CATEXs are streamlined reviews, not exemptions from proof
Categorical exclusions account for a large share of federal environmental reviews, which makes them a frequent target in litigation 2. Agencies lose cases not because the category was wrong on its face, but because the record does not document extraordinary circumstances analysis, supporting data, or the factual fit between the project and the category text 12.
A defensible CATEX file looks like a compressed NEPA record: concise, but complete enough for a judge to verify the agency took a hard look at site-specific conditions 1.
Map the project to the category with specificity
Quote the category language and explain how the action fits, using project facts rather than boilerplate. If the category references acreage, disturbance limits, or prior disturbed land, include measurements and maps.
Document extraordinary circumstances
Even when a category applies, agencies must analyze whether extraordinary circumstances exist for the setting 1. Address relevant factors such as protected species habitat, floodplains, cultural resources, and water quality. A one-sentence statement that no extraordinary circumstances exist is insufficient without site-specific reasoning.
Attach the right technical backbone
Surveys, wetland delineations, cultural resource clearances, and tribal consultation summaries should be in the file when they inform the CATEX determination. Cross-agency adoption of categories still requires the adopting agency to document its own review 1.
Capture public involvement when required
Some categories or agency procedures require notice or comment. Store evidence of compliance. When procedures do not require public comment, note the procedural basis so challengers cannot assume it was skipped without record support 2.
Sign and date the determination
Identify the responsible official or delegated authority and the date of the determination. Link to any related permits or consultations completed before work begins.