Conservation Groups Push to Halt Logging in Oregon’s Fremont-Winema National Forest

The U.S. Forest Service plans to open bids for two of the logging projects in question later this month.

In a critical moment for forest conservation, two advocacy groups are standing up against the U.S. Forest Service’s plans to move forward with three large commercial logging projects in Oregon’s south-central region. The projects target the thinning of 29,000 acres within the Fremont-Winema National Forest, a vast and biologically diverse landscape already under immense stress.

Oregon Wild and WildEarth Guardians are urging the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to step in and halt these operations. They argue that the Forest Service, by bypassing a thorough environmental impact analysis, has overstepped its legal boundaries under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Their case is built on the premise that the Forest Service has misapplied a “categorical exclusion” under NEPA—an exclusion that allows certain projects to proceed without full environmental review, but only if they meet strict criteria.

The Forest Service claims these logging projects are essential for forest health and wildfire mitigation. The reality, however, is far more complex. While thinning and prescribed burns can be valuable tools in forest management, conservationists argue that large-scale commercial logging under the guise of “improvement activities” risks doing more harm than good. Logging on this scale, particularly without an environmental assessment, could lead to devastating consequences for the forest’s ecosystems, wildlife, and future resilience against wildfires.

These projects have sparked controversy because the categorical exclusion used to justify them does not have a specific acreage limit, allowing the Forest Service to push forward on projects covering tens of thousands of acres. This raises a red flag for conservationists, who see it as a dangerous precedent, potentially opening the floodgates for more large-scale logging projects to bypass critical environmental reviews.

Beyond the technicalities of environmental law, this case speaks to a broader issue: the need for balance between forest management and conservation. The Fremont-Winema National Forest is already feeling the pressure of climate change, with the scars of the 2021 wildfires—a blaze that consumed over 413,000 acres—still fresh. If we continue to prioritize short-term logging profits over long-term forest health, we risk losing more than just trees. We lose biodiversity, carbon storage potential, and the very resilience that our forests need to withstand the increasing threat of wildfires.

The court has yet to decide, but this case is a stark reminder that how we choose to manage our forests today will shape their future. If we aim to preserve these critical ecosystems for future generations, we must push back against actions that exploit legal loopholes and disregard the long-term health of the land.