The U.S. Department of Agriculture has issued a final rule amending the Forest Service’s “Project-Level Predecisional Administrative Review Process” at 36 CFR part 218 (FR Doc. 2026-20890; RIN 0596-AD69). It was filed for public inspection on 9 October 2026, is scheduled for Federal Register publication on 13 October, and takes effect 30 days after publication: 12 November 2026 if publication goes ahead as scheduled. It is signed by Michael K. Boren, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment.
Part 218 sets out how members of the public, groups, states, local governments and Tribes can file an “objection” to a proposed project that implements a forest plan, such as a timber sale, thinning, grazing or road project, before the final decision is signed. The proposed rule was published on 6 February 2026 (91 FR 5387) and drew about 2,270 comments, about half of them unique, including from 16 state governments, seven local governments and eight Tribal governments.
The objection is the public’s last formal word before a forest project is approved, and the door to court. The rule shortens how long that door stays open.
What changes
| Step | Rule in force until the change | Final rule |
|---|---|---|
| Public comment period | 30 days (EA); 45 days (draft EIS) | 15 days (EA); 30 days (EIS), no extension |
| Time to file an objection | 45 days for most projects; 30 days for Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) fuel-reduction projects | 10 days after the draft FONSI (EA) or 20 days after the draft Record of Decision (EIS), no extension |
| Who reviews objections | A reviewing officer: for most projects, the line officer at the next administrative level above the official who made the decision | The responsible official who made the decision. A higher-level official must concur when a District Ranger or Forest/Grassland Supervisor responds |
| Time to answer objections | 45 days, extendable by 30 (most projects); 30 days (HFRA) | 15 days (EA); 20 days (EIS), extendable to 35 for complex or high-volume EIS cases |
| Length | No page limit in the rule | Objections up to 15 pages (EA) or 30 pages (EIS); a single written response of no more than 5 pages |
| Public notice | Legal notice in the newspaper of record (Federal Register when the Chief decides) | Posting on a USDA website plus direct notice through the agency’s email or subscription tools; newspapers optional |
Sources: the current 36 CFR 218.25, 218.26 and 218.32 (eCFR, as of 1 October 2026) and the final rule’s regulatory text, proposed §§218.3, 218.7, 218.9 and 218.12.
What the Department gave ground on
The February proposal would have cut comment periods to 10 days (EA) and 20 days (EIS). After comments, the final rule sets 15 and 30 days and extends any deadline that falls on a weekend or federal holiday to the next working day. It also adds the 15-day extension for complex EIS reviews, requires higher-level concurrence on local objection responses, and requires direct notification to interested parties. It says enough environmental information must be available when a comment period opens for the public to evaluate the project.
Other changes worth knowing
- Secretary-level approvals: the old rule exempted projects proposed by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Under Secretary; the new text exempts projects “finalized, authorized, or approved” by either.
- Categorical exclusions: the rule writes into the regulation the 2014 statutory exemption of categorically excluded projects from objection.
- Attachments: supporting material must be submitted as PDFs; the Forest Service will not accept website links.
- Going to court: as before, a lawsuit over a covered decision is “premature and inappropriate” unless the plaintiff has exhausted the objection process (7 U.S.C. 6912(e); 16 U.S.C. 6515(c)).
- Transition: projects whose comment notice was published before 6 February 2026, or between then and the effective date without warning that the new rule might apply, stay under the old rule.
The argument
Contested: Most commenters said the shorter windows, web-only notice, page limits and the loss of an independent reviewer would reduce meaningful participation and transparency. They said having the deciding official review objections to their own decision is a structural conflict of interest, and warned of more litigation. Tribes raised trust-responsibility and consultation concerns. Supporters said long reviews delay forest-health and wildfire work and raise costs for local economies. The Department says the statutes set no minimum periods, that no independent reviewing officer is legally required, and that the changes align part 218 with USDA’s revised NEPA procedures after the Council on Environmental Quality rescinded its NEPA regulations in April 2025.
What this is not
- Not an end to objections. The process remains; it is shorter and handled differently.
- Not a change to forest plans. Objections to land-management plan revisions run under separate rules (36 CFR 219), which this rule does not amend.
- Not yet in effect. It applies 30 days after publication, subject to the transition rules above.
Bottom line
Verified as of 12 October 2026 from the public-inspection copy of FR Doc. 2026-20890 and the current eCFR text of 36 CFR part 218: the Forest Service is cutting public comment and objection windows on most national-forest projects, putting objection review in the hands of the deciding official, and moving notices online. Watch for the published Federal Register citation on 13 October, the effective date about 12 November, and any legal challenge.
