“Stored” Roads, Closed Access: The Austin Project and a Pattern of Public Misdirection

For months, Eastern Oregon communities have been told not to worry about road closures. We were told access would be maintained. We were told closures were not the intent. And in the case of the Austin Project, we were explicitly told that no road closures would be included.

That assurance mattered. People listened. People trusted it.

Then the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) came out — and the maps told a different story.

After reviewing the Austin Project DEIS, its access and elk security maps, and the project’s scoping history, one conclusion is unavoidable:

The Forest Service did not remove road closures.They renamed them.

And they did so after clearly allowing the public to believe those closures would not happen.

1. Start With the DEIS — The Maps Show the Outcome

The most honest place to start is not with press statements or reassurances, but with the Forest Service’s own documents.

The Austin Project DEIS includes elk security and access-related maps that clearly show road segments being functionally removed from public motorized use. Regardless of how those roads are labeled, the outcome shown on the maps is straightforward:

• The public cannot legally use them

• Motorized access is eliminated

• Use is restricted to administrative purposes, if any

  
  

These are not hypothetical impacts. These maps represent the agency’s selected approach moving forward.

And that matters, because a road the public cannot legally or physically use is closed in every way that matters to hunters, woodcutters, ranchers, and local families.

Calling it something else does not change that reality.

2. The Assurance That Set the Baseline

Before the Draft EIS was released, Forest Access for All (FAFA) received a clear assurance during a Grant County Natural Resources Advisory Committee meeting that no road closures would be included in the Austin Project.

Following that meeting, FAFA sent written correspondence thanking Regional Forester Jacqueline Buchanan and Malheur National Forest Supervisor Ann Nielsen for what was described as a “clear and constructive update” and, specifically, “the assurance that no road closures will be included.”

That message was not corrected.

Instead, the Regional Forester responded positively, stating her intent to “support the public needs and ensure that public lands are available for public use.”

At no point did the agency clarify that roads would still be unavailable under a different designation.

At no point was the public told that “no closures” actually meant “closures under another label.”

That silence matters. Because what followed in the Draft EIS did not align with what the public was clearly led to believe.

3. The Language Shift — “Closed” Becomes “Stored”

When concerns about road closures surfaced during scoping, the Forest Service did not remove the access restrictions shown in the DEIS maps.

Instead, it changed the terminology.

Roads previously discussed as “closed” were reclassified as “stored.”

Let’s be clear: “stored” does not mean open.

It does not mean accessible.

It does not mean available for public use.

A road that the public cannot use is closed — no matter how carefully the label is chosen.

Changing the word does not change the impact.

It only changes how the impact is described.

4. Scoping Maps Confirm the Same Result

The scoping maps make the situation even clearer.

While the labels differ from earlier discussions, the spatial outcome does not:

• The same road segments are removed from public access

• The same travel network is reduced

• The same communities lose access

  
  

The Forest Service did not reverse the closures shown in the DEIS.It re-presented them in a way that appears less controversial.

The sequence matters:

1. The public is assured there will be no road closures

2. DEIS maps show roads functionally unavailable

3. Public concern follows

4. Terminology changes — outcomes do not

   
   

At that point, this stops looking like confusion or miscommunication. It starts looking like a conscious decision to manage public reaction rather than address public concern.

5. Austin Is Not an Exception — It’s Evidence

If this were happening in only one project, it would be troubling enough.

But it isn’t.

The same approach is visible in the Blue Mountains Forest Plan revision, where the public is repeatedly told that access will not be reduced — even as plan direction and mapped outcomes lay the groundwork for exactly that through future project-level decisions.

Austin shows what this looks like when the process reaches implementation.

This is not about one project.

It is about an agency that appears increasingly comfortable using softened language to mask hard outcomes.

6. Why This Matters to the Public

Public participation depends on honesty.

People cannot meaningfully comment on impacts they are told do not exist. They cannot engage in good faith when assurances are given verbally and undone quietly in writing.

When an agency:

• allows the public to rely on assurances,

• substitutes terminology instead of outcomes,

• and proceeds as though the concern has been addressed,

  
  

it undermines trust — not just in a single project, but in the entire planning process.

This is not how collaboration is supposed to work.

7. Final Word — Words Don’t Change Reality

You can rename a closed road a “stored” road.

You can adjust map legends and descriptions.

But you cannot change what happens on the ground.

The Austin Project shows a clear choice by the Forest Service to preserve access restrictions while minimizing how they are described, even after allowing the public to believe those restrictions would not occur.

Eastern Oregon communities are not confused.

We are not uninformed.

And we are no longer willing to accept word games in place of honesty.

If the agency wants trust, it needs to stop managing perception and start matching its words to its maps.