Stop the unlawful FONSI for utility projects across 13 million Southern Region acres
Utilities and Communications Special Uses on NFS Lands
U.S. Forest Service· National Forests in AlabamaU.S. Forest Service project page ↗
Forest ServiceWe track this on the agency’s own system of record, where most on-the-ground decisions live.
The groups on this fight
One group predicted likely to care in Alabama
Predicted likely to care is a guess from footprint in Alabama, by the same match the STAND matchmaker runs, with no link to this decision. Give straight to them; nothing routes through us.
- Southern Environmental Law Center
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works Alabama: 1 live federal case across all their work.
Every group above is on STAND for Public Lands, with its court record, its filings and who backs it.
The agency is asking the public to accept a FONSI covering 1,500-plus active authorizations on 9,580 miles of national forest land while admitting it has not completed ESA or NHPA compliance.
What’s at risk
Hundreds of federally listed species across 14 national forests have no completed Section 7 ESA consultation protecting them under this framework. Cultural properties and tribal sacred sites across 38,499 acres of existing utility corridors have no completed Section 106 review.
If this goes through
This programmatic decision would allow individual utility projects, including new ROW construction outside previously disturbed areas, to proceed across the entire Southern Region without further NEPA review for an indefinite future period. The 130 active applications and 57 expiring authorizations would be processed under a framework whose own FONSI misidentifies the action it is approving.
Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.
By the numbers, from the agency’s own document
- Active utility and communications authorizations in Region 8
- over 1,500 active authorizations
- Miles of NFS land covered by existing authorizations
- approximately 9,580 miles
- Acres covered by existing utility authorizations
- 38,499 acres
- Active pending applications as of June 2025
- 130 active applications
- Projects in trend dataset with adverse or negative effects
- 44 projects adverse or negative
- Total NFS acres managed by Southern Region
- over 13 million acres
Purpose and Need
“over 1,500 active authorizations for linear utilities and communications uses on approximately 9,580 miles of NFS land covering 38,499 acres”
Purpose and Need
“over 1,500 active authorizations for linear utilities and communications uses on approximately 9,580 miles of NFS land covering 38,499 acres”
Purpose and Need
“approximately 9,580 miles of NFS land covering 38,499 acres (note that some of these uses overlap so actual land use is lower)”
Purpose and Need
“there were 130 active applications for these uses as well as 57 authorizations that would expire by the end of the year”
Appendix A: Routine Special Use Activities Trend Report
“Adverse / Negative 44, Minor / Negligible 7, Moderate 4, Beneficial / Improvement 0”
Potentially Affected Environment
“manages over 13 million acres within its 14 National Forests and two special management areas”
Each figure is checked word for word against the decision document ↗; open a label to read the sentence it comes from.
The agency’s own analysis
What the notice says, and what it leaves out
The strongest findings read from the agency’s own document, each quoted word for word. Each one is a point a letter can put on the record.
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
The agency says
“evaluate the environmental effects of establishing a regional framework for implementing emergency response actions and issuing closure orders on National Forest System lands”
The FONSI describes the selected action as a framework for 'emergency response actions and issuance of closure orders,' but the EA itself proposes a framework for routine utility and communications special uses including new construction, ROW expansion, and long-term vegetation management.
Proposed Action
The agency says
“construction of new utility lines, expansion or realignment of existing ROWs, and associated long-term vegetation management necessary to establish and maintain safe and functional utility corridors”
The EA states the proposed action includes 'construction of new utility lines, expansion or realignment of existing ROWs, and associated long-term vegetation management' outside previously disturbed areas, yet the FONSI's bounded-scope rationale claims effects are constrained because activities are 'typically confined to existing disturbed areas' and the EA 'excludes new permanent infrastructure.' These two statements directly contradict each other.
Purpose and Need
The agency says
“over 1,500 active authorizations for linear utilities and communications uses on approximately 9,580 miles of NFS land covering 38,499 acres”
The EA covers over 1,500 active authorizations on approximately 9,580 miles of NFS land covering 38,499 acres, plus 130 active applications and 57 expiring authorizations, yet the cumulative effects analysis contains no numerical estimate of total acreage disturbed annually, no projection of new ROW miles, and no aggregate assessment of combined impacts across forests.
Appendix A: Routine Special Use Activities Trend Report
The agency says
“Other topics (wildlife, cultural resources, air, noise, recreation) should be covered at a regional scale, with site-specific reliance where warranted.”
The EA's Appendix A explicitly recommends that 'other topics (wildlife, cultural resources, air, noise, recreation) should be covered at a regional scale, with site-specific reliance where warranted,' yet the body of the EA's resource analyses for wildlife and cultural resources contain no quantitative regional-scale data, deferring all substantive determinations to project level.
EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
The agency says
“honoring the government-to-government relationship between the federal government and federally recognized tribal governments”
The EA states that tribal consultation under EO 13175 will occur 'before project actions are taken that may significantly affect tribal lands, resources, or interests,' and that EO 13007 compliance will be initiated 'as early in the process as reasonably possible,' but the document contains no record of any tribal consultation having taken place before this programmatic decision.
8 holes in the agency’s own analysis
Make these points, in your own words
- I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below.
- The FONSI describes the selected action as a framework for 'emergency response actions and issuance of closure orders,' but the EA itself proposes a framework for routine utility and communications special uses including new construction, ROW expansion, and long-term vegetation management. This internal contradiction means the FONSI does not actually evaluate the action the EA analyzes. The agency must correct the FONSI to accurately describe the selected action or withdraw and reissue both documents together so the public can comment on a consistent record.
- Appendix A's trend data, which is the empirical foundation for the FONSI, shows that Threatened and Endangered species received only 2 mentions and Fish/Aquatic Resources only 1 mention across 503 reviewed projects, yet Appendix D lists hundreds of listed species across all 14 forests. The near-total absence of ESA and aquatic species analysis in the underlying project record means the conclusion that effects are predictably minimal is not supported by the data the agency itself cites. The agency should commission and incorporate a species-specific analysis drawing on projects that actually documented listed-species interactions before issuing a FONSI.
- The EA states the proposed action includes 'construction of new utility lines, expansion or realignment of existing ROWs, and associated long-term vegetation management' outside previously disturbed areas, yet the FONSI's bounded-scope rationale claims effects are constrained because activities are 'typically confined to existing disturbed areas' and the EA 'excludes new permanent infrastructure.' These two statements directly contradict each other. The agency must reconcile this conflict and analyze the full range of new-disturbance activities in a supplemental analysis or EIS before authorizing any project under this framework.
- The EA covers over 1,500 active authorizations on approximately 9,580 miles of NFS land covering 38,499 acres, plus 130 active applications and 57 expiring authorizations, yet the cumulative effects analysis contains no numerical estimate of total acreage disturbed annually, no projection of new ROW miles, and no aggregate assessment of combined impacts across forests. NEPA requires analysis of cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. The agency must prepare a quantitative cumulative effects analysis before issuing a FONSI for a region-wide framework of this scale.
Show every point from the document
- The Appendix A trend report, which the agency uses as the primary empirical basis for the programmatic framework, found zero projects with beneficial or improvement effects and recorded 44 projects with adverse or negative effects, yet the body of the EA repeatedly concludes that effects are consistently minimal or non-significant. The agency never explains why 44 adverse-effect projects do not trigger additional analysis or preclude a FONSI. The agency must explain in the decision record how 44 documented adverse or negative outcomes are consistent with a finding of no significant impact, or prepare an EIS.
- The EA's Appendix A explicitly recommends that 'other topics (wildlife, cultural resources, air, noise, recreation) should be covered at a regional scale, with site-specific reliance where warranted,' yet the body of the EA's resource analyses for wildlife and cultural resources contain no quantitative regional-scale data, deferring all substantive determinations to project level. The agency's own scoping guidance was not followed in preparing the EA. The agency must supplement the EA with the regional-scale wildlife and cultural resource analysis its own appendix called for, or prepare an EIS.
- The EA states that tribal consultation under EO 13175 will occur 'before project actions are taken that may significantly affect tribal lands, resources, or interests,' and that EO 13007 compliance will be initiated 'as early in the process as reasonably possible,' but the document contains no record of any tribal consultation having taken place before this programmatic decision. A programmatic framework that pre-authorizes hundreds of future projects across 13 million acres without prior tribal input does not satisfy either executive order. The agency must provide documentation of government-to-government consultation with all affected Tribes conducted prior to the programmatic decision, or suspend the decision until that consultation is complete.
- The EA's Certifying Statement acknowledges that the responsible official exercised discretion 'including the decision to briefly address or omit issues deemed comparatively less substantive,' yet the document contains no analysis of air quality, noise, or socioeconomic effects beyond single-line mentions in the Appendix A resource table. Appendix A recorded 9 air quality mentions, 3 noise mentions, and 1 socioeconomics mention across 503 projects. For a framework covering 13 million acres and activities that include directional boring, heavy equipment staging, and herbicide application, omitting these resource analyses without reasoned justification is arbitrary. The agency must provide a reasoned explanation for omitting these resources or analyze them before issuing a FONSI.
- Say something only you can say. The law requires the agency to consider and respond to substantive comments, and specifics are what make a comment substantive.
In the agency’s own words
This programmatic environmental assessment analyzes effects of routine activities related to utilities and communications special uses on national forests in the Southern Region and establishes a consistent and efficient framework for authorizing these activities.
Did the agency answer?
8 issues are on this record. The agency has not published its decision document yet, so each one stays pending until the agency answers.
Issues on the record, awaiting the decision
- PendingThe FONSI describes the selected action as a framework for 'emergency response actions and issuance of closure orders,' but the EA itself proposes a framework for routine utility and communications sp
The FONSI describes the selected action as a framework for 'emergency response actions and issuance of closure orders,' but the EA itself proposes a framework for routine utility and communications special uses including new construction, ROW expansion, and long-term vegetation management. This internal contradiction means the FONSI does not actually evaluate the action the EA analyzes. The agency must correct the FONSI to accurately describe the selected action or withdraw and reissue both documents together so the public can comment on a consistent record.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingAppendix A's trend data, which is the empirical foundation for the FONSI, shows that Threatened and Endangered species received only 2 mentions and Fish/Aquatic Resources only 1 mention across 503 rev
Appendix A's trend data, which is the empirical foundation for the FONSI, shows that Threatened and Endangered species received only 2 mentions and Fish/Aquatic Resources only 1 mention across 503 reviewed projects, yet Appendix D lists hundreds of listed species across all 14 forests. The near-total absence of ESA and aquatic species analysis in the underlying project record means the conclusion that effects are predictably minimal is not supported by the data the agency itself cites. The agency should commission and incorporate a species-specific analysis drawing on projects that actually documented listed-species interactions before issuing a FONSI.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA states the proposed action includes 'construction of new utility lines, expansion or realignment of existing ROWs, and associated long-term vegetation management' outside previously disturbed a
The EA states the proposed action includes 'construction of new utility lines, expansion or realignment of existing ROWs, and associated long-term vegetation management' outside previously disturbed areas, yet the FONSI's bounded-scope rationale claims effects are constrained because activities are 'typically confined to existing disturbed areas' and the EA 'excludes new permanent infrastructure.' These two statements directly contradict each other. The agency must reconcile this conflict and analyze the full range of new-disturbance activities in a supplemental analysis or EIS before authorizing any project under this framework.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA covers over 1,500 active authorizations on approximately 9,580 miles of NFS land covering 38,499 acres, plus 130 active applications and 57 expiring authorizations, yet the cumulative effects a
The EA covers over 1,500 active authorizations on approximately 9,580 miles of NFS land covering 38,499 acres, plus 130 active applications and 57 expiring authorizations, yet the cumulative effects analysis contains no numerical estimate of total acreage disturbed annually, no projection of new ROW miles, and no aggregate assessment of combined impacts across forests. NEPA requires analysis of cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. The agency must prepare a quantitative cumulative effects analysis before issuing a FONSI for a region-wide framework of this scale.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe Appendix A trend report, which the agency uses as the primary empirical basis for the programmatic framework, found zero projects with beneficial or improvement effects and recorded 44 projects wi
The Appendix A trend report, which the agency uses as the primary empirical basis for the programmatic framework, found zero projects with beneficial or improvement effects and recorded 44 projects with adverse or negative effects, yet the body of the EA repeatedly concludes that effects are consistently minimal or non-significant. The agency never explains why 44 adverse-effect projects do not trigger additional analysis or preclude a FONSI. The agency must explain in the decision record how 44 documented adverse or negative outcomes are consistent with a finding of no significant impact, or prepare an EIS.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA's Appendix A explicitly recommends that 'other topics (wildlife, cultural resources, air, noise, recreation) should be covered at a regional scale, with site-specific reliance where warranted,'
The EA's Appendix A explicitly recommends that 'other topics (wildlife, cultural resources, air, noise, recreation) should be covered at a regional scale, with site-specific reliance where warranted,' yet the body of the EA's resource analyses for wildlife and cultural resources contain no quantitative regional-scale data, deferring all substantive determinations to project level. The agency's own scoping guidance was not followed in preparing the EA. The agency must supplement the EA with the regional-scale wildlife and cultural resource analysis its own appendix called for, or prepare an EIS.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA states that tribal consultation under EO 13175 will occur 'before project actions are taken that may significantly affect tribal lands, resources, or interests,' and that EO 13007 compliance wi
The EA states that tribal consultation under EO 13175 will occur 'before project actions are taken that may significantly affect tribal lands, resources, or interests,' and that EO 13007 compliance will be initiated 'as early in the process as reasonably possible,' but the document contains no record of any tribal consultation having taken place before this programmatic decision. A programmatic framework that pre-authorizes hundreds of future projects across 13 million acres without prior tribal input does not satisfy either executive order. The agency must provide documentation of government-to-government consultation with all affected Tribes conducted prior to the programmatic decision, or suspend the decision until that consultation is complete.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA's Certifying Statement acknowledges that the responsible official exercised discretion 'including the decision to briefly address or omit issues deemed comparatively less substantive,' yet the
The EA's Certifying Statement acknowledges that the responsible official exercised discretion 'including the decision to briefly address or omit issues deemed comparatively less substantive,' yet the document contains no analysis of air quality, noise, or socioeconomic effects beyond single-line mentions in the Appendix A resource table. Appendix A recorded 9 air quality mentions, 3 noise mentions, and 1 socioeconomics mention across 503 projects. For a framework covering 13 million acres and activities that include directional boring, heavy equipment staging, and herbicide application, omitting these resource analyses without reasoned justification is arbitrary. The agency must provide a reasoned explanation for omitting these resources or analyze them before issuing a FONSI.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
The reporting behind this
From More Than Just ParksAfter more than a decade chasing peak color across America, we built the foliage map we always wanted.
More logging. Fewer protections for big trees, roadless country and wildlife. Another sweeping change to America’s public lands is moving fast.
Another foreign mining company wants a piece of America’s public lands. This one comes with millions of gallons of groundwater pumping and radioactive radon.
More actions that need you
Go deeper, free
See how your members of Congress vote on public lands
Every representative, graded on the votes that decide the fate of parks, forests, and refuges.
Open ↗The mapSee the places under active threat
A live map of the parks, monuments, and wild country in the crosshairs right now.
Open ↗A wrong fact, a dead link, a form that wouldn’t take your letter: one tap and it comes to the people who build PLAN, with this fight attached.
Know an open comment period we are missing, or spotted a wrong deadline? .