Umatilla National Forest fuels and huckleberry project open for comment
54 North Fuels Reduction and Huckleberry Restoration Project
U.S. Forest Service· Umatilla National Forest, North Fork John Day 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 Forest Service proposes thinning and burning to reduce fire risk and restore huckleberry habitat on the North Fork John Day Ranger District.
What’s at risk
Old trees and dry upland forest character on the North Fork John Day Ranger District could be altered by density reduction and species composition changes. The project shifts forest makeup toward fire-tolerant species, which may affect habitat dependent on current conditions.
If this goes through
Thinning, fuels reduction, and huckleberry habitat work would proceed on the North Fork John Day Ranger District, changing forest density and composition in ways that may be difficult to reverse for old-tree stands.
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
- 1
- Holds up
- 5
- No support given
- 1
- Contradicted by its own record
- 3
- Never analyzed
The Forest Service proposes commercial and non-commercial thinning, site preparation and prescribed fire across the 40,554-acre 54 North project area. It says dense, fire-excluded stands and degraded grasslands need treatment to cut wildfire risk and restore huckleberry and other First Foods habitat, partly at the request of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation.
“The purpose of the 54 North Project is to reduce wildland fire risk to key ecological values (huckleberry and dry grasslands), reduce hazardous fuels by removing or modifying vegetation, and to support the durability and resiliency of forest and grasslands.”
Purpose and Need
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.
Effects
Contradicted by its own record
The project won't affect any waters or wetlands and complies with the Clean Water Act without further steps.
The agency relies on design criteria that it says prevent long-term sediment and temperature increases. But its own aquatic analysis predicts sediment pulses below haul routes, with Pearson Creek rising from 6.94 to 25.25 tons per year during haul, and turbidity effects on steelhead, in streams it says are already temperature-listed and sediment-impaired.
AskExplain how predicted sediment increases in already impaired streams square with a finding of no effect on any waters, and disclose sediment estimates for every subwatershed.
The agency’s words, the record +Hide the words
The agency says
“The project will not affect any waters, including wetlands, and no further permits or modifications are needed to ensure compliance.”
Clean Water Act
Elsewhere in the same document
“Short‑term hydrologic effects are limited to localized sediment pulses downstream of haul routes and disturbed upland soils.”
Hydrology and Hydrologic Function
“Short‑term effects to fish consist of temporary increases in turbidity that may reduce water clarity and affect visual foraging efficiency, predator avoidance, and habitat use for steelhead and redband trout.”
Fish and Fish Habitat
Effects
No support given
The project makes no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources because it involves no resource extraction.
The agency says the treatments are restorative, that temporary roads will be decommissioned and rehabilitated, and that the project involves no mining or similar extraction that would cause irreversible commitments. Timber is renewable, so commercial thinning isn't a direct contradiction. But the answer doesn't address whether removing timber from 4,424 acres of commercial thinning is an irretrievable commitment for a period of time, even though other sections describe it as increasing timber output. The shallow-soil language comes from criterion SOIL-04, which requires those soils to be avoided.
AskReexamine whether commercial timber removal and possible very shallow soil disturbance are irretrievable commitments, and explain the conclusion using the document's own timber and soil findings.
The agency’s words, the record +Hide the words
The agency says
“Overall, the proposed treatments are intended to maintain and improve ecological function and do not involve activities, such as mining or resource extraction, that would lead to irreversible or irretrievable commitments of Federal resources.”
Will the proposed action or action alternatives (if any) make an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of Federal resources?
Elsewhere in the same document
“Uses temporary roads and mechanical systems to facilitate accelerated timber removal consistent with EO 14225 objectives.”
EO14225, Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production
Effects
No support given
Concerns about prescribed fire ignitions in riparian areas need no analysis because fire is only backed in from outside riparian buffers.
Criterion WQ-02 labels its 100-foot, 75-foot and 50-foot ignition setbacks as PACFISH 'limited activity buffers,' requires hand ignition, and allows fire in riparian habitat conservation areas only if it's backed in. The dismissal likely refers to those setbacks. It doesn't mean the wider 300-foot riparian areas in WQ-08. Read that way, the dismissal matches the design criteria. However, WQ-02 and FUELS-05 plainly allow ignition inside riparian habitat conservation areas. So dismissing 'concerns about prescribed fire ignitions within RHCAs' without analysis isn't explained by the stated reason.
AskClarify exactly where ignitions may occur relative to riparian buffers and analyze prescribed fire effects in riparian areas instead of dismissing the issue.
The agency’s words, the record +Hide the words
The agency says
“Likewise, concerns about prescribed fire ignitions within RHCAs were dismissed, as the EA only allows backing fire from outside PACFISH buffers.”
Issues Considered but Dismissed from Detailed Analysis
Elsewhere in the same document
“Alter prescribed fire ignition methods and holding actions in RHCAs to maintain ecosystem structure, function, and processes, mimicking a low intensity (less than 4-foot flame lengths) backing fire that creates a patchy mosaic of burned areas.”
Table 4
“Fire is allowed in RHCAs if it is backed in using the criteria described above.”
Table 4
Show 3 more claims +Show fewer
Effects
No support given
Heritage design criteria and tribal consultation ensure continued ceremonial access and no adverse effects to Indian sacred sites.
The agency points to criteria ARCH-01 through ARCH-06, including 100-foot buffers, hand-only work inside site boundaries, and a 300-foot work stoppage if new sites or remains are found. It also points to ongoing coordination with CTUIR's Cultural Resources Protection Program. But the Section 106 review says the cultural survey covers only part of the project area and formal consultation hasn't begun. Buffers protect only sites that have been identified, so the conclusion of no adverse effects rests on incomplete information.
AskComplete cultural surveys across the whole project area and formal consultation with tribal historic preservation officers, and share the results before concluding sacred sites won't be harmed.
The agency’s words, the record and the law +Hide the words
The agency says
“These combined measures ensure continued access for ceremonial and subsistence practices and avoid adverse effects to Indian sacred sites.”
EO 13007, Indian Sacred Sites
Elsewhere in the same document
“Formal Section 106 consultation has not yet begun, as background research is still underway.”
National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 Review
“The Forest also contracted a cultural resource survey and report for part of the project area, completed in accordance with federal and state professional standards.”
National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 Review
The law
“shall take into account the effect of the undertaking on any historic property.” National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. 306108 ↗
Effects
No support given
Temporary road mileage, placement and decommissioning will stay fully consistent with riparian and Forest Plan soil standards.
The agency relies on criteria ROADS-01, SOIL-07, SOIL-13 and WQ-09. It says no temporary roads enter riparian habitat conservation areas. It says the Aquatic Report maps all temporary road segments on slopes less than 35% using LiDAR. That report isn't in this text, though, and the document never states temporary road mileage, an issue its own Table 5 flagged. The road figures aren't clearly inconsistent. The 28.3 and 127.3 miles add to about the 156 miles in the Road Maintenance section, while the 12 and 121 miles are described as haul routes. The document doesn't reconcile the two sets.
AskDisclose the miles and locations of new and reopened temporary roads, reconcile the conflicting closed road haul figures, and show how soil standards will be met.
The agency’s words, the record and the law +Hide the words
The agency says
“However, the combination of PACFISH restrictions, Forest Plan soil standards, Best Management Practices, and the project's extensive set of Project Design Criteria ensures that temporary road mileage, placement, construction, and decommissioning remain fully consistent with regulatory requirements.”
Roads, Soils, and Compliance with PACFISH and Forest Plan Standards
Elsewhere in the same document
“A small number of temporary road segments may be needed for project implementation, and these are located on existing disturbed roadbeds where feasible.”
Transportation
“The proposed action uses 28.3 miles of ML-1 roads and 127.3 miles of ML-2 and 3 roads.”
Transportation
The law
“Resource plans and permits, contracts, and other instruments for the use and occupancy of National Forest System lands shall be consistent with the land management plans.” National Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1604(i) ↗
Effects
No support given
After treatment, every elk analysis area will meet or exceed Forest Plan standards for habitat effectiveness and cover.
The agency cites the Wildlife Biological Evaluation, criterion WL-09 cover standards, and increased forage. More forage could raise the habitat effectiveness score in analysis area A, which starts slightly below standard. But the text gives no before-and-after habitat effectiveness or cover numbers for any analysis area, and Table 5 itself says a quantitative elk assessment is lacking. The A through E versus A through F labels are likely a typo, since the document counts six areas.
AskPublish existing and post-treatment habitat effectiveness index and cover values for each elk analysis area, and explain how area A will reach the standard.
The agency’s words, the record and the law +Hide the words
The agency says
“In all areas, treatments and associated PDCs will result in HEI, satisfactory cover, and total cover values that meet or exceed associated Forest Plan standards.”
Elk Habitat Effectiveness Index (HEI) and Forest Plan Security Standards
Elsewhere in the same document
“Analysis area A meets standards for total and satisfactory cover but is slightly below the standard for HEI.”
Elk Habitat, Habitat Effectiveness Index (HEI), and Security Standards
“The Wildlife BE documents that thinning and prescribed fire activities would reduce total forest cover in all Analysis Areas (A through F) with a corresponding increase in forage.”
Elk Habitat Effectiveness Index (HEI) and Forest Plan Security Standards
The law
“Resource plans and permits, contracts, and other instruments for the use and occupancy of National Forest System lands shall be consistent with the land management plans.” National Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1604(i) ↗
What the document never analyzes
Not analyzed
Carbon emissions and forest carbon storage
The project would burn up to 40,554 acres and remove commercial timber from 4,424 acres, and the Clean Air Act section says it will add emissions, yet effects on stored carbon aren't analyzed.
Searched all 83 pages for ‘carbon’, ‘greenhouse’, ‘sequestration’. None appear.
AskEstimate carbon released by thinning, pile burning and prescribed fire, and compare it with carbon effects of the no action alternative.
Not analyzed
Timber volume and sale revenue
The document cites merchantable timber, jobs and Executive Orders on timber production as benefits but never states expected harvest volume, value or project costs.
Searched all 83 pages for ‘board feet’, ‘stumpage’. None appear.
AskDisclose expected timber volume, sale revenue, treatment costs and estimated jobs so economic benefits can be weighed.
Not analyzed
Which invasive grasses infest the grasslands
The purpose says dry grasslands are degraded by invasive species, but the document never names the species, maps infested acres, or explains how burning 2,610 grassland acres affects their spread.
Searched all 83 pages for ‘cheatgrass’, ‘medusahead’, ‘ventenata’, ‘infested’. None appear.
AskIdentify the invasive species and infested acres in project grasslands and analyze how prescribed fire and ground disturbance could change them.
Where its own record backs the agency
Purpose and needMany stands have grown dense and departed from desired conditions, so fuels reduction and restoration treatment is needed.Why it holds +
The Forest Vegetation section says about 73% of forested land is in warm and dry forest types, and the Fire and Fuels section records only 1,525 acres of precommercial thinning and 671 acres of prescribed burning since 2000 in a 40,554-acre area. That baseline backs the need for fuels work, though the document shows no fire behavior modeling numbers.
The agency says
“When developing the 54 North Project, the Forest determined that some stands within the 54 North Project area have diverged from their desired state.”
Purpose and Need
Its own record backs it
“Approximately 73% of the forested lands within the 54 North project area fall within Warm and Dry Upland Forest PAGs (Hot Dry, Warm Dry, Warm Moist, and Warm Very Moist).”
Forest Vegetation
“Records show 1,525 acres of precommercial thinning and 671 acres of prescribed burning.”
Fire and Fuels
Read from the agency’s own decision document ↗, all 83 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.
- Section 106 review is incomplete but the agency is moving toward a decision anyway. The EA openly states that 'formal Section 106 consultation has not yet begun, as background research is still underway,' yet the project proposes ground-disturbing activities across 40,554 acres of ceded tribal lands with documented cultural resources. The EA even acknowledges the Forest may fall back on a 'program alternative' if the standard combined process cannot be completed before the decision. Issuing a decision before Section 106 consultation is complete denies the public and tribes a meaningful opportunity to evaluate how historic properties will be protected. The agency should complete formal Section 106 consultation, share the results publicly, and reopen the comment period before issuing any decision.
- The EA acknowledges serious, pre-existing aquatic impairments across all eleven subwatersheds but dismisses quantitative analysis of cumulative sediment loading from simultaneous road use, mechanical thinning, and temporary road construction. The document admits that Lane Creek-Camas Creek, Pearson Creek, and Upper Owens Creek show 'higher hydrologic connectivity between roads and stream networks, increasing sediment delivery under runoff conditions,' yet the effects section relies on a single GRAIP-Lite example for Pearson Creek to represent the entire project. The agency has not disclosed subwatershed-specific cumulative sediment budgets for all eleven watersheds under simultaneous treatment. The agency should provide watershed-by-watershed cumulative sediment yield estimates under the proposed action before a decision is issued.
- The EA proposes 4,212 acres of ground-based commercial thinning yet the soils baseline shows widespread sensitivity to compaction and erosion. The document states baseline sampling found 'less than 20% detrimental soil conditions, meeting Region 6 Soil Quality Standards,' but then acknowledges 'short-term adverse impacts include localized soil compaction and disturbance on landings, skid trails, and temporary road segments.' The EA does not disclose what percentage of detrimental soil conditions is projected post-treatment, nor whether cumulative disturbance across all activity types within a single watershed will stay below the 20% threshold. The agency should provide post-treatment detrimental soil condition projections by activity area and demonstrate that the 20% standard will not be exceeded cumulatively before issuing a decision.
- The EA states that fish and aquatic habitat are 'thermally impaired, sediment-burdened, structurally simplified, and riparian-degraded' and that the project is 'Likely to Adversely Affect' Middle Columbia River steelhead and their critical habitat, yet the effects analysis concludes only minor, temporary harm. The document never discloses the terms and conditions from the anticipated Biological Opinion, stating only that 'other PDCs and/or required project implementation BMPs will be included in the project because of ESA consultation and the associated terms and conditions in the Biological Opinion.' The public cannot evaluate whether the project's design adequately protects listed steelhead without seeing those terms and conditions. The agency should release the completed Biological Opinion and its terms and conditions before the comment period closes and before a decision is issued.
Show all 11 points from the document
- The EA proposes prescribed fire across the entire 40,554-acre project boundary, including 411 acres within the Birch Creek Cove Research Natural Area, but provides no site-specific fire behavior analysis for the RNA. The Forest Plan requires prescribed fire in RNAs to 'perpetuate the sere,' 'return fire to its natural role,' and 'return plant communities to a condition similar to that existing prior to active fire suppression.' The EA relies solely on generic PDCs (FUELS-03 and FUELS-05) to ensure protection, without disclosing what the pre-suppression plant community looked like in the RNA, how burn prescriptions were tailored to that specific community, or how effects will be monitored. The agency should provide RNA-specific burn plan elements and a baseline vegetation description for Birch Creek Cove before authorizing prescribed fire in that management area.
- The EA asserts that visual quality standards in Management Area A4 will be met but provides no unit-specific foreground visibility analysis. The effects section lists aggregate acreage of treatments in A4 (74 acres commercial thinning, 840 acres non-commercial thinning, 943 acres prescribed fire) and acknowledges that activities 'increase foreground contrast in roadside corridors, dispersed campsites, and developed recreation sites,' yet defers all specifics to generic PDCs. Table 5 itself identifies 'unit-specific analysis of foreground visibility and contrast' as a substantive issue requiring specialist analysis. The agency should provide unit-by-unit contrast rating analysis for A4 foreground zones, demonstrating Partial Retention compliance at the treatment unit level, before a decision is issued.
- The EA allows temporary roads to remain on the landscape for up to five to seven years, in a watershed system already documented as 'moderately impaired to highly impaired' for sediment, yet treats full decommissioning as a certainty rather than analyzing the risk of delayed or incomplete reclamation. The document states 'temporary roads will be on the landscape no longer than 5 to 7 years from when they are first constructed,' but the effects analysis does not evaluate the sediment and hydrologic consequences if roads persist at the longer end of that range or if funding for decommissioning is delayed. Table 5 identifies temporary road location and closure uncertainty as a substantive issue. The agency should analyze the sediment and aquatic habitat consequences of the full five-to-seven-year road persistence scenario and disclose what happens if decommissioning funding is not secured.
- The EA dismisses concern about elk security habitat by noting that existing road density averages 1.5 miles per square mile and meets Forest Plan standards, but then acknowledges that the project area already has 'only patchy areas of security' habitat above the 250-acre threshold. Adding haul traffic on 28.3 miles of ML-1 roads and 127.3 miles of ML-2 and ML-3 roads during implementation will temporarily increase effective open-road density and reduce elk security, yet no HEI calculation reflecting active haul periods is presented. Table 5 identifies the lack of a quantitative HEI assessment as a substantive issue requiring modeling. The agency should provide HEI calculations that reflect road-open conditions during active haul and demonstrate that elk security standards are met during implementation, not only post-project.
- The EA proposes site preparation treatments that remove all trees in cohort stands to shift species composition, yet asserts the project makes no irreversible commitment of federal resources and does not convert forest types. Site preparation 'targets stands where trees are all the same age' and 'will allow for managers to shift species composition,' which is a stand-replacing treatment. The irreversibility section states only that 'vegetation management activities are restorative in nature,' without analyzing how long it will take for treated stands to return to forested conditions or whether the shift in species composition constitutes a long-term conversion. The agency should disclose projected stand recovery timelines and canopy closure dates for site preparation units and address whether the treatment constitutes a conversion of forest type under Eastside Screens direction.
- 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
To restore resilience in dry upland forests by protecting old trees, reducing surface fuels, reducing overall forest density, and shifting composition from intolerant to fire tolerant species. Improve habitat for huckleberry.
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 EA dismisses concern about elk security habitat by noting that existing road density averages 1.5 miles per square mile and meets Forest Plan standards, but then acknowledges that the project area
The EA dismisses concern about elk security habitat by noting that existing road density averages 1.5 miles per square mile and meets Forest Plan standards, but then acknowledges that the project area already has 'only patchy areas of security' habitat above the 250-acre threshold. Adding haul traffic on 28.3 miles of ML-1 roads and 127.3 miles of ML-2 and ML-3 roads during implementation will temporarily increase effective open-road density and reduce elk security, yet no HEI calculation reflecting active haul periods is presented. Table 5 identifies the lack of a quantitative HEI assessment as a substantive issue requiring modeling. The agency should provide HEI calculations that reflect road-open conditions during active haul and demonstrate that elk security standards are met during implementation, not only post-project.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingSection 106 review is incomplete but the agency is moving toward a decision anyway.
Section 106 review is incomplete but the agency is moving toward a decision anyway. The EA openly states that 'formal Section 106 consultation has not yet begun, as background research is still underway,' yet the project proposes ground-disturbing activities across 40,554 acres of ceded tribal lands with documented cultural resources. The EA even acknowledges the Forest may fall back on a 'program alternative' if the standard combined process cannot be completed before the decision. Issuing a decision before Section 106 consultation is complete denies the public and tribes a meaningful opportunity to evaluate how historic properties will be protected. The agency should complete formal Section 106 consultation, share the results publicly, and reopen the comment period before issuing any decision.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingOf 214.6 total road miles in the project area, the document claims 117.6 miles are closed and 97 miles are open.
Of 214.6 total road miles in the project area, the document claims 117.6 miles are closed and 97 miles are open.
- PendingThe document states the area has received only 1,525 acres of precommercial thinning and 671 acres of prescribed burning since 2000.
The document states the area has received only 1,525 acres of precommercial thinning and 671 acres of prescribed burning since 2000.
- PendingThe EA states there is no record of milkweed, the plant monarch butterflies need to reproduce, anywhere in the project area.
The EA states there is no record of milkweed, the plant monarch butterflies need to reproduce, anywhere in the project area.
- PendingThe document ties dispersed camping use directly to the fall big game hunting season, said to run August through late November.
The document ties dispersed camping use directly to the fall big game hunting season, said to run August through late November.
- PendingTwo developed campgrounds, Lane Creek and Bear Wallow, are said to exist in or adjacent to the project area.
Two developed campgrounds, Lane Creek and Bear Wallow, are said to exist in or adjacent to the project area.
- PendingThe document states there are no official NFS hiking trails in the project area, only OHV routes and seasonal snowmobile trails.
The document states there are no official NFS hiking trails in the project area, only OHV routes and seasonal snowmobile trails.
- PendingThe document counts 55 dispersed campsites across the recreation analysis area.
The document counts 55 dispersed campsites across the recreation analysis area.
- PendingThe EA proposes site preparation treatments that remove all trees in cohort stands to shift species composition, yet asserts the project makes no irreversible commitment of federal resources and does
The EA proposes site preparation treatments that remove all trees in cohort stands to shift species composition, yet asserts the project makes no irreversible commitment of federal resources and does not convert forest types. Site preparation 'targets stands where trees are all the same age' and 'will allow for managers to shift species composition,' which is a stand-replacing treatment. The irreversibility section states only that 'vegetation management activities are restorative in nature,' without analyzing how long it will take for treated stands to return to forested conditions or whether the shift in species composition constitutes a long-term conversion. The agency should disclose projected stand recovery timelines and canopy closure dates for site preparation units and address whether the treatment constitutes a conversion of forest type under Eastside Screens direction.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA acknowledges serious, pre-existing aquatic impairments across all eleven subwatersheds but dismisses quantitative analysis of cumulative sediment loading from simultaneous road use, mechanical
The EA acknowledges serious, pre-existing aquatic impairments across all eleven subwatersheds but dismisses quantitative analysis of cumulative sediment loading from simultaneous road use, mechanical thinning, and temporary road construction. The document admits that Lane Creek-Camas Creek, Pearson Creek, and Upper Owens Creek show 'higher hydrologic connectivity between roads and stream networks, increasing sediment delivery under runoff conditions,' yet the effects section relies on a single GRAIP-Lite example for Pearson Creek to represent the entire project. The agency has not disclosed subwatershed-specific cumulative sediment budgets for all eleven watersheds under simultaneous treatment. The agency should provide watershed-by-watershed cumulative sediment yield estimates under the proposed action before a decision is issued.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA proposes 4,212 acres of ground-based commercial thinning yet the soils baseline shows widespread sensitivity to compaction and erosion.
The EA proposes 4,212 acres of ground-based commercial thinning yet the soils baseline shows widespread sensitivity to compaction and erosion. The document states baseline sampling found 'less than 20% detrimental soil conditions, meeting Region 6 Soil Quality Standards,' but then acknowledges 'short-term adverse impacts include localized soil compaction and disturbance on landings, skid trails, and temporary road segments.' The EA does not disclose what percentage of detrimental soil conditions is projected post-treatment, nor whether cumulative disturbance across all activity types within a single watershed will stay below the 20% threshold. The agency should provide post-treatment detrimental soil condition projections by activity area and demonstrate that the 20% standard will not be exceeded cumulatively before issuing a decision.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA states that fish and aquatic habitat are 'thermally impaired, sediment-burdened, structurally simplified, and riparian-degraded' and that the project is 'Likely to Adversely Affect' Middle Colu
The EA states that fish and aquatic habitat are 'thermally impaired, sediment-burdened, structurally simplified, and riparian-degraded' and that the project is 'Likely to Adversely Affect' Middle Columbia River steelhead and their critical habitat, yet the effects analysis concludes only minor, temporary harm. The document never discloses the terms and conditions from the anticipated Biological Opinion, stating only that 'other PDCs and/or required project implementation BMPs will be included in the project because of ESA consultation and the associated terms and conditions in the Biological Opinion.' The public cannot evaluate whether the project's design adequately protects listed steelhead without seeing those terms and conditions. The agency should release the completed Biological Opinion and its terms and conditions before the comment period closes and before a decision is issued.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA proposes prescribed fire across the entire 40,554-acre project boundary, including 411 acres within the Birch Creek Cove Research Natural Area, but provides no site-specific fire behavior analy
The EA proposes prescribed fire across the entire 40,554-acre project boundary, including 411 acres within the Birch Creek Cove Research Natural Area, but provides no site-specific fire behavior analysis for the RNA. The Forest Plan requires prescribed fire in RNAs to 'perpetuate the sere,' 'return fire to its natural role,' and 'return plant communities to a condition similar to that existing prior to active fire suppression.' The EA relies solely on generic PDCs (FUELS-03 and FUELS-05) to ensure protection, without disclosing what the pre-suppression plant community looked like in the RNA, how burn prescriptions were tailored to that specific community, or how effects will be monitored. The agency should provide RNA-specific burn plan elements and a baseline vegetation description for Birch Creek Cove before authorizing prescribed fire in that management area.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA asserts that visual quality standards in Management Area A4 will be met but provides no unit-specific foreground visibility analysis.
The EA asserts that visual quality standards in Management Area A4 will be met but provides no unit-specific foreground visibility analysis. The effects section lists aggregate acreage of treatments in A4 (74 acres commercial thinning, 840 acres non-commercial thinning, 943 acres prescribed fire) and acknowledges that activities 'increase foreground contrast in roadside corridors, dispersed campsites, and developed recreation sites,' yet defers all specifics to generic PDCs. Table 5 itself identifies 'unit-specific analysis of foreground visibility and contrast' as a substantive issue requiring specialist analysis. The agency should provide unit-by-unit contrast rating analysis for A4 foreground zones, demonstrating Partial Retention compliance at the treatment unit level, before a decision is issued.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA allows temporary roads to remain on the landscape for up to five to seven years, in a watershed system already documented as 'moderately impaired to highly impaired' for sediment, yet treats fu
The EA allows temporary roads to remain on the landscape for up to five to seven years, in a watershed system already documented as 'moderately impaired to highly impaired' for sediment, yet treats full decommissioning as a certainty rather than analyzing the risk of delayed or incomplete reclamation. The document states 'temporary roads will be on the landscape no longer than 5 to 7 years from when they are first constructed,' but the effects analysis does not evaluate the sediment and hydrologic consequences if roads persist at the longer end of that range or if funding for decommissioning is delayed. Table 5 identifies temporary road location and closure uncertainty as a substantive issue. The agency should analyze the sediment and aquatic habitat consequences of the full five-to-seven-year road persistence scenario and disclose what happens if decommissioning funding is not secured.
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.
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.
The administration went looking for a sliver of Yosemite for a private developer and finally convinced the rest of public-lands world that if Yosemite is negotiable, nothing is safe.
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? .