Again, this would be a good project for a group to work on as part of the People’s Database. For my purposes, recent changes made it more difficult to access information.
This post is a bit of a review of recent changes to how the public can view Forest Service projects. I understand completely that many folks left, and that while perhaps our NGO friends are doing more work, maybe the people keeping up the info to the public are probably overwhelmed. I’d be interested in hearing what this looks like from a District or Forest perspective. Because from here, it looks like “not posting stuff” just makes more work for the public and FS employees.
Let’s go back to the SOPAs (Schedule of Proposed Action). For those who follow FS projects, the SOPA had all you need to know, plus a link to the project website.
Apparently SOPAs aren’t published anymore. I thought they were kind of handy See above for an example. Note all the info, purpose, status description, link, location, the expected decision time frame, and whom to contact about the project. They are also sorted by whether they apply nationwide, more than one forest, forest wide and then by District. There were links to the project site, although they all stopped working at some point. They also had contact names, numbers and emails. I think this was around the time the web system was changed. I wrote the FS web people several times and they didn’t seem to understand what I meant (or didn’t tell me that they were getting rid of SOPAs).
Now, I totally understand that some web or political folks might have looked at the SOPAs and said to themselves..”that seems repetitive.” In fact, NEPA people on the Forest who produce SOPAs and the project website might have found them repetitive. Here’s the current standard website header.
The Forest Service follows NEPA regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Under this rule, Forest Service officials determine which proposed projects are shared for public input.
The agency no longer issues a schedule of proposed actions (SOPA) report. Below is the current list of proposed projects available for review—your opportunity to learn more, share feedback, and stay engaged in decisions that shape the future of our public lands.
OK, so I go to the projects in development and in progress, thinking those could answer my questions about “are folks scoping nowadays?”. Interesting under the “verbenone” project, it says scoping started in December 2025 but there are no documents. I suppose you could write in and get the scoping document, or maybe the FS can scope without a document? All very confusing. The Sequoia and Sierra Prescribed Fire EA, which we’ve discussed before, had its objection notice published 5/30/25, but is listed as “under development.” So is “in progress” maybe not the decision is in progress but rather the action? They do have the same contact information for a human being as did the SOPA.
Clicking on the project name takes you to this kind of screen
Which brings me to another long-standing pet peeve, which predates this Admin. It’s about objections. People on some projects post them, and the review response, with the project documents. There is also a site, which appears to be active, where the objection responses are supposed to be posted (???), but not all are, and I have had to ask Forests for both the objection letters and the objection response.
Even stranger, when I query it from two browsers I seem to get different answers for the same year.
************
Now I am not a fan of “not scoping” for CEs. In fact, I think what is in a scoping letter (degree of detail) should be more or less standardized and specific. Based on a random sample of random projects on random forests in random regions, it seems that some folks are still doing scoping and posting the letter, and others not. Some folks may be doing it but not documenting it.
In fact, if all that information were readily accessible, we could put a set of decision memos from neighboring forests for similar projects and ask AI to compare and contrast and possibly get better products and save time (and do better in court?).
Really, in this day and age, couldn’t folks just upload the docs to some kind of application or program? Then we wouldn’t have to write the forests, who have enough to do, and their public affairs folks, who I’m sure have better things to do. So far they have all been very quick and helpful, but a person has to wonder how many times they are responding to the same questions, which could go into a document, which could be (and used to be) posted…
Again, I think there are two issues 1) FS current interpretation of new NEPA regs means “don’t scope” or “don’t document.” and 2) Putting what docs you have in a place where the public and other forests can easily find them.
Finally, each forest’s project page I found has this.. to sign up for emails about projects. I had read somewhere that a Forest had stopped sending emails? Maybe we need more info on this.
I attended a collaborative meeting because their agenda included two projects I had never seen or heard before. When I was able to speak at the end of the meeting, I expressed my frustration with the Bitterroot National Forest for working on projects without any information given to the public. I am signed up for all e-mails and notices from the Forest via the project page.
The District Ranger stated that their new protocol was to NOT publish any information about CEs before decision. Ironically, once a project has a decision it immediately goes to the project archive. So, if you never heard of a project, how could you find it in the archive if you do not know what it is called?
I discovered that they move the projects with decisions to the archives when I saw a project had disappeared a year ago. That was when they still scoped here. I commented on the project and had asked to be informed about the project. I found it in the archive with a decision memo. I only found it in the archive because I knew what it was called. The archive houses hundreds of projects from over the past 20 years. If you never heard of a project and then it was moved to the archives, you would never find it.
With technology as it is, all work, analysis, maps, shape files, wildlife reports, etc, should just automatically get uploaded to a project page under “project file”. The public should be notified with a press release or e-mail that the project is in the works. That would be transparent. No reason why one person has to do all the uploading. Each specialist could upload their info to the project file which would be available to the public. They have been doing that for years, it just has not been made available to the public until they complain or FOIA.
It is not that hard.
Sure it wouldn’t be hard to do a better job of informing and including the public, but why does anyone think this administration wants to do a better job of that? Recall the lawsuit over the lack of public participation in the new NEPA regulations: https://forestpolicypub.com/2026/02/09/federal-lands-litigation-update-through-february-7-2026/
It’s all about “deregulating” and “streamlining,” and the easiest way to do that is cutting out the public.
The public comment period closes on the proposed new administrative objection process on March 9, about which the Forest Service says: “Other proposed changes to 36 CFR 218 include modernizing the Agency’s information exchange methods to rely more consistently on technology generally available to the public and addressing information security.” But I don’t think that means they intend to promote public participation.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/about-agency/newsroom/releases/forest-service-proposes-streamlined-objection-process-accelerate
Here are some of the current proposed 36 CFR 218 rule changes:
– Reduce EA Public Comment Period from 30 days to 10 days.
– Reduce EIS Public Comment Period from 45 days to 20 days.
– Reduce EA Objection Window from 45 days to 10 days.
– Reduce EIS Objection Window from 45 days to 20 days.
– Limit EA Objections to 15 pages.
– Limit EIS Objections to 30 pages.
– Remove higher-level Reviewing Officer overseeing Responsible Official’s work & the objection process. Responsible Official proposes the action, signs the decision and determines the objections outcome.
– Condense Comment & Objection Process to where draft EAs/EISs and draft decisions can be released together, creating simultaneous comment & objection periods.
Considering most people have full-time jobs already, it will be difficult for citizens, interested groups, city councils and tribes to read the environmental review, conduct research and compose comments, and potentially have do read the draft decision, conduct research and compose an objection over the same short time period.
It is also disingenuous to release a proposed action and a draft decision simultaneously. How much does public input count when you present your proposed action and decision before you’ve sought input?
I think this proposed change may actually lead to more – rather than less – litigation. If there is minimal time and interest on the agency’s part for engaging the public, people will put in their token comments and objections and then count on the courts for actually being heard.