[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 183 (Thursday, September 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48412-48416]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-23408]
========================================================================
Notices
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings,
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents
appearing in this section.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2001 /
Notices
[[Page 48412]]
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 proposed interim directive; request for public
comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Service proposes to issue an interim directive to
guide its employees in complying with the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations
for issuance of a special use authorization involving administrative
changes where no changes are proposed in authorized activities or
facilities. The interim directive would also clarify the definition of
extraordinary circumstances. The intended effect is to facilitate
consistent interpretation and application of NEPA requirements, CEQ
regulations, and related agency policy by employees and to reduce the
paperwork and delays that have resulted in a large backlog of
unprocessed applications. Public comment is invited and will be
considered in development of the final interim directive.
DATES: Comments must be received in writing by November 19, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Director, Lands Staff, 4th Floor-
South, Mail Stop 1104, Sidney R. Yates Federal Building, Forest
Service, USDA, P.O. Box 96090, Washington, DC 20090-6090, or send
electronic mail to [email protected]. If electronic mail is sent, the
public is requested not to send duplicate written comments via regular
mail. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are
placed in the record and are available for public inspection and
copying. The public may inspect comments received on this proposed
interim directive in the Office of the Director, Lands Staff, 4th
Floor-South, Sidney R. Yates Federal Building, 14th Street and
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30
a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on business days. Those wishing to inspect comments
are encouraged to call ahead to (202) 205-1248 or (202) 205-0895 to
facilitate entry into the building.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Karstaedt, Lands Staff, (202)
205-1256; Kenneth Karkula, Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness
Resources Staff, (202) 205-1426; or Rhey Solomon, Ecosystem Management
Coordination Staff, (202) 205-0939.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Special Uses
The Forest Service controls the occupancy and use of National
Forest System lands through issuance of a special use authorization,
such as a permit, lease, or easement. The evaluation of a proposed
occupancy and use is subject to the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (NEPA); issuance of the subsequent special use authorization is
the means by which the NEPA decision is implemented. After approval of
a use, the responsible official issues a special use authorization,
such as a permit, lease, or easement, that provides the framework for a
holder's use and occupancy of National Forest System lands and
establishes conditions for issuance of a new special use authorization
when authorized improvements change ownership and upon the termination
of the current special use authorization.
In April 1997, the Forest Service completed a reengineering study
of its special uses program to identify changes needed to manage the
program in a more efficient and customer service-oriented manner. In
1998, the agency issued a final rule streamlining the special use
application process and administration of special use authorizations at
36 CFR part 251, subpart B (63 FR 65940, November 30, 1998). The
reengineering study found misunderstanding and inconsistency among
agency employees in actions being taken to administratively change a
current valid special use authorization, such as updating authorization
rental fee clauses and incorporating new environmental requirements
mandated by new laws and regulations. The study also revealed a large
backlog of unprocessed special use applications involving a change of
ownership of authorized improvements or the issuance of a new special
use authorization upon the termination of the current special use
authorization which, if issued, would result in no change in the
authorized activities or facilities. 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).
These inconsistencies and misinterpretations have resulted in higher
administrative costs to the agency and delayed service to the customer.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR part
1500) encourage agencies to reduce paperwork and delays in processing
applications by categorically excluding from documentation in an EIS or
EA certain types of proposed actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Forest
Service direction on actions that may be considered for categorical
exclusion is contained in FSH 1909.15, chapter 30, sections 31.1b and
31.2.
In 1998, the Forest Service adopted an interim directive regarding
categorical exclusions for certain ski area permit actions (63 FR
48170, September 9, 1998) to categorically exclude from documentation
in an EA or EIS certain actions related to permit tenure or the change
of ownership of authorized improvements when such actions are
ministerial and no changes are proposed in the permitted activities or
facilities. That interim directive implemented a provision of the
Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 which provided
that issuance of a ski area permit for activities authorized under a
previous ski area permit does not constitute a major Federal action for
the purposes of NEPA. In issuing that interim directive to its NEPA
implementation handbook (FSH 1909.15, Environmental Policy and
[[Page 48413]]
Procedures Handbook), the Forest Service reviewed applicable statutory
authority and regulations and concluded that a similar categorical
exclusion should be provided for certain special use applications and
authorizations. As suggested by the reengineering study, a record of
EA's and resulting findings of no significant impact (FONSI's) for
special uses has been collected, which shows that certain categories of
actions involving special use authorizations generally have no
significant effect on the human environment, supporting the Forest
Service determination that the proposed changes to the categorical
exclusions are appropriate and should be implemented.
Because the agency plans to propose additional revisions to this
handbook within the next few years, the agency has concluded that these
proposed categorical exclusions for certain special use authorization
actions should be issued as an interim directive. Upon completion of
other revisions to this handbook, this interim directive will be
incorporated into an amendment at that time.
Accordingly, the Forest Service proposes to revise its NEPA
implementation handbook (FSH 1909.15) to classify the following special
use authorizing actions as categorical exclusions: (1) Amendment of a
special use authorization during its term, for purposes of initiating
an administrative change; (2) changes in ownership of authorized
improvements during the term of an existing special use authorization;
and (3) issuance of a new special use authorization upon termination of
an existing special use authorization. Use of these new categories
would be appropriate only when the special use authorization involves
no change in the nature or scope of the occupancy and use and no change
in the effects on the environment. The proposed direction for the
categorical exclusions would be included as paragraphs under sections
31.1b and 31.2. The intent of these proposed changes to categorically
exclude certain special use authorization actions is not to avoid
environmental analysis and documentation, but rather to recognize that
administrative amendments to authorizations, changes in ownership of
authorized improvements, and issuance of a new authorization upon the
termination of an existing authorization have little to no individual
or cumulative environmental effect on the ground. The proposed interim
direction is set out at the end of this notice.
The agency proposes to add two new paragraphs 10 and 11 to section
31.1b, Categories Established by the Chief. The categories in this
section identify proposed actions requiring no additional analysis or
documentation in an EIS or EA and for which a project or case file and
a decision memo are not required.
Proposed paragraph 10 would address situations that involve the
amendment of an existing special use authorization when there would be
no change to the scope or nature of the authorized occupancy or use.
Proposed paragraph 10 also would include examples of the type of
administrative actions that could be considered. For example, updating
authorization rental fee clauses to reflect a new or modified land use
rental fee for a power line would have no significant effect on the
environment and use of a categorical exclusion would be appropriate;
however, if the utility company that owns the power line requests an
amendment to its special use authorization to include additional power
line extensions that are outside an existing utility corridor, then use
of a categorical exclusion would not be appropriate.
Proposed paragraph 11 would address situations involving a change
of ownership of authorized improvements during the term of an existing
special use authorization. Actions within this category would allow
issuance of a special use authorization to a new owner of the currently
authorized improvements, as long as there is no change in the
authorized occupancy or use of National Forest System lands.
The actions in these proposed categories normally do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the quality
of the human environment. For example, consider the case of a telephone
line that has been in existence and authorized for a 30-year term. Five
years remain in the authorized term when the telephone company is
purchased by another entity. The new owner is not proposing any changes
to the authorized use and occupancy. Agency review indicates that
issuing a new special use authorization for the five years remaining in
the term to effect a name change, when there is no change to the use or
occupancy authorized, would not have a significant effect on the
environment. Use of a categorical exclusion, as set out in this
proposed interim directive, would be appropriate.
In summary, the proposed categorical exclusions in section 31.1b
would be applicable to those cases that do not involve a physical
change to the environment. Review of the proposed action would ensure
that the proposed categorical exclusions allow only for administrative
changes that have no significant effect on the environment.
Section 31.2 of the handbook lists those categories of actions for
which a project or case file and a decision memo are required. The
Forest Service proposes to add a new paragraph 10 to section 31.2 to
classify as a categorical exclusion the issuance of a new special use
authorization upon the termination of the existing special use
authorization, when the current holder and operations under the
existing special use authorization are in full compliance with the
terms and conditions of the special use authorization and no changes in
the physical environment or facilities are proposed. Generally, special
use authorizations are issued for terms ranging between 5 and 20 years.
The following is an example of a situation involving a special use
authorization in which use of a categorical exclusion would be
appropriate: An organization camp has been authorized for a term of 20
years and its term has expired. The holder applies for a new special
use authorization and does not propose any change to the use or
occupancy previously authorized. Agency review indicates that the use
has been consistent with the terms and conditions of the authorization
and that previous analysis determined there were no individually or
cumulatively significant effects on the environment. Thus, the decision
to issue a new special use authorization may be categorically excluded,
so long as the requirements listed at 36 CFR 251.64 can be met and
there are no significant effects on the environment.
In contrast, consider an example involving an oil and gas pipeline
authorized 30 years ago. The special use authorization is due to
expire, and the holder applies for a new special use authorization. The
use and holder meet the requirements set out at 36 CFR 251.64. In this
example, agency review indicates that the use had not previously been
analyzed pursuant to NEPA, and new information shows threatened or
endangered species may be significantly affected. Thus, continuing the
use previously authorized may cause significant effects on the
environment. A categorical exclusion would not be applied in this
situation, and the appropriate level of NEPA analysis and documentation
would have to be completed prior to issuance of a new special use
authorization.
[[Page 48414]]
Extraordinary Circumstances
The proposed interim directive also would clarify the policy in the
handbook regarding extraordinary circumstances at paragraph 2 of
section 30.3 and the definition in section 30.5, which currently
defines extraordinary circumstances as ``conditions associated with a
normally excluded action that are identified during scoping as
potentially having effects which may significantly affect the
environment.'' The agency proposes to make minor revisions to clarify
this definition. The revised definition would state: ``Instances where
a proposed action normally excluded from documentation in an EIS or EA
is identified as potentially having a significant effect on the
resource conditions as set out in section 30.3, paragraphs 2a through
2g.'' Section 30.3 would be revised to clarify that it may be
appropriate and permissible to categorically exclude from documentation
in an EIS or EA those proposed actions where certain resource
conditions are present, but only when the responsible official
determines the proposed action would not have a significant
environmental effect, either individually or cumulatively, on those
conditions.
Considerable public and employee confusion exists regarding the
application of a categorical exclusion to a proposed action when a
listed resource condition is present. Additionally, Federal Circuit
Courts have interpreted Forest Service direction on this issue
differently. For example, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the Forest
Service intended that the ``mere presence'' of any extraordinary
circumstances precluded use of the categorical exclusion (Rhodes v.
Johnson, 153 F.3d 785 (7th Cir. 1998)). However, the Ninth Circuit has
held that an agency may issue a categorical exclusion even where a
certain resource condition, in this case threatened or endangered
species, is present (Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S.
Forest Service, 100 F.3d 1443, 1450 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Kirchbaum
v. USFS, 17 F. Supp. 2d 549, 557-58 (W.D. Va. 1998)).
The proposed revisions to the definition in section 30.5 and the
direction in section 30.3, paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, would clarify the
agency's intent that the presence of a listed resource condition does
not automatically preclude use of a categorical exclusion. Treating the
``mere presence'' of a resource condition as an absolute bar to the
availability of categorical exclusions has a major impact on the Forest
Service's ability to efficiently fulfill its land management
responsibilities. The resource conditions identified in the agency
handbook (FSH 1909.15, section 30.3, paragraphs 2a-2g) are intended to
act as guideposts that alert decision makers to potential instances
where a categorical exclusion would be inappropriate. The procedures
were never intended to override the responsible official's ability to
determine that no significant environmental effects are associated with
a proposed action and, therefore, that a categorical exclusion is
appropriate. The proposed interim directive would make explicit the
agency's intent that even in the presence of certain resource
conditions, a proposal could still be categorically excluded if the
responsible official determines the proposed action would not have a
significant environmental effect on those resource conditions.
Paragraph 3 retains the important requirement regarding scoping for all
proposed actions. Proposed changes to paragraph 3 would, however,
remove redundant guidance on preparation of EA's and EIS's, as adequate
guidance already exists in chapters 20 and 40 of FSH 1909.15. Paragraph
4 would be expanded to reference FSH 1909.15, section 18, on the need
to review and document new information or changed circumstances.
In addition, paragraph 2b of section 30.3, which lists threatened
and endangered species or their critical habitat as examples of
resource conditions, would be expanded to include species proposed for
threatened or endangered listing, sensitive species, or their
designated or proposed critical habitat. The proposed interim directive
is set out at the end of this notice.
Environmental Impact
These proposed revisions to Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15
would clarify direction and improve consistent interpretation by field
employees of requirements regarding NEPA documentation. Section 31.1b
of FSH 1909.15 (57 FR 43180, September 18, 1992) excludes from
documentation in an environmental assessment or impact statement
``rules, regulations, or policies to establish Service-wide
administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions.'' The
agency's preliminary assessment is that this proposed action falls
within this category of actions, and that no extraordinary
circumstances exist as currently defined which would require
preparation of an environmental impact statement or environmental
assessment. A final determination will be made upon adoption of the
final interim directive. In addition, pursuant to 40 CFR 1505.1 and
1507.3, the agency is consulting with the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) to ensure full compliance with the purposes and
provisions of NEPA and the CEQ implementing regulations.
Regulatory Impact
This proposed interim directive has 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
proposed action to clarify agency direction would 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 proposed action would not
interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency nor raise
new legal or policy issues. Finally, this proposed action would 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 proposed action is not subject to Office of
Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866.
Moreover, this proposed action has been considered in light of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and it has been
determined that this proposed action would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by
the act because it will not impose record-keeping requirements on them;
it would not affect their competitive position in relation to large
entities; and it would 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 this proposed interim directive under the
requirements of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and has made an
assessment that the proposed interim directive conforms with the
federalism principles set out in this Executive order; would not impose
any compliance costs on the States; and would 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 at this time.
[[Page 48415]]
Moreover, this proposed interim directive does not have tribal
implications as defined by Executive Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, and therefore advance
consultation with tribes is not required.
No Takings Implications
This proposed action has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights, and it has been determined that the proposed action
does not pose the risk of a taking of Constitutionally protected
private property.
Civil Justice Reform Act
This proposed action has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed interim directive were adopted,
(1) all State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with
this proposed interim directive or which would impede its full
implementation would be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect would be
given to this proposed interim directive; and (3) it would not require
administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court
challenging its provisions.
Unfunded Mandates
Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2
U.S.C. 1531-1538), which the President signed into law on March 22,
1995, the agency has assessed the effects of this proposed action on
State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This
proposed action would not compel the expenditure of $100 million or
more by any State, local, or tribal government or anyone in the private
sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the act is not
required.
Energy Effects
This proposed interim directive has been reviewed under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. It has been determined that this
proposed interim directive does not constitute a significant energy
action as defined in the Executive order.
Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public
This proposed interim directive does not contain any additional
record-keeping or reporting requirements associated with the special
uses program 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. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (Number
0596-0082) has approved the information collection associated with the
special uses program. 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.
Dated: August 31, 2001.
Sally Collins,
Acting Chief.
Text of Proposed Interim 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. The intended audience for this direction is Forest Service
employees charged with issuing and administering special use
authorizations. Selected headings and existing text are provided to
assist the reader in placing the proposed direction in context, but
primarily the revised text is set out here. Reviewers who wish to
view the entire chapter 30 of FSH 1909.15 may obtain a copy from the
address shown earlier in this notice and from the Forest Service
home page on the World Wide Web/Internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/
cgi-bin/Directives/get__directives/fsh?1909.15.
FSH 1909.15--ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND PROCEDURES HANDBOOK
CHAPTER 30--CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION FROM DOCUMENTATION
(No change to the following section 30.3, paragraphs 1 and 1a:)
30.3--Policy.
1. A proposed action may be categorically excluded from
documentation in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or
environmental assessment (EA) only if the proposed action:
a. Is within one of the categories in the Department of Agriculture
(USDA) NEPA policies and procedures in 7 CFR part 1b.
(Proposed revision to the following section 30.3, paragraphs 1b and
2, as follows:)
b. Is within a category listed in section 31.1b or 31.2 and there
are no instances of extraordinary circumstances (as described in the
following para. 2 and defined in sec. 30.5) related to the proposed
action that could result in a significant environmental effect.
2. Extraordinary circumstances (as defined in sec. 30.5) occur when
a proposed action would have a significant effect on the resource
conditions set out in the following paragraphs 2a through 2g. The
responsible official may issue a categorical exclusion even when one or
more of the resource conditions listed in paragraphs 2a through 2g are
present, only if the official determines on a case-by-case basis that
the proposed action would not have a significant effect on these
resource conditions and thus an instance of extraordinary circumstances
does not exist for that proposed action. The resource conditions to be
considered in determining if extraordinary circumstances exist are:
(No change to the following paragraph 2a:)
a. Steep slopes or highly erosive soils.
(Proposed revision to paragraph 2b, as follows:)
b. Threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive species or their
designated or proposed critical habitat.
(No change to the following paragraphs 2c-2g:)
c. Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds.
d. Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness
study areas, or National Recreation Areas.
e. Inventoried roadless areas.
f. Research Natural Areas.
g. Native American religious or cultural sites, archaeological
sites, or historic properties or areas.
(Proposed revision to paragraph 3 and 4, as follows:)
3. Scoping is required on all proposed actions, including those
that would appear to be categorically excluded (ch. 20 and 40).
4. If an action has been sufficiently analyzed in a completed EIS
or an EA, but not approved in the appropriate decision document, issue
a record of decision or a decision notice and finding of no significant
impact without considering the categories in this chapter (ch. 30). If
an action has been sufficiently analyzed in a completed EIS or EA and
approved in the appropriate decision document, it can be implemented
without considering the categories in this chapter (ch. 30). In these
situations, consider the need to evaluate new information or changed
circumstances that may have a bearing on the decision (sec. 18).
(No change to the following section 30.5, unnumbered paragraphs 1
and 2:)
30.5--Definitions.
Categorical Exclusion. (sec. 05)
Decision Memo. (sec. 05)
(Proposed revision to section 30.5, unnumbered paragraph 3,
definition of
[[Page 48416]]
Extraordinary Circumstances, as follows:)
Extraordinary Circumstances. Instances where a proposed action
normally excluded from documentation in an EIS or EA is identified as
potentially having a significant effect on resource conditions as set
out in section 30.3, paragraphs 2a through 2g.
31--Categories of Actions Excluded From Documentation.
(No change to the following sections 31 through 31.1b, paragraph
9c:)
31.1--Categories for Which a Project or Case File and Decision Memo
Are Not Required. At the discretion of the responsible official, a
project or case file and a decision memo are not required but may be
prepared for the categories of actions set forth in sections 31.1a and
31.1b.
31.1a--Categories Established by the Secretary. The rules at 7 CFR
1b.3 exclude from documentation in an EIS or an EA the following
categories:
(a) * * *
(1) Policy development, planning and implementation which relate to
routine activities, such as personnel, organizational changes, or
similar administrative functions;
(2) Activities which deal solely with the funding of programs, such
as program budget proposals, disbursements, and transfer or
reprogramming of funds;
(3) Inventories, research activities, and studies, such as resource
inventories and routine data collection when such actions are clearly
limited in context and intensity;
(4) Educational and informational programs and activities;
(5) Civil and criminal law enforcement and investigative
activities;
(6) Activities which are advisory and consultative to other
agencies and public and private entities, such as legal counseling and
representation;
(7) Activities related to trade representation and market
development activities abroad. (7 CFR 1b.3)
31.1b--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. 30.5) exist:
(The unchanged text of paragraphs 1 through 9 is not set out.)
* * * * *
(Proposed new paragraphs 10 and 11, section 31.1b, as follows:)
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.
(No change to the following section 31.2 through (1):)
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:
(1) the names of interested and affected people, groups, and
agencies contacted;
(Proposed revision to section 31.2 (2) and (3) as follows:)
(2) the determination that no instance of extraordinary
circumstances related to the proposed action exists that may have a
significant environmental effect on resource conditions; (3) a copy of
the decision memo (sec. 30.5, para. 2);
(No change to the following section 31.2 (4) and (5):)
(4) a list of the people notified of the decision; (5) a copy of
the notice required by 36 CFR Part 217, or any other notice used to
inform interested and affected persons of the decision to proceed with
or to implement an action that has been categorically excluded.
Maintain a project or case file and prepare a decision memo for
routine, proposed actions within any of the following categories.
(The unchanged text of paragraphs 1 through 9, section 31.2, is not
set out.)
* * * * *
(Proposed new paragraph 10, section 31.2, as follows:)
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.
(No change to the rest of chapter 30, sections 32-33.)
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-23408 Filed 9-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P