It’s confusing, for sure, as to what changes in the NEPA process are due to the new USDA NEPA regs, ESD determinations, alternative arrangements, and possibly others. We’ll try to keep track of them here so folks can understand.
Shout-out to Nick Smith for forwarding, the Stanislaus Forest, the Forest Supervisor and public affairs folks, and reporter Tracey Petersen of local newspaper The Mother Lode, for this story.
This not about ESD, it’s about asking CEQ for what is known as “alternative arrangements”
The Stanislaus National Forest (STF) has continued the push to fast-track Rim Fire recovery timber efforts. Forest officials asked for special authority from the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to streamline National Environmental Policy Act procedures. The council gave its approval on Friday.
“It is unusual for the Forest Service to seek this expedited process,” says STF Forest Supervisor Susan Skalski. “Our work is urgent because the burned timber will rapidly deteriorate and lose its commercial value. The authority to move more quickly will allow us to take advantage of the fall 2014 harvest season so that we can get on with the rest of the recovery process on the Stanislaus National Forest.”
Due to the scope of the Rim Fire, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which requires a period for public comment must be done, but this exemption shortens that time frame.
Forest Spokesperson Maria Benech explains, “When we release the draft EIS sometime this spring, it will cut the comment period from 45 days down to 30 days, so there’s a 15 day savings there. Also, what it allows us to do is release the Record of Decision at the same time as the final EIS. Normally, there would be a 45 day waiting period between those two as well.”
Benech says this is the first exemption of its kind in the past five years.
I looked for the CEQ letter online and found one from 2013, saying basically the same thing and includes all the letters back and forth between CEQ and the FS.
So, no, it isn’t a Trump- Admin- specific thing.
Here’s the key regulatory requirement (45 CFR § 900.202 – Emergency actions)
“The Council shall limit alternative arrangements to those actions that are necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency. … Immediate emergency actions necessary to protect the lives and safety of the public or prevent adverse impacts to ecological resources and functions should never be delayed in order to comply with these NEPA procedures.”
I don’t see economic loss fitting here. Again, this should be limited to the “immediate impacts of the emergency,” and the examples cited are much more obvious emergencies. (“Emergency” doesn’t appear to be defined.)
45 CFR § 900.202 are NEPA regs for the Dept of Health and Human Services. Not sure that covers the USFS. Agencies can borrow other agencies’ Categorical Exclusions but can they borrow other authorities like this?
The 2013 memo cites 40 C.F.R. § 1506.11 for the authority for alternatives arrangements, but that part of the CEQ regs was rescinded, right?
Which raises the qestion … what is the statutory authority for alternative arrangments?
Good catch. I guess I read “45” as “40” and didn’t give it much more thought – should have looked closer at the link. AI lesson: it won’t tell you it can’t find what you are looking for, but will substitute its next best choice. I don’t have the time I used to to dig into things (and new NEPA is not top-of-mind), so maybe add a few more grains of salt.
Here is the July 3 USDA NEPA rule § 1b.9(w)
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/07/03/2025-12326/national-environmental-policy-act
(w) Emergencies—Urgent but not immediate actions.
“If emergency circumstances exist that make it necessary to take urgently needed actions before the NEPA process can be completed, the responsible official shall proceed as follows:
(1) When urgent actions are not likely to have a reasonably foreseeable significant environmental impacts, but an emergency exists that makes it necessary to take urgently needed actions before preparing documentation associated with a categorical exclusion, environmental assessment, or finding of no significant impact, USDA subcomponents may authorize alternative arrangements for environmental compliance so long as the alternative arrangements are limited to actions necessary to address the emergency circumstance.
Alternative arrangements will, to the extent practicable, attempt to achieve the substantive requirements of this part for the level of NEPA being completed. USDA subcomponents should proceed as follows:
(iv) U.S. Forest Service. The responsible official shall consult with the national headquarters office about alternative arrangements. Consultation with national headquarters shall be coordinated through the applicable regional (or equivalent) office. The Chief or Associate Chief of the Forest Service may grant emergency alternative arrangements under NEPA for categorical exclusions, environmental assessments, and associated findings.”
It cites 7 CFR for a definition of emergency:
“Emergency means a situation demanding immediate or urgent action, where delaying action to follow standard procedures would be contrary to the public interest, as determined by a responsible official.”
There are really no criteria to apply to the determination of “public interest.” So as loose as this is getting for the agency to decide, I agree it would be good to ask whether Congress authorized this in NEPA (especially given the current trend to not let agencies address “significant questions” without explicit statutory guidance). (But this language is also about alternative arrangements for NEPA compliance to follow the decision, right, which doesn’t seem to be what the FS is talking about – just shortening the process.)