Stop harmful logging and grazing rules in the Blue Mountains
Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision
U.S. Forest Service· Malheur National Forest, Umatilla National ForestU.S. Forest Service project page ↗
Forest ServiceWe track this on the agency’s own system of record, where most on-the-ground decisions live.
Why this window is different
Commenting now is what lets you object later
When the Forest Service finishes this plan, the only people who can formally object to it are the ones who already commented. Only individuals and entities who submitted substantive formal comments during a public comment period may file an objection (36 CFR 219.53(a)). Sit this window out and there is no later step available to you.
- Your group commenting does not cover you. Comments from an organization count for that organization only, and belonging to it earns you nothing. To object in your own name you have to comment in your own name (219.53(b)).
- An objection can only raise what you already raised. Objections must be based on the substantive formal comments you filed, unless the issue arose after the comment period closed (219.53(a)). Whatever you leave out now, you cannot add later.
- Substantive has a definition, and it is short. The Forest Service counts a comment as substantive when it is within the scope of the proposal, is specific to the proposal, has a direct relationship to the proposal, and includes supporting reasons for the responsible official to consider (219.62). That is the whole test. One thing you know well, said specifically, with your reasons, meets it. A signed form letter does not, and it buys you no standing.
- The objection round is 60 days, and it comes later. Because this revision carries an environmental impact statement, objections are due within 60 days of the public notice that opens the objection period (219.52(c)(6)). That is a separate window later on, with its own notice, and it is not this one. This comment window is the step that qualifies you for it.
The rule is 36 CFR part 219, subpart B ↗, the Forest Service’s pre-decisional objection process for land management plans.
Read this before you comment
The Forest Service corrected this draft after it published it
Errata dated July 22, 2026, after the draft was released.
Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests July 22, 2026, errata for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Blue Mountain Forest Plan Revision published on July 2, 2026: The Draft EIS mistakenly refers to supplemental information on pages 16, 33, 38, 63, and 69. The Forest Service did not publish supplemental information documents with the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS presents the substantive analysis for public comment.
The agency’s words, verbatim from the errata
Those pages carry a correction. If your comment touches one of them, read the errata first.
- Page 16 · PDF p27
- Page 33 · PDF p44
- Page 38 · PDF p49
- Page 63 · PDF p74
- Page 69 · PDF p80
The first number is the page number printed in the Draft EIS, which is what the errata refers to. The second is where that page sits in the PDF file, so you can jump straight to it. The two differ by 11, measured from the document’s own page footers (22 footers agreed, printed pages 2 to 34 of 356).
The groups on this fight
4 groups work Oregon
By footprint, from the same match the STAND matchmaker runs; none is linked to this decision in our record yet. Give straight to them; nothing routes through us.
- Cascadia Wildlands
Works Oregon: plaintiff in the January 2026 suit against the Roseburg BLM plan to log nearly 7,000 acres near Camas Valley.
- Crag Law Center
Works Oregon: represented Bird Alliance of Oregon, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Cascadia Wildlands in the 2012 Endangered Species Act suit over logging occupied murrelet habitat, which ended in the 2014 settlement canceling 28 timber sales..
- Oregon Natural Desert Association
Works Oregon: anchors the McDermitt Caldera Coalition on the Oregon side and fought the BLM's December 2025 approval of the Jindalee/HiTech lithium exploration project through the permitting process..
- Oregon Wild
Works Oregon: repeat plaintiff against BLM old-growth sales on the O&C lands, including the Coast Range project where courts halted logging of stands with trees over a thousand years old.
Every group above is on STAND for Public Lands, with its court record, its filings and who backs it.
New management plans will govern 4.9 million acres of Oregon forest for decades.
What’s at risk
Wildlife habitat, wilderness, and watershed health across the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests are at stake. The revised plans could expand logging, grazing, and mining while weakening protections that currently exist.
If this goes through
Once adopted, these plans set the legal framework for all major decisions on 4.9 million acres for the next several decades, making rollbacks extremely difficult to reverse.
Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.
The agency’s case, tested
What the agency argues, and whether its own record backs it
- 2
- Hold up
- 5
- No support given
The Forest Service wants to replace the 1990 forest plans for the Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, and its proposed alternative 2 emphasizes much more active management and timber harvest. It says conditions, science and rules have changed, and that more treatment would make these landscapes more resilient to wildfire, insects and disease while supporting local economies.
“Alternative 2 emphasizes active management to increase landscape resilience and achieve desired conditions.”
Proposed Action: What are we proposing to do?
Each Ask below goes into your letter when you write it with PLAN on this page, matched to what you tell it about how this land reaches you.
Alternatives
No support given
An alternative that greatly reduces commercial harvest couldn't be studied because federal multiple-use laws require timber harvest.
The agency says federal multiple-use laws rule out an alternative that greatly reduces commercial harvest, but it cites the laws without showing which provision bars such an alternative. A citation alone isn't support.
AskName the specific provision that bars an alternative with greatly reduced commercial harvest, or analyze one.
The agency’s words and the law +Hide the words
The agency says
“We looked at this alternative recommendation but did not study it in detail because it would not meet the legal requirements of the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act and the National Forest Management Act.”
Limited Commercial Timber Harvest Alternative
The law
“a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed agency action, including an analysis of any negative environmental impacts of not implementing the proposed agency action in the case of a no action alternative, that are technically and economically feasible, and meet the purpose and need of the proposal;” National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)(iii) ↗
Effects
No support given
Tripling timber hauling won't push water quality past regulatory thresholds because plan components and best management practices will control sediment.
The agency points to best management practices, plan components and road upgrades, and Table 9 says sediment increases wouldn't exceed thresholds. But the sediment indicator is qualitative. The document projects roughly 72,800 log truck trips a year under alternative 2, says water quality would likely decline, then asserts actual sediment increases would be much smaller without any numbers or modeling.
AskQuantify sediment delivery from projected log haul and road work by watershed, and show how it compares to state water quality thresholds.
The agency’s words, the record and the law +Hide the words
The agency says
“This would keep Forest Service projects from exceeding regulatory thresholds for water quality in riparian and other aquatic areas.”
Vegetation Treatments
Elsewhere in the same document
“Under alternative 2, timber outputs of approximately 364 million board feet annually would result in roughly 72,800 commercial vehicle trips per year.”
Vegetation Treatments
“This would likely lead to streams and riparian areas in experiencing water quality reductions in the action alternatives, compared to alternative 1.”
Vegetation Treatments
The law
“a detailed statement by the responsible official on- (i) reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of the proposed agency action; (ii) any reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented;” National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) ↗
Effects
No support given
Dropping roadless protections under alternative 2 would let the agency treat more heavy fuels and reduce high-severity fire in those areas.
The agency's modeling shows lower high-severity fire potential under alternative 2. But the same analysis says “the practical impact on projected timber outputs is limited because vegetation treatment objectives rather than the total quantity of suitable lands are the main drivers of harvest levels” and that “Adequate feasible acres exist in all considered alternatives.” It doesn't show what dropping roadless protections adds on its own.
AskShow the treatment acres and fire effects that depend on dropping roadless protections, separate from what every alternative can already treat.
The agency’s words +Hide the words
The agency says
“Under alternative 2, potential recission of the Roadless Rule we would have the ability to treat more areas with uncharacteristic fuel loads, thereby reducing high-severity fire in those locations.”
Wildland Fire
Show 2 more claims +Show fewer
Effects
No support given
Mitigations will keep effects on listed aquatic species within the range allowed by Endangered Species Act consultation, regardless of higher timber output.
The agency relies on plan components, best management practices and continued consultation. But Table 18 marks effects on bull trout, Chinook salmon, steelhead, wolverine, whitebark pine and other listed species as to be determined, meaning the analysis isn't complete. The document says species determinations will come later, so nothing here shows effects stay within consultation limits.
AskComplete and disclose effects determinations for listed fish, wolverine, whitebark pine and other listed species before an alternative is chosen.
The agency’s words, the record and the law +Hide the words
The agency says
“Regardless of increased timber output, active management mitigations would be in place to ensure effects are within the range of consultation for critical aquatic riparian species.”
Vegetation Treatments
Elsewhere in the same document
“A robust analysis and discussion of environmental consequences and determinations for individual species listed under the Endangered Species Act will be presented in the Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion.”
Federally-listed species under the Endangered Species Act
The law
“Each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency (hereinafter in this section referred to as an "agency action") is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species” Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2) ↗
Effects
No support given
Effects on tribal culturally important resources would be rare and mitigated, so they don't need detailed analysis.
The agency relies on other laws, memoranda of understanding with four tribes, tribal involvement in plan development, a plan standard requiring consultation, and future project-level consultation. It also compares cultural resource risks among alternatives in the roadless and wilderness sections. But it gives no data showing effects are rare, and its roadless analysis says alternative 2 may pose the most risk of erosion and human-caused effects to cultural resources.
AskAnalyze how each alternative affects treaty-reserved foods, fish and cultural sites, including in roadless areas opened under alternative 2.
The agency’s words, the record and the law +Hide the words
The agency says
“Although rare, unintentional effects may occur to culturally important resources and areas, but if undesirable effects occurs, the Forests would mitigate the damage as dictated by other law, regulation, or policy, and through government-to-government consultation with Tribes.”
Tribal Rights and Culturally Significant Resources
Elsewhere in the same document
“Alternative 2 analyzes for no allocation of roadless areas and may pose the most risk for erosion and undesirable human-caused effects to cultural resources when future projects are implemented.”
Tribal, Cultural, and Historic Resources
The law
“shall take into account the effect of the undertaking on any historic property.” National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. 306108 ↗
Where its own record backs the agency
EffectsMore active management under alternatives 2 and 3 would lower the potential for high-severity fire compared with continuing the 1990 plans.Why it holds +
Tables 6 through 8 show dry upland high-severity fire potential at 20 years of 20% under alternative 1, 14% under alternative 2 and 13% under alternative 3. Moist upland is 28%, 23% and 26%, and cold upland is 40%, 33% and 34%. These figures cover the whole plan area, not each forest. The data backs the claim. A separate line saying alternative 2 has the highest reduction doesn't hold for dry forests at 20 years.
The agency says
“Recent modeling shows that alternatives 2 and 3 would have a reduced high-intensity fire regime compared with alternative 1.”
Wildfire and Prescribed Fire
Its own record backs it
“In dry upland forests, where about 24 percent of fires are high severity, all three alternatives would reduce the potential for high-severity fire, with alternatives 2 and 3 reducing it to within reference-range conditions at similar rates.”
Potential for High Severity Wildfire
“Potential for high severity fire by PVG at 20 years: Dry Upland Forest* 20% 14% 13%”
Table 6
EconomicsAlternative 2 would support about 2,090 more jobs and $165 million more labor income than current management.Why it holds +
The agency's support is that the job and income figures in Table 2 (960, 3,050 and 1,415 jobs) are tied to the projected timber volumes in Tables 3 through 5. The plan says those volumes are limited by each forest's projected fiscal capability and organizational capacity, and that objectives were based on reasonably foreseeable budgets. The document doesn't name its jobs model or show county results despite the heading, which weakens transparency but doesn't leave the estimate without a basis.
The agency says
“Alternatives 2 and 3, viewed in terms of net change from alternative 1 would range from an estimated increase of about 2,090 jobs under alternative 2 to an additional 455 jobs supported under alternative 3.”
Jobs and Labor Income Impacts by County
Read from the agency’s own decision document ↗, all 367 pages. Every quote is checked word for word against it, a claim marked contradicted stands on a quote from the same document, and a second reading argued the agency’s side of every verdict before it was published. The verdicts are our reading; the quotes are the agency’s. A court can set aside agency action it finds “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” (5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A) ↗), which is why these gaps are worth putting in the record.
What to say
Make these points, in your own words
- I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below.
- The plan states the Malheur National Forest is 1.5 million acres managed with 242,000 acres of the Ochoco National Forest as one unit
- The document asserts water originating on the Blue Mountains National Forests serves as a drinking water source for approximately 40,000 people, tied to specific municipal watersheds.
- The plan states the John Day River is the second longest undammed river in the contiguous United States at 280 miles and supports four native salmonid species, a checkable claim about a specific waterway's physical condition.
- The document specifies exact acreages of recommended wilderness polygons and their overlap with existing inventoried roadless areas, a condition checkable on the ground via lack of roads/development.
Show all 8 points from the document
- The plan asserts more than 720,000 acres under alternatives 1 and 3 would retain roadless protections similar to the 2001 Roadless Rule, a checkable claim about the extent of undeveloped, unroaded land on the ground.
- The document specifies the Sacajawea Peak elevation and identifies it as the 6th highest peak in Oregon, a checkable topographic fact.
- Say something only you can say. The law requires the agency to consider and respond to substantive comments, and specifics are what make a comment substantive.
In the agency’s own words
Land Management Plan revision for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, which will provide management direction on approximately 4.9 million acres of public lands. https://www.fs.usda.gov/r06/umatilla/planning/blue-mountains-forest-plan-revision
On the record for this fight
2 people have filed on this fight through PLAN. The official record is still catching up.
- Will19 seals
- Al, California25 seals
Ranked on letters found on the agency’s record, then letters filed. Readers appear as first name and last initial; switch yours off in your record. All boards
Did the agency answer?
16 issues are on this record. The agency has not published its decision document yet, so each one stays pending until the agency answers.
Issues on the record, awaiting the decision
- PendingThe DEIS dismisses scenic resources from detailed analysis, concluding that 'expected effects to and from scenery do not differ substantially among alternatives' and that 'a more detailed or quantitat
The DEIS dismisses scenic resources from detailed analysis, concluding that 'expected effects to and from scenery do not differ substantially among alternatives' and that 'a more detailed or quantitative analysis is not required.' Yet the same section states that alternative 2, by removing roadless area designations, 'may lead to a slight shift from primitive and semi-primitive ROS settings toward more developed classes' and that 'increased road density may make desired scenic integrity objectives more difficult to achieve long-term.' These are material differences in recreation setting outcomes that affect outfitters, guides, photographers, and local tourism economies. The agency cannot simultaneously claim no substantial difference among alternatives and acknowledge that one alternative makes long-term scenic integrity objectives harder to achieve. The agency should conduct a quantitative scenic integrity comparison across alternatives, including projected road density changes in current roadless areas, before finalizing the plan.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe biological assessment for all 16 listed and proposed species is listed throughout Table 18 as 'TBD' (to be determined), meaning no completed species analysis exists at the time of public comment o
The biological assessment for all 16 listed and proposed species is listed throughout Table 18 as 'TBD' (to be determined), meaning no completed species analysis exists at the time of public comment on this DEIS. The Endangered Species Act section states a biological assessment 'will be prepared to analyze effects of the preferred alternative,' but the public is being asked to comment on a document that lacks this foundational analysis for bull trout, Chinook salmon, steelhead, wolverine, monarch butterfly, and others. A DEIS that omits completed ESA Section 7 analysis for all at-risk species gives the public no meaningful ability to evaluate the agency's conclusions. The agency should release the completed biological assessment for public review and reopen the comment period before finalizing the plan.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe Substantive Issue 2 tables show that for the Malheur National Forest, alternative 2 achieves a worse structural stage departure score for dry upland forest at 20 years (46.3) than the no-action al
The Substantive Issue 2 tables show that for the Malheur National Forest, alternative 2 achieves a worse structural stage departure score for dry upland forest at 20 years (46.3) than the no-action alternative (45.3), and for moist upland forest at 10 years alternative 2 scores 22.7 versus alternative 1's 19.7. The agency's preferred alternative therefore produces measurably greater departure from desired vegetation conditions in key forest types at the 10-year mark on the Malheur, the largest forest in the planning area. Yet the preferred alternative is still described as producing 'the fastest rates and greatest magnitude' of improvement. The agency should reconcile these contradictory modeling results and explain specifically why it is selecting the alternative that scores worse on structural departure in the forest type most in need of restoration.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe DEIS removes elk road-density standards from alternatives 2 and 3, replacing them with no quantitative road density requirements.
The DEIS removes elk road-density standards from alternatives 2 and 3, replacing them with no quantitative road density requirements. The agency acknowledges that 'a road density metric alone does not address complexities in patterns of open routes or the frequency of use by motorized vehicles,' but it then simply drops the metric without substituting any measurable standard. Meanwhile, alternative 2 is projected to more than double log-haul traffic, adding roughly 72,800 commercial vehicle trips per year. More roads and traffic with no measurable elk disturbance thresholds is a reasoned gap. The agency should either establish alternative measurable standards for motorized disturbance to elk habitat or provide a quantitative analysis showing that doubling haul traffic does not degrade elk productivity in key winter and summer ranges before the plan is finalized.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingTribal rights and culturally significant resources are placed under 'Issues Considered but Not Included in Detailed Analysis,' and the agency concludes that effects to cultural resources 'are primaril
Tribal rights and culturally significant resources are placed under 'Issues Considered but Not Included in Detailed Analysis,' and the agency concludes that effects to cultural resources 'are primarily driven by other laws, regulations, and policies' rather than by this plan. Yet the document simultaneously acknowledges that alternative 2 removes roadless area protections from 494,000 acres where tribal cultural resources exist, 'may pose the most risk for erosion and undesirable human-caused effects to cultural resources,' and that the roadless rescission decision includes tribal government-to-government consultation 'at that level' rather than at the forest plan level. The agency cannot defer tribal cultural resource effects to a separate process while simultaneously making irreversible land-allocation decisions that foreclose protection. The agency should conduct and disclose a forest-plan-level analysis of effects on treaty-reserved resources and cultural sites under each alternative before finalizing.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe DEIS carbon analysis contains a direct internal error.
The DEIS carbon analysis contains a direct internal error. The section titled 'Percent Total Stand Carbon Change and Proportion in Live and Dead Trees on Site at 10 and 20 Years' states: 'Alternative 1 and 3 retain the highest carbon stocks at 10 and 20 years. Its carbon stability is intermediate, less stable than alternative 2 but more stable than alternative 1.' This sentence conflates alternatives 1 and 3 in the opening clause and then contradicts itself by comparing alternative 3 to alternative 1 as if they are different. Tables 6, 7, and 8 show alternative 3 retains more carbon than alternative 1 on the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman. The logical inconsistency in the narrative analysis means the responsible official lacks a reliable carbon basis for preferring alternative 2. The agency should correct and reissue the carbon analysis with internally consistent text and tables before signing a record of decision.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe DEIS states that water originating on the Blue Mountains National Forests serves as a drinking water source for approximately 40,000 people, yet the water quality indicator in Table 9 shows altern
The DEIS states that water originating on the Blue Mountains National Forests serves as a drinking water source for approximately 40,000 people, yet the water quality indicator in Table 9 shows alternative 2 produces a 'moderate increase in sediment delivery' while alternative 3 produces only a 'low increase.' The agency then asserts both action alternatives 'would not exceed regulatory thresholds,' but provides no quantitative analysis of sediment loads, no comparison to applicable water quality standards, and no disclosure of what those regulatory thresholds are or how close current conditions are to them. For 40,000 drinking water users, a qualitative assurance that thresholds are not exceeded is insufficient. The agency should provide quantitative sediment load estimates tied to applicable state water quality standards for all municipal watersheds before finalizing the plan.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe DEIS admits that alternative 2's core justification for tripling timber harvest rests on assuming the Roadless Rule is rescinded, yet that national decision has not been made.
The DEIS admits that alternative 2's core justification for tripling timber harvest rests on assuming the Roadless Rule is rescinded, yet that national decision has not been made. The document states alternative 2 'analyzes the Blue Mountains planning area as if a national-level decision rescinds the Roadless Rule,' adding roughly 494,000 acres to the timber base and increasing suitable land by 17 percent. The agency cannot rationally prefer an alternative built on a regulatory assumption that has not occurred and may never occur. Tables 14, 15, and 16 show zero acres of IRA prohibition under alternative 2 while alternatives 1 and 3 retain 722,000 acres of protection. The agency should either analyze alternative 2 with the Roadless Rule intact or fully disclose the probability and timing of rescission as a prerequisite for selecting the preferred alternative; a supplemental analysis is needed before a record of decision is signed.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe agency dismisses grazing's economic contribution from detailed analysis in Substantive Issue 1 solely because 'the anticipated contribution to local economies from permitted livestock grazing woul
The agency dismisses grazing's economic contribution from detailed analysis in Substantive Issue 1 solely because 'the anticipated contribution to local economies from permitted livestock grazing would not vary between alternatives,' yet alternative 2 introduces 5,000 acres per year of targeted grazing not present in alternatives 1 or 3 and explicitly warns that targeted grazing 'may be at levels greater than the allowable forage use in the plan components' and risks increasing non-native invasive species. These are materially different outcomes that affect ranchers, riparian areas, and plant communities. The agency should conduct a quantitative economic and ecological analysis of the targeted grazing objective, including risk to native vegetation and compliance with existing allotment permits, before finalizing the preferred alternative.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe DEIS projects that alternative 2 would generate roughly 72,800 commercial vehicle trips per year on the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman road systems, 'more than double the estimated log hau
The DEIS projects that alternative 2 would generate roughly 72,800 commercial vehicle trips per year on the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman road systems, 'more than double the estimated log haul relative to alternative 1,' yet Table 9 shows that the stream miles restored indicator under alternative 2 is 'less than alternative 1.' The agency therefore acknowledges simultaneously that sediment delivery increases substantially and that stream restoration declines below the no-action baseline. This is an internal contradiction: the plan cannot credibly claim to protect aquatic integrity in the preferred alternative while projecting both higher road sediment and fewer restored stream miles than doing nothing. The agency should analyze the net sediment budget for key watersheds and justify why a preferred alternative that delivers more sediment and less restoration is consistent with the 2012 Planning Rule's requirement to maintain or restore ecological integrity.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe document asserts water originating on the Blue Mountains National Forests serves as a drinking water source for approximately 40,000 people, tied to specific municipal watersheds.
The document asserts water originating on the Blue Mountains National Forests serves as a drinking water source for approximately 40,000 people, tied to specific municipal watersheds.
- PendingThe plan states the John Day River is the second longest undammed river in the contiguous United States at 280 miles and supports four native salmonid species, a checkable claim about a specific water
The plan states the John Day River is the second longest undammed river in the contiguous United States at 280 miles and supports four native salmonid species, a checkable claim about a specific waterway's physical condition.
- PendingThe document specifies exact acreages of recommended wilderness polygons and their overlap with existing inventoried roadless areas, a condition checkable on the ground via lack of roads/development.
The document specifies exact acreages of recommended wilderness polygons and their overlap with existing inventoried roadless areas, a condition checkable on the ground via lack of roads/development.
- PendingThe plan asserts more than 720,000 acres under alternatives 1 and 3 would retain roadless protections similar to the 2001 Roadless Rule, a checkable claim about the extent of undeveloped, unroaded lan
The plan asserts more than 720,000 acres under alternatives 1 and 3 would retain roadless protections similar to the 2001 Roadless Rule, a checkable claim about the extent of undeveloped, unroaded land on the ground.
- PendingThe document specifies the Sacajawea Peak elevation and identifies it as the 6th highest peak in Oregon, a checkable topographic fact.
The document specifies the Sacajawea Peak elevation and identifies it as the 6th highest peak in Oregon, a checkable topographic fact.
- PendingThe plan states the Malheur National Forest is 1.5 million acres managed with 242,000 acres of the Ochoco National Forest as one unit
The plan states the Malheur National Forest is 1.5 million acres managed with 242,000 acres of the Ochoco National Forest as one unit
The reporting behind this
From More Than Just ParksIt’s referred to as Unit 346 in the Twin Mountain II Timber Sale. On the ground, it’s some of the most spectacular old growth we’ve ever witnessed, and it’s marked for clearcutting.
To document and do our part to save America’s greatest old growth forest
More actions that need you
Go deeper, free
See how your members of Congress vote on public lands
Every representative, graded on the votes that decide the fate of parks, forests, and refuges.
Open ↗The mapSee the places under active threat
A live map of the parks, monuments, and wild country in the crosshairs right now.
Open ↗A wrong fact, a dead link, a form that wouldn’t take your letter: one tap and it comes to the people who build PLAN, with this fight attached.
Know an open comment period we are missing, or spotted a wrong deadline? .