[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 50 (Friday, March 13, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14700-14702]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05095]



[[Page 14700]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary

[LLWO210000.L1610000]


National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures for the 
Bureau of Land Management (516 DM 11)

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Department of the Interior's 
(Department) proposal to revise 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 (DM) with a 
proposed new categorical exclusion (CX).

DATES: Comments must be postmarked (for mailed comments), delivered 
(for personal or messenger delivery comments), or filed (for electronic 
comments) no later than April 13, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The public can review the proposed changes to the DM and the 
new proposed CX Verification Report online at: https://tinyurl.com/w8t4jx2. Comments can be submitted using:
     BLM National NEPA Register: https://tinyurl.com/w8t4jx2. 
Follow the instruction at this website.
     Mail: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 
Management, Attention: WO-210-PJCX, 20 M Street SE, Room 2134LM, 
Washington, DC 20003.
     Personal or messenger delivery: U.S. Department of the 
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Attention: W0-210-PJCX, 20 M 
Street SE, Room 2134LM, Washington, DC 20003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Bernier, Acting Division 
Chief, Decision Support, Planning, and NEPA, at (202) 912-7282, or 
[email protected]. 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

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal 
agencies to consider the potential environmental consequences of their 
decisions before deciding whether and how to proceed. The Council on 
Environmental Quality (CEQ) encourages Federal agencies to use 
categorical exclusions (CXs) to protect the environment more 
efficiently by reducing the resources spent analyzing proposals which 
generally do not have potentially significant environmental impacts, 
thereby allowing those resources to be focused on proposals that may 
have significant environmental impacts. The appropriate use of CXs 
allow NEPA compliance, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances 
that merit further consideration, to be concluded without preparing 
either an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) (40 CFR 1500.4(p) and 40 CFR 1508.4).
    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. Additional Department-wide NEPA policy may be found in 
the DM, in chapters 1 through 4 of part 516. The procedures for the 
Department's bureaus are published as chapters 7 through 15 of this DM 
part 516. Chapter 11 of 516 DM covers the BLM's procedures. The BLM's 
current procedures can be found at: https://elips.doi.gov/ELIPS/DocView.aspx?id=1721. These procedures address policy as well as 
procedure in order to assure compliance with the spirit and intent of 
NEPA.

Rationale

    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 removal treatments to restore habitat 
mosaics within the landscape and address the various habitat needs of 
mule deer and sage-grouse. Pinyon pine and juniper tree encroachment 
poses a serious threat to the health of millions of acres under BLM 
management. Following years of experience removing these trees without 
significant effects, the BLM has identified that establishing a CX for 
the actions is necessary for expediting maintenance of sagebrush 
habitats essential to mule deer and sage-grouse. The BLM has completed 
review of scientific literature and previously analyzed and implemented 
actions in the Report on the results of a Bureau of Land Management 
analysis of NEPA records and field verification in support of 
establishment of a categorical exclusion for pinyon pine and juniper 
management projects (Pinyon-Juniper CX Verification Report), which is 
incorporated by reference here, and is summarized in Justification for 
Change below, and has found that the establishment of a CX is 
appropriate because of the evidence of no significant effects from the 
removal of these trees. Establishing the new proposed CX would 
streamline the process for pinyon pine and juniper tree removal 
projects that normally do not require analysis in order to determine 
significance through an EA or EIS.

Description of Change

    The Department proposes to add one CX to the BLM chapter of the 
Departmental Manual 516 DM 11 at a proposed new Section, J. Habitat 
Restoration. The language of the proposed new CX citation at 516 DM 
11.9 J. (1) Habitat Restoration is:
    (1) Covered actions 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. 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 disclose the land use plan decisions providing for 
protections of the following resources and resource uses in the 
documentation of the categorical exclusion:
    (1) Specifications for management of mule deer habitat;
    (2) Specifications for management of sage-grouse habitat;
    (3) Specifications for erosion control measures;
    (4) Criteria for minimizing or remedying soil compaction;
    (5) Types and extents of logging system constraints (e.g., 
seasonal, location, extent);
    (6) Extent and purpose of seasonal operating constraints or 
restrictions;
    (7) Criteria to limit spread of weeds;
    (8) Size of riparian buffers or riparian zone operating 
restrictions; and
    (9) Operating constraints and restrictions for pile burning.
    The intent of this CX is to improve the efficiency of routine 
environmental review processes in for the management of pinyon pine and 
juniper trees for the benefit of mule deer and sage-grouse habitat. 
Each proposed action must be

[[Page 14701]]

reviewed for extraordinary circumstances that would preclude the use of 
this CX. The Department list of extraordinary circumstances under which 
a normally excluded action would require further analysis and 
documentation in an EA or EIS is found at 43 CFR 46.215. If a proposed 
pinyon pine and juniper tree 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 
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.
    The public is asked to review and comment on the newly proposed CX. 
To be considered, any comments on this proposed addition to the list of 
CXs in the DM must be received by the date listed in the DATES section 
of this notice at the location listed in the ADDRESSES section. 
Comments received after that date will be considered only to the extent 
practicable. Comments, including names and addresses of respondents, 
will be part of the public record and available for public review at 
the BLM address shown in the ADDRESSES section, during business hours, 
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Before 
including your address, telephone number, email address, or other 
personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware 
that your entire comment--including your personal identifying 
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can 
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying 
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be 
able to do so.

Justification for Change

    Proposed CX number J (1) covers management and control of juniper 
and pinyon pine on treatment areas of up to 10,000 acres to benefit 
mule deer and sage-grouse habitat. This CX would allow the BLM to more 
quickly implement sagebrush-steppe restoration projects that would 
reduce pinyon pine and juniper density and cover in areas of their 
expansion, while improving and increasing native plant communities. The 
BLM proposes CX J (1) after reviewing existing NEPA analysis and 
available scientific research on the effects of these types of routine 
actions over time and over different geographic areas. The BLM has 
documented in detail the justification for establishing this new CX in 
the Verification Report, which is incorporated by reference here and 
available to review in full at the websites shown in ADDRESSES.
    Pinyon and juniper woodlands were estimated to occupy less than 3 
million hectares (7 million acres) prior to Euro-American settlement 
(1870s), but now occupy over 30 million hectares (74 million acres), a 
10-fold increase attributed to many factors including fire suppression, 
grazing, land clearing, and climate change (Miller and Tausch 2001). 
Pinyon-juniper species can be aggressive invaders into more productive 
shrub-steppe communities that historically occupied deeper soils than 
the pinyon pine and juniper tree woodlands. As of 2016, sagebrush 
ecosystems in the U.S. occupied only about one-half of their historical 
distribution (Pyke et al. 2017).
    The BLM's review of the available literature demonstrates that the 
activities proposed for this new CX would not cause significant 
environmental effects, whether the activities were to be implemented 
individually or in combination. As discussed in detail in the 
Verification Report Methods section, the research overwhelmingly shows 
that pinyon pine and juniper tree 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 
pinyon pine and juniper tree treatment, the current literature shows 
that the native plant communities reestablish after mechanical pinyon 
pine and juniper tree removal treatments, becoming dominant (over 
nonnative species) either immediately after treatment or within a few 
years. The Jones (2019) literature review reported no studies showing 
that pinyon-juniper removal had negative effects on sage-grouse 
habitat, and 60 percent of the relevant studies found that pinyon pine 
and juniper tree removal in sagebrush communities increased sage-grouse 
use of the treated areas. A review of pinyon pine and juniper tree 
treatment effects on deer and elk habitat by Bombaci and Pejchar 
(2016), cited by Jones (2019), found 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.
    As discussed in the Methods section of the Verification Report, the 
BLM has analyzed the effects of many pinyon pine and juniper tree 
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 had these measures not 
been applied as a feature of the proposed action or alternatives. 
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 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. These environmental consequences are not considered 
individually or cumulatively significant based on the conclusions from 
the EA analyses, which are summarized by resources in the Methods 
section of the Verification Report for soils, invasive plants, 
wildlife, pinyon pine and juniper tree obligate species, visuals, big 
game species, wilderness characteristics, cultural artifacts, tribal 
resources, air quality, and biomass (pp. 16-20). The BLM's post-
implementation observations align with the literature review summarized 
in the Methods of the Verification Report.
    The BLM specifically notes that with the current level of 
understanding, the advance of invasive species, whether pre-existing or 
new, may be an outcome of pinyon pine and juniper tree management. 
However, as described in the Verification Report, native sagebrush and 
sage-steppe vegetative composition and forage production improve 
despite the presence of invasive plant species. The BLM addresses 
actions for managing invasive plant species in their land use plans, 
and any implementation of this CX would be required to be in 
conformance with any protection measures required through the 
applicable plan. In addition, the BLM has not included activities with 
unknown or potentially high risks of introducing invasive plants in the 
proposed CX, namely broadcast burning, jackpot burning, and road 
construction.
    The BLM's experience with implementing and monitoring these types 
of project mirrors the scientific literature; taken together, they 
support establishment of this proposed CX, providing the evidence that 
this type

[[Page 14702]]

and scope of action can be categorically excluded from further detailed 
analysis. As described in detail in the Verification Report, 
establishment of this proposed new CX would not individually or 
cumulatively have significant impacts on the human environment, and its 
use, like that of other administratively established CXs, would be 
subject to extraordinary circumstances review.
    Authorities: 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 
1507.3).

Michaela E. Noble,
Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-05095 Filed 3-12-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4331-84-P