43 C.F.R. § 46.210

Listing of departmental categorical exclusions

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The following actions are categorically excluded under § 46.205(b), unless any of the extraordinary circumstances in § 46.215 apply. Reliance on paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section to support approval of a proposed action does not need to be documented; reliance on paragraph (k) or (l) of this section to support approval of a proposed action does need to be documented:

(a) Personnel actions and investigations and personnel services contracts.

(b) Internal organizational changes and facility and bureau reductions and closings.

(c) Routine financial transactions including such things as salaries and expenses, procurement contracts (e.g., in accordance with applicable procedures and Executive Orders for sustainable or green procurement), guarantees, financial assistance, income transfers, audits, fees, bonds, and royalties.

(d) Departmental legal activities including, but not limited to, such things as arrests, investigations, patents, claims, and legal opinions. This does not include bringing judicial or administrative civil or criminal enforcement actions which are outside the scope of NEPA.

(e) Nondestructive data collection, inventory (including field, aerial, and satellite surveying and mapping), study, research, and monitoring activities.

(f) Routine and continuing government business, including such things as supervision, administration, operations, maintenance, renovations, and replacement activities having limited context and intensity (e.g., limited size and magnitude or short-term effects).

(g) Management, formulation, allocation, transfer, and reprogramming of the Department's budget at all levels. (This does not exclude the preparation of environmental documents for proposals included in the budget when otherwise required.)

(h) Legislative proposals of an administrative or technical nature (including such things as changes in authorizations for appropriations and minor boundary changes and land title transactions) or having primarily economic, social, individual, or institutional effects; and comments and reports on referrals of legislative proposals.

(i) Policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines: that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature; or whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively or case-by-case.

(j) Activities which are educational, informational, advisory, or consultative to other agencies, public and private entities, visitors, individuals, or the general public.

(k) (Not for use within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.) Hazardous fuels reduction activities using prescribed fire not to exceed 4,500 acres, and mechanical methods for crushing, piling, thinning, pruning, cutting, chipping, mulching, and mowing, not to exceed 1,000 acres. Such activities:

(1) Shall be limited to areas—

(i) In wildland-urban interface; and

(ii) Condition Classes 2 or 3 in Fire Regime Groups I, II, or III, outside the wildland-urban interface;

(2) Shall be identified through a collaborative framework as described in “A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan;”

(3) Shall be conducted consistent with bureau and Departmental procedures and applicable land and resource management plans;

(4) Shall not be conducted in wilderness areas or impair the suitability of wilderness study areas for preservation as wilderness; and

(5) Shall not include the use of herbicides or pesticides or the construction of new permanent roads or other new permanent infrastructure; and may include the sale of vegetative material if the primary purpose of the activity is hazardous fuels reduction.

(l) Post-fire rehabilitation activities not to exceed 4,200 acres (such as tree planting, fence replacement, habitat restoration, heritage site restoration, repair of roads and trails, and repair of damage to minor facilities such as campgrounds) to repair or improve lands unlikely to recover to a management approved condition from wildland fire damage, or to repair or replace minor facilities damaged by fire. Such activities must comply with the following:

(1) Shall be conducted consistent with bureau and Departmental procedures and applicable land and resource management plans;

(2) Shall not include the use of herbicides or pesticides or the construction of new permanent roads or other new permanent infrastructure; and

(3) Shall be completed within three years following a wildland fire.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2009–2026 · leading case: Oregon Nat. Desert Ass'n v. Cain, 17 F. Supp. 3d 1037 (D. Or. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Oregon Nat. Desert Ass'n v. Cain, 17 F. Supp. 3d 1037 (D. Or. 2014). · cites it 5× “That is, ONDA contends that the mechanical maintenance of “576 miles of routes splayed across more than 3 million acres of public land” is not the limited or insignifi *1052 cant action permitted under 43 C.F.R. § 46.210 (f) and, thus, BLM was required under NEPA to prepare an…”

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Zinke, 260 F. Supp. 3d 11 (D.D.C. 2017). “” 43 C.F.R. § 46.210 (a), (b). The CEQ’s regulations make clear that if a proposed action falls within one of an agency’s established categorical exclusions, “neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required[,]” except in “extraordinary…”

Safari Club Int'l v. Debra Haaland, 31 F.4th 1157 (9th Cir. 2022). “27043 (citing 43 C.F.R. § 46.210 ). FWS later enacted a new rule (Refuges Rule) that expanded the ban on brown bear baiting to all Alaskan wildlife refuges and restricted State-authorized hunting deemed by FWS to constitute “intensive management” or “predator control,” which is…”

Safari Club Int'l v. Salazar, 960 F. Supp. 2d 17 (D.D.C. 2013). “As such, the rule is categorically excluded from further NEPA review as provided by 43 C.F.R. 46.210® of the Department of the Interior’s Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 regulations ( 73 F.”

Wilderness Watch, Inc. v. Creachbaum, 225 F. Supp. 3d 1192 (W.D. Wash. 2016). · cites it 2× “At least, the Park Service argues, the Court must defer to the agency’s interpretation of its own regulation, as 43 C.F.R. § 46.210 (f) is neither plainly erroneous nor internally inconsistent.”

In Re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing, 818 F. Supp. 2d 214 (D.D.C. 2011). “…qualify for any categorical exclusion recognized by agency regulation. See Trade Assoc. Def-Int. Mem. at 24 (citing 43 C.F.R. § 46.210 (i)).”

Pub. Employees for Env't Responsibility v. Nat'l Park Serv. (D.D.C. 2022). · cites it 13× “Whether the Smith Directive Complied with NEPA The Smith Directive itself did not state whether NPS had conducted any NEPA analysis of any type—whether an EIS, EA, or Categorical Exclusion—before issuing the directive, AR0918–21, but NPS argues that the Smith Directive relied on…”

Oregon Nat. Desert Ass'n v. McDaniel, 282 F.R.D. 533 (D. Or. 2012). “For the same reason, this particular CX is not a final agency action reviewable under the APA, See 5 U.S.C. § 704 (only final agency actions are reviewable).”

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, 818 F. Supp. 2d 214 (D.D.C. 2011). “…qualify for any categorical exclusion recognized by agency regulation. See Trade Assoc. Def-Int. Mem. at 24 (citing 43 C.F.R. § 46.210 (i)).”

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Zinke (D.D.C. 2017). · cites it 2× “” 43 C.F.R. § 46.210 (a), (b). The CEQ’s regulations make clear that if a proposed action falls within one of an agency’s established categorical exclusions, “neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required[,]” except in “extraordinary…”

State of Alaska v. Haaland (D. Alaska 2020). “27043 (citing 43 C.F.R. § 46.210 ); FWL013575. 80 81 Fed.”

Chapman v. United States Forest Serv. (E.D. Cal. 2023). “6 (a); 43 C.F.R. § 46.210 ; Los Padres 7 ForestWatch v.”

Show all 17 citing cases →

— 43 C.F.R. § 46.210(f) — 1 case

Oregon Nat. Desert Ass'n v. Cain, 17 F. Supp. 3d 1037 (D. Or. 2014). “That is, ONDA contends that the mechanical maintenance of “576 miles of routes splayed across more than 3 million acres of public land” is not the limited or insignifi *1052 cant action permitted under 43 C.F.R. § 46.210 (f) and, thus, BLM was required under NEPA to prepare an…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.