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.  

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.

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. 

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.

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.”

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. 

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

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.

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

The Forest Service has released an Environmental Assessment for the Little White Salmon timber sale for public comment. This project proposes timber harvest and fuels management in 13,249 acres in the Little White Salmon watershed, a diverse and unique transitional forest that sits between wet westside forests and dry eastside forests. The project also includes road decommissioning, repairing unauthorized public-created trails, and repairing stream crossings impacted by abandoned temporary roads.

CFC has been involved in the planning process for the Little White Salmon Project for the last two years. We have helped shape the project over time, working closely with the South Gifford Pinchot Collaborative and the Forest Service. 

So far, through our input and the Forest Service’s application of federal directives, 2,351 acres of mature and old-growth forest have been dropped from the project. While strategic thinning and prescribed fire are important tools for building forest resilience, this project proposes timber harvest to a degree that is notably large in scale and intensity, and utilizes experimental methodologies–applying some restoration techniques developed for dry eastside forests to this transitional watershed. The Forest Service will be essentially testing on a large scale whether or not their treatments help this watershed become more resilient to climate change. 

We agree with some of the experimentation, but we’re particularly concerned about thinning for fire risk in mature forests, especially those that are already developing some complexity and inherent resilience. From the ecological modeling that has been carried out for this planning area, we expect there might be a temporary reduction in fire risk in certain fire scenarios through some of the thinning work, but we are concerned that these impacts will be short-lived due to re-growth of vegetation and ineffective in the face of high-velocity wind-driven fires. With regards to mature forests, we’re also concerned about the introduction of invasive species (a common result of timber harvest), immediate destruction of arboreal or soil-based habitats currently in use, increased understory temperatures, and decreased understory moisture profiles.

Although the protection of some of the older forests is a major win, there is still more we can do to protect complex mature forests and large trees (unique habitat features) in the watershed. 

We hope you’ll join us in asking the Forest Service to:

• Drop the 549 acres of remaining complex mature forests from the harvest plans;
• Protect all Douglas-firs trees with a 30” diameter or more in matrix stands; and
• Provide a no-cut buffer of 1.5 to 2 drip lines on all trees with a 40” diameter or more to protect their root systems from the negative impacts of heavy machinery.

Comments are being accepted through Oct. 31st at this website. The Environmental Assessment and all other project files including specialist reports can be found here.  

The process is quick and easy and your comments can help make a difference. If you have any questions please reach out to Ashley at ashley@cascadeforest.org.