The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service has published a proposed rule in the Federal Register to amend 36 CFR Part 218, which governs the project-level predecisional administrative review process. This process allows the public to file objections to proposed projects and activities on national forests before final decisions are made. Announced on February 6, 2026, the proposal seeks to streamline and consolidate procedures, enhance efficiency, and ensure compliance with evolving statutory requirements and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. The changes respond to legislative directives from acts like the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 and subsequent appropriations laws, addressing inefficiencies identified over the past decade. Public comments are invited until March 9, 2026, potentially influencing forest management decisions across the National Forest System.
Background and Legislative Context
The Forest Service's administrative review process has evolved since its inception in 1907, with significant reforms in the 1990s and early 2000s. The Appeals Reform Act of 1992 established a notice and comment framework, which was modified by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003. HFRA introduced a predecisional objection process for hazardous fuel reduction projects, replacing post-decision appeals as outlined in 16 U.S.C. 6515. This shift aimed to expedite reviews while maintaining public input.
Subsequent laws expanded this framework. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012, signed by President Obama, applied the HFRA objection process to a broader range of projects implementing land management plans under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. It also introduced emergency exemptions and repealed the Appeals Reform Act in 2014 via the Farm Bill. The 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act further exempted categorically excluded projects from objections. These statutes, combined with NEPA revisions by the Council on Environmental Quality in 2025 and USDA's interim final rule on July 3, 2025, necessitated the current proposal. Key players include the Forest Service, led by Acting Director Joshua White, and oversight from the Secretary of Agriculture and Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment.
Relevant precedents include the 2013 amendments to 36 CFR Part 218, which complied with the 2012 Act by unifying processes for HFRA and non-HFRA projects. Political forces, such as congressional emphasis on reducing bureaucratic delays in environmental reviews, have driven these changes, reflecting bipartisan priorities for efficient resource management amid climate challenges like wildfires.
Key Proposed Changes
The proposal consolidates the three subparts of 36 CFR Part 218 into a single part, eliminating distinctions between HFRA and non-HFRA projects except for emergency authorities. It aligns with USDA's NEPA regulations at 7 CFR Part 1b, removing references to rescinded rules at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 and 36 CFR Part 220.
Notable revisions include shortening comment periods to 10 days for environmental assessments (EAs) and 20 days for environmental impact statements (EISs), down from 30 and 45 days, respectively. Objection filing periods are similarly reduced to 10 days for draft findings of no significant impact (FONSIs) and 20 days for draft records of decision (RODs). These adjustments correspond to NEPA's new page limits—75 pages for EAs and 150-300 for EISs—intended to accelerate reviews without compromising analysis, as mandated by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.
Notifications shift from newspapers and the Federal Register to USDA websites, citing cost savings, reduced delays, and modern accessibility. Objections are capped at 15 pages for EAs and 30 for EISs, with strict requirements for issue specificity and ties to prior comments. The role of reviewing officer is eliminated, placing responsibility with the official most familiar with the project to enhance efficiency.
Emergency provisions allow immediate implementation in critical situations, as determined by the Chief or Associate Chief, exempting such actions from objections. The proposal also clarifies that projects approved by the Secretary or Under Secretary bypass the process, providing flexibility for high-level decisions.
Implications and Perspectives
Short-term implications include faster project timelines, potentially enabling quicker responses to threats like wildfires or habitat degradation. For instance, the current process adds 120-165 days to reviews, which the proposal aims to shorten, aligning with NEPA's emphasis on timely environmental assessments.
Long-term effects could improve consistency across projects, reducing administrative burdens estimated in the regulatory certifications section, which notes no significant economic impacts under Executive Order 12866. However, stakeholders like environmental groups may view shortened periods as limiting public participation, while industry advocates might praise the efficiency for timber or restoration projects.
Different perspectives emerge from statutory analyses. Proponents, including Forest Service officials, argue the changes fulfill congressional intent for streamlined reviews, as evidenced by HFRA's predecisional focus. Critics, potentially including Tribal governments consulted under Executive Order 13175, might highlight risks to thorough input, though no consultation requests were received by publication. The proposal's severability clause ensures partial invalidations do not derail the entire rule, reflecting cautious regulatory design.
In summary, the proposed amendments represent a targeted effort to modernize the objection process, balancing efficiency with public engagement. Key takeaways include alignment with NEPA updates and statutory mandates, reduced timelines, and digital notifications. Ongoing debates may center on accessibility versus speed, with future challenges involving implementation amid potential legal challenges. Possible trajectories include adoption post-comment period, with transitions for ongoing projects to minimize disruptions.
