Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Notices 79517 

use of this CX. The list of extraordinary 

circumstances under which a normally 

excluded action would potentially 

require further analysis and 

documentation to determine whether 

preparation of an EA or EIS is necessary 

is found at 43 CFR 46.215. If a proposed 

PJ management project is within the 

activity described in this CX, then these 

‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ will be 

considered in the context of the 

proposed project to determine if there 

are circumstances that lessen the 

impacts or other conditions sufficient to 

avoid significant effects, or they indicate 

the potential for effects that merit 

additional consideration in an EA or 

EIS. If any of the extraordinary 

circumstances indicate such potential, 

the CX would not be used, and an EA 

or EIS would be prepared. 

Amended Text for the Departmental 

Manual 

516 DM 11 at Section. 11.9 J. Habitat 

Restoration: 

(1) Covered actions on up to 10,000 

acres (contiguous or non-contiguous) 

within sagebrush and sagebrush-steppe 

plant communities to manage pinyon 

pine and juniper trees for the benefit of 

mule deer or sage-grouse habitats. For 

the purpose of this CX, habitat for mule 

deer or sage-grouse is any area on BLMmanaged land that is currently or 

formerly occupied by mule deer or sagegrouse, or is reasonably likely to be 

occupied if pinyon pine or juniper trees 

are removed. Covered actions include: 

Manual or mechanical cutting 

(including lop-and-scatter); mastication 

and mulching; yarding and piling of cut 

trees; pile burning; seeding or manual 

planting of seedlings of native species; 

and removal of cut trees for commercial 

products, such as sawlogs, specialty 

products, or fuelwood, or noncommercial uses. Such activities: 

(a) Shall not include: Cutting of oldgrowth trees; seeding or planting of nonnative species; chaining; pesticide or 

herbicide application; broadcast 

burning; jackpot burning; construction 

of new temporary or permanent roads; 

or construction of other new permanent 

infrastructure. 

(b) Shall require inclusion of project 

design features providing for protections 

of the following resources and resource 

uses consistent with the decisions in the 

applicable land use plan in the 

documentation of the categorical 

exclusion. If no land use plan decisions 

apply, documentation of the categorical 

exclusion shall identify how the 

following resources and resource uses 

are to be appropriately addressed: 

(i) Specifications for management of 

mule deer habitat; 

(ii) Specifications for management of 

sage-grouse habitat; 

(iii) Specifications for erosion control 

measures; 

(iv) Criteria for minimizing or 

remedying soil compaction; 

(v) Types and extents of logging 

system constraints (e.g., seasonal, 

location, extent); 

(vi) Extent and purpose of seasonal 

operating constraints or restrictions; 

(vii) Criteria to limit spread of weeds; 

(viii) Size of riparian buffers or 

riparian zone operating restrictions; and 

(ix) Operating constraints and 

restrictions for pile burning. 

Authority: NEPA, the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); E.O. 11514, 

March 5, 1970, as amended by E.O. 11991, 

May 24, 1977; and CEQ regulations (40 CFR 

1500–1508). 

Stephen G. Tryon, 

Director, Office of Environmental Policy and 

Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27158 Filed 12–9–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4331–84–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of the Secretary 

[LLWO210000.L1610000] 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Implementing Procedures for the 

Bureau of Land Management (516 DM 

11) 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Through this notice, the 

Department of the Interior (Department) 

announces a new categorical exclusion 

(CX) under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) implementing 

procedures for the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) at Chapter 11 of 

Part 516 of the Departmental Manual 

relating to the harvest of dead or dying 

trees impacted by biotic or abiotic 

disturbances commonly referred to as 

‘‘salvage harvest.’’ 

DATES: The categorical exclusion takes 

effect on December 10, 2020. 

ADDRESSES: The new CX can be found 

at the web address http://www.doi.gov/ 

elips/ at Series 31, Part 516, Chapter 11. 

The BLM has revised the Verification 

Report on the results of a Bureau of 

Land Management analysis of NEPA 

records and field verification for salvage 

harvest of timber (Verification Report) 

in response to comments received; the 

public can review the revised 

Verification Report online at: https://

go.usa.gov/xvPfT. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Heather Bernier, Division Chief, 

Decision Support, Planning, and NEPA, 

at 303–239–3635, or hbernier@blm.gov. 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800– 

877–8339. The FRS is available 24 hours 

a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message 

or question with the above individual. 

You will receive a reply during normal 

business hours. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

NEPA requires Federal agencies to 

consider the potential environmental 

impacts of their proposed actions before 

deciding whether and how to proceed. 

The Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) encourages Federal agencies to 

use CXs to protect the environment 

more efficiently by reducing the 

resources spent analyzing proposals that 

normally do not have significant 

environmental impacts, thereby 

allowing those resources to be focused 

on proposals that may have significant 

environmental impacts. See 40 CFR 

1501.4, 1507.3(e)(2)(ii), and 1508.1(d). 

The appropriate use of CXs allow NEPA 

compliance, in the absence of 

extraordinary circumstances that merit 

further consideration, to be concluded 

without preparing either an 

environmental assessment (EA) or an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

(See 40 CFR 1501.4 and 40 CFR 

1508.1(d)). 

The Department’s NEPA procedures 

were published in the Federal Register 

on October 15, 2008 (73 FR 61292) and 

are codified at 43 CFR part 46. These 

procedures address policy as well as 

procedure in order to assure compliance 

with NEPA. Additional Departmentwide NEPA policy may be found in the 

part 516 of the Departmental Manual 

(516 DM), in chapters 1 through 4. The 

procedures for the Department’s bureaus 

are published as chapters 7 through 15 

of 516 DM. Chapter 11 of 516 DM (516 

DM 11) covers the BLM’s NEPA 

procedures. The BLM’s NEPA 

procedures were last updated as 

announced in the Federal Register on 

May 1, 2020 (85 FR 25472). The current 

516 DM 11 can be found at: https://

elips.doi.gov/ELIPS/ 

DocView.aspx?id=1721. 

The establishment of this new CX 

would allow the BLM to fulfill NEPA 

compliance requirements to authorize 

the harvest of dead or dying trees 

impacted by biotic or abiotic 

disturbances commonly referred to as 

‘‘salvage harvest.’’ Salvage harvest can 

help to recover economic value from 

timber, contribute to rural economies, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
79518 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Notices 

accelerate reestablishment of native 

resilient forest tree species, reduce 

future wildfire fuel loads, and reduce 

hazards to wildland firefighters, the 

public, and infrastructure from dead 

and dying trees. 

Description of the Change 

The BLM already relies upon an 

existing CX (C.8) that addresses salvage 

harvest not to exceed 250 acres and 

proposed this additional CX to increase 

BLM’s flexibility to respond to 

disturbances across larger areas, while 

keeping the tailored focus of the action. 

This new CX proposed to address 

salvage of dead and dying trees not to 

exceed 1,000 acres for disturbances of 

3,000 acres or less. For disturbances 

greater than 3,000 acres, the CX 

proposed that harvesting would not 

exceed 1⁄3 of a disturbance area but not 

exceed 5,000 acres total harvest. In 

addition, the proposed CX would have 

authorized no more than 1 mile of 

permanent road construction to 

facilitate the covered actions, and other 

activities generally associated with 

salvage harvest such as temporary road 

construction, post-harvest seeding and 

replanting, and prescribed burning. 

Moreover, the proposal included a list 

of project design features such as snag 

retention and other resource protection 

measures common to salvage harvest. 

The BLM’s proposed CX and 

associated Verification Report were 

available for public review and 

comment for 30 days, beginning with 

the publication of a Federal Register 

notice on Tuesday, June 2, 2020, and 

ending on Tuesday, July 2, 2020 (85 FR 

33697). In response to the comments 

received, the BLM has revised the text 

of the CX as follows: 

• Replaced ‘‘harvesting’’ with 

‘‘salvaging’’ at the beginning of the CX. 

• Revised the upper limit of the 

harvest size from 5,000 acres to 3,000 

acres. 

• Revised language at part (b)(i) 

regarding the wording around 

permanent road construction limitations 

to be more consistent with the wording 

for road limitations in existing BLM CXs 

for timber harvest. 

• Added ‘‘erosion control, potential 

sedimentation to streams’’ to the list of 

considerations required for temporary 

road design in part (b)(iii). 

• Revised language at part (v) to 

clarify the requirements for project 

design features to be included 

consistent with land use plans (LUPs). 

• Removed ‘‘and retention level of 

live trees’’ from the list of resource uses 

requiring project design features under 

part (v). 

• Added ‘‘limitations on road uses’’ 

to the list of resource uses requiring 

project design features under part (v). 

The BLM has also revised the 

Verification Report in response to the 

comments received to address 

clarifications, incorporate new 

literature, and to support discussions to 

the changes of the CX text. The BLM 

also has reviewed and revised, as 

appropriate, the Verification Report for 

consistency with the updated CEQ 

regulations at 40 CFR 1500–1508 (2020). 

85 FR 43304 (July 16, 2020). 

Comments on the Proposed CX 

The BLM received a total of 318 

comment submissions. The BLM 

received comments primarily through 

the online comment platform, 

ePlanning, and by mail. Commenters 

invested considerable time and effort to 

submit comments on this proposal. 

Comments were submitted by State and 

local governments, environmental 

organizations, members of the timber 

industry, and private citizens. The BLM 

received comments both in support of 

the proposal and against the proposal, 

with both supportive and nonsupportive comments also requesting 

revisions to the proposal. 

The BLM has summarized and 

provided responses to all substantive 

comments received in this Federal 

Register notice for public review. The 

comments fell across six broad 

categories related to the scope of the CX, 

the purpose of the CX, incorporation of 

site-specific considerations of the CX, 

clarifications on the BLM’s use of the 

CX, adequacy of the analysis and review 

done to develop the proposed CX, and 

questioning of the establishment 

procedures the BLM used to establish 

the CX. The BLM has considered all 

comments received and has provided 

responses to the substantive comments 

identified, below. 

Scope of the CX 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments requesting that BLM consider 

expanding the restriction on permanent 

road construction in the proposed CX 

from one mile to two miles to ensure a 

rocked road system capable of 

supporting log truck traffic during wet 

season. Commenters stated that proper 

road location using modern engineering 

standards would not pose significant 

impacts to the natural resources of 

concern and would assist in the timely 

harvest and utilization of fire-damaged 

timber. 

Response: The BLM acknowledges 

that restricting permanent road 

construction to no more than one mile 

to facilitate the covered actions may 

limit certain sales that require rock road 

base for wet weather hauling. Road base 

is typically too costly to use on 

temporary roads and may result in 

either delay of harvest due to the need 

to wait for dry soil conditions or 

exclusion of some of the harvest area 

because there is no viable way to 

harvest without using rock road base. 

The CX includes no more than one mile 

of permanent road to facilitate the 

covered actions. This amount is 

consistent with, but more conservative 

than, the scale at which this has 

occurred with thinning and regeneration 

harvest projects, for which the BLM has 

regularly reached findings of no 

significant impact (FONSIs). The BLM 

chose a more conservative rate of road 

length to facilitate the covered actions 

because the BLM as a general practice 

strives to optimize the permanent road 

network through careful planning and 

in support of LUP implementation. The 

BLM will maintain the permanent road 

limit at one mile to facilitate the covered 

actions for the reasons discussed in the 

report. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments suggesting that the BLM 

should not conclude that construction 

of up to 1 mile of permanent roads to 

facilitate the covered actions and an 

unlimited number of temporary roads 

will have no impacts based on only one 

environmental analysis that allowed for 

the construction of 1,000 feet of a 

permanent road. Commenters stated that 

the EAs analyzed by the BLM are for 

green timber sales, not salvage projects, 

and therefore are not comparable. 

Commenters claimed that road 

construction associated with salvage 

harvest would result in significant 

impacts. 

Response: The BLM does not claim 

that there are no impacts associated 

with road construction. The Verification 

Report describes the instances where 

projects containing road construction 

resulted in a FONSI and therefore did 

not require analysis in an EIS. 

Commenters did not provide, and the 

BLM has not found, any evidence that 

the effects of construction and use of a 

road are different when the road 

supports haul of salvaged versus green 

timber. The construction standards for 

haul roads are the same for salvage and 

non-salvage timber transportation. 

Commenters did not provide, and the 

BLM has not found, any evidence that 

the effects of salvage harvest in 

conjunction with road construction 

inherently result in significant effects. 

The BLM incorporates project design 

features related to the road design and 

erosion prevention to minimize roadrelated sediments and connection to 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Notices 79519 

stream networks as directed by the 

applicable LUP and appropriate for the 

site-specific conditions within a project 

area regardless of the type of wood the 

road is expected to transport or the level 

of NEPA review conducted. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments stating that the BLM failed to 

explain how it arrived at the conclusion 

that 5,000 acres is an appropriate size 

from the data in the 18 EAs. 

Specifically, commenters stated that the 

EAs reviewed cover projects ranging 

from 14 to 8,700 acres, with an average 

of 1,321 acres and that only one project 

covered an area greater than 5,000 acres. 

Response: The BLM acknowledges 

that only one sample EA was greater 

than 5,000 acres and has decided to 

reduce the upper limit to 3,000 acres 

from the proposed 5,000 acres. In 

response to these comments, the BLM 

revises the CX to read: ‘‘. . . not to 

exceed 1,000 acres for disturbances of 

3,000 acres or less. For disturbances 

greater than 3,000 acres, harvesting shall 

not exceed 1⁄3 of a disturbance area but 

not to exceed 3,000 acres total harvest.’’ 

This means that a 3,000-acre salvage 

harvest would correspond with at least 

a 9,000-acre disturbance area with 6,000 

acres left untreated to contribute to 

landscape heterogeneity and postdisturbance habitat. As documented in 

the Verification Report, the BLM has 

numerous EAs that have analyzed the 

effects of implementing salvage harvest 

at or near 3,000 acres and has reached 

FONSIs on the effects of these harvests. 

The BLM has revised the report in 

Methods section C to further document 

the support of a 3,000-acre harvest 

upper limit based on these analyses. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments stating that even though BLM 

has placed some sideboards on the 

proposed acreage, noting that it can only 

be applied to disturbances exceeding 

3,000 acres, this limitation does very 

little: Fires, droughts, and even 

infestation regularly cover areas far 

greater than 3,000 acres. 

Response: The commenter 

mischaracterizes or misunderstands the 

acreage limitation included in the 

report. The acreage limitation would 

take effect for disturbances affecting 

1,000 acres or greater. For disturbance of 

1,000 to 3,000 acres, the BLM would be 

limited to a maximum treatment area of 

1,000 acres. For example, a disturbance 

affecting 2,000 acres of BLM land would 

be limited to 1,000 acres of salvage or 

about 50 percent of the disturbance area. 

The 1⁄3 area limitation would be in effect 

for disturbances of more than 3,000 

acres. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments claiming that the CX violates 

the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) 

(FLPMA) and BLM’s travel management 

policies because the construction of new 

roads requires BLM to undergo a travel 

management planning process under 

FLPMA. 

Response: The scope of the CX does 

not violate FLPMA or BLM travel 

management procedures. The BLM 

complies with FLPMA and the 

associated travel management 

regulations and policies by designating 

all BLM managed lands as open, 

limited, or closed to off-road vehicles 

during land use planning (43 CFR 

8342.1). These designations, as well as 

other LUP decisions pertaining to roads, 

provide the extent and limitations to 

which permanent roads can be 

established as well as any locally 

specific design criteria. Any permanent 

road established through this CX must, 

by policy, conform to those parameters. 

Neither BLM regulation nor policy 

requires that the BLM complete 

implementation-level travel 

management planning prior to 

authorizing the construction of a new 

permanent road. 

CX Purpose 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments noting that the Verification 

Report cites public and infrastructure 

safety as reasons why the BLM harvests 

dead and dying trees from areas 

impacted by disturbance. However, 

commenters noted that the BLM’s 

proposed CX contains no limitations on 

the location or purposes of salvage 

harvest projects. 

Response: Public and infrastructure 

safety are two of several reasons for 

which the BLM conducts salvage 

activities. The BLM utilizes salvage to 

meet multiple forest and fuels 

management objectives, economic 

objectives, as well as to ensure human 

health and safety. Regardless of the level 

of NEPA review conducted, the BLM 

would only be able to implement 

salvage harvest as allowed for in the 

applicable LUP. The BLM makes 

decisions to authorize or preclude 

salvage harvest as an action or for any 

purposes on BLM lands through the 

identification of objectives and 

management direction in LUPs. The 

BLM would utilize this CX to 

implement actions consistent with those 

LUP decisions. The BLM did not find a 

need to limit this CX’s use to only those 

locations that reduce public safety risks 

in order to determine that the scope of 

actions proposed for coverage by this 

CX would not result in significant 

effects. 

Site-Specific Considerations 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments stating that categorically 

excluding salvage harvest projects from 

NEPA review will reduce public 

participation and will preclude the 

development of site-specific mitigation 

measures that may only be developed 

during the public review and comment 

process. Commenters also stated that the 

BLM inclusion of an extensive list of 

project design features in the text of the 

CX itself further demonstrates the 

inappropriateness of its proposal. 

Response: In reviewing the EAs in the 

Verification Report, the BLM found that 

the EAs commonly copied or cited 

project design feature parameters from 

the LUP for the specific resource 

program as incorporated in the 

proposed action evaluated in the EA. 

Proposed actions, regardless of their 

level of NEPA compliance (CX, EA, EIS) 

must be in conformance with the 

approved LUP. In implementing actions 

in conformance with LUPs, the BLM 

identifies project design features to 

define the parameters of the project, 

including any protective measures 

needed to ensure LUP conformance or 

to reduce adverse effects based on the 

site-specific circumstances. If the 

proposed action is the subject of an EA 

or an EIS, the EA or EIS evaluates the 

project including those parameters. If 

the proposed action designed to meet 

the requirements of the LUP, including 

any incorporated resource protective 

measures, also meets the parameters of 

the CX, and no extraordinary 

circumstances are present, the BLM can 

rely on a CX. Because LUPs are, 

themselves, region-specific, different 

LUPs have different objectives, and 

impose different resource management 

constraints on actions that can be taken 

in the area they cover. Therefore, 

instead of presenting an exhaustive list 

of project design features that function 

as parameters for reliance on a CX, only 

some of which would be applicable in 

any particular planning area, the 

proposed CX identified a list of 10 

categories of project design features that 

are required to be included in the CX’s 

parameters to address decisions made in 

the LUPs. That is, while the proposed 

CX points to the category of project 

design feature to include as parameters, 

the applicable LUPs that would be 

consulted during project 

implementation provide regionally 

appropriate and site-specific design 

features for resource protection at the 

individual project site. In this way, the 

proposed CX ensures site-specific 

considerations for each project area, by 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
79520 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Notices 

directing BLM staff where to look for the 

relevant parameters. 

For the establishment of CXs, the CEQ 

NEPA regulations require consultation 

with CEQ and publication of the 

proposed CX for comment, as the BLM 

has done here. CEQ does not require any 

public review of reliance on a CX for a 

proposed action once the CX is 

established. See 40 CFR 1507.3(e)(2). 

Although public involvement is not 

required to determine a project qualifies 

for reliance on a CX, the BLM NEPA 

Handbook does identify that the BLM 

can elect to involve the public when 

relying on a CX to support an action. 

The BLM also notes that many public 

land management programs 

administered by the BLM, such as land 

tenure adjustment and public land 

grazing management, among others, 

have their own, independent public 

involvement requirements. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments suggesting that the BLM’s 

reliance on LUPs in the Verification 

Report to justify its conclusion that the 

proposed CX represents a category of 

actions that will have no impacts is 

arbitrary and capricious, because relying 

on LUPs when implementing salvage 

projects under the proposed CX would 

not address site-specific impacts nor 

sufficiently protect resources. 

Response: The BLM makes decisions 

to authorize or preclude salvage harvest, 

like other actions, based on the 

identification of objectives and 

management direction in LUPs. In 

implementing actions in conformance 

with LUPs, the BLM identifies project 

design features to define the parameters 

of the project, including any protective 

measures needed to ensure LUP 

conformance or to reduce adverse 

effects based on the site-specific 

circumstances. The BLM defines and 

refines the action proposed regardless of 

the level of NEPA review, including for 

projects covered by CXs. The BLM 

develops LUPs for specific regions of 

the country in coordination with a 

public engagement process. These LUPs 

vary based on the environmental 

conditions and objectives for the region. 

Therefore, while the proposed CX 

points to the category of project design 

features to include, the LUPs that would 

be consulted during project 

implementation provide regionally 

appropriate and site-specific design 

features for resource protection for 

individual projects proposed. The 

Verification Report identifies that the 

BLM has evaluated previously 

implemented actions that incorporated 

project design features according to 

management direction in the relevant 

LUP and found that those projects do 

not cause significant environmental 

effects. This compiled evidence in the 

Verification Report negates the claim 

that the CX would be arbitrary or 

capricious if projects were to rely on 

using the LUPs for implementation. 

Additionally, comments incorrectly 

conflate a requirement in the CX for 

inclusion of project design features 

pertaining to LUP decisions to mean 

that the applicable LUP must 

specifically identify a decision related 

to each of the resources and resource 

uses listed in part (v) of the proposed 

CX. Specifically, part (v) of the CX does 

not require that the LUP include a 

decision specific to erosion control 

measures to take when conducting 

salvage harvest, for example. The LUP 

may not include such action-specific 

instruction but may have instead 

included decisions regarding erosion 

control measures to apply to forest 

management more broadly, or even 

erosion control measures to apply for 

any ground-disturbing activities within 

specific distances from water or 

otherwise have decisions which would 

have reasonable inference to apply to 

the action proposed. Further, LUPs may 

not include any specific erosion control 

measures, but instead provide decisions 

that instruct for the protection of water 

resources from erosion control but leave 

the ultimate erosion control measure to 

apply to the discretion of the decisionmaker when implementing projects. 

Lastly, in the unlikely circumstance that 

there are not even generalities for the 

protection of resources or resource uses 

to be reasonably inferred to be 

associated with any of the 10 resources 

and resource uses in part (v) included 

in the LUP, the BLM would still need 

to disclose that the LUP provides no 

parameters to shape the scope of the 

proposed action related to that resource 

or resource use. In this circumstance, 

the BLM’s proposed action would still 

be defined by the limitations established 

by the CX and would still require 

inclusion of project design features as 

needed to prevent significant impacts 

and ensure extraordinary circumstances 

do not preclude application of the CX. 

The BLM has revised the text of part (v) 

to clarify the requirement to document 

how the scope of the project addresses 

any needed protections when no LUP 

decisions apply. 

Use of the CX 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments stating that the CX does not 

restrict CXs from being applied 

contiguously, resulting in far larger 

salvage harvest areas than the CX limits 

when utilizing this CX for NEPA 

compliance. Commenters further stated 

that the application of a CX that 

contains insufficient sideboards or 

limitations regarding size and that 

restrict such a significant acreage will 

result in significant impacts. 

Response: The BLM has determined 

the parameters of the CX have been 

appropriately defined to allow for the 

use of this CX for NEPA compliance 

without significant impacts. The BLM 

has determined it unnecessary to define 

in the CX a prohibition of the use of this 

CX for NEPA compliance in any 

geographical or temporal scope in 

relation to additional uses of the CX. 

The use of any CX is subject to review 

of the Department’s extraordinary 

circumstances in order to determine if 

any extraordinary circumstances at 43 

CFR 46.215 are present that would 

result in significant effects and, 

therefore, preclude use of the CX to 

comply with NEPA. An established CX 

category of actions do not have 

significant impacts when projects are 

designed to the specifications of the 

category and review of the proposed 

action determines that there are no 

extraordinary circumstances present 

that may result in the project having 

significant effects. If the proposed 

action, conducted adjacent to other 

similar projects, would trigger any of the 

extraordinary circumstances, the BLM 

would not be able to rely on the CX for 

NEPA compliance, absent 

circumstances that lessen the impacts of 

other conditions sufficient to avoid 

significant effects. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments questioning the use of 

Determinations of NEPA Adequacy 

(DNAs) to execute projects under the 

proposed CX. 

Response: In the Verification Report, 

the BLM referenced the BLM’s prior use 

of DNAs for site-specific 

implementation projects of the Hazard 

Removal and Vegetation Management 

Project EA, each of which encompassed 

a different size (in acres). The BLM 

provided this information to explain 

why that EA was not used to 

substantiate the size (acres) proposed by 

the CX. The BLM is not proposing to use 

DNAs to implement projects under the 

proposed CX. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments related to BLM’s ability to 

consider local government land use 

policies when implementing a salvage 

project under a CX. 

Response: The CX does not preclude 

the BLM from considering local 

government land use policies when 

designing a salvage harvest that would 

rely on this CX to comply with NEPA. 

Forest management on BLM managed 

lands, including salvage harvest, would 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Notices 79521 

only occur when in conformance with 

the applicable LUP decisions. Often, the 

BLM designs forest management 

projects, including salvage harvest, 

utilizing project design features 

developed from a variety of sources 

including State forest practice standards 

and project design features. In addition, 

although reliance on a CX to comply 

with NEPA does not require a review 

and comment period, decision-makers 

have the discretion to solicit comments 

while developing a salvage harvest 

project, including solicitation of local 

government input for consideration of 

relevant local policies. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments claiming the undertaking of 

projects under the proposed CX would 

bypass BLM’s obligations to comply 

with Executive Order 13112 (relating to 

monitoring and preventing the spread of 

non-native invasive species), the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), the 

Clean Water Act (CWA), the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 

(including public participation 

requirements of the NHPA), and other 

statutes. 

Response: The use of a CX is a form 

of NEPA compliance; it is not an 

exemption from compliance with any 

applicable laws or statutes. When 

relying on CXs, other procedural or 

substantive statutory or regulatory 

requirements may still apply, such as 

Tribal consultation and consultation 

under the NHPA and the ESA. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments claiming that the BLM failed 

to describe or constrain the specific 

types of lands and land uses where the 

CX would be applied. 

Response: Identification of where 

actions subject to a CX may take place 

is only one kind of parameter agencies 

use to establish a CX. The BLM elected 

to establish this CX with different kinds 

of parameters, relevant to the impacts of 

the actions proposed for categorical 

exclusion. Because the BLM manages 

land under LUPs that set forth the types 

of lands and land uses allowable in a 

planning area, and the BLM may only 

act in conformance with the applicable 

LUP, the LUP, not the level of NEPA 

review, determines where specific 

actions can take place. Moreover, as 

explained in the Verification Report, the 

BLM has evaluated previously 

implemented actions that incorporated 

project design features according to 

management direction in the relevant 

LUP and found that those projects do 

not cause significant environmental 

effects. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments asking for clarification as to 

whether the CX would be available to be 

used for commercial removal of dead 

and dying trees. 

Response: The BLM developed this 

CX intending the removal of dead and 

dying trees to be able to be 

accomplished commercially. The term 

‘‘salvage’’ is defined as harvest to 

recover economic value, and salvage 

harvest is the purpose for which this CX 

would be available for use. The BLM 

has revised the language of the CX to 

replace the word ‘‘harvesting’’ at the 

beginning of the CX with the word 

‘‘salvaging’’ to clarify this point and to 

make the language of this CX more 

consistent with the language of the 

BLM’s existing salvage harvest CX C.8. 

Analysis and Review of the CX 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments claiming the BLM failed to 

adequately analyze cumulative effects, 

both in terms of the combined effects of 

the projects that would be undertaken 

through the proposed CX as well as 

those effects added to existing CXs. 

Response: Commenters are conflating 

the analysis required when a CX is 

established with the analysis required 

when an agency is considering 

application of an established CX to a 

proposed action. CEQ in its updated 

regulations requires agencies to identify 

all effects that are reasonably 

foreseeable and have a reasonably close 

causal relationship to the proposed 

action. In evaluating effects for the 

purpose of establishing the CX, the BLM 

examined data and evidence consistent 

with CEQ’s regulations and guidance for 

establishing a new CX, including 

analyzing previously implemented 

actions and their observed 

environmental consequences. In so 

doing, as documented on pages 9–22 

and summarized on pages 24–25 of the 

Verification Report, based on the effects 

analyses in the relevant EAs and postimplementation monitoring, no 

significant impacts were predicted to 

result from the kinds of activities 

covered by the CX for salvage harvest, 

nor were any unanticipated impacts 

observed after treatments were 

implemented. Based on the evidence, 

the specific category of actions 

described in the CX consistently do not 

produce significant impacts, and the 

BLM considered and analyzed potential 

impacts from timber salvage treatments 

in the Verification Report. The CEQ 

regulations for creating new CXs do not 

call for analysis of the effects of existing 

CXs. (See 40 CFR 1507.3). Moreover, 

whether the BLM applied a new or an 

existing CX, review nevertheless would 

be appropriate only with respect to the 

individual action. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments claiming that the Verification 

Report is inadequate and identified 

scientific research citing that effects of 

salvage harvest will vary depending on 

the site-specific conditions and that 

each large salvage logging project is 

unique and should require full NEPA 

analysis rather than a CX. 

Response: The BLM’s proposed CX is 

not a proposal for salvage harvesting but 

is, instead, a proposal for a mechanism 

by which the BLM would be able to 

comply with NEPA to implement 

proposals to salvage harvest that match 

the scope of the CX. The BLM agrees 

with the science referenced in 

comments that site-specific 

considerations, including the type and 

size of disturbance and management 

objectives for the landscape, are 

necessary to consider in designing postdisturbance actions the BLM would 

pursue. The use of a CX still requires 

these site-specific considerations to be 

part of the project’s design and review 

through evaluation for the presence of 

extraordinary circumstances. This 

proposed CX would provide an 

additional method for complying with 

NEPA to implement salvage harvest 

actions when the BLM has determined 

salvage harvest matching the scope of 

the CX is appropriate. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments claiming that the analysis of 

the impacts of roadbuilding for timber 

salvage projects was inadequate 

because: descriptions of impacts were 

overly vague (for example, ‘‘Temporary 

roads shall be designed to standards 

appropriate for the intended uses, 

considering safety, cost of 

transportation, and impacts on land and 

resources.’’); the BLM only provided 

total miles of road construction and not 

road density, which is a metric 

commonly used in the scientific 

literature to assess impacts (generally, 

greater than 1 mile/square mile; Karr et 

al. 2004; Reeves et al. 2006); and 

scientific literature on the impacts of 

roadbuilding describe effects not 

covered by the Verification Report (e.g., 

Forman and Alexander 1998; Ibisch et 

al. 2016, 2019), including effects of 

roads on hydrology and water quality 

(DellaSala et al. 2011). 

Response: The CX addresses 

temporary road impacts through the 

requirement to revegetate the road as 

soon as practicable after the harvest as 

well as the requirement to include 

project design features related to 

seasonal road use, erosion prevention, 

and weed prevention from the local 

LUP. The BLM recognizes that road 

density is a factor in environmental 

impact and has added the requirement 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
79522 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Notices 

to include any road density parameters 

from the local LUP to the CX text. In 

some cases, LUPs preclude road 

building in certain areas which would 

constrain the use of this CX in those 

areas. The BLM reviewed the literature 

cited in the comment and acknowledges 

that roads have varying impacts. Some 

of the papers cited study roadless 

protected areas, which in relation to this 

CX is not relevant because not only is 

the applicable LUP for a roadless 

protected area likely to preclude road 

building, but even if it did allow this 

action, an extraordinary circumstances 

review would likely disqualify the use 

of a CX in certain protected areas such 

as designated wilderness. Karr et al. 

2004 provides recommendations that 

would improve the condition of 

watersheds and aquatic ecosystems 

which are like the project design 

features that would be documented as 

either originating in the applicable LUP, 

or incorporated to address fulfillment of 

a desired resource condition articulated 

in the LUP when BLM relies on the CX. 

Project design features related to roads 

influence road impacts, and where 

incorporated in projects evaluated in the 

EAs examined for this CX demonstrated 

non-significant impacts. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments stating that the BLM 

inappropriately relied on smaller-scale 

EAs and CXs to establish and describe 

the impacts associated with the logging 

footprints proposed in the Verification 

Report. Comments identified that the 

proposed footprint would represent a 

twenty-fold increase in scale compared 

to BLM’s current 250-acre CX. 

Comments claim that this extrapolation 

and its characterization as ‘‘routine’’ is 

counter to the scientific literature on the 

impacts of post-fire logging. 

Response: While the BLM considered 

projects evaluated in smaller-scale EAs 

and covered by existing CXs to 

substantiate the new CX, the BLM does 

not rely on extrapolation of smaller 

salvage projects that were approved 

through the existing 250-acre CX for this 

CX. The report discussed salvage 

approved with the current 250-acre CX 

to demonstrate the routine use and 

nonsignificant impacts of salvage 

logging in general and to also 

acknowledge that some salvage projects 

have been analyzed through EISs. The 

report also contrasts the complexity and 

unique issues of the salvage projects 

supported by EISs with the types of 

salvage projects proposed for inclusion 

under this CX. To substantiate this CX, 

BLM relies on the fact that these types 

of salvage projects are routinely 

supported by EAs and FONSIs, and do 

not result in significant impacts when 

implemented. The BLM has reviewed 

the literature identified in the comments 

and does not find that it provides 

evidence related to the scope of the CX 

proposed. The literature provided in 

comments discusses ecosystem 

disturbance dynamics and suggests that 

ecosystems are adapted to certain 

disturbance frequencies, intensities, and 

distributions and can recover from 

disturbances within those norms, and 

that compounded disturbances can 

affect ecosystem recovery (Paine et al. 

1999). It also discusses the importance 

of post-disturbance forest landscapes 

and the unique site conditions and 

biological legacies that occur there 

(Lindenmayer et al. 2008; Swanson et al. 

2011; DellaSala and Hanson 2015). The 

BLM’s report addresses the importance 

of post-disturbance landscape attributes 

and the CX design specifically provides 

for conservation of biological legacies 

and site conditions through retention of 

a proportion of the legacies appropriate 

to the resource area as well as retaining 

portions of the disturbance area 

unmanaged. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments stating that the BLM needs to 

show what habitat features are being 

provided and in what densities and 

spatial arrangements to ‘‘minimize the 

impacts of salvage.’’ 

Response: The BLM agrees with the 

comments that the densities and spatial 

arrangements of habitat features, 

including snags and downed logs, is 

important to know when implementing 

a salvage harvest to understand if the 

proposal is in conformance with the 

LUP and whether or not extraordinary 

circumstances prevent reliance on the 

CX. This is why the CX requires 

‘‘inclusion of project design features 

providing for protections of the 

following resources and resource uses 

consistent with the decisions in the 

applicable LUP in the documentation of 

the CX: (1) Level of snag and downed 

wood creation/retention.’’ The 

requirement that the use of this CX to 

implement a salvage harvest include the 

project design features pertaining to 

LUP decisions ensures measures 

required by the LUP to reduce harvest 

impacts are defined as part of the 

project being proposed based on best 

available science for the local area. 

Further, the BLM has revised the text of 

part (v) to clarify the requirement to 

document how the scope of the project 

addresses any needed protections when 

no LUP decisions apply. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments pertaining to the statement 

about reducing fuels from logging 

(Peterson et al. 2015) but the BLM does 

not cite the literature showing the 

opposite effects (e.g., Donato et al. 

2006). Comments also stated that fuel 

loading related to snags is an 

exaggerated characterization of deadfall. 

Response: Donato et al. 2006 

measured coarse and fine fuels in plots 

before and after salvage logging in 

Douglas fir forest in southwestern 

Oregon. This paper finds that both 

coarse and fine fuels increased one year 

after salvage logging. The BLM 

acknowledges that benefits from fuels 

reduction post-salvage varies 

temporally. The BLM considered this in 

the report and cited other papers that 

show similar results. However, Donato 

et al. 2006 is limited to only one year 

of fuels measurement post-salvage, and 

other findings cited in the BLM report 

show coarse fuels in unsalvaged areas 

significantly increasing 10–39 years 

post-fire (Peterson et al. 2015) when tree 

survival in reburns is more likely if 

fuels are low. Less than 10 years postfire when trees are in seedling and 

sapling size classes, they are vulnerable 

to even low intensity fires. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that the BLM’s critique of 

Thompson et al. 2007 in the Verification 

Report was unfounded, given the BLM’s 

reliance on similar remote sensing study 

methods. 

Response: Thompson et al. 2007 used 

remote sensing to compare post-fire 

vegetation survival in an area that had 

burned 20 years prior and that had both 

salvaged and unsalvaged areas to 

compare. The BLM’s report 

acknowledged that the salvaged logged 

areas did not show reduced fire severity 

based on vegetation mortality. The BLM 

did not discount this finding because 

remote sensing was used; the 

methodology appears to be sound. The 

BLM made two points related to this 

study. First, the study used remote 

sensing which precluded a look at other 

severity indicators such as soil impacts. 

Second, the BLM report prefaced 

Thompson et al. 2007 by explaining that 

there are also successional stages, 

seasonal fuel-moisture conditions, and 

severity indicators where the reduction 

in coarse fuels might have little benefit. 

These two points acknowledge that 

there are circumstances where salvage 

logging does not have a fire severity 

reduction benefit. Nevertheless, as 

documented in the report with 

information from the National 

Interagency Fire Center and scientific 

literature, there are instances where 

high densities of snags from prior 

disturbance and a combination of 

certain fire-weather conditions can 

cause severe fire effects and fire 

behavior. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Notices 79523 

1U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–06–097, 

Biscuit Fire Recovery Project: Analysis of Project 

Development, Salvage Sales, and Other Activities, 

Highlights (2006), https://www.gao.gov/new.items/ 

d06967.pdf. 

2 Id. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments which stated that the BLM 

failed to acknowledge research finding 

the potential for expanded emissions to 

occur as a result of increased logging 

and road construction under this CX. 

Response: The BLM reviewed the 

literature noted by these comments and 

does not find them to support the claim 

raised, as they do not relate to carbon 

emissions that are specific to salvage 

harvest and associated road 

construction. The BLM is aware of and 

has reviewed scientific research 

regarding carbon emissions and salvage 

harvest and associated road 

construction in developing this report. 

The scientific research demonstrates 

that the carbon emissions associated 

with timber harvesting have several 

components to consider. Since the 

materials that would be harvested using 

this CX are already dead or dying, they 

would be carbon emission sources 

regardless of whether they are harvested 

and converted into wood products. 

There has been general support for the 

benefits of sustainably managing forests 

for carbon mitigation as expressed by 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change in 2007. However, there are 

many integrated carbon pools involved, 

which has led to conflicting 

implications for best practices and 

policy. For instance, sustainable 

management of forests for products 

produces substantially different impacts 

than a focus on a single stand or on 

specific carbon pools with each 

contributing to different policy 

implications (Lippke et al. 2011). 

Studies examining life cycle 

emissions of forest products and the 

energy used to process the materials are 

complex and depend on the how the 

material is used. The carbon emissions 

created by harvesting materials is 

generally small relative to the total 

processing emissions: 

‘‘Removal of merchantable wood 

contributes only approximately 7% to 

processing energy requirements, and 

their carbon equivalent emissions as 

little as 1% of the total carbon stored in 

the wood removed’’ (Lippke et al 2011). 

How salvaged wood might be used 

and thus its carbon storage life cycle is 

too speculative for the BLM to include 

in this analysis as well any other sitespecific analysis. Furthermore, the 

length of time that unharvested 

materials left after disturbance decay 

and emit carbon would also require 

speculation on decay rates, which are 

affected by factors such as future 

temperature, moisture, and fire 

probability. The exact disposition of the 

dead and dying wood might not matter 

in terms of carbon emissions: 

‘‘By not removing more wood than is 

grown on a forest landscape basis, the 

forest carbon alone does not change and 

becomes of minor importance to the 

way the wood is used to reduce fossil 

emissions,’’ (Lippke et al 2011). The 

BLM practices sustainable forest 

management (does not remove more 

than is grown) under FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 

1701 et seq.) and Oregon and California 

Revested Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 2601). 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that tree mortality was 

overemphasized without providing any 

documentation that it is outside of the 

natural range of variation. Comments 

further claimed that, in forests with high 

tree mortality, most of the fire-killed 

trees are small diameter and that there 

remains an overall deficit of large dead 

trees (snags) and downed logs, 

especially on industrial lands that are 

lacking in these complex structures. 

Comments identified research from the 

Forest Service (2012) showing beetlekilled large trees play a critical role in 

retaining soil moisture and nutrient 

cycling when the needles fall. 

Response: The background section of 

the BLM report presented empirical data 

on tree mortality from both insect 

epidemics and wildfire. The BLM did 

not report on whether insect-induced 

mortality is outside the natural range of 

variation. The comment does not point 

out a deficiency based on a lack of this 

discussion. Potter (2017) was cited and 

highlights the distribution of forest 

mortality during the 2013 to 2015 

California drought, but the relevance of 

the findings in this paper was not 

explained by the comments. Dunn and 

Bailey (2016) found that tree mortality 

varies based by species and tree size 

after mixed severity fire. Although this 

influences the number of snags on the 

landscape as identified in the comment, 

the comment does not explain how the 

CX should be changed based on these 

findings. As explained in the report, the 

CX includes snag retention and coarse 

woody debris parameters to be 

addressed and documented that ensure 

these features are maintained for habitat 

during salvage harvest. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments arguing that the BLM has 

overvalued the economic returns of 

these timber salvage projects by 

overestimating the revenue generated 

from the timber as well as the jobs 

created by these projects. Similarly, 

comments claim that the BLM has not 

considered the actual costs of these 

timber sale projects to the environment 

and the costs of implementing largescale salvaging logging. One comment 

cited a U.S. Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) report, GAO–06–097, 

Biscuit Fire Recovery Project: Analysis 

of Project Development, Salvage Sales, 

and Other Activities, Highlights (2006) 

to support these claims. 

Response: The BLM did not estimate 

revenue as part of the evaluation criteria 

in the report. The BLM considers 

economic factors when evaluating 

whether to initiate a salvage project but 

also considers ecological and restoration 

goals and whether there are sufficient 

resources to carry out the project 

planning and implementation. 

Evaluating whether potential revenue 

exceeds project costs is not a 

prerequisite for treatment. The 

referenced paper examines the cost of 

silvicultural activities post-fire. The 

study examined an area with low wood 

value which affected its evaluation of 

the total economics of treatment. The 

BLM’s CX includes large portions of 

what the referenced research calls nonintervention type reforestation by 

excluding up to 2⁄3 of an affected area 

from treatment. Reforestation practices 

examined in the Spanish study differ 

from U.S. practices (use of potted trees 

and hole digging). The author 

acknowledges that costs are context 

dependent and salvage is performed for 

other reasons than to facilitate 

reforestation. 

The comment misrepresents the GAO 

finding. The GAO evaluated the Biscuit 

Fire salvage work done by the Forest 

Service. The GAO’s review stated it was 

premature to evaluate the Biscuit Fire 

because ‘‘incomplete sales and a lack of 

comparable economic data, among other 

things, make comparing the financial 

and economic results with the agency’s 

initial estimates difficult.’’ 1 Also, the 

Biscuit Fire was unique in that ‘‘several 

unique circumstances affected the time 

taken and the alternatives it included. 

For example, the size of the burned 

area—and, subsequently, the size of the 

Project—complicated the environmental 

analysis and increased the time needed 

to complete and review it.’’ 2 The 

Biscuit Fire EIS was addressed in the 

report and the BLM provided several 

reasons why the EIS does not reflect 

common management scenarios on BLM 

lands. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments stating that the 

characterization of disturbance events 

like wildfire and insects was 

problematic throughout the Verification 

Report, and that the BLM has failed to 

consider the ecological benefits of such 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
79524 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Notices 

disturbance events in order to justify 

salvage logging. 

Response: The BLM acknowledges in 

the report that disturbances provide 

unique habitat which is why the CX has 

a design parameter limiting harvest to a 

proportion of the disturbance area for 

projects greater than 1,000 acres. The 

claim that the CX and report did not 

consider the benefits of disturbances is 

unfounded. The comment further 

suggests that the salvage harvest 

contemplated with this CX would 

negate the ecological benefits of 

disturbance and impair early 

successional forest ecosystems. 

However, in Swanson et al. (2011), 

which was cited in this comment, the 

management recommendation for areas 

where the land management direction is 

salvaging damaged timber is ‘‘retention 

of snags, logs, live trees, and other 

structures through harvest can maintain 

structural complexity in logged areas.’’ 

This recommendation from the 

literature is in line with the CX as 

designed. 

The comment also suggests the BLM 

report makes a false or weakly 

supported relationship between 

increasing wildfire severity and 

disturbance and provides several 

research papers that show the opposite. 

The BLM report does not make an 

overarching statement that there is a 

positive correlation with disturbances 

and subsequent wildfire severity. The 

BLM provides examples where 

empirical evidence showed negative 

impacts to soil and vegetation attributes 

from wildfire in areas with high 

concentrations of dead trees. In 

addition, the BLM report cites 

documents from the National 

Interagency Fire Center reporting 

extreme fire behavior with severe effects 

in high density snags after beetle-caused 

mortality. The BLM acknowledges that 

post-disturbance tree mortality does not 

assure subsequent high severity fire. 

Other factors, such as 1,000-hour fuel 

moisture, also determines intensity and 

severity. The BLM reviewed the 

citations included in the comment and 

acknowledges that under some 

conditions post-disturbance tree 

mortality does not increase fire severity. 

Nevertheless, listing fuels reduction as a 

potential benefit of salvage is still valid 

and supported by evidence. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments claiming that the proposal to 

plant and salvage in the Verification 

Report is unjustified and a pretense to 

increase salvage logging given that 

research shows conifer establishment 

post-fire has been shown to be 

abundant, achieving densities even 

greater than typically planted by federal 

agencies. Comments cited studies 

showing that replanting interrupts 

natural successional processes 

associated with complex early seral 

forests and either had no effect at 

reducing fuels or increased fuel loads. 

Response: The CX included tree 

planting as a covered action for several 

reasons even though tree planting is 

already covered in another BLM CX. 

The scientific literature contains many 

examples where high severity fire across 

large areas has resulted in long-term 

conifer absence (Chambers et al. 2016; 

Welch et al. 2016). Some studies have 

documented higher conifer regeneration 

in salvage harvest and replanted 

landscapes compared to adjacent 

unmanaged areas where severe fire 

impacted the site’s ability to naturally 

regenerate trees (Collins and Roller 

2013; Zhang et al. 2008). The BLM relies 

on natural regeneration where fire 

severity is sufficiently low for live seed 

trees to have survived or the soil seed 

bank is still viable. In areas where postdisturbance natural regeneration is not 

expected or competition from non-tree 

species is expected to be high, the BLM 

uses tree planting to restore forest cover. 

The BLM believes replanting is 

necessary to restore native conifer forest 

after certain high severity events which 

is supported by the scientific literature 

(Zhang et al. 2008). 

Comments claim that replanting 

interrupts natural successional 

processes associated with complex early 

seral forests. The literature cited to 

support this claim describes a set of 

conditions that affect complex early 

seral forest including clear-cut salvage 

logging (harvest all live and dead trees 

with no retention of biological legacies), 

application of pre-emergent herbicide to 

suppress competition for tree seedlings, 

and dense tree planting to establish 

fully stocked forest. This description 

does not describe the nature of salvage 

harvest that would occur under the CX. 

Herbicide use is not part of the covered 

actions and the CX requires retention of 

a proportion of the biological legacies. 

Planting levels under the CX can 

include full stocking and are often 

driven by LUP management direction, 

however planting is costly and full 

stocking is often not pursued unless the 

LUP requires it. In many cases, the 

BLM’s planting strategy is to augment 

natural recovery in places where 

regeneration may be problematic. The 

CX design (e.g., limit to a portion of 

affected area) incorporates ways to 

address the concerns raised in this 

comment. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments claiming that, in 

characterizing current fire intensity 

trends in western conifer forests as low 

to mixed severity and outside of their 

historic range of variability, the BLM 

has ignored literature showing contrary 

evidence of fire intensity trends. 

Response: The BLM acknowledges 

that some western forests have not 

experienced a departure from their 

historical fire regimes as documented in 

the citations included in the comments. 

For some forest ecosystems, such as 

high elevation spruce in the Rocky 

Mountains, fire frequency is in the 

hundreds of years between events and 

fires are typically high severity in terms 

of tree mortality but such ecosystems 

are still able to recover. Research has 

shown that modern fire suppression has 

not necessarily affected certain fire 

regimes such as high elevation spruce 

forest like it has with other historically 

more frequent regimes. The BLM report 

does not suggest all fires or disturbances 

are outside the natural range of 

variability. The BLM does not use 

departure from the natural fire regime as 

a justification for establishing the CX, 

and the comment does not explain what 

relevance the cited papers have to the 

establishment of this CX. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments claiming that the BLM failed 

to incorporate studies regarding nest site 

abandonment of northern spotted owls 

caused in part by post-fire logging. 

Commenters claim that the BLM’s 

failure to incorporate these studies 

demonstrate that the BLM has not fully 

considered the impacts of salvage 

harvest. 

Response: The BLM is aware of and 

has reviewed the studies regarding the 

impacts of post-fire logging on northern 

spotted owls, including the two studies 

specifically raised by comments. The 

studies documented that northern 

spotted owl and California spotted owl 

both show strong fidelity to their home 

ranges after wildfire. In addition, Clark 

et al. (2011) showed that although owls 

remained in the post-fire landscape 

about one-third of them died noting 

starvation as a likely cause. In Anthony 

and Clark (2008), the post-fire 

management recommendation is to 

avoid ‘‘clearcut salvage logging’’ and to 

retain live trees, snags, and riparian 

buffers. These are all project design 

features that receive emphasis in the 

CX. 

In addition to having considered the 

scientific research directly, the BLM 

notes the requirement that actions 

covered by the proposed CX must 

conform with the approved LUP. This 

coupled with the direction to document 

in the CX the project design features 

needed to ensure such conformance 

with a LUP ensure relevant protections 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Notices 79525 

are implemented. Specific to the 

northern spotted owl, most BLMadministered lands that constitute the 

range of the northern spotted owl are 

under the management of the LUPs for 

western Oregon (2016 Southwestern 

Oregon RMP and Northwestern and 

Coastal Oregon RMP). Additionally, the 

Department’s list of extraordinary 

circumstances provide that if a normally 

excluded action would have ‘‘significant 

impacts on species listed, or proposed 

to be listed, on the List of Endangered 

or Threatened Species or have 

significant impacts on designated 

Critical Habitat for these species,’’ then 

further analysis and documentation 

would be required. 43 CFR 46.215(h) 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments regarding the revegetation of 

temporary roads stating the 

requirements were vague and 

inadequate, because the measures 

identified do not include the need to 

obliterate temporary roads. The 

comments claimed that the BLM must 

use road ripping techniques and native 

plant seed sources to contain weed 

spread and cited scientific research 

identifying detrimental impacts to water 

quality and invasive species persistence 

when appropriate project design 

features are not applied. 

Response: In forest management, the 

primary driver of erosion and 

sedimentation in streams is bare soil 

exposure. A temporary road exposes soil 

and can channel the runoff in ditches 

and on the road surface if not properly 

designed. Features such as outsloping 

and water barring ensure that water is 

diverted from the road surface before 

gaining volume and velocity. The CX 

requires proper design which includes 

erosion control features. Since bare soil 

is the source of erosion and 

sedimentation regardless of 

recontouring, projects that would rely 

on the CX would be required to 

‘‘reestablish vegetative cover as soon as 

practicable’’ after termination of the 

contract to prevent erosion. The BLM 

allows up to 10 years for revegetation in 

arid regions where revegetation can be 

delayed by drought but where 

precipitation is such that erosion is less 

of an issue and streams are often not 

present. The BLM has modified the CX 

by requiring design standards for 

temporary road construction to consider 

erosion control and potential 

sedimentation to streams. 

The BLM reviewed the scientific 

research provided by the comments and 

found limited applicability of this 

research to the proposed CX. Lewis et 

al. (2018) studied an area dominated by 

logging on private land with the use of 

pre-emergent herbicide after harvest to 

prevent revegetation before tree seedling 

planting. This along with other practices 

are not part of the actions covered in the 

BLM CX and are not suitable for 

comparison. The BLM reviewed Beyers 

(2004) and notes that the study 

examined broadcast from aircraft of 

nonnative grasses and straw to establish 

cover post-fire. This technique is an 

emergency soil stabilization measure 

that is not part of the actions covered by 

this CX. The BLM reviewed Balch et al. 

(2017) and Gelbard and Harrison (2003), 

which find that the existence of roads 

increases the probability of humancaused fires and the spread of weeds. 

These findings are not relevant for 

temporary roads which are restricted to 

logging use while open and closed to all 

travel and revegetated after completion 

of activities. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments suggesting that the definition 

of a ‘‘dying tree’’ in the Verification 

Report was vague, arbitrary, and not 

verifiable. A dying tree is defined in the 

report as ‘‘a standing tree that has been 

severely damaged by forces such as fire, 

wind, ice, insects, or disease, and that 

in the judgement of an experienced 

forest professional or someone 

technically trained for the work, is 

likely to die within a few years.’’ 

However, the commenter identified tree 

mortality monitoring studies that have 

shown high error rates in classifying 

trees as dead after severe crown scorch 

when in fact many scorched pines flush 

new needles in the following spring. 

Response: The BLM acknowledges 

that conifers can flush needles after high 

initial crown scorch, and notes that 

other studies have shown that flushing 

does not necessarily mean survival 

longer term such as five years post-fire 

(Hood et al. 2010). Other indicators have 

been developed that are more accurate 

than percent crown scorch such as 

crown kill which can be observed soon 

after the fire without having to wait for 

potential flushing. The BLM 

acknowledges that errors may occur 

when trees that appear to be dead or 

dying but may in fact be alive and 

capable of flushing are harvested as part 

of the salvage activity. It is not 

practicable for the BLM to ensure that 

every apparently dead or dying tree is 

not capable of potential survival other 

than by relying on various indicators. 

The research shows that survival rates 

of trees with significant damage are low 

relative to ones that would die, and that 

tree mortality can be predicted with low 

error rates. Given the low rates of 

misidentification, the harvest of a few 

misidentified trees would not rise to the 

level of a significant impact. As 

discussed, projects that would rely on 

the CX require retention of snags which 

may result in the retention of live trees 

if flushing and long-term survival 

occurs. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that challenged the claim that 

trees killed by beetles increase the risk 

of high-severity wildfire events and, in 

turn, impaired stream functions. 

Comments identified and cited 

scientific literature claiming to purport 

the contrary, that severe wildfire 

increases aquatic ecosystem activity 

post-fire, and impairments to ecosystem 

resilience and stream function originate 

from chronic disturbance events like 

road building and logging. 

Response: The cited material does not 

specifically refer to salvage harvest but 

rather to the generalized phenomenon 

resulting in changes to ecosystem 

species assemblages resulting from 

repeated disturbances and exacerbated 

by invasive species and trends 

attributed to climate change. The text of 

the Verification Report specifically 

identified in the comments is in 

reference to the discussion of the 

Gunnison EA (SW Gunnison Bark Beetle 

Salvage Final Environmental 

Assessment). That EA looked at a large 

area of beetle-killed trees in Colorado. 

The EA found that high concentrations 

of beetle killed trees had potential, if 

burned, to impair stream function 

through erosion and excessive 

sedimentation. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments stating that the BLM’s 

assessment that completely removing 

trees in high severity burn patches 

would have no impact on soil erosion is 

counter to scientific literature. 

Response: The BLM makes no claim 

in the Verification Report that complete 

removal of trees in high severity burn 

patches would have no impact to soil 

erosion. Comments appear to be 

referring to the BLM review of the 

French Fire where the BLM evaluated 

post-salvage conditions several years 

after salvage was completed and where 

the BLM found no significant impact to 

soil erosion which was verified and 

documented in post-harvest monitoring 

reports, as had been expected in the 

project analysis. 

The BLM is aware of the literature 

presented in comments, which 

recommends the areas susceptible to 

surface runoff and erosion after high 

severity Éres and disturbed by groundbased logging employ additional project 

design features to reduce erosion. The 

CX requires the BLM to include project 

design features developed to address 

LUP decisions pertaining to limit 

ground disturbance and erosion. In fact, 

each of the items listed in part (v) of the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
79526 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Notices 

CX have a connection to erosion 

prevention. As such, the scientific 

research provided by the commenter 

supports the BLM’s inclusion of a 

requirement that BLM staff relying on 

the CX document how design features 

address ground disturbance and erosion 

are an effective means at reducing 

erosion potential. Further, the BLM has 

revised the text of part (v) to clarify the 

requirement to document how the scope 

of the project addresses any needed 

protections when no LUP decisions 

apply. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments stating that the BLM ignored 

the effects identified in scientific 

research of how logging and climate 

change contribute to uncharacteristic 

fires, as well as the finding that fuels 

under certain conditions are not a 

predictor of fire intensity. 

Response: The BLM has reviewed the 

scientific research identified in the 

comments related to how logging and 

climate change can contribute to 

uncharacteristic fires as well as the 

finding that fuels under certain 

conditions are not a predictor of fire 

intensity and did not find that the 

research provided was directly 

applicable to salvage harvest as 

conducted by the BLM. The comments 

suggest that implementing salvage in 

reliance on the CX may contribute to 

fire severity because studies have shown 

that intensively managed forests that are 

logged exhibit higher severity fires 

(though it should be noted not all fire 

effects are included in the studies). 

Intensive forest management in Zald 

and Dunn (2018) is defined as intensive 

plantation forestry characterized by 

young forests and spatially 

homogenized fuels. This study 

contrasted forests impacted by the 

Douglas Fire managed by the BLM and 

intensively managed private industrial 

forest. The study found that the BLMmanaged forest exhibited lower fire 

severity than the private forest lands. In 

some ways, this validates that the BLM’s 

approach to forest management that 

incorporates factors that address 

environmental consequences. The BLM 

has discussed in other responses the fact 

that by design the CX would not 

produce conditions described as 

intensively managed forest. 

The comments also suggest that 

conducting salvage harvest to reduce 

fire severity is not valid because some 

studies have found that fuels are not a 

predictor of fire severity. As explained 

in other responses, fuels reduction 

benefits from salvage depend on many 

factors but are still valid. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments suggesting that the BLM 

improperly used mitigated FONSIs to 

support the proposed CX and that not 

all project design features contained in 

the reference EAs were included in the 

proposed CX. 

Response: Consistent with CEQ’s 

guidance, Establishing, Applying, and 

Revising Categorical Exclusions under 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(Nov. 23, 2010), mitigated FONSIs can 

support development of a CX when 

measures are included as part of the CX. 

The actions included in the BLM Report 

to support the CX were selected based 

on BLM’s review of EAs and FONSIs 

that incorporate project design features 

developed to ensure conformance with 

LUPs and reduce adverse effects, which 

has been shown to be an effective 

process of developing salvage harvest 

projects that have no significant 

impacts. As explained in the 

Verification Report, none of the EAs 

relied on in support of the 

establishment of the CX required 

mitigation to reach a FONSI in order to 

support decisionmaking. To the extent 

to which the BLM regularly incorporates 

design features in its projects to ensure 

conformance with applicable LUPs, the 

documentation requirements of the CX 

will ensure this incorporation is 

transparent. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments related to the use of EAs but 

not EISs in the Verification Report that 

questioned why the potentially 

significant effects identified in the EISs 

would not apply to projects that could 

be supported by the proposed CX. 

Response: The BLM reviewed two 

EISs that included salvage harvest in the 

Verification Report (see report section 

Methods (4) for extensive description of 

the actions proposed under the EISs). 

The BLM notes in the report the 

complexity of the actions and issues 

included in the EISs that led to the 

analysis of those projects through an EIS 

are readily distinguishable from the 

routine salvage harvest projects that 

would be able to occur utilizing this CX. 

The BLM believes the actions proposed 

in the EISs clearly differ in terms of 

magnitude and degree of effects of the 

action. 

Comment: The BLM received a 

comment related to monitoring policies 

claiming that the BLM lacks sufficient 

monitoring data to support the CX. The 

comment suggested that the BLM must 

show that predictions from past EAs/ 

FONSIs have been reliable and that the 

projects have in fact had no significant 

impacts on the ground. 

Response: The Verification Report 

(pages 18–19) noted that the BLM 

conducts contract inspections for all 

timber sales. Sale administration 

requires the BLM to regularly visit 

active sales to ensure implementation of 

the sale is occurring as required under 

the contract and to inspect key aspects 

of the implementation, such as 

adequacy of road construction, retention 

of snags of the required sizes, count, and 

distribution, and application of 

protective measures. Because of this 

ongoing and real-time inspection, all 

timber sales, including salvage, are 

monitored for impacts. This evidence 

shows that predictions from past EAs 

(FONSIs) have been reliable and that the 

projects have not had significant 

impacts on the ground, as summarized 

in the Verification Report Findings on 

pages 24–25. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comment that some of the EAs 

evaluated in the Verification Report 

only reached FONSIs because the 

project areas included untreated areas 

and that since the proposed CX does not 

require inclusion of untreated areas, the 

BLM has not justified the claim that 

treatments can be supported by the 

proposed CX. 

Response: The CX requires retention 

of untreated areas for disturbances of 

1,000 acres and greater. For 

disturbances that cover 3,000 acres or 

more, the CX requires the retention of 

untreated areas of at least 66% and 

increasing as the disturbance acreage 

rises. The BLM examined the varying 

levels of retention in the EAs included 

in the report which showed a pattern of 

increasing proportion of retention as the 

disturbance acreage increased. The BLM 

believes the record supports the 

untreated retention parameter as being 

adequate to maintain the impacts below 

the threshold of significance by 

reducing the degree of the effects of the 

action. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that categorical exclusion of 

salvage harvesting is not appropriate 

because salvage logging will set back 

vegetative recovery that has already 

started and thereby delay attainment of 

riparian and aquatic management 

objectives. 

Response: The BLM examined 

scientific literature included in 

comments that found that post-fire 

salvage can damage tree regeneration 

(Donato et al. 2006). These findings 

showed that naturally regenerated tree 

seedlings were reduced one year after 

logging citing soil disturbance and 

physical burial by woody material. 

However, the salvage logging was 

delayed for two years after the fire in 

part due to how long it took to prepare 

the NEPA analysis. Other studies have 

indicated that delaying salvage after fire 

can delay recovery—particularly where 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Notices 79527 

artificial regeneration (tree planting) is 

needed to restore forest cover (Sessions 

et al. 2004). In the case of Sessions et 

al. 2004, the management direction for 

the study area was maintenance of 

mature conifer forest for species habitat 

under the Northwest Forest Plan. These 

findings support the conclusion that if 

salvage is going to occur it is more 

beneficial in terms of vegetation 

recovery if the harvest happens as soon 

after the disturbance as possible. In 

addition, the findings of the BLM report 

showed that EAs that reached FONSIs 

relied on project design features already 

developed and widely used and not new 

design features developed based on 

findings from environmental analysis. 

Through the establishment of the CX, 

the reduction of the time taken to reach 

a decision supports the vegetation 

recovery described here. 

A similar effect to vegetation recovery 

is likely for understory vegetation that 

germinates from seed post-fire and is 

subsequently damaged by equipment. 

Compaction in fine textured soils can 

also impede vegetation establishment. 

These effects were noted in the EAs in 

the report, but effects were limited and 

determined to be non-significant. 

Reasons for non-significance include the 

fact that compaction in coarse textured 

soil can positively influence vegetation 

establishment and the fact that logging 

equipment in the harvest area typically 

disturbs less than 20 percent of the 

forest floor. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments claiming that before the BLM 

can establish a new larger salvage CX, 

the BLM must prove its current 250-acre 

salvage CX has not incurred significant 

impacts and gather new data to support 

a larger treatment area. 

Response: CXs are developed for a 

category of actions that have been 

shown through repeated environmental 

analysis or on the basis of other 

evidence to not have significant 

impacts. The BLM’s existing 250-acre 

salvage CX was developed consistent 

with the CEQ NEPA regulations and 

guidance for CXs. The BLM has met its 

obligation under the law for the existing 

CX. Promulgation of a new salvage CX 

requires a new analysis of past actions, 

substantiation of non-significance, and 

consideration of scientific literature, 

which the BLM has conducted. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments claiming that the BLM 

improperly benchmarks to the CXs 

contained in Healthy Forest Restoration 

Act because these Congressionally 

established CXs intentionally excluded 

the BLM’s use. 

Response: The Verification Report 

benchmarks to the CXs included in the 

Healthy Forest Restoration Act 

appropriately. The BLM is not claiming 

that those CXs should be expanded to 

the agency’s jurisdiction or trying to 

apply those CXs for the BLM’s use in 

any way. The BLM developed the 

proposed CX based on the current 

management needs of the BLM and by 

evaluating the type, scope, and intensity 

of salvage projects that the BLM has 

routinely analyzed and conducted with 

no evidence of significant impacts, as 

described on pages 11–16 of the 

Verification Report. The Verification 

Report benchmarks, or cross-references, 

other CXs only to compare the general 

intent and scope, not to justify the 

promulgation of the new CX. 

Benchmarking actions that are 

comparable to the actions proposed for 

a new CX is one of the approaches 

identified by CEQ for demonstrating 

support of an action for categorical 

exclusion. The BLM has appropriately 

incorporated discussions of these 

Congressionally established CXs as 

required by CEQ in benchmarking in the 

Verification Report by noting the 

similarities of the: (1) Characteristics of 

the actions; (2) methods of 

implementing the actions; (3) frequency 

of the actions; (4) applicable standard 

operating procedures or implementing 

guidance (including extraordinary 

circumstances); and (5) timing and 

context, including the environmental 

settings in which the actions take place. 

CX Establishment Procedures 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments stating that while the BLM 

discusses a recent proposal by the U.S. 

Forest Service to establish a CX for 

‘‘ecosystem restoration or resilience 

activities,’’ it ignores the fact that the 

U.S. Forest Service has a CX for salvage 

harvest similar to BLM’s existing CX, 

which the U.S. Forest Service has not 

proposed to change. 

Response: The BLM has reviewed the 

Forest Service Federal Register notice to 

establish a CX for ecosystem restoration 

and resilience. The BLM notes that this 

proposed CX does not include salvage 

harvest in its covered actions. The BLM 

has reviewed the U.S. Forest Service 

report and referenced it in the BLM 

report to highlight that they had six EAs 

that covered salvage harvest in their 

report. This information was cited to 

indicate that another agency has 

conducted environmental analysis on 

salvage harvest in similar forest 

ecosystem across the west and has 

found no significant impacts. 

Nevertheless, the BLM does not rely on 

this for validation of its CX. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments stating that the BLM is wrong 

to conclude that Congress intended to 

extend the authority established in the 

CXs established by Congress in the 

Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113– 

79), and the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 

115–141) to BLM. 

Response: The BLM does not interpret 

the laws cited in these comments to 

apply to the BLM. The BLM does not 

rely on the CXs established by Congress 

for the U.S. Forest Service to use that 

directly or indirectly relate to fire risk 

reduction to validate this CX. The BLM 

highlighted these legislative CXs 

because of their similarity to the 

covered actions in the CX and because 

Congress has excluded like activities of 

equal size (3,000 acres) from further 

environmental analysis. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments stating that the scope of the 

CXs established by Congress in the 

Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113– 

79) and the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 

115–141) do not support this proposed 

CX because the public laws established 

CX parameters different from what the 

BLM is proposing. 

Response: The Congressionally 

established CXs are independent of this 

CX even though there is some overlap 

in scope. The BLM does not rely on the 

CXs established by Congress to 

substantiate this CX; the BLM instead 

used the data presented in the 

Verification Report. The BLM notes the 

following similarities and differences 

between the Congressionally established 

CXs and the BLM established CX: (1) 

The legislative CXs apply to forests with 

substantially increased tree mortality 

due to insect or disease infestation or 

dieback due to infestation or defoliation 

by insects or disease; however the BLM 

CX has broader applicability; (2) the 

legislative CXs cover treatment of areas 

up to 3,000 acres; however, the BLM CX 

has different conditions; (3) the 

legislative CXs allow temporary road 

construction with decommissioning 

within 3 years, whereas the BLM CX 

assumes decommissioning and further 

requires revegetation as soon as 

practicable but within 10 years; and (4) 

the legislative CXs are restricted to 

wildland-urban interface or Condition 

Classes 2 or 3 in Fire Regime Groups I, 

II, or III, outside the wildland-urban 

interface. The BLM notes that a 

significant portion of BLM forests fall in 

these categories, but this type of group 

selection was not a factor in the BLM 

CX. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments claiming that the 

establishment of a new CX requires a 

rulemaking, is a major Federal action 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
79528 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Notices 

requiring analysis in an EA or EIS, is 

subject to the Administrative Procedure 

Act (APA), and subject to the 

Congressional Review Act (CRA). 

Comments expressed various 

requirements the BLM must undertake 

or remedy relative to these purported 

requirements before establishing this 

CX. 

Response: The CEQ regulations do not 

require agencies to issue their 

implementing procedures as a 

rulemaking, and it is the Department’s 

longstanding practice to implement 

NEPA in its DM. The establishment of 

a CX as a part of an agency’s NEPA 

procedures is largely administrative, 

and distinct from the analysis required 

for a proposed major Federal action. 

Heartwood, Inc. v. United States Forest 

Service, 230 F.3d 947, 954 (7th Cir. 

2000) (Forest Service is not required to 

prepare an EA or EIS prior to 

promulgating a CX). In establishing the 

proposed CX, the Department is 

following CEQ’s procedural regulations, 

which include publishing the notice of 

the proposed CX in the Federal Register 

for public review and comment, 

considering public comments, and 

consulting with the CEQ to obtain CEQ’s 

written determination of conformity 

with NEPA and the CEQ regulations. 

(See 40 CFR 1507.3(b)(2)) To 

substantiate the proposed CX as a 

category of actions that do not normally 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment, the BLM also has 

developed the Verification Report, an 

administrative record to support the 

category of actions to be covered by the 

CX. This analysis includes a review of 

multiple environmental documents in 

which actions that would fall under the 

proposed CX have been found not to 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment. 

Comment: The BLM received 

comments that promulgation of the CX 

requires consultation with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS). 

Response: To the extent that 

establishment of a NEPA procedure 

such as the proposed CX is subject to 

the requirements of section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act, the action has 

no effect on listed species or critical 

habitat. Projects the BLM may pursue in 

reliance on this CX to implement 

salvage harvest would be subject to 

review under Section 7 of ESA and, if 

the parameters of the proposed action 

and site-specific conditions require, 

appropriate consultation with the FWS 

and NMFS would occur. 

Comment: The BLM received a 

comment that the CX violates the APA 

because it is changing an existing CX 

(salvage on up to 250 acres) without 

justifying the need for the change and 

the circumstances allowing for the 

acreage expansion. 

Response: The BLM is not proposing 

to change the existing CX (C.8), the BLM 

is proposing the establishment of an 

entirely new CX that would be available 

for BLM in addition to the existing 250- 

acre CX. The BLM has prepared a 

Verification Report that extensively 

explains the justification for the new CX 

and the circumstances associated with 

land management warranting the 

identification of this new category’s 

establishment. 

Categorical Exclusion 

The Department and the BLM find the 

category of actions described in the CX 

does not normally have a significant 

effect on the quality of the human 

environment. This finding is based on 

the analysis presented in the 

Verification Report to establish this CX. 

In addition to the BLM’s review of 

projects evaluated through EAs, and 

consideration of these projects following 

implementation, the BLM’s review of 

the available scientific literature 

demonstrates that the activities covered 

by this CX would not normally cause 

significant environmental effects. As 

discussed in detail in the Verification 

Report Methods section, the research 

provides evidence for both the need for 

the CX to facilitate the timely 

authorization of projects that can realize 

the long-term benefits of salvage harvest 

and provide effective project design 

features to minimize adverse impacts. 

As discussed in the Methods section 

of the Verification Report, the BLM 

currently implements timber salvage 

sales supported by EAs, EISs, and since 

2007 has relied upon the existing timber 

salvage CX (C.8), and conducts postharvest monitoring on all sales. The 

BLM has implemented salvage sales in 

response to insects and disease, 

windthrow, drought, and wildfires 

through commercial harvest using 

helicopter, cable yarding, and groundbased methods. The BLM evaluated 

NEPA documents for previously 

implemented salvage harvest to 

determine the scope of environmental 

consequences anticipated to result from 

the proposed actions. In the EAs 

reviewed, no significant impacts were 

predicted to result from the kinds of 

activities covered by this CX for salvage 

harvest, nor were any unanticipated 

impacts observed after treatments were 

implemented. Actual impacts were the 

same as predicted impacts in all cases. 

There were no instances where any of 

the projects evaluated in the EAs 

reviewed would have resulted in a need 

to complete an EIS. The BLM has 

implemented elements of the salvage 

actions included as part of this new CX 

under the current salvage CX and has 

not found significant impacts or 

instances where the presence of 

extraordinary circumstances prevented 

reliance on the existing salvage CX. In 

the two circumstances where the BLM 

completed EISs for salvage harvest, the 

specific combination of actions 

proposed, and the scale of the proposals 

warranted analysis through EISs. The 

scale and scope of the actions proposed 

for CX here are readily distinguishable 

from those evaluated in the EISs. All 

proposed actions and alternatives 

evaluated in the EAs reviewed included 

project design features that minimize 

environmental consequences. Often, 

through application of locally 

appropriate design elements, 

environmental effects were minimized 

to the level of non-significant, whereby 

resource issues were eliminated from 

further analysis due to application of 

these elements incorporated into project 

design. 

The intent of this CX is to improve the 

efficiency of the environmental review 

process for the harvest of dead, dying, 

or damaged trees impacted by biotic or 

abiotic disturbances. Each proposed 

action must be reviewed for 

extraordinary circumstances that would 

preclude the use of this CX. The 

Department’s list of extraordinary 

circumstances under which a normally 

excluded action would require further 

analysis and documentation to 

determine whether the preparation of an 

EA or EIS is necessary is found at 43 

CFR 46.215. If a timber salvage project 

is within the activity described in this 

CX, then these ‘‘extraordinary 

circumstances’’ will be considered in 

the context of the proposed project to 

determine if there are circumstances 

that lessen the impacts or other 

conditions sufficient to avoid significant 

effects, or they indicate the potential for 

effects that merit additional 

consideration in an EA or EIS. If any of 

the extraordinary circumstances 

indicate such potential, the CX would 

not be used, and an EA or EIS would be 

prepared. 

Amended Text for the Departmental 

Manual 

516 DM 11 at Section. 11.9 C. (10) 

Forestry: 

(10) Salvaging dead and dying trees 

resulting from fire, insects, disease, 

drought, or other disturbances not to 

exceed 1,000 acres for disturbances of 

3,000 acres or less. For disturbances 

greater than 3,000 acres, harvesting shall 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Notices 79529 

not exceed 1⁄3 of a disturbance area but 

not to exceed 3,000 acres total harvest. 

(a) Covered actions: 

(i) Cutting, yarding, and removal of 

dead or dying trees and live trees 

needed for landings, skid trails, and 

road clearing. Includes chipping/ 

grinding and removal of residual slash. 

(ii) Jackpot burning, pile burning, or 

underburning. 

(iii) Seeding or planting necessary to 

accelerate native species reestablishment. 

(b) Such actions: 

(i) Shall not require more than 1 mile 

of permanent road construction to 

facilitate the covered actions. Permanent 

roads are routes intended to be part of 

the BLM’s permanent transportation 

system. 

(ii) If a permanent road is constructed 

to facilitate the covered actions, the 

segments shall conform to all applicable 

land use planning decisions for 

permanent road construction in the land 

use plan; and if travel management 

planning has been completed, the route 

specific designations related to the new 

segments shall be disclosed. 

(iii) May include temporary roads, 

which are defined as roads authorized 

by contract, permit, lease, other written 

authorization, or emergency operation 

not intended to be part of the BLM’s 

permanent transportation system and 

not necessary for long-term resource 

management. Temporary roads shall be 

designed to standards appropriate for 

the intended uses, considering safety, 

cost of transportation, erosion control, 

potential sedimentation to streams, and 

impacts on land and resources. 

(iv) Shall require the treatment of 

temporary roads constructed or used so 

as to permit the reestablishment, by 

artificial or natural means, of vegetative 

cover on the roadway and areas where 

the vegetative cover was disturbed by 

the construction or use of the road, as 

necessary to minimize erosion from the 

disturbed area. Such treatment shall be 

designed to reestablish vegetative cover 

as soon as practicable, but at least 

within 10 years after the termination of 

the contract. 

(v) Shall require inclusion of project 

design features providing for protections 

of the following resources and resource 

uses consistent with the decisions in the 

applicable land use plan in the 

documentation of the categorical 

exclusion. If no land use plan decisions 

apply, documentation of the categorical 

exclusion shall identify how the 

following resources and resource uses 

are to be appropriately addressed: 

(1) Level of snag and downed wood 

creation/retention; 

(2) Specifications for erosion control 

features such as water bars, dispersed 

slash; 

(3) Criteria for minimizing or 

remedying soil compaction; 

(4) Types and extents of logging 

system constraints (e.g., seasonal, 

location, extent, etc.); 

(5) Extent and purpose of seasonal 

operating constraints or restrictions; 

(6) Criteria to limit spread of weeds; 

(7) Size of riparian buffers and/or 

riparian zone operating restrictions; 

(8) Operating constraints and 

restrictions for underburning or pile 

burning; 

(9) Revegetation standards for 

temporary roads; and 

(10) Limitations on road densities. 

(c) For this CX, a dying tree is defined 

as a standing tree that has been severely 

damaged by forces such as fire, wind, 

ice, insects, or disease, and that in the 

judgement of an experienced forest 

professional or someone technically 

trained for the work, is likely to die 

within a few years. Examples include, 

but are not limited to: 

(i) Harvesting a portion of a stand 

damaged by a wind or ice event. 

(ii) Harvesting fire damaged trees. 

Authority: NEPA, the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); E.O. 11514, 

March 5, 1970, as amended by E.O. 11991, 

May 24, 1977; and CEQ regulations (40 CFR 

1500–1508). 

Stephen G. Tryon, 

Director, Office of Environmental Policy and 

Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27159 Filed 12–9–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4331–84–P 

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING 

COMMISSION 

Notice of Final Adoption and Effective 

Date; Submission Guidelines Related 

to Antennas on Federal and Certain 

District Buildings and Land 

AGENCY: National Capital Planning 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of final adoption and 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: On December 3, 2020, the 

National Capital Planning Commission 

(NCPC) adopted revisions to the 

Submission Guidelines updating the 

requirements and criteria for antennas 

placed on Federal and certain District 

buildings and lands in the National 

Capital Region. Federal and District 

agency applicants who are seeking to 

place antennas on their property are 

subject to review by the Commission 

following a process laid out in the 

Submission Guidelines. The revisions to 

the Antenna Submission Guidelines 

address several deficiencies in the 

current guidelines, namely: Adding 

definitions for small cells and 

temporary antennas; including several 

new criteria to help protect viewsheds 

and address multiple antennas on 

building rooftops; and identifying the 

review process for temporary and small 

cell antennas. The final amended 

document can be found at: https://

www.ncpc.gov/initiatives/antennas/. 

DATES: The revised Submission 

Guidelines will become effective 

February 8, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carlton Hart at (202) 482–7252 or info@

ncpc.gov. 

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 8721(e)(2). 

Dated: December 7, 2020. 

Anne R. Schuyler, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27150 Filed 12–9–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7502–02–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Request for Information; Strategic and 

Performance Plans 

AGENCY: National Science Foundation. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: The Government Performance 

and Results Act (GPRA) and GPRA 

Modernization act of 2010 requires 

federal agencies to publish their 

strategic and performance plans in 

pursuit of their missions. Through this 

Request for Information (RFI), the 

National Science Foundation (NSF) 

seeks public comment on the key 

elements of the strategic plan—the 

Vision, Core Values, Strategic Goals, 

and Strategic Objectives—and high-level 

questions that will guide the 

development of the 2022–2026 NSF 

Strategic Plan. 

DATES: Please send comments on or 

before January 22, 2021. Comments 

received after that date will be 

considered to the extent practicable. 

Send comments to the address below. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to the 

strategic planning website. Individuals 

who use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

1.800.877.8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days 

a week, 365 days a year (including 

Federal holidays). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1.0 Background 

NSF was created ‘‘to promote the 

progress of science; to advance the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES