Jul 8, 2012
To USFS Klamath National Forest:
July 7, 2012
Dear Ms Meneks,
It would seem that the goal of any Klamath National Forest Project would be to help the economy of Siskiyou County. The Sugar Creek Project appears to contribute nothing to our economy that has already been damaged by Federal and State Agencies’ regulations.
I do see as one of the goals of the Proposal is to “develop a transportation system to transport Forest commodities”. I assume this means a timber sale. Is there a timber sale associated with this Project? Any agreements with the DFG, NCWQCB, or NMFS should be accompanied by the stipulation that you (USFS) are going to do your job and manage the timber on public lands. That means harvest timber and help the PEOPLE with the much needed Timber Receipts that should be coming back to the County.
Spending a huge amount of money to stormproof roads seems frivolous, considering the state of the economy today. You know that, eventually, a major weather event is going to wash all those improvements right into the Scott River anyway. Erosion is natural, even without the roads.
With regard to the old mines and ponds, it is all part of our history, whether its on private property or on public land. Leave it alone. It’s not hurting anything.
Another stated goal pertinent to the Proposal includes “managing human activities….”. I don’t believe its the Forest Service’s job to manage human activities. That is a goal of the UN Agenda 21 for sure. It should not play a part in USFS activities.
Although this may seem to be a minor issue, I thought the type of maps included in the Proposal were a bad choice. They are hard to read and lack labeling that allow me to figure out where the different project activities would take place relative to Scott Valley itself. A map without all the elevation lines would be much easier to read.
In summary, this project appears to be a waste of taxpayer money, driven by out of control Federal and State Agencies. It does nothing to help the economy of Siskiyou County. My recommendation is to take no action on this Project.
Jul 8, 2012
3:28 PM, Jul 7, 2012
EUGENE — A federal judge has granted a request by several logging industry firms to join Gov. John Kitzhaber and other state officials in defending Oregon’s plan to allow more logging in Coast Range forests.
The lawsuit filed by three environmental groups — Cascadia Wildlands, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Audubon Society of Portland — claims the state’s logging goals in the coastal Elliott, Tillamook and Clatsop state forests illegally harm the habitat of the threatened marbled murrelet, which is protected under the Endangered Species Act. The seabird lays its eggs on the large, mossy branches of mature and old-growth trees.
State officials have said they have a forest management plan to protect the seabird. However, they have voluntarily suspended logging on 10 timber sales until District Judge Ann Aiken rules on the environmentalists’ motion for an injunction.
The state protection plan includes designated buffer zones of protected forest where murrelet activity is detected and curtailed logging schedules during the April-to-September nesting period.
The industry groups expected to help defend the state’s forest policy include the Oregon Forest Industries Council, Douglas Timber Operators, Scott Timber Co. Inc. of Coquille, Hampton Tree Farms Inc. of Salem and Seneca Sawmill Co. of Eugene.
The council represents more than 50 logging and wood products companies, including Seneca and Scott.
Seneca legal affairs director Dale Riddle told the newspaper on Friday that the company is joining the suit because it bought one of the contracts that has been halted, the Millicoma Lookout timber sale, from the Elliott State Forest in Coos County.
The logging industry firms have an interest in the case because they rely on timber sales from state and federal agencies and because the public lands case could set a precedent restricting their “use and management” of private lands for timber production, attorney Dominic Carollo wrote in their motion to join the suit.
Of the 10 suspended timber sales, three were due to go out for bid in June; two were due to be put out to bid in the next few months; three were sold in the last two years but have not yet been logged; and two have already been partially logged.