Oregonians could soon have less input on how more than half the state’s land is used
How did your country report this? Share your view in the comments.
Diverging Reports Breakdown
Oregonians could soon have less input on more than half the land in the state
The Trump administration has proposed drastically limiting the public’s say in how federal lands are used. Conservationists and environmental advocates worry that the changes could have a profound impact on Oregonians’ relationship with the lands around them. More than half the land in Oregon is federally owned, as is about 29% of land in Washington. Officials with the timber industry and the administration say the changes are necessary to meet federal policy goals and reduce the burden of federal processes.“The public will be more and more shut out on decisions that affect our livelihoods, our recreational activities, the things that we all as Oregonians care about,” said Randy Rasmussen, the director for public lands and recreation at the Back Country Horseman of America, who lives in Corvallis. The public has until Monday to provide input on the proposed changes to the National Environmental Policy Act, known as NEPA. The proposed changes were announced in early July, and the public can comment on them until Monday at 10 a.m.
That’s raising concerns amongst conservationists and environmental advocates, who worry that the changes could have a profound impact on Oregonians’ relationship with the lands around them. More than half the land in Oregon is federally owned, as is about 29% of land in Washington.
THANKS TO OUR SPONSOR: Become a Sponsor
FILE – The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest in Curry County. Proposed changes to federal environmental regulations could give the public less input into how national forests and other public lands are used. Courtesy of Tom Iraci via U.S. Forest Service
“The public will be more and more shut out on decisions that affect our livelihoods, our recreational activities, the things that we all as Oregonians care about,” said Randy Rasmussen, the director for public lands and recreation at the Back Country Horseman of America, who lives in Corvallis.
Before pursuing a project or plan that could harm the environment — like through logging, cattle grazing or mining — federal agencies are required to ask the public for input.
Under President Donald Trump, 16 federal agencies, including the U.S Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, are now considering rule changes that could curtail or drastically limit this public input, which is required under the National Environmental Policy Act, known as NEPA. Those proposed changes were announced in early July. The public has until Monday to provide input.
“Normally, changes of that magnitude would include much longer comment periods and multiple opportunities to engage,” said Ashley Short, policy manager at the Vancouver-based nonprofit Cascade Forest Conservancy. “So this is not friendly for the public, and that’s probably intentional.”
If the Trump-backed changes go into effect, local managers of BLM and Forest Service districts will largely get to decide how much public input they want to accept.
Officials with the timber industry and the administration say the changes are necessary to meet federal policy goals and reduce the burden of federal processes.
Since taking office in January, Trump has gutted the federal workforce, leaving fewer people available to process timber sales and grazing permits in the Pacific Northwest — and across the country — while he has pushed to extract more resources from public lands.
“You can’t tell people to do more work and expedite projects without the personnel and resources to do it,” Rasmussen said.
The Forest Service is also about to lose its regional office in Portland, which oversees national forest districts in Oregon and Washington.
John Persell, staff attorney at the environmental nonprofit Oregon Wild, worries that staffing cuts and major changes to environmental laws could jeopardize projects the Forest Service currently has underway, including amending the Northwest Forest Plan.
THANKS TO OUR SPONSOR: Become a Sponsor
“To ensure the survival and have a shot at recovering species like the Northern spotted owl, you need to think regionally on a landscape scale,” Persell said. “There’s a lot still up in the air.”
Comments gathered from the public have long been a key tool when planning how to use federal lands. Local knowledge about the impacts of a given project or plan can help agencies know what’s important to the people who use the land the most.
The Forest Service and BLM often rely on satellite maps and remote sensing imaging to quickly assess large landscapes before drafting logging plans. These technical systems can sometimes miss critical details that the public can point out.
“They do not have the staff to go out and cover these large areas on the ground,” said Nick Cady, legal director at the Eugene-based environmental nonprofit, Cascadia Wildlands. “We’ve identified entire rivers that they didn’t know existed. We’ve identified cave systems they didn’t know were there.”
FILE – Bureau of Land Management land in the Applegate Valley, shown here from the Sterling Mine Ditch Trail in 2021. The Trump administration has proposed allowing less public comment on projects on BLM and other federally owned lands. Courtesy of Bureau of Land Management / JPR
Data shows that public comments can make a difference. In a research paper published in a peer-reviewed journal last month, researchers analyzed over 100 environmental analyses of federal projects and found that public comments led to changes in 62% of them.
“When the public has an opportunity to be heard and to voice their concerns, inevitably the agency missed something they didn’t think about,” said Susan Jane Brown, environmental attorney at the law firm, Silvix Resources. “They didn’t know that this timber sale is right in the middle of my favorite elk camp, or it’s right next to this ATV trail that I like to ride on the weekends.”
But gathering public comment can also be time consuming.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the Forest Service, said in its proposal that changes are needed to hasten resource extraction projects in response to multiple presidential orders calling for more oil and gas drilling, mineral mining and logging.
In an emailed statement, Bureau of Land Management staff said these proposed changes “aim to modernize the federal environmental review process and dramatically reduce the burdens of NEPA compliance across the federal government, on behalf of developing energy and infrastructure projects that grow our economy.” The agency cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision from earlier this year as a legal basis for overhauling the 55-year-old environmental law.
FILE – Crews load logs onto the line at a lumber mill in Glendale, Ore., in 2016. Officials from the timber industry say reducing public comment during environmental reviews would make for more efficient use of federal lands. Jes Burns, OPB/EarthFix
Timber industry representatives have welcomed the proposal, including Travis Joseph, president of the trade association, American Forest Resource Council.
“Our industry values public participation and transparency in land management decisions and proudly partners with the Forest Service to achieve shared conservation goals,” Joseph said in a statement. “At the same time, we must reform the system to accelerate the pace and scale of forest treatments.”
Still, Cady with Oregon Wild points out that these changes might just lead to more lawsuits and drawn-out litigation, costing federal agencies more time and money.
“Frequently we would resolve our differences with the agency there and not eat up court time and money,” Cady said. “Now we’re just going to have to go right to court.”