The Trump administration is pursuing changes that will reduce the public’s role in the management of national forests across the country, including Los Padres National Forest.
The new rules—formally proposed last month—would reduce the amount of time available for people to learn about plans for oil drilling, mining, logging, commercial livestock grazing, and other agency decisions. They would also limit the public’s ability to submit comments in support of—or in opposition to—proposed projects, and make it more difficult for people to receive notice of decisions that may affect them.
The changes continue an alarming trend over the last two decades, with the U.S. Forest Service steadily chipping away at the public’s ability to review plans, submit comments, and stay informed. Last year, the agency revamped its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, eliminating public comment opportunities for broad categories of actions and making it harder for people to learn about proposals affecting national forests. The Forest Service has also removed critical notices and project information from its websites, and its subscription-based notification service has been broken for months.
ForestWatch and other conservation groups across the country are pushing back, standing up for the public’s right to participate as an important stakeholder in national forest decisions.
Shrinking Public Review Periods
Federal law requires the U.S. Forest Service and other agencies to prepare detailed environmental reports before making key decisions or approving major projects. These reports—called Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) or Environmental Assessments (EA)—explain what impacts a proposed action might have, and what steps can be taken to reduce or avoid impacts to wildlife, trails, clean water, and sacred sites.
Currently, the public is afforded 45 days to review an EIS and 30 days to review an EA. However, the U.S. Forest Service’s proposed changes would slash those review periods to just 20 days for an EIS and a mere 10 days for an EA.
These shortened timeframes will not give the public enough time to fully read and understand these environmental reports, which can sometimes be hundreds of pages long. They also leave little time for people to visit project sites, consult experts, request additional information, or craft meaningful comments and recommendations.
“Streamlining” Public Objections
The Forest Service is also seeking to make it harder for the public to file formal objections to agency decisions. This objection process is one of the few meaningful tools the public can use to engage constructively before decisions are finalized. It helps to clarify issues, address concerns, and improve projects before they are implemented, and often prevents costly legal disputes in the future.
Proposed changes to the objection process include:
- Shorter timelines to file objections. Reducing the window to just 10 days for EAs and 20 days for EISes, down from the current 45 days.
- No extensions allowed. Eliminating the option to extend objection deadlines.
- Strict page limits. Limiting objections to 15 pages for EAs and 30 pages for EISs. These page limits will be difficult to meet because objections often involve complex, technical information, including legal or scientific citations and detailed explanations.
- Eliminating independent review. Currently, objections are reviewed by a higher-ranking agency official who is not involved with project approval. The changes would give the employee who approves a project the right to grant or deny objections to the same project, creating a potential conflict of interest.
- Making resolution meetings optional. Removing the requirement for the Forest Service to meet objectors to discuss concerns and possible solutions.
- Rushed agency responses. Reducing the Forest Service’s time to respond to objections. Currently, officials can take 75 days (45 days to review plus 30-day extension), but the new rules would cut that to just 15-20 days.
ForestWatch has used the objection process sparingly but successfully, and on each occasion, we’ve been able to secure meaningful project improvements and productive agreements with the Forest Service.
In 2012, our objection to the Frazier Mountain Project resulted in additional protections for wildlife and a shift to a non-commercial alternative with a 10-inch diameter limit. In 2016, we withdrew our objection after the Forest Service agreed to remove several miles of unnecessary roads in an Inventoried Roadless Area and conduct a multi-year study of the impacts of commercial livestock grazing on oak recruitment. And in 2018, the Regional Forester agreed to make improvements to the Monterey Strategic Fuelbreak Project.
In each case, the objection process helped us achieve real conservation victories and avoided costly and time-consuming litigation.
Limiting Public Notice
Last year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture—which oversees the Forest Service—rewrote its NEPA regulations to eliminate the public’s right to review and comment on a set of loopholes called “categorical exclusions.” These exclusions allow the agency to fast-track certain projects without preparing an EA or EIS. As a result, the public no longer has an opportunity to comment or object to these projects.
The agency also stopped publishing its quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) which served as a roadmap for upcoming projects and opportunities for public engagement. On the Los Padres National Forest website, the SOPA was last updated in October 2025, and the entire database, including years of valuable historic data, has since been deleted from every national forest website.
In lieu of the SOPA, project information is now listed on the forest’s Proposed Projects webpage, along with an interactive map showing the location of all proposed projects. However, the interactive map currently shows only two pending projects in Los Padres National Forest: the Franklin Trail Restoration Project (which was completed in 2016), and the Blue Point Campground and Day Use Removal and Restoration Project (which was completed in 2018). While the page lists 14 other “Proposed Projects,” many of them were finished years ago or cancelled, and no new projects have been posted in over a year.
The Forest Service is also required to notify people who sign up for updates on specific projects. However, the sign-up form on every national forest website we tested is broken, including the one for Los Padres National Forest. A “system error” message tells users to email the Forest Service for assistance. But when we tried to send an email to that address to alert them of the glitch, we received an automated response stating that our email was undeliverable.
Standing Up for the Public’s Voice
Conservation groups around the country are pushing back on the agency’s proposal. The Forest Service has already received thousands of comments opposing the changes, including a letter signed by 85 public land advocacy organizations, including ForestWatch, and spearheaded by Western Environmental Law Center, Southern Environmental Law Center, and The Wilderness Society.
We’ll continue tracking this issue and evaluate a response when the Forest Service finalizes the new rules, expected later this year.