This Is Not Active Management. This Is Active Restriction.

We are being told the Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision is an “active management” plan.

But after digging through the Draft EIS, the alternatives, and the opening set of findings we have pulled together, that is not what we are seeing.

FAFA is releasing our first working findings sheet on the Draft EIS. This is not the full review, but it is the opening set of issues we believe the public needs to understand before commenting. You can read it here:

BMFPR_DEIS_Findings_Sheet_Public_Working_Draft_2026-07-14.pdf

Download PDF • 138KB

We are seeing added language and discretion that can be used to restrict motorized access. We are seeing reductions in grazing and timber from the 1990 plans. We are seeing more sideboards, more process, more limitations, and more room for future agency decisions to narrow human use of these forests.

That is not the active management plan Eastern Oregon was promised.

At this point, it looks a lot more like the new AR for Eastern Oregon:

Active Restrictions.

This is our opening set of information on what we believe is wrong with this plan. It is not the full review. It is not everything we have found. But it is enough to show why people should slow down before accepting the sales pitch that this plan is a win for access, grazing, timber, mining, or local communities.

One of the biggest concerns is access.

The Forest Service keeps saying Travel Management will happen later. But the DEIS still includes Recreation Opportunity Spectrum settings, management areas, standards, guidelines, suitability language, transportation direction, wildlife direction, riparian direction, and monitoring language that can all shape future access decisions.

In plain English: they may not close your road today, but they may be writing the rulebook that helps close it tomorrow.

That matters for hunting, camping, firewood, grazing, mining, emergency response, county roads, family access, and the ability of older or disabled folks to actually reach the places they have used for years.

We are also seeing serious concerns with grazing.

The agency may say grazing is “maintained,” but maintained compared to what? Current reduced use? Actual use? Authorized use? Or the 1990 plans that are supposedly being revised?

AUMs on paper do not keep a ranch operating if roads, water, fences, gates, timing, riparian rules, or access problems make the allotment harder or impossible to use.

We are seeing the same kind of problem with timber.

Alternative 2 is being sold as an increase in timber compared to recent/current levels, but that does not automatically mean it restores what was contemplated under the 1990 plans. If the agency wants to call this active management, then the public deserves a straight comparison: 1990 plans, current conditions, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3.

No spin. Just the numbers.

The same goes for household use of the forest.

For local families, access is not just recreation. It can mean firewood heat, meat in the freezer, posts, poles, mushrooms, berries, camping, small supplemental income, ranch support, and getting family members into the woods who cannot simply “walk in” if roads are closed or access is pushed farther away.

A use can remain legal on paper and become nearly impossible in real life if people cannot reach it, haul from it, afford it, or keep using the roads and trails that make it workable.

That is why FAFA is pushing so hard on the missing information and supporting records. The public should not be asked to comment on a plan without the records, comparisons, route baseline, socioeconomic support, and analysis needed to understand what the plan actually does.

This first findings sheet is meant to help people start seeing the issues clearly.

It lays out what we are seeing, why it matters at home, what appears to be missing in the DEIS, and what needs to be fixed. These are the same issues we are working to turn into plain-language comment help so people can submit meaningful comments in their own words.

Because that is the goal.

Not a stack of copy-and-paste comments.

Real comments. Local comments. Comments from people who can explain how this plan affects access, grazing, timber, mining, firewood, hunting, gathering, family use, rural households, and the future of Eastern Oregon communities.

This plan is being sold as active management.

So far, we are finding reductions, restrictions, missing analysis, added discretion, and more ways to limit human use of these forests.

That is not good enough.

Eastern Oregon deserves a forest plan that supports access, supports grazing, supports timber, supports mining and local materials, supports tribal and non-tribal subsistence and traditional uses, supports rural households, and supports the communities that live with these forests every day.

We will have more coming soon.

We encourage you to read the findings sheet, think about how these issues affect you, and be ready to comment when the tool is released.

The comment tool is coming, and we are working to make sure it helps you speak clearly, directly, and in your own words.