I largely agree with George's interpretation, and that is the word around...the USFS was trying to abuse the authority, and got caught.
Interestingly, the case specifically mentions that there had been a previous case that was nearly identical, in which the USFS lost at every level, but was overturned by the US Supreme Court....not on the issues, but because they determined the plaintiff did not have the standing to bring suit.
so, you could say the FS was on notice.
The case mentions several specific projects. The first one is this:
project It is of interest, because my group was apparently going to be doing most of the work. Hmmmm.
As I look at it, I don't see the abuse there. I actually know the people involved on the agency side, and they are straight shooters.
But I have another take on all this. It seems like this categorical exclusion is a generally bad idea. In my mind, doing what George suggests, where one creates a description of routine work to be done, and puts it up for comment, etc...actually creates an opportunity for public education and even involvement.
You get the sense that there is a desire to hide the "sausage making" from the public. I think that makes sense and is appropriate at Disneyland, where you are generating an artificial creation. But there is nothing more real than the forest, and everything we do out there is something that we should all know about and understand, as stewards. If we are ignorant, we cannot be effective stewards.
For the vast majority of routine work, I would think there would be little controversy, and when there is an objection, it provides an opportunity for education and collaboration.
