Cleveland National Forest fuels project targets Laguna Mountain
Laguna Mountain Forest Restoration
U.S. Forest Service· Laguna Mountain, Cleveland 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.
The groups on this fight
4 groups work California
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.
- California Wilderness Coalition
Works California: spent years building the designation campaign with Tribal nations and now defends the monument as an intervenor in federal court.
- Friends of the Desert Mountains
Works California: coachella Valley land conservancy that helped establish Sand to Snow and worked with The Wildlands Conservancy on acquisitions inside the monument footprint..
- Friends of the Inyo
Works California: runs the Eastern Sierra opposition to the gold exploration projects around the Bodie Wilderness Study Area and hosts the Bodie Hills Conservation Partnership's donation and newsletter operations..
- Los Padres ForestWatch
Works California: has led opposition to oil drilling in the Los Padres region for two decades and is fighting the plan to reopen 400,000 acres to leasing.
Every group above is on STAND for Public Lands, with its court record, its filings and who backs it.
The Forest Service proposes logging, burning, and reforestation across Laguna Mountain in the Cleveland National Forest.
What’s at risk
Wildlife habitat, watersheds, and rare plant communities on Laguna Mountain face disturbance from mechanical treatments, prescribed burning, and reforestation activities. The scale and combination of treatments could alter forest structure across this Southern California range.
If this goes through
The Forest Service would carry out fuels reduction, prescribed burning, and reforestation on Laguna Mountain, reshaping habitat and forest composition in ways that may be long-lasting.
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
- 3
- Never analyzed
The Forest Service proposes thinning, prescribed fire, reforestation, herbicide use, a ridge fuelbreak and meadow repair on 8,165 acres of forest, 1,099 acres of meadow and 79 acres of chaparral on the Laguna Mountain Plateau. It says a century of fire suppression and two severe wildfires have left forests overcrowded, burned areas unable to regrow pine, and meadows eroding and drying.
“The purpose of the Laguna Mountains Forest Restoration Project is to restore and maintain forest and meadow health where departure from natural fire regimes and hydrologic functions has put human, natural, and cultural resource values at risk of further loss and degradation.”
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.
Alternatives
No support given
Without action, high-severity burn patches will lose montane forest cover and permanently convert to another vegetation type.
The agency's strongest support is the 2023 survey: 15 stands had no detectable natural regeneration, residual Jeffrey pine averages 2.18 trees per acre, and the chaparral interaction section says several areas forested before the Cedar and Chariot fires have since type-converted to montane chaparral. But its own no-action modeling projects an average stand of 170 trees per acre of oak and 10 of conifer by 2046, and the document counts hardwood stands as montane forest. It also says the forest and chaparral boundary shifts over decades to centuries. That supports a loss of conifer, not a permanent loss of forest cover.
AskReconcile the no-action finding with the oak-dominated forest the modeling projects, and explain what evidence shows the change would be permanent.
The agency’s words, the record and the law +Hide the words
The agency says
“Ongoing loss of montane forest cover in high-severity burn patches due to insufficient natural regeneration and competition from chaparral, resulting in permanent type conversion.”
NEPA: Consideration of Reasonably Foreseeable Impacts
Elsewhere in the same document
“Projections estimate that the average forest stand will consist of 170 TPA of oak species and only 10 TPA of conifer species (about 6 percent conifer).”
Species Mix
“The boundary shifts over decades to centuries and can change rapidly following fire disturbance (Lieberg, 1900).”
Chaparral interaction
The law
“consistent with the provisions of this chapter, study, develop, and describe technically and economically feasible alternatives;” National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(F) ↗
Effects
No support given
Reforestation with site preparation and climate-matched seed will prevent long-term conversion of burned stands to hardwood-dominated or chaparral conditions.
The agency's best support is growth modeling showing reforested stands keep 39 percent conifer through 2046, versus about 6 percent without it, with about 40 percent of the smallest trees being planted conifers. But that same projection leaves 162 trees per acre of oak and 102 of conifer, so oaks still outnumber conifers. The document also says planting survival often reaches only 30 to 50 percent here.
AskCorrect the claim or define what conifer share counts as avoiding hardwood dominance, and state what seedling survival rate the 39 percent projection assumes.
The agency’s words, the record +Hide the words
The agency says
“Improved reforestation success through site preparation, climate-informed seed selection, and planting of native conifer species, preventing long-term type conversion to hardwood-dominated or chaparral conditions.”
NEPA: Consideration of Reasonably Foreseeable Impacts
Elsewhere in the same document
“By comparison, if reforestation occurs with best practices for site preparation, overall stand composition is estimated to maintain 39 percent conifer (162 TPA oak and 102 TPA conifer) through 2046.”
Species Mix
“Trials of climate-matched seed lots are planned to maximize planting survival, which often only reaches 30-50 percent in this area.”
Seed source
Effects
No support given
The project is not likely to adversely affect designated critical habitat for the endangered Laguna Mountains skipper.
The agency relies on the biological assessment's conservation measures, burning after plants finish their lifecycle in September or October, and treating only about 5 to 10 percent of the area in any one year. It calls the effects minor, and the Endangered Species Act section describes them as minor positive or negative effects on nectar sources. But its own critical habitat analysis calls the effects on nectar plants and invasive grasses adverse and long-term, and Table 3 places 3,115 of 3,358 acres, 93 percent, of the critical habitat inside treatment units.
AskExplain how effects the analysis calls adverse and long-term, across 93 percent of critical habitat, support a not-likely-to-adversely-affect determination, or revise the determination.
The agency’s words, the record and the law +Hide the words
The agency says
“The project may affect and is not likely to adversely affect designated critical habitat for the Laguna Mountains Skipper.”
Endangered Species Act
Elsewhere in the same document
“Prescribed burning activities may decrease the abundance of annual plants while potentially increasing the number of invasive species such as cheatgrass, that tend to outcompete native plants. Burning activities will occur after September/October when plants have completed their lifecycle. These effects would be adverse.”
Effects on Critical Habitat and Primary Constituent Elements
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) ↗
Show 2 more claims +Show fewer
Effects
No support given
Chaparral impacts don't need detailed analysis because shrub reduction is limited to reforestation units that once held forest.
The agency's strongest support is that detailed chaparral analysis does appear under substantive issue 10, which covers old-growth chaparral, type-conversion risk, and the 79-acre fuelbreak. The dismissal also notes no bulldozers and retained shrub groups, and shrub cuts in the forest health units are in forest understory, not chaparral stands. Still, the dismissal says shrub reduction is limited to reforestation units, which doesn't match the fuelbreak's 300-foot corridor of cut shrubs, and its disposition line cites fire behavior rather than chaparral.
AskCorrect the dismissal rationale and analyze shrub removal in every unit where shrub cover would be cut to 25 percent or less, not just reforestation units.
The agency’s words, the record +Hide the words
The agency says
“Shrub reduction is restricted to reforestation units that historically support forest cover, is implemented without bulldozers, and retains shrub groups in areas unsuitable for tree establishment.”
Issues Considered but Dismissed from Detailed Analysis
Elsewhere in the same document
“Remove or reduce shrub cover within treatment units, retaining no more than 25 percent shrub cover across each unit.”
Pre-Wildfire Forest Health - 2,054 acres
“Construct one continuous fuelbreak by cutting existing shrubs across an approximately 300-foot-wide corridor that is bisected by Monument Peak Road.”
Hazardous Fuels Reduction - 79 acres
Effects
No support given
The project will reduce long-term smoke emissions and improve air quality compared with untreated wildfire.
The agency's support is a scientific review (Prichard et al., 2021) finding thinning plus prescribed fire cuts long-term wildfire severity by approximately 16 percent and fine particulate emissions by about 14 percent compared with untreated wildfire, backed by project modeling of lower fire intensity and smoke management plans approved by the Air Pollution Control District. The Clean Air Act statement that the project will add emissions refers to implementation and doesn't conflict with a long-term claim. But the document gives no project-specific estimate weighing smoke from repeated burns every 8 to 13 years and pile burning against avoided wildfire smoke.
AskProvide project-specific emission estimates for prescribed and pile burning over the treatment cycles, compare them to modeled wildfire smoke, and confirm which air quality report covers this project.
The agency’s words, the record +Hide the words
The agency says
“Reduced long-term wildfire severity and smoke emissions, which improves air quality outcomes compared to untreated wildfire scenarios.”
NEPA: Consideration of Reasonably Foreseeable Impacts
Elsewhere in the same document
“Scientific review indicates that thinning combined with prescribed fire reduces long-term wildfire severity by approximately 16 percent and PM2.5 emissions by about 14 percent, improving air quality outcomes relative to untreated wildfire scenarios (Prichard et al., 2021).”
Analysis of Substantive Issues
“The project is expected to contribute to emissions during implementation. Modifications/design criteria have been included to ensure compliance with CAA is met.”
Clean Air Act
What the document never analyzes
Not analyzed
Herbicide exposure for workers and visitors
Glyphosate and triclopyr would be sprayed by hand crews across many units next to the heavily used Laguna Mountain Recreation Area, yet the herbicide analysis covers only non-target plants and soils.
Searched all 63 pages for ‘applicator’, ‘hazard quotient’, ‘worker safety’, ‘drinking water’. None appear.
AskAnalyze herbicide exposure risks to crews, recreationists and nearby residents, including any water sources, using the same worksheets cited for plants and soils.
Not analyzed
Cost of treatments and maintenance
The document argues no action brings greater suppression costs, but gives no cost for initial treatments or repeat burns every 8 to 13 years and fuelbreak maintenance every 3 to 5 years.
Searched all 63 pages for ‘project cost’, ‘budget’, ‘cost estimate’, ‘funding’. None appear.
AskDisclose estimated costs for initial treatments and recurring maintenance, and explain how the benefits compare to the wildfire costs the no-action section describes.
Not analyzed
Fate and transport of removed logs
Tree boles greater than 10 inches would be skidded to staging areas, but the document never says where that wood goes or what truck traffic it adds near Sunrise Highway and recreation sites.
Searched all 63 pages for ‘timber sale’, ‘sawlog’, ‘firewood’, ‘log truck’. None appear.
AskExplain how removed logs will be used or sold and analyze hauling traffic and staging area effects on roads and recreation.
Where its own record backs the agency
Purpose and needJeffrey pine can't recover naturally in the high-severity Cedar and Chariot Fire burn areas because seed trees are too sparse and shrubs compete.Why it holds +
The 2023 survey of 685 plots across 36 stands found residual Jeffrey pine averaging 2.18 trees per acre, and only two stands reached moderate restocking. The stand count shifts to 38 in the species mix section, and 15 stands with regeneration plus 15 without adds to 30, not 36, but these gaps don't change the overall finding.
The agency says
“These results confirm that within the high-severity portions of the Cedar and Chariot Fire footprints, natural recovery of Jeffrey pine is severely constrained by extremely sparse seed sources and intense competition from post-fire chaparral.”
Purpose and Need
Its own record backs it
“Jeffrey pine persists in 30 of 36 stands, but only as widely scattered residual trees averaging 2.18 trees per acre (TPA) (range of 0-7.94 TPA)—densities far too low to provide meaningful seed rain across large high-severity burn patches.”
Purpose and Need
“Only 15 stands contained natural regeneration in the 2-inch and 4-inch diameter classes, with average densities of about 9 trees per acre (range of 1.6-64.3 TPA); just two stands reached moderate restocking levels (50-64.3 TPA).”
Purpose and Need
EffectsThinning combined with prescribed fire sharply lowers flame length and fire intensity compared with untreated stands.Why it holds +
Modeling compares untreated units, where only 38 percent of acres model flame lengths of 1 to 4 feet, with units treated since 2014, where over 53 percent do and only 10 percent exceed 11 feet. Published research cited in the affected environment section points the same way. The modeling appendices themselves aren't printed in this document, but the reported numbers are consistent with the claim.
The agency says
“BehavePlus results provide additional evidence: thinning and fuel modification yield typical reductions of 85–90 percent in flame length and 81–99 percent in fireline intensity across modeled fuel types (BehavePlus Modeling Appendix).”
Analysis of Substantive Issues
Its own record backs it
“Over 53 percent of treated acres produce 1–4 feet flame lengths, and only 10 percent exceed 11 feet, creating conditions compatible with direct attack (IFTDSS Modeling Appendix).”
Analysis of Substantive Issues
“These conditions align closely with published research showing that combining thinning with prescribed burning reduces future wildfire severity by roughly 62 to 72 percent compared to untreated areas (Davis et al., 2024).”
Prescribed Fire Maintenance Treatment Areas - 4,441 acres
Read from the agency’s own decision document ↗, all 63 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.
- Field surveys found Jeffrey pine present in most previously forested stands only as widely scattered residual trees at very low density.
- Fifteen of the surveyed stands had no natural conifer regeneration detected at all after the fires.
- Three specific check dams made of rock and concrete are physically present along Kemp Spur Trail and are described as non-functional and causing erosion.
- Younger conifer trees are visibly encroaching in distinct bands around the edges of wet meadows and along stream corridors.
Show all 9 points from the document
- The existing Chico-Gato Connector Trail alignment is causing visible downcutting, channelized flow and gullying at its junction with Wooded Hill Road.
- Most meadows in the project area currently show visible gullying of varying severity.
- The Descanso Ranger District landscape is currently mostly chaparral with only a small fraction of forest cover, and this project covers nearly all of that forest.
- 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
This project is designed to support Fireshed Risk Reduction and Climate-Adapted Conservation through treatments for Reforestation, Post-Wildfire Forest Health, Pre-Wildfire Forest Health, Prescribed Fire and Hazardous Fuels Reduction.
Did the agency answer?
17 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's scoping period ran from the letter date of March 20, 2026, to the close date of April 27, 2026, a period of roughly five weeks, during which only three comment letters were received from 193
The EA's scoping period ran from the letter date of March 20, 2026, to the close date of April 27, 2026, a period of roughly five weeks, during which only three comment letters were received from 193 notices sent. The document was simultaneously a project with 13 federally recognized Tribes consulted, two listed species with incomplete ESA consultation, and a 49-percent gap in cultural resource surveys. Five weeks is an extremely short window for a project of this complexity, and the low response rate suggests the notice may not have reached affected communities. The agency should document how it determined that five weeks was adequate, and should re-open the comment period for at least 30 additional days after the Biological Opinion and outstanding cultural resource surveys are complete.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe document states that the Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion are both listed as 'TBD' with no file names assigned.
The document states that the Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion are both listed as 'TBD' with no file names assigned. The EA is a draft being presented for public comment, yet the ESA consultation that is supposed to underpin the effects determinations for Laguna Mountains skipper and California spotted owl is not complete. The public cannot meaningfully evaluate ESA compliance when the Biological Opinion has not been issued. The agency should release the completed Biological Assessment and await the final Biological Opinion before accepting public comments on, or issuing, a decision.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA treats a No Action alternative as the only alternative to the Proposed Action, yet the document acknowledges that shrub nurse effects on conifer seedlings are 'understudied and an important res
The EA treats a No Action alternative as the only alternative to the Proposed Action, yet the document acknowledges that shrub nurse effects on conifer seedlings are 'understudied and an important research need' and that low shrub cover of 5 to 30 percent is associated with higher seedling survival. Despite this, the Proposed Action prescribes shrub reduction to 10 to 25 percent across reforestation units using herbicides, masticators, and excavators. An EA that identifies a scientifically unresolved question about whether shrubs help or hurt seedlings, and then proposes aggressive shrub removal as the only treatment path, has not analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives. The agency should analyze at least one alternative that reduces shrub removal intensity in xeric reforestation units and quantifies the projected difference in conifer survival.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe Prescribed Fire Maintenance Treatment area is listed as 4,441 acres in the Potentially Affected Environment section but as 4,370 acres in the Proposed Action section.
The Prescribed Fire Maintenance Treatment area is listed as 4,441 acres in the Potentially Affected Environment section but as 4,370 acres in the Proposed Action section. These two figures are inconsistent and do not match. A discrepancy of 71 acres between the acreage stated in the treatment description and the acreage used in the environmental analysis means either the treatment footprint or the effects analysis is wrong. The agency should correct the record, confirm which acreage figure is accurate, and re-run any modeling or effects analysis that relied on the incorrect number.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA states that planting survival 'often only reaches 30 to 50 percent in this area,' yet the effects analysis and the no-action comparison both rely on projections that assume reforestation with '
The EA states that planting survival 'often only reaches 30 to 50 percent in this area,' yet the effects analysis and the no-action comparison both rely on projections that assume reforestation with 'best practices' will achieve 39 percent conifer composition by 2046. The document does not disclose how many replanting cycles are assumed, what the total cost would be, or what happens to the conifer trajectory if initial survival lands at the low end of the 30 to 50 percent range. Projecting a 20-year forest composition outcome from a 30-to-50-percent survival baseline without disclosing the sensitivity of that projection is an unreasoned leap. The agency should disclose survival-rate sensitivity scenarios and the associated replanting cost estimates before a decision is made.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA notes that meadow prescribed fire must be timed so that invasive seedheads are still maturing to reduce the non-native seedbank, but it also acknowledges that after the 2003 Cedar Fire and a we
The EA notes that meadow prescribed fire must be timed so that invasive seedheads are still maturing to reduce the non-native seedbank, but it also acknowledges that after the 2003 Cedar Fire and a wet winter, both native and non-native species responded with strong regrowth. The document then states that burn decisions will be based on site-level evaluations but defers specific prescription design to adaptive management. No quantitative trigger or threshold is provided for when a burn will be judged to have failed and what corrective action follows. Promising adaptive management without defined thresholds or triggers is not adaptive management under NEPA. The agency should provide measurable success criteria and defined decision points in the project record before the decision is signed.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA dismisses the issue of livestock grazing effects on vegetation treatment outcomes, stating that grazing falls outside the project's decision space.
The EA dismisses the issue of livestock grazing effects on vegetation treatment outcomes, stating that grazing falls outside the project's decision space. Yet the meadow prescribed fire section explicitly conditions burn locations on whether 'grazing has been discontinued for at least one year and is unlikely to occur soon,' directly acknowledging that grazing interacts with and constrains where fire can be reintroduced. The agency cannot simultaneously dismiss grazing as outside the project's scope and make burn-location decisions contingent on grazing status. The agency should analyze the reasonably foreseeable interaction between ongoing grazing and meadow treatment outcomes rather than dismissing this as a scoping issue.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA acknowledges that all three 6th-level HUC watersheds in the project area are 'Functioning at Risk,' with riparian vegetation, aquatic habitat, and forest health all rated poor.
The EA acknowledges that all three 6th-level HUC watersheds in the project area are 'Functioning at Risk,' with riparian vegetation, aquatic habitat, and forest health all rated poor. Despite this, the analysis scopes out effects on distant watersheds and downstream segments beyond immediately adjacent areas. The document does not analyze cumulative sediment loading from simultaneous check dam removal, gully repair, trail construction, and mechanical operations across 13,129 acres within already-stressed watersheds. Adding multiple ground-disturbing activities concurrently in three at-risk watersheds requires a cumulative watershed effects analysis. The agency should conduct and disclose a cumulative watershed effects analysis, or explain quantitatively why simultaneous disturbance across all three impaired watersheds does not cumulatively push conditions from 'Functioning at Risk' toward 'Not Functioning.'
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingThe EA acknowledges that 51 percent of the total treatment area has not yet been surveyed for cultural resources and explicitly defers the remaining survey work to a future Heritage Implementation Pla
The EA acknowledges that 51 percent of the total treatment area has not yet been surveyed for cultural resources and explicitly defers the remaining survey work to a future Heritage Implementation Plan. Yet the document simultaneously asserts that Standard Protection Measures will protect all Resources at Risk and that the project complies with Section 106. A decision cannot be fully reasoned when half the ground has not been walked. The agency should either complete all cultural resource surveys before issuing a decision, or explain in writing how a 49-percent survey gap is consistent with a finding of compliance, and extend the comment period so the public can review the completed survey results.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingTable 3 shows that 93 percent of all Laguna Mountains skipper critical habitat on Mount Laguna (3,115 of 3,358 acres) is covered by combined project treatments.
Table 3 shows that 93 percent of all Laguna Mountains skipper critical habitat on Mount Laguna (3,115 of 3,358 acres) is covered by combined project treatments. Yet the ESA determination for critical habitat is 'Not Likely to Adversely Affect.' The document itself notes that prescribed burning may increase invasive species such as cheatgrass that outcompete native plants, and that herbicide drift near nectar sources may cause adverse effects. Treating 93 percent of designated critical habitat while making a NLAA finding for that habitat is an internal contradiction the agency must resolve. The agency should either justify this determination with quantitative analysis of treatment effects on Primary Constituent Elements across the full 3,115 acres, or re-initiate formal consultation with USFWS on the critical habitat determination.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
- PendingFifteen of the surveyed stands had no natural conifer regeneration detected at all after the fires.
Fifteen of the surveyed stands had no natural conifer regeneration detected at all after the fires.
- PendingThree specific check dams made of rock and concrete are physically present along Kemp Spur Trail and are described as non-functional and causing erosion.
Three specific check dams made of rock and concrete are physically present along Kemp Spur Trail and are described as non-functional and causing erosion.
- PendingYounger conifer trees are visibly encroaching in distinct bands around the edges of wet meadows and along stream corridors.
Younger conifer trees are visibly encroaching in distinct bands around the edges of wet meadows and along stream corridors.
- PendingThe existing Chico-Gato Connector Trail alignment is causing visible downcutting, channelized flow and gullying at its junction with Wooded Hill Road.
The existing Chico-Gato Connector Trail alignment is causing visible downcutting, channelized flow and gullying at its junction with Wooded Hill Road.
- PendingMost meadows in the project area currently show visible gullying of varying severity.
Most meadows in the project area currently show visible gullying of varying severity.
- PendingThe Descanso Ranger District landscape is currently mostly chaparral with only a small fraction of forest cover, and this project covers nearly all of that forest.
The Descanso Ranger District landscape is currently mostly chaparral with only a small fraction of forest cover, and this project covers nearly all of that forest.
- PendingField surveys found Jeffrey pine present in most previously forested stands only as widely scattered residual trees at very low density.
Field surveys found Jeffrey pine present in most previously forested stands only as widely scattered residual trees at very low density.
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? .