E-Mail-2000-2399
| # | Sender | Subject | Date | Body |
| EM-2000 | Denny Newton <NEWTON2551@comcast.net> | Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests | 1/4/2008 10:42:53 |
I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. The BLM is moving forward with the Western Oregon Plan Revision, which will increase logging in Oregon's old-growth forests sevenfold by clearcutting in currently protected old growth forest reserves and sensitive salmon bearing rivers and creeks. Sincerely, YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS Dennis Newton 591 W. Sherman Apt. 9 Lebanon, OR 97355 |
| EM-2001 | Michael Brown <miguelcafe@mac.com> | Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests | 1/4/2008 10:55:14 | I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. The BLM is moving forward with the Western Oregon Plan Revision, which will increase logging in Oregon's old-growth forests sevenfold by clearcutting in currently protected old growth forest reserves and sensitive salmon bearing rivers and creeks. My opinion is that the WOPR is a *bad* idea. Sincerely, Michael D Brown 2850 Warren St Eugene, OR 97405 |
| EM-2002 | Steven Harrison <smharrisnvirginia@hotmail.com> | Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests | 1/4/2008 10:57:12 | I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. The BLM is moving forward with the Western Oregon Plan Revision, which will increase logging in Oregon's old-growth forests sevenfold by clearcutting in currently protected old growth forest reserves and sensitive salmon bearing rivers and creeks.
Sincerely, Steven Harrison 48080 SE Coalman Rd Sandy OR 97055 Make distant family not so distant with Windows Vista® + Windows LiveT. Start now! |
| EM-2003 | Mary Brown <mcb@cadence.com> | Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests | 1/4/2008 11:09:28 | I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. The BLM is moving forward with the Western Oregon Plan Revision, which will increase logging in Oregon's old-growth forests sevenfold by clearcutting in currently protected old growth forest reserves and sensitive salmon bearing rivers and creeks.
Sincerely, MaryBrown 2850 Warren St. Eugene, OR97405 |
| EM-2004 | Charlotte Sahnow <csahnow@oregon.uoregon.edu> | Western Oregon Plan Revisions | 1/4/2008 11:52:04 | January 4, 2008
Western Oregon Plan Revisions Dear Western Oregon Plan Revisions, As a sportsman in western Oregon, I am deeply concerned with the Bureau of Land Management's recently released draft version of the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The plans outlined in the document would dramatically alter public lands management in western Oregon to the detriment of fish and wildlife and, by extension, hunting and fishing. I frequently visit Bureau of Land Management land in western Oregon, and I'm worried the BLM's plan would have a significant impact on my ability to hunt and fish in this region, and, more importantly, my ability to pass down my sporting heritage to the next generation of hunters and anglers in western Oregon. For example, reduction of streamside buffers to 25 feet would most certainly have a negative impact on our trout and salmon fisheries throughout the region. Timber harvest in close vicinity to fish-bearing or fish-spawning waters will contribute sediment to the systems, with the potential to smother fish eggs and spawning gravel. Additionally, removing streamside vegetation will reduce cover and likely result in temperature increases that could prove fatal to our fisheries. What's more, plans to construct about 1,000 miles of new roads over the next decade, and to allow 14,000 acres of clearcut logging annually could have drastic impacts on the region's struggling, but recovering, fisheries. Add in the conversion of our low-elevation oak savanna forests to conifer plantations and the creation of new off-highway-vehicle emphasis areas, and the plan becomes detrimental to our big-game herds and upland game bird populations. In short, the Western Oregon Plan Revisions are unacceptable from a hunting and angling standpoint. Ideally, the BLM would offer a full range of alternatives when it comes to the plan revisions, with all of those alternatives providing some measure of fish and wildlife protection. Finally, off-highway vehicle management should not be addressed at the region-wide level, but rather by individual BLM districts, and with a generous opportunity for public comment at the local level. Sincerely Charlotte Sahnow 2756 Chad Dr Eugene, OR 97408-7306 |
| EM-2005 | John Janus <unokayakero@yahoo.com> | Please protect our old-growth forests! | 1/4/2008 12:13:16 | Dear BLM,
I live in Oregon for a variety of reasons, including the old-growth forests, excellent recreation, and opportunities to view wildlife on public lands. After learning about the BLM's Western Oregon Plan Revisions, I am very concerned this plan will degrade my ability to enjoy the public lands in western Oregon. The changes the Bureau of Land Management is proposing will unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan for old-growth forests and wildlife, and will lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy. Some of my concerns include: - I'm disappointed that all special areas (Research Natural Areas and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern) won't be protected from logging under WOPR. These areas contain unique values that many people seek out to enjoy. These areas should not be opened to logging. - The increased, widespread clearcutting of forests under WOPR could reduce property values and the quality of life of thousands of Oregonians living near BLM lands. Over 1,000 miles of new logging road and 140,000 acres of clearcuts in the first decade alone would scar Oregon's spectacular landscape. - Clearcutting of old growth forests and proposed "Off Highway Vehicle Emphasis Areas" threaten the peace and quiet for rural residents, visitors, and wildlife. Oregon needs rural residents and tourism to feed our economy - catering to the timber and motorized vehicle industry alone is not a solution. Oregon's remaining old-growth forests are a treasure -- offering wonderful recreation opportunities, clean water, homes for wildlife, and offsetting global warming. But the WOPR is a step back to the unsustainable days of clear-cutting this amazing resource, endangering wildlife, muddying streams, and fueling public outcry. A better way is to protect our heritage forests and focus on thinning and restoration of the plentiful unhealthy plantations left over from the last logging boom. This approach would safeguard the many values of old-growth forests that make Oregon a place I want to live, while providing sustainable jobs and other economic benefits for rural communities. John Janus 23818 Henderson Corvallis, OR 97333 |
| EM-2006 | John Janus <unokayakero@yahoo.com> | Please protect our old-growth forests! | 1/4/2008 12:13:42 | Dear BLM,
I live in Oregon for a variety of reasons, including the old-growth forests, excellent recreation, and opportunities to view wildlife on public lands. After learning about the BLM's Western Oregon Plan Revisions, I am very concerned this plan will degrade my ability to enjoy the public lands in western Oregon. The changes the Bureau of Land Management is proposing will unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan for old-growth forests and wildlife, and will lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy. Some of my concerns include: - I'm disappointed that all special areas (Research Natural Areas and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern) won't be protected from logging under WOPR. These areas contain unique values that many people seek out to enjoy. These areas should not be opened to logging. - The increased, widespread clearcutting of forests under WOPR could reduce property values and the quality of life of thousands of Oregonians living near BLM lands. Over 1,000 miles of new logging road and 140,000 acres of clearcuts in the first decade alone would scar Oregon's spectacular landscape. - Clearcutting of old growth forests and proposed "Off Highway Vehicle Emphasis Areas" threaten the peace and quiet for rural residents, visitors, and wildlife. Oregon needs rural residents and tourism to feed our economy - catering to the timber and motorized vehicle industry alone is not a solution. Oregon's remaining old-growth forests are a treasure -- offering wonderful recreation opportunities, clean water, homes for wildlife, and offsetting global warming. But the WOPR is a step back to the unsustainable days of clear-cutting this amazing resource, endangering wildlife, muddying streams, and fueling public outcry. A better way is to protect our heritage forests and focus on thinning and restoration of the plentiful unhealthy plantations left over from the last logging boom. This approach would safeguard the many values of old-growth forests that make Oregon a place I want to live, while providing sustainable jobs and other economic benefits for rural communities. John Janus 23818 Henderson Corvallis, OR 97333 |
| EM-2007 | Richard Russell <ahcenter@msn.com> | Western Oregon Plan Revisions | 1/4/2008 12:32:05 | January 4, 2008
Western Oregon Plan Revisions Dear Western Oregon Plan Revisions, As a sportsman in western Oregon, I am deeply concerned with the Bureau of Land Management's recently released draft version of the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The plans outlined in the document would dramatically alter public lands management in western Oregon to the detriment of fish and wildlife and, by extension, hunting and fishing. I frequently visit Bureau of Land Management land in western Oregon, and I'm worried the BLM's plan would have a significant impact on my ability to hunt and fish in this region, and, more importantly, my ability to pass down my sporting heritage to the next generation of hunters and anglers in western Oregon. For example, reduction of streamside buffers to 25 feet would most certainly have a negative impact on our trout and salmon fisheries throughout the region. Timber harvest in close vicinity to fish-bearing or fish-spawning waters will contribute sediment to the systems, with the potential to smother fish eggs and spawning gravel. Additionally, removing streamside vegetation will reduce cover and likely result in temperature increases that could prove fatal to our fisheries. What's more, plans to construct about 1,000 miles of new roads over the next decade, and to allow 14,000 acres of clearcut logging annually could have drastic impacts on the region's struggling, but recovering, fisheries. Add in the conversion of our low-elevation oak savanna forests to conifer plantations and the creation of new off-highway-vehicle emphasis areas, and the plan becomes detrimental to our big-game herds and upland game bird populations. In short, the Western Oregon Plan Revisions are unacceptable from a hunting and angling standpoint. Ideally, the BLM would offer a full range of alternatives when it comes to the plan revisions, with all of those alternatives providing some measure of fish and wildlife protection. Finally, off-highway vehicle management should not be addressed at the region-wide level, but rather by individual BLM districts, and with a generous opportunity for public comment at the local level. Protecting our streams and forests is the most important task or our government, especially here in Oregon. The value of our forests and streams, and the fish,game,and recreation they provide is far greater if left in their natural state than any economic benefit to be gained by exploiting them in the short run. Sincerely Richard L Russell 2117 Dennis Ray Ave NE Keizer, OR 97303-2007 |
| EM-2008 | Christine Lawson <christinelawson@mac.com> | Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests | 1/4/2008 12:50:29 | I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. The BLM is moving forward with the Western Oregon Plan Revision, which will increase logging in Oregon's old-growth forests sevenfold by clearcutting in currently protected old growth forest reserves and sensitive salmon bearing rivers and creeks. Please consider permanent protection old growth forests for the generations to come to enjoy. In turn keeping Oregon green and protecting wildlife habitat and clear streams. Sincerely, Christine Lawson 2891 N Emerson Ct Portland Oregon 97217 |
| EM-2009 | Cameron Hyde <cameron@sdra.com> | Western Oregon Plan Revisions | 1/4/2008 13:12:02 | January 4, 2008
Western Oregon Plan Revisions Dear Western Oregon Plan Revisions, As a sportsman in western Oregon, I am deeply concerned with the Bureau of Land Management's recently released draft version of the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The plans outlined in the document would dramatically alter public lands management in western Oregon to the detriment of fish and wildlife and, by extension, hunting and fishing. I frequently visit Bureau of Land Management land in western Oregon, and I'm worried the BLM's plan would have a significant impact on my ability to hunt and fish in this region, and, more importantly, my ability to pass down my sporting heritage to the next generation of hunters and anglers in western Oregon. For example, reduction of streamside buffers to 25 feet would most certainly have a negative impact on our trout and salmon fisheries throughout the region. Timber harvest in close vicinity to fish-bearing or fish-spawning waters will contribute sediment to the systems, with the potential to smother fish eggs and spawning gravel. Additionally, removing streamside vegetation will reduce cover and likely result in temperature increases that could prove fatal to our fisheries. What's more, plans to construct about 1,000 miles of new roads over the next decade, and to allow 14,000 acres of clearcut logging annually could have drastic impacts on the region's struggling, but recovering, fisheries. Add in the conversion of our low-elevation oak savanna forests to conifer plantations and the creation of new off-highway-vehicle emphasis areas, and the plan becomes detrimental to our big-game herds and upland game bird populations. In short, the Western Oregon Plan Revisions are unacceptable from a hunting and angling standpoint. Ideally, the BLM would offer a full range of alternatives when it comes to the plan revisions, with all of those alternatives providing some measure of fish and wildlife protection. Finally, off-highway vehicle management should not be addressed at the region-wide level, but rather by individual BLM districts, and with a generous opportunity for public comment at the local level. Sincerely Cameron Hyde 3150 SW Hamilton St Portland, OR 97239-1312 |
| EM-2010 | Dave Emrich <dave.emrich@homepower.com> | Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife | 1/4/2008 14:06:00 | Bureau of Land Management, Western Oregon Plan Revisions Office
333 SW 1st. Avenue Portland, Oregon Portland, OR 97208 CC: Oregon Congressional delegation Re: BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions Dear BLM, I am very disturbed with the direction the Bush regime is headed with the mis-management of nearly 2.6 million acres of federal forests under the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The changes that the BLM is contemplating will unravel the protections of the landmark Northwest Forest Plan, and will definitely lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy. Your current proposal is totally outrageous and completely unacceptable. The agency proposes to increase old-growth logging on public lands in western Oregon by 700%, build 1,000 miles of new logging road in the next decade and clearcut at a 9-1 ratio to thinning. This is clearcut stupidity that depletes our natural resource base for your children by weakening protections for forests, creeks and salmon. Shockingly, the proposal ignores the role that these forests play in regulating the climate. Most Americans want federal land managers to embrace alternative building methods, safeguard communities from wildfire and protect what remains of our nation's ancient forests. By focusing on previously logged public forestlands they are providing wood to local mills while actually improving conditions for fish and wildlife and keeping saws out of precious old-growth forests. In contrast, the WOPR proposes to inflame the controversy by increasing old-growth clear-cutting for a short-term economic fix. The WOPR puts water quality at-risk and would destroy some of Oregon's most special places. We will protect our remaining mature and old-growth forests on public land, not clear-cut these natural treasures as the WOPR proposes to do. It is disappointing that at a time when public consensus for old-growth protection has never been stronger, the BLM is proposing to clear-cut forests older than our nation and turn complex ecosystems into flammable tree farms. Please protect remaining old-growth forests, focus active management of BLM lands in already logged-over areas, and concentrate job opportunities in restoration forestry that would benefit watersheds and generate wood products without multiplying past mistakes. Enough is enough! Earth First! David Emrich 299 Gresham St. Ashland, OR 97520 -- ********************************* David Emrich Graphic Designer, Home Power Magazine 541-512-1631 ********************************* |
| EM-2011 | Jim Salter <mcsalty@hughes.net> | Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests | 1/4/2008 15:36:20 | I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. The BLM is moving forward with the Western Oregon Plan Revision, which will increase logging in Oregon's old-growth forests sevenfold by clearcutting in currently protected old growth forest reserves and sensitive salmon bearing rivers and creeks. I was born and raised in Oregon and have lived in logging communities for many years. I know the timber industry and its contribution to local economies, as well as some of the costs of this economy to these same communities and our public resource base. Timber is one renewable resource and is necessarily harvested for its valuable uses, but there are many other resources and assets which are a part of the forests which are already of incalculable valuable to the public health and many other parts of our state's overall economy. Logging irresponsibly and degrading our water resources will forever destroy the much more valuable public resources contained in those pristine and sensitive areas which the plan needlessly targets. This plan seems a foolhardy, pound foolish, and greed driven approach which could easily be adjusted to protect the more sensitive areas while still increasing supply to the timber industry. The plan plainly works against the true public interest by grossly ignoring the real value of biological and wildlife resources, our clean water assets, and the super carbon capture capability of our old growth trees. I am firmly opposed to the adoption or implementation of this plan without major changes to its "revised" management approach. Sincerely, James Salter 19909 SW Meadow View Dr. McMinnville, OR 97128 |
| EM-2012 | kerry cutler <rollinggnome@hotmail.com> | Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife | 1/4/2008 15:41:04 | Dear BLM,
I am very concerned with the direction the Bush Administration is headed in with the management of nearly 2.6 million acres of federal forests under the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The changes that the BLM is contemplating will unravel the protections of the landmark Northwest Forest Plan, and may lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy. Your current proposal is unacceptable. The agency proposes to increase old-growth logging on public lands in western Oregon by 700%, build 1,000 miles of new logging road in the next decade and clearcut at a 9-1 ratio to thinning. This is a myopic and backwards proposal that depletes our natural resource base for future generations by weakening protections for forests, creeks and salmon. Shockingly, the proposal ignores the role that these forests play in regulating the climate. Most Americans want federal land managers to embrace thinning second growth forests, safeguard communities from wildfire and protect what remains of our nation's ancient forests. By focusing on previously logged public forestlands - many of which are now overgrown and in need of thinning - they are providing wood to local mills while actually improving conditions for fish and wildlife and keeping saws out of precious old-growth forests. In contrast, the WOPR proposes to inflame the controversy by increasing old-growth clear-cutting for a short-term economic fix. The WOPR puts water quality at-risk and would destroy some of Oregon's most special places. We should protect our remaining mature and old-growth forests on public land, not clear-cut these natural treasures as the WOPR proposes to do. It is disappointing that at a time when public consensus for old-growth protection and second-growth thinning has never been stronger, the BLM is proposing to clear-cut forests older than our nation and turn complex ecosystems into flammable tree farms. Please protect remaining old-growth forests, focus active management of BLM lands in already logged-over areas, and concentrate job opportunities in restoration forestry that would benefit watersheds and generate wood products without multiplying past mistakes. Sincerely, Kerry Cutler 81868 Lost valley lane Dexter Oregon 97431 _________________________________________________________________ Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live.http://www.windowslive.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_powerofwindows_012008 |
| EM-2013 | valerie GILES <javagiles@msn.com> | wopr | 1/4/2008 16:51:17 | please harvest timber under wopr and give oregonians real jobs.I received a letter from oregon heritage forests,and it's the same kind of letter that has cost our state families and jobs. I vote for the plan! john giles |
| EM-2014 | Patty Bonney <pattybonney@hotmail.com> | Western Oregon Plan Revisions | 1/4/2008 17:22:03 | January 4, 2008
Western Oregon Plan Revisions Dear Western Oregon Plan Revisions, As a sportsman in western Oregon, I am deeply concerned with the Bureau of Land Management's recently released draft version of the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The plans outlined in the document would dramatically alter public lands management in western Oregon to the detriment of fish and wildlife and, by extension, hunting and fishing. I frequently visit Bureau of Land Management land in western Oregon, and I'm worried the BLM's plan would have a significant impact on my ability to hunt and fish in this region, and, more importantly, my ability to pass down my sporting heritage to the next generation of hunters and anglers in western Oregon. For example, reduction of streamside buffers to 25 feet would most certainly have a negative impact on our trout and salmon fisheries throughout the region. Timber harvest in close vicinity to fish-bearing or fish-spawning waters will contribute sediment to the systems, with the potential to smother fish eggs and spawning gravel. Additionally, removing streamside vegetation will reduce cover and likely result in temperature increases that could prove fatal to our fisheries. What's more, plans to construct about 1,000 miles of new roads over the next decade, and to allow 14,000 acres of clearcut logging annually could have drastic impacts on the region's struggling, but recovering, fisheries. Add in the conversion of our low-elevation oak savanna forests to conifer plantations and the creation of new off-highway-vehicle emphasis areas, and the plan becomes detrimental to our big-game herds and upland game bird populations. In short, the Western Oregon Plan Revisions are unacceptable from a hunting and angling standpoint. Ideally, the BLM would offer a full range of alternatives when it comes to the plan revisions, with all of those alternatives providing some measure of fish and wildlife protection. Finally, off-highway vehicle management should not be addressed at the region-wide level, but rather by individual BLM districts, and with a generous opportunity for public comment at the local level. Sincerely Patty Bonney 8625 SW Oleson Rd Portland, OR 97223-6828 |
| EM-2015 | Carole Tante <nuxtabadun@aol.com> | More areas merit wilderness recommendation | 1/4/2008 17:32:01 | January 04, 2008
BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions Office 333 SW 1st. Avenue Portland, OR 97204 Dear BLM Western Oregon Plan Revision, I am writing to urge a reevaluation and expansion of the areas that should be recommended as wilderness in the Western Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR). The Bureau of Land Management�s (BLM) preferred alternative recommends only five areas, despite a total of 146 inventoried areas in the lands managed by the plan. The BLM�s process for evaluating and determining wilderness resources and wilderness recommendations in the WOPR was inadequate, resulting in many well-known wild places exhibiting excellent wilderness characteristics being improperly omitted. The Wild Rogue Additions is a prime example of an area that clearly meets the criteria for wilderness recommendation, and yet was not recommended. In the Wild Rogue North Watershed Analysis, the BLM itself noted the value of the large, roadless areas for aesthetics, solitude, undeveloped recreational opportunities, wildlife, fisheries, water quality, and the intrinsic value of having wild, undeveloped places (see Version 2.0 of this analysis, issued in December 1999 and available online: http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/medford/plans/files/wild_rogue_north_wa_acc.pdf). Despite these findings, BLM omits the Wild Rogue from its wilderness recommendations. BLM�s analysis and recommendations must take into account the economic importance of wilderness as well as the non-commercial values of the public lands it stewards, instead of considering lands primarily for their timber values. This approach demonstrates an unbalanced interpretation of the BLM�s legal obligations, and must be reviewed. Additional areas that should be recommended for wilderness protection include Reuben Creek, Williams Creek, Wild Rogue Additions, Whiskey Creek, Wellington Mountain, Clackamas Wilderness � Bull of the Woods/Opal Creek Additions, and Coast Range Wilderness - Wasson Creek. The WOPR is a heavily forested area, and contains rare old growth with trees that stood before our nation existed. Many of these deserving wild lands should be recommended as wilderness to preserve these ancient giants and the beautiful landscapes that surround them. Failure to protect these increasingly endangered wild places from timber harvest is a mistake that cannot be undone once the old growth trees have been cleared. I urge BLM to reexamine its wilderness recommendations in the WOPR, and to expand the recommendations to include the wild places listed above that should be managed to maintain their wilderness characteristics. Sincerely, Carole Tante 3 Fino Ln Hot Springs Village, AR 71909-3805 USA nuxtabadun@aol.com |
| EM-2016 | lefko <lefko@jeffnet.org> | blm wopr comments | 1/4/2008 18:41:15 | Dear BLM,
Count me as one who is against opening up an ATV area at Anderson Butte. 1. It will increase the fire danger which is already acute. 2. It will increase erosion affecting the salmon runs on Sterling Creek and other streams in the watershed (the salmon runs are now just beginning to increase in these fragile tributaries). 3. ATV use will negatively affect the fragile and rare plant ecosystems within the watershed, including the savanna oak forests. 4. ATV use will increase the noise pollution in the rural Sterling Creek valley where I live. 5. ATV use will increase carbon-emitting vehicular traffic and increase road maintenance costs. 6. ATV use will negatively affect wildlife causing increasing mammal injuries, including deaths. 7. ATV use will negatively affect the pristine solitude which I regularly enjoy by myself or with friends as we either walk, jog or yes, bicycle, these remote, quiet, beautiful watersheds. So please, reject the ATV park on Anderson Butte. Consider promoting long-term sustainable uses, rather than giving way to such an exclusive, short-term and non-sustainable use. In short, I am against further sacrificing our precious soils, plants, animals, water, air and quiet for the short-term benefits of an ATV park anywhere near Anderson Butte. Best Regards, David Lefkowitz 8900 Sterling Creek RD Jacksonville, OR 97530 541-899-6908 |
| EM-2017 | serge vrabec <vrabec1@aol.com> | Western Oregon Plan Revisions | 1/4/2008 19:12:02 | January 4, 2008
Western Oregon Plan Revisions Dear Western Oregon Plan Revisions, As a sportsman in western Oregon, I am deeply concerned with the Bureau of Land Management's recently released draft version of the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The plans outlined in the document would dramatically alter public lands management in western Oregon to the detriment of fish and wildlife and, by extension, hunting and fishing. I frequently visit Bureau of Land Management land in western Oregon, and I'm worried the BLM's plan would have a significant impact on my ability to hunt and fish in this region, and, more importantly, my ability to pass down my sporting heritage to the next generation of hunters and anglers in western Oregon. For example, reduction of streamside buffers to 25 feet would most certainly have a negative impact on our trout and salmon fisheries throughout the region. Timber harvest in close vicinity to fish-bearing or fish-spawning waters will contribute sediment to the systems, with the potential to smother fish eggs and spawning gravel. Additionally, removing streamside vegetation will reduce cover and likely result in temperature increases that could prove fatal to our fisheries. What's more, plans to construct about 1,000 miles of new roads over the next decade, and to allow 14,000 acres of clearcut logging annually could have drastic impacts on the region's struggling, but recovering, fisheries. Add in the conversion of our low-elevation oak savanna forests to conifer plantations and the creation of new off-highway-vehicle emphasis areas, and the plan becomes detrimental to our big-game herds and upland game bird populations. In short, the Western Oregon Plan Revisions are unacceptable from a hunting and angling standpoint. Ideally, the BLM would offer a full range of alternatives when it comes to the plan revisions, with all of those alternatives providing some measure of fish and wildlife protection. Finally, off-highway vehicle management should not be addressed at the region-wide level, but rather by individual BLM districts, and with a generous opportunity for public comment at the local level. Sincerely serge vrabec 5902 SE Milwaukie Ave Portland, OR 97202-5258 |
| EM-2018 | Sean Brady <sa_brady@comcast.net> | Please protect our old-growth forests! | 1/4/2008 21:45:10 | Dear BLM,
My family and I live in Oregon for a variety of reasons, including the old-growth forests, excellent recreation, and opportunities to view wildlife on public lands. We are avid hikers, fly fishers, and campers. After learning about the BLM's Western Oregon Plan Revisions, I am very concerned this plan will degrade my ability to enjoy the public lands in western Oregon. The changes the Bureau of Land Management is proposing will unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan for old-growth forests and wildlife, and will lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy. Some of my concerns include: - I'm disappointed that all special areas (Research Natural Areas and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern) won't be protected from logging under WOPR. These areas contain unique values that many people seek out to enjoy. These areas should not be opened to logging. - The increased, widespread clearcutting of forests under WOPR could reduce property values and the quality of life of thousands of Oregonians living near BLM lands. Over 1,000 miles of new logging road and 140,000 acres of clearcuts in the first decade alone would scar Oregon's spectacular landscape. - Clearcutting of old growth forests and proposed "Off Highway Vehicle Emphasis Areas" threaten the peace and quiet for rural residents, visitors, and wildlife. Oregon needs rural residents and tourism to feed our economy - catering to the timber and motorized vehicle industry alone is not a solution. Oregon's remaining old-growth forests are a treasure -- offering wonderful recreation opportunities, clean water, homes for wildlife, and offsetting global warming. But the WOPR is a step back to the unsustainable days of clear-cutting this amazing resource, endangering wildlife, muddying streams, and fueling public outcry. A better way is to protect our heritage forests and focus on thinning and restoration of the plentiful unhealthy plantations left over from the last logging boom. This approach would safeguard the many values of old-growth forests that make Oregon a place I want to live, while providing sustainable jobs and other economic benefits for rural communities. Sean Brady 1124 E 14 Lafayette, OR 97127 |
| EM-2019 | Mark Fritch <Mfritch@loghomz.com> | Protect BLM forests, harvest if needed, but do it wisely | 1/4/2008 23:46:04 | To Whom It May Concerns,
I am a professional forester (BS Forestry, MS Forestry and BA Education) in Sandy, Oregon. I've used my skills, education and interests to build beautiful handcrafted log homes. While I'm concerned for the environment, I realize that harvesting is not the entire problem. The problem is not allowing foresters to WISELY MANAGE of our resources. I have no problem with managing and harvesting our timber resources. I do have a problem with the unwise harvesting and doing so at below market values. I support the harvesting of forests when it makes sense ecologically, financially and biologically. I also recognize the need and place for wilderness areas. We need both. There is a lot of pressure to not do anything with our forests. Many people don't see the forest for the trees. For example, old-growth forests don't necessarily help Global Warming that much. Old-growth trees do put out oxygen, but not at a rate high enough to offset the carbon dioxide produced by the decaying forest matter on the same forest floor. It is young, vibrant forests that do more to cool the atmosphere and produce more net oxygen than old-growth forests. I am not advocating for the harvesting of our wilderness areas. We need both wilderness areas and areas that we can manage and harvest. I encourage the protection of our wilderness areas AND freeing up our state and national forests for the wise management for timber. Another thing that we as Americans don't realize is that we are dumping out harvesting on other countries. If we shut down logging here in the U.S.without reducing our consumption by the same amount, all we are doing is forcing that harvest on Canada, New Zealand, Chile, Russiaor other countries where there are little or no environmental controls. The net result is that we are still damaging the planet. It's just that we "can't see it from our backyard." We are also then forced to transport these products farther than if we produced the lumber right here in Oregon. We have better quality timber which produces better quality lumber which then can be used to produce better quality homes. What we need to do is produce better quality homes that will last longer than the crap houses that we're now building. This would allow us to have good homes while wisely harvesting local forests. The young forests that get replanted will then produce far more oxygen than older mature forests. In saying this, I am not advocating harvesting of all old-growth. I am simply stating that we have a seriously polarized mentality on the issue. There are ways that we can both protect AND utilize our forest resources. We need good foresters who have the freedom to plan, manage and harvest our forests as needed while protecting the entire resource base. Timber harvesting, wildlife, recreation and watershed management are not mutually exclusive activities. There are good people on both sides of this issue and we need to find solid middle ground not driven by either big business concerns and big environmental concerns. We all need to do our part in protecting the environment. I do mine by building high value, handcrafted log homes. Yes, I use more timber in my homes than the average tract home. The flip side of that is that my houses are extremely energy efficient, they are very green, they are valuable assets, they produce more tax revenue to the counties where they are built AND they use less wood per year than the typical frame house. How is that possible you say? I design and build my homes so that they can last 400-500-600 years. Yes, that is possible. We only need to go to Europeto see this. So I say there are ways to wisely manage our forests and utilize the resources in a way that improves the environment. All it takes is the willingness to work together. I invite you to factor into the equation of your decisions that it is possible to meet the needs of all parties involved. Sincerely, Mark! [IMAGE] Mark Fritch Mark Fritch Log Homes Box1720 Sandy, Oregon 97055 503-668-7130 Office 503-668-3285 Fax 503-849-6316 Cell mfritch@loghomz.com www.loghomz.com - image002.jpg |
| EM-2020 | Steve Garrett <smgmkg@ccountry.net> | Western Oregon Plan Revisions | 1/5/2008 5:22:03 | January 5, 2008
Western Oregon Plan Revisions Dear Western Oregon Plan Revisions, As a sportsman in western Oregon, I am deeply concerned with the Bureau of Land Management's recently released draft version of the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The plans outlined in the document would dramatically alter public lands management in western Oregon to the detriment of fish and wildlife and, by extension, hunting and fishing. I frequently visit Bureau of Land Management land in western Oregon, and I'm worried the BLM's plan would have a significant impact on my ability to hunt and fish in this region, and, more importantly, my ability to pass down my sporting heritage to the next generation of hunters and anglers in western Oregon. For example, reduction of streamside buffers to 25 feet would most certainly have a negative impact on our trout and salmon fisheries throughout the region. Timber harvest in close vicinity to fish-bearing or fish-spawning waters will contribute sediment to the systems, with the potential to smother fish eggs and spawning gravel. Additionally, removing streamside vegetation will reduce cover and likely result in temperature increases that could prove fatal to our fisheries. What's more, plans to construct about 1,000 miles of new roads over the next decade, and to allow 14,000 acres of clearcut logging annually could have drastic impacts on the region's struggling, but recovering, fisheries. Add in the conversion of our low-elevation oak savanna forests to conifer plantations and the creation of new off-highway-vehicle emphasis areas, and the plan becomes detrimental to our big-game herds and upland game bird populations. In short, the Western Oregon Plan Revisions are unacceptable from a hunting and angling standpoint. Ideally, the BLM would offer a full range of alternatives when it comes to the plan revisions, with all of those alternatives providing some measure of fish and wildlife protection. Finally, off-highway vehicle management should not be addressed at the region-wide level, but rather by individual BLM districts, and with a generous opportunity for public comment at the local level. Sincerely Steve Garrett 1593 Wedgewood Dr Eagle Point, OR 97524-7788 |
| EM-2021 | David O'Connor <dophotos@mac.com> | Western Oregon Plan Revisions | 1/5/2008 6:22:04 | January 5, 2008
Western Oregon Plan Revisions Dear Western Oregon Plan Revisions, As a sportsman in western Oregon, I am deeply concerned with the Bureau of Land Management's recently released draft version of the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The plans outlined in the document would dramatically alter public lands management in western Oregon to the detriment of fish and wildlife and, by extension, hunting and fishing. I frequently visit Bureau of Land Management land in western Oregon, and I'm worried the BLM's plan would have a significant impact on my ability to hunt and fish in this region, and, more importantly, my ability to pass down my sporting heritage to the next generation of hunters and anglers in western Oregon. For example, reduction of streamside buffers to 25 feet would most certainly have a negative impact on our trout and salmon fisheries throughout the region. Timber harvest in close vicinity to fish-bearing or fish-spawning waters will contribute sediment to the systems, with the potential to smother fish eggs and spawning gravel. Additionally, removing streamside vegetation will reduce cover and likely result in temperature increases that could prove fatal to our fisheries. What's more, plans to construct about 1,000 miles of new roads over the next decade, and to allow 14,000 acres of clearcut logging annually could have drastic impacts on the region's struggling, but recovering, fisheries. Add in the conversion of our low-elevation oak savanna forests to conifer plantations and the creation of new off-highway-vehicle emphasis areas, and the plan becomes detrimental to our big-game herds and upland game bird populations. In short, the Western Oregon Plan Revisions are unacceptable from a hunting and angling standpoint. Ideally, the BLM would offer a full range of alternatives when it comes to the plan revisions, with all of those alternatives providing some measure of fish and wildlife protection. Finally, off-highway vehicle management should not be addressed at the region-wide level, but rather by individual BLM districts, and with a generous opportunity for public comment at the local level. Sincerely David O'Connor 7622 N Newman Ave Portland, OR 97203-4613 |
| EM-2022 | Roger Gertenrich <gertr@comcast.net> | Western Oregon Plan Revisions | 1/5/2008 9:52:02 | January 5, 2008
Western Oregon Plan Revisions Dear Western Oregon Plan Revisions, As a sportsman in western Oregon, I am deeply concerned with the Bureau of Land Management's recently released draft version of the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The plans outlined in the document would dramatically alter public lands management in western Oregon to the detriment of fish and wildlife and, by extension, hunting and fishing. I frequently visit Bureau of Land Management land in western Oregon, and I'm worried the BLM's plan would have a significant impact on my ability to hunt and fish in this region, and, more importantly, my ability to pass down my sporting heritage to the next generation of hunters and anglers in western Oregon. For example, reduction of streamside buffers to 25 feet would most certainly have a negative impact on our trout and salmon fisheries throughout the region. Timber harvest in close vicinity to fish-bearing or fish-spawning waters will contribute sediment to the systems, with the potential to smother fish eggs and spawning gravel. Additionally, removing streamside vegetation will reduce cover and likely result in temperature increases that could prove fatal to our fisheries. What's more, plans to construct about 1,000 miles of new roads over the next decade, and to allow 14,000 acres of clearcut logging annually could have drastic impacts on the region's struggling, but recovering, fisheries. Add in the conversion of our low-elevation oak savanna forests to conifer plantations and the creation of new off-highway-vehicle emphasis areas, and the plan becomes detrimental to our big-game herds and upland game bird populations. In short, the Western Oregon Plan Revisions are unacceptable from a hunting and angling standpoint. Ideally, the BLM would offer a full range of alternatives when it comes to the plan revisions, with all of those alternatives providing some measure of fish and wildlife protection. Finally, off-highway vehicle management should not be addressed at the region-wide level, but rather by individual BLM districts, and with a generous opportunity for public comment at the local level. Sincerely Roger Gertenrich 3570 SW River Pkwy Unit 501 Portland, OR 97239-4536 |
| EM-2023 | David Schott <fglc@peak.org> | Western Oregon Plan Revisio1 Attn Ed Shepard | 1/5/2008 10:14:39 | Western Oregon Plan Revision 1/5/08
Comments Topics of comment: 1) Mandates of the O&C Act of 1937 2) Health of our forests 3) Economic health of our counties 4) Global warming 1) Mandate of the O&C Act of 1937: The BLM is required under the Act to apply sustained yield management with the primary purpose of providing for the economic benefit of the counties located within those lands. In so doing, the BLM is to insure that water quality be maintained and that recreation benefits to the population be provided for. Most importantly, in the recent case "National Association of Homebuilders v Defenders of Wildlife (US Supreme Decision June 25, 2007)" the Endangered Species Act Section 7 (a) (2)'s no-jeopardy duty covers "only discretionary agency actions and does not attach to actions..that an agency is required by statute to undertake once certain specific triggering events have occurred. This reading is not only reasonable, inasmuch as it gives effect to ESA'sprovision, but it also comports with the canon against implied repeals [of conflicting legislation] because it stays Section 7 (a)(2)'s mandate where it would override otherwise mandatory statutory duties." In other words if an earlier statute tells an agency to do something, Section 7 (a)(2) does not modify that mandate. In this case, the earlier statute is the O&C Act of 1937. The ESA does not supercedethe mandates of that act. 2) With regard to the alternatives proposed for the WOPR to date, none consider the forest health as an entirety. Fire is the 900 pound gorilla continually hovering in the background and without intricate planning to provide for fire mitigation, this entire WOPR exercise is ultimately futile. The entire O&C land base managed by the BLM need to be managed. None of the alternatives presented for consideration provide for that. Moreover, the forests of Southwest Oregon are so prone to fire, disease and insect infestation, that to manage only a portion of those lands actually subjects all BLM, USFS and private lands in Southern Oregonto a much greater risk of catastrophic loss. This risk is not imagined or blown out of proportion, it is devastatingly real. Not having managed public lands for the last 20 years has dramatically increased the risk of enormous forest loss. By placing 52% off limits or outside the "timber management area" (as in alternative 2) the BLM would be ignoring its duty to protect the entire forest landscape. That is unacceptable. I would strongly urge that your final decision for timber management areas only exclude Riparian Management Areas, Administratively Withdrawn Areas and those lands in the National Conservation System. It is just too important to fight for the health and resiliency of the rest of the forestland. 3) Economic Health: The mandate of the O&C Act of 1937 is to provide primarily for the economic returns to the counties. For many of the counties, especially in the southern end of the state, the monies realized from O&CLandharvesting are critical to county government. Moreover, the jobs created by a healthy forest industry are family wage type jobs. Those same jobs further contribute to county health in that they support other businesses and provide for state and local tax revenues. The importance of a reliable, continuous and much increased supply of federal timber, as opposed to that which we have seen over the last 20 years, cannot be overstated. The infrastructure that remains for the processing of all timber is a tiny fraction of that which existed even 20 years ago. If we lose any more production capacity in Southern Oregonthe ability to process logs through industry will decrease dramatically. There is only one sawmill left in Jackson County, one in Josephine County, one in Curry County, two in Klamath County and one in Lake County. There are 3 or 4 mills that peel logs in Southern Oregon. Without a reliable and increased supply of federal timber, the likelihood is that some of these mills will be gone within two years. Where will the timber go for processing when that happens????? It is imperative that timber be made available in quantities much greater than envisioned in any of the proposed alternatives. I think a target of 175 MM bd. ft. in Southern Oregonis much more reasonable goal. Foresthealth, county receipts and economic viability would all benefit from this harvest target. Note,this would still be well under a sustainable harvest level. 4) The one area of concern that has totally escaped discussion in preliminary studies is that of GLOBAL WARMING. If global warming is linked with increased amounts of carbon in our atmosphere, as a number of scientists believe, then it becomes important to look at the effects of fire on that problem. There are a number of studies that indicate that forest fires are one of the biggest contributors to carbon release into our atmosphere. If Dr. Thomas Bonniksenis correct, for each acre that burned in the Angora fire in and around South Lake Tahoelast summer 60 tons of carbon was released into the atmosphere. Moreover, over the next 20-30 years, an additional 190-200 tons per acre will be release through the decomposition of dead timber (at least if it isn't harvested and the carbon isn't sequestered in the form of manufactured lumber). According to those figures, the initial fire released 186 thousand tons of carbon (fire size was 3100 acres), and over the next 30 o r so years an additional 590 thousand tons of carbon will be released. Even if these figures are twice the actual amount that is an enormous figure for carbon release. Now consider what was released by the Biscuit fire on 2002. In that fire, almost 500,000 acres burned. The carbon release figures are mind numbing. This is an overriding reason why we must consider increasing harvest levels dramatically from present levels, if only to attempt to mitigate the concern of catastrophic fire. We will never catch up through harvesting to reach a level of total forest health. Fire will rear its ugly head. What we can do is to try to mitigate the ability of catastrophic to take hold by thinning in much greater volume in strategic areas. It is possible to work with private landowners and create fire breaks contiguous with their already thinned lands across a much broader landscape than currently occurs. But the only way to make our forests healthier and more resilient is to increase the harvest levels, thin where most expedient to keep fire from spreading, and work with the USFS and private timberland owners in concert to create a much larger vision of what is needed to create a healthy forest landscape. Let's manage all the O&C lands with these goals in mind. David R Schott Exec VP Southern OregonTimber Industries Assn. 1 541 7735329 Fax 7733663 |
| EM-2024 | PAUL SPRIGGS <psfoots@msn.com> | WOPR | 1/5/2008 10:55:22 | I am an OHV user and I also use back country roads for recreation access. Keep roads open! Closing areas is a poor way to manage them. I support all of the Southern Oregon OHV emphasis areas. I do not feel the 13 areas in the preferred alternative number 2 are enough to accommodate existing and future OHV recreation, especially accounting for its popularity and the growth of the area. Loop connectivity between use areas is desirable for recreation purposes. Loop connectivity of OHV trails prevents trail blazing and riding off trail to get to another trail. Looping trails to connect ohv areas would be benificial. Motorized trail use is increasing at a much faster rate than non-motorized, especially in this area. The lack of OHV trails proposed in the WOPR is unacceptable! OHV recreation trails need to be be made to keep OHV on designated trails. What specifically are the criteria for final selection of an area? Comment numbers? Complaint? Funding? The 13 identified emphasis areas include 3 existing designated areas and 10 identified as existing intensely used areas. Ohv use is increasing in popularity . Making more trails and managing areas for OHVs is necessary for OHV control. __Paul Spriggs Address____2950 Foots_Creek Road____Gold Hill ________________________
State ___OR___Zip Code ____97525 541-582-2383 |
| EM-2025 | Reida Kimmel <rkimmel@uoneuro.uoregon.edu> | Please protect our old-growth forests! | 1/5/2008 11:31:51 | Dear BLM,
I am very concerned with the direction the BLM is headed with the management of nearly 2.6 million acres of federal forests under the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The changes the agency is contemplating will unravel the protections of the landmark Northwest Forest Plan, and will lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy. BLM lands in western Oregon contain about 1-million acres of our remaining older forests. The WOPR would increase logging of forests over 200 years sevenfold, and threatens some of Oregon's best remaining ancient forests. Two thousand square miles of forest would be put in "Timber Management Areas," where clearcutting is emphasized. By logging closer to streams the WOPR reduces important protections for clean water and Pacific salmon. High quality drinking water originates on BLM lands for the citizens of Salem, Corvallis, Eugene, and 70 other Oregon communities. Salmon need cool, clean water, but the WOPR would remove stream buffers that shade streams and keep sediment from the water. Please leave the existing protections for riparian areas in place. Wildlife such as elk and black bear and threatened species like the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet rely on BLM forests. The WOPR would reduce protections for wildlife populations and diminish habitat for countless plant and wildlife species. Please choose an alternative that leaves habitat protections for wildlife, especially in existing old-growth forests, in place.The remaining old growth forests are not just timber, they are the most diferse forest habitats we have in the Northwest. The species they house, and the complex biological webs within them are the seed banks for the regeneration and preservation of our soil, watersheds and woodlands in the future. No second or third growth forest is as healthy or as rich as the native forest which the BlM promises to reduce once again. When an old growth stand is felled or thinned, changes to the soil, loss of species, however seemingly insignifigant, is irreplaceable. Not only should the BLM's logging alternatives in its WOPR proposals be scrapped, logging of what little old growth remains should be banned. There are many less sensitive and more practical places to generate wood fiber than our last remaining ancient forests, like the millions of acres of young, even-age tree plantations that have grown since previous clearcuts. By focusing on previously logged public forestlands - many of which are now overgrown and in need of thinning - the BLM would provide wood to local mills while actually improving conditions for fish and wildlife and keeping saws out of precious old-growth forests. Instead, the WOPR proposes to inflame the controversy by increasing old-growth clearcutting for a short-term economic fix. The WOPR puts water quality at risk and would destroy some of Oregon's most special places. We should protect our remaining mature and old-growth forests on public land, not clearcut these natural treasures. Reida Kimmel 30306 Fox Hollow Rd. Eugene, OR 97405 |
| EM-2026 | Melissa Yslas <melissayslas@yahoo.com> | Western Oregon Plan Revisions | 1/5/2008 11:35:36 | I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. The BLM is moving forward with the Western Oregon Plan Revision, which will increase logging in Oregon's old-growth forests sevenfold by clearcutting in currently protected old growth forest reserves and sensitive salmon bearing rivers and creeks.
Sincerely, Melissa Yslas 4000 NW Witham Hill Drive #9 Corvallis, OR 97330 Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. |
| EM-2027 | James Berl <fishingyd@aol.com> | Western Oregon Plan Revisions | 1/5/2008 12:02:03 | January 5, 2008
Western Oregon Plan Revisions Dear Western Oregon Plan Revisions, As a sportsman in western Oregon, I am deeply concerned with the Bureau of Land Management's recently released draft version of the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The plans outlined in the document would dramatically alter public lands management in western Oregon to the detriment of fish and wildlife and, by extension, hunting and fishing. I frequently visit Bureau of Land Management land in western Oregon, and I'm worried the BLM's plan would have a significant impact on my ability to hunt and fish in this region, and, more importantly, my ability to pass down my sporting heritage to the next generation of hunters and anglers in western Oregon. For example, reduction of streamside buffers to 25 feet would most certainly have a negative impact on our trout and salmon fisheries throughout the region. Timber harvest in close vicinity to fish-bearing or fish-spawning waters will contribute sediment to the systems, with the potential to smother fish eggs and spawning gravel. Additionally, removing streamside vegetation will reduce cover and likely result in temperature increases that could prove fatal to our fisheries. What's more, plans to construct about 1,000 miles of new roads over the next decade, and to allow 14,000 acres of clearcut logging annually could have drastic impacts on the region's struggling, but recovering, fisheries. Add in the conversion of our low-elevation oak savanna forests to conifer plantations and the creation of new off-highway-vehicle emphasis areas, and the plan becomes detrimental to our big-game herds and upland game bird populations. In short, the Western Oregon Plan Revisions are unacceptable from a hunting and angling standpoint. Ideally, the BLM would offer a full range of alternatives when it comes to the plan revisions, with all of those alternatives providing some measure of fish and wildlife protection. Finally, off-highway vehicle management should not be addressed at the region-wide level, but rather by individual BLM districts, and with a generous opportunity for public comment at the local level. Sincerely James Berl 56324 Mckenzie Hwy Mc Kenzie Bridge, OR 97413-9610 |
| EM-2028 | Hedy Lou <hedylou@charter.net> | 'WOPR' COMMENTS | 1/5/2008 12:07:31 | I am commenting to go on the record that I oppose the logging of old growth timber. The value the timber provides is nothing compared to the other values old-growth forests provide. While lumber is a renewable resource, old-growth forests are not. They provide drinking water, wildlife habitat, salmon streams, climate regulation and recreation. They can never be replaced. The thought of further diminishing this very scarce resource seems short sighted indeed.
Louis Sequeira 138 Kanaka Flats Rd. Jacksonville, OR 97530 541 899-6903 |
| EM-2029 | john coleman <johnlcoleman@hotmail.com> | Re: WOPR Revision | 1/5/2008 12:18:32 | Dear Sir and/or Madam,
Regarding the proposed WOPR. I have been following this process for several years and it seems to be predicated on the belief that logging more old growth trees is needed. It's not. There seems to be no way to stop the BLM from increasing logging. The process of "revision" appears to be simply a way of justifying a policy that has already been decided. It's quite clear that this process is driven from the dark bowels of the Bush administration and their misguided desire to reward campaign contributors in the timber industry before they get removed from office. In an attempt to stop the insanity let me once again state...DON'T REVISE THE PLAN AT ALL. Leaving the current plan in place is the only reasonable thing to do given the highly politicized environment at the BLM. In closing, my thanks to the many BLM employees who are trying to do their job according to the best science of the day and a holistic view of how public land should be managed. It's unfortunate they do not set policy for the BLM. Sincerely, John L. Coleman Ph.D. Watch "Cause Effect," a show about real people making a real difference. Learn more |
| EM-2030 | William Vorachek <w_vorachek@msn.com> | Western Oregon Plan Revisions | 1/5/2008 12:22:03 | January 5, 2008
Western Oregon Plan Revisions Dear Western Oregon Plan Revisions, As a sportsman in western Oregon, I am deeply concerned with the Bureau of Land Management's recently released draft version of the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The plans outlined in the document would dramatically alter public lands management in western Oregon to the detriment of fish and wildlife and, by extension, hunting and fishing. I frequently visit Bureau of Land Management land in western Oregon, and I'm worried the BLM's plan would have a significant impact on my ability to hunt and fish in this region, and, more importantly, my ability to pass down my sporting heritage to the next generation of hunters and anglers in western Oregon. For example, reduction of streamside buffers to 25 feet would most certainly have a negative impact on our trout and salmon fisheries throughout the region. Timber harvest in close vicinity to fish-bearing or fish-spawning waters will contribute sediment to the systems, with the potential to smother fish eggs and spawning gravel. Additionally, removing streamside vegetation will reduce cover and likely result in temperature increases that could prove fatal to our fisheries. What's more, plans to construct about 1,000 miles of new roads over the next decade, and to allow 14,000 acres of clearcut logging annually could have drastic impacts on the region's struggling, but recovering, fisheries. Add in the conversion of our low-elevation oak savanna forests to conifer plantations and the creation of new off-highway-vehicle emphasis areas, and the plan becomes detrimental to our big-game herds and upland game bird populations. In short, the Western Oregon Plan Revisions are unacceptable from a hunting and angling standpoint. Ideally, the BLM would offer a full range of alternatives when it comes to the plan revisions, with all of those alternatives providing some measure of fish and wildlife protection. Finally, off-highway vehicle management should not be addressed at the region-wide level, but rather by individual BLM districts, and with a generous opportunity for public comment at the local level. Sincerely William Vorachek 16070 Oakdale Rd Dallas, OR 97338-9113 |
| EM-2031 | maggiemead <maggiemead@sbcglobal.net> | Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife | 1/5/2008 12:38:42 | Bureau of Land Management, Western Oregon Plan Revisions Office
333 SW 1st. Avenue Portland, Oregon Portland, OR 97208 CC: Oregon Congressional delegation Re: BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions Dear BLM, I am very concerned with the direction the Bush Administration is headed in with the management of nearly 2.6 million acres of federal forests under the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The changes that the BLM is contemplating will unravel the protections of the landmark Northwest Forest Plan, and may lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy. Your current proposal is unacceptable. The agency proposes to increase old-growth logging on public lands in western Oregon by 700%, build 1,000 miles of new logging road in the next decade and clearcut at a 9-1 ratio to thinning. This is a myopic and backwards proposal that depletes our natural resource base for future generations by weakening protections for forests, creeks and salmon. Shockingly, the proposal ignores the role that these forests play in regulating the climate. Most Americans want federal land managers to embrace thinning second growth forests, safeguard communities from wildfire and protect what remains of our nation's ancient forests. By focusing on previously logged public forestlands - many of which are now overgrown and in need of thinning - they are providing wood to local mills while actually improving conditions for fish and wildlife and keeping saws out of precious old-growth forests. In contrast, the WOPR proposes to inflame the controversy by increasing old-growth clear-cutting for a short-term economic fix. The WOPR puts water quality at-risk and would destroy some of Oregon's most special places. We should protect our remaining mature and old-growth forests on public land, not clear-cut these natural treasures as the WOPR proposes to do. It is disappointing that at a time when public consensus for old- growth protection and second-growth thinning has never been stronger, the BLM is proposing to clear-cut forests older than our nation and turn complex ecosystems into flammable tree farms. Please protect remaining old-growth forests, focus active management of BLM lands in already logged-over areas, and concentrate job opportunities in restoration forestry that would benefit watersheds and generate wood products without multiplying past mistakes. Sincerely, Maggie Mead 2210A California St. Berkeley, CA 94703 |
| EM-2032 | Chad Derosier *The Chai Guy* <chaiguy@heartsongchai.com> | I adamantly oppose the proposed Western Oregon Plan Revisions. | 1/5/2008 12:52:09 | January 5, 2008
To the folks at BLM I adamantly oppose the proposed Western Oregon Plan Revisions. As resident of southwestern Oregon, I frequently visit these wildlands as a place for to enjoy wildlife in a serene and undisturbed setting. I find solace in wilderness away from the hustle and bustle of everyday life and all of the noise that humans create. The changes that the BLM is contemplating will unravel the protections of the landmark Northwest Forest Plan, and may lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy. The agency proposes to increase old-growth logging on public lands in western Oregon by 700%, build 1,000 miles of new logging road in the next decade and clearcut at a 9-1 ratio to thinning. This is a myopic and backwards proposal that depletes our natural resource base for future generations by weakening protections for forests, creeks and salmon. Shockingly, the proposal ignores the role that these forests play in regulating the climate. I find that the WOPR is a most heinous forest ?management? plan. Here are several reasons why I oppose the plan: ? The WOPR would increase logging of forests over 200 years sevenfold, and threatens some of Oregon?s best remaining ancient forests. Two thousand square miles of forest (an area the size of Delaware) would be put in ?Timber Management Areas,? where clearcutting is emphasized. ? The BLM cannot eliminate protection for old-growth forests, without undermining the Northwest Forest Plan and protections for threatened and endangered species and clean water. To do so, the BLM needs to violate the Endangered Species and Clean Water Acts and other laws. ? Wildlife rely on BLM forests such as elk and black bear and threatened species like the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet. The WOPR would reduce protections for wildlife populations and diminish habitat for countless plant and wildlife species. An increase in noxious, invasive weeds and wildlife species is predicted under the WOPR. ? By logging near streams the WOPR reduces important protections for clean water and Pacific salmon. High quality drinking water originates on BLM lands for the citizens of Salem, Corvallis, Eugene, and 70 other Oregon communities. Salmon need cool, clean water, but the WOPR would remove stream buffers that shade streams and keep sediment from the water. ? The Northwest Forest Plan is a landmark agreement that private, state and federal landowners rely on to protect threatened old growth species while producing timber in compliance with environmental law. Removing BLM forests would unravel the whole fabric of the Plan and produce uncertainty for other landowners. There is a better way. We should protect what is left of Oregon?s old growth heritage forests, and restore those forests that have been degraded. Half of BLM forests were clearcut in the past century and converted to overstocked tree plantations. Thinning small trees could offer more than 2 billion board feet of commercially valuable timber if actively thinned while preserving our last, best public lands for generations to come. It is extremely disappointing and unsettling that at a time when public consensus for old-growth protection and second-growth thinning has never been stronger, the BLM is proposing to clear-cut forests older than our nation and turn complex ecosystems into flammable tree farms. I strongly urge you to protect remaining old-growth forests, focus active management of BLM lands in already logged-over areas, and concentrate job opportunities in restoration forestry that would benefit watersheds and generate wood products without multiplying past mistakes. STOP LOGGING OLD-GROWTH I look forward to your comments. Sincerely, Chad M. Derosier cc: Senator Ron Wyden Senator Gordon Smith Rep. Greg Walden (R-2nd) Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-4th) ***************************** Chad M. Derosier The Chai Guy, Vice President Heartsong Herbal Brewing Company 2220 Ashland Street Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 488~5614 (541) 488~5629 fax www.heartsongchai.com ***************************** Raising the vibration of the nation through hydration. The Heartsong Herbal Brewing Company exists to revitalize human body, mind, spirit and community through good brews and good business. ***************************** |
| EM-2033 | Walter Kortge <kortge@charter.net> | Please protect our old-growth forests! | 1/5/2008 12:52:50 | Dear BLM,
WOPR IS A BUSH ADMINISTRATION GIVEAWAY TO THE LOGGING INDUSTRY!! I am very concerned with the direction the BLM is headed with the management of nearly 2.6 million acres of federal forests under the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The changes the agency is contemplating will unravel the protections of the landmark Northwest Forest Plan, and will lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy. BLM lands in western Oregon contain about 1-million acres of our remaining older forests. The WOPR would increase logging of forests over 200 years sevenfold, and threatens some of Oregon's best remaining ancient forests. Two thousand square miles of forest would be put in "Timber Management Areas," where clearcutting is emphasized. By logging closer to streams the WOPR reduces important protections for clean water and Pacific salmon. High quality drinking water originates on BLM lands for the citizens of Salem, Corvallis, Eugene, and 70 other Oregon communities. Salmon need cool, clean water, but the WOPR would remove stream buffers that shade streams and keep sediment from the water. Please leave the existing protections for riparian areas in place. Wildlife such as elk and black bear and threatened species like the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet rely on BLM forests. The WOPR would reduce protections for wildlife populations and diminish habitat for countless plant and wildlife species. Please choose an alternative that leaves habitat protections for wildlife, especially in existing old-growth forests, in place. There are many less sensitive and more practical places to generate wood fiber than our last remaining ancient forests, like the millions of acres of young, even-age tree plantations that have grown since previous clearcuts. By focusing on previously logged public forestlands - many of which are now overgrown and in need of thinning - the BLM would provide wood to local mills while actually improving conditions for fish and wildlife and keeping saws out of precious old-growth forests. Instead, the WOPR proposes to inflame the controversy by increasing old-growth clearcutting for a short-term economic fix. The WOPR puts water quality at risk and would destroy some of Oregon's most special places. We should protect our remaining mature and old-growth forests on public land, not clearcut these natural treasures. Walter Kortge 5615 Mill Creek Rd The Dalles., OR 97058 |
| EM-2034 | Anne J. Banks <banksbaby@sbcglobal.net> | Please protect our old-growth forests! | 1/5/2008 13:06:52 | Dear BLM,
I live in Oregon for a variety of reasons, including the old-growth forests, excellent recreation, and opportunities to view wildlife on public lands. After learning about the BLM's Western Oregon Plan Revisions, I am very concerned this plan will degrade my ability to enjoy the public lands in western Oregon. The changes the Bureau of Land Management is proposing will unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan for old-growth forests and wildlife, and will lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy. Some of my concerns include: - I'm disappointed that all special areas (Research Natural Areas and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern) won't be protected from logging under WOPR. These areas contain unique values that many people seek out to enjoy. These areas should not be opened to logging. - The increased, widespread clearcutting of forests under WOPR could reduce property values and the quality of life of thousands of Oregonians living near BLM lands. Over 1,000 miles of new logging road and 140,000 acres of clearcuts in the first decade alone would scar Oregon's spectacular landscape. - Clearcutting of old growth forests and proposed "Off Highway Vehicle Emphasis Areas" threaten the peace and quiet for rural residents, visitors, and wildlife. Oregon needs rural residents and tourism to feed our economy - catering to the timber and motorized vehicle industry alone is not a solution. Oregon's remaining old-growth forests are a treasure -- offering wonderful recreation opportunities, clean water, homes for wildlife, and offsetting global warming. But the WOPR is a step back to the unsustainable days of clear-cutting this amazing resource, endangering wildlife, muddying streams, and fueling public outcry. A better way is to protect our heritage forests and focus on thinning and restoration of the plentiful unhealthy plantations left over from the last logging boom. This approach would safeguard the many values of old-growth forests that make Oregon a place I want to live, while providing sustainable jobs and other economic benefits for rural communities. Anne J. Banks 705 New britain Ave. Hartford, CT 06106 |
| EM-2035 | Puckamok <puckamok@yahoo.com> | WOPR comment | 1/5/2008 13:21:43 | The BLM's western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR) needs
to be revised. As a rural Jackson County resident I am opposed to any plan that involves clear-cutting anywhere, removal of any old growth, or weakens protections for watersheds. Our forests are most valuable if we harvest only what we need and we are careful doing it. Some places must be left alone, some must be thinned, some restored, but clear cutting as a part of any plan for a healthy forest is not scientific or moral. It is irresponsible to sell out our forests to the highest bidders at a time when we need our forests to store carbon, cycle and filter the water and hold up hillsides and keep streams cool. Our national forests and BLM lands belong to every one of us. Allowing private companies to profit from the destruction of our forests is a betrayal of the American people. The WOPR seems to ignore scientific research, put aside the desires of most Americans and caters to Big Timber. Please do what you can to oppose this horrific plan. Sincerely, Dana Rose Rogue River, Oregon "A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe," a part limited in time and space. He experiences his self, his thoughts, and feelings, as something separate from the rest-- a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion, to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in it's beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself part of the liberation and foundation for inner security." --Albert Einstein ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping |
| EM-2036 | Anne J. Banks <banksbaby@sbcglobal.net> | Please protect our old-growth forests! | 1/5/2008 13:34:30 | Dear BLM,
I live in Oregon for a variety of reasons, including the old-growth forests, excellent recreation, and opportunities to view wildlife on public lands. After learning about the BLM's Western Oregon Plan Revisions, I am very concerned this plan will degrade my ability to enjoy the public lands in western Oregon. The changes the Bureau of Land Management is proposing will unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan for old-growth forests and wildlife, and will lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy. Some of my concerns include: - I'm disappointed that all special areas (Research Natural Areas and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern) won't be protected from logging under WOPR. These areas contain unique values that many people seek out to enjoy. These areas should not be opened to logging. - The increased, widespread clearcutting of forests under WOPR could reduce property values and the quality of life of thousands of Oregonians living near BLM lands. Over 1,000 miles of new logging road and 140,000 acres of clearcuts in the first decade alone would scar Oregon's spectacular landscape. - Clearcutting of old growth forests and proposed "Off Highway Vehicle Emphasis Areas" threaten the peace and quiet for rural residents, visitors, and wildlife. Oregon needs rural residents and tourism to feed our economy - catering to the timber and motorized vehicle industry alone is not a solution. Oregon's remaining old-growth forests are a treasure -- offering wonderful recreation opportunities, clean water, homes for wildlife, and offsetting global warming. But the WOPR is a step back to the unsustainable days of clear-cutting this amazing resource, endangering wildlife, muddying streams, and fueling public outcry. A better way is to protect our heritage forests and focus on thinning and restoration of the plentiful unhealthy plantations left over from the last logging boom. This approach would safeguard the many values of old-growth forests that make Oregon a place I want to live, while providing sustainable jobs and other economic benefits for rural communities. Anne J. Banks 705 New britain Ave. Hartford, CT 06106 |
| EM-2037 | Brenda Kameenui <my240house@yahoo.com> | Please protect our old-growth forests! | 1/5/2008 13:36:10 | Dear BLM,
I have read many reviews of the new Northwest Forest Plan, and I find no possible reason to follow through with this plan. Please put a halt to it. After learning about the BLM's Western Oregon Plan Revisions, I am very concerned this plan will degrade my ability to enjoy the public lands in western Oregon. The changes the Bureau of Land Management is proposing will unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan for old-growth forests and wildlife, and will lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy. Some of my concerns include: - I'm disappointed that all special areas (Research Natural Areas and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern) won't be protected from logging under WOPR. - The increased, widespread clearcutting of forests under WOPR could reduce property values and the quality of life of thousands of Oregonians living near BLM lands. Over 1,000 miles of new logging road and 140,000 acres of clearcuts in the first decade alone would scar Oregon's spectacular landscape. - Clearcutting of old growth forests and proposed "Off Highway Vehicle Emphasis Areas" threaten the peace and quiet for rural residents, visitors, and wildlife. Oregon needs rural residents and tourism to feed our economy - catering to the timber and motorized vehicle industry alone is not a solution. Oregon's remaining old-growth forests are a treasure -- offering wonderful recreation opportunities, clean water, homes for wildlife, and offsetting global warming. But the WOPR is a step back to the unsustainable days of clear-cutting this amazing resource, endangering wildlife, muddying streams, and fueling public outcry. A better way is to protect our heritage forests and focus on thinning and restoration of the plentiful unhealthy plantations left over from the last logging boom. This approach would safeguard the many values of old-growth forests that make Oregon a place I want to live, while providing sustainable jobs and other economic benefits for rural communities. Brenda Kameenui 4003 Dillard Rd. Eugene, OR 97405 |
| EM-2038 | <judykempphoto@sbcglobal.net> | whopper | 1/5/2008 13:59:59 | The new BLM forest management plan is mismanagement. I am angry and incredulous that our goverment proposes clear cutting on federal lands.
There are responsible ways to log forests, but clear cutting any forests especially older forests is just irresponsible and should be criminal! Water pollution, loss of wildlife habitat, visual blight. After all these years of talking about and studying logging practices, this is the best we can come up with? Judy Kemp Property Owner in the Siuslaw Watershed |
| EM-2039 | Richard Spotts <spotts@infowest.com> | My WOPR comments | 1/5/2008 14:01:45 |
January 5, 2008 Bureau of Land Management Western Oregon Plan Revisions Office 333 SW 1st. Avenue Portland, OR 97208 RE: My comments on BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions Dear BLM officials: Please accept this letter with my comments on the above-referenced matter. I strongly oppose BLM's proposed management of nearly 2.6 million acres of federal forests under the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The changes that the BLM is contemplating will unravel the protections of the landmark Northwest Forest Plan, and may lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy. Your current proposal is unacceptable. The agency proposes to increase old-growth logging on public lands in western Oregon by 700%, build 1,000 miles of new logging roads in the next decade and clearcut at a 9-1 ratio to thinning. This is a myopic and backwards proposal that depletes our natural resource base for future generations by weakening protections for forests, creeks and salmon. Shockingly, the proposal ignores the role that these forests play in regulating the climate. Most Americans want federal land managers to embrace thinning second growth forests, safeguard communities from wildfire and protect what remains of our nation's ancient forests. By focusing on previously logged public forestlands - many of which are now overgrown and in need of thinning - they are providing wood to local mills while actually improving conditions for fish and wildlife and keeping saws out of precious old-growth forests. In contrast, the WOPR proposes to inflame the controversy by increasing old-growth clear-cutting for a short-term economic fix. The WOPR puts water quality at-risk and would destroy some of Oregon's most special places. We should protect our remaining mature and old-growth forests on public land, not clear-cut these natural treasures as the WOPR proposes to do. It is disappointing that at a time when public consensus for old-growth protection and second-growth thinning has never been stronger, the BLM is proposing to clear-cut forests older than our nation and turn complex ecosystems into flammable tree farms. While BLM claims that the O&C Lands law requires old-growth logging, and therefore limits its management discretion, I believe that this legal interpretation is suspect and self-serving for the Bush Administration that is pushing the timber industry's agenda. The federal Endangered Species Act was passed after the O&C Lands law, as were a number of other modern environmental laws. Under standard conflicts of law court decisions, more recent legal requirements can supersede or at least modify older legal requirements. BLM apparently does not want to acknowledge an arguably more progressive or ecologically enlightened legal position vis-a-vis WOPR because this would undercut its ability to give the timber industry what it wants. This approach is myopic and contrary to the national public interest. For the preceding reasons, please abandon the current proposal. In its place, please develop a proposal that will protect remaining old-growth forests, focus active management of BLM lands in already logged-over areas, and concentrate job opportunities in restoration forestry that would benefit watersheds and generate wood products without multiplying past mistakes. Although I am not an Oregon resident, I am a frequent visitor. I enjoy hiking and wildlife watching on BLM lands in Oregon. Since these BLM lands are owned by all Americans, and my taxes help support BLM management programs, I believe that I am a "stakeholder" to provide WOPR comments. Thank you very much for considering my comments. Sincerely, Richard Spotts 1125 W. Emerald Drive St. George UT 84770 spotts@infowest.com |
| EM-2040 | Kirk Matteson <kirkmatteson@yahoo.com> | Western Oregon Plan Revisions | 1/5/2008 14:02:03 | January 5, 2008
Western Oregon Plan Revisions Dear Western Oregon Plan Revisions, As a sportsman in western Oregon, I am deeply concerned with the Bureau of Land Management's recently released draft version of the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The plans outlined in the document would dramatically alter public lands management in western Oregon to the detriment of fish and wildlife and, by extension, hunting and fishing. I frequently visit Bureau of Land Management land in western Oregon, and I'm worried the BLM's plan would have a significant impact on my ability to hunt and fish in this region, and, more importantly, my ability to pass down my sporting heritage to the next generation of hunters and anglers in western Oregon. For example, reduction of streamside buffers to 25 feet would most certainly have a negative impact on our trout and salmon fisheries throughout the region. Timber harvest in close vicinity to fish-bearing or fish-spawning waters will contribute sediment to the systems, with the potential to smother fish eggs and spawning gravel. Additionally, removing streamside vegetation will reduce cover and likely result in temperature increases that could prove fatal to our fisheries. What's more, plans to construct about 1,000 miles of new roads over the next decade, and to allow 14,000 acres of clearcut logging annually could have drastic impacts on the region's struggling, but recovering, fisheries. Add in the conversion of our low-elevation oak savanna forests to conifer plantations and the creation of new off-highway-vehicle emphasis areas, and the plan becomes detrimental to our big-game herds and upland game bird populations. In short, the Western Oregon Plan Revisions are unacceptable from a hunting and angling standpoint. Ideally, the BLM would offer a full range of alternatives when it comes to the plan revisions, with all of those alternatives providing some measure of fish and wildlife protection. Finally, off-highway vehicle management should not be addressed at the region-wide level, but rather by individual BLM districts, and with a generous opportunity for public comment at the local level. Sincerely Kirk N. Matteson 2753 NE Thompson St Portland, OR 97212-4902 |
| EM-2041 | Aleson Macfarlane <alesonm@hotmail.com> | Western Oregon Plan Revisions | 1/5/2008 14:02:06 | January 5, 2008
Western Oregon Plan Revisions Dear Western Oregon Plan Revisions, As a sportsman in western Oregon, I am deeply concerned with the Bureau of Land Management's recently released draft version of the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The plans outlined in the document would dramatically alter public lands management in western Oregon to the detriment of fish and wildlife and, by extension, hunting and fishing. I frequently visit Bureau of Land Management land in western Oregon, and I'm worried the BLM's plan would have a significant impact on my ability to hunt and fish in this region, and, more importantly, my ability to pass down my sporting heritage to the next generation of hunters and anglers in western Oregon. For example, reduction of streamside buffers to 25 feet would most certainly have a negative impact on our trout and salmon fisheries throughout the region. Timber harvest in close vicinity to fish-bearing or fish-spawning waters will contribute sediment to the systems, with the potential to smother fish eggs and spawning gravel. Additionally, removing streamside vegetation will reduce cover and likely result in temperature increases that could prove fatal to our fisheries. What's more, plans to construct about 1,000 miles of new roads over the next decade, and to allow 14,000 acres of clearcut logging annually could have drastic impacts on the region's struggling, but recovering, fisheries. Add in the conversion of our low-elevation oak savanna forests to conifer plantations and the creation of new off-highway-vehicle emphasis areas, and the plan becomes detrimental to our big-game herds and upland game bird populations. In short, the Western Oregon Plan Revisions are unacceptable from a hunting and angling standpoint. Ideally, the BLM would offer a full range of alternatives when it comes to the plan revisions, with all of those alternatives providing some measure of fish and wildlife protection. Finally, off-highway vehicle management should not be addressed at the region-wide level, but rather by individual BLM districts, and with a generous opportunity for public comment at the local level. Sincerely Alesn Macfarlane 4603 SE Ivon St Portland, OR 97206-1645 |
| EM-2042 | Colby Hawkinson <colbyhawkinson@hotmail.com> | Public comment from Colby Hawkinson re:Western Oregon Plan Revisions | 1/5/2008 14:43:08 | Saturday, January 5th, 2008
Bureau of Land Management Western Oregon Plan Revisions PO Box 2965 Portland, OR 97208 Dear Bureau of Land Management, I tried to submit comments via your website on January 10th, but found that was only set up for Oregon residents. I trust that you will consider these comments of mine regarding the Western Oregon Plan Revisions or 'WOPR' process and that you enter them to the public record even though I do not currently live in Oregon. I lived in Corvallis from 1979 until 2001. I grew up hunting blacktail deer and fishing fishing for trout, salmon or steelhead in a number of drainages that are being considered for resource extraction under the Western Oregon Plan Revisions or 'WOPR' process. Since moving to Idaho in 2001 I no longer hunt BLM lands in western Oregon. However, I do still visit them a few times each year to fish as a nonresident for steelhead and salmon and to hike in old growth forests such as the one you administer in Crabtree Valley. I deeply enjoy being able to return to fish and hike those western Oregon BLM areas that are part of my outdoor heritage. I am also glad I can contribute sustainable dollars to local Oregon economies by visiting those BLM lands. I spend considerable money in communities nearest your lands to purchase the gas, food, license and tags, bait and tackle, etc. needed for my trips. I hope you will understand my interest in seeing that the fishing,hiking and solitude opportunities I currently enjoy on your lands are available in the very same quality for my children and for their kids. I appreciate your hard work on this plan but I do not see that you provided an adequate diversity of choices in the draft plan. I would like to have seen more alternatives that retain current protections for fish, wildlife, forests and streams. I urge you to ensure that security habitat areas for elk and deer as well as opportunities for solitude while fishing and hiking are enhanced on your western Oregon lands, not diminished. Finally I urge you to ensure that off-highway vehicles are kept on existing, recognized routes only, and are not allowed to travel cross-country or otherwise damage the fishery resources and opportunities for solitude that keep me coming back to BLM land in western Oregon each year. I thank you for this opportunity to give my comment and for your time spent reviewing it and adding it to the public record as part of the WOPR process. Sincerely, Colby Hawkinson 207 S. Asbury St. Unit B Moscow, ID 83843 _________________________________________________________________ Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live.http://www.windowslive.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_powerofwindows_012008 |
| EM-2043 | Edward Neal <eneal24@mac.com> | Western Oregon Plan Revision | 1/5/2008 16:26:34 | I am alarmed and concerned about with the Western Oregon Plan
Revision, which will increase logging in Oregon's old-growth forests sevenfold by clearcutting in currently protected old growth forest reserves and sensitive salmon bearing rivers and creeks. Please stop the destruction of our old growth forests now. This is a travesty. Sincerely, Edward Neal, MD 4201 NE Couch Street Portland, OR 97213 |
| EM-2044 | Troy Lubianski <xzantar@juno.com> | Please protect our old-growth forests! | 1/5/2008 16:55:56 | Dear BLM,
I do not support making old growth forest available to timber companies to chop down. These forests are the quality of life that makes Oregon the beautiful and enjoyable place to live that it is. Please edit the WOPR so that no old growth forests will be cut down. Thank you, troy Lubianski I am very concerned with the direction the BLM is headed with the management of nearly 2.6 million acres of federal forests under the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The changes the agency is contemplating will unravel the protections of the landmark Northwest Forest Plan, and will lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy. BLM lands in western Oregon contain about 1-million acres of our remaining older forests. The WOPR would increase logging of forests over 200 years sevenfold, and threatens some of Oregon's best remaining ancient forests. Two thousand square miles of forest would be put in "Timber Management Areas," where clearcutting is emphasized. By logging closer to streams the WOPR reduces important protections for clean water and Pacific salmon. High quality drinking water originates on BLM lands for the citizens of Salem, Corvallis, Eugene, and 70 other Oregon communities. Salmon need cool, clean water, but the WOPR would remove stream buffers that shade streams and keep sediment from the water. Please leave the existing protections for riparian areas in place. Wildlife such as elk and black bear and threatened species like the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet rely on BLM forests. The WOPR would reduce protections for wildlife populations and diminish habitat for countless plant and wildlife species. Please choose an alternative that leaves habitat protections for wildlife, especially in existing old-growth forests, in place. &# |