Recycling a Rejected Plan: The Forest Service’s Second Attempt at the Blue Mountains Forest Plan Risks Repeating Old Mistakes

The U.S. Forest Service is once again moving forward with a major forest plan revision for the Malheur, Wallowa-Whitman, and Umatilla National Forests—but this time, they’re doing so by quietly recycling much of the same content from the 2018 draft plan that was formally withdrawn in 2019. For rural communities that depend on access to public lands for woodcutting, hunting, grazing, and other subsistence uses, this raises serious red flags.

🔙 A Plan Pulled for Good Reason

The 2018 Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision was withdrawn in March 2019 by then–Acting Deputy Chief Chris French. Why? Because it fundamentally failed to reflect the public’s needs. The agency acknowledged the plan lacked transparency, ignored valid objections, and failed to earn public trust. Hundreds of Eastern Oregon residents, including county governments, tribal members, ranchers, and small business owners, had raised major concerns that the draft plan would restrict motorized access, close traditional gathering areas, and reduce the use of forest roads critical to local livelihoods.

🔁 Back from the Dead: Using the Withdrawn Plan as a Blueprint

Despite its formal withdrawal, the Forest Service is now relying heavily on the same 2018 documents—including the withdrawn draft plan, Environmental Impact Statement, and other planning materials—to form the backbone of this new revision. According to their own 2024 Assessment Report, these outdated and previously rejected documents are being used as key sources of information and structure for the new effort.

In effect, the agency is moving forward with a plan that the public already said “no” to—and doing it before formal NEPA scoping has even begun. That undermines the legal intent of early public involvement under NEPA (40 CFR § 1501.9) and violates the spirit of the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR § 219), which requires public collaboration before a draft plan is developed.

⚖️ Other Forests, Same Problem: Bitterroot Case Offers a Warning

We’ve seen this pattern before. In Montana’s Bitterroot National Forest, the Forest Service withdrew a prior decision after objections, only to push forward with a revised plan that largely reused the same old information. That approach has landed the Forest Service back in court, with plaintiffs arguing that the revised plan ignored new public input and current science and failed to address earlier concerns. It’s a clear reminder that withdrawn documents cannot simply be repackaged and reissued without consequences.

🧭 What’s at Stake for Eastern Oregon

For the communities of the Blue Mountains, this isn’t about policy language or bureaucratic process—it’s about access. Roads that lead to firewood, hunting camps, cattle allotments, and irrigation infrastructure are lifelines in this region. Every time a road is closed, a gate is locked, or a map is redrawn without input, it cuts deeper into the way of life that’s existed here for generations.

If the Forest Service moves forward using recycled planning documents without a fresh start, they risk repeating the very failures that led to the plan’s withdrawal in 2019—failures that disconnected the agency from the people who live closest to the land.

📢 Time for a Legitimate Reset

Local communities deserve a genuine planning process, not a rebranded version of a plan that already failed to meet the standards of transparency, accountability, and public trust. If the Forest Service is serious about working with Eastern Oregon, they must:

• Start with new data and current conditions, not recycled assumptions from 2018.

• Hold meaningful public engagement before writing another draft.

• Recognize the subsistence, cultural, and economic value of motorized access to the forest.

• Respect the clear record of objections that led to the 2019 withdrawal.

  
  

🔨 Let’s Not Let History Repeat Itself

If the Forest Service wants to rebuild trust in the Blue Mountains, it needs to stop cutting corners and start listening—for real this time. Local residents remember what happened last time, and we won’t stay silent while our future is decided behind closed doors using plans we already rejected.