion, the Forest 
Service considered the conclusions from the Committee of Scientists 
(COS) 1999 report for a more adaptable approach to planning. Secretary 
Glickman chartered the COS on December 11, 1997. The Committee consists 
of representatives from a variety of academic disciplines, including 
but not limited to, forest and range ecology, fish and wildlife 
biology, silviculture, hydrology, natural resource economics, 
sociology, public participation and conflict management, ecosystem 
management, land management planning, and natural resource law. The 
charter for the COS stated that the Committee's purpose was to provide 
scientific and technical advice to the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
Chief of the Forest Service on improvements that can be made in the 
National Forest System land management planning process. The COS 
stated, on page 117 of their report:

    [P]erhaps the most difficult problem is that the current EA/EIS 
process assumes a onetime decision. The very essence of small 
landscape planning is an adaptive management approach, based upon 
monitoring and learning. Although small landscape planning can more 
readily do real time 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 * * * At 
the same time, its emphasis on onetime decisions is inconsistent 
with an adaptive management approach. This problem may require that 
a new process for disclosure and review emerge, either through 
changes in administrative rules or changes in law * * *

    (Committee of Scientists Report, March 15, 1999, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Washington, DC 193 pp.) This COS conclusion is one of the 
considerations the Forest Service used to revise the 1982 planning 
rule. Establishing the Planning CE would further enhance the Agency's 
adaptive management and allow timelier plan amendments in response to 
monitoring information.

Comments on Public and Other Forest Service Participation

    Comment--Public involvement: Many respondents expressed the 
importance of involving the public in all Federal land use decision 
processes. Many were concerned that without an environmental impact 
statement, opportunities for public involvement and oversight in the 
land management planning process will be reduced or eliminated. They 
were concerned because specific public involvement requirements in the 
CEQ regulations that apply to the EIS process do not apply to CEs. Many 
respondents stressed how public comment and review periods are an 
important piece of this country's democratic process and request that 
the Forest Service not change it. Many others believe that not using 
the EIS process would either eliminate, or shorten, the public comment 
period from 90 to 30 days. Some respondents stated their belief that 
eliminating EISs for land management plans violates the NFMA public 
participation requirements. Some indicated a belief that removing the 
plans from the NEPA EIS requirements would allow more meaningful public 
involvement.
    Response: While categorical exclusions themselves do not require 
the same system of public involvement as EISs (i.e., required Notice of 
Intent to prepare an EIS and initiate scoping; comment period for a 
draft EIS; review period for a final EIS), use of the Planning CE for 
land management planning needs to be considered together with the 
requirements for public participation and collaboration contained in 
the 2005 planning rule (36 CFR 219.9). The 2005 planning rule requires 
that a collaborative and participatory approach must be used for land 
management planning. There are three formal public comment 
opportunities in the land management planning process (36 CFR 219.9):
    1. After a Forest Service unit provides the public the required 
notice that it is initiating a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision 
and invites the public to comment on the need for change in a plan;
    2. During the 90-day comment period for a proposed plan, plan 
amendment, or plan revision; and
    3. During the 30-day objection period prior to approving a plan, 
plan amendment, or plan revision.
    The 90-day comment period (36 CFR 219.9(b)) meets the NFMA 
requirements for a comment period in the development, review, and 
revision of land management plans (16 U.S.C. 1604(d)). In addition, the 
2005 planning rule specifically requires that the responsi