Protecting Pacific Northwest National Forests
LFDC Federal Forest Watch
How to Participate
What is NEPA?
The National Environmental Policy Act establishes a foundational democratic framework for evaluating the environmental impacts of federal actions. When NEPA was signed into law in 1970, it ensured that environmental impacts are analyzed and disclosed to the public before decisions are finalized. When potential impacts are significant, the law requires agencies not only to conduct deeper environmental review, but also to meaningfully involve the public, creating transparency, accountability, and an opportunity for public oversight and informed comment.
Before approving major federal actions that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment, federal agencies must take a legally mandated hard look at the environmental consequences. This obligation requires agencies to identify direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, evaluate reasonable alternatives including those that would avoid or minimize harm, and base decisions on sound scientific analysis rather than predetermined outcomes. Importantly, NEPA doesn't prohibit specific actions or mandate certain end conditions like other bedrock environmental laws.
Within agencies like USFS and BLM, every project follows a decision making sequence designed to ensure the level of environmental review matches the scale and risk of the action. This process begins with project scoping (internal review) and continues through environmental analysis, public comment, and final decision making. Depending on the anticipated impacts, a project may be evaluated through a categorical exclusion, an environmental assessment, or a full environmental impact statement (explained below). Each step is intended to ensure that environmental risks are considered, alternatives are fairly evaluated, and the public has an opportunity to participate before irreversible commitments are made.
2025 saw major changes to the regulations derived from NEPA. Many of the requirements for publishing draft analyses and for inviting public input were removed. Several new and expanded Categorical Exclusions were created to fast-track certain actions and limits to the scope of analysis and length of NEPA documents were added. And many of the staff and administrative resources available to perform the legally mandated "hard look" were fired or pushed out of agencies. Now more than ever, it's crucial that the public takes an active role in overseeing the actions taken by the federal government on our public lands.
how to get started
Public involvement starts with learning what projects are being planned as early as possible. There are 3 ways to find out what they're up to: LFDC's Project Tracker as well as straight from the source – SOPAs and the Federal Register.
SOPAs, or Schedule(s) of Proposed Actions are quarterly updates published by each National Forest. They include projects currently underway or on hold and crucially – projects being planned. Recent changes to NEPA regulations removed the requirement for NFs to publish SOPAs, so it's unclear if the agency will continue to make these quarterly disclosures.
In addition to SOPAs, each NF has a "Projects" page usually located inside the "Topics" menu on the forest's main landing page. It's a great idea to bookmark the Projects page for your local forests, as it's one of the places you'll go to submit your comments.
When navigating National Forest Project pages you won't find the term "timber sale" or even "logging" in any of their text. Look for terms like forest products, fuels management, restoration, and enhancement – the code words the agency likes to use for logging projects.
Because of recent changes to SOPA publishing requirements, the Federal Register has become another powerful tool for advocates to keep track of what's happening. This web portal allows users to create an account and sign up for customized updates on new developments from the federal government. On a typical day hundreds of documents are published, but typically only a handful relate to forest management activities- so signing up to receive updates from the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management is a powerful way to stay informed.
All Federal activities begin with an internal scoping phase. This non-public analysis includes key steps like defining the "purpose and need" of the project, identifying obvious environmental concerns and eventually determining the level of NEPA analysis which will begin the formal environmental review process.
Categorical Exclusion
LOWEST level of analysis
Tool commonly used to bypass meaningful environmental review.
Originally intended for tasks like ranger station roof repairs. Decades of expanding CE use means that today massive logging projects are pushed through leaving 10s of thousands of acres clear cut with little project specific analysis
MID level of analysis
For projects found "unlikely to have significant impacts" during internal scoping process.
EAs are an intermediate analysis used when the agency does not expect major impacts, but the project doesn't qualify for a CE. If during analysis, the agency finds it can plan the project to avoid siginifcant impacts it may issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and proceed without a more thorough EIS.
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Impact
Statement
HIGHEST level of analysis
Reserved for projects expected to have major environmental impacts.
An EIS is the highest level of environmental review designed to fully examine a project’s impacts and give the public a meaningful voice before major actions take place.
These documents can be 100s of pages and difficult to unpack – that's where we come in; if a project is getting an EIS, we almost certainly have our eyes on it. Below, you'll find a list of every project we're tracking and resources unpacking related NEPA documents.
levels of NEPA analysis
Substantive Comments
Not all comments are equal
For an agency like USFS to seriously consider your comment it must meet some basic guidelines. In general – emotional, non-specific comments are not considered substantive. The most effective comments are specific to a portion of the planning document text or present a new piece of information not previously considered. A short, detailed comment is more valuable than a longer, purely emotional one.
Don't know what to write?
Substantive & Effective
Deficient & Ineffective
STRONG: "This project must be modified to account for the previously unidentified riparian areas found to these GPS coordinates." (included GPS data or maps)
WEAK: Don't hurt the fish and the frogs! Healthy forests are more important than making lumber.
NEW DATA
STRONG: "These peer-reviewed scientific studies show that salvage logging harms forest ecology by removing vital legacy habitat including snags and large downed wood debris, increasing soil disturbance and slowing native vegetation regeneration." (links to papers)
WEAK: Salvage logging destroys forests and it should never be allowed in national forests.
NEW SCIENCE
STRONG: "This project must up upgraded to an EIS because other similar projects (examples) performed by the agency showed there were significant impacts which needed to be thoroughly understood and mitigated."
WEAK: You need to do more analysis for this project because it's going to hurt the environment and it's not what the public wants.
PRECEDENT
STRONG: "A Categorical Exclusion is inappropriate for this project due to the following extraordinary circumstances: the project includes areas with documented cultural significance OR the project includes habitat for ESA listed species OR..."
WEAK: This project is too big and important to use a Categorical Exclusion. It should be upgraded to an EA or cancelled altogether.
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES
Strong comments
include not only substantive details, but they let the agency know why you care about the project. For the strongest impact, include the reasons this project matters to you. Is it an area that you regularly recreate in? Or a watershed that contributes to your drinking water? Or maybe the project includes an area you use for hunting or fishing. Whatever the reason, include details about why this project matters to you and how you'll be negatively impacted by some aspect of the proposed action.
USFS projects often include multiple opportunities for public involvement. Early in the process, the Forest Service sometimes invites comments on scoping materials or draft analyses. After reviewing those comments and issuing a revised analysis which should respond to public concerns, the agency opens an objection period. Only parties who submitted comments earlier may file objections, and only on issues already raised. These requirements make early and substantive participation critical for anyone who wants their concerns fully considered.
Active Project Tracker
Mt. Baker Snoqualmie – Forestwide Thinning Project
Status: USFS Reviewing Draft EA Public Comments – Final EA expected Mid-Fed 2026
Future Comment Periods: (Objection Period)
Description: A multi-decade project spanning the entire length of MBSNF from the border with Canada to Mt Rainier- this project is aimed at addressing previously logged stands with high stem density with the goal of creating more complex structure in the forest using a "skip and gap" logging prescription.
LDFC's Comment:
Baker River Watershed Landscape Analysis
Status: Internal Scoping Period (preparing Environmental Analysis)
Comment Period: Estimated June/July 2026
Description:
LFDC's Comment:
Under Construction
Olympic NF – Canyon Forest Restoration Project
Status:
Future Comment Periods:
Description:
LDFC's Comment:
Engaging with Congress
Beyond the NEPA process, as a member of the public you have other meaningful ways to shape forest management at the federal level. Engaging directly with your members of Congress allows you to voice how laws should be written or modified to better reflect ecological and community needs. Calls to House members and Senators remain one of the most effective tools for influencing decisions affecting federally managed forests.
When contacting your elected officials don't forget to remind them:
Federal Forests Are a Public Trust
-
National forests are public lands, owned by all Americans—not a resource bank for short-term private profit.
-
Congress has a legal and moral obligation to manage them for long-term public benefit and future generations.
Voters Are Paying Attention
-
Constituents care deeply about forests for reasons beyond timber output: including recreation, cultural values, and ecological services, etc.
-
Forest votes are not abstract policy choices—they affect trust, turnout, and long-term public support.
Healthy Forests Protect Communities
-
Forests provide clean drinking water, flood control, slope stability, and climate buffering—services far more valuable than short-term timber revenue.
-
Degrading forests shifts real costs onto local communities and taxpayers and works against climate goals.
Wildfire Solutions Are Known
-
Proven wildfire protections focus on home hardening, defensible space, and community preparation, not commercial logging.
-
Congress should fund what works, not expand projects that prioritize commercial interests above the will of the public.
Science Must Lead Forest Policy
-
Decades of ecological wildfire science show that protecting mature and old-growth forests is essential for climate resilience, biodiversity, and water quality.
-
Industrial logging in ecologically sensitive areas often increases harm rather than reducing wildfire risk.
Our forests can be viewed as an annuity: providing Americans both timber resources and irreplaceable ecological services. For decades, and even now, there's a case to be made that we're slowly drawing down the principle. It's time to go beyond "no net loss", we must build our forest-account up to what it once was- for our sake and for future generations of Americans.
It's long overdue that the federal government abandon annual output quotas and begin managing forests through the lens of continuous capacity (aka sustained yield). This shift is critical to curbing forest degradation and it will take public pressure on congress to make this change.
