conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.” An agency must follow § 4332(2)(E) even when it prepares an EA. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(b) (“[EAs][s]hall include brief discussions of the need for the proposal, of alternatives as required by [§ 4332(2)(E) ], of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and a listing of agencies and persons consulted.”). CFV contends that the Forest Service violated NEPA by failing to consider the as-of-yet-unadopted revised Forest Plan in the EAs for the Flatwoods and George Creek projects. But NEPA requires that EISs (and EAs) address the environmental impacts of proposed projects, not their legal status or consistency with proposed policy changes. See Sierra Club v. U.S. Forest Serv., 46 F.3d 835, 840 (8th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Swanson v. U.S. Forest Serv., 87 F.3d 339,
holding that the agency failed to provide for any public participation in the ea process and ordering 45 day period for public comment on ea holding that failure to identify the defendant in the information is an omission of an essential element because the primary purpose of the charging document is to inform the defendant of the nature of the accusations brought against him holding the touchstone of determining existence of erisa plan is whether an administrative scheme is required holding that an ea did not need to assess the effects of correcting an error in the applicable forest plan because the purpose of an ea is to provide information for determining whether prospective projects may have significant environmental impacts holding five day public comment period on a portion of an ea insufficient remanding for further public comment