U.S. Code » Title 16 » Chapter CHAPTER 84— HEALTHY FOREST RESTORATION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER VI— MISCELLANEOUS

16 U.S.C. § 6591b

Administrative review

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 16 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In generalExcept as provided in subsection (d), a project described in subsection (b) that is conducted in accordance with section 6591a(d) of this title may be—(1) considered an action categorically excluded from the requirements of Public Law 91–190 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and(2) exempt from the special administrative review process under section 6515 of this title.(b) Collaborative restoration project(1) In generalA project referred to in subsection (a) is a project to carry out forest restoration treatments that—(A) maximizes the retention of old-growth and large trees, as appropriate for the forest type, to the extent that the trees promote stands that are resilient to insects and disease;(B) considers the best available scientific information to maintain or restore the ecological integrity, including maintaining or restoring structure, function, composition, and connectivity; and(C) is developed and implemented through a collaborative process that—(i) includes multiple interested persons representing diverse interests; and(ii)(I) is transparent and nonexclusive; or(II) meets the requirements for a resource advisory committee under subsections (c) through (f) of section 7125 of this title.(2) Inclusion

A project under this subsection may carry out part of a proposal that complies with the eligibility requirements of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program under section 7303(b) of this title.

(c) Limitations(1) Project size

A project under this section may not exceed 3000 acres.

(2) LocationA project under this section shall be limited to areas—(A) in the wildland-urban interface; or(B) Condition Classes 2 or 3 in Fire Regime Groups I, II, or III, outside the wildland-urban interface.(3) Roads(A) Permanent roads(i) Prohibition on establishment

A project under this section shall not include the establishment of permanent roads.

(ii) Existing roads

The Secretary may carry out necessary maintenance and repairs on existing permanent roads for the purposes of this section.

(B) Temporary roads

The Secretary shall decommission any temporary road constructed under a project under this section not later than 3 years after the date on which the project is completed.

(d) ExclusionsThis section does not apply to—(1) a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System;(2) any Federal land on which, by Act of Congress or Presidential proclamation, the removal of vegetation is restricted or prohibited;(3) a congressionally designated wilderness study area; or(4) an area in which activities under subsection (a) would be inconsistent with the applicable land and resource management plan.(e) Forest management plans

All projects and activities carried out under this section shall be consistent with the land and resource management plan established under section 1604 of this title for the unit of the National Forest System containing the projects and activities.

(f) Public notice and scoping

The Secretary shall conduct public notice and scoping for any project or action proposed in accordance with this section.

(g) Accountability(1) In general

The Secretary shall prepare an annual report on the use of categorical exclusions under this section that includes a description of all acres (or other appropriate unit) treated through projects carried out under this section.

(2) SubmissionNot later than 1 year after February 7, 2014, and each year thereafter, the Secretary shall submit the reports required under paragraph (1) to—(A) the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate;(B) the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate;(C) the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives;(D) the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives; and(E) the Government Accountability Office.(Pub. L. 108–148, title VI, § 603, as added Pub. L. 113–79, title VIII, § 8204, Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 916.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Public Law 91–190, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), is Pub. L. 91–190, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 852, known as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which is classified generally to chapter 55 (§ 4321 et seq.) of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4321 of Title 42 and Tables.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2017–2025 · leading case: Wild Watershed v. Hurlocker, 961 F.3d 1119 (10th Cir. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wild Watershed v. Hurlocker, 961 F.3d 1119 (10th Cir. 2020). · cites it 14× “, 16 U.S.C. § 6591b. Many of these, including the provision at issue in this appeal, are codified in HFRA.”
Native Ecosystems Council v. Erickson, 330 F. Supp. 3d 1218 (D. Mont. 2018). · cites it 8× “Certain projects may, in turn, be categorically excluded from NEPA review pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 6591b. To be categorically excluded, projects must "maximize[ ] the retention of old-growth and large trees," "consider[ ] the best available scientific information to maintain or…”
All. for the Wild Rockies v. Carl Petrick, 68 F.4th 475 (9th Cir. 2023). · cites it 3× “” 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(c)(2)(A). In the first case (Hanna Flats I), the district court granted summary judgment for Alliance for the Wild Rockies (Alliance), reasoning that the record did not show that the Project fell within the statutory definition of “wildland- urban interface,”…”
Ctr. for Bio Diversity v. Eli Ilano, 928 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “, 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(a). In some instances, before an agency takes action pursuant to a categorical exclusion, the agency must assess whether that action presents “extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded action may have a significant environmental effect,”…”
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Ilano, 261 F. Supp. 3d 1063 (E.D. Cal. 2017). “” 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(a)(1). This provision does not say that projects within an area designation “are” or “shall be” categorically excluded; *1069 it says that the Forest Service “may” exclude projects.”
Friends of Rapid River v. Probert (D. Idaho 2019). · cites it 4× “” 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(b)(1)(A)–(B). In 2014, the Governor of Idaho wrote a letter asking the Secretary of Agriculture to designate certain landscape-scale treatment areas within the National Forest System lands in Idaho that were at high risk of insect and disease mortality.”
All. for the Wild Rockies v. Higgins (D. Idaho 2024). · cites it 3× “To begin, Alliance observes that projects categorically excluded under 16 U.S.C. § 6591b are “exempt from the special administrative review process under section 6515 of this title.”
All. for the Wild Rockies v. United States Forest Serv. (D. Idaho 2021). · cites it 2× “16 U.S.C. § 6591b(a), (b), (c)(2)(A), (B).”
Greater Hells Canyon Council v. Kris Stein (9th Cir. 2020). “” 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(b)(1)(C). Although the Council argues the Forest Service must engage in a formal collaborative group process, this contention is not supported by the text of the statute or its legislative history.”
Native Ecosystems Council v. Mary Erickson (9th Cir. 2020). “at 782 (citing 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(a)). The categorical exclusion applies if, among other requirements, the project “maximizes the retention of old-growth and large trees, as appropriate for the forest type, to the extent that the trees promote stands that are resilient to insects…”
Native Ecosystems Council v. Leanne Marten (9th Cir. 2020). “” 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added).”
Cottonwood Envir. Law Ctr. v. Leanne Marten (9th Cir. 2022). “4 In 2014, Congress amended the Healthy Forest Restoration Act to create a process for expedited approval of projects treating insect-infested or diseased forest, which culminates in the granting of a CE.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(a) — 5 cases
Ctr. for Bio Diversity v. Eli Ilano, 928 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2019). “, 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(a). In some instances, before an agency takes action pursuant to a categorical exclusion, the agency must assess whether that action presents “extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded action may have a significant environmental effect,”…”
Native Ecosystems Council v. Erickson, 330 F. Supp. 3d 1218 (D. Mont. 2018). “Certain projects may, in turn, be categorically excluded from NEPA review pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 6591b. To be categorically excluded, projects must "maximize[ ] the retention of old-growth and large trees," "consider[ ] the best available scientific information to maintain or…”
Wild Watershed v. Hurlocker, 961 F.3d 1119 (10th Cir. 2020). “, 16 U.S.C. § 6591b. Many of these, including the provision at issue in this appeal, are codified in HFRA.”
All. for the Wild Rockies v. United States Forest Serv. (D. Idaho 2021). “16 U.S.C. § 6591b(a), (b), (c)(2)(A), (B).”
Native Ecosystems Council v. Mary Erickson (9th Cir. 2020). “at 782 (citing 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(a)). The categorical exclusion applies if, among other requirements, the project “maximizes the retention of old-growth and large trees, as appropriate for the forest type, to the extent that the trees promote stands that are resilient to insects…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(a)(1) — 4 cases
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Ilano, 261 F. Supp. 3d 1063 (E.D. Cal. 2017). “” 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(a)(1). This provision does not say that projects within an area designation “are” or “shall be” categorically excluded; *1069 it says that the Forest Service “may” exclude projects.”
West Virginia Highlands Conservancy v. United States Forest Serv. (D.D.C. 2022).
Cottonwood Env't Law Ctr. v. Marten (D. Mont. 2020).
All. for the Wild Rockies v. United States Forest Serv. (D. Idaho 2025).
— 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(b)(1) — 2 cases
Native Ecosystems Council v. Erickson, 330 F. Supp. 3d 1218 (D. Mont. 2018). “Certain projects may, in turn, be categorically excluded from NEPA review pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 6591b. To be categorically excluded, projects must "maximize[ ] the retention of old-growth and large trees," "consider[ ] the best available scientific information to maintain or…”
Wild Watershed v. Hurlocker, 961 F.3d 1119 (10th Cir. 2020). “, 16 U.S.C. § 6591b. Many of these, including the provision at issue in this appeal, are codified in HFRA.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(b)(1)(A) — 4 cases
Native Ecosystems Council v. Erickson, 330 F. Supp. 3d 1218 (D. Mont. 2018). “Certain projects may, in turn, be categorically excluded from NEPA review pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 6591b. To be categorically excluded, projects must "maximize[ ] the retention of old-growth and large trees," "consider[ ] the best available scientific information to maintain or…”
Wild Watershed v. Hurlocker, 961 F.3d 1119 (10th Cir. 2020). “, 16 U.S.C. § 6591b. Many of these, including the provision at issue in this appeal, are codified in HFRA.”
Friends of Rapid River v. Probert (D. Idaho 2019). “” 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(b)(1)(A)–(B). In 2014, the Governor of Idaho wrote a letter asking the Secretary of Agriculture to designate certain landscape-scale treatment areas within the National Forest System lands in Idaho that were at high risk of insect and disease mortality.”
Native Ecosystems Council v. Leanne Marten (9th Cir. 2020). “” 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added).”
— 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(b)(1)(B) — 1 case
Native Ecosystems Council v. Erickson, 330 F. Supp. 3d 1218 (D. Mont. 2018). “Certain projects may, in turn, be categorically excluded from NEPA review pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 6591b. To be categorically excluded, projects must "maximize[ ] the retention of old-growth and large trees," "consider[ ] the best available scientific information to maintain or…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(b)(1)(C) — 1 case
Greater Hells Canyon Council v. Kris Stein (9th Cir. 2020). “” 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(b)(1)(C). Although the Council argues the Forest Service must engage in a formal collaborative group process, this contention is not supported by the text of the statute or its legislative history.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(c)(2)(A) — 1 case
All. for the Wild Rockies v. Carl Petrick, 68 F.4th 475 (9th Cir. 2023). “” 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(c)(2)(A). In the first case (Hanna Flats I), the district court granted summary judgment for Alliance for the Wild Rockies (Alliance), reasoning that the record did not show that the Project fell within the statutory definition of “wildland- urban interface,”…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(c)(3) — 1 case
Friends of Rapid River v. Probert (D. Idaho 2019). “” 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(b)(1)(A)–(B). In 2014, the Governor of Idaho wrote a letter asking the Secretary of Agriculture to designate certain landscape-scale treatment areas within the National Forest System lands in Idaho that were at high risk of insect and disease mortality.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(c)(3)(A)(ii) — 1 case
Friends of Rapid River v. Probert (D. Idaho 2019). “” 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(b)(1)(A)–(B). In 2014, the Governor of Idaho wrote a letter asking the Secretary of Agriculture to designate certain landscape-scale treatment areas within the National Forest System lands in Idaho that were at high risk of insect and disease mortality.”
— 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(e) — 1 case
Native Ecosystems Council v. Erickson, 330 F. Supp. 3d 1218 (D. Mont. 2018). “Certain projects may, in turn, be categorically excluded from NEPA review pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 6591b. To be categorically excluded, projects must "maximize[ ] the retention of old-growth and large trees," "consider[ ] the best available scientific information to maintain or…”
— 16 U.S.C. § 6591b(f) — 2 cases
Native Ecosystems Council v. Erickson, 330 F. Supp. 3d 1218 (D. Mont. 2018). “Certain projects may, in turn, be categorically excluded from NEPA review pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 6591b. To be categorically excluded, projects must "maximize[ ] the retention of old-growth and large trees," "consider[ ] the best available scientific information to maintain or…”
All. for the Wild Rockies v. Higgins (D. Idaho 2024). “To begin, Alliance observes that projects categorically excluded under 16 U.S.C. § 6591b are “exempt from the special administrative review process under section 6515 of this title.”
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.