**NEPA Joint Proposed Categorical Exclusion List**

**BLM National Training Center Telecast**

**October 1, 1997**

This transcript is from the closed-captioning file produced during the
telecast.

It may contain errors in transcription and omissions.

Announcer: the Bureau of Land Management Satellite Network Presents Live
from the BLM National Training Center In Phoenix, Arizona, Categorical
Exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act. An Interactive
Forum on the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service Proposed Joint
Categorical Exclusion List. And Now the Host of Your Program, Jordon
Pope.

Pope: Good Morning, Everyone. Welcome to Our Forum on the Bureau of Land
Management and Forest Service\'s Joint Categorical Exclusion List. In
this Program, We Will Present a Brief Overview of the New Proposed Joint
Categorical Exclusion List. We Will Explain How We Got to this Point and
We Will Open up The Session to Questions from You in the Field. An
Exciting Aspect of Our Broadcast Is Your Ability to Communicate with Us
Throughout this Program by Telephone and Fax. Faxes Can Be Sent to Us at
Any Time. BLM Sites Should Use the Standard NTC Teleconference Fax Form
Provided to Your Office. Service Sites That Have the Form Should Use It.
These Offices That Don\'t Send Faxes in on Plain Paper and Provide the
Name of Your Office and Location, as Well as the Name of the Contact
Person and a Phone Number. We Also Would like Everyone to Print Your
Questions with a Dark Marker on All Faxes and Please, No Fax Cover
Sheets. You May Call Us Whenever You like. Our Operators Are Standing
By. We Will Take Your Calls as Fast as We Can after the Presentation of
Each Instructional Segment. To Help Us Measure the Effectiveness of this
Telecast, We Would like All Downlink Sites to Send Us an E‑mail and Tell
Us Where You Were Watching from and the Number of People From Your
Office Who Participated in Today\'s Telecast. This Will Help Us Plan
Future Broadcasts. BLM Offices Should Send a Groupwise Message to Terry
Loyer At the National Training Center or Gregg Simmons at the Arizona
State Office. Our Viewers from the Forest Service Should E‑mail Rhey
Solomon at Forest Service Headquarters in Washington D.c. at
R.solomon:w01c. So Let\'s Get Started. Rhey Solomon, Deputy Director for
Eco‑system Management Coordination for the Forest Service Is Here. Rhey
Is with the Forest Service\'s Headquarters Office in Washington D.c.
Rhey, We\'re Glad to Have You with Us Here Today.

Solomon: It\'s a Pleasure to Be Here. I Started My Forest Career in
Phoenix. It\'s a Pleasure Coming Back to this City. I\'m Looking Forward
to a Good Interactive Session this Morning.

Pope: from the Forest Service Is Bill Supulski, Forester On the
Management Staff in Washington D.c. Bill Thanks for Coming out to Take
Part in Today\'s Telecast.

Supulski: Thanks, Jordon. I\'m Excited to See What Kind of Questions
We\'re Going to Get From Our Field People about Our New Proposed
Categories.

Pope: Completing Our Panel Is Gregg Simmons, Washington Office Regional
Planner and Environmental Analyst Located at The BLM\'s Arizona State
Office. Good Morning, Gregg.

Simmons: Good Morning. I Would like to Welcome Our Guests to the Valley
of the Sun.

Pope: Thank You. Joining Us Behind the Scenes Serving as Producer for
Today\'s Telecast Is Neil Talbot, Environmental Analyst Located at
BLM\'s Nevada State Office. Helping Neil out Are Four Other Individuals
Working in Our Interactive Center Who Are Familiar with NEPA and
Categorical Exclusions. They Are Carol Macdonald Who Is a Planning and
Environmental Analyst with the Planning Assessment and Community Support
Group from BLM\'s Headquarters Office in Washington D.c. Bob Armstrong
Is an Environmental Specialist from BLM\'s New Mexico State Office in
Santa Fe. Also Helping out from BLM\'s New Mexico State Office Is J.w.
Whitney, a Planning Specialist. And in Here at BLM\'s National Training
Center Is Terry Loyer Who Is a Training Coordinator for this Project.
Good Morning Carol, Bob, J.w., and Terry. This Is the Team Who Will Be
Getting Your Faxes and Answering the Phones When You Call In. They\'ll
Work with Neil to Get Your Questions, Comments out To Us as Fast as
Possible. They Are Standing by and Ready to Hear from You. We Appreciate
Their Willingness to Help Us out Today. Before We Get Started, I Would
like to Mention That If, for Some Reason, We Are Unable to Answer Your
Fax or Phone Call On the Air Today, One of Our Instructors Will Get Back
in Touch with You after the Broadcast. Remember, Please Be Sure to
Include a Phone Number on Your Faxes. So, to Get Things Started, Rhey
Solomon Will Begin by Presenting Some Information on the Background on
How Both Agencies Got to Where We Are Today. Rhey?

Solomon: Thanks, Jordon. Let Me Give an Overview as to Why We\'re Here
Today. We Had Our Last Revision of the Forest Service in the BLM
Procedures for Categorical Exclusions Back in 1992. Since That Time,
Both Agencies Have Discovered Problems and We Have Accepted Comments
over the Last Five Years from People, Encouraging Us to Make Changes in
the Categorical Exclusions. Some of Those Problems We\'ve Had Have Been
Use of Categories In Inappropriate Ways. We\'ve Found There\'s Unclear
Language. We Found That There Are Actions That Should Have Been
Categorically Excluded for Which the Categories Currently Don\'t Cover.
We Also Had a Changing View as to How Categorical Exclusions Should Be
Used. Given All Those Changes, Both Agencies Began a Revision Process of
the Categorical Exclusions Almost Two Years Ago. These Were Parallel
Efforts. We Did Share Our Categories with One Another. We Discussed
Problems That We Were Having. We Tried to Bring as Much Consistency to
Both Sets of Categorical Exclusions as We Could as We Worked Through the
Process. During That Same Period of Time, about a Year Ago, the Council
on Environmental Quality Began an Effort to Make the NEPA Process More
Efficient and Effective. One of the Observations Made in the Studies by
Ceq Was They Encouraged Agencies to Be More Cooperative and
Collaberative In the Compliance with Neep Ma. The Forest Service and BLM
as a Result of the Ceq Study, Believe That it Was Possible for Both
Agencies to Do a Much More Collaborative Effort of the Categorical
Exclusions. At the Time, Although We Thought We Could Do a Joint
Categorical Exclusions List, We Certainly Could Agree We Could Make Them
as Consistent as We Possibly Could. About Six Months Ago, Both Agencies
Joined Forces. We Formed a Team. That Team Began Work on Moving the
Categorical Exclusions Into a Single List That Both Agencies Could Use.
We Used Both the Positive and the Negative Aspects of What The Agencies
Had and What You Will See in the Categorical Exclusions That We Have
Provided for Comment Is We Hope Are All the Positive Aspects of Both the
Forest Service and BLM Categorical Exclusions. This List Has Been
Reviewed by Specialists in the Washington Office and Some of the State
and Regional Office People Have Had Input to this List. So We Hope That
We\'ve Taken Care of Most of the Problems We Have Encountered in the
past. This Has Been Distributed for Comments. And We Hope That You All
Have That List and Can Use That List in Providing Us Comments this
Morning. I Want to Make a Point of Reminder to You That the Comments Are
Due Back to the Washington Office by the Date of October 10th. That
Doesn\'t Give You a Lot of Time. We\'ve Asked That Those Comments Be
Coordinated Through Your Regional Offices, Your State Offices and for
Forest Service Research Through the Research Offices. Those Comments,
Again, Are Due to the Washington Office by October 10th. Let Me Now Give
You Some Background on the Organization of The Categorical Exclusions
That We Have Provided You for Comment and That We Will Be Discussing
Today. The Structure and Organization Certainly to the BLM People Will
Appear to Be Much Different than What You\'ve Seen in The past. So Let
Me Cover What That Structure Looks like. We\'ve Broken the Categorical
Exclusions into Classes. And the Reason We Have Done That Is We Feel
That this Establishes a Common Theme for the Different Categories That
We Have Been Lacking in the past. In the Past, We Have Used Just a
Straight List of the Categories. This Way We\'ve Organized Them. The
Organization, We Believe, Provides Much Better Understanding by the
Public and by Our Employees in the Use Of These Categories. We\'ve Also
Established for Each Category a Description of That Category, with the
Description Comes a List of Limits Under Which That Category Should Be
Used. And We\'ll Be Discussing Those Further in the Program. We Also
Have an Extraordinary Circumstances Test That We Have Taken from the
BLM. And this Will Be a Little Different for the Forest Service People
in That That List Has Been Substantially Changed. In Addition to That,
We Have Broken the Categories into Five Parts. We Have One Part That Are
Called Exceptions. These Exceptions Are Things Such as Legislative
Actions That Have Exempted Us from NEPA Process from the Congress. These
Are Emergency Actions. Such as Fire Suppression, Fire Control, Hazardous
Substance And Classified Actions Such as Marijuana Eradication. The
Other Four Categories or Four Areas We Call Classes of Actions. The
First Class Are Administrative Actions. Administrative Actions Are
Things Such as Procedural Rules And Orders. The Second Class Is
Occupancy, Use and Ownership. These Are Issuances of Land Use
Authorizations and Ownership Adjustments to Give You an Example. The
Third Class of Action, Construction, Reconstruction and Reclamation.
Things Such as Road Construction, Trail Construction and Reclamation of
Those Improvements. And the Fourth and Last Class of Action Is Resource
Management. Things Such as Timber Sales. Each of These Categories or
Each of These Classes of Actions Do Have an Extraordinary Circumstances
Test for Classes Two, Three and Four Only. Classes One and the Other
Area of Exceptions Do Not Have an Extraordinary Test Which We Will
Discuss Further in the Program. These Extraordinary Circumstances, as I
Said Before, Have Been Taken from BLM. And They Respond Primarily to the
Ceq Significance Criteria. There Are, However, Two Items That Have Been
Added to this List. Bill Will Discuss Those Later in the Program. All of
the Examples That Are Used to Help You Understand the Scope of the
Categories Have Been Taken from the Existing Forest Service Procedures,
BLM Procedures and in Some Cases, From Fish and Wildlife Service and
Park Service as it Was Appropriate. Note to the Forest Service People
That the Problem of the Mere Presence of Extraordinary Circumstances, We
Believe We Have Cleared That Problem up in this List of the Categorical
Exclusions. That Will Be Discussed a Little Later in the Program. Gregg,
Do You Have Any Other Thoughts from BLM Perspective As Part of the
Overview?

Simmons: Yes. Thank You, Rhey. I Would like to Take Just a Moment and
Give Our BLM Viewing Audience an Indication as to How the Guidance, the
Formal Guidance and the Departmental Manual Would Change as a Result of
the Proposed Categorical Exclusion List. So, as Bill Mentioned Earlier,
Our Current List, Is Located In Departmental Manual 516 Dm Chapter 6,
Appendix 5. It Was Approved in May of 1992. The Organization of That
Appendix Is 5.1 Covers BLM NEPA Responsibilities. 5.2 Covers Guidance to
Applicants. 5.3 Covers Major Federal Actions Normally Requiring the
Preparation of an Eis. And 5.4 Covers Our Categorical Exclusion List or
Contains Our Categorical Exclusion List. Within Section 5.4, BLM Has the
Categorical Exclusions Broken down Basically by Program. And Those
Programs Are Fish and Wildlife, Fluid Minerals, Forestry, Rangeland
Management, Realty, Solid Minerals, Transportation Signs and the Other
Catch‑all Category. Now to Give You Some Indication How the New Guidance
Would Look\... The First Three Sections of Appendix 5 Would Remain the
Same With the NEPA Responsibility, Guidance to Applicants and the Major
Actions Normally Requiring the Preparation of an Eis. 5.4 Would Contain
Our Exceptions from BLM NEPA Procedures And 5.5 Then Would Contain the
Categorical Exclusions That Closely Resemble the Format of What You See
in the Proposed Guidance ‑‑ in the Memo You Got. Jordon, Back to You.

Pope: Thank You, Rhey and Gregg for Bringing Us up to Date on Everything
That Has Happened So Far. As Rhey Mentioned, Our Presentation Today Will
Be Broken Down into Five Segments. First We Will Look at Exceptions from
BLM\'s and Forest Service\'s NEPA Procedures. Then We\'ll Look at the
Four Classes of Actions in the Proposed Changes to BLM and Forest
Services Categorical Exclusion List. As We Go Through Our Discussion of
These Topics, If You Have Questions or Comments, Please Give Us a Call
or Send Us a Fax at Any Time. Let\'s Begin with Bill Who Will Give Us
the Background on Exceptions from the BLM\'s and Forest Service\'s NEPA
Procedures, a Short Question and Answer Segment on Exceptions Will
Follow. Bill?

Supulski: Thank You. I Would like to Point out Where Our Direction Is
for Both Agencies. The BLM Exception Is Found in BLM NEPA Handbook H
1790.1 Chapter 1. Screening for NEPA Compliance Section B. For Our
Forest Service Viewers it Can Be Found in Forest Service Handbook
1909.15 NEPA Section 08. What We Have Done in the Situation We Have
Before Us Is the Fact That Forest Service Has Come over to Basically and
Essentially the BLM Handling Exceptions. What We Mean by Exceptions Are
Things That We Will Do That Are Outside Our Normal Processes for Doing
NEPA. The First Exception We Recognize Is When Congress Tells Us That We
Will Not Do NEPA for a Project. A Good Example of this Would Be for the
Bureau of Land Management, the Implementation of the Alaska Pipeline.
Congressmen That Wrote the Legislation Said NEPA Be Done and It Was Done
Without NEPA. The Second Group Was the Emergency Actions. First Is Flood
Control. These Are Talking about Emergency Flood Control Where You\'re
Trying to Control Surging Floodwaters. Second One Is Fire Suppression.
This One Both Agencies Currently Have. We Have Modified What We\'re
Saying in Them. Right Now the Bureau of Land Management Is Allowed to Do
Fire Rehabilitation with It. The Forest Service Cannot. What We Have
Done Is We Have Moved the Fire Rehabilitation Portion to a New Category
and to the Class Four Resources Category Six Which We\'ll Discuss Later.
Third One Is Human Health and Safety. These Are Things like Search and
Rescue Operations, These That Are an Emergency That Have to Happen Right
Away. And the Fourth One Is Other Emergency Actions. Those Are the
Emergency Actions Need to Be Coordinated with The Washington Office and
the Council on Environmental Quality. The Third Grouping We Have under
Exceptions Is Hazardous Substance and Clean‑up Removal. In the Past, the
Bureau Has Had Us There under Exceptions But We Have a New Ruling by the
Department of Justice That Says Following the Rules of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, Cercla and the
Resources, Recra, We Won\'t Do NEPA for Hazardous Removals And Clean‑up.
Though it Wasn\'t Congressionally Put That Way, We Are Putting Them in a
Separate Category for Themselves. The Last One Is the Forest Service Has
Used Pretty Extensively. That\'s Classified Actions. There Is Only One
Classified Action Identified at this Time Which Is Cannabis Eradication.
What this Means Is We Do Not Share with the Public Our NEPA Procedures
until after the Law Enforcement Has Been Able to Handle the Situation.
Do You Have Anything You Want to Add Gregg or Rhey? Jordon, Do We Have
Any Questions Yet?

Pope: We Have a Question We Can Ask. Why Have You Changed the Exceptions
for Fire Rehabilitation?

it Was a Request from the Council on Environmental Quality. When the
Forest Service Made a Proposal, They Felt We Need To Do Some Kind of
NEPA for the Rehabilitation Work. We Made an Agreement We Could Do this
Most of the Time on Actions like Seeding, Things Minor to the
Environment. It Was Appropriate We Could Do a Categorical Exclusion for
Them. In the Past, the Bureau of Land Management Has Been Doing a
Problematic State by State Analysis for Their Current Fire Season. We
Felt this Was an Easier Category to Deal with It.

I Might Also Add Jordon for Our Emergency Fire Rehab We\'ve Done in the
Past, That Many of the Activities That We Undertake, We Could Find
Categories or Categories for These Various Actions Scattered Throughout
Our Procedures. We Were Finding People That Were Hunting All over Our
Procedures to Find the Various Categories for Either Grass Seeding or
Putting in Gabions or Things of That Nature. We Felt it Was the
Appropriate Time for Us to Package Them Differently So it Was Clear That
Fire Rehab Kinds of Activities Can Be Categorically Excluded Given
Certain Situations.

Pope: Thank You. We Have Another Question. Why Were Classified Actions
Added to the List?

as I Stated Earlier, the Classified Actions Are Presently On the Forest
Service List. They Were Not Added for That Matter. But It\'s Something
New to the Bureau of Land Management. This Was a Way That We Could Deal
with the Other Federal Agencies like Alcohol Tobacco Control, Firearms
Control, Atf. And Help Those Agents in Doing the Work That They Need to
Do For Eradication of Cannibus.

Pope: We Have a Call ‑‑ We Have a Fax. What If an Exception Would Cause
Significant Effects? Can You Still Categorically Exclude?

Yes, You Can. They Were Set Aside Not as Categorical Exclusions but
Exclusions to the Process. We Recognize They\'re Emergency Situations.
Look at the Situation in Yellowstone in 1988, Others in California
Presently. We\'re Trying to Suppress the Fire, We Don\'t Have Time to
Get Through NEPA Compliance and Public Participation at That Time.
That\'s Why We Say It\'s an Exception to to Our Process. We Recognize
There Will Be Significant Impacts. We\'re Still Allowed to Proceed to Go
That Far.

I Think We Need to Recognize We Don\'t Want this Category Or this Area
Abused and We Want People to Take a Real Careful Look That Before You
Categorically Exclude Something Under this Area That Certainly You Need
to Be Very Cautious That If Time Permits You to Do the NEPA Compliance
or If We Do Have Significant Effects, That You Come to the Washington
Office with a Request That You Are Going to Have Significant Effects.
There Is a Procedure for Us to Work Cooperatively with Council on
Environmental Quality. They and Us Will Work Together in Making
Alternative Arrangements for Compliance with NEPA. As Bill Suggested,
Sometimes That May Involve Actual Documentation Following the Activity.
In Other Cases, We Do a Quick Analysis That Does Incorporate Mitigation
Measures and We Do Some Forms of Public Participation Giving the Nature
of the Emergency Situation. But All Those Arrangements Can Be Worked out
with the Council on Environmental Quality and They Can Be Worked out
Over Very Short Time Frames and the Council Has Been Very Cooperative in
the Efforts That We\'ve Had to Date Where We\'ve Had Those Emergency
Situations.

Pope: Thank You.

Supulski: I Would like to Add Some Comments as Well. When We Were
Talking about Exceptions, We\'re Talking about The Four General Types of
Exceptions That Bill Presented a Few Moments Ago. Actions
Congressionally Exempt like the Alaskan Pipeline Typically Result in
Impacts on the Ground but When Congress Says Agencies Don\'t Write a
NEPA Document on it or Agencies Don\'t Have to in Order for the Action
to Be Implemented Then No NEPA Analysis Is Needed Be it an Ea, Eas or
Categorical Exclusion. For Those Specific Emergency Actions, Only the
Action That Is Needed to Avert the Emergency or to Deal with the
Emergency Situation May Be Implemented on the Ground. Anything Related
Can\'t. And If You Would like an Example, If You\'ve Got a Dike Washed
out Due to Flooding and You Need to Restore the Dike To its Original
Preflood Condition, That Is a Possibility That You Could Do That under
this Exception. However, You Could Not Do Any Improvements to That Dike
or The Area Around It. That You Would Need an Additional NEPA Analysis
for That. For Hazardous Substance Materials, Again, We\'re Talking About
Another Type of Environmental Review That Takes the Place of the NEPA
Requirements. That\'s Ok. In That Case. So, I Just Wanted to Make Those
Comments.

Pope: Thank You. Now Late Begin Our Examination of the Four Classes of
Actions under the Proposed Changes to the BLM\'s and Forest Service\'s
Categorical Exclusion List. Class I Is a List of Administrative Actions.
Gregg, Let\'s Start with You.

Simmons: Thank You, Jordon. Under Class I, this Class Is Administrative
Actions. What Do We Mean by Administrative Actions? We\'re Talking about
Actions That Are Basically Paperwork Exercises. With All but One
Exception, the Tenth Category, None of These Actions in and of
Themselves Result in Disturbance on The Ground. That\'s the Reason Why
They\'re Classified Administrative Actions. For the Tenth Category When
We Get to That, You\'ll See Why. Now Before We Get a Little Further into
this and Go Through The Different Categories Contained in Class I, I
Would Also Like to Give You Some Information about How ‑‑ and Remind You
How Each of These Classes Are Organized. The Basic Organization Goes
like this. The First ‑‑ You\'ll See the Class of the Action and There
Will Be a Brief Description of It. And along with It, Right Underneath
the Class of Action, There Will Be an Indication as to Whether or Not
Extraordinary Circumstances Apply to That Particular Class. The next
Thing Is a Grouping of Actions in Categories. Therefore, the next Thing
Is the Actual Categorical Exclusion. And the Categorical Exclusion Would
Begin with the Title, of Course and Then Would Have a Definition. There
Will Be a Definition of the Category. The next Thing That Is There Is
Our Limits of Use Which Will Put Sideboards on and Constraints on Just
How Far You Can Take These, Each of These Categories. The Last Item Are
the Examples. One Key Point about the Examples That Are Listed in Each
of These Categories Is That Those Examples Are Derived from Both
Agencies Current Lists. I Think It\'s Important to Note That There Are
Very Few, If Any, Brand New Examples or New Examples. It\'s Going to Be
New to the Things That Were Contained in The BLM Lists That Were Not in
the Forest Service List Are Going to Be New to the Forest Service Folks
and It\'s Going To Look like an Expansion of Their List and Vice Versa
Is True for BLM. However, Many of These Examples If Not All of Them, Are
Currently Contained in Both the Agencies\' Existing List. Now Let\'s
Take a Look at Class I. Class I, Again, Has No Extraordinary
Circumstances Have Been Established for this Category. This Means
Basically That it Is Not Necessary to Undergo a BLM Folks You\'ll Know
this Term, Undergo the Test of the Exceptions. You\'ll Not Need to Go
Through and Look at the Extraordinary Circumstances and See If They
Apply. That Process Is Being Accomplished Through this Exercise. The
First Category Is a Departmental Categorical Exclusion List. You Might
Ask Why Did We Include Both the Departmental Lists There? We Found That
in Comparing Both of the Lists That They\'re Similar. That There Are
Some Good Points. There Are Good Exclusions in Each of the Lists. We
Thought it Would Be Good If Both Agencies Could Take Advantage of Both
Departmental Lists. Category 2 Covers Procedural Rules and Regulation
Development. Here We\'re Talking about Rules Codified in the Cfrs and
Agency Directives Systems. Category 3 Is Orders and Here We\'re Talking
about Such Things as Temporary Road Closures. Category 4 Is Agreements.
And under the Agreements Category You\'ll Find Such Things as Mous or
Memorandums of Understanding, Interagency Agreements, Those Types of
Agreements. Category Five, Rights and Real Property Determinations. And
Here One Example Could Be a Correction of a Patent or Something of That
Nature. Continuing On. We Have Category Six. Which Includes Rejections
of External Proposals. Any Action That\'s Not in Conformance with the
Land Use Plan Or the Management Plan for the Forest Service, We Should
Be Able to Reject Without Any Type of NEPA Analysis. That\'s Why That\'s
There. Category 7, Designations. Here We\'re Talking about More or less
Paperwork Designations. No Real Impacts on the Ground. Back Country
Byways, for Example, Wildlife Areas, Those Types of Designations.
Category 8, Contract Administration, Compliance Reviews and Debarments.
I Think this Category Speaks for Itself. Category 9, We Have Transfer of
Title and Privileges or Re‑authorization of Existing Use. One Example ‑‑
this Could Be a Transfer of a Grazing Permit Say from Father to Son or
One Person to Another Where There\'s No Changes in the Terms or
Conditions of the Permit. And Category 10, Operation and Maintenance.
What We\'re Talking about Here Is Continued Operation of an Existing
Facility or Maintenance of Such Things as Roads, Gates, Cattle Guards,
That Type of Thing. You Guys Have Anything to Add? Any Questions?

Pope: Yes. We Have Some Questions but Prior to Going to the Questions,
We Would like to Let Our Audience out There Know That If You Have
Questions, Don\'t Hesitate to Send Them into Us. This Is One Way That
You Will Have an Opportunity to Get Information and Be Able to Follow
Through on Your Review of The Lists and Get Information Back to the
Agencies. A Question. What Is Debarment and Give Some Examples. Bill,
Can You Answer That for Us?

I Would like to Remind Our Viewers That Some on this List Is for Certain
Agencies. It\'s in the Forest Service. This Is an Incident Where We Have
a Contractor Who, over Time, Has Proven to Be ‑‑ Not Responsible Enough
to Administer That ‑‑ or Deal with the Contract or If for in Legal
Reason, Maybe It\'s Timber Theft, Found Guilty Of. We Need to Debar
Them, Not Allow Them to Work on a Federal Contract for Several Years.
This Is Something That\'s Only for Washington but We Needed To Put the
List in Here to Make Clarity for Our Public to Tell Where We Look at
Things. But It\'s a Paperwork Exercise to Give That Clarity to the
Public How it Will Be Done. Another Example for Debarment Would Be
Someone Who Has Not Come Through on a Service Contract So Therefore
Would Not Be Able to Provide the Services in the Future or for a Period
Of Time.

Pope: Yes. We Have a Question Coming in and the Question Is from George
Sonstrom. Why Do We Believe That Administrative Actions, Such as Those
Irreversible Committing Resources Have a Connected Actions That May
Significantly Affect the Environment, Can or Should Be Categorically
Excluded. Gregg?

Simmons: Why Do We Have ‑‑

Pope: Why Do We Believe That Administrative Actions Such As Those
Irreversible Committing Resources Haven\'t Connected Actions That May
Significantly Affect Environment Can or Should Be Categorically
Excluded.

Simmons: Well, I Don\'t Think Any of Us up Here Think That Anything That
Creates a Significant Impact Cumulatively on The Environment Should Be
Categorically Excluded. I Think What We\'re Trying to Say Is the
Administrative Actions That Are Listed There Don\'t Fall under That
Category. If this Person Could Give Us a Specific Example, We Might Be
Able to Address That. But the Other Thing Is the Intent Here Is to Deal
with Administrative Actions. Paperwork Types of Exercises, Paperwork
Transactions, That Sort of Thing. It\'s Quite Possible That Actions
Associated with Them Have Already Been Addressed in Some NEPA Document,
an Eis or Resource Management Plan or Forest Management Plan and
Associated NEPA Document. Or Even a Programmatic NEPA Document. So
Possibly the Kind of Action That this Person May Be Referring to Might
Have Already Been Addressed in That Type Of a NEPA Analysis. But Again,
the Intent Here Is Only to Cover Paperwork Exercises. If Someone Thinks
That We Have Gone Too Far or the List Suggests Something a Little Too
Different, We Would like to Hear from You and like to See the
Recommendation in the Comments Back to the Washington Offices.

Solomon: I Would like to Add Something to What Gregg Has Said. It Is
Important That Anyone Who Is Confused by the Wording In this These
Actions, These Administrative Actions That Certainly You Provide Us
Comments Back That You Think Can Help Clarify That. To Make the Wording
in Such a Way That it Only Does Include Truly Those Paperwork or
Administrative Actions That We Intend to Be Categorically Excluded. As
an Example, I Thought We Were Clear in the Rule‑making That We Stated
That it Was Procedural Rule‑making. That If There\'s Rules That We\'re
Going to Make as an Agency, That Do Make Decisions That Are Substantive
in Nature That Do Lead to Land Disturbing Activities or Other
Environmental Effects, That There Isn\'t Subsequent NEPA, That Wasn\'t
the Intent. That We Intended Only for Those Rules to Be Those That Were
Procedural in Nature.

Pope: Thank You. We Have a Phone Call Coming in from Edie with the
Bureau of Land Management. Good Morning, Edie. Do You Have a Question
for Us?

Caller: Yes, It\'s a Followup on a Previous Question. Specifically
Related ‑‑

Pope: Edie, We\'re Getting a Feedback from Your Television Monitor in
Your Area. Could That Volume Be Turned down Just a Little Bit?

Caller: Certainly.

Pope: Thank You. Go Ahead and Ask Your Question.

Caller: Continue to Turn That Down, Judy. The Question Is on Category
Nine, Some of These Items Appear Not to Be Administrative in Nature, at
Least ‑‑ Except Where The Use May Have Been Originally Authorized under
a Land Use Plan like for Instance Grazing. And I\'m Not Necessarily
Agreeing with the Previous Caller That They May Be Inappropriate. But
I\'m Wondering Whether They Wouldn\'t Be More Appropriate In Another
Category Where the 12 Exceptions Could Apply.

Solomon: Edie, You Hit One of the Points We\'ve Wrestled With for a
Great Time. It Shows Certainly You\'re Paying Attention to What These
Items Are. And I Would Certainly Be the First to Agree with You That
Perhaps Those Items in the Category 9 May Not Be Appropriate For These
Administrative Actions. We Discussed That for a Length of Time as to
Where They Might More Appropriately Be Put. I, for One, Agree with You
That this May Not Be the Most Appropriate Place and We Would Certainly
Ask You to Provide Us Comments as to Where You Think They Might Be
Better Placed. I Share Your Concern on That.

Caller: Thank You.

Simmons: Before You Go, I Would like to Also Suggest That You Get Some
of the Actions You May Be Referring to like Grazing Privileges and So
On, There Is Another Category Already Designed to Deal with Those. What
We\'re Talking about Here Is Really the Paperwork Exercise of
Transferring a Grazing Permit Say from Father to Son. Where No Changes
in the Current Use Are Going to Occur. For Re‑authorizations of Permits,
We\'ve Lumped That Type of An Action under I Believe it Is Class 2,
Category 1, I Believe it Is. Under That, There Will Be a Review of
Extraordinary Circumstances and It\'s Quite Possible That Even
Additional Analysis Could Be Necessary Even an Ea or Es Level Say for a
Ten‑year Grazing Permit, Re‑authorization. But I Would like for You to
Take a Look at Those and See If That Doesn\'t Cover the Concern That
You\'ve Expressed.

Caller: Thank You.

Pope: Edie, Did That Take Care of Your Question?

Caller: Yes. Thank You Very Much.

Pope: Thank You for Calling In. We Have Another Call Coming in from
Scott with the Bureau of Land Management. Good Morning, Scott. Do You
Have a Question or Comment for Us?

Caller: I Have a Couple of Questions. One Is for Category 7
Designations. That Doesn\'t Include like Was or Wilderness or like Wild
and Scenic Rivers, Does It?

No, it Doesn\'t.

Supulski: We Do it under Our Planning Regulations. No, it Would Not
Cover Those. We\'re Talking about the Designations like this Is a Scenic
Byway or this Is a Watchful Wildlife Viewing Station. The Examples We
Try to Put in There.

Caller: So That Was Just ‑‑ Bureau Destinations.

Supulski: That\'s Correct.

Caller: the Other Question I Have Is Rehab like in Wild And Scenic
Rivers, after the Emergency Has Ceased, Would They Require Ce or Would
They Still Require an Ea? Like in Our Study Areas, Management Policy it
States That Ces Are Not Allowed. I\'m Wondering If this Is an Amendment
to That or Do You Have Any Words of Wisdom Here?

Simmons: I\'ll Try to Address That One. The Proposed Categorical
Exclusion List Would Not Change Anything Except the Existing Bureau
Categorical Exclusion List. Actions That ‑‑ like You\'re Referring To,
There Are Program Specific Guidance That Applies. When Program Specific
Guidance like the Wsa ‑‑ I\'m Sorry, Like the Wilderness Study ‑‑ Yeah,
like Your ‑‑ What Am I Thinking of Here, Jordon? It\'s the Interim
Management for Wilderness Study Areas and Also When the Wilderness Act
Applies. We\'re Not Trying to Rewrite the Regulations. Rehabilitation
Outside of Some of Those Specifically Designated Areas or Study Areas
May Be Possible under the Fourth Class and the Sixth Category Where We
Talk about Rehabilitation There. But Again, We\'re Not Trying to Rewrite
All of the Program Specific Regulation. The Action, What We\'re Trying
to Do Is Focus on the Environmental Effect, Not the Purpose of the
Action or the Action Itself.

Caller: Ok.

Pope: Scott, Did That Answer Your Questions? Do You Have Others?

Caller: That Will Do It. Thank You Very Much.

Pope: Thank You for Calling In. We Have Another Call Coming in from
Chris with the Bureau of Land Management. Good Morning, Chris.

Caller: Good Morning How Are You?

Pope: Do You Have a Question or Comment?

Caller: Yes. I Would like to Know How the Panel Would Define Procedural
Rules. Our Concern with the Existing Regulations Is That We\'ve Had
Conflicting Interpretations of When Categorical Exclusion Would Apply to
Rule‑making Action. And I Was Wondering If We Could Get a More Specific
Definition of What Is a Procedural Rule.

Pope: Rhey?

Solomon: I Think I Can Address That. Understand this Is an Area That Is
Somewhat Difficult, Particularly If You\'re Writing Rules That Are
Rather Complex As to Whether They\'re Procedural or Whether in Fact They
Are Substantive Rules. Examples That Come to Mind for Me Are for Some of
Our Requirements for ‑‑ as an Example, Our Planning Rule. A Lot of the
Requirements in the Planning Rule Are Procedural in That They Set out
Certain Processes That One Must Follow. And If Those Processes Are
Followed, Then it Leads to Some Other Level for Which Decisions Will Be
Made That NEPA Then Does Apply. Substantive Rules, on the Other Hand,
Might Be Things like Some Things That the Environmental Protection
Agency Does Quite Often Where They\'re Setting Standards. They\'re
Setting Some Limits upon Which Set Resource Constraints. Air Quality,
Water Quality. Those I Would Consider to Be Substantive. Again, as We
Look at this Particular Category or These Particular Actions That Might
Fit under Here, I Think There Is Some Judgment That Needs to Be Made and
Certainly at the Washington Level, Where All of These Are Published in
the Federal Register, We\'ll Take a Real Close Look at Those in Making
That Decision. Understand That Even Though it Could Be Categorically
Excluded, We at Any Time Can Elevate That to a Different Level of Public
Participation at Any Point. But I Would Ask Chris If That Appears to Be
Not Clear Enough, I Encourage You to Comment to Us along Those Lines And
Either State to Us How You Think it Might Be Made Clearer or Other
Comments That Would Help Us Clarify That.

Caller: Great. Thanks, I Will. Thank You Very Much.

Pope: Any Other Questions, Chris? We Have a Question. The Question Has
Come in Specifically for Gregg. It Says for Class I Actions, What Type
of Paperwork Is Required If the Extraordinary Circumstances Isn\'t of
this ‑‑ Isn\'t this Just Documentation to Files, No Cx Form Is
Necessary.

Simmons: That Is Correct. No Cx Form Would Be Necessary. As a Matter of
Fact, There\'s No Requirement Within BLM to Fill out a Categorical
Exclusion Review Form for Any of Our Actions. The Only Thing That We\'ve
Ever Required or Suggested Strongly Is That There Be Some Documentation
in the Record Somewhere That You\'ve Taken the Necessary Look and When
You\'re Dealing with Actions That Are Categorically Excluded, That
Amounts Probably to Nothing More than a Determination Statement for
These Kinds of Actions. That You\'ve Taken a Look, the Actions
Categorically Excluded And No Further Analysis Is Needed. You Guys Have
Anything to Add to That?

Pope: Thank You. We Have Another Question Coming in from ‑‑ a Fax Also
Says For Gregg. It Says Why Are the Agreements Compensatory Royal
Agreements Strictly Considered Administrative Actions. By Approving a ca
or Cra, We Are in Essence Permitting the Development of Federal Mineral.
Approved Cas or Cras May Enable Operators to Drill Wells Adjacent to
Federal Lands Which May Have a Direct Impact on The Lands. Operators
Would Be Able to Get Variances from State Spacing Setbacks. How Would
These Impacts Be Considered?

I\'m Glad That\'s Your Question.

Simmons: this Is a Tough One and a Very In‑depth One. I Can See I\'m
Going to Get a Fax over Here. I Don\'t Know If I Can Answer this
Question. There\'s an Awful Lot of Detail to It. I Think That I Think
There Are Several Questions Within the Content of this One. I Think
First of All the First One Is Why Did We Place it ‑‑ The Question Came
in Why Did We Place it in the Class I Category. Why Did We Stick That
Category into Class One Administrative Actions? I Think Typically These
Kinds of Things Normally Are a Paperwork Exercise. However as Rhey\'s
Even Said Previously, When it Furthers the Purposes of NEPA or When
There Are Environmental Effects That Are Going to Occur on the Ground,
Then Class I Actions Is Not the Appropriate Place for this Categorical
Exclusion To Be Treated. It Would Fall Again under Probably Class Ii.
Your Authorizations Category. And I Think That There Is a Categorical
Exclusion or the Review of the Extraordinary Circumstances Would Apply
at That Time. And You Would Go Through That. But at Any Time, a
Determination Is Made by the Responsible Official That Additional NEPA
Analysis Is Necessary or to Further Purposes of NEPA, it Would Serve to
Involve ‑‑ Have Public Involvements On, Then We Should Move on to Say an
Ea Level Analysis or an Es Level Analysis.

Pope: Thank You, Gregg. We Have Another Fax. Is Offering Public Lands
for Bidding for Leases Require NEPA Compliance? Doesn\'t That Qualify as
an Administrative ‑‑ this Does Not Commit the Land to Some Degree. Rhey,
I Think That ‑‑ I May Be Reading Something into this That May Not Be
Here. From the Forest Service Perspective, Which I Think Is a Little
Different than BLM and Maybe Gregg Can Respond from a BLM Perspective.
But When We\'re Dealing with Oil and Gas Leasing, When We Make That
Decision Which We Call the Part I Decision, We Are Committing to the
Full Operation Eventually, the Full Operation of Those Leases and as
Such, We Do an Analysis at The Front End That Looks at the Reasonably
Foreseeable Futures and the Consequences That May Result from Those
Reasonably Foreseeable Futures and That Typically Does Drive Us to
Documentation in an Ea and in Many Cases into an Eis Because We\'re
Committing to the Subsequent Actions That Follow as a Result in the
Initial Lease. Now I Don\'t Know That That Is What this Fax Pertains To.
Gregg, Maybe There\'s a Different Perspective from BLM\'s or Something
in There I\'m Not Reading Right.

Simmons: One Quick Comment If You Would. The Offering of Public Lands
Through a Bidding Process ‑‑ NEPA Compliance Is More than Just Doing an
Ea or an Eis, Ok. When We Do NEPA Compliance, Any One of These Forms,
Categorical Exclusion for BLM and the Cx Process or Review Process, an
Ea Analysis or Es Analysis All Meet the Standards of NEPA Compliance. So
What We\'re Talking about Is Conducting the Analysis and Documenting it
to the Appropriate Level. And We Make That Determination When We Go
Through That Analysis Stage. Jordon, Back to You.

Pope: We Would like to Thank the Individuals That Have Faxed in
Questions and Called in Questions. Thank You for Sending Them In. At
this Point We\'re Going to Take a Ten Minute Break. When We Come Back,
We\'re Going to Look at Classes 2, 3 and 4 Of the Proposed Joint
Categorical Exclusion List. If You Haven\'t Had a Chance to Look over
These Classes, this Break Might Be a Good Chance for You to Become
Familiar with Them. Again, We Will Want to Hear from You and We Want
Your Questions and Comments as We Cover Each of the next Classes. We\'ll
See You in a Few Minutes.

Pope: Welcome Back to Our Interactive Forum on the Proposed Joint
Categorical Exclusion List. We Would like to Begin Our Second Segment
with a Look at Class 2 of Our Proposed List. Occupancy, Use and
Ownership. We\'ll Start Our Examination of this Class with Bill.

Supulski: Before We Get Started with the Class 2, I Wanted to Do a Quick
Reminder of Some of the Things Required Under the Class 2, Class 3 and
Class 4 Dealing with Extraordinary Circumstances. The Current BLM
Direction on Extraordinary Circumstances Is Called Exceptions and Can Be
Found in the Department of Interior Manual Section 516 Dm Chapter 2,
Appendix 2 and Is Commonly Called Test of the Ten Exceptions. For the
Forest Service, It\'s Found in Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section
30.3.2. We Call Them Extraordinary Circumstances. I Would like to Also
Remind Everybody That on Each of the Categories, it Is the Definition,
the Limits of Use and the Extraordinary Circumstances That Limits the
Use of the Category. It Is Not the Examples That We Have Given. The
Examples Are Just That, Examples and on Each of Those, We Say Are Not
Limited To. We Meant like ‑‑ Actions Could Take Place. Limiting Factor
Being the Definition on the Limits of Use or The Extraordinary
Circumstances. A Little Bit More about Extraordinary Circumstances. We
Have Basically Taken the Ten Exceptions That the Bureau Of Land
Management Has Presently. We\'ve Added to That List. We\'ve Made Some
Tweaks to Put in the Forest Service Language In Some Places. The First
One Is Adverse Effects to Public Health or Safety. The Second One Is
Unique Geographic Features, Things like Wilderness Designated Areas for
the Forest Service, That\'s Steep Slopes, Other Things of That Nature.
The Third One Are Highly Controversial. This Means Adverse ‑‑
Controversial Effects. It Does Not Mean If There\'s Public Controversy
over the Project Being Proposed. There\'s a Lot of Confusion in the
past. We\'re Trying to Really Emphasize Here it Is the Controversy Over
the Nature of the Effects. In Other Words There\'s a Scientific
Controversy over the Effect. Not Just Public Opposition. The Fourth Is
Unknown Effect. Obviously If We Don\'t Know What the Effect Is, We
Should Not Be Doing a Categorical Exclusion. The Fifth Is Establishes a
Precedent. This Is a Case Where It\'s the First Time We\'re Trying It,
We Have No Knowledge of How it Acted Here in this Particular Place
Therefore Again it Establishes a Precedent. Probably Not the Correct
Time to Use a Categorical Exclusion. Number 6 Is Accumulative Effects.
As in All Environmental Assessment Work, We Need to Study And Recognize
If There Are Cumulative Effects for Our Projects. We Cannot Do Things
Incrementally under a Categorical Exclusion That Would Have Cumulative
Effects Overall. As a Test, We Need to Check. Number 7 Is Basically the
Historic ‑‑ National History Check To See If Things Are Eligible for the
National Historic Register to Make Sure We\'re Not Damaging Those Sites
or Other Places for its Cultural Value. Number 8 Is Sensitive Species
Status. What We Mean Here Is Those Species That Are on the Threatened
Endanger List as Well as Those on the Regional or The State Listing for
Sensitive Status. By State, I Men the BLM State Office. So We Have
Expanded That over the Present Test. Number 9 Is the Executive Orders on
Floodplains and Wetlands. And Number 10, Violates Law. We Don\'t Mean
Just Federal Law. That Would Be State or Local, County Ordinance or Even
Cases Of Tribal Law. The Two New Categories We\'ve Added Here Are ‑‑
Unresolved Conflicts. Unresolved Conflicts That When You Did the
Planning for Your Resource Area Plan or for Your Land Management Plan or
Whatever Plan You\'re Working Under, the Issue Was Not Resolved. Number
12, There must Be Conformance with the Existing Plan. We Do Not Allow
Categorical Exclusions for Modification of The Current Plan. Even Site
Specific Modification. That Is an Agreement on the Planning Regulations
for Both Agencies. We Have Also Added a Clarification Paragraph at the
Bottom. For When There Is a Biological Evaluation for the Project, The
Finding Has to Be No Effect or May Effect Not Likely to Adversely Effect
in the Cases of T&e Species. With That, I Would Now like to Go Back into
Class to Occupancy Use and Ownership. Category One in this Class Is the
Approval, Issuance, Authorization or Re‑authorization of Basically
Permits. Personal Use Permits, Gathering of Firewood, Christmas Tree
Permits. Those Are the Things We Have There. It Also Means Other Kinds
of Permits. The Limiting Factor Is the Extraordinary Circumstances. And
the Limits That We Put in on the Category as Well as the Definition.
Category 2 Is Adjustments to Those. And We Meant Minor Adjustments. So
It\'s Modifying That Agreement or in Cases of Termination Of That
Agreement. The Third Category Is Ownership. This Is a Current Forest
Service Categorical Exclusion for Land Exchanges. A Lot of it Has to Do
with Dealing with the Small Tracks Act. If You Notice That We Have a
Limited Use Here. This Very Specific That Exchanged Land Will Be Used in
‑‑ What We Meant Is We We Have an Inholding That Is Basically a Timbered
Land We\'re Exchanging Timbered Land for It, it Would Be Covered under
the Categorical Exclusion. If We\'re Taking the Land from Some Inholding
So Someone Can Take this Land That We Would Exchange and Turn it into a
Sewage Waste Plant Ground, this Is Not Where You Would Do a Categorical
Exclusion. This Is a Time to Do an Ea or Eis Analysis. Anything You
Would like to Add? Jordon, Do We Have Any Questions?

Pope: Yes, We Do Have Some Questions. We Have a Fax in from Randy, BLM.
On the Class 2 Category One Item G, Gas Roads and Pads Are a Cx. What
about a Road That Is Ten Miles Long. Compare this to Class 3,
Category 1. Which Limits to Five Acres or Category Two Which Limits to
One Mile New Road or Five Miles of Trail. Gregg?

Simmons: I Guess What He\'s Saying Is He\'s Looking at the List and
There\'s No Limitation of One Mile of Road for Category One. I Guess My
Suggestion Is to Make That Suggestion to Us. The Limits of Use Were Put
Together by the Team of Folks That Participated in Development of this
Joint List. And It\'s Also Undergone Washington Office Program Staff
Review. Which Has Been in All of Their Comments and Concerns Have Been
Incorporated into this Session. I Don\'t Think That as to the Specific
Example That Was Cited In Terms of Road Construction Exceeding One Mile,
I Guess I\'m of the Opinion That We Should Never Try to Do More than A
Mile of Road Construction or the Equivalent of Surface Disturbance for
‑‑ under a Categorical Exclusion. We Ought to Be Doing an Ea or Es Level
Analysis. I\'ll Take That One Step Further and Point out That What
Let\'s Not Get into this Business of Trying to Do One Mile Increments up
to Ten Miles. You\'ve Got to Look at the Cumulative Effect and Any
Reasonable Foreseeable Connective Action When You\'re Doing a
Categorical Exclusion. Anybody Else?

Pope: Thank You. We Have Another Fax from Celia Skillman at BLM. Her
Question Is under Class 2 Category One, We Can Ok Land Use So Long as it
Conforms with the Land Use Plan. On a Class 3 Category 2, Roads, Trails
and Oil and Gas Wells Are in Other Facilities or Categorically Excluded.
Are the New Cxs Intended to Apply to Any Right‑of‑way Such As None Oil
and Gas Pipelines, Communication Sites? It Seems Any Right‑of‑way Could
Be a Cx.

Solomon: I Can Address That. I Think That Fax Is Right in That Any One
of the Rights of Ways Could Be Covered under this Particular Categorical
Exclusion. But I Want to Remind People That the Intent Here Is Not to
Segment Your Projects. If in Fact That Particular Activity Is Associated
with a Broader Project and it Is a Connected Action with That Broader
Project, it Is the Broader Project That must Be Viewed in Terms of the
Project as a Whole in its NEPA Compliance. You Cannot Then Segment
Projects into Multiple Projects That Each May Be in and of Themselves
May Be a Categorical Exclusion and Maybe Only One Part Wouldn\'t Fit a
Category So You Do an Ea or an Eis for the One Part of the Project That
Doesn\'t Fit a Category. You Need to Look at the Project as a Whole. You
Need to Look at All of the Connective Parts of the Project in Making a
Judgment as to Whether or Not the Categories Apply or Do Not Apply.

Simmons: I Would like to Add a Brief Statement. I Concur in What Rhey
Has Said and Will Even Go a Little Bit Further in Saying the Intent Was,
I Believe, to Categorically Exclude Many of the Rights of Way Actions
That We Do. For BLM Folks, You Have to Make Sure That We\'re Not ‑‑ this
Is Not Playing Offer ‑‑ it Is Not Rewriting the List of Major Federal
Actions Normally Requiring the Preparation of An Eis. That Deals with
Major Power Line Projects and That Sort of Thing. And Also, Our Intent
Is Subject to the Definition That Is There and the Limitations That Are
There So We Would like to Hear from You If You Think We\'ve Missed
Something or If You Think We Should Word Something in a Different
Manner.

Pope: Thank You. Another Fax. This One Comes from Chuck Hawkins. Chuck
Sends His Regards to Both Gregg and Bill. He Said He Worked with You a
Decade Ago. Chuck\'s Question Is Class 2 Category 1 Example B. Why Is
this Not a Class 5 Resource Management Especially Special Forest
Products?

We\'ll Have to Take a Look at the Specifics on That Jordon And See
Exactly What That Item Is.

Pope: Class 2 Category One, Example B. Why Is this Not in Class Four.
Resource Management.

Supulski: You Could Put it in Either Place to Answer His Question. It\'s
an Issuance of a Permit to an Outside Forest ‑‑ Person Or Company. That
Was the Intent. We Wanted to Put That Stuff Together Instead of Putting
it Over Here. That Would Be the Same Thing about Livestock Permitting.
We Felt Because the Driver Here Was the Permitting Action That We Would
Put it in this Category.

Simmons: Possibly Where Chuck Is Coming from Is When I Was Back in
Western Oregon Doing Forester Type Stuff and Issuing Permits They
Weren\'t Really Permits. They Were Small Minor Forest Products,
Contracts. Maybe It\'s the Term Contract Versus Permit That Might Be the
Question. If That\'s the Case, I Would Certainly Concur with What Bill
Said. You Could Handle That under Whichever Category You Think Is
Appropriate. We Would like to Hear That If That\'s the Case.

Solomon: I Think It\'s Appropriate If Chuck Feels Strongly About That
That in Fact He Provides That as a Comment as to Why He Thinks it Can Be
Reorganized Differently for Greater Understanding and Understand Our
Intent with the Rewriting In These Categorical Exclusions with a to Make
These More Useful and Better Organized Not Only for Our Employees Within
Both Agencies but Also for the Public. If There\'s Anything That You Can
Suggest That Can Improve That Greater Understanding and Usability, We
Certainly Welcome That.

Pope: Thank You. We Have a Question. Fax Coming In. I\'m Sorry I Can\'t
Make out the Name but I Will Ask Your Question Anyway. How Could Sale or
Exchange of Public Lands Constitute No NEPA Compliance? The Value of
Tradeoffs must Be Documented and Disclosed to The Public. Values Are
Located under and above the Surface of the Land.

Supulski: That\'s Correct. This Is a Categorical Exclusion We\'ve Been
Doing with the Forest Service Very Successfully. It Comes under the
Small Tracks Act Which Allows the Minor Adjustments. Notice There\'s No
Change in Administration in the Land in The Sense of What it Would Be
Used for. It Is Not Our Intent. It\'s Come up in Conversation If There
Was a Mining Interest, We Knew They Would Take the Property to Mine it
Right Off, That it Would Not Be the Appropriate Place to Use a
Categorical Exclusion. Do You Have Any Good Comment on That?

Simmons: I Was Going to Agree with That and Simply State That it Sounds
like this Is Probably a Question That Came From a BLM Viewer. And Again,
We Have a Lot of Program Specific Guidance That Requires Either an Ea or
Es Level Analysis for Certain Kinds Of Land Exchanges. We Certainly Have
to Address Them in Our Resource Management Plans, Are the Lands
Available or Are They Not. So, Again, this List Is Not Intended. It Is
to Accommodate. We\'ve Included it in There to Accommodate What the
Forest Service Has Done and You\'ll See That in the Limits of Use For
That Particular Category, That There Are Some Real Constraints Put on
There. That It\'s More Intended, I Believe to Go from One Federal Agency
to the Other Where Actual Management of the Lands Would Not Alter.

Supulski: It\'s Not Our Intention under Exclusions to Limit Public
Awareness of What\'s Going On. Under Class I, the Exceptions We\'ve Done
to Our Process, We Don\'t Expect Public Participation Because We\'re
Actually Going to Do That. But under These Three Classes, Classes Two,
Three and Four, We Expect to Have Public Participation as We Would Do
under All of Our NEPA Processes, Being Eas and Categorical Exclusions.
There Would Be Disclosure.

Pope: Thank You. Another Fax Coming in from Greg Hill Escalante. He Has
a Two‑part Question. One, Do the Extraordinary Circumstances Listed on
the Class Two Apply to All Classes? Bill?

Simmons: I Can Answer That. We\'ll Switch Back and Forth. Yes, the
Extraordinary Circumstances That Bill Presented at The Beginning of the
Class Two Section Apply to Classes Two, Three and Four. They\'re Not
Intended to Apply to Class One.

There Was a Second Part to That Jordon?

Pope: the Second Part Is the Designation of Escalante National Monument
Apply That the Extraordinary Circumstances Would Apply to Most of Our
Actions.

Supulski: the Fact the Place Is Designated as Wilderness, Does That Mean
That When We Maintenance an Existing Trail Do We Have to Do an Ea? No.
Our Intention Is That If We\'re Doing Routine Maintenance on A Trail in
the Wilderness Area or Some Special Designation, That That\'s Routine
Maintenance. If We\'re Going to Change the Location of That Trail, it Is
Not Appropriate to Use a Categorical Exclusion to Change That Location
Because of a Special Designation. Maintenance of a Trail, an Existing
Trail, Does Not Change The Reason Congress Set it Aside. It Doesn\'t
Affect the Values That Have Been Established for That Special Designated
Area.

Solomon: Let Me Add to That ‑‑ I Would Hope People in a Cavalier Way Go
out and Think That Just Because it Fits the Definition of the Category
and Fits the Limits That They Can Go out and Do These Projects. You May
Find Particularly in Maintenance Activities That the Environmental
Situation May Have Changed. That Now You Have a Teeny Species You
Didn\'t Have Before or You\'ve Discovered Certain Aspects of That Local
Environment That Have Changed and Would Trigger the Extraordinary
Circumstances Test. And I Think Anytime You Use a Category, We Have an
Obligation to Go Back and Take a Look for the Extraordinary
Circumstances Test and Ensure That We Comply with That Requirement.
Anything Else?

Simmons: Just Simply That I Would Remind You Again That When You\'re
Dealing with Special Designations Such as Wilderness Areas, Scenic
Rivers, Acecs, Where These Things Are Designated Either by Congress or
Through Our Land Use Management Planning Processes, There Could Be and
Often Are Program‑specific Guidance That Talks about What Level of
Additional NEPA Analysis Is Needed in Order to Go in and Perform
Activities Within Those Specially Designated Areas And Again, this Is
Not Intended to Circumvent Those Requirements.

Pope: Ok. We Have a Question from Gary Stevens. And the Question Is What
Is the Difference Between the Two Re‑authorized Uses ‑‑ Categories in
Class One, Category Nine And Class Two, Category One.

Supulski: Ok. What We\'ve Put Here under Class One, Category Nine Was
Basically Where it Was a Paper Transfer. Like an Inheritance from a
Parent to a Child Where There\'s Just a Little Paper Transfer or Some of
Those Things That Have to Happen When There\'s ‑‑ Where You Change
Banking and You Need to Have the Decreements Made and Done. That\'s All
its Intended Purpose. It Is a Paper Transfer. What We\'re Talking about
Here in Category Two Authorization, We\'re Talking about When You\'re
Issuing That Permit and There Will Be Some Environmental Impact. It\'s
Not Just the Paperwork Exercise. Then We\'ll Put the Limits of Use
Because of Where It\'s At. We\'re Not Saying You\'re Going to Be Able to
Do Ten Year Grazing Permits. That\'s Not Our Intention Here. That\'s
Where it Would Fall Because We Recognize There Would Be Actual
Environmental Impact from the Action. Of Issuance.

Pope: We Have Other Questions but Before That, I Would Like to Make an
Announcement. Some of You Probably Have Been Trying to Get Your Faxes
Through and You\'ve Been Having the Wrong Number. I Would like to Give
You Two Other Numbers That You Can Send Your Faxes Through. Those
Numbers Are 602‑906‑5701. The Other Number 602‑906‑5702. So If You\'ve
Been Having Difficulties, Try Again and Use One Of Those Particular
Numbers. Thank You. Our next Question\... Readjustment of Existing Solid
Mineral Leases Is an Administrative Action but the Potential Impact Once
Mining Commences Can Be Significant. Is a Ce Still Appropriate
Considering the Eas Are Routinely Completed for an Exploratory and
Mining Plan. This Comes from Idaho.

Simmons: it Came from BLM? I Missed the Question. Ok. Hold On.

Pope: I Can Go to Another One.

Simmons: Make Sure It\'s for One of Those Guys to Answer. I Apologize.

Pope: an Ocx List Included Apds but the Policy Has Required Preparation
of an Ea. Where Do We Stand on this with the Draft List? And this Is
from Randy, BLM.

Solomon: That\'s Another BLM Question on Ap.

Simmons: Keep Adding to My List of Questions. I Think What this
Particular Question on Solid Mineral Lease Administrative Action but the
Potential Impact Once Mining Occurs Can Be Significant Is a Ce Still
Appropriate Considering That Eas Are Routinely Completed for Ne
Expiration and Mining Plans. I Believe this Goes to the Question of
Notices and Mining Plans of Operations. And Our Mineral Guides ‑‑ Bureau
Mineral Guides Goes like This. For Any Notices Which Involve Disturbance
of Five Acres or Less, No NEPA Analysis Is Needed. A Cx Is Not Needed.
Mining Plan ‑‑ or an Ea Level Analysis Is Not Needed. However, If
You\'re Dealing with Disturbance Greater than Five Acres, a Mining Plan
of Operations must Be Approved and ‑‑ by Our Own Regulatory Guidance, an
Ea Level Analysis Is Necessary. That Action Will Have to Have That Ea
Level Analysis or Whatever in Place in Order to Implement That Kind of
an Action.

Pope: Gregg You Want to Answer this One?

Simmons: Go Ahead and Repeat the Question.

Pope: the Question Is an Ocx List Completed Apds but They\'ve Required
Preparation of an Ea. Where Do We Stand on this with a Draft List.

Simmons: Where Do We Stand with the Draft List. I Think the Answer to
That Question Is If I Didn\'t Miss Something, I Did Have Somebody
Talking with Me. The Answer to That Question Is for Both Agencies, the
Existing Lists must Be Followed or must Be Used in Order to
Categorically Exclude an Action until Such Time That this Proposal
Becomes Approved. Now, Just to Kind of Give You a Little Information,
Approval Of this List Is Going to Be a Little Bit off from the Future.
First of All, We Need to Get Your Comments Back to Us. We\'ll Need to
Make the next Round of Revisions in the Proposal List. The Other Thing
That We\'ll Need to Do Is Get O and B Clearance, Ceq Clearance, Publish
it for Public Review and Comment Period Then Once That\'s Done, We Can
Approve the List. Again, You Cannot Use this List That We\'re Talking
about Today until it Has Been Approved by Both Agencies.

Pope: Thank You. We Have a Phone Call Coming in from Joan with the
Bureau of Land Management. We\'ll Take Joan\'s Call. Good Morning, Joan.
How Are You?

Caller: Good. How Are You?

Pope: You Have a Question or Comment for Us?

Caller: I Had a Question about Extraordinary Circumstances Number 10
That Applies to Two, Three and Four. And I\'ve Been Looking at
Environmental Justice and It\'s Not Clear to Me If You\'re Not Doing Any
Public Involvement or Scoping, How You May Identify Issues That Would
Apply to Environmental Justice.

Solomon: Let Me Take That. Thanks for That Observation, Joan.
Environmental Justice for Most of Our People Is ‑‑ I Don\'t Want to Say
It\'s Something New but it Does Require Us to Take a Closer Look at the
Environmental Risks to Minority Communities and Low Income Communities
and I Think You Have A Very Valid Point. However, I Think That the
Extraordinary Circumstances Test Has the Health and Safety Requirement
There to Protect Us in That Area of Determining Whether It\'s an Ea or
Eis. And in Particular to the Public Participation, at Least with The
Forest Service, We Fully Intend for All of Our Categorical Exclusions in
Classes Two, Three and Four That We Will Have a Public Participation and
an Announcement of Those Projects and Will Be Considering All Aspects of
Community Input When We Do That. For the BLM, I Know That They Do a Lot
of Public Participation in the Categorical Exclusions as Well. Greg, Did
You Want to Respond to That from Your Agency or You\'re about the Same
as Where We Are?

Simmons: I Think We\'re Pretty Close. In All the Training We\'ve Been
Doing with Regard to Categorical Exclusions, We\'ve Always Suggested
That Environmental Justice Be Addressed under Extraordinary Circumstance
10 Violates the Law. It\'s Not Just a Law but an Executive Order That
Could Be at Question Here and That\'s Where the Environmental Justice
Rolls In. So, Your Extraordinary Circumstance Number 10 Does Address The
Environmental Justice Issue. And it Should Be Taken into Consideration
There.

Pope: Joan, Did That Answer Your Question?

Caller: Yes. It Answers It. I\'m Not Sure How Effectively That\'s Being
Followed.

Pope: Is There Something Else We Can Answer for You?

Caller: No, That Helps.

Pope: Have a Wonderful Day Now. The next Class of Action We Want to
Discuss Is Class 3. Construction, Reconstruction and Reclamation. Late
Begin with Rhey.

Solomon: Thanks, Jordon. This Class Is on Construction and
Reconstruction and Reclamation. It Is a Rather Short List of Categories.
There Are Only Two Categories So I Suggest That If You Have Comments,
Faxes or Telephones That You Initiate Those Now Because this Will Not
Take Me Long to Get Through These Particular Class of Action. I Did See
a Fax That Floated Through Here Earlier. I Do Want to Thank the
Commenter on My Tie. I Do Appreciate the Comment That You Liked My Tie.
That Doesn\'t Go Unrecognized by Me. I Appreciate That. On this Class,
this Particular Class, Again, it Does Have The Extraordinary
Circumstances Test. And it Applies to this Class as Well as it Does to
Class Ii And Class Iii. These Actions Combine a Number of Categorical
Exclusions in Both Services of Forest Service and BLM Procedures. There
Are Only Two Categories in this Class. Facilities, Structures and
Devices. Things Such as Meteorological Sites, Nesting Platforms, Fences,
Signs, Those Kinds of Activities and Actions That Are Well Described in
Our Existing Ces, We\'ve Just Combined Them Together to Make it a Little
More Convenient to Use. And the Other Category Are Roads and Trails.
Again, this Is the Construction Reconstruction of Roads and Trails.
Couple of Things I Need to Point out Relative to These Two Categories.
First, There Is a Limit of Generally One Mile of Road and Five Miles of
Trail That Are a Limit to the Use of this Category. The Five Miles of
Trail Is Equivalent to the Same Area of Disturbance One Would Get from
One Mile of Road. These Are General Guidance. And They Should Be Used in
a Limits Test. The Other Note Is We\'ve Added Road Obliterations. This
Has Been an Activity That\'s Increasing in Both BLM and Forest Service
in the past We Have Not Had Road Obliterations. We Have Now Added It. I
Also Want to Note That the Road Obliteration Does Not Have A Limits
Associated with It. Are There Any Other Thoughts, Gregg or Bill That You
May Have on this Particular Class of Actions?

Simmons: Nope, Not at this Time.

Solomon: Jordon, Do We Have Anything on this?

Pope: Perhaps We Could Ask a Question Relative to Clarification of That
Class. We Had Some Comments in the Break Room. Do You Remember One of
Those Questions We Were Discussing in There That Would Clear up
Information for Someone.

Solomon: One of the Comments That\'s Been Made and It\'s Come up Earlier
Today Which Was Concerning Whether or Not You Could Have a 1.1 Mile of
Road. And Again, in the Description of the Limits, We Have Said
Generally. That Means the One Mile Isn\'t an Exact One Mile. The Reason
We Haven\'t Made it an Exact One Mile Is the Nature of the Activity in
One Part of the Country May Be a Little Different than it Is in Another
Part of the Country. And There Is Some Judgment That Needs to Be Used
Here. That Also Means That You May Have less than Say Six‑tenths Or Half
a Mile of Road Which May Cause You to Move Toward an Eis Even Though it
Fits Within the Criteria of the Category. Judgment Needs to Be Used.
That\'s One Item That Has Come Up. A Second Area That We\'ve Discussed
Is What If I Have Ten Miles of Road and I Segment it into Segments of
One Mile Each. Well, of Course That Segmenting and the Categorical
Exclusions Were Never to Do That. You Need to Look at the Project as a
Whole and Look at the Effects at the Same Time and Not Segment Your
Projects in Order to Make Them Fit the Categories. Those Are the Two
That Come to Mind for Me, Jordon.

Pope: Thank You. I Think That Helped to Clear up Some Things. I Have a
General Question. From Tom. Developing a Joint List Is a Great Idea. But
Will Only Be Fully Effective If the Agencies Have Similar Procedures for
Categorical Exclusions. For Example, One Office in the California Desert
District Approved Actions That Are Categorically Excluded from NEPA Only
after a Two‑week Review Period. Does this Defeat the Purpose of
Consistently Applying Categorically Exclusion Between Agencies?

Supulski: I Don\'t Believe So. Categorical Exclusion Procedures Are Just
Guidelines and Procedures for Implementation on Environmental Effect.
There Are Other Things That Anybody ‑‑ That Resource Area or Ranger
District Has to Consider. That May Be the Public Participation or How
They Want to Deal with the Public. We\'ve Not Put Limits on That. That
Is a Local Issue. What They Want to Do. The Desert Region, That\'s How
They Feel. They Have a Better Trust Factor than What They\'re Doing, We
Say Go Ahead and Do It. There May Be Other Places Where It\'s Not
Necessary for the Projects.

Simmons: I Would Echo That for BLM as Well. There Is Absolutely No
Reason Why with Our Desire to Move to A More Collaborative Planning,
Decision‑making Effort That We Cannot Involve Our Public\'s ‑‑ I
Probably Said That in Such a Fashion ‑‑ Let Me Restate it ‑‑ We Should
Be Encouraging Our Field Managers and Our Field Officers to Involve Our
Publics in the Categorical Exclusion Review Process. There\'s No Reason
Why You Cannot Do That. And If it Takes a Little Extra Time to Do So,
That\'s Fine. For Some Actions like Administrative Actions, Maybe
That\'s Not Necessary. But That\'s Where Your Own Personal Judgment
Comes In. And I\'m Not Sure That Any of Us Here Think That Just Because
Someone May Take a Couple of Weeks to Approve a Categorically Exclusion
Review and Someone Else Does it Within a Couple of Days, There\'s an
Inconsistency. You Have to Look at the Project, the Significance of the
Action or the Potential Significance of the Action. And So On. Ok.

Pope: Thank You and Thank You for Those Questions. Our Last Class of
Action from the Proposed Changes to the Categorical Exclusion List Is
Class 4, Resource Management. Gregg, Why Don\'t You Start Things off for
Us.

Simmons: Ok, Jordon. Class 4 Resource Management Is the Class Where We
Kind of Plugged ‑‑ It\'s Kind of a Catch‑all Category. We Decided to
Term it Resource Management. Probably for No Particular Reason. In It,
We Have Six Categories of Actions Identified. Again, the First Thing I
Would like to Mention Is That Again Extraordinary Circumstances Do Apply
to All Individual Actions Here. And Let\'s Move on and Look at the
Categories. First Is Vegetation Management by Fire. And the Intent Here
Is to Deal with Prescribed Fire Activities. Ok. The Second Category Is
Other Vegetation Management Without The Use of a Timber Sale Contract.
Some of the Kinds of Actions We\'re Looking at Here Are Covered by this
Category Are Precommercial Thinning, Snag Creation for Wildlife Purposes
or Wheat Control. The Third Category Is Site Preparation, Regeneration,
Stand Improvement Other than with the Use of Fire. And in this
Particular Category, We\'re Looking at Site Prep Activities Other than
Fire, We\'re Looking at Seedling Protection and Those Kinds of
Management Actions. Category Four Is Vegetation Management by Timber
Sale Contract. We\'re Looking at the Intent of Covering Harvesting
Activities. As Chuck Indicated for BLM and Forest Sales Where We
Actually Issue a Contract, That Could Be Covered under That Category as
Well. Category Five, We Lumped All of Wildlife, Livestock, Wild Horse
and Burro Management All Within One Category. The Main Reason for this
Was Because We\'re Trying to Focus On the Effects of the Action and Not
the Purpose of the Proposal Itself. And Here Were the Kinds of Things
We\'re Talking about Were Emergency Watering and Feedings and Some Adc
or Animal Damage Control Activities. And 6 and Final Category Is Burned
Area Rehabilitation. The Kinds of Activities Within this Category
Include Re‑establishing Ground Cover and Falling of Burned Trees and So
On. Either of You Guys Have Anything to Add Before We Go to Jordon?

Solomon: No, I Don\'t.

Pope: We Have a Couple of General Questions That We Can Field. One Is
Does BLM Have a Policy on Publishing and Making NEPA Available Through
Newspapers et Cetera like the Forest Service Does?

Simmons: Does BLM Have a Policy? The Question ‑‑ I Can Look at Probably
One of Is Several Ways. When We Issue a Decision, the Notice of the
Decision Should Be Issued So That Our Appeal Procedures Can Be Followed.
I Am Aware of No Specific Policy That in All Cases a Decision and Nine
Pa Analysis must Be Published in Some Paper. Although Certainly Not a
Bad Idea to Do That. It\'s a Good Way of Communicating with the Publics.

Solomon: Let Me Comment. There Probably Is Confusion Because Why Might
the Forest Service Have a Different Procedure than the BLM. Aren\'t We
Sister Agencies and Trying to Collaborate and Do Things Together. We\'re
Trying to Do Things Together. I Think the Reason That the Forest Service
Has a Public Participation Aspect to Advertising Our Schedule of Actions
And Letting Our Public Review Our Environmental Assessments And
Responding to Those Comments Is Due to Specific Legislation to the
Forest Service That Does Not Apply to the BLM. And Therefore, We\'ve Had
an Appeal Process and a Public Participation Process in Place for a
Number of Years Now That it Responds to That Specific Piece of
Legislation. That Does Not Apply to BLM. So, There Are Going to Be Some
Differences in Terms of How The Two Agencies Move Through the NEPA
Process and We\'ll Try To Bring as Much Uniformity and Agreement Between
the Two Agencies as Is Possible. But I Agree with Gregg. It Is Good
Practice. You Need to Judge How You Respond to That Based on the Local
Communities and Your Local Interests.

Pope: Continuing Question Here and That Is Will this Notification of
Actions Be Part of this Effort? And I\'m Assuming What She\'s Getting to
Here Is Will the Cx Process in this Notification Be a Part of That
Action?

Simmons: I\'m Not Sure I Understand.

Pope: Will this Notification of Action Be Part of this Effort. That\'s
Put in the Information I\'m Assuming under Newspaper And et Cetera and
Will this Action That We\'re Doing Here Be A Part of That Particular
Effort?

Simmons: Public ‑‑ this Whole Effort ‑‑ When We Go out With a Public
Review and Comment Period on the Categorical Exclusion List and Both
Agencies Go Forward with It, That Is A Form of Public Involvement and
That Is Intended to Be a Part of this. This Program, Once We Get
Comments Back from You, You Know, It\'s Kind of Basically over with
Except That We\'ll Keep a Record of it and Also the Transcript Which
Will Be on the World Wide Web Probably Sometime Tomorrow Is out There
for People to Look At. And to See the Responses and So On. Anybody Would
Be Able to Access It.

Solomon: Right. Let Me Comment from the Forest Service Perspective. Our
Existing Procedures, We Do Have a Categorical Exclusion For Rule‑making,
Procedural Rule‑making Which Is What this Is. These Are Procedures That
Lead to an Analysis Process for Projects. This Is a Procedural Thing. We
Do Have Right Now a Categorical Exclusion That this Particular Rule or
this Particular Item That We\'re Doing Here, the Handbook and Manual, We
Would Categorically Exclude under That Process. We Will Comply with the
Administrative Procedures Act, of Course, in That These ‑‑ the Draft
Will Be Published in the Federal Register for Public Comment. We Will
Take in That Public Comment. We Will Respond to That Public Comment and
Then BLM and Forest Service Hopefully Will Be Able to Publish a Final
Rule. So, That Will Fulfill Our Public Participation Aspect for This ‑‑
for These Procedures That We Follow and of Course Subsequent to These
Procedures Is All the NEPA That Will Take Place for Implementing
Actions.

Pope: She Made a Statement Here That We Could Really Get Public
Involvement If We Placed the Cxs on the Internet. Do We Have Any
Intention of Putting this List on the Internet?

Supulski: Yes, We Do. When We Go out to Final in the Register, We Have
the Intention of Putting it on the Forest Service Home Page and I\'m
Assuming the Bureau Will Do the Same Thing. It Will Probably Hit the Eco
Net Which Is Done Through the Council on Environmental Quality. What We
Want Is a Lot of Public Interaction on this to Get a Better Final When
We Go to the Final.

Solomon: I Would Hope as a Part of this Process That the Categorical
Exclusions Certainly Will Be Available for Comment on the Forest Service
Home Page. We, Right Now, on Our Forest Service Home Page Have Links to
All of Our ‑‑ Most of Our National Forests That Put up a Schedule of
Their NEPA Activities That They\'re Undertaking Over the next Six
Months. We Already Have a Vehicle in Place to Allow the Public
Participation on the Web. I Would See These Procedures as Following That
Same Public Availability Through the Web.

Simmons: as for BLM, I Don\'t See a Reason Why We Wouldn\'t Follow the
Same Kind of Procedure.

Pope: Thank You and Thank You for the Questions. Well, That Concludes
Our Formal Presentation on the Proposed Categorical Exclusion Lists. Now
We Are Ready to Hear More from You. We Have Reserved the Remainder of
the Program for Questions And Answers. At this Time, We Welcome Your
Comments, Suggestions and Questions. If There Was Something That
Concerned You That Was Not Covered by Our Panelists, Let Us Know. This
Is the Time to Get Answers. So, Get Those Fingers Dialing and Fire up
Those Fax Machines! And We Have Some Questions. And These Will Cover
Exceptions and et Cetera. It Says the Dike Emergency Repair Example
Earlier Might Utilize Mineral Materials Nearby. I Assume this Removal Is
Covered under B 1 or B 4 of the Draft Joint Cx List, Not Just the Actual
Work on the Dike. Will Be 4 Emergency Actions by ‑‑ I\'m Going to Let
You Read That One.

Supulski: Conditionally Expanded and Be Made Known to All Field
Officers.

Pope: While You Read That One, I\'ll Read Another One. The Congressional
Category Needs to Be Expanded to Actions Congress Specifically Directs
Us to Take. NEPA Not Mentioned, When Congress Had Ordered Us to Take the
Action, Develop an Environmental Data Nearly Delays Implementation Where
a Decision Has Already Been Made. This Is Wasteful.

Supulski: There\'s Two Parts to That Answer. Congress Tell Us We\'ll Do
Things in Agreement to Our Budgeting Process. Congress Told Us to Do a
Certain Level of Program Work but It Has an Expectation of Us Still
Doing NEPA to Achieve the Program Work. Unless Congress Specifically
Says NEPA Won\'t Be Applied in This Action, We as an Agency Are Still
Required to Do NEPA. So It\'s Going to Be Really Dependent upon the
Language and The Intention of Congress Before We Can Say Yes, it Fits
Under Exception a or If We Need to Do NEPA for It. It Will Be a Specific
Test Each Time.

Solomon: I Would Elaborate a Little on What Bill Said. There Are a
Number of Situations Where Congress, Through Their Action, Have Limited
the Scope of What the Discretion Of the Agency May Be in the Decisions
That We Undertake. And When That Happens, the Agency Needs to Take a
Hard Look At What Is the Discretion Left to the Agency? And Are There
Options for Which We Can Mitigate Environmental Consequences and Still
Accomplish What Congress Has Given Us. If Their Alternative Uses to
Those Resources That We Can Mitigate and Look at Alternatives, Then I
Think it Is a Responsibility of the Agency to Comply with NEPA to
Demonstrate to the Public and to the Decision‑maker What the Varus
Options Are, Even Given That Limited Discretion That Congress Has Given
Us. I Think Each Situation Is Very Site Specific and You Need to Read
Closely the Language That\'s in the Rule. I Would, However, Encourage
the Person That Made That Comment to Provide Us Any Words That You May
Have That Would Help Clarify That in the Procedures That We Sent out for
Comment.

Pope: Thank You.

Simmons: You Want Me to Address this?

Pope: We Have a Telephone Call from Terry with BLM. And We\'ll Answer
Terry\'s Call. Good Morning, Terry. Do You Have a Question or Comment
for Us?

Caller: Yes, I Do. My Name\'s Terry Bird with the BLM Operations in
Amarillo, Texas. Earlier in Your Broadcast, You Mentioned That No
Specific Paperwork or Form Was Required to Make a Determination of The
Categorical Exclusions and My Question Is There Any Restriction on the
Level of Management That That Authority Lies with?

Simmons: I Guess, Yes, There Is. Terry, the Responsible Official and in
BLM, That\'s Defined As the Person Who Has the Delegated Authority to
Make the Decision Is the Person Who Makes the Determination as to
Whether or Not an Action Is Categorically Excluded and How Much NEPA
Analysis Is Needed. That Ceq Definitely Puts That Responsibility with
the Responsible Official. And Again, for BLM Viewers out There, That Is
Defined as the Person Who Has a Delegated Authority by Our Delegated
Delegation ‑‑ I Can\'t Remember the Manual Section, 1200 Possibly. But
Whoever Has That Authority Makes the NEPA Determination.

Solomon: Terry, Was Your Question Related to Whether or Not We Have
Authority to Not Document Categorical Exclusions? I\'m Not Sure I
Understand the Question.

Caller: No. The Question Was Answered. But Backs to That Though. I
Believe You Said That There\'s No Particular Form Required But it Does
Require Documentation.

Solomon: the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations Do Not Require
Us to Document the Determination on a Categorical Exclusion. What Greg
Has Said, However, Is That There Is a Great Deal Of Discretion to the
Line Officer If They Feel They Want Something for the Record to
Demonstrate That They Have Gone Through a Thoughtful Process of Analysis
in Arriving at the Use of That Category, We Certainly Encourage Line
Officers To Do So. But We Have with Some Limbs in Our Existing
Procedures, No Requirements They Do So. But I Believe BLM You Do Have
Some Forms That Have Been Used From Time to Time. Is That Not Right?

Simmons: Yes, We Do Terry. That\'s in Previously Referenced Document
Departmental Manual 516 Dm Chapter 2 Appendix 2. There Is a Recommended
Format for Documenting Categorical Exclusion Review Processes. And That
Has Been Encouraged or Our Field Offices Have Been Encouraged to Use
That When Documentation Is Necessary. Does That Answer Your Question?

Caller: it Does. Thank You Very Much.

Pope: Thank You, Terry. We Have a Call Coming from Scott with BLM. From
Idaho. Good Morning, Scott. Do You Have a Question or Comment for Us?

Caller: Yes, I Do. Under Class Four Category Four, Discussing about
Vegetation Management by Timber Sale Contract, it Often Refers to the
250,000 Cubic Feet of Merchantable Wood. That Translates to 3 Million
Board Feet. I Was Wondering What the Criteria Was Used to Establish 3
Million Board Feet for a Cad X.

Supulski: it Translates into 3 Million Board Feet Using The National
Standard Factors for Conversion. Each Species Has a Different Conversion
Factor. What We Felt Is the Forest Service Has Gone Through this
Category Several Times. 1986 There Was No Limit. In 1988 We Put a 2
Million Board Foot Limit and in 1992, We Changed it to a Million and
Salvage and a Quarter of a Million in Green Program. And All of That Has
Done Is Caused a Lot of the Confusion Because of the Funding Questions
That Deal with That for the Forest Service. Our Intention Here Is the
Limit Is Approximately 1.3 Million Board Feet. That\'s an Upper Limit
but I Said Because of the Conversion Factors it Might Not Be Close
Sometimes. Am I Answering Your Question There?

Caller: Certainly Did. Thank You Very Much.

Pope: Thank You, Scott. We Have Another Call Coming in from the
Washington Office. From Celine. Good Morning. Do You Have a Question?

Caller: Good Afternoon. I Have One Comment and One Question. It\'s for
Gregg. My Comment Was Referred to the Earlier Question on the
Unitization Agreement. I Think the Unit Agreement Properly Belongs to
Categorical Exclusion Because Even Though the Approval of the
Unitization Has Some Environmental Impact, it Will Be Addressed in the
Subsequent Approval of the Apd When They Were Submitted. I Hope That
Answers That Question. My Own Question Is on Class 2 Category 1, Item G.
That Item G Is Very Confusing Because We Do Not Know ‑‑ or I Do Not Know
Whether it Refers to the Authorization of the Permit or this Is the
Authorizing the Construction Itself After an Apd Is Approved Because If
It\'s Authorizing the Permit Itself, Then it Can Be Construed as Apd
Will Be under Categorical Exclusion. However, I Don\'t Think That Was
the Intent. However, this Is to Authorize the Constructions, Then it
Maybe Should Belong to the Construction Portion of the Class. So, Could
You Clarify this Particular Item?

Simmons: I Think the Answer to Your Question ‑‑ by the Way, I Would like
to Thank You for Your Clarification on the Unitization. I Had Someone
Say During the Break That Unitization Agreement Does Not Result in Any
Action Authorized Action on The Ground. That Is Done Through Some
Further NEPA Analysis. Thank You for the Clarification. We Appreciate
It. As to Your Question Regarding the Authorization Approval Under Class
Two and the Construction. It Was Our Intent to Separate Approval of
Issuance ‑‑ or Authorizations and So on under Class 2 from Construction
Activities. And So, If That Doesn\'t Seem Clear, We Would Appreciate
Some Comment on That.

Caller: Ok.

Pope: Thank You, Celine.

Caller: Thank You.

Pope: We Have Another Call Coming in from Joan, the Bureau of Land
Manage Number Las Cruces, New Mexico. Good Morning, Joan. Do You Have a
Question or Comment for Us?

Caller: I Have a Question Regarding the Combination of The Categorical
Exclusions. The Question Is Why Was it Just Limited to the Forest
Service and BLM? What Happened to the Other Agencies? You Know, We Could
Put Their Categorical Exclusions in Place Also.

Supulski: That\'s Correct. We\'ve Done this on a Request from the
Council on Environmental Quality. One of Our Comments Back to the
Council Several Times Was to Say Hey, Don\'t You Think You Should Have
the Lead in Doing This Because Those Administrative Actions Could Be
Used for Any Agency as Also Routine Maintenance. Any Agency Could Do It.
When We Went Through Discussions with Them and Fish and Wildlife Service
Was Interested, National Park Service, Corps of Engineers, We Realized
Our Effort Would Take Several Years to Initiate Instead of Being the
Trial That it Is to Get Two Agencies to Merge. So We\'re Doing it as a
Trial Basis. There Will Be Some Expansion, We Expect, over the Years and
Get the Other Agencies over There and Hopefully Maybe We\'ll Get
National Categorical Exclusions Instead of the Ones We Have Established
by the Departments.

Simmons: One Additional Comment. We Have, as Far Back as Probably a Year
and a Half Ago, We\'ve Informed the Office of Environmental Policy and
Compliance Within the Department of Interior That Covers All Of the
Interior Agencies That We\'ve Been Undertaking this Effort. They\'ve
Been Aware That We\'ve Been Working Closely with the Forest Service. The
Invitation Has Always Been There That Other Agencies Could Kind of Climb
in on this If They Would like To. It\'s Not Intended to Be Exclusive for
Us. It\'s Just We Haven\'t Heard of Any Indication from Anybody That
They Were Interested. And There\'s No Reason Why this List Couldn\'t
Work for Most Land and Resource Management Agencies Within the Interior
And Other Departments.

Supulski: It\'s Also Interesting the Fish and Wildlife Service Has a
Categorical Exclusion Which Allows Them to Use Another Agency\'s
Categorical Exclusions. There Are Other Opportunities Available.

Does That Answer Your Question, John?

Caller: it Would Be in Our Best Interest If We Did the Same Thing the
Fish and Wildlife Agency Has Done in Being Able to Use the Other
Agency\'s Exclusions. Thank You.

Pope: We Have a Call from Wallace in Boise, Idaho with BLM. Good
Morning, Wallace.

Caller: Good Morning, Jordon. I\'m Directing this to Gregg. He Was
Trying to Answer a Solid Minerals Lease Action Earlier and He Answered
it with Hard Rock Mining Answer. We Would like Him to Reconsider That
Fax If You Would, Please.

Simmons: I Would Be Glad To, Wallace. Boy, I\'m Really with it Today,
Aren\'t I? I Would Certainly Reconsider That. It Was Kind of Hard to
Make out from the Question ‑‑ I Think That Was a Fax and it Was Kind of
Hard to Read Exactly What The Fax Was Referring To. So If I Misconstrued
Something, I Apologize. Just Give Me a Call off the Air, When I\'m Back
in My Office And We\'ll Certainly Take a Good Look at That. Again, It\'s
Apologize If We\'ve Given the Wrong Impression But Again, Let\'s See
Some Written Comment and from the Folks And See What They\'re Really
after.

Pope: Thank You, Wallace.

Caller: Ok.

Pope: Ok. We Have a Couple of Faxes. Forest Service. Class Two Occupancy
Use et Cetera. This Item Appears to Mix Easement and Right‑of‑way
Issuance. Do You Intend Terminal Access Roads Right‑of‑way Grants to Oil
and Gas Locations to Be Categorically Excluded?

Solomon: I Can Answer That. In Some Situations That Those Are Going to
Be Connected Actions to Other Activities and Therefore, the Category
Won\'t Fit. I Mean, It\'s Just like If You Have a Road Connected with
the Timber Sale, Lieu Use the Categorical Exclusion for the Road When
It\'s Connected to the Timber Sale. If It\'s Connected with the Larger
Action, it Is the Larger Action That Will Draw Whether or Not this Fits
or Not. However the Commenter Feels There Are Situations Where These
Particular Road‑building Activities Are a Discreet Action And Not
Connected to a Larger Action Then Certainly I Would Encourage Them to
Provide Us Comment So We Can Build That Into the Procedures.

Pope: Thank You. We Have Another Question for the Forest Service. On the
Class 1 Category 10, Limit of Use, it Seems That Commercial Salvage Sale
of Vegetative Products Is Too Broad Of a Limit. Why And/or Why Not Limit
it to Salvage, Sale of Commercial Timber Only?

Supulski: the Environmental Effects of Moving Across the Ground ‑‑
Salvage Material Versus Green Material, There Isn\'t a Lot of
Environmental Difference. There San Environmental Difference of the Fact
You\'re Moving Live Trees over Dying Trees. It Gets to Be Too Confusing
to the Public and Our Own Employees Because of the Funding Issue and the
Salvage Funds, Where They Should Draw the Line. We Thought That this Was
a Category and We Would Try to Expand it to What We Believe Is the
Correct Upper Limit for Using it and it Was Clarity to the Public.
That\'s Why We Did it That Way and Not to Salvage Only. We Have Done
this in the past Because in the Case of the Southern Pine Beetle, Don\'t
You Have the Ability to Just Take Dying Material. You Need to Take Green
Material with it or to Access to Get To the Salvage. We Need to Control
That.

Pope: Thank You. We Have a Class Four Question. Class 4 Category 4. The
Last Limit of Use Would Not Apply to BLM. The Question Is, Right? It
Goes on to Read Reopening Size Acreage Limits or Does Category Only
Apply ‑‑ or Does this Category Only Apply to U.s. Forest Service. It Is
Class Four Category 4.

Simmons: Last Limit of Use. Yes. Here Are the Limits of Use for ‑‑ I\'m
Sorry. I\'m Looking at Category One. I Apologize.

Pope: Reopening Size Acreage Limits.

Supulski: the Little Fs Stands for Forest Service Requirement. That Goes
Back to Our Requirement of the National Forest Management Act on Size
Opening Limitations. That Is Direct Instruction to Forest Service and Is
Not ‑‑ Does Not Imply That BLM Has to Meet That Standard.

Simmons: I Think You May Indeed Find ‑‑ That May Be the Only Situation
Where There Is a Specific Requirement for the Forest Service That Is
Different than for the BLM. If That\'s What You Were Referring To, the
Answer Is Yes, That Does Not Apply to BLM, it Only Applies to the Forest
Service.

Pope: Readjustment of Existing Solid Mineral Lease Is an Administrative
Action but the Potential Impact Once Mining Commences Becomes a
Significant Action. Is a Ce Still Appropriate Considering the Ea
Routinely Completed for an Exploratory Mining Plan? Seems like We Had
That Question Before.

Solomon: the Answer to That Is If the Environmental Effects Are Such
That They Exceed the Extraordinary Circumstances it Moves You up in
Terms of the NEPA Compliance and You Would Prepare an Ea or an Eas.

Pope: Gregg, You Want to Respond to the Question You Have There?

Simmons: I\'ll Make an Attempt. It Came in from Vernell, Utah. So I\'m
Assuming That\'s a BLM Office. By the Way, Jordon, They Did Also
Indicate That They like Your Matching Suspenders and Tie. Another Vote.
This Dealt with the Dike Emergency Repair Earlier. And Then I Think That
the Question Was Assuming That They Needed to Remove Some Mineral
Material from an Area Nearby, Would That Be Covered under Part Four ‑‑ I
Mean Category B 4 I Guess Is Class Two B 4. When You\'re Dealing with an
Emergency Situation and You Need To Repair a Dike, You Need to Get the
Mineral Material Somewhere. The Specific Example That I Was Referring to
There Was Something That Occurred down in Our Yuma District. The
Materials Came from Offsite. They Did Not Come from BLM Lands. They Were
Placed and the Dike Was Restored. We Have to Look at Each Individual
Action or Each Individual Situation and Make a Determination as to How
it Should Be Handled.

Pope: Ok. Thank You. We\'ll Take One More Question. Have the Categorical
Exclusion Review Record Form Been Reissued for Use or Will They Be in
the Final?

Solomon: That\'s Your Form, I Believe.

Simmons: the Cer Form. The Categorical Exclusion Review Form in the
Departmental Manual Is, Again, a Recommended Format for Documenting
Categorical Exclusion Review Process. At this Point, it Is Optional. The
Question That Has Been Raised, We\'ll Take into Consideration When
We\'re Developing Our New Planning Integrated Planning NEPA Strategy.
And We\'ll Give You a Response Back at That Time.

Pope: Thank You and Thank You for Those Questions. As Rhey Mentioned at
the Beginning of the Telecast, Our Objective Today Was to Provide You
with Information about The Proposed Joint Categorical Exclusion List. I
Would like to Emphasize That this List Has Not Been Approved and Is Not
to Be Used at this Time. You must Continue to Use Your Agency\'s
Approved List from 1992. We Hope That What We\'ve Covered Today Will
Help You in Preparing Your Written Comments on the Proposed List.
Remember by October 10th, All BLM State Offices and Forest Services
Regional Offices must Submit Consolidated Comments To Their Respective
Washington Office. Well, That Wraps it up for Our Interagency
Examination of The Proposed NEPA Joint Categorical Exclusion List. I\'d
like to Thank Everyone Who Called in and Sent Us Faxes. We Appreciate
Your Participation. We Hope That You Found this Session Useful. As We
Mentioned at the Top of the Telecast, I Would like to Remind Everyone to
E‑mail in Information about Your Downlink Site and the Number of People
in Your Office Who Watched Today\'s Broadcast. If You Have Any
Additional Questions about What We Have Presented Today, Feel Free to
Contact Any of Our Panelists. And Remember If You Sent in a Fax That We
Were Unable to Cover on the Air, Someone Will Get Back to You. I Would
like to Thank Our Panelists, Rhey, Bill, and Gregg And Also Behind the
Scenes People, Neil, Carol, Bob, J.w. And Terry. I Want to Also
Acknowledge Those Other Individuals Who Have Worked to Ensure the
Success of this Telecast. I\'d like to Mention Some Upcoming BLM
Satellite Events from Our National Training Center Here in Phoenix. A
Broadcast on October 30th Will Discuss Changes in BLM\'s Oil and Gas
Policy. This May Be of Particular Interest to People in Your Office Who
Work in Fluid Minerals. And on November 19th, the NTC Will Broadcast a
Seminar as Part of the Second International Conference on Natural
Resources and Cultural Heritage. This Interactive Telecast Which Will
Also Be Transmitted to Central and South America Will Be Simulcast in
Spanish. To Help Your Office Participate in Future NTC Broadcasts, See
the BLM Satellite Downlink Guide or Visit the NTC\'s Home Page on the
World Wide Web. NTC\'s Internet Address Is www.ntc.blm.gov. Transcripts
of this Program and Other NTC Broadcasts Are Available on the Home Page.
For More Information on Upcoming Distance Learning Events And
Traditional Courses See NTC at 602‑906‑5500 or Visit the Home Page. So
Long and Thanks for Watching and Participating.

Announcer: this Broadcast Has Been a Presentation of the BLM National
Training Center.