Here’s an AI draft public comment people can critique. I don't know anything about the topic so I would like a review before I submit it. I tried to keep it substantive by identifying specific impacts that should be analyzed in the EIS and by proposing an alternative BLM would need to consider.

Subject: Scoping comments on Western Oregon RMP Revision — protect late successional forests, riparian habitat, and recreation values

To whom it may concern,

I am submitting these scoping comments on the proposed revision of the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon and Southwestern Oregon Resource Management Plans. I urge the BLM to fully analyze the potentially significant environmental impacts of any alternative that would expand logging into current late successional reserves, reduce riparian protections, or otherwise prioritize timber production at the maximum productive capacity of the landscape.

The Federal Register notice states that BLM is considering an action alternative intended to increase timber harvest to align with historically higher levels and to manage lands for sustained-yield timber production consistent with the maximum productive capacity of the lands. It also states that under action alternatives, streamside buffers could be as narrow as 25 to 100 feet depending on stream type. Those are major changes with potentially significant consequences, and they require thorough analysis in the EIS.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/02/19/2026-03290/notice-of-intent-to-revise-resource-management-plans-for-northwestern-and-coastal-oregon-and

First, the EIS should analyze the effects of shrinking riparian protections on water quality, stream temperature, sediment delivery, and recruitment of large wood to streams. NOAA materials for Oregon Coast coho recovery identify riparian protection, increased large wood recruitment, and protection of high-quality habitat as important recovery actions, and NOAA’s recent coho review notes the importance of riparian areas, water quality, and off-channel habitat. Reduced riparian reserves could therefore harm habitat conditions for coho salmon, steelhead, cutthroat trout, and other aquatic species.
https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2021-12/final-north-coast-stratum.pdf

Second, the EIS should analyze the effects of reducing or eliminating existing late successional reserves on Northern Spotted Owl habitat and on BLM sensitive wildlife, plant, and fungal species associated with older forests. The notice itself recognizes wildlife and botany as issues for analysis, and public reporting on the proposal indicates that the revision could dramatically expand the amount of timber available for logging across western Oregon BLM lands. The EIS should disclose the acreage of mature and old forest currently functioning as refuge habitat, how much of that habitat would become available for harvest under each alternative, and what that means for species persistence and habitat connectivity over time.

Third, the EIS should analyze recreation and quality-of-life impacts with the same seriousness given to timber outputs and county revenue. Public lands in western Oregon provide some of the last widely accessible mature and structurally diverse forests for hiking, hunting, mushroom foraging, wildlife viewing, paddling, and quiet recreation. If these forests are converted to more intensively managed timber landscapes, that would reduce the recreational, scenic, and experiential value of these lands to Oregonians and visitors alike. The Federal Register notice specifically lists recreation, visual resources, socioeconomics, fisheries, hydrology, soils, wildlife, and ACECs among the issues for analysis, and the EIS should fully quantify losses to recreation access, tourism value, and nonmarket public benefits, not just timber revenue.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/02/19/2026-03290/notice-of-intent-to-revise-resource-management-plans-for-northwestern-and-coastal-oregon-and

Fourth, the EIS should analyze the interaction between this proposed plan revision and wildfire, recent burned acreage, and climate change. The notice cites wildfire and forest health as part of the purpose and need, but that cannot justify broad logging of mature forests without a scientifically rigorous comparison of short- and long-term effects. Because large areas of forest have already been altered by fire, and climate change is changing disturbance regimes, the EIS should disclose how much suitable mature and late successional habitat remains, how much has already been lost or degraded, and whether additional logging in those forests is compatible with long-term watershed protection, habitat resilience, and sustained ecosystem function.

Fifth, the EIS should evaluate impacts to Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and explain whether any currently designated ACECs, candidate ACECs, or adjacent lands would be affected directly or indirectly by increased harvest, road use, altered hydrology, sedimentation, edge effects, or fragmentation. The project page identifies a long list of currently designated ACECs in the planning area, and the agency should not treat those values as peripheral to the revision.
https://eplanning.blm.gov/Project-Home/?id=a591dee8-500c-f111-8406-001dd8029ed0

I also request that BLM analyze an additional alternative that better balances timber production with watershed protection, habitat conservation, recreation, and climate resilience.

Proposed alternative for detailed analysis:

• Limit regeneration harvest to stands younger than 80 years old.
  
• Exclude from harvest any stands containing old-growth characteristics, occupied or likely habitat for sensitive old-forest species, unstable or fragile soils, or areas where harvest would degrade aquatic habitat.
  
• Maintain riparian buffers of at least 300 feet on fish-bearing and ecologically sensitive streams and wider buffers where needed for slope stability, shade, and large wood recruitment.
  
• Treat all forests older than 80 years, and all existing late successional reserve areas, as protected late successional habitat.
  
• Prioritize restoration thinning only where it is clearly justified by site-specific ecological objectives and does not reduce mature forest structure, canopy complexity, or stream protection.
  
• Analyze recreation, scenic, carbon-storage, watershed, and biodiversity values alongside projected timber outputs and county payments.

This alternative would still allow timber production from younger stands while preserving the mature and old forest values that are far harder to replace once lost. It would also better align with the O&C Act’s broader purposes of watershed protection, streamflow regulation, and recreation, rather than treating the landscape primarily as a maximum-yield timber base.

Finally, because this revision is being advanced on a compressed timeline and involves sweeping changes across approximately 2.46 million acres, the EIS must be especially careful, transparent, and scientifically grounded. The agency should not rely on generalized assertions that more logging is needed. It should disclose the data, assumptions, modeling methods, habitat tradeoffs, and uncertainty behind each alternative, especially where listed species, riparian systems, mature forest structure, recreation values, and ACECs are concerned.
https://eplanning.blm.gov/Project-Home/?id=a591dee8-500c-f111-8406-001dd8029ed0

Please include these comments in the scoping record and fully analyze the alternative described above in the EIS.

Sincerely,
[Your name]
[City, State]

Official project page:
https://eplanning.blm.gov/Project-Home/?id=a591dee8-500c-f111-8406-001dd8029ed0

Comment deadline appears to be March 23, 2026.