Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Notices 2735 

iv. Analysis of factors affecting the 

visibility and detectability of polar bears 

during monitoring; 

v. Analysis of the effectiveness of 

mitigation measures; 

vi. A summary and analysis of the 

distribution, abundance, and behavior 

of all polar bears observed; and 

vii. Estimates of take in relation to the 

specified activities. 

Request for Public Comments 

If you wish to comment on this 

proposed authorization, the associated 

draft environmental assessment, or both 

documents, you may submit your 

comments by either of the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. Please identify 

whether you are commenting on the 

proposed authorization, draft 

environmental assessment, or both, 

make your comments as specific as 

possible, confine them to issues 

pertinent to the proposed authorization, 

and explain the reason for any changes 

you recommend. Where possible, your 

comments should reference the specific 

section or paragraph that you are 

addressing. The FWS will consider all 

comments that are received before the 

close of the comment period (see 

DATES). The FWS does not anticipate 

extending the public comment period 

beyond the 30 days required under 

section 101(a)(5)(D)(iii) of the MMPA. 

Comments, including names and 

street addresses of respondents, will 

become part of the administrative record 

for this proposal. Before including your 

address, telephone number, email 

address, or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, be 

advised that your entire comment, 

including your personal identifying 

information, may be made publicly 

available at any time. While you can ask 

us in your comments to withhold from 

public review your personal identifying 

information, we cannot guarantee that 

we will be able to do so. 

Peter Fasbender, 

Assistant Regional Director—Fisheries and 

Ecological Services, Alaska Region. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00450 Filed 1–10–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of the Secretary 

[RR83530000, 256R5065C6, 

RX.59389832.1009676] 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Implementing Procedures for the 

Bureau of Reclamation (516 DM 14) 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of revisions. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

revision of seven categorical exclusions 

(CEs) listed in the Bureau of 

Reclamation’s procedures for 

compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA). The revisions clarify existing 

CEs on certain financial assistance 

funding, water-related contracting, and 

use authorization actions to allow for 

more consistent interpretation and more 

efficient review of appropriate actions 

based on the Reclamation’s experience 

implementing these CEs. 

DATES: The revised categorical 

exclusions are incorporated into 

Reclamation’s NEPA procedures, 

located at Chapter 14 of Part 516 of the 

Departmental Manual (516 DM 14), 

effective January 13, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: The revised CEs can be 

found at the web address for 

Reclamation’s revised NEPA 

procedures, 516 DM 14: https://

www.doi.gov/document-library/ 

departmental-manual/516-dm-14- 

managing-nepa-process-bureaureclamation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shane Hunt (he/him) via phone at 916– 

202–7158, or via email at usbr_ce@

usbr.gov. Individuals who are deaf, 

deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a 

speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation) was established in 1902. 

Its original mission was civil works 

construction to develop the water 

resources of the arid Western United 

States to promote the settlement and 

economic development of that region. 

Reclamation developed hundreds of 

projects to store and deliver water. That 

substantial infrastructure development 

contributed to making Reclamation the 

largest wholesale supplier of water and 

the second largest producer of 

hydropower in the United States. 

On June 7, 2024, the Department of 

the Interior (Department) published a 

Federal Register notice (89 FR 48674) 

proposing revisions to seven categorical 

exclusions (CEs) in Reclamation’s NEPA 

implementing procedures, 516 DM 14. 

During the 30-day comment period, 

Reclamation received 14 comment 

letters and emails. A detailed summary 

of comments on the proposed revisions 

and Reclamation’s responses are noted 

below. 

Reclamation has reviewed the 

comments and has taken them into 

consideration in finalizing the revised 

CEs. Reclamation continues to find it 

appropriate to revise the seven CEs to 

promote consistent interpretation and 

application by eliminating confusing or 

outdated terminology and authorities, as 

well as clarifying the scope of activities 

and constraints. Reclamation edited the 

revised CEs to respond to comments, as 

noted below, and revised the CEs in 516 

DM 14, section 14.5, paragraph D 

entitled, ‘‘Operation and Maintenance 

Activities,’’ and paragraph F entitled, 

‘‘Financial Assistance, Loans, and 

Funding.’’ 

Comments on the Proposal 

The Department solicited comments 

from the public on the potential 

revisions to the CEs through a 30-day 

public comment period, announced in 

the Federal Register on June 7, 2024 (89 

FR 48674). Reclamation considered all 

comments received to date, and 

Reclamation has responded, as provided 

below, to all substantive issues raised in 

the public comments. 

Reclamation received 14 letters and 

emails from state governments, water 

and irrigation districts, water user 

organizations, and Tribal Nations. 

Individual comments included several 

that restated the objectives, limitations, 

and rationale for the proposed CE 

revisions, several that expressed general 

support or opposition for the proposed 

CE revisions, and several that provided 

more extensive detailed comments 

regarding the proposed CE revisions. 

Reclamation appreciates the interest 

and participation of all respondents. 

Reclamation has noted the comments 

that provided general support and 

general opposition. For comments 

providing additional detail, questions, 

and suggestions, Reclamation, where 

appropriate, grouped the common 

comments and responds to the 

comments as follows: 

Comment 1—Transparency and 

public input: Commenter expressed 

concern that the CE revisions would 

shift the analysis of project impacts to 

an internal process without public 

input. 

Response 1—The Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) and 

Department’s NEPA implementing 

regulations do not require public notice 

for an agency to use a CE. As provided 

in CEQ regulations and guidance, 

establishing, revising, and appropriately 

using CEs is consistent with NEPA. CEs 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
2736 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Notices 

1See CEQ’s 2010 guidance on Establishing, 

Applying, and Revising Categorical Exclusions 

Under the National Environmental Policy Act, p. 5, 

https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/ceq-regulations-andguidance/NEPA_CE_Guidance_Nov232010.pdf. 

are not exemptions or waivers from 

NEPA. Rather, they are a type of NEPA 

review intended to accomplish the 

purposes of NEPA, efficiently and 

effectively. The establishment and 

revision of a CE is a public process 

through which the agency must 

demonstrate that the category of actions 

would not normally have significant 

effects, individually or in the aggregate. 

Having made such a demonstration, 

subject to public review and comment, 

the agency may then apply the CE to 

complete the NEPA environmental 

review process for proposals that do not 

require an environmental assessment 

(EA) or environmental impact statement 

(EIS), which are more resource intensive 

than applying a CE. Reclamation has 

and will continue to meet requirements 

under NEPA and other laws and 

regulations, ensuring the appropriate 

level of analysis and public engagement, 

consistent with regulations and policies. 

Comment 2—Scope of CE D4: 

Commenters recommended adding 

language to CE D4 to clearly cover 

Warren Act contracts, administrative 

operating agreements, and other 

administrative actions. 

Response 2—The scope of the revised 

CE language already captured many of 

the suggested additions. A Warren Act 

contract is a type of ‘‘water-related 

contracts’’ covered under the proposed 

revision, as it is a legally binding 

agreement to which Reclamation is a 

party, pursuant to its authority under 

Federal law that allows for water to be 

stored. A commenter suggested 

including ‘‘administrative operating 

agreements.’’ CE D4 includes the 

administration of operation and 

maintenance contracts, which addresses 

the suggested inclusion of 

‘‘administrative operating agreements.’’ 

Reclamation considers the suggested 

inclusion of other ‘‘administrative 

actions’’ to be overly broad. The text of 

D4 does include administration of 

water-related contracts, which would 

include many ‘‘administrative actions.’’ 

For these reasons, Reclamation declines 

to adopt these suggestions. 

Comment 3—Concerns regarding 

Tribal resources and consultation: 

Commenters expressed concerns that CE 

D8 and CE E1 have the potential to 

adversely affect Tribal resources and 

that Reclamation may not adequately 

conduct Tribal consultation or 

implement National Historic 

Preservation Act Programmatic 

Agreements when relying on the CEs. 

Response 3—Reclamation met with 

both Tribes that commented on the 

proposal to better understand their 

concerns. Many of the concerns were 

related to compliance with laws and 

policies other than NEPA. The level of 

NEPA analysis, including the use of a 

CE, does not affect Reclamation’s 

obligations under other laws, including 

the Native American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act, the National 

Historic Preservation Act, and the 

Archaeological Resources Protection 

Act, and related policies, or its 

obligation to engage in government-togovernment consultation, in cases 

where that obligation arises. 

Furthermore, when relying on the CEs, 

Reclamation will review the proposed 

action against the extraordinary 

circumstances listed in the 

Department’s NEPA regulations at 43 

CFR 46.215, which include in part, 

consideration of impacts on public 

health and safety; natural resources and 

unique geographic characteristics as 

historic or cultural resources; park, 

recreation, or refuge lands; wilderness 

areas; wild or scenic rivers; national 

natural landmarks, sole or principal 

drinking water aquifers; prime 

farmlands; wetlands; floodplains; 

national monuments; migratory birds; 

and other ecologically significant or 

critical areas; unresolved conflicts 

concerning alternative uses of available 

resources; unique or unknown 

environmental risks; precedent for 

future decision-making; historic 

properties; listed species or critical 

habitat; low income or minority 

populations; access by Indian religious 

practitioners to, and for ceremonial use 

of, Indian sacred sites and the physical 

integrity of those sites; and contribution 

to the introduction, continued 

existence, or spread of invasive plants 

or non-native invasive species. 

Reclamation will document the 

evaluation in a CE Checklist. If any 

extraordinary circumstance exists, 

Reclamation will conduct additional 

NEPA analysis. In addition, 

Reclamation must follow Departmental 

policy and procedures regarding Tribal 

consultation (512 DM 4, 512 DM 5), 

regardless of level of NEPA review. 

Comment 4—Concerns regarding 

National Historic Preservation Act 

Compliance: A commenter expressed 

concerns about how a change in the CEs 

might affect National Historic 

Preservation Act Section 106 

compliance, especially in the context of 

region-wide programmatic agreements, 

and the potential for Federal actions to 

affect historic properties of religious and 

cultural significance to Indian Tribes. 

Response 4—As noted in comment 

and response 3, actions reviewed under 

the revised CEs are still subject to other 

Federal laws, including the Native 

American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act, the National Historic 

Preservation Act and the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act; to 

Departmental policies; and to the 

extraordinary circumstances review 

outlined in 43 CFR 46.215, which 

include consideration of Tribal and 

cultural resources, and Reclamation will 

document the evaluation in a CE 

Checklist. The level of NEPA analysis 

does not affect Reclamation’s 

obligations under any of the cultural 

resource laws or policies. 

Comment 5—Expressed concerns with 

use of undefined terms like ‘‘minor,’’ 

‘‘localized,’’ ‘‘temporary,’’ ‘‘interim,’’ 

and ‘‘related’’ in the proposed CE 

revisions: Commenters were concerned 

that the terms ‘‘minor,’’ ‘‘localized,’’ 

‘‘temporary,’’ ‘‘interim,’’ and ‘‘related’’ 

in the CEs are undefined or lacked 

specificity. Commenters recommended 

defining, replacing or establishing a 

quantified threshold. One commenter 

recommended replacing the term 

‘‘minor’’ with the term ‘‘does not allow 

for or lead to a major public or private 

action’’ for CEs D4 and E1. 

Response 5—CEQ guidance 1 advises 

agencies to ‘‘clearly define the eligible 

category of actions, as well as any 

physical, temporal, or environmental 

factors that would constrain its use.’’ 

Reclamation’s revised CEs are intended 

to appropriately define and limit use to 

only those actions that normally do not 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment, individually or in the 

aggregate. Reclamation considered the 

specific language recommendations, 

concerns, and other suggestions on this 

topic. After careful consideration, 

Reclamation decided not to modify the 

identified terms because these terms as 

currently used sufficiently describe the 

CEs, while allowing Reclamation to 

apply the CEs in a range of appropriate 

contexts. 

Regarding the terms ‘‘minor’’ and 

‘‘localized,’’ Reclamation has over 40 

years of successful and appropriate 

implementation of its existing CEs, 

several of which include these same 

terms. Reclamation’s record of applying 

its existing CEs (including those using 

the terms ‘‘minor’’ or ‘‘localized’’) for 

previously implemented actions is well 

documented in Reclamation’s CE 

Checklists. In addition, Reclamation 

reviewed 71 EAs with FONSIs and 

summarized them in the CE 

substantiation report that was included 

in supporting documentation for the 

Federal Register notice announcing the 

proposed CE revision in June 2024. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Notices 2737 

These 71 EAs with FONSIs analyze 

actions that the proposed CE revisions 

are designed to cover once finalized. 

Furthermore, the evaluation of the 

extraordinary circumstances in the 

Department’s NEPA regulations at 43 

CFR 46.215 helps to identify cases in 

which an action may have a significant 

effect and, therefore, application of the 

CE would not be appropriate. 

Moreover, terms such as ‘‘minor’’ and 

‘‘localized’’ allow Reclamation to 

appropriately consider the impacts of 

the proposed action in the context of the 

specific action and action location. For 

example, under D4, minor and localized 

considerations would include potential 

effects on the aquatic system, project 

operations, fish and wildlife resources, 

and the magnitude of the action in 

relation to hydrologic conditions. Under 

D8, minor and localized considerations 

would include things such as physical 

size, surrounding land use, and extent 

of potential ground disturbance on 

previously undisturbed land. Lastly, 

under E1, minor and localized 

considerations would include physical 

size and surrounding land use. 

Replacing the term ‘‘minor’’ with 

‘‘does not allow for or lead to a major 

public or private action’’ in CEs D4 or 

E1 would not lead to an improvement 

in the application of the CEs. Rather, the 

term minor and the impact-based 

constraints included in the D4 and E1 

CEs are more appropriate to evaluate the 

types of actions covered by these CEs 

and the potential environmental 

impacts. 

Regarding the additional terms 

highlighted by the commenters, the 

terms ‘‘temporary’’ and ‘‘interim’’ used 

in CE D4 are defined in the Reclamation 

Manual Policy, Water-Related Contracts 

and Charges—General Principles and 

Requirements (PEC P05). Under that 

policy, temporary contracts are limited 

to one year or less and interim contracts 

are limited to 10 years or less. Similarly, 

the term ‘‘related’’ only appears in CE 

D4 as part of the term ‘‘water-related 

contract(s),’’ which is also defined in 

Reclamation policy PEC P05 as any 

repayment or water service contract and 

any other legally binding agreement 

executed pursuant to Reclamation law 

or to the Water Conservation and 

Utilization Act of 1939 that: (1) makes 

water available from or through the 

facilities of a Federal project that 

Reclamation manages, operates, or 

funds; or (2) establishes Operation and 

Maintenance or Operation, 

Maintenance, and Replacements 

responsibilities for such facilities and/or 

other responsibilities related to ensuring 

that such facilities continue to serve 

their intended purposes; or (3) makes 

water available to the United States. 

Consistent with that policy, 

Reclamation adds the phrase ‘‘limited to 

1 year or less’’ after the term temporary 

and the phrase ‘‘limited to 10 years or 

less’’ after the term interim in 

parentheses to the text of the final D4 

CE. 

Comment 6—Concerns with scope of 

actions that might qualify for the CEs: 

A commenter expressed concern with 

the scope of activities that might qualify 

for the CEs and lack of definitions and 

quantifications of terminology including 

‘‘minor construction,’’ ‘‘minor amounts 

of water,’’ and ‘‘localized.’’ 

Response 6—As described in response 

5, Reclamation considers it appropriate 

to retain the terms ‘‘minor’’ and 

‘‘localized’’ in the CEs because 

Reclamation has over 40 years of 

successful and appropriate 

implementation of its existing CEs, 

several of which include these terms. 

Further, Reclamation also considered 

whether the absolute water-related 

contract water amounts, for instance, 

limiting application by acre-feet of 

water, should constrain the application 

of the D4 CE. Ultimately, Reclamation 

declines to specify water amounts 

because the effects to a water system 

resulting from a water-related contract’s 

specified changes in water quantity are 

relative; effects depend on the size and 

unique characteristics of the water 

system. For example, an amount of 

contract water that would be minor to 

the Columbia River might be significant 

to the Middle Rio Grande River. 

Reclamation will assess each CE 

application on a case-by-case basis 

using impact-based constraints in the 

CE and the list of extraordinary 

circumstances at 43 CFR 46.215 and 

will document the evaluation in a CE 

Checklist. 

Comment 7—Adequate definition of 

flexibility and clear standards: A 

commenter suggested the need for an 

‘‘adequate definition of’’ the flexibility 

Reclamation intends to provide in the 

revised CEs to ensure everyone is aware 

of ‘‘clear standards and when they 

apply.’’ 

Response 7—Reclamation considers 

the language within the CEs, including 

the impact-based constraints, coupled 

with a review of extraordinary 

circumstance at 43 CFR 46.215, to 

sufficiently define the standards of 

when Reclamation can rely on the CEs 

for proposed actions. Reclamation will 

continue to document this review in a 

CE Checklist. In addition, Reclamation 

has over 40 years of successful and 

appropriate implementation of its 

existing CEs that will enable 

Reclamation to successfully and 

appropriately apply the revised CEs. 

Comment 8—Adding grazing back to 

D8: A commenter recommended adding 

the word ‘‘grazing’’ back into the revised 

CE language of D8. 

Response 8—The language of the D8 

CE is consistent with 43 CFR part 429 

and contemporary Reclamation Manual 

policies. Grazing is included in the list 

of types of uses covered by 43 CFR 

429.3, so it does not need to be 

specifically mentioned in the CE text. 

Therefore, Reclamation does not 

incorporate this suggestion into the CE 

text. 

Comment 9—Removing ‘‘work is 

minor’’ from D8: Commenters 

recommended removing the phrase 

‘‘work is minor’’ from D8 since the CE 

includes reference to the project not 

leading to a major action and that 

limiting factor is sufficient. 

Response 9—Reclamation accepted 

this recommendation by removing the 

phrase ‘‘work is minor and’’ then adding 

the phrase ‘‘of the action’’ after 

‘‘impacts.’’ Reclamation retains the 

word ‘‘minor’’ but moves it to the end 

of the sentence as described in the 

section below, ‘‘Additional Clarifying 

Changes.’’ 

Comment 10—Adding specific action 

or list of actions to E1: A commenter 

suggested including reference to specific 

types of projects as examples of actions 

to be covered by the CE within the CE 

itself, including canal lining/relining/ 

piping, gate replacement, Supervisor 

Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) 

installation, etc. 

Response 10—Reclamation does not 

consider it necessary to add a list of 

specific types of projects as examples of 

actions the E1 CE will cover in order for 

Reclamation staff to properly apply the 

CE. In addition, Reclamation believes 

that including a predefined list of 

example project types could lead to 

inadvertently limiting the scope of 

eligible projects and lead to potential 

misunderstandings or missed 

opportunities for potential actions that 

fall outside the specified examples. 

Reclamation will assess each CE 

application on a case-by-case basis 

using impact-based constraints in the 

CE and the list of extraordinary 

circumstances at 43 CFR 46.215. 

Therefore, Reclamation declines to 

adopt this suggestion. 

Comment 11—Adding ‘‘removed, 

introduced, or conveyed’’ to D4: A 

commenter recommended adding 

‘‘removed, introduced, or conveyed’’ to 

the description of allowable uses of 

water within water-related contracts 

covered by the D4 CE as these terms 

were used to describe how water would 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
2738 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Notices 

be used for projects evaluated within 

the EAs summarized in the 

substantiation report for the CE 

revisions. 

Response 11—Reclamation agrees 

with the commenter’s rationale and 

suggested language for D4 and adds the 

language to the final CE to further 

clarify the range of actions the CE is 

intended to describe. 

Comment 12—Concerns with 

notification process for proposed CE 

revisions: One commenter expressed 

concerns with the notification process 

for the proposed CE revisions and 

requested additional coordination. 

Response 12—Reclamation issued a 

news release on June 5, 2024, requesting 

public review and comment on the 

proposed CE revisions. On June 7, 2024, 

the Department published a notice in 

the Federal Register (89 FR 48674) 

seeking public review and comment on 

Reclamation’s proposed CE revisions. 

See 40 CFR 1507.3(c)(8)(ii). Reclamation 

coordinated with the commenter to 

discuss the proposed CE revisions and 

their concerns. 

Comment 13—Comments outside the 

scope of the proposed CE revisions: 

Commenters recommended that 

Reclamation consider revising 

additional existing CEs, adoption of CEs 

from other agencies, development of 

additional CEs, training for Reclamation 

staff and non-federal partners, and other 

ideas related to Reclamation’s 

implementation of NEPA. 

Response 13—Reclamation 

appreciates the suggestions and 

recommendations that were submitted; 

however, Reclamation notes that these 

comments are outside the scope of the 

proposed CE revisions. Reclamation will 

take the suggestions and 

recommendations under advisement in 

the future. 

Additional Clarifying Changes 

While considering the comments and 

recommendations Reclamation received 

during the public comment period on 

the proposed CE revisions, Reclamation 

incorporated several changes as 

described above. In addition, 

Reclamation has made a few additional 

changes from the CE text proposed in 

June 2024. These additional changes 

and the rationale for them are described 

below. 

For the D4 CE, Reclamation reinstates 

the qualifying statement that the ‘‘action 

does not lead to long-term changes’’ in 

the CE language related to its 

application for water-related contracts 

involving minor amounts of long-term 

water use. This qualifying language was 

originally included as a condition for all 

actions under the CE. The text of 

proposed CE revision could have been 

interpreted as omitting this essential 

condition for long-term water-related 

contracts. To clarify that this condition 

remains applicable to all actions 

covered by the CE, Reclamation is 

reintroducing this qualifying language 

for long-term water-related contracting 

actions, consistent with the original CE 

text. Reclamation also adds ‘‘minor 

and’’ before both instances of the word 

‘‘localized’’ in the CE language. 

Reclamation makes this change to 

emphasize the use of impact-based 

constraints to guide the application of 

the CE. For the D8 CE, Reclamation 

changes ‘‘provide right of use of 

Reclamation land’’ to ‘‘authorize use of 

Reclamation land’’ to align the 

terminology in the CE with the 

terminology in 43 CFR part 429 on the 

use of Reclamation land, facilities, and 

waterbodies. Reclamation changes the 

beginning of (a) from ‘‘work is minor 

and impacts are expected to be 

localized’’ to ‘‘impacts of the action are 

expected to be minor and localized.’’ 

Reclamation makes this change to 

emphasize the use of impact-based 

constraints to guide the application of 

the CE in combination with the addition 

of language clarifying the terms ‘‘minor’’ 

and ‘‘localized’’ for the CE in response 

to public comments. 

For the E1 CE, Reclamation moves 

‘‘(a)’’ to before the phrase ‘‘the 

underlying action being funded’’ and 

revised ‘‘actions’’ to ‘‘action’’ in the 

same phrase to improve readability. 

Reclamation revises the introduction to 

(b) from ‘‘where the work to be done is 

confined’’ to ‘‘the action is confined’’ to 

improve consistency within the CE 

language. Reclamation removes the 

phrase ‘‘work is considered minor’’ and 

the word ‘‘where’’ after ‘‘and’’ from (b). 

Then Reclamation adds ‘‘minor and’’ 

before the word ‘‘localized’’ in the CE 

language. Reclamation makes these 

changes to emphasize the use of impactbased constraints to guide the 

application of the CE. 

Categorical Exclusions 

The Department and Reclamation find 

that the category of actions described in 

the CEs (below), do not normally have 

a significant effect on the human 

environment, individually or in 

aggregate. This finding is based on 

analysis of the Department’s proposal to 

revise these Reclamation CEs, including 

analysis in Reclamation’s Substantiation 

Report. The Substantiation Report 

summarizes 71 EAs that resulted in 

findings of no significant impact 

(FONSIs) to demonstrate the finding 

that actions under the revised CEs 

would not normally result in significant 

effects to the human environment. The 

Substantiation Report and EAs and 

FONSIs for these projects are available 

at www.usbr.gov/nepa. 

The Department and Reclamation 

consulted with CEQ on the proposed 

and final revisions to the CEs. CEQ 

issued a letter stating that it has 

reviewed the revised CEs and found 

them to be in conformity with NEPA 

and the CEQ NEPA regulations. 

Therefore, the Department adds the final 

revised CEs to the Department Manual 

at 516 DM 14.5. Reclamation recognizes 

that certain proposed actions, when 

reviewed on a case-by-case basis, could 

result in one or more of the 

extraordinary circumstances for which 

it is not appropriate to utilize the CEs 

(43 CFR 46.215). In such cases, the 

proposed action could have a significant 

environmental effect and would require 

additional NEPA analysis. Thus, prior to 

applying the CEs, Reclamation will 

continue to review all extraordinary 

circumstances listed in the 

Department’s NEPA regulations. If any 

extraordinary circumstance exists, 

Reclamation will conduct additional 

NEPA analysis. 

Amended Text for the Departmental 

Manual 

Reclamation’s NEPA procedures in 

516 DM 14 are modified as follows: 

Part 516: National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 

Chapter 14: Managing the NEPA 

Process—Bureau of Reclamation 

14.5 Categorical Exclusions 

D. Operation and Maintenance 

Activities 

(4) Approval, execution, 

administration, and implementation of 

water-related contracts and contract 

renewals, amendments, supplements, 

and assignments, and water transfers, 

exchanges, and replacements, for which 

one or more of the following apply: (a) 

for minor amounts of long-term water 

use, where the action does not lead to 

long-term changes and impacts are 

expected to be minor and localized; (b) 

for temporary (limited to 1 year or less) 

or interim (limited to 10 years or less) 

water use where the action does not 

lead to long-term changes and where the 

impacts are expected to be minor and 

localized; or (c) where the only result 

will be to implement an administrative 

or financial practice or change. A 

‘‘water-related’’ contract is any legally 

binding agreement to which 

Reclamation becomes a party, pursuant 

to its authority under Federal law that 

(1) makes water available from or to the 

United States; (2) allows water to be 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Notices 2739 

stored, removed, introduced, conveyed, 

carried, or delivered in facilities 

Reclamation owns, manages, operates, 

or funds; or (3) establishes operation, 

maintenance, and replacement 

responsibilities for such facilities. 

(8) Issuance or renewal of use 

authorizations (as defined in 43 CFR 

429.2, including crossing agreements 

which provide rights-of-way) that 

authorize use of Reclamation land, 

facilities, or waterbodies where one or 

more of the following apply: (a) impacts 

of the action are expected to be minor 

and localized; (b) the action does not 

lead to a major public or private action; 

(c) the only result of the authorization 

will be to implement an administrative 

or financial practice or change; or (d) 

the level of use or impacts to resources 

is not increased. 

(10) Reserved. 

(14) Reserved. 

E. Financial Assistance, Loans, and 

Funding 

(1) Financial assistance, cooperative 

agreements, grants, loans, contracts, or 

other funding, where (a) the underlying 

action being funded would be covered 

by another Reclamation CE if 

Reclamation were implementing the 

action itself, or (b) the action is confined 

to areas already impacted by farming or 

development activities and the impacts 

are expected to be minor and localized. 

(2) Reserved. 

(3) Reserved. 

Stephen G. Tryon, 

Director, Office of Environmental Policy and 

Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00485 Filed 1–10–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4332–90–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[PO #4820000251] 

Record of Decision and Approved 

Resource Management Plan for the 

Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks 

National Monument, New Mexico 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) announces the 

availability of the Record of Decision 

(ROD) for the Approved Resource 

Management Plan (RMP) for the Organ 

Mountains-Desert Peaks National 

Monument (Monument) located in Don ̃ a 

Ana County, New Mexico. The BLM 

New Mexico State Director signed the 

ROD on January 8, 2025, which 

constitutes the decision of the BLM and 

makes the Approved RMP effective 

immediately. 

DATES: The New Mexico State Director 

signed the ROD on January 8, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: The ROD/Approved RMP 

are available online at: https://

eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/ 

project/92170/510. Printed copies of the 

ROD/Approved RMP are available for 

public inspection at the BLM Las Cruces 

District Office, 1800 Marquess Street, 

Las Cruces, New Mexico 88005, 

telephone: (575) 525–4464, or can be 

provided upon request by contacting 

Monument Manager Lane Hauser, BLM 

Las Cruces District Office; telephone: 

(575) 525–4464, email lhauser@blm.gov. 

A copy of the Protest Resolution 

Report is available at: https://

www.blm.gov/programs/planning-andnepa/public-participation/protestresolution-reports. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Monument Manager Lane Hauser, BLM 

Las Cruces District Office; telephone: 

(575) 525–4464; address: 1800 Marquess 

Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88005; 

email: lhauser@blm.gov. Individuals in 

the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech 

disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 

Tele Braille) to access 

telecommunications relay services for 

contacting Mr. Lane Houser. Individuals 

outside the United States should use the 

relay services offered within their 

country to make international calls to 

the point-of-contact in the United 

States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Approved RMP replaces previous land 

use management guidance found in the 

1993 Mimbres RMP, as amended, for all 

Monument objects, lands, resources, 

resource values, and wildlife habitat. 

The Approved RMP provides long-term 

management for approximately 496,330- 

acres of BLM-administered public lands 

in Don ̃ a Ana County, New Mexico. In 

accordance with Presidential 

Proclamation 9131 (79 FR 30431); 

Section 2 of the Antiquities Act of 1906 

(Pub. L. 59–206); the John D. Dingell Jr. 

Conservation, Management, and 

Recreation Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 116–9) 

(Dingell Act); and the Wilderness Act of 

1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the 

Approved RMP employs protection, 

preservation, and conservation 

principles as a management framework 

to administer the Monument while 

providing the public with opportunities 

to observe, study, and enjoy Monument 

lands. The Approved RMP identifies 

land use allocations and resource 

management goals, objectives, and 

direction for the protection of objects of 

scientific and historic interest, 

preservation of wilderness character, 

and conservation of natural and cultural 

resources, resource values, and wildlife 

habitat. 

The Approved RMP is consistent with 

appropriate laws, regulations, executive 

orders and proclamations, and agency 

policy, including, but not limited to, the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act, the National Environmental Policy 

Act, the Endangered Species Act, and 

section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. Through the planning 

process, the BLM considered reasonably 

foreseeable impacts associated with the 

land use allocations and resource 

management decisions. The BLM 

assessed five alternatives in the Draft 

and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) and selected Alternative 

E as the Proposed RMP, now Approved 

RMP. 

In order to meet the purpose and need 

of the planning effort and the mandate 

of Presidential Proclamation 9131, the 

BLM developed decisions of allowable 

and prohibited uses of public lands 

within the Monument. As with all 

decisions in the Approved RMP, the 

BLM considered input from Tribal 

Nations, cooperating State and Federal 

agencies, the public, and the Office of 

the Governor of New Mexico. 

All clarifications and modifications 

made between the publication of the 

Proposed RMP and the Approved RMP 

are summarized in the ROD. One update 

relates to the analysis of the social cost 

of greenhouse gases in the Approved 

RMP. The Proposed RMP and the Final 

EIS relied on the 2021 Interagency 

Working Group estimates to calculate 

the social cost of greenhouse gases. The 

ROD and Approved RMP adopt the 2023 

Environmental Protection Agency 

calculations for analyzing the social cost 

of greenhouse gases. The BLM also 

clarified the wilderness management 

goals in the Approved RMP to be 

consistent with the Wilderness Act. In 

addition, new management direction 

was added for the development of a 

travel management plan. The specific 

language is below: 

• Goal: Subject to valid existing 

rights, exceptions or special provisions 

specifically authorized by appropriate 

legal authority, the BLM shall be 

responsible for preserving the 

Wilderness character of the area and so 

administer such area for the purpose it 

was designated by Congress. In doing 

so, the BLM shall not designate a 

permanent or temporary road within a 

designated Wilderness area for 

motorized vehicle use or mechanical 

transport, nor shall the BLM allow the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1