National Environmental Policy Act Procedures, 43084-43099 [E8-16499]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 143 (Thursday, July 24, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43084-43099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-16499]



[[Page 43084]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Part 220

RIN 0596-AC49


National Environmental Policy Act Procedures

AGENCY: USDA Forest Service.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture is moving the Forest Service's 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) codifying procedures from 
Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1950 and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 
1909.15. In addition to codifying the procedures, the Department is 
clarifying and expanding them to incorporate Council on Environmental 
Quality (CEQ) guidance and to better align Forest Service NEPA 
procedures with its decision processes.
    This rule gives Forest Service NEPA procedures more visibility, 
consistent with the transparent nature of the Forest Service's 
environmental analysis and decision making. Also, the additions to the 
Forest Service NEPA procedures in this rule are intended to provide an 
environmental analysis process that better fits with modern thinking on 
decisionmaking, collaboration, and adaptive management by describing a 
process for incremental alternative development and development of 
adaptive management alternatives. Maintaining Forest Service 
explanatory guidance in the FSH will facilitate timely responses to new 
ideas, new information, procedural interpretations, training needs, and 
editorial changes to assist field units when implementing the NEPA 
process.

DATES: Effective Date: These NEPA procedures are effective July 24, 
2008.

ADDRESSES: The Forest Service NEPA procedures are set out in 36 CFR 
part 220, which is available electronically via the World Wide Web/
Internet at https://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/. Single paper 
copies are available by contacting Martha Twarkins, 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/nepa.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Twarkins, Ecosystem Management 
Staff, (202) 205-2935, 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 Daylight Time, Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 
regulations at 40 CFR 1507.3 require Federal agencies to adopt 
procedures as necessary to supplement the requirements of the CEQ's 
regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 
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 Forest Service directives FSM 1950 and FSH 
1909.15.
    Descriptions of Forest Service NEPA authority, objectives, policy, 
and responsibilities remain in FSM 1950. Forest Service explanatory 
guidance interpreting CEQ and Forest Service procedures in regulation 
remain in FSH 1909.15. For an explanation of NEPA and the NEPA process, 
see CEQ's ``A Citizen's Guide to the NEPA--Having Your Voice Heard'' at 
https://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/Citizens_Guide_Dec07.pdf.
    This rule gives Forest Service NEPA procedures more visibility, 
consistent with the transparent nature of the Forest Service's 
environmental analysis and decision making.
    Maintaining Forest Service explanatory guidance in directives will 
facilitate quicker responses to new ideas, new information, procedural 
interpretations, training needs, and editorial changes to assist field 
units when implementing the NEPA process.
    Since the last major update of Forest Service NEPA policy in 1992, 
CEQ has issued guidance that the Department believes is appropriate to 
incorporate into Forest Service NEPA procedures with this regulation. 
The Department also believes it is appropriate to incorporate several 
concepts that the Forest Service currently uses, but for which explicit 
provisions in its current procedures are lacking.
    Finally, this rule will allow for better integration of NEPA 
procedures and documentation into the current Forest Service 
decisionmaking processes, including collaborative and incremental 
decisionmaking.
    On August 16, 2007, the Forest Service published a proposed rule to 
move its NEPA procedures from FSH 1909.15 to 36 CFR part 220 (72 FR 
45998). The majority of implementing procedures found in FSH 1909.15 
transfer to 36 CFR part 220 and remain intact. Forest Service 
explanatory guidance remains in the revised FSH 1909.15 being published 
concurrently with this rule and available at https://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-
bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsh?1909.15. Key changes in this final rule:
     Clarify actions subject to NEPA by summarizing the 
relevant CEQ regulations in one place.
     Recognize Forest Service 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'' to a 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 environmental 
assessments (EAs) need to analyze alternatives to the proposed action 
if there are unresolved conflicts concerning alterative uses of 
available resources as specified by section 102(2)(E) of NEPA.
    The CEQ was consulted on the proposed and final rule. CEQ has 
issued a letter stating CEQ has reviewed this rule and found it to be 
in conformity with NEPA and CEQ regulations (per 40 CFR 1507.3 and NEPA 
section 102(2)(B)). This letter is available at https://www.fs.fed.us/
emc/nepa.
    To improve clarity, this final rule received numerous corrections 
to punctuation, grammar, abbreviations, and citations. These edits did 
not change the substance or meaning of any of the rule's provisions. 
Substantive changes from the proposed to this final rule are discussed 
in the responses to comments that follow.

Comments on the Proposal

    The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on August 
16, 2007, for a 60-day comment period. The Forest Service received 
10,975 responses, consisting of letters, e-mails, web based 
submissions, and faxes. Of those, approximately 200 contained original 
substantive comments; the remaining responses were organized response 
campaign (form) letters. Comments were received from the public, from 
within the Forest Service,

[[Page 43085]]

and from other agencies. The Department considered all the comments and 
made a number of changes in response. A summary of comments received 
and the Department's responses follow.

General Comments

    Generally, respondents favored the Forest Service's efforts to make 
the NEPA process run more efficiently for all interested parties. Many 
respondents like the idea of having Forest Service NEPA procedures in 
more readily accessible regulations, instead of in directives. They 
also like the concept that the Forest Service would like to work more 
closely with stakeholders. Respondents feel that the CFR is more 
readily available to the public, making it easier for the public and 
interested parties to engage the Forest Service during decisionmaking 
and to ensure they are following the regulations. In addition, many 
respondents feel that moving the NEPA procedures to regulation ensures 
they are part of the Federal Government's official regulations, 
enhancing the opportunities to legally enforce the requirements. 
Generally, most respondents support the proposed rule, but have 
concerns with some details, which are outlined below.
    Response. The Forest Service appreciates the comments. It should be 
clarified however that the Forest Service believes that the move from 
internal procedures to published regulations and handbook should not 
change the judicial interpretations of these procedures.

NEPA

    Comments. Although most respondents agree with moving NEPA 
procedures to regulation, some asked the question, ``What problem is 
the Forest Service trying to solve by moving its regulations?'' Also, a 
few respondents cite Western Radio Services Co. v. Espy, 79 F.2d 896, 
901 (9th Cir. 1996), stating that the Forest Service must explain the 
rationale for moving NEPA procedures. Many respondents are concerned 
that the proposed rule would weaken or undermine NEPA, which in turn 
would damage public lands, water, wildlife, and air. One individual 
stated that only Congress has the authority to change NEPA.
    Respondents are also concerned that the proposed rule would give 
special interest groups an opportunity to develop, extract, and log 
public lands without regulation or accountability to the general 
public. Many individuals commented about the proposed rule being 
``another attempt by the current administration to circumvent 
environmental regulations.'' One conservation organization believes 
that ``the Forest Service `decision process' * * * is highly subject to 
political pressure, particularly from the natural resource extraction 
industry, which views natural resources on Federal lands as theirs for 
the taking.''
    Another individual views the proposal as ``the agency giving itself 
too much discretion to avoid implementing the Act, possibly undermining 
NEPA's purpose.''
    Response. The Department is moving Forest Service procedures from 
internal directives to regulation to give its NEPA procedures more 
visibility, consistent with the transparent nature of the Forest 
Service's environmental analysis and decision making. The Forest 
Service procedures supplement the CEQ regulations and placing Forest 
Service NEPA procedures in regulation underscores their importance. The 
final rule incorporates existing Forest Service procedures and existing 
CEQ guidance. This final rule also incorporates existing Forest Service 
practices such as collaboration and adaptive management as options for 
the responsible official to use.
    The Department does not interpret the Ninth Circuit's decision in 
Western Radio Services Co. v. Espy as requiring a rationale for moving 
NEPA procedures. That case was about compliance with special use 
permitting regulations; on the page cited by the commenters the Ninth 
Circuit held that directives did not have independent force and effect 
of law. For this rule, the Department provides its rationale for moving 
the procedures to regulation.
    The Forest Service procedures supplement the CEQ and U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulations for implementing NEPA 
procedural provisions; they neither supplant nor diminish those 
requirements. This final rule states under section 220.1(b), ``This 
part supplements and does not lessen the applicability of the CEQ 
regulations, and is to be used in conjunction with the CEQ regulations 
and U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations at 7 CFR part 1b.'' The 
Department is not changing NEPA nor providing deference to one group 
over another. Groups for, against, or neutral on any proposed actions 
including logging have equal access to the Forest Service decision 
making process as described in sections 220.4(c), (d), and (e). Section 
220.1(b) makes it explicitly clear that this final rule does not 
``circumvent'' or ``avoid'' the Forest Service commitment to, and 
responsibility for, implementing NEPA.
    Comments. Some respondents commented that the Forest Service needs 
to produce an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed 
rule. In addition, respondents stated that the proposed rule 
constitutes revised agency rules and regulations and violates 40 CFR 
1502.4(b), which highlights when an EIS must be prepared. CEQ 
regulation at 40 CFR 1502.4(b) states `Environmental impact statements 
may be prepared, and are sometimes required, for broad federal actions 
such as the adoption of new agency programs or regulations (1508.18).' 
Some respondents feel that the NEPA procedures described in this rule 
should be characterized as the adoption of new agency regulations, thus 
requiring an EIS.
    Response. CEQ does not direct agencies to prepare a NEPA analysis 
or document before establishing agency NEPA procedures. 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. As stated in the preamble to the 
proposed rule, ``The rule would not directly impact the environment.'' 
(72 FR 46002). The regulations do not authorize or prohibit any action 
or have any effect on the environment. The requirements for 
establishing agency NEPA procedures are set forth at 40 CFR parts 
1505.1 and 1507.3. Additionally, the Forest Service NEPA procedures 
presented in this rule are established procedures described in the 
Forest Service directive system, allowed under the existing Forest 
Service procedures, or are existing CEQ guidance and are not considered 
new agency regulations.
    Regulations establishing agency NEPA procedures do not require NEPA 
analysis and documentation. See, e.g., Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S. Forest 
Service, 230 F.3d 947, 954-55 (7th Cir. 2000).
    Comments. Several individuals are concerned that moving the Forest 
Service's procedures to the CFR's could encourage other agencies to do 
the same, for example, the Bureau of Land Management. One individual is 
concerned that the proposed change would affect judicial 
interpretations of the Forest Service's NEPA obligations, therefore 
increasing the Forest Service's susceptibility to lawsuits.
    Response. The majority of Federal agencies currently have their 
NEPA procedures in the CFR, and the Department believes it is 
appropriate to place the Forest Service's NEPA procedures in 
regulation. In addition, it will place the Forest Service's NEPA

[[Page 43086]]

procedures in one easily accessible place, incorporate current CEQ 
guidance and place the procedures in line with current Forest Service 
decision making. The Forest Service believes that the move from 
internal procedures to published regulations and handbook should not 
change the judicial interpretations of these procedures and therefore 
should not increase uncertainty due to litigation. As for whether a 
regulation would make the Forest Service more susceptible to lawsuits, 
the Forest Service has an obligation to comply with NEPA and the CEQ 
regulations whether these procedures are specified in regulations or 
internal procedures. Furthermore, if the Forest Service's application 
of the regulation is challenged in court, the Department believes that 
the courts will give appropriate deference to the CEQ's interpretation 
of NEPA, as embodied in these regulations.

Public Comment on Projects

    Comments. Many respondents are concerned that the proposed rule 
would take away the public's ability to comment on projects. 
Individuals ask the Forest Service to not limit public comment.
    Response. This final rule will not take away or limit the public's 
ability to comment on projects compared with current practice. The 
final rule supplements, but does not supercede the CEQ regulations, 
which contain public involvement requirements. Moreover, the final rule 
retains the proposed rule requirements for responsible officials to 
consider public and agency comments in decisionmaking and to include 
such comments and responses in the administrative record (section 
220.4(c)).

Collaboration

    Comments. Many respondents like the idea of collaboration and urge 
the Forest Service to involve the public as much as possible. One 
individual would like to see all agencies, States and local 
governments, organizations, and individuals included in the 
collaborative process identified in the NEPA documents, along with an 
indication of when they joined the process.
    Some respondents recommend the Forest Service make collaboration an 
optional process and if collaboration is undertaken, a strict timeline 
should be imposed. One individual was concerned that the proposed 
changes would ``allow domination by whichever special interest group 
has the ear of those in authority.''
    Respondents feel that the Forest Service should integrate 
collaboration and adaptive management into the existing NEPA framework 
rather than implementing new changes ``which lack the checks and 
balances NEPA provides.''
    Response. Given the concerns regarding collaboration being within 
the regulation, the Department removed the references to collaboration 
that were in the proposed section 220.5(e)(1), which is now section 
220.5(e)(2). The proposed language stated ``To facilitate collaborative 
processes and sound decisions, the responsible official may collaborate 
with interested parties to modify the proposed action and 
alternative(s) * * *.'' The proposed language was interpreted by many 
as providing that the incremental development and modification of 
alternatives may only be done when the Forest Service collaborates with 
the public or that collaboration may only be done in a process 
involving the incremental development and modification of alternatives. 
Neither collaboration nor the incremental development and modification 
of alternatives are required in every case, nor is one a prerequisite 
for the other.
    Collaboration is a tool that enables the Forest Service to focus on 
issues that matter. The Department recognizes that collaboration may 
not be appropriate in every case (see CEQ publication, ``Collaboration 
in NEPA--A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners,'' available at https://
ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/nepapubs/Collaboration_in_NEPA_Oct2007.pdf). The 
final rule does not set collaboration requirements, including timelines 
or documentation of when parties become involved in the process. 
Collaboration processes, like public involvement and scoping, will vary 
depending on the need and circumstances. Some situations will require a 
lot of time and others will not. Adaptive management is addressed in 
the final rule at section 220.5(e)(2).

Section 220.3 Definitions

    Comments. Many respondents are concerned that the definition for 
``reasonably foreseeable future actions,'' in section 220.3 is too 
narrow. They suggest the proposed rule definition could eliminate from 
consideration a large number of activities on National Forest System 
lands that are clearly foreseeable. Respondents believe that if the 
proposed rule is approved, the Forest Service would be ignoring the CEQ 
provision regarding ``reasonably foreseeable future actions.'' Of 
particular concern was the phrase ``activities not yet undertaken.''
    Another concern was that the proposed rule suggests an improper 
focus on activities taking place primarily on NFS lands, and fails to 
include other agencies or private landowners with lands adjacent to NFS 
lands.
    Response. The final rule defines ``reasonably foreseeable future 
actions'' to explain a term in CEQ's definition for ``cumulative 
impact'' at 40 CFR 1508.7. The CEQ definition of ``cumulative impact'' 
includes both Federal and non-Federal actions for consideration of 
cumulative effects, including reasonably foreseeable future actions. To 
clarify that Federal and non-Federal actions are to be considered, in 
the final rule the words ``Federal or non-Federal'' are added to the 
definition of ``Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions.'' The phrase: 
``activities not yet undertaken'' is to distinguish foreseeable actions 
from past and present actions and does not alter CEQ's regulatory 
definition for cumulative impact (See 40 CFR 1508.7). The CEQ 
definition for cumulative impact includes past and present actions. 
Ongoing activities such as grazing and oil and gas development would be 
considered present activities and thereby accounted for in the 
description of the current state of the environment (the ``Affected 
Environment'') and the future state of the environment in the absence 
of the proposed action (the ``no-action alternative''), as well as in 
the cumulative effects analysis. The Department has struck a balance 
between speculation about activities that are not yet planned and 
remain speculative and those that are reasonably foreseeable and have 
evolved to the point of being a proposal capable of meaningful NEPA 
analysis (for example, based on other development in the area when 
there has been some decision, funding, or development of a proposal 
(see 40 CFR 1508.23)).
    Comments. Several individuals are concerned that ``interested 
parties and agencies'' is used throughout the entire proposed rule, but 
is not defined. They suggest that ``interested parties and agencies'' 
be defined to lend clarity on what individuals represent those groups.
    Response. This final rule supplements, but does not replace the CEQ 
regulations. Accordingly, the Forest Service is still subject to the 
CEQ public involvement requirements at 40 CFR 1501.4, 1501.7, 1503.1, 
and 1506.6, which include informing ``persons and agencies who may be 
interested or affected'' by agency proposals. The CEQ regulation at 40 
CFR 1506.6 further requires agencies to ``make diligent

[[Page 43087]]

efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA 
procedures,'' which would include public involvement in preparing 
environmental assessments and environmental impact statements. The 
Department believes the meaning of ``interested'' and ``affected 
parties and agencies'' is sufficiently defined in current NEPA usage 
and the courts' and CEQ's interpretation of these terms.
    Comments. The proposed rule defined preliminary environmental 
impact statement (PEIS). The regulations later went on to describe that 
if PEISs are prepared they would be available to those interested and 
affected persons and agencies for comment.
    Many respondents agree the development of a PEIS is good in that it 
makes the Forest Service's decisionmaking process transparent. However, 
respondents are concerned that the Forest Service does not indicate 
what this process will look like in practice and at what level the 
public will participate. Concern was raised that there could be 
inconsistency across the Forest Service in how the PEIS would be used 
which could confuse people. Also, the proposed rule does not indicate 
when the public must comment in order to maintain standing to appeal.
    One respondent feels the proposed rule violates CEQ regulation 40 
CFR 1506.8 by adding an additional stage in the NEPA process. Some 
respondents question what role the PEIS will play, and how the PEIS and 
scoping process will interact. The same people ask what level of detail 
will be required in a PEIS. Moreover, if the responsible official 
chooses to use a PEIS, it is unknown whether there will be an 
opportunity to challenge the Forest Service to provide more 
information.
    There are concerns that the collaborative process and PEIS would 
``over-complicate the planning process,'' ``unduly burden the public 
and other government agencies,'' and ``unfairly'' place those who 
cannot fully participate at a ``disadvantage.'' Others who commented 
felt that 40 CFR 1506.10, and 1502.19 should apply to all EISs the 
Forest Service produces for comment.
    Response. Due to the confusion and concern surrounding the PEIS the 
Department felt it was best to remove this provision. The definition in 
the proposed rule found at section 220.3 and description in section 
220.5 have been removed in the final rule. As discussed previously in 
the proposed rule preamble, collaboration with the public is already 
allowed and will continue as an option for the responsible official. 
The PEIS is simply an optional tool and its removal from the final rule 
will not remove that option. The responsible official will still be 
free to involve and inform the public above and beyond the regulations 
in a manner that best meets the public and government good. The 
provisions in the final rule at section 220.5(f) regarding circulating 
and filing draft and final environmental impact statements remain 
unchanged from the proposal.

 Section 220.4(b) Emergency Responses

    Comments. Section 220.4(b)(2) of the proposed rule provided ``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.'' Overall, respondents generally 
agree that some emergency actions should be allowed, for example when 
an action is needed to mitigate harm to human life or property. 
However, some respondents feel that by not clearly defining what an 
important resource is, the Forest Service could use the emergency 
response clause as a way to permit ``salvage logging'' or other ``high 
impact projects'' on the national forests. Several respondents suggest 
that the Forest Service re-word the emergency response provision to 
something like ``The responsible official may take emergency actions 
necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency to mitigate 
harm to human life, property, or rare natural resources.''
    Response. The final rule, at section 220.4(b)(1), replaces ``other 
important resources'' with ``important natural or cultural resources'' 
to more clearly identify the type of resources impacted by the 
emergency.
    Under section 220.4(b)(1), timber salvage activities solely to 
reduce economic loss are not emergency actions as such activity is not 
necessary to control the immediate impacts to life, property, or 
important natural or cultural resources. Some confusion and/or concern 
may have arisen with the use of the word ``important'' because the 
Forest Service appeal regulations at 36 CFR 215 includes provisions for 
``emergency situations'', a term that may include the concept of 
economic loss: ``A situation on National Forest System (NFS) lands for 
which immediate implementation of all or part of a decision is 
necessary for relief from hazards threatening human health and safety 
or natural resources on those NFS or adjacent lands; or that would 
result in substantial loss of economic value to the Federal Government 
if implementation of the decision were delayed.'' (emphasis added). The 
appeal regulations cover a different process from the proposed NEPA 
procedures.
    The appeal rule covers a broader range of harms which might occur 
during the processing of an administrative appeal. The emergency stay 
determination in the appeal rule allows the Forest Service to consider 
harms that may result from this delay in implementation. In contrast, 
an emergency response under this final rule is limited to actions 
necessary to control the immediate effects of an emergency, not the 
economic effects of delay brought about by an appeal.
    Comments. Respondents wrote that an emergency response should not 
be used to constitute a special use permit request or to circumvent 
NEPA compliance for controversial projects.
    Response. The final rule at section 220.4(b) does not create new 
permits or circumvent existing permits; it simply allows limited 
actions under narrowly defined emergency circumstances. As an example, 
any situations involving the use of emergency procedures under these 
regulations are nonetheless subject to the separate requirements of 
existing special use regulations at 36 CFR 251.50(b), which allow for 
the temporary occupancy of NFS lands without a special use 
authorization when necessary for the protection of life and property in 
emergencies.
    Comment. Some people also questioned whether the emergency 
provision at Sec.  220.4(b) would replace the Forest Service's efforts 
to assess the impacts of its fire retardant program.
    Response. The Forest Service has completed an assessment of the 
impacts of the aerial application of fire retardant in an EA which is 
unaffected by this final rule. The title for that assessment is Aerial 
Application of Fire Retardant Environmental Analysis, October 2007. 
https://www.fs.fed.us/fire/retardant/.
    Comments. Respondents were concerned about specific details of the 
``emergency response'' provision. For example, what constitutes an 
emergency? Who determines the emergency, and how is it reported and 
documented for public review? Respondents are concerned that the 
looseness of the provision could provide an easy way to ``slide 
projects through under the radar without having to do a proper 
analysis.''
    Response. There is no special meaning intended for the term 
``emergency'' beyond its common usage as ``an unforeseen combination of 
circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action'' 
(Webster's Third New International Dictionary Of The English Language 
1961 and Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2004)); ``a 
sudden, urgent, usually unexpected occurrence or

[[Page 43088]]

occasion requiring immediate action'' (Random House Dictionary of the 
English Language (2ed. 1987)); ``a state of things unexpectedly 
arising, and urgently demanding immediate action'' (The Oxford English 
Dictionary 2ed. 1991) and ``[a] situation that demands unusual or 
immediate action and that may allow people to circumvent usual 
procedures * * *'' (Black's Law Dictionary 260, 562 (8th ed. 2004)). 
The proposed regulation, as revised in this final rule, recognizes that 
responsible officials can take immediate actions to control the 
immediate impacts of an emergency to mitigate harm to life, property, 
or important natural or cultural resources.
    As stated in the preamble of the proposed regulations, only such 
actions required to address the ``immediate impacts of the emergency 
that are urgently required to mitigate harm to life, property, or 
important natural or cultural resources'' may be taken without regard 
to the procedural requirements of NEPA, the CEQ regulations, or the 
proposed agency regulations. Thus, there are no NEPA documentation 
requirements for these types of situations and the final rule requires 
NEPA to apply to any and all subsequent proposed actions that address 
the underlying emergency (220.4(b)(2) and (3)). The provisions of 220.4 
codify the existing Forest Service practice and CEQ guidance for 
emergency actions.
    In the past the Forest Service has acted to protect lives, 
property, and important natural or cultural resources without this rule 
by adhering to CEQ regulations and guidance found in the CEQ Memorandum 
for Federal NEPA Contacts on Emergency Actions and NEPA, along with its 
associate attachments https://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/Memo_to_NEPA_
Contacts_September_8_05. For example, search and rescue or fire 
suppression operations responding to specific emergency situations 
caused by events such as flood, fire, landslides, storms, and 
explosions.
    Sections 220.4(b)(2) and (b)(3) address emergency situations where 
the Forest Service puts forth proposals to address actions where 
``alternative arrangements'' or routine NEPA requirements will be 
followed.

 Section 220.4(d) Schedule of Proposed Actions

    Comments. A concern was expressed that 220.4(d) contains a great 
deal of guidance rather than procedure language.
    Response. The final rule removes the explanatory guidance related 
to the schedule of proposed actions (SOPA). The final rule adds a 
definition of ``Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA)'' in section 220.3. 
The final rule, in section 220.4(d), establishes the duty of the 
responsible official to make the SOPA available to the public. FSH 
1909.15 contains the explanatory guidance associated with this 
requirement.
    Comments. A few respondents are concerned that the SOPA is used as 
the sole or only scoping mechanism. Respondents would like to see the 
Forest Service clarify that scoping must not be limited to the SOPA 
mechanism.
    Response. Since its inception, the SOPA has not been intended to be 
used as the only scoping mechanism as stated in previous Forest Service 
NEPA procedures and in the proposed rule. The final rule retains this 
clarification and explicitly states ``the SOPA shall not be used as the 
sole scoping mechanism for a proposed action.'' (220.4(e)(3)) (emphasis 
added).
    Comment. Several individuals mentioned that the Forest Service does 
not produce a SOPA for categorical exclusions (CE), which leads to 
projects being implemented before the public is informed.
    Response. Forest Service categorical exclusions are organized in 
two groups: Actions requiring a supporting record and a decision memo 
documenting the decision to proceed, and actions where a supporting 
record and a decision memo are not required, but may be prepared at the 
discretion of the responsible official (see section 220.6). The first 
group of categorically excluded actions, for which a decision memo has 
been or will be prepared, are included in the SOPA (see definition at 
section 220.3). The Forest Service believes the latter group of 
actions, not requiring documentation, to be of low public interest and, 
therefore, not appropriate for inclusion in the SOPA (such as mowing 
the lawn). It is important to note that the rule states, ``the SOPA 
shall not be used as the sole scoping mechanism for a proposed 
action.'' (220.4(e)(3)).

 Section 220.4(f) Cumulative Effects Considerations of Past Actions

    Comments. Section 220.4(f) of the proposed rule addresses the 
consideration of past actions in cumulative effects analysis. Many 
respondents feel that in order to complete an effective cumulative 
effects analysis, the Forest Service must consider past projects. Some 
people are concerned that the rule would weaken the requirements to 
look at past actions and future actions and would streamline the 
decisionmaking process for potentially destructive projects. On that 
same note, people believe that it is imperative to fully disclose all 
potential impacts a project might have or could have down the road, 
claiming that without full disclosure natural resources could be in 
danger. They asked how field personnel know what effects from past 
actions are relevant to current decisionmaking unless all such actions 
and their impacts were first considered.
    Another concern expressed by some respondents was that the proposed 
rule would change the baseline condition of the landscape to what 
condition the landscape is considered to be in at the time an action is 
proposed, rather than the landscape condition at the time the Forest 
Service first started ``managing'' it.
    Other individuals are concerned that any reduction in the scope of 
an agency's responsibility to conduct cumulative impact analyses will 
undermine CEQ guidance and regulations. A respondent stated that the 
CEQ itself has recognized evidence that ``the most devastating 
environmental effects may result * * * from the combination of 
individually minor effects of multiple actions over time.''
    One respondent said the proposal was an illegal attempt to get 
around court rulings on what must be considered. The respondent points 
out that regulations are supposed to be complying with the CEQ 
regulations, not creating some guidance that attempts to get around the 
regulations. Because of the importance of national forests and their 
ecological and social benefits to people, wildlife, and plants, one 
respondent encouraged Forest Service personnel to consider all 
cumulative impacts.
    Response. At section 220.4(f), this final rule incorporates 
verbatim, the language for the analysis of cumulative effects from the 
June 24, 2005 CEQ Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in 
Cumulative Effects Analysis, which may be found at https://
ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/Guidance_on_CE.pdf. This provision is to be 
used with existing CEQ regulations, which use the terms effects and 
impacts synonymously and define cumulative impact as the incremental 
impact of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 
foreseeable future actions (40 CFR 1508.7). The Forest Service agrees 
that it must consider past actions to determine cumulative effects, 
however, there is no requirement under NEPA or the CEQ regulations to 
arrive at a description of the state of the environment at some distant 
point in

[[Page 43089]]

the past when the Forest Service first began managing the land.
    The focus of the CEQ guidance incorporated in this final rule is on 
the consideration of useful and relevant information related to past 
actions when determining the cumulative effects of proposals and 
alternatives. The Forest Service will conduct cumulative effects 
analyses necessary to inform decisionmaking and disclose environmental 
effects in compliance with NEPA.
    To clarify the Forest Service's commitment to follow the quoted CEQ 
guidance concerning consideration of past actions, the first sentence 
in the final rule at section 220.4(g) is revised to state, ``Cumulative 
effects analysis shall be carried out in accordance with 40 CFR 1508.7 
and in accordance with ``The Council on Environmental Quality Guidance 
Memorandum on Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects 
Analysis'' dated June 24, 2005:''

Section 220.4(h) Incorporation by Reference

    Comments. Several conservation organizations have concerns about 
the incorporation by reference provision in the proposed rule: 
``Consistent with 40 CFR 1502.21, material may be incorporated by 
reference into any environmental or decision document.'' They are 
concerned the material will not be available to the public for review 
in a timely manner or included in the administrative record.
    One conservation group feels the following needs to be added to 
section 220.4(h), ``No material may be incorporated by reference unless 
it is available for inspection by potentially interested persons within 
the time allowed for comment.'' Another conservation group proposed the 
addition of ``this material must be reasonably available to the public 
within the time allowed for comment and its content briefly described 
in the environmental document.''
    Response. Referring to material incorporated by reference, the 
proposed rule at section 220.4(h) explicitly stated, ``This material 
must be reasonably available to the public and its contents briefly 
described in the environmental or decision document.'' This language is 
retained in the final rule and meets the Forest Service 
responsibilities and obligations under NEPA and the CEQ NEPA 
regulations to have the materials readily available during the comment 
period.

Section 220.5(a) Classes of Actions Requiring Environmental Impact 
Statements

    Comments. Section 220.5(a)(1) details the classes of actions 
``normally'' requiring preparation of an EIS. Given that `normally' was 
not previously found in this provision of Forest Service procedures, 
many respondents are concerned that the word ``normally'' would allow 
the Forest Service to use its discretion to avoid preparing an EIS for 
environmentally damaging actions. A concern was raised that the 
examples given in classes of actions normally requiring an EIS are 
extreme and fail to acknowledge the fact that far less extreme 
activities will occur which will cause ``significant environmental 
impacts.'' A question was raised as to whether or not the requirements 
for these classes may be met by the appropriate use of program 
environmental impact statements and tiered site-specific environmental 
documents. A comment also noted that the requirements for a notice of 
intent to prepare an EIS at 220.5(b) should provide for situations 
where there is a lengthy period between the agency's decision to 
prepare an environmental impacts statement and the time of actual 
preparation pursuant to 40 CFR 1507.3(e).
    Response. As many respondents note, previous Forest Service 
procedures identified ``Classes of Actions Requiring Environmental 
Impact Statements.'' The proposed rule at section 220.5 added the word 
``normally'', thus identifying classes of actions for which EISs are 
typically, but not always, required. This addition was made to comply 
with CEQ regulations for agency NEPA procedures that require agencies 
to identify typical classes of action ``Which normally do require 
environmental statements'' (40 CFR 1507.3(b)(2)(i)). It will be rare to 
not prepare an EIS given the circumstances described in the classes. 
The responsible official may prepare an EA in situations where an EIS 
is ``normally'' prepared if, in their professional judgment, they have 
complied with the standards for determination of significance as 
specified in the CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1508.27. This standard is 
also articulated in the handbook being published concurrently with 
these regulations. Therefore, the final rule retains the word 
``normally'' in section 220.5.
    In the list of classes at section 220.5(a)(2), the final rule 
changes the reference to ``inventoried roadless area'' to ``inventoried 
roadless area or potential wilderness area''. Forest Service land 
management planning procedures in FSH 1909.12, chapter 70, describe a 
facet of the land management planning process whereby potential 
wilderness areas are identified. Once completed, the identification of 
potential wilderness areas would be a more contemporary inventory than 
the previously-conducted roadless area inventory. Some units of the 
National Forest System have completed the identification of potential 
wilderness areas and no longer maintain an inventory of roadless areas, 
while others have not yet completed identification of potential 
wilderness areas and, therefore, still maintain a roadless area 
inventory. The intent of the revised language at 220.5(a)(2) is to 
account for either scenario.
    Acreages were removed from the Class 2 examples in the proposed 
rule section 220.5(a) in response to concerns that the examples of 
actions for which EISs would normally be required represent extreme 
cases. The word ``substantial'' replaces the acreage in the first 
example (220.5(a)(i)) in the final rule to be consistent with the 
description of Class 2. The following new language has been included in 
the final rule at section 220.5(a): ``Examples include but are not 
limited to:'' To emphasize that the stated examples are not all-
inclusive. The Department feels that the examples reflect Forest 
Service experience implementing NEPA and provide the context for each 
class.
    The 3rd Class of Action listed in the proposed rule, ``Other 
proposals to take major Federal actions that may significantly affect 
the quality of the human environment'' was deleted in this final rule 
because it did not describe a proposal but only rephrased the 
requirement for when to prepare an EIS.
    Program environmental impact statements will continue to satisfy 
the requirements of this section. Such impact statements document 
analyses of broad actions or programs. Site-specific environmental 
impact statements or environmental assessments for actions that fall 
within the scope of a program environmental impact statement need only 
summarize the issues discussed in the program statement and incorporate 
discussions from the program statement by reference, concentrating on 
the issues specific to the subsequent action. (See 40 CFR 1502.20)
    Finally, the requirements for the notice of intent at 220.5(b) have 
been changed in the final rule to include the following sentence: 
``Where there is a lengthy period between the agency's decision to 
prepare an environmental impact statement and the time of actual

[[Page 43090]]

preparation, the notice of intent may be published at a reasonable time 
in advance of preparation of the draft statement.''

Section 220.5(e) Alternatives

    Comments. A concern was raised that the proposed rule language 
``reasonable alternatives should meet the purpose and need,'' would 
preclude alternatives that do not fully meet the purpose and need for 
the proposal. The respondent felt the statement is unduly restrictive 
and should be modified to provide a justifiable range of 
reasonableness.
    Response. The word ``should'' is retained in this provision in the 
final rule because it provides focus for the development and design of 
alternatives and continues to allow for reasonable variations, which 
encompass a reasonable range.
    Comments. The proposed rule provision for documenting consideration 
of the no-action alternative by contrasting the current condition and 
expected future condition should the proposed action not be undertaken, 
raised a number of concerns that the Forest Service would no longer 
consider a no-action alternative. Some respondents are concerned that 
without the no-action alternative being documented and considered as 
traditionally done, the effects of doing nothing will not be adequately 
expressed. Some expressed that not considering a no-action alternative 
would be illegal.
    Response. The intent of the proposed regulation is to continue to 
require consideration of the no-action alternative as required by 40 
CFR 1502.14(d), yet the wording caused some to think the no action 
alternative would not be considered. To avoid confusion as to the 
Forest Service's commitment always to consider and document the no-
action alternative in an EIS, the proposed rule language is not in the 
final rule.
    Comments. Proposed rule section 220.5(e)(3) recognizes how adaptive 
management may be incorporated into a proposal and alternatives. Some 
respondents are supportive of adaptive management and feel that if 
adjustments are made during implementation, the action would be 
acceptable so long as the adjustments were fully described and their 
effects disclosed in the EIS. Others however feel the rule is self-
defeating because it still requires that adjustments be ``clearly 
articulated and pre-specified'' and ``fully analyzed.'' They would like 
to see the Forest Service's final rule ``clarify that adaptive 
management is intended to deal with uncertainty, and that the goal is 
to use adaptation to achieve a desired result.''
    Others expressed concern that a defined process for making 
adjustments with adaptive management has not been described. They ask, 
for example, who would be in charge of making the decision, how is the 
public informed, and how will the adjustments be monitored and 
reported. Several respondents feel that before an ``adjustment'' or 
substantial change is made, a supplemental EIS would be needed.
    Response. Section 220.5(e)(3) of the proposed rule is retained in 
the final rule at section 220.5(e)(2). The intent of the adaptive 
management option in the proposed regulation is to allow for possible 
changes in an action to achieve the desired effect without having to 
reanalyze the proposal and reconsider the decision. When proposing an 
action the responsible official may identify possible adjustments that 
may be appropriate during project implementation. Those possible 
adjustments must be described and their effects analyzed in the EIS. 
The decision may then allow for those adjustments during project 
implementation.
    The requirements for supplemental EISs at 40 CFR 1502.9(1) 
continues to apply under the final rule (see 220.1(b)). NEPA and the 
CEQ regulations do not specify how the Forest Service uses adaptive 
management, and it is the responsibility of the Forest Service to 
specify roles, responsibilities, and procedures for implementing 
adaptive management adjustments in the documents available for public 
notice and comment as part of NEPA and other statutes. If the 
responsible official identifies possible adjustments in the decision, 
the official will also identify any monitoring and/or public 
notification requirements as part of the NEPA and decisionmaking 
process. The need described under the CEQ regulations for a 
supplemental EIS on an adjustment is dependent on the degree to which 
the adjustment was specified and analyzed in the analyses. The 
responsible official is the person who is responsible for implementing 
the decision and making any adjustments during implementation. If the 
responsible official identified possible adjustments in the decision, 
the official will also identify any monitoring and/or public 
notification requirements as part of the NEPA and decisionmaking 
process.

Section 220.5(g) Circulating and Filing Draft and Final Environmental 
Impact Statements

    Section 220.5(f)(2) of the final rule adds the reference ``40 CFR 
1506.9'' to other citations related to requirements for filing and 
circulating EISs. The omission of this reference in the proposed rule 
was an oversight.

Section 220.6 Categorical Exclusions

    Comments. Many respondents are concerned about a number of the 
categories set out in the proposed rule, for various reasons. Some 
conservation groups argue that the proposed rule is a continuation of 
the ``administration's disturbing and unfortunate trend toward 
undermining NEPA, from categorically excluding both forest planning and 
project-level decisions from NEPA analysis and documentation.'' Many 
respondents feel the categorical exclusions should be eliminated from 
the rule; various people suggest some categories are illegal. Many 
respondents argue that certain categorically excluded actions would 
create significant impacts and should go through the NEPA process.
    Some respondents reference Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. 
Dept. of Agriculture, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (N.D. Cal. 2007), stating 
the proposed rule is illegal in light of this ruling.
    Additionally, some conservation groups are concerned about the 
Forest Service's proposal to allow an internal review to determine 
whether an extraordinary circumstance will cause a proposed action to 
have a significant impact on the environment. Citing Rhodes v. Johnson, 
153 F.3d 785, 790 (7th Cir 1998), they state that the environmental 
assessment is the process required to make the determination if the 
proposed action will have a significant impact on the environment. The 
group believes that the wording of the proposed rule at 220.6(b), 
regarding the determination whether there are extraordinary 
circumstances, should be changed from ``Resource conditions that should 
be considered'' to ``Resource conditions that shall be considered * * 
*''. They also believe that the list of resource conditions provided in 
the proposed rule should not be exhaustive, and that other items should 
be added such as inventoried roadless areas, steep slopes, highly 
erosive soils, state listed species, karst topography, caves, and 
proposed wild and scenic river corridors. The regulations should 
require an analysis addressing any extraordinary circumstance listed in 
the regulations or identified in public comments, according to the 
respondent.

[[Page 43091]]

    Response. This final rule is moving established categories and 
language on extraordinary circumstances from the Forest Service NEPA 
procedures previously located in FSH 1909.15 to 36 CFR 220.6. These 
categories and requirements were established following public review 
and comment, in consultation with CEQ and with CEQ's concurrence. The 
final rule does not add any new categories, nor does it substantively 
alter existing requirements regarding extraordinary circumstances. The 
Department did not propose any changes to the categorical exclusions or 
associated requirements and does not believe any changes are warranted 
in this final rule.
    Regarding the allegation that the court ruling in Citizens for 
Better Forestry v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture makes this rule illegal: 
In an order dated March 30, 2007, the United States District Court 
enjoined the USDA from implementing and utilizing the 2005 land 
management planning rule at 36 CFR part 219 until it takes additional 
steps to comply with the court's opinion regarding the Administrative 
Procedure Act (APA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and NEPA. The Court 
stated, ``In particular, the agency must provide notice and comment on 
the 2005 Rule as required by the APA since the court concludes that the 
rule was not a `logical outgrowth' of the 2002 Proposed Rule. 
Additionally, because the 2005 Rule may significantly affect the 
quality of the human environment under NEPA, and because it may affect 
listed species and their habitat under ESA, the agency must conduct 
further analysis and evaluation of the impact of the 2005 Rule in 
accordance with those statutes.'' This ruling on the forest planning 
regulations (which have been revised and reissued in 2008) in no way 
invalidates this final rule regarding Forest Service NEPA obligations 
and responsibilities for proposed forest plans.
    The court ruling cited by some respondents in Rhodes v. Johnson 
concerned an interpretation of the Forest Service's procedures for 
determining whether extraordinary circumstances exist. The ruling was 
made in 1998. In 2002, the Forest Service clarified its procedures for 
consideration of extraordinary circumstances, in consultation with CEQ 
and following public review and comment. The clarification specified 
that the mere presence of one or more of the listed resource conditions 
does not preclude use of a categorical exclusion; rather it is the 
degree of potential effect of a proposed action on the resource 
conditions that determines whether or not extraordinary circumstances 
exist. Furthermore, the provision at Sec.  220.6(c) states that 
uncertainty over the significance of effects of a proposed action 
requires preparation of an EA.
    If a proposed action is within a categorical exclusion identified 
in Forest Service procedures, the responsible official must determine 
that there are no extraordinary circumstances in which a normally 
excluded action may have a significant environmental effect. The 
responsible official relies on many sources of information in making a 
determination concerning extraordinary circumstances, including public 
comment, specialist reports, and consultation with other agencies.
    The extraordinary circumstances requirements include a list of 
resource conditions that ``should'' be considered. ``Should'' is used 
instead of ``shall'' because ``should'' underscores that the list is 
not intended to be exhaustive. The list of resource conditions is 
intended as a starting place and does not preclude consideration of 
other factors or conditions by the responsible official with the 
potential for significant environmental effects.
    While some Forest Service categorical exclusions of limited scope 
do not require a decision memo or project record, a majority of the 
Forest Service's categories do require preparation of a decision memo 
and a supporting record. The project record and decision memo both 
document the determination that no extraordinary circumstances exist 
(Sec.  220.6(e) and (f)).
    Reviewers should note that the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Ninth Circuit has invalidated the categorical exclusion for 
hazardous fuels reduction activities (Sec.  220.6(e)(10)). Sierra Club 
v. Bosworth, 510 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2007). A motion for rehearing is 
pending for that case. Because judicial proceedings are ongoing the 
category will be retained subject to the Chief's December 19, 2007 
instructions that Forest Service officials must refrain from use of 
this category while the litigation remains unresolved. See https://
www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/nepa_procedures/index.htm. The Forest Service 
will fully comply with all judicial orders and instructions. Once the 
judicial process has been concluded, the category will either remain or 
be removed, depending upon the litigation's outcome. If, at a later 
date, the Department determines changes need to be made to section 
220.6, those proposed changes will be made in consultation with CEQ and 
made available to the public for review and comment.
    The Department moved existing Forest Service categories and 
associated language directly from its NEPA procedures previously found 
in FSH 1909.15 chapter 30 to the proposed rule. The only changes made 
were minor editorial changes for clarity. In transmitting and 
formatting the existing categorical exclusions for the proposed 
regulation, the following statement about ``decision memos'' in the 
existing procedures was inadvertently left out of the proposed 
regulation: ``If the proposed action is approval of a land management 
plan, plan amendment, or plan revision, the plan approval document 
required by 36 CFR 219.7(c) satisfies the decision memo requirements of 
this section.'' The statement is intended to avoid duplicate decision 
documents for land management plans. Thus, the final rule includes this 
statement.

Section 220.7 Environmental Assessments

    Comments. One conservation group is concerned about the length of 
EAs. This group believes the Forest Service is producing lengthy EAs, 
which should be EISs. They state that the CEQ has advised agencies to 
keep the length for an EA to 10-15 pages. They feel that the Forest 
Service may incorporate material by reference to reduce the length of 
the document. The group suggests that the Forest Service should add 
page requirements to its proposed rule, to avoid lengthy EAs.
    Response. The final rule includes incorporation by reference in 
section 220.4, General Requirements, subsection (h) `Incorporation by 
Reference', section 220.7 `Environmental Analysis and Decision Notice', 
subsections (a), (b)(2)(iii) and (iv). Section 220.7, `Environmental 
Analysis and Decision Notices' emphasizes brief, succinct 
documentation. Existing guidance emphasizes the use of incorporation by 
reference as a tool for the responsible official to use, and grants the 
flexibility needed to provide the documentation necessary for the 
analysis but keeps the page limits within what is required for adequate 
disclosure. Consequently, there is no need to set specific page limits.
    Comments. Many respondents commented on section 220.7(b)(iii) of 
the proposed rule, which would allow consideration of a no-action 
alternative to be shown by contrasting the impacts of the proposal and 
alternatives with the current condition and expected future conditions 
if the proposed action were not implemented. Many respondents expressed 
the importance of not allowing such a ``no-action alternative''

[[Page 43092]]

to lead to a decreased analysis and consideration of ``no-action.'' 
They emphasize that informed and meaningful consideration of 
alternatives, including the no-action alternative, is an integral part 
of the NEPA process.
    Response. After consideration of the comments, the Department has 
chosen to keep the provision in the final rule. There is no specific 
CEQ requirement to include a no-action alternative in an EA and the 
language follows CEQ's EA guidance Preparing Focused, Concise and 
Timely Environmental Assessments (see https://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/
Preparing_Focused_Concise_and_Timely_EAs.pdf). By contrasting the 
impacts of the proposal and alternatives with the current condition and 
expected future condition of the environment, the effects of a no-
action alternative are considered. This provision is provided as an 
option for responsible officials to use if in their best judgment it 
serves the need of the analysis.
    Comments. Respondents want the Forest Service to provide a 
definition for ``unresolved conflicts'' and to present examples of such 
actions. Others want to know who decides whether there are ``no 
unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available 
resources.''
    Response. The term ``unresolved conflicts'' comes directly from 
NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)E). Typically, most Forest Service proposals 
will have alternatives; however, the final rule specifically recognizes 
that in some situations there may be no conflicts regarding a proposed 
action and in such cases alternatives would not be required.
    On September 8, 2005, the CEQ issued EA guidance to federal 
agencies entitled Preparing Focused, Concise and Timely Environmental 
Assessments, that explained language at section 102(2)(E) of NEPA 
``unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available 
resources'' (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(E)). The CEQ guidance states: ``When 
there is consensus about the proposed action based on input from 
interested parties, you can consider the proposed action and proceed 
without consideration of additional alternatives. Otherwise, you need 
to develop reasonable alternatives to meet project needs'' (Attachment 
to September 8, 2005, Memorandum for Federal NEPA Contacts https://
ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/Preparing_Focused_Concise_and_Timely_
EAs.pdf). Ultimately, the responsible official must decide on whether 
alternatives to the proposed action are appropriate, ``based on input 
from interested parties.''

Regulatory Certification

National Environmental Policy Act

    The final rule would move existing procedures for implementing the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) from the Forest Service 
handbook to 36 CFR part 220 and provide additional direction. The rule 
would not directly impact the environment. Forest Service NEPA 
procedures are procedural guidance to assist 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 CEQ set forth the requirements for 
establishing agency NEPA procedures in its regulations at 40 CFR 1505.1 
and 1507.3. The CEQ regulations do not require agencies to conduct NEPA 
analyses or prepare NEPA documentation when establishing their NEPA 
procedures. 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, 230 F.3d 947, 954-55 (7th Cir. 
2000).

Regulatory Impact

    This final rule has been reviewed under USDA procedures and 
Executive Order 12866 issued September 30, 1993, as amended by 
Executive Order 13422 on regulatory planning and review and the major 
rule provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and 
Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 800). 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 final rule to establish agency implementing 
procedures for NEPA in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) has been 
designated as significant and, therefore, is subject to Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review under Executive Order 12866.
    In accordance with the 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