National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures: Timber Salvage Harvest Categorical Exclusion

Issuing agencies

Abstract

This notice announces a revision to the Department of the Interior (Department)'s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing procedures by adding a new categorical exclusion (CE) for timber salvage harvest in the Department's Handbook of NEPA Implementing Procedures, Appendix 2: Bureau Categorical Exclusions

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 162 (Monday, August 24, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 162 (Monday, August 24, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54739-54744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-17251]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary

[A2407-014-004-065516, #O2509-014-004-125222; LLHQ21000]


National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures: Timber 
Salvage Harvest Categorical Exclusion

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a revision to the Department of the 
Interior (Department)'s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
implementing procedures by adding a new categorical exclusion (CE) for 
timber salvage harvest in the Department's Handbook of NEPA 
Implementing Procedures, Appendix 2: Bureau Categorical Exclusions

DATES: The CE is effective August 24, 2026.

ADDRESSES: The new CE will be found at the web address for the 
Department's Handbook of NEPA Implementing Procedures: <a href="https://www.doi.gov/document-library/handbook/516-dm-1-handbook-national-environmental-policy-act-implementing">https://www.doi.gov/document-library/handbook/516-dm-1-handbook-national-environmental-policy-act-implementing</a>. The Substantiation Report for 
the CE is available at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)'s ePlanning 
site: <a href="https://eplanning.blm.gov/Project-Home/?id=228df480-512f-f111-8341-001dd8029ed0">https://eplanning.blm.gov/Project-Home/?id=228df480-512f-f111-8341-001dd8029ed0</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacie McIntosh, Deputy Assistant 
Director, Directorate of Resources and Planning at (907) 378 -3815, or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#116221247c72787f6551737d7c3f767e67"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aad99a9fc7c9c3c4deeac8c6c784cdc5dc">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, 
deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 
(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. 
Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services 
offered within their country to make international calls to the point-
of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department published the proposed CE for timber salvage harvest 
on April 6, 2026, for a 30-day public comment period. Refer to the 
Federal Register notice 91 FR 17302 proposing the CE for more 
information regarding the background and rationale for establishment of 
the CE. This notice notifies the public of the Department's 
establishment of the timber salvage harvest CE and includes the 
Department's responses to comments from the public on the proposed CE. 
The Department has not made any changes to the proposed CE text.
    The Department is establishing the CE to support approval of 
actions to harvest dead or dying trees impacted by biotic or abiotic 
disturbances, commonly referred to as ``salvage harvest'' to accelerate 
reestablishment of native resilient forest tree species, reduce 
wildfire fuel loads, and help recover economic value from timber to 
contribute to rural economies.
    NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., requires Federal agencies to consider 
the environmental effects of their proposed actions in their decision-
making processes. To comply with NEPA, agencies determine the 
appropriate level of review of any proposed major Federal action--an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Environmental Assessment (EA), or 
a CE. See 42 U.S.C. 4336(b); 43 CFR part 46; 516 Departmental Manual 1, 
``U.S. Department of the Interior Handbook of National Environmental 
Policy Act Implementing Procedures,'' section 1.2 (2026) (516 DM 1). 
Where it is reasonably foreseeable that significant environmental 
effects are likely, the agency must prepare an EIS and document its 
decision. See 42 U.S.C. 4336 (b)(1); 516 DM 1 section 1.2(a)(5)(ii). 
Where appropriate, an agency may prepare an EA, and if that EA supports 
the agency reaching a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the 
proposed action, the agency need not prepare an EIS. See generally, 42 
U.S.C. 4336(b)(2); 516 DM 1 section 1.6; section 1.2(a)(4).
    Under NEPA, agencies may establish CEs--categories of actions that 
the agency has determined normally do not significantly affect the 
quality of the human environment--in their agency NEPA implementing 
procedures (42 U.S.C. 4336e(1)). An agency may also adopt a CE listed 
in another agency's NEPA procedures consistent with section 109 of NEPA 
(42 U.S.C. 4336c).
    Under the Department's NEPA procedures, if a bureau determines that 
a CE covers a proposed action, it then evaluates the proposed action 
for the presence of extraordinary circumstances, which are factors or 
circumstances that indicate a normally categorically excluded action 
may have

[[Page 54740]]

a significant effect (43 CFR 46.205, 46.215). If the bureau cannot 
categorically exclude the proposed action following review for 
extraordinary circumstances, it will prepare an EA or EIS, as 
appropriate, before issuing any decision to authorize the action (43 
CFR 46.205(c), 42 U.S.C. 4336(b)).

II. Comments on the Proposed CE

    The Department received 284 comment letters during the 30-day 
public comment period on the proposed CE. Comments were submitted by 
state governments, interest groups, non-profit organizations, and 
private citizens. The Department received comments both in support of 
and in opposition to the proposed CE. Some comments addressed the BLM's 
forest management policy or management direction that is specific to 
Resource Management Plans (RMPs). The Department provides no response 
to comments that are beyond the scope of the establishment of this CE, 
which pertains only to compliance with NEPA for forest management 
actions, not the character or advisability of such actions. The 
Department considered all comments to date and responds in this notice 
to all 25 substantive issues raised in the public comments. The 
Department appreciates the interest and participation of all 
respondents. The Department, where appropriate, grouped together 
similar or related comments, and responds to the comments as follows:
    Comment 1: The Department received comments suggesting that timely 
salvage of dead and dying trees allows managers to recover economic 
value that would otherwise be lost.
    Response 1: While the establishment of this CE does not authorize 
specific salvage projects, the Department agrees with the comment that 
timely salvage of dead and dying trees allows managers to recover 
economic value that would otherwise be lost. Additionally, unsalvaged 
timber can become a financial burden to remove as excessive hazardous 
fuels once the trees have deteriorated and lost economic value. The 
BLM: A Sound Investment for America 2025 report estimated that in 
fiscal year 2024 BLM forest management supported $1.4 billion in 
economic output and 5,700 jobs.
    Comment 2: The Department received comments suggesting post-
disturbance landscapes with heavy fuel loads increase the risk of 
severe wildfires that can lead to long-term closures, damaged trails, 
degraded wildlife habitat, and reduced opportunities for hunting, off-
highway vehicle use, hiking, and recreational access and experiences on 
public lands.
    Response 2: While the establishment of this CE does not authorize 
salvage actions, the Department agrees that leaving large volumes of 
dead trees after a severe disturbance can have a number of long-term 
negative impacts on trails, wildlife habitat, and reduced opportunities 
for hunting, off-highway vehicle use, hiking, and recreational access 
and experiences on public lands. Further detail and scientific 
literature on the impact of heavy fuel loads long-term is provided in 
the Substantiation Report.
    Comment 3: The Department received comments suggesting that timely 
salvage reduces hazards to fire fighters from future wildfire.
    Response 3: While the establishment of this CE does not authorize 
salvage actions, the Department agrees that landscapes with dense 
standing dead trees and/or heavy downed coarse woody debris beyond a 
minimum level needed for wildlife habitat and soil benefits can lead to 
an elevated level of hazards to fire fighters which can hamper fire 
suppression operations. The Substantiation Report documents safety 
hazard reports and fire behavior observations from wildfire incidents 
that contained heavy loading from dead trees (National Interagency Fire 
Center).
    Comment 4: Some comments suggested the Department should conduct 
public comment on every salvage project to better serve the public 
interest.
    Response 4: The Department values public participation and there 
are various opportunities for the public and stakeholders to provide 
public input in forest management. For the BLM, this includes the 
development, revision, and amendment of land use plans, through which 
the BLM determines the forest management direction for each specific 
planning area.
    Comment 5: Some commenters suggested that the establishment of this 
CE would approve salvage logging that threatens soil quality, riparian 
areas, clean water, and fisheries and negatively impact wildlife and 
endangered species protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). A 
commenter further recommended minimum riparian buffers.
    Response 5: The establishment of this CE does not approve any 
specific salvage action; instead, it provides a mechanism for bureaus 
to comply with NEPA when authorizing covered actions. Before use of the 
CE, bureaus would need to review for the presence of any extraordinary 
circumstances (43 CFR 46.215). Through that review, the bureaus must 
verify that any proposed action would not have significant effects on 
ecologically significant or critical areas, or similar natural 
resources; or on species listed or proposed to be listed under the ESA, 
or on any designated critical habitat. Moreover, protections for 
important, scarce, or sensitive resources are available through 
statutes other than NEPA, such as ESA and the Clean Water Act. Those 
protections are not affected by the establishment of or use of this CE. 
Finally, proposed actions must conform to the applicable land use plan, 
including any plan direction developed to protect species of concern, 
critical habitat, aquatic resources and water quality. This CE also 
specifically directs riparian buffers and operating restrictions as 
standard design features for each project to protect riparian resources 
and water quality.
    Comment 6: The Department received comments that salvage logging at 
the scope, scale, and intensity in the proposed CE would have 
significant impacts.
    Response 6: To address the intensity, scope, and scale of the 
proposed actions that would be covered by the CE, the CE constrains the 
harvest area to one-third the disturbance area when the disturbance 
exceeds 3,000 acres not to exceed 5,000 acres overall. The CE 
requirements that must be met for a bureau to use the CE for a covered 
action, including the direction for design features in the established 
CE reduce the intensity and impacts, are described in the 
Substantiation Report. As with other administratively developed CEs, 
when applying this CE, Responsible Officials must evaluate proposed 
actions to determine whether any extraordinary circumstances are 
present in accordance with the requirements in the Department's NEPA 
implementing procedures at 43 CFR 46.205 and 46.215. When using this 
CE, the Responsible Official must document this review. If the 
Responsible Official cannot rely on this CE to support a decision to 
authorize a project due to the presence of extraordinary circumstances, 
the Responsible Official must prepare an EA or EIS before authorizing 
such activities, consistent with 43 CFR 46.205(c) and 42 U.S.C. 
4336(b).
    Comment 7: The Department received comments suggesting that the 
majority of high severity burn areas are not reforested and that the 
establishment and use of this CE would improve reforestation efforts 
and forest recovery.
    Response 7: While the establishment of this CE does not authorize 
salvage actions, the Department agrees that high severity disturbance 
areas where the

[[Page 54741]]

density of dead trees is high have generally remained non-forested for 
long periods after the disturbance. High severity areas lack seed trees 
to provide a seed source for natural regeneration. The BLM has had to 
forgo reforestation for years after the disturbance in some areas due 
to the extreme hazard of limbs, tops, and dead trees falling on 
planting crews. Delayed reforestation allows understory vegetation and 
shrubs to get a head start on tree seedling establishment which can 
make reforestation challenging (Sessions et al. 2004). In addition, 
fuel loads from abundant coarse woody debris can persist for decades 
which endanger the young trees that are critical for the site 
recovering forest cover. The Department agrees that salvage harvest can 
be a necessary step to restore forest cover after severe tree 
mortality.
    Comment 8: The Department received a comment recommending that 
under covered actions (a)(v) pertaining to seeding to accelerate native 
species reestablishment, consideration should be given to seed mixtures 
that provide understory, midstory, and canopy diversity, as well as 
annuals that benefit pollinator species.
    Response 8: The Department agrees that understory and midstory 
vegetation re-establishment is important for wildlife and pollinator 
habitat. The Department makes significant efforts and investments in 
native plant restoration through programs like the BLM's Seeds of 
Success Native Seed Collection and the Burned Area Rehabilitation 
programs. The established CE does not preclude native understory 
seeding; however, the Department declines to make it a requirement 
given that the native understory seed may not always be available.
    Comment 9: The Department received comments suggesting that the CE 
could have detrimental impacts on trails that are purposed for scenic 
and primitive hiking, and the Department should add a design feature to 
the CE that prohibits use of the CE within 0.5 miles on either side of 
highly valued trails such as the Continental Divide National Scenic 
Trail.
    Response 9: Land use plans provide management direction consistent 
with National Scenic and Historic Trail comprehensive management plans 
and may require additional design features consistent with applicable 
law to not degrade trails or their settings and to minimize visual 
impacts from designated routes. All projects or activities must conform 
with the applicable resource management plan direction, including 
visual resource management (VRM) classifications, which direct the 
level of allowable visual change to the characteristic landscape, prior 
to the bureau authorizing any use or activity. Use of an established CE 
for NEPA compliance does not eliminate the requirement for a bureau to 
comply with other applicable laws, including requirements outlined in 
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, (FLPMA), as 
amended, that actions must conform with the applicable RMP management 
direction. This requirement is explicitly included in the text of the 
CE where it indicates that the action must be in conformance with land 
use management decisions. Additionally, small amounts of salvage can be 
associated with hazard tree mitigation, so the Department declines to 
put a specific buffer around trails.
    Comment 10: The Department received comments suggesting that 
scientific consensus has shifted away from regarding post-fire logging 
as an activity with any ecological benefit citing the following 
scientific literature: Donato, DC et al. (2006) Post-wildfire logging 
hinders regeneration and increases fire risk. Science 311(5759): 352; 
Beschta, R.L. et al. (2004) Postfire management on forested public 
lands of the western USA. Conservation Biology 18: 957-967; 
Lindenmayer, D.B. et al. (2004) Salvage harvesting policies after 
natural disturbance. Science 303:1303; Karr, J. et al. (2004) The 
effects of postfire salvage logging on aquatic ecosystems in the 
American West. Bioscience 54: 1029-1033; DellaSala, D.A., et al. (2006) 
Post-fire logging debate ignores many issues. Science 314(5796): 51-52.
    Response 10: The Department does not claim that salvage is 
necessary for ecological benefit but rather describes in the 
Substantiation Report how salvage, within the scope of the CE, is an 
activity that can be used to achieve various land management objectives 
without causing significant impacts. The BLM reviewed the citations 
provided and notes the Substantiation Report discusses the tree 
regeneration and fuels findings of Donato et al. 2006. The submitted 
scientific literature discusses beneficial aspects of post-disturbance 
landscapes such as snags for wildlife, landscape heterogeneity, and 
other biological legacies, and the concern that salvage harvest would 
eliminate these features. The Substantiation Report acknowledged these 
points which informed the design of this CE. Specifically, the CE 
treats a maximum of one-third the disturbance area when the disturbance 
is greater than 3,000 acres to maintain a majority of larger natural 
disturbance areas unsalvaged.
    Comment 11: The Department received comments suggesting that 
bureaus should be required to complete an EIS to analyze projects with 
this scope, scale, and/or intensity of impacts.
    Response 11: The Substantiation Report discusses that the 
preparation of an EIS is exceedingly rare for salvage projects. The two 
examples of salvage projects discussed in the Substantiation Report, 
pp. 18-19, 21, had substantial differences in the scope and scale 
compared to the many EAs and FONSIs that were prepared for salvage 
projects that were reviewed and described in the Substantiation Report 
for the establishment of this CE. This leads the Department to 
determine that the action under the parameters described in the CE 
normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human 
environment and, therefore, an EIS is not required.
    Comment 12: The Department received a comment suggesting that 
larger diameter fuels and future downed logs do not contribute 
significantly to fire severity, fire spread, or an increase in future 
fire behavior (Strittholt. 2004., McIver & Starr. 2000., Donato. 2006., 
Donato 2008., Thompson et al., 2007).
    Response 12: The Department reviewed the literature cited in this 
comment and does not agree that the literature supports the definitive 
statement that larger diameter fuels and future downed logs do not 
contribute significantly to fire severity, fire spread, or an increase 
in future fire behavior. The Department notes that the commenter did 
not include any literature post-2008, which is significant since some 
severe tree mortality events such as the Sierra Nevada drought 
mortality from 2012 to 2015 and a number of large fires in the mountain 
pine beetle mortality in the Rocky Mountains occurred after this time 
and provide important case studies. In a synthesis of available 
literature on salvage in McIver and Starr 2000, it is noted that ``we 
found no studies documenting a reduction in fire intensity in a stand 
that had previously burned and then been logged.'' This finding did not 
suggest that salvage does not reduce intensity, but rather that there 
were no studies at that time indicating either way. The Substantiation 
Report for this CE includes studies since 2008 that examine reburns and 
post-disturbance coarse fuels that have documented increases in fire 
severity (Coppoletta et al. 2015; Stephens et al. 2018). The 
Substantiation Report discusses that coarse downed wood varies in its

[[Page 54742]]

contribution to fire behavior temporally, since the change in fuel 
moisture lags changes in weather. It is also true that fine fuels are 
typically the carriers of fire but that is not always the case. When 
affected by long-term drought, coarse woody debris can be a primary 
carrier of fire and can increase fire intensity resulting in higher 
fire severity and can hamper suppression efforts. These findings 
coupled with the size of salvage projects in the record of EAs and 
FONSIs informed the determination of the 5,000-acre maximum size limit.
    Comment 13: The Department received comments suggesting that recent 
studies have disproved the connection between elevated levels of bark 
beetle mortality and increased fire risks.
    Response 13: The Department acknowledged in the Substantiation 
Report that ``in some forest types the contribution of coarse fuels 
from mortality to subsequent severity remains uncertain.'' 
Substantiation Report, p. 25. The Report does not make a universal 
claim that salvage in all circumstances reduces fire risk but instead 
provides empirical evidence that dense beetle-killed timber and drought 
mortality have produced severe fire incidents and have even been the 
driver of the fire behavior in several examples, Substantiation Report 
pp. 25-26. Additionally, areas of dense snags result in safety 
considerations for handcrews that may result in larger fires or greater 
use of heavy equipment.
    Comment 14: The Department received comments suggesting that the 
value of dead standing trees and coarse wood from beetle or fire 
induced mortality is not being adequately considered by the BLM.
    Response 14: The Substantiation Report, p. 24, acknowledges the 
importance of some snags and downed wood for wildlife habitat and soil 
health, and the CE requires specifications for those design features 
for each use. These features were common in past BLM salvage 
implementation that were assessed for this CE.
    Comment 15: The Department received comments suggesting that 
implementing up to 1 mile of new permanent road per project, and 2.25 
miles of new temporary road per thousand acres of logging treatment, 
has significant environmental effects and the CE should not cover 
building any new permanent or new temporary roads.
    Response 15: The Substantiation Report documents that 65 percent of 
the EAs reviewed in the report included the construction of new 
temporary roads. Substantiation Report, pp. 17, 22. Additionally, the 
temporary road coverage in this CE is similar to BLM's well 
established, existing 250-acre CE which has an equivalent 2-mile per 
1,000-acres temporary road density rate. Five of the 34 EAs had 
permanent road construction, with an average rate of 2.2 miles per 
1,000 acres treated. Therefore, the CE's one-mile limit is more 
conservative relative to EA-supported projects that reached FONSIs 
while constructing more road per unit area. This ensures projects that 
use the CE will not expand road networks beyond the levels previously 
demonstrated to be non-significant. Additionally, the CE integrates RMP 
management direction for travel management and required specifications 
for erosion control, invasive weeds, and temporary road decommissioning 
standards which together reduce impacts.
    Comment 16: The Department received a comment suggesting that the 
Substantiation Report Finding 4--Best Available Science incorrectly 
states that the broader synthesis of salvage logging by Lindenmayer et 
al. 2008 was focused narrowly on reserve entries and plantation 
conversions.
    Response 16: The Substantiation Report highlights synthesis 
literature that was reviewed, including Lindenmayer et al. 2008 which 
``included settings (reserve entries, plantation conversions) outside 
the bounded scope of this CE.'' Substantiation Report, p. 24. The 
Report does not say that this research article only covered reserves 
and plantation conversions, but rather that the research findings in 
those particular settings differed from the design and parameters of 
this CE. Research articles that found negative impacts of certain types 
of salvage harvest were valuable and informed the identification of the 
nine categories of design features in this CE to reduce impacts.
    Comment 17: The Department received a comment suggesting that the 
Substantiation Report exaggerates the justification for conducting 
salvage activities by relying on tree-mortality levels showing total 
percentages of areas affected by natural processes instead of annual 
percentages (rates).
    Response 17: The background information in the Substantiation 
Report was provided to describe the relative magnitude of tree 
mortality and landscape-level disturbances that have occurred in recent 
years. The establishment of this CE is based on the Department's 
determination as to whether salvage actions--as a category--normally 
have significant impacts. It is not a policy that directs how much 
salvage work should be conducted.
    Comment 18: The Department received a comment suggesting that the 
Substantiation Report Table 2 failed to provide a simple percentage of 
area impacted; the commenter implies that the percentages show how in 
some cases 66% to 100% of tree mortality areas will be logged.
    Response 18: Table 2 in the Substantiation Report includes data 
from an inventory of high tree mortality developed by BLM in 2018 
pursuant to Executive Order 13855, Promoting Active Management of 
America's Forests, Rangelands, and Other Federal Lands to Improve 
Conditions and Reduce Wildfire Risk. The inventory is in the background 
section as additional information to describe the relative magnitude of 
tree mortality. At the time the Substantiation Report was developed, 
BLM estimated acres of mortality and estimated salvage 
``opportunities,'' i.e., acres of the mortality that were in land use 
allocations that allow timber harvest and had not deteriorated beyond 
marketability. However, the Substantiation Report does not determine 
that these areas will all be salvaged nor does the establishment of 
this CE create policy to harvest the areas inventoried.
    Comment 19: The Department received a comment suggesting that the 
CE text itself imposes no minimum standards for any of the nine 
considerations independent of applicable land use plan requirements.
    Response 19: The Department chose not to include standardized 
parameters or minimums because they vary across the various ecological 
settings and each salvage project would need to be consistent with the 
applicable land use plan which would include design features, 
consistent with the ecological and geographical setting.
    Comment 20: The Department received a comment suggesting that by 
intentionally excluding EAs with mitigated FONSIs, BLM appears to admit 
that there are some salvage harvest projects that result in significant 
impacts to the environment and thus require mitigation measures. Yet, 
BLM does not describe the specific salvage harvest projects with 
mitigated FONSIs it excluded from its analysis, or how they compare to 
the types of projects that BLM is proposing to exempt from NEPA 
analysis.
    Response 20: The two EISs that disclosed significant impacts that 
the Department reviewed had substantial differences in the scope and 
scale compared to the 34 EAs with FONSIs

[[Page 54743]]

that were analyzed and described in the Substantiation Report. As 
explained in the Substantiation Report, mitigation measures tend to be 
site-specific and not necessarily applicable across various terrains. 
Therefore, mitigated FONSIs were not used in developing limitations 
appropriate for a CE of nation-wide applicability. As noted in the 
Report, the requirement that an action conform with applicable land use 
plan decisions provides the appropriate level of site-specific 
protection. Substantiation Report, pp. 2, 9-10.
    Comment 21: The Department received a comment suggesting that use 
of the CE prevents analysis of the potential impacts associated with 
the unique characteristics of the applicable geography of each project 
to identify the appropriate design features or best management 
practices, and these design features fabricate a baseline.
    Response 21: In reviewing the EAs in the Substantiation Report, the 
Department found that the EAs cited project design features from the 
applicable land use plan for the specific resource program and 
incorporated them into the proposed action evaluated in the EA. 
Proposed actions, regardless of their level of NEPA compliance, must be 
in conformance with the approved land use plan. In implementing actions 
in conformance with land use plans, a bureau identifies project design 
features to define the parameters of the project, including any 
measures to ensure land use plan conformance or to reduce adverse 
impacts based on the site-specific circumstances. If the proposed 
action designed to be in conformance with the land use plan, including 
any resource protective measures, also meets the parameters of the CE, 
and no extraordinary circumstances are present, the bureau may use the 
CE.
    Comment 22: The Department received a comment suggesting that it 
failed to provide a sufficiently reasoned explanation for the proposed 
5,000-acre limit. The comment cited case law that affirmed the use of 
arithmetic mean for the development of an upper acreage limit for 
salvage harvest.
    Response 22: The Department acknowledges the comments and questions 
relating to the use of statistical methods. Any use of these methods 
requires the exercise of judgement; for example, the arithmetic mean of 
the acreage values for covered actions could be elevated by removing 
small projects as outliers from the record. The Department also 
recognizes that in December 2020 it previously established a salvage CE 
for salvage of dead or dying trees with a 3,000-acre limit, after 
receiving comments on the proposed 5,000-acre limit on covered salvage 
actions. In response to those comments, the Department acknowledged it 
could reach a FONSI for salvage actions exceeding 5,000 acres but chose 
to place a 3,000-acre limit in the CE. Based on further review of 
comments received on this proposed CE and for the reasons stated in 
this notice and the supporting Substantiation Report, including the 
review of additional EAs and FONSIs for completed salvage actions and 
post-implementation observations and available scientific research 
since establishment of the 2020 salvage CE, the Department believes the 
NEPA compliance approach in this established CE, including a 5,000 acre 
limit for certain actions, is appropriate. Specifically, the 5,000-acre 
limit of this CE is fewer than the acres analyzed in the EAs for the 
three salvage projects reviewed in the Substantiation Report, pp. 21, 
and substantially fewer than the acres analyzed in the EAs for the two 
projects reviewed in that Report that covered over 11,000 acres. The 
review of these EAs, including post-implementation validation of the 
FONSIs they supported, demonstrates that the Department can implement 
salvage projects up to 5,000 acres covered by this CE without 
significant impacts. This conclusion is unaffected by the fact that the 
BLM has also approved actions covered by this CE on fewer acres and 
determined that these actions did not have significant impacts on the 
human environment. Therefore, the Department retained the 5,000-acre 
limit for the CE along with the accompanying nine design feature 
categories. Additionally, a proposed salvage action's potential for 
environmental effects is determined by the presence of resource 
conflicts. The Department and its bureaus will assess the potential for 
significant environmental effects through the review of extraordinary 
circumstances.
    Comment 23: The Department received comments suggesting that the 
use of the CE for multiple nearby projects may result in significant 
impacts from implementation.
    Response 23: The analysis in the EAs in the Substantiation Report, 
pp. 19-20, included consideration of other actions, including other 
salvage actions, that had taken place or were taking place, or were 
planned for the area, demonstrating that even in the context of several 
other projects, the actions covered by this CE did not normally result 
in significant impacts. The Department established the acreage limit 
based on the information available to the Department as well as the 
incorporation of the accompanying features and categories that address 
the potential for adverse impacts from these types of projects, even in 
the context of other projects. In addition, while the CE itself does 
not include a limit on the number of times it may be used, each 
proposed action considered for approval in use of the CE must be 
reviewed against the Department's extraordinary circumstances, one of 
which, and here most relevant, applies if a proposed action may ``have 
a direct relationship to other actions that implicate potentially 
significant environmental effects'' (43 CFR 46.215(e)). This means that 
if the bureau determines that a proposed salvage project has a direct 
relationship to a previously conducted or planned project that may 
implicate potentially significant environmental effects, the CE could 
not be utilized and the bureau would need to prepare an EA or EIS.
    Comment 24: The Department received a comment suggesting that the 
proposed CE requires consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
    Response 24: To the extent that establishment of a NEPA procedure 
such as the establishment of this CE is subject to the requirements of 
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the action has no effect on 
listed species or critical habitat. Proposed actions a bureau may 
pursue to implement salvage harvest that may use this CE to satisfy any 
NEPA requirements would be subject to review under Section 7 of the ESA 
and, if the parameters of the proposed action and site-specific 
conditions require, appropriate consultation with the FWS and NMFS 
would occur.
    Comment 25: The Department received a comment suggesting that post-
disturbance salvage logging would affect historic and cultural 
resources thus triggering National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 
requirements.
    Response 25: The establishment of a CE as part of the agency's NEPA 
procedures does not change the effect or exclude the applicability of 
other laws such as NHPA when a bureau uses the CE for NEPA compliance 
for a particular salvage activity. When using CEs, other procedural or 
substantive statutory or regulatory requirements may still apply, such 
as Tribal consultation and consultation under the NHPA.

III. Categorical Exclusion Justification

    The Department finds that the category of actions described in this 
timber salvage harvest CE does not normally have a significant effect 
on the

[[Page 54744]]

quality of the human environment. This finding is based on the analysis 
of this category of actions as documented in the BLM's Substantiation 
Report, supporting record documents, and the relevant scientific 
literature. To demonstrate the finding that actions under the proposed 
CEs would not normally result in significant effects on the quality of 
the human environment, the Department reviewed proposed actions 
evaluated in 34 EAs that supported FONSIs as well as post-
implementation information and summarized them in the Substantiation 
Report.
    The Department consulted with CEQ on the establishment of this new 
timber salvage harvest CE consistent with section 102(2)(B) of NEPA, 42 
U.S.C. 4332(2)(B). Therefore, the Department adds this CE to the DOI 
NEPA Handbook, Appendix 2.
    When applying this CE, responsible officials will evaluate proposed 
actions covered by the CE to determine whether any extraordinary 
circumstances are present in accordance with the requirements in the 
Department's NEPA implementing procedures at 43 CFR 46.205 and 46.215. 
For use of this CE, the responsible official would document this 
review. If the responsible official cannot use this CE to support a 
decision to authorize timber salvage harvest activities due to 
extraordinary circumstances, the responsible official will prepare an 
EA or EIS before authorizing such activities, consistent with 43 CFR 
46.205(c) and 42 U.S.C. 4336(b).

IV. Text added to the U.S. Department of the Interior Handbook of NEPA 
Implementing Procedures, Appendix 2: Bureau Categorical Exclusions

    The DOI Handbook of NEPA Implementing Procedures, Appendix 2: 
Bureau Categorical Exclusions includes the following language:
* * * * *

Bureau of Land Management

11.9 Actions Eligible for a Categorical Exclusion (CE)

* * * * *
C. Forestry
* * * * *
    (10) *Salvage harvesting of dead and dying trees resulting from 
fire, insects, disease, drought, or other disturbances, not to exceed 
1,000 acres where the disturbance affects 3,000 acres of bureau-managed 
lands or less, and not to exceed the lesser of 5,000 acres or \1/3\ of 
the disturbance area where the disturbance exceeds 3,000 acres of 
bureau-managed lands. All actions must be in conformance with 
applicable land use planning decisions.
    (a) Covered actions:
    (i) Cutting, yarding, and removal of dead or dying trees.
    (ii) Cutting, yarding, and removal of live trees needed for 
operations, landings, skid trails, or road clearing,
    (iii) Chipping/grinding or removal of residual slash.
    (iv) Jackpot burning, pile burning, and underburning.
    (v) Seeding or planting necessary to accelerate native species re-
establishment.
    (b) Such actions:
    (i) Must not exceed 1 mile of permanent road construction to 
facilitate the covered actions, and all segments must conform to 
applicable land use planning decisions with route-specific designations 
disclosed where travel management planning has been completed.
    (ii) May include maintenance and renovation of existing roads as 
needed.
    (iii) May include construction of temporary roads not to exceed a 
ratio of 2.25 miles per 1,000 acres of harvest area as needed, provided 
they are not part of the bureau's permanent transportation system, are 
designed to standards appropriate for their intended use (safety, 
erosion control, sedimentation prevention, and resource protection), 
are not needed for long-term resource management, and are 
decommissioned and stabilized after use to minimize erosion and protect 
water quality.
    (iv) Must disclose design features in documentation for use of this 
categorical exclusion that address the following resource 
considerations, consistent with applicable land use plan decisions, or 
where no plan requirements apply, and specify how these considerations 
are addressed:
    (1) Snag and downed wood--amount to be created or retained;
    (2) Erosion control--specifications or measures (e.g., water bars, 
dispersed slash);
    (3) Soil compaction--criteria for avoidance, minimization, or 
remediation;
    (4) Logging systems--types and scope of constraints (e.g., 
seasonal, location, extent, etc.);
    (5) Seasonal operations--purpose and extent of operating 
restrictions;
    (6) Invasive species--measures to prevent or limit spread;
    (7) Riparian areas--buffer widths and/or operating restrictions;
    (8) Prescribed fire--operating constraints for underburning or pile 
burning; and
    (9) Temporary roads--decommissioning standards.
    (c) Definitions:
    (i) Dying tree: A standing tree severely damaged by disturbance 
(e.g., fire, wind, insects, disease, drought) and, in the judgment of a 
forestry professional or someone technically trained for the work, is 
likely to die within two years.
    (ii) Permanent road: A road constructed or reconstructed for use, 
as part of the bureau's permanent transportation system.
    (iii) Temporary road: A road authorized by contract, permit, lease, 
written authorization, or emergency operation, not added to the 
permanent system, and decommissioned after use.
* * * * *
    Authorities: NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

Stephen G. Tryon,
Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2026-17251 Filed 8-21-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4331-27-P


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