WSP09638 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,,' uaili~4 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No, 235/ Friday, December 6, 2002/ Proposed Rules 72779 FSH 1909,15. Whether a proposed project is categorically excluded from NEPA documentation, or is considered in an EA or EIS depends upon whether that project would have a significant effect on the environment. For those projects that the agency believes there may be significant effects. an EIS will be prepared to display those effects. Pursuant to the FSH requirements, EIS's are required for actions in certain circumstances, for example, herbicide application, or road construction in an inventoried road less area. In addition, the Forest Service Iypically documents oilier types of projects in an EIS. For example. large timber sale projects are normally documented in an EIS. Another example of a type of project that may be documented in an EIS would be an approval of a plan of operation for a large hard-rock mining operation. The reason to do an EA is to determine whether or not an EIS is necessary and to document agency NEPA compliance when an EIS is not necessary. The EA will briefly provide sufficient evidence and analvsis for determining whether to prepare an EIS or to reach a finding of no significant impact for the proposed action. Projects typically documented in an EA are those projects that, at the time of the proposal. the Forest Service believes will not have significant environmental effects. Examples of types of projects typically documented in an EA include smaller timber sale proiects, road construction, campground construction. special use authorizations, and fuels reduction. The FSH also lists categories of actions that are excluded from NEPA documentation because they do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human elwironment and have been found to hHV~ lIU such effect in procedures adopted by the agency in implementation of the regulations. Existing categories include road maintenance. administrative site maintenance. or trail construction. Whether a project is documented in an EIS or an EA or whether it is categorically excluded from NEPA documentation, land and resource management plan analyses will provide critical baseline and trend data that will inform the site-specific analysis for the project. Project level NEPA documentation will i3nalyze project effects as needed. depending on the nature of the project and the applicable issues, and known information. Project analyses will supplement and use monitoring data, pertinent assessments, inventories. research, and the plan analysis information. This plan analysis information will be available regardless of whether the plan is documented in an EA. EIS, or categorically excluded from NEPA documentation. Categorical exclusion for planning: H this proposed rule is adopted. conforming changes would be required in FSH 1909.15, section 20.6. A new categorical exclusion pertaining to categories of plan decisions may be adopted for plan decisions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effects on the human environment and are found to have no such effect by the agency based on the implementation of this proposed rule. A separate Federal Register notice would be published to provide public notice of the proposed category and request for comment. Public comment: The agency recognizes that the manner in which the proposed rule applies NEPA with respect to new plans, plan amendments, and plan revisions is a departure from the approach taken in the 2000 rule and the 1982 rule requiring an EIS for plan revisions. significant amendments, or new plans. This departure is based on the agency's extensive experience with land and resource management planning over the years. That experience indicates that attempting to draw precise conclusions about the environmental effects of plan direction is subject to analytical uncertainty and is ultimately of limited value for purposes of informed decision-making in compliance with NEPA. However, the agency recognizes that some level of NEPA documenta!ion for plan direction is warranted. and that there may be substantial disagreement over the extent ofNEPA analvsis and documentation that is appropriate. With this proposed rule, the Forest Service is attempting to strike an appropriate balance between broad-scale plan-level analysis and finer-scale project-level ani:tlysis with sufficient inter-relationship between the two to ensure NEPA compliance for all decisions. Therefore. the Forest Service specifically requests comments and suggestions from the public regarding how the "significance" of land and resource management plan direction is applied in this proposed rule, what plan decisions authorize an action or commit funding or resources that could have a significant effecl on the environment and the circumstances for which an EA or ElS for a \,lan would be appropriate. It is usefu to summarize the differences between elements of NEPA application in the 2000 rule and in this proposed rule. This summary consolidates discussion present in other parts of this preamble. Type of NEPA documentation: The 2000 rule requires preparation of an EIS for a plan revision (36 CFR 219.9(d)). The proposed rule states plans may be categorically excluded from documentation in an EA or EIS when the Responsible Official determines that the action fits an established Categorical Exclusion category and no extraordinary circumstances are present. Public involvement: The 2000 rule has detailed requirements on who should be involved in planning (99219.13- 21g.17). The proposed fule has essentially the same requirements, altJlOugh they are more succinctly stated. These requirements would still apply for plans categorically excluded from documentation in an EA or EIS. The Forest Service will ensure that categorically excluding land and resource mani3gement plans from documentation in an EA or EIS does not result in an adverse or disproportionate effect on groups of people identified under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Executive Order 12898- Environmental Justice or other civil rights laws, regulations. and orders. These identified groups include minorities, seniors, women, subsistence lifestyle populations. Tribes, and low income populations. By definition in NEPA, a categorical exclusion address only those actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and for which, therefore. neither an EA nor an EIS is required (40 CFR 1508.4). Pursuant to agency policy set out in Forest Service Handbook 1909.15. Chapter 10, the Responsible Official would still be required to identify potentially affected and interested agencies. organizations, and individuals during the planning process. regardless of which type of documentation is used. Additionallv. specific Forest Service guidance on- scoping under NEPA will still apply to categorical exclusions. Issues: The 2000 rule has very detailed requirements for issue identification. The proposed rule does not. While the proposed rule would still require the Responsible Official to document a rationale for issue identification in the proposed rule. it is likely that this documentation would be briefer as he or she would not need to cross reference an extensive list of issue sources (refer to S 219.5 in this preamble). The requirements in the proposed rule for issue identification would still apply for plans categorically excluded from documentation in an EA DrEIS, Analysis: The 2000 rule contains very detailed requirements for what can be