Tell the Forest service to keep the current time limits for public input on FS plans

This Call to Action Has Expired

The deadline for this action has passed. Please view current calls to action to find opportunities to take action today.

Steps to Take

Step 1

Click on this link to skim through the proposal if you have time, otherwise skip to step 2https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/02/06/2026-02392/project-level-predecisional-administrative-review-process?emci=91212691-4913-f111-a69a-000d3a57593f&emdi=8dbc0871-0b14-f111-a69a-000d3a57593f&ceid=9972245

Step 2

Copy and paste one of the suggested comments (and personalize it if possible)

Why & How to personalize your public comments:

The Forest Service’s proposed changes to the public comment and objections processes for projects would burden organizations and individuals who care and are informed about public lands, and who wish to submit meaningful comments on logging and other project proposals.

Often outdoor enthusiasts, locals, hunters, hikers, forgers, etc. have more experience deep in these forests than the agency itself does. Especially when it is a natural older forest without roads. They are often the ones to point out issues within a proposal, because they've walked the streams and hills and know what is there.

Your personal experience with participating in the public comment process can lend important examples of why this proposed rule is bad and would lead to many more problems- like more litigation- instead of simply allowing appropriate time for the issues to be found, commented on, analyzed and resolved early on.

In submitting your comments today on these proposed changes, consider sharing experiences you may have had with any of the following:

When have you commented on a Forest Service project in the past?
How did you find out about the comment period? (Forest Service email, FS website, from an organization, or the local newspaper?)
Once you found out about it, how long did it take you before you felt ready to submit your comment? Did you seek out additional information outside of the Forest Service documentation? Did you visit the project area during the comment period?
In your comments, did you offer any specific ecological or other local knowledge based on your personal or professional experience?
Has the timeline for project comments been an impediment to you? For example, would you have been able to submit more thorough comments with more time or would you have been able to visit the project area with more time?
Has the information you submitted in comments ever led to the Forest Service making changes to the project? For example, were any areas dropped from the project because of your field survey or personal knowledge about the presence of waterways, sensitive areas or species?

Highlighting your personal experience in your comments is important –thank you for taking this extra step!

Step 3

Past your comment into the USFS comment portal, (and feel free to add attachments, links to studies, etc if you want) and submit by tonight's deadline.https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/FS-2026-0001-0001?sourceid=1088116&ms=02192026&emci=f5557566-c30d-f111-a69a-000d3a57593f&emdi=5e0ff86e-e00d-f111-a69a-000d3a57593f&ceid=4733398

Sample Text

Option 1

RIN 0596-AD69

Dear Acting Director of Ecosystem Management Coordination,

I am writing to respectfully request that you withdraw all parts in Section 218.3 referring to limiting time for public comments in the proposed rule — it ignores the critical role the public and outside experts play in providing information for public lands decisions. 
The organizations and individuals who submit public comments for national forest logging projects provide essential expert insights and real-world observations. They often have local, ecological knowledge and deep ties to the forests covered by the proposed projects. Providing this knowledge can be time consuming. Cutting the comment and objection periods short on these projects will leave our forests, communities, and wildlife worse off. 
The projects impacted by the proposed rule can cover tens of thousands of acres and can span decades. The new rule would limit the public comment and objection periods for EA and EIS to 10 days and 20 days, respectively- which is simply not enough time for individuals and small volunteer based organizations to draft comments. 
Commenters often must review an environmental document, determine which areas of the project site to visit, coordinate with the appropriate specialists to evaluate site conditions, visit the site to verify the information in the environmental document and survey for additional information, analyze findings, and describe those findings in written comments. It can take several hours to reach project sites from nearby population centers, or even to travel from one end of a project footprint to another, and site visits can occur over multiple days or weeks. 
The new time constraints and page limits will lead to ill-informed management decisions on public lands, and will result in less transparency and accountability of logging in national forests.
Please remember your for service agencies commitment and motto.  Communities, wildlife, drinking watersheds, and beloved recreation, hunting and foraging areas will be impacted by the proposed rule, and none of those impacts are properly accounted for. 
My recommendations are to remove all parts of this proposal limiting public input time and length, or withdraw the proposal completely and start over.

Sincerely,

Copy to Clipboard

Option 2

Dear Acting Director of Ecosystem Management Coordination,

Please withdraw the all parts of section 218.3 in the proposed rule which significantly limit public participation in project-level pre-decisional administration review processes. 

The NEPA public comment process is designed to ensure the agency has considered all impacts and can revise proposed projects in response. 
This proposal ignores the essential role the public and outside experts play in evaluating and informing public land management decisions. It also discounts the efficiency of allowing the public to raise concerns and issues with the agency early in the decision-making process; when it is far easier and less resource intensive to address those concerns, and adjust the draft plan. It is much more cost and time effective for the agency this way, than it would be to add more more litigation and court time after the fact. 

Substantial  public comments on national forest logging projects provide essential local and expert insights and on-the-ground observations. Through public input and recommendations, a huge amount of critical work is being done by the public and volunteers– which saves the agency (USFS) a very substantial amount of resources in the long-run; including funds and time. (Aka, much more efficient!)

Besides reviewing the  analysis, we engage in a variety of steps before submitting comments, like: 
Surveying and collecting on site data, coordinating with specialists verify the information, analyzing findings, and describing those findings in written comments. 

This can be a very time-consuming (and necessary) process that complements the agency's internal project analysis. Considering recent cuts to agency budget and staffing, the public's ability to provide informed feedback is especially important. We are doing the agency a huge (free) service by offering these many specific details of values and impacts of each site and its surrounding communities.
The proposed rule would impose arbitrary time limits to public comment periods EA, EIS, and  draft FONSI, and adds a page limit on the length of objections.
The proposal Summary cites that due to the new agency document size limits, shorter time periods for public input will be needed–however is simply not a true statement. Just because a document is shorter to read, does not take away the amount of time needed to make a substantial specific comment with recommendations for you. There is clearly much more that goes into that than just document reading time.

These new limits are simply not enough time for people to do the necessary research, data collection, analysis, etc, and  compile it all into a substantial comment

And the content of objections is based on the environmental impacts of a project—and the adequacy of the Forest Service's analysis of those impacts— including new information learn from submitted public comments.
The effect of the proposal is to shut the public out of public land management decisions, which is unacceptable. 

The proposed time constraints and page limits will only lead to ill-informed management decisions on public lands, and will destroy transparency and agency accountability of new logging road building projects in our punlic national forests. 

This proposed rule, as written, would add unnecessary time and money to USFS projects in the long run - as opposed to "improving efficiency". It will result in more objections and litigation, because agencies will be rushed and unlikely to adequately address errors in their proposals in advance, or respond to public concerns. 

Remember your agency's commitments and motto. Communities, fishing and hunting grounds, streams, rivers, drinking watersheds, wildlife and beloved recreation areas would be negatively and irreversibly impacted by the proposed rule. The Forest Service holds these lands in trust for this and future generations. Your motto is “Caring for the Land and Serving People,” which your website explains includes “Listening to people and responding to their diverse needs in making decisions.” You cite as a guiding principle: “We strive for quality and excellence in everything we do and are sensitive to the effects of our decisions on people and resources.” These proposals betray those  principle. Further limiting public input opportunities is short sighted, inefficient and against the agency's mission and purpose, and-as currently written-this proposed rule is not acceptable.

My recommendations are to keep the basic broad adjustments listed in this rule plan–like omitting the need to place new projects or plans in newspapers, and streamlining posting to the USDA website–
While withdrawing all of the verbiage about decreasing public input times in ş 218.3.

Sincerely,