Comments closed · decided
Stop logging 1,735 acres of Willamette National Forest plantations
U.S. Forest Service · Willamette National Forest, OR
- What
- The Forest Service plans to thin, burn, and build new trail across thousands of acres in Lane County, Oregon.
- Where
- Willamette National Forest, OR
- How much
- Over 1,700 acres of Douglas-fir forest in the Willamette National Forest face logging and fuels treatment.
- Decided
- Comments closed; deadline not stated by the agency. The decision is on file: Final_DeadMountain_DN_FONSI_20260828. Open it ↗
Where these four lines come from
- WhatOur plain-English read of the Forest Service project page ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words under Case.
- WhereThe places and states the project page names, as PLAN read them.
- How muchThe first sentence of our What’s at risk read of the notice; the whole read is under Case.
- DecidedWe haven’t found where this fight’s close date came from, so the card shows no date. The decision document is the one on file in PLAN’s record.
- Read from PLAN’s record November 10, 2026.
What the proposal said, and what the decision did
Acres of commercial variable density thinning
Proposed
approximately 1,735 acresDecided
approximately 1,735 acresRiparian Reserve acres proposed for commercial harvest
Table 9 ↗ and Decision ↗
Proposed
about 356 acresDecided
about 356 acresSuitable owl habitat downgraded by shaded fuel breaks
Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action ↗ and Both beneficial and adverse effects ↗
Proposed
about 32 acresDecided
32 acres
Unreviewed · Source: Decision notice, Final_DeadMountain_DN_FONSI_20260828 ↗
Did the agency answer?
PLAN found 2 issues in the agency’s analysis.
Each issue against the decision not yet reviewed
PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThree northern spotted owl home ranges have proposed treatments that would downgrade suitable habitat, and the EA's own Table 15 shows that MSNO 2803 and 2818 are already below the functional thresholds -- MSNO 2803's core area is at 45.9 percent suitable habitat (below the 50 percent threshold) and MSNO 2818's home range is at 31.5 percent suitable habitat (well below the 40 percent threshold).
Three northern spotted owl home ranges have proposed treatments that would downgrade suitable habitat, and the EA's own Table 15 shows that MSNO 2803 and 2818 are already below the functional thresholds -- MSNO 2803's core area is at 45.9 percent suitable habitat (below the 50 percent threshold) and MSNO 2818's home range is at 31.5 percent suitable habitat (well below the 40 percent threshold).
The agency proposes to proceed with treatments that would further reduce suitable habitat in these already-impaired territories, deferring any halt only if surveys detect occupancy that year. The document does not explain how further reducing habitat in territories already below viability thresholds is consistent with the 2023 LAA Biological Opinion's standard against causing jeopardy. The agency should explain how additional impairment of territories already below functional thresholds is consistent with the Biological Opinion, or formally elevate those units to a Level 1 Review before any implementation.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“project design features and surveys prior to and during implementation will ensure the territories are not impaired while they are actively occupied by an owl; there will be no direct harm to the species (incidental take).”
The agency’s own words, Final_DeadMountain_DN_FONSI_20260828 ↗, Both beneficial and adverse effects · PLAN’s match, unchecked, an answer in part
PLAN found no answer, not yet checked by a personThe EA notes that the soil disturbance analysis -- including the soil report and slope stability findings -- is located entirely in the project record and not in the EA itself, with the text only referencing it in Table 20.
The EA notes that the soil disturbance analysis -- including the soil report and slope stability findings -- is located entirely in the project record and not in the EA itself, with the text only referencing it in Table 20.
Yet the document identifies 69 acres of pre-existing detrimental soil conditions across more than 1,700 harvest acres, states that 800 acres of highly erodible, shallow, rocky soils with southerly aspects exist in commercial thinning units, and acknowledges that ground-based equipment is proposed on some of these same acres. NEPA requires that the EA itself contain the hard look at significant issues; placing the soil disturbance analysis exclusively in the project record and outside the public comment document prevents the public from reviewing and commenting on it. The agency should incorporate the soil disturbance and slope stability analysis into the EA, or extend the public comment period after making the full soil report publicly available.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
PLAN's read: high threat
The Forest Service plans to thin, burn, and build new trail across thousands of acres in Lane County, Oregon.
What’s at risk
If this goes through
Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.
The agency’s own analysis
What the notice says, and what it leaves out
The window has closed; the record of what was missing stays.
The agency says
“MSNO core area or home range would be impaired by proposed downgrade of suitable habitat.”
Three northern spotted owl home ranges have proposed treatments that would downgrade suitable habitat, and the EA's own Table 15 shows that MSNO 2803 and 2818 are already below the functional thresholds -- MSNO 2803's core area is at 45.9 percent suitable habitat (below the 50 percent threshold) and MSNO 2818's home range is at 31.5 percent suitable habitat (well below the 40 percent threshold).
Table 20. Issues Considered in the Analysis ↗
The agency says
“The Forest should analyze for soil disturbance and erosion from logging activities -- The effects of soil disturbance from harvest was considered to ensure compliance with forest standards and guidelines. This analysis can be found in the project record.”
The EA notes that the soil disturbance analysis -- including the soil report and slope stability findings -- is located entirely in the project record and not in the EA itself, with the text only referencing it in Table 20.
In the agency’s own words
Timber harvest, small diameter fuels reduction, roadside fuels reductions, burn blocks, and recreation management.
The groups on this fight
4 groups predicted likely to care in Oregon
Predicted likely to care is a guess from the group's sourced work in Oregon, with no link to this decision. Give straight to them; nothing routes through us.
- Cascadia Wildlands
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Western Oregon O&C Lands, Oregon: Serial litigant against western Oregon BLM logging, from the 2016 management plan challenge to the current round of timber sale suits.
- Crag Law Center
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Western Oregon O&C Lands, Oregon: Counsel of record for the conservation groups fighting BLM logging across the O&C forests.
- Oregon Natural Desert Association
Predicted likely to care · a guess
McDermitt Caldera, 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
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Western Oregon O&C Lands, Oregon: Its attorneys, with Cascadia Wildlands and Crag Law Center, represent the groups challenging BLM's Blue and Gold old-growth logging project in the Coast Range.
Every group above is on STAND for Public Lands, with its court record, its filings and who backs it.
Who signs it
PLAN hasn’t read a signer into its record for this fight. The decision on file carries the signature: Final_DeadMountain_DN_FONSI_20260828 ↗.
The ground
The window has closed, so there’s no watch to set on it here.
The photograph on this page: Mule deer doe in mountain fog. It’s the country this decision sits in, not the site itself. More Than Just Parks.
In court on this ground
No court case we track is over Willamette National Forest.
Who holds the vote
PLAN’s record doesn’t tie a member of Congress to this fight yet. The scorecard grades the votes and bills that decide public lands; nothing joins a vote or a bill to this decision, so there’s no member to name here without guessing.
See how your members vote ↗Forest ServiceWe track this on the agency’s own system of record, where most on-the-ground decisions live.
Know an open comment period we are missing, or spotted a wrong deadline? .
More fights that need you
Go deeper for 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.