U.S. Forest Service officials continue to work on updating the long-term management plans for the three national forests in the Blue Mountains.

The agency is asking the public to give “informal feedback” about a draft document called the “preliminary need to change.”

The document describes some of the changes that have happened since the current management plans were approved in 1990 for the Wallowa-Whitman, Umatilla and Malheur national forests, and why those changes have prompted the need for new plans.

The Forest Service will accept comments about the draft document through Nov. 7. You can read the document, and find a link for submitting comments, at fs.usda.gov/project/?project=64157.

Comments can also be mailed to the Umatilla National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Attn: Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision, 72510 Coyote Road, Pendleton, OR 97801.

The agency is in the second of 10 steps to revise the management plans for the three forests, which comprise about 4.9 million acres of public land — an area bigger than Rhode and Delaware combined.

The plan doesn’t cover the 652,000-acre Hells Canyon National Recreation Area on the Wallowa-Whitman.

Typically, forest plans are revised every 15 years or so.

The current timeline, although subject to change, calls for the new plans to be approved within two to three years.

The draft preliminary need for change document notes that “In the 34 years since the 1990 Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman forest plans were approved, forest resource conditions have changed due to management activities, invasive insects and diseases, severe wildfires, and changing types and increasing levels of public uses. Forest Service policy and resource management direction have evolved with new legislation, best available scientific information, and changing societal values. Over the past thirty years, numerous court decisions have specified and, in some instances, changed how laws, regulations, and policies are to be implemented.”

More than 1,300 people sent letters this spring to the U.S. Forest Service with comments about the forest plan revision, and almost 600 people attended public meetings across Northeastern Oregon.

Letter writers commented on a variety of topics, including motor vehicle access, areas potentially eligible to be designated by Congress as wilderness, wildfire threats, how logging, grazing and mining will be managed, the effects of climate change, and protecting wildlife habitat.

Opinions varied widely, and on several topics, such as wilderness and logging, some commenters’ preferences were in effect opposite from those submitted by others.

What are forest plans?

Management plans list the general goals for each forest but do not describe or authorize specific projects, such as timber sales or recreation improvements. Site-specific projects are analyzed separately through the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires that the agency give the public a chance to comment before making a decision.

The second step in the revision process is the assessment phase, and is designed to gather information about conditions and trends on the forests, and potential problems with managing the forests that could be addressed in the new plans.

The Forest Service released a draft assessment in March 2024, then scheduled a series of eight public meetings in April across the region that attracted almost 600 people.

Forest Service officials used the letters, comments from the public meetings and other input to craft the final assessment, which was made available to the public in late September.

Revision history

The Forest Service initially started work on new plans for the three national forests in the Blue Mountains in 2003, but two subsequent efforts stalled.

The agency was already almost a decade behind the usual schedule when it released a draft version of new plans for the forests in 2014.

But after hearing complaints, some from people who thought the plans were too restrictive on logging, grazing and other uses, and some from people who thought the plans weren’t restrictive enough, Forest Service officials withdrew the draft plans.

The agency tried again in 2018, releasing a final environmental impact statement analyzing the proposed new plans.

That, too, prompted a raft of objections.

The Eastern Oregon Counties Association, which includes Baker, Grant, Union, Wallowa, Umatilla and Morrow counties, listed eight main objections: economics, access, pace and scale of restoration, grazing, fire, salvage logging, coordination among agencies and wildlife.

The Forest Service withdrew that proposal as well in March 2019.

Chris French, deputy chief for the Forest Service, stated the proposed plan was difficult to understand and “(did) not fully account for the unique social and economic needs of local communities in the area.”

In 2023 the Forest Service restarted the process again.