National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures: Forest and Woodland Density Management Categorical Exclusion

Issuing agencies

Abstract

This notice announces a revision to the Department of the Interior (Department)'s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures by adding a new categorical exclusion (CE) for forest and woodland density management 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 54744-54748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-17252]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary

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


National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures: Forest 
and Woodland Density Management 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) 
procedures by adding a new categorical exclusion (CE) for forest and 
woodland density management in the Department's Handbook of NEPA 
Implementing Procedures, Appendix 2: Bureau Categorical Exclusions.

DATES: The CE is effective August 24, 2026.

ADDRESSES: The web address for the Department's Handbook of NEPA 
Implementing Procedures where the new CE is being added is: <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=8780a416-522f-f111-8341-001dd8029ed0">https://eplanning.blm.gov/Project-Home/?id=8780a416-522f-f111-8341-001dd8029ed0</a>.

[[Page 54745]]


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#106320257d73797e6450727c7d3e777f66"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9be8abaef6f8f2f5efdbf9f7f6b5fcf4ed">[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 forest and woodland 
density management on April 6, 2026, for a 30-day public comment 
period. Refer to the Federal Register notice 91 FR 17299 for more 
information regarding the background and rationale for the CE. This 
notice notifies the public of the Department's establishment of the 
forest and woodland density management CE and includes the Department's 
responses to comments from the public on the proposed CE. The 
Department has not made any edits to the CE text as proposed. The 
Department is establishing the CE to support approval of actions 
related to long-term sustainability of forests and woodlands due to 
widespread disruptions to natural disturbance regimes--particularly 
fire.
    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 generally, 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 generally, 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 (42U.S.C. 4336e(1)). An agency may also adopt for its own 
use 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 a significant effect (43 CFR 46.205, 46.215). If the bureau 
cannot categorically exclude the proposed action following review for 
extraordinary circumstances, the bureau 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 338 comment letters during the 30-day 
public comment period on the proposed CE. State governments, interest 
groups, non-profit organizations, and private citizens submitted 
comments. The Department received comments both in support of and in 
opposition to the proposed CE. Some comments addressed BLM's forest 
management policy or management direction that is specific to Resource 
Management Plans (RMPs); however, these comments 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, and the Department provides no response to such 
comments. Some commenters provided additional scientific literature for 
the Department's consideration; BLM evaluated the literature and 
revised the Substantiation Report to include and discuss those 
additional citations, as appropriate. The Department considered all 
comments received during the comment period and responds in this notice 
to the 13 substantive issues raised in the public comments that pertain 
to NEPA compliance. The Department appreciates the interest and 
participation of all respondents. The Department, where appropriate, 
considered and addressed similar or related comments in one response, 
and responds to the comments as follows:
    Comment 1: The Department received comments that expressed support 
for establishing the CE, stating that the BLM would be able to use the 
CE to substantially reduce permitting time and promote the realization 
of the associated economic benefits of this reduction while allowing 
bureau staff to focus on other proposals that may have a significant 
environmental effect. Commenters also indicated that the use of this CE 
to timely permit forest and woodland density management actions would 
promote forest resilience by reducing competition for water and 
nutrients, lower wildfire severity, promote healthier, more diverse 
forest conditions, reduce drought induced tree mortality, and create 
healthy forests that support local economies.
    Response 1: The Department will continue to conduct the appropriate 
level of NEPA review for proposed actions, including, where 
appropriate, use of this CE or other available CEs. Use of this CE, 
where appropriate, may help the BLM conduct NEPA compliance more 
efficiently and protect more forest acres from severe stand replacing 
fires.
    Comment 2: Some commenters suggested that the establishment of this 
CE would result in diminished protection for Endangered Species Act 
(ESA)-listed species, old-growth forests, water resources, and other 
important, scarce, or sensitive resources and values.
    Response 2: The establishment of this CE does not reduce 
protections for important, scarce, or sensitive resources and values. 
Instead, it provides a mechanism for bureaus within the Department to 
comply with NEPA when authorizing covered actions. Before using the CE, 
bureaus would need to review for the presence of any extraordinary 
circumstances. 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, additional 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 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.

[[Page 54746]]

    Comment 3: Some commenters suggested that the establishment of this 
CE would authorize BLM forest management actions, including industrial 
logging.
    Response 3: The establishment of and reliance on this CE does not 
authorize any actions, including, but not limited to, on-the-ground 
actions. Any BLM decisions about whether and how to engage in forest 
management actions must conform to the applicable land use plan. BLM 
land use plans, which undergo a separate NEPA review when created, 
amended, or revised, provide management direction for all BLM-managed 
forests and in general provide for the retention of old trees and 
conservation of old forest characteristics, regardless of the level of 
NEPA compliance conducted for any particular action. Instead, this CE 
is a procedure for complying with NEPA when authorizing covered 
actions. When proposing to take an action covered by the CE, DOI 
bureaus would be able to use the CE after considering whether 
extraordinary circumstances, if present, would preclude such use, and 
after ensuring compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
    Comment 4: The Department received comments suggesting the 
establishment of this CE establishes forest management policies that 
will make forests less fire resilient, increase fire prone conditions 
by reducing canopy cover and increasing understory growth, decrease 
structurally complex forests and approve increased logging that 
threatens clean water.
    Response 4: This comment is outside the scope of this effort as the 
establishment of and use of this CE is not forest management policy and 
does not change forest management policy; rather, the CE is a procedure 
for complying with NEPA that can be used, if appropriate, when taking a 
covered action that carries out the forest management policy. In 
addition, the Substantiation Report for this CE discusses in detail the 
scientific literature and government reports dealing with these issues.
    Comment 5: The Department received comments suggesting that the use 
of this CE eliminates site-specific analysis of the effects of a 
proposed action on forest and habitat attributes and potential for 
impacts to those attributes.
    Response 5: The establishment of and use of this CE does not 
eliminate site-specific analysis of any actions. The Department 
established this CE because the Department determined the type of 
actions covered by the CE normally do not significantly affect the 
quality of the human environment. This finding is based on the analysis 
of these types of actions as documented in the Substantiation Report 
and supporting documentation, including a review of EAs that supported 
FONSIs to demonstrate the finding that actions covered by this CE would 
not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. This 
review included post-implementation validation of these FONSIs. In 
addition, before using the CE for future actions, bureaus must review 
for the presence of any extraordinary circumstances. Through 
extraordinary circumstances review, the bureaus verify whether any 
proposed action would 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 at the particular site of the proposed 
covered action. If bureaus cannot use this CE to support its decision 
due to the presence of extraordinary circumstances, then they would 
conduct the appropriate additional NEPA review, whether an EA or EIS.
    Comment 6: The Department received comments suggesting the 
Department should solicit public comment on all forestry projects and 
that use of the CE without public comment would ignore the collective 
knowledge of stakeholders.
    Response 6: 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 7: The Department received comments suggesting that 
establishment of and use of this CE would allow bureaus, including the 
BLM, to focus limited resources where they are most needed, while 
accelerating responsible actions that benefit forests, access, 
recreation, wildlife, and the public.
    Response 7: While the establishment of this CE does not authorize 
any forest management activities, it does provide a tool the Department 
can use for NEPA compliance for future proposed actions of the type 
covered in the CE without the need to prepare an EIS or an EA, which 
could allow the agency to focus its analytical resources more 
efficiently to benefit the public and federally managed lands.
    Comment 8: The Department received comments suggesting the CE group 
selection parameters should be increased to align with the management 
in the BLM's 2016 Western Oregon RMPs which allow for up to 4 acres in 
size, up to 30 percent of the stand area, and leave untreated areas 
(skips) on at least 10 percent of the stand area.
    Response 8: The Department acknowledges that the 2016 Western 
Oregon RMPs allow larger group selections than this CE; however, this 
feature of the 2016 Western Oregon RMPs is not relevant to whether 
thinning actions have significant effects for purposes of NEPA. 
Additionally, this CE may be used for projects outside the areas 
governed by the 2016 Western Oregon RMPs. The two-acre group selection 
limit was based on the projects and EAs evaluated in the Substantiation 
Report, which involved a range of forest types and applicable RMP or 
other management direction.
    Comment 9: The Department received comments suggesting that it did 
not explain why two-acre group selection openings would not have 
significant impacts.
    Response 9: The Substantiation Report explains this in detail. The 
Report summarized the Department's review of 25 EAs that analyzed group 
selections included in proposed actions as well as conducting post-
implementation review and determined the actions covered by the CE 
would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment 
(Substantiation Report, pp. 20, 22, 24, 26, and Appendix A). As 
explained in the Report, while multiple EAs with FONSIs reviewed had 
materially higher intensities and/or larger groups, the two-acre group 
selection opening in the CE is within the limits of the EAs reviewed 
for those actions that are already demonstrated to have non-significant 
effects (Substantiation Report, p. 20). The Substantiation Report also 
includes references to studies that document the necessity of openings 
for regeneration of shade intolerant tree species, the height growth 
changes relative to patch size, and the surface temperature, wind 
speed, and soil moisture changes (York et al. 2007; Bigelow et al. 
2011; Bigelow and North 2012) (Substantiation Report, p. 25). Under the 
parameters of the CE, when using the CE, the bureau must generally 
retain large trees and snags consistent with applicable land use plan 
management direction. The impact of dense forests on the regeneration 
of shade intolerant tree species in the western United States has been 
well documented. Therefore, to ensure flexibility to design proposed 
actions that use group selection silviculture for regeneration 
purposes, and because the completed projects reviewed demonstrated that 
this group size did not normally result in significant

[[Page 54747]]

impacts, the Department set this CE parameter at two acres.
    Comment 10: The Department received comments questioning 
justification for the 5,000-acre limit parameter, the associated 
environmental impacts, and statistical methods used to derive the 
limit.
    Response 10: The 5,000-acre limit of this CE is supported by those 
EAs summarized in the Substantiation Report. As explained in the 
Report, twelve projects exceeded the upper IQR fence (5,385 acres) and 
were analyzed separately for purposes of setting a robust cap. Using 
the remaining 72 projects, the 99th percentile is 5,158 acres; for 
administrative clarity and added conservatism, BLM rounds to 5,000 
acres as the CE acreage cap. The use of a post-outlier 99th percentile 
aligns with EPA practice (U.S. EPA 2000a; U.S. EPA 2000b) 
(Substantiation Report, p. 20). In addition, 14 projects in the 
Substantiation Report are over the 5,000-acre limit, including 6 
substantially larger projects that covered between 10,000 and 31,191 
(Substantiation Report, pp. 19-20). The review of these forestry 
project EAs, including post-implementation validation of the FONSIs 
they supported, demonstrates that the Department can implement thinning 
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.
    Comment 11: The Department received comments questioning the 
permanent and temporary road construction parameters, the associated 
environmental impacts, and the statistical methods used to derive them.
    Response 11: The CE includes a five-mile limit for permanent road 
construction and 2.5 miles per 1,000 acres limit for temporary road 
construction. The explanation for these limits is described in the 
Substantiation Report, pp. 20-21. Additionally, of the 84 EAs evaluated 
in the Substantiation Report, 35 EAs analyzed new permanent road 
construction included in the proposed actions. The five-mile permanent 
road limit parameter in the CE is less than the new permanent road 
miles proposed in 14 projects analyzed in the EAs and substantially 
smaller than six projects analyzed in the EAs that added between 10.5 
and 76.3 miles of new permanent road. The 2.5-mile-per-1,000-acre 
temporary road construction limit reflects the range of these 
activities demonstrated in the EAs and supported by FONSIs, as 
explained in the Substantiation Report, with temporary roads further 
bounded by mandatory decommissioning and stabilization standards under 
the design feature categories. The projects reviewed for the 
Substantiation Report, and the validation of their associated FONSIs 
through post-implementation review, show that the Department can 
implement density management projects that include permanent and/or 
temporary road construction as long as these projects conform to the 
applicable land use plan management direction for roads without causing 
significant impacts; therefore, the CE includes the permanent and 
temporary road construction limits originally proposed.
    Comment 12: The Department received comments stating that because 
the CE does not limit the number of times the CE may be used, 
potentially exempting projects from the requirement to prepare an EIS 
or an EA, the CE may result in significant cumulative impacts from the 
implementation of multiple 5,000-acre projects.
    Response 12: The analysis in the EAs described in the 
Substantiation Report included consideration of other actions, 
including other forest management 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. As shown in the EAs for 
the projects reviewed for the Substantiation Report, the relevant 
indicator for forest health is not the acreage limit but the forest 
density achieved. The Department established the 5,000 acre-limit based 
on the information available as well as the incorporation of the 
accompanying nine design feature 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, is that if a proposed action may ``have a direct relationship 
to other actions that implicate potentially significant environmental 
effects'' (43 CFR 46.215(e)) the bureau must prepare an EA or EIS. This 
means that if the bureau determines that a proposed forestry action has 
a direct relationship to a previously conducted, or planned project 
that may implicate potentially significant environmental effects, such 
as may (hypothetically) arise when several forestry actions may have 
occurred or may occur in the same area, the bureau would need to 
prepare an EA or EIS.
    Comment 13: The Department received comments suggesting that the CE 
mandate design feature categories rather than just requiring 
disclosure.
    Response 13: The CE lists nine categories of design features that 
were common to the projects analyzed in the EAs reviewed for the 
Substantiation Report. Because forestry actions may be proposed in 
areas that may be governed by different land use plans, developed as 
appropriate to the planning area, the specifics for the design features 
may similarly vary as appropriate to the planning area; therefore, 
instead of setting forth the specific design feature, when the bureau 
proposes to use the CE, the bureau must document the specific design 
feature applicable to the category of design feature identified in the 
CE's terms. In this way, covered forestry actions must ensure 
appropriate treatment of these common resource issues in a way that 
matches the conditions specific to the planning area, and ``where no 
plan requirements apply [the bureau decision record authorizing the 
covered action must] specify how these considerations are addressed'' 
in the proposed forestry action.

Categorical Exclusion Justification

    The Department finds that the type of actions described in this 
forestry and woodland density management CE do not normally have a 
significant effect on the quality of the human environment. This 
finding is based on the analysis of these types of actions, as 
documented in the BLM's Substantiation Report for this CE, supporting 
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 84 EAs that supported 
FONSIs as well as post-implementation information and summarized them 
in the Substantiation Report.
    As with other administratively developed CEs for bureaus, 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

[[Page 54748]]

46.215. For use of this CE, the Responsible Official must document this 
review. If the Responsible Official cannot use this CE to support a 
decision to authorize density management in forests or woodlands 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).
    The Department consulted with CEQ on the establishment of this new 
forest and woodland density management CE consistent with section 
102(2)(B) of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(B).

III. 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
* * * * *
    (11) *Modification of tree density up to 5,000 acres of treatment 
area. Does not include silvicultural methods that are intended to 
regenerate whole stands, such as even-aged regeneration harvest, 
clearcutting, or variable retention harvest, or vegetation management 
intended to convert forest or woodlands to non-forest vegetation cover.
    (a) Covered actions include:
    (i) Cutting, yarding, and the use of landings and skid trails to 
facilitate the removal of commercial and non-commercial trees
    (ii) Chipping/grinding or removal of residual slash.
    (iii) Group selection silvicultural treatment to promote 
regeneration of shade intolerant species and early successional habitat 
in an uneven-aged context not to exceed 2-acre individual patches and 
10 percent of the treatment area. Group selection openings will retain 
overstory legacy elements consistent with the applicable land use plan 
(e.g., large fire resilient trees, snags).
    (iv) Pile burning or underburning of fuels created by covered 
actions described in subparagraphs (i)-(iii) of this paragraph and 
fuels within or in close proximity to those actions' treatment 
boundaries whether created by those actions or not.
    (v) Seeding or planting necessary to accelerate native species re-
establishment.
    (b) Such actions:
    (i) Must not exceed 5 miles of new 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 2.5 miles per 1,000 acres of treatment 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 of finding that 
an action is excluded pursuant to the 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) Permanent road: A road constructed or reconstructed, managed as 
part of the bureau's permanent transportation system.
    (ii) Temporary road: A road authorized by contract, permit, lease, 
written authorization, or emergency operation, not added to the 
permanent system, and decommissioned after use.
    (iii) Group selection: An uneven-aged harvest method where groups 
of trees are removed to promote spatial heterogeneity, regeneration of 
desired tree species, or the establishment of new cohorts.
* * * * *
    Authorities: NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

Stephen G. Tryon,
Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2026-17252 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>