How do I submit a public comment on Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision?

The public comment window for this decision closed on September 30, 2026. The record of what was at stake stays on this page.

When is the public comment deadline for Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision?

The comment window closed on September 30, 2026.

Do public comments actually change federal decisions?

Yes, when they are substantive. Agencies are legally required to read and respond to substantive comments before finalizing a rule, and specific personal comments about real places and real uses carry far more weight than identical form letters. Courts have overturned rules when agencies ignored substantive comments.

Stop the plan to triple logging in Oregon's Blue Mountains

What the proposal said, and what the decision did

No figure from the proposal has been checked against the decision on this fight yet. What the record does hold is the issues ledger below.

No decision document is on PLAN’s record for this fight yet. When the agency’s decision lands, what it answered goes here.

PLAN's read: high threat

A language model's read of the agency's notice, not an agency rating and not an editor's finding. It’s read from the official notice ↗, and it isn’t a grade.

The Forest Service's proposed plan would take the annual cut on the Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman from 108 million board feet to 364 million, and it's written as if the Roadless Rule were already gone.

What’s at risk

The 21-inch rule that keeps the big trees standing, more than 720,000 acres now managed as roadless, the drinking water of about 40,000 people, and 13 listed species whose effects analysis the agency hasn't finished. Alternative 2 recommends no wilderness at all and projects the lowest carbon stocks of the three alternatives at 10 and 20 years.

If this goes through

This plan sets the rules for every project on 4.9 million acres of three national forests for decades: about 72,800 log truck trips a year, large trees removable at the project level, and roadless protections traded away before the national decision exists. Only people who comment by September 30 keep the right to object to the final plan.

Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.

The agency’s case, tested

What the agency argues, and whether its own record backs it

2
Hold up: 5
Not fully backed

The Forest Service wants to replace the 1990 forest plans for the Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, and its proposed alternative 2 emphasizes much more active management and timber harvest. It says conditions, science and rules have changed, and that more treatment would make these landscapes more resilient to wildfire, insects and disease while supporting local economies.

“Alternative 2 emphasizes active management to increase landscape resilience and achieve desired conditions.”
Proposed Action: What are we proposing to do?

AlternativesNot fully backedAn alternative that greatly reduces commercial harvest couldn't be studied because federal multiple-use laws require timber harvest.
The agency says federal multiple-use laws rule out an alternative that greatly reduces commercial harvest, but it cites the laws without showing which provision bars such an alternative. A citation alone isn't support.
The agency’s words and the law +Hide the words
The agency says
“We looked at this alternative recommendation but did not study it in detail because it would not meet the legal requirements of the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act and the National Forest Management Act.”
Limited Commercial Timber Harvest Alternative
The law
“a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed agency action, including an analysis of any negative environmental impacts of not implementing the proposed agency action in the case of a no action alternative, that are technically and economically feasible, and meet the purpose and need of the proposal;” National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)(iii) ↗
EffectsNot fully backedTripling timber hauling won't push water quality past regulatory thresholds because plan components and best management practices will control sediment.
The agency points to best management practices, plan components and road upgrades, and Table 9 says sediment increases wouldn't exceed thresholds. But the sediment indicator is qualitative. The document projects roughly 72,800 log truck trips a year under alternative 2, says water quality would likely decline, then asserts actual sediment increases would be much smaller without any numbers or modeling.
The agency’s words, the record and the law +Hide the words
The agency says
“This would keep Forest Service projects from exceeding regulatory thresholds for water quality in riparian and other aquatic areas.”
Vegetation Treatments
Elsewhere in the same document
“Under alternative 2, timber outputs of approximately 364 million board feet annually would result in roughly 72,800 commercial vehicle trips per year.”
Vegetation Treatments
“This would likely lead to streams and riparian areas in experiencing water quality reductions in the action alternatives, compared to alternative 1.”
Vegetation Treatments
The law
“a detailed statement by the responsible official on- (i) reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of the proposed agency action; (ii) any reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented;” National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) ↗
EffectsNot fully backedDropping roadless protections under alternative 2 would let the agency treat more heavy fuels and reduce high-severity fire in those areas.
The agency's modeling shows lower high-severity fire potential under alternative 2. But the same analysis says “the practical impact on projected timber outputs is limited because vegetation treatment objectives rather than the total quantity of suitable lands are the main drivers of harvest levels” and that “Adequate feasible acres exist in all considered alternatives.” It doesn't show what dropping roadless protections adds on its own.
The agency’s words +Hide the words
The agency says
“Under alternative 2, potential recission of the Roadless Rule we would have the ability to treat more areas with uncharacteristic fuel loads, thereby reducing high-severity fire in those locations.”
Wildland Fire
Show 2 more claims +Show fewer
- EffectsNot fully backedMitigations will keep effects on listed aquatic species within the range allowed by Endangered Species Act consultation, regardless of higher timber output.
  The agency relies on plan components, best management practices and continued consultation. But Table 18 marks effects on bull trout, Chinook salmon, steelhead, wolverine, whitebark pine and other listed species as to be determined, meaning the analysis isn't complete. The document says species determinations will come later, so nothing here shows effects stay within consultation limits.
  The agency’s words, the record and the law +Hide the words
  The agency says
  “Regardless of increased timber output, active management mitigations would be in place to ensure effects are within the range of consultation for critical aquatic riparian species.”
  Vegetation Treatments
  Elsewhere in the same document
  “A robust analysis and discussion of environmental consequences and determinations for individual species listed under the Endangered Species Act will be presented in the Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion.”
  Federally-listed species under the Endangered Species Act
  The law
  “Each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency (hereinafter in this section referred to as an "agency action") is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species” Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2) ↗
- EffectsNot fully backedEffects on tribal culturally important resources would be rare and mitigated, so they don't need detailed analysis.
  The agency relies on other laws, memoranda of understanding with four tribes, tribal involvement in plan development, a plan standard requiring consultation, and future project-level consultation. It also compares cultural resource risks among alternatives in the roadless and wilderness sections. But it gives no data showing effects are rare, and its roadless analysis says alternative 2 may pose the most risk of erosion and human-caused effects to cultural resources.
  The agency’s words, the record and the law +Hide the words
  The agency says
  “Although rare, unintentional effects may occur to culturally important resources and areas, but if undesirable effects occurs, the Forests would mitigate the damage as dictated by other law, regulation, or policy, and through government-to-government consultation with Tribes.”
  Tribal Rights and Culturally Significant Resources
  Elsewhere in the same document
  “Alternative 2 analyzes for no allocation of roadless areas and may pose the most risk for erosion and undesirable human-caused effects to cultural resources when future projects are implemented.”
  Tribal, Cultural, and Historic Resources
  The law
  “shall take into account the effect of the undertaking on any historic property.” National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. 306108 ↗

Where its own record backs the agency

EffectsMore active management under alternatives 2 and 3 would lower the potential for high-severity fire compared with continuing the 1990 plans.Why it holds +
Tables 6 through 8 show dry upland high-severity fire potential at 20 years of 20% under alternative 1, 14% under alternative 2 and 13% under alternative 3. Moist upland is 28%, 23% and 26%, and cold upland is 40%, 33% and 34%. These figures cover the whole plan area, not each forest. The data backs the claim. A separate line saying alternative 2 has the highest reduction doesn't hold for dry forests at 20 years.
The agency says
“Recent modeling shows that alternatives 2 and 3 would have a reduced high-intensity fire regime compared with alternative 1.”
Wildfire and Prescribed Fire
Its own record backs it
“In dry upland forests, where about 24 percent of fires are high severity, all three alternatives would reduce the potential for high-severity fire, with alternatives 2 and 3 reducing it to within reference-range conditions at similar rates.”
Potential for High Severity Wildfire
“Potential for high severity fire by PVG at 20 years: Dry Upland Forest* 20% 14% 13%”
Table 6
EconomicsAlternative 2 would support about 2,090 more jobs and $165 million more labor income than current management.Why it holds +
The agency's support is that the job and income figures in Table 2 (960, 3,050 and 1,415 jobs) are tied to the projected timber volumes in Tables 3 through 5. The plan says those volumes are limited by each forest's projected fiscal capability and organizational capacity, and that objectives were based on reasonably foreseeable budgets. The document doesn't name its jobs model or show county results despite the heading, which weakens transparency but doesn't leave the estimate without a basis.
The agency says
“Alternatives 2 and 3, viewed in terms of net change from alternative 1 would range from an estimated increase of about 2,090 jobs under alternative 2 to an additional 455 jobs supported under alternative 3.”
Jobs and Labor Income Impacts by County

How this was read

Read from the agency’s own decision document ↗, all 367 pages. Every quote is checked word for word against it, a claim marked contradicted stands on a quote from the same document, and a second reading argued the agency’s side of every verdict before it was published. The verdicts are our reading; the quotes are the agency’s. A court can set aside agency action it finds “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” (5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A) ↗), which is why these gaps are worth putting in the record.

In the agency’s own words

Land Management Plan revision for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, which will provide management direction on approximately 4.9 million acres of public lands. https://www.fs.usda.gov/r06/umatilla/planning/blue-mountains-forest-plan-revision

Forest Service project page ↗

The groups on this fight

One group works this ground: Blue Mountains National Forests

Works this ground means the editors' sourced record puts the group on this land, not that it has taken a side on this decision; predicted likely to care is a guess from the group's sourced work in Oregon and Washington, with no link to this decision. Give straight to them; nothing routes through us.

Oregon Wild
Works this ground · not linked to this decision
Works this ground at Blue Mountains National Forests: Runs the Protect the Blue Mountains comment page for this plan revision.
Source ↗
Cascade Forest Conservancy
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works Washington: They work only in Washington.
Cascadia Wildlands
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Western Oregon O&C Lands, Oregon: Serial litigant against western Oregon BLM logging, from the 2016 management plan challenge to the current round of timber sale suits.
Conservation Northwest
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Hanford Reach National Monument, Washington: Submitted formal comments defending Hanford Reach National Monument during the 2017 federal monument review and publicly opposed any boundary adjustment or rescindment.
Oregon Natural Desert Association
Predicted likely to care · a guess
McDermitt Caldera, Oregon: Anchors the McDermitt Caldera Coalition on the Oregon side and fought the BLM's December 2025 approval of the Jindalee/HiTech lithium exploration project through the permitting process.

Every group above is on STAND for Public Lands, with its court record, its filings and who backs it.

Who signs it

The notice names no signer PLAN could read. PLAN names a decision-maker only when the document names one.

The ground

The window has closed, so there’s no watch to set on it here.

The photograph on this page: Maxwell Lake trail, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Oregon. More Than Just Parks.

In court on this ground

One court case is over Malheur National Forest, Umatilla National Forest and 2 more units, newest first.

Docket closed · latest entry February 24, 2020
Oregon Natural Desert Association v. U.S. Forest Service
Latest entry we hold: “Filed (ECF) Appellants ONDA and Center for Biological Diversity citation of supplemental authorities.”

Who holds the vote

PLAN’s record doesn’t tie a member of Congress to this fight yet. The scorecard grades the votes and bills that decide public lands; nothing joins a vote or a bill to this decision, so there’s no member to name here without guessing.

See how your members vote ↗

Forest ServiceWe track this on the agency’s own system of record, where most on-the-ground decisions live.

On the record for this fight

11 people told us they filed on this fight through PLAN; we haven’t found any of their letters on the agency’s record yet.

Al, California44 seals
Judith A.77 seals
Milton M.38 seals
and 8 more stewards

Ranked on letters found on the agency’s record, then letters filed. Readers appear as first name and last initial, or as a steward in their state; switch yours off in your record. All boards

History of this plan

20 documents on the register

This is not the agency’s first try. The register holds a withdrawn 2018 attempt beside the documents of this one, and the scoping drafts that opened it.

This attempt

Scoping, before the draft

Preliminary Draft Proposed Land Management Plans, Blue Mountains (August 2025 scoping) ↗August 4, 2025

The 2018 attempt, withdrawn12 documents ↓

From the plan register we keep on Blue Mountains plan revision; a document’s status is the agency’s own. Nothing here is served as current unless the register says so.

The reporting behind this

From More Than Just Parks

The Forest Service Has Green Lit the Industrially Logging of Oregon’s Hells CanyonMay 3, 2026

Our May 3 report on the Morgan Nesbit project in the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, the first ground inside this plan area where a signed decision met the 21-inch rule. Readers made over a hundred calls to the district office.

Filed underEnvironmental review Logging Grazing Wildfire Mining Recreation Wildlife Wilderness

Know an open comment period we are missing, or spotted a wrong deadline? .

Stop the plan to triple logging in Oregon's Blue Mountains

What the proposal said, and what the decision did

What the agency argues, and whether its own record backs it

Where its own record backs the agency

In the agency’s own words

One group works this ground: Blue Mountains National Forests

History of this plan

The reporting behind this

More fights that need you

Go deeper, free

See how your members of Congress vote on public lands

See the places under active threat