[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 6, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40591-40597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-15219]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

RIN 0596-AB73


National Environmental Policy Act Documentation Needed for 
Certain Special Use Authorizations

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of issuance of final directive.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service is revising procedures for implementing the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on 
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for certain actions, which can 
be categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental 
assessment or an environmental impact statement. These final 
implementing procedures will be issued in an amendment to Forest 
Service Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, 
Chapter 30, sections 31.12 and 31.2. This amendment creates two new 
categorical exclusions for the amendment to or replacement of special 
use authorizations involving administrative changes when no changes are 
proposed in the authorized facilities and no increase in the scope or 
intensity of authorized activities is proposed. The intent of these 
categorical exclusions is to facilitate employees' consistent 
interpretation and application of CEQ regulations and related agency 
policy.
    The Forest Service is also making technical changes to the Zero 
Code Chapter and Chapters 10, 30, and 40 of FSH 1909.15. These 
technical changes do not substantively change the agency's NEPA 
procedures. The amendments incorporate into parent text of the agency 
policy and procedures previously set forth in interim directives to 
Chapter 30; reformat the Handbook; and make minor editorial changes 
throughout the Handbook. The amendment to Chapter 30 revises incorrect 
section codes 31.1a and 31.1b to 31.11 and 31.12 respectively. 
Accordingly, references to section 31.1b in the proposal to revise the 
agency's NEPA procedures (66 FR 48412) now relate to section 31.12.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These amendments Nos. 19090.15-2004-1 through 4 are 
effective July 6, 2004.

ADDRESSES: These new categorical exclusions are available 
electronically from the Forest Service via the World Wide Web/Internet 
at http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives. Single paper copies of these 
categorical exclusions are also available by contacting Dave Sire, 
Forest Service, USDA, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff (Mail 
Stop 1104), 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1104.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Sire, Ecosystem Management 
Coordination Staff, 202-205-2935 or Melissa Hearst, Lands Staff, 202-
205-1196.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Summary of the Categorical Exclusions for Certain Special Use 
Authorizations

    A special use is defined in 36 CFR Part 251, Subpart B as ``All 
uses of National Forest System lands, improvements, and resources, 
except those provided for in regulations governing the disposal of 
timber (part 223) and minerals (part 228) and the grazing of livestock 
(part 222) * * *'' The Forest Service controls the occupancy and use of 
National Forest System lands, improvements, and resources through 
issuance of special use authorizations, such as permits, leases, or 
easements.
    It is important to note that ski areas and organizational camps are 
the two types of special uses of National Forest System lands that are 
not addressed by the new final categorical exclusions. Ski area permits 
are addressed by an existing categorical exclusion (FSH 1909.15 sec. 
31.12 para. 9). The ministerial issuance or amendment of an 
organizational camp special use authorization is not subject to the

[[Page 40592]]

National Environmental Policy Act (16 U.S.C. 6231 et seq.).
    In April 1997, the Forest Service completed a study of its special 
uses program to identify changes needed to manage the program in a more 
efficient and customer service oriented manner. The study may be viewed 
at http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/permits/final1.htm. The study 
revealed a large backlog of unprocessed special use applications 
involving administrative changes of ownership or control of authorized 
facilities or activities, or applications for a new special use 
authorization to replace an expired authorization. The study concluded 
that a primary cause of this backlog is the inconsistent application 
and misinterpretation of agency policy found in Forest Service Handbook 
(FSH) 1909.15, Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook, Chapter 
30, which addresses categorical exclusion from documentation in an 
environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). 
Some units were categorically excluding administrative changes to 
special use authorizations, while others preparing EAs, which 
emphasized a need for clarification.

Proposed Interim Directive to Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Chapter 
30

    On September 20, 2001, the Forest Service published a notice of 
proposed interim directive to Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, 
Chapter 30, which would partially revise the agency's direction on the 
use of categorical exclusions (66 FR 48412). The intent of this 
proposed interim directive was to assist employees in interpreting and 
complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the 
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for certain special 
use authorization actions, which can be categorically excluded from 
documentation in an environmental assessment or an environmental impact 
statement. The proposed interim directive would have added three new 
categories for special use authorizations involving administrative 
changes when no changes are proposed in the authorized facilities or 
activities. The proposal also included a modification of Handbook text 
to clarify agency policy concerning extraordinary circumstances.
    Nearly 26,000 responses in the form of letters, postcards, and e-
mail messages were received during the 60-day comment period. These 
comments came from private citizens, elected officials, and from groups 
and individuals representing businesses, private organizations, and 
Federal agencies. Responses consisted of over 800 original letters and 
over 25,000 form letters.
    Public comment on the proposed interim directive addressed a wide 
range of topics, many of which were directed at general Forest Service 
management direction, particularly the management of roadless areas. 
Most comments revealed a significant split in opinion on the proposal. 
Many people opposed the proposed interim directive or recommended 
further restriction of the use of categorical exclusions, both in 
general and for those proposed for certain special use authorizations, 
while many others supported the proposed interim directive, or favored 
further expansion of the use of categorical exclusions. Some 
respondents agreed that existing direction concerning special use 
authorizations needed clarification.
    Because of the volume and nature of comments received on the 
proposed interim directive, the agency separated the special use 
authorization categorical exclusions portion of the proposal from the 
clarification of extraordinary circumstances. On August 23, 2001, the 
Forest Service published a final interim directive to Forest Service 
Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, Chapter 30, which revised and clarified the 
agency's direction on extraordinary circumstances (67 FR 54622). 
Accordingly, this notice addresses only those comments received on the 
proposed categorical exclusions for certain special use authorization 
actions.
    The proposed additions to the Handbook were intended to provide 
clear direction to agency personnel regarding certain types of special 
use authorization actions that the agency has concluded do not 
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human 
environment, and therefore, may be categorically excluded from 
documentation in an EA or EIS. The proposed additions to sections 31.1b 
(now coded 31.12) and 31.2 included the following:

Section 31.1b Categories Established by the Chief

    Two new categories of actions were proposed to be added to this 
section:
    10. Amendment to an existing special use authorization during its 
term, involving no change in the authorized use and occupancy other 
than administrative changes. Examples include but are not limited to:
    a. Amending a special use authorization to reflect administrative 
changes, such as changes to the land use rental fee or conversion to a 
new type of special use authorization for a particular occupancy or use 
(for example, converting a permit to a lease or easement).
    b. Amending a special use authorization to include nondiscretionary 
environmental standards or updating a special use authorization to 
bring it into conformance with current laws or regulations (for 
example, new water quality standards that require monitoring).
    11. Change in ownership of authorized improvements during the term 
of an existing special use authorization, involving no change in the 
authorized use and occupancy of National Forest System lands other than 
administrative changes. Examples include but are not limited to 
issuance of a new special use authorization to a new owner of the 
authorized improvements, when there is no change to the authorized use 
and occupancy.

Section 31.2 Categories of Actions for Which a Project or Case File and 
Decision Memo Are Required

    One new category was proposed to be added to this section:
    10. Issuance of a new special use authorization to the holder of an 
existing special use authorization when:
    a. The existing special use authorization terminates at the end of 
its term;
    b. The holder is in full compliance with the terms and conditions 
of the terminating special use authorization; and
    c. There would be no change in the physical environment or 
facilities or the scope or intensity of the operations.
    Based on further study and review of the comments received, the 
proposed special use authorization categorical exclusions have been 
revised and are printed in their entirety at the end of this notice.

Comments on the Need for the Proposed Interim Directive

    Comment: Many respondents commented that there is no need for the 
proposed changes. Some respondents said that proposed actions can be 
analyzed with a concise EA, if necessary and, therefore, there is no 
need to create additional categorical exclusions. Others expressed 
strong disapproval of the agency's use of categorical exclusions 
altogether and recommended either further restricting their use, or a 
complete elimination of categorical exclusions. Conversely, other 
respondents supported the proposed

[[Page 40593]]

categories and some advocated that the agency should make greater use 
of categorical exclusions.
    Response: The CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1500.4(p)) encourage the 
appropriate use of categorical exclusions to reduce paperwork and 
unnecessary delays. The agency believes that its use of categorical 
exclusions has been and continues to be appropriate. The agency further 
believes that the time and expense required by even the most concise EA 
is not justified for those actions that qualify for categorical 
exclusion. Categorical exclusions are a legitimate tool for reducing 
excessive paperwork and to avoid allocating resources where they are 
not needed, thereby allowing the agency to devote more resources to 
environmental analysis and documentation for those requests for new 
special use authorizations that may have significant effects. 
Therefore, the agency will proceed with issuance of the categorical 
exclusions.
    Comment: The preamble for the proposed categorical exclusions 
referred to a backlog of unprocessed special use authorizations 
resulting from inconsistent application of agency policy. One 
respondent commented that a backlog exists not due to inconsistent 
application of policy by the agency, but rather because demand is 
growing for special use authorizations.
    Response: While it is true that there has been some increase in 
demand for new special use authorizations for new facilities or 
activities, the categorical exclusions make no changes to how the 
agency deals with new uses proposed on National Forest System lands. As 
identified in the preamble to the proposed categorical exclusions (66 
FR 48412), the 1997 study determined that much of the backlog of 
applications was associated with proposed administrative actions 
related to ongoing or expiring special use authorizations.
    Comment: Some respondents stated there was a real need for this 
proposal because uncertainty caused by not knowing whether or when an 
ongoing authorization was going to be replaced with a new authorization 
causes extreme financial and emotional hardship. They suggested that 
issuance of a new special use authorization to replace an existing 
authorization prior to its expiration will increase certainty and not 
disrupt ongoing uses and management of facilities and activities.
    Response: The Forest Service agrees. The proposed categorical 
exclusion at section 31.2, paragraph 10 addressed issuing new special 
use authorizations when an existing special use authorization 
terminates at the end of its term. However, administratively, it would 
be more efficient to issue the new special use authorization before it 
expires. Therefore, this categorical exclusion has been modified to 
address existing special use authorizations that are due to expire, as 
well as those that have expired, when there is no change to the 
authorized facilities or in the scope or intensity of the authorized 
activity, when the applicant or holder is in full compliance with the 
terms and conditions of the authorization, and the only changes are 
administrative.
    Due to the development of other agency categorical exclusions, the 
proposed categorical exclusion originally identified as paragraph 10 of 
section 31.2 is now paragraph 15 of section 31.2.

Comments on Compliance With Law and Regulation

    Comment: Many respondents believed the proposed categorical 
exclusions did not comply with the CEQ NEPA regulations because special 
use authorizations are used for a broad array of activities including 
actions that may have the potential for significant effects.
    Response: The CEQ regulations define categorical exclusion as a 
``category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a 
significant effect on human environment * * *'' (40 CFR 1508.4). The 
proposed categories of actions described specific administrative 
actions to existing special use authorizations that would involve no 
change in the authorized facilities or activities other than 
administrative changes. In other words, the categorical exclusion is 
designed to cover situations where administrative actions would not 
cause an individually or cumulatively significant effect on the human 
environment.
    Discussions and follow-up took place with special use authorization 
specialists and environmental policy compliance specialists throughout 
the Forest Service regarding their experience with special use 
authorizations of all kinds, in all types of forests, over many years. 
The specialists involved represent over 800 years of combined 
experience in Forest Service special uses administration and 
environmental compliance. They reviewed and discussed the environmental 
effects of special use authorizations individually and cumulatively 
over time, of administrative changes, and of the extension of the term 
or time period of the occupancy and use in situations when the 
occupancy and use is conducted in accordance with the terms and 
conditions of the authorization. After that review, they concluded that 
the activities described in the final categorical exclusions do not 
have individual or cumulative significant effects. In those few 
situations where the potential for significant environmental effects 
arose, they concluded that the scoping and/or review of extraordinary 
circumstances in accordance with direction in FSH 1909.15, Section 30.3 
resulted in preparation of either an EA or an EIS.
    Comment: Some respondents believe that the proposed categorical 
exclusions did not comply with the CEQ regulations. Their reason was 
that when considering all of the actions that the Forest Service 
authorizes through special use authorizations, these actions may have 
cumulative effects.
    Response: The actions that the agency is categorically excluding 
are specific administrative actions that do not result in significant 
effects on the environment. As described above, the agency has 
determined they do not have individually or cumulatively significant 
effects, and therefore, these categorical exclusions meet the CEQ 
regulations' definition of categorical exclusions.
    Comment: Some respondents stated that many special use 
authorizations have never undergone NEPA analysis even though the 
authorizations may have resulted in significant impacts to the human 
environment. Respondents believed that using a categorical exclusion to 
amend a current authorization or to issue a new authorization to 
replace an existing special use authorization, which had not been 
analyzed under NEPA would not comply with the CEQ regulations.
    Response: While it is true that there are some existing special use 
authorizations that were issued without undergoing a NEPA analysis, 
this situation occurred generally when the authorization was issued 
prior to enactment of NEPA and subsequent guidance. Categorical 
exclusions in paragraph 10 of section 32.12 and paragraph 15 of section 
31.2 are for administrative actions that do not change the facilities 
nor increase the level of activity. The previously noted review of all 
types of special use authorizations, including those special use 
authorizations that have not previously been reviewed through the NEPA 
process, demonstrated that existing special uses in compliance with 
their authorizations have not had significant environmental effects. 
Agency experience shows that under the conditions described in the text 
of the categorical exclusions at the end of this notice, issuing or 
amending special use authorizations does not individually or

[[Page 40594]]

cumulatively have significant effects, and are therefore in compliance 
with the CEQ regulations. The agency reviewed the proposed categorical 
exclusions and considered them in conjunction with the recently 
clarified NEPA procedures concerning extraordinary circumstances (67 FR 
54622). The agency review determined its recently clarified NEPA 
procedures concerning extraordinary circumstances would identify any 
potentially significant effects on the human environment and the Forest 
Service would, therefore, preclude use of the categorical exclusions at 
paragraph 10 of section 32.12 and paragraph 15 of section 31.2 and 
would assure preparation of the appropriate level of NEPA analysis and 
documentation.

Comments on Public Participation

    Comment: A considerable amount of comment revolved around the 
proposed categorical exclusions' effect on the public role in 
decisionmaking. Many respondents are concerned that the proposal would 
increase the use of categorical exclusions and thereby decrease the 
public's opportunity for involvement and oversight of the management of 
National Forest System lands. Other respondents think that scoping is 
not warranted for actions that may be categorically excluded.
    Response: The Forest Service will continue to conduct scoping for 
all proposed actions subject to NEPA (FSH 1909.15, section 11). Through 
scoping, the Forest Service identifies any important issues, identifies 
interested and affected persons, and determines the appropriate level 
of public involvement and the appropriate level of environmental 
analysis and documentation. When the Forest Service contemplates 
categorically excluded a proposed action, scoping is used to help 
determine whether any extraordinary circumstances exist. An integral 
part of this scoping process is determining the appropriate level of 
public participation. Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, section 11, 
directs the Responsible Official to consider options for involving 
potentially interested and affected agencies, organizations, and 
persons in the analysis process commensurate with public interest in 
the proposed action. ``Scoping is required on all proposed actions, 
including those that would appear to be categorically excluded.'' (FSH 
1909.15, section 30.3).
    Comment: Respondents were also concerned that more decisions will 
be made through a categorical exclusion and, consequently, fewer 
decisions will be appealable.
    Response: The two new categories being established are limited to 
amendment to or issuance to replace special use authorizations 
involving administrative changes or where there are no changes in the 
authorized facilities or increase in the scope or intensity of 
authorized activities. In the agency's experience, authorizations 
involving administrative adjustments or continuance of ongoing 
activities are less likely to be appealed than new actions. The actions 
covered by these categories are comparable to the types of activities 
that have been excluded from appeal in the agency's implementing 
regulations since enactment of the Appeal Reform Act (ARA). The ARA 
does not require that all actions by the Forest Service, regardless of 
their scope, be subject to appeal. To the contrary, Congress has 
delegated the responsibility for delineating which projects should be 
subject to appeal, and which should not. The agency's interpretation 
and implementation of the ARA is outlined in the Federal Register 
notice establishing the final rule (68 FR 33582, June 4, 2003). As 
previously noted, the agency will continue to conduct scoping for all 
proposed actions subject to NEPA and the responsible official will 
consider the appropriate level of public involvement commensurate with 
the level of public interest in a proposed action. The agency believes 
that including affected and interested individuals in project planning 
early in the process is more effective than applying the additional 
appeal procedures.
    However, decisions to amend current special use authorizations that 
are addressed by these new final categorical exclusions may be subject 
to appeal by parties who hold a special use authorization (36 CFR Part 
251 Subpart C). The appeal process in Subpart C is a structured, 
grievance oriented procedure that provides the elements of due process 
fundamental to resolving issues arising from a business or legal 
relationship between the Forest Service and an eligible appellant.

Comments on Impacts

    Comment: Some respondents who were opposed to the proposed 
categorical exclusions feel that any increase in the use of categorical 
exclusions represents a reduction in environmental review and the use 
of science in decisionmaking. As a result, they feel that the proposed 
categorical exclusions could result in adverse impacts to National 
Forest System lands and resources including roadless areas, wilderness 
areas, national recreation areas, threatened and endangered species, 
American Indian sacred sites, and archaeological sites.
    Response: Categorical exclusions are to be used for routine actions 
that have been found by the agency through experience and environmental 
review to have no significant environmental effects either individually 
or cumulatively (40 CFR 1508.4). On August 23, 2002, the Forest Service 
published a final interim directive to Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 
1909.15, Chapter 30, which provided direction regarding how actions, 
which may be categorically excluded, should be considered to determine 
if they warrant further analysis and documentation in an EA or EIS (67 
FR 54622). Agency NEPA procedures require that all proposed actions to 
be categorically excluded from documentation in an EA or EIS must be 
reviewed for extraordinary circumstances, which includes appropriate 
surveys and analyses, using the best available science, attendant in 
appropriate consultation with Tribes and consultation with regulatory 
agencies, such as those required by the Endangered Species Act, the 
National Historic Preservation Act, Clean Water Act, and Clear Air Act. 
Accordingly, these categorical exclusions do not apply where there are 
extraordinary circumstances, such as adverse effects on the following: 
threatened and endangered species or their designated critical habitat; 
wilderness areas; inventoried roadless areas; wetlands; impaired 
waters; national recreation areas; and archaeological, cultural, or 
historic sites. Pursuant to 36 CFR 251.64, new special use 
authorizations to replace existing authorizations must comply with 
Federal and State laws and regulations and must be consistent with land 
management plan goals and objectives, and where appropriate, standards 
and guidelines set out in the plan.
    Comment: Some respondents stated that they view the NEPA review 
process when an authorization expires as an opportunity to consider new 
information, which may bear on the environmental impact of an existing 
use or occupancy, and an opportunity to assess the impact of an 
authorization holder's facilities and/or activities. Respondents 
believed there would be less opportunity and inclination to evaluate 
these authorized facilities and activities under the proposed 
categorical exclusions. Provisions for the changes of ownership drew 
similar comments.
    Response: The agency's procedures pursuant to NEPA require scoping 
on all proposed actions, including those that would appear to be 
categorically

[[Page 40595]]

excluded (FSH 1909.15, section 11). This scoping includes consulting 
with experts and other agencies familiar with such actions and their 
direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Using the information 
obtained through scoping, the Responsible Official then determines if 
the proposed action can be categorically excluded from documentation in 
an EIS or an EA or, alternatively, determines the type of document that 
should be prepared. Moreover, Forest Service regulations (36 CFR Part 
251, subpart B) and policies (Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2700 and FSH 
2709.11) governing special uses already require the agency to consider 
if significant new information or circumstances have developed prior to 
amending a special use authorization, or prior to replacing an existing 
authorization. These regulations and policies also specify that, if new 
significant information or circumstances have developed, then the 
appropriate environmental analysis must be completed and accompany the 
decision before an authorization can be amended or issued anew.

Comments on the Interim Nature of the Directive

    Comment: Some respondents questioned why the proposed categorical 
exclusions were being issued as an interim directive and how long it 
would be in effect or under what circumstances it would terminate.
    Response: As was stated in the preamble for the proposed interim 
directive published in the September 20, 2001, Federal Register (66 FR 
48412), the changes were proposed to be made through an interim 
directive for administrative efficiency. In further consideration, and 
in response to this comment, the final categorical exclusions are not 
issued as an interim directive but rather are incorporated directly 
into the text of Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, Chapter 30.

Comments on the Categories

    Comment: Some respondents commented that not all special use 
authorization holders have equal impacts on the human environment, and 
therefore, the agency should not assume that a change in legal 
ownership does not trigger a NEPA analysis.
    Response: All authorization holders, regardless of their legal 
status (e.g., partnership, individual, nonprofit organization, 
corporation) are responsible for complying with the applicable laws, 
regulations, and terms and conditions of the special use authorization. 
By regulation (36 CFR Part 251, Subpart B) and policy (FSM 2700 and FSH 
2709.1), applicants for and holders of special use authorizations must 
be able to demonstrate that they have the technical and financial 
capability to undertake the use in compliance with the terms and 
conditions of the authorization. It is this demonstrated evidence of 
technical and financial capability, and not merely the status of 
ownership, which has a bearing on the applicant or holder 
qualifications, which the authorized officer must consider prior to 
amending or issuing a special use authorization. To highlight this 
requirement, and in response to this comment, the phrase ``and the 
applicant or holder is in full compliance with the terms and conditions 
of the special use authorization'' was added to the final categorical 
exclusions.
    Consequently, a change in ownership or control of authorized 
facilities and activities during the term of an existing special use 
authorization, involving no increase in the authorized facilities or 
scope or intensity of authorized activities on National Forest System 
lands (i.e., the activity takes place in the same or smaller geographic 
area and the amount of the use does not increase), is an example of an 
administrative change that typically results in no significant effect 
on the human environment. These were among the types of special use 
authorizations examined by agency experts and determined to have no 
significant effects on the human environment, either individually or 
cumulatively.
    Comment: Some respondents were confused by the language in the 
categorical exclusion proposed for paragraph 11 of section 31.1b 
because it referred to a change in ownership of ``authorized 
improvements.'' The respondents were concerned that this did not 
address situations where there was a change in ownership of uses, such 
as an outfitting business where there are no physical improvements on 
National Forest System lands.
    Response: Based on respondents' concerns, the final categories do 
not use the phrase ``authorized improvements.'' The categorical 
exclusions now use the terms ``authorized facilities'' and ``increases 
in the scope or intensity of authorized activities'' to encompass both 
situations.
    Comment: One respondent stated that the Forest Service must define 
the term ``administrative change'' to clarify that it refers only to 
clerical changes with no substantive changes to the terms of the 
authorization.They were concerned that it could be interpreted any 
number of ways. Another respondent asked the Forest Service to clarify 
terms used in the proposed categorical exclusions. The respondent 
suggested that the proposed categorical exclusions would not meet 
agency intent to facilitate consistent interpretation of policy.
    Resonse: One final categorical exclusions contains examples of what 
is meant by the term ``administrative changes.'' Specifically, the 
categorical exclusion in paragraph 10 of section 31.12 includes ``* * * 
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.)'' In clarifying the term ``administrative change,'' 
the agency realized that the categorical exclusions proposed for 
paragraphs 10 and 11 of section 31.1b were very similar in that they 
addressed administrative changes which occur within the term of an 
existing authorization. The agency chose to combine the two proposed 
categorical exclusions (paragraphs 10 and 11 of section 31.1b) and 
their examples into one category in paragraph 10 of section 31.12 
(formerly coded 31.1b) for clarity, and to reduce redundancy. In 
combining these two categories, the two examples under the proposed 
categorical exclusion in paragraph 10 were combined into one and a 
second example was added to illustrate the originally proposed 
categorical exclusion in paragraph 11. The words ``extensions to the 
term of authorized'' were added to the phrase ``does not involve 
changes in the authorized facilities or increases in the scope or 
intensity of authorized activities'' to clarify that the term of the 
authorization cannot change under the categorical exclusion in 
paragraph 10 of section 31.12. The word ``changes'' appeared twice in 
the same sentence in the proposed section 31.1b example, so in the 
second instance where the word ``change'' appears, it was replaced with 
``adjustment'' for readability. In this same example, the word 
``rental'' was found to be redundant and was also deleted to be 
consistent with agency special uses policy language.
    In responding to this comment it became apparent that the proposed 
categories used different terminology to describe the same condition 
under which the categories could be used. The requirement for one 
category was, ``no change in the use or occupancy'' while the other 
category required ``no change in the physical environment or facilities 
or the scope or intensity of operations.'' The two phrases, while 
worded differently, had the same intent.

[[Page 40596]]

Therefore, the categories have been reworded for consistency. Both 
final categories now utilize the phrase ``does not involve changes in 
the authorized facilities or increases in the scope or intensity of 
authorized activities.''
    In another editorial clarification, the conditions enumerated in 
the categorical exclusion proposed for paragraph 10 of section 31.2 
were combined and incorporated into the final categorical exclusion in 
paragraph 15. In so doing, the phrase ``authorization [that] expires at 
the end of its term'' was replaced with ``expired.'' The words ``for a 
new term'' were added to replace ``at the end of the term'' for 
readability and clarity. The words ``applicant or'' were added before 
``holder'' to recognize that in the case of an expired permit there 
would be an applicant but no holder.
    These edits do not change the substance of the proposed categorical 
exclusions, but rather improve their clarity and readability.

Regulatory Certifications

Environmental Impact

    These categorical exclusions add direction to guide field employees 
in the USDA Forest Service regarding procedural requirements for 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation for 
administration of special use authorizations. The Council on 
Environmental Quality does not direct agencies to prepare a NEPA 
analysis or document before establishing agency procedures that 
supplement the CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA. Agencies are 
required to adopt NEPA procedures that establish specific criteria for, 
and identification of, three classes of actions; those that require 
preparation of an environmental impact statement; those that require 
preparation of an environmental assessment; and those that are 
categorically excluded from further NEPA review (40 CFR 1507.3(b)). 
Categorical exclusions are part of those agency procedures, and 
therefore establishing categorical exclusions does not require 
preparation of a NEPA analysis or document. Agency NEPA procedures are 
internal procedural guidance to assist agencies in the fulfillment of 
agency responsibilities under NEPA, but are not the agency's final 
determination of what level of NEPA analysis is required for a 
particular proposed action. The requirements for establishing agency 
NEPA procedures are set forth at 40 CFR 1505.1 and 1507.3, and the USDA 
Forest Service has provided an opportunity for public review and has 
consulted with the Council on Environmental Quality during the 
development of these categorical exclusions. Furthermore, the 
determination that establishing categorical exclusions does not require 
NEPA analysis and documentation has been upheld in Heartwood, Inc. v. 
U.S. Forest Service, 73 F. Supp. 2d 962, 972-73 (S.D. III. 1999), 
aff'd, 230 F.3d 947, 954-55 (7th Cir. 2000).

Regulatory Impact

    These final categorical exclusions have been reviewed under USDA 
procedures and Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. 
It has been determined that this is not a significant action. This 
action to issue agency direction will not have an annual effect of $100 
million or more on the economy nor adversely affect productivity, 
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, nor State 
or local governments. This action will not interfere with an action 
taken or planned by another agency nor raise new legal or policy 
issues. Finally, this action will not alter the budgetary impact of 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and 
obligations of recipients of such programs. Accordingly, this action is 
not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive 
Order 12866.
    Moreover, the final categorical exclusions have been considered in 
light of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and it 
is hereby certified that the final categorical exclusions will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
as defined by the act because they will not impose recordkeeping 
requirements on them; they will not affect their competitive position 
in relation to large entities; and will not affect their cash flow, 
liquidity, or ability to remain in the market.

Federalism and Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    The agency has considered these final categorical exclusions under 
the requirements of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and has 
concluded that the final categorical exclusions conform 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.
    Moreover, these final categorical exclusions do not have tribal 
implications as defined by Executive Order 13175, Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, and therefore advance 
consultation with tribes was not required.

No Takings Implications

    These final categorical exclusions have 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 final categorical 
exclusions do not pose the risk of a taking of private property.

Civil Justice Reform

    These final categorical exclusions have been reviewed under 
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. After adoption of this 
policy as final, (1) all State and local laws and regulations that 
conflict with these final categorical exclusions or that would impede 
their full implementation will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effects 
would be given to this final policy; and (3) this final policy would 
not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in 
court challenging their 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 these final categorical 
exclusions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private 
sector. These final categorical exclusions do 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

    These final categorical exclusions have been reviewed under 
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. It has been 
determined that these final categorical exclusions do not constitute a 
significant energy action as defined in the Executive order.

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public

    These final categorical exclusions do not contain any additional 
record-

[[Page 40597]]

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, impose 
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.

Conclusion

    Having considered the comments received, the Forest Service is 
adopting procedures that clarify direction regarding administrative 
changes to special use authorizations where there are no changes in the 
authorized facilities or increases in the scope or intensity of 
authorized activities by creating two new categories of actions that 
can be excluded from documentation in an EA or an EIS. This change is 
being implemented through amendment to FSH 1909.15, Environmental 
Policy and Procedures Handbook, Chapter 30, which is effective upon 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Dated: June 29, 2004.
Tom L. Thompson,
Acting Chief.

Text of Final directive

    Note: The Forest Service organizes its directive system by 
alphanumeric codes and subject headings. Only those sections of the 
Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, Environmental Policy and 
Procedures handbook, affected by this policy are included in this 
notice. This direction will be used by Forest Service employees 
charged with project planning and environmental analysis when 
appropriate. Selected headings and existing text are provided to 
assist the reader in placing the revised direction in context. Paper 
and electronic copies of these categorical exclusions and the entire 
chapter 30 of FSH 1909.15 are available as set out in the ADDRESS 
section at the beginning of this notice.
    To provide context for understanding the new categorical 
exclusions that are established as paragraph 10 in section 31.12 and 
paragraph 15 in section 31.2, the introductory text of each section 
follows (in italics):

FSH 1909.15--Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook

Chapter 30--Categorical Exclusion From Documentation

Chapter 31.12--Categories Established by the Chief

    The following categories of routine administrative, maintenance, 
and other actions normally do not individually or cumulatively have 
a significant effect on the quality of the Human environment (sec. 
05) and, therefore, may be categorically excluded from documentation 
in an EIS or an EA unless scoping indicates extraordinary 
circumstances (sec. 30.3) exists:
    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 increases 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:
    a. 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).
    b. Issuance of a new special use authorization to reflect 
administrative changes, such as a change of ownership or control of 
previously authorized facilities or activities, or conversion of the 
existing special use authorization to a new type of special use 
authorization (for example, converting a permit to a lease or 
easement).

31.2--Categories of Actions for Which a Project or Case File and 
Decision Memo Are Required

    Routine, proposed actions within any of the following categories 
may be excluded from documentation in an EIS or an EA; however, a 
project or case file is required and the decision to proceed must be 
documented in a decision memo (sec. 32). As a minimum, the project 
or case file should include any records prepared, such as: the names 
of interested and affected people, groups, and agencies contacted; 
the determination that no extraordinary circumstances exist; a copy 
of the decision memo (sec. 05); and a list of the people notified of 
the decision. Maintain a project or case file and prepare a decision 
memo for routine, proposed actions within any of the following 
categories:
    15. Issuance of a new special use authorization for a new term 
to replace an existing or expired special use authorization when the 
only changes are administrative, there are no changes to the 
authorized facilities or increases in the scope or intensity of 
authorized activities, and the applicant or holder is in full 
compliance with the terms and conditions of the special use 
authorization.

[FR Doc. 04-15219 Filed 7-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M