THE IMPACTS OF FOREST ROADS & THE IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING ROADLESS AREAS

The Trump administration is working to reverse the 2001 Roadless Rule that currently protects large areas of intact wildlife habitat from commercial development. The rule is an essential tool for preserving biodiversity and access to unique backcountry recreation opportunities.

Reversing the Roadless Rule would allow logging and mining in some of the last protected landscapes in the southern Washington Cascades and throughout the country. And the new forest roads that would be needed for these types of actions would create their own set of long-lasting impacts.

This is the second post in our two-part series about the Roadless Rule. Here, we offer a deeper look into the history and science of forest roads to better appreciate what is currently at stake.

There are two major things to understand about forest roads. First, there are a lot of them. Second, roads, whatever their condition or level of use, significantly impact the ecosystems they transect.

 

A BRIEF HISTORY OF FOREST ROADS & THE 2001 ROADLESS RULE

 

National forests are permeated by webs of roads in various states of use. Early in the history of the national forest system, road construction was a primary focus of the Forest Service. Roads were built anywhere and all over based on the belief that access to remote areas of the forest would allow the agency to improve conditions on the ground. Throughout the 20th century, forest road construction continued at a frenzied pace. As time wore on, roads were increasingly built for (and often by) timber companies.

 

A map of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Wilderness Areas are highlighted in green and Inventoried Roadless Areas are highlighted in blue.
Wilderness Areas and Inventoried Roadless Areas function together to create critically important strongholds of wildlife habitat free from road building and extractive development.

 

As a result, the Forest Service is now the largest road manager on Earth. The agency is tasked with overseeing a vast transportation network containing a mix of graded and paved thoroughfares, narrow, overgrown, and pot-holed dirt tracks, and everything in between.

In addition to the forest roads you may have used, national forests contain thousands of miles of ghost roads—closed or decommissioned roads that still have a distinct and noticeable presence on the landscape, even after being closed to traffic for years or decades.

 

CFC staff walking down a forest road overgrown with grasses and ferns with stands of tress on either side.
Even seldom-used or decommissioned forest roads have significant and long-lasting impacts on the surrounding forest ecosystem.

Environmentalists have been raising alarms about the growing road network in formerly remote landscapes since the Forest Service began to build them. In the late 1990s, unable to afford the cost of maintenance on the roads already in use, the agency finally put a pause on new road construction until a solution could be found. After a sustained campaign from environmentalists, the Clinton administration put in place the 2001 Roadless Rule, which practically made the moratorium on road construction permanent in select places that were newly designated as Inventoried Roadless Areas.

 

THE IMPACTS OF FOREST ROADS AND THE IMPORTANCE OF ROADLESS AREAS

 

First and foremost, the presence of roads is a necessary precondition for industrial timber harvest and mining operations. The Trump administration’s primary objective in attacking the Roadless Rule is to allow these kinds of extraction activities in some of the few remaining un-roaded areas that have been protected for the past two and a half decades.

However, beyond the extractive activities they enable, the mere presence of forest roads noticeably alters the ecology of landscapes where they are found.

 

A Roosevelt elk
Even rarely-used roads create major barriers from many species of wildlife.

 

The impacts of forest roads on wildlife and habitat connectivity: Studies have demonstrated that wildlife species wary of hunters and/or noise from motor vehicles, including elk, bear, lynx, wolverine, and others, will alter their movement patterns, sometimes going far out of their way to avoid crossing or even coming close to forest roads. This is even true for remote forest roads that may not see a driver for days at a time. Large, connected areas of habitat free from roads are critically important, and increasingly rare, refuges for these species.

 

A culvert
Roads impact streams in a number of ways.

 

The impacts of forest roads on forest and stream health: In addition to development and extraction, roads bring greater numbers of people to formerly remote places. Most visitors to forests treat these places with care and respect, but some do not. Forest roads are often bordered by stands containing high amounts of litter and invasive plant species—especially when compared to areas of forest without roads. Streams that are crossed by roads are often forced into culverts, polluted, and choked with sediment. 

The impacts of forest roads on topography and hydrology: Roads, especially roads across sloped terrain, create significant landslide risk and dramatically disrupt the natural flow and movement of water in forested ecosystems.

 

A forest road along a expanse of burned forest.
The vast majority of wildfires ignitions of any cause occur within 1/2 mile of a road.

 

The impacts of forest roads on wildfire risk and severity: Studies have shown that areas with higher densities of roads are at greater risk from wildfires than areas with fewer roads, and that 90% of all wildfires start within 2 km (1.25 miles) of a road. The relationship between roads and fires is influenced by several factors. Most importantly, roads increase the likelihood of human-caused fires resulting from ignition sources like campfires, discarded cigarettes, sparks, and arson.

Road ecology also plays a role in wildfire behavior. Roads can help wildfire crews access remote areas, but the presence of roads often contributes to conditions that make fires worse. Forest roads can create hotter, drier, and windier conditions, with associated impacts extending into the forests. Roadside areas are also often infested with invasive plant species, which can contribute to worse fire conditions. 

The importance of roadless areas for human communities and the immeasurable value of backcountry: Landscapes where life is still able to flourish away from roads and other forms of development also impact the well-being of our communities. They’re especially important to the individuals who come to wilderness and roadless areas to study, explore, connect, and find solace in the remote and rare corners of national forests where the world still feels wild. 

 

Roadless Areas in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest provide access to beautiful expanse of backcountry.

 

There are a lot of roads on national forest lands, and those roads have major impacts. The continued existence of large areas free from permanent human habitation and industrial extraction matters, but their future is now uncertain. You can help Cascade Forest Conservancy protect these places by joining our email list. Be sure to keep an eye out for the action alerts we’ll send you when it’s time to speak out by submitting comments in defense of the Roadless Rule. 

 

UPDATE: On 8/27, the USDA official began the process to revoke the 2001 Roadless Rule. Speak up for Roadless Areas! Use this form to submit your official comments by September 19. 

VESTIGES OF WILDNESS: WHY THE FATE OF ROADLESS AREAS IS CRITICAL TO OUR FUTURE

The 2001 Roadless Rule created a new type of land designation called Inventoried Roadless Areas and is responsible for protecting a large number of un-roaded landscapes across a wide range of regions and ecosystems throughout the national forest system. In total, the rule safeguards 58 million acres of intact wildlife habitat and backcountry, more than any federal action besides the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

Places like roadless areas, large areas where natural processes proceed free from excessive industrial incursion, are increasingly rare. They are places where the Earth is able to retain some of its wildness. They are critically important bastions of biodiversity and some of the last remaining refuges for species with little or no other suitable habitat left. Most are also places where recreation is quiet and where human visitors move at the speed of foot, hoof, and bicycle.   

Today, the rule that established and protects Inventoried Roadless Areas is under attack.

 

The Gifford Pinchot National Forest contains a significant area of wilderness and roadless areas

 

We’re fortunate that significant portions of the landscapes we work to protect in the southern Washington Cascades are currently designated as Wilderness or Inventoried Roadless Areas. The existence of these large areas of connected and un-roaded lands plays a significant role in our region’s appeal to outdoor enthusiasts from around the world. For those of us fortunate to have the opportunity and ability to venture in, spending time in the Roadless and Wilderness areas of the Gifford Pinchot can be a moving and meaningful experience. Stepping onto a place on Earth miles from the nearest road can inspire wonder, awe, inspiration, humility, a feeling of connection to and appreciation for the natural world, or any number of other unique, powerful, even spiritual experiences that make our lives fuller and richer.

 

Roadless areas in the GPNF provide unique outdoor recreation opportunities

 

The Gifford Pinchot’s roadless areas also play a role in sustaining our region’s wildlife and biodiversity. The ecological benefits of large intact areas of wildlife habitat extend far beyond the boundaries put in place to preserve them. In addition to providing refuge for species that need a lot of space away from human development to thrive, un-roaded areas provide space where species impacted by over-hunting or trapping, like fishers, martens, or the iconic grey wolf, have a better chance of making a recovery.

 

A meadow in one of the GPNS’s Inventoried Roadless Areas

 

Un-roaded areas provide space where species like the grey wolf could make a recovery

 

The continued existence of these Inventoried Roadless Areas is now threatened by the Trump administration’s stated intention to reverse the Roadless Rule, enabling and encouraging exploitation of intact ecosystems that have long been off-limits to commercial interests. The upcoming fight over the rule will have profound impacts for wildlife populations, the preservation of biodiversity, and outdoor recreation here in the Pacific Northwest and across the country. 

CFC is ready to respond once the administration follows through on its plans. Our partners and allies are ready to respond. And we’ll share the ways you can speak up and take action in defense of roadless areas when the moment for public comment arrives.

Part two of our series on the 2001 Roadless Rule, where we dive deeper into the history of the rule and the impacts of roads themselves on forest ecosystems, is coming next week. 

ACTION ALERT: THE FOREST SERVICE’S OBLIGATIONS TO TRANSPARENCY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY HAVE BEEN GUTTED. SPEAK OUT BY AUGUST 4

ACTION ALERT: THE FOREST SERVICE’S OBLIGATIONS TO TRANSPARENCY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY HAVE BEEN GUTTED. SPEAK OUT BY AUGUST 4.

Update: The comment deadline has been extended from July 30 to August 4 since we originally published this ACTION ALERT.

A July 3 rule change to the Department of Agriculture’s (which houses the US Forest Service) National Environmental Policy Act regulations has eliminated or severely curtailed many opportunities for public engagement on land management projects, including timber sales, and gutted the agency’s legal obligations to substantially consider all of the environmental effects of their actions.  

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970 was the first major piece of environmental legislation in US history, and remains one of the most important. The law made it the nation’s policy to “foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which [humans] and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans;” it mandated procedural requirements for major federal actions, including actions taken on public lands; and it established the Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ).

For over 40 years, the CEQ was responsible for implementing NEPA regulations for all federal agencies, meaning the CEQ set the rules each agency was obligated to follow to comply with the law. However, earlier this year, that authority was overturned by a Federal Court in DC, and the Trump administration lost no time in seizing the chance to undo years of environmental standards. These recent changes severely weaken the USDA (and Forest Service’s) NEPA procedures and processes.     

For decades, many of Cascade Forest Conservancy’s successes, and those of the environmental movement as a whole, relied on the transparency and process required of the Forest Service by NEPA—specifically, CEQ and USDA rules which laid out detailed instructions the agency was required to follow to comply with the law. These rules helped achieve better outcomes for forest ecosystems by creating decision making processes that allowed CFC (and others) to participate early and often in management decisions and to hold the agency accountable if guidelines were not followed. These regulations and safeguards are now effectively gone.

 

What does that mean in practical terms? 

 

 

The publicly available “early warning system” (a list of upcoming management projects called the Schedule of Proposed Actions), which serves as a roadmap for future areas of work on National Forests, is no longer required.

The Forest Service’s legal obligation to publish scoping documents (early project plans that CFC, other organizations, and individuals rely on to help avoid costly litigation by addressing issues in upcoming timber sales through official scoping comments, conversations, and negotiation) is gone.   

The agency’s legal obligation to solicit and respond to public comments about timber sales and other land management actions, gone.

And in many instances, the agency’s legal obligations to thoroughly study the environmental impacts of actions before work is done have also been removed or severely weakened.

If this rule becomes a permanent change, the public and CFC are no longer guaranteed an opportunity to analyze and comment on Forest Service projects. This means that going forward, it may become much harder and more costly to act as watchdogs and protect the ecological health of our region by making it more difficult to track and respond to actions in national forests.  

 

HOW TO SPEAK OUT:

 

The interim rule went into effect immediately when it was announced on July 3rd, but has not been finalized—at least not yet. We still have a VERY short window of time to voice our opposition to these changes, which are gutting requirements for transparency, undermining the public’s ability to hold the government accountable, and putting the health of national forests at severe risk. Submit your comments by August 4.

Here’s how:

Visit this website (https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/USDA-2025-0008-0001) to write and submit your comments. Tell the Department of Agriculture that you are strongly opposed to NEPA rule changes affecting the US Forest Service that are curtailing your opportunities for public engagement, undermining the public’s ability to hold the agency accountable, and putting natural resources and ecological integrity at risk!

Unique public comments have a much greater impact than form letters. Use these talking points to craft your own, personal message.

  • I use national forest lands, and I am opposed to the interim rule changes that threaten their unique character and ecological integrity by narrowing the scope of what types of effects are included in NEPA analyses.
  • I am opposed to rule changes that make public comment opportunities and project scoping optional instead of mandatory. I deserve the chance to express my concerns early and help shape actions that impact the places I use and care for.
  • I am opposed to rule changes that would lead to less thorough analysis of the environmental impacts resulting from timber sales and other land management actions.
  • Rule changes that make it harder to hold the Forest Service accountable to its multi-use mandate are undemocratic and will lead to worse outcomes for communities, forests, and ecosystem health.
  • I oppose making most public engagement opportunities discretionary. Making most engagement opportunities discretionary instead of mandatory will create confusion and regulatory uncertainty.  

ACTION ALERT: Millions of acres of public land could become eligible for sale. Take action to protect them now!

Republicans in Congress are working to pass a budget reconciliation bill that includes a range of dangerous and destructive proposals. In aggregate, the bill serves to transfers wealth to the nation’s richest individuals and corporate interests and is funded through a combination of deep cuts to social welfare programs, placing a staggering debt burden on future generations, and critically, through the mandatory sale of at least 2 million acres and up to 3 millions of acres of our public lands to private interests over the next 5 years.

Specifically, the Senate’s bill includes a proposal that makes 250 million acres of public land across 11 western states, including Washington, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, eligible for sale to private interests. Parcels would be nominated by “any interested party” and offered for sale every 60 days until quotas are met.

In Washington alone, over 5 million acres of our national forest and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land, including the majority of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, with the exclusion of a few designated areas such as Wilderness and the Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument, will be eligible for sale. This includes areas of mature and old-growth forests, critical wildlife habitat, and roadless areas, which are crucial to preserving habitat connectivity.

 

This map shows forest service and BLM lands eligible for sale under the Senate proposal. An additional 82,831,388 acres are eligible in Alaska. You can view an interactive version of this map by clicking on the image above.

 

Legislative efforts to sell off public lands are not new. However, the current proposal to dispose of public lands is by far the largest and most brazen ever attempted. It is an effort to transfer public lands to a small number of private interests at the expense of the common good that is more reckless, aggressive, and destructive than anything we’ve seen before.

The time we have to stop it from passing is extremely limited.  The bill could come to a vote on the floor as soon as next week before heading back to the House of Representatives.  

Most of the proposals, including the sale of public land, that make up the Republican-backed budget reconciliation bill are broadly unpopular with voters across the political spectrum. Unfortunately, Republican Senate leadership are advancing the reconciliation bill within a compressed timeline that bypasses public input, offers minimal public notice, and lacks meaningful tribal engagement, thus circumventing normal democratic processes and norms. 

This is possible because of special rules applied to budget reconciliation legislation, a unique type of legislation that only requires a 51 vote majority to pass in the Senate instead of the 60 vote majority typically needed to overcome filibusters.

In practical terms, this means that Senate Republicans’ proposals to auction off millions of acres of public lands could become law in mere weeks, with the first sales potentially beginning as soon as the end of summer. And this is all happening with no filibuster threat forcing compromise and negotiation, no consultation with the Tribes whose traditional and cultural use territories are being sold, no hearings, no debates, and no public input opportunities.

 

HOW TO HELP PROTECT PUBLIC LANDS

 

The situation is dire, but thankfully, the vast majority of public opinion is on our side. Selling public lands isn’t a divisive issue. Regardless of political party, the majority of American voters (including registered Republicans) in western states are overwhelmingly opposed to the sale of public lands to pad the pockets of the wealthy.

Republicans have a slim 3-vote majority in the Senate. If we can convince even a small number to stand against the unpopular sale of public lands, we can defeat this destructive proposal! By raising awareness and speaking out about the issue, we have a real chance to pressure Republican senators from western states to withdraw their support for the proposal that attacks public lands.

Public opinion contributed to the House’s decision to withdraw proposals to sell public land from its version of the bill, and public opinion can help defeat the proposal in the Senate as well.

It’s up to us to fight for our public lands! Here are 3 simple steps you can take today to help make a difference.

1. THANK SENATORS OPPOSING THE BILL AND ASK THEM TO SPEAK LOUDLY ABOUT THE ISSUE.

If you are a Washington or Oregon resident, thank your senators for opposing the bill, and urge them to speak out boldly against the sale of public lands.

2. TELL REPUBLICAN SENATORS IN WESTERN STATES TO PUSH BACK AGAINST UNPOPULAR PROPOSALS TO SELL OFF PUBLIC LANDS.

If you have a connection to, or use public lands in western states with Republican Senators (AK, ID, UT, WY), tell them to protect the places you care for. Public lands and the tourism they create support the economies of every western state, and these places belong to all of us, regardless of where we live.

3. HELP RAISE AWARENESS ABOUT THIS CRITICAL ISSUE

This is a tumultuous moment in time. Given the lack of public notice and the undemocratic measures the Senate is using to quickly advance the legislation, the sale of public lands could easily slip under the radar of many people who would be outraged to learn about what is happening. Share this blog post with your friends and family in other states—especially states with Republican senators. Ensure they understand the issue and know how to voice their support for public lands.

Email your Senators directly by clicking on this link. Choose your state and then select the “Contact” button under each Senator. You will have to send separate messages to each individually.

In addition to the information provided above, you can use these talking points to craft your message: 

 

• Please protect the Gifford Pinchot National Forest and other cherished public lands by opposing the public land sell off provisions in the Senate reconciliation bill.

• Disposal of some of the lands that would be eligible for sale in the Senate’s proposal would violate the federal government’s legal and moral obligations to uphold rights guaranteed to various Tribes by treaties, for example rights to access traditional hunting and fishing areas within ceded territories. Furthermore, planning to quickly sell off any public lands, regardless of the existence of treaty rights for the parcels in question, without meaningful government-to-government consultation with Tribes and without providing Tribes with a first refusal is outrageous.

• Public lands and waters closest to cities are often heavily used and loved because they provide access to hunting, fishing, hiking, and other outdoor recreational activities close to home. Public lands and waters are a shared resource that provide the backbone of the outdoor recreation and tourism industry.

• Almost all of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest would be available for sale in the current Senate proposal. In addition to providing communities in SW Washington with critical resources and revenue from the sustainable management of forest products, the Gifford Pinchot is a critical stronghold for wildlife habitat we can’t afford to lose to private development.

• Public lands belong to the people. Selling off these lands to fund tax cuts for the wealthy and corporate interests with no real opportunity for input from the public is a stunning betrayal of the public good.

• Our public lands provide drinking water to millions of people. Drinking water for 1 in 5 people flows from Forest Service lands, and drinking water for 1 in 10 people flows from BLM lands. Public land sales of the type in this bill could put drinking water at risk.

• Allowing “any interested party” to nominate any of the 250 million acres of eligible public lands to be sold to private interests puts billionaires before the American people and is unacceptable. We should protect these landscapes for the benefit of all, including future generations.

• Selling off public lands that are far from any communities or housing infrastructure does not make sense and will not help create affordable housing. 

ACTION ALERT: TELL CONGRESS DEREGULATION AND UNRESTRICTED LOGGING ARE THE WRONG TOOLS TO REDUCE WILDFIRE RISK

The Fix Our Forest Act (FOFA), which was recently passed in the House and is currently under consideration in the Senate, threatens to seriously undermine environmental regulation and dramatically increase unsustainable logging practices in federally managed forests. Backers of the new bill claim it provides a path to protect forests and forest-adjacent communities, based on the incorrect assertion that indiscriminate logging will reduce wildfire risks to ecosystems and communities, and that existing environmental regulations and science-based forest management strategies are unreasonable obstacles to forest health. However, provisions in the bill represent the antithesis of effective science-based wildfire mitigation. The stark reality is that FOFA mandates false solutions that would harm, rather than help, communities, ecosystems, and biodiversity.

 

The threat of wildfire is being used to advance legislation that offers false solutions that could actually make the treats worse.

 

If passed, FOFA would codify elements of the Trump Administration’s actions that aim to increase domestic timber production by making it easier for large-scale logging projects to move forward without scientific review or community input, limit the ability of impacted communities and NGOs to hold federal agencies accountable, and weaken the effectiveness of important environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Right now, conservationists and scientists are ringing the alarm bells: FOFA, in its present form, would cause profound and long-lasting harm and must be stopped or significantly changed.

Cascade Forest Conservancy, along with 77 other organizations, publicly voiced opposition to the Fix Our Forests Act. Our allies are working to defeat or amend FOFA in several ways, including suggesting critical edits to the current version to make it less egregious, developing an alternative bill, and helping senators understand the full implications and encouraging them to oppose. You can fight back too.

 

Your voice makes a difference. If you are a resident of Oregon or Washington, thank your Senators for opposing FOFA and the harm it would cause. Then, forward this action alert to friends or family in other states. Ask them to tell their senators to oppose FOFA.  

We’ve prepared a summary describing some of the threats created by provisions in the current bill and outlined some of the negative impacts this legislation would cause.

Learn more about the threats created by this proposed legislation and how to voice your opposition below.   

 

1. The Fix Our Forest Act fails to address wildfire risk and puts communities and ecosystems at risk

 

FOFA does not provide funding for proven strategies to protect communities and ecosystems from wildfire risks, like home hardening and science-based forest restoration. Instead, FOFA opens millions of acres of federal lands to logging, regardless of forest type, justified as a way to “reduce hazardous fuels.”

 

Research shows that mature and old-growth forests reduce wildfire risks.

 

CFC and other experts in the conservation community are warning that the bill’s inexact and overly-broad definition of hazardous fuel management activities provides an easy way to justify unsound logging activities, including clear cutting in mature and old-growth forests, despite scientific evidence showing the presence of these ecosystems actually reduces wildfire risk. Provisions in the current version of the bill also pave the way for the construction of more logging roads, despite evidence that as the density of roads increases in an area, so does the amount of wildfires caused by humans. 

Tell your Senators that you are opposed to indiscriminate logging in mature and old-growth forests and other false solutions to wildfire risk mitigation that do more harm than good. Ask them to support home-hardening and other forms of science-based wildfire mitigation that make forests resilient and communities safer.

2. The Fix Our Forests Act doubles down on a failed deregulatory approach to forest management

 

Provisions currently included in FOFA enable agencies to circumvent long-standing environmental laws and regulations. For example, the proposed legislation would exempt the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from provisions in the Endangered Species Act requiring those agencies to formally examine and update their management practices when a new species is listed as endangered, new critical habitat is designated, or new information indicates that current land management practices may be a threat to endangered species.

Of particular concern are provisions that would triple the size of multiple Categorical Exclusions (CEs) to 7,500 or 10,000 acres (15.5 square miles) and mandate their use. CEs are supposed to afford agencies a greater degree of discretion by reducing certain environmental analysis and public comment requirements in specific circumstances for projects impacting a limited area with inconsequential or predictable effects. 

 

Allowing Categorical Exclusions to be used to exempt areas of up to 15.5 square miles from environmental protections is dangerous and wrong.

 

The Forest Service has testified that CEs of the size called for in FOFA could have substantial impacts—in other words, projects impacting 15.5 square miles of forests are not appropriate for CEs. We agree. Directing agencies to use (or rather, misuse) CEs to circumvent their obligations to provide the public with details about environmental impacts resulting from logging projects affecting large areas of forests poses a serious risk to critical habitats, ecosystems, and watersheds.

Tell your Senators to defend the Endangered Species Act and your right to understand and comment on the environmental impacts of projects on public land; and to oppose deregulatory efforts that create unnecessary and unacceptable risks to the long-term health and viability of forests, watersheds, and biodiversity on public lands.

 

3. The Fix Our Forest Act limits public input and makes it difficult to hold federal agencies accountable

 

Many of the most troubling elements of FOFA are provisions that limit science-based decision making and the ability of individuals and organizations, like Cascade Forest Conservancy, to hold agencies accountable.

One section of the bill would severely limit long standing judicial review standards for certain Forest Service and BLM actions, and dramatically shorten the time to seek judicial review to only 150 days after an agency publicizes a decision. These changes would undermine the integrity of the courts and the ability of the public to conduct meaningful oversight of agency actions. 

Other elements of the bill, such as provisions exempting the designation or expansion of “fireshed management areas” from environmental analysis or public comments processes required by NEPA, could give land managers broad discretion to implement projects to “reduce fuels” with little public oversight. This, along with other provisions described above, would make it generally harder for the public, organizations like CFC, and Tribes, to track projects impacting important natural and cultural resources and harder to stop bad projects.  

Tell your Senators that you are opposed to provisions of the Fix Our Forest Act that limit your ability to speak out against harmful land management projects, weaken judicial oversight of federal agencies, and negatively impact the public’s ability to hold agencies accountable.

 

Email your Senators directly by clicking on this link. Choose your state and then select the “Contact” button under each Senator. You will have to send separate messages to each individually.

Questions? Comments? Reach out to CFC’s Policy Manager, Ashley Short, by emailing Ashley@cascadeforest.org

 

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS NOW PUT 50% OF ALL NATIONAL FOREST LANDS AT RISK

Details regarding the Trump Administration’s plans to weaken environmental regulations and increase the speed and scale of timber production on federally managed lands are beginning to take shape, and the situation is developing at an alarming rate. 

In a recent blog post, we discussed a number of recent executive orders that framed domestic energy and timber production as national security emergencies and directed agency officials to explore ways to circumvent environmental regulations to accelerate the pace and scale of timber and energy projects. In that blog, we noted that “…many of the aspects of these executive actions will include administrative processes that will create opportunities for CFC and the public to engage with and, eventually, litigate if necessary.”     

When reading and discussing implications from the executive orders internally, we noted that wildfire wasn’t addressed, and we were concerned that in the future, the threat of wildfire would be used as an unwarranted pretense to skirt environmental laws while simultaneously hindering the ability of organizations like CFC to effectively challenge these policy changes and actions. 

Unfortunately, that is exactly what we are beginning to see happening. 

Federal officials have now begun implementing changes and policies to comply with recent executive orders to increase domestic timber production. Brook Rollins, the new Secretary of Agriculture, who oversees the department housing the U.S. Forest Service, and Chris French, Acting Associate Chief of the Forest Service, set a goal to increase timber production by 25% and took actions that could dramatically limit the effectiveness of environmental regulations. 

Last week, Secretary Rollins issued an emergency declaration affecting approximately 50% of all national forest lands.

Rollins’s declaration relied on authority created by the Biden-era Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The emergency authorities created by the new law are intended to enable land managers to more quickly take actions to address issues like reducing wildland fire risk to communities, critical infrastructure, or key ecological values. However, we, and others, were concerned that these provisions could be interpreted and applied quite broadly, and although the IIJA limited the types of actions managers could take to address the emergency, it did not include limits regulating the size of the projects.

Of greater concern is that the memos also directly calls out other existing emergency authorities, which would allow for projects to be completed before going through environmental assessment, Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation, and tribal consultation, and encourage the use of emergency authorities as much as possible. For example, the memo issued by Chris French notes that the agency will be issuing guidance by mid-April on how to do the bare minimum to comply with environmental and historic preservation laws.

Taking all of these directives together, there is a real danger that the new declarations will be used to implement questionably justified, large-scale timber sales and similar projects with little oversight.

So what do these recent updates mean for our region? 

These recent actions by the Administration could result in the implementation of poorly planned projects before stakeholders can weigh in and concerned groups can litigate. There is clear potential for harm to our forests and wildlife created by these new directives, but it is still unclear exactly how individual national forests will develop and implement projects following the new direction from Washington, D.C. 

In other words, although the recent executive orders and the actions we’re beginning to see agency officials take in response are serious threats to the long-term health of our national forests, we are still unable to say for certain what the local impacts may be. We expect the forthcoming guidance from those leading the Forest Service to project planners will be useful in determining what these directives will actually mean at the local level. 

CFC and our partners are monitoring these developments closely and are gearing up to fight back and stand up for forests, watersheds, wildlife, and communities. The onslaught of attacks being levied against environmental regulations is complex and developing rapidly. We will continue to analyze what is happening and try to clearly explain what these actions mean for the places we treasure and fight to protect. To stay up to date and receive alerts when there are opportunities to fight back, sign up for our email list. Once signed up, you’ll receive updates in our monthly newsletter, action alerts that empower you to speak out and make a difference, and learn about events, volunteer opportunities, and other steps you can take to make local ecosystems healthier and more resilient. 

WHAT DO THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS MEAN FOR OUR REGION?

Over the past months, the Trump Administration has issued a number of executive orders that have alarmed conservationists across the country and the Pacific Northwest in particular. The speed and volume of these orders have left many unsure of what their impacts will be and what can be done to ensure that communities, wildlife, and ecosystems in our region are protected.

To help answer these questions, CFC’s Communications Manager, Bryn Gray Harding, sat down with CFC’s Policy Manager, lawyer and environmental law and policy expert, Ashley Short, for a discussion about these orders and what they mean for the places CFC is working to protect. 

A transcript of that conversation, edited for length and clarity, is below.

 

Bryn Gray Harding

There have been a number of executive orders issued by the Trump Administration recently aimed at changing the way public resources are used, specifically related to increasing energy and timber production. Looking at these orders as a whole, what is the administration trying to accomplish? 

Ashley Short

There have been several Executive Orders aimed at increasing domestic energy production at all phases, and then other orders aimed at increasing timber production. These actions are largely focused on increasing domestic output and reducing reliance on imports, in part by speeding up how quickly projects happen. These orders direct agencies to use existing emergency authorities in potentially questionable ways and frame timber and energy production in terms of national security. Some timber and energy projects take a long time to get permitted from start to finish because agencies have to comply with current environmental laws. We would say that that’s a good thing. It helps make fine-tuned projects that don’t cause undue harm for species and ecosystems. Speaking very broadly, the administration is trying to speed up timelines for projects on federally managed land through these orders.

BGH

Do these orders create a threat of immediate changes to logging and mining processes in the places we’re seeking to protect? How are these actions actually going to impact conditions on the ground? 

AS

I don’t think we’re going to see things like old-growth logging on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest directly resulting from these executive orders for a number of reasons. The timber executive orders, in particular, are really just focused on streamlining how fast projects get done using existing authorities. Are there things in there that are concerning? Yes. Are there things we will monitor closely? Absolutely. However, many of the aspects of these executive actions will include administrative processes that will create opportunities for CFC and the public to engage with and, eventually, litigate if necessary.

BGH

What are the things that you’re concerned about?

AS

There are a number of things. For example, in one of the orders about timber, there is a note about allowing agencies to determine on their own, without meaningful oversight, whether they are complying with the Endangered Species Act. So, for example, if that authority to determine compliance was given to the Forest Service, the Forest Service would be deciding whether or not there projects are complying with the Endangered Species Act instead of another agency, like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, looking over the Forest Service’s plans and determining whether or not they’re complying with the ESA. So, that could be concerning.

But even on that issue, we’re in a “wait and see” space. The Executive Order doesn’t mandate that that change happen; it directs agencies to explore opportunities to determine if it can happen. It’s not something that’s immediately happening. These orders are kicking off many processes to investigate and change rules, and we will have opportunities to be engaged in that.

The one thing that poses a more immediate threat is that copper is now listed as a critical mineral, which might increase the urgency regarding our efforts to protect Mount St. Helens from a gold, copper, and molybdenum mine. But again, we’re waiting to see how these changes around domestic mineral production are going to be implemented.

BGH

A lot of the text of these orders seems to suggest or imply that decision-making agencies should find ways to circumvent things like the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. Should we expect to no longer be able to rely on these laws to protect our shared natural resources?

AS

So yes, the orders are trying to minimize the effectiveness of laws like the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. However, a lot of what these orders are doing is about using existing emergency authorities or invoking national security to speed processes up. In a lot of these cases, these emergency authorities are defined by law or have some sort of limitations on them. So, you can challenge whether using emergency authorities to avoid environmental reviews is justified or not in court. Invoking emergency authority isn’t a way for the administration to do whatever they want without any process at all.   

BGH

Are there things that CFC is doing right now or that our supporters can be doing to help push back against some of these actions?

AS

That’s a good question. At the moment, we are primarily watching to see what will actually happen. Many of the processes agencies are being ordered to begin have tight timelines. For example, some are directing agencies to develop these recommendations within the next 10 or 30 days. I believe that in the coming months, we will start to see many of these processes begin, and we must be prepared to articulate why these are poor ideas and what we stand for. 

When the time is right, we will create opportunities for our supporters to take action and make their voices heard!  Grassroots public engagement will be essential. Right now, we are closely monitoring the situation and working with coalitions of like-minded environmental groups to have strength in solidarity. Things are changing daily, all of which is impacted by the significant number of federal workers who were fired or in the process of losing their job. It’s still uncertain how quickly or slowly these changes or potential changes will occur. In short, we need to stay on top of everything, and we need to be ready to act when the time is right. 

BGH

Is there anything else that you think would be important for CFC supporters to know or to understand or information that would be helpful when they see a post or headlines about these orders?

AS

Yeah, at least from a local perspective, I think it’s key to understand how important the forest collaboratives* are and will be over the next four years. Our local Forest Service is invested and engaged in those spaces, and we’re hopeful that continuing to engage locally on specific projects and building on those existing and strong relationships will lead to outcomes that CFC and our supporters can support or at least live with. 

I think staying locally focused and being engaged with our local Forest Service staff is a good way to help protect the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in the long-term. We also intend to continue supporting individual civil servants who are being asked to do more with fewer resources, less capacity, and evaporating job security. Yes, it’s quite chaotic at the top, but we and our forest collaborative partners can ensure that decision-making doesn’t veer too far in the wrong direction, at least locally. And if there are pressures from above that mandate poor practices, then we will stand up as the watchdog we are, to hold them accountable, even if that means litigation. I think this is expected of us internally and externally. When and if this time comes, we’ll need strong backing from our supporters then too. 

* Forest Collaboratives are organizations that exist to create dialogue among federal agencies, Tribal governments, conservationists, the timber industry, other local governments, local businesses, and rural community members about land management projects like timber sales and restoration initiatives. Forest Collaboratives allow groups and individuals holding diverse perspectives and priorities to hear about and weigh in on projects from the earliest stages of planning processes. They help these various interests work together to create zones of agreement and to identify and address disagreements or concerns. By supporting these collaboratives and taking their recommendations seriously, agencies like the U.S. Forest Service can often address concerns about upcoming projects before plans are finalized, helping avoid unnecessary conflicts or litigation. CFC is a founding member and active participant of two forest collaboratives that help guide land management decisions in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest.

READ OUR OFFICIAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT

Cascade Forest Conservancy has submitted official comments responding to the Northwest Forest Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Thank you to all who joined CFC in speaking out for enhanced protections for mature and old-growth forests and more Tribal co-management with federal agencies.

You can read CFC’s comments here.

 

ACTION ALERT: STOP THE DABBLER TIMBER SALE

In the northeastern corner of Clark County, southwest of Yale Lake between Canyon and Siouxon Creeks, 135 acres of structurally complex, naturally regenerated, and beautiful mature forests stands approaching old-growth status are about to be lost forever unless urgent action is taken now.
Washington residents, especially residents of Clark County, can help make a difference by asking our new Commissioner of Public Lands, Dave Upthegrove, to do all he can to honor the request of Clark County Council and residents to reverse the Dabbler timber sale.

 

Photos courtesy of Legacy Forest Defense Coalition

 

On January 15th, Clark County’s Councilors sent a formal request to Washington’s new Public Lands Commissioner, Dave Upthegrove, asking him to postpone harvest of the Dabbler timber sale and create a framework for conserving older forests throughout the county.

In their request, the Clark County Council, the beneficiary of funds provided by the sale, wrote: 

“Clark County sits at the western foothills of the Cascades near the area impacted by the 1902 Yacolt Burn and contains very few remaining legacy forest resources. The proposed Dabbler sale area contains structurally complex naturally regenerated forest that are approaching old growth and therefore highly valued by our community. Not only do these remnants of our original forests provide wildlife habitat, promote watershed health, and mitigate climate impacts, but they provide public recreation and economic opportunities beyond the dollars generated through harvest alone.”

State decision-makers ignored the County Council’s request and sold the sale at auction on January 30. We’re now asking the new Public Lands Commissioner to do everything he can to undo the sale and protect these forests.

 

Here is how you can help:

Send an email to Washington Commissioner of Public Lands, Dave Upthegrove (cpl@dnr.wa.gov) asking that he do everything in his power to respect the wishes of the Clark County Council and residents by stopping the Dabbler Timber sale.

 

Below are talking points to get you started:

  • I am disappointed that the state’s Board of Natural Resources did not honor Clark County’s request to postpone the harvest of the Dabbler sale. Clark County is the financial beneficiary of the sale and their wishes should be respected.

  • Healthy mature and old-growth forests are critical to conserving Washington’s wildlife, slowing the acceleration of climate change, and mitigating climate change impacts. Once these forests are gone, they will take hundreds of years to recover, if they ever do.

  • Although the Dabbler Timber sale was initially approved prior to the start of your term, I am asking you to do anything and everything within your authority to halt the harvest of these rare and beautiful stands of legacy forests before it’s too late.

 

Questions? Contact CFC’s Policy Manager, Ashley Short, by emailing ashley@cascadeforest.org

PROJECT UPDATE: AQUATIC RESTORATION AT CAMP CREEK

Below its picturesque and much-loved falls (accessible following a quick hike from a parking area along Forest Road 23), Camp Creek flows through a grove of beautiful mature, conifer forest before joining the Cispus River.

Camp Creek is spawning habitat for coho salmon and steelhead, as well as rearing habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon. But like many waterways in the Pacific Northwest, Camp Creek was (until recently) degraded and lacked many of the habitat features that fish depend on.

 

Prior to recent restoration efforts, Camp Creek was heavily channelized and lacked complexity.

 

Because of factors like a lack of instream wood, Camp Creek had become heavily channelized. Rather than spreading out across the landscape into a complex series of pools and side channels, the stream was flowing quickly in one direction, stripping away much of the gravel and sediment spawning fish depend on. 

But last summer, CFC oversaw a large aquatic habitat restoration project that is already having significant positive impacts. We installed more than 300 large logs to help Camp Creek re-engage its side channels and add habitat complexity. Because of the positive relationships we’ve built with the Forest Service and other organizations, we were able to complete this work for a fraction of what a project of this scale would typically cost.

 

CFC worked with local contractors to place more than 300 large pieces of wood into Camp Creek.

 

During a visit to the site in January, we saw indications that our restoration efforts were having the intended effects. Camp Creek’s side channels were flowing once again. We observed many new pools and other beneficial habitat features that are known to support spawning and maturing salmon and steelhead. We even observed evidence of recently spawning fish and feeding eagles! 

 

In-stream wood at Camp Creek is re-engaging side channels and improving habitat for salmon and steelhead

 

Our work at Camp Creek is complementing other nearby aquatic restoration work—such as a multi-year aquatic restoration project happening nearby at the confluence of the Cispus River and Yellowjacket Creek—making this entire segment of the watershed better for fish and wildlife.

 

A spawning Chinook salmon

 

As climate change continues to alter seasonal precipitation and flow patterns and warm water temperatures in streams across the region, projects like this will be essential to conserving local species and ecosystems.