National Environmental Policy Act Procedures, 45998-46009 [E7-15867]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 158 (Thursday, August 16, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45998-46009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-15867]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Part 220

RIN 0596-AC49


National Environmental Policy Act Procedures

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rule; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service is proposing to move its National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing procedures from Forest 
Service Manual (FSM) 1950 and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15 to 
36 Code of Federal Regulations, part 220 (36 CFR 220). The Agency also 
proposes to clarify existing NEPA procedures and add new procedures to 
incorporate Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance and to 
better align Agency NEPA procedures with Agency decision processes.
    Agency explanatory guidance interpreting CEQ and Agency procedures 
in regulation will remain in FSH 1909.15. Agency NEPA authority, 
objectives, policy, and responsibilities will remain in FSM 1950.
    This rule would meet 40 CFR 1507.3 by placing Agency-implementing 
procedures in their proper regulatory position. Maintaining Agency 
explanatory guidance in directives would facilitate timely Agency 
responses to new ideas, new information, procedural interpretations, 
training needs, and editorial changes to assist field units when 
implementing the NEPA process. Finally, the proposed changes to the 
Forest Service NEPA procedures are intended to provide an environmental 
analysis process that fits better with modern thinking on 
decisionmaking, collaboration, and adaptive management to meet the 
intent of NEPA through establishing incremental alternative 
development, and adaptive management principles.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by October 15, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Comments concerning this notice should be sent by e-mail to 
fsnepa@contentanalysisgroup.com, or by facsimile to 801-397-2601, or 
via the U.S. Postal Service to: NEPA Implementation Procedures, C/O 
Content Analysis Group, 1584 South 500 West, Suite 201, Woods Cross, UT 
84010. Electronic or facsimile comments are preferred. If comments are 
sent via U.S. Postal Service, please do not submit duplicate electronic 
or facsimile comments. Please confine comments to the proposed move of 
existing NEPA procedures from FSH to regulation, proposed changes to 
existing NEPA procedures, and proposed new NEPA procedures and explain 
the reasons for any recommended changes.
    All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are 
placed in the record and are available for public inspection and 
copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Carbone, Ecosystem Management 
Staff, (202) 205-0884, Forest Service, USDA. 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 8 
p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Need for the Proposed Rule

    Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR 1507.3 
require Federal agencies to adopt procedures as necessary to supplement 
CEQ's regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) and to consult with CEQ during their development and prior to 
publication in the Federal Register. The regulation further encourages 
agencies to publish agency explanatory guidance for CEQ's regulations 
and agency procedures.
    In 1979, the Forest Service chose to combine its implementing 
procedures and explanatory guidance in Agency directives (Forest 
Service Manual 1950 and Forest Service Handbook 1909.15). The blending 
of NEPA implementing procedures with explanatory guidance requires the 
Forest Service to provide for public notice and comment and to consult 
with CEQ, as required by 40 CFR1507.3, when amending any guidance for 
explaining CEQ or Agency procedures, resulting in an increased 
administrative burden for the Agency and CEQ.
    This proposal would meet the intent of 40 CFR 1507.3 by placing 
Agency-implementing procedures in their proper regulatory position. 
Placing Agency explanatory guidance in directives would facilitate 
quicker

[[Page 45999]]

Agency responses to new ideas, new information, procedural 
interpretations, training needs, and editorial changes.
    Since the last major update of Forest Service NEPA policy in 1992, 
CEQ has issued guidance the Agency wishes to incorporate in its 
regulation. The Agency also wants to incorporate several concepts that 
are currently used, but for which there are no explicit provisions in 
the current procedures.
    Finally, this proposal would allow for better integrating of NEPA 
procedures and documentation into current Agency decisionmaking 
processes, including collaborative and incremental decisionmaking.
    Almost 30 years ago, CEQ stated in its preamble to the final NEPA 
implementing regulations (Nov. 29, 1978, 43 FR 55978) that the 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has ``tended to become an end in 
itself, rather than a means to making better decisions. They noted 
further; ``One serious problem with the administration of NEPA has been 
the separation between an agency's NEPA process and its decisionmaking 
process. In too many cases bulky EISs have been prepared and 
transmitted but not used by the decision-maker.'' The innovation at 
that time was a new requirement for a ``Record of Decision'' (ROD) to 
show ``how the EIS was used in arriving at the decision.'' At that 
time, CEQ broadened the focus from emphasis on a single document (EIS) 
to ``emphasize the entire NEPA process, from early planning through 
assessment and EIS preparation through decisions and provisions for 
follow-up.'' Today, after receiving comments on a draft EIS, agencies 
prepare a final EIS and document their decision in a ROD, tying the 
analysis from the EIS to the final agency decision.
    Almost 20 years later, a CEQ report, ``The National Environmental 
Policy Act--A Study of Its Effectiveness After Twenty-five Years'' 
(January 1997) stated that ``frequently NEPA takes too long and costs 
too much, agencies make decisions before hearing from the public, 
documents are too long and technical for many people to use'' and 
according to Federal agency NEPA liaisons, ``the EIS process is still 
frequently viewed as merely a compliance requirement rather than as a 
tool to effect better decision-making. Because of this, millions of 
dollars, years of time, and tons of paper have been spent on documents 
that have little effect on decisionmaking.'' They point out ``some 
citizens' groups and concerned individuals view the NEPA process as 
largely a one-way communications track that does not use their input 
effectively'' and ``when they are invited to a formal scoping meeting 
to discuss a well-developed project about which they have heard little, 
they may feel they have been invited too late in the process.'' 
Finally, the report states, ``some citizens complain that their time 
and effort spent providing good ideas are not reflected in changes to 
proposals.''
    A 2005 National Environmental Conflict Resolution Advisory 
Committee (NECRAC) Report chartered by the U.S. Institute for 
Environmental Conflict Resolution of the Morris K. Udall Foundation 
reflected further on the state of the NEPA process 27 years after CEQ 
published its regulations and recommended furthering the evolution of 
making section 102 procedural requirements less an end in themselves 
and more as a means to fulfill the policies set out in section 101. The 
report calls for improvements in the ``traditional model for NEPA 
implementation'' where ``agencies announce their plans, share their 
analyses of potential impacts of a range of options, solicit public 
comment, make decisions, deal with the fallout, if any, and move on to 
the next project.'' This model results in agency decisions ``based on a 
collection of views and interests'' but ``generally not a collective 
decision.'' The report goes on to state that while not a failure, the 
traditional model for NEPA ``does not take full advantage of the many 
strengths of section 101.''
    The NECRAC recognized that ``Americans expect to be able to work 
things out and make things better over time. It is not inevitable, and 
it is clearly not desirable, that society's ability to constructively 
address and resolve conflicts should languish or fail to adapt to 
changing times. The current state of environmental and natural resource 
decision-making is dominated by the traditional model, which too often 
fails to capture the breadth and quality of the values and purposes of 
NEPA.'' The Committee called for Federal decisionmaking that ``enables 
interested parties'' to ``engage more effectively in the decisionmaking 
process'' where ``interested parties are no longer merely commenters on 
a Federal proposal, but act as partners in defining Federal plans, 
programs, and projects.''
    The Federal Government has placed increasing emphasis on 
``cooperating agencies'' ``cooperative conservation,'' 
``collaboration,'' and ``environmental conflict resolution.'' CEQ 
guidance and direction on cooperating agencies and environmental 
conflict resolution includes:
     CEQ Memorandum for Heads of Federal Agencies: Designation 
of Non-Federal Agencies to be Cooperating Agencies in Implementing the 
Procedural Requirements of NEPA, July 28, 1999;
     CEQ Memorandum for Heads of Federal Agencies: Cooperating 
Agencies in Implementing the Procedural Requirements of the National 
Environmental Policy Act, January 30, 2002; and
     CEQ & OMB Memorandum on Environmental Conflict Resolution, 
28 November 2005.
    As a part of its continuing efforts to improve the implementation 
of NEPA, CEQ issued a NEPA Task Force report in 2003 entitled 
``Modernizing NEPA Implementation'', which included recommendations to 
further collaboration in the NEPA process. Other Federal efforts 
include Executive Order 13352 on Facilitation of Cooperative 
Conservation, August 26, 2004, and Forest Service continuing emphasis 
on collaboration in Agency planning, NEPA analysis and decisionmaking 
(see https://www.partnershipresourcecenter.org/policy/ for a list of 
laws and Forest Service policies related to collaboration).
    As the Forest Service integrates the NEPA process and EIS into its 
collaborative and cooperative decisionmaking, the Agency needs an 
option to provide EIS documentation that reflects the way this 
interactive and incremental decisionmaking occurs. There is a need to 
ensure that the EIS is used in ``arriving at the decision.'' In order 
to do this, Forest Service NEPA procedures need an option to reflect a 
more modern environmental analysis process that fits better with 
today's collaborative processes and is used differently than the 
traditional NEPA documentation model currently assumes. A ``one size 
fits all'' approach to NEPA documentation has not been effective. The 
option of providing documentation that reflects the collaborative 
processes as described in these procedures will allow the Forest 
Service to document the analysis that best fits the particular 
situation. As the NECRAC Report points out, there continues to be focus 
on preparing NEPA documents such as an EIS or environmental assessment 
(EA) for litigation rather than to facilitate an informed decision 
process. The proposed NEPA documentation requirements are intended to 
enable interested parties to engage more effectively in the 
decisionmaking process rather than merely as

[[Page 46000]]

commenters on proposals and documents.
    Rather than a document to be used only for a final Agency decision, 
the EIS could evolve as the decision evolves incrementally and be 
useful throughout the process. The EIS would then be used as a tool to 
foster a collaborative and incremental decision-making process rather 
than an end in itself. The record would reflect a history of how the 
detailed statement was used in collaborative and incremental 
decisionmaking and the final draft and final EISs would address a more 
narrowly focused Agency action for a final decision. The responsible 
official will make available preliminary draft and/or preliminary final 
EISs to keep interested parties informed as the analysis progresses. 
While the proposed regulation does not require a decision to be made 
collaboratively, it does allow the Agency to meet the procedural 
requirements of section 102 (2) of NEPA while fostering fulfillment of 
the act's purpose in section 101.
    Proposed NEPA procedures to allow for better alignment of an EIS 
with Agency decisionmaking include: (1) Allowing proposals and 
alternative(s) to be explored and modified throughout the NEPA process 
(36 CFR 220.2 (e)), and (2) allowing the circulation of multiple 
preliminary detailed statement(s) without filing requirements (36 CFR 
220.2(g)(2)).
    The intent is to use environmental information effectively by 
multiple parties during the NEPA process rather than only at distinct 
comment periods for a draft and final impact statement. This is to 
allow efficient and effective use of an EIS to influence Agency 
decisionmaking as interested parties regularly exchange and discuss 
issues; differences; and necessary environmental, social, and economic 
effects analyses while alternatives are explored, evaluated, and 
modified throughout the process. The intent is to focus on a 
deliberative public process and appropriate disclosure outlined in 
section 102 of NEPA to promote the act's purposes.
    The Agency is also proposing to incorporate adaptive management 
into its procedures. This would allow procedural flexibility to manage 
natural resources in light of uncertainties.
    As Agency NEPA procedures are being moved from the Forest Service 
Directive System to the Code of Federal Regulations, the following key 
changes would be made:
     Clarify actions subject to NEPA by summarizing the 
relevant CEQ regulations in one place.
     Recognize Agency obligations to take immediate emergency 
responses and emphasize the options available for subsequent proposals 
to address actions related to the emergency when normal NEPA processes 
are not possible.
     Incorporate CEQ guidance language regarding what past 
actions are ``relevant and useful'' in illuminating or predicting 
direct and indirect effects of a proposed action when doing cumulative 
effects analysis.
     Clarify that an alternative(s) including the proposed 
action may be modified through an incremental process.
     Clarify that adaptive management strategies may be 
incorporated into an alternative(s), including the proposed action.
     Incorporate CEQ guidance that states EAs need only analyze 
the proposed action if there are no unresolved conflicts concerning 
alterative uses of available resources.

Section-by-Section Description of Proposed Changes

    The majority of implementing procedures found in FSH 1909.15 will 
transfer to 36 CFR part 220 and remain intact with organizational and 
grammatical changes added to reflect regulatory requirements. Rule 
organization, additions to current procedures, and significant changes 
to current procedures are outlined below.
    Agency explanatory guidance interpreting CEQ regulations and this 
rule will remain in FSH 1909.15.
    CEQ guidance memos, court cases, and Agency manual and handbook 
direction can be reviewed at https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa.
    Section 220.1 Purpose and Scope. This section outlines the intent 
of the rule and identifies to which authority the rule is subject.
    Section 220.2 Applicability. This section establishes that all 
Agency organizational elements are subject to the rule.
    Section 220.3 Definitions. This section incorporates from FSH 
1909.15 definitions for Decision Document, Decision Memo, Decision 
Notice, Environmentally Preferable Alternative, and adds definitions 
for Adaptive Management, Preliminary Environmental Impact Statements, 
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions, and Responsible Official.
    Section 220.4 General Requirements. This section establishes 
procedures that apply to NEPA documents. Paragraph (a) Sets forth which 
Agency actions are subject to NEPA requirements by compiling pertinent 
sections from CEQ regulations in one place. Paragraph (b) clarifies 
expectations for Agency NEPA compliance in the case of emergencies. 
This section clarifies that responsible officials can take immediate 
actions in response to the immediate effects of emergencies necessary 
to mitigate harm to life, property, or important resources without 
complying with the procedural requirements of NEPA, the CEQ 
regulations, or these proposed regulations. Furthermore, responsible 
officials can take urgent actions to respond to the immediate effects 
of an emergency when there is not sufficient time to comply with the 
procedural requirements of NEPA, the CEQ regulations, or these proposed 
regulations by consulting with the Washington Office (and CEQ in cases 
where the response action is expected to have significant environmental 
impacts) about alternative arrangements. Paragraph (c) states how the 
NEPA process is to be integrated with Agency decisionmaking. Paragraph 
(d) incorporates FSH language for the Schedule of Proposed Actions. 
Paragraph (e) incorporates FSH language on scoping and further states 
that a Schedule of Proposed Actions is not intended to be used as the 
sole scoping mechanism for a proposed action. Paragraph (f) 
consolidates and amends FSH language by incorporating CEQ guidance of 
June 24, 2005, which clarifies what past actions should be considered 
in a cumulative effects analysis. Paragraph (g) establishes language on 
the management of classified information. Paragraph (h) establishes 
language on incorporation by reference; and (i) clarifies situations 
involving applicants.
    Section 220.5 Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). This section 
incorporates language from chapter 20 of the FSH. Paragraph (a) lays 
the foundation for which Agency actions with significant environmental 
effects normally require the preparation of an EIS. Existing FSH 
language, establishing specific classes of actions requiring an EIS 
would be moved to the rule with the exception of the present category 
for EISs required by law or regulation. This category is not needed as 
there are no laws or regulations presently requiring an EIS for a 
specific class of actions and if there are any in the future, such laws 
and regulations would apply regardless of this rule. Also, the rule 
lists classes of actions that ``normally'' require an EIS rather than 
the current language requiring an EIS. The change is consistent with 
the CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1507.3(b)(2)(i). Paragraph (b) 
incorporates FSH language on the development and content of a Notice of

[[Page 46001]]

Intent. Paragraph (c) incorporates FSH language on the cancellation of 
a Notice of Intent. Paragraph (d) allows for variation in content and 
format of an EIS as long as it is consistent with CEQ regulations. 
Paragraph (e) amends FSH language on the development of alternatives by 
establishing that:
    (1) No specific number of alternatives is required or prescribed;
    (2) The No Action alternative may be considered through the effects 
analysis by contrasting the impacts of the proposed action and an 
alternative(s) with the current condition and expected future 
condition;
    (3) As the decisionmaking/analysis process progresses an 
alternative(s), including the proposed action, may be modified through 
an incremental process. This enhances the collaborative decisionmaking 
process by allowing the responsible official, interested and affected 
persons, and agencies to make appropriate adjustments to the 
alternative(s) as the analysis progresses; and
    (4) Adaptive management strategies may be incorporated into an 
alternative(s), including the proposed action. Adaptive management 
strategies would be clearly articulated and the effects of said 
strategies analyzed in the document.
    Paragraph (f) establishes language on the documentation of 
environmental effects related to incremental alternative development 
and adaptive management. Paragraph (g) amends FSH language on 
circulating and filing the draft and final EIS by including language 
that allows for making multiple preliminary EIS(s) available to the 
public. Paragraph (h) incorporates FSH language on the distribution of 
the record of decision.
    Section 220.6 Categorical Exclusions. This section incorporates 
implementing language found in chapter 30 of the FSH. The headings are 
changed to be more explanatory but the content remains the same as the 
current FSH. No new categorical exclusions are proposed.
    Section 220.7 Environmental Assessment (EA). This section 
incorporates implementing language found in chapter 40 of the FSH. 
Paragraph (a) consolidates FSH language outlining when an EA shall be 
prepared and indicating that there is no standard document format. 
Paragraph (b) establishes new language outlining what information shall 
be included in an EA based on CEQ guidance; specifically an EA must 
include: a description of the need for the project; a description of 
the proposed action and reasonable alternative(s) that meet the 
proposal's need for action; a brief description of analysis to 
determine whether to prepare an EIS; and a list of Tribes, agencies, 
and persons consulted.
    Consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act, Section 
102(E) and 40 CFR 1501.2(c), when there are no unresolved conflicts 
concerning alternative uses of available resources, the Agency need 
only analyze the proposed action. While this provision is not intended 
to limit the alternatives to be considered, it recognizes situations 
where there are no conflicts and therefore no compelling need for 
alternatives. A stand-alone No Action alternative is not required. The 
environmental analysis may document consideration of a no-action 
alternative through the effects analysis by contrasting the impacts of 
the proposed action and any alternatives with the current condition and 
expected future condition if the proposed action were not implemented. 
As the decisionmaking/analysis process progresses, the alternative(s), 
including the proposed action, may be modified through an incremental 
process. This enhances the collaborative decisionmaking process by 
allowing the responsible official, interested and affected persons, and 
agencies to make appropriate adjustments to the alternative(s) as the 
analysis progresses. The modifications made during the process should 
be documented and available to the public and in the record. Adaptive 
management strategies may be incorporated into an alternative(s), 
including the proposed action. Adaptive management strategies should be 
clearly articulated and the effects of said strategies analyzed in the 
document. Paragraph (c) incorporates FSH language on content for a 
Decision Notice. Paragraph (d) incorporates FSH language on 
availability of the EA, Decision Notice, and Finding of No Significant 
Impact.

                         Side-by-Side Comparison of Major Changes to Existing Procedures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Current procedures                                      Proposed procedures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Emergency Response [Sec.   220.4(b)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quotes CEQ regulation (1506.11) and directs Agency       Clarifies responsibilities for initial actions related
 official to call the Washington Office for other than    to an emergency as well as proposals to address
 fire suppression.                                        subsequent actions related to emergencies beyond
                                                          initial response.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Cumulative Effects (Past Actions) [Sec.   220.4(e)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paraphrases CEQ definition of cumulative impacts and     References CEQ guidance explaining that a past action
 states that consideration must be given to past          must be ``relevant and useful'' in illuminating or
 actions.                                                 predicting direct and indirect effects of a proposed
                                                          action. (CEQ Memo, 6/24/05).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Class of Actions Normally Requiring an EIS [Sec.   220.5(a)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identifies four classes: proposed actions where an EIS   Existing classes of actions requiring an EIS are now
 is required by law or regulation; proposals to carry     listed as ``normally'' requiring an EIS. Existing
 out or approve aerial application of chemical            class for EISs required by law or regulation is no
 pesticides; proposals that would substantially alter     longer included as there are no specific classes of
 the undeveloped character of an inventoried roadless     actions that are currently required by law to prepare
 area; and proposals for major Federal actions that may   an EIS.
 significantly affect the quality of the human
 environment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Format for an EIS [Sec.   220.5(d)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Focusing on CEQ procedures                               References CEQ procedures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 46002]]

 
                              Alternative Development for an EIS [Sec.   220.5(e)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paraphrases CEQ regulations                              Provides an option that alternative(s) and the proposed
                                                          action may be modified through an incremental process
                                                          that must be documented and available in the record.
                                                          Alternative(s) may include an adaptive management
                                                          strategy that is clearly articulated, analyzed, and
                                                          pre-specified.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Environmental Effects [Sec.   220.5(f)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paraphrases CEQ regulations and is prescriptive on what  References CEQ requirements and describes that the
 to consider..                                            responsible official must disclose any effects
                                                          considered during the incremental development of an
                                                          alternative(s) or adaptive management strategy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Circulation of Preliminary EIS(s) [Sec.   220.5(g)(2)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does not specifically allow circulation of preliminary   Allows for the circulation of preliminary detailed
 detailed statement(s).                                   statement(s).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Content for an EA [Sec.   220.7(b)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quotes CEQ regulation at 40 CFR 1508.9(b)                Clarifies that when no unresolved conflicts concerning
                                                          alternative uses of available resources exist the
                                                          Agency need only analyze the proposed action. An
                                                          alternative(s), including the proposed action may be
                                                          modified through an incremental process. Adaptive
                                                          management strategies may be incorporated into an
                                                          alternative(s). (CEQ memos September 8, 2005, and
                                                          December 9, 2002).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Certification

National Environmental Policy Act

    The proposed rule would move existing procedures for implementing 
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) from Agency handbook to 36 
CFR part 220 and provide additional direction by regulation. The rule 
would not directly impact the environment. The CEQ does not direct 
agencies to prepare a NEPA analysis or document before establishing 
agency procedures that supplement the CEQ regulations for implementing 
NEPA. Agency NEPA procedures are 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 determination that establishing agency NEPA procedures 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. III. 1999), aff'd 230 F.3d 947. 954-55 (7th Cir. 2000).

Regulatory Impact

    This proposed rule 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 regulations 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. 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. However, 
because of the extensive interest in National Forest System (NFS) 
planning and decision-making, this proposed rule to establish Agency 
implementing procedures for NEPA in the Code of Federal Regulations has 
been designated as significant and, therefore, is subject to Office of 
Management and Budget review under E.O. 12866.
    In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
Circular A-4, ``Regulatory Analysis,'' a cost/benefit analysis was 
conducted. The analysis compared the costs and benefits associated with 
the current condition of having Agency implementing procedures combined 
with Agency explanatory guidance in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) and 
the proposed condition of having implementing direction in regulation 
and explanatory guidance in FSH.
    Many benefits and costs associated with the proposed rule are not 
quantifiable. Benefits, including collaborative and participatory 
public involvement to more fully address public concerns, timely and 
focused environmental analysis, flexibility in preparation of 
environmental documents, and improved legal standing indicate a 
positive effect of the new rule.
    Moving implementing NEPA procedures from the FSH to regulation is 
expected to provide a variety of potentially beneficial effects. The 
rule would meet 40 CFR 1507.3 by placing Agency-implementing procedures 
in their proper regulatory position. Maintaining Agency explanatory 
guidance in the FSH would facilitate timely Agency responses to new 
ideas, new information, procedural interpretations, training needs, and 
editorial changes to addresses and internet links to assist field units 
when implementing the NEPA process. Finally, the proposed changes to 
the Forest Service NEPA procedures are intended to provide the Forest 
Service specific options to meet the intent of NEPA through 
collaboration, the establishment of incremental alternative 
development, and the use of adaptive management principles.
    Based on the context of this analysis, no one factor creates a 
significant factor, but taken together does create the

[[Page 46003]]

potential for visible improvements in the Agency's NEPA program.

Federalism

    The Agency has considered this proposed rule under the requirements 
of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The Agency has concluded that the 
proposed rule 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 proposed rule on Indian Tribal 
governments and has determined that it does not significantly or 
uniquely affect communities of Indian Tribal governments. The proposed 
rule deals with requirements for NEPA analysis and has no direct effect 
regarding the occupancy and use of NFS land.
    The Agency has also determined that this proposed rule does not 
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments 
or preempt Tribal law. Therefore, it has been determined that this 
proposed rule does not have Tribal implications requiring advance 
consultation with Indian Tribes.

No Takings Implications

    This proposed rule 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 rule does 
not pose the risk of a taking of protected private property.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988 of 
February 7, 1996, ``Civil Justice Reform''. After adoption of this 
proposed rule, (1) All State and local laws and regulations that 
conflict with this rule or that would impede full implementation of 
this rule would be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect would be given 
to this proposed rule; and (3) the proposed rule would not require the 
use of administrative proceedings before parties could 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 rule on 
State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. This 
proposed rule 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 rule 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 rule 
does not constitute a significant energy action as defined in the 
Executive order.

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public

    This proposed rule 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.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 220

    Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental policy, 
National forests.

    Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Forest 
Service proposes to add part 220 to Title 36 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 220--NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) COMPLIANCE

Sec.
220.1 Purpose and scope.
220.2 Applicability.
220.3 Definitions.
220.4 General requirements.
220.5 Environmental impact statements.
220.6 Categorical exclusions.
220.7 Environmental assessment.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; E.O. 11514; 40 CFR parts 
1500-1508; 7 CFR part 1b.


Sec.  220.1  Purpose and Scope.

    (a) Purpose. This part establishes USDA Forest Service procedures 
for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the Council on Environmental Quality 
(CEQ) regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA 
(40 CFR parts 1500-1508).
    (b) Scope. This part supplements, and is to be used in conjunction 
with, the CEQ regulations and U.S. Department of Agriculture 
regulations at 7 CFR part 1b.


Sec.  220.2  Applicability.

    This part applies to all organizational elements of the USDA Forest 
Service.


Sec.  220.3  Definitions.

    The following definitions supplement terms defined at 40 CFR parts 
1500-1508.
    Adaptive management. A system of management practices based on 
clearly identified outcomes and monitoring to determine if management 
actions are meeting desired outcomes; and, if not, facilitating 
management changes that will best ensure that outcomes are met or re-
evaluated. Adaptive management recognizes that knowledge about natural 
resource systems is sometimes uncertain.
    Decision Document. A record of decision, decision memo, or decision 
notice.
    Decision Memo. A concise written record of the responsible 
official's decision to implement an action categorically excluded from 
documentation in an environmental impact statement or environmental 
assessment. A decision memo is applicable to a prescribed set of 
categories.
    Decision Notice. A concise written record of the responsible 
official's decision to implement an action when an environmental 
assessment and finding of no significant impact has been prepared.
    Environmentally Preferable Alternative. The environmentally 
preferable alternative is the alternative that will best promote the 
national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's section 101. 
Ordinarily, this means the alternative that causes the least harm to 
the biological and physical environment; it also means the alternative 
which best protects and preserves historic, cultural, and natural 
resources.
    Preliminary Environmental Impact Statement. An interim 
environmental

[[Page 46004]]

document that a responsible official may use to initiate discussion, 
solicit comments, and inform interested parties and agency personnel 
while proposals, alternatives, and environmental effects are explored 
and considered prior to filing a draft or final environmental impact 
statement. A preliminary environmental impact statement is an option 
available for responsible officials to use and is not required.
    Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Those activities not yet 
undertaken, for which there are existing decisions, funding, or 
identified proposals.
    Responsible Official. The Agency employee who has the authority to 
make and implement a decision on a proposed action.


Sec.  220.4  General Requirements.

    (a) Proposed actions subject to the National Environmental Policy 
Act requirements (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). A Forest Service proposal is 
subject to the National Environmental Policy Act Requirements when all 
of the following apply:
    (1) The Forest Service has a goal and is actively preparing to make 
a decision on one or more alternative means of accomplishing that goal 
(40 CFR 1508.23);
    (2) The proposed action is subject to Forest Service control and 
responsibility (40 CFR 1508.18);
    (3) The proposed action would cause effects on the natural and 
physical environment and the relationship of people with that 
environment (40 CFR 1508.14) that can be meaningfully evaluated (40 CFR 
1508.23); and
    (4) The proposed action is not statutorily exempt from the 
requirements of section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy 
Act.
    (b) Emergency responses. (1) If the responsible official determines 
that an emergency exists that makes it necessary to take emergency 
actions before completing a NEPA analysis and documentation in 
accordance with the provisions in Sec. Sec.  220.5 and 220.7, then 
these provisions apply.
    (2) The responsible official may take emergency actions necessary 
to control the immediate impacts of the emergency to mitigate harm to 
life, property, or important resources. When taking such actions, the 
responsible official shall take into account the probable environmental 
consequences of the emergency action and mitigate foreseeable adverse 
environmental effects to the extent practical.
    (3) If the responsible official determines that proposed emergency 
actions beyond actions noted in paragraph (b)(2) of this section are 
not likely to have significant environmental impacts, the responsible 
official shall document that determination in an EA and FONSI prepared 
in accordance with these regulations, unless categorically excluded 
(Sec.  220.6). If the responsible official finds that the nature and 
scope of the subsequent actions related to the emergency require taking 
such proposed actions prior to completing an EA and FONSI, the 
responsible official shall consult with the Washington Office about 
alternative arrangements for NEPA compliance. Consultation with the 
Washington Office must be coordinated through the appropriate Regional 
Office.
    (4) If the responsible official determines that proposed emergency 
actions beyond actions noted in paragraph (b)(2) of this section are 
likely to have significant environmental impacts, then the responsible 
official shall consult with CEQ, through the appropriate Regional 
Office and the Washington Office, about alternative arrangements as 
soon as possible. Alternative arrangements address the proposed actions 
necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency. Other 
proposed actions remain subject to NEPA analysis and documentation in 
accordance with these regulations.
    (c) Agency Decisionmaking. (1) Forest Service Manual 1906 outlines 
Agency planning and decisionmaking. Forest Service Manual 1950 
identifies the responsible official for the NEPA process as the Agency 
employee who has the delegated authority to make and implement a 
decision on a proposed action.
    (2) For each Forest Service proposal (Sec.  220.4(a)), the 
responsible official shall coordinate and integrate NEPA review and 
relevant environmental documents with Agency decisionmaking by:
    (i) Completing the environmental document review before making a 
decision on the proposal, consistent with 40 CFR 1506.1;
    (ii) Considering environmental documents, public and Agency 
comments (if any) on those documents, and Agency responses to those 
comments (40 CFR 1505.1(d));
    (iii) Including environmental documents, comments, and responses as 
part of the administrative record (40 CFR 1505.1(c));
    (iv) Considering the alternatives analyzed in environmental 
document(s) before rendering a decision on the proposal; and
    (v) Making a decision encompassed within the range of alternatives 
analyzed in the environmental documents (40 CFR 1505.1(e)).
    (d) Schedule of Proposed Actions. (1) A Schedule of Proposed 
Actions shall be published quarterly to inform interested persons where 
to get information about proposed Forest Service actions, including the 
status of environmental analyses.
    (2) The Schedule of Proposed Actions shall include proposals that 
will result in Agency decision documents (Sec.  220.3).
    (3) Actions proposed and decided between scheduled publications 
shall be identified in the next schedule.
    (4) The Schedule of Proposed Actions shall include a contact for 
additional information on Forest Service proposals and actions.
    (e) Scoping (40 CFR 1501.7). (1) Scoping is required for all Forest 
Service proposed actions, including those that would appear to be 
categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an 
environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement (Sec.  
220.6).
    (2) Scoping shall be consistent with 40 CFR 1501.7. However, 
because the nature and complexity of a proposed action determine the 
scope and intensity of analysis, no single scoping technique is 
required or prescribed.
    (3) The Schedule of Proposed Actions is not intended to be used as 
the sole scoping mechanism for a proposed action.
    (f) Cumulative Effects Considerations of Past Actions (40 CFR 
1508.7). In accordance with The Council on Environmental Quality 
Guidance Memorandum on Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative 
Effects Analysis dated June 24, 2005, the analysis of cumulative 
effects begins with consideration of the direct and indirect effects on 
the environment that are expected or likely to result from the 
alternative proposals for agency action. Agencies then look for present 
effects of past actions that are, in the judgment of the agency, 
relevant and useful because they have a significant cause-and-effect 
relationship with the direct and indirect effects of the proposal for 
agency action and its alternatives. CEQ regulations do not require the 
consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to 
determine the present effects of past actions. Once the agency has 
identified those present effects of past actions that warrant 
consideration, the agency assesses the extent that the effects of the 
proposal for agency action or its alternatives will add to, modify, or 
mitigate those effects. The final analysis documents an agency 
assessment of the cumulative effects of the actions

[[Page 46005]]

considered (including past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future 
actions) on the affected environment. With respect to past actions, 
during the scoping process and subsequent preparation of the analysis, 
the agency must determine what information regarding past actions is 
useful and relevant to the required analysis of cumulative effects. 
Cataloging past actions and specific information about the direct and 
indirect effects of their design and implementation could in some 
contexts be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposal. 
The CEQ regulations, however, do not require agencies to catalogue or 
exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions. Simply 
because information about past actions may be available or obtained 
with reasonable effort does not mean that it is relevant and necessary 
to inform decisionmaking.
    (g) Classified information (40 CFR 1507.3(c)). To the extent 
practicable, the responsible official shall segregate any information 
classified in accordance with Executive order or statute. The 
responsible official shall maintain the confidentiality of such 
information in a manner required for the information involved. Such 
information may not be included in any publicly disclosed documents. If 
such material cannot be reasonably segregated, or if segregation would 
leave essentially meaningless material, the responsible official must 
withhold the entire analysis document from the public; however, the 
responsible official shall otherwise prepare the analysis documentation 
in accordance with applicable regulations.
    (h) Incorporation by Reference. Consistent with 40 CFR 1502.21, 
material may be incorporated by reference into any environmental or 
decision document. This material must be reasonably available to the 
public and its contents briefly described in the environmental or 
decision document.
    (i) Applicants. The responsible official shall make policies or 
staff available to advise potential applicants of studies or other 
information foreseeably required for acceptance of their applications. 
For situations involving an applicant, the responsible official should 
initiate the NEPA process upon acceptance of an application in 
accordance with 36 CFR 251.54(g).


Sec.  220.5  Environmental Impact Statements.

    (a) Classes of Actions Normally Requiring Environmental Impact 
Statements--
    (1) Class 1: Proposals to carry out or to approve aerial 
application of chemical pesticides on an operational basis. Examples 
include:
    (i) Applying chemical insecticides by helicopter on an area 
infested with spruce budworm to prevent serious resource loss.
    (ii) Authorizing the application of herbicides by helicopter on a 
major utility corridor to control unwanted vegetation.
    (iii) Applying herbicides by fixed-wing aircraft on an area to 
release trees from competing vegetation.
    (2) Class 2: Proposals that would substantially alter the 
undeveloped character of an inventoried roadless area of 5,000 acres or 
more (FSH 1909.12). Examples include:
    (i) Constructing roads and harvesting timber in a 56,000-acre 
inventoried roadless area where the proposed road and harvest units 
impact 3,000 acres in only one part of the roadless area.
    (ii) Constructing or reconstructing water reservoir facilities in a 
5,000-acre unroaded area where flow regimens may be substantially 
altered.
    (iii) Approving a plan of operations for a mine which would cause 
considerable surface disturbance over 700 acres in a 10,000 acre 
roadless area.
    (3) Class 3: Other proposals to take major Federal actions that may 
significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Examples 
include:
    (i) Approving the use of 1,500 acres of National Forest System land 
to construct and operate an all-season recreation resort complex.
    (ii) Authorizing the Bureau of Land Management to offer the sale of 
leases for oil and natural gas resources from beneath 400,000 acres of 
National Forest System lands that have historically demonstrated a 
relatively high potential for discovery and development of oil and 
natural gas.
    (iii) Approving the construction and operation of an international 
gas pipeline beneath a previously undeveloped 30-mile long, 1,000-foot 
wide corridor within an ecologically sensitive area of National Forest 
System land.
    (b) Notice of Intent. A notice of intent shall be prepared and 
published in the Federal Register as soon as practicable after deciding 
that an environmental impact statement will be prepared. In addition to 
the requirements of 40 CFR 1508.22, notices of intent must include the 
following:
    (1) Title of the responsible official(s);
    (2) Any permits or licenses required to implement the proposed 
action and the issuing authority;
    (3) Lead, joint lead, or cooperating agencies if identified; and
    (4) Address(es) to which comments may be sent.
    (c) Withdrawal Notice. A withdrawal notice must be published in the 
Federal Register if, after publication of the notice of intent or 
notice of availability, an environmental impact statement is no longer 
necessary. A withdrawal notice must refer to the date and page number 
of the previously published notice.
    (d) Environmental Impact Statement Format and Content. The 
responsible official may use any environmental impact statement format 
and design as long as the statement is in accordance with 40 CFR 
1502.10.
    (e) Alternative(s). The environmental impact statement shall 
document the examination of reasonable alternatives to the proposed 
action. Reasonable alternatives should meet the purpose and need and 
address one or more significant issues (40 CFR 1501.7) related to the 
proposed action. Since an alternative may be developed to address more 
than one significant issue, no specific number of alternatives is 
required or prescribed. In addition to the requirements at 40 CFR 
1502.14 the responsible official has an option to use the following 
procedures to develop and analyze alternatives.
    (1) The effects of the no-action alternative may be documented by 
contrasting the current condition and expected future condition should 
the proposed action not be undertaken with the impacts of the proposed 
action and any reasonable alternatives.
    (2) To facilitate collaborative processes and sound decisions, the 
responsible official may collaborate with interested parties to modify 
the proposed action and alternative(s) under consideration prior to 
issuing a draft environmental impact statement. In such cases, the 
responsible official may consider the incremental changes as 
alternatives considered. The documentation of these incremental changes 
to a proposed action or alternatives may be incorporated by reference 
in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.21 rather than duplicating the 
description and analysis in the statement.
    (3) A proposed action or alternative(s) may include adaptive 
management strategies allowing for adjustment of the action during 
implementation. If the adjustments to an action are clearly articulated 
and pre-specified in the description of the alternative and fully 
analyzed, then the action may be adjusted during implementation without 
the need for further analysis. Adaptive management includes a 
monitoring component, approved adaptive actions that may be taken, and

[[Page 46006]]

environmental effects analysis for the adaptive actions approved.
    (f) Environmental Effects. In addition to the environmental 
consequences requirements at 40 CFR 1502.16, the EIS must include the 
impacts considered during any incremental alternative development 
process and the environmental effects of any adaptive management 
strategy.
    (g) Circulating and Filing Draft and Final Environmental Impact 
Statements. (1) The draft and final EISs shall be filed with the 
Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Federal Activities in 
Washington, DC (40 CFR 1506.9).
    (2) If preliminary drafts are prepared the responsible official 
shall make those multiple preliminary draft and preliminary final EISs 
available to those interested and affected persons and agencies for 
comment; however, requirements at 40 CFR 1506.10 and 40 CFR 1502.19 
shall only apply to the last draft and final EIS.
    (3) When the responsible official determines that an extension of 
the review period on a draft EIS is appropriate, notice shall be given 
in the same manner used for inviting comments (40 CFR 1503.1) on the 
draft.
    (h) Distribution of the Record of Decision. The responsible 
official shall notify interested or affected parties of the 
availability of the record of decision as soon as practical after 
signing.


Sec.  220.6  Categorical Exclusions.

    (a) General. A proposed action may be categorically excluded from 
further analysis and documentation in an EIS or EA only if there are no 
extraordinary circumstances related to the proposed action and if:
    (1) The proposed action is within one of the categories established 
by the Secretary at 7 CFR part 1b.3; or
    (2) The proposed action is within a category listed in section 
220.6(d)(e).
    (b) Resource conditions. (1) Resource conditions that should be 
considered in determining whether extraordinary circumstances related 
to a proposed action warrant further analysis and documentation in an 
EA or an EIS are:
    (i) Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated 
critical habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed 
critical habitat, or Forest Service sensitive species.
    (ii) Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds.
    (iii) Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, 
wilderness study areas, or national recreation areas.
    (iv) Inventoried roadless areas.
    (v) Research natural areas.
    (vi) American Indians and Alaska Native religious or cultural 
sites.
    (vii) Archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas.
    (2) The mere presence of one or more of these resource conditions 
does not preclude use of a categorical exclusion (CE). It is the 
existence of a cause-effect relationship between a proposed action and 
the potential effect on these resource conditions and if such a 
relationship exists, the degree of the potential effect of a proposed 
action on these resource conditions that determines whether 
extraordinary circumstances exist.
    (c) Scoping. If the responsible official determines, based on 
scoping, that it is uncertain whether the proposed action may have a 
significant effect on the environment, prepare an EA. If the 
responsible official determines, based on scoping, that the proposed 
action may have a significant environmental effect, prepare an EIS.
    (d) Categories of actions for which a project or case file and 
decision memo are not required. A supporting record and a decision memo 
are not required, but at the discretion of the responsible official, 
may be prepared for the following categories:
    (1) Orders issued pursuant to 36 CFR part 261--Prohibitions to 
provide short-term resource protection or to protect public health and 
safety. Examples include but are not limited to:
    (i) Closing a road to protect bighorn sheep during lambing season.
    (ii) Closing an area during a period of extreme fire danger.
    (2) Rules, regulations, or policies to establish Service-wide 
administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions. Examples 
include but are not limited to:
    (i) Adjusting special use or recreation fees using an existing 
formula.
    (ii) Proposing a technical or scientific method or procedure for 
screening effects of emissions on air quality related values in Class I 
wildernesses.
    (iii) Proposing a policy to defer payments on certain permits or 
contracts to reduce the risk of default.
    (iv) Proposing changes in contract terms and conditions or terms 
and conditions of special use authorizations.
    (v) Establishing a Service-wide process for responding to offers to 
exchange land and for agreeing on land values.
    (vi) Establishing procedures for amending or revising forest land 
and resource management plans.
    (3) Repair and maintenance of administrative sites. Examples 
include but are not limited to:
    (i) Mowing lawns at a district office.
    (ii) Replacing a roof or storage shed.
    (iii) Painting a building.
    (iv) Applying registered pesticides for rodent or vegetation 
control.
    (4) Repair and maintenance of roads, trails, and landline 
boundaries. Examples include but are not limited to:
    (i) Authorizing a user to grade, resurface, and clean the culverts 
of an established National Forest System road.
    (ii) Grading a road and clearing the roadside of brush without the 
use of herbicides.
    (iii) Resurfacing a road to its original condition.
    (iv) Pruning vegetation and cleaning culverts along a trail and 
grooming the surface of the trail.
    (v) Surveying, painting, and posting landline boundaries.
    (5) Repair and maintenance of recreation sites and facilities. 
Examples include but are not limited to:
    (i) Applying registered herbicides to control poison ivy on 
infested sites in a campground.
    (ii) Applying registered insecticides by compressed air sprayer to 
control insects at a recreation site complex.
    (iii) Repaving a parking lot.
    (iv) Applying registered pesticides for rodent or vegetation 
control.
    (6) Acquisition of land or interest in land. Examples include but 
are not limited to:
    (i) Accepting the donation of lands or interests in land to the 
National Forest System.
    (ii) Purchasing fee, conservation easement, reserved interest deed, 
or other interests in lands.
    (7) Sale or exchange of land or interest in land and resources 
where resulting land uses remain essentially the same. Examples include 
but are not limited to:
    (i) Selling or exchanging land pursuant to the Small Tracts Act.
    (ii) Exchanging National Forest System lands or interests with a 
State agency, local government, or other non-Federal party (individual 
or organization) with similar resource management objectives and 
practices.
    (iii) Authorizing the Bureau of Land Management to issue leases on 
producing wells when mineral rights revert to the United States from 
private ownership and there is no change in activity.
    (iv) Exchange of administrative sites involving other than National 
Forest System lands.
    (8) Approval, modification, or continuation of minor, short-term (1 
year or less) special uses of National Forest System lands. Examples 
include but are not limited to:
    (i) Approving, on an annual basis, the intermittent use and 
occupancy by a State-licensed outfitter or guide.

[[Page 46007]]

    (ii) Approving the use of National Forest System land for apiaries.
    (iii) Approving the gathering of forest products for personal use.
    (9) Issuance of a new permit for up to the maximum tenure allowable 
under the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 497b) 
for an existing ski area when such issuance is a purely ministerial 
action to account for administrative changes, such as a change in 
ownership of ski area improvements, expiration of the current permit, 
or a change in the statutory authority applicable to the current 
permit. Examples of actions in this category include, but are not 
limited to:
    (i) Issuing a permit to a new owner of ski area improvements within 
an existing ski area with no changes to the master development plan, 
including no changes to the facilities or activities for that ski area.
    (ii) Upon expiration of a ski area permit, issuing a new permit to 
the holder of the previous permit where the holder is not requesting 
any changes to the master development plan, including changes to the 
facilities or activities.
    (iii) Issuing a new permit under the National Forest Ski Area 
Permit Act of 1986 to the holder of a permit issued under the Term 
Permit and Organic Acts, where there are no changes in the type or 
scope of activities authorized and no other changes in the master 
development plan.
    (10) Amendment to or replacement of an existing special use 
authorization that involves only administrative changes and does not 
involve changes in the authorized facilities or increase in the scope 
or intensity of authorized activities, or extensions to the term of 
authorization, when the applicant or holder is in full compliance with 
the terms and conditions of the special use authorization. Examples 
include but are not limited to:
    (i) Amending a special use authorization to reflect administrative 
changes such as adjustment to the land use fees, inclusion of non-
discretionary environmental standards or updating a special use 
authorization to bring it into conformance with current laws or 
regulations (for example, new monitoring required by water quality 
standards).
    (ii) Issuance of a new special use authorization to reflect 
administrative changes such as, a cha