Views like these are not unusual here (like my wildfire plan amendments) but they are from a law professor at UC Berkeley School of Law, who used to work for Earthjustice so it comes from a person with a different background than many of us. It came from a regular newsletter called “Legal Planet.”
This is an excerpt, and the entire piece is here. It was written in January 2025, in the context of the House version of the Fix our Forests bill.
*******************
What is a possible path forward? A key issue is that we spend too much time and effort on review, compliance, and litigation over individual projects, rather than focusing on the big picture. The scale and the urgency of the problem requires us to think about accomplishing management across large areas – but even examining individual projects at the size of 10,000 acres (as proposed in the bill) will still require hundreds and hundreds of projects to be reviewed and completed. And note agencies still have to accomplish review and compliance for land-use plans that they are legally required to prepare and maintain. Those plans do not generally turn directly into on the ground projects – they are usually too vague in their constraints and environmental analysis to do so. Thus, the agencies are stuck doing two levels of review for all projects. And it only takes a mistake on one of those two levels to set back the whole program.
Most recent proposals (including in this legislation) would reduce our scrutiny for individual projects. That perhaps solves one-half of the problem, but it also puts far more weight in terms of ensuring environmental review and compliance on the larger-scale planning process. Planning has the potential to provide important guardrails to ensure good outcomes – the Forest Service is legally prohibited from taking actions that are prohibited by its planning documents. But in general forest plans have imposed only limited constraints on individual, on-the-ground projects. And more generally, the plans have not overall been designed to allow individual projects proceed directly without more environmental review or compliance work.
A better approach might be to do what the agencies already often do with managing off-road vehicle use on their lands. Those travel management decisions can occur in the planning document itself, and can then be immediately implemented when the plan is approved. This reduces the number of steps – including the number of opportunities for litigation.
Agencies could enact forest plans (or more likely amendments to forest plans) that create a pathway that specifically identifies when and how active management will occur within the relevant National Forest. Analysis could draw on what is sometimes called “conditions-based management”, in which specific conditions in terms of forest status would trigger a range of possible responses by the agency. The plan would impose clear limits on the kinds of projects that could be pursued, such as restrictions around endangered species habitat or riparian areas. The plan might also put caps on the total acreage that could be treated within certain timeframes. NEPA review could be undertaken as part of the planning process, along with public participation and engagement. By doing review at a larger geographic scale, there can be economies of scale for analysis and public participation. And by focusing the discussion on the larger-scale problem, it might help refocus debates around the need to act, rather than simply just focusing on individual projects that will always have tradeoffs and risks. Projects that are consistent with the plan and its analysis would be exempt from NEPA, since the review had already been done.
Congress could facilitate this kind of approach. It could explicitly endorse it, or even mandate it – which might make agencies more comfortable taking a new approach. It could limit the amount of NEPA analysis for fire management at the plan level, perhaps by restricting the number of alternatives. It could require the NEPA analysis to consider the risks of inaction with no fire management, which may shape the debate to emphasize the need for action. It could provide limits on litigation – shorter statutes of limitation for NEPA challenges to fire management projects developed through the planning process, and a limitation on any supplemental NEPA claims for a specified timeframe after the planning process is completed. It could also mandate greater community outreach for the planning process, and assistance in developing community fire protection plans that are included in the agency’s own planning process.
A model here is what California did in 2019 for accelerating treatment in forests and other ecosystems at the state level – an overarching environmental review process for its Vegetation Treatment Program, which facilitated approvals for many projects on the ground. California has seen substantial increases in the levels of acres treated since the implementation of the VTP process.
An approach focused on planning decisions at the individual forest level, or at the regional level, allows for agencies to consider the varied ecological and social conditions for different forests and communities. What works for reducing fire risk in dry Sierra conifer forests will not necessarily work in chapparal in Southern California. Finally, by allowing for more active management while still maintaining public participation and some accountability through judicial review, this approach may reduce the distrust that has swirled around forest management for the past few decades. Because at the heart of our challenges in addressing fire risk in our forests is a deep distrust. Without addressing that distrust, any solutions will be contested and less effective.
It looks like a condition-based management EA for wildfire risk reduction activities. It’s 75 pages with many appendices.
The LPNF proposes two general categories of treatments: (1) Fuelbreaks and Defense Zones (Zones) and (2) Forest Health Treatment Units (Units). The objective in Units is to promote healthy forests that are resilient to natural disturbance, enhance opportunities to suppress wildfire, and increase protection of the urban interface. Zone treatments would occur along ridgelines, existing roads, motorized trails, and property lines and adjacent to Forest Service administrative sites (including developed recreation sites, fire stations, and ranger district offices), communication sites, and other structures. Zone treatments would involve the establishment and maintenance of strategic fuelbreaks along ridgelines to slow the rate of spread of wildfire for the purposes of aiding wildfire management efforts and protecting infrastructure, communities, and natural and cultural resources. Zone treatments would also involve reducing fuels along roads and motorized trails to support ingress/egress and evacuation and reducing fuels along property lines and adjacent to United States Forest Service (USFS) administrative sites to help protect life and structures and limit economic damage associated with wildfires. Treatment methods could include mechanical thinning, hand thinning, chipping and grinding, piling and burning, mastication, mowing and weed-whipping, prescribed fire, targeted grazing, and planting and seeding.
The project is designed with a management approach that supports responsiveness and flexibility prior to treatment implementation. This approach allows for proposed treatments to be aligned post-decision but prior to implementation with ground conditions at the time of implementation. This will maximize the efficacy and efficiency of project planning and implementation by reducing the time and funding currently spent per project, increasing flexibility to choose treatment areas and methods, and taking advantage of time-sensitive opportunities and conditions. It also allows for continued coordination with local agencies, tribes, and others to focus treatments on shared priorities and include cultural approaches consistent with the project.
*************
One of the questions many people have on these projects is “how is the public involved in the site-specific decisions?”
An Implementation Plan (IP) was developed as part of this proposed action to help ensure resource conditions at the time of implementation are appropriately considered prior to implementation. The IP provides an implementation framework and process that the Forest Service will apply at the stand level prior to entry. The IP includes three forms to be filled out at different stages of implementation planning, and one form to be filled out upon treatment completion:
• Form A: Phase Initiation Form
• Form B: Phase Treatment Form
• Form C: Environmental and Permitting Requirements and NEPA Consistency Determination
• Form D: Treatment Completion Tracking Form
Each form is described in detail in Appendix D – Implementation Plan, including templates for each. Work will be prioritized each year based upon an assessment of the dynamic conditions, addressing areas of highest priority for the upcoming phase with the input of the Forest’s fire, fuels, silviculture and/or other specialists as applicable. A key component of this step would be to identify the areas and types of surveys that need to be performed, including (but not limited to) special-status species and their habitats,
invasive plant species, riparian conservation areas, and cultural resources. Many of these studies are time-sensitive and surveys, when necessary, would be performed in the appropriate season before the work. Applicable RPMs and Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be listed based on the assessment of resources to ensure that any constraints are included in the planning of the work for the year and to ensure that crews performing the work are also aware of the requirements.
For the WRRP, it is anticipated that up to 10,000 acres of treatments would be implemented each year, with a maximum implementation scenario, including re-entry treatments, not to exceed 20,000 acres per year. This is based on a review and average of work over the last 10 years. Including all types of treatments, the LPNF currently averages 3,500 acres per year, with higher totals over 9,000 acres of annual treatment.
Appendix D has a very detailed description of the implementation steps. I selected this section to describe public outreach at the site-specific implementation level.
Each phase of work would be disclosed to cooperating agencies, tribes, and the public (e.g., posted to the Forest website, social media, and/or other method(s)), to the extent practicable. No additional NEPA decisions are needed unless proposed work falls outside the scope of the EA. A detailed plan for the phase of work that includes elements such as the location of treatment areas, the surveys completed and areas of modified treatments based on RPMs and other measures, identification as to whether material would be sold, chipped or masticated, piled and burned, or removed would be provided as well as a more precise schedule of activities. Outreach to the public, particularly in areas where treatment is located near residences or prescribed fire is planned, would be undertaken. Regulations requiring formal public engagement opportunities (e.g., comment or objection periods (36 CFR 218)) during project implementation do not exist.
So there is a chance for the public to make its wishes known at each site, but no regulatory requirements for formal comment periods. What do you think?
Example of a random SOPA , note that direct contact info for FS employees is available on the SOPA but I blocked for this image.
The Forest Service Press Office (thanks!) sent me a copy of this rather lengthy letter. Here’s a bit of a philosophical question to frame the whole Emergency effort: is wildfire really an emergency? Some would argue that climate is an emergency; some would argue that wildfire is an emergency but other solutions that vegetation manipulation on federal lands should be chosen. Some would argue that vegetative manipulation is OK, but it’s not an emergency enough to change current procedures. Others would argue that vegetation manipulation is OK but not cutting trees to be used commercially. But if we back up, it seems like some people who believe that global warming is a crisis also believe that (some) mitigation projects should be expedited, but not adaptation projects. If we frame the wildfire crisis as being about climate change, which some people do. It’s very confusing, but I thought that it was important to lay out that context before we discuss “what we think is OK to do in an emergency” we need to talk about exactly what we think the emergency is and how we define it.
Here are the general introductory statements:
On April 3, 2025, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins signed Secretarial Memo 1078-006 titled Increasing Timber Production and Designating an Emergency Situation on National Forest System Lands. The Secretarial Memo implements Executive Order 14225, Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production (March 1, 2025). Acting Associate Chief Chris French provided additional direction to Regional Foresters in a letter dated April 3, 2025, Implementation of Secretarial Memo 1078-006. This letter directed the Deputy Chief of the National Forest System (NFS), within 14 days, to release direction for using Emergency National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and other regulatory authorities to streamline and simplify the permitting process. The following guidance contained in this memo fulfills this requirement.
To address specific challenges related to wildfires and forest health, the Secretarial memo contains an Emergency Action Determination (EAD) under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Section 40807, Emergency Actions authority. NFS will support use of this new EAD with additional information, increased Emergency Action Portal functionality and several mapping products to identify the lands included. All actions eligible within the lands covered will use this EAD authority as the default approach including ongoing actions. To use this Forest Health and Hazardous Fuels EAD, proposals must be submitted through the Emergency Action Portal for final approval by the unit’s Forest Supervisor.
Tribes and States Can Request Additional Areas.
Secretarial Memo 1078-006 provides federally recognized Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, and States the ability to request additional areas to be included in the EAD through the Regional Forester to the Chief of the Forest Service for approval. Additional process guidance for addressing these requests will be forthcoming.
NEPA
When applying this authority to ongoing NEPA actions, consider if a change in the NEPA process will provide for efficiency given its current stage. If an opportunity for objections has already been communicated to the public or is within the objections process, the project timing may not be a good fit for use of this authority.
Public notice and an opportunity to comment is required for IIJA authorized projects, however the statute affords greater discretion in how that is accomplished. To expedite emergency actions, use streamlined approaches under the Agency’s NEPA procedures rather than relying on the notice and comment procedures of the displaced objection processes set out in 36 CFR Part 218. For example, publication via the Schedule of Proposed Actions and distribution of a notice through the unit’s mailing list may be done for environmental assessments (EAs) and categorical exclusions (CEs). Public notice for an environmental impact statement should follow the direction in 36 CFR 220.5(f).
To further expedite these projects, seek to minimize process requirements like scoping, extraordinary circumstance review, and decision memo requirements while still fulfilling all applicable legal requirements.
My bold. At this point, if I lived near or was otherwise interested in forest projects, I would make sure that I was on the forest’s mailing list, and also check the SOPA at least once a week. You can just type in the forest name and SOPA into a search engine, and find the projects, the dates, the link to the project website and whom to contact. Unfortunately, I didn’t have any luck clicking through today and sent a note to the WO about the broken links.
1. Scoping for emergency actions shall be commensurate with the scope and scale of the project. Such scoping efforts should be focused and brief. Formal comment periods will not typically be required for EAs and CEs. Alternative forms of public involvement are sufficient to fulfill agency responsibilities under NEPA and the IIJA.
I’ve seen many EAs with apparent comment periods and even response to comments, so this is interesting.
2. For extraordinary circumstances review, analyze the degree of effect to the proposed action not just the mere presence of a resource condition. Focus on the most important
resource conditions, those listed in 36 CFR 220.6(b) and do not casually expand the scope of conditions being assessed.
But if you expand them thoughtfully, I guess that would be OK.
3. For decision documents, use Agency templates and only include the content required at 36 CFR 220.6(e) and 36 CFR 220.7(c). Additional emergency compliance tools under NEPA can be found on the Ecosystem Management Coordination SharePoint site. Where applicable, prioritize use of CEs to meet NEPA compliance. To expand use of CEs, the
Forest Service recently adopted over 40 additional categories from other agencies under Section 109 of NEPA. Please examine these additional categories, as well as current USDA, Agency, and statutory CEs when considering compliance actions in support of the Secretarial Memo.
Note that this adoption was last July, prior to the current Administration.
************
There are also emergency suggestions for for NHPA compliance and Tribal Consultation.
*****************
Since Jon knows about ESA, I thought I’d throw this section in this post.
For compliance supporting the ESA:
1. Employ existing, and develop new, innovative, options for expediting ESA consultation and achieving conservation objectives. Refer to the June 26, 2024, Interagency Memo on
“ESA Section 7 Streamlining Guidance for Implementing the Wildfire Crisis Strategy” for a summary of existing options and opportunities for efficient and effective ESA consultation (https://usdagcc.sharepoint.com/sites/fs-nfs-niesc).
Seems like that Interagency Memo (from the last Admin) is probably available outside the sharepoint site for those curious.
2. Bring innovative ideas to the WO Natural Resources staff to develop additional options and opportunities. New opportunities are being developed as part of the National Active
Forest Management Strategy.
3. Where expedited consultation is necessary, provide as much essential information as feasible to the Services in advance of the action, in order to: determine appropriate design
features to incorporate; assess whether leadership elevation may be warranted; and minimize the time/capacity investment required after any emergency actions are completed.
4. Use the below suggested consultation initiation language where expedited consultation is needed: “XX National Forest is requesting expedited consultation to perform YY work
pursuant to Secretarial Memo 1078-006. The project is expected to commence on ZZ date. If expedited consultation cannot be completed prior to that date, the Forest requests the
consultation be completed under the emergency consultation regs and procedures. (50 CFR § 402.05).”
5. The WO Natural Resources staff are working with ESA consultation agencies to develop additional guidance and methods involving emergency consultation.
To the simple-minded like me, it seems like ESA consultation would involve something like “in these areas, for these kinds of projects, you need to do X, Y and Z to protect A, B and C species.” We know this because dozens of fuel treatment projects likely have been done in the same area. I get that there are landscape-level considerations. It looks like there already emergency consultation regs and procedures in place, but then that goes back to where we started “is it an emergency, and if so, what kind?”
A Big Shout-out to the Forest Service Press Office for a quick response on this.
**************
I know I can be critical of the media, but in this case I also think the Department could have done a better job on the rollout. All it would have taken is one clarifying chunk of words in an accompanying press release (or maybe it was there and I didn’t see it?)
*************
What does it mean in English to “open up” areas for logging? Using plain English, “to make available or possible” implying that those areas had not been previously open. This was possible as we can see from these media outlets:
Last week, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins issued an emergency declaration that ordered the U.S. Forest Service to open up some 112.5 million acres of national forestland to logging.
A new policy opens 58% of U.S. national forests to logging by rolling back environmental protections.
****************************
And we found out from the folks at the Associated Press (who wrote a fair story) that the acreage came from the Secretary’s announcement of acres covered by the ESD.
However, those of us experienced in this area might wonder “how does this related to other designations and forest plans?” Let’s look at the language the Secretary referred to in her memo from IIJA which sets out the parameters of ESD’s.
For emergency actions 40807 (b) (3) IIJA says .
(3) Relation to land and resource management plans.--Any
authorized emergency action carried out under paragraph (2) on
National Forest System land shall be conducted consistent with
the applicable land and resource management plan.
Now, we have acres where fuel treatments are allowed in the forest plan. The memo doesn’t actually change that. I asked the Press Office about other designations (Wilderness, Roadless etc.) and here is the answer from them:
The current map reflects boundaries within which there may be wilderness, roadless, or other special designation areas, as well as lakes, roads, structures, etc. Mechanical treatments are not allowed in designated wilderness areas, so logging is excluded. Restrictions or conditions associated with project level decisions, forest plans, regulations or Congressional Designations remain.
So the order, in and of itself does not, in fact, “open up” any new areas to “logging.” If a new project is proposed in an area that is OK based on all the other forest plan and other designations and restrictions, then it uses the ESD assists: no objection process-one action alternative-special injunction relief (the latter Rich J. was kind enough to explain.) Abbreviated NOP-OAA-SIR
Now some might argue that with this push for increasing timber harvest, forests might be inclined to do more projects that would require a site-specific plan amendment, and that’s possible, but forests could have done those anyway without the ESD. So in that sense, the ESD itself did not open anything. If a forest wants to go somewhere not in the forest plan, though, via a site-specific plan amendment, it would make the project analysis quicker via NOP-OAA-SIR.
So I would say that “opening for logging” based on the ESD, is not correct.
The Press Office told me that there will be a more detailed map shortly, so we’ll post that.
I mentioned ESDs to Jon yesterday in a comment. I wasn’t being psychic, not do I have a direct line to USDA. But the fact is that there are only so many possibilities in NEPA world and many of them have been used before. Here’s the link, thanks to Anonymous. Also, the very successful SERAL projects on the Stanislaus used ESD (see #8 in SERAL post).
It sounds like using an ESD means the FS only needs a proposed action and the no-action alternative, and there is no objection process. But consultation for ESA and NHPA compliance still occurs. Additional context is this letter from two years ago.
Secretary Vilsack also determined that an emergency situation exists on certain lands (post fire recovery areas) that experienced high intensity wildfire in fiscal year 2022, including NFS lands in: (1) New Mexico (Catron, Colfax, Grant, Lincoln, Los Alamos, Mora, San Miguel, Sandoval, Sierra, Socorro, Taos, and Valencia counties), (2) Arizona (Coconino and Yavapai counties), and (3) California (Alpine, Amador, Butte, El Dorado, Humboldt, Kern, Lassen, Madera, Mariposa, Plumas, Shasta, Santa Barbara, Siskiyou, Tehama, Trinity, and Tulare counties).
Within these designated areas, I have the authority to approve emergency actions for which NEPA compliance actions are not subject to administrative review under 36 CFR 218, and an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement need only analyze the no action alternative and the proposed action. In addition, a proposed emergency action is subject to special injunctive relief standards if challenged in court.
Maybe our lawyer friends can tell us more about the “special injunctive relief standards.” So it sounds like the big change from 2023 is expanding the use of ESD from the 250 identified high-risk watersheds to a (much) broader area. Of course, if your area was not in the areas Secretary Vilsack selected (we don’t know why those were selected), you might think it’s a great idea to expand.
Or we could blame the Congress for putting this in the BIL in the first place, as stated in the 2023 Letter:
Section 40807 of the BIL authorizes the Secretary to determine that an emergency exists where implementation of emergency actions is necessary to achieve relief from hazards threatening human health and safety or to mitigate threats to natural resources on National Forest System land and adjacent lands.
***********
While hunting around for an example of an EA or EIS, I did find this alternative arrangements letter from 2015, so the emergency idea has been around in California for awhile. What is it about California and NEPA? Lake Tahoe has their own CE.., 2015 alternative arrangements, 2023 ESD..?
************
Anyway, here’s the current announcement and letter.
to expand American timber production by 25%, and it will empower the U.S. Forest Service to expedite work on the ground and carry out authorized emergency actions to reduce wildfire risk and save American lives and communities.
“Healthy forests require work, and right now, we’re facing a national forest emergency. We have an abundance of timber at high risk of wildfires in our National Forests,” said Secretary Rollins. “I am proud to follow the bold leadership of President Trump by empowering forest managers to reduce constraints and minimize the risks of fire, insects, and disease so that we can strengthen American timber industry and further enrich our forests with the resources they need to thrive.”
The Memo issued by Secretary Rollins is part of a larger effort to ensure American resources are properly managed for generations to come. This work will support rural economies, reduce wildfire risk, and build capacity through workforce alignment and expanded partnerships.
This Memo will also spur immediate action from the U.S. Forest Service directing field leadership to increase timber outputs, simplify permitting, remove National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes, reduce implementation and contracting burdens, and to work directly with states, local government, and forest product producers to ensure that the Forest Service delivers a reliable and consistent supply of timber.
This action builds on Secretary Rollins’ announcement last month to unleash American energy by directing the USDA Forest Service to take action to remove burdensome Biden-era regulations that have stifled energy and mineral development on Forest Service land. As part of these decisive actions, the agency also canceled two mineral leasing withdrawals on Forest Service land that will help boost production of critical minerals.
Here’s some of the text:
a. EMERGENCY SITUATION DETERMINATION
To address this crisis, I am making an Emergency Situation Determination (ESD) under section 40807 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). This ESD encompasses 66,940,000 acres of NFS lands rated as very high or high wildfire risk that are hereby determined to be an emergency situation as defined by IIJA. In addition, I have determined that the 78,800,000 acres of NFS lands designated under Section 602 of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA), that are experiencing declining forest health; at risk of experiencing substantially increased tree mortality over the next 15 years [ from time of designation] from insect and disease infestation; or containing hazard trees posing an imminent risk to public health, infrastructure, and safety, are an emergency situation as defined in the IIJA. There are approximately 33,846,000 acres of NFS lands which overlap between wildfire and insect and disease risk. In total, this ESD designates 112,646,000 acres of NFS lands as an IIJA emergency situation, which is 59 percent of all NFS lands. See Map #I Forest Health and Fuels Emergency Situation Determination.
I am also providing federally recognized Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, and States the ability to request additional areas to be included in this ESD under IIJA section 40807
through the Regional Forester to the Chief of the Forest Service for approval.
Actions taken pursuant to this ESD will support improving the durability, resilience, and resistance to fire, insects, and disease within forests and grasslands across the National Forest System.
Consistent with IIJA section 40807 and this determination, the Forest Service may carry out authorized emergency actions after an ESD is declared to achieve relief from threats to public health and safety, critical infrastructure, and/or mitigation of threats to natural resources on NFS lands. These actions will improve the durability, resilience, and resistance to fire, insects, and disease within national forests and grasslands across the National Forest System. To be eligible to use this authority, at least 50 percent of the treatment areas supporting this authorized emergency action must be within the designated areas.
Proposals using the special emergency action procedures at IIJA section 40807 shall:
• Reduce wildland fire risk to communities, critical infrastructure, or key ecological values; or
• Reduce/mitigate post fire risks needed to protect communities, critical infrastructure, or key ecological values; or
• Reduce hazardous fuels by removing or modifying vegetation to lower the risk of wildfires; or
• Reduce the density of fire-dependent forests; or
• Support the durability and resiliency of forests and grasslands; or
• Reduce hazardous fuels to help make wildfire response, as well as ingress or egress, safer and more effective; and
• Be authorized by the Forest or Grassland Supervisor.
Authorized emergency actions to respond to emergency situations include the:
• Salvage of dead or dying trees;
• Harvest of trees damaged by wind or ice [Note: or other natural disasters];
• Commercial and noncommercial sanitation harvest of trees to control insects or disease, including trees already infested with insects or disease;
• Reforestation or replanting of fire impacted areas through planting, control of competing vegetation, or other activities that enhance natural regeneration and restore forest species [Note: the restoration of forest species includes prevention, suppression, and eradication ofinsect, disease and invasive species outbreaks];
• Removal of hazardous trees in close proximity to roads and trails;
• Removal of hazardous fuels;
• Restoration of water sources or infrastructure [Note: the restoration of water sources includes watersheds];
• Reconstruction of existing utility lines; and
• Replacement of underground cables.
Any required environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for an authorized emergency action requires analysis of only the proposed action and the no action alternative and is not subject to the project-level pre-decisional administrative review (“objections”) or any processes set forth in 36 CFR Part 218.
b. OTHER EMERGENCY AUTHORITIES
The IIJA section 40807 authority is one of several tools that can be used to achieve expedited compliance around emergencies. Within designated areas, the Forest Service shall deploy, or continue to deploy, other emergency authorities including:
• Emergency and direct hire authorities (including hiring Tribal crews to implement and monitor);
• Expedited contracting authorities or mechanisms, including virtual incident procurement (VIPR), sole source contracting, and USDA contracting authorities and include Tribes within that effort;
• Expedited grant and agreement authorities or mechanisms, including with Tribes;
• Exemptions, waivers, expanded inclusions, and expedited mechanisms for emergency programs on joint efforts with USDA agencies and Tribes;
• Emergency consultation to comply with the Endangered Species Act;
• Emergency and programmatic consultation to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA);
• Emergency procedures to comply with the Clean Water Act (CWA); and
• Expedited permitting, certification, and qualification processes as defined in Forest Service directives or as directed by the Chief.
Additional administrative authorities within the Forest Service Chief’s discretion may also be deployed to deliver emergency and expedited response. Nothing herein changes the requirement for Tribal consultation but may require expedited consultation time frames under certain conditions. In scenarios where Tribal consultation time frames need to be expedited, the Forest Service shall notify Natural Resources and Environment.
The agency shall use IIJA Section 40807 where authorized emergency actions can facilitate current and future post-disaster recovery actions within the scope of this Emergency Situation Determination.
c. TIMBER PRODUCTION AND SOUND FOREST MANAGEMENT
In order to increase domestic jobs and prosperity, increase economic independence, and protect our national security, the Forest Service will:
• Issue new or updated guidance to increase timber production, decrease the time to offer timber supply, and increase certainty in future timber supply. This guidance should include use of Good Neighbor Authority, stewardship contracting, and agreements or contracts under the Tribal Forest Protection Act;
• Streamline, to the extent allowable by law, all processes related to timber production, including project planning, decision-making, implementation (including preparation, appraisals and measurements), and required certifications;
• Develop a strategy to improve the efficiency of delivering the timber program and increase quantity and consistency in volume offered; and
• Identify legislative proposals that would improve timber production and sound forest management.
d. SHARED STEWARDSHIP AGREEMENTS
The Forest Service will work with State and local partners and federally recognized Tribes to collaboratively align with their respective priorities. Many States and Tribes have Forest Action Plans that prioritize critical treatment needs, and this memo directs the Forest Service to work with States and Tribes to also prioritize these areas and projects. Given the urgency and cross-jurisdictional nature of the current crisis, the Forest Service shall work quickly to proactively update and expand Shared Stewardship
Agreements to bring the full power of our partners to help address this emergency.
Immediate implementation of actions under this ESD should proceed concurrently with the updating and creation of these agreements.
e. REPORTING
Each calendar year, the Forest Service shall report to Natural Resources and Environment on the use of emergency authorities that will include those actions taken pursuant to this
Forest Health and Fuels Reduction Emergency Situation Determination detailing:
• Status of any ongoing environmental analysis or compliance actions;
• Listing of completed (signed decision) or future compliance actions;
• Status of any ongoing consultation, including the National Historic Preservation Act and Endangered Species Act;
• Status of any ongoing coordination with local or state emergency management offices or other federal agencies;
• Status of coordination and consultation with federally recognized Tribal governments and/or Alaska Native Corporations; and
• Listing of any completed (implemented on the ground) or future mitigating emergency actions, to include number of acres treated or anticipated to be treated.
5. IMPLEMENTATION
The Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment is responsible for implementing all aspects of this memo, in coordination with the Office of General Counsel. In the absence of an Under Secretary, the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service will carry out the responsibilities assigned in this Memo.
6. EFFECTS OF THIS MEMO
This memo is intended to improve the internal management of the Department and to assure implementation of the above-referenced Executive Order. This memo and any resulting report or recommendations are not intended to, and do not create, any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person. To the extent there is any inconsistency between the provisions of this memo and any federal laws or regulations, the laws or regulations will control.
On X, Nicholas Bagley posted this thread.. remember what we used to call the HFI CE’s or Category 10? I was working in WO NEPA at the time, and we did the Limited Timber Harvest and the HFI CE’s as I recall, the latter jointly with BLM. Shout out to Dave Sire, happily retired! Much excellent work went into both of them, but the HFI CE was litigated by the Sierra Club and was removed, at least for the Forest Service, not sure about BLM. Bagley raised a legal question about how easy it would be to get Category 10 back. The question is “would Category 10 add any value to the existing Categories?”, since Congress has stepped in several times since then. Tom Hochman asked specifically about the prescribed fire acreage limit (4500 acres in Category 10).
Nothing is simple. So I laid out below what I could find and I’m interested in what you all think.
There are several problems in comparing CEs. First, some apply to only some landscapes or condition classes or WUI. Second, they have different requirements for public engagement/collaboration. Third, they have a a variety of other requirements. But all have the same extraordinary circumstances and required scoping. I would hope the FS has a table somewhere of the different requirements, and someone will provide that.
But basically the question asked was, “would it be valuable to add back a CE that had up to 4500 acres for prescribed fire?”
Can Category 6 Be Used? No Acreage Limit.
The first thing that occurs to me is “what is your position on Category 6?” Remember this case in which the 9th Circuit upheld the use of Category 6 on the Fremont-Winema:
The Ninth Circuit upheld the U.S. Forest Service’s use of the timber stand and/or wildlife habitat categorical exclusion (CE-6) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), rejecting the claims made by Oregon Wild and WildEarth Guardians that CE-6 has an implied acreage limitation.
The plaintiffs challenged the projects, which cover a total area ranging from 3,000 to 16,000 acres of commercial thinning, on the grounds that the Forest Service had misused CE-6. They argued that the categorical exclusion should not apply to “large-scale” projects like these.
Some of us are still a little hinky about this decision, so let’s let the legal experts weigh in.
2. Other Categories of Note
Hazardous Fuels:
Statutory:
4. Lake Tahoe Basin 5000 acres, with 1500 acres max of mechanical thinning. (Handbook #4, citation Pub. L. 111-8, Sec. 423)
5. Insect and Disease Infestation 3000 acres (amended to include hazardous fuels 2018) (doesn’t separate PB from MT)
8. Lake Tahoe Basin 2016 10,000 acres not more than 3000 acres of mechanical thinning.
9. Wildfire Resilience 3000 acres (doesn’t separate PB from MT).
11. (Linear) Fuel Breaks – up to 1000 feet across, no apparent cap on linear distance?
There is also an administrative category 25 (Restoration) with a cap of 2800 acres. It included a variety of things including thinning and prescribed fire, but not specifically for fuel management objectives.
Enjoined administrative Category 10 was 4500 acres for prescribed fire and 1000 acres for mechanical thinning and crushing or mowing or whatever.
**********
Now if we go to the Fix our Forests proposal, only within designated Firesheds, it sounds like they are saying the FS could use Categories 4, 5, 8, and 9. That’s in (106 B 1) including Lake Tahoe’s 8, gives the largest numbers of acres.
Everyone is invited to check my work and provide more context.
We’ve been following the Fix our Forests Act. Nick Smith posted an article in the Durango Herald that I think is worth taking a look at. There seems to be a repeated statement that implies that CEs are not part of NEPA, which kind of implies that only EAs and EIS’s are “real NEPA.” Unfortunately, no NEPA person was interviewed other than John Rader of the San Juan Citizens Alliance.
But newly proposed changes, now in the form of legislation that would let fuel mitigation projects, including logging, in high-risk zones like the forest surrounding Durango skirt the public input process have some environmental groups up in arms.
The Fix Our Forests Act is an attempt to “undermine public process and judicial review,” said John Rader, an attorney and the Public Lands Program manager at the Durango-based San Juan Citizens Alliance.
*********
In those areas, of up to 10,000 acres (which includes a swath of the San Juan National Forest north of Durango), the bill outlines a slate of vegetation management tactics that would be exempt from the scrutinous review prescribed in the National Environmental Policy Act.
I feel like a broken record. CEs are a part of NEPA. CE’s are a part of NEPA. I think it would be more correct to say “currently CEs are allowed for up to 4K (or whatever).
But, he pointed out, whether a forest is best treated by logging, mastication, prescribed fire or some other method, is a question asked in the early stages of the NEPA process.
“That’s the initial stages of NEPA, right?” Kimple said. “Where are we? What does this look like? Where are we in proximity to values?”
And there are already some 650,000 acres of national forest approved through NEPA and ready to burn, the SJNF told the Herald in 2023. The Forest Service treated 25,000 acres last year, meaning it’s likely to take many years to burn all acreage that has already been approved.
Although new prescribed fire plans would be exempt from NEPA review, it is fears of unchecked logging projects and heavy livestock grazing nationwide that has environmental groups concerned that the bill is a Trojan horse masquerading as wildfire hazard mitigation.
***************
CEs are not “exempt from NEPA review.”
****************
“It’s kind of the template to erase all these environmental protections in the name of creating more wildfire protection,” he said.
By exempting projects from NEPA review, the Fix Our Forests Act would keep the public in the dark, Rader fears, while fast-tracking projects that could be detrimental to the natural environment.
“Every step of the way, it’s cutting out public input and keeping the public from being informed about the details of these projects,” he said.
**************
Rather than the traditional NEPA public input process – a lengthy undertaking that can take years to complete – the Fix Our Forests Act would establish a far quicker public comment review timeline and radically overhaul how those projects are subject to legal scrutiny. The bill contains a “common sense litigation reform” provision that limits public comment to a 120-day period with the intention of reducing frivolous lawsuits.
Rader warns this “really insidious” provision could have the opposite effect, arguing that the shot-clock may increase the proportion of poorly prepared lawsuits.
Not sure that would be the FS’s, DOJ’s, or the public’s problem.
Forest Service CEs are required to have scoping (public input). They are also required to review extraordinary circumstances and follow standards in the forest plan, which had an EIS associated with it. On the other hand, EAs have alternatives (although in some conditions, only one no action) and an additional process of objections.
An interesting question might be the value of the objection process compared to the costs associated with dealing with them (in our Region in the past, these were run out of the RO by siphoning off talent from forests, which would have a host of opportunity costs). I’d think that some academic group might want to take a sample of CEs and EAs for fuels projects of similar size and nature (prescribed fire vs. mechanical thinning) and compare the timelines, expenses, and value added by the additional analysis (if any) and process.
Previous iterations of streamlining have included putting requirements on the use of CEs such as HFRA requiring projects to be in a certain condition class and be part of a collaborative effort. If I were a group who was concerned about public input, I’d work with the Congressional staff to standardize what is in the scoping document and timeframes for scoping, or other ideas to improve that aspect of public involvement during the use of CEs. Especially with changes to the CEQ regulations, at some point the agency NEPA regs would be updated, so this would be a chance for folks to review the current use of CE’s, which is widespread, and instead of saying “they’re not NEPA, and they’re bad”, work on how to improve their use.
As Jon pointed out in his Litigation Update, the combo of various court cases plus administrative actions has led to the CEQ NEPA regs being pulled. So here’s the guidance.
While these revisions are ongoing, agencies should continue to follow their existing practices and procedures for implementing NEPA consistent with the text of NEPA, E.O. 14154, and this guidance. Agencies should not delay pending or ongoing NEPA analyses while undertaking these revisions. For such analyses, until revisions are completed via the appropriate rulemaking process, agencies should apply their current NEPA implementing procedures with any adjustments needed to be consistent with the NEPA statute as revised by the FRA. Moreover, although CEQ is rescinding its NEPA implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. parts 1500–1508, agencies should consider voluntarily relying on those regulations in completing ongoing NEPA reviews or defending against challenges to reviews completed while those regulations were in effect. CEQ will provide ongoing guidance and assistance through monthly meetings of the Federal Agency NEPA Contacts and the NEPA Implementation Working Group required by section 5(c) of E.O. 14154. CEQ encourages agencies to use the final 2020 rule “Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act” as an initial framework for the development of revisions to their NEPA implementing procedures,4 consistent with this guidance, E.O. 14154, and to the extent permitted by
applicable law.
I hope practitioners get a strong voice in this updating, and that the Federal Agency NEPA Contacts will be listened to.
Of course, the two agencies we mostly follow have their own NEPA regs, so that’s what they will be doing. I don’t usually check BLM regs, but for this post I was checking on them and ran across this interesting Federal Register Notice about their NEPA procedures.
It looks like they got rid of various administrative Cat Xs and added legislative ones. This seems fairly unusual but interesting. The rationale seems kind of vague to me.
With this revision, the Department removes four administrative CXs from the BLM’s NEPA procedures due to consideration of sound land management, legal frameworks, and other factors.
Only 33 comments were received. I don’t think the FS every removed CE’s, usually the courts did that for us ;).
While looking at this, I ran across a very handy link that describes what the Fiscal Responsibility Act says about NEPA. It’s very clear and done in Q and A’s.
Bottom line, NEPA practitioners (internal and contractors and grantees) need to use the existing agency regs and check for adherence to E.O. 14154, and FRA. I wouldn’t doubt that there will be some guidance on “checking for adherence to FRA” that will come down at some point.
If the lawyerly folks here see things differently, let me know.
We were asked to give our thoughts on this piece by Aidan Mackenzie and Thomas Hochman. They have been studying permitting reform for some time, and are definitely a fresh set of eyes on our ongoing challenges. They are our guests, so please respect that, and focus on the content. I’m particularly interested in the views of those experienced with NEPA, including practitioners and environmental attorneys.
Three steps CEQ can take to fix permitting
On day one, President Trump took bold executive action to streamline the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), revoking the 1977 Executive Order (EO) that gave regulatory authority to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).1 President Trump’s new EO also directs CEQ to rescind existing NEPA regulations and issue new guidance that significantly accelerates permitting timelines. With these measures, the Trump administration has thrown out decades of NEPA regulations and related case law.2
For those of us who have spent time learning all this..it’s fairly scary. And as Ted Boling said about the FRA, it’s a full employment program for environmental attorneys to rebuild case law. Nevertheless, here’s the general outline of their ideas:
CEQ and implementing agencies can leverage reasonable interpretations of statutory NEPA and FRA language to achieve three significant goals:
Narrow the set of actions that trigger NEPA in the first place.
Expand the set of actions that are eligible for a Categorical Exclusion (CatEx).
Narrow the set of actions that require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
We offer three reforms to pare NEPA back to fulfill its true statutory goals. First, to narrow the set of actions that trigger NEPA, CEQ should redefine “major federal action” to ensure that projects with low levels of federal involvement do not trigger NEPA. Second, to expand the set of actions that are eligible for a CatEx, CEQ should set a clear and broad standard for actions that “normally [do] not have a significant effect on the human environment.” Third, to narrow the set of actions that require an EIS, CEQ should set a high standard for what constitutes a “reasonably foreseeable” significant effect. In each case, CEQ should be careful to reduce the litigation attack surface for agencies, advising agencies to consider issues like indirect effects under minimal scrutiny.
We can discuss any parts of their paper, but I’ll focus on the more “on the ground” implementation aspects of #2.
************
The term “normally” should be defined using a practical, bright-line test for significant effects. Agencies can reasonably classify actions as “normally” having no significant effect when a substantial majority of such actions have proven benign through actual implementation.
Specifically, an action category should qualify for a categorical exclusion when historical data demonstrates that a substantial majority (more than 70%) of comparable actions resulted in Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSI). This threshold replaces previous interpretations requiring near-certainty of no significant impacts, recognizing that if a substantial majority of similar actions have proven benign through actual implementation, the category can reasonably be classified as “normally” having no significant effect.18
The streamlining benefits would be enormous: ~99% of environmental assessments result in a FONSI.19 This means that an overwhelming percentage of actions that currently trigger an environmental assessment could be covered under categorical exclusions under the new framework.
How to implement
Agencies should document factors that indicate future actions will maintain similar performance, including:
Standard mitigation measures that routinely prevent significant impacts
Existing permit requirements that effectively control environmental effects
Common design features of best practices incorporated into such projects
These predictive factors help establish that the historical performance demonstrated by the 70% threshold will continue.
To support categorical exclusion determinations, agencies should:
Analyze historical NEPA reviews to establish the proportion of FONSIs
Evaluate how standard practices and requirements will maintain environmental performance
Provide professional assessment of typical project characteristics and their environmental implications
Maintain extraordinary circumstance review protocols for unusual situations.
***********
This sounds a bit like how our FS administrative CEs were developed in the first place. People also depend on NEPA for public engagement, and the FS requires scoping of CEs but I’m not sure that other agencies do. Finally, I don’t know how much is saved by a CE vs. an EA. Here’s what I think it might be for an FS project off the top of my head. I have been out of this awhile, so may have forgotten quite a bit.
CE
EA
Public comment
Scoping
Scoping plus Draft EA
Alternatives
One
Two or More
Objection Process
No
Yes
**************
NEPA has never explicitly defined “significant effect,” leaving room for a much more reasonable interpretation. Therefore, we recommend that an action should meet all three of the following criteria to be deemed significant:
Substantial magnitude: Exceeding minor or routine environmental changes
Inadequate existing mitigation: Impacts that persist despite standard, widely used measures or compliance with existing regulatory thresholds
High likelihood: Based on probable, non-speculative outcomes, and proximately caused by federal action
………
By tying “significance” to magnitude, likelihood, and lack of adequate mitigation, CEQ would shrink the set of “significant” impacts. This would also narrow the “cumulative impacts” concept: if those broader or longer-term effects are speculative, the agency can exclude them from “likely.” And finally, if standard permitting under other environmental laws (such as the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act) typically addresses any effect, CEQ could determine that that the effect no longer rises to significance because it will be mitigated to an acceptable level under those other laws.
This approach would maintain fidelity to statutory language while allowing for practical implementation, reducing unnecessary analysis for actions with demonstrated track records of minimal impact. It would also create clear standards that can withstand judicial review when properly documented.
How to implement
To establish magnitude thresholds, agencies should:
Identify quantitative thresholds where possible (e.g., acres of disturbance, emissions levels)
For non-quantifiable impacts, define clear categorical standards for what constitutes “substantial” versus “minor” changes
Document why these thresholds represent meaningful environmental distinctions
To establish likelihood, agencies should:
Develop clear standards for what constitutes “probable” versus “speculative” impacts
Require demonstration of direct causal links between federal action and environmental effects
Consider effects that involve multiple independent actors or events as generally more speculative
Prioritize analysis of direct, proximate impacts in determining significance
Effects may be considered more speculative and thus less likely to be “probable” when they:
Depend on the combined effects of multiple separate actions
Require assumptions about future actions by other parties
Cannot be directly attributed to the federal action under review
To establish adequate and existing mitigation, agencies should:
Catalog standard permit conditions and widely-used mitigation measures by project type
Create presumptions that impacts are not significant when standard mitigation measures are applied
Establish protocols for determining when additional, project-specific mitigation might be needed.
************************
These all sound like things (except maybe the last three) that agencies could put into their NEPA regulations, which would likely themselves be litigated. At the same time, if the regulations could make their way through the courts successfully, it seems like these approaches and documentation might make life easier for agency folks, judges and environmental attorneys, while ensuring that the statutory NEPA requirements are met.
If you all have been following the California wildfires, you’ll discover that everyone tends to attach their favorite hobby horse to the disaster.
Politicians, climate change, patterns of housing, and even… vegetation treatments and permitting. My pet peeve about coverage is how easily folks get into a forest discussion about what, in this case, was coastal scrub and grasslands. Having said that, I think we need to engage with the permitting folks for many reasons, not least because permitting reform of various kinds will be on the table in Congress again. However we might disagree about what should be done, it seems to me that we should work together to get both facts and disagreements on the table.
I try to be hospitable to new people entering the space. Interestingly, permitting reform folks, who work on permitting infrastructure, renewables and so on, tend to use the Forest Service as an example. So we can help them out by adding value and/or questioning their observations.
I’m going to reprint Tom Hochman’s Substack post below. Remember, we want to share our knowledge with a welcoming spirit. Also it doesn’t seem (as usual) that partisan-ness helps our policy discussions in any way. I’ve spent some time talking to DC folks in the last few weeks, and I think both sides needs to take a deep breath and try to move on past the acrimonious past (do politicians forgive?) so we all can move forward together.
So, from what you know, do these observations make sense and track with your experience? Here’s Hochman’s piece.
***********************
By now, everyone has heard about the wildfires sweeping through the Los Angeles area. The sheer scale of destruction is hard to make sense of. My cousin, aunt, and uncle in Pasadena spent days anxiously packed, ready to evacuate at any moment. Their friends lost their homes; the local elementary school is rubble.
It’s tough to pinpoint a single cause for any given wildfire—and wildfires sometimes happen regardless of human activity or government policy. But there’s no doubt that forest management and wildfire-prevention policies can reduce both the probability and severity of wildfires. In California and at the federal level, those policies have often fallen disastrously short.
With that, here’s a wildfire-focused edition of NEPAstats. I’ve compiled data (all cited at the bottom) on how NEPA and similar review processes intersect with wildfire prevention, and I’ve pulled together a number of specific case studies.
Case Studies
Jimtown Project (Helena National Forest)
Proposed thinning/underburning across 900 acres + underburning 220 more
EIS and Decision Notice released in May 2001
Project appealed despite support from 12 of 22 local landowners, county disaster services, and a tri-county fire group
By July 2003: ~45% of the proposed project area had already burned in a wildfire (Kimbell, 2005)
Six Rivers National Forest
December 1995: A storm topples trees across 35,000 acres
Fuel loads reach 300–400 tons per acre—10x normal
1996–1999: Only 1,600 acres treated while “wrestling through analytical and procedural requirements”
September 1999: The Megram and Fawn Fires consume the remaining blowdown area plus 90,000 additional acres
Seven years later: The project remains in limbo after a court injunction (USFS, 2002)
Berry Creek (California)
Critical thinning projects were delayed by CEQA reviews
The North Complex Fire hit in 2020 before completion, resulting in 16 fatalities (Regan, 2025)
Grizzly Flats (California)
A forest-restoration project was held up for nearly a decade by NEPA and other environmental reviews
In 2021, two-thirds of the community burned before the project was completed (Regan, 2025)
Timing and Delays
Average time before treatments under NEPA
3.6 years to start a mechanical treatment once the Forest Service initiates review
4.7 years to start a prescribed burn under the same conditions
For projects requiring an EIS:
5.3 years on average for mechanical treatments
7.2 years for prescribed burns (Edwards & Sutherland, 2022)
Forest Service resource allocation
The Forest Service manages 192 million acres—8.5% of U.S. land area—but spends ~40% of direct work hours (>$250 million/year) on planning/assessment rather than active project work (USFS, 2002)
An estimated $100 million annually could shift from “unnecessary planning” to on-the-ground treatments with improved procedures
Annually, the Forest Service completes:
~5,000 EAs,
~120 project-level EISs
15,000 CEs per year (USFS, 2002)
Litigation Patterns and Impact
Sierra Club v. Bosworth (2007) invalidated the Forest Service’s attempt to create a CE for fuel-reduction projects, meaning prescribed burns require a full EA/EIS
For NEPA-Related Appellate Court Cases:
Fuel-treatment projects that face legal challenges see an additional 1+ year of delay on average
Agencies prevail in 93% of NEPA fuel-reduction appeals, with 96% of these challenges brought by NGOs
An average of 3 years elapses between permit issuance and final resolution in these cases (Chiappa et al., 2024)
The Human and Environmental Costs
Forest density: Parts of the Sierra Nevada are now 6–7x denser than a century ago, fueling more intense megafires
GHG impacts: California’s 2020 wildfire emissions wiped out nearly two decades of the state’s greenhouse gas reduction progress
Species: Giant sequoias are dying in megafires; conifer forests are sometimes replaced by shrubland in the aftermath (Regan, 2025)
State-Level Barriers: CEQA and CalVTP
In 2020, California pledged to treat 500,000 acres per year by 2025—but remains far off due to lengthy reviews, public comment periods, and litigation (Regan, 2025)
California Vegetation Program aka CalVTP:
Projected 45,000 acres of treatments in the first year, but zero completed after 2+ years
28,000 acres approved but not implemented
Project managers cite “unfamiliar and burdensome” documentation, multiple CalFire unit boundaries, and a pending lawsuit from the California Chaparral Institute and Endangered Habitats League (Friedman, 2022)
The CalVTP “fast-track” workflow
Recent Reform Efforts
California SB1159 (2024)
Would have exempted roadside vegetation clearing within 30 feet from CEQA
Died in committee
Federal TORCH Act
Would expand NEPA Categorical Exclusions for forest thinning and post-fire recovery, limit repeated ESA re-consultations for new species listings, and create larger “CLEAR Zones” for power line vegetation management (Regan, 2025)
Didn’t make it to the Senate floor
Fix Our Forests Act (2024)
Would expand NEPA Categorical Exclusions for certain forest management projects
Passed the House, didn’t make it through the Senate
