Since the 1970s, categorical exclusions (CEs) within the National Environmental Policy Act have applied only to activities that have been consistently and scientifically reported to not have a significant effect on the environment. The thinning of forest and woodland density of areas up to 5,000 acres, a significant increase from the current 70 acre limit, would undoubtedly have a significant impact on the environment, as demonstrated by the large repertoire of scientific research highlighting the critical role of forests in storing atmospheric carbon. Furthermore, the forest ecosystem has become increasingly vulnerable to wildfire due to human activity and climate change. Wildfires present extreme threats to human health, with over 15,000 deaths being attributed to wildfire particulate matter over the last 15 years. Even without any major escalation in the deterioration of our forests, the scale and impact of wildfire smoke on human health is projected to increase.

Altered fire regimes based on the principles of wildfire suppression, which this proposed revision uses in its justification, do not recognize the natural benefit of fire and have been shown to exacerbate fire-associated emissions. With such a critical issue at hand, the consultation of scientists and local communities is imperative, which is not reflected in this proposal. Thus, Woodwell strongly opposes the broadening of this CE for the Bureau of Land Management.

Scientific Objection to the Categorical Exclusion for Forest and Woodland Density Management

The proposed revision of this CE is based on the strategy of mechanical thinning. However, there is little to no scientific evidence concluding that the act of mechanical thinning alone universally lessens the risk of wildfire, as integrated fire management strategies are extremely dependent on the context of the ecosystem in which it is deployed. Woodwell research has found that without tailoring the wildfire strategies to their specific environment and pairing it with other more traditional wildfire management methods, these actions may have adverse consequences.

Under conditions of increased temperatures, which would be further amplified by increased carbon emissions driven by deforestation, burned area is expected to increase. With the incredible danger that wildfires pose to human safety, any actions that may degrade natural ecosystems and amplify wildfire impacts must be coupled with extensive environmental review, not the absence of such. By foregoing environmental review through the expansion of this CE, the Federal government is inviting the potential to further endanger our forest ecosystems and the lives of Americans.

The Critical Role of Forests in Carbon Sequestration

The proposed rule fails to recognize the integral role that forests play in carbon sequestration. BLM forests contain about 8 million acres of old growth and 13 million acres of mature forest – about ⅔ of the total area of BLM forest. Mature and old-growth forests, with their much older and larger trees, hold more carbon. Mature and old-growth forests are also more resilient and adaptive in the face of disturbances such as wildfires, which makes them a high priority for environmental protection. It is hard to imagine that these carbon-dense ecosystems would be excluded from logging under the proposed CE.

Woodwell researchers have also found that even beyond the cooling effects of sequestered carbon, forests provide biophysical cooling effects on a local and global scale. This unique quality promotes local climate stability, reducing extreme temperatures year round.

Since 2001, forest fire carbon emissions have increased by 60%. It is projected that by mid-century, wildfires in the northern region of North America would alone contribute to a cumulative net source of nearly 12 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions into our atmosphere, further exacerbating temperatures and subsequent wildfire ignitions.

Impacts on Climate Resilience and Risk Mitigation

While the proposal argues that expanding forest thinning will reduce wildfires, scientific research has frequently called on officials to implement natural climate solutions to increase ecosystem resilience and limit climatic threats such as wildfire.

Fire is a natural and integrally important process in the life cycle of our forest ecosystems. Woodwell scientists study and promote traditional methods of fire management of local and indigenous peoples who recognize the environmental benefits of fire via prescribed burns. Trained professionals can employ these tactics of prescribed or controlled burns to reduce the build up of natural fuels, benefiting plants and wildlife by recycling the carbon back to the earth.

Conversely, we have found that more modern fire suppression tactics have led to oversuppression, contributing to the buildup of dry fuel on the forest floor. Combined with the ever warming temperatures destabilizing atmospheric conditions, increasingly frequent lightning strikes ignite these more flammable forests.
regular fires to periodically clear out this fuel, the land has become more vulnerable to intense and widespread fires. Woodwell is especially concerned with the proposed expansion of the CE of forest and woodland density as it relies on the tactic of mechanical thinning and strives for wildfire suppression, thus risking increased rates of wildfire. In order to properly manage fires in a way that creates a healthier and safer environment, fire management must utilize fire itself.

The proposed revision’s emphasis on mechanical thinning and logging also raises concerns regarding human impact. Anthropogenic influences such as population density, a human footprint index, and roadless volume all have significant statistical correlations to fire occurrence. Previous actions, such as the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule, have already demonstrated the harm that logging and other commercial activities pose to forests. Recent research has shown that roads increase the likelihood of wildfire ignitions because human activities are the most common cause of wildfire; once an area becomes accessible, the probability of wildfire increases. The massive expansion from 70 acres to 5,000 acres eligible for the CE of forest and woodland density would only incite more logging activities and the
acceleration of associated fire occurrence.

Lastly, this announcement fails to elaborate on the “additional tool” which it claims will assist decision-makers in planning areas to implement fuel treatments. Without a demonstrated and sound scientific basis for this tool, the likelihood that project decisions will reflect consideration of forest values beyond timber production is cast into doubt.

Conclusion
The proposed expansion of the Categorical Exclusion rejects scientific evidence and prioritizes logging activities over the safety of American citizens. Woodwell urges the Department of the Interior to:

  1. Integrate the implementation of prescribed or controlled burns to lessen excess vegetation in wildfire mitigation, as opposed to suppressing fires and building flammable materials.
  2. Engage and consult with local communities to create collaborative and tailored fire management strategies based on the particular ecosystem in which they will be deployed.
  3. Provide details about the “additional tool” that will assist in designating fuel treatment areas, specifically its scientific basis and values.
  4. Evaluate each project for the impact of estimated carbon emissions on the broader environment.
  5. Maintain the CE of 70 acres for tree and woodland density so as to minimize forest disturbances and build ecosystem resilience to wildfire at minimum. Ideally, perform environmental assessments under NEPA for all projects regardless of size.

Woodwell Climate Research Center urges the Council on Environmental Quality to reconsider aspects of this Categorical Exclusion to ensure that the pursuit of efficiency does not compromise the scientific rigor and comprehensive scope necessary for effective environmental review under NEPA. Accelerating logging activities and forest deterioration via inappropriate thinning will only amplify the wildfire risk that this proposal claims to address. It is imperative that the Bureau of Land Management’s NEPA implementing procedures facilitate, rather than hinder, the full consideration of environmental impacts, cumulative effects, and health of our citizens.

Chelsea, MA, did everything right. The city had identified flooding as a major climate threat, sought out data on it, mobilized the community, and secured funding to design a solution. They were on their way to building climate resilience, until the change in federal administration forced them to regroup.

In April, 2025, the federal administration announced it was illegally canceling the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program—a FEMA initiative that funded local infrastructure projects to protect communities from hazards like flooding and wildfire—on the grounds that it was “wasteful spending.”

The Island End River Flood Resilience Project was among the projects de-funded in the sweep. The project reenvisioned the shoreline of Chelsea and neighboring Everett, MA, with the construction of a flood barrier, tidal gates, and salt marsh restoration to protect both cities from extreme flooding. 

The cities are vulnerable to two forms of flooding—storm surge coming up from Boston Harbor and extreme rainfall events. 

“This district is already flooding at least once a year to the extent that trucks can’t always pass down the road,” says Chelsea Housing and Community Development Deputy Director Emily Granoff. 

Climate change will exacerbate this. According to a 2022 risk assessment conducted by Woodwell Climate’s Just Access program on behalf of the city and local non-profit GreenRoots, over 20% of the city will be at risk of flooding by 2050. Extreme high-intensity rainfall events could become three times as likely by mid-century and become an annual occurrence by 2080.

The irony of the cuts, Granoff says, is that this project was designed to save the cities of Chelsea and Everett millions of dollars. A cost-benefit analysis conducted for the project found that for every dollar spent on flood prevention, they would save more than $30 of repair and recovery spending in the wake of a major disaster. Several pieces of vital industrial infrastructure sit in the floodplain, including a busy commuter rail line, major truck corridors, and the New England Produce Center, which distributes fruit and vegetables to most northeastern U.S. grocery stores. 

In addition to the $50 million BRIC grant, the project also lost a $20 million matching grant from the state, which was contingent on the federal funding. Without the project, the city will suffer $3.7 billion in direct damage, in addition to hundreds of millions of dollars in lost wages from employees who can’t get to work, lost sales from businesses forced to close, and health care costs from food insecurity.

“It’s important to realize how one federal program being cut like this can affect so many other things downstream,” says Eli Fenichel, director of communications and environmental policy in the office of Chelsea’s State Senator, Sal DiDomenico. “These projects are so important to protect businesses, communities, people, and save us—taxpayers, cities, states—so much money in future damage costs.”

The Island End River project was in the design phase when the BRIC grant was cancelled. After processing the loss, Granoff says project partners regrouped and identified two paths forward. The first would be completing the design and then putting it on the shelf, waiting for a more favorable funding environment. But that option comes with risks.

“The biggest risk is that we get unlucky,” says Nasser Brahim, director of climate resilience for the Mystic River Watershed Association, a partner on the project. “It’s just a matter of time before that area floods again. Every time there’s a nor’easter, every time there’s a king tide, we roll the dice. The odds are not in our favor in the long run.”

The second option would be to take a phased approach and seek out smaller chunks of funding for each stage. This strategy would still take longer to complete, but would allow the most critical flood mitigation measures to proceed—starting with a floodwall and culvert reconstruction. The later phases would bring in marsh restoration and more waterfront access.

The drawback to a phased approach is that pure infrastructure projects are less attractive to funders than nature restoration. Mystic River Watershed Association identified a possible opportunity to request funding for phase one from the Army Corps of Engineers, under the Water Resources Development Act, which is being re-authorized this year. According to Roseann Bongiovanni, executive director of the Chelsea-based community organization GreenRoots, the data in Woodwell’s Risk Assessment has helped the cities and their partners continue making the case for support for the Island End River project.

 “The Woodwell report gave us the science-backed data that helped give weight to our advocacy around coastal resilience. We’ve noticed a change in the response of decision-makers since we were able to provide data about the risks,” says Bongiovanni.

Whether the project takes a phased approach or waits for full funding, the federal cuts represent a delay to a project that could save both lives and money.

“Every year we go without completing this project is another year where our people and critical infrastructure are at risk,” says Bongiovanni.

At COP 30, the Brazilian Presidency announced that it will present two Roadmaps to advance the new global goals set by governments in 2023: halting and reversing deforestation, and transitioning away from fossil fuels. The Presidency has called for civil society inputs for both Roadmaps, and Woodwell experts have prepared an input for the Deforestation Roadmap.

Woodwell’s input related to the process of developing the Roadmap highlights, in particular, that:

Woodwell’s input related to substantive content of the Roadmap highlights six types of action to address barriers to halting and reversing deforestation and degradation, i.e.:

The quality, legitimacy and continuity of the Roadmaps will depend on the expertise and buy-in of government and stakeholders. Woodwell looks forward to the Presidency’s first Roadmap proposal in the coming weeks and will stay engaged to ensure that the Roadmaps are built on the latest available science and best practices.

Read the full submission.

A message from President & CEO Dr. Max Holmes

George Woodwell was never shy about speaking his mind.

I can’t help but smile as I write that sentence. If you knew George, I suspect you are smiling too, recognizing that it is a significant understatement.

George founded this organization to do cutting-edge science, and then to apply that knowledge to influence policy and decisionmaking. In other words, to make a difference. He understood instinctively that a finding locked away in a journal, accessible only to specialists, was a finding that wouldn’t change the world—at least not quickly enough. Science had to travel. It had to reach the people making decisions, shaping policy, and holding the purse strings of both governments and philanthropies. It had to matter beyond the confines of the ivory tower.

George’s original vision continues to guide us today.

But vision requires execution. And execution, in our moment, requires something George could not have fully anticipated when he founded Woodwell more than forty years ago: the ability to compete for attention in an era of relentless noise. Science has never been more urgent. There are more ways than ever to communicate, yet the challenge of being heard has never been greater. These realities have led us to make two investments I am excited to share with you.

First, I am thrilled to announce that Dave Nagel has joined Woodwell as our new Vice President of Marketing and Communications. Dave has spent most of his career in the private sector, and now brings the skills he developed there to Woodwell. His charge is ambitious: to significantly expand the reach of our work, connecting our science to policymakers, business leaders, engaged citizens, and philanthropists.

That last category matters enormously, now more than ever. Woodwell’s ability to do the work George envisioned—rigorous, independent, urgent—depends increasingly on philanthropic support as government support dwindles. We are sustained by people who believe, as George did, that science in service of the planet is worth fighting for. Growing that community has never been more important—it is essential to allow us to boldly follow the path George charted more than four decades ago. Dave’s leadership will be central to that effort, and I could not be more pleased to have him on board.

Second, I want to introduce you to a project that is bursting with potential: Woodwell’s first podcast, Not a Climate Scientist. Hosted by Dr. Heather Goldstone, the show engages everyday people whose lives and livelihoods are being impacted by climate change in surprising ways. Not climate scientists, but people like firefighters and therapists and ranchers—people who are confronting climate change not because they choose to but because they have to. In the process, they demonstrate that sometimes the most important ways to become involved are simply to do more of what you do best. You can find Not A Climate Scientist on YouTube, Spotify, Apple, iHeart and Amazon Music. So please give it a listen, and share it with your networks.

Taken together, Dave’s arrival and Heather’s podcast represent something I think George would recognize immediately: a refusal to be satisfied with good work that goes unheard. He didn’t found this place to whisper. He built it to be heard.

The science we produce has never been more consequential. The news coming out of DC has never been more threatening for science or for climate action, and the window for action has never been narrower. And so, with a nod to the man who never had any trouble making himself heard, we are turning up the volume.

I think he’d approve.

Onward,

Max signature

While natural and managed ecosystems like wetlands, forests, and agricultural fields often receive credit for emitting or absorbing carbon, there is an equally important yet largely overlooked contributor, acting within these ecosystems. Microbes, tiny single-celled organisms that live everywhere on Earth, are a powerhouse of carbon exchange, capable of absorbing and storing greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane. Woodwell Climate researchers are studying both forests and fields to understand how natural microbial communities might be optimized into “climate heroes”, enhancing the carbon absorption capacity of natural and managed ecosystems.

One project leading the charge on this is Boreal Biosequester. Led by Associate Scientist Dr. Jennifer Watts and Senior Research Scientist Kathleen Savage along with collaborators at Arizona State University and the University of Maine Orono, this project is studying a particular class of microbe that “eats” methane, called methanotrophs. 

Methane is 28 times as adept at trapping heat in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Today, atmospheric methane is around 2.6 times higher than during pre-industrial times. While some of these emissions are due to human sources, such as landfills and fossil fuels, around one-third of global methane emissions come from wetlands, and approximately 20-35% of wetlands are found in boreal and northern temperate forests. As a potent greenhouse gas, removal of atmospheric methane is a key natural climate solution that would help mitigate climate warming. The Boreal Biosequester team seeks to optimize the power of methane-eating microbes present in and on trees to turn methane-emitting landscapes into methane absorbers.

With funding from CarbonFix, a philanthropic organization dedicated to funding potential climate solutions, the Boreal Biosequester team has begun the first phase of the project: identifying microbial species present in the tree bark and foliage of Maine’s Howland Research Forest and studying their behavior. The researchers are investigating how trees in this northern forested wetland absorb and emit methane and how this capacity changes with environmental conditions like light, soil moisture, acidity, and temperature, to determine optimal environmental conditions for methane absorption

Much of this data is gathered from 30-meter-tall towers in the Howland Research Forest that measure methane and other gases being emitted and absorbed from this northern forest landscape. Howland boasts one of the longest global records of carbon dioxide and methane fluxes; these tower observations are paired with data collected directly from tree trunks and canopies to complete a comprehensive picture of microbial methane activity across the landscape.

“The different types of organisms that are in the trees absorbing methane have different sensitivities to temperature and how much nitrogen or sulfur or other [nutrients are] available to them,” says Watts. “What we really don’t know is: How do they live in the same space? Are there shared resources? We want to know what those preferences are.” 

Boreal Biosequester team member Dr. Hinsby Cadillo-Quiroz, an ecology of microorganisms and ecosystems professor at Arizona State University, is leading the effort to isolate and study methanotrophs, sequencing their RNA and DNA to learn more about who they are and where they “like to live” in the forest. 

“Plant surfaces host methanotrophs undoubtedly, although at low apparent density, so a critical question in this project is to figure out where, when, and how plant methanotrophs have the highest activity and potential to maximize their work,” says Cadillo-Quiroz. He is currently testing this question in sites around the world, including Howland.

The next phase of the Boreal Biosequester project will apply the knowledge gained from this early work to look at how the identified optimal environmental conditions can be “harnessed” to maximize methane absorption from trees using controlled greenhouse experiments. 

“With greenhouse experiments, we can manipulate their environments and different tree species and then see how those microbes respond, so we can get a better sense of what those microbes like versus not, and how to optimize their behavior,” Savage says.

The final research phase of this project focuses on inoculating a forested wetland with “hardy” natural versions of these methane-eating microbes and tracing the response in landscape methane uptake. “If we can start to cultivate them successfully in the lab, we can start to select populations through natural selection,” Watts says. “We don’t want to do any direct genetic modification, but [we want to] grow the microbes that are a little bit more hardy.”

This work could yield natural climate solutions that are cost-effective and scalable for use by governments and land managers, and provide multiple benefits for carbon removal in restored or regenerating forests. 

“If we understand what drives the natural activity of methanotrophs, it can inform the industry practices and plans,” Cadillo-Quiroz says.

Microbes could also be a powerful natural climate “ally” in other human-managed systems, like agricultural fields. Microbes in agricultural fields function as active climate engines by converting plant-derived carbon into stable carbon in soil, a process that could be optimized by using different land-management practices. According to Woodwell, soil microbial ecologist and biogeochemist, Dr. Taniya RoyChowdhury, properly managed croplands have the potential to become major carbon sinks. 

“Global croplands have the theoretical capacity to sequester up to 2.6 gigatonnes of CO2 (carbon dioxide) annually,” RoyChowdhury says. “The research being pursued at Woodwell Climate is the critical link in the chain, providing the data needed to shift soil carbon storage from a ‘theoretical’ possibility into a ‘verifiable’ climate solution.” 

RoyChowdhury is studying how regenerative agriculture practices like cover cropping could enhance a process called “necromass formation,” where carbon absorbed from the atmosphere by plants is consumed by soil microbes that then die. This carbon-rich “necromass” is then stored more permanently in the soil. This process is unique to microbes, so RoyChowdhury wants to understand how altering agricultural management practices, like cover cropping, could alter microbial activity in our favor.

“We’re trying to look at what the cover crop actually does to the microbial community. We’re genetically sequencing the microbial community in its totality and also looking at their functions,” says RoyChowdhury.

She says that working with microbes could also have co-benefits beyond carbon removal. 

“Nature-based solutions [like microbes] are critical because they are the only tools we have that address the triple crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and food insecurity simultaneously,” says RoyChowdhury. 

The other benefit of using natural climate solutions like microbes across ecosystems, RoyChowdhury says, is that once they are established, they manage themselves.  

“Rightly managed natural systems are self-sustaining; once a wetland is restored or a forest is established, it continues to remove or sequester carbon and provide ecosystem services with minimal human intervention, making it a suitable strategy for long-term planetary stability,”  RoyChowdhury says.

The Trump administration wants to take an ax to the East’s last great forests

The fight over the roadless rule has long focused on the West, but its repeal could fragment some of the last pristine forests in the eastern United States.

View of a green forest with the camera angle pointed slightly upwards. Trees are tall and skinny with a white sky in the background.

When most people think about national forests, they imagine vast Western landscapes: Alaska, the Rockies, the Pacific Northwest. But millions of acres of federal woodlands dot the eastern half of the country, too. These great swaths of vibrant ecosystems have long been free of roads, protected by a policy called, appropriately enough, the “roadless rule.”

That may soon change.

Read more on Grist.

Today on Earth Day, Woodwell Climate Research Center is launching a podcast for everyone who is not a scientist, but is worried about the effects of climate change and wants to understand how others are taking action in their daily work and lives. As the consequences of the climate crisis increasingly impact our economy, infrastructure, public health, and communities, Not a Climate Scientist will provide listeners with a window into how industry leaders and everyday individuals are working to adapt and plan for the future. 

“Science provides critical information about how fast our climate is changing, what’s driving that, and how we can change course. But scientists alone can’t solve this problem,” said Dr. R. Max Holmes, President and CEO of Woodwell Climate Research Center. “Climate action is for everyone, whatever your passion or profession. Not a Climate Scientist provides examples of people who have figured that out, and can help others find their first step.” 

New episodes will be released every other week on YouTube, Spotify, Apple, Amazon, and iHeartRadio. The first three episodes are available now and feature:

The podcast is hosted by Dr. Heather Goldstone, Senior Fellow at Woodwell Climate. Goldstone joined Woodwell Climate in 2020 after nearly a decade at GBH, where she founded and hosted a weekly science-focused radio show, Living Lab Radio. Her science and environmental reporting has appeared in a range of outlets, including the Cape Cod Times, Commercial Fishery News, NPR’s Morning Edition, The Takeaway, and PBS NewsHour.

“Climate change is not just a distant threat or political flash point, it’s a reality that is showing up in people’s lives and jobs across the U.S. on a daily basis,” said Goldstone, executive producer and host of Not a Climate Scientist. “The vast majority of Americans are worried about climate change, but relatively few are talking about it. This podcast brings this looming issue down to earth and opens up conversations that are personal, relatable, and actionable — an antidote to the doom and gloom so many people are trying to avoid.”

For 40 years, Woodwell Climate Research Center has led groundbreaking scientific research and solutions to help leaders, communities, and policymakers across the world respond to the climate crisis. Not a Climate Scientist will notably talk to everyone except climate scientists, highlighting the ways in which we all, regardless of profession, geography, or socioeconomic status, can be part of shaping a more positive climate future. 

Follow Not a Climate Scientist on TikTok and Instagram @NotAClimateScientist.

How a retired cranberry bog helped change the game for wetland restoration

Glorianna Davenport looks out at hundreds of acres of protected wetlands that were once her family’s cranberry farms. In her hands are laminated pictures of striking red cranberry bogs fed by razor-straight water channels. It’s hard to believe the land where she stands — full of sinuous streams, wildlife, moss and tall trees — once looked so different.

The land’s transformation, documented through a network of cameras and sensors, offers a playbook for wetland restoration as cranberry farms see slimmer profits from New England to Wisconsin because of climate change and other factors. The crop requires cold winters and plenty of water, but warmer temperatures and longer droughts are challenging harvest seasons.

Continue reading on AP News.