What Happened in 2018 — And Why It Matters Now

When we talk about the Blue Mountains Forest Plan revision today, we aren’t starting from scratch.

We’ve been here before.

In 2018, the first attempt to revise the forest plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests was withdrawn.

That didn’t happen quietly.

And it didn’t happen by accident.

It happened after significant public involvement raised serious concerns about process, analysis, and how community needs were reflected in the proposed direction.

Understanding that history matters as we prepare for the next Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

A Quick Clarification

It’s important to distinguish this from the Austin Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement that many of us are currently reviewing.

The Austin Project is a project-level decision affecting a specific area.

The Blue Mountains Forest Plan revision we’re discussing here is different. It sets long-term direction for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests as a whole.

Project decisions like Austin operate under the broader framework established in the forest plan. That’s why this revision matters — it shapes what future projects across all three

forests are allowed to do.

The First Attempt Wasn’t the Final Word

Forest plan revisions are complex, technical, and long-term. Most people understandably assume that once a draft is released, the outcome is largely set.

But 2018 showed something different.

The preliminary draft and subsequent materials generated widespread concern across Eastern Oregon. Questions were raised about:

• Whether community access needs were adequately considered

• Whether the assessment phase reflected on-the-ground realities

• Whether alternatives were meaningfully developed

• Whether key decisions were being shaped before full public review

  
  

Those concerns accumulated. They built a record. And ultimately, the agency withdrew the proposal and reset the process.

That is not common. And it did not happen without sustained engagement.

Why This History Still Matters

The current effort is being presented as a new revision under the banner of the Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision. But the structure is familiar.

We have again seen:

• A regional framing applied to three distinct forests

• Broad planning language that will guide future site-specific decisions

• Assurances that specific actions will happen later, in separate processes

  
  

We are not revisiting the past to argue about it.

We are revisiting it because it shows that:

• Early scrutiny matters

• Process questions matter

• Substantive public input can alter the trajectory of a revision

  
  

And it shows that engagement before the DEIS is finalized is not symbolic — it can be consequential.

What We Should Be Asking Now

As the upcoming Draft Environmental Impact Statement approaches, our communities should be asking:

• How does this revision differ from the 2018 proposal?

• What concerns raised last time were substantively addressed?

• How are forest-specific needs reflected across Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman?

• Where is access explicitly protected, and where is it deferred to future decisions?

  
  

These are fair questions. They strengthen the public record. And they are appropriate at this stage.

This Is Why Preparation Matters

The withdrawal in 2018 did not happen because everyone agreed. It happened because unresolved issues could not be carried forward without response.

That is why preparation now matters.

We are not approaching this revision from a place of assumption. We are approaching it informed by experience.

When we engage early, collectively, and clearly, we shape what comes next.

Looking Ahead

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement will provide more detail. When it does, we’ll need to read it carefully and respond thoughtfully.

But this stage — before release — is not idle time.

It is when we:

• Revisit past concerns

• Clarify our priorities

• Build confidence to participate

• Strengthen our understanding of the planning framework

  
  

History in the Blue Mountains shows that participation matters.

And that’s why we are staying engaged now.

Stay with us — this is still the preparation window.

In the coming weeks, we’ll continue breaking down the structure of the forest plan revision and what to look for when the DEIS is released.

Next up:

We’ll look at what makes a comment meaningful — and how everyday community experience strengthens the public record.