Cala-Wiley plantation thinning on Willamette National Forest nears approval
Cala-Wiley
U.S. Forest Service· Willamette National Forest, Sweet Home Ranger DistrictU.S. Forest Service project page ↗
Forest ServiceWe track this on the agency’s own system of record, where most on-the-ground decisions live.
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.
The Sweet Home Ranger District is finalizing a plan to thin nearly 900 acres of young forest plantations.
What’s at risk
Only people or organizations who submitted written comments during the earlier public participation window are eligible to file an objection. At stake are 899 acres of under-80-year-old plantations on the Willamette National Forest, where the agency would authorize thinning, gap creation, and fuels treatments.
If this goes through
The Forest Service would proceed with timber harvesting, dominant tree releases, gap creation, and fuels treatments across the project area, reshaping the structure of these young plantation stands.
Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.
9 holes in the agency’s own analysis
What the public could have raised, from the agency’s own document
- I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below.
- The ESA consultation for northern spotted owl rests on a 2017 Letter of Concurrence that is now eight years old. The document acknowledges that if future surveys find new owl sites the project would be adjusted, but the underlying programmatic biological assessment has not been updated to reflect current owl population data, the 2021 Recovery Plan updates, or the 2023 revised critical habitat rule. The agency cannot simply incorporate by reference an eight-year-old concurrence and call Section 7 satisfied for a 2026 project. The agency should either obtain a current site-specific biological opinion from USFWS or demonstrate explicitly why the 2017 LOC remains adequate under current conditions.
- The fire behavior analysis compares pre- and post-harvest conditions but relies on LANDFIRE data and post-harvest fuel models drawn from 'nearby, prior timber harvests' rather than site-specific measurements. The EA itself warns that initial fine fuel loadings will increase directly after harvest, yet Table 6 shows fine dead fuel loading dropping from 7.0 to 0.5 tons per acre post-harvest with no explanation of when that reduction occurs or how the pile-burning schedule is guaranteed. The agency should provide a time-stepped fuel analysis showing conditions during the window between harvest completion and pile-burn completion, when fire risk is highest.
- The economic analysis uses mill capacity data from 2008 and explicitly states 'there are no updated reports detailing current capacity,' then applies an adjusted figure of 1,000 MMBF without explanation. The net present value of the entire project is only $143,977 on $5.1 million in costs, a benefit-cost ratio of 1.03 that leaves essentially no margin. If the 2008-era capacity assumption overstates current market absorption, the project may be economically negative. The agency should obtain current mill capacity data or justify the 1,000 MMBF proxy before certifying economic viability.
- The EA states that 122 acres of dispersal habitat will be thinned to no less than 35 percent canopy cover, which by the document's own definition removes that acreage from dispersal habitat classification (which requires 40 percent or more). Six known owl nest sites overlap the project, and Table 9 shows dispersal habitat removal occurring in the home ranges of at least two sites (4404 and SH182, 66 acres each). The document then concludes the action is 'not likely to adversely affect' spotted owls without analyzing how temporary removal of dispersal habitat in occupied home ranges affects owl foraging or survival during the 10-to-15-year recovery period. The agency should provide a site-specific analysis of functional territory impacts during the habitat gap period.
Show all 11 points from the document
- The riparian reserve thinning rationale states that ACSO Objective 9 is not being met and that thinning is therefore permissible under the NWFP exception. However, the document never presents a baseline measurement showing the current status of Objective 9 or any other ACSO in these specific stands; it simply asserts the desired condition is not present. The NWFP places the burden on the agency to demonstrate that thinning is needed to attain ACSOs, not merely that it would accelerate attainment. The agency should provide stand-scale ACSO assessments showing which objectives are unmet and why commercial thinning, rather than natural succession, is the minimum necessary intervention.
- The sediment analysis acknowledges that the watershed analyses underpinning this project are from 1995, 1998, and 2005, yet the Holiday Farm Fire burned 12,040 acres within the project boundary in 2020 and the agency relies on a supplemental information report that found changes 'were not significant enough to warrant reanalysis.' The document simultaneously states that wildfires 'have the potential to increase sediment risk' and that there is 'extensive earthflow terrain in the project area that leads to a high level of natural erosion.' Adding 92 miles of haul traffic and wet-season road use on top of post-fire destabilized slopes without updated watershed analysis is a direct internal contradiction. The agency should commission or cite a current post-fire watershed condition assessment before approving wet-season haul.
- The carbon analysis uses a forest-wide ForCaMF model calibrated to 1990-2011 harvest intensities and acknowledges that the model is 'skewed towards picking up primarily more intensive harvest activity,' meaning the per-acre carbon removal estimate of 43 Mg per acre likely overstates removal. The agency then uses this overestimate to show the project's impact is negligible (less than 0.013 percent of forest carbon). This is circular: using an inflated removal rate to produce a small percentage of a very large forest-wide stock, then claiming insignificance. The agency should provide a thinning-specific carbon removal estimate rather than one derived from clearcut-era data.
- The alternative analysis section dismisses a no-harvest-in-riparian-reserves alternative in a single paragraph without quantitative comparison, even though commenters submitted peer-reviewed literature (Pollock and Beechie 2014, Frissell et al. 2014) showing that natural succession may produce more ecologically functional deadwood than thinning in young Douglas-fir stands. The agency's response acknowledges the science is mixed and that a 12-inch diameter limit 'could be a potentially good idea' but declines to analyze it. Failing to develop and compare a riparian-reserve-only-natural-succession alternative or a diameter-limited alternative deprives the decision-maker of a meaningful range of alternatives. The agency should analyze at least one reduced-impact riparian reserve alternative with quantified trade-offs.
- The tribal consultation section states that letters were sent to three tribes on June 25, 2025, and that 'no comments have been received at this time.' The document was signed July 27, 2026, giving tribes over a year to respond, yet the EA never reports whether a follow-up occurred or whether silence was interpreted as concurrence. The Calapooia River corridor and its tributaries are ancestral lands of these tribes, and the EA identifies no effort beyond a single mailing to ensure meaningful government-to-government consultation. The agency should document the full consultation record, including any follow-up contacts, tribal responses, and how tribal interests were weighed in the final decision.
- 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
The district proposes to treat 899 acres of under 80 plantations using thinning, dominant tree releases, gap creation, and skips then fuel treatments.
Did the agency answer?
12 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 document claims the treatment units consist of plantations less than 80 years old, aged 30 to 63 years, proposed for thinning and related silvicultural treatments.
The document claims the treatment units consist of plantations less than 80 years old, aged 30 to 63 years, proposed for thinning and related silvicultural treatments. A volunteer could walk the units and check tree age indicators, spacing, and plantation rows to confirm this characterization.
- PendingThe document asserts no wolf activity or sign has been documented in or near the project area, despite no formal detection surveys having been conducted.
The document asserts no wolf activity or sign has been documented in or near the project area, despite no formal detection surveys having been conducted. Anyone hiking the area could look for tracks, scat, or other evidence to test this claim.
- PendingThe document claims there are no known populations of Kincaid's lupine or Willamette Daisy within or adjacent to the project area, and no suitable habitat exists to support them.
The document claims there are no known populations of Kincaid's lupine or Willamette Daisy within or adjacent to the project area, and no suitable habitat exists to support them. A botanist or volunteer could survey the project area for these species or their habitat to test this claim.
- PendingThe EA states that 122 acres of dispersal habitat will be thinned to no less than 35 percent canopy cover, which by the document's own definition removes that acreage from dispersal habitat classifica
The EA states that 122 acres of dispersal habitat will be thinned to no less than 35 percent canopy cover, which by the document's own definition removes that acreage from dispersal habitat classification (which requires 40 percent or more). Six known owl nest sites overlap the project, and Table 9 shows dispersal habitat removal occurring in the home ranges of at least two sites (4404 and SH182, 66 acres each). The document then concludes the action is 'not likely to adversely affect' spotted owls without analyzing how temporary removal of dispersal habitat in occupied home ranges affects owl foraging or survival during the 10-to-15-year recovery period. The agency should provide a site-specific analysis of functional territory impacts during the habitat gap period.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe riparian reserve thinning rationale states that ACSO Objective 9 is not being met and that thinning is therefore permissible under the NWFP exception.
The riparian reserve thinning rationale states that ACSO Objective 9 is not being met and that thinning is therefore permissible under the NWFP exception. However, the document never presents a baseline measurement showing the current status of Objective 9 or any other ACSO in these specific stands; it simply asserts the desired condition is not present. The NWFP places the burden on the agency to demonstrate that thinning is needed to attain ACSOs, not merely that it would accelerate attainment. The agency should provide stand-scale ACSO assessments showing which objectives are unmet and why commercial thinning, rather than natural succession, is the minimum necessary intervention.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe sediment analysis acknowledges that the watershed analyses underpinning this project are from 1995, 1998, and 2005, yet the Holiday Farm Fire burned 12,040 acres within the project boundary in 202
The sediment analysis acknowledges that the watershed analyses underpinning this project are from 1995, 1998, and 2005, yet the Holiday Farm Fire burned 12,040 acres within the project boundary in 2020 and the agency relies on a supplemental information report that found changes 'were not significant enough to warrant reanalysis.' The document simultaneously states that wildfires 'have the potential to increase sediment risk' and that there is 'extensive earthflow terrain in the project area that leads to a high level of natural erosion.' Adding 92 miles of haul traffic and wet-season road use on top of post-fire destabilized slopes without updated watershed analysis is a direct internal contradiction. The agency should commission or cite a current post-fire watershed condition assessment before approving wet-season haul.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe ESA consultation for northern spotted owl rests on a 2017 Letter of Concurrence that is now eight years old.
The ESA consultation for northern spotted owl rests on a 2017 Letter of Concurrence that is now eight years old. The document acknowledges that if future surveys find new owl sites the project would be adjusted, but the underlying programmatic biological assessment has not been updated to reflect current owl population data, the 2021 Recovery Plan updates, or the 2023 revised critical habitat rule. The agency cannot simply incorporate by reference an eight-year-old concurrence and call Section 7 satisfied for a 2026 project. The agency should either obtain a current site-specific biological opinion from USFWS or demonstrate explicitly why the 2017 LOC remains adequate under current conditions.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe alternative analysis section dismisses a no-harvest-in-riparian-reserves alternative in a single paragraph without quantitative comparison, even though commenters submitted peer-reviewed literatur
The alternative analysis section dismisses a no-harvest-in-riparian-reserves alternative in a single paragraph without quantitative comparison, even though commenters submitted peer-reviewed literature (Pollock and Beechie 2014, Frissell et al. 2014) showing that natural succession may produce more ecologically functional deadwood than thinning in young Douglas-fir stands. The agency's response acknowledges the science is mixed and that a 12-inch diameter limit 'could be a potentially good idea' but declines to analyze it. Failing to develop and compare a riparian-reserve-only-natural-succession alternative or a diameter-limited alternative deprives the decision-maker of a meaningful range of alternatives. The agency should analyze at least one reduced-impact riparian reserve alternative with quantified trade-offs.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe tribal consultation section states that letters were sent to three tribes on June 25, 2025, and that 'no comments have been received at this time.' The document was signed July 27, 2026, giving tr
The tribal consultation section states that letters were sent to three tribes on June 25, 2025, and that 'no comments have been received at this time.' The document was signed July 27, 2026, giving tribes over a year to respond, yet the EA never reports whether a follow-up occurred or whether silence was interpreted as concurrence. The Calapooia River corridor and its tributaries are ancestral lands of these tribes, and the EA identifies no effort beyond a single mailing to ensure meaningful government-to-government consultation. The agency should document the full consultation record, including any follow-up contacts, tribal responses, and how tribal interests were weighed in the final decision.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe carbon analysis uses a forest-wide ForCaMF model calibrated to 1990-2011 harvest intensities and acknowledges that the model is 'skewed towards picking up primarily more intensive harvest activity
The carbon analysis uses a forest-wide ForCaMF model calibrated to 1990-2011 harvest intensities and acknowledges that the model is 'skewed towards picking up primarily more intensive harvest activity,' meaning the per-acre carbon removal estimate of 43 Mg per acre likely overstates removal. The agency then uses this overestimate to show the project's impact is negligible (less than 0.013 percent of forest carbon). This is circular: using an inflated removal rate to produce a small percentage of a very large forest-wide stock, then claiming insignificance. The agency should provide a thinning-specific carbon removal estimate rather than one derived from clearcut-era data.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe fire behavior analysis compares pre- and post-harvest conditions but relies on LANDFIRE data and post-harvest fuel models drawn from 'nearby, prior timber harvests' rather than site-specific measu
The fire behavior analysis compares pre- and post-harvest conditions but relies on LANDFIRE data and post-harvest fuel models drawn from 'nearby, prior timber harvests' rather than site-specific measurements. The EA itself warns that initial fine fuel loadings will increase directly after harvest, yet Table 6 shows fine dead fuel loading dropping from 7.0 to 0.5 tons per acre post-harvest with no explanation of when that reduction occurs or how the pile-burning schedule is guaranteed. The agency should provide a time-stepped fuel analysis showing conditions during the window between harvest completion and pile-burn completion, when fire risk is highest.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe economic analysis uses mill capacity data from 2008 and explicitly states 'there are no updated reports detailing current capacity,' then applies an adjusted figure of 1,000 MMBF without explanati
The economic analysis uses mill capacity data from 2008 and explicitly states 'there are no updated reports detailing current capacity,' then applies an adjusted figure of 1,000 MMBF without explanation. The net present value of the entire project is only $143,977 on $5.1 million in costs, a benefit-cost ratio of 1.03 that leaves essentially no margin. If the 2008-era capacity assumption overstates current market absorption, the project may be economically negative. The agency should obtain current mill capacity data or justify the 1,000 MMBF proxy before certifying economic viability.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
The reporting behind this
From More Than Just ParksAfter more than a decade chasing peak color across America, we built the foliage map we always wanted.
More than 90 percent of American lumber comes off private land. The Trump administration wants to industrially log America’s national forests anyway.
Another foreign mining company wants a piece of America’s public lands. This one comes with millions of gallons of groundwater pumping and radioactive radon.
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? .