[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 238 (Thursday, December 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79504-79517]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27158]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#95fdf7f0e7fbfcf0e7d5f7f9f8bbf2fae3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="71191314031f18140331131d1c5f161e07">[email protected]</span></a>. 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 sage-
grouse, 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 sage-grouse 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 non-supportive 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

[[Page 79506]]

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 sage-grouse 
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 non-natives, 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

[[Page 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 site-specific 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

[[Page 79508]]

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 sage-grouse 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

[[Page 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 large-scale 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

[[Page 79510]]

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-to-government 
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 full-avoidance 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 after-action 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

[[Page 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 long-legged 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 post-
treatment vegetation responses do not contradict the concept of site 
resistance and resilience, which looks at pre-treatment 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 site-specific basis. The comments 
provided

[[Page 79512]]

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 peer-reviewed 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 sage-grouse 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 sage-steppe 
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, semi-obligate 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

[[Page 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 post-
implementation 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 site-specific 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 cross-
reference 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

[[Page 79514]]

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 BLM-managed 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 post-
implementation 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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 79515]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 sage-grouse 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,

[[Page 79516]]

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 BLM-managed 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 re-treatments 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 post-implementation 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 sagebrush-steppe 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

[[Page 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 BLM-managed land that is currently or 
formerly occupied by mule deer or sage-grouse, 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 non-commercial uses. Such 
activities:
    (a) Shall not include: 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.
    (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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>