Part 2: Fast-Tracked for “Restoration”—When Co-Stewardship Skips Environmental Review

This is the second installment in a three-part investigative series examining how Tribal co-stewardship is being used across U.S. public lands—and what’s really driving the decisions behind the scenes.

While co-stewardship is being praised as a breakthrough for justice and equity, some projects tied to these agreements are quietly bypassing environmental review and accelerating timber harvests. In Part 1, I examined how Tribal partnerships are being used to legitimize logging under the banner of inclusion. In Part 2, we look at the legal and procedural mechanisms—particularly how the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is being sidestepped using categorical exclusions.

The Shortcut Through NEPA: Categorical Exclusions

NEPA was created to ensure that federal actions don’t harm ecosystems, communities, or cultural resources without public scrutiny. It requires agencies to conduct an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for most large-scale projects.

But Categorical Exclusions (CEs) are the loophole. CEs were designed for low-impact activities—like replacing a culvert or trail maintenance. But today, they’re being used to push through logging projects that cover thousands of acres, involve road-building, and extract significant volumes of timber.

All under the narrative of “restoration.”

Where Co-Stewardship Comes In

Federal agencies have increasingly bundled co-stewardship projects with CEs—effectively skipping public review while presenting the initiative as inclusive and community-led.

The playbook looks like this:

• Frame a logging operation as a “forest health” project tied to wildfire resilience.

  
  

• Sign a co-stewardship agreement with a Tribal partner.

  
  

• Use a CE to exempt the project from environmental analysis.

  
  

• Announce the effort as a win for equity, sovereignty, and ecological restoration.

On paper, it sounds like progress. In practice, it can mean large-scale timber removal with minimal oversight—and little transparency about who benefits most.

A dense forest undergoing mechanical thinning and early-stage logging—typical of projects labeled as “restoration” under fast-tracked co-stewardship agreements.

What’s Being Lost in the Rush

When projects skip environmental review, we lose:

• Independent scientific analysis of ecological impacts

  
  

• Cumulative effect assessments on wildlife corridors, soils, and water

  
  

• Meaningful public input beyond those in the immediate agreement

  
  

• Clear distinctions between true restoration and commercial logging

The result? Projects that look equitable on the surface but unfold like traditional extractive deals behind the scenes.

Tribal Sovereignty vs. Political Shielding

Tribes deserve—and have earned—the right to manage land on their terms. Many have long histories of sustainable forest management that far surpass federal standards. But when co-stewardship becomes a tool for fast-tracking projects that wouldn’t otherwise pass muster, it erodes both environmental integrity and the meaning of partnership.

Too often, Tribal participation is used as a shield. The logic is simple: if a Tribe is involved, the project must be just.

But justice isn’t about who signs the agreement. It’s about who sets the terms, what gets prioritized, and whether the land is actually healing—or just being harvested under a different banner.

What We Need to See Instead

If agencies are serious about real co-management, then:

• NEPA reviews should remain the standard, not the exception.

  
  

• Tribal partners should co-design the work, not just approve it.

  
  

• Restoration should be defined clearly, with transparency about harvest volumes, outcomes, and monitoring.

  
  

• Projects should be judged by ecological benefit, not political expedience.

Looking Ahead

In Part 3, we’ll explore what these projects actually look like on the ground—from wildlife impacts to long-term ecological changes—and examine whether the “forest resilience” these plans promise is materializing.

Because if co-stewardship is going to live up to its promise, it has to be more than optics. It has to be honest, accountable, and rooted in more than political convenience.