TELL BLM NO!! STOP FEDS’ LATEST TIMBER GRAB: BLM’s DISASTROUS PROPOSAL TO MAXIMIZE PUBLIC FOREST LOGGING ACROSS WESTERN OREGON We’ve got a short time left to push back against BLM’s Notice Of intent to revise the plans that guide the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) management of 2.5 million acres of Western and Coastal Oregon’s public forests. The agency’s goal for revising the plans is clear: maximize timber production at the expense of all other forest values. In other words, as the twin climate and biodiversity crises rage on, the Administration wants to catapult back to the days of clearcutting public forests and sacrificing species’ survival, habitat protections, and drinking water sources to achieve unsustainable logging levels. “We know that this administration wants to fully exploit our forest. That’s what Trump said in the executive order last year, ‘to fully exploit”, and a long list of subsequent administrative and legislative actions have furthered this EO- as is this BLM Notice Of Intent. We encourage everyone to use their voices and push back against this because this is not what Oregonians want for our public lands,

Why this matters

Tell the BLM no to mandatory maximum yield timber harvests across 2.4 million acres of Western and coastal Oregon. STOP FEDS’ LATEST TIMBER GRAB: BLM's DISASTROUS PROPOSAL TO MAXIMIZE PUBLIC FOREST LOGGING ACROSS WESTERN OREGON We've got a short time left to push back against BLM's Notice Of intent to revise the plans that guide the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) management of 2.5 million acres of Western and Coastal Oregon’s public forests. The agency's goal for revising the plans is clear: maximize timber production at the expense of all other forest values. In other words, as the twin climate and biodiversity crises rage on, the Administration wants to catapult back to the days of clearcutting public forests and sacrificing species’ survival, habitat protections, and drinking water sources to achieve unsustainable logging levels. “We know that this administration wants to fully exploit our forest. That’s what Trump said in the executive order last year, ‘to fully exploit", and a long list of subsequent administrative and legislative actions have furthered this EO- as is this BLM Notice Of Intent. We encourage everyone to use their voices and push back against this because this is not what Oregonians want for our public lands.

Steps to Take

Step 1

Link to BLM's Official NEPA Notice of Intent (NOI) https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/02/19/2026-03290/notice-of-intent-to-revise-resource-management-plans-for-northwestern-and-coastal-oregon-and Check out the attached info to help inform you for writing a comment to BLM- and hopefully to inspire you to continue taking actions with us on this important and convoluted matter! MORE ACTIONS TO COME! So please stay tuned here Maps, info and fact sheets provided. This is a big complicated issue, and so has tons of compiled research, so you can dive in as deep as you'd like. Also, this is only the first step in BLM's Plan revision process, so we can use our knowledge learned for this Action toward the next steps too! STEP 2: About writing Comments: Based on the complexity of this notice of intent (NOI) along with the various implications and themes, and the fact that each person might be affected by, have specific knowledge or input on, or more strongly oppose a different section of it- We have added a few more narrowly focused and other templates with different feels for you to use.

We suggest to skim them all and find which one(s) most suits you and use it as a base structure to personalize as your own, or mix and match pieces or ideas from some or each of them to write your own. NOTE: Comment #4 and # 6 are the most detailed options, covering a little of each specific issue, including economics

The idea behind this is to create individual comments to be submitted by each person–as they carry far more weight than multiple identical Comment submissions. This BLM Notice of Intent states that it wants to hear specific issues, planning criteria and recommendations pertaining to the project.

Step 2

Link to ePlanning portal https://eplanning.blm.gov/Project-Home/?id=a591dee8-500c-f111-8406-001dd8029ed0

Click the BLM planning portal link, then click "Participate Now" and follow directions to paste or upload your comment for submission, before the March 23, 8:59 PST deadline.

OR email at: BLM_OR_Revision_Scoping@blm.gov
(Via email make sure to include this this in your subject line:

Project Number: DOI-BLM-ORWA-0000-2026-0001-RMP-EIS

You can upload any studies, links or attachments to your comment there. (Remember that any personal identifying information within your submission may be made publicly available.)

Thank you for taking action with us!

Sample Text

Option 1

TO COMMENT ON  RECREATION & TOURISM ECONOMY VALUES
 Guides, outfitters, hunters, anglers, recreation businesses, outdoor community....
  *Personalize at least the[ bracketed ]sections with your own details before submitting- then erase this section.



To: BLM Western Oregon District
Re: Project/NEPA Number 
DOI-BLM-ORWA-0000- 2026-0001-RMP-EIS

I run [a rafting guide service / a hunting outfitter / a fishing guide business / an outdoor recreation company] in [county]. My livelihood depends on the same forests, rivers, and fish runs that this management plan proposes to treat as a timber production zone.

Outdoor recreation generates $16 billion in consumer spending in Oregon and supports 192,000 jobs. Forestry and logging employ roughly 8,800 people statewide. That's not an argument against logging— it's an argument for honesty about which economy is growing and supporting our economy and families.

The visitors who book trips with me come because this place is still intact. They come for the old trees, the clear water, the elk, the salmon, the views, the silence. That is the product. You cannot clearcut the product and keep selling it.

I've watched communities in this region try to hold on through promises of a timber comeback that hasn't materialized. Meanwhile, the outdoor economy has been growing steadily— not because of a government mandate, not because of an executive order, but because the landscape here is truly like nowhere else on Earth, and people want to experience it. That is a renewable resource. A 300-year-old tree is not.

The BLM's NOI does not analyze the economic value of recreation, tourism, clean water, or the ecosystem services these forests provide. It treats the land as if timber is its only value. That is not an honest accounting of what western and coastal Oregonians stand to lose— and gain— depending on how these forests are managed.

I urge BLM to conduct a genuine economic analysis that includes the full (non-timber) ecological values of intact older forests before making any decision. The current proposal is not a path to rural economic recovery-it is in fact, quite the opposite.  It would be a one-time liquidation of assets that took centuries to accumulate; that would simultaneously severely harm (and sever sectors) of our vital outdoor economy. 

Sincerely,
[Business name or type,  and area, city, or county]
[How long you've operated / how many local people you employ…]

Copy to Clipboard

Option 2

A COMMENT ON ECOLOGICAL VALUES 
Use if you want to lead with the ecological argument that's scientifically supported   
  *Personalize at least the [ bracketed ]sections with your own details before submitting.
Then delete this section.


To: BLM Western Oregon District
Re: Project/NEPA Number 
DOI-BLM-ORWA-0000- 2026-0001-RMP-EIS

I am submitting this comment in strong opposition to the proposed revision of the western Oregon Resource Management Plans, which would eliminate wildlife habitat and old-growth protections and mandate harvest toward maximum productive capacity across 2.5 million acres.

Western and Coastal Oregon's low-elevation mature and old-growth forests are among the most ecologically significant on the planet. These are not an interchangeable timber resource—they are functioning systems that took centuries to develop and that provide irreplaceable services no replanted forest can substitute for.

The science on carbon alone should give pause. These forests store an average of 1,127 metric tons of carbon per hectare— among the highest of any forest type on Earth. Oregon, Washington, and California together hold nearly 40 percent of total U.S. forest carbon. Logging old-growth releases 40 to 65 percent of that stored carbon, even accounting for wood products. A 300-year-old stand could take centuries to recover what is lost in a single harvest season.

The fire risk argument used to justify this plan does not hold for these forests. Peer-reviewed science is consistent: high-intensity logging and clearcutting in moist and wet western Oregon forest types increases fire hazard for up to 50 years by removing the moisture-retaining canopy, drying the landscape, and replacing complex forest structure with dense, fire-prone plantations. The forests being targeted are not the problem — they are part of the solution.

These forests also sustain the salmon, the water tables, and the moisture-cycling systems that rural communities depend on. The temperate rainforest dynamic— where old forest canopy creates fog drip and generates a portion of its own precipitation— cannot be replanted. Once the canopy is gone and the water table drops, the system does not simply recover when new trees are planted. This is a one-way door.

Greatly reducing the stream buffers and riparian zones as suggested in this NOI would also be incredibly damaging to the already struggling and threatened coastal coho as well as other salmon and anadromous fish —who rely on these stream-side trees to keep the water cold enough to grow in and survive. 

The ESA and wildlife concerns are not addressed anywhere in this Notice Of Intent. Spotted owl and marbled murrelet habitat overlaps directly with the areas targeted for expanded harvest. Litigation over this conflict is already active. Proceeding without resolving that conflict does not eliminate the legal problem— it guarantees it will be resolved by courts instead of by responsible planning, likely stalling or halting harvest mid-stream and delivering neither the economic nor the ecological outcomes communities need.

I urge BLM to withdraw this NOI and return to a planning process that is grounded in science, that honestly accounts for the ecological and economic value of intact forests, and that engages communities in designing a future they can actually sustain.

Respectfully, 
[Your background — researcher, teacher, farmer, outdoor guide, lifelong resident, etc.]
[your region or county, Oregon

Copy to Clipboard

Option 3

A COMMENT ON ECONOMIC REALITY
  For: Loggers, mill workers, rural families skeptical of conservation arguments   
  *Personalize at least the [ bracketed ]sections with your own details before submitting- then erase the section


To: BLM Western Oregon District
RE: Project/NEPA Number 
DOI-BLM-ORWA-0000- 2026-0001-RMP-EIS

[I/my neighbor/friend/family have/has] been involved in the [forestry/logging] industry in [county name] for [X years/generations]. I am not writing this as an environmentalist. I'm writing it as someone who has watched our community shrink for [X years/decades] and has learned to be skeptical of anyone –on any side– who promises that one policy change will fix it.
[Add in your county/area, how long you've lived here /your connection to the land] 

The BLM is proposing to increase federal timber harvest on western Oregon public lands from roughly 250 million board feet to 1 billion board feet per year. That's four times what's being cut now. Supporters say this will bring jobs and revenue back to our counties. Before I get behind that, I have some pertinent questions that haven't been answered.

Where are the mills? Linn County had 64 wood products facilities in the 1970s. It has 4 today. Weyerhaeuser employs about 950 people in all of Oregon — down from 4,000 in 2006. The processing infrastructure to handle four times the federal harvest does not exist. I've heard no plan to build it.

Who does the planting? Every acre logged has to be replanted by hand — there's no machine that does it. That work is done almost entirely by H-2B guest workers. Jackson County, Oregon accounts for 25% of all H-2B forestry visas in the entire country. The same administration pushing this harvest expansion is also deporting that workforce. On March 16, 2026 they quietly cut guest worker wages, which tells you all you need to know about whether American workers are filling those jobs.

Where is the county revenue guarantee? After the One Big Beautiful Bill, signed July 4, 2026 redirected profits from timber sales on federal land back to the US treasury instead of the counties, the FY 2026 Appropriations Bill included language directing a 75% share of O&C Lands timber counties. However, The 75% rate in the FY2026 budget expires September 30, 2026. Without permanent authorizing legislation, counties could see four times the logging and no stronger legal claim to the money than they have today.

I have watched these communities be promised economic salvation through timber expansion before. It didn't come then, and the structural conditions that prevented it — automation, Wall Street ownership, log exports, no local mill capacity — have only deepened since. I am not opposed to responsible timber harvest. I am opposed to policies that clear our forests on the promise of prosperity that the numbers do not support.

I urge the BLM to reject this management plan revision and instead work with communities on targeted, sustainable harvest that protects what remains of our old growth habitats (which are also the strong economic drivers of our outdoor recreation and tourism businesses,) and delivers real, legally guaranteed economic benefit to local counties — not just to corporate shareholders.

Thank you for strongly considering your answers to these questions, and addressing the issues at hand for real working solutions,

Copy to Clipboard

Option 4

FULL COMMENT w/ specific & technical with some on each topic in the NOI. NOTE: Personalize within the [ brackets ] and then erase this section.
 *92 characters remaining of 5,000 


As a [long time resident of Western Oregon], I submit this comment in opposition to this NOI for RMP revision. It rests on 3 claims: that it will  create local jobs, benefit economy to O&C counties, and reduce wildfire risk– each explored below. 

On jobs: A large part of local mill decline was due to exportations of raw logs. International trade market and Wall Street have destroyed the local industry. US exports most of their timber, while importing from Canada. Most jobs have been outsourced. One logger alone– now produces 46% more board feet than in1990, because of automation. Infrastructure to process a 4X increase in federal harvest does NOT exist. Labor-intensive forestry work–planting, fuels treatment, spraying–is done almost entirely by H-2B workers–(starting in early 80’s).

In trends over the last 90 years, we see that while harvest production rates fluctuated,(with a sharp rise during the past decade), local’s wages and employment rate have been on a constant decline since the 1970s–and today with so much automated- there is zero chance of that changing. Locals no longer want most of the hard labor, poor wages, or unsafe working conditions that the migrant workers endure. The irony is the admin's deportation policies are eliminating that workforce, but just lowered their wages (to appeal to industry bosses, pressured to increase harvests nation-wide)– while at the same time claiming this new RMP will create LOCAL jobs and revenue.

On county revenue: The 75% O&C revenue share some say justifies this plan is not written into permanent law. Added in FY2026 budget bill, it expires 9/30/26. The companion bill, O&C Renewal Act, does not mention revenue share once. Counties could face 4X the intense logging with no stronger legal claim to the monies than they have today–in fact, far less! 

The OBBB became law after various failed attempts at direct Public Land sell-offs, but now re-directs profits from long-term timber contracts on BLM & USFS Lands to Treasury–away from the counties who steward them. Combined with the 2 year lapse on SRS funding, folks are worried. But mass increased harvest DOES NOT guarantee mass county revenue, as shown above. This would be gambling our economic future while handing over our ecological security. Betting our grandchildren's future with just a few swipes of a pen. 

On wildfire: BLM's own studies show that high-intensity logging in moist western Oregon forests increases fire hazard for up to 50 years– by removing the fire-resistant, moisture-retaining old canopy and replacing it with dense, dry young plantations. The west side of the Coast Range forests are among the most fire-resilient forest types in Oregon.
More clearcutting, intense thinning and new logging roads near the coast Will NOT protect us from wild-fires, and as we know from many recent studies (including from USFS)—a huge percentage of wild fires start along or near a road, mainly human caused.
Selective interspersed thinning on overstocked timberland, clearing away from communities, and home hardening, however, have all been proven effective—and should be used as first options to protect families and homes.

I recommend adding these missing parts to the BLM’s continuing analysis: 
1)Carbon value of these low elevation and western forests (1,127 metric tons/hectare -–among the highest on Earth!); 
2)Economic value of the outdoor recreation economy these forests support ($16 billion in Oregon consumer spending, 192,000 jobs); 
3)The clean water, salmon, and watershed services that rural communities directly depend on, and
4)A full ecological analysis of the multi-use forest vales alongside an accurate economic analysis– adjusted to incorporate these statistics addressed herein.

I recommend NOT reducing stream buffers or riparian zones. If the habitat is "trending toward healthier" due to management improvements (BLM 2016 RMP Doc), then help it to continue– It takes generations to recover! 
Please leave all current ACEC’S in tact that contain Old Growth or that locals or visitors cherish. if any do get re-evaluated and their status reviewed, we urge you to involve the public in that process, as we often supply the BLM with needed local knowledge of the area.

NOI cites the March 2025 EO as its directing authority, but our communities deserve a planning process that starts from our actual needs– not a national directive or motive. The pre-determined outcome- as stated in this Notice will likely influence and distort the findings for formulating an accurate EIS 

I urge BLM to withdraw this NOI and instead commit to a thorough, transparent, science-based, community-driven planning process. 
Hold Public meetings within the planning areas, and work alongside those who live and work here, and frequent these BLM managed public lands. Work within the long-term big picture, and take extra care to follow the BLM’s own mission and vision.
Thank you.

Copy to Clipboard

Option 5

Bureau of Land Management,

I strongly oppose any proposal to dramatically increase logging across the 2.5 million acres of western Oregon forests managed by the Bureau of Land Management for many reasons.

Older mature and Old-growth forests are irreplaceable ecosystems that provide enormous ecological and economic benefits– which must be fully analyzed and compared in your project analysis– including carbon storage, biodiversity protection, clean water, and a recreation economy that supports thousands of Oregon jobs.

Industrial logging of ancient forests produces short-term extraction while permanently degrading landscapes that take centuries to develop. It also dries out the once wet forest and turns it into a fire hazard instead. 

These lands are my favorite place to be, and they are valuable far beyond dollars to everybody that I know. BLM's and all Public lands should be managed for long-term ecological stability and public benefit, not short-term liquidation of irreplaceable natural systems.

I recommend the BLM does not go forward with this proposal.

Respectfully,

Copy to Clipboard

Option 6

RE: Notice of Intent (NOI) to Revise RMPs for Northwestern, Coastal Oregon, and Southwestern Oregon (Docket No. 2026-03290)

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Notice of Intent.
Western and Coastal Oregon's BLM-administered lands contain some of the last remaining low-elevation old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest, critical habitat for old-growth-dependent wildlife, and river corridors that support salmon, steelhead, and the drinking water of downstream communities. They are also deeply significant to the tribal nations of this region, whose sovereignty and ties to these places must be centered in any management decisions. These places provide access to nature and recreation opportunities for locals and visitors from across the country, significantly supporting local economies. Expanded logging will block public access, potentially impacting Oregon's thriving outdoor recreation economy, which generated $8.4 billion in economic impact in 2023. This Notice of Intent begins BLM's process of rewriting management plans for nearly 2.5 million acres with an explicit goal of returning timber production to 1980s levels -- before decades of hard-won progress in ecosystem-based management, and before we understood what we had nearly lost. That is the wrong starting point. It treats timber yield as the primary measure of success and existing protections as obstacles to be removed. This proposal did not emerge from a scientific process or a genuine reckoning with the challenges these forests face. Our public lands of Western Oregon deserve management grounded in ecological reality, not predetermined outcomes that treat maximizing extraction as the only measure of success. These places belong to us all, and we have a duty to care for them. Maximizing extraction above all else will repeat the mistakes of the past, threatening water quality and quantity, disturbing soil, destroying important wildlife habitat, and doing irreversible damage to an already unstable climate. And it will violate the law. 
I strongly urge the BLM to listen to the majority of Oregonian and the public with respect to the management plans and usage of our public forests and public lands.

We urge the BLM to retain and strengthen old-growth protections, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, safeguards for wildlife and aquatic habitat, and protections for wilderness-quality lands; maintain the in-place science-based stream buffers; and manage for the full range of values these lands provide. 

I recommend that you fully withdraw this proposal as currently written.

Respectfully,

Why this matters

Steps to Take

Sample Text

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

Option 5

Option 6

Related Links

Related Files

Videos

Details