Three logging projects spanning thousands of acres in Oregon aren’t too large to qualify for an exemption from legally required environmental analysis, according to a federal appeals court.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled the three forest restoration projects in Oregon’s Fremont-Winema National Forest don’t exceed the scope of a “categorical exclusion” from the National Environmental Policy Act.

The legal dispute pertains to a regulation known as “categorical exclusion-6,” or CE-6, under which certain timber projects aren’t subject to NEPA analysis so long as they promote forest health and don’t involve herbicide spraying or more than a mile of road-building.

Despite ranging from 3,000 to 16,000 acres, the three Oregon projects qualify for the exemption because it doesn’t have any explicit or implicit scale constraints, according to the 9th Circuit.

“The text of CE-6 and the examples it contains do not support a finding of an implied size or acreage limitation,” the appellate ruling said.

However, environmental advocates have persuaded the 9th Circuit to revive another legal claim against the South Warner, Bear Wallow and Baby Bear projects, which had been dismissed by a federal judge last year.

Oregon Wild and Wildearth Guardians, the plaintiffs, argued that even if the projects technically fell under the scope of the exemption, the U.S. Forest Service had applied CE-6 in a way that violated NEPA.

U.S. District Judge Michael McShane determined that claim was “time-barred,” since the plaintiffs could’ve made it when CE-6 was initially created more than 30 years ago.

The 9th Circuit has now ordered the judge to reconsider their argument because a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling may have changed how such time limits are legally construed.

The appellate ruling also overturned an order requiring the environmental plaintiffs to pay more than $4,600 of the Forest Service’s litigation expenses, though it doesn’t explain the 9th Circuit’s reasoning.

The 9th Circuit issued the ruling only two weeks after hearing oral arguments from environmental advocates and the federal government in San Francisco.

At the time, environmental advocates argued that CE-6 was never meant to exclude such expansive forest projects from environmental review.

“Ruling in favor of the Forest Service here would create an enormous loophole that is fundamentally at odds with NEPA,” said Oliver Stiefel, attorney for the plaintiffs.

The Forest Service’s attorney, Ben Richmond, countered that such large projects are necessary to ward off disease and wildfire, but that restrictions association with CE-6 effectively limit their scale.

“Plaintiffs cannot write an acreage limit into categorical exclusion-6 based on policy,” Richmond said.