Tuleyome Working with You to Protect our Public Lands / Advocacy
Recent Sign On Letters
Congressional Need to Fix the CRA
This letter thanks Senator Martin Heinrich and Representative Jared Huffman for their opposition to the misuse of the Congressional Review Act to overturn public lands management plans and protections. It urges Congress to remove federal land use planning and related public lands decisions from the scope of the CRA, warning that its unprecedented use creates uncertainty, undermines established public processes, and threatens the long-term health of our public lands, waters, and wildlife. View the full letter:
Pearce Nomination Opposition
This letter warns of how the nomination of Steve Pearce as Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) poses a significant threat to America's public lands. The letter recalls multiple statements made by Pearce expressing his readiness to sell away America's public lands. It also urges Senator Alex Padilla and Senator Adam Schiff to publicly oppose Pearce's nomination to lead the BLM.
Congressional Review Act Concerns
This letter thanks Senator Martin Heinrich and Representative Jared Huffman for opposing the unprecedented use of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn federal land use plans and public lands management decisions. It outlines how this misuse creates widespread uncertainty, threatens protections for public lands and waters, and undermines established public planning processes. The letter calls on Congress to legislatively bar the application of the CRA to federal land use planning and related public lands decisions.
Check out our recent Policy Corner Articles on our News & Insights Blog
California’s condors and sea otters are two of conservation’s great comeback stories – species that were once on the brink of extinction and have rebounded thanks in large part to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). That 50-year-old law is now facing one of the most significant rollbacks in its history, and California is fighting back in court. Last week, Attorney General Rob Bonta, joined by a coalition of 21 state attorneys general, filed two lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s recent changes to the ESA. At the center of the fight is a single but enormously consequential change: the administration rescinded the longstanding definition of “harm” under the Act – a definition that, since the early 1980s, has made it illegal to destroy or damage the places endangered species live, breed, and feed. Without it, habitat destruction itself may no longer count as illegal “harm” to a species, even though most biologists agree habitat loss is the single biggest threat facing endangered species today. The changes don’t stop there. The administration is also making it easier for federal agencies to avoid designating “critical habitat” for at-risk species, and it has eliminated automatic protections for newly-listed threatened species – meaning wildlife officials must now write custom protection rules for each species one at a time. That’s a heavy lift for an agency that has reportedly lost more than a third of its staff, and which currently has 400 species waiting for a protection decision. Why this matters here at home California is home to more threatened and endangered species than any other state. It’s natural to assume the state’s own Endangered Species Act would fill any gap left by federal rollbacks – but legal experts point out that California’s law, as written, doesn’t clearly protect habitat at all. It primarily prohibits killing or injuring individual members of a listed species, not damaging the places they live. That means the very thing under threat federally – habitat protection – may not have a reliable backstop at the state level either. What this means for our work At Tuleyome, so much of what we do, protecting oak woodlands, wildlife corridors, and watershed habitat across our region – depends on the basic principle that a species' home matters as much as the species itself. A condor or a Clear Lake hitch can’t survive court-ordered protection from hunting alone if the habitat it depends on is quietly bulldozed, drilled, or logged out from under it. This lawsuit is about defending that basic principle at the federal level, and it’s a reminder of why local land protection and legislative advocacy matters now more than ever – because the safety net above us may have real holes in it.
On August 29, USDA published a notice of intent to eliminate the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule – the Roadless Rule, jeopardizing protections for 45 million acres of America's wildest forests , about a third of our national forests. Throughout Mendocino National Forest, 154,332 acres of Roadless Areas would lose protection, including nearly 30,000 acres within Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument. What's at Stake These forests have only remained intact because of the 25-year commitment not to build roads and open these special areas to industry. Roadless areas provide clean drinking water to 60 million Americans. These forests store 20% of all carbon in U.S. national forests. The outdoor recreation economy generates $730 billion annually. Roadless areas are critical habitat for 1,600+ threatened species. We already have 370,000 miles of roads in forests with a multi-billion dollar maintenance backlog. Studies show wildfire ignitions are 4 times more likely near roads than in roadless areas. We Have Until September 21 st to Save America’s Roadless Forests This our opportunity to inform USDA that we are opposed to rolling back the Roadless Rule. Our goal is one million comments in support of the Roadless Rule What Can You Do? Submit Comments Supporting the Roadless Rule Directly to USDA or Click Here to Sign on to Tuleyome’s letter Our goal is to get 1,000,000 comments into USDA in support of the Roadless Rule! Information on How to Submit Public Comments for USDA Roadless Rule Step 1: Think about what types of comments you want to share with USDA. Here are some suggestions on what makes a good comment: Be specific about what roadless lands matter to you and why, whether for water, wildlife, recreation, wild fire prevention, cultural sites or old growth trees. Show how you will be personally harmed if these protections are removed. That harm can be direct, like losing access to a favorite place, or it can be health-related. Road-building and logging increase smoke, dust and polluted runoff that affect human health. Point to consequences, since roads lead to the removal of trees, severing connected wilderness corridors, erosion and higher fire risk. Call out contradictions such as: Forest service promises conservation while encouraging logging USDA states the Roadless Rule hinders wildfire management but more roads actually increase the likelihood of fire ignition points Feel free to borrow ideas from others or sample letters while maintaining your own voice, this is your opportunity to contribute and speak truth to power. Include your full name and address. Step 2: Go to the Regulations.gov site. This is the official federal government website to submit comments. Step 3: Copy and paste or upload your comments as a PDF. Step 4: Scroll to the bottom of the page, verify that you’re not a robot and hit submit. Consider keeping a copy of your comments for your record. As a reminder the comment period ends on September 21st.
Yosemite National Park belongs to the people. It should not be carved up to benefit a private developer. The National Park Service is working on a new proposal to give up a quarter-mile strip of land inside Yosemite National Park in exchange for property elsewhere in California. What's the goal? To provide a private developer with a new road and direct access from his 83-acre planned real estate development abutting the park to one of Yosemite’s central roads. This proposal deserves the public’s attention. The property is owned by Kingsbarn Realty Capitol, whose CEO wants to build a road connecting the private property to Yosemite. Previous efforts to establish this private access were rejected, including in federal court. The National Park Service has repeatedly refused similar requests for more than two decades. Our National Parks should not be carved up for private profit. National Parks were established in this country to protect America’s most interesting and iconic places for everyone to access, not to provide special access or development opportunities for private interests. Your action is especially timely because the Park Service has acknowledged that no final decision has been made, meaning there is still an opportunity for public scrutiny and opposition. Any eventual land exchange should be subject to federal laws, environmental review, and public notification requirements. Tell the National Park Service: Keep Yosemite public We can’t allow a national park to be reshaped around the interests of a private developer. Yosemite is a national treasure. Its lands, wildlife, cultural resources, and landscapes belong to the American people, and they should remain protected for generations to come. We have seen this kind of proposal before, and the public and the courts rejected it. We must make sure it does not come back through the back door. Yosemite is worth protecting. Speak up and keep it public. TAKE ACTION: Tell Interior Secretary Burgum to Keep Yosemite Public! Here’s How: Call your elected officials. Here is a sample script: “Hi, my name is [NAME] and I'm a constituent from [CITY/ZIP]. I'm calling to urge [Representative/Senator NAME] to publicly oppose the National Park Service's proposed land exchange inside Yosemite National Park, which would give a billionaire private developer, Kingsbarn Realty Capital, new road access through park land. I'm also asking [him/her/them] to call on Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to reject any further privatization or sell-off of our public lands. Yosemite belongs to the public, not private developers. Thank you.” Send a letter or email. You can use this template: Dear [Representative/Senator NAME], I’m writing as your constituent to urge you to oppose the National Park Service’s proposed land exchange inside Yosemite National Park. This proposal would trade a strip of park land to provide Kingsbarn Realty Capital, a billionaire private developer, with new road access from an 83-acre private property to one of Yosemite’s central roads. This is not the first attempt to establish this private access – previous efforts were rejected, including in federal court, and the Park Service has denied similar requests for more than two decades. Our public lands exist to serve the public, not to create development opportunities for billionaires. I ask that you publicly oppose this proposal and call on Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to keep Yosemite, and all our national parks, fully public and protected for future generations. Thank you for representing our community on this issue. Sincerely, [NAME] [ADDRESS/ZIP] Not sure who represents you? Find your U.S. Representative and Senators here .