Viewpoint: The 2025 to 2026 NEPA reforms and the USFS

Michael Burnside

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was signed into law by President Nixon on January 1, 1970. Its stated policy was “...to declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality.”

It was viewed by some as the "Magna Carta" of environmental law and by others as a source of "analysis paralysis." Some of its original authors were later surprised by unintended consequences as the process often eclipsed policy through lawyer-driven implementation and judicial oversight, rather than functioning primarily as a planning tool for better decisions.

My personal experience with the NEPA process started with the Forest Service in 1979 when the process for evaluating a proposed oil well in a developed field might only involve using a checklist of environmental concerns to be evaluated and mitigated. After numerous lawsuits, NEPA documents (particularly for minerals projects) quickly exploded in length.

By 2000, a project to develop a mine could require a multiple volume EIS hundreds to thousands of pages in length, filing cabinets full of baseline documents and supporting appendices, extensive public involvement with multiple draft documents issued for public review, numerous “cooperating agencies” involved in the process, and a timeline of decades. The same was too often true for other resource projects involving surface disturbance, such as timber harvest or fire management.

This situation led the U.S. Forest Service’s pre-2023 NEPA framework to be defined by a complex layering of agency-specific rules (36 CFR Part 220) and broad Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) mandates over all federal agencies through its regulations at 40 CFR 1500. According to CEQ’s Federal Register Notice, (43 FR 55978 (Nov. 29, 1978)) its regulations were based on the authority of President Carter’s 1977 Executive Order No. 11991.

This complex regulatory framework often resulted in project timelines that outlasted the very ecological conditions they sought to address, or, if it involved a private proposal, it made that proposal less economical, sometimes to the point of killing it. Today, we are operating in a different regulatory environment. Following the 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) and the subsequent 2025 to 2026 USDA rulemaking, the process has moved from a prescriptive, centralized model to one defined by agency discretion and a more concentrated analysis.

Initial major shifts under the FRA were to establish statutory page and time limits for NEPA documents, although agencies can exceed them with senior official approval in some cases (and appendices often hold substantial technical detail):

- 75 pages for environmental assessments (EAs),

- 150 pages for environmental impact statements (EISs),

- 300 pages for proposals of “extraordinary complexity” (EISs);

- 1 year for EAs,

- 2 years for EISs.

The FRA, however, did not address CEQ’s authority to issue regulations or control other agencies’ NEPA processes. The decentralization from CEQ was precipitated by a DC Circuit Court case, Marin Audubon Society v. Federal Aviation Administration, No. 23-1067 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 12, 2024). That court concluded that CEQ did not have the statutory authority based on a presidential executive order (President Carter’s EO 11991) to issue regulations binding on other federal agencies to implement NEPA. President Trump followed this 2024 decision with an Executive Order on January 20, 2025 (EO 14154), that revoked President Carter’s EO 11991.

This action removed the assumed authority for CEQ to issue binding, government-wide NEPA regulations and led to the full rescission of those regulations at 40 CFR1500, effective April 11, 2025. With subsequent rule changes, individual departments were given substantially greater discretion in designing their own NEPA procedures.

Regulatory Change and Consolidation

The most visible change at USDA is the slimming down of its NEPA regulations. In 2025, USDA finalized a department-wide NEPA rule consolidating multiple agency-specific procedures (which included the Forest Service’s) into a single framework under 7 CFR Part 1b.

The reforms substantially replaced the standalone Forest Service NEPA regulatory framework with a unified USDA-wide structure. The reforms have also reduced the volume and complexity of the regulatory text. This represents a shift toward a "statute-first" approach. Rather than following a lengthy manual on how to analyze, the agency now relies on the core NEPA statute and has streamlined its internal procedures.

Reasonably Close Causal Relationship

A major boost to this transition was the 2025 Supreme Court decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County ( 605 U.S. 168 (2025)). This ruling established a new central pillar of current Forest Service reviews, the "causal filter.”

Pre-2023, teams were often pressured to analyze distant, indirect, or global impacts, such as how a single timber sale might influence international wood markets or long-term global climate trends. The Court emphasized that a NEPA analysis should focus on effects bearing a reasonably close causal relationship to the proposed federal action, rather than speculative or geographically separate downstream consequences. By excluding speculative and remote impacts, environmental documents have become more focused, readable, and significantly shorter.

From EAs to FANECs and Montana Examples

The major regulatory changes at USDA now favor speed but retain oversight. Many routine forest health projects that previously required a full Environmental Assessment (EA) now qualify for categorical exclusions (CEs). There is now a new process termed, “Finding of Applicability and No Extraordinary Circumstance” (FANEC, 7 CFR § 1b.3(g)).

This FANEC process is intended to restructure and standardize extraordinary circumstances review within categorical exclusion determinations, and to create a smoother internal screening process. In addition, to help address agency staffing problems, the statutory reforms also expanded and normalized the use of applicant- and contractor-assisted document preparation for both EAs and EISs, under agency supervision. This is a move that could shave years off complex mining and infrastructure proposals. It should be noted that other executive branch departments have developed similar NEPA policies and guidelines.

In addition, on April 9, 2026, the CEQ issued advisory guidance to heads of federal departments and agencies in a Memorandum Establishing, Revising, Adopting, and Applying Categorical Exclusions Under the National Environmental Policy Act.

This memorandum provides advice to agencies on establishing, revising and applying CE’s as well as adopting CE’s established by other agencies.

In western Montana, these changes are already affecting how projects move through review. Under the old system, a 15,000-acre thinning and prescribed fire project near Missoula typically required two to four years of study, multiple draft reviews, and extensive objection periods. Now by using expanded CE exclusions, consolidated review approaches, and the streamlined public notice requirements, supporters of the reforms are convinced that some wildfire mitigation projects could move from proposal to implementation in less than a year.

For mining projects, the effects so far are uncertain, but for an example such as the Sheep Creek rare earth mineral exploration proposal in southwestern Montana, the timeline estimate has shifted from nearly a decade to analyze, to taking several years or even less for the review, depending on the details and potential effects of the final proposal. Timelines will be highly dependent upon whether it qualifies for a CE, an EA or an EIS. While the Endangered Species Act, state permitting, Clean Water Act, and other requirements still apply and require rigorous analysis and data, the NEPA-related procedural bottlenecks associated with federal environmental review have been reduced significantly.

There remain, however, significant public concerns and opposition to any minerals project in the headwaters of the Bitterroot River and this will likely continue to affect timelines. Even with reforms, staffing and budget shortages, extraordinary circumstances reviews, other permitting requirements, and inevitable litigation/objections can still cause delays.

Transparency, the Public Role, and Litigation

Some members of the public worry these changes sacrifice transparency. The new framework moves public involvement upfront to the Notice of Intent stage, with the goal of surfacing major issues early. Draft EIS circulation is no longer mandatory. As 7 CFR § 1b.7(n)(1) states, responsible officials may choose to publish a draft “that, in their judgment, may assist in fulfilling their responsibilities under NEPA...” Thus, the process places a higher emphasis on early and engaged participation from stakeholders and local communities, although the responsible official has some latitude to adjust the process.

Simplifying and smoothing the process is not a shield against litigation, but the battlefield has shifted. While plaintiffs might find less success challenging the scope of an analysis (such as climate impacts), they are likely to increasingly focus on procedural adherence. The Ninth Circuit remains a very active federal appellate court reviewing Forest Service decisions and the NEPA analyses upon which they are based.

If, for example, the agency applies a CE incorrectlyin sensitive habitat, like a grizzly bear recovery zone, without a solid administrative record, the project will remain vulnerable to injunctions. It should be noted that as of May 2026, there are already several lawsuits challenging USDA’s new NEPA regulations.

Conclusion

The 2025–2026 reforms represent a streamlining of environmental review. However, the reforms do not reduce the requirements of ESA consultation, Clean Water Act permitting, NFMA consistency, APA (arbitrary and capricious) compliance, and mining law validity disputes. What has changed regarding NEPA regulation is:

- the document page and time limits from the FRA,

- the reduced CEQ centralization,

- a narrowing of causal scope to effects with a reasonably close causal relationship

- additional and expanded categorical exclusions,

- earlier public involvement and stronger agency discretion,

- greater judicial support for narrower causal analysis following the Supreme Court’s Seven County decision.

Management of public lands continues to be highly contentious and will likely continue, especially with deep disputes over many environmental issues such as timber harvest, vegetation management for fire control, climate change, and the need for critical minerals. By simplifying the process, reducing redundancy and focusing on direct impacts, the Forest Service hopes it will be better equipped to respond to the urgencies of wildfire, forest health, and critical mineral projects.

Whether these reforms succeed will likely depend heavily on how well the agency maintains scientific expertise, administrative rigor, and credibility with the public while operating under tighter timelines and leaner budgets.

Michael Burnside is a retired geologist with many years working in mining and the environment issues at all levels of the USFS as well as internationally. He lives in Montana and continues to be actively involved in federal land management and regulatory issues.