From Open Forests to Permission-Based Access: What This Revision Is Trying to Change

For many of us in Eastern Oregon, forest access didn’t used to feel complicated.

We hunted, gathered firewood, cut Christmas trees, rode trails, checked water, and helped neighbors. The assumption was simple: the forest was open unless there was a clear reason it wasn’t. Access was the starting point.

What we are facing now is not the sudden loss of that access, but a proposed shift in how access is defined, justified, and carried forward—one that shows up most clearly in forest planning.

Understanding that shift matters as we prepare for the next Blue Mountains Forest Plan revision.

This Change Is Being Built, Not Announced

We haven’t woken up one day to find forests suddenly closed.

Instead, pressure on access has shown up project by project, decision by decision:

• New planning language

• New assumptions about use

• New frameworks that sound technical but carry real consequences

  
  

What this forest plan revision proposes to do is formalize those pressures into a long-term framework—one that would shape how future decisions are made across the Blue Mountains.

That’s why this moment matters.

From “Access Is Assumed” to “Access Must Be Justified”

One of the most significant changes embedded in recent forest planning efforts is how access is framed.

Under the existing forest plans—adopted in the early 1990s—access was generally allowed unless it was specifically restricted. Those plans still guide management today.

This revision proposes a different approach.

Instead of access being the starting point, use is increasingly framed as something that must be:

• Designated

• Determined “suitable”

• Evaluated later through monitoring

• Approved through future processes

  
  

This shift doesn’t usually show up as an outright closure. Instead, it changes the burden—moving from “allowed unless restricted” toward “permitted if justified.”

That difference matters.

Why Forest Plans Matter So Much

Forest plans rarely close roads or trails directly. That’s part of what makes them easy to overlook.

What they do instead is establish the rules future decisions must follow:

• Desired conditions that management is expected to achieve

• Determinations of what uses are appropriate where

• Constraints that later projects must be “consistent with”

  
  

When access decisions are made years later—through travel management, project-level actions, or site-specific restrictions—the agency often points back to the forest plan and says:

“We’re implementing direction that was already established.”

This revision is about setting that direction.

A Regional Plan With Local Consequences

The current effort is being presented as the Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision, covering:

• Malheur National Forest

• Umatilla National Forest

• Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

  
  

While these forests are distinct, the planning framework is regional. That raises important questions for our communities:

• How are local access needs reflected across three very different forests?

• Where do forest-specific differences actually show up?

• What assumptions are being applied broadly that may not fit local conditions?

  
  

These are not abstract concerns. They shape how access decisions play out on the ground—forest by forest, community by community.

Why Vocabulary Matters

Many people disengage from planning not because they don’t care—but because the language feels inaccessible.

Terms like:

• Desired conditions

• Suitability

• Adaptive management

• Monitoring

  
  

can sound harmless, even positive. But they carry real weight.

Learning this vocabulary doesn’t mean becoming a policy expert. It means recognizing when access is being:

• Deferred rather than protected

• Reframed rather than debated

• Shifted into future decisions with fewer public safeguards

  
  

That awareness helps all of us engage more effectively.

Why We’re Talking About This Now

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement has not been released yet—but this is exactly when preparation matters most.

Understanding how this revision could move us from open forests toward permission-based access helps us:

• Read the DEIS more critically

• Ask clearer questions

• Identify where access is being reshaped

• Strengthen the collective public record

  
  

This isn’t about saying outcomes are decided. It's about recognizing what this revision is capable of doing if left unchallenged.

Looking Ahead Together

None of this means access is already lost.

It does mean that how access is framed in this revision will shape what’s possible later—across projects, forests, and generations.

That’s why staying engaged now matters. And that’s why this conversation belongs to all of us.

Stay with us — this is the preparation window.

In the weeks ahead, we’ll continue breaking down the language, structure, and implications of the Blue Mountains Forest Plan revision so our communities are ready to engage when the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is released.

Next up:

We’ll take a closer look at key planning terms—like desired conditions, suitability, and monitoring—and explain how they appear in forest plans and why they matter for access.