Here at FSEEE, we are deeply concerned by the Department of Agriculture’s final revisions to 36 CFR 218 — published October 13, 2026 — which sharply curtail the public’s voice in managing its own lands. Comment periods shrink to 15 days for environmental assessments and 30 days for environmental impact statements (EISs). Objection periods fall from 45 days to just 10 and 20, respectively. The agency’s justification is a single sentence claiming objectors “should not need more time” than commenters.
The change is starkest for EISs. Consider a timber sale:
Before: The public had 45 days to comment on a draft EIS. The final EIS and draft record of decision (ROD) then opened a 45-day objection period. That was followed by a possible resolution meeting and review by an officer one level above the decision-maker.
Now: The public gets 30 days to comment on preliminary information, possibly at the notice-of-intent stage — before the full analysis exists. Months later, the full EIS appears on the same day as the draft ROD. It can run up to 300 pages, plus appendices, maps, and specialist reports. Citizens then have 20 days to digest it, research it, and file an objection capped at 30 pages. There is no resolution meeting and no independent review. The official who wrote the draft decision judges the objections and answers in five pages, with at most a sign-off from above.
That means commenters may have to weigh in before resource reports are written, before impacts are fully analyzed, before alternatives are compared in detail, and before mitigation measures are crafted. Those components may surface for the first time during the 20-day objection window, when the public first sees the complete analysis — already bundled with a draft decision that appears to already be made. That is the essence of predetermination.
The rule also bars website links to supporting science, drops the requirement for newspaper notices, and lets Department of Agriculture leadership bypass objections entirely.
These changes treat public input on public lands as an obstacle rather than a right. FSEEE and our conservation allies are exploring ways to challenge this disenfranchisement, and we will keep fighting for robust public engagement and transparent, accountable governance of our national forests.
