New NEPA Regulations Released by Interior Department and Agriculture Department

As of April 11, 2025, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has repealed its regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA was passed into law in 1970 and requires all federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of their proposed actions before making decisions. The decision to repeal the CEQ regulations is documented in the Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations. The repeal was prompted by Marin Audubon Society v. Federal Aviation Administration, No. 23-1067 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 12, 2024), which held that, contrary to decades of guidance issued, the CEQ had no authority to issue its own regulations. Soon after, President Trump issued Executive Order  14154, Unleashing American Energy. In that order, President Trump revoked Executive Order 11991, issued by President Carter in 1977, which CEQ had previously cited as the authority for its NEPA rulemaking. The Unleashing American Energy order also instructed federal agencies to revise their NEPA procedures in accordance with its provisions. So far, several agencies, including the Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of Energy, have either begun the process of or already started publishing new implementing regulations and policies for NEPA compliance, often without public comment on the drafts. 

How does this affect the work that EPIC does? As EPIC monitors federal agencies, how these agencies are choosing to implement environmental analysis of their actions matters, so we’ve done some work to track changes being made by two agencies that EPIC interacts with the most: the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service. EPIC will also be commenting on any proposed regulation changes that are currently in the works.

We go deep into the weeds (perhaps too deep) about these changes below, but here’s what you can take away. In essence, the NEPA regulatory changes for both the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Interior expand the use of emergency waivers from NEPA and the use of categorical exclusions, meaning agencies do not have to do a full NEPA review for some projects. They also get rid of any reference to the CEQ regulations, particularly the regulations that force agencies to consider cumulative impacts (or the combined effect of all related impacts), greenhouse gas impacts, and environmental justice impacts. The emphasis of the revised NEPA implementing regulations is clearly on efficiency and streamlining the review process, which is concerning, especially when this push appears to come at the expense of long-standing environmental safeguards. Rather than balancing speed with thoroughness, the changes suggest that removing protections is becoming the driving priority. 

Forest Service

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) manages public lands, including forests and grasslands, sustains biodiversity and ecological processes, and contributes to one of the largest forest research databases in the world. Its responsibilities include protecting and managing natural resources, assisting communities, and cooperating with state and local governments, as well as private landowners, to help protect and manage non-federal forests. The agency also helps formulate U.S. policy on forest resource management internationally. The USFS is responsible for enforcing numerous environmental laws and policies, including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act. A key regulation the Forest Service must also comply with is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has recently issued an interim final rule revising how it will implement NEPA moving forward. Instead of having each of its sub-agencies keep their own NEPA produces, the USDA is now consolidating its compliance into a centralized framework under 7 CFR Part 1b. The USDA asserts that this change is necessary to realign its procedures with the current legal landscape and statutory mandates. As part of this structural overhaul, the Forest Service (36 CFR 220) — which is a sub-agency of the USDA — is rescinding nearly all of its NEPA regulations, except for 36 CFR 220.6(d)(1) through (12), (e)(1) through (25), and 220.4(b)(2), with any previously reserved sections being removed — and will instead comply with the centralized 7 CFR 1b. The categorical exclusions (CEs) that were previously listed under USFS regulations are now located at 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(19) through (29) and (d)(26) through (47).

The 36 CFR 220.6(d) and (e) sections that remain cover the general documentation requirements — or lack thereof — for CEs. These requirements have not substantively changed, except for the removal of certain USFS-specific documentation language. Now, they simply refer to the broader requirement in 7 CFR 1b, which establishes consistent CE documentation rules across all USDA sub-agencies.. 

Moreover, in 36 CFR 220.6(e)(9), the changes being made remove language that previously limited certain minor rangeland management activities to areas without an Allotment Management Plan (AMP). AMPs are site-specific documents developed after environmental review that outline how grazing operations will be managed. Since most grazing allotments already have AMPs in place, the prior restriction limited the use of this CE. The interim final rule states that this change is considered technical and does not alter what actions are permitted under land management plans or grazing decisions. Instead, it removes a procedural limitation, allowing agencies to implement minor improvements based on resource needs rather than the presence or absence of an AMP.

Additionally, under these NEPA consolidations, it states that an agency only needs to issue an “approval document” for a land management plan to meet the documentation required for a CE. The language was also updated to replace “Forest Service NEPA procedures” with “USDA NEPA procedures,” reflecting the shift to a unified USDA-wide NEPA process. Importantly, the rule states that the updates to their recordkeeping do not change how significance determinations are made when applying CEs. 

USFS is also revising and relocating its procedures for approving alternative arrangements for emergency actions to comply with the NEPA changes. As part of the consolidation process, references to CEs, environmental assessments (EAs), and findings of no significant impact are being removed, since these topics are now addressed under a broader, USDA-wide framework. This updated approach is intended to streamline emergency response processes across all USDA agencies, specifically for actions that are not expected to cause significant environmental impacts.

Finally, USFS acknowledges that removing its NEPA regulations will affect how it handles project-level, pre-decisional administrative reviews. Until the agency updates its review process to fully align with the new USDA-wide system, it will continue using its current procedures to manage administrative reviews. Although the new USDA regulations do not specifically require a “decision notice” for EAs, they clarify that if another law or rule requires a formal decision document, the finding of no significant impact can be labeled and used as that decision document. This ensures the Forest Service can maintain its existing review process for projects in the meantime, where a decision notice is still needed.

Overall, these changes represent a significant shift in how the USFS operates procedurally. Rather than maintaining independent, agency-specific processes, USFS must now follow generalized procedures applicable across all USDA sub-agencies. While this consolidation is intended to streamline environmental reviews, it may also increase the risk of inadequate review for certain projects. EPIC will continue to monitor the impacts of these regulatory changes on USFS operations and their effects on environmental protections. 

Fish and Wildlife Service

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is charged with the conservation, protection, and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and their habitats to benefit current and future generations of Americans. Its responsibilities include administering federal programs focused on migratory birds, endangered species, interjurisdictional fish, marine mammals, and inland sport fisheries. The Service also enforces more than 100 federal wildlife laws, including the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Recently, FWS has been the target of EPIC’s criticism for other regulatory rollbacks, namely its proposal along with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to rescind their regulatory definition of “harm” under the ESA. The agencies cite Justice Scalia’s dissent in Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 515 U.S. 687 (1995), which argued that “take” refers to direct, intentional acts like killing or capturing an animal, not indirect consequences such as habitat degradation. The agencies propose to rescind the regulatory definition of "harm" and rely solely on the statute’s broader definition of “take,” without further elaboration. This regulatory rollback may significantly erode one of the ESA’s core protective mechanisms by no longer recognizing habitat degradation as a form of prohibited harm. If finalized, it could open the door to increased habitat destruction, further endangering already vulnerable species. 

And more rollbacks appear to be on the horizon for the ESA. Recently (June 9, 2025), the FWS also requested comments and feedback regarding “Methods to streamline conservation benefit agreement and habitat conservation plan development and their associated permit issuance.”

The FWS is one of the offices housed under the Department of the Interior (DOI). According to the DOI, all offices and bureaus under its authority are required to maintain specific guidelines or manuals that supplement the DOI NEPA implementing procedures. The FWS NEPA Handbook (2000) states that its purpose is to supplement the DOI regulations and handbook, and much of the FWS Handbook relies on the CEQ regulations. There are currently no notices on the FWS website or Federal Register that indicate the FWS is updating its NEPA regulations or handbook. On July 3, 2025, the DOI announced it would be updating and partially rescinding its NEPA regulations at 43 CFR part 46; comments are open through August 4. In its decision, DOI noted that it will now be maintaining its procedures in a handbook separate from its regulations located at 43 CFR part 46. Thus, FWS will likely rely on the DOI NEPA regulation changes and the new handbook for the time being. The DOI changes, which largely reflect the recommendations given by the CEQ on how to revise NEPA regulations, will also likely shape FWS regulations on NEPA implementation. 

For insight into how the FWS may choose to revise its guidelines, see the changes made to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration procedures for implementing NEPA, which went into effect June 30, 2025. Changes include revisions to the list of categorical exclusions, expanding the number of actions that can be taken without full NEPA review.

What is DOI taking out of its NEPA regulations?

The changes proposed by the DOI pose sweeping rollbacks of the DOI’s internal NEPA procedures and are meant to reflect the thesis in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, 145 S. Ct. 1497 (2025) that NEPA is a “substantive roadblock” to agency decision-making. The changes limit the scope of analysis by narrowing the definitions of reasonable alternatives and reasonably foreseeable actions (see table below for comparison). By eliminating foundational guidance such as §46.100, which clarifies when NEPA applies, agencies may interpret their obligations narrowly, resulting in inconsistent or incomplete reviews. The removal of §46.105, which ensures agency oversight of contractor-prepared NEPA documents, further undermines accountability and could allow insufficient or biased analyses to shape major federal decisions. The elimination of provisions supporting public and interagency involvement — such as scoping (§46.235), early coordination (§46.200), and consensus-based management (§46.110) — threatens to reduce transparency and meaningful input, particularly harming communities already vulnerable to environmental injustice. The changes also remove the ability for bureaus to set case-by-case time limits for NEPA processes (§46.240), instead opting for language in the handbook that favors prompt and timely completion. 

Additionally, the repeal of requirements to consider past actions (§46.115) and employ adaptive management strategies (§46.145) weakens the ability to assess long-term and cumulative environmental effects — factors essential in addressing climate change and biodiversity loss. The rescission of provisions facilitating the use of existing analyses (§§46.120, 46.135, and 46.140) could lead to inaccurate analysis or decreased site-specific analysis. Removing §46.125, which governs how agencies handle incomplete or unavailable scientific information, allows decisions to move forward despite significant uncertainties. Eliminating frameworks for cooperating agency coordination (§§46.220–46.230) also undermines collaborative decision-making with state, tribal, and local governments. Beyond domestic impacts, the removal of §46.170 could compromise the assessment of environmental effects abroad, in contravention of Executive Order 12114. Finally, rescinding Department-level and “Ninth Circuit Court” jurisdiction level (see page 4 of the DOI Handbook of NEPA Procedures Appendix 2) categorical exclusions for hazardous fuels reduction and post-fire rehabilitation may complicate implementation of timely land management and recovery actions, introducing new procedural hurdles across bureaus. Collectively, these changes would significantly reduce the scope, depth, and inclusivity of federal environmental review.

While framed as streamlining, the changes would significantly weaken environmental protections, reduce public and interagency participation, and limit the scope and rigor of environmental reviews. This could lead to more environmentally harmful decisions and less informed federal actions. For a full list of the removed provisions, click here. 

What is DOI putting in its new NEPA regulations and handbook?

DOI makes several significant changes and additions to its NEPA implementing regulations with the stated goal of expediting environmental review. These updates center on expanding the use of three primary tools: emergency responses, categorical exclusions, and applicant- or contractor-prepared NEPA documents. 

First, revisions to 43 CFR 46.150 (“Emergency responses”) make it easier for agencies to bypass NEPA analysis in situations deemed urgent. Small but meaningful changes to this provision raises concerns about potential misuse — especially given past instances where the Trump administration declares emergencies to expedite controversial or politically favored projects.

Second, DOI is both retaining and expanding its provisions for categorical exclusions (CEs) — actions that do not normally have significant environmental effects and thus do not require detailed NEPA review. The existing sections allowing existing CEs at 43 CFR 46.205, 46.210, and 46.215 remain in place, but a suite of new provisions (§§ 46.210(e)–(j)) increases agencies’ ability to apply and create CEs. Notably, bureaus can now rely on CEs established by other agencies or bureaus, apply multiple CEs to a single action, and establish or revise CEs without conducting NEPA analysis. The process for adopting or removing a CE includes a brief consultation with the CEQ and public notice, but excludes any substantive environmental review. These changes may promote consistency and efficiency across bureaus, but they also reduce public accountability and eliminate procedural safeguards for determining whether an action truly lacks significant impacts.

Third, DOI is enhancing its framework for applicant-prepared environmental documents, building on the retained §46.105 and adding a detailed new section, §46.107. This new provision implements NEPA Section 107(f), allowing applicants — or contractors under their direction — to prepare environmental impact statements (EISs) and environmental assessments (EAs) under bureau supervision. While the Responsible Official retains responsibility for final content and must conduct an independent evaluation, the rule provides applicants with considerable authority to define the purpose and need for a project, identify alternatives, and shape stakeholder engagement plans. The regulation includes requirements for scientific integrity certifications and conflict-of-interest disclosures, but there are still concerns that shifting the responsibility for preparing environmental documents to project proponents could compromise objectivity, especially if the bureau lacks internal expertise to rigorously evaluate technical analyses.

These regulatory changes prioritize administrative speed and efficiency in NEPA implementation, but they may also reduce transparency, weaken oversight, and elevate the risk of incomplete or biased environmental reviews. The streamlined procedures around emergency actions and categorical exclusions in particular appear to shift the balance away from precaution and public participation — core principles of NEPA — and toward greater agency discretion with fewer procedural checks.

Below is a table comparing the changes to some key provisions.

Section	Old (2008)	Current (Handbook) (Regulations)
Definitions	Reasonably foreseeable future actions include those federal and non-federal activities not yet undertaken, but sufficiently likely to occur, that a Responsible Official of ordinary prudence would take such activities into account in reaching a decision. These federal and non-federal activities that must be taken into account in the analysis of cumulative impact include, but are not limited to, activities for which there are existing decisions, funding, or proposals identified by the bureau. Reasonably foreseeable future actions do not include those actions that are highly speculative or indefinite. 46.420 (b) Reasonable alternatives. In addition to the requirements of 40 CFR 1502.14, this term includes alternatives that are technically and economically practical or feasible and meet the purpose and need of the proposed action.	(Part 6 of Handbook)  Reasonably foreseeable means sufficiently likely to occur such that a person of ordinary prudence would take it into account in reaching a decision.  (Part 6 of the Handbook) Reasonable alternatives means a reasonable range of alternatives that are technically and economically feasible, meet the purpose and need for the proposed action, are within the jurisdiction of the bureau, and, where applicable, meet the goals of the applicant.
46.105	A Responsible Official may use a contractor to prepare any environmental document in accordance with the standards of 40 CFR 1506.5(b) and (c). If a Responsible Official uses a contractor, the Responsible Official remains responsible for: (a) Preparation and adequacy of the environmental documents; and (b) Independent evaluation of the environmental documents after their completion.	a) A Responsible Official may use a bureau-directed contractor to prepare any environmental document. (b) If a Responsible Official uses a bureau-directed contractor, the Responsible Official remains responsible for: (1) Preparation and adequacy of the environmental documents; and (2) Independent evaluation of the environmental documents after their completion. The Responsible Official must briefly document the bureau's evaluation of the environmental document and ensure that it meets the standards under NEPA, this Part, and any Departmental or bureau-specific procedures or guidance. (c) The Responsible Official shall require any bureau-directed contractor preparing an environmental document to submit a professional integrity statement certifying that the environmental document is prepared with professional and scientific integrity, using reliable data and resources, and meets bureau needs for decision-making. In addition, the Responsible Official shall require any bureau-directed contractor preparing an environmental document to submit a disclosure statement specifying that the contractor has no financial or other interest in the outcome of the action.
40.150 Emergency Responses	This section applies only if the Responsible Official determines that an emergency exists that makes it necessary to take urgently needed actions before preparing a NEPA analysis and documentation in accordance with the provisions in subparts D and E of this part.	This section applies only if the Responsible Official determines that an emergency exists that makes it necessary to take urgently needed actions before preparing an environmental document or documenting its use of a categorical exclusion in accordance with the provisions in this chapter.
40.150 (a)	The Responsible Official may take those actions necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency that are urgently needed to mitigate harm to life, property, or important natural, cultural, or historic resources. When taking such actions, the Responsible Official shall take into account the probable environmental consequences of these actions and mitigate foreseeable adverse environmental effects to the extent practical.	The Responsible Official may take those actions necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency that are urgently needed to mitigate harm to life, property, or important natural, cultural, or historic resources. When taking such actions, the Responsible Official shall consider the probable environmental consequences of these actions and mitigate reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental impacts to the extent practicable.
40.150 (b)	The Responsible Official shall document in writing the determination that an emergency exists and describe the responsive action(s) taken at the time the emergency exists. The form of that documentation is within the discretion of the Responsible Official.	The Responsible Official shall document in writing the determination that an emergency exists and describe the responsive actions taken at the time the emergency exists. The form of that documentation is within the discretion of the Responsible Official.
40.150 (c)	If the Responsible Official determines that proposed actions taken in response to an emergency, beyond actions noted in paragraph (a) of this section, are not likely to have significant environmental impacts, the Responsible Official shall document that determination in an environmental assessment and a finding of no significant impact prepared in accordance with this part, unless categorically excluded (see subpart C of this part). If the Responsible Official finds that the nature and scope of the subsequent actions related to the emergency require taking such proposed actions prior to completing an environmental assessment and a finding of no significant impact, the Responsible Official shall consult with the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance about alternative arrangements for NEPA compliance. The Assistant Secretary, Policy Management and Budget or his/her designee may grant an alternative arrangement. Any alternative arrangement must be documented. Consultation with the Department must be coordinated through the appropriate bureau headquarters.	If the Responsible Official determines that the nature and scope of proposed actions that must be taken beyond actions noted in paragraph (a) of this section but in response and relation to such emergency action preclude preparation of an environmental document, the Responsible Official must consult with the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance about alternative arrangements for NEPA compliance for such additional responsive actions. The Assistant Secretary, Policy Management and Budget may authorize the use of alternative arrangements. Reliance on any such alternative arrangements shall apply only to the proposed actions necessary to control the immediate actions in response and related to the emergency beyond those noted in paragraph (a) of this section and must be documented. Consultation with the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance and with the Assistant Secretary, Policy Management and Budget must be coordinated through the appropriate bureau headquarters.
40.150 (d)	The Department shall consult with CEQ about alternative arrangements as soon as possible if the Responsible Official determines that proposed actions, taken in response to an emergency, beyond actions noted in paragraph (a) of this section, are likely to have significant environmental impacts. The Responsible Official shall consult with appropriate bureau headquarters and the Department, about alternative arrangements as soon as the Responsible Official determines that the proposed action is likely to have a significant environmental effect. Such alternative arrangements will apply only to the proposed actions necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency. Other proposed actions remain subject to NEPA analysis and documentation in accordance with this part.	For actions meeting the criteria noted in paragraph (c) of this section that the Responsible Official reasonably foresees would be likely to result in significant effects, the Assistant Secretary, Policy Management and Budget or their designee must consult with the Council on Environmental Quality prior to authorizing the use of alternative arrangements for compliance with NEPA section 102(2)(C), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C).
40.150 (e)	NA	Other proposed actions remain subject to compliance with NEPA and the remaining sections of this Part.
46.215 Extraordinary circumstances	Extraordinary circumstances (see paragraph 46.205(c)) exist for individual actions within categorical exclusions that may meet any of the criteria listed in paragraphs (a) through (l) of this section. Applicability of extraordinary circumstances to categorical exclusions is determined by the Responsible Official. (a) Have significant impacts on public health or safety. (b) Have significant impacts on such natural resources and unique geographic characteristics as historic or cultural resources; park, recreation or refuge lands; wilderness areas; wild or scenic rivers; national natural landmarks; sole or principal drinking water aquifers; prime farmlands; wetlands (EO 11990); floodplains (EO 11988); national monuments; migratory birds; and other ecologically significant or critical areas. (c) Have highly controversial environmental effects or involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources [NEPA section 102(2)(E)]. (d) Have highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental effects or involve unique or unknown environmental risks. (e) Establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision in principle about future actions with potentially significant environmental effects. (f) Have a direct relationship to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant environmental effects. (g) Have significant impacts on properties listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places as determined by the bureau. (h) 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. (i) Violate a Federal law, or a State, local, or tribal law or requirement imposed for the protection of the environment. (j) Have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low income or minority populations (EO 12898). (k) Limit access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites on Federal lands by Indian religious practitioners or significantly adversely affect the physical integrity of such sacred sites (EO 13007). (l) Contribute to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of noxious weeds or non-native invasive species known to occur in the area or actions that may promote the introduction, growth, or expansion of the range of such species (Federal Noxious Weed Control Act and EO 13112).	Extraordinary circumstances (see § 46.205(c)) exist for individual actions within categorical exclusions that may meet any of the criteria listed in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section. Applicability of extraordinary circumstances to categorical exclusions is determined by the Responsible Official. If an extraordinary circumstance is not present, the Responsible Official may determine that the categorical exclusion applies to the proposed action and conclude review. (a) Have significant impacts on public health or safety. (b) Have significant impacts on such natural resources and unique geographic characteristics as historic or cultural resources; park, recreation or refuge lands; wilderness areas; wild or scenic rivers; national natural landmarks; sole or principal drinking water aquifers; prime farmlands; wetlands; floodplains; national monuments; migratory birds; and other ecologically significant or critical areas. (c) Have highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental effects or involve unique or unknown environmental risks. (d) Establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision in principle about future actions with potentially significant environmental effects. (e) Have a direct relationship to other actions that implicate potentially significant environmental effects. (f) Have significant impacts on properties listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places as determined by the bureau. (g) 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. (h) Significantly limit access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites on Federal lands by Indian religious practitioners or significantly adversely affect the physical integrity of such sacred sites. (i) Contribute to potentially significant effects resulting from the introduction, continued existence, or spread of noxious weeds or non-native invasive species known to occur in the area or from other actions that promote the introduction, growth, or expansion of the range of such species (Federal Noxious Weed Control Act).