FR Doc E7-15746

[Federal Register: August 14, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 156)]
[Notices]
[Page 45503-45542]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14au07-117]

[[Page 45503]]

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

Part II

Department of the Interior

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

Bureau of Land Management

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

Notice of Final Action To Adopt Revisions to the Bureau of Land
Management's Procedures for Managing the NEPA Process, Chapter 11 of
the Department of the Interior's Manual Part 516; Notice

[[Page 45504]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[516 DM 11; WO-210-1610 24 1A]

Notice of Final Action To Adopt Revisions to the Bureau of Land
Management's Procedures for Managing the NEPA Process, Chapter 11 of
the Department of the Interior's Manual Part 516

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of final action.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) gives notice of revised
policies and procedures for implementing the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), as amended, Executive Order (E.O.) 11514, as
amended, E.O. 12114, and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations implementing NEPA. These final implementing procedures are
being issued as Chapter 11 of the Department of the Interior's
Departmental Manual Part 516 (516 DM 11) and supersedes previous
implementation guidance. These revisions update the procedures used to
implement NEPA for actions taken in managing public lands. The BLM's
NEPA compliance procedures can be found at the Department of the
Interior (DOI) Electronic Library of Interior Policies (ELIPS) http://elips.doi.gov
.

The following sections in 516 DM 11 (dated 5/27/04) are affected by
this Federal Register notice: Purpose (11.1); NEPA Responsibilities
(11.2); External Applicant's Guidance (11.3); General Requirements
(11.4), Parts A-G; Plan Conformance (11.5); Existing Documentation
(11.6), Parts A-E; Actions Requiring an Environmental Assessment
(11.7), Parts A-E; and Actions Eligible for Categorical Exclusions
(11.9), categories B-D and G-J. New sub-parts have been added to the
Oil, Gas and Geothermal Energy (B), Forestry (C), and Rangeland
Management (D) categories. Two new categories have been added:
Recreation Management (H) and Emergency Stabilization (I).
Transportation category sub-parts G(1), (2), and (3) have been expanded
to include trails.

DATES: Effective Date: The revised 516 DM 11, including changes and
additions to the categorical exclusions (CXs), is effective upon the
date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: The BLM's revisions to 516 DM 11 can be accessed
electronically via the Internet at http://elips.doi.gov. Hard copies

are available by contacting Peg Sorensen, Division of Planning and
Science Policy, at 202-452-0364.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peg Sorensen, Division of Planning and
Science Policy, at 202-452-0364.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Final revised NEPA procedures for the DOI
were published in the Federal Register (69 FR 10866-10866, March 8,
2004), and (70 FR 32840-32844, June 6, 2005). The DOI bureau and office
specific procedures are published as chapters in Part 516 of the
Departmental Manual. The 516 DM 11 addresses the BLM policy and
procedures to assure compliance with the spirit and intent of NEPA.
A notice of the proposed revisions to the BLM's ``National
Environmental Policy Act Revised Implementing Procedures'' for 516 DM
11 was published in the Federal Register (71 FR 4159-4167, January 25,
2006), with additional information available at http://www.blm.gov/planning/news.html.
A 30-day public comment period followed that

publication. Consideration of the comments received resulted in the
following modifications to the proposed revised implementing
procedures.
11.1. Purpose: No Change.
11.2. NEPA Responsibilities: Edited title to emphasize that there
are multiple responsibilities.
Parts A-E: Edited to improve readability.
Parts B-E: Clarified executive and delegated leadership
responsibilities.
Parts E & F: Moved sub-part E(1) to a new part F.
11.3. External Applicants' Guidance: Edited title to clarify that
this section only applies to external applicants who are proposing an
action. Language was added from the NEPA to clarify text within the
section.
Part A. General, sub-parts A(2)-(4): Edited to improve readability.
Sub-part A(3): Replaced the ``State Director'' with ``the
Responsible Official'' to clarify that the authorized activity is not
limited to State Directors.
Part B. Regulations, preamble: Edited to improve readability.

11.4. General Requirements:
Part A-H: Revised section titles to create parallel structure.
Edited and reorganized all sections to clarify requirements and improve
readability.
Part A: Added ``integrating NEPA requirements with other
environmental review and consultation requirements'' (from the former
part D) to reduce paperwork and delays.
Part B: Addressed the elimination of duplicate tribal, State, and
local government procedures, and the use of common databases and joint
planning processes, meetings, investigations, and NEPA analyses.
Part C: Addressed consultation and coordination requirements.
Part D, sub-parts (1) & (2): Addressed public involvement
requirements. Eliminated the reference to ``consensus-based decision-
making'' and replaced it with ``consensus-based management'' to be
consistent with direction provided by the DOI. Inserted the DOI's
definition of ``consensus-based management'' and expectations regarding
the process.
Part E: Redefined ``adaptive management'' to match the DOI
definition.
Part F: Clarified a training requirement for the BLM employees
facilitating public and community involvement.
Part G: Clarified action limits during environmental review.
11.5 Plan Conformance: Edited to improve readability. Clarified
what the Responsible Official's options are when a proposed action does
not conform to an approved plan.

11.6 Existing Documentation (Determination of NEPA Adequacy):
Edited the title to create a section header that conforms to a
standardized format. This section was rewritten to clarify the BLM's
policy regarding the use of existing documentation. Operational
information on how to conduct a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA)
will be provided in the BLM NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1).

11.7 Actions Requiring an Environmental Assessment (EA):
Part A: Moved part A information to a new part D. Part A now
defines the purpose and need for an EA.
Part B: Inserted a new requirement to consult 40 CFR 1508.9(b)
which outlines ``discussion'' requirements in an EA.
Part C: Edited to clarify and enhance general understanding of when
an EA is appropriate.
Part D: Directs the Responsible Official to consider an EA if there
are uncertain impacts.
Part E: This new part directs the Responsible Official to prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) if it is determined that a CX
or an EA is not appropriate. Removed unnecessary text ``processed in
accordance with 40 CFR 1502.''

11.8 Major Actions Requiring an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS):
Part A(1): Refined the text to clarify criteria used to consider
when determining whether to prepare an EIS level analysis or not.
Removed the following statement: ``or the impact

[[Page 45505]]

analysis of an action is likely to be highly controversial.'' This edit
was made to clarify the criteria the BLM considers when determining
whether an EIS level analysis is needed. Supplementary guidance on how
to determine significance when considering whether to prepare an EIS,
such as when effects should be considered ``highly controversial,''
will be placed in the BLM NEPA Handbook (BLM H-1790-1).
Part B: Dropped the term ``Wilderness'' from the list of actions
typically requiring an EIS. This edit reflects current program policy
that there will no longer be proposals to designate Wilderness Areas
under Section 603 of FLPMA. Supplementary guidance on how to implement
policy regarding preparation of EISs will be placed in the BLM NEPA
Handbook (BLM H-1790-1).
Part C: Removed unnecessary text ``processed in accordance with 40
CFR 1501.4(e)(2).''

11.9 Actions Eligible for a Categorical Exclusion:
Preamble: Replaced ``exceptions'' with ``extraordinary
circumstances'' to reflect a revision to 516 DM 2.3A(3) made by the DOI
in June 2005. Added a statement identifying the DOI-wide CX in 516 DM
2, appendix 1, available for the BLM consideration. The BLM reviewed
supporting data and conclusions of no significant effect for all
proposed CXs based on comments received. Identified below are revisions
to final CX language based on this review. Some additional information
was added to the administrative file based on the review. In addition,
the BLM reviewed the proposed CXs and this final action establishing
the final CXs in light of CEQ's proposed guidance, ``Establishing,
Revising and Using Categorical Exclusions under the National
Environmental Policy Act,'' (71 FR 54816-54820, September 19, 2006).
The BLM believes that the establishment of the new CXs is consistent
with CEQ's proposed guidance. Based on discussions, review, and to
clarify the intent of the BLM, language has been added indicating the
need for all proposed actions and activities to be, at a minimum,
consistent with the DOI and the BLM regulations, manuals, handbooks,
policies, and applicable Land Use Plans (LUP) regarding design
features, Best Management Practices, Terms and Conditions, Conditions
of Approval, and Stipulations.

A. Fish and Wildlife: Fixed a typographical error in sub-category
(2) by replacing ``value'' with ``valve.''

B. Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Energy:
Sub-category (6): Removed text ``including the establishment of
terms and conditions,'' and edited language to more accurately describe
the actions covered.
Sub-category (7): The BLM has decided not to finalize this proposed
CX (CX B(7)) for the category of actions described as, ``approving the
drilling or subsequent operations of a geothermal well within a
developed field for which a LUP and/or an environmental document,
prepared pursuant to NEPA, analyzed such drilling as within the scope
of a reasonably foreseeable future activity.'' When these actions are
within the scope of the previous NEPA document and sufficiently
analyzed therein, and that determination is documented, no further NEPA
analysis is required. In consultation with CEQ, the BLM has decided
that more focused NEPA documents should be prepared at the outset to
support subsequent implementation of the geothermal field development
plan or utilization plan, and that this practice, combined with a DNA,
would provide a more appropriate method for streamlining the
documentation of the evaluation of subsequent infill well proposals
than a new CX.
Sub-category (8): The BLM has decided not to finalize this proposed
CX. In consultation with CEQ, it was determined that the action of
issuing a geothermal site license or operational permit (CX B(8)) is an
administrative/ministerial function subsequent to the approval of a
utilization plan. Approval of a utilization plan involves analysis of
the environmental effects of constructing and operating the planned
facility. The administrative action of issuing the site license and
permit to operate does not result in additional environmental effects.
Therefore, the BLM will eliminate this additional NEPA review, as
unnecessary and redundant.

C. Forestry:
Sub-category (6): Modified the proposed language and format to
eliminate confusion about the sample tree area limitation and
restricted activities. Added Lakeview District, Klamath Falls Resource
Area to the list of locations where this CX may be used. The Resource
Area was mistakenly left out of the proposed limitation and is now
included because the effects are comparable to the others previously
listed in this section.
Sub-categories (7)-(9): Modified the proposed format and syntax.
Text that defines and limits ``temporary road'' building activities was
added to be consistent with the U.S. Forest Service (FS) standards and
regulations. Text that defines and clarifies ``a dying tree'' was added
for purposes of this category of actions.
Sub-category (9): Modified the example (a) by replacing southern
pine beetle with mountain pine beetle to represent a type of beetle
that occurs in western Oregon.
D. Rangeland Management:
The National Research Council published Rangeland Health: New
Methods to Classify, Inventory, and Monitor Rangelands in 1994. The
concepts identified in that publication were incorporated in the BLM's
grazing regulations and the agency used the term ``rangeland health''
in much of their initial policy and guidance related to implementing
those grazing regulations. Although the term ``rangeland health'' was
first introduced in the grazing regulations, the ``rangeland health
standards'' really apply to the condition of the land itself regardless
of the uses that may influence the health of that land. As a result,
the BLM has begun using the term ``land health'' to avoid the
misperception that these concepts only apply to the grazing program.
For this reason, the term ``land health'' is used in the description of
this proposed CX, even though both terms are likely to be found within
this document or in other background material supporting this document.
Use of the term ``land health'' does not represent any substantive
change in the original definition, concept or use of the term
``rangeland health'' and the reader should view these terms as
interchangeable. The proposed rangeland management sub-categories (10)
and (11) are finalized with the following changes:
Sub-category (10): Lettered the bullet statements, so the first
bullet is criteria (a); moved text (bullets two & three) ``shall be
conducted consistent with the BLM and Departmental procedures and
applicable land and resource management plans (RMP);'' from here to the
general CX introduction to reflect that text applies more generally and
not only to this CX. Modified text of bullet four to exclude use of
this CX for otherwise qualifying ``vegetation management activities''
in Wilderness Study Areas and text becomes new criteria (b). Modified
bullet five to become criteria (c) and added text to indicate that the
CX cannot be used for biological treatments. Finally, added text to
define and limit the use of temporary roads as criteria (d) and (e).
Sub-category (11): Moved criteria (a) to (b) and modified the
phrase ``not meeting standards solely due to factors

[[Page 45506]]

other than existing livestock grazing'' to ``not meeting land health
standards due to factors that do not include existing livestock
grazing.'' Changed the text to clarify that the CX requires land health
assessments be completed prior to considering the application of the
CX. Dropped proposed criteria (b) and replaced it with criteria (a)
that limits the leases/permits eligible for the CX to those where the
lease/permit is consistent with the use specified in the previous
lease/permit, there is no change in the type of livestock, the
previously authorized active use is not exceeded, and grazing does not
occur more than 14 days earlier or later than specified on the previous
lease/permit.
Sub-category (12): Dropped the proposed CX based on further review
of supporting data.

E. Realty:
The proposed revision of sub-category (16) was dropped upon further
review.

F. Solid Minerals: No change was proposed or made.

G. Transportation:
Sub-categories (1), (2), and (3): The word ``existing'' which
originally was used in (1) and (2) has been eliminated because it was
potentially confusing, and the words ``and trails'' have been approved
as proposed.
Sub-category (1) and (2): Replaced ``Incorporating'' for
``Placing'' in sub-category (1), and added ``eligible'' to modify the
language to clarify that only roads and trails meeting criteria
developed in a LUP are to be incorporated into the transportation plan,
or be subject to the actions specified in sub-category (2).

H. Recreation Management:
Sub-category (1): The proposed revision of the previous Category
``H. Other'' to ``Recreation Management and sub-category ``H(5)'' to
``H(1)'' was approved as revised. Increased the day and overnight use
threshold to 14 consecutive nights to be consistent with the practice
of Responsible Officials under provisions in Title 43 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) that allow such officials to set allowable
length of stay applicable to any casual visitor using public lands (See
43 CFR 8365.1-2 ``Occupancy and Use,'' and 43 CFR 8365.1-6
``Supplementary Rules''). This change has also been made to provide
consistency with the typical length of stay for any casual visitor
using public lands (43 CFR 8364). Changed wording from ``contiguous
acres'' to ``staging area acres'' to better define the limits on area
of impact. Replaced ``travel management areas or networks that are
designated in an approved LUP'' with ``recreational travel along roads,
trails, or in areas authorized in a LUP'' because of confusion over
what constitutes a travel management area or network. Text was added to
include a limitation that this CX cannot be used for the establishment
or issuance of Special Recreation Permits (SRP) for ``Special Area''
management (43 CFR 2932.5). The requirement for Special Area SRPs and
the issuance of individual SRPs in ``Special Areas'' must be directed
by specific land use planning decisions and commensurate NEPA analysis.

I. Emergency Stabilization: This new section was adopted as
proposed with the addition of text to define and limit the use of
temporary roads. The section included a requirement to treat temporary
roads for rehabilitation.
Sub-category (1)(e): Moved text ``shall be conducted consistent
with the BLM and the Department procedures, applicable land and RMPs.''
to general CX introduction to reflect that text applies more generally
and not only to this CX. Renumbered numbered criteria based on the
removal of this text.

J. Other: The previous existing sub-part H was moved to sub-part J
and adopted as proposed with one exception. An existing CX was
mistakenly left out of the January 25, 2006, Federal Register notice.
The following existing CX will be placed in sub-part J (12):
``Rendering formal classification of lands as to their mineral
character and waterpower and water storage values.'' There is no change
to the language.

Appendix 11.1: The DNA Worksheet appendix was deleted. Supplemental
guidance regarding the use of Existing Documentation remains in section
11.6.

Comments on the Proposal

The BLM received more than 72,000 ``comments'' during the 30-day
comment period (January 25, 2006, to February 24, 2006). A ``comment''
is a single, whole submission that may take the form of a letter,
postcard, email, or fax. These comments came from private citizens,
elected officials, and groups and individuals representing businesses,
private organizations, and state and federal agencies. All comments
received were considered in preparing this final action notice.
Public comment on the proposed revisions addressed a wide range of
topics. Many comments support one or more of the proposed revisions or
favor broadening the scope of the revision, while many others oppose
one or more of the proposed revisions or recommend more narrowly
limiting the qualifying criteria for a particular CX. Some comments
state that the 30-day comment period provided insufficient time to
review and comment on the BLM's proposed revisions. The BLM received
extensive and varied comments during the 30-day comment period. Based
on this robust response, the BLM determined that it was unnecessary to
extend the public comment period. Some general comments state that the
BLM is using dated and inadequate scientific information to support
management decisions. They recommend that the BLM adopt a specific
process to systematically incorporate the best available science in all
elements of the BLM public lands management. The BLM Science Strategy
(September 2000) discusses the role of science in the BLM management of
the public lands, and articulates a conceptual framework for
integrating science into the BLM decision-making process. Relevant
scientific information is brought to the decision-maker's attention by
members of the interdisciplinary team of professionals, and through
contract and in-house investigations, science sharing forums, and
technical reports. In addition, the public, cooperators and partners
bring scientific information forward during the environmental review
process. Many comments addressed matters beyond the scope of the
proposed revisions to the 516 DM 11. These included requests for the
BLM to add policy statements to the 516 DM 11 pertaining to conformance
with the Clean Air Act, preserving and honoring valid existing rights,
and conducting cost-benefit analyses. Some comments addressed land
management activities that were neither proposed nor analyzed. Some
comments state that grazing is incompatible with good land stewardship.
Other comments suggested that the proposed changes to 516 DM 11
``denied [the public] their constitutional rights'' or would ``cause
unrestricted use'' of public lands. Responses to most out-of-scope
comments are not provided.

Responses to Specific Comments on Sections 11.1-11.8

11.1 Purpose

Comment: Some comments ask how to access 516 DM 11 and the DOI's
Environmental Statement Memoranda (ESM).
Response: The BLM provided the Web site address to access
procedures (516 DM 11) that are being replaced by this Federal Register
notice in the Summary portion of 71 FR 4159-4167, January 25, 2006. The
proposed changes to these procedures were published in full in the same
Federal Register notice and were

[[Page 45507]]

posted on the DOI, ELIPS Web site in the Departmental Manual chapters
at http://elips.doi.gov The DOI's ESMs can be accessed through the DOI's Web site at http://www.doi.gov/oepc. via the descriptions in the

left-hand column.

11.3 External Applicants' Guidance

Comment: Some comments ask for information to guide applicants
interested in the BLM program regulations.
Response: The purpose of this section is to provide guidance to
external parties making applications to the BLM. The title has been
changed to make this clear. A list of potentially relevant regulations
is located in part B. Additional regulations, policies, directives, and
guidelines that affect BLM programs may be provided when the applicant
contacts a Responsible Official and describes their proposed action(s).
Comment: A concern was expressed about the absence of NEPA
compliance in the ``applicants'' guidance'' section.
Response: The text has been clarified to address NEPA requirements
for private applicants and other non-federal entities as required by 40
CFR 1501.2(d).

11.4 General Requirements

Comment: Some comments state that local, state, and federal
agencies should not be provided ``cooperating agency status'' because
it blurs the lines of NEPA responsibility.
Response: The NEPA regulations specifically provide for and
encourage the use of ``cooperating agencies'' (40 CFR 1501.6). The
participation of other agencies in the BLM's NEPA processes in no way
``blurs'' the BLM's status as the agency responsible for the NEPA
analysis and the associated decision-making affecting public lands.
Comment: Some comments ask the BLM to revise the language regarding
consensus-based decision-making to clarify that only federal managers
have decision-making authority.
Response: The new language in 516 DM 11.4 D(2) has been added to
describe consensus-based management (as per ESM 03-7) and to clarify
that the BLM has exclusive responsibility for decision-making.
Comment: Some comments recommend that more detailed guidance be
placed in 516 DM 11 to promote consistency between the BLM offices
undertaking public involvement.
Response: The recommended detailed guidance will be considered for
placement in the BLM's NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1). The BLM's public
involvement guidance in 516 DM 11 is consistent with policies and
procedures specified in the NEPA, E.O.s 11514 and 12114, and CEQ
regulations. Federal decision-makers have discretion as to how they
enable public involvement because of the broad range and variety of
potential proposed actions and public interests at stake.
Comment: Some comments state that the BLM should revise 516 DM 11
to require public notice about ``decision documents'' and Findings of
No Significant Impacts (FONSIs) statements.
Response: The CEQ regulations implementing the NEPA have specific
public notification requirements. The BLM will consider adding more
specific guidance regarding public notice of a FONSI in the BLM NEPA
Handbook (H-1790-1). Distinct from its obligations under the NEPA, the
BLM is required under other statutes to provide public notification
regarding management decisions. This notification is done in accordance
with program specific regulations and guidance.
Comment: Some comments state that the public's involvement in the
NEPA process should be more limited, while other comments state that
the public should be given more involvement opportunities than they are
currently provided.
Response: The CEQ regulations implementing the NEPA require
agencies to involve the public in the environmental analysis process.
The timing of public involvement for EISs is set by regulation;
however, the timing and manner of the subject involvement for EAs and
CXs is left to the discretion of the Responsible Official. The BLM is
not changing existing public involvement procedures as a part of the
process of revising this 516 DM 11.
Comment: Some comments suggested that the BLM revise 516 DM 11 to
provide further guidance regarding facilitating public involvement
during NEPA review processes.
Response: Because the range of activities the BLM undertakes is so
broad and varied, and because public involvement can take many forms,
specific guidance on facilitating such public involvement is more
appropriate for inclusion in the BLM's NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1). The
NEPA Handbook provides operational guidance on how to implement the BLM
policy regarding public involvement.
Comment: Some comments state that the BLM should revise the
language in section 11.4 to include reference to the Data Quality Act
(Pub. L. 106-554).
Response: Specific reference to the Data Quality Act in 516 DM 11
was not added. The BLM managers are responsible for ensuring compliance
with all applicable laws and regulations including the Data Quality
Act.
Comment: Some comments ask the BLM to prevent excessive data
collection during the NEPA analysis.
Response: The BLM uses best available data or collects new data
appropriate to the level of the NEPA analysis needed to make an
informed decision regarding the proposed action. The provisions
described in 516 DM 11.4(A-C) are intended to aid in this effort,
provided that the data and analysis compiled by other permitting
agencies is complete, available and sufficient to meet the BLM's needs.
Comment: Some comments express concern that direction for limiting
actions during the NEPA analysis process was too narrowly framed and
did not adequately reflect regulatory requirements.
Response: In addition to noting these limits, the BLM revised
section 11.4G to refer readers directly to the CEQ regulation regarding
the limitation on action during the NEPA analysis as provided in 40 CFR
1506.1, and to provide guidance to aid in fulfilling the regulations.
Comment: Some comments point out that the Federal Register notice
failed to use the DOI's most recently adopted definition of adaptive
management (AM).
Response: The BLM revised the AM definition in 516 DM 11.4E to be
consistent with the DOI definition found in 516 DM 4.16.
Comment: Some comments question the use of AM and request more
information about when it should be used. There is concern that AM not
be used as sole mitigation to justify a FONSI.
Response: The BLM does not use AM as a sole mitigation to justify a
FONSI. Section 11.4E states that the Responsible Official is encouraged
to build AM practices into proposed actions and NEPA compliance
activities and train personnel in this important environmental concept.
The DOI is developing additional guidance for bureaus on the use of an
AM approach to management activities.
Comment: Some comments state that using AM violates the NEPA by (1)
allowing the BLM to defer decisions regarding mitigation--and the
impacts that might result if the mitigation fails--without addressing
those decisions in a NEPA document; (2) removing significant agency
decisions about mitigation, and the possible impacts, from public
review and comment; (3) removing significant impacts that may be
detected during the monitoring process from NEPA analysis; and (4)

[[Page 45508]]

relying heavily on monitoring and evaluation, which the BLM is often
unable to support.
Response: (1) Adaptive Management is a planning tool; it does not
relieve the BLM of the responsibility of meeting the requirements of
the NEPA or other laws. The use of AM does not permit the BLM to defer
``decisions on mitigation and impacts if mitigation fails.'' In fact, a
more vigorous monitoring strategy will help determine if mitigation is
working, and if not, it will help speed up the change in management
action or mitigation strategy. Mitigation and impacts will still be
addressed in the NEPA document as will the AM process itself. Adaptive
Management will not be applied to all resource decisions made. (2)
Stakeholder involvement is a critical aspect of AM. New DOI policy
clearly links stakeholder involvement to implementation of AM from plan
development through implementation. Agency decisions on mitigation and
impacts will not be removed from public review and comment and it is
hoped that there will be an increased level of public involvement. (3)
``Significant impacts'' that are detected during monitoring will not be
removed from the NEPA analysis. Rather, any actions taken to address
``significant impacts'' that may arise will themselves be subject to
appropriate NEPA review, including appropriate public involvement. It
is hoped that a more vigorous stakeholder involvement process using AM
will improve the BLM's ability to detect impacts earlier and make the
necessary resource management changes in partnership with stakeholders.
(4) The AM process will only be used when adequate monitoring and
evaluation can be assured. Successful AM is dependent on good
monitoring and evaluation. If the monitoring strategy goes unfulfilled,
the BLM will need to fall back on a more prescriptive approach.

11.5 Plan Conformance

Comment: Some comments requested that 516 DM 11 direct the BLM
offices to reject proposals unless and until their LUPs are updated to
thoroughly address potential environmental consequences.
Response: Section 11.5 clarifies the requirement for conformance
with LUPs, including when a proposal may be rejected.

11.6 Existing Documentation (Determination of NEPA Adequacy)

Comment: Some comments suggest that 516 DM 11 be revised to
prescribe a minimum level of interdisciplinary review for completing a
DNA.
Response: Section 11.6 has been revised to provide policy guidance
on the use of existing documentation. Operational specifics on how to
implement the policy, such as levels of interdisciplinary review, will
be provided in the BLM NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1).
Comment: Some comments state that the BLM DNA Worksheet does not
meet the requirements of NEPA compliance.
Response: In certain situations, the BLM undertakes a DNA process
to review whether a proposed action has already been fully analyzed in
a NEPA document. Where the proposed action has not already been
analyzed or where it has been analyzed, but new circumstances or
information has come to light, appropriate NEPA analysis and
documentation will be prepared. Operational guidance on how to
implement this policy will be provided in the BLM NEPA Handbook (H-
1790-1). The DNA Worksheet in appendix 1 and implementation-specific
guidance proposed in the January 25, 2006 Federal Register notice has
been deleted from 516 DM 11.
Comment: Some comments state that using the DNA Worksheet process
provides the potential to overlook environmental differences from
widely separated projects and to underestimate the cumulative effects
of nearby projects.
Response: In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.9(c), section 11.6D states
that if existing NEPA documentation is inadequate to cover the proposed
action, an appropriate level NEPA analysis document will be prepared.
The BLM NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1) provides guidance regarding
consideration of cumulative impacts when determining whether a DNA can
be used.

11.7 Actions Requiring an EA

Comment: Some comments expressed confusion about the differences
between actions typically requiring an EA and some of the same actions
proposed in the existing and new CXs.
Response: The January 25, 2006, proposal included several editorial
errors in this sub-part. Sub-part 11.7C(1) was revised for the sake of
clarity.

11.8 Major Actions Requiring an EIS

Comment: Some comments requested clarification of the term ``highly
controversial'' with regard to impacts in sub-part 11.8A(1). The
concern centered on whether the term referred to matters of public/
political controversy versus matters of scientific controversy.
Response: This sub-part has been revised to remove the term
``highly controversial'' as criteria for when an EIS is required.
Guidance on how to determine significance, including when effects
should be considered ``highly controversial'' is applied in accordance
with CEQ regulations and requires agencies to consider the degree to
which effects are likely to be controversial when determining whether
to prepare an EIS. The BLM applies the ``highly controversial'' concept
to disagreements about the nature of the effects. Additional
clarification and examples will be provided in the BLM NEPA Handbook
(H-1790-1).
Comment: Some comments express concern that the lists of actions
that typically require an EA or an EIS were prescriptive, rather than
discretionary, and did not allow for any flexibility.
Response: Although 516 DM 11.7C and 11.8A provide lists of actions
generally requiring EAs or EISs respectively, 516 DM 11.7D, 11.7E and
11.8B specify the flexibility or discretion allowed regarding the
actions on these lists, based on potential impact significance.

11.9 Categorical Exclusions

Responses to section 11.9 comments are divided into two blocks.
Comments of a general nature that may or may not apply to more than one
of the proposed CXs are summarized and responded to as ``general
comments.'' Comments specific to a proposed CX are summarized and
responded to in order of category (e.g., B. Oil, Gas and Geothermal; C.
Forestry; D. Rangeland Management; and so forth) as they occur in 516
DM 11.

General Comments on Categorical Exclusions

Comment: Some comments state that the CX revisions are illegal;
could short circuit important safeguards; circumvent existing laws,
E.O., and the BLM policies; violate the BLM's multiple use mission; and
provide insufficient protection despite the application of
``extraordinary circumstances'' (516 DM 2.3(A) and appendix 2).
Response: The BLM disagrees. The CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.4 and
1507.3) authorize Federal agencies to establish and apply CXs. The BLM
followed CEQ regulations in proposing additional CXs to reduce
paperwork and delays (40 CFR 1500.4 and 1500.5) and enable the BLM to
concentrate on environmental issues that are associated with proposed
actions that require further analysis in an EA or an EIS. Each of the
categories of actions in the new CXs were subjected to an
administrative review. This review determined whether there is
sufficient supporting

[[Page 45509]]

evidence, (based on past NEPA analyses) and a review of actions to
support the finding that the activity would not cause individually or
cumulatively significant environmental impacts (http://www.blm.gov/planning/news.html
). When the CXs are used for particular proposed

actions, those actions are reviewed to ensure that they do not involve
``extraordinary circumstances'' and are consistent with all applicable
laws for protection of the environment. In addition, proposed actions
or activities must be, at a minimum, consistent with the DOI and the
BLM regulations, manuals, handbooks, policies, and applicable LUPs
regarding design features, best management practices, terms and
conditions, and conditions of approval, and stipulations. These reviews
ensure proper application of the CXs and act as a ``safeguard'' (516 DM
2.3(A) and appendix 2). Finally, some of the information collected to
prepare the CXs was made available for public review and comment
available at http://www.blm.gov/planning/news.html. Additional

information clarifying these reports is now available at the same Web
site. The establishment and use of CXs has been upheld in Heartwood,
Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 73 F. Supp. 2d 962, 972-73 (S.D. Ill.
1999), aff'd 230 F.3d 947, 954-55 (7th Cir. 2000).
Comment: Some comments indicate support for the CX revisions and
some comments would like to expand the categories of activities
excluded from further review under NEPA.
Response: The BLM will continue to compile and review evidence to
determine if additional categories of actions should be excluded from
additional NEPA review. The BLM may propose additional CXs in the
future.
Comment: Some comments state that the BLM erroneously assumes that
``the only function of an EA is to determine whether an EIS is
needed.'' Therefore, ``any EA that resulted in a FONSI need never have
been prepared.''
Response: The BLM disagrees. There are three tasks served by
completing an EA as identified at 40 CFR 1508.9(a)(1)-(3). The BLM
analyzed past environmental documents, including EAs and FONSIs and the
underlying activities in establishing the CXs described in this final
action. Categories of actions were considered eligible for CXs when the
EAs, FONSIs, and subsequent review of these actions showed no
individually or cumulatively significant impacts on the environment.
Comment: Some comments state an opinion that the BLM should ban the
use of CXs.
Response: The BLM disagrees. The BLM establishes CXs in compliance
with the CEQ regulations implementing the NEPA, particularly 40 CFR
1508.4 and 1507.3, which require agencies to develop procedures for
establishing CXs for categories of actions that do not normally require
either an EA or an EIS. The appropriate use of CXs also reduces
paperwork and delays (40 CFR 1500.4 and 1500.5), and enables the BLM to
concentrate on issues that are truly significant and merit review in an
EA or EIS, rather than amassing needless detail for actions
demonstrated not to have significant impacts (40 CFR 1500.1(b)).
Comment: Some comments, while recognizing that the ``extraordinary
circumstances'' review is to occur before an action is determined to be
eligible for use of a CX, express concern that the BLM ``often `defers'
special status species and/or cultural resource inventories on the
sites of proposed actions until after the NEPA process and
documentation is complete.'' The comments go on to question the BLM
practice of ``add[ing] stipulations saying that before any actual
ground disturbance occurs it will conduct the required inventories and
avoid any identified resources.''
Response: The BLM must comply with the NEPA, as well as all
applicable environmental and resource protection laws, such as the
National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq., and the
Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. (ESA), before any action
is taken. Other than the broad mandate of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act, 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., which directs the BLM to
prepare and maintain an inventory of resource values, there are no
required ``inventories.'' Rather, the BLM has discretion as to when and
how to gather information required to comply with these statutes; that
is, sufficient information may come in different forms, including but
not limited to inventories. In terms of applying the CXs, the NEPA
requires that the BLM first determine whether any extraordinary
circumstances exist that would preclude use of a CX. Several of the
extraordinary circumstances that the BLM must consider directly address
resources mentioned in the comments. For example, extraordinary
circumstances prohibiting the use of a CX include instances where an
individual action may ``have significant impacts on such natural
resources and unique geographic characteristics as historic or cultural
resources'' (516 DM 2 appendix 2(2.2)), ``have significant impacts on
properties listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of
Historic Places as determined by either the bureau or office'' (516 DM
2, appendix 2(2.7)), or ``limit access to and ceremonial use of Indian
sacred sites on federal lands by Indian religious practitioners or
significantly adversely affect the physical integrity of such sacred
sites'' (516 DM 2, appendix 2(2.11)). This means that the Responsible
Official must have sufficient information regarding ``cultural
resources'' to complete the ``extraordinary circumstances'' review
before a CX can be used to comply with the NEPA.
Comment: Some comments state that the BLM lacks the staff and
funding for appropriate monitoring of categorically excluded
activities. Some comments express concern that by categorically
excluding more activities, there will be insufficient data to analyze
the impacts of these activities. Other comments ask the BLM to assure
the public that impacts from the implementation of categorically
excluded activities be monitored.
Response: An activity that is subject to a CX by definition is an
activity that is within a category of actions that have previously been
found not to have significant impacts, either individually or
cumulatively. That being said, regardless of whether a proposed
activity is reviewed under an EA, EIS or CX, the BLM monitors the
effects of these activities to the extent its budget allows. The BLM's
program management and associated staffing decisions regarding the
monitoring of effects are subject to the appropriations process. (See,
Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1341).
Comment: Some comments state that the BLM should increase public
notification of CX decisions made.
Response: The CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1506.6) require public notice
about the completion of NEPA analysis under certain circumstances.
These regulations do not require public notification of the use of a
CX. Some BLM offices currently support Web sites that list the
decisions made in their management area, including the NEPA documents
associated with those decisions (including applying a CX). For example,
see the Utah State Office Environmental Notification Bulletin Board at
https://www.ut.blm.gov/enbb/index.php.

Comment: Some comments state that the BLM should include the CXs
from the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in the 516 DM 11 revisions.
Response: The CXs included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 are
statutory CXs; therefore, do not need to be listed in 516 DM 11.

[[Page 45510]]

Comment: Some comments ask the BLM to describe how cumulative
impacts of the proposed CX activities would be evaluated. Some comments
suggest that 516 DM 11 be revised to ensure that the cumulative impacts
of projects covered by a CX are analyzed.
Response: An action can only be categorically excluded from further
NEPA analysis when it has been shown that the action fits within a
category of actions that has already been determined not to have a
significant environmental effect on the human environment, individually
or cumulatively (see 40 CFR 1508.4). For all of the categories of
actions for which the CXs were proposed, the analysis of the NEPA
documents prepared for such actions, as well as subsequent evaluations
of the effects of the actions, showed that the actions did not cause
significant effects. Further, when considering whether to use a CX, one
of the ``extraordinary circumstances'' that must be evaluated is
whether the proposed action may ``have a direct relationship to other
actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant
environmental effects'' (516 DM 2.3(A)3 and appendix 2 (2.6)). If it
might, then an EA or an EIS must be completed for the action, and a CX
cannot be applied.
Comment: Some comments ask the BLM to evaluate the cumulative
impacts of the proposed CXs, the revisions to the Northwest Forest
Plan's (NWFP) Survey and Management Program and Aquatic Conservation
Strategy; the National Forest Management Act Planning regulations; and
the National Forest Management Act notices, comment, and appeal
regulations.
Response: The new or modified CXs are specific to a revision of the
procedures described in the 516 DM 11 for implementing the NEPA within
the BLM. The determination that establishing CXs does not require NEPA
analysis and documentation has been upheld in Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S.
Forest Service, 73 F. Supp. 2d 962, 972-73 (S.D. Ill. 1999), aff'd 230
F.3d 947, 954-55 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding creation of CXs to be an
establishment of agency procedure for which CEQ regulations do not
require preparation of an EA or EIS). The CXs proposed in January 2006
and finalized here are part of the BLM's effort to update internal NEPA
implementing procedures. A cumulative effects analysis of the
establishment of these CXs, in relation to the NWFP, the National
Forest Management Act Planning regulations, and the National Forest
Management Act is not appropriate in this context. However, in
developing the Forestry CXs, the BLM reviewed past actions and
associated NEPA documents. These NEPA documents included analyses of
cumulative effects, which in relevant instances, included actions taken
by the Forest Service. The BLM's review of these past actions, the NEPA
analyses specific to the actions, and anticipated effects, as well as
the actions' actual effects, allowed the BLM to determine that the
actions had no individual or cumulative significant impacts, and that
development of a CX covering such actions was warranted. The final
determination whether a specific proposed action will have a
significant cumulative effect or not, is completed at the time the
specific proposal is reviewed by considering the applicability of any
extraordinary circumstances.
Comment: Some comments state that the BLM needs to ensure that
implementation of all the CXs will not cumulatively result in jeopardy
to listed endangered species.
Response: The Responsible Official must ensure that no BLM action
will jeopardize a listed species under the ESA. Before a CX can be
used, the Responsible Official must determine that no ``extraordinary
circumstances'' apply. If ``extraordinary circumstances'' (516 DM
2.3(A)3 and appendix 2 (2.8)), which addresses endangered species,
applies, a CX may not be used.

Responses to Specific Comments on Section 11.9--Categorical Exclusions

B. Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Energy (Sub-parts B(6)-(8))

B(6)--Comments.
Comment: Some comments state that the proposed CX 11.9B(6) should
not be implemented because geophysical operations were excluded when
Congress authorized additional energy development-related CXs under the
Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Response: Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 does not
provide for a CX for the geophysical activities described in the
proposed CXs. The Act does not preclude the appropriate exercise of
authority to administratively establish CXs in accordance with the
NEPA, the CEQ regulations, and the DOI and the BLM NEPA procedures.
Comment: Some comments state that the proposed CX 11.9B(6) is a
policy change aimed specifically at benefiting the oil and gas industry
and that as such, is a ``scheme'' to make energy exploration companies
more money.
Response: No change to the CX was requested by these comments, no
changes were made in response. The BLM proposed CX 11.9B(6) because CEQ
implementing regulations (40 CFR 1509.4 and 1507.3) allow federal
agencies to identify categories of actions, which normally do not
require either an EA or an EIS. The development of this CX was based on
generally accepted analytical procedures, which included completion of
a census of available data on geophysical exploration. See http://www.blm.gov/planning/news.html.
One benefit to all stakeholders of

adopting new CXs for activities, which have been shown to have no
individually or cumulatively significant effects, is additional federal
resources can be redirected to analyzing and mitigating activities
likely to have significant adverse environmental consequences.
Comment: Some comments suggest that the proposed CX 11.9B(6) would
promote the segmentation of a major project into several categorically
excluded small projects, which would prevent appropriate consideration
of cumulative impacts.
Response: The BLM disagrees. Geophysical exploration activities are
independent actions and not connected actions as defined in NEPA (40
CFR 1508.25 (a)(1)). Geophysical exploration activities are data
collection activities used to gather information that may be used to
inform future decision-making regarding oil, gas or geothermal
development proposals by providing information on the location of
energy resources. It is not a forgone conclusion that the energy
resources identified through this data collection will actually be
developed. Before a CX can be used, a proposed action must be reviewed
to determine whether or not any of the ``extraordinary circumstance''
(516 DM 2.3(A)3 and appendix 2), applies. In particular,
``extraordinary circumstance'' 2.6 addresses the potential for
significant cumulative impacts; if it does apply, the CX cannot be
used.
Comment: Some comments state that federal court and administrative
decisions have either remanded the BLM decisions to approve geophysical
exploration or affirmed agency decisions, only after the BLM proposed
additional mitigation measures.
Response: The data analyzed and reviewed by the BLM validate the
assertion that the impacts from geophysical operations would not be
significant. Specific to the comment related to litigation, the data
indicate that out of 244 projects reviewed, the NEPA analyses of eight
geophysical exploration projects, supported by EAs, were challenged
through administrative appeals or litigation. Only two of the eight
were remanded to the BLM. In one

[[Page 45511]]

situation, the NEPA document was found inadequate where the BLM failed
to consider reasonable alternatives (such as limiting use to existing
roads) that had been suggested, and in the other, the BLM failed to
provide a comment period that had been promised and that the court
found to be appropriate under the circumstances of that case. Neither
was due to a finding of significant impacts associated with geophysical
exploration. Geophysical exploration (the impacts from those activities
and how the BLM field personnel address the approval process) has
changed over the last several years. There have been lessons learned
from the results of this litigation, from personal observation by field
staff associated with the projects, field data collection through
monitoring, and systematic evaluation of information received from the
proponents. Accumulation of professional knowledge resulted in design
features that previously were not part of proponent geophysical
proposals, yet are now considered routine. Proponents either with or
without the BLM consultation now incorporate best management practices
into proposals. Project design features are site specific to the local
concerns and resource values. They represent a commonality of best
management practices that are integral to the project being authorized.
Field personnel that routinely permit these actions know the needs
based on accumulated professional knowledge of resource concerns in the
area at issue, and either assure these aspects appear in the
proponent's proposal or include them as conditions of approval in the
authorization. ``Conditions of approval'' or ``terms and conditions''
are terms of art that represent the practices and standards that are
routinely applied to geophysical projects specific for that particular
office. Their application does not require a new analysis each time a
project is submitted, but results in a list of measures that the
proponent must implement based on local conditions. In all cases,
proposed actions or activities must be, at a minimum, consistent with
the DOI and the BLM regulations, manuals, handbooks, policies, and
applicable LUPs regarding design features, best management practices,
terms and conditions, conditions of approval, and stipulations. Also
associated with this improved professional knowledge base, of the BLM
field experience, has been the steady improvement of geophysical
techniques and best management practices by the geophysical industry.
Low impact techniques have allowed for substantial reductions in the
amount of actual surface disturbance and associated resource impacts.
Physical impacts such as road construction are rare and the impacts to
soil or vegetation resources are minimal or short-term.
Comment: Some comments state that geophysical exploration
activities cause ``disturbance'' and related erosion impacts, such as
landslides and slumps. Therefore, they recommend that the CX not be
adopted.
Response: Available data supports adoption of the CX. The CX
11.9B(6) was established after careful review of 244 geophysical
exploration projects previously approved by the BLM. The data examined
for these projects included project-specific information on the
location, the type of NEPA review performed, predicted environmental
impacts of proposed actions, and actual environmental impacts after the
action was completed. No projects were shown to have significant
impacts, individually or cumulatively. According to the review of the
NEPA analysis completed for these 244 geophysical exploration projects,
including review of the effects of the completed projects themselves,
predicted significant impacts, including erosion-related impacts as a
result of geophysical exploration, did not occur. In addition, with
respect to the resources mentioned in the comments, the BLM applies
specific ``Terms and Conditions''--as indicated in number seven of the
BLM Form 3150-4 and requires suspension of operations when unnecessary
disturbance to soils may occur. This term and condition is a part of
all geophysical Notices of Intent (see the BLM Form 3150-4). In
addition, if the required ``extraordinary circumstances'' review
conducted for any proposed action indicated such impacts as
``landslides'' and ``slumps'' might be significant, the CX would not be
used.
Comment: Some comments state that the use of the geophysical
exploration CX would have negative impacts on non-commercial uses, such
as scientific, educational, recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual
purposes.
Response: See response above. The BLM reviewed 244 geophysical
exploration projects. None of the projects reviewed during the
establishment of this CX resulted in a significant impact, either
individually or cumulatively. In addition, the BLM will review all
future projects against the DOI's ``extraordinary circumstances.'' If
the review indicates that the action may have a direct relationship to
other actions with individually insignificant, but cumulatively
significant environmental effects (i.e., to non-commercial uses, such
as scientific, educational, recreational, aesthetic and spiritual
purposes), the CX cannot be used.
Comment: Some comments state that geophysical (e.g. seismic)
exploration activities have potentially significant impacts to
environmental and cultural resources.
Response: None of the 244 geophysical exploration projects reviewed
during the establishment of this CX resulted in a significant impact,
either individually or cumulatively. Further, the BLM believes the
established permitting process ensures that if there are potential
individually or cumulatively significant environmental effects, an EA
or EIS, as appropriate, would be done. Included in the permitting
process is the requirement to review the DOI list of ``extraordinary
circumstances'' (516 DM 2.3A(3) & appendix 2) for every proposed
action. ``Cultural resources'' are specifically provided for in this
list. If the required ``extraordinary circumstances'' review indicated
that significant impacts to environmental or cultural resources might
occur, the CX would not be used.
Further, the use of the CX during the NEPA review process does not
eliminate the need to comply with Section 106 of the National
Historical Preservation Act (Pub. L. 89-665) or the Archeological
Resources Protection Act (Pub. L. 96-95), or any other applicable
resource protection law.
Comment: Some comments express concern that geophysical exploration
activities can damage roadless areas by creating noticeable vehicle
routes, which can attract traffic by ``unauthorized'' off-highway
vehicle drivers.
Response: Historically, older geophysical exploration operations
required the use of some type of road construction. These operations
left travelways that would take time to completely reclaim. In the
interim, these routes would remain visible and may have encouraged off-
highway travel by some members of the public. Best management practices
over time have reduced the visibility of noticeable vehicle tracks
through project design features so that non-authorized use is
discouraged. Further, the proposed CX was specifically limited to
geophysical exploration projects that do not involve road construction.
The BLM reviewed 244 geophysical exploration projects during the
establishment of this CX. None of the projects resulted in a
significant impact, either individually or cumulatively. As an
additional limitation, the BLM has added a

[[Page 45512]]

requirement to this CX that when road construction is involved, the CX
would not be used and additional NEPA review would be completed.
Further, the proposed geophysical exploration activities can only
proceed using this CX where none of the ``extraordinary circumstances''
apply (516 DM 2.3A(3) & appendix 2).
Comment: Some comments state that the proposed CX 11.9B(6) would
``wrongly exclude'' the covered actions from compliance with federal
laws protecting wildlife, such as the ESA.
Response: The use of a CX does not eliminate the need to comply
with Section 7 of the ESA or other federal laws. None of the 244
projects reviewed during the establishment of this CX resulted in a
significant impact, either individually or cumulatively. Further, if
the proposed geophysical exploration activity has the potential to
significantly impact listed threatened or endangered species, or their
critical habitat, ``extraordinary circumstance'' 2.8 (516 DM 2 appendix
2.8) applies, and an EA or EIS, as appropriate, is required.
Comment: Some comments state that weed invasion follows the network
of seismic activities across the landscape, which can result in
irreversible weed invasions that radically alter fire cycles and
endanger wildlife habitat.
Response: None of the 244 projects reviewed during the
establishment of this CX resulted in a significant impact, either
individually or cumulatively. In addition, specific to the resource
commented on, if the proposed geophysical exploration action may
contribute to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of
noxious weeds, ``extraordinary circumstance'' 2.12 (516 DM 2, appendix
2.12) would eliminate the decision-maker's ability to use CX 11.9B(6).
An EA or EIS, as appropriate, would be required.
Comment: Some comments ask the BLM to revise the proposed
geophysical exploration CX 11.9B(6) to prohibit seismic activity during
migratory bird breeding season.
Response: None of the 244 projects reviewed during the
establishment of this CX resulted in a significant impact, either
individually or cumulatively. In addition, the DOI and the BLM use a
NEPA review process that ensures that if any of the ``extraordinary
circumstances,'' as defined in 516 DM 2.3A(3) and appendix 2, apply, a
CX cannot be used. ``Extraordinary circumstance'' 2.2 (516 DM 2
appendix 2) affords protection specifically for migratory birds.
Therefore, if a project design feature intended to provide protection
of migratory bird breeding activities in an area occupied by these
birds were to be refused by the applicant, or if its efficacy has not
been sufficiently assured, an EA or EIS, as appropriate, would be
required. Proposed actions or activities must be, at a minimum, (as is
stated in the preamble to this section) consistent with Laws (such as
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Pub. L. 86-732), DOI and BLM
regulations, manuals, handbooks, policies, and applicable LUPs
regarding design features, best management practices, terms and
conditions, conditions of approval, and stipulations.
Comment: Some comments ask the BLM to revise the proposed
geophysical exploration CX 11.9B(6) to ensure that operations do not
result in cumulative impacts.
Response: An activity that is subject to a CX by definition is an
activity that has been found not to have significant impacts,
individually or cumulatively. Geophysical exploration activities that
would be authorized under the CX have been shown not to have
significant impacts, either individually or cumulatively based upon the
BLM administrative review of 244 geophysical exploration projects. The
analysis report is available at the BLM Web site at http://www.blm.gov/planning/news.html.
None of the NEPA documentation for the 244

geophysical exploration projects analyzed in the study during the
establishment of the CX indicates the occurrence of significant
impacts. The BLM also employs a NEPA review process that ensures, if
any of the ``extraordinary circumstances,'' as defined in 516 DM
2.3A(3) and appendix 2, apply, a CX cannot be used. One of these
``extraordinary circumstances'' that precludes the use of a CX
addresses cumulative impacts.
Comment: Some comments state that establishment of terms and
conditions for specific proposed actions depends on the soil, weather,
ground cover, and type of machinery to be used in each case; therefore,
the proposed CX would not adequately account for these site-specific
issues.
Response: The BLM agrees that the design of each proposed action
depends on soil, weather, ground cover, and type of machinery to be
used; however, as proposed actions are designed and then reviewed
against the CX list, such actions or activities must be, at a minimum,
consistent with the DOI and the BLM regulations, manuals, handbooks,
policies, and applicable LUPs regarding design features, best
management practices, terms and conditions, conditions of approval, and
stipulations. The geophysical exploration techniques, impacts resulting
from the techniques, and the BLM's field personnel knowledge and
experience in reducing impacts from this type of activity have improved
over time. The lessons learned based on personal observation by field
staff associated with the projects, field data collection through
monitoring, and systematic evaluation of information received from the
proponents has resulted in accumulation of professional knowledge that
has led to development of design features that were not previously part
of proponent geophysical proposals. Use of design features to minimize
impacts to soil and ground cover are now routinely included based on
local conditions. The BLM alerts proponents regarding resource values
of concern in a given area, and proponents incorporate best management
practices into the proposal so that impacts are now minimal. In
addition, the BLM's review of 244 projects determined that there is no
significant impact from this activity. Further, each proposed action is
reviewed against the DOI's ``extraordinary circumstances'' as described
in 516 DM 2.3A(3) and appendix 2. Any proposed geophysical exploration
activity that does not satisfy these requirements must be analyzed
through the EA or EIS process, as appropriate.

B(7) & (8)--Comments.
Comment: Several comments were received related to proposed CXs
11.9 B(7) for permitting infill wells within the [reasonable
foreseeable development] RFD for an established geothermal field, and
B(8) for the issuance of site licenses to operate geothermal facilities
whose construction and operation were included in a utilization plan
NEPA document. Comments addressed such concerns as the potential for
geothermal activity to affect water-confining soil layers and
potentially result in the loss of wetted playa areas; impacts on
special-status species and endangered species and their habitats that
may result from use of the proposed CXs; and currency of LUPs with
respect to the ecological status of lands and waters under discussion.
Some commenters sought to expand the use of these CXs beyond the State
of Nevada; they felt that Nevada should not be granted special
consideration over other states and asserted that projects in other
states could meet the same criteria as used in Nevada. Commenters also
asked why there was a need for further NEPA analysis, rather than a
DNA, where the NEPA document for the field

[[Page 45513]]

development or the utilization plan included the activities proposed
for Geothermal CX 11.9 B(7). In addition, comments expressed interest
in clarification of what actions CX 11.9 B(8) was intended to cover,
and what actions would be covered by methods of complying with the
NEPA.
Response: Upon review of the BLM's NEPA compliance procedures, in
general, and in consultation with CEQ, the BLM has decided not to
finalize proposed CXs 11.9B(7) and 11.9B(8). As explained above in the
description of modifications made from the January 2006 proposal, the
BLM has determined first that, regarding B(7) (infill wells), a DNA
combined with more focused development-stage NEPA documents should
normally suffice for NEPA compliance, as some commenters suggested, and
second, that a CX (or an EA) for B(8) is redundant and thus unnecessary
because no new environmental impacts result from the administrative/
ministerial action of issuing a site license where operation of the
plant was already covered in the NEPA analysis and documentation
prepared for the utilization plan. Both of these solutions are
applicable nationwide. To the extent that comments express concern
regarding particular resources, the method an agency uses to fulfill
its NEPA obligations is distinct from the agency's continuing
obligation to comply with other environmental protection statutes such
as the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., the Endangered Species
Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. (special status species are addressed as
part of the BLM's conservation plans under Section 2 of the Endangered
Species Act), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 U.S.C.
1701 et seq. (land use planning). The BLM LUPs are routinely evaluated
to determine whether the LUP decisions and NEPA analysis are still
valid. All actions, including those categories of actions considered
here, must be consistent with an approved LUP. Regardless of the age of
the LUP(s) affected, each proposed action would also be evaluated on
its own merits, and updated information provided as necessary in the
more site- and/or more project-specific NEPA analysis. In most cases,
for instance, the initial development plans for the types of actions
contemplated here would have already been analyzed in a project-level
NEPA document in addition to the LUP.

Responses to Specific Comments on Section 11.9--Categorical Exclusions

C. Forestry (Sub-Parts C(6)-(9))

Broad Concerns That Apply to the New Forestry CXs

Comment: Some comments state that the proposed Forestry CX
parameters are inadequate to protect elements of the environment,
specifically predatory bird nesting sites, woodpecker habitat, soils
compaction, weed dispersal, small mammal burrows, and surface water
quality.
Response: The BLM analysis available at http://www.blm.gov/planning/news.html
demonstrates this is not the case. Three of the four

proposed Forestry CXs, 11.9C(7)-(9), are based on three U.S. Department
of Agriculture Forest Service (FS) CXs, their supporting data, and an
analysis by the BLM demonstrating that such proposed actions and their
environmental effects are comparable when the action is taken by the
BLM. The FS considered the potential for significant effects during the
NEPA review process (68 FR 44598-44608, July 29, 2003). Based on
assessments of local wildlife habitat conditions after the actions were
taken, no significant cumulative effects were observed by the FS. A few
of the projects reviewed resulted in minor soil disturbance and
compaction, and a few others showed that small numbers of noxious weeds
or invasive plants entered the area where the trees had been removed.
The FS subject-matter specialists and Responsible Officials found that
these impacts were within forest plan standards and were not
significant in the NEPA context (40 CFR 1508.27). Based upon the
comparison between the FS and the BLM lands, policies, and business
practices as outlined in the BLM analysis, the BLM actions are not
expected to result in significant introductions, continued existence,
or spread of noxious weeds or non-native invasive species. In addition,
when applying the CXs to the BLM lands, the BLM only considers use of
the CXs when there are no ``extraordinary circumstances'' (516 DM
2.3A(3) and appendix 2.12), which will cause individually or
cumulatively significant impacts on the human environment.
The fourth proposed CX 11.9C(6), which addresses sample tree
felling (STF) to gather net timber volume data, is based on a 100
percent census of STF surveys conducted in five BLM management
districts in western Oregon from October 1, 2001, through September 30,
2005. These five Districts (Coos Bay, Eugene, Medford, Roseburg, and
Salem) wrote EAs for the timber sales that were associated with the 59
STFs performed. The EAs addressed a range of environmental impacts for
the five districts including the types mentioned in the comments. The
STF business practices and skills of those conducting the action on
lands similar to the original five Districts are the same. The BLM
believes there are sufficient data to show that no individually or
cumulatively significant environmental effects were predicted or
occurred as a result of the 59 STF surveys, and therefore the BLM is
confident that no individually or cumulatively significant
environmental effects will occur due to future STF actions within the
Districts identified. The Lakeview District Klamath Field Office was
inadvertently left out of the area of coverage of the proposed CX, but
has been added to the revised CX proposal. Actions in the Klamath Field
Office are the same as those taken in the five Districts identified
above and result in the same non-significant environmental effects. In
addition, proposed actions in the Klamath Field Office will also be
subject to the ``extraordinary circumstances'' test, and are expected
to have no significant environmental effects.
Comment: Some comments state that the BLM does not disclose that
``it is in the process of implementing several internal and
administrative regulatory changes that, in addition to the proposed
small timber harvest [CXs (11.9C(7)-(9)], will have a cumulative effect
on the environment that has not been analyzed as required by law.'' The
``internal and administrative regulatory changes'' the comments refer
to are the NWFP, the National Forest Management Act Planning
regulations and the National Forest Management Act.
Response: The BLM disagrees with the comments, and believes that it
is following CEQ guidelines by notifying the public on proposed changes
to the 516 DM 11 (See 71 FR 4159-4167, January 25, 2006; see also
http://www.blm.gov/planning/news.html). The new forestry CXs are

specific to the DOI's 516 DM 11 for implementing NEPA within the BLM. A
cumulative impacts evaluation in relation to the referenced ``changes''
is not appropriate, since there is no effect on the environment by this
administrative change. The proposed CXs are part of the BLM's effort to
update internal NEPA implementing procedures. The establishment of CXs,
as internal agency procedures for implementing the NEPA, has been held
not to require the preparation of an EA or an EIS, under the CEQ
regulations, see Heartwood,

[[Page 45514]]

Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 73 F. Supp. 2d 962, 972-73 (S.D. Ill.
1999), aff'd 230 F.3d 947, 954-55 (7th Cir. 2000). The final
determination on whether a specific proposed forestry-related action
will have a significant cumulative effect, is completed at the time the
proposal is reviewed and evaluated using the ``extraordinary
circumstances'' test, or if necessary, through an EA or EIS.
Comment: Some comments state that the forestry activities proposed
for CX process review are ``beyond the intended scope and purpose of
the categorical exclusion clause'' in NEPA; and by ``exempting such
activities, the BLM is essentially advocating that actions with
significant environmental impacts escape close scrutiny under the
requirements of NEPA.''
Response: The BLM disagrees that using a categorical exclusion
allows actions with significant environmental impacts to escape
scrutiny. To avoid repetitive documentation of known non-significant
effects, the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1500.4(p), 1507.3 and 1508.4; also
see CEQ's testimony before the House Committee on Resources Task Force
on Updating the NEPA Lessons Learned Oversight Hearing on November 17,
2005), provide for defining ``categories of activities'' whose effects
do not normally require review in an EA or an EIS. The process of
defining these categories is an integral part of the NEPA regulatory
framework. In this case, the BLM collected data on the NEPA analyses
used for sample tree felling (CX 11.9C(6)). The BLM analyzed the NEPA
review activities documented by the FS related to live tree harvests,
salvage tree harvesting, and sanitation harvesting projects. The BLM
and the FS data and analysis support a determination that (1) the
proposed Forestry CX activities do not have significant effect(s) on
the human environment, and (2) these CXs meet the intent of the CEQ
regulations that govern the establishment of CXs. The BLM is
establishing these categories of Forestry activities because the
appropriate implementation of the NEPA requires concentrating agency
analysis efforts on major federal actions and not expending scarce
resources analyzing agency actions where experience has demonstrated
the insignificance of predictable effects.
Comment: Some comments state that the new live tree harvest,
salvage tree harvesting, and sanitation harvest CXs 11.9C(7)-(9) will,
when combined with new opportunities for energy development, affect
available open space and could be ``devastating to the environment,''
specifically air and water quality, wildlife, and tourism.
Response: The BLM disagrees that the use of CXs 11.9C(7)-(9) will
affect available open space, or be ``devastating'' to the environment
and tourism. As discussed above, the BLM analyzed the FS information
and determined the BLM forestry activities included in the CXs and
their effects are comparable. The FS reviewed activities related to
live tree harvests, salvage tree harvesting, and sanitation harvesting
projects, and determined that the proposed CXs do not have significant
effects on the human environment, including air and water quality and
wildlife. Further, if there are ``extraordinary circumstances'' listed
in 516 DM 2, appendix 2 that apply, the Responsible Official cannot use
the new forestry CXs. The use of the CX does not eliminate the need to
comply with other applicable resource protection laws. The BLM will
determine whether a specific proposed Forestry-related action will have
a significant cumulative effect on the environment, including wildlife
and tourism values, at the time the proposal is reviewed using the
extraordinary circumstances test. If the proposal does not pass the
extraordinary circumstances review, an EA or an EIS will be completed.
Comment: Some comments state that tree harvesting is ``never
completely uncontroversial, and it often imposes significant impacts on
the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems of the area.'' The comments
further state that a CX that enables tree harvesting for any reason
provides insufficient opportunity for public review.
Response: Based on the BLM's reviews of the FS tree harvesting
projects, the BLM determined that similar projects would have similar
effects on the BLM land, and would have no significant effects on the
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in the area of the projects. In the
development of the three harvesting and salvaging CXs, the FS reviewed
the effects of 154 tree harvesting projects across the country, with
actions similar to those allowed in the three categories (See http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/library/20030108_fr_notice.pdf
). Prior to

implementation, none of the projects reviewed predicted significant
effects on the human environment. After implementation, on-site reviews
of environmental effects of these projects were conducted by
interdisciplinary teams of resource specialists. The reviews by the BLM
concluded that none of the projects had a significant effect on the
human environment. In addition, the BLM applies the review of
extraordinary circumstances to projects, including whether an action
has highly controversial environmental effects or involves unresolved
conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. If one or
more of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 516 DM 2, appendix
2.3 apply, the Responsible Official cannot use the new forestry CXs.
Applying a CX to a proposed action does not preclude public involvement
with the proposal. Interested publics will be involved as appropriate
throughout the decision-making process. The type and level of public
involvement should be commensurate with the decision at hand. Forest
management decisions, including those where a CX is applied, are
protestable under 43 CFR 5003.3.
Comment: Some comments state that using the FS data to justify the
proposed BLM live tree harvest, salvage tree harvesting, and sanitation
harvesting activities CXs 11.9C(7)-(9) is inappropriate because the FS
lands and projects in ``different regions may not be comparable for a
variety of reasons.''
Response: The data is applicable to the BLM lands because forestry
related projects and their predictable environmental impacts are
substantially the same on the BLM and the FS administered public lands
as demonstrated by the comparability analysis conducted by the BLM
(http://www.blm.gov/planning/handouts/CX_Report-Forestry-FS_CXs.pdf).

Laws governing forest management for the BLM and the FS are very
similar. While the agencies have separate enabling legislation, both
require that forest lands be managed according to sustained-yield and
multiple-use principles. As part of land management, the agencies are
further mandated to meet the requirements of environmental laws
including the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act,
and the National Historic Preservation Act when making decisions.
Finally, the proposed actions designed and reviewed for application of
a CX must be, at a minimum, consistent with DOI and BLM regulations,
manuals, handbooks, policies, and applicable LUPs regarding design
features, best management practices, terms and conditions, conditions
of approval, and stipulations.
Comment: Some comments state that standing dead trees (snags) and
dying trees ``play an important ecosystem role'' that is ``highly
valued'' and ``under represented.'' Some comments state that the BLM
and the FS policies for conserving snags do not reflect an adequate
appreciation of the current state of knowledge about their ecological
value. Still other comments want the BLM to develop ``snag

[[Page 45515]]

retention guidelines for each physiographic province * * *'' They state
that until this is done, the BLM should not allow any snag larger than
20 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) to be removed based on a
report prepared for the DOI Final Draft Recovery Plan for the Northern
Spotted Owl issued in1992.
Response: The BLM agrees that standing dead and down woody material
is an important component of a healthy forest ecosystem. The BLM's LUPs
in the Pacific Northwest are based on the Record of Decision for
Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning
Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (ROD) and
Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-
Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of
the Northern Spotted Owl (S&G), April 1994. The Final Draft Recovery
Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (1992), referenced by the commenters,
was considered when writing the Final Supplemental EIS and Record of
Decision (ROD) (page 17). The S&G addressed physiographic provinces
(Introduction page A-3) and both the retention and removal of snags
(S&G, pages C-14, 15). The ROD and S&G do not set a diameter limit on
snag retention. Since the BLM LUPs are based on the ROD and S&G, the
BLM rejects setting an arbitrary limit of 20 inches dbh on snag
retention.
Comment: Some comments express preference for a 100 or 250-acre
upper size limit on the new forestry CXs 11.9C(7)-(9) while others ask
that the upper limit be reduced to 10 acres for all potentially
eligible harvest activities. Some comments state that establishing ``a
higher [acres] limit for salvage and insect/disease timber sales makes
absolutely no sense'' and that ``allowing commercial projects to be
included heightens [environmental] risk * * *.''
Response: The BLM is finalizing the proposed CX language as
written. The BLM analyzed the FS data, and determined that the FS size
acres limits, which are based on their data, are appropriate for the
CXs. Having the BLM and the FS using the same size limits for similar
treatments will help maintain consistency between the agencies. The BLM
would need to gather new data to support using a CX for larger
treatment areas. The BLM's CXs 11.9C(7)-(9) are similar to three FS
forestry CXs formally adopted in 2003 (68 FR 44598-44608, July 29,
2003). The FS instituted their forestry CXs (Forest Service Handbook
(FSH) 1909.15, Ch. 31.2(12-14)) based on 154 completed FS projects that
had sufficient NEPA analysis documentation. The FS data show that no
individually or cumulatively significant effects resulted when the
activities described in the three FS forestry CXs were used. Since no
significant effects occurred at the current size limits, there is no
logical reason to arbitrarily reduce the size limits. For additional
information on the FS data collection and analysis process and the
method used to determine reasonable project area limits, refer to 68 FR
44598-44608, July 29, 2003, and supporting documents and the BLM
analysis at http://www.blm.gov/planning/handouts/CX_Report-Forestry-FS_CXs.pdf.
The BLM also rejects the notion that allowing commercial

use of the harvest material increases environmental risks. The effects
on the ground of a project would be the same regardless of whether or
not someone is likely to profit from the venture.
Comment: CXs 11.9C(7)-(9) provide for ``temporary road
construction.'' Some comments ask the BLM to define ``temporary road''
and other comments ask the BLM to clearly define what constitutes
temporary road construction to ``minimize impacts.'' Some comments
state that limiting temporary road construction to ``no more than 0.5
mile[s]'' is too constraining, while others state that any road
building causes significant environmental impacts.
Response: The BLM agrees that it needs a definition for temporary
roads. For use of the specific forestry CXs 11.9C(7)-(9) the BLM has
rewritten the CXs to define temporary roads based on the definitions in
the FS regulations, which will meet the BLM needs and ensure
compatibility between agencies for these specific CXs. The BLM rejects
the notion that any road construction causes significant environmental
impacts. The BLM reviewed the FS data where 35 of the 154 timber sales
reviewed by the FS required temporary road construction. The FS found
no significant effects in reviewing these projects. The average length
of temporary road construction for the 35 sales was 0.5 mile. Based
upon its analysis, the BLM determined that temporary road construction
when the CX criteria are met will be non-significant. Therefore, it is
appropriate to use the 0.5-mile maximum length limit for temporary road
construction for these CXs, to maintain consistency between agencies.
Comment: Some comments state that the BLM should conduct an in-
depth cost-benefit analysis of the proposed forestry CXs: 11.9C(6)-(9).
Response: A forestry cost-benefit analysis of each CX is not
necessary because the BLM determined that the cumulative economic
impact of the proposed changes to 516 DM 11, including adoption of CXs
11.9C(7)-(9) would not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on
the economy or adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or state, tribal or local
governments. This determination was reported in the 71 FR 4161, January
25, 2006. The expected economic result from instituting the new
forestry CXs in 516 DM 11.9C is efficient reallocation of resources
needed to complete NEPA review from actions, which do not have a
significant effect to those, which may have a significant effect.
Comment: Some comments question the amount of money the BLM charges
for permits and timber.
Response: This question is not relevant to the proposed revisions
in 516 DM 11 regarding CXs for permits. Market values are a local
issue, and values for resources are set by the BLM Districts based on
local economies.
Comment: Some comments noted that three of the ``proposed new CXs
11.9(7)-(9) mirror new CXs developed by the Forest Service.'' They ``by
reference'' reiterate their concerns about these FS-based Forestry
activities published in the 68 FR 1026, January 8, 2003, in their
comments on the BLM proposal to adopt CXs 11.9(7)-(9).
Response: The concerns expressed in the comment are addressed in
this notice of final action where relevant, and in the case of other
concerns, the relevant FS responses to comments received and published
in 68 FR 44598-44608, July 29, 2003, are by reference included in this
notice of final action. The FS Federal Register notice may be obtained
electronically at http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/lth/notice.pdf.

C(6)--Comments.
Comment: Some comments ask the BLM to provide a ``sufficient
explanation'' for why the proposed Sample Tree Felling (STF) CX
11.9C(6) is limited to certain areas within Oregon. Some comments
suggest that the STF CX 11.9C(6) be expanded to all of Oregon, other
Western States, or BLM-wide.
Response: While the STF survey method has been used elsewhere, the
BLM reviewed NEPA analysis specifically to consider the environmental
effects of the STF timber volume survey method within the western
Oregon lands managed under the Oregon and California Lands Act (Pub. L.
75-405, August 28, 1937, as

[[Page 45516]]

amended by Pub. L. 426, June 24, 1954). The BLM's Lakeview District,
Klamath Falls Resource Area has been added to the BLM management units
that are eligible to use CX 11.9C(6), since it is part of the Oregon
and California Lands Act area where the NEPA analysis and
implementation and effects data are available. Omission of the Klamath
Falls Resource Area in CX 11.9C(6) was unintentional. Therefore,
Lakeview District, Klamath Falls Resource Area is added to the CX as
finalized for these areas. The Prineville District is not located
within the Oregon and California Lands Act area reviewed, and has not
been included in the CX.
Comment: Some comments state that the STF CX 11.9C(6) violates the
agreement that the BLM made in a federal court (Umpqua Watersheds, et
al., v. BLM, No. 00-1750-BR, U.S.D.C. Or., Stipulation for Dismissal
and Order, 13 January 2003). These comments point out that the new CX
will eliminate a court settlement requiring the BLM to restrict STF to
trees under 20'' dbh.
Response: The CX 11.9C(6) was proposed to address the terms of the
agreement which states that: ``Unless or until there is legislative,
regulatory, or other authority adopting a NEPA procedure for sample
tree felling or exempting such actions from NEPA procedures, sample
tree felling for timber sale cruising will not occur prior to the BLM
issuing any final decision document on any BLM District in western
Oregon * * * of any trees over 80 years old * * * of any Douglas-fir
trees 20.0 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) or greater.'' Thus,
rather than constituting a violation of this agreement, this change in
the NEPA procedures for STF was specifically provided for and
anticipated in the stipulated order resulting from the settlement
agreement. CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1507.3 and 1508.4 give the BLM the
authority for adopting a NEPA procedure to categorically exclude
proposed actions, and based on the analysis referred to in previous
responses and the analysis available at http://www.blm.gov/planning/handouts/CX_Report-Sample_Tree_Falling.pdf
, the BLM determined that

a CX was appropriate for STF. CEQ's testimony before the House
Committee on Resources Task Force on Updating the NEPA Lessons Learned
Oversight Hearing on November 17, 2005, reemphasized the responsibility
of federal agencies to establish appropriate new CXs to promote
efficient NEPA compliance.
Comment: Some comments state that the proposed STF activities in CX
11.9C(6) could have significant impacts on the environment. Other
comments state that the STF CX 11.9C(6) analysis report (http://www.doi.gov/oepc/cx_analysis.html or http://www.blm.gov/planning/

specifically identified STF as the proposed action category that could
be tied to a finding of no individually or cumulatively significant
impacts.
Response: Based on the comment received, the BLM revisited the 2001
through 2005 timber sale EA data used for the proposed STF CX, which
came from five BLM Districts in western Oregon (Coos Bay, Eugene,
Medford, Roseburg, and Salem) that have historically used STF
extensively. In the timber sale EAs analyzed, four of the five
Districts' data (Coos Bay, Eugene, Medford, and Salem) did not
specifically address the impacts of STF. The Roseburg District EAs did
specifically address cumulative effects of STF as the proposed action
category in their 14 project EAs between October 1, 2001, and September
30, 2005. Based on the comments received, the BLM conducted a further
review of six District-wide programmatic STF EAs (Coos Bay, Eugene,
Medford, Roseburg, Salem, and Lakeview District--Klamath Falls Resource
Area) completed prior to the 2003 Court Stipulation for Dismissal and
Order (Umpqua Watersheds, et al., v. BLM, No. 00-1750-BR, U.S.D.C. Or.,
Stipulation for Dismissal and Order, 13 January 2003). The six
District-wide programmatic EAs were written specifically to analyze STF
in the six western Oregon districts. Each programmatic EA analyzed STF
effects, and none were found to be significant. Analysis from both data
sets support the conclusion that performing STF activities will cause
no individually or cumulatively significant impacts on the human
environment when the STF activities are as described in CX 11.9C(6) and
when no ``extraordinary circumstances'' (516 DM 2.3A(3) and appendix 2)
apply. In all cases where STF was implemented on the ground, the actual
impacts of STF were the same as the predicted impacts, and caused no
individual or cumulative significant impacts.
Comment: Some comments state that STF is a connected action not
subject to categorical exclusion. They posit that a proposed STF action
is ``always connected to a commercial timber sale'' so categorically
excluding an STF is a ``segmenting action'' which could prevent
appropriate consideration of cumulative impacts.
Response: The BLM position is that STF and timber sales are not
connected actions under the NEPA. There are numerous administrative and
information gathering activities that occur on forested BLM lands that
may or may not be within proposed timber sale areas. Many of these
activities, e.g., stand exams, prescription inventory plots, wildlife
surveys, property line and boundary surveys, are typically performed
through a basic data collection CX. These activities are separate
actions that are carried out in different time periods to provide the
BLM with information to expand the knowledge of resource values.
Collecting inventory data through stand exams, conducting wildlife
surveys, or felling sample trees to ascertain volumes is not directly
connected to proposed actions, and does not make a resource use
allocation decision. If a subsequent timber sale project is proposed,
the BLM is mandated by regulation (40 CFR 1507 and 1508.4) and the DOI
(516 DM 2) to determine the scope of the proposed timber sale, consider
alternative actions, and assess the affected environment through an EA
or EIS, as warranted, including potential cumulative impacts.
Comment: Some comments state that the proposed STF CX 11.9C(6)
violates a NEPA requirement that actions not be taken to implement a
decision before a decision is made (e.g., cutting down sample trees in
units that are or could potentially be allocated in a LUP for a timber
sale). They state that the BLM is committing resources prejudicing the
ultimate decision.
Response: The BLM disagrees. Sampling the potential timber yield of
an area to obtain basic resource inventory data is not equivalent to
making a decision regarding resource use allocation. There are
instances where for various reasons proposed timber units or sales have
not been offered, even though sample trees were cut to gather
information on stand harvest potential. Cutting individual sample trees
at an average density of less than one tree per acre does not
constitute an irrevocable commitment to sell the timber stand measured
by this method.
Comment: Some comments state the BLM should use the NWFP standards
for exempting thinning projects in stands less than 80 years old from
Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) review. They state that this action
would help prevent the BLM ``abuse of discretion in thinning in young
stands to restore old-growth conditions in Late Successional Reserves
(LSR).'' The comments suggest that the REO exemption criteria are based
on credible science that will help to build public trust/support.

[[Page 45517]]

Response: No changes to the NWFP are proposed with this CX, and the
BLM will continue to follow the standards of the NWFP when implementing
the CX. The BLM will continue to follow the guidance contained in the
REO Memorandum of April 20, 1995, ``Criteria to Exempt Specific
Silvicultural Activities in LSRs and MLSAs from REO Review.'' By
following the NWFP standards and the REO guidance when using the CX,
the BLM concludes that no additional constraints need be applied, no
``abuse in discretion in thinning'' will occur, and no significant
impacts will result.
Comment: Some comments state that the number of trees to be sampled
on average per acre is too small while others state the sample size is
too large.
Response: The numbers of trees sampled is not a randomly chosen
number that is easily or arbitrarily increased or decreased. The
numbers of trees to be sampled are determined by a statistical equation
(refer to the current the BLM Timber Cruising Handbook, H-5310-1) and
reflect past and projected future BLM practices. The total number of
sample trees required is less than one tree per acre on average as
shown by the data and ongoing BLM forestry management activities.
Comment: Some comments state that using data from small tree STF to
conclude that there are no impacts to old-growth STF is not logical. In
addition, these data fail to reveal the real and cumulative
environmental impacts of cutting old-growth STF. A related comment made
is that if the tree is older it will be larger, and therefore, more
likely to be included in the STF sample.
Response: Based on the comments received, the BLM conducted a
further review, which included six pre-2001 District-wide programmatic
EAs for STF in Coos Bay, Eugene, Medford, Roseburg, Salem, and Lakeview
District, Klamath Falls Resource Area. These EAs analyzed the effects
of STF on trees of all ages, including older stands with timber greater
than 80 years of age. Even with a greater number of large trees
sampled, the environmental impacts are not significant. Based on the
additional review of the STF Programmatic EAs and the findings
published in the 71 FR 4159-4167, January 25, 2006, the BLM concludes
that when there are no ``extraordinary circumstances'' (516 DM 2.3A(3)
and appendix 2), the 11.9C(6) CX will not cause individually or
cumulatively significant impacts, regardless of the age of the stand.
The comment that a larger tree may be more likely to be included in the
sample is not relevant to the use of a CX, since it does not change the
conclusion that the sample size would average less than one tree per
acre, and there would be no significant impacts from this level of
action.
Comment: Some comments state the BLM should correct the date on the
``CX Project--Sample Tree Felling'' analysis report (dated January 3,
2005), when the actual date was January 3, 2006.
Response: The typographic error in the date of the analysis report
has been corrected. The STF data analyzed were compiled in November
2005. The NEPA review process findings discussed in the analysis report
came from STF projects performed between October 1, 2001, and September
30, 2005. The BLM subsequently examined pre-2001 programmatic EAs which
resulted in the same finding--no individually or cumulatively
significant effects occurred as a result of STF activities (see last
comment and response).
Comment: Some comments state that the ``CX Project--Sample Tree
Felling'' analysis report should have documented the high costs
associated with preparation of EAs.
Response: The requested cost-benefit analysis is not required for
this CX.
Comment: Some comments state that STF sampling should be limited to
young timber stands.
Response: The BLM disagrees. The STF is used to obtain volume
estimates based on generally accepted survey methods regardless of the
age of the stand, which requires cutting representative trees, whether
young or old. STF has been determined to be a more accurate method of
determining tree volume in large trees because it is superior to other
methods in detecting defect and measuring tree taper.
Comment: The number of data analysis ``flaws'' is a concern. For
example, failure to consider impacts on old-growth and reserve land
allocations, flawed data collection methods, and analyzing STF data for
only young trees to justify STF in old-growth forests. The BLM's
assumptions and conclusion that STF does not constitute a significant
action as defined by NEPA, could be wrong.
Response: Based on the comments received, the BLM revisited the
data used to prepare the ``CX Report--Sample Tree Felling'' posted at
http://www.doi.gov/oepc/cx_analysis.html and http://www.blm.gov/planning/news.html.
The BLM then conducted a further review of six pre-
eview of six pre-
Roseburg, Salem, and Lakeview District, Klamath Falls Resource Area).
These EAs included an analysis of the effects of STF on trees of all
ages. The data analyzed by the BLM supports the conclusion that
performing STF activities as described in the CX 11.9C(6), regardless
of the timber age, and when there are no ``extraordinary
circumstances'' (516 DM 2.3A(3) and appendix 2), will cause no
individually or cumulatively significant impacts on the human
environment.
Comment: Some comments state that hundreds of old-growth trees will
be removed if the STF CX 11.9C(6) is instituted.
Response: By its own terms, the STF CX 11.9C(6) limits felling,
bucking, and scaling sample trees to an average of one tree per acre or
fewer. The CX does not include yarding and removal (harvesting) of
trees; therefore, generally, the trees felled will remain in situ.
Comment: Some comments state the BLM should clarify the language
used in CX 11.9C(6). There was concern about: (a) Interpretation of the
qualifier ``approximately one [tree] per acre;'' (b) the purpose of the
reference to ``use of ground-based equipment;'' (c) whether
``temporary'' roads are considered roads in this context; and (d) what
is meant by the timber yarding text. Some comments state that the CX
language seems to ``be a bit open-ended.''
Response: The CX language for 11.9C(6) has been revised to clarify
that the allowable action or activity is ``less than one tree per acre
on average'' and the only tools permitted are ``gas-powered chainsaws
and handtools.'' Road and trail construction (of any type) and ``timber
yarding'' are expressly prohibited. The modifications tighten the
language.

C(7)--Comments
Comment: Some comments state that the 70-acre size threshold is
excessively large for a ``small'' timber sale. They state that a 10-
acre limit would be more appropriate based on ``interim policy'' issued
in the 52 FR 30935, August 10, 1987, and reissued in the 53 FR 29505,
August 5, 1988, and again revised in the 57 FR 43180, September 18,
1992.
Response: The BLM disagrees. The FS updated its ``interim
policies'' to set the 70-acre limit based on a relatively recent
analysis of relevant data (68 FR 44598--44608, July 29, 2003). The BLM
reviewed the FS changes in acreages over the 15-year period from 1987
to 2003, which resulted in a different position from past interim
policies, and concluded that the data supported a FS size limit change
from 10 acres in 1987 to 70 acres in 2003. The BLM determined that the
70-acre limit is appropriate to meet the BLM's needs, based on its
review and comparability

[[Page 45518]]

analysis of the FS data, which was found to have no individually or
cumulatively significant environmental effects. Using a 70-acre limit
for both the BLM and the FS will help maintain consistency between the
agencies when applying CXs. The BLM concluded from this review that
there would be no significant effect, individually or cumulatively,
from the 70-acre size limit for these actions on public lands.
Comment: Some comments support the ``even-aged regeneration''
limitation, while others ask that it be stricken from the 70-acre live
tree harvest CX 11.9C(7) language.
Response: The BLM is not changing the even-aged regeneration
harvest limitation. Even-aged regeneration harvests involve a different
scope of environmental effects, which exceed the supporting data for
the live tree harvesting CX. Uneven-aged harvest systems (individual
tree selection and group selection) maintain the canopy of a forest
stand; and therefore, have relatively little effect on the structural
and aesthetic properties of stands. Even-aged regeneration harvests,
such as clearcutting, seed tree, and shelterwoods, were excluded from
use in CX 11.9C(7). The limitation was derived from the FS data that
showed the action described in the CX to have no individually or
cumulatively significant environmental effects, and which the BLM
review and analysis concluded would cause no significant effects on the
BLM lands. In addition, the BLM will apply the ``extraordinary
circumstances'' test to individual actions covered by the CXs.
Comment: Some comments ask the BLM to be more ``inclusive of a
greater range of possible live-tree cutting activities, whether to
accomplish fuel reduction, forest health, wildlife, pre-commercial
thinning, or commercial timber sale objectives.''
Response: The CX 11.9C(7) language includes several examples of
when it may be employed correctly; however, this is not an exhaustive
list of potentially suitable applications. The live tree harvest CX
focuses on small timber harvests of 70 acres or less regardless of the
reasons for the harvest and specifically states the examples ``may
include'' and ``but are not limited to'' those examples given in the
CX. Therefore, the activities listed above could be covered by this CX
if they meet all the CX qualifying criteria and none of the
``extraordinary circumstances'' as defined in 516 DM 2.3A(3) and
appendix 2, apply.

C(8)--Comments.
Comment: Some comments ask the BLM to define ``dying tree'' because
``most mature trees are in some state of decadence.''
Response: In the context of proposed CX 11.9C(8), a dying tree is a
standing tree that has been severely damaged by forces such as fire,
wind, ice, insects, or disease, and that in the judgment of an
experienced forest professional or someone technically trained for the
work, is likely to die within a few years.
Comment: Some comments reference scientific findings that salvage
tree harvesting will increase soil erosion and sedimentation through
multiple mechanisms. Other comments ask the BLM to consider the
scientific evidence that salvage tree harvesting is harmful to the
environment and increases wildfire risk.
Response: The BLM reviewed the FS data and practices, and
determined that none of the sampled FS projects resulted in
individually or cumulatively significant environmental effects. This
indicates that agency practices and guidelines are effective at
mitigating environmental impacts, including soil erosion,
sedimentation, and fire risk. The BLM's salvage tree harvesting
practices, guidelines and project effects are similar to the FS (http://www.blm.gov/planning/handouts/CX_Report-Forestry-FS_CXs.pdf
).

Therefore, the BLM concludes that by implementing similar salvage tree
harvesting practices and guidelines, the BLM's salvage tree harvesting
projects that use CX 11.9C(8), will have no significant impacts on
environmental conditions including soil erosion, sedimentation, or
increased fire risk. If one or more of the extraordinary circumstances
listed in 516 DM 2, appendix 2 apply, the Responsible Official cannot
use the new forestry CXs.
Comment: Some comments posit that there is sufficient scientific
evidence available that contradicts the ``finding that no significant
impacts'' occur when the salvage tree harvesting CX 11.9C(8) criteria
are used. They reference several scientific publications that support a
conclusion that salvage tree harvesting is damaging to the human
environment.
Response: The BLM concludes that salvage tree harvesting will not
have significant effects on the environment based on the review of the
FS data where none of the FS sampled projects showed significant
environmental impacts. As some scientific publications point out,
salvage activities can have negative environmental impacts, depending
on the condition of the site, the harvesting system, time of the year,
and other factors. However, both the FS and the BLM practices and
guidelines have been developed with regard to soil and water protection
on appropriate sites that will lead to no significant effects. This
indicates that agency practices and guidelines are effective at
mitigating environmental impacts, including soil erosion,
sedimentation, and fire risk. When designing salvage projects, the BLM
uses an extensive array of guidelines and procedures to prevent and
mitigate negative environmental impacts during these activities. The
BLM's salvage tree harvesting practices and guidelines are similar to
the FS (http://www.blm.gov/planning/handouts/CX_Report-Forestry-FS_CXs.pdf
). Therefore, the BLM concludes that by implementing salvage

tree harvesting practices and guidelines similar to those implemented
by the FS; the BLM's salvage tree harvesting projects that use CX
11.9C(8), will have no significant impacts on environmental conditions
including soil erosion, sedimentation, or increased fire risk. The
Responsible Official must consider the ``extraordinary circumstances''
(516 DM 2.3A(3) and appendix 2) before deciding if a proposed action
qualifies for using the CX. If one or more of the ``extraordinary
circumstances'' listed in 516 DM 2 appendix 2 apply, the Responsible
Official cannot use the new forestry CXs.
Comment: Some comments ask the BLM to provide the scientific
information necessary to justify an implied assumption that salvage
tree harvesting has less environmental impacts than other types of tree
harvesting.
Response: Implied assumptions have not been used, nor has the BLM
stated whether salvage tree harvesting has more or less environmental
impacts than other types of tree harvesting. The purpose of the CX is
not to compare the environmental effects of different types of tree
harvesting, but to determine whether a CX for salvage tree harvesting
is appropriate. The salvage tree harvesting CX 11.9C(8) is proposed
based on the BLM's review of the FS conclusion that implementing the CX
criteria will ensure that no individually or cumulatively significant
impacts on the human environment will occur (68 FR 44598-44608, July
29, 2003). Where significant effects may occur, the FS concluded that
their consideration of the FS ``extraordinary circumstances'' (FSH
1909.15, Ch. 30, Sec. 30.3, para. 2) would not allow the use of the CX.
The BLM has completed a comparison and finds the FS CX to easily
compare with the BLM CX; and therefore, will consider using this CX
only when the CX qualifiers apply in full and when none of the DOI
``extraordinary circumstances'' apply (516 DM 2.3A(3)

[[Page 45519]]

and appendix 2). The harvest activity acreage limits were established
by the FS based on review and analysis of the data used to establish
the CXs (http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/lth/1998_details.pdf). The BLM

concurs with the conclusions drawn by the FS, based on similar
management practices and resulting environmental effects. The BLM
concludes that with the acreage limitation and other criteria in place,
the actions covered under the salvage tree harvesting CX will have no
significant effect on the environment, individually or cumulatively.
Comment: Some comments state that salvage tree harvesting harms
species protected by the ESA, that the CX fails to acknowledge that
large snags provide valuable habitat and contribute little to fire
hazard, or that salvage tree harvesting has significant impacts on
woodpeckers.
Response: The BLM must ensure that any action authorized, funded,
or carried out by its Responsible Officials is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered, threatened, or proposed
species (such as the woodpecker mentioned in the comment above), or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. The BLM is required to comply with Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act, regardless of the type of NEPA document
completed. The Responsible Official cannot use the salvage tree
harvesting CX 11.9C(8) if any of the ``extraordinary circumstances'' in
516 DM 2.3A(3) and appendix 2 apply. Extraordinary circumstance 2.8
(516 DM 2 appendix 2) specifically prohibits the application of a CX
review process if there is the potential to have a significant impact
on listed species or their critical habitat.
Comment: Some comments ask the BLM not to salvage log and gave the
following reasons: Some forested areas are designated as ``Late
Successional Reserves'' or ``Critical Habitat Units'' where the
management goals are incompatible with salvage tree harvesting; salvage
tree harvesting eliminates important stand history data, structure,
variability, and complexity; large, decay resistant snags and logs are
important ecologically; and the large pulse of dead wood created by
disturbance (such as fire and disease) is significant for an
ecosystem's recovery over the long-term.
Response: Management goals in LSRs and salvage tree harvesting are
compatible. For example, the 1994 NWFP and the six 1995 Western Oregon
RMPs provide guidance for management of federal forest lands in western
Oregon. The NWFP ROD identified specific conditions in which salvage
tree harvesting could take place without negatively affecting the
attainment of LSR goals (NWFP ROD, Standards and Guidelines for
Management of Habitat for Late Successional and Old-Growth Forest
Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl,
Guidelines for Salvage pp. C13-C16). Salvage activities can have
negative environmental impacts, depending on the condition of the site,
the harvesting system, time of the year, and many other factors.
However, both the FS and the BLM practices and guidelines have been
developed with regard to soil and water protection on appropriate sites
that will lead to no significant effects. For example, in the area
covered by the NWFP, the ROD identified specific conditions in which
salvage tree harvesting could take place without negatively affecting
Late Successional habitat goals. All actions must conform to the LUP
management guidelines regardless of the level of NEPA analysis
completed (43 CFR 1610.5-3).
Comment: Some comments state, ``salvage tree harvesting is not
compatible with contemporary ecosystem-based management.''
Response: Salvage tree harvesting is one of many methods used to
achieve a goal on the landscape, and is compatible with ecosystem-based
management. The BLM uses ecosystem management to look at the big
picture, beyond federal agency boundaries, and to work closely with
other land managers, both public and private. When analyzing effects,
the BLM addresses the long-term consequences of today's decisions,
analyzing effects to various resources as interrelating parts of
systems rather than as individual components to be managed separately.
When implementing decisions, the BLM uses many tools. Salvage tree
harvesting is one of the tools used to achieve on-the-ground goals.
Comment: Some comments state that there is an increased risk that a
``commercial'' salvage tree harvesting project will ``escape''
sufficient environmental analysis to prevent significant environmental
impacts.
Response: The BLM disagrees. The FS data were reviewed for this
activity, and demonstrate that no individually and cumulatively
significant environmental impacts are likely to occur if the salvage
tree harvesting CX criteria apply and if a determination is made that
none of the ``extraordinary circumstances'' (516 DM 2.3A(3) and
appendix 2) apply. The BLM determined that establishing the CX is
appropriate. The analytical findings did not differentiate between
commercial and non-commercial activities. The effects on the ground of
a project would be the same regardless of whether someone is likely to
profit from the venture.
Comment: Some comments state that there are increased fire risks
associated with salvage tree harvesting which will be overlooked in the
CX review process.
Response: Based on the BLM review and analysis of the data, the BLM
concludes that actions qualifying for the CX will not cause a
significant increase in fire risk or fire hazard.
Comment: Some comments ask the BLM to consider the effects of
salvage tree harvesting by preparing a ``new programmatic EIS for young
complex forests'' because the FS and the BLM ``have [not] fully
disclosed and considered current scientific understandings about the
role of fire in forest development.''
Response: The role of fire in forest development is beyond the
scope of the proposed action.
C(9)--Comments.
Comment: Some comments state that the phrase ``and adjacent live
uninfested/infected trees as determined necessary'' should either be
eliminated or quantified to show that a state licensed, responsible FS
or BLM consultant, employee, or expert in the field, has validated and
documented the need to harvest adjacent trees.
Response: Federal agency specialists are qualified to make
determinations necessary in order to carry out their work in support of
the federal government, and are not required to have state licenses. A
forester or trained person determines if a tree adjacent to an infected
tree should be removed to reduce the chance of spreading insects or
disease to the rest of the timber stand. Typically trees are harvested
that are expected to die within a year and have indicators such as: No
new growth, lack of leaves during the growing season, yellowing
needles, loss of needles or leaves in the tree crown, or are
immediately adjacent to dead trees recently killed by root rot.
Sanitation tree harvesting would not remove all defective trees as many
are left for wildlife and other resource values.
Comment: Some comments state that the BLM overestimates the
negative effects of insects and disease and fails to consider
beneficial effects.
Response: The BLM agrees that there are both negative and positive
effects from insect-infested and diseased trees. However, the BLM is
not placing value judgments on the positive or negative effects, but is
premising this CX on its judgment that a FS analysis effort correctly
found that the effects of sanitation harvesting up to 250 acres

[[Page 45520]]

when specific criteria are met will have no significant effect,
individually or cumulatively. The harvest activity acreage limits were
determined by the FS based on review and analysis of the data used to
establish the CXs (http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/lth/1998_details.pdf). The

BLM concurs with the conclusions drawn by the FS and concludes that for
BLM actions, due to similar management practices in similar ecosystems,
the resulting environmental effects on public lands will be not
significant, individually or cumulatively. Further, the BLM will review
each proposed action against the DOI ``extraordinary circumstances''
(516 DM 2.3A(3)). If any apply, the CX cannot be used.

Responses to Specific Comments on Section 11.9--Categorical Exclusions

D. Rangeland Management (sub-part (10)-(12))

D(10)--Comments.
Comment: Some comments ask the BLM to explain the relationship
between the proposed vegetation management CX 11.9D(10) and the ``Draft
Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management
Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement;
Volumes 1 & 2'' (DVPEIS). Some comments are concerned that the proposed
vegetation management CX will ``be abused'' to meet a threefold annual
increase in treated acres proposed in the DVPEIS.
Response: The November 2005 DVPEIS (http://www.blm.gov/weeds/VegEIS/index.htm
) analyzed the potential effects of one of the BLM's

vegetation management tools (application of herbicides). The CX
11.9D(10) is established because the BLM has reviewed the environmental
effects of site-specific routine vegetation management activities and
determined that those activities, absent extraordinary circumstances,
do not have individual or cumulative significant effects and the
activities can proceed without being analyzed in an EA or EIS. By its
own terms, this CX does not allow its use with respect to any proposed
chemical herbicide action.
Comment: Some comments state that the justification for the
proposed vegetation management CX 11.9D(10) is inadequately
substantiated. They point to the fact that the BLM has based its
justification on data from post-fire restoration efforts and ``no data
specific to the myriad other vegetative manipulation projects.''
Response: Though the purpose of treating hazardous fuels and
applying post-fire emergency rehabilitation is different from ``routine
management of vegetation,'' the actions and resulting effects are
judged to be the same by professionals in the BLM. Therefore, the BLM
has determined that it is appropriate to establish this CX based on
these on-the-ground similarities. Data on routine vegetation
manipulation activities designed to reduce hazardous fuels and mitigate
post-wildfire environmental impacts were collected in September 2002
and analyzed in June 2003 to determine whether two CXs proposed under
the Healthy Forest Initiative (HFI) (68 FR 33813-33824, June 5, 2003),
were appropriate on DOI and FS lands. These same types of routine
vegetation manipulation activities, and their effects on the same lands
and resources analyzed in that context, would be addressed by the CX
under consideration here. In the HFI context, information on 30
variables for 2,558 projects representing a range of conditions across
the United States was analyzed. These data included project-specific
information on the location, size, vegetation type, NEPA review
processes used, predicted environmental impacts of proposed treatments,
treatments performed, actual environmental impacts after treatments,
and whether the associated ROD was appealed. A total of 3,073
treatments, in various combinations, were applied to the 2,558
projects. The vegetation treatments for reducing hazardous fuels
included burning, mechanical thinning, application of chemical
herbicides and use of biological agents (such as grazing goats). Some
projects had more than one treatment applied and multiple tactics such
as seeding, planting, tree felling, and soil stabilizing erosion
control devices were used. The existing HFI hazardous fuel reduction
and emergency rehabilitation CXs do not provide for the application of
chemical herbicides or biological agents. Therefore, for the purpose of
the routine vegetation management CX considered here, the BLM has
proposed the same activity limits. Further, the BLM clarified the final
CX language to specifically identify a limitation that no biological