The American Forest Resource Council (AFRC) welcomes the U.S. Forest Service’s proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, saying the action would give professional land managers greater flexibility to address wildfire risk and declining forest health on millions of acres of National Forest System lands.

The Forest Service today announced it has filed its proposed rule and draft Environmental Impact Statement to rescind the Roadless Rule in its entirety. The 25-year-old rule restricts road construction, reconstruction and timber harvest across more than 44 million acres of the National Forest System. More than 95 percent of the affected Inventoried Roadless Areas are located in 10 Western states.

“The Forest Service is right to take a hard look at a policy that was written for forest conditions that looked very different 25 years ago,” said AFRC President Travis Joseph. “Our national forests are experiencing severe wildfire, drought, insects and disease on a scale that few anticipated when the Roadless Rule was adopted. Forest professionals need the flexibility and access to respond to those conditions before we lose more forests, watersheds and wildlife habitat to catastrophic wildfire.  We should continue to adapt and learn from failed policies to meet the moment, not continue to cling to positions and ideas that don’t serve the public’s interest.”

According to the Forest Service, more than 40 percent of Inventoried Roadless Areas have high or very high wildfire hazard potential, yet only 5 percent have received hazardous fuels reduction treatments since 2014. The agency also reports that 11.3 million acres of roadless lands are already located near existing roads.

Those conditions can be seen across the West. An AFRC analysis using federal burn severity data documented extensive overlap between Inventoried Roadless Areas and wildfires since the Roadless Rule was adopted. Before and after imagery shows severe wildfire impacts in roadless areas on National Forests in Oregon, Washington, California, Montana and elsewhere. In Oregon alone, examples include the Waldo Lake Roadless Area burned by the 2022 Cedar Creek Fire, the Opal Creek Roadless Area burned by the 2020 Beachie Creek Fire, and the Mount Jefferson Roadless Area affected by the 2017 Whitewater and 2020 Lionshead fires.

“Calling an area roadless does not protect it from wildfire, insects or disease,” Joseph said. “The question should be whether these forests are healthy, and whether Forest Service professionals have the tools they need to keep them healthy and resilient now and into the future. Science based, proactive forest management is conservation, responsible stewardship, and protection of our public lands.”

Access is also critical to effective forest management and wildfire response. Roads allow equipment to reach areas needing thinning and fuels reduction while providing firefighters routes to reach fires, establish control lines and respond safely. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would allow Forest Service professionals to consider those access needs based on actual conditions on the ground.

The proposed rescission would not automatically authorize timber harvest or road construction in Inventoried Roadless Areas. Instead, it would return decisions about these lands to the forest level planning process. Future projects would remain subject to federal laws and existing forest plans that determine where and how management can occur.

That distinction is particularly important in the Pacific Northwest, where the Roadless Rule was layered over the Northwest Forest Plan and other land management direction that already restricts forest management across large portions of federal forests. Removing the nationwide Roadless Rule would not change those forest plan designations. It would give local Forest Service professionals greater ability to consider site specific forest conditions where management is otherwise allowed.

“For too long, we have treated blanket restrictions as a substitute for conservation while millions of acres of federal forests have burned,” Joseph said. “Healthy forests require management, and effective management requires access. Rescinding the Roadless Rule gives local forest professionals greater flexibility to use science and their expertise to decide what these landscapes need instead of having those decisions dictated by a nationwide rule.”

The Forest Service is accepting public comments on the proposed rule and draft Environmental Impact Statement through September 21, 2026.

A federal magistrate judge has recommended dismissing legal challenges to one of Oregon’s largest collaborative forest management projects, marking a major legal victory for years of work to reduce wildfire risk, improve forest health, and restore thousands of acres on the Willamette National Forest.

In a recommendation issued Wednesday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Amy Potter concluded that the Forest Service complied with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it prepared an Environmental Impact Statement and approved the Youngs Rock Rigdon Project. The recommendation rejects claims brought by Oregon Wild and WildEarth Guardians and would grant summary judgment to both the Forest Service and the American Forest Resource Council, which intervened to defend the project.

The Youngs Rock Rigdon Project is the product of nearly five years of scientific analysis, public engagement, and collaboration between the Forest Service and the Southern Willamette Forest Collaborative. The Forest Service prepared a full Environmental Impact Statement, evaluated competing scientific viewpoints, responded to public comments, and refined the project through the administrative process before approving treatments across approximately 6,500 acres. The project will reduce hazardous fuels, improve forest resilience, maintain wildlife habitat, support recreation, and provide a sustainable supply of forest products, including about 55 million board feet of timber.

AFRC intervened because the case raised important questions about how courts should review science-based forest management decisions under NEPA. In recommending that the project be upheld, Judge Potter relied on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, which reaffirmed that NEPA is a procedural statute and that courts should defer to reasonable agency judgments supported by a thorough environmental review.  Magistrate Judge Potter found that the Forest Service “made a number of policy choices that are owed substantial deference,” and while “Plaintiffs disagree with some of Defendants’ reasoning and explanations,” “that is not sufficient to support a NEPA violation.”

“This recommendation is significant because the Court recognizes that the Forest Service did exactly what NEPA requires,” said Sara Ghafouri, General Counsel for the American Forest Resource Council. “The agency prepared a full Environmental Impact Statement, carefully considered competing scientific viewpoints, acknowledged potential impacts, and worked through years of collaboration before approving this project. Youngs Rock Rigdon serves important public purposes and reflects the kind of thoughtful agency decision-making that NEPA is designed to support.”

The recommendation comes only weeks after the Grasshopper Fire burned through much of the collaboratively supported Grasshopper Project on the Mt. Hood National Forest before many planned commercial treatments could be completed. Together, these projects illustrate why timing matters. Collaborative forest management projects often require years of planning, environmental review, and public engagement before work can begin. Delays increase the likelihood that wildfire will reach a landscape before managers have the opportunity to reduce hazardous fuels and improve forest conditions.

“The value of a forest management project comes from implementation. The Grasshopper Fire showed how quickly years of planning can be overtaken by wildfire. The Youngs Rock Rigdon Project gives us the opportunity to improve forest conditions before that happens, and today’s recommendation recognizes that the Forest Service followed the law in approving that work,” Ghafouri said.

The Forest Service approved the Youngs Rock Rigdon Project in December 2023 after an extensive public process that included collaborative meetings, field visits, public comment periods, and changes to the final decision in response to administrative objections. Judge Potter’s Findings and Recommendation will now be reviewed by U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken before a final decision is issued. CONTACT: Nick Smith

The Grasshopper Fire is burning through forests on Oregon’s Mt. Hood National Forest that were identified and prioritized years ago for hazardous fuels reduction through a collaborative effort involving local communities and the U.S. Forest Service. Yet much of that work remains unimplemented after years of litigation and administrative delays slowed or prevented the projects from moving forward.

These forests are located in one of the High Priority Landscapes identified in the Biden Administration’s 2022 Wildfire Crisis Strategy that targeted “high risk firesheds” to improve resilience to wildfire.

Years before the current wildfire, the Wasco County Forest Collaborative worked with the U.S. Forest Service to develop the Grasshopper Restoration Project, the 27 Road Fuel Break, and the Hootnanny Project to reduce hazardous fuels, meet the intent of the Wildfire Crisis Strategy, and improve forest conditions across more than 11,000 acres.

The Grasshopper Restoration Project became the subject of litigation brought by Oregon Wild under the National Environmental Policy Act challenging the paperwork supporting the project. The Forest Service ultimately settled the case by removing less than two percent of the proposed treatment areas, reducing management in others, imposing additional project restrictions, and paying Oregon Wild $55,000 in attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

As a result of the litigation, the commercial mechanical treatments did not occur across any of the project area before the Grasshopper Fire started after last week’s lightening storms. The fire has now burned through much of the planned Grasshopper project area, impacting critical habitat for listed species, destroying more than 25 million board feet of timber identified for removal while threatening the Highland Ditch irrigation system, which supplies water to approximately 3,600 acres of agricultural land.

“Everyone involved understood these forests were at risk and needed treatment,” said AFRC President Travis Joseph. “The Forest Service knew it. Local communities knew it. Members of the Wasco County Forest Collaborative spent years developing these projects because they recognized the wildfire risk. Instead of getting that work done on the ground, the projects got tied up in litigation and other procedural tactics meant to obstruct the Forest Service.”

On July 7, just weeks before the Grasshopper Fire began, Oregon Wild and WildEarth Guardians served a Notice of Intent to sue again over four additional Mt. Hood National Forest projects, including the nearby 27 Road Fuel Break and Hootnanny Project, which are now within the fire area. Ironically, the 27 Road Fuel Break project was designed to limit the spread of wildfire by establishing a linear fuel break adjacent to the Badger Creek Wilderness, which is now burning in the Grasshopper Fire.

“This is the epitome of a broken system.  The public should find this deeply troubling,” Joseph said. “Taxpayers paid an organization for delaying a collaboratively developed project intended to reduce wildfire risk, and before most of the delayed thinning could be completed, the project area burned. When litigation overrides the judgment of professional foresters, scientists, land managers, and local collaboratives charged with stewarding our public lands, the consequences are felt on the ground. We all lose, including our forests.  Congress should ask whether taxpayer-funded attorney fees are advancing the public interest or simply financing delay, obstruction, and inaction.”

The lawsuit asks a federal court to throw out one of two BLM management plans adopted by the Obama Administration in 2016 based on an alleged procedural violation of the Congressional Review Act. Although the plaintiff previously challenged these same plans in court and lost, they are now asking a judge to invalidate this 10-year-old plan entirely. If successful, the lawsuit would force the Bureau of Land Management back into another lengthy planning process and place active forest management across western Oregon into legal uncertainty.

“This lawsuit could not come at a worse time,” said Travis Joseph, President and CEO of the American Forest Resource Council. “Western Oregon is entering another dangerous wildfire season and communities need more active forest management, not another lawsuit that threatens to delay it. If these plans are thrown out, the practical effect will be years of delay while the Bureau of Land Management starts over and forests continue to grow denser and more vulnerable to severe wildfire. This lawsuit puts our communities and forests at risk.”

The O&C lands were established by Congress under the O&C Act of 1937 as working forests to be managed under sustained yield. Congress intended these lands to provide a permanent timber supply while generating shared timber revenues for western Oregon counties. For generations, that management supported family wage jobs, supplied locally produced wood products, and generated revenue that counties used to fund law enforcement, roads, public health, and other essential services.

That purpose is even more important today. Western Oregon has experienced repeated years of destructive wildfire and prolonged smoke. Current management plans already restrict active forest management across roughly 80 percent of the O&C land base, and timber harvest remains only a fraction of what these forests grow each year. As forests continue to become denser, hazardous fuels continue to accumulate and nearby communities face increasing wildfire risks.

The Department of the Interior recently announced its intention to revise these Resource Management Plans to better align management with the purpose Congress established for the O&C lands. That effort offers an opportunity to increase the pace and scale of active forest management while improving forest conditions, supporting rural jobs, and providing more stable revenue for county governments.

“People who live in western Oregon expect these forests to be managed,” Joseph said. “They expect public lands to be cared for before wildfire reaches their communities, not after. This anti-forestry lawsuit threatens to delay the work that reduces hazardous fuels, supports rural economies, and helps protect the people who live next to these forests. Oregon cannot afford another decade of delay.”

What is the lawsuit really about?

Plaintiff alleges that the Obama Administration did not follow the requirements of the Congressional Review Act (CRA), a 1996 federal law that empowers Congress to overturn newly issued federal regulations. The CRA requires agencies to submit final rules to both chambers of Congress and the Government Accountability Office before they can take effect, providing a 60-day window to introduce a joint congressional resolution of disapproval.

Plaintiff argues that because the Obama Administration failed to submit proper notice to Congress regarding the Northwestern Coastal Oregon Resource Management Plan, the management plan and all activities authorized by the plans are null and void.  If successful, plaintiff is seeking to revert the management of the O&C Lands back to an extremely outdated resource management plan.  This would require the BLM to go through lengthy planning and consultation processes required by federal law before any work can continue on O&C Lands.

For Immediate Release: June 4, 2026
Contact: Nick Smith

The Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is on track to sell the lowest volume of timber in 26 years, reducing revenue to schools, counties, universities, and other trust beneficiaries while creating serious financial challenges for the agency itself.

In recent media reports focused on the plight of rural school districts and DNR’s dwindling operating accounts, Commissioner Dave Upthegrove has claimed his decisions to set aside more state trust lands are not to blame.

These claims don’t match clear evidence of unilateral actions by Upthegrove that deliberately devalue state trust timber sales by pulling planned harvest units from sales after years of planning and environmental review, reducing revenue for schools, counties, universities, fire districts, libraries, and other trust beneficiaries.

In practice, that means removing planned harvest units containing valuable timber from sales before auction, reducing sale volume and lowering the revenue generated for trust beneficiaries and the agency.

The Starwagon timber sale in Thurston County provides a clear example of how these decisions reduce the value of trust assets and the revenue they generate for beneficiaries. Publicly available DNR sale documents show the sale was repeatedly reduced between the original 2024 proposal, the revised 2025 proposal, and the final 2026 auction package, significantly lowering both timber volume and projected revenue to beneficiaries and DNR.

The findings come as DNR timber sales have fallen to record lows and as Commissioner Upthegrove continues advancing plans to remove nearly 80,000 acres of state trust lands from working forest status.

Using the final 2026 auction price of $635.89 per thousand board feet, AFRC estimates DNR left approximately $3.8 million in gross sale value unrealized by repeatedly removing planned harvest units from the Starwagon sale.

The reductions hit trust beneficiaries and DNR itself through reduced projected distributions to DNR management accounts. For example, at the final auction value, Washington State University lost an estimated $901,687 in projected timber revenue distributions.

“These are management decisions, not accounting errors or market fluctuations,” said AFRC President Travis Joseph. “The Commissioner is stripping value out of timber sales before they ever reach auction, reducing the value of trust assets and cutting revenue to the very beneficiaries these lands are legally required to support.”

As DNR closes campgrounds due to lack of funding, management accounts that fund agency operations and forest management activities also suffered over $1 million in losses, including approximately $473,723 to the Forest Development Account and $602,241 to the Resource Management Cost Account.

Because the Starwagon timber sale included county trust lands in Thurston County, local beneficiaries affected by the reduced sale include local schools, fire districts, county roads, Timberland Regional Library, and other public services. Both Thurston County and Timberland Regional Library are already confronting budget shortfalls, making the loss of trust revenue even harder for communities to absorb.

State trust lands are managed to generate revenue for defined beneficiaries, including public schools, counties, universities, fire districts, libraries, and other essential public services. Revenue generated from sustainable timber harvests also funds DNR’s own operations, staffing, and forest management activities.

AFRC said the Starwagon sale reflects broader concerns about the direction of DNR trust land management under Commissioner Upthegrove, including efforts to reduce planned harvest levels, delay sales, and remove working forests from active management.

AFRC also pointed to the recently-launched “77,000 Acre Commissioner Order – Community Impact Calculator,” an online tool that allows the public to evaluate how Commissioner Upthegrove’s proposed set asides of state trust lands affect beneficiaries and local communities across Washington. The calculator, available through the Washington Communities and Schools Network, uses the latest DNR GIS data to identify affected acres by county and trust and estimate impacts to local services and beneficiaries.

“Beneficiaries and the public deserve transparency and accountability,” Joseph said. “These trust lands do not exist to satisfy the objectives of politicians. They were established to support schools, local services, and communities across Washington. When DNR removes value from timber sales, schools, counties, and local services lose revenue while the agency itself falls deeper into financial trouble.”