79504 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Notices 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). To make 

this determination, we used our 

environmental action statement and 

low-effect screening form, both of which 

are also able for public review. 

Background 

Section 9 of the ESA and its 

implementing regulations prohibit the 

‘‘take’’ of animal species listed as 

endangered or threatened. Take is 

defined under the ESA as to ‘‘harass, 

harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 

trap, capture, or collect [listed animal 

species,] or to attempt to engage in any 

such conduct’’ (16 U.S.C. 1532). 

However, under section 10(a) of the 

ESA, we may issue permits to authorize 

incidental take of listed species. 

‘‘Incidental take’’ is defined by the ESA 

as take that is incidental to, and not the 

purpose of, carrying out an otherwise 

lawful activity (16 U.S.C. 1539). 

Regulations governing incidental take 

permits for endangered and threatened 

species, respectively, are found in the 

Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 

17.22 and 50 CFR 17.32. 

Applicant’s Proposed Project 

The applicant requests a 6-year ITP to 

take the federally endangered Indiana 

bat (Myotis sodalis) and threatened 

northern long-eared bat (Myotis 

septentrionalis). The applicant 

determined that take is reasonably 

certain to occur incidental to operation 

of 25 previously constructed wind 

turbines in White County, Indiana, 

consisting of approximately 6,381 acres 

of private land. The proposed 

conservation strategy in the applicant’s 

proposed HCP is designed to avoid, 

minimize, and mitigate the impacts of 

the covered activity on the covered 

species. The biological goals and 

objectives are to minimize potential take 

of Indiana bats and northern long-eared 

bats through onsite minimization 

measures and to provide habitat 

conservation measures for Indiana bats 

and northern long-eared bats to offset 

any impacts from operations of the 

project. The HCP provides on-site 

avoidance and minimization measures, 

which include turbine operational 

adjustments. The authorized level of 

take from the project is 18 Indiana bats 

and 18 northern long-eared bats over the 

6-year permit duration. To offset the 

impacts of the taking of Indiana bats and 

northern long-eared bats, the applicant 

will implement one or more of the 

following mitigation options: Purchase 

credits from an approved conservation 

bank, contribute to an in-lieu fee 

mitigation fund, implement permittee 

responsible mitigation project, or 

contribute to a white-nose syndrome 

treatment fund if such a fund is 

established during the permit term. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The issuance of an ITP is a Federal 

action that triggers the need for 

compliance with NEPA. The Service has 

made a preliminary determination that 

the applicant’s project and the proposed 

mitigation measures would individually 

and cumulatively have a minor or 

negligible effect on the covered species 

and the environment. Therefore, we 

have preliminarily concluded that the 

ITP for this project would qualify for 

categorical exclusion, and the HCP 

would be low effect under our NEPA 

regulations at 43 CFR 46.205 and 

46.210. A low-effect HCP is one that 

would result in (1) minor or negligible 

effects on federally listed, proposed, and 

candidate species and their habitats; (2) 

minor or negligible effects on other 

environmental values or resources; and 

(3) incremental impacts from the federal 

action that, when added to other past, 

present, and reasonable foreseeable 

future actions, would not result in 

significant cumulative effects to 

environmental values or resources over 

time. 

Next Steps 

The Service will evaluate the 

application and the comments received 

to determine whether the permit 

application meets the requirements of 

section 10(a) of the ESA. We will also 

conduct an intra-Service consultation 

pursuant to section 7 of the ESA to 

evaluate the effects of the proposed take. 

After considering the above findings, we 

will determine whether the permit 

issuance criteria of section 10(a)(l)(B) of 

the ESA have been met. If met, the 

Service will issue the requested ITP to 

the applicant. 

Request for Public Comments 

The Service invites comments and 

suggestions from all interested parties 

on the proposed HCP and screening 

form during a 30-day public comment 

period (see DATES). 

In particular, information and 

comments regarding the following 

topics are requested: 

1. Whether adaptive management, 

monitoring and mitigation provisions in 

the proposed HCP are sufficient; 

2. The requested 6-year ITP term; 

3. Any threats to the Indiana bat and 

the northern long-eared bat that may 

influence their populations over the life 

of the ITP that are not addressed in the 

proposed HCP or screening form; 

4. Any new information on whitenose syndrome effects on the Indiana 

bat and the northern long-eared bat; 

5. Whether or not the significance of 

the impact on various aspects of the 

human environment has been 

adequately analyzed; and 

6. Any other information pertinent to 

evaluating the effects of the proposed 

action on the human environment, 

including those on the Indiana bat and 

the northern long-eared bat. 

Availability of Public Comments 

You may submit comments by one of 

the methods shown under ADDRESSES. 

We will post on http://regulations.gov 

all public comments and information 

received electronically or via hardcopy. 

All comments received, including 

names and addresses, will become part 

of the administrative record associated 

with this action. Before including your 

address, phone number, email address, 

or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, you 

should be aware that your entire 

comment—including your personal 

identifying information—may be made 

publicly available at any time. While 

you can request in your comment that 

we withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. All submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, will be 

made available for public disclosure in 

their entirety. 

Authority 

We provide this notice under section 

10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR 17.22) and the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 

4371 et seq.) and its implementing 

regulations (40 CFR 1506.6; 43 CFR part 

46). 

Lori Nordstrom, 

Assistant Regional Director, Ecological 

Services. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27102 Filed 12–9–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of the Secretary 

[LLWO210000.L1610000] 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Implementing Procedures for the 

Bureau of Land Management (516 DM 

11) 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Notices 79505 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Through this notice, the 

Department of the Interior (Department) 

announces a new categorical exclusion 

(CX) under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) implementing 

procedures for the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) at Chapter 11 of 

Part 516 of the Departmental Manual. 

DATES: The categorical exclusion takes 

effect on December 10, 2020. 

ADDRESSES: The new CX can be found 

at the web address http://www.doi.gov/ 

elips/ at Series 31, Part 516, Chapter 11. 

The BLM has revised the Verification 

Report on the results of a Bureau of 

Land Management analysis of NEPA 

records and field verification for 

Pinyon-Juniper removal (Verification 

Report) in response to comments 

received; the public can review the 

revised Verification Report online at: 

https://go.usa.gov/xvPfT. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Heather Bernier, Division Chief, 

Decision Support, Planning, and NEPA, 

at 303–239–3635, or hbernier@blm.gov. 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800– 

877–8339. The FRS is available 24 hours 

a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message 

or question with the above individual. 

You will receive a reply during normal 

business hours. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

NEPA requires Federal agencies to 

consider the potential environmental 

impacts of their proposed actions before 

deciding whether and how to proceed. 

The Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) encourages Federal agencies to 

use CXs to protect the environment 

more efficiently by reducing the 

resources spent analyzing proposals that 

normally do not have significant 

environmental impacts, thereby 

allowing those resources to be focused 

on proposals that may have significant 

environmental impacts. See 40 CFR 

1501.4, 1507.3(e)(2)(ii), and 1508.1(d). 

The appropriate use of CXs allows 

NEPA compliance, in the absence of 

extraordinary circumstances that merit 

further consideration, to be concluded 

without preparing either an 

environmental assessment (EA) or an 

environmental impact statement (EIS). 

See 40 CFR 1501.4 and 40 CFR 

1508.1(d). 

The Department’s revised NEPA 

procedures were published in the 

Federal Register on October 15, 2008 

(73 FR 61292) and are codified at 43 

CFR part 46. These procedures address 

policy as well as procedure in order to 

assure compliance with NEPA. 

Additional Department-wide NEPA 

policy may be found in part 516 of the 

Departmental Manual (516 DM), in 

chapters 1 through 4. The procedures 

for the Department’s bureaus’ NEPA 

procedures are published as chapters 7 

through 15 of 516 DM. Chapter 11 of 

516 DM (516 DM 11) covers the BLM’s 

NEPA procedures. The BLM’s NEPA 

procedures were last updated as 

announced in the Federal Register on 

May 1, 2020 (85 FR 25472). The current 

516 DM 11 can be found at: https://

elips.doi.gov/ELIPS/ 

DocView.aspx?id=1721. 

The BLM has been managing 

sagebrush ecosystems for greater sagegrouse, mule deer, and other species for 

over a decade, implementing pinyon 

pine and juniper tree (PJ) removal 

treatments to restore habitat mosaics 

within the landscape and address the 

various habitat needs of mule deer and 

sage-grouse. PJ encroachment poses a 

serious threat to the health of millions 

of acres of land under BLM 

management. Following years of 

experience removing these trees without 

significant effects, the BLM has 

determined that establishing a CX for 

the actions described more particularly 

herein is necessary for expediting 

maintenance of sagebrush habitats 

essential to mule deer and sage-grouse. 

Description of the Change 

The BLM developed this CX in 

response to the September 15, 2017, 

Secretary’s Order 3356, Hunting, 

Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and 

Wildlife Conservation Opportunities 

and Coordination with States, Tribes 

and Territories, which directed the BLM 

to develop a CX for ‘‘proposed projects 

that utilize common practices solely 

intended to enhance or restore habitat 

for species such as sage-grouse and/or 

mule deer’’ (section 4(d)(5)). The BLM 

has developed this CX to be responsive 

to the direction from this Secretary’s 

Order consistent with the goals of 

facilitating the enhancement and 

restoration of habitat for sage-grouse 

and/or mule deer. More specifically, the 

BLM developed this CX for the 

management of encroaching pinyon 

pine and juniper trees for the benefit of 

mule deer and sage-grouse habitats. 

The BLM’s proposed CX and 

associated Verification Report were 

available for public review and 

comment for 30 days, beginning with 

the publication of a Federal Register 

notice on Friday, March 13, 2020, and 

ending on Monday, April 13, 2020 (85 

FR 14700). The proposed CX provided 

for covered actions (and included 

examples of such activities) on up to 

10,000 acres within sagebrush and 

sagebrush-steppe plant communities to 

manage pinyon pine and juniper trees 

for the benefit of mule deer or sagegrouse habitats. Paragraph (a) of the 

proposed CX included a list of activities 

that the CX did not cover, and 

paragraph (b) required documentation of 

land use plan decisions providing for 

protections of certain resources and 

resource uses. 

In response to the comments received, 

the BLM has revised the proposed text 

of the CX to clarify that the 10,000 acres 

may be contiguous or non-contiguous 

and added a definition of habitat for 

mule deer and sage-grouse. The BLM 

also revised paragraph (b) to clarify the 

requirement to include project design 

features consistent with land use plans 

(LUPs) or document how listed resource 

and resource uses will be appropriately 

addressed where no land use plan 

decisions apply. 

The BLM has additionally revised the 

Verification Report in response to the 

comments received to address 

clarifications, incorporate new 

literature, and support discussion of 

changes to the CX text. The BLM also 

has reviewed and revised, as 

appropriate, the Verification Report for 

consistency with the updated CEQ 

regulations at 40 CFR 1500–1508 (2020). 

85 FR 43304 (July 16, 2020). 

Comments on the Proposed CX 

The BLM received a total of 3,903 

comment submissions. The BLM 

received comments primarily through 

the BLM’s online NEPA portal and 

comment platform, ePlanning, and by 

mail. Commenters invested considerable 

time and effort to submit comments on 

this proposal. Comments were 

submitted by State and local 

governments, environmental 

organizations, and private citizens. The 

BLM received comments both in 

support of the proposal and against the 

proposal, with both supportive and nonsupportive comments also requesting 

revisions to the proposal. 

The BLM has summarized and 

provided responses to all substantive 

comments received in this Federal 

Register notice for public review. The 

substantive comments address six broad 

topics: The scope of the CX; the purpose 

of the CX; incorporation of site-specific 

considerations in the terms of the CX; 

clarifications on the BLM’s use of the 

CX; adequacy of the analysis and review 

done to develop the proposed CX; and 

the appropriateness of the procedures 

the BLM used to establish the CX. The 

BLM has considered all comments 

received and has provided responses to 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
79506 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Notices 

the substantive comments identified 

below. 

Scope of the CX 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that requested clarification 

on what qualifies as sage-grouse or mule 

deer habitat, given that the Verification 

Report does not identify what criteria 

will be used to identify this habitat. The 

BLM received comments that suggested 

that the CX be limited to verifiable 

habitat polygons for sage-grouse and 

mule deer. 

Response: The September 15, 2017, 

Secretary’s Order 3356, Hunting, 

Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and 

Wildlife Conservation Opportunities 

and Coordination with States, Tribes 

and Territories, directed the BLM to 

develop a proposed CX for ‘‘proposed 

projects that utilize common practices 

solely intended to enhance or restore 

habitat for species such as sage-grouse 

and/or mule deer.’’ Consequently, this 

CX applies specifically to the 

management of PJ to enhance and 

restore mule deer and sage-grouse 

habitats, not for other species’ habitats 

that might also include PJ. For the 

purpose of this CX, habitat for sagegrouse and/or mule deer is any area on 

BLM-managed land that is currently or 

formerly occupied by sage-grouse and/ 

or mule deer, or is reasonably likely to 

be occupied if PJ is removed, as 

determined by BLM wildlife 

professionals. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that requested the BLM 

clarify the 10,000-acre treatment area 

described in the Verification Report, 

specifically (1) whether the 

authorization is for 10,000 acres over a 

larger area or some acres of treatment 

within a 10,000-acre area, and (2) the 

expectation that treatments be a mosaic 

of treated and untreated patches, and 

the rationale for this pattern. The 

comments provided several scientific 

references noting that large expanses of 

conifer-free habitat are most beneficial 

for sage-grouse and requested that the 

BLM consider these references in 

determining the appropriate scope of 

the CX. 

Response: The Verification Report 

states that ‘‘while this CX would 

authorize 10,000 acres of treatment, the 

BLM expects the treatments to be 

scattered across the landscape rather 

than in a large contiguous block.’’ The 

BLM has added language to section 

1.A.c (The size of each project) of the 

Verification Report to clarify that 

‘‘[e]valuation areas in the EAs were 

larger than the ultimate proposed 

treatment areas’’ and ‘‘[t]herefore, while 

this CX would authorize 10,000 acres of 

treatment, the BLM expects the 

treatments (up to 10,000 combined acres 

per project) to be scattered across the 

landscape rather than in a large 

contiguous block; however, this is not a 

requirement of the CX, as there may be 

circumstances where treatment of 

10,000 contiguous acres would be 

beneficial for sage-grouse.’’ The BLM 

considered the references provided and 

determined that no changes were 

needed to the Verification Report or the 

CX language. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that requested the CX be 

modified to include seeding of nonnatives, the application of herbicides, 

and chaining (a method of vegetation 

removal that involves two tractors 

pulling heavy chains in a ‘‘U’’ or ‘‘J’’ 

shaped pattern to pull over and uproot 

trees), given that many projects 

completed in the area relied on these 

methods and were evaluated in EAs that 

reached Findings of No Significant 

Impact (FONSIs), and therefore could 

support establishment of this CX as 

including these methods. The BLM 

received comments that provided 

several scientific references noting the 

benefits of these actions and requested 

that the BLM modify the scope of the 

CX. 

Response: The BLM considered 

suggestions to allow for the use of 

seeding of non-native species, the use of 

herbicides, and chaining, and 

determined that these actions would not 

be added to the CX, for the same reasons 

they were not included in the proposed 

CX, as described in the Verification 

Report. The Methods section of the 

Verification Report (under 1.B.b) states 

‘‘actions that were proposed for the CX 

as a preliminary matter were eliminated 

if they were not supported by NEPA 

analysis. This means that if the type of 

treatment and activities were not 

analyzed as elements of the projects 

listed in Table 1, they were removed as 

a covered action in the CX.’’ The use of 

non-native plant seeds or sources and 

chaining were not analyzed as elements 

of the projects evaluated in the EAs 

reviewed. In addition, as noted in the 

same section of the Verification Report, 

‘‘[a]ctivities such as the construction of 

temporary roads and the application of 

herbicides or pesticides that were rarely 

proposed in the EAs and, therefore, had 

no comprehensive record of effects 

across projects, were also removed from 

the CX.’’ Therefore, these activities are 

not included within the scope of this 

CX. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that requested that, in 

addition to PJ, the proposed CX should 

also include Douglas fir and limber pine 

in its treatment of conifer encroachment 

if the CX aims to improve mule deer and 

sage-grouse habitat on a broad scale. 

Response: Establishing a CX requires 

that the BLM evaluate the 

environmental impacts of the types of 

action proposed for the CX to determine 

if there is evidence that such action 

normally does not result in significant 

impacts across all landscapes where it 

would be appropriate to apply. The 

Verification Report documents the 

findings from BLM EAs and research 

that support the removal of PJ as a 

category of action that normally does 

not result in significant effects. At the 

time of developing this CX, the BLM 

was only able to find one EA in one 

ecoregion that evaluated the removal of 

Douglas fir in conjunction with PJ to 

support mule deer and sage-grouse 

habitats. The BLM determined that the 

one EA representing one ecoregion did 

not provide sufficient information at 

this time regarding the impacts of 

removal of Douglas fir or limber pine for 

the benefit of mule deer and sage-grouse 

habitat across multiple landscapes that 

justify including activities removing 

these species in the CX. Therefore, the 

BLM did not include removal of these 

species in this CX. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that requested language be 

added to the CX stating that it may not 

be used within certain specially 

designated lands, as values protected 

under these designations would be 

compromised by projects implemented 

on the basis of the CX. The comments 

pointed to the National Landscape 

Conservation System and other 

specially designated areas, including 

National Scenic and Historic Trail 

(NSHT) rights-of-way. The comment 

further stated that, without excluding 

NSHTs, projects would be in direct 

contradiction with the policies for the 

management of the NSHTs. 

Response: The BLM has determined it 

is not necessary to explicitly exclude 

special designations in the text of the 

CX. PJ vegetation may require 

management in areas both within and 

outside of specially designated areas; 

therefore, the BLM intends the CX to 

extend to these areas generally, and to 

non-specially designated public lands. 

Management of specially designated 

areas, like all public lands, is governed 

by LUPs. The LUP applicable to a 

specially designated area will help 

define the applicability of the CX by 

delineating what kinds of protective 

measures, such as visual resource 

management buffers, are in place and 

what desired resource conditions 

constrain the projects in that area, 

which ensure compliance with BLM 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Notices 79507 

policy and management direction. 

Should the BLM rely on this CX for 

NEPA compliance, this reliance must 

include documentation regarding these 

protective measures, to ensure both LUP 

conformance and suitability for reliance 

on the CX. Reliance on the CX would 

also be subject to review of the DOI’s list 

of extraordinary circumstances. If such 

extraordinary circumstances were 

present, the BLM would consider 

whether there are circumstances that 

lessen the impacts or other conditions 

sufficient to avoid significant effects 

such that it may still apply the CX, or 

determine that preparation of an EA or 

EIS is appropriate. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that recommended the BLM 

incorporate changes to the language 

pertaining to old-growth woodlands in 

the CX to require specific detection and 

evaluation methods, provide stronger 

protections, and provide an exemption 

for the removal of predator perches. 

Response: As stated in the 

Verification Report, old growth trees 

would be protected (not removed) 

during projects supported by the CX, 

and so there are no stronger protections 

to provide. It would not be appropriate 

for the BLM to require specific detection 

and evaluation methods for identifying 

old-growth trees; instead, the BLM 

would continue to utilize the best 

professional scientific methods 

available and appropriate to the sitespecific location at the time of project 

implementation. The BLM is not aware 

of information that supports an 

exemption to allow removal of predator 

perches and has not revised the CX to 

identify any such exemption. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that requested additions or 

modifications to the CX parameters in 

order to prevent two CX-supported 

projects from being applied 

contiguously, in order to prevent large 

swaths of land being treated in multiple 

projects. 

Response: The BLM has determined it 

unnecessary to define in the CX a 

prohibition of the use of this CX for 

NEPA compliance in any geographical 

or temporal scope in relation to 

additional uses of the CX. The use of 

any CX is subject to review of the DOI 

extraordinary circumstances in order to 

determine if any extraordinary 

circumstances are present that would 

result in significant effects and, 

therefore, preclude use of the CX to 

comply with NEPA. An established CX 

category of actions do not have 

significant impacts when projects are 

designed to the specifications of the 

category and review of the proposed 

action determines that there are no 

extraordinary circumstances present 

that may result in the project having 

significant effects. If the proposed 

action, conducted adjacent to other 

similar projects, would trigger any of the 

extraordinary circumstances, the BLM 

would not be able to rely on the CX for 

NEPA compliance absent circumstances 

that lessen the impacts or other 

conditions sufficient to avoid significant 

effects. Where extraordinary 

circumstances are present, and there are 

no circumstances that lessen impacts or 

other conditions sufficient to avoid 

significant effects, the BLM would 

proceed with the appropriate level of 

NEPA review other than a CX, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 1501.3 and 43 

CFR 46.205. For example, the effects of 

contiguous PJ treatments may fall under 

the extraordinary circumstance that 

considers whether the project may 

‘‘have highly uncertain and potentially 

significant environmental effects or 

involve unique or unknown 

environmental risks’’ (43 CFR 

46.215(d)). 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that requested additions or 

modifications to the CX parameters to 

specifically require limitations related 

to pinyon jay colonies, soil erosion, and 

biological soil crusts. 

Response: The BLM considered each 

of the suggestions regarding additions or 

modifications to the CX parameters and 

determined that no changes were 

needed. Proposed actions, regardless of 

their level of NEPA review (CX, EA, EIS) 

must conform to the approved LUP. In 

implementing actions in conformance 

with LUPs, the BLM identifies project 

design features to define the parameters 

of the project, including any protective 

measures needed to ensure LUP 

conformance or to reduce adverse 

effects based on the site-specific 

circumstances. If the proposed action is 

the subject of an EA or EIS, the EA or 

EIS evaluates the project including 

those parameters. If the proposed action 

designed to meet the requirements of 

the LUP, including incorporating any 

resource protective measures, also meets 

the parameters of the CX, and no 

extraordinary circumstances preclude 

application of the CX, the BLM can rely 

on a CX. Because LUPs are, themselves, 

region-specific, different LUPs have 

different objectives, and impose 

different resource management 

constraints on actions that can be taken 

in the area they cover. 

CX Purpose 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that requested the BLM 

expand the list of species that could be 

benefited by projects under the CX and 

highlight the other ecological benefits 

associated with PJ management in the 

Verification Report, such as watershed 

hydrologic function, expansion of 

herbaceous forage production, benefits 

to sagebrush-obligate songbirds, and 

increased plant diversity. The 

comments included several scientific 

references noting these other ecological 

benefits and requested that the BLM 

consider these references in determining 

the appropriate scope of the activities 

included under the CX. 

Response: The BLM considered each 

of the requests and determined that no 

changes were needed to the Verification 

Report or the CX language. While 

authorizing projects covered by this CX 

may have incidental benefits to other 

species and resources, the purpose of 

this CX is to streamline implementation 

of projects to benefit mule deer and 

sage-grouse habitats, as directed in 

Secretary’s Order 3356. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments requesting that the BLM 

specify that the CX applies only to 

specific PJ tree species described by the 

relevant land use plan. 

Response: The BLM is not relying on 

LUPs to define the tree species included 

in the scope of this CX. The text of the 

CX states that it is only available for use 

of the removal of PJ species. In the CX 

as finalized, the BLM has addressed the 

relationship between proposed actions 

and LUPs in paragraph 1(b) of this CX 

to ensure project design features are 

identified as appropriate and in 

conformance with the applicable LUP. 

As stated in the Introduction of the 

Verification Report, regardless of the 

level of NEPA review, the BLM’s actions 

are guided by LUPs on BLM 

administered public lands. The LUPs 

identify where and under what 

conditions management activities can 

occur consistent with plan decisions. 

Therefore, regardless of the terms of any 

particular CX, the proposed action 

would also be constrained by any limits 

written into the applicable LUP. For 

example, if a BLM LUP prohibits the 

removal of certain species of PJ, any 

proposed action would preclude such 

removal and reliance on this CX would 

not be appropriate. The BLM has 

revised paragraph (b) of the CX to clarify 

the requirement to document how the 

scope of the project addresses any 

needed protections when no LUP 

decisions apply. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that stated the BLM already 

has an established CX that meets the 

stated purpose of this proposed CX (DM 

Part 516, Chapter 11.9, Section D (10)) 

and under this existing CX, projects 

other than prescribed burning are 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
79508 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Notices 

limited to 1,000 acres in size and are not 

permitted in wilderness areas or 

wilderness study areas. The BLM 

received comments that stated that the 

BLM has not acknowledged this existing 

CX or explained why this existing CX is 

not adequate. 

Response: The comments are correct 

that there is a CX listed at DM Part 516, 

Chapter 11.9, Section D (10) that 

addresses certain vegetation 

management activities. However, under 

guidance issued in 2009, in BLM 

Instruction Memorandum No. 2009– 

199, use of that CX by the BLM has been 

discontinued permanently, as agreed to 

in a settlement of Western Watersheds 

Project v. Lane, No. 07–cv–394–BLW by 

the United States in U.S. District Court 

for the District of Idaho in July of 2009. 

Site-Specific Considerations 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that the BLM should only 

allow Phase III removal treatments on a 

case-by-case, site-specific basis, given 

that state and transition models 

demonstrate more risk than reward with 

Phase III removal. These comments 

further recommended the BLM exercise 

caution prior to allowing these 

treatment types, keeping in mind that, 

in order to benefit sage-grouse and 

potentially avoid creating ‘‘biological 

sinks,’’ all trees within the treatment 

perimeter would need to be removed. 

Response: ‘‘Phase III’’ referenced by 

the comment is the most advanced stage 

of PJ woodland encroachment into 

formerly sagebrush-dominated habitat. 

As defined in the Glossary of the 

Verification Report, Phase III woodlands 

are characterized by trees comprising 

over two-thirds of cover in biomass, 

with the tree canopy dominating 

ecological processes. The EAs relied 

upon in establishing this CX, described 

in Appendices A and B in the 

Verification Report, included PJ removal 

in all three phases of PJ encroachment 

(Phases I, II, and III). Projects authorized 

in reliance on this CX for NEPA 

compliance must demonstrate a benefit 

to sage-grouse or mule deer habitat. If, 

based on site-specific conditions, the 

BLM finds that a Phase III removal 

meets all the necessary requirements for 

the use of this CX (meets the scope of 

the proposed CX, was designed 

specifically for the purposes of 

benefiting sage-grouse or mule deer and 

habitat, focuses solely on removed PJ, is 

in conformance with relevant LUPs, and 

no extraordinary circumstances 

preclude application of the CX), then 

use of this CX for NEPA compliance to 

authorize the removal would be 

appropriate. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments stating that the BLM’s 

statutory obligation to comply with any 

governing LUP is not sufficient to 

ensure there will be no impacts. 

Comments stated that site-specific 

analysis must be applied to PJ removal 

projects, and that the BLM must ensure 

that proper constraints are explicit in 

the CX language itself, rather than 

relying on LUP conformance 

requirements to constrain the use of this 

CX. 

Response: Although any actions taken 

by the BLM must conform to the 

applicable LUP, the BLM has not relied 

on requirements for actions to conform 

with LUPs in establishing this CX. The 

BLM has developed a specific scope of 

actions and required components for the 

inclusion of project design features 

consistent with LUP decisions and 

relied upon existing NEPA analysis and 

scientific research to determine that this 

scope is appropriate to ensuring no 

significant effects would occur. The 

establishment of a CX does not imply 

that no effects would occur—indeed, the 

purpose of the proposed actions covered 

by the CX is to have a beneficial effect 

on mule deer and sage-grouse habitats. 

The scope of the CX is defined to 

identify parameters that constrain the 

action such that it would not result in 

significant effects. Reliance on the CX 

would also be subject to review for 

extraordinary circumstances that, if 

present, would preclude reliance on the 

CX for a particular project approval. 

In implementing actions in 

conformance with LUPs, the BLM 

identifies project design features to 

define the parameters of the project, 

including any protective measures 

needed to ensure LUP conformance or 

to reduce adverse effects based on the 

site-specific circumstances. The BLM 

defines and refines the action proposed 

regardless of the level of NEPA 

compliance, including for projects 

supported by CXs. The BLM develops 

LUPs for specific regions of the country 

in coordination with a public 

engagement process. These LUPs vary 

based on the environmental conditions 

and objectives for the region. Therefore, 

while the proposed CX points to the 

category of project design feature to 

include, the applicable LUPs, which 

BLM would consult during project 

implementation, provide regionally 

appropriate and site-specific design 

features for resource protection for 

individual projects proposed. The 

Verification Report evaluated previously 

implemented actions that incorporated 

project design features according to 

management direction in the relevant 

LUP and found that those projects do 

not cause significant environmental 

effects. The BLM has revised the text of 

the CX at paragraph (b) to clarify that a 

proposed action covered by the CX must 

include project design features 

providing protections consistent with 

the decisions of the applicable LUPs. 

Use of the CX 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments stating that the CX could be 

misused to increase forage for livestock 

grazing operations and requested that 

the BLM add language to the CX 

restricting projects where livestock 

grazing is permitted. In addition, the 

BLM received comments that suggested 

the BLM analyze grazing management in 

the Verification Report and the effects of 

grazing (such as an increase in 

cheatgrass and damage to biological soil 

crusts) on the habitat restoration goals 

that are the purpose for establishing the 

proposed CX. The comments provided 

several scientific references noting the 

effects of grazing and recommended that 

the BLM consider and incorporate the 

relevant scientific references 

documenting these effects in the 

Verification Report. 

Response: Projects authorized in 

reliance on this CX for NEPA 

compliance must demonstrate a benefit 

to sage-grouse or mule deer habitat, not 

livestock. If, based on site-specific 

conditions, the BLM finds that the 

proposed action is designed specifically 

for the purposes of benefiting sagegrouse or mule deer and habitat, focuses 

solely on removal of PJ, is in 

conformance with relevant LUPs, and 

there are no extraordinary 

circumstances requiring preparation of 

an EA or EIS, then use of this CX for 

NEPA compliance to authorize the 

removal would be appropriate 

regardless of whether increases to 

livestock forage occur as a result. 

The BLM analyzed and considered 

the effects on grazing management of PJ 

treatments. Appendix A and Appendix 

B of the Verification Report describe the 

anticipated effects of PJ treatments 

described in the EAs used to support the 

CX, which included (1) temporary loss 

in areas available for livestock grazing, 

(2) short-term decreases in forage 

availability, (3) long-term minor 

improvements in forage availability, and 

(4) loss of shade trees that could 

concentrate livestock. These effects 

were not anticipated to be significant, 

and after-action observation revealed 

they were not. As noted in Appendix B 

of the Verification Report, removal of 

livestock grazing is usually not required 

as part of PJ removal treatments unless 

site-specific protection is needed for 

seedings, revegetation, or where 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Notices 79509 

required by land use plans. Other design 

features to reduce the effects on 

livestock grazing, if needed, typically 

include pasture deferments or 

modifications to grazing systems. Due to 

limited vegetation and soil disturbance 

caused by these PJ management 

projects, described in the Methods 

sections 1.B(f) and 2.A(d) of the 

Verification Report, these measures 

adequately provide for post-treatment 

recovery in areas subject to livestock 

grazing. 

Analysis and Review of the CX 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that the BLM has not 

demonstrated that it has adequately 

monitored past vegetation removal 

projects to ensure that the treatments do 

not cause significant, long-term damage 

to overall ecosystem health. Comments 

stated the Verification Report did not 

include adequate detail regarding how 

the BLM collected and analyzed 

information and data related to the 18 

EAs relied on in the Verification Report 

to support its conclusions. 

Response: The BLM engages in 

routine monitoring, either for specific 

projects or as part of overall land health 

monitoring, to evaluate the effectiveness 

of projects. Providing separate 

compilations of detailed monitoring 

data for the projects identified is one 

possible way to support establishment 

of a CX but is not necessary to justify 

the establishment of this CX. The 

Administrative Process section of the 

Verification Report describes the 

methods by which an agency can 

establish a CX, and the introduction to 

the Methods section describes the 

methods BLM employed to validate this 

CX. These included (1) evaluating 

effects of implementing PJ removal 

projects for which the BLM prepared 

EAs and FONSIs, and (2) reviewing 

scientific literature and citing research 

findings from peer-reviewed published 

studies. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that the BLM failed to 

analyze the cumulative impacts of the 

proposed CX, because the BLM did not 

include its methodology or any 

quantified results supporting its 

conclusory statements in the 

Verification Report. The commenters 

requested the BLM assess cumulative 

impacts on a programmatic level and 

ensure that impacts are assessed at a 

level of detail such that useful data can 

be generated to facilitate review. 

Response: Commenters are conflating 

the analysis required when a CX is 

established with the consideration 

required when an agency relies on an 

established CX to support a proposed 

action. In its updated regulations, CEQ 

requires agencies to identify all effects 

of a proposed action that are reasonably 

foreseeable and have a reasonably close 

causal relationship to the proposed 

action. In evaluating effects of PJ 

treatments, the BLM examined data and 

evidence per the CEQ’s guidance for 

establishing a new CX, including 

analyzing previously implemented 

actions and their observed 

environmental consequences. In so 

doing, as documented in the Findings 

section of the Verification Report, based 

on effects analyses in the relevant EAs 

and post-implementation monitoring, 

‘‘[n]o [significant impacts] were 

predicted in the BLM EAs and FONSIs 

for the activities included in the 

proposed CX for PJ control, the observed 

post-implementation effects were 

similar to or less impactful than the 

effects predicted in the EAs/FONSIs, 

and there were no unanticipated 

impacts from the treatments.’’ Based on 

the evidence, the specific category of 

actions described in the CX consistently 

do not produce significant 

environmental impacts, and the BLM 

considered and analyzed potential 

effects from PJ treatments in the 

Verification Report. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that stated that the BLM 

failed to analyze the potential for largescale removal of pinyon trees within a 

PJ woodland to create juniper-only 

communities. The comments referred to 

a scientific source noting the effects of 

PJ removal and subsequent alteration of 

PJ communities and recommended that 

the BLM consider and incorporate its 

results in the Verification Report. 

Response: In conducting its review 

and analysis to establish the CX, the 

BLM considered large scale removal of 

PJ and possible alteration of PJ 

communities. The BLM reviewed the 

scientific source submitted with 

comments regarding possible 

transformation of PJ communities and 

found that the scientific source cited is 

specific to chaining treatments and 

treatments that have been reseeded 

using non-native species, neither of 

which could be authorized under the 

CX. The proposed CX language in the 

Verification Report (section 1(1) under 

the Introduction) specifically states that 

covered actions under the CX ‘‘shall not 

include: (a) Cutting of old-growth trees; 

seeding or planting of non-native 

species; chaining; pesticide or herbicide 

application; broadcast burning; jackpot 

burning; construction of new temporary 

or permanent roads; or construction of 

other new permanent infrastructure.’’ 

Therefore, the cited information, with 

its focus on chaining, is not relevant to 

the establishment of this CX. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that the BLM failed to 

include in the narratives in the Methods 

section of the Verification Report the 

effects on soil erosion and biological 

soil crusts, even though those effects 

appeared in Appendix A, and stated 

that the discussions of scientific 

literature provide conflicting summaries 

from the sources cited regarding soils. 

Response: Section 1.B.f (‘‘Observed 

environmental consequences of projects 

as implemented—Soil Disturbance’’) 

under the Methods section of the 

Verification Report presents actual 

effects observed on the ground after 

project implementation, whereas 

Appendix A lists the potential effects as 

described in the Environmental 

Consequences sections of the EAs relied 

upon in establishing this CX. When 

post-implementation observations did 

not detect the effects, those effects were 

not noted, and thus would be absent 

from the section, as was the case with 

soil effects. Appendix B of the 

Verification Report provides a summary 

of predicted (potential) effects on soils 

noted in the EAs, followed by the 

validated (observed on the ground) 

effects, under the Soils/Vegetation 

section of the table. Section 2.A.d, 

under the Peer-reviewed scientific 

research findings, describes potential 

effects of the PJ removal methods 

supported under the CX on soil erosion 

and biological soil crusts. The BLM has 

reviewed the findings of Redmond et al. 

2013 and determined that they are 

appropriately summarized in the 

Verification Report. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that the Verification Report 

fails to adequately consider the 

potentially significant effects of the 

proposed CX on pinyon jays and does 

not adequately support its findings in 

the Verification Report regarding 

impacts on pinyon jays and PJ-obligate 

species from PJ removal. The comments 

provided scientific references noting the 

potential impacts of PJ removal on these 

species and recommended that the BLM 

consider and incorporate relevant 

scientific references documenting these 

effects in the Verification Report. 

Response: The BLM has considered 

the effects of the actions covered by the 

CX on pinyon jays. The BLM has 

reviewed the findings in the scientific 

references provided by the comments 

(i.e., Somershoe et al. 2020, Boone et al. 

2018, and Johnson et al. 2019) and has 

concluded that the findings do not 

conclusively indicate that pinyon jays 

would experience significant impacts 

due to PJ removal treatments. As 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
79510 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Notices 

Somershoe et al. 2020 notes, ‘‘[t]he 

effects of thinning treatments on pinyon 

jays have been studied, but little 

information is available about the effects 

of woodland removal, especially in the 

Great Basin.’’ The few studies cited in 

Somershoe et al. 2020 are site-specific 

and do not support a finding that 

pinyon jays would experience negative 

impacts at a landscape-scale from PJ 

removal. The commenter does not cite 

to any other references to support the 

stance that best available science 

indicates that the implementation of 

projects supported under this CX could 

have significant impacts on pinyon jays. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that recommended the BLM 

include additional research in the 

Verification Report to better encompass 

the benefits of PJ management for big 

game species, specifically, research 

highlighting the need to focus on forage 

and nutrition, not thermal cover, for elk 

management, and research 

demonstrating that treatments to remove 

PJ in sagebrush/sage-steppe systems 

would greatly improve forage for big 

game, including Cook et al. 1998; Cook 

et al. 2005, Sorensen et al. 2020, Roerick 

et al. 2019, and Maestas et al. 2019. 

Response: The BLM’s review of the 

scientific literature provided by the 

commenter supports the BLM’s finding 

in the Verification Report that forage 

abundance and availability for mule 

deer is considered to be an equal, if not 

more important, indicator of the quality 

of winter range for big game than 

thermal and hiding cover. Likewise, the 

beneficial effects of PJ removal to other 

big game species, including elk, are 

discussed in the Verification Report. 

Therefore, the BLM has made no 

changes in the Verification Report 

relative to this comment. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments indicating that, by citing 

regional unpublished habitat guidelines 

and studies (specifically Watkins et al. 

(2007) and Cox et al. (2009)) to 

generalize the entire array of ecosystems 

managed by the BLM nationwide, the 

BLM is not consulting the best available 

science. 

Response: The mule deer habitat 

guidelines (Watkins et al. 2007; Cox et 

al. 2009) are based on a substantial 

number of peer-reviewed mule deer 

studies, Ph.D. dissertations, and M.S. 

theses, and state agency verification 

reports from across a wide geographic 

area in the Colorado Plateau and 

Intermountain West. In addition to these 

guidelines, the BLM reviewed and has 

relied upon recent published literature, 

such as Jones (2019) and Miller et al. 

(2005), as described in the Verification 

Report (section 2.A.c, Mule Deer). The 

BLM finds that these represent the best 

available science. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that most western Native 

American Tribes rely heavily on pinyon 

nut harvests and other use of natural 

resources on public lands, and reliance 

on large-scale CXs concerning 

mechanical reduction or elimination of 

such resources without an opportunity 

for public review and comment on such 

actions as is provided through the EA 

process ignores the potential adverse 

effects on Native American 

communities and people and the 

associated environmental justice 

concerns. 

Response: The BLM has considered 

the issues raised. As stated in the 

Verification Report, while Tribes are 

generally supportive of PJ treatments for 

the restoration of ecological health and 

reduction of the risks that catastrophic 

wildfire presents to cultural resources, 

the BLM acknowledges in the 

Verification Report that there are 

potential risks to cultural resources from 

PJ treatment projects. These risks would 

be substantially reduced by 

requirements to conduct field 

inventories/surveys, consult with Tribes 

and state and Tribal historic 

preservation offices, and implement 

appropriate impact avoidance and 

minimization measures. These measures 

are often referenced in applicable LUPs, 

and even when they are not, compliance 

with legal requirements such as the 

National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) and the Federal Government’s 

requirements for government-togovernment consultation apply to all 

BLM projects independent of 

requirements for compliance with 

NEPA. The importance of pinyon nut 

harvests to Tribal interests would be 

addressed at the time of project 

proposal, regardless of the level of 

NEPA review completed. Common 

project design features include fullavoidance or restricting treatment 

methods to hand-treatment only within 

and adjacent to sites and measures that 

mask cultural sites and preclude 

physical intrusion. In some areas, 

cultural sites coincide with the presence 

of old-growth timber, areas that could 

not be disturbed in projects supported 

by the CX. 

For the establishment of CXs, the CEQ 

NEPA regulations require consultation 

with CEQ and publication of the 

proposed CX for comment, as the BLM 

has done here. See 40 CFR 1507.3(e)(2). 

CEQ does not require any public review 

for the application of a CX to a proposed 

action once the CX has been established. 

Although public involvement is not 

required to determine that a project 

qualifies for a CX, the BLM NEPA 

Handbook does identify that the BLM 

can elect to involve the public when 

relying on a CX to support an action. 

The BLM also notes that many public 

land management programs 

administered by the BLM, such as land 

tenure adjustment and public land 

grazing management, have their own 

independent public involvement 

requirements. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that the failure to consider 

carbon sequestration in PJ forests and 

the potential for loss of the carbon if the 

forests are removed invalidates the 

BLM’s claim that there are no significant 

environmental impacts from the 

management activities that could be 

supported by the proposed CX. 

Comments note that removing tens of 

thousands of acres of public forests, if 

not hundreds of thousands of acres, 

could greatly increase carbon emissions 

and thus climate change impacts. The 

comments provided scientific references 

noting carbon sequestration benefits and 

the value of vegetated land uses in 

storing carbon. 

Response: The BLM has considered 

the effect of covered projects on carbon 

sequestration and greenhouse gases. The 

PJ removal projects evaluated in the EAs 

and after-action observation relied on to 

validate the CX were of similar or 

greater acreages than the 10,000-acre CX 

limit and neither the EAs nor the afteraction observation identified that these 

projects would or did result in 

significant effects on carbon 

sequestration and greenhouse gases. 

Furthermore, the scientific references 

provided in the comments offered no 

specific evidence that PJ removal 

projects caused significant effects on 

carbon sequestration and greenhouse 

gases. Therefore, the BLM has 

considered the potential effects of 

carbon sequestration during the 

validation process for this CX. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that the Verification Report 

referenced water in the professional 

opinions sections (Appendices B and C) 

under Methods (section 1), but not in 

the section with Peer-reviewed research 

findings, professional opinions and 

reports (Methods section 2), specifically, 

information about the benefits of PJ 

removal for improving the quantity of 

water on the landscape. The comments 

provided several scientific references 

noting these benefits and recommended 

that the BLM consider and incorporate 

relevant scientific references 

documenting these effects in the 

Verification Report. 

Response: The BLM has reviewed the 

scientific studies submitted by the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Notices 79511 

commenters and has included updates 

in the Verification Report (section 

2.A.f.), summarizing the findings in 

Ochoa et al. 2019 and other research 

studies (Kormos et al. 2017, reviewed in 

Miller et al. 2019 and Williams et al. 

2019) indicating that western juniper 

control can increase water availability. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that the Verification Report 

does not adequately analyze the 

potential impacts of PJ treatments on bat 

species (including BLM-identified 

sensitive bat species, such as the fringed 

bat) and does not sufficiently 

incorporate data suggesting the 

importance of PJ habitat to bat species. 

The comments provided several 

scientific references noting the 

importance of PJ habitat for bat species 

and the potential effects of PJ treatments 

on bat species and recommended that 

the BLM consider and incorporate 

relevant scientific references 

documenting these effects in the 

Verification Report. 

Response: The BLM analyzed the 

potential impacts of PJ removal on 

wildlife species, including bat species, 

in the EAs used to support the CX, and 

found that the activities proposed to be 

covered by the CX would not cause 

significant environmental effects on 

these species. The projects included 

identification of habitat within the 

project areas for BLM sensitive species 

(which include many bat species), the 

northern long-eared bat (a species listed 

as Threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act), and other bat species. 

Where potential habitats were identified 

in the project areas, the BLM conducted 

surveys for bats as indicated by LUP 

management direction and BLM 

protocols. 

The analyses recognized that some 

bats utilize cavities in snags and forage 

for aerial insects over PJ and sagebrush 

woodlands, and therefore, juniper 

reduction would negatively affect some 

species (e.g., the silver-haired and longlegged myotis) and positively affect 

other species (California and hoary bats) 

depending on their habitat needs. Over 

the long term, analyses concluded that 

the reduction in fuel loads from PJ 

removal would be beneficial by 

reducing the risk of future large-scale 

wildfire. None of the EAs identified the 

potential for significant effects on bats. 

When implementing projects covered by 

this CX, the BLM will conduct the same 

types of inventories and provide 

protections for bats, like other wildlife, 

as required by LUPs and BLM protocols 

for federally listed and BLM sensitive 

species. Since the EAs themselves 

documented scientific literature on bats, 

including the reference provided by the 

commenter (Chung-MacCoubrey 2005), 

as well as many other wildlife species, 

the BLM did not update the Verification 

Report. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that suggested the 

Verification Report’s analysis of the 

potential for invasive plant species 

expansion after PJ treatment is 

unsubstantiated, saying, for example, 

that the Verification Report inaccurately 

determined that cheatgrass always 

decreases over time, even if it initially 

increases post-treatment, despite none 

of the studies cited in the Verification 

Report supporting this conclusion. The 

comments provided several scientific 

references noting the effects of PJ 

removal on cheatgrass and other 

invasive species and recommended that 

the BLM consider and incorporate 

relevant scientific references 

documenting these effects in the 

Verification Report. 

Response: The Verification Report 

acknowledges that the ‘‘literature 

indicates that PJ removal activities often 

increase the abundance of invasive 

annual grasses, with cheatgrass being a 

focus of much of the research’’ (Methods 

section 2.A.b), and ‘‘that with the 

current level of understanding, the 

advance of invasive species, whether 

pre-existing or new, may be an outcome 

of PJ treatment’’ (Findings section). The 

Verification Report discusses the 

complex relationships among treatment 

types, site conditions, pre-existing 

vegetation composition, and vegetative 

outcomes from PJ removal in section 

2.A.a and focuses on invasive species 

research results in section 2.A.b, many 

showing increase of cheatgrass after 

treatments. The Findings section of the 

Verification Report concludes that after 

the types of PJ treatments in the CX, 

‘‘native sagebrush and sage-steppe 

vegetative composition and forage 

production improve despite the 

presence of invasive plant species.’’ The 

BLM considered the references 

provided, many of which were used in 

the Verification Report, and determined 

that the Verification Report analyzed the 

issues brought up by the comments. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that the Verification Report 

inaccurately determined that understory 

plants predominantly increase after 

treatment, and the BLM failed to 

consider several scientific references 

that came to different conclusions in 

determining the appropriate scope of 

the CX. Comments also pointed to the 

concept of site resistance and resilience 

(Chambers et al., 2014) and stated it 

contradicts the conclusion that native 

vegetation and forage production 

improve despite the presence of 

invasive plants. 

Response: The BLM recognizes that 

while outliers may exist in the larger 

body of scientific knowledge, the BLM 

accurately depicted the results of the 

research in that the literature focused 

most clearly on the types of mechanical 

PJ removal covered by the CX and the 

effect on understory vegetation. The 

BLM reviewed the literature and 

citations included with the comments 

and determined that some readers may 

have misinterpreted results when 

cheatgrass was observed to increase at 

the same time as native plants. To 

clarify, cheatgrass and other non-native 

plants often increased at the same time 

as more desirable native plants, as 

documented in section 2.A.b of the 

Verification Report, but that result does 

not contradict the benefits of and the 

literature’s conclusions that ‘‘an 

increase in understory cover and 

density, including increased richness 

and cover of perennial and annual 

grasses and native forbs’’ occurs after PJ 

treatments. These findings of posttreatment vegetation responses do not 

contradict the concept of site resistance 

and resilience, which looks at pretreatment conditions to predict 

vegetative outcomes and is summarized 

in section 2.A.b the Verification Report: 

‘‘researchers have increasingly noted 

that perennial native herbaceous species 

are a primary determinant of site 

resilience to disturbance and 

management treatments or resistance to 

cheatgrass and exotic forbs under some 

site conditions.’’ The comments do not 

specify why this concept invalidates the 

scientific research results cited in the 

Verification Report. The BLM carefully 

reviewed the literature evaluated in the 

Verification Report to find the results of 

the specific PJ removal treatments 

covered by the CX, discrete and distinct 

from the results of burning, chaining, or 

cabling, which are not included. 

Therefore, the BLM accurately 

summarized the scientific literature 

cited in the Verification Report relative 

to understory vegetation and found no 

reason to change the scope of the CX or 

revise the Verification Report. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that the Verification Report 

inaccurately determines that the 

overwhelming result of PJ treatments is 

that they have positive effects on soils, 

soil erosion, and hydrological function, 

and noted that research shows that PJ 

forest ecosystems are complex and 

depend on the interaction of a variety of 

factors, and management must be 

carefully planned according to 

individual site characteristics on a sitespecific basis. The comments provided 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
79512 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Notices 

a list of literature citations for the BLM’s 

review and consideration in support of 

their statements. 

Response: The BLM has reviewed all 

literature provided by the commenters. 

The BLM acknowledges that PJ forest 

ecosystems are complex and has 

updated section 2.A.d of the 

Verification Report to add to the 

description of the Williams et al. 2018 

summary that ecohydrological impacts 

of treatments on PJ woodlands largely 

depend on: (1) The degree to which 

perturbations alter vegetation and 

ground cover structure, (2) the initial 

conditions, and (3) inherent site 

attributes. The BLM also notes that 

LUPs address heterogeneity among sites. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that stated the two literature 

reviews cited in the Verification Report 

improperly informed consideration of 

cumulative effects of PJ removal projects 

(Jones 2019 and Miller et al. 2019), 

given that these sources: Aggregate data 

and observations from multiple reports 

on individual research projects; draw 

generalizations from the body of 

research; and fail to explicitly address 

the cumulative impacts of many such 

projects in proximity across the 

landscape on a wider scale. Comments 

included several scientific references 

noting the cumulative impacts of PJ 

treatments and recommended that the 

BLM consider and incorporate relevant 

scientific references documenting these 

effects in the Verification Report. 

Response: The revised CEQ 

regulations require agencies to identify 

all effects that are reasonably 

foreseeable and have a reasonably close 

causal relationship to the proposed 

action. Although CEQ’s regulations 

specifically do not require evaluation of 

cumulative effects, see 40 CFR 

1508.1(g)(3), the BLM nevertheless 

utilized evaluations and observations of 

previously implemented projects to 

determine the environmental effects 

from the activities covered by the CX to 

address such effects. Those evaluations 

and observations led to the findings 

stated in the Verification Report that the 

specific categories of actions described 

in the CX consistently would not cause 

significant environmental effects, 

whether the activities were to be 

implemented individually or in 

combination. The literature review 

supported this finding (‘‘informed the 

consideration of cumulative effects’’) in 

that the aggregated studies pertaining to 

specific resources (soils, vegetation, etc.) 

over space and time did not reveal 

significant effects. The BLM did not rely 

solely on the aggregated trend data in 

Jones (2019) to identify effects from the 

relevant PJ removal treatments. The 

literature review in the Verification 

Report presents scientific data directly 

from numerous research projects 

representing different situational 

circumstances, and these data provided 

the basis for the BLM’s conclusions. 

One of the references provided by 

comments cited the results of sagebrush 

removal treatments, which would not 

occur under the CX, and is therefore not 

relevant to PJ removal. Based on the 

relevant studies focused on the PJ 

removal activities specified in the CX, 

the BLM did not find the reasonably 

foreseeable effects to be highly 

uncertain or potentially significant. The 

BLM has determined that its statements 

are supported by the scientific 

references cited in the Verification 

Report. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that the BLM incorrectly 

summarized the findings in the peerreviewed literature section in the 

Verification Report regarding the 

impacts of PJ removal on sage-grouse. 

The comments referred to several 

scientific references cited within Jones 

(2019) for PJ treatment effects on sagegrouse and recommended that the BLM 

consider and incorporate additional 

findings from these references in the 

Verification Report. 

Response: In one of the examples 

provided by the comments, Jones (2019) 

summarized that ‘‘[o]f the five studies of 

PJ treatment effects on sage-grouse, 

three showed positive effects and two 

showed non-significant effects.’’ (Note 

that ‘‘significant’’ in this context refers 

to statistical significance such that 

‘‘non-significant’’ conveys a neutral 

result.) Therefore, all five of these 

studies had no proven negative effects. 

The other Jones (2019) example 

provided by the comments referred to 

11 studies of sagebrush treatment 

effects; however, sagebrush treatments 

(removing sagebrush) are not included 

in this CX, and those results are 

therefore not relevant. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that the BLM incorrectly 

determined in the Verification Report 

that PJ mechanical treatments have 

variable effects on deer and elk use of 

sage-steppe ecosystems, given that the 

literature cited in the Verification 

Report found that mechanical 

treatments have a mostly negative or 

statistically non-significant effect on 

mule deer and elk. The commenter 

provided a list of literature citations for 

the BLM’s review and consideration in 

support of their statements. 

Response: In the Verification Report 

(section 2.A.c, Mule Deer), the BLM 

summarizes findings of studies cited by 

Bombaci and Pejchar (2016) and Jones 

(2019) that mechanical treatments have 

variable effects on deer and elk use of 

sage-steppe ecosystems. Notably, 

Bombaci and Pejchar (2016) found that 

the proportions of negative, positive, 

and non-significant results (statistically 

non-significant, therefore, neutral for 

these purposes) were similar following 

mechanical removal and thinning 

treatments. Jones (2019) concluded that 

‘‘mechanical treatments have variable 

effects on deer and elk use of sagesteppe ecosystems both seasonally and 

annually, ranging from decreased use to 

increased use’’ and ‘‘treatments were 

found to improve forage values, 

sometimes at the expense of cover used 

for other daily and seasonal needs.’’ The 

BLM therefore concludes that its 

determination that PJ mechanical 

treatments have variable effects on deer 

and elk use of sage-steppe ecosystems 

was correct. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that the BLM did not 

adequately evaluate the impacts of 

landscape-scale disturbance to PJ 

woodlands on wildlife species that 

inhabit and depend on these woodlands 

(including obligate bird species, semiobligate bird species, and mammals), as 

well as on migration corridors and 

wildlife-dependent recreational 

activities. 

Response: The BLM has considered 

impacts of the kinds of treatments 

included in this CX on PJ obligate 

species. The BLM has updated the 

Verification Report (section 2.A.c, Other 

Birds and Mammals) to clarify that 

‘‘Research of bird species responses to 

PJ removal have been relatively 

consistent in reporting that use of the 

treated areas by sagebrush-associated 

species increased after PJ treatments, 

while use by PJ woodland species, 

including pinyon jay nests, decreased 

(Johnson et al. 2018; Jones 2019).’’ 

Relative to other wildlife-related effects, 

Appendix B of the Verification Report 

provides a summary of environmental 

consequences of the actions included in 

the CX by resource, including impacts 

on wildlife and recreation. The 

commenter does not provide any further 

information or scientific sources to 

demonstrate how the BLM failed to 

evaluate landscape-scale disturbance 

impacts from PJ removal treatments. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments suggesting that the BLM 

improperly used mitigated FONSIs to 

support the proposed CX and that not 

all project design features contained in 

the referenced EAs were included in the 

proposed CX. 

Response: Consistent with CEQ’s 

guidance, Establishing, Applying, and 

Revising Categorical Exclusions under 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Notices 79513 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(Nov. 23, 2010), mitigated FONSIs can 

support development of a CX when 

measures are included as part of the CX. 

The actions included in the Verification 

Report to support the CX were selected 

based on BLM’s review of EAs and 

FONSIs that incorporate project design 

features developed to ensure 

conformance with LUPs and reduce 

adverse effects, which has been shown 

to be an effective process in developing 

PJ removal projects that have no 

significant impacts. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that questioned the 

Verification Report’s assumption that 

projects with NEPA completed after 

2016 have not been implemented and 

stated that there are numerous projects 

where NEPA was completed after 2016 

and implementation has occurred. The 

comments suggested that because these 

are more recent projects, they would be 

more representative of the types of 

projects being implemented in the 

future. Comments also stated that the 

number of projects used are not 

sufficient to draw a conclusion that 

there have been no significant 

environmental impacts from the actions 

that would be covered in the CX and 

requested that the BLM analyze all PJ 

management projects to make this 

determination. 

Response: The Methods section of the 

Verification Report details the 

methodology the BLM used to identify 

the evaluated EAs. While the BLM 

relied on an ePlanning query of projects 

from 2012 to 2016, the BLM also 

contacted all offices with EAs analyzing 

the types of actions that would be 

covered by this CX and asked questions 

regarding the status of NEPA analysis 

and implementation status of projects 

for which the BLM had already reached 

a decision. Based on this feedback from 

offices, the BLM utilized information in 

the Verification Report only from those 

projects that were completed to a point 

that all actions authorized had been 

implemented, such that monitoring and 

observations of the effects and 

effectiveness of the actions were 

available. While the BLM found projects 

where NEPA was completed after 2016, 

implementation of these projects was 

not complete or was so recently 

completed that any postimplementation impacts were not yet 

observable. Although BLM did not limit 

the inclusion of any EAs by date, use of 

these criteria resulted in the most recent 

EAs included in the Verification Report 

to be dated in 2016 and prior. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that the BLM should not rely 

on programmatic EAs to conclude that 

significant impacts would not result 

from PJ removal projects, given that 

programmatic EAs usually do not 

analyze site-specific impacts associated 

with future projects. In addition, 

comments stated that the BLM should 

not rely on EAs tiered to an EIS to 

conclude that significant impacts would 

not result from PJ projects implemented 

under an EIS, given that tiered EAs rely 

on the analysis, mitigations, and 

constraints set forth in the EIS, and 

therefore do not demonstrate an absence 

of significant impacts. Comments also 

stated that the BLM cannot rely on 6 of 

the projects included in the Verification 

Report because the EAs fail to 

demonstrate that the projects will not 

result in significant impacts and 

suggested that 12 projects are too few to 

provide a basis for the BLM’s 

determination that this category of 

projects will not result in significant 

impacts. 

Response: While 3 of the 18 EAs that 

the BLM reviewed for the CX were 

large-scale, programmatic analyses, the 

other 15 were management-unit 

implementation-level projects. It is 

important to note that the programmatic 

EAs did identify specific locations and 

specific acreages to be treated and, 

despite awareness that all of the areas 

would be treated (within the same 

potential timeframe), the BLM did not 

find any reason to prepare an EIS for 

potential significant effects from these 

treatments. Further, all projects 

implemented under the programmatic 

EAs had additional documentation of 

NEPA adequacy to evaluate if the effects 

would exceed those disclosed in the 

programmatic EA. All EAs evaluated in 

the Verification Report have supported 

implemented projects that demonstrate 

that the actions identified did not result 

in significant impacts at the site-specific 

implementation level. 

Further, the Verification Report 

referenced EAs that analyzed activities 

proposed for this CX, without including 

the results of analyses that grouped 

mechanical PJ removal with other 

management activities (such as jackpot 

burning, broadcast burning, road 

building, etc.). None of the EAs 

reviewed and utilized to support the 

establishment of this CX tiered to an EIS 

analysis in order to conclude that the 

project would not have significant 

effects beyond those disclosed in an EIS. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that the BLM should not have 

excluded those projects supported by an 

EIS, where potentially significant 

impacts were disclosed, and major 

issues and actions addressed are similar 

to those addressed in the EAs used to 

support the CX in the Verification 

Report. 

Response: As noted in the Verification 

Report, the PJ removal projects 

evaluated through EISs are quite 

different in size and scope from the 

projects evaluated through EAs; most 

notably the EIS-supported projects 

encompassed far more acres or included 

activities not proposed for coverage in 

this CX, or both. Consequently, the 

results of the EIS analyses are not 

appropriately applied to the specific 

type and scope of activities authorized 

by this CX given their dissimilarity. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that the actions covered by 

this CX are not the same as the actions 

analyzed in the EAs, and the 

Verification Report fails to recognize 

that the EAs addressed a number of sitespecific issues (such as old-growth, 

roads, wilderness values, soil erosion, 

and impacts to wildlife) through project 

refinement, alternatives analysis, expert 

agency consultation, and mitigation. 

Comments concluded that the proposed 

CX should be updated to account for 

site-specific differences to ensure that PJ 

management does not result in 

significant environmental impacts. 

Response: As noted in the comments, 

the PJ removal actions evaluated in the 

EAs all included some form of manual 

or mechanical cutting, combined with 

various methods of spreading or 

disposal of debris, including yarding 

and piling, pile burning or log removal, 

lop/scatter, and mastication with 

mulching. Appendix A includes a crossreference for which type of actions 

included in this CX were evaluated in 

each EA. This process allowed iterative 

refining of the scope of the CX. The CX 

includes that suite of activities found 

not to have significant effects in the EAs 

evaluated. All projects implemented 

under the CX will be in conformance 

with the relevant LUP. In implementing 

actions in conformance with LUPs, the 

BLM identifies project design features to 

define the parameters of the project, 

including any protective measures 

needed to ensure LUP conformance or 

to reduce adverse effects based on the 

site-specific circumstances. The BLM 

defines and refines the action proposed 

regardless of the level of NEPA review, 

including for projects covered by CXs. 

Conditions that would require actions or 

considerations beyond those identified 

as within the scope of this CX would 

require preparation of either an EA or an 

EIS, as appropriate. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that the BLM inappropriately 

relied on projects designed to be 

implemented over several years, given 

that the impacts resulting from a project 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
79514 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Notices 

1To the extent that any existing agency NEPA 

procedure is inconsistent with CEQ’s new rule 

implementing NEPA, CEQ’s new rule controls, 

unless there is a clear and fundamental conflict 

with the requirements of another statute. See 40 

CFR 1507.3(a). 

implemented in one discrete time 

period instead of over a multi-year 

phased period are different. 

Response: As noted in the comments, 

several of the EAs and after-action 

observation relied on to substantiate the 

CX stated that implementation 

(treatment on all acres evaluated in the 

EA) may take place over a span of 

several years. However, the analyses for 

these EAs did not assume phased-in 

effects over time and were thus 

conducted as if the total proposed 

acreage would be implemented at the 

same time, as indicated by the footnotes 

in the Verification Report (Appendix 

A—Section 2). Therefore, the predicted 

and verified impacts from the projects 

analyzed in these EAs are comparable to 

projects that will be implemented under 

the CX. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that the 18 projects analyzed 

in the Verification Report are not 

enough and are not representative 

geographically or ecologically of BLMmanaged lands across the country, given 

that the types and intensities of impacts 

resulting from a category of projects may 

vary depending on geographic or 

ecological conditions. The comments 

also questioned the BLM’s selection 

process for projects, noting that, in 

searching for PJ management projects on 

the BLM ePlanning website, 41 projects 

have a status of ‘‘complete’’ that meet 

the Verification Report’s search criteria; 

however, these projects were not 

included in the BLM’s analysis. Other 

comments requested adding EAs from 

Idaho and Nevada to better represent the 

range of PJ removal projects, including 

the Central Basin and Range area, and 

to include maintenance actions (not 

defined) that may be needed after a PJ 

removal project. 

Response: The Methods section of the 

Verification Report details the 

methodology the BLM used to identify 

the projects supported by EAs to 

evaluate, resulting in selection of 

projects throughout the ecoregions 

where the BLM is implementing PJ 

removal actions. The BLM utilized 

information in the Verification Report 

only from those projects that were 

completed to a point that all actions 

authorized had been implemented and 

monitoring and observations of the 

effects and effectiveness of the actions 

were available. While the BLM found 

projects where NEPA was completed 

after 2016, implementation of these 

projects was not complete or was so 

recently completed that any postimplementation impacts were not yet 

observable. Note that while the BLM 

relied on a query of projects in 

ePlanning from 2012 to 2016, the BLM 

also reached out to BLM field and state 

office program leads to identify 

additional similar projects that may 

have been completed prior to 2012. 

As stated in the Verification Report, 

the goal of the query process was to 

collect representative BLM 

environmental analysis information 

from NEPA documents for each action, 

in order to provide an objective 

assessment of the overall environmental 

effects from all actions proposed for 

inclusion in the CX across the 

geographic spectrum. Although the BLM 

did not identify any projects in the 

Central Basin and Range area, the BLM 

identified and evaluated 18 EAs 

representing a broad geographical range 

from 6 states (Arizona, California, 

Colorado, Montana, Oregon, and Utah) 

that authorized the same or similar 

actions to those described in the 

proposed CX. The BLM also included 

peer-reviewed research findings, 

professional opinions, and reports in the 

Verification Report that examined 

effects of the same or similar actions to 

those described in the CX from a 

comprehensive geographic spectrum, 

including studies in the Central Great 

Basin. In combination, the EAs and 

research examined in the Verification 

Report are inclusive of ecoregions across 

BLM lands where PJ removal projects 

have occurred and will likely occur. 

Relative to ‘‘maintenance’’ activities, the 

CX can be used for the covered activities 

whether the activity is considered 

‘‘maintenance’’ of a prior project or not, 

if all criteria for using the CX apply. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that the Programmatic EIS for 

Fuel Breaks and the Tri-state Fuel 

Breaks projects are not juniper treatment 

projects and should not be used as 

examples supporting this CX. 

Response: The referenced EISs were 

not used as examples to support the CX. 

They were mentioned in the 

Verification Report only to help identify 

thresholds of significance in defining 

the scope of the CX by identifying 

actions and treatment sizes that were 

not appropriate to include in the CX 

terms. As the Verification Report states, 

the projects in those EISs encompassed 

far more acres and included and 

analyzed activities not included in this 

CX. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that requested clarification 

on ‘‘extraordinary circumstances,’’ and 

how they are interpreted and used in 

the Verification Report. Specifically, the 

comments recommended that the BLM 

more clearly state the interpretation of 

extraordinary circumstances in the 

Verification Report, identify how 

extraordinary circumstances should 

limit applicability for proposed projects 

that take place adjacent to or in close 

proximity to previously implemented 

projects to avoid cumulative impacts (43 

CFR 46.215(f)), and acknowledge that, if 

any of the extraordinary circumstances 

listed in the BLM’s regulations are 

present, the action should be presumed 

to have a significant effect. 

Response: The CEQ Regulations at 40 

CFR 1507.3(e)(2)(ii) require agency 

NEPA procedures to provide for 

extraordinary circumstances in which a 

normally excluded action may have a 

significant environmental effect and 

require additional analysis. Any action 

that is normally categorically excluded 

must be evaluated to determine whether 

any of the extraordinary circumstances 

in 43 CFR 46.215 are present; 1 if they 

are present, further analysis and 

environmental documentation must be 

prepared for the action. Pursuant to 40 

CFR 1501.4(b)(1), agencies may 

categorically exclude a proposed action 

when an environmental resource or 

condition identified as a potential 

extraordinary circumstance is present if 

the agency determines that there are 

circumstances that lessen the impacts or 

other conditions sufficient to avoid 

significant effects. Where extraordinary 

circumstances are present, and there are 

no circumstances that lessen impacts or 

other conditions sufficient to avoid 

significant effects, the BLM would 

proceed with the appropriate level of 

NEPA review other than a CX, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 1501.3 and 43 

CFR 46.205. For example, the effects of 

contiguous PJ treatments may fall under 

the extraordinary circumstance that 

considers whether the project may 

‘‘have highly uncertain and potentially 

significant environmental effects or 

involve unique or unknown 

environmental risks’’ (43 CFR 

46.215(d)). 

CX Establishment Procedures 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that stated that establishment 

of the new CX constitutes a ‘‘major 

Federal action’’ under NEPA, as it 

constitutes a new agency policy and 

procedure, and a NEPA review is 

required to determine whether it is 

‘‘significant.’’ In evaluating the 

significance of the impact of 

establishing this CX, the BLM received 

comments that stated that the BLM must 

consider both the context of the action 

as well as the intensity. Another 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Notices 79515 

2The BLM notes that CEQ revised its regulations 

to move the definition of ‘‘Significantly’’ to 40 CFR 

1501.3(b) and revise the provisions that formerly 

addressed context and intensity. See 85 FR 43,332. 

commenter concluded that in deciding 

not to prepare an environmental 

analysis of the proposed CX, the BLM 

has failed to take the obligated ‘‘hard 

look’’ at potential environmental 

impacts and is not fulfilling its 

obligation to comply with the 

procedural requirements of NEPA to the 

fullest extent possible. 

Response: The commenters conflate 

the process of establishing a CX as a part 

of an agency’s NEPA procedures with 

the process of conducting 

environmental review of a proposed 

major Federal action. The establishment 

of a CX as a part of an agency’s NEPA 

procedures is largely administrative, 

and distinct from the analysis required 

for a proposed major Federal action. 

Heartwood, Inc. v. United States Forest 

Service, 230 F.3d 947, 954 (7th Cir. 

2000) (Forest Service is not required to 

prepare an EA or EIS prior to 

promulgating a CX). In establishing the 

proposed CX, the Department is 

following CEQ’s procedural regulations, 

which include publishing the notice of 

the proposed CX in the Federal Register 

for public review and comment, 

considering public comments, and 

consulting with the CEQ to obtain CEQ’s 

written determination of conformity 

with NEPA and the CEQ regulations. 

See 40 CFR 1507.3(b)(2). To substantiate 

the proposed CX as a category of actions 

that do not normally have a significant 

effect on the human environment, the 

BLM also has developed the Verification 

Report, an administrative record to 

support the category of actions to be 

covered by the CX. This analysis 

includes a review of multiple 

environmental documents in which 

actions that would fall under the 

proposed CX have been found to not 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment. 

In evaluating the significance of the 

impact of activities that would fall 

under the CX, the BLM considered the 

significance of such actions consistent 

with 40 CFR 1501.3(b).2 The BLM 

properly determined that the actions 

covered by the proposed CX do not rise 

to the level of a significance that would 

warrant preparation of an EIS or EA to 

support implementation of such action. 

Additionally, the Verification Report 

documents how the BLM has experience 

taking a sufficiently close look at the 

potential impacts of actions proposed 

for coverage by the CX and has 

determined, based on this experience as 

well as additional evidence, that in 

general these impacts do not rise to the 

level of significance, and therefore, the 

BLM can rely on a CX to support taking 

these kinds of actions. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that stated that the BLM must 

complete a programmatic consultation 

with both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (the Services) to 

identify the potential harms resulting 

from the establishment of the CX 

pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). 

Response: As described in the 

comment response above, the 

administrative procedure of establishing 

a CX is different from relying on a CX 

for NEPA compliance to support a 

proposed action. To the extent that 

establishment of this CX is subject to the 

requirements of Section 7 of the ESA, 

the action has no effect on listed species 

or critical habitat. 

Since the ESA imposes its own 

requirements independent of NEPA’s 

requirements, projects the BLM may 

pursue in reliance on this CX to 

implement PJ treatments would be 

subject to review under Section 7 of 

ESA and, if the parameters of the 

proposed action and site-specific 

conditions require, appropriate 

consultation with the Services would 

occur. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that stated that the 

importance of PJ habitat for pinyon jays 

is one example of an unresolved conflict 

under section 102(2)(E) of NEPA, and 

pursuant to the CEQ regulations, even if 

the BLM determines that it does not 

need to prepare an EIS per section 

102(2)(C) of NEPA. The BLM received 

comments that stated that it ‘‘must still 

prepare an EA that outlines reasonable 

alternatives to the proposed CX.’’ The 

BLM received comments that provided 

several scientific references noting the 

impacts of PJ removal treatments on 

pinyon jays and stated that the BLM 

failed to consider these in determining 

the appropriate scope of the CX. 

Response: In each case where the 

BLM is proposing a treatment of PJ 

vegetation, the BLM would need to 

consider the appropriate level of NEPA 

compliance (whether CX, EA, or EIS) to 

support that proposed action. If the 

proposed action involved unresolved 

conflicts, then the BLM would not be 

able to rely on a CX, because the 

presence of unresolved conflicts is an 

extraordinary circumstance (43 CFR 

46.215(c)). In establishing the CX, the 

BLM analyzed the relevant scientific 

literature regarding the importance of PJ 

habitat for pinyon jays, including the 

references submitted, and determined 

that the references submitted did not 

substantially change the current 

analysis of the potential impacts of PJ 

treatments on pinyon jays included in 

the Verification Report. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that stated that the BLM’s 

proposed CX violates the limitations in 

relation to total acreage, use in 

wilderness areas, and requirements for 

monitoring and maintenance plans 

established for it through the 

Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 

(2018 Farm Bill), and that the BLM must 

be consistent with the defined 

limitations identified in the law. 

Response: The 2018 Farm Bill CX 

directed by Congress is a distinct and 

different CX from this BLM 

administratively established CX. In 

order to establish this CX, the BLM must 

comply with the CEQ’s requirements for 

establishing NEPA procedures at 40 CFR 

1507.3, including consulting with the 

CEQ and publishing the proposed CX 

for comment. The BLM has followed the 

CEQ’s Final Guidance for Federal 

Departments and Agencies on 

Establishing, Applying, and Revising 

Categorical Exclusions under the 

National Environmental Policy Act (75 

FR 75628, Dec. 6, 2010). 

Though at a broad level, the two CXs 

hold similar purposes to provide for the 

management of mule deer and sagegrouse habitat, the BLM has developed 

this administratively established CX 

with different specific parameters to the 

scope of actions authorized and 

limitations on treatment acres and 

locations. The BLM considered the 

effects of previously implemented 

actions of the type proposed for 

inclusion in the proposed CX and the 

NEPA analyses prepared to evaluate the 

impacts of such actions. Most of these 

actions were evaluated in EAs, for 

which a FONSI was reached. The BLM 

established the 10,000-acre size for this 

CX because it was well within the 

bounds of acres analyzed in the BLM’s 

EAs for which FONSIs were reached, 

yet is near the upper limit of what many 

BLM offices can plan for and treat from 

an operational standpoint, given their 

capacity (as constrained by labor and 

budgets). Finally, the effects of the 

larger projects were evaluated to be the 

same as those of the smaller projects. 

There were no differences in effects at 

the larger treatment sizes that would 

suggest further limiting the acreage of a 

treatment that could be conducted in 

reliance on the CX. 

The BLM considered the effects of 

previously implemented actions of the 

type proposed for coverage by the CX 

and the NEPA analysis prepared to 

evaluate the impacts of such actions, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
79516 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Notices 

including the impacts to wilderness 

values. The Department’s NEPA 

regulations require that any action 

approved or authorized in reliance upon 

a CX established by the BLM must 

consider extraordinary circumstances 

(43 CFR 46.205 and 46.215). Therefore, 

the BLM would evaluate PJ removal 

projects for extraordinary circumstances 

and determine whether reliance on a CX 

would be appropriate. The BLM’s 

assessment showed that there have been 

no occurrences where observed impacts 

from the types of actions included in the 

CX have disqualified any areas from 

findings of wilderness characteristics, 

including size, naturalness, and 

opportunities for solitude. Further, the 

BLM is required to comply with 

applicable wilderness and wilderness 

study area policies when implementing 

any actions in such areas. 

The BLM has a robust monitoring 

program for terrestrial and aquatic 

conditions and trends across BLMmanaged land. The data collected 

through this rigorously applied program 

allows the BLM to monitor the effects of 

the actions of the type to be included in 

the CX. There is nothing in this CX that 

precludes the inclusion of site-specific 

monitoring for a proposed action. The 

BLM can include additional monitoring 

parameters in a proposed action 

approved in reliance on this CX when 

it would be appropriate to do so. 

Furthermore, maintenance of the 

effectiveness of treatments or retreatments is important and can be 

included in any proposed action 

approved in reliance on the CX. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that stated that the BLM’s 

proposed CX does not incorporate the 

provisions relating to the management 

of mule deer and sage-grouse habitat 

established for it through the 2018 Farm 

Bill, and that the BLM must be 

consistent with the defined actions 

identified in the law. 

Response: The 2018 Farm Bill CX 

directed by Congress is a distinct and 

different CX from this BLM 

administratively established CX. The 

guidelines and maps referenced in the 

2018 Farm Bill CX are useful tools for 

the BLM but are not the only means to 

identify mule deer or sage-grouse 

habitat. Under the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act (FLPMA), the 

BLM manages the public land according 

to LUPs developed for specific planning 

areas, and all actions taken must 

conform to the applicable LUP. LUPs in 

areas of mule deer or sage-grouse habitat 

generally address desired conditions for 

these habitats and prescribe the 

constraints under which actions must 

take place to meet those conditions in 

the planning area. Here, any action 

taken, regardless of level of NEPA 

review (CX, EA, EIS) must be conducted 

in conformance with the applicable LUP 

(which addresses where the needs of the 

different habitats may conflict), and 

reliance on the CX requires that the 

project be conducted to benefit mule 

deer or sage-grouse habitat. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that stated that the BLM’s 

proposed CX violates the provisions of 

the 2018 Farm Bill by excluding actions 

allowed through the 2018 Farm Bill 

such as the use of non-native seeding, 

chaining, herbicide application, and 

temporary road construction, and that 

the BLM must be consistent with the 

defined actions identified in the law. 

Response: The 2018 Farm Bill CX 

directed by Congress is a distinct and 

different CX from this BLM 

administratively established CX. The 

scope of actions included in the 2018 

Farm Bill CX directed by Congress is 

different than the scope of actions 

included in this CX developed in 

response to Secretary’s Order 3356. For 

example, the only element of the 2018 

Farm Bill CX that allows for the use of 

non-native seedings is for the purpose of 

emergency stabilization, which is not an 

action covered by this CX. The other 

actions included in the 2018 Farm Bill 

CX but not the proposed CX were 

deemed to be beyond the scope of the 

agency’s objectives for this CX. 

Categorical Exclusion 

The Department and the BLM find the 

category of actions described in the CX 

normally does not have a significant 

effect on the quality of the human 

environment. This finding is based on 

the analysis and information presented 

in the Verification Report to establish 

this CX. The BLM’s review of the 

available literature demonstrates that 

the activities covered by this CX would 

not cause significant environmental 

effects. 

As discussed in the Methods section 

of the Verification Report, the BLM has 

analyzed the effects of many PJ removal 

projects in EAs and has monitored postimplementation results. All associated 

NEPA documents were reviewed to 

determine the scope of environmental 

consequences anticipated to result from 

the proposed actions. There were no 

instances where any of the evaluated 

projects would have resulted in a need 

to complete an EIS. Often, through 

application of design features, 

environmental effects are minimized to 

the degree that resource issues were 

eliminated from further analysis due to 

application of these project elements. 

While long-term benefits of reducing 

fuel loading and improving sagebrushsteppe habitats (PJ treatments) are 

primarily beneficial, neutral, or result in 

no effect findings, there are documented 

instances of adverse, residual 

environmental consequences associated 

with implementation of these 

treatments. The BLM has concluded that 

these environmental consequences are 

not significant based on the EA 

analyses, which are summarized by 

resources in the Methods section of the 

Verification Report for soil disturbance, 

soil moisture, invasive plants, wildlife, 

PJ obligate species, visual resource, big 

game species, wilderness 

characteristics, cultural artifacts, tribal 

resources, air quality, and biomass. 

These conclusions have been validated 

by post-implementation observation of 

professional land managers. 

In addition to the BLM’s review of 

completed EAs and projects as 

implemented, the BLM’s review of the 

available scientific literature 

demonstrates that the activities covered 

by this new CX would not normally 

cause significant environmental effects. 

As discussed in detail in the 

Verification Report Methods section, the 

research overwhelmingly shows that PJ 

removal restores ecosystem values 

associated with the rebound of native 

shrubs (including sagebrush), perennial 

grasses, and forbs, even when there may 

be a component of non-native forbs and 

annual grasses. Despite the expectation 

that annual grasses (e.g., exotics like 

cheatgrass) often increase after PJ 

treatment, the current literature shows 

that the native plant communities 

reestablish after mechanical PJ removal 

treatments, becoming dominant (over 

nonnative species) either within the first 

growing season after treatment or within 

a few years. 

The BLM’s experience with 

implementing and monitoring these 

types of projects mirrors the scientific 

literature; taken together, they support 

establishment of this CX, providing the 

evidence that this type and scope of PJ 

removal treatment can be categorically 

excluded from further detailed analysis. 

As described in detail in the 

Verification Report, establishment of 

this new CX would not have significant 

impacts on the human environment, 

and its use, like that of other 

administratively established CXs, would 

be subject to extraordinary 

circumstances review. 

The intent of this CX is to improve the 

efficiency of the environmental review 

process for the management of PJ for the 

benefit of mule deer and sage-grouse 

habitat. Each proposed action must be 

reviewed for extraordinary 

circumstances that could preclude the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Notices 79517 

use of this CX. The list of extraordinary 

circumstances under which a normally 

excluded action would potentially 

require further analysis and 

documentation to determine whether 

preparation of an EA or EIS is necessary 

is found at 43 CFR 46.215. If a proposed 

PJ management project is within the 

activity described in this CX, then these 

‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ will be 

considered in the context of the 

proposed project to determine if there 

are circumstances that lessen the 

impacts or other conditions sufficient to 

avoid significant effects, or they indicate 

the potential for effects that merit 

additional consideration in an EA or 

EIS. If any of the extraordinary 

circumstances indicate such potential, 

the CX would not be used, and an EA 

or EIS would be prepared. 

Amended Text for the Departmental 

Manual 

516 DM 11 at Section. 11.9 J. Habitat 

Restoration: 

(1) Covered actions on up to 10,000 

acres (contiguous or non-contiguous) 

within sagebrush and sagebrush-steppe 

plant communities to manage pinyon 

pine and juniper trees for the benefit of 

mule deer or sage-grouse habitats. For 

the purpose of this CX, habitat for mule 

deer or sage-grouse is any area on BLMmanaged land that is currently or 

formerly occupied by mule deer or sagegrouse, or is reasonably likely to be 

occupied if pinyon pine or juniper trees 

are removed. Covered actions include: 

Manual or mechanical cutting 

(including lop-and-scatter); mastication 

and mulching; yarding and piling of cut 

trees; pile burning; seeding or manual 

planting of seedlings of native species; 

and removal of cut trees for commercial 

products, such as sawlogs, specialty 

products, or fuelwood, or noncommercial uses. Such activities: 

(a) Shall not include: Cutting of oldgrowth trees; seeding or planting of nonnative species; chaining; pesticide or 

herbicide application; broadcast 

burning; jackpot burning; construction 

of new temporary or permanent roads; 

or construction of other new permanent 

infrastructure. 

(b) Shall require inclusion of project 

design features providing for protections 

of the following resources and resource 

uses consistent with the decisions in the 

applicable land use plan in the 

documentation of the categorical 

exclusion. If no land use plan decisions 

apply, documentation of the categorical 

exclusion shall identify how the 

following resources and resource uses 

are to be appropriately addressed: 

(i) Specifications for management of 

mule deer habitat; 

(ii) Specifications for management of 

sage-grouse habitat; 

(iii) Specifications for erosion control 

measures; 

(iv) Criteria for minimizing or 

remedying soil compaction; 

(v) Types and extents of logging 

system constraints (e.g., seasonal, 

location, extent); 

(vi) Extent and purpose of seasonal 

operating constraints or restrictions; 

(vii) Criteria to limit spread of weeds; 

(viii) Size of riparian buffers or 

riparian zone operating restrictions; and 

(ix) Operating constraints and 

restrictions for pile burning. 

Authority: NEPA, the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); E.O. 11514, 

March 5, 1970, as amended by E.O. 11991, 

May 24, 1977; and CEQ regulations (40 CFR 

1500–1508). 

Stephen G. Tryon, 

Director, Office of Environmental Policy and 

Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27158 Filed 12–9–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4331–84–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of the Secretary 

[LLWO210000.L1610000] 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Implementing Procedures for the 

Bureau of Land Management (516 DM 

11) 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Through this notice, the 

Department of the Interior (Department) 

announces a new categorical exclusion 

(CX) under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) implementing 

procedures for the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) at Chapter 11 of 

Part 516 of the Departmental Manual 

relating to the harvest of dead or dying 

trees impacted by biotic or abiotic 

disturbances commonly referred to as 

‘‘salvage harvest.’’ 

DATES: The categorical exclusion takes 

effect on December 10, 2020. 

ADDRESSES: The new CX can be found 

at the web address http://www.doi.gov/ 

elips/ at Series 31, Part 516, Chapter 11. 

The BLM has revised the Verification 

Report on the results of a Bureau of 

Land Management analysis of NEPA 

records and field verification for salvage 

harvest of timber (Verification Report) 

in response to comments received; the 

public can review the revised 

Verification Report online at: https://

go.usa.gov/xvPfT. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Heather Bernier, Division Chief, 

Decision Support, Planning, and NEPA, 

at 303–239–3635, or hbernier@blm.gov. 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800– 

877–8339. The FRS is available 24 hours 

a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message 

or question with the above individual. 

You will receive a reply during normal 

business hours. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

NEPA requires Federal agencies to 

consider the potential environmental 

impacts of their proposed actions before 

deciding whether and how to proceed. 

The Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) encourages Federal agencies to 

use CXs to protect the environment 

more efficiently by reducing the 

resources spent analyzing proposals that 

normally do not have significant 

environmental impacts, thereby 

allowing those resources to be focused 

on proposals that may have significant 

environmental impacts. See 40 CFR 

1501.4, 1507.3(e)(2)(ii), and 1508.1(d). 

The appropriate use of CXs allow NEPA 

compliance, in the absence of 

extraordinary circumstances that merit 

further consideration, to be concluded 

without preparing either an 

environmental assessment (EA) or an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

(See 40 CFR 1501.4 and 40 CFR 

1508.1(d)). 

The Department’s NEPA procedures 

were published in the Federal Register 

on October 15, 2008 (73 FR 61292) and 

are codified at 43 CFR part 46. These 

procedures address policy as well as 

procedure in order to assure compliance 

with NEPA. Additional Departmentwide NEPA policy may be found in the 

part 516 of the Departmental Manual 

(516 DM), in chapters 1 through 4. The 

procedures for the Department’s bureaus 

are published as chapters 7 through 15 

of 516 DM. Chapter 11 of 516 DM (516 

DM 11) covers the BLM’s NEPA 

procedures. The BLM’s NEPA 

procedures were last updated as 

announced in the Federal Register on 

May 1, 2020 (85 FR 25472). The current 

516 DM 11 can be found at: https://

elips.doi.gov/ELIPS/ 

DocView.aspx?id=1721. 

The establishment of this new CX 

would allow the BLM to fulfill NEPA 

compliance requirements to authorize 

the harvest of dead or dying trees 

impacted by biotic or abiotic 

disturbances commonly referred to as 

‘‘salvage harvest.’’ Salvage harvest can 

help to recover economic value from 

timber, contribute to rural economies, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES