Bureau of Land Management
Prineville District Office
3050 NE Third Street
Prineville, OR 97754
Regional Solicitor, Pacific Northwest Region
U.S. Department of the Interior
805 SW. Broadway, Suite 600
Portland, OR 97205
Regional Solicitor, Pacific Northwest Region
U.S. Department of the Interior
805 SW. Broadway, Suite 600
Portland, OR 97205
CommentsreceivedonPriestHoleEA
Prepared 3/8/2013
We received 126 comment letters on the EA: 63 of these were unique letters, 57 were “form letters” (identical content but from different authors), five asked to be kept on the mailing list but otherwise had no comments, and one was a duplicate letter (same author and content but sent via email and via postal service).
Comments below are grouped based on whether they suggest: A) new ALTERNATIVES; B) flaws in the EFFECTS analysis; C) failure to follow LAW, REGULATION or POLICY; or D) OTHER comments (e.g., votes for existing alternatives). Similar comments are grouped under one summary statement, followed by sample comments (identified by letter# / comment# within letter). Brackets [like this] contain words that have been added to clarify the comment. Dots . . . indicate words have been left out for brevity.
Alternatives
The EA should have an alternative that restricts camping to a specific distance from the river instead of closing roads.
BLM response:
The effects of restricting camping a specific distance from the river would be similar to those from closing roads. Therefore, the specific distance action could be selected without adding it as a separate alternative.
Sample comments:
114 / 6 Restrict camping to a specific distance from the river similar to restrictions on camping near lakes in Wilderness Areas.
The EA should include an alternative that adds a toilet or boat put‐in/take‐out in a different location than proposed in the EA.
BLM response:
The river bank at the east end of the John Day field is steep and eroded; it would be difficult to put in a boat ramp at that location. The purpose of the EA was to consider improvements to recreational opportunities in the Priest Hole area; improving the take‐out at Clarno would not serve this purpose. A new toilet near the John Day field was not considered since BLM rarely finds human waste and associated litter in this location.
Sample comments:
103 / 4 If possible, provide a boat ramp put in and take out at the East end of the John Day Field.
1 / 2 I propose using the money and man power to redesigning the take out at Clarno to make it larger and more efficient. It's a cluster on a busy day.
118 / 3 A toilet at the other end of the valley would be most helpful. . .
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Page 1 of 22
The EA should include an alternative that establishes campsites or an RV park in a different area (not Priest Hole area).
BLM response:
The purpose of the project was to provide camping opportunities at Priest Hole. Therefore the EA does not include alternatiaves that would provide camping opportunities in other locations.
Sample comments:
6 / 3 There are two prime places for RV parks in this area. The preferred park would be the Painted Hills National Park on Bridge Creek. Most of the amenities are already there and it has a flat, easy, paved access for RVs with plenty of room. It would allow for much more economic help to Mitchell stores and restaurants while still just being a short 10‐ 15 minute drive to the river. The second choice would be at the Twickenham Bridge boat launch area.
88 / 4 I would recommend placing campsites near the turn off of Burnt Ranch Road which would allow river access, increase recreational benefits and allow areas for camping with easier access.
The EA should include an alternative that restores the cottonwood gallery.
BLM response:
That action would not meet the purpose of and need for the project, and it is therefore not included as an action in this EA. However, the BLM agrees that cottonwoods are a habitat that merits restoring, and BLM has other projects in the works that address this issue.
Sample comments:
100 / 1 Can BLM place a greater emphasis on restoration of the presumably historic cottonwood gallery, which has largely removed from the John Day River floodplain? I am aware of BLM efforts to plant cottonwood in the area, but suggest this area, given access to water rights, provides an incredibly unique opportunity to focus restoration efforts on a lost habitat type along the John Day River.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Page 2 of 22
The EA should include an alternative with a different mix of road closures.
BLM response:
The EA includes a wide range of alternatives for road closure, including one that leaves them all open and one that closes most of the roads around and in the riparian area and the fields. That analysis means the Decision Record could include one of the existing alternatives, or a combination similar to the maps sent in with comment letters 109 and 110.
Sample comments:
110 / 6 Now, regarding the road closures, you indicate in Alternatives 3 and 4 that you wish to close the road that follows the edge of the hay field, presumably to protect riparian habitat. However, no part of this road occurs on riparian habitat or even potential riparian habitat. This road follows the edge of the high terrace dominated by the Willowdale soil. This terrace, in a historic climax plant community would resemble the community described in the Loamy Bottom ecological site (ROlOXYOOSOR). It would support basin wild rye, bluebunch wheatgrass, and scattered basin big sagebrush, among other grasses and forbs. It is not a riparian terrace. I personally drove this road last week and did not find any evidence of rills or erosion occurring because of the presence of this road. This road is NOT doing any harm to water quality, or neotropical bird habitat. I do understand your desire to limit people's vehicle access to the two dispersed campsites in the northwest corner and southwestern corner of the Priest Hole field. These two sites are probably where the bulk of trash and human waste occurs. However, you can greatly reduce the impact of these sites by closing the roads near their locations rather than closing the entire loop around the field. I have attached a map that I created. This map represents what I think is a practical alternative to address your needs, but still provides access to the river for those that may not be able to walk to these sites. If you close the roads that are labeled number "3" and "4" as I have indicated, people will not camp at these sites as they have before because they will not be able to drive
directly to the site.
109 / 9 I have attached a copy of your map with my suggested alternative. This alternative is very similar to the road closures proposed in Alternative 2 with the addition of closing vehicle access to the campsites. This alternative attempts to eliminate duplicate routes, eliminate routes that have the greatest impact on riparian vegetation, and still provide motorized access to the river. Specific notes are provided on the map. I suggest closing spur routes in the riparian area that lead into the campsites to limit impact from motorized vehicles, but still allow people who would be unable to hike long distances across the uneven ground access. My suggestion would be closing the road where the vegetation goes from either riverwash or the basin big sagebrush, before it turns into riparian vegetation. The roads surrounding the fields are up on a high terrace and are not an impact on riparian vegetation. The high terrace has the historic potential to produce basin big sagebrush and basin wildrye. It would not produce riparian vegetation suitable for neotropical bird habitat. The spur road left open across the cobble flat also has very limited resource impact. This river outwash is not highly erosive, not subject to compaction, or capable of producing riparian vegetation. If the need for this project is to protect riparian areas from motorized travel to benefit neotropical birds, then I'm not sure that closing these other routes that are out of the riparian area meets your need.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Page 3 of 22
110 / 8
Also notice in my proposal map [attached to comments] that the road labeled "1" is listed to be closed (Note that roads labeled 1 through 5 represent roads that occur on riparian habitat). This road represents about 400 feet of road that does travel through riparian vegetation. Here improvements could be made. However, notice that the road labeled as "2" is still open. This road provides access to the same gravel bar but only travels across approximately 85 feet of riparian vegetation. My proposal closes approximately 1,850 feet (.35 miles) of road that occurs on riparian habitat. If you include the stretch of road that I have labeled as an optional closure that parallels the overflow channel on the west side of the field, then you have approximately 3,465 feet (.65 miles) of road closures on riparian habitat.
Effects analysis
The EA did not adequately consider effects on soils, and may have over‐represented the negative effects.
BLM response:
The BLM prepares EAs to disclose effects on resources, and consider the tradeoffs. Effects do not have to be "significant" to warrant taking action. The BLM is obligated to consider environmental effects, but it can also consider other factors when making a decision about which alternative to select. Additional information on soils for the project area are available at the BLM office upon request. The Priest Hole Site Plan EA has no relationship to any Wilderness proposals.
Sample comments:
102 / 3 The proposals make no sense as far as ground damage . . . From the little road that goes in there, or is this all tied into the Sutton Mountain wilderness proposal? It sure seems like it us all tied together.
89 / 3 The BLM fails to list Soil Map Units of the affected areas for the public to research whether or not the soils are prime & unique farmlands. If there is no significant effect on ecologically critical areas (noted in FONSI) the justification for the infringement on the public’s ability to access the area in their chosen mode of transportation is not justified, as well as the high cost of implementation of the project.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Page 4 of 22
The EA needs to include more data regarding effects on water and wildlife resources.
BLM response:
After the EA was inititially published, the BLM learned more from the person farming the fields; the mention of fertilizer was removed from the EA. The return of water to the river from switching irrigation methods is small, but incremental. While 1.05 cfs is a minimal amount of flow when compared to the total water withdrawn from the basin and the altered hydrology of the river resulting from degraded uplands, projects within the basin have a cumulative impact in helping to restore the river to a more natural condition.
We added a definition for neotropical birds to the EA, cited the Executive Order requiring BLM to address effects on migratory birds (including neotropical migrants), included habitat on both sides of the river in the analysis, mentioned habitat up and downstream of the project area, and referenced a willow study done a few years ago on the river.
The comment about amounts of trash and human waste is addressed later in this document.
Sample comments:
109 / 5 I question the need for this plan. "Habitat for these birds has been declining across their range." What is this statement based on? Do we have data showing habitat declining on the John Day River or associated areas? Do we have data that declining habitat is resulting in population declines? It seems that this was based on the sole reference for this document, Cooke & Zack, 2009. Looking at this document it seems that statements were general to the west, and the one study it quoted compared early century journals with 1980's surveys. That was 30 years ago, and riparian areas in the West have improved greatly in the last 30 years. . . Neotropical birds are rarely (or are they ever) an issue in the documents produced by the Prineville BLM. Why are they an issue here? It seems like someone was searching for a reason to close roads.
110 / 1 I strongly oppose the road closures and development "improvements" that are proposed in Alternatives 3 and 4. After thoroughly reading your EA, it is obvious that your main desire for making these "improvements" to the Priest Hole Recreation Area are to improve water quality, improve neotropical bird habitat, and reduce human impact. Unfortunately, your EA provides little evidence to prove that these three issues are currently needing improvement. You have no data to reflect water quality issues, no data to reflect current condition of neotropical birds and their habitat, and no data to reflect any actual amounts of trash or human waste.
95 / 5 My feeling after reading your assessment is that it was very biased, and did not consider all outcomes thoroughly. For instance, the rancher farming the field says that he hasn't used fertilizer in at least 5 years on the land contrary to your assessment although he could if he wanted to according to his contract.
98 / 3 The lands that have a water right on them need to be irrigated once every three years failure to do so will result in the loss of water right, water would not necessarily return instream but be reallocated to prior date water users.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Page 5 of 22
110 / 3
110 / 2
109 / 7
You address neotropical birds. First of all, you do not even define what a neotropical bird is in your EA, and second, when has the Prineville BLM ever been concerned about these birds? I feel that you are trying to use these birds as leverage to do what you want at Priest Hole. The Priest Hole recreation area has approximately 1.6 miles of river riparian habitat. This 1.6 miles is a drop in the bucket compared to the 281 miles of the John Day River system (not including tributaries), that provides plenty of habitat for neotropical tweety birds. In addition, you only cite one paper regarding neotropical birds, and that paper cites data that was collected in the 1980s. How can you possibly say that neotropical birds are in need of habitat improvement if you have NO recent data?
You suggest that water quality of the John Day River is compromised because of low flows. . . You intend to return your water that was used for irrigation back to the river. This return is very small, and will not raise the flow of the John Day. Only massive changes in watershed management upstream of Priest Hole will have an effect on summer flows. Although it is a good faith effort on your part to no longer take water from the John Day, it will have negligible effect on your restoration efforts. The second option is to increase riparian vegetation to provide river shade. Option two is unfeasible in the John Day River system. The John Day is an unimpeded river system that naturally experiences high flows in the winter and spring, and very low flows in the summer. According to the USGS, the lowest recorded flow at Service Creek was 6 CFS in August of 1973, and the maximum flow was 40,000 CFS during the 1964 flood. With a river that fluctuates this much between annual high and low flows, it is unfeasible to have riparian vegetation to provide shade during the low flows of summer. The river naturally drops below the vegetation line and flows among open gravel bars. So I ask you, how would any improvement you make at Priest Hole have an effect on the flow of water in the John Day River?
The wildlife analysis for this document was insufficient: 1) Why are you only looking at the one side of the river? This analysis assumes that habitat is limiting. There is lots of riparian vegetation on the other side of the river adjacent to the project area, and no mention of habitat conditions anywhere else in the vicinity to the project area. 2) Aren't there willow studies on the John Day River showing improvement of riparian vegetation? 3) Is there monitoring data showing a vegetation trend that could indicate increase or decrease of habitat? 4) The paper cited for this analysis, Cook & Zach, 2009, specifically talks about using PFC assessments to guide restoration efforts including tree plantings, headcut repair, and upland watershed projects (i.e. juniper). These types of improvement projects are being done all over the West. These types of projects are improving riparian habitat. Wouldn't that indicate increased habitat? What other habitat restoration projects have been done in the watershed? Is the additional .3 miles (Alt. 3) of habitat without motorized vehicles even measurable in the whole picture? 5) The document states that "human activity on about 1/2 mile of habitat has caused plant mortality. As a result, the habitat is fragmented and increasingly narrow, and no longer optimum habitat. Degradation to the plant community has been primarily caused by motorized vehicles, tent pads, and beach and trail creation." This says human activity, but the only human activity being limited is motorized travel. People will still be allowed to camp, create tent pads and create trails.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Page 6 of 22
You also mention that fertilizer run‐off from the nearby agricultural fields causes reduced water quality. In response to this, let me say that if any fertilizer run off has occurred, it is entirely the fault of Prineville BLM, as you are the manager of these fields. In addition, it is not appropriate to say that all applications of fertilizer will result in run‐off and reduced water quality. . . .a proper fertilizer rate. . . would result in absolutely no leaching or run‐off. . . Lastly, you make these statements regarding water quality, yet you do not present any evidence that there is reduced water quality in the John Day River because of activities occurring.
109 / 4 While I fully agree that fertilizer from fields can affect water quality, do you have evidence that this is occurring on this site? Properly applied fertilizer has very little, if any runoff potential. If you have evidence that improper fertilization is occurring, why hasn't the BLM done something about it. I realize this is currently being leased by a private citizen, but it is still BLM land.
The EA should be modified to acknowledge not all users want "improved" campsites.
BLM response:
110 / 9
The EA recognizes that not everyone wants developed campsites. See EA page 14, "The analysis is based on the assumption that some people would apprciate day use and campsite amenities, while others would view these as degrading the natural scenic values of the area."
Sample comments:
114 / 1 While I appreciate your purpose to improve camping and day use opportunities, improve water quality, and improve neotropical bird habitat conditions and deer and elk forage, I don't believe all input from users was considered in your apparent decision / recommendation for Alternative 3. It is unfortunate that results from the 2010 BLM survey on "user patterns and types of uses" wasn't made available "online." The comment that this was available at the Prineville BLM office is unrealistic. I participated in the 2010 survey by answering questions while fishing the river during the winter months. My comment was basically "no‐change" but to enforce common sense use and no‐impact camping. My recommendation is to maintain the primitive amenities of the area as these are becoming few and far between.
126 / 1 Priest Hole is a primitive area. This is the reason we enjoy camping there. We wish for no changes to the area. Leave it primitive, the way it is.
102 / 4 If you build camp sites it will invite more people, more damage.
111 / 1 Each year it seems there are more people who visit this area but most of the traffic and numbers of people are in the Painted Hills area. There is no camping closer than the Mitchell park. So, if there are campsites in the Priest Hole area it would only bring more traffic and use to the very area you want to protect/restore/improve I think campsites closer to the Painted Hills entry would make more sense and leave the Priest Hole area as primitive as possible. Or, does the Park Service have plans to provide camping in the future? When the existing outhouse was built more people started coming into the area. More facilities mean more people. . . Please consider putting campsites closer to the Painted Hills. The more improvements made in the Priest Hole area will only bring in more people.
63 / 3 Recreation stays the same, in my opinion 15 campsites over exposes the area.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Page 7 of 22
Some of us like remote & primitive and take care of our trash & waste but I can see the wear & tear that has been occurring in the past 21 years which would almost make me lean toward Alt # 2 with an additional toilet and garbage service. I do not agree with the reasoning or the expense to move the existing toilet at all!
95 / 3 Two parking lots, gravel parking pads, motor home sites, a boat ramp, picnic tables, fire rings, a disc golf course, hiking trails, and 15 campsites seems like a tremendous amount of traffic coming to the area compared to what goes on today at this area of the river. More development will no doubt bring more people and consequently more damage to riparian habitat. I am not a scientist in your area of studies, but that is just fact you must concede.
1 / 1 Allow recreational and commercial agricultural use in the area to continue as is, … [with no] road closures or campsite development. People enjoy the John Day because it is remote. Developing the site would make it crowded.
114 / 4 The addition of 15 improved campsites clearly will increase use and negatively impact the primitive nature of the area.
124 / 1 I do not want campgrounds put in at Priest Hole. I go to camp by the river and get away from people. I do not want to be forced to camp next to people in a campground. I think you could better spend the money on something else. Please leave Priest Hole the way it is.
108 / 1 I do not think road closures or campsite development is a good way to spend taxpayers money. I do not want to have to stay in a campground. I go to Priest Hole for relaxation not to be next to other campers. I do not see the need to change or protect the area.
109 / 2 I question the need for this plan. Must there by improved campsites and hiking trails everywhere in order to have a good recreational experience? My best recreational experiences are when there are minimal improvements. Your survey showed an overall quality of recreaƟon experience saƟsfacƟon measure of 87% for this area. The EA should be revised to consider how adding campsites will increase the need for law enforcement.
BLM response:
111 / 2
The BLM does not expect putting in campsites to increase use of the area, based on results in other areas where campsites have been developed. It also does not expect vandalism to increase from current levels (the primary illegal activity is trash dumping).
Sample comments:
114 / 5 This expenditure will certainly create the need to increase BLM presence at the Priest Hole to prevent vandalism, etc. Why not increase BLM presence and enforcement for a few years prior to implementation of the proposed improvements. You may find that abuse of resources, garbage, human waste, etc decreases.
95 / 9 Additionally, I feel that putting in a campsite will cause more problems for our LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, because with more people come more issues that we cannot afford to deal with. We only have 3 police officers in this whole county and they can't head all the way down to the Priest Hole on a regular basis and continue to serve the rest of the county as promised.
121 / 1 With improvements and designated camp sites comes people and increased problems. I will state again that the easier you make it to get to, and the more amenities you add, will only increase use by irresponsible people. Maybe with whatever monies you have allotted for improvements could be paid for a full time employee to keep a watchful eye out for the scofflaws.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Page 8 of 22
The EA should be revised to consider how closing the roads to the riverbank would affect people's ability to use a traditional recreation site.
BLM response:
The EA does consider effects to recreational use on pages 14‐5. The EA explains that people would no longer be able to drive to the water's edge in some alternatives.
Sample comments:
89 / 7 This action will have a direct significant impact on Traditional Cultural Places of the local populace in Wheeler County. Families will be cut off from their historic use area as well as recreational areas.
83 / 1 There is no scientific reasons to close any of the roads . . .[or] to disallow existing recreational and commercial uses that take affect today and should continue in the future. This proposal is in violation of our economic future. . . This is also in violation of the social activities that take place in these areas and have taken place for many years. You are taking away a piece of history by trying to implement these devastating acts on our society.
80 / 1 I would like to see the access . . . stay the same as is. The Priest Hole is a very popular site for recreation. . .
95 / 1 The Priest Hole has always been a tremendously popular place for people in our county to swim, hunt, and fish‐‐it is strange that swimming is not even mentioned as one of the popular recreational activities in your assessment. It is common for our whole high school boarding residence to frequent the swimming hole every year among many other local groups. Whenever I have been there, I have always seen other people we know and it is very apparent that the Wheeler County community enjoys the area and makes it a point to travel to the Priest Hole frequently‐‐you might call it a CULTURAL TRADITION by the people who have settled in this area over 100 years ago. They love to float from one end of the area to the other, but will no longer do this if the road is closed.
82 / 2 Please just leave the Priest Hole the way it is, it is used by many locals and visitors and we need to keep it that way. Do not take away the . . . recreational use . . . Allow motorized access with out road closures.
71 / 1 Mitchell is a small town in a poor county and the John Day River brings tourism to our area. Additionally, it is a LOCAL swimming hole where we have swam with our family and friends for GENERATIONS. Please clean up your own backyard and leave ours alone.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Page 9 of 22
The EA should be revised to recognize that natural events not motor vehicle use is not restricting vegetative growth on the gravel bars.
BLM response:
The neotropical bird section was revised to recognize that there are different theories about why the gravel bars lack much riparian vegetation. The analysis was modified to focus on roads where riparian vegetation is degraded or absent, rather than counting the gravel bars as degraded habitat.
Sample comments:
110 / 7 You will also notice that my proposal [map attached to comments] provides road access to the gravel bars in the northwest corner and just west of the boat launch. . . access to these gravel bars will not be detrimental to the riparian habitat. These gravel bars are composed of large cobbles and stones that were deposited by high energy flows from the John Day River. These bars are not capable of supporting riparian vegetation, are not susceptible to compaction or erosion by vehicles. These bars are scoured and re‐deposited with every large flood cycle. They are a natural part of the John Day system.
67 / 1 We feel the public should be able to enjoy the current access to the river. We use the river regularly in the summer, and see very little damage to the riparian areas along the river due to public use. The damage we do see is due to natural events such as high water and the ice going out.
114 / 3 Driving on the gravel bar or the access road (dike) has virtually no negative impact during the winter months. . . Use of the gravel bars from camping has no negative impact when used by the responsible camper. High water each year completely washes these areas where establishment of vegetation is not possible.
The EA should consider how closing motorized access to the river at Priest Hole would affect the elderly, handicapped, minority and low income people.
BLM response:
We added language to the EA to acknowledge that some of the people using the site are elderly, handicapped, minority or low income.
Sample comments:
110 / 5 You . . . never once considered the Americans with Disabilities Act. How will closing down roads improve the recreational experience for those that are not capable of walking? Your user survey also shows that the majority of users did not want any changes to be made at Priest Hole, they were happy with the way it is, yet you still move forward . . .
114 / 2 Closure of the road along the north side of the Priest Hole Field will certainly eliminate any use by taxpayers who are disabled or otherwise physically prevented from winter fishing along the gravel bars.
119 / 1 Please do not ban us from more of our public lands. I am a senior and I live here in Wheeler County and the more you shut down, the less I will be able to enjoy. Most of my neighbors feel the same way, we do not want people who don't live in our county, fixing things so we cannot do things we have done for years.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Page 10 of 22
I strongly oppose the road closures proposed in Alternatives 3 and 4. . .The analysis insinuates there will be little to no impact on recreational users by closing roads because people could still camp at those camp sites if they walk in. These road closures restrict use by those unable to walk in to those camp sites or even just to gain river access. . . One of the purposes of the project was to "improve … day use opportunities". The road closures proposed in the action alternatives would reduce my day use opportunities. While I am capable of hiking to the river from the parking area, I fish with people who are not physically able to make that hike, and personally know others who enjoy fishing in this area that are not physically able to walk that distance over uneven ground.
89 / 8 This Alternative fails to address the Environmental Justice clause of NEPA in looking at the direct and indirect effects on minority and low income families that use this area for cultural and historic uses.
95 / 2 People of all abilities (young, old, physically able, or otherwise) have enjoyed the ability to travel from one end to the other for fishing, swimming, picnicking, camping, and whatnot for many years. However, if the roads are closed as we know it‐‐how will a boy on the football team who just ended up on crutches get to the other side? How will the elderly who can't walk that far make it to their old fishing hole? I personally do not plan on walking my toddler for over a mile to get to our favorite spot on the river and am sad to say that it might be taken away!
The EA should describe the cumulative effects of road closures on recreational use along the river.
BLM response:
109 / 13
We added a sentence to the recreation effects section in the EA acknowledging that this is one of the few spots along this stretch of river where people can get close to the river in motorized vehicles.
Sample comments:
84 / 1 In regards to the Priest Hole campsites and road closure. . . The current access is very convenient, as well as, one of very few places to access the river with an RV. There should be NO changes made to it's current use.
102 / 2 Our camping sites, hunting and fishing lands keep getting more and more restrictions. Somewhere in all this mess it has been forgotten that this land belongs to all of us.
112 / 1 I would like to see more restrooms and no more road closures. I have been going to this spot for thirty plus years. You have closed all other spots that have that wild, out in the Back Country feel. You want to put in campgrounds where we will have to pay and be backed right next to one another. It's a tragedy that we are losing so much. It's just so sad when all of our public land is going away for closures. Only horse and mountain bikes seem to have all the power.
85 / 1 My husband loves to fish at Priest Hole ‐ he reported to me that you are just closing the road long enough to make some campsites ‐ but why would you even do that? Nothing needs to be closed, and we certainly do not want our access limited to Priest Hole! BLM has enough "closed" areas ‐ and this is an area that the locals and others love to visit. We implore you to perhaps do some improvements for camping, but not limit access.
125 / 2 I would like to see . . . no more road closing. We have lost most of the river to road closing and have to walk in and leave car at top of hill where the bad people can break in and we would not even know.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Page 11 of 22
The EA should look at the economic impact of closing roads and/or eliminating commercial use of the fields.
BLM response:
The alternatives in the current EA include closing some roads, but not eliminating camping or hunting or any other recreational uses of the area.Therefore, there would be no economic impact from road closures.
The economic effects of eliminating commercial use of the fields was previously analyzed in the BLM's 2000 John Day River Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDI 2000, pages 222, 234‐5, 245, 267, 282, 288, 300, 303, 309, 320, 330 and 331). Following that analysis, BLM made a decision to discontinue commercial agriculture in the Priest Hole area (USDI 2001, Record of Decision for the John Day River Management Plan). We clarified the discussion of irrigaƟon and planting in the EA to recognize this.
Sample comments:
2 / 2 I would be opposed to Alternatives #2, 3 and 4 if the commercial user was not compensated for the loss resulting from these actions.
98 / 5 The public that drives down to the river to picnic and swim maybe fish, do a lot of trade with our local businesses to further limit their use of the river just cripples a already depressed economy, a decline in business has already occurred with the limiting of the river floaters and now charging them a fee!
66 / 1 In regards to the BLM wanting to restrict access to the Priest Hole outside of Mitchell, I am firmly opposed to this. To stay alive, Mitchell businesses depend on the people that go to the Priest Hole. Also you are wanting to eliminate the Lindquist family, which means that Mitchell School will lose students.
72 / 3 As far as the hay fields go, a lot of the income from the ranchers on river depends on their hay fields. It will also mean that Mitchell School will lose students. ...your plan ... will ... affect the way ranchers will live, and in turn the income of the school to be able to teach our children. ... All in all If it isn't broke, Don't fix it.
73 / 1 I am the owner of Wheeler County Trading & More. We get business here from the locals and visitors that plan to go to the priest hole. We really would like to see things stay the same. The rancher is a steward of the land. The birds and wildlife have use of the land now.
82 / 1 Priest Hole . . . is used by many locals and visitors and we need to keep it that way. Do not take away the agricultural use . . . Mitchell needs all the land use and the recreational access for tourism for our town to survive.
87 / 1 There is no scientific reason to close any of the roads. . . [or] to disallow existing recreational and commercial uses. The proposal is in violation of the economic impact of the area you describe. This is also in violation of the social impacts on peoples lives that live and recreate in the area you describe. It is not economically or environmentally responsible to remove any more roads that are being used to recreate on and protect our natural resources on. When roads are removed it causes unnecessary erosion that spills into our streams and it restricts the possibility of being able to extinguish wild fire before it gets out of hand.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Page 12 of 22
The cumulative impacts will be felt by the local citizens from a reduction or elimination of access to their historic use areas, reduction in available feed for livestock from acreage of forage being produced, less materials being purchased at local market places to supply inputs for Agricultural lands, and increase of wildlife use on adjacent private lands due to the overall reduction of irrigated ag lands.
99 / 1 I want alternative #1, leave the Priest Hole as is, people stay there in hunting, through out the summer. They bring business to Mitchell.
123 / 1 The economy of Wheeler county is primarily agriculture based and the proposed restrictions will only cause more harm to this poor area. When my grandparents, John and Sherla Collins traded the Connolly ranch to the BLM, they believed that the land would remain productive and that property taxes would continue to be paid to the county. The family supported the trade to keep it from being subdivided and developed. While recreation is also important use, it doesn't justify eliminating the farming/ranching.
77 / 1 If you place ANY type or form of fence, gate, or deterrent of free passage, to be used as a barrier of restraint against the citizens of Wheeler County, I as Sheriff and the highest elected law enforcement officer in the county, will immediately remove said barriers or blockages by any and all means possible. Let it be known that you CANNOT and WILL NOT, with malice aforethought, or on a mere whim, jeopardize the economy of this county by taking away one of it's few means of garnering money to fight a failing economy!
98 / 2 Taking lands that are farm deferred and not farming them would increase the Tax on said lands, so would the County bill the BLM to increase the Gov. Payment in Lieu of Taxes?
80 / 2 I would like to see the . . . agricultural part stay the same as is. . . [it] helps the local economy and provides a food source for game and wildlife.
101 / 1 Keep the Priest Hole as is. . . Visitors buy groceries in Mitchell, get gas in Mitchell and spend money in Mitchell.
The EA states there is a problem with trash; this is not true.
BLM response:
89 / 6
The main reason some users have not noticed the trash and human waste problem at the site is because in the past few years the BLM has cleaned up after users on a regular basis. In the past few years, BLM crews have picked up litter and human waste once or twice a week. The BLM's budget for 2013 and beyond may not be able to support this level of clean up for a remote area, so the trash problem may become more apparent.
Sample comments:
110 / 4 You mention that litter and human waste along the river has reduced the quality of the recreational experience, yet your own user survey suggests otherwise. If the trash and human waste was really as bad as you are trying to make it, would you still get a satisfied response of 87% by your users? Probably not. I do understand that there will always be idiots that leave trash, but I don't think the problem is as bad as you make it out to be.
102 / 6 The subject of Human Waste along the river, I see very little of that. For 10,000 years Humans have been using the river for food and recreation. To me this reeks more of setting things up for increased rafters which I can assure you has more of an impact on the water and wildlife than a family going to the river to fish for an evening.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Page 13 of 22
121 / 3
109 / 3
The existing toilet is perfect and I am so disappointed to hear about a human waste problem! . . . I have never encountered anything as disgusting as you say it has become, although I have picked up other peoples trash on occasion.
Your survey showed an overall quality of recreation experience satisfaction measure of 87% for this area. This seems inconsistent with a site that has a trash problem. I concede that anytime you have large numbers of people using an area, there will be some that are disrespectful and leave trash, but it does not appear to be affecting the overall recreational experience. . . I question the need for this plan.
Law, regulation, policy
The BLM appears to have spent money on this project before making a decision.
BLM response:
The trees planted in the project area last year were part of another ongoing project. The preliminary surveying for campsites was to get an initial idea of what might be possible, so that we could include that analysis in the EA.
Sample comments:
109 / 10 I am disappointed with the execution of this plan. There have been hundreds of trees planted in the project area. If this action is being done under another decision, why is it included in this plan? If it is a part of this plan, why is it being done prior to a decision? If you have the authority to plant these plants because of another decision but included it in this plan because these plantings are a part of the big picture, then how do you know where to plant these plants if you haven't already decided what actions you are going to take, prior to releasing your decision? Were the project design features described in the plan followed during these plantings?
109 / 11 There has also been surveying done in the area for campsite creation. It seems that BLM has already decided to put in new campsites. If not, it seems like a large investment of time and money on something that may or may not happen.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Page 14 of 22
The public input process was flawed: The BLM should have A) contacted more people about the public meeting, B) allowed more time for comments, and C) provided more direction on the web about how to comment.
BLM response:
A) The BLM was invited to speak and answer questions at a July 2012 Wheeler County meeting. This was not a BLM public meeting; therefore, BLM was not in a position to send out invitations. B) The BLM allowed 60 days for comments on the EA, about twice as much time as we generally allow on an EA. C) The EA cover page posted on the BLM web page had instructions on how to withold personal information when commenting. It did not have instructions on how to provide the most useful comments; we have added a sentence on that to our EA template so that it will show up on future EA postings.
Sample comments:
109 / 1 I received [the EA cover letter] because I was on the mailing list. I referred other interested public to your website. I was very disappointed to see no directions on how to provide comment. The website simply had the EA and FONSI and the date the comment period ended. Would it be so hard to also post the letter sent out that tells more about how to comment. There was also a "survey" sent with the letter that gives the commentor the opportunity to withold their personal information. People who simply visit your website don't receive that option.
109 / 12 I was also disappointed with the short turnaround time for comments. And while your document says you mailed hundreds of letters, did you have anything posted about your upcoming plan on the bulletin board at Priest Hole? I know you posted a notice when the EA came out, but that was after the main recreation season. I think you missed getting public involvement from a lot of people who use that site by not soliciting input from those people during the high use period.
117 / 1 As County Planning Director, I would like to request that the Wheeler County Planning Department be included in your planning discussions and mailing notification list with regards to any proposed actions being undertaken within Wheeler County. I was quite surprised to read in the local paper about a meeting that had taken place recently in Mitchell about the Priest Hole area; specifically that some 250+ mailing had been sent out but my office was not one of those. Please add the Wheeler County Planning Department to your mailings list for projects within our county.
118 / 1 I would like to express my disappointment of not being informed by your office of the special meeting held last week in the Mitchell high school. The subject, the Priest Hole, is especially dear to us since we’re the closest residents to this particular spot and hike there a lot. We feel that it would have been more then right to notify us of the public discussion of your proposals. . . Please keep us informed of other public meetings concerning our neighborhood including Bridge Creek, The Painted Hills, Sutton Mountain and Pat’s Cabin.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Page 15 of 22
Other comments
Comments that vote for an existing alternative, or express a concern but don't explain how the process, range of alternatives, or analyses are flawed.
BLM response:
Many commenters suggested BLM should leave the area "as is." The EA included a "no action" alternative that accommodates this suggestion and proposes no changes at the site. The BLM did not respond to comments that voted for an existing alternative or expressed an opinion without providing rationale.
Sample comments:
111 / 3 Alt # 2 eliminates irrigation of the fields after 5 years and I do not agree with that. Alt # 1 is the only one that would allow commercial harvesting of crops. Why is that? What do the harvesters or locals want? I think the fields are worth irrigating, maintaining and harvesting as well as providing forage for wildlife.
96 / 3 The fields should be left in use, but the irrigation system should be changed to a sprinkler system so spraying and fertilizing can be done safely without worrying about the tail waters getting into the river. Also with the gopher hole problem the flood irrigation causes the road to wash out. Established food plots could be seeded and managed without impacting the river.
115 / 1 Please be advised that the Wheeler County Court reviewed your recent letter regarding the Priest Hole Area along the John Day River. The Wheeler County is definitely opposed to the actions stated in the letter and therefore wishes to go on record as supporting alternative no. 1, no further action. We feel this is in the best interest of the landowners in that portion of the John Day River.
111 / 4 The boat ramp need not be anything much other than what it is. All I've ever seen launched & loaded are canoes, rafts, pontoons, etc. that are pretty much dragged into & out of the water.
97 / 1 I would like the site to remain as is.
125 / 1 I would like to see more vault toilets. . . I would like to see no campgrounds where we have to pay. I have camped down there for thirty plus years and would like it to stay the same way it is now.
121 / 2 I truly hope Priest Hole can retain its under the radar, remoteness, and primitive status for a good many more years to come! If you, by chance, are thinking of making it even harder to get to then I fully understand and would happily walk a trail to enjoy this "outstandingly remarkable section of the scenic John Day!"
103 / 7 Allow vehicle access and camping on the gravel bar at the Priest Hole near the NE end. Allow vehicle access to the North point near the bend of the river to get to at least two or three dispersed camp sites. Provide a defined road system, leaving necessary roads for access points while replanting unnecessary roads into wildlife habitat or using rock walls to identify the road as per our discussion. Provide parking access on the South side of the John Day field with a trail to the river bank.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Page 16 of 22
122 / 1
100 / 4
120 / 1
122 / 2
98 / 1
98 / 4
118 / 4
100 / 3
95 / 6
100 / 5
102 / 1
102 / 5
84 / 2
103 / 1
We appreciate the efforts of the BLM to beautify and preserve the Priest Hole area. We have lived by the John Day River for the past 15 years and have noticed that generally the Priest Hole area seems to deteriorate whenever the traffic to the area increases. The garbage would not be minimised by just adding a second restroom, or defining more camp sites. It would only give more access to those who carelessly litter and burn the trees for firewood.
While the immediate landscape does not qualify as Wilderness, it is situated between the Sutton Mountain WSA [Wilderness Study Area] and the John Day WSR [Wild & Scenic River]. With that in mind, are there additional measures BLM can take to minimize visual impacts to ensure the primitive character of the area is preserved, if not restored?
I would hate to see The Priest Hole closed. I have been going there since I was a little girl and love the place. I do not know the reason you want to close it but it is a great recreational area and a beautiful place where I enjoy taking photos and hanging out. Please don't close it.
The land would be best served if access by cars would be closed. If it was like a state park, only people who are serious about hiking into this pristine area would have access to enjoy it.
We as the Wheeler County court requested that Alternative one is the desired out come that the BLM implement and that we strongly oppose Alternative three. Any road closures need to be vetted thoroughly with the county before being implemented.
Alfalfa that is raised on these lands support a large population of Game, Deer, Elk, Game Birds, the removal of crops will result in the shift of these game animals from Public Lands to Private lands probably not what the public wants.
. . . Forbid cars and campers to park right on the beach! People can park at the parking space and walk the rest of the short way to the river. It’s not too much to ask for the privilege of having access to this area. People who come for boating can park at the designated parking area too after they launch their boats.
Roads ‐ I prefer the Alternative 4 route plan with existing "routes" converted to trails, but Alternative 3 would be acceptable if strategically located gates were at least considered to restrict motorized access seasonally to accommodate wildlife . . . or provide resource protection. Perhaps an Alternative 3.5?
Fire rings do not seem to be a good plan when there is a burn ban for a majority of the time
people would camp there.
While invasives are a problem along the entire John Day River, if this area is going to be a focus for public use, can BLM make weed control/eradication a central theme of the restoration plan?
I fully oppose any changes to the current set up at the Priest Hole . . . It has been that way for years and the deer and elk herds are not only fine but the herds have improved. The Steelhead and Salmon have actually improved too…
The Elk enjoy the hay fields, come Fall they usually go to the summit of the Suttons then winter near Twickenham.
The agriculture land that is there, is a much needed valuable piece of land.
The Priest Hole and the John Day Field need to be removed from commercial use and allow Redmond OHA and the BLM to manage the fields for wildlife as we currently do for the Bridge Creek fields.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Page 17 of 22
103 / 2
103 / 3
103 / 5
100 / 2
17 / 5
69 / 1
68 / 1
67 / 2
66 / 2
63 / 4
Plant 70 acres of wildlife food plots of various types worked out in our [Oregon Hunter's Assoc] joint, semi‐annual meetings with your staff. Plant an additional 100 acres into shrubs, cottonwoods, willows and other wildlife necessary long term grasses. . . Remove flood irrigation from the plan and add a mutually agreed upon sprinkler irrigation system to conserve river water, decrease waste and erosion and allow for tremendously better crop success.
Install a new toilet at the West end of the Priest Hole. Allow dispersed campsites at the Priest Hole and do not put in a camp ground in the cottonwood trees on the East end. A waste of tax payer dollars!
Team up with the Wheeler County Sheriff's office to provide a seasonal police officer to the John Day River from May 15th to September 15th of each year. This can be done for far less than a trio of BLM employees and they would have the ability to write tickets and take actions the BLM does not. Sign the area that the user is responsible for waste and garbage and a significant fine will be levied if they do not comply, then allow the Wheeler County Sheriff to make all comply. Align yourselves with the County Sheriff department in each stretch of the river and have them provide their work release or mandated community service personnel to clean up the heavy impacted parts of the river such as the Priest Hole and Clarno area as it should be far less expensive than BLM employees. BLM must think outside the box to solve the dollar issues of the river. Opportunities surround you with many volunteer user groups.
I support eliminating all commercial use of the fields, and prefer BLM relinquish all associated water rights after 15 years, or as necessary to re‐establish the desired cottonwood gallery and mix of native vegetation. Until then, I would also like to see BLM cut‐
of irrigation diversions by August 1. Is there an issue with BLM investing in a new irrigation program that requires ongoing use to justify its expense?
Don't close us out of our land.
It is my understanding that the BLM would like to make changes to the Priest Hole Site, these changes would provide campsites but cut off access to the river in that area. I have spent time at the Priest Hole throughout my life and I would be very sad to no longer have such an experience.
I am in favor of Alternative 1. It continues agriculture and recreational use in the area. “Good judgment comes from experience, and a lotta that comes from bad judgment.” Please stop trying to change the area to please folks from outside the area.
The ability for the irrigated agriculture crops to be raised makes for high quality forage for Deer, Elk, and migratory game birds.
Our deer, elk, antelope, cougar, lynx, badger, beaver and eagles thrive at the Priest Hole area. We know this because we live here. We do not need the BLM to try to "fix" something that is NOT broken. Because your management of other lands has failed miserably does not mean you are allowed to come to our area and screw it up. This is what you have done in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Leave our lands alone. We have managed it for over a hundred years without you. Our wildlife is doing just fine, thank you very much.
I am a lifelong resident of Mitchell ‐‐ I actually had the honor of fishing with Father Conway in my youth, he being the "Priest" the Priest Hole was named for.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Page 18 of 22
95 / 10
61 / 1
75 / 1
6 / 4
6 / 2
2 / 1
4 / 1
95 / 11
103 / 6
My last point is that this potential venture is obviously costly at a point when our government is in serious debt. We all want birds, fish, clean water, and wildlife to flourish; however, I am not convinced that your proposal (Alternative 3) will be reaching these goals and will ruin the uniquely scenic place we call the Priest Hole.
Just leave as is. No changes are needed. Save all of us a few bucks.
I would like to see an additional action that is a combination of Alternative 1 and 2. I do understand the need for garbage removal and enforcement patrols. I disagree with the discontinuation of commercial harvesting.
The John Day River is the third longest free flowing river in the lower United States. It is classified as "wild and scenic!" The John Day River needs to be left as is and it's management needs to be free of expensive launch fees, unnecessary permits, RV parks and home to the caring hands of the hunters that work on the habitat and the wildlife that live there.
The Redmond Chapter of Oregon Hunter's Association (OHA) has accomplished a tremendous amount of wildlife habitat work in the Bridge Creek to Priest Hole area. . . I would like BLM to also add the John Day and Priest Hole fields to the wildlife project area, removing them from commercial use and sign an agreement with Redmond OHA to manage the fields with the same success as they have the Bridge Creek and Clarno fields. The addition of sprinkler irrigation would greatly enhance the Priest Hole field and putting the John Day Field into a permanent shrub/native grass component would benefit wildlife and help stream erosion.
I prefer [an] Alternative … [that] keeps all camping within campsites.
I am in favor of Alternative 3, although I would like to see more water returned to the river. However, I understand some benefit to irrigation of forage for deer and elk.
Why not focus on the appalling amount of noxious weeds taking over all of your/"our" land in the county. This is much more of a threat to deer and elk forage on thousands of acres of BLM property than singling out a mere 70 acres of land put to good agricultural use for working people here‐‐and not to mention the wildlife who share as well; according to your study, they have benefitted from the high protein forage provided currently by the Lindquist family. When I drive by hundreds of head of elk and deer in our county (daily), I don't see a problem with the herd numbers here especially on private ground where the land is being managed for good forage for agriculture and wildlife uses. Your discussion about planting vegetation to avoid weed invasion is ridiculous when you consider that the weed invasion has been there due to mismanagement over decades‐‐not caused by off road vehicles! The "weed invasion" is to the point of embarrassment in places vehicles will never reach. Your certification of materials used to create your developments having to be weed free is pointless, what you should be doing is hosing down vehicles leaving the Priest Hole area as it is a weed wonderland in its current state!
BLM permits and user fees are unacceptable to Redmond OHA on the John Day River and in fact on any public lands. They create an economic hardship to the small, fragile communities that support the river activities. They create a financial hardship to the low working wage individual that surrounds the communities that most use the river. There are dollars in the BLM budget to manage our public lands and BLM must find a way within that allowable budget to manage the river without adding additional, unjust fees to the public.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Page 19 of 22
63 / 1
89 / 4
96 / 1
95 / 8
95 / 4
94 / 1
93 / 1
92 / 1
72 / 1
89 / 5
74 / 1
My choice would go with Alternative 1. You are getting production of the land with no cost, plus lease revenue. Another definite plus is helping a wheeler county tax payer stay in business.
This action has a significant impact on public access to the area and with a high level of controversy. Neotropical birds are currently utilizing this area with motorized access and the effects of eliminating motorized public access is not justified for the minimal increase in habitat.
. . .people will not camp there if they can't have water very close near by and have no shade. Temperatures are 10 to 15 degrees hotter at the Priest Hole than in Prineville. . . Campsites away from the river are not going to be used.
When my family has gone fishing, we often catch a fish momentarily so I can't see how the numbers can be down too much. I can't tell you about neotropical bird numbers however, because I am not sure how that term is defined!
If this is about charging fees for a campground to make more money for your failing division of government, how dare that this decision hide behind false scientific motives.
I live in Twickenham, just upstream from the Priest Hole area. I am glad that it is finally in your sights for improvement. It gets relatively heavy use in the summer and is does not have the facilities needed to handle the load. The area is frequently trashed and so I don’t use it much. I am in support of either option 3 or 4. I know trash pickup is not in your plan but occasional pickup does need to be addressed somehow.
I would like no change to the Priest Hole area in Wheeler County.
Leave it they way it is! I guess that is alternative 1.
I have been a resident of Mitchell and a frequent visitor of the Priest Hole for more than a decade. This summer while I was camping at the priest hole, I had talked to many rafters and they told me how nice it was to be able to float down a river and see it so "untouched". People visit our side of the country for the scenic serenity of our rivers and banks. I grew up out here, that portion of John Day river has been a huge part of my life and in my opinion there is not a thing wrong with the Priest Hole the way it is.
This action creates a precedent for justification of future road closures and restricting of public access in the name of environmental concepts. The action will be used as a justification for future projects as a success for improving habitat that already exists on site and mentioned in future actions as an example of how eliminating motorized access increased wildlife habitat that is currently being used by all species on site.
I am opposed to any changes to the Priest Hole. Please consider my request that the BLM leaves this great recreation and agriculture resource unchanged.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Page 20 of 22
88 / 1
86 / 1
79 / 1
78 / 1
76 / 1
118 / 2
My preference would be Alternative 3 with modifications such as NOT closing the upper road from the boat launch area to the new vault toilet and parking to the west of Priest Hole field AND including garbage receptacles. Alternative 3 with the above mentioned modifications would allow more people to tent camp along the river. As you mention under Recreation and Scenery‐Affected Environment (page 13), many people camp by utilizing tents, bringing coolers for food and beverage, chairs, portable shelters for shade, and tables. Having to carry all of this to a campsite west of the boat launch area or north east from the new toilet/parking area, without road access can place a heavy burden on all ages, especially older and physically challenged people, and especially when the weather is extremely hot. In addition, it would make it more enticing to just leave the trash at the site rather than hauling out bags of garbage. And Alternative 3 with all road closures would provide more temptation to travel cross country by motor vehicle to get to a river side campsite. Alternative 3 with above mentioned modifications would also allow the tent campers and others on the north and west side of Priest Hole Field to utilize a vault toilets closest to a campsite. It would allow the campsites to be more dispersed along the river rather than be concentrated in specific areas, as stated in the FONSI, at page 1, Context, Paragraph 4, " .. . Concentrated human activity along the river is impacting riparian vegetation important to neo‐tropical birds." And, as you mention in cumulative effects, concentrated camp sites would decrease the opportunity for the peace and solitude of camping or fishing on the river.
I have read the Environmental Assessment for Priest Hole Site Plan. Many of us would prefer, including myself, that it be left alone.
I am a long time resident of Mitchell OR. I really would like you to go with alternative 1 in the situation of the priest hole. It is a local rec area and the use does support our community during the summer months. Please stick with the status quo.
My opinion is to leave The Priest Hole the same as it is. All access to the community, for
swimming, fishing a place where our local and non local families and friends can go spend
the day together. Closing The Priest Hole would be very devastating to all of us.
Please don't close the Priest Hole. It is a beautiful recreation site. I have been going there since I was a little girl when Connleys owned the land. My nephew caught his first steelhead there. The family spent many enjoyable hours at the site. It should remain open for all to enjoy.
We have observed that the majority of people visiting this beautiful valley at the John Day River treat it with respect and are touched by it’s feeling of wilderness and seclusion. You would punish all of us with a decision to close the area to the general public based on the impact of the few that mistreat it by leaving their mark on land and water with their garbage, human waste, noise pollution, oil spills, tire tracks, and destruction of animal and plant habitat. I understand that the clean up costs are high and that it must be frustrating to come back again and again to see your efforts of maintenance dwarfed but I think it’s important that you keep the Priest Hole open as it is one of the most magic spots along the river that can be accessed by the public. I disagree with some of the locals who feel that any government agency put in place to manage and protect these public lands is a negative force that must be opposed. On the contrary, we’re grateful for many of the projects that you’ve done out here in our neighborhood that support the delicate ecosystems and sustain the native wildlife and plants. But in the subject of the Priest Hole, I do agree with the general opinion that the area must stay open and accessible for all of us.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Page 21 of 22
91 / 1
Please leave the Priest Hole as it is now!
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Page 22 of 22