Is there any climbing in National Forests?

Yes. Lots.

The Forest Service has proposed changes to 36 CFR part 218, the rules that govern public participation in National Forest decision making. The new rules severely limit public oversight of the agency in a number of ways.  Their reasoning: listening to the public is too much work, we need to cut down more trees (because the king said so) and all you people asking questions are getting in our way.

Here's some of what the new rules would do:

The proposal substantially reduces the time allowed to submit comments on NEPA project documents:
Environmental Assessment (EA): Reduced from 30 days → 10 days.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): Reduced from 45 days → 20 days.
No extensions allowed for either EA or EIS comment periods.

It also shortens the length of the objection period (that follows the initial comment period) from 45 days to 10 for EAs and 20 for EISs.

The rule allows for the only public comment period to begin immediately following the agency publishing the Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS (as opposed to when the whole EIS is publicly available), despite NOIs being extremely basic documentation (3-10 pgs) compared to an EIS (several hundred pgs) and the rule states that Draft EISs no longer need to be published.

The rule limits how long public comments can be for EAs (15 pages) and EISs (30 pages), including both the comments and any attachments and it allows officials to “set aside” objections that “only restate previous comments”.

The rule shortens the time the agency has to respond to comments from 45+ days to 15 for EAs and 20 for EISs and prohibits any extensions. AND the rule limits the length of the response from the agency to 5 pages.

The rule allows the agency to disregard comments that are repetitious (ie. form letters submitted count as one comment, regardless of how many people submit or sign on)

COMMENT HERE by 3/9 at MIDNIGHT EST

Ask the USFS to retract the proposed rules and make no changes to 36 CFR 218. Remind them, the USDA's new NEPA regulations are a MINIMUM requirement and that the agency has the public support to maintain rules that maintain or even strengthen strong public participation.

Be sure to include a brief description about why these changes matter to you and how you'll be negatively impacted if they're finalized. For example "I'm a regular user of our National Forests for hiking and rock climbing and these rules will remove my ability to meaningfully participate in decision making and will lead to further degradation of the forests I use for recreation."

Consider using the following points to support your request:

• Analysis shows that lack of staffing and larger scale projects are the reason for fewer projects, not burdensome NEPA analysis (1).
• Less public participation leads to worse decision making and reduced capacity. The government's own analysis shows that public participation has been proven to improve decision making and is a requirement for effective management of public land (2)(3).
• The problem is too much, not too little active management – worsening forest health by reducing fire resilient old-growth and mature forest, increasing fragmentation, introducing highly flammable invasive species, releasing stored carbon – all contributors to fast-moving, destructive fires and loss of biodiversity (4).

1 – Forrest Fleischman, Cory Struthers, Gwen Arnold, Mike Dockry, Tyler Scott, US Forest Service Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act: Fast, Variable, Rarely Litigated, and Declining, Journal of Forestry, Volume 118, Issue 4, July 2020, Pages 403–418, https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvaa016

2 – National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12434

3 – Stava, A., Thogmartin, W. E., Merideth, R., Bethard, S., Currim, F., Derbridge, J. J., Emerson, K., Laparra, E., Lien, A., McGovern, E., Pidot, J., Miller, M., Romero‑Carvenas, K., Smith, B., Winnebald, C., & Lopez‑Hoffman, L. (2025). Quantifying the substantive influence of public comment on United States federal environmental decisions under NEPA. Environmental Research Letters, 20, 074028. https://www.usgs.gov/publications/quantifying-substantive-influence-public-comment-united-states-federal-environmental

4 – DellaSala, D. A., Ingalsbee, T., & Hanson, C. T. (2018). Everything you wanted to know about wildland fires in forests but were afraid to ask: Lessons learned, ways forward (Wildfire Report 2018). Geos Institute. https://geosinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/wildfire-report-2018.pdf

The agency will likely disregard the comments it receives.  But the comments are public record which is crucial information for legislators trying to get regulations written into law and in courts trying to decide cases that involve interpreting poorly written environmental protection laws. Over time, the products of the legislature and judiciary tend to reflect public opinion, even when the executive does not.

Gifford Pinchot, the architect and first chief of the USFS famously said: "It's more trouble to consult the public than to ignore them, but that's what you're hired for." –– the agency seems to have forgotten this, along with most of the other maxims put forth by Pinchot at the agency's formation.

They're also coming for the Roadless Areas.

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/202502959/more-shots-fired-at-road-area-protections

And trying to give political appointees carte blanche to approve massive timber projects with no oversight or limitations.

No oversight you say? Yep, at the direction of the White House, USDA (and USFS contained therein) has a new administrative tool called a FANEC that introduces new discretionary power for officials, and if FOFA passes would allow political appointees to approve logging unilaterally, with ZERO environmental review or public notice, up to 10,000 acres at a time and for as many projects as they see fit. 

*EDITED after getting helpful feedback below

Andy,

Thank you for enlightening us on these important battles against the places that many of us love and cherish.  For decades I’ve been an advocate for the natural environment and wild places.  I’ve often argued that even if some of us do not understand the importance of wilderness, it is important that we protect it.  Due to my employment and the current political situation, I’m hesitant to get too deep into the weeds on this topic.

If you could sum it up in just a few sentences, what do you think are the most impactful ways we can try to make a difference?

Best,

Albert

That a project is a categorical exclusion (CE) doesn't mean that it is exempt from environmental review, analysis, or documentation. In layman's terms, it is a determination that a project doesn't have the size/complexity/level of effects/etc. that would necessitate an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS), which (very generally) involve increasing project size/complexity/potential effect intensity/etc. Further, CE's are currently limited in size to 3000 acres, although the FOFA would change that to 10000 acres as noted above. The FANEC isn't a new "tool" per se, it is basically just new jargon identifying that a project does not require an EA or EIS (i.e., is categorically excluded from detailed/complex analysis more typical of an EA or EIS) - but to be abundantly clear, CE's do not exempt projects from environmental review.

I'm coming from a federal land management background and I'll acknowledge that it is possible that *some* CE categories exist that are exempt from review/analysis/documentation, but I'd assume they would be very minor actions. In my agency, basically anything that disturbs ground, could affect wildlife/plants/water/etc., involves almost any type of vegetation modification, among many other activities, requires environmental review. But the level of review/analysis/documentation is commensurate to the activity. We install a toilet, it goes through a full environmental review - albeit one that is appropriate to the complexity/effects of installing a toilet.

I am not in favor of FOFA or really any of the changes the new administration has made or is trying to make to environmental laws/regulations/processes, but FOFA does not allow political appointees to unilaterally approve logging of up to 10000 acres at a time, or 3000 acres, or 100 acres for that matter. Laws like NEPA, ESA, the Clean Water Act, NHPA, are still on the books (at least for now) and preclude something like that from happening, thankfully.

Lurk Er wrote:

That a project is a categorical exclusion (CE) doesn't mean that it is exempt from environmental review

This is the case currently.  What do you know about the "Finding of Applicability and No Extraordinary Circumstance" and who would approve projects in FMAs?  

FANECs allow the responsible official to determine what documentation is necessary. From the text: "[I]ncorporate by reference any other relevant documentation developed as part of the environmental review process and contained in the proposal record, such as documentation of compliance with other applicable laws or regulations as deemed necessary by the responsible official", emphasis added.

Internal communications within USFS have call FANECs "an alternative to the interdisciplinary team process".

And if FOFA passes, the responsible official in for an FMA is clearly identified as the Secretary of Int and/or Ag. Again, from the text: "[T]he Secretary concerned may carry out fireshed management projects on the fireshed management areas designated under this section.", again emphasis added.

FANEC + FOFA = political appointees have unilateral discretion to approve CE's (up to 10k acres at a time) using FANECs in FMAs.

SELC is preparing suit to challenge the legality of FANECs as a violation of the NEPA statute. And many organizations are preparing suits to challenge most of how FMAs would work under the current text of S1462.

ETA: I didn't mean for any of this to come across as argumentative.  FANECs and their application is a really new thing so I'm basing my understanding of them off of talking to multiple experienced environmental lawyers in the Northwest.  I'd love to be proven wrong and learn that they aren't what it seems they are.   

Albert Newman wrote:

If you could sum it up in just a few sentences, what do you think are the most impactful ways we can try to make a difference?

2 things you can do: 

Make weekly calls to your congressional delegation's DC offices.  Ask to speak to the public lands or environmental staffer (usually the same person), and tell them you want stronger public lands protections- ask the congressperson to codify the Roadless Rule (aka RACA, S.2042), vote NO on: Fix Our Forest Act, the Speed Act (HR 4776), the Landless Bill (S 2554), the Borderlands Conservation Act (S 2967), HR 7578, HR 7695, HR 7603, basically any land management bill with an R as a sponsor/cosponsor.  Tell them you oppose any federal land conveyance/transfer over 10 acres.

And then get involved with your local grass roots environmental Orgs.  They can use your time and your money, even just your attention.  DM me and I can help you find grassroots organizations doing good work on federal land advocacy in your area.  These orgs should be putting out action alerts and toolkits that will make your calls to congress staffers more productive. And they'll have people familiar with your local Forest Plan or Resource Management Plan that inform how your local public lands are managed.

Or for the motivated- a powerful way to find organizations that are doing good work is to go you your local National Forest website.  There'll be a green banner near the top and one of the drop downs (usually "Topics") will have a link to the "Projects" page.  Sort the projects by "Purpose" and find one that lists "Forest Products" or "Vegetation Management" (USFS code for logging).  Once you're on a Project page there'll be a little box that says "Get Connected" and in that menu there'll be a link that says "Public comment/objection Reading Room".  This is where all the public comments for the project are found.  Sort by organization name and see which Orgs are paying attention to your local NF projects by submitting detailed, substantive comments.  Avoid Sierra, Wilderness Society, and TNC and most of the other Big Green organizations that have become substantially corrupt at this point.

Andy Shoemaker wrote:

ETA: I didn't mean for any of this to come across as argumentative.  FANECs and their application is a really new thing so I'm basing my understanding of them off of talking to multiple experienced environmental lawyers in the Northwest.  I'd love to be proven wrong and learn that they aren't what it seems they are.   

I'm not arguing either. Just trying to clarify how business is currently done vs. how it might be done, e.g., if FOFA passes. And agreed, I don't quite understand some aspects of FOFA, like the FMA part. It does seem possible that a partial intent is to allow  "deciding officials" (whoever they are) to make unilateral decisions authorizing activities, but that is not how things work right now. My take (hope) is that the bill fails, because it has the potential to violate law(s) every time it is applied - e.g., a project that has known or potential effects to a federally threatened/endangered species, which haven't been considered because the environmental review process has been subverted by a unilateral decision that authorizes the projects' activities. Or if it passes, that it is litigated into oblivion for the same reasons (i.e., it's an attempt to bypass multiple other laws). Maybe I'm being optimistic...

FWIW, my current interpretation of FANEC (and that of my unit) is that it is simply the new way of saying that a project fits a CE category and "circumstances" don't necessitate an EA/EIS. I'll admit that FOFA could change that and I'm not exactly clear on how

ETA: I am entirely in favor of the environmental review process and think that disclosing potential effects of federal activities to the American public is a critical and fundamental aspect of that process. I think the process could benefit from certain efficiencies but entirely negating the process (e.g., by allowing a project to be authorized with no review/analysis/documentation/disclosure/etc.) is absolutely not the way to go about it.

Lurk Er wrote:

I'm not arguing either. Just trying to clarify how business is currently done vs. how it might be done, e.g., if FOFA passes. 

Cheers- I genuinely appreciate the insight.  I think I poorly worded my short comment about unilateral CE authorization.  I edited it for clarify based on the points you made. If you're open to sharing more detailed info about CE use I'd love to chat off the forums.  DM me if you're interested.  Totally understand if, like many, you're hesitant to talk to land management advocates given the current climate at federal agencies.

As for FOFA.  Section 106 is really concerning.  This letter has pretty detailed analysis of the senate version of the bill.  It appears as though the bill explicitly REQUIRES the use of CE's whenever possible.  And as you know, CE's are not required to be disclosed to the public through SOPAs or notice in the Federal Register.  It's my understanding that currently Nation Forests are required to post them on their projects pages, but not req'd to invite public comment.  But if FOFA passes, it's unclear if the Wildland Fire Intelligence Center or the individual FMAs will have their own portal for disclosing info.  Based on the text, FMAs won't be directly associated with current management units like NFs, Parks, BLM RMPs, etc.

One of the only things going for us is that the agencies that would plan these projects are so under staffed and lacking in experience that it will be hard for them to get much done before this administration is out.  I realize that this silver lining might come across as tone deaf for someone like yourself, still working at an agency.  I genuinely hope that they fix the staffing problem and maybe even hire some independent thinking, strong willed people willing to be the bulwark from within.

I think it's important to keep in mind a huge chunk of climbing is in the high risk firesheds that will be prioritized for commercial logging under FOFA.

Albert Newman wrote:

If you could sum it up in just a few sentences, what do you think are the most impactful ways we can try to make a difference?

Best,

Albert

I’ll sum it up for you in two words.

Second amendment.

Nothing else will change it. We are rightfully comparing this administration to that of 1930s Germany, are we not? Well, how would calling and writing letters have worked then?

This proposed change still only has less than 1,000 comments submitted.  I'm sure there's more than 1,000 MP users who care about this issue. These changes are a strategic attempt by the executive branch to do everything it can to cut the public out of having a say in how our national forests are managed.

Here's a sample comment. Either copy and paste directly and submit here, or for a stronger impact make some changes that make it more personalized. 

I’m a frequent user of our National Forests and rely on these lands for recreation, solitude, and connection with healthy ecosystems- ecosystems that make clean air, clean water, and stable wildlife populations– all things very important to me. I strongly object to the proposed changes to 36 CFR 218, particularly the page and time limits on public comments and agency responses and the reduced requirements to publish and take comment on all NEPA documents. These changes will make it significantly harder for members of the public like me to meaningfully participate in decisions that affect the forests we use. It’s incredibly important for NEPA documents to be thorough and accurate and these limits prevent careful review and thoughtful feedback, while reducing transparency and weakening decision-making.

The agency’s own analysis shows that staffing shortages and larger project scopes—not public input—are the main causes of fewer projects being done (1). Public participation improves outcomes and is essential for effective public land management, as published by the USGS last year (2). Reducing participation risks further forest degradation, biodiversity loss, and increased wildfire severity; not to mention, further reducing public trust in the agency.

The USDA’s new NEPA rules are a minimum standard, and the Forest Service has strong public support to maintain robust opportunities for public participation. I urge the USFS to retract these proposed rules and  make no changes to 36 CFR 218. Or that the agency issue an EIS for the express purpose of gathering public opinion on what, if any changes should be made, while complying with applicable laws and regulations. 

It’s more trouble to consult with the public than ignore them, but that is what you were hired for. Thank you for considering my comment.

1. https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvaa016

2. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/addee5

Comments due by end of day Monday.

Andy, I really appreciate you taking the time to post this up. I wrote my own statement and submitted. Had I not seen your post, I likely would’ve been in the dark about this in general, and some of my favorite places in North Carolina are US Forest Service managed…Linville Gorge, anyone?

For what it’s worth, limiting the agency’s response time doesn’t seem particularly like a bad thing (seems like a faster response to public comments generally would benefit the public). But still, that at the expense of shortening the period so dramatically for the public, when it often takes a lot of time to hear about these things in the first place, is completely not worth it.

Anyway, I appreciate the head’s up.

Sent.

Thanks for the heads up!

Commented. Thanks, Andy!

Yawn Bosco wrote:

Andy, I really appreciate you taking the time to post this up. I wrote my own statement and submitted. Had I not seen your post, I likely would’ve been in the dark about this in general, and some of my favorite places in North Carolina are US Forest Service managed…Linville Gorge, anyone?

For what it’s worth, limiting the agency’s response time doesn’t seem particularly like a bad thing (seems like a faster response to public comments generally would benefit the public). But still, that at the expense of shortening the period so dramatically for the public, when it often takes a lot of time to hear about these things in the first place, is completely not worth it.

Anyway, I appreciate the head’s up.

Thanks for taking time to participate and push back against this b.s.

I can definitely see your point about requiring faster public response from the agency.  The trouble is that it'd give USFS 15 or 20 days to respond. And they regularly get thousands of public comments on important projects.  Just like it's unreasonable for them to expect us to unpack a 300+ page environmental impact statement and write a meaningful response in 20 days (including weekends), it's not reasonable for them to read 1,500 comments and meaningfully respond.  Especially because hopefully and typically, this response accompanies changes to the proposed plan in response to the comments. So not only would they have to read and understand all the comments, they'd have to formulate the changes and get them into writing along with the response to public comment, all in 20 days.

I don't see how that can happen in less than 3 weeks. And certainly not if they intend to keep shrinking the workforce that's already down 30+ percent from 2024. And down that much while wildland fire staff is actually up and while many of the planning staff that remain have only been on the job a few years and have limited experience. Staffing is a huge problem at all the federal land managers right now. In normal times it would be a big deal...

ETA: here's an example of an EIS with more than 3,400 public comments during just the first phase of commenting. If these rules are finalized, when the Northwest Forest Plan, which has been reasonably effective in protecting old growth forests in the western sides of WA, OR, and Northern CA, the agency would have 20 days to read, analyze, make changes from, and respond to 3,000+ comments.

Thanks Andy, as usual. Just submitted a comment!