[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 238 (Thursday, December 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79517-79529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27159]


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

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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#573f353225393e322517353b3a79303821"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a4ccc6c1d6cacdc1d6e4c6c8c98ac3cbd2">[email protected]</span></a>. 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 Department-wide 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,

[[Page 79518]]

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:
    <bullet> Replaced ``harvesting'' with ``salvaging'' at the 
beginning of the CX.
    <bullet> Revised the upper limit of the harvest size from 5,000 
acres to 3,000 acres.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> Added ``erosion control, potential sedimentation to 
streams'' to the list of considerations required for temporary road 
design in part (b)(iii).
    <bullet> Revised language at part (v) to clarify the requirements 
for project design features to be included consistent with land use 
plans (LUPs).
    <bullet> Removed ``and retention level of live trees'' from the 
list of resource uses requiring project design features under part (v).
    <bullet> 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 non-supportive 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 road-related sediments and connection to

[[Page 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 post-disturbance 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

[[Page 79520]]

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 decision-maker 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

[[Page 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 post-implementation 
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 post-disturbance 
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

[[Page 79522]]

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 post-fire 
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.

[[Page 79523]]

    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 site-specific 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 beetle-killed 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 large-scale 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 non-intervention 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.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 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

[[Page 79524]]

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 post-
disturbance 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

[[Page 79525]]

are implemented. Specific to the northern spotted owl, most BLM-
administered 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 human-caused 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 [filig]res and disturbed by ground-based 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

[[Page 79526]]

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 BLM-managed 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 79528]]

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 post-harvest 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 ground-based 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

[[Page 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 
re-establishment.
    (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


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