E-Mail-6700-7099

# Sender Subject Date Body
EM-6700 morreale21@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 18:09:58 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

Please listen to this message. I am fully aware of this planets
need for paper products and the jobs that proucing these
products generate..but this is not the answer. The worlds
population will continue to grow and so will the need for such
products and services, the problem is that this earth cannot
keep up. These forests which have stood pure through are
pestilence need to be taken care of and not destroyed. I plead
with you as one human to another. Thank you for listening.

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.Please...listen to this message.



Sincerely,
michael morreale
2263 burgess rd
waterloo, NY 13165

EM-6701 ciaosly@hotmail.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 18:11:58 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
sylvia delgadillo
7105 owens street
tujunga, CA 91042

EM-6702 afgetsalocal1@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 18:12:58 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Brian %pa_first_name% Rita Cohen
3852 E Alamos Ave Apt 125
Fresno, CA 93726

EM-6703 dave.murray@comcast.net Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 18:16:58 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
David Murray
"229 Selby Ranch Road, No. 4"
Sacramento, CA 95864

EM-6704 m35beirg@hotmail.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 18:18:58 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Michael Grieb
Po Box 48202
Burien, WA 98148

EM-6705 Christina E. E. Shetterly <snaketotem@yahoo.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/10/2008 18:21:36 To Whom It May Concern:
 
I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the BLM's preferred alternative for 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.
 
We are indeed lucky to have the vast and diverse wilderness that we do here in Oregon. It deserves full protection for the health of our state, for the health of our planet and for many generations to come.
 
I urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.
 
Sincerely,
Christina and Derek Shetterly
33 Willamette Ave, Medford, OR 97504



Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
EM-6706 rahicks@charter.net Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 18:21:58 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Robert Hicks
2999 E Ocean Blvd, #1740
Long Beach, CA 90803

EM-6707 Richard Perry <rmperry@mac.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/10/2008 18:23:35 Dear BLM,
I am a long time Oregon resident who is stridently against the WOPR. The long-term negative effects of this retrograde legislation would far out weigh any benefits touted by its creators. Some downsides of this plan are:

-It will further stymie wild salmon recovery.
- It will reduce habitat and diversity in our forests.
- It will reduce water quality.
- It will further threaten endangered species.
- It will increase fire danger.
- It will increase landslide danger
- It will degrade areas used for non-motorized recreation
- It will increase global warming.

Most importantly, passage of this legislation will send yet another message to the citizens of this state and of this country, that our opinions and values are of no consequence to the Bush administration.

The majority of people in this nation want old growth forests preserved. Please do not jeopardize our natural heritage by facilitating another resource grab by an administration intent upon enriching it's cohorts and cronies.

Please do not approve the WOPR.

Richard Perry
6325 N.E. Oregon Street
Portland, OR 97213
EM-6708 joseph flaherty <josephflaherty@yahoo.com> Western Oregon Plan Revision 1/10/2008 18:26:36 Dear BLM,

I am an avid outdoor enthusiast living in the Illinois
Valley in Oregon. I frequently hike, swim, birdwatch,
and raft in the forests managed by the BLM in my area.
I want to comment on the proposed revisions to your
Western Oregon management plans. I am strongly
opposed to any logging operations that take place in
old forests--especially the forests that lie within
the roadless areas of the Rogue watershed and
tributaries. These forests provide habitat for a
diverse variety of wildlife including some of the
healthiest wild salmon runs in the contiguous United
States. Several species of birds feed on these
salmon. The diversity of wildlife makes the Rogue
River area a delight to visit and enjoy. A
considerable volume of timber can be extracted instead
from the areas that have already been logged over the
years. Please focus your timber plans in these areas
and leave the wild areas alone.

Thank You
Joseph Flaherty
PO Box 346
O'Brien OR


____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
EM-6709 bigdaddy69_77@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 18:29:58 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Big Daddy
1813 Venice Drive
Concord, CA 94519-1424

EM-6710 William Triest <williamht@earthlink.net> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/10/2008 18:34:26 I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the
BLM's preferred alternative for 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 urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the
Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM
lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old
growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely,
William H. Triest
EM-6711 Bill Rodgers <wrodgers@umich.edu> Comments on the WOPR 1/10/2008 18:41:40 As a relatively new resident of Oregon, I value many things about our state and region, including the mountains, the forests, and the water.  I value them not just because they are beautiful to look at and to walk among, but because in a very real way they support human life here in the Northwest.  Most immediately, we need fresh water, water that is not contaminated by runoff from poorly managed forest areas.  Longer term, I am deeply concerned about global warming, and mismanagement of our forests will contribute to increases in the greenhouse gases that exacerbate that threat to our future.

For these and other reasons that I will not try to recount in this letter, I am distressed by what I see as terribly misguided changes in forest management that would be introduced by the WOPR.  It seems to be part of a continuing pattern of the present administration's effort to put the immediate financial interests of corporations ahead of the long-term health of our environment, long-term economic stability, and the interests of citizens.

I urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM lands, and to develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely,
Bill Rodgers
2050 W 22nd Ave
Eugene, OR 97405
(541)-654-0405
EM-6712 Heather <pisces_rock_princess@yahoo.com> WORP 1/10/2008 18:42:09 Dear BLM,
 
I am very concerned about the Western Oregon Plan Revision. The threat to Oregon ancient forests is too great. The increase in logging in our old growth forrests is unacceptable! In order to preserve our forrests for further generations, protect vital salmon habitat, protect the surrounding areas drinking and prevent green house gas pollution from the massive amount of big rigs that will be going in and out of our forrests for logging, I strongly urge you to oppose the Western Oregon Plan Revision.
 
Oregon ancient forests deserve permanent protection!
 
Please protect western BLM forests and maintain the Northwest Forest Plan reserve system. Please use your power in Congress to rein in the Bush administration and prevent them from spending money to log old growth forests, and stop the BLM from selling off Oregon's ancient forest heritage.
 
Sincerely,
Heather
 
Portland Oregon



Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
EM-6713 jimilogsdon@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 18:48:58 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
jimi logsdon
1884 humboldt rd
Chico, CA 95928

EM-6714 Regina Castellon <castellon.rg@gmail.com> NO NO WOPR 1/10/2008 18:49:56 Greetings,

I live in the beautiful Illinois Valley,Oregon. I enjoy its pleasent
fresh air and rushing river. I want to comment on the proposed
revisions to your Western Oregon management plants. I do not want
logging operations on old growth forests especially those on the Rogue
watershed. These forests I enjoy walking in with family and friends.
In addition, these forests provide homes for diverse wildlife and
plants. I hope the next generation may also be able to walk on the
beautiful Rogue watershed with limited roads. Please keeps these
areas wild! Oregon will not be the same if all its old growth gets
cut down for capitalistic reasons. Do not disappoint Oregon residents
or all its wild creatures!

Regina Castellon
O'brien, OR
541-817-9136
EM-6715 tanaz_luvs@hotmail.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 18:59:58 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Tanaz Polson
5919 N.E. Alton St
Portland, OR 97213

EM-6716 heal@heal-online.org Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 19:01:58 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Angela Smith
PO Box 58502
Seattle, WA 98138

EM-6717 frankie19492@hotmail.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 19:01:58 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Frances Elder
1330 Avenue D #34
Snohomish, WA 98290

EM-6718 bgraystar@sbcglobal.net Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 19:12:59 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Brian Gray
7540 Amy Avenue
Fair Oaks, CA 95628

EM-6719 Beth Hoffman <healinghands4you@jeffnet.org> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/10/2008 19:15:04 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,

Elizabeth A. Hoffman
140 Lincoln Street
Ashland, OR 97520

p.s. Another aspect of the WOPR proposal that I find very disturbing
is the designation of a vast amount of terrain, over 100,000 acres, for
off-road recreation. The large amount of noise from this usage
interferes with other recreational use, and potentially increases
erosion and terrain destruction as well.
EM-6720 johncathy@infowest.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 19:15:59 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Cathy O'Leary Carey
17696 Cumana terrace
San Diego, CA 92128

EM-6721 jbass@muddycat.net Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 19:17:00 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
jennifer bass
827 Venezia Avenue
venice, CA 90291

EM-6722 Joanna Rodgers <j_rdgrs@yahoo.com> Do better than the WOPR--protect OUR old growth! 1/10/2008 19:28:12 Dear BLM,
The Western Oregon Plan Revisions fly in the face of our current reality that only a small percent of our old growth forests remain, that climate change is upon us and we need our big trees now more than ever, and that the habitat threatened by the Revisions are priceless.

Please hit pause on these plans! You will degrade the very things that bring many people to live in and visit Oregon, including recreation, natural beauty, and a temperate old growth/rainforest.

We need the BLM and other government entities to be prudent with the precious lands. We can create more jobs and a longer-term healthy economy by protecting these areas for their ecological functions, the restoration jobs they can create (e.g., thinning old plantations and 2nd growth forest, tree planting and habitat restoration), and the tourism & recreation they attract.

Please do NOT PASS WOPR. Protect our old growth!! Thank you for reading and taking my concerns seriously.


Joanna Rodgers
2145 Garfield
Eugene, OR 97405
EM-6723 Theodore Purdy <teodoropurdy@yahoo.com> Do better than the WOPR--protect OUR old growth! 1/10/2008 19:28:41 Dear BLM,
The Western Oregon Plan Revisions fly in the face of our current reality that only a small percent of our old growth forests remain, that climate change is upon us and we need our big trees now more than ever, and that the habitat threatened by the Revisions are priceless.

Please hit pause on these plans! You will degrade the very things that bring many people to live in and visit Oregon, including recreation, natural beauty, and a temperate old growth/rainforest.

We need the BLM and other government entities to be prudent with the precious lands. We can create more jobs and a longer-term healthy economy by protecting these areas for their ecological functions, the restoration jobs they can create (e.g., thinning old plantations and 2nd growth forest, tree planting and habitat restoration), and the tourism & recreation they attract.

Please do NOT PASS WOPR. Protect our old growth!! Thank you for reading and taking my concerns seriously.


Theodore Purdy
2145 Garfield
Eugene, OR 97405
EM-6724 yosemitepup@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 19:29:00 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
LeeAnn Lopez
20460 elkwood Street
Winnetka, CA 91306

EM-6725 Cathy Bergman <cathmegberg@yahoo.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/10/2008 19:32:30  
I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the BLM's preferred alternative for 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 urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely,
Cathy Bergman



Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
EM-6726 marianneslaughter@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 19:37:00 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Marianne Slaughter
1656 Riente St.
Camarillo, CA 93010

EM-6727 Terry Anderson <terryander@aol.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/10/2008 19:43:13 Dear BLM,
I am writing to express my concerns with the BLM's preferred version of the Western Oregon Plan Revision. BLM's proposal does not represent responsible stewardship of public resources.
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. In particular, proposed timber sales and road building under the Kelsey-Whisky project threaten water quality and recreational values in an area I frequently visit.

- 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. Clearcutting increases the danger of catastrophic wildfires, whereas careful thinning in non-old-growth areas can reduce this risk and provide ongoing employment opportunities.

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.

Terry Anderson
3434 NW Franklin Ct.
Portland, OR 97210
EM-6728 Tina Giese <olhodemacaco@mac.com> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/10/2008 19:48:26 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,

Christine Giese
2620 Alder
Eugene, Or.
97405
EM-6729 Tina Giese <olhodemacaco@mac.com> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/10/2008 19:49:26 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,
Michael David
2620 Alder
Eugene,Or
97405
EM-6730 Tina Giese <olhodemacaco@mac.com> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/10/2008 19:50:39 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,

Eloise Mayer
87 E 33rd Ave.
Eugene, Or
97405
EM-6731 Sumodeb1@aol.com Forest plan 1/10/2008 19:54:34 Hello.
 
 As a resident of Oregon and public employee, I am sending my voice to enourage you to
take the No Action plan when it comes to the Forest management plan. I have friends who live in the Mount Hood corridor, and I believe that this would have a negative impact on that ecosystem as well as other wilderness areas throughout the state.
 
I work for the Portland Water Bureau. The proactive stance that my employer has taken in managing the Bull Run watershed in cooperation with BLM and other agencies is commendable. The watershed provides clean clear, cold, and constant water for about a third of the state's population through good management practices. I am concerned that the increase in deforestation outlined in the plan could negatively affect this pristine source by further depleting the surrounding areas.
 
Again, please vote No Action on the Forest management plan.
 
Thanks for listening.
 
Deborah Przepasniak
Portland Oregon





Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.
EM-6732 carol mcbrian <cmcbrian@efn.org> comment on Western Oregon Plan Revision 1/10/2008 20:10:19 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 Officials,

I urge you to take the "no action" alternative on the Western Oregon Plan Revision )WOPR).  My reasons are as follows:

1) The deforestation resulting from Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, particularly Alternative 2, would contribute to global warming. 

 Here is what several  authorities on the subject have to say about the relationship between climate change and deforestation:

NASA:
"Deforestation is the second major way we increase atmospheric carbon dioxide."

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: 
"Between 25 and 30 percent of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year -- 1.6 billion tonnes -- is caused by deforestation."

--Sir Nicholas Stern, Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change for the British Government:
"The loss of natural forests around the world contributes more to global emissions each year than the transport sector."


A recent die-off of trees in Mississippi and Louisiana as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita makes it even more important to hang on to our Oregon forests.  The following information is taken from an article by Marc Kaufman of the Washington Post, which appeared in the Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, on November 16, 2007: I have paraphrased some of the information for the sake of brevity.   The article in Science  mentioned here is "Hurricane Katrina's Carbon Footprint on US Gulf Coast Forests", Science 16 November 2007: Vol. 318. no. 5853, p. 1107.  Here is the information:

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita produced the largest single forestry disaster on record in the US, with nearly 320 million trees killed or severely damaged in Louisiana and Mississippi. The amount of carbon that will be released into the air as a result of the dying trees and other vegetation will be about 1.1 billion tons, which is equal to the amount of carbon that all the trees in the US remove annually from the atmosphere. Attempts to mitigate the damage have been unsuccessful, largely because only $70 million of the $504 million allocated for this purpose has been processed or dispensed so far.  An article on this subject, written primarily by researchers at Tulane University in New Orleans who studied images from two NASA satellites, appeared in the journal Science on  November 16, 2007. 

2) Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, particularly Alternative 2, would lead to deterioration in water quality all over western Oregon.
According to the "Top Ten Reasons WOPR is a Bad Idea", www.oregonheritageforests.org, drinking water for over 70 Oregon communities, including the cities of Salem, Corvallis, and Eugene, originates on BLM lands. Clearcutting these watersheds would allow runoff to get into our drinking water and cause it to deteriorate.

The following quote is from a comment on the 2007 Draft Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl written by Michael F. Gearheard, Director of the Office of Water and Watersheds, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, in August of 2007:

"The measures under the NWFP (Northwest Forest Plan). . . have successfully demonstrated improvements in water quality on federal land.  We consider that to be a very important achievement. We are deeply concerned that revisions proposed in the Draft Recovery Plan (as proposed in WOPR) could delay or even reverse this positive trend.  That would be a big step backwards for water quality in Oregon."

3) Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, particularly Alternative 2, would increase flooding in Oregon.

Flood control is one of the ecosystem services provided by older forests mentioned in a letter  by five economics professors to the members of the Regional Interagency Executive Committee.  The letter is dated February 15, 2000. The five professors are:
 Daniel A. Hagen, Western Washington University
Gardner Brown, University of Washington
Ed Whitelaw, University of Oregon
Thomas M. Power, University of Montana,
Ray Mikesell, University of Oregon
The letter can be found at  www.oregonheritageforests.org.

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita revealed the Bush Administration to be spectacularly incompetent both at preventing flooding and at mitigating the damage from flooding. Before the flooding, President Bush set the stage for a disaster by  allowing a man with no experience in disaster management become the head of FEMA, cutting funding to the Army Corps of Engineers for levee construction in New Orleans, and ignoring warnings that Katrina would be bringing about  flooding.  After the flooding, FEMA and other federal agencies made the disaster worse by responding too slowly to the flooding; frustrating the offers of help from AMTRAK, Wal-Mart, and a host of state, local, and international governments; and giving contracts for helping with the flood mitigation to firms with direct links to administration officials.

Now the same administration that made such a mess of the flooding from Katrina and Rita wants to cut down the old-growth forests that have been preventing flooding in Oregon.  This is really bad public policy.

If any references are needed for my statements about Katrina and the Bush Administration, the events leading up to the flood are mentioned in "Bush and Katrina", September 6, 2005, www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_09/007060.php.  I was unable to access this directly, and if there is any problem, it can be Googled under Katrina, Bush.
 The responses to Katrina are mentioned in "Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina.

Instead of insisting that western Oregon counties sacrifice their old-growth forests as a condition for continued federal payments, the federal government should be paying the Oregon counties to keep their old-growth forests in order to prevent floods that would be even more embarrassing to the federal government than those caused by Katrina and Rita. Judging from the incompetence that the federal government has shown in its efforts to mitigate the damage caused by these two hurricanes, the old adage "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" gives ample reason to pay Oregon counties to keep their old-growth forests.

Not only would Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 make flooding worse, but they would probably make winter landslides worse as well.  My husband was reading a recent story  in the Register-Guard about landslides on Highway 126, and he remarked to me that the photos of the hillsides where the landslides occurred showed areas that appeared to be bare of trees.  Now I don't know whether this is due to logging or to highway construction, but I don't really think it makes any difference in the big picture.  The fact is that mudslides do happen on Oregon slopes in the winter, and they will be worse if there are no tree roots to absorb the rainwater or tree trunks to slow down the sliding mud.

4) Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, particularly Alternative 2, would be be disastrous for Oregon's economy, particularly in the recreation and fishing industries.

The paper by the five economics professors mentions the maintenance of salmon runs as one of the ecosystem services provided by older forests.  It also has the following to say about the economic benefits provided by these forests:

"Old growth forests provide uncommon opportunities for recreation.  Recreation yields direct benefits to users, and also generates commercial opportunities for outfitters and others who sell goods and services to recreationists.  The presence of recreational amenities can also provide benefits indirectly by helping to foster regional economic development.  Such amenities provide a 'second paycheck' in the form of nonpecuniary compensation, which makes it easier for firms to attract highly qualified workers."

The highly skilled workers who are attracted by Oregon's old-growth forests help to keep Oregon's economy more diverse, and therefore more stable and resilient than an economy based on only a few industries.  In particular, a diverse economy is more stable and resilient than one built mainly around the timber industry, which tends to have boom-bust cycles.

The loss of the benefits provided by Oregon's old-growth forests would be devastating to its economy.  The county payments provided by WOPR would be small compensation for the loss of our old-growth forests.



5) Instead of cutting down our last old growth forests, the BLM should be thinning the second growth forests that it already owns.  
These forests need to be thinned anyway to decrease the danger of fire, and by concentrating on these forests, the BLM will avoid destroying the old-growth forests that support hunting and fishing, recreation, water quality, and overall quality of life in Oregon.  A plan for doing just this is outlined in the Community-Conservation Alternative found on www.oregonheritageforests.org.

6) Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, especially Alternative 2 would be destroying an irreplaceable treasure.
To cut down Oregon's old growth forests for a brief time of profit for a few timber mills and a few year's worth of operating expenses for the O & C counties is like killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.  It is like Esau selling his birthright to Jacob for a mess of pottage (a bowl of lentil soup in modern-day language). It is selling an irreplaceable treasure for a few years of fast money.

Sometimes I hear people who make their money destroying ancient forests saying that trees are a renewable resource.  They are wrong on three counts.  

First of all, we are not talking about isolated trees.  We are talking about the interconnected web of life that is a forest.  This includes trees of many species and many ages; many types of shrubs, ferns, mosses, lichens, and wildflowers; many species of birds, mammals, fish, insects, reptiles and amphibians; all the microscopic soil  life -- fungus, arthropods, bacteria, protozoa --everything that breaks dead trees down into new soil for the new plants coming up. 

Second, an old-growth forest is not renewable in our lifetime. If they were, the timber companies would be content with harvesting second-growth timber instead of looking for excuses to cut our last remaining old-growth forests. When an old growth forest is cut down and replaced with a tree farm, the result is an impoverished echo of the original forest.  When I was younger and stronger, I used to do a lot of hiking in different types of forested areas. On one occoasion, I visited Curt Mitchell, who had been growing timber sustainably in Lorane, Oregon for over twenty years. As we were touring his property, he told me that we were approaching the fence between his property and a conventional timber grower.  Even before I saw the fence I could tell where the boundary was, because I could see a straight line with ferns and wildflowers on one side, and thistles on the other.

Third, a forest is not a mere resource.  It is a treasure. Anyone who is incapable of recognizing this fact is literally unable to see the forest for the trees.

Carol McBrian
1875 W. 15th Ave.
Eugene, OR 97402





EM-6733 jessiruth@earthlink.net Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 20:22:05 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

I lived in Oregon for 10 years in 80's and was heart sick when
we drove by clear-cut hillsides where every single tree was cut
down and a bald hillside remained. Please don't let that happen
again.
Please rewrite the plan to protect our ancient forests, clean
water, and the wildlife that call these areas home.



Sincerely,
Cynthia Barbera
254 Clay ST
Sonoma, CA 95476

EM-6734 paul3d@comcast.net Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 20:26:05 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Paul G. Murphy
6100 Soundview Dr.
Gig Harbor, WA 98335

EM-6735 Gina de Grassi <degrassi@epud.net> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/10/2008 20:28:06 Bureau of Land Management, Western Oregon Plan Revisions Office
333 SW 1st.
Avenue Portland, Oregon
Portland, OR 97208

Re: BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions

Dear BLM:

The draft of the Western Oregon Plan Revisions us unacceptable. The Bush
Administration is headed in the wrong direction with these proposed
management changes to nearly 2.6 million acres of federal forests.

Your proposal increases old-growth logging on public lands in western Oregon by
700%, promotes building 1,000 miles of new logging road in the next
decade and allows clear-cutting at a 9-1 ratio to thinning. This proposal depletes our
natural resource base for future generations by weakening protections for forests,
creeks, and salmon. The proposal ignores the role that these forests play in
regulating the global climate. Your proposal should instead focus on
managing previously logged public forestlands and the use of thinning second
growth forests. This wood could be provided to local mills while
simultaneously improving wildlife habitat.

We have worked so hard to preserve what is left of our forests. The world is in the
midst of a climate change crisis, several species are at risk of extinction, and the
world's clean drinking water supply is diminishing and your proposal. Consider using
your efforts to protect remaining old-growth forests, search for alternatives to profits
from clear-cutting, and concentrate on creating job opportunities in recreation, restoration,
and watershed management that would benefit all of us.

Please, help protect our Oregon heritage forests and learn from our past mistakes. Don't
destroy Oregon for the sake of short-term economic gain. We will all regret it.

Sincerely,

Gina de Grassi
PO Box 2077
Jasper, OR 97438
email: degrassi@epud.net

EM-6736 Seven Root <rhizomehommz@hotmail.com> BLM Western Oregon Plan Revision 1/10/2008 20:30:55 Bureau of Land Management, Western Oregon Plan Revisions Office
333 SW 1st. Avenue, 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. 

I use these forests.  My son and I have spent countless hours exploring and learning from these ancient groves.  My family and circle of friends frequent these public lands: hiking, camping, plant-studies and wildlife observation is a few of the many reasons I love these wild places. 

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.

Let's come together as a nation and protect what is left of a beautiful and majestic legacy.  Tree farms are already available.  All of our grandchildren and their children will thank us for taking the long view.  Do the right thing here folks.  Protect these lands for public use.

Sincerely,

Jarret Stevens
PO Box

11144
Eugene, OR 97440


"Every Child
Has Known God
Not The God Of Names
Not The God Of Don'ts
Not The God Who Ever
Does Anything Weird,
But The God Who Only
Knows Four Words
And Keeps Repeating Them,
Saying 'Come, Dance With Me!'
Come
Dance..."
-Hafiz-


Make distant family not so distant with Windows Vista® + Windows LiveT. Start now!
EM-6737 Heidi Haehlen <flutecat8@yahoo.com> Comment Letter on WOPR 1/10/2008 20:32:26 Dear BLM Personnel,
 
Attached please find my comments on your proposed WOPR; I mailed this letter on Tuesday to you and my senators and representatives via USPS, but decided to email it also, due to the late date. I would like to add belatedly that, in the new approach of conservationism we hope the BLM will soon take, the Anderson Butte area in the Medford district remains protected and does not become any type of OHV area. It is yet another beautiful, fragile spot, already of great benefit to many people enjoying non-motorized outdoor activities. Please protect it.
Thank you.
 
Regards,
 
Heidi Haehlen
P.O. Box 1444
Jacksonville, OR 97530



Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. - WOPR Comments.pub
EM-6738 Sfaithros@aol.com Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/10/2008 20:42:38 I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the BLM's preferred alternative for 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 urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.Sincerely,

                                                                                Susan Manske


**************
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
EM-6739 jspragens@enigmaterial.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 20:43:07 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
John Spragens
P.O. Box 50311
Eugene, OR 97405

EM-6740 scoopmcg@comcast.net forest management plan 1/10/2008 20:47:55 The language isn't mine but it says it better than I could.
 
I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the BLM's preferred alternative for 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 urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely,
 
James McGuire
Eugene, OR
EM-6741 jeffh@deepdomain.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 20:50:07 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Jeff Hummel
3814 Sunnyside Ave N
Seattle, WA 98103

EM-6742 Alan Wasner <awoz2@charter.net> Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the "Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). 1/10/2008 20:53:44 Hi I would like to Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the "Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR).
 
It is very important to me and my family to maintain what little older growth forest we have left in Oregon. I strongly support the No Action Alternative, and I wish total rejection of the BLM's Preferred Alternative." I wish BLM would work to protect mature and old-growth forests.
 
The reasons for this are because I spend a lot of time with my family hiking in some of these areas, as well as hunting in areas where it's allowed.
Also, other states are far ahead, in my opinion, on their management of older growth and mature forests. Just driving south on Hwy 101 into California and the difference is striking.
 
We don't need to log every square inch of Oregon.
 
Thanks
Alan R. Wasner
115 Sea Crest Dr.
Otter Rock, OR 97369
541-765-7644
EM-6743 Jim Reed <jpreed@epud.net> BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions 1/10/2008 20:57:22 Re: BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions

Dear BLM:

Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the WOPR.

Your proposed option is unacceptable.

There should be absolutely no cutting of old growth anywhere in the US.

As a commercial salmon fisherman, who is directly impacted by the
decisions of land mismanagement,
I know that streams need additional protection from increases in
temperature and siltation, not less.

Therefore:

The riparian setback should be increased not decreased.

Increasing roads leads to more landslides and silt in the water, don't
increase the
amount of roads in the watershed.

Eliminate clearcutting as it also increases turbidity. Use staggered
cutting of second growth instead.


Sincerely,

Jim Reed, PhD
37370 Wallace Creek Rd
Springfield, OR 97478

--

Jim Reed, Ph.D
Mapping and GIS Consulting
The Hydrologic Group
PO Box 2077
Jasper, OR 97438-0299
541-988-4332
EM-6744 lisac@mac.com Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/10/2008 20:58:04 I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the
BLM's preferred alternative for 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 urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the
Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on
BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature
and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely,

Lisa Caballero
Portland, OR 97201
EM-6745 nicholas_william@hotmail.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 21:01:07 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Nicholas Williams
44108 Fenhold Street
Lancaster, CA 93535-4367

EM-6746 John adams <sos2010@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/10/2008 21:02:32 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.

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.



I share the concerns and assertions above however,I just wanted to share my thoughts on the Western Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR). I will start by noting that I am a 30 year resident of Oregon.
It is appalling that the situation has come to this. Everyone involved shares a degree of culpability as well. A weak Northwest Forest Plan for the bioregion was implemented years ago. Today this current manifestation of petulance and disregard for scientific and conservative management of our forests on the part of the timber industry is reprehensible.
The WOPR is merely powerful established interests attempting an end around on a weak Northwest Forest Plan. Truly the representatives involved, senators, governors, the BLM ought to be ashamed. You have failed in your responsibility to protect this region.
Providing an end around for the timber industry does not serve the interests of the region. From a pure economics standpoint the trees and ecosystem are worth far more as tourism and as carbon sequesters than in serving the narrow interests of the timber industry.
Besides, there is timber to be cut in this state. The whole west is littered with mismanaged tree farms, where the trees are chocking each other out and a fire hazard after being haphazardly replanted after clear-cut. Leave the big trees alone. There is no excuse to allow any more cutting of these marvelous carbon sequesting giant old growth trees. To do so is reckless. We do not even have a way to quantify the value of these great trees. You have to protect the ecosystem because the ecosystem is what keeps us alive. To even entertain the WOPR plan is irresponsible on the part representatives and the people charged with protecting the public interest.
You need to dismiss this WOPR as a blatant and misguided attempt to abuse power. The region is everyone?s and that needs to be remembered. Come up with a more well thought out and responsible plan. Start consulting with the forward thinking people of Oregon Wild. I support the conservative approach they promote in managing or ecosystem.
John Adams
1931 nw29th n3
Portland, OR 97210


John adams
1931 nw29th n3
portland, OR 97210
EM-6747 AimVB@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 21:03:07 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Aimee Van Buren
1501 Christina Ave
Stockton, CA 95204

EM-6748 Scott & Geri Vasak <svasak@starband.net> Comments re WOPR 1/10/2008 21:03:07 `

Bureau of Land Management, Western Oregon Plan Revisions Office

333 SW 1st. Avenue, Portland, OR 97208

 

Re: BLM Western Oregon Plans Revisions

 

Dear BLM,

 

It is with disappointment that I write this letter.

 

 I am disappointed that the BLM has put forth the WOPR which proposes a great amount of clear cutting and general relaxation of stewardship values in the face of public opinion and scientific evidence that what our forests really need are strong protection measures,an increase in innovative timber harvesting methods, and real stewardship by private parties and public agencies.

 

Here are some things I think are wrong about the WOPR:

 

1.   WOPR proposes shrinking riparian zones.  I think riparian zones should be larger if anything.  These buffers  are needed to keep soil erosion to a minimum and to keep fish bearing streams healthy. Make a note: Salmon are an Oregon icon.

 

2.   WOPR proposes much more clear cutting.  Clear cutting promotes soil erosion, and landslides in some cases.  Clear cutting also disrupts wildlife and can change the microclimate in the area necessitating a shift in tree species to something more heat tolerant.  Clear cutting is also disruptive to the human  visual appreciation of the outdoors. Make a note: Tall green trees are an Oregon icon.

 

3.   WOPR doesn't adequately address the use of small diameter trees.  After all, if all the old growth trees are taken lumber mills will have no choice but to change their operations to milling smaller trees.  Engineered lumber is a much used product not requiring large diameter trees and the mills that produce it seem to be doing well.

 

4.   WOPR doesn't face the reality that thinning for fire safety as well as the sustainable harvest of small diameter trees is a good way to move into the future.

 

 

Please reconsider this plan revision.  I would like to see a green Oregon where the forests and waters can be enjoyed for values other than resource extraction.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Scott Vasak    P.O. Box 512  Eagle Point, OR 97524
EM-6749 klof581@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 21:03:07 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Kim Loftness
19814-15th Ave NE
#206
Shoreline, WA 98155

EM-6750 wayne conlee <jconlee@msn.com> Forest Management Plan 1/10/2008 21:08:36 I support the No action alternative

Thwnk you, Wayne C Conlee

2829 SE Belmont St. 105

Portland, OR 97214
EM-6751 norarn51@msn.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 21:10:07 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Nora Regan
1331 Olympic St.
Port Townsend, WA 98368

EM-6752 kali lamont <kalimay10@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/10/2008 21:19:14 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.

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.

kali lamont
cherry creek rd.
monroe, OR 97456
EM-6753 Richard Chenoweth <dickchen@mind.net> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/10/2008 21:33:14 I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the
BLM's preferred alternative for 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 urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the
Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on
BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature
and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely, Richard G. Chenoweth, M.D., Ashland, Oregon
EM-6754 Litak <litak@cavenet.com> comments on WOPR 1/10/2008 21:34:06 To Whom it May Concern,

As a resident of the Illinois Valley in rural Josephine County, I would like
to offer a few comments about the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. After
reviewing the proposed alternatives, and speaking with BLM representatives
here in Cave Junction, I have concluded that the "preferred alternative"
seems to be nothing more than a plan to do large scale clear cutting in our
area. I STRONGLY object to clear cutting - especially cutting our few
remaining old-growth forests - for several reasons. First, clear cutting
has a huge negative impact on the soil - both temperatures and erosion. It
muddies the waters of our salmon bearing streams, and the preferred
alternative seems bound to ignore any reasonable area of restraint in
riparian areas. It drastically WORSENS our fire resistance, due to removing
the most fire resistant, large trees. And lastly, it destroys the beauty of
our area. Our forests are the major reason tourists frequent this area and
people move to live here! Looking at a bunch of clearcuts is certainly not
going to help our economy in that regard.

My understanding is that the BLM is a public agency, managing public lands
for the benefit of the people - not for short sightedly making a few bucks
by logging our last remaining big trees... How about approaching the
project by thinning some small diameter trees? That would really reduce
fire risk as well as promoting local employment.

I urge you to please act now to protect our forests.

Sincerely,

Carolyn Litak
4403 Dick George Rd
Cave Junction, OR 97523
(541) 592-5370
EM-6755 one_ocean8@hotmail.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 21:35:11 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Judith Gustafson
6231 188th St SW
Lynnwood, WA 98037

EM-6756 kathy@clearcreekfamily.com from Katherine Mechling, M.D. 1/10/2008 21:36:48 To whom it may concern:

 

I feel compelled to let you know why I oppose the BLM's WOPR plan 2. 

 

Medicine is also a politicized field, with plenty of money at stake. 

 

Tampering with the endangered species act, so one industry can profit from the limited resources is parallel to doctors and hospitals increasing their income through Medicare fraud.  The endangered species act is the law of the land, and it is a very good law.  Logging old growth and allowing OHVs in the roadless areas violates the ESA.

 

It is my job to let my patients know the facts of their situation, help them sort out the false and often dangerous claims of the drug industry, and help them pursue long, good quality lives.  I study the facts so I can steer them away from dangerous "Lose 50 lbs now!" drugs, and promote positive lifestyle changes that will carry them well for the long term.

 

WOPR plan 2 is the timber and real estate industries "get-rich-quick" proposal.  Good, non-biased science has shown us hundreds of reasons to not log the old growth forests for the health of our region in the long term.  A forest is not just a collection of trees; it is a poorly understood web of interacting plants, fungi, bacteria, molds and animals.  This may seem silly to you, but I need to inform you it is not.  Every human medication is based on how fungi, bacteria and molds interact on animal cells.  There are hundreds of emerging infections, but there are no emerging novel antibiotics.  (You can call Dr. Sellinger, our infectious disease specialist, or any physician to confirm this).   Destroying an old-growth ecosystem is like burning down the library. 

 

 

When someone's coronary artery is blocked (like when they are having a heart attack), the Cardiologist uses a stent to open the artery to restore the heart's circulation.  There are only 2 drug-coated stents.  One is the Taxus stent, coated with a drug derived from our Pacific Yew Trees, and the other Cypher stent is coated with sirolimus which is derived from a bacteria found on the forest floor on the Island of Siro (Syros). 

 

The roots of all trees and most other plants in an old-growth forest are connected by a network of fungal mycelia, so an infection in one tree can be felt many trees away.  This obligate relationship is why our native orchids, herbs, ferns and mushrooms cannot be transplanted.  It also allows the trees to communicate with each other.  The mycelia webs can only thrive in undisturbed forest.  How they interact is still a mystery.

 

The "environmentalists" are not stupid profiteers.  They are some of the most intelligent people I have met (and I socialize with Jo County's brightest).  The environmental attorneys are making significantly less money than the timber industry attorneys, but they have repeatedly won in courts because they have the best science of their side.  The environmental lawsuits would go away if the BLM and forest industries would stop violating the laws of the land. 

 

To dismiss all "environmentalists" is not in your best interest in the long-run.  I understand your job is a political one, but you are expected to act with some integrity and intelligence.  When a patient comes to me demanding an immediate cure, I can easily make more money if I do what they ask me, but I have taken an oath to do the right thing, which often means doing nothing.  There are medications which will cause rapid weight loss, or whatever, but the long-term cost can be unacceptable.  PAN>

 

First, do no harm.  The "do nothing" alternative will not sacrifice our most precious resource, one that does not exist any place else on the planet, to make a few quick bucks for timber and real estate industries.    These forests may contain the bacteria or fungus that some day may hold the cure to someone's great granddaughter's illness. 

 

Katherine Mechling, M.D.

(President, Josephine County Medical Society, Vice Chief of Staff, Three Rivers Community Hospital, private practice, Selma)

 

541-597-2464, 18173 Redwood Highway, Selma, OR  97538
EM-6757 Carrie Jo Stairs <mirzaminx@q.com> Please take seriously 1/10/2008 21:42:12 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.

Carrie Jo Stairs
5716 NE 35th Ave.
Portland, OR 97211
EM-6758 dmlifecoach@lycos.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 21:42:14 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Diana Maenhout
"4530 Carpinteria Ave, #39"
Carpinteria, CA 93013-1847

EM-6759 Phillip Hoff <seusuwa69@mac.com> 1/10/2008 21:42:48 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,

Phillip H. Hoff
19605 River Rd. #101
Gladstone Or.97027
EM-6760 Kathy Schaeffer <heres_ot@yahoo.com> Please protect our very precious old-growth forests! 1/10/2008 21:52:13 Dear BLM,
I live in Oregon becuase I value what the state has to offer, 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 saddened and concerned that this plan will degrade our 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.It will also eliminate this State Treasure . Once these Old growth froests are gone they are gone. this is an irreplacable loss, denying our children, grandchildren and generations to come the chance to enjoy what we have enjoyed and appreciated.

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, more than it is already scarred.

- 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, contributing to landslides 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.

Please consider the fate of not just this Sate, but the whole globe and how destroying these forests will contribute to the warming of the planet and the associated consequences.
Let the forests continue to provide us with clean water, an irreplacable habitat for wildlife, an economic basis for our tourism, hunting, fishing and recreation, and a protection of our water and the homes bordering it.

Tbhe short term gain is not worth the short and long-term consequences.

I am looking forward to your reply.

Kathy Schaeffer
P.O. box 932
Silverton, , OR 97381
EM-6761 Jo Moorefield <jomoorefield@mac.com> Protect BLM forests 1/10/2008 21:52:14 It is very distressing to hear of the plan to increase logging on old
growth forests in Oregon. The original primeval forest has almost
completely disappeared, along with its unique habitats, its
opportunity for wilderness experience and appreciation of the earth's
beauty. Having access to untouched places keeps us whole. There is
already too little left. The protections on our forests are already
minimal, in my opinion, and it would be a travesty to remove the
protections that are there now, in order to benefit the few in the
short term. Logging old growth is no longer a sustainable practice.
Start planning for what we want our environment to look like in the
future. Thank you for listening - please take the proper and
responsible action - we need true stewardship for the public lands
that belong to all Americans.

Sincerely,

Jo Moorefield
jomoorefield@mac.com

455 SE Richland
Corvallis, OR 97333
EM-6762 Daniel Wise <wisedan@yahoo.com> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/10/2008 21:59:55 WOPR Comments attached
 
Daniel Wise
579 James St
Talent OR 97540
541-535-9473
 
  - WOPR-010908.doc
EM-6763 Russ Youmans <youruss@hotmail.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/10/2008 22:02:36 To: The BLM

I am very concerned about the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)'s proposed management plan for the 2.6 million acres of BLM managed forests in Oregon. There are good reasons for not cutting into the small amount of old growth timber that remains.  They are the American cathedrals and for future generations they need to remain including for history lessons,  ecosystem maintenance, water and fish protection and as representative areas for locking up carbon.  The potential of reducing the forest cover bordering streams and rivers is a horrible event for the BLM to permit.  The issues of erosion, water temperature, water quality, fish habitat including spawning reaches of the streams and the shade, diversity and bank protection are characteristics that are in too far a short supply.  We need more trees on the banks not fewer.

We do need timber products, family supporting jobs and economic vitality for our communities and there can be strong efforts to have management to have sustained timber yields from forest lands that have been logged recently.  And there is a huge need for additional efforts to clear the fuel on the forest floor and thinning of the dog hair thickets to protect the forest and surrounding lands from the super hot and unnatural fires.  And these fire prevention programs will provide jobs, reduce the fire potential and release the thinner stand to achieve greater timber production. 

But talk to the those who have thought deeply about forest management, salmon recovery, jobs and community economics, recreation and the NW identity of forests and fish.  The BLM needs to maintain the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely,

Russell Youmans

3025 NW Firwood Pl.

Corvallis, OR  97330
EM-6764 claudiacleaver@comcast.net Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 22:03:22 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Claudia Cleaver
14 Queens Lane
Petaluma, CA 94952

EM-6765 wadestoddard@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 22:07:23 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Wade Stoddard
4105 N. Massachusetts Ave.
Portland, OR 97217

EM-6766 d2avid@charter.net Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 22:08:23 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
David Grant, MD
129 Oxford Place
Medford, OR 97504-9333

EM-6767 jbabson@att.net WOPR 1/10/2008 22:15:21 I strongly urge the BLM to maintain current management, the "No Action Alternative." The cutting of any of Oregon's remaining old growth is unconscionable, given what we now know about the value of those forests in sustaining life. We should protect what is left of our old growth forests and restore those forests that have been degraded.

Thank you for considering my comments.

James Babson
40237 Reuben Leigh Rd.
Lowell, OR 97452
EM-6768 cindy belles <sjo.belles@verizon.net> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/10/2008 22:15:56 I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the BLM's preferred alternative for 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 am concerned that the changes the BLM has proposed in its Western Oregon Plan Revision will lead to the loss of Oregon's irreplaceable ancient forests, water pollution, degraded habitat, increased erosion/landslides and increased conflict and controversy.

I urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely,
 
Cindy M. Belles
Tigard, Oregon
sjo.belles@gte.net
 
EM-6769 CATHLEEN ROSE <crose27@msn.com> Western OR Plan Revision 1/10/2008 22:17:18  
I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. As a life science teacher, I have spent years learning about and teaching my students about the ecological functions of northwest coastal forests and their relationship to salmon and water quality.  I was dismayed to learn about the BLM's plan to dramatically increase logging in western Oregon, much of which has already been converted to tree farms.  Any plan for managing western Oregon forests needs to maintain old growth forest reserves, which were created to conserve the many important values of intact forests, as well as riparian buffers, which were required in order to protect sensitive salmon bearing streams.  

It is no wonder that forest management is an area of constant litigation; the public simply has seen little reason to trust federal agencies to think about the future when managing our public lands.  I urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely,
 
Coulter Rose
Corvallis
EM-6770 Tom Phillips <TPAves8480@msn.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/10/2008 22:34:02  
I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the BLM's preferred alternative for 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 urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely,
EM-6771 mendozason@hotmail.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 22:37:24 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Steve Mendoza
PO Box 406
Cardiff, CA 92007

EM-6772 Tom Phillips <TPAves8480@msn.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/10/2008 22:38:15  
I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the BLM's preferred alternative for 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 urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely,  Tom & Laurie Phillips
 
We are also concerned about too much giveaway to OHV use.
EM-6773 Peter Nelson <peter.nelson@oregonstate.edu> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/10/2008 22:38:39 I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the BLM's
preferred alternative for 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.

The changes the BLM has proposed in its Western Oregon Plan Revision will
lead to the loss of large tracts of irreplaceable ancient forests,
increasing water pollution, degrading habitat, and increasing conflict and
controversy. Much of the BLM forests in western Oregon are adjacent to
private landowners, who would like to see nearby forests managed to preserve
their water supply, scenery, and recreation opportunities. Additionally,
these forests are owned by Americans across the nation, who would like to
see them strongly protected for future generations to enjoy.

I urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the
Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM
lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old
growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely,

Peter and Susan Nelson
2605 SW Morris Ave
Corvallis, OR 97333

EM-6774 AimeeBGurl@aol.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 22:41:24 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Yvette Contreras
24800 Somavia Rd #1
Salinas, CA 93908

EM-6775 cpc@otenet.gr Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 22:50:26 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I have visited Old Growth forests many times in my life and I
believe they are a heritage we must leave to our grandchildren's
grandchildren. I love the Earth and also know that as we destroy
her, we destroy ourselves.

Therefore,

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
carol p. christ
2147 parker st.
Berkeley, CA 94704

EM-6776 Dan Sherwood <dsphoto@spiritone.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/10/2008 22:53:27 To Whom It May Concern;

I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the
BLM's preferred alternative for 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 urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the
Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on
BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature
and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely,
Dan and Debbie Sherwood
1719 SE 35th Ave.
Portland, OR 97214
EM-6777 Steve Brodsky <asanctuaryforhealing@gmail.com> lesley@kswild.org 1/10/2008 22:55:45 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,


Steve Brodsky

28653 Sutherlin Lane

Eugene,Oregon 97405
EM-6778 bigman1@netscape.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 23:10:28 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Clifford Holzhauer
2474 Oregon ave
Long Beach, CA 90806

EM-6779 Lou Levison <luckylou26@hotmail.com> WOPR comments 1/10/2008 23:18:21 I am a property owner in the Cave Junction area of Oregon. I am very troubled by the management alternative popularly called WOPR. The specific issues I have are the old-style clearcuts, proposed level of timber harvest, and overall focus on timber production at the expense other science and economic based considerations. The OHV elements do not concern me so much, although I personally don't like them. You can change the OHV policy 10 years from now. But if you cut down a 300 year-old tree, there is not much you can do about it 10 years from now. I have not heard BLM experts in the various fields of concern really defending this proposal, rather they seem to say it is just what they are being told to do, it is just their job. I feel the current Bush administration has very little credibility as far as programs for the good of the masses, they blatantly structure policies for certain private interests, including their own pockets. This is not right. It is also not right, that agencies such as the BLM violate the public trust and allow themselves to be manipulated by this administration. So please don't make excuses, please do the noble thing in your piece of the history of our great nation and stand up and let your qualified scientists and experts try to do things the right way, and not be involved with this insulting sell-out. Cutting the remaining old-growth, and going after the big trees under the guise of "thinning" or "forest health" or any kind of "management" is a crime against the American people in general and those of us that live in and enjoy this beautiful area. We can harvest wood from our forest lands in a sustainable and justified manner, and we must work toward that goal. Percieved problems with the NWFP do not justify these short-sighted wacko proposed WOP-Revisions.
Thank You, Lou Levison 6837 Westside Road, Cave Junction, OR 97523


Make distant family not so distant with Windows Vista® + Windows LiveT. Start now!
EM-6780 Mark Duncan <temple_rod@yahoo.com> BLM Western Oregon Plan Revision 1/10/2008 23:25:53 Mark Duncan
PO Box 1651
Yreka, CA 96097-1651


January 11, 2008

Edward Shepard
OR/WA State Director
Bureau of Land Management
PO Box 2965
Portland, OR 97208


Dear Edward Shepard:

Please accept the following comments on the BLM's Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans for
Western Oregon.

None of the three alternatives presented in the DEIS meet the requirements
of the O&C Act because they do not manage the land for the dominant use of
timber production. Reserving the majority (52%) of the suitable
timberlands for the purpose of a listed species is contrary to the O&C Act.

Because of the unique nature of the O&C Lands, by law these lands are not
available to be part of a reserve system designed to recover a listed
species. The BLM should consider active management for the protection of
listed and sensitive species and their habitat before adopting passive,
reserve strategies. The alternative selected by the BLM, however, should
be one that will not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species
within the species entire habitat range.

The BLM must develop and analyzes at least one alternative that maximizes
the amount of land in timber production and receipts to local county
governments, and meets its no jeopardy obligation.

Congress and the Administration must ensure that when the Plan is
finalized that the BLM receives adequate funding so that it can be fully
implemented.

When implemented, the Plan should live up to the full commitment that was
made to local counties.

Timber sale revenues must generate at least an amount equal to the funding
that was provided to local counties through the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Act on a yearly basis.

All BLM administered land should be managed to minimize the threat of
catastrophic wildfire on these lands and surrounding state and private
lands.

All BLM administered land should be managed to minimize the threat of
catastrophic wildfire on these lands and surrounding state and private
lands.

Access should be maintained through BLM administered lands for private
land access, fire suppression, as well as recreational uses, such as
hunting, fishing, boating and sightseeing.

In summary, the economic viability of our rural communities and the
overall health of our federal forests are of vital importance to me. I
ask that you give these comments full consideration as you prepare the
final Environmental Impact Statement and select the final management plans
for the Western Oregon BLM Districts.

Sincerely,


Mark William Duncan
530-842-2676

EM-6781 James Jacobson <jamesjac@gmail.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/10/2008 23:41:38 BLM
Bureau of Land Management, Western Oregon Plan Revisions Office
333 SW 1st. Avenue, Portland, OR 97208

I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the BLM's
preferred alternative for 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 urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the
Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM
lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old
growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

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,


James Jacobson
Eugene, Oregon
EM-6782 loanforu@earthlink.net Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/10/2008 23:50:28 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
carol SHIAMAN
1114 12th STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90403

EM-6783 Josh Laughlin <jlaughlin@cascwild.org> WOPR comment 1/11/2008 0:02:11 Dear Western Oregon BLM,

I am writing to express my concern over the possible elimination of
old-growth and streamside reserves on western Oregon BLM lands.
These forests provide habitat for many wildlife species, clean
drinking water to rural communities, recreation for outdoor
enthusiasts, and a legacy for future generations.

With so few old-growth forests remaining, it is critical that we
protect them for future generations to enjoy. Young, even-age tree
plantations are a sustainable place for generating wood products.

Please do not open older forests on our public lands to logging.

Sincerely,


Name: Sally Allwardt
Street: 174th Ave NE
City,_State,_Zip: Redmond, WA, 98052
Email_Address: sally86@u.washington.edu
--
Josh Laughlin, Conservation Director
Cascadia Wildlands Project
P.O. Box 10455
Eugene, OR 97440
541.434.1463 (voice)
541.434.6494 (fax)

The Cascadia Wildlands Project is dedicated to defending the forests,
waters, and wildlife of the Pacific Northwest. Visit www.cascwild.org
to learn more about wildlands issues and our leadership in the
conservation movement. Become a member today at
http://www.cascwild.org/donate.html. Your support makes a difference!
EM-6784 Josh Laughlin <jlaughlin@cascwild.org> WOPR comment 1/11/2008 0:02:34 Dear Western Oregon BLM,

I am writing to express my concern over the possible elimination of
old-growth and streamside reserves on western Oregon BLM lands.
These forests provide habitat for many wildlife species, clean
drinking water to rural communities, recreation for outdoor
enthusiasts, and a legacy for future generations.

With so few old-growth forests remaining, it is critical that we
protect them for future generations to enjoy. Young, even-age tree
plantations are a sustainable place for generating wood products.

Please do not open older forests on our public lands to logging.

Sincerely,


Name: Lauren Kramer
Street: 1353 Walnut Lane
City,_State,_Zip: Macungie, PA 18062
Email_Address: lakrugratsfan@hotmail.com
--
Josh Laughlin, Conservation Director
Cascadia Wildlands Project
P.O. Box 10455
Eugene, OR 97440
541.434.1463 (voice)
541.434.6494 (fax)

The Cascadia Wildlands Project is dedicated to defending the forests,
waters, and wildlife of the Pacific Northwest. Visit www.cascwild.org
to learn more about wildlands issues and our leadership in the
conservation movement. Become a member today at
http://www.cascwild.org/donate.html. Your support makes a difference!
EM-6785 Josh Laughlin <jlaughlin@cascwild.org> WOPR comment 1/11/2008 0:03:02 Dear Western Oregon BLM,

I am writing to express my concern over the possible elimination of
old-growth and streamside reserves on western Oregon BLM lands.
These forests provide habitat for many wildlife species, clean
drinking water to rural communities, recreation for outdoor
enthusiasts, and a legacy for future generations.

With so few old-growth forests remaining, it is critical that we
protect them for future generations to enjoy. Young, even-age tree
plantations are a sustainable place for generating wood products.

Please do not open older forests on our public lands to logging.

Sincerely,


Name: Margo Snow
Street: 2880 King Rd
City,_State,_Zip: Chehalis, Wa 98532
Email_Address: margo_snow@yahoo.com
--
Josh Laughlin, Conservation Director
Cascadia Wildlands Project
P.O. Box 10455
Eugene, OR 97440
541.434.1463 (voice)
541.434.6494 (fax)

The Cascadia Wildlands Project is dedicated to defending the forests,
waters, and wildlife of the Pacific Northwest. Visit www.cascwild.org
to learn more about wildlands issues and our leadership in the
conservation movement. Become a member today at
http://www.cascwild.org/donate.html. Your support makes a difference!
EM-6786 Josh Laughlin <jlaughlin@cascwild.org> WOPR comment 1/11/2008 0:03:26 Dear Western Oregon BLM,

I am very concerned about the possible elimination of old-growth and
streamside reserves on western Oregon BLM lands. These forests
provide clean drinking water to rural communities, recreation for
outdoor enthusiasts, habitat for many wildlife species, and a legacy
for future generations.

, It is critical that we protect the few old-growth forests remaining
for future generations to enjoy. Our existing stock of younger,
mixed age tree plantations are a sustainable place for generating
wood products.

Please do not open additional older forests on our public lands to logging.

Sincerely,


Name: Clayton O'Brien-Smith
Street: 516 East Union St,
City,_State,_Zip: Seattle, WA 98122
Email_Address: cobriensmith@gglo.com
--
Josh Laughlin, Conservation Director
Cascadia Wildlands Project
P.O. Box 10455
Eugene, OR 97440
541.434.1463 (voice)
541.434.6494 (fax)

The Cascadia Wildlands Project is dedicated to defending the forests,
waters, and wildlife of the Pacific Northwest. Visit www.cascwild.org
to learn more about wildlands issues and our leadership in the
conservation movement. Become a member today at
http://www.cascwild.org/donate.html. Your support makes a difference!
EM-6787 Josh Laughlin <jlaughlin@cascwild.org> WOPR comment 1/11/2008 0:03:50 Dear Western Oregon BLM,

I am writing to express my concern over the possible elimination of
old-growth and streamside reserves on western Oregon BLM lands.
These forests provide habitat for many wildlife species, clean
drinking water to rural communities, recreation for outdoor
enthusiasts, and a legacy for future generations.

With so few old-growth forests remaining, it is critical that we
protect them for future generations to enjoy. Young, even-age tree
plantations are a sustainable place for generating wood products.

Please do not open older forests on our public lands to logging.

Sincerely,


Name: Susan Marett
Street: Susan Marett
City,_State,_Zip: Port Townsend, WA 98368
Email_Address: marett@cablespeed.com
--
Josh Laughlin, Conservation Director
Cascadia Wildlands Project
P.O. Box 10455
Eugene, OR 97440
541.434.1463 (voice)
541.434.6494 (fax)

The Cascadia Wildlands Project is dedicated to defending the forests,
waters, and wildlife of the Pacific Northwest. Visit www.cascwild.org
to learn more about wildlands issues and our leadership in the
conservation movement. Become a member today at
http://www.cascwild.org/donate.html. Your support makes a difference!
EM-6788 Josh Laughlin <jlaughlin@cascwild.org> WOPR comment 1/11/2008 0:04:20 Dear Western Oregon BLM,

I am writing to express my concern over the possible elimination of
old-growth and streamside reserves on western Oregon BLM lands.
These forests provide habitat for many wildlife species, clean
drinking water to rural communities, recreation for outdoor
enthusiasts, and a legacy for future generations.

With so few old-growth forests remaining, it is critical that we
protect them for future generations to enjoy. Young, even-age tree
plantations are a sustainable place for generating wood products.

Please do not open older forests on our public lands to logging.

Sincerely,


Name: Ronald Stepchuk
Street: 1507 E 12th Ave
City,_State,_Zip: Spokane, Wa 99202
Email_Address: naldr@hotmail.com
--
Josh Laughlin, Conservation Director
Cascadia Wildlands Project
P.O. Box 10455
Eugene, OR 97440
541.434.1463 (voice)
541.434.6494 (fax)

The Cascadia Wildlands Project is dedicated to defending the forests,
waters, and wildlife of the Pacific Northwest. Visit www.cascwild.org
to learn more about wildlands issues and our leadership in the
conservation movement. Become a member today at
http://www.cascwild.org/donate.html. Your support makes a difference!
EM-6789 Josh Laughlin <jlaughlin@cascwild.org> WOPR comment 1/11/2008 0:04:46 Dear Western Oregon BLM,

I am writing to express my concern over the possible elimination of
old-growth and streamside reserves on western Oregon BLM lands.
These forests provide habitat for many wildlife species, clean
drinking water to rural communities, recreation for outdoor
enthusiasts, and a legacy for future generations.

With so few old-growth forests remaining, it is critical that we
protect them for future generations to enjoy. Young, even-age tree
plantations are a sustainable place for generating wood products.

Please do not open older forests on our public lands to logging.

Sincerely,


Name: Sara Hayes
Street: 370 Temple Ave. #1
City,_State,_Zip: Long Beach, CA 90814
Email_Address: louve14@aol.com
--
Josh Laughlin, Conservation Director
Cascadia Wildlands Project
P.O. Box 10455
Eugene, OR 97440
541.434.1463 (voice)
541.434.6494 (fax)

The Cascadia Wildlands Project is dedicated to defending the forests,
waters, and wildlife of the Pacific Northwest. Visit www.cascwild.org
to learn more about wildlands issues and our leadership in the
conservation movement. Become a member today at
http://www.cascwild.org/donate.html. Your support makes a difference!
EM-6790 linda@grassrootswest.org Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 0:26:32 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Linda Russell
624 W Railroad Ave
Cotati, CA 94931

EM-6791 Heidi Weiss <hkj@pdx.edu> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 0:36:19 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.

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.

Heidi Weiss
2531 SE 18th
Portland , OR 97202
EM-6792 Jeff Walton <jeff@remotemgr.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 0:37:00 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.

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.

Jeff Walton
936 NE Failing St.
Portland, OR 97212
EM-6793 judy meredith <jmeredit@bendnet.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 0:38:15 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.

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.

judy meredith
63460 bridle lane
bend, OR 97701
EM-6794 Susan Kuhn <susak32799@aol.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 0:42:51 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.

Susan Kuhn
9807 NE Skidmore St.
Portland, OR 97220
EM-6795 Michael Leeson <mleeson@alum.bu.edu> I urge you to please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 0:45:46 Dear BLM,
The WOPR is not just bad for the people of Oregon but for every citizen of the United States of American and the world! The old growth forests that would be lost are a state necessity, national treasure and important on a global scale. Please, I beg you to protect these forests and stop the unwise WOPR.

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.

Michael J. Leeson
111 NE Graham St.
Portland, OR 97212

503-281-3582
EM-6796 Nicola Grobe <nicolagrobe@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 0:47:26 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.

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.

Nicola Grobe
1043 K Street
Crescent City, CA 95531
EM-6797 Terry Woods <twoodswalker@triad.rr.com> Protect BLM Forests 1/11/2008 0:48:16 Bureau of Land Management
Oregon/Washington State Office
ATTN: Western Oregon Planning Revision (OR930.1)
PO Box 2965
Portland, Oregon 97208

Dear BLM,

Please accept these comments on the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. I am a citizen concerned with the management of these lands.

For the last ten years, the Bureau of Land Management administered forests in western Oregon under the Northwest Forest Plan. This ensured these forests continued to provide important public values. These forests can also provide jobs and wood products as a by-product of forest restoration such as thinning young plantation forests.

I am concerned that the changes the BLM is contemplating may lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy. Many of these forests are currently protected for water quality, salmon and wildlife concerns.

Much of the BLM forests in western Oregon are adjacent to private landowners who would like to see nearby forest managed to protect their home from wildfire and to preserve their water supply, scenery, and recreation opportunities.

Please continue to protect the western BLM forests that are now protected.

Sincerely,

Terry Woods
7300 US 158 Apt 410
Stokesdale, NC 27357-9378
EM-6798 steve lanusse-siegel <lanusse60@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 0:48:41 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.

steve lanusse-siegel
320 oak st.
ashland, OR 97520
EM-6799 Terry Woods <twoodswalker@triad.rr.com> Protect BLM Forests 1/11/2008 0:50:21 Bureau of Land Management
Oregon/Washington State Office
ATTN: Western Oregon Planning Revision (OR930.1)
PO Box 2965
Portland, Oregon 97208

Dear BLM,

Please accept these comments on the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. I am a citizen concerned with the management of these lands.

For the last ten years, the Bureau of Land Management administered forests in western Oregon under the Northwest Forest Plan. This ensured these forests continued to provide important public values. These forests can also provide jobs and wood products as a by-product of forest restoration such as thinning young plantation forests.

I am concerned that the changes the BLM is contemplating may lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy. Many of these forests are currently protected for water quality, salmon and wildlife concerns.

Much of the BLM forests in western Oregon are adjacent to private landowners who would like to see nearby forest managed to protect their home from wildfire and to preserve their water supply, scenery, and recreation opportunities.

Please continue to protect the western BLM forests that are now protected.

Sincerely,

Terry Woods
7300 US 158 Apt 410
Stokesdale, NC 27357-9378
EM-6800 Scott Jones <scones100@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 0:51:37 Dear BLM,
Your WOPR is completely unacceptable. The citizens of this state have fought long and hard to preserve our roadless areas & old growth forests. The value - yes, economic as well as biological - of protecting these trees and wildlands far exceed that of harvesting them for consumer products.

You are supposed to work for and serve the people, not the logging companies and not the President with a 30% approval rating. Do you want to keep your job a year from now? Get a clue!

Throw your plan in the recycling bin. Adopt whatever plan Oregon Wild proposes.

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.

Scott Jones
878 Peachtree ST
# 724
Atlanta, GA 30309
EM-6801 kt weidman <yikes_its_katie@yahoo.com> Re: BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions 1/11/2008 1:00:10 Bureau of Land Management, Western Oregon Plan
Revisions Office
333 SW 1st. Avenue, Portland, OR 97208

Re: BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions

Dear BLM,

I disapprove of the direction which you are attempting
to take in all three of the action alternatives
proposed in your draft Western Oregon Plan Revisions.
In a planning process that affects over 2 million
acres of our country's magnificent federal forest
lands, it is crucial that you give significantly more
attention and thought to the non-timber, non-motorized
uses of these areas, because supporting non-timber
uses of forest lands helps protect the long-term
sustainability of our economy, our natural resources,
and the commercial timber industry itself. Protecting
our commonly-owned forestlands as reserves for old
growth dependent species also allows private
timberland managers to keep their lands in the
short-rotation timber production they are accustomed
to, while assuring the future that late-successional
dependent species will continue to have a place in
their ecosystem.
Many of the changes proposed in the draft Western
Oregon Plan Revisions document are highly
controversial and scientifically corrupt in their
reasoning. They carry nasty ecological impacts to all
regions involved. The proposed plan revisions would
destroy most of the bare-minimum environmental
protections that were established under the Northwest
Forest Plan, created to maintain viable, genetically
diverse populations of our rare and specialized
old-growth forest species. They would ravage many
valuable natural recreation sites, lower local land
values, add further instability to small-town
boom-and-bust industries and rural economies, and
waste taxpayer money on projects aimed at helping the
rich become richer.
Only 5% of native forests remain in Oregon, nearly
all of it on federally owned forestlands set aside as
old-growth and late-successional reserves under the
Northwest Forest Plan. These areas are crucial for
old-growth-dependent species' continued existence and
to recover their populations. Many of these remaining
older forests are located on the least-productive,
steepest, most difficult-to-reach hillsides where
timber production is relatively unsustainable (and
highly destructive) compared with most of the areas
throughout our state that are already being used
solely for commercial timber production. Not only is
it highly costly to attempt logging and road-building
in these areas, but it also has a disproportionately
huge negative impact on soils conservation, water
quality, catastrophic wildfire prevention, and
maintaining the original diversity of these forests.
In the few areas where BLM owns coastal low-lying
older forest lands, these forests should also be
protected for their ecological value, since they are
some of the last remnants of their regional coastal
ecosystems. It is a huge mistake to be selling out
both the fragile, slow-growing inland forests, and the
last of our lowland coastal old-growth reserves, for
timber, when they are severely needed as biological
reserves.

To put it lightly, all of the proposed action
alternatives involve dramatic, highly destructive
increases in mature and old-growth forest logging in
the next 10 years, in some of the most beautiful,
diverse landscapes all over western Oregon's majestic
hillsides. These losses would occur during a time
when it is crucial that these very places be protected
for the threatened and endangered species they
support, the watersheds they hold intact, and the
climate system itself. Under the plan's proposed
alternatives we are "given a choice between,"
streamside buffers (crucial in protecting water
temperatures so that the last healthy salmon runs in
the state can continue thriving), would be reduced up
to 75%, opening the most fragile, crucial habitat
areas up for logging and leading to sedimentation,
heightened water temperatures, and loss of cool, moist
areas where fish, mollusks and amphibians hide during
hot summer months. These buffers are especially
crucial in protecting streams during disturbances such
as logging, so that all aquatic species-including the
last healthy salmon runs in the state-can continue to
thrive. They are the absolute last places anyone
should consider clear-cutting, or even thinning.
Furthermore, within our lifetimes, the
intergovernmental panel on climate change predicts a
50% reduction of Oregon's snow packs, which means
there will be less-and warmer-water in rivers, making
streamside shade and vegetation even more crucial for
protecting shade and maintaining moisture in and
around these streams. Weakening stream-side buffers
in timber sales is one of the most ecologically stupid
choices the BLM could do. Such management may even
drive many Coho runs to extinction. The only thing we
ought to allow is increasing streamside buffers, on
all watersheds.
Under all proposed (except the no-action)
alternatives, there is a predicted 40% reduction in
Marbled Murrelet nesting habitat and Northern Spotted
Owl dispersal habitat after 100 years. Northern
Spotted Owls, used as the indicator species for the
health and longevity of Oregon's historical ancient
forest ecosystems, show by their disappearance that we
are loosing the potential to restore the true
diversity of these forests. Although the Western
Oregon Plan Revisions would possibly strengthen a few
local economies in the short term, in the long run it
would still be as unsustainable as the timber revenue
generated by the now tree-farmed biodiversity-deserts
of private lands checkerboarded throughout the same
areas in Southern Oregon.
To many Oregonians, the description of a "200-year
old forest" does not begin to describe the beauty of
these areas. Their towering, structurally complex
Douglas-fir trees support thriving canopies of
thriving lichen, insect, bird and small mammal
species, as well as incredible understories of
beautiful hardwoods, hundreds of shrub and herb
species, ferns, mosses and lichens, and an amazing
wealth of forest floor and soil-dwelling insect
species. Bear, dear, squirrel, vole, owl, woodpecker,
songbird, and other species also thrive in these
forest reserves, while fish and other aquatic species
seek refuge in the many tiny headwater streams and
brooks that run down the steeply sloped hillsides.
For the amount of timber to be gotten out of these
areas, it is difficult for me not to see the entire
project area as a biological tragedy, because there is
a lot to be destroyed in the harvesting of the
far-spaced commercially viable fir trees. To us it
does not matter what a very narrow-minded
interpretation of a lawsuit suggests this land "must"
be used for, rather it matters that the integrity of
these forest lands be preserved as permanent, healthy,
mature forests.
This summer, as a citizen volunteer, I worked with a
group called Northwest Ecosystem Survey Team,
collecting scientific data on rare and sensitive
species, such as the Red Tree Vole (Arborimus
longicaudus), in proposed timber sales. Having spent
nearly all of my summer hiking through and camping in
a small portion of the most beautiful, ecologically
diverse, ancient forests in Western Oregon Plan
Revisions' proposed timber sales (including South
Deer, Althouse Sucker, Granite Joe, and Boney Skull
timber sales), the destruction which thinning/clearing
these less-productive public forestlands would lead to
is sickening and unbelievable to me. In the rolling
hillsides of southern Oregon, I found amazingly
diverse forests, unlike any I had ever seen, a
beautiful convergence of cascade Douglas-fir/true-fir
forests, California's Yosemite-like hardwood oak &
maple forests, and coast-range salal, huckleberry, and
cedar forests. Every day several species of insects
I'd never seen before would crawl across my path. I
saw spotted owls, tree voles, salamanders, squirrels,
songbirds, hawks, eagles, bats, etc. The sorts of
species one never sees in acres of recently harvested
and nearly-mature forests. If there were hiking
trails through many of these places, I would love to
go hiking through them more often. These thriving,
diverse gems of forest are places I want to take my
friends to, show to my east-coast relatives, and
hopefully one day, share with my children, nephews or
nieces. I continue to hope against all hope that these
forests, in whose canopies I witnessed beauty, peace,
contentment, and an entirely different fragile world
of thriving animal, bird, and insect communities this
summer, will go on being protected as the old-growth
reserves they ought to be. For this reason alone, I
strongly hope those who need more money in Oregon find
more sustainable ways of getting it.
While it is true that 200 years ago the Pacific
Northwest was built on bountiful natural resources of
the area, it is also true that the beaver & animals
that the first white Oregonians came here to hunt have
been nearly wiped out, that the salmon runs have
shrank to a mere shadow of their former selves, that
95% of our giant, ancient forests have been entirely
logged over at least once if not three times in 200
years. It is worthwhile to note that our short
history already includes the collapse of a wealthy,
prosperous fishing industry at the mouth of the
Columbia River, that the fur trade built around
Astoria, Oregon (the oldest settlement west of the
Rockies), is long gone, and that the until-recently
bountiful timber industry is currently teetering on
the brink of having to shut down its once incredibly
industrious old growth mills in formerly flourishing
mill towns. While it was natural resource extraction
which built this state, the end of these resources has
arrived. We cannot afford to base intelligent
management of the future's resources on this model of
unsustainable management practices of the past.
I grew up surrounded by clearcuts across the highly
productive forest lands of the coast range. As
atrocious as they look for the first 10 years, and as
biologically boring as they may be for the first 40
years after harvest, I always kept in mind that they
would grow back, that the hundreds of species
preferring older forested habitat would move back in
when they were old again, and that the salmon runs
that were thrashed might come back some day when
rivers were again clear, clean, and cold enough. But
by destroying the last of these rare species' habitat
on lands formerly protected as old-growth reserves and
for their long-term livelyhood, we are destroying this
possibility, FOREVER. Should the timber economy ever
collapse (as I think it is bound to do, even if we cut
down every possible tree as quickly as it reaches
marketable diameter), we will be left with a ravaged
landscape AND lack of sustainable timber revenue. And
when I consider possible futures for Oregon, tourists,
outdoor enthusiasts, wealthy retirees, fishermen,
hunters, and treehuggers alike have little interest in
visiting or living near acre upon acre of clear-cut
hillsides and highly flameable tree plantations.

The vast majority of Americans want federal land
managers to focus on restoration thinning in second
growth plantations, protecting communities from
wildfire by reducing flameable young stands,
maintaining natural forests to combat climate change,
and preserving what remains of our nation's ancient
forests. Many Oregon forest managers are already
appropriately moving beyond the conflicts and poor
management practices of the past, focusing instead on
previously logged public forestlands - many of which
are now overgrown and in need of thinning. In this
way they can provide extra wood for local mills,
improve conditions for fish and wildlife, and allow
our precious few remaining old-growth forests to
stand, protected for their highly valuable habitat,
carbon storing capabilities, and scenic wonders. In
contrast, the WOPR proposes to inflame the controversy
by increasing old-growth clearcutting for short-term
economic gain, at the expense of nearly everything and
everyone else. We need and want to protect our
remaining mature and old-growth forests on public
land. Clearcutting, "regeneration-harvesting" (or
whatever cutting most of the commercially valuable
timber in an area is called these days) these natural
treasures is a sickeningly shortsighted and
destructive decision.
A quote on the Oregon Wild website states that "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 clearcut
forests older than our nation and turn complex
ecosystems into tree plantations most susceptible to
severe wildfire."
I think that this statement says exactly what has been
on many of our minds for quite a while. Many, many,
many of us truely love this state because of its
incredible forests, wild hillsides, and scenic rivers,
and we sincerely want them to be protected in an
ecologically sustainable fashion. While participating
in the planning process of the WOPR, I have been
frustrated to witness so much greed represented by a
small handful of individuals who hold agency &
governmental positions of great influence. It is
sickening that these individuals choose to trade
short-term personal wealth & an archaic notion of
"sustainable forestry" for the last stands of large
tracts of ancient Oregon forests, biodiversity,
endangered species protection, fire prevention, soils
conservation, water quality and carbon sequestration.
I am frustrated to hear, again and again, throughout
this planning process, that the industry & BLM's
corrupt science would even suggest that logging the
larger trees in these areas would possibly help the
rare threatened and endangered species like spotted
owls, marbled murrelets, red tree voles, hundreds of
species of rare lichen & flowers, insects, amphibians,
fish, and songbirds. Or that such logging would help a
fire prone ecosystem. These forests that would be
logged if the WOPR were implemented are some of the
most beautiful, biodiverse, interesting forests I have
ever seen. Logging them would be a loss to the
majority of Americans, and it would take at least 200
years, if not longer in many places, to restore them
to their present day majesty and diversity. Over the
longer term, WOPR would neither be economically nor
environmentally sustainable.
The three proposed alternatives in the draft Western
Oregon Plan Revisions are not viable, sustainable, or
intelligent alternatives. All would have incredibly
negative impacts on threatened species, soil
retention, fire prevention, water quality, and
non-motorized recreation opportunities. Additionally,
they would release vast amounts of currently
sequestered carbon (in soils, below-and-above-ground
biomass, and through the timber milling process
itself), which we ought to be protecting in order to
combat climate change. Therefore, unless a MORE
ecologically sustainable alternative is developed, the
only acceptable alternative mentioned in this plan isthe no-action alternative. Plea
EM-6802 Katie Weidman <yikes_its_katie@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 1:06:39 Dear BLM,
I disapprove of the direction which you are attempting to take in all three of the action alternatives proposed in your draft Western Oregon Plan Revisions. In a planning process that affects over 2 million acres of our country's magnificent federal forest lands, it is crucial that you give significantly more attention and thought to the non-timber, non-motorized uses of these areas, because supporting non-timber uses of forest lands helps protect the long-term sustainability of our economy, our natural resources, and the commercial timber industry itself. Protecting our commonly-owned forestlands as reserves for old growth dependent species also allows private timberland managers to keep their lands in the short-rotation timber production they are accustomed to, while assuring the future that late-successional dependent species will continue to have a place in their ecosystem.

Many of the changes proposed in the draft Western Oregon Plan Revisions document are highly controversial and scientifically corrupt in their reasoning. They carry nasty ecological impacts to all regions involved. The proposed plan revisions would destroy most of the bare-minimum environmental protections that were established under the Northwest Forest Plan, created to maintain viable, genetically diverse populations of our rare and specialized old-growth forest species. They would ravage many valuable natural recreation sites, lower local land values, add further instability to small-town boom-and-bust industries and rural economies, and waste taxpayer money on projects aimed at helping the rich become richer.

Only 5% of native forests remain in Oregon, nearly all of it on federally owned forestlands set aside as old-growth and late-successional reserves under the Northwest Forest Plan. These areas are crucial for old-growth-dependent species' continued existence and to recover their populations. Many of these remaining older forests are located on the least-productive, steepest, most difficult-to-reach hillsides where timber production is relatively unsustainable (and highly destructive) compared with most of the areas throughout our state that are already being used solely for commercial timber production. Not only is it highly costly to attempt logging and road-building in these areas, but it also has a disproportionately huge negative impact on soils conservation, water quality, catastrophic wildfire prevention, and maintaining the original diversity of these forests. In the few areas where BLM owns coastal low-lying older forest lands, these forests should also be protected for their ecological value, since they are some of the last remnants of their regional coastal ecosystems. It is a huge mistake to be selling out both the fragile, slow-growing inland forests, and the last of our lowland coastal old-growth reserves, for timber, when they are severely needed as biological reserves.

To put it lightly, all of the proposed action alternatives involve dramatic, highly destructive increases in mature and old-growth forest logging in the next 10 years, in some of the most beautiful, diverse landscapes all over western Oregon's majestic hillsides. These losses would occur during a time when it is crucial that these very places be protected for the threatened and endangered species they support, the watersheds they hold intact, and the climate system itself. Under the plan's proposed alternatives we are ?given a choice between,? streamside buffers (crucial in protecting water temperatures so that the last healthy salmon runs in the state can continue thriving), would be reduced up to 75%, opening the most fragile, crucial habitat areas up for logging and leading to sedimentation, heightened water temperatures, and loss of cool, moist areas where fish, mollusks and amphibians hide during hot summer months. These buffers are especially crucial in protecting streams during disturbances such as logging, so that all aquatic species?including the last healthy salmon runs in the state?can continue to thrive. They are the absolute last places anyone should consider clear-cutting, or even thinning. Furthermore, within our lifetimes, the intergovernmental panel on climate change predicts a 50% reduction of Oregon's snow packs, which means there will be less?and warmer?water in rivers, making streamside shade and vegetation even more crucial for protecting shade and maintaining moisture in and around these streams. Weakening stream-side buffers in timber sales is one of the most ecologically stupid choices the BLM could do. Such management may even drive many Coho runs to extinction. The only thing we ought to allow is increasing streamside buffers, on all watersheds.

Under all proposed (except the no-action) alternatives, there is a predicted 40% reduction in Marbled Murrelet nesting habitat and Northern Spotted Owl dispersal habitat after 100 years. Northern Spotted Owls, used as the indicator species for the health and longevity of Oregon's historical ancient forest ecosystems, show by their disappearance that we are loosing the potential to restore the true diversity of these forests. Although the Western Oregon Plan Revisions would possibly strengthen a few local economies in the short term, in the long run it would still be as unsustainable as the timber revenue generated by the now tree-farmed biodiversity-deserts of private lands checkerboarded throughout the same areas in Southern Oregon.

To many Oregonians, the description of a ?200-year old forest? does not begin to describe the beauty of these areas. Their towering, structurally complex Douglas-fir trees support thriving canopies of thriving lichen, insect, bird and small mammal species, as well as incredible understories of beautiful hardwoods, hundreds of shrub and herb species, ferns, mosses and lichens, and an amazing wealth of forest floor and soil-dwelling insect species. Bear, dear, squirrel, vole, owl, woodpecker, songbird, and other species also thrive in these forest reserves, while fish and other aquatic species seek refuge in the many tiny headwater streams and brooks that run down the steeply sloped hillsides. For the amount of timber to be gotten out of these areas, it is difficult for me not to see the entire project area as a biological tragedy, because there is a lot to be destroyed in the harvesting of the far-spaced commercially viable fir trees. To us it does not matter what a very narrow-minded interpretation of a lawsuit suggests this land "must" be used for, rather it matters that the integrity of these forest lands be preserved as permanent, healthy, mature forests.

This summer, as a citizen volunteer, I worked with a group called Northwest Ecosystem Survey Team, collecting scientific data on rare and sensitive species, such as the Red Tree Vole (Arborimus longicaudus), in proposed timber sales. Having spent nearly all of my summer hiking through and camping in a small portion of the most beautiful, ecologically diverse, ancient forests in Western Oregon Plan Revisions' proposed timber sales (including South Deer, Althouse Sucker, Granite Joe, and Boney Skull timber sales), the destruction which thinning/clearing these less-productive public forestlands would lead to is sickening and unbelievable to me. In the rolling hillsides of southern Oregon, I found amazingly diverse forests, unlike any I had ever seen, a beautiful convergence of cascade Douglas-fir/true-fir forests, California's Yosemite-like hardwood oak & maple forests, and coast-range salal, huckleberry, and cedar forests. Every day several species of insects I'd never seen before would crawl across my path. I saw spotted owls, tree voles, salamanders, squirrels, songbirds, hawks, eagles, bats, etc. The sorts of species one never sees in acres of recently harvested and nearly-mature forests. If there were hiking trails through many of these places, I would love to go hiking through them more often. These thriving, diverse gems of forest are places I want to take my friends to, show to my east-coast relatives, and hopefully one day, share with my children, nephews or nieces. I continue to hope against all hope that these forests, in whose canopies I witnessed beauty, peace, contentment, and an entirely different fragile world of thriving animal, bird, and insect communities this summer, will go on being protected as the old-growth reserves they ought to be. For this reason alone, I strongly hope those who need more money in Oregon find more sustainable ways of getting it.

While it is true that 200 years ago the Pacific Northwest was built on bountiful natural resources of the area, it is also true that the beaver & animals that the first white Oregonians came here to hunt have been nearly wiped out, that the salmon runs have shrank to a mere shadow of their former selves, that 95% of our giant, ancient forests have been entirely logged over at least once if not three times in 200 years. It is worthwhile to note that our short history already includes the collapse of a wealthy, prosperous fishing industry at the mouth of the Columbia River, that the fur trade built around Astoria, Oregon (the oldest settlement west of the Rockies), is long gone, and that the until-recently bountiful timber industry is currently teetering on the brink of having to shut down its once incredibly industrious old growth mills in formerly flourishing mill towns. While it was natural resource extraction which built this state, the end of these resources has arrived. We cannot afford to base intelligent management of the future's resources on this model of unsustainable management practices of the past.

I grew up surrounded by clearcuts across the highly productive forest lands of the coast range. As atrocious as they look for the first 10 years, and as biologically boring as they may be for the first 40 years after harvest, I always kept in mind that they would grow back, that the hundreds of species preferring older forested habitat would move back in when they were old again, and that the salmon runs that were thrashed might come back some day when rivers were again clear, clean, and cold enough. But by destroying the last of these rare species' habitat on lands formerly protected as old-growth reserves and for their long-term livelyhood, we are destroying this possibility, FOREVER. Should the timber economy ever collapse (as I think it is bound to do, even if we cut down every possible tree as quickly as it reaches marketable diameter), we will be left with a ravaged landscape AND lack of sustainable timber revenue. And when I consider possible futures for Oregon, tourists, outdoor enthusiasts, wealthy retirees, fishermen, hunters, and treehuggers alike have little interest in visiting or living near acre upon acre of clear-cut hillsides and highly flameable tree plantations.

The vast majority of Americans want federal land managers to focus on restoration thinning in second growth plantations, protecting communities from wildfire by reducing flameable young stands, maintaining natural forests to combat climate change, and preserving what remains of our nation?s ancient forests. Many Oregon forest managers are already appropriately moving beyond the conflicts and poor management practices of the past, focusing instead on previously logged public forestlands - many of which are now overgrown and in need of thinning. In this way they can provide extra wood for local mills, improve conditions for fish and wildlife, and allow our precious few remaining old-growth forests to stand, protected for their highly valuable habitat, carbon storing capabilities, and scenic wonders. In contrast, the WOPR proposes to inflame the controversy by increasing old-growth clearcutting for short-term economic gain, at the expense of nearly everything and everyone else. We need and want to protect our remaining mature and old-growth forests on public land. Clearcutting, "regeneration-harvesting" (or whatever cutting most of the commercially valuable timber in an area is called these days) these natural treasures is a sickeningly shortsighted and destructive decision.

A quote on the Oregon Wild website states that "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 clearcut forests older than our nation and turn complex ecosystems into tree plantations most susceptible to severe wildfire."
I think that this statement says exactly what has been on many of our minds for quite a while. Many, many, many of us truely love this state because of its incredible forests, wild hillsides, and scenic rivers, and we sincerely want them to be protected in an ecologically sustainable fashion. While participating in the planning process of the WOPR, I have been frustrated to witness so much greed represented by a small handful of individuals who hold agency & governmental positions of great influence. It is sickening that these individuals choose to trade short-term personal wealth & an archaic notion of ?sustainable forestry? for the last stands of large tracts of ancient Oregon forests, biodiversity, endangered species protection, fire prevention, soils conservation, water quality and carbon sequestration. I am frustrated to hear, again and again, throughout this planning process, that the industry & BLM?s corrupt science would even suggest that logging the larger trees in these areas would possibly help the rare threatened and endangered species like spotted owls, marbled murrelets, red tree voles, hundreds of species of rare lichen & flowers, insects, amphibians, fish, and songbirds. Or that such logging would help a fire prone ecosystem. These forests that would be logged if the WOPR were implemented are some of the most beautiful, biodiverse, interesting forests I have ever seen. Logging them would be a loss to the majority of Americans, and it would take at least 200 years, if not longer in many places, to restore them to their present day majesty and diversity. Over the longer term, WOPR would neither be economically nor environmentally sustainable.

The three proposed alternatives in the draft Western Oregon Plan Revisions are not viable, sustainable, or intelligent alternatives. All would have incredibly negative impacts on threatened species, soil retention, fire prevention, water quality, and non-motorized recreation opportunities. Additionally, they would release vast amounts of currently sequestered carbon (in soils, below-and-above-ground biomass, and through the timber milling process itself), which we ought to be protecting in order to combat climate change. Therefore, unless a MORE ecologically sustainable alternative is developed, the only acceptable alternative mentioned in this plan is the no-action alternative. Please listen to what the knowledgeable people of Oregon want and what the environment needs, and refuse to destroy the forested ecosystems, soil and water quality, and natural beauty of our state.

Katie Weidman
35630 Little Walluski Lane
Astoria, OR 97103

541-683-0642
EM-6803 robert strebeck <robert_strebeck@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 1:14:10 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.

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.

robert strebeck
509 aransas
euless, TX 76039
EM-6804 robert strebeck <robert_strebeck@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 1:27:06 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.

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.

robert strebeck
509 aransas
euless, TX 76039
EM-6805 snoopy123456789@email.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 2:04:40 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Hazel Chase
8145 E. Camelback Rd.
Apt. #310
Scottsdale, AZ 85251

EM-6806 quaker1@mindspring.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 2:22:40 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

Of course, I can't answer for you or your families, but I very
much prefer to breathe the air as God intended. We simply cannot
do that if the trees go missing.

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Richard Lyons
995 Pine St. #101
San Francisco, CA 94108

EM-6807 Kathy Ging <kathy@kathyging.com> Opposed to the WOPR 1/11/2008 2:41:59 Bureau of Land Management, Western Oregon Plan Revisions Office
333 SW 1st. Avenue Portland, Oregon 97208
and Oregon Congressional Delegation

Jan. 11, 2008

Re: BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions: in Opposition to the W.O.P.R.

TO THE BLM:

I am astonished that you would even consider logging more of our precious old growth forests!  The other logging outlined in the W.O.P.R
would also be a mistake.

Old growth forests have been found as Paul Stametes has outlined in numerous public lectures in recent years to produce mycelium that may even cure anthrax attacks.  ** These forests are more valuable to us alive than dead.

He has been under the employ of the Dept. of Homeland Security for his pioneer work in this regard. Paul has had several patents approved by the US Patent Office and many others under consideration and has written books such as Mycelium Running: How Mushrooms Can Help Save the World available in paperback, the results of a lifetime of research. Also see fungi.com

I am totally outraged and alarmed with the direction the Bush Administration seems to be pointing with the _supervision_ of apx.  2.5 million acres of federal forests under the Western Oregon Plan Revisions.

As a Realtor selling country property for 21 years in Western Oregon, I have seen the degradation of our waterways and hillsides from the silting and sliding of clay soils. I have been stunned to observe within one season hundreds of trees blown down because of clearcuts on adjacent parcels when high winds strike.

Constructing 1,000 miles of new logging roads would also be a misguided action that would deplete our natural resource base for future generations by weakening protections for forests, creeks and fish for an immediate monetary rush. The WOPR puts water quality at-risk and would destroy some of Oregon's special areas.

It is a travesty against the people to whom you are responsible that now when consensus for old-growth protection and second-growth thinning is at its historical apex that the BLM is proposing to clear-cut these national treasures, forests older than our country, degrading complex ecosystems into flammable tree farms.

Your stewardship requires that you practice restoration forestry and protect the remaining small fraction of old-growth forests, focus active management in already logged-over areas that would benefit watersheds and generate wood products without multiplying past mistakes.

Your close reading of Mycelium Running and attention to Paul Stametes' research about how mycelium seeded on already logged areas can help restore soils advantageously effected as birds drawn to insects help in this natural restoration that can be assisted by human endeavors. This kind of forest planning and implementation needs to be explored and applied as soon as possible!  Taking the wrong path to the forest can only result in our collective loss.

Do not continue the wasting of our forest habitats and the decimation of sentient beings: birds, fish and other wild creatures. The activity under the forest
as mycelium and bacteria is as important to the vitality of forests and the maintaining of crucial hydrologic cycles as Bill Mollison, founder of permaculture
has so wisely described.

Also consider YOUR PERSONAL CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING BY PROMOTING THIS HEINOUS AGENDA: this destruction would be a tragic mistake.

Thank you for seriously considering this letter and recommendations in your current and future forest planning.

** from:   http://books.google.com/books?id=NPI8_-omzvsC&pg=PP14&lpg=PP14&dq=mycelium+old+growth+anthrax+stamets&source=web &ots=38jv-_fj4K&sig=4tJ_NDgQvDZpG9ZGsDUeM4QsXDs

"...fungi especially fungi from old growth forests, may be sources of new medicines that are active against a range of germs, including HIV/AIDS  and the causative agents of smallpox and anthrax, potential bioterrorist threats."

Sincerely,
Kathy Ging, M.A.
POB  11245
Eugene, OR 97440
541-342-8461
kathy@kathyging.com



EM-6808 Abraham Bettinger <musicalfarming@yahoo.com> Please listen to the oregonians- save our trees 1/11/2008 2:59:21 Dear BLM,
Hello, im another voice against the wopr,this plan needs to be revised , old growth logging is unexceptable. please listen to this basic plea, this situation is potentially disasterous.

I would rather have the forest instead of a shortly postponed economic colapse. cutting the trees would be just like a cokehead takeing their final devastating dose of there drug.

please please please

Abraham Bettinger
1350 Iowa st.
ashland, OR 97520
EM-6809 Marcia Denison <Forest@poetworld.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 2:59:47 Dear BLM,
I am horrified 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 turbulant conflict and controversy. Maybe even loss of human life.

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, Class A Theft of Government Property. I am appauled.

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. Hands off, please!!

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.

Marcia Denison
PO Box 1463
Rainier, OR 97048
EM-6810 Claire Smith <horvath@pioneer.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 3:58:39 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.

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.

Claire Smith
PO Box 721

311 se 35th st
south Beach, OR 97366
EM-6811 Jeff Lyles <bldegl@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 4:28:43 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.

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.

Also, the recent flood near Clackskanie happened because of logging and leaving the land in a situation where it has nothing holding it together so that when the rains comes, a mud slide will happened. The damage from the mud slide did far more monetary damage then the amount of money that was collected from the trees that were harvested there. We need to do things that use common since and stop doing things in the name of a fast buck that ends up biting us in the tail.

Jeff Lyles
17300 NE Hooper Wollam Rd.
Yacolt, WA 98675
EM-6812 Sharon Hawks <hawks@4j.lane.edu> Clasification of "Grandmothers Grove" 1/11/2008 5:10:26 U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Western Oregon Plan Revision


Dears Sirs,
I am writing you out of a concern for a grove of trees familiarly referred to as the Grnadmothers of Wolf Creek. I just recently heard that this grove of trees was reclassified and so could be harvested. This group of trees is so very beautiful and old - some more than 300 years old and it would be a real loss to those living in the Eugene area as they are possibly some of the oldest trees in the immediate area. We live in town but feel we can experience the wonder of an old grove by going here when we do not have the time or opportunity to go long miles for this experience. Words cannot express the feeling we have for this forest - I beg of you, do not let this lovely area be destroyed. Please keep T. 195.R.06W. sec. 17 as a Late Successional Management area.

Thank you very much for your consideration,
Sincerely, Sharon Hawks and James Christopher O'Neill
EM-6813 olaya garcia <ireth_alcarin1@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 5:12:37 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.

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.

olaya garcia
falo moro
pola de siero, ot 33510
EM-6814 Judy Premo <sukkkie@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 5:15:58 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.

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.

Judy Premo
4744 Pretentious way
sacramento , CA 95842
EM-6815 Theresa DeMello <experienceawareness@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 5:20:58 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.

Theresa DeMello
12505 SW North Dakota Apt 1610
Tigard, OR 97223

5035210889
EM-6816 Janene Willey <janene@bendcable.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 5:34:45 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.

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.

Janene Willey
910 NW Greenbriar Pl
Bend, OR 97701
EM-6817 Diana Kaye <eostredog@fastmail.fm> Re:old-growth logging 1/11/2008 5:36:26 Dear BLM,
My adult son has lived for decades in Eugene and heads east to camp every weekend that weather permits. It is the bright spot in his life. There is absolutely no reason except for corporate greed that ANY lands in Oregon need to be logged.

I live in southern Indiana and have forest lands protected (more or less) by Indiana's Classified Forest prgram. (Our acreage is the beauty spot on our road.) I am not a city person and am aware of the high value of timber but we cannot continue to denude America for the sake of foreign usage and corporate profits.So 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.

In addition, 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.

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.

We should protect our remaining mature and old-growth forests on public land, not clearcut these natural treasures.

Diana Kaye
11580 Rabbit Hash Road
Elizabeth, IN 47117
EM-6818 Kathy Westervelt <mkrwest@qwest.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 5:38:56 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.

Kathy Westervelt
853 E. 20th Avenue
Eugene, OR 97405

541-345-3646
EM-6819 Betsey Norton <bewild@frontiernet.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 5:41:02 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.
Even of greater concern to ALL residents is the dramatic increase in fire danger if this plan is followed. Right now, with a mix of older fire-resistant trees, our forests are at risk, but if you take out the fire-resistant trees,we will all be at GREATLY increased risk.(See Pepper Trail's fire analysis) Has anyone forgotten the Biscuit Fire and the terrible threat to our beautiful valley??
There will be nothing left on which to build a diversified economy without our old-growth and large tree forests.
This plan IN NO WAY helps the residents of So. Oregon, only a few logging/timber companies. This is supposed to be a democracy, of the people, by the people, and FOR THE PEOPLE!!!

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.

Betsey Norton
10401 Takilma Rd
Cave Junction, OR 97523
EM-6820 john ritter <ritter@gorge.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 6:19:30 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.

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.

john ritter
109 MONTELLO
Hood River, OR 97031
EM-6821 john ritter <ritter@gorge.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 6:20:10 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.

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.

john ritter
109 MONTELLO
Hood River, OR 97031
EM-6822 Katie Clarkson <katie.clarkson@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 6:27:27 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.

Katie Clarkson
5516 SE Center ST
Portland, OR 97206

503-238-4664
EM-6823 Neil Kagan <neil825@earthlink.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 6:29:47 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.

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.

Neil S Kagan
1439 Covington Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48103

734-327-9325
EM-6824 jere grimm <jereray@spiritone.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 6:34:32 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.

jere grimm
1734 NW Aspen
Portland, OR 97210

503-223-1614
EM-6825 Pamela Hickman <pvhickman@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 6:42:43 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.

Pamela Hickman
7834 SE Stephens Street
Portland, OR 97215
EM-6826 Laurie Turner <Laurel.Turner@pdxtrans.org> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 6:43:43 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.

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.

Laurie J Turner
11333 SE Powell Ct.
Portland, OR 97266

503-823-1767
EM-6827 shane.dixon@dca.state.fl.us Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 6:43:52 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Matthew Dixon
610 East 63rd Street
Marathon, FL 33050

EM-6828 steve brasch <sbrasch@centurytel.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 6:47:04 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.

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.

steve brasch
town road gg
dousman, WI 53118
EM-6829 Richard Chenoweth <dickchen@mind.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 6:48:44 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.

Richard Chenoweth
2305-C Ashland St, PMB 407
Ashland, OR 97520
EM-6830 organic family <organicfamily@comcast.net> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 6:50:39  
To whom it may concern,
 
 Save the wild woods for the benifit of our future! Mine, yours, your grandchildren.
Save our legacy!
 
I am a somewhat conservative 48 year old Oregonian.
I grew up and currently live in Oregon.
I lived in Portland as a child.
 I was a CampFire Girl.
I feel so lucky to have been a part of that organization.
While a participant of CampFire Girl (I know this is dating me!) I had the
wonderful opportunity to go on many hikes, camping trips and to attend
 summer camps in the great outdoors of the Oregon Old Growth Forests.
 
I feel so thankful that the wild places remain today and that we were
able to take our child -now a college student in state - to visit these
ancient forest. I pray that those ancient forest will be protect our watersheds,
cleaning our air and providing a home for many species of animals, plant life
and incests. I pray that when I become a Grandparent that I can share the
wonders of the Western Oregon forest with my Grandchilren.
 
Many tourists come to Oregon to see Oregon's beauty, what a shame it would
be if they come and find there are no more Beautiful Old Growth Forest left
to marvel at.
 
I think that protection is in order for the remaining Old Growth Forest.
I feel so lucky to be living in Eugene, Oregon, now.
I look out my window every day and see the magnificant old growth.
It would be irrresponsible to open up  more area to logging, in western
Oregon - my home.
 
 
I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the BLM's preferred alternative for 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 urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely,
Christie Foster
EM-6831 MARGARET CASAS <CASAS43@GMAIL.COM> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 6:50:50 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.

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.

MARGARET CASAS
186 HANSEN LANE
EUGENE, OR 97404
EM-6832 Trevor Poulsen <eugenetrevor@gmail.com> Local currency is the only way to protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 6:51:04 Dear BLM,
I am a Eugene resident and I believe the BLM?s Western Oregon Plan Revision recommendations are not in the long term best interests of the people and the environment.

Oregonians are too dependent on logging revenues. We must pursue economic self-sufficiency if we want to preserve our resources for the next generation. The way to do this is with local currency.

Therefore, I urge you to consider offering your support to Ron Paul for President. He will give alternative currencies a chance to compete against the debt-ridden, environmentally-destructive Federal Reserve Note.



Trevor Poulsen
3015 Willamette
Eugene, OR 97405

541-497-3597
EM-6833 Ruthann Roka <sunshine648@juno.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 6:51:04 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.

Ruthann Roka
648 Circlewood Drive
Venice, FL 34293
EM-6834 Brett Brownscombe <brett@ortrout.org> Oregon Trout comments on WOPR 1/11/2008 6:51:13 Please accept the attached letter from Oregon Trout in reviewing public
comments on the BLM's Western Oregon Plan Revision.

Thank you.
--

Brett Brownscombe
Conservation Director
Oregon Trout
65 SW Yamhill Street
Suite 300
Portland OR 97204

www.oregontrout.org
503-222-9091 ext. 17
503-222-9187 fax

- WOPR Comments.doc
EM-6835 Jacqueline Medill <medill@cmc.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 6:55:40 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.

Jacqueline Medill
18160 Cottonwood Road, #114
Sunriver, OR 97707
EM-6836 Djohariah Toor <djotoor@peak.org> clear-cutting 1/11/2008 6:56:54 Dear Friends,

Please count me in on a no-vote regarding Bush's agenda to clear-cut
thousands of acres of new and old growth forest. Our forests are our
national treasure. This administration thinks that national treasure
is all about money. As an Oregon resident, I disagree. I want to see
these forests in tact for two reasons; for the sake of preserving the
gift of nature, and in support of preserving healthy air (by cutting
down the now high levels of dangerous carbon dioxide, which is the
job of forests). Please see the December issue of Science News for an
article called Falling Behind: North American terrain absorbs carbon
dioxide too slowly.

Please weight in against the desecration of our natural resources.

Sincerely,


Ms. Djohariah Toor, MFT
Waldport, OR
EM-6837 David Winston <dlwimages@opendoor.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 7:02:20 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.

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.

David Winston
105 Brooks Lane
Ashland
OR, OR 97520
EM-6838 Kelly Tanugay <kellydan1@bendcable.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 7:03:21 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.

Kelly Tanugay
2352 NW 5th St
Bend, OR 97701
EM-6839 Terri Pyne <territpyne@msn.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 7:03:36 Dear BLM,
I visit 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.

Terri Pyne
PO Box 155
Bayview, ID 83803
EM-6840 Eric Marley <eric@aspenmeadowsconstruction.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 7:08:21 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.

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.

Eric Marley
60841 Yellow Leaf Street
Bend, OR 97702

5419487445
EM-6841 Craig Schellsmidt <csessences@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 7:09:01 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.

Craig Schellsmidt
3324 SE Lincoln
Portland, OR 97214
EM-6842 dennis kramer <dakramer1@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 7:13:22 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.

dennis kramer
9830 sw 158 place
beaverton, OR 97007
EM-6843 Diane Frank <dnfrank@nventure.com> Scrap the plan....please, for all Oregonians 1/11/2008 7:14:02 Dear BLM,
I am a lifetime Oregonian and one of the blessing of this state is the wonderful opportunity to hike and explore old-growth forests and see wildlife on public lands. I am deeply concerned about the proposed BLM plan which will no doubt degrade my both the environment and 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. In addition, I am introducing my grand nephews to the joys of outdoor recreation which they have enthusiastically embraced. It would break my heart to see them turned away from the same opportunities I have had in my lifetime.

While I understand the so called economic benefits of this plan in all reality, in the past the track record for these economic benefits have not been borne out. There are other ways to bring economic stimulus to rural communities than to strip our state of its natural treasures.

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.

Sincerely,

Diane Frank

Diane Frank
5819 NE 27th Avenue
Portland, OR 97211
EM-6844 Earl Willey <earlw@bendcable.com> Save Old Growth Forests for the Next Generation 1/11/2008 7:15:17 Dear BLM,
I am appalled by the approach the BLM is taking 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.

Earl Willey
910NW Greenbriar
Bend, OR 97701
EM-6845 Mary Conroy <tmconroy@frontiernet.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 7:15:52 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.

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.

Mary Conroy
P.O. Box 780
Selma, OR 97538

541-597-2614
EM-6846 Patricia Williams <pattowil@earthlink.net> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 7:16:50 I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the
BLM's preferred alternative for 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 urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the
Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM
lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old
growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely,
Patricia Williams,
Salem, Oregon
EM-6847 emtank@ca.rr.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 7:16:53 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Ethel Tankenson
4035 Meier St
Los Angeles, CA 90066

EM-6848 James B Davis <jim@jbdavisconstruction.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 7:17:22 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.

James B Davis
636 NW Saginaw Ave
Bend, OR 97701
EM-6849 lorraine.gilbert@va.gov Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 7:19:54 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
lorraine gilbert
2930 sunset view
Signal Hill, CA 90755

EM-6850 Laura Hisrich <laurarose@jeffnet.org> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 7:21:33 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.

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.

Laura Hisrich
306 High St.
Eugene, OR 97401
EM-6851 nikki carpenter <carpenter.nikki@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 7:25:04 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.

nikki carpenter
300 mallory hts drive
grants pass, OR 97526

541-441-9911
EM-6852 Paula Brown <paulaj_brown@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 7:26:09 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.

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.

Paula Brown
P.O. Box 69442
Portland, OR 97239

503-705-5672
EM-6853 William Howld <howald@u.washington.edu> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 7:28:24 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.

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.

William Howld
13309 47th Dr NE
Marysville, WA 98271
EM-6854 Cassandra Portner <casleportner@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 7:30:04 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.

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.

Cassandra Portner
Po Box 152
Scotts Mills, OR 97375
EM-6855 Tanya Earle <earlet@molallariv.k12.or.us> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 7:36:27 I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the BLM's preferred alternative for 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 urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely,

Tanya Earle

Molalla, OR
EM-6856 Steve Aydelott <staydelott@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 7:37:35 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.

Steve Aydelott
20782 Liberty Lane
Bend, OR 97701-8064
EM-6857 David Castles <castlesbiz@comcast.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 7:42:02 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.

David Castles
1537 SE 22nd Ave #
Portland, OR 97214
EM-6858 Shari Sands <s.sands@comcast.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 7:45:07 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.

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.

Shari Sands
1117 NE Burke Pl
Corvallis, OR 97330
EM-6859 Mike Higgins <higgins@pinetel.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 7:47:53 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.

Mike Higgins
35901 Valley View Ln.
Halfway, OR 97834
EM-6860 James D Carpenter Carpenter <jimcarp@efn.org> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 7:48:17 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.

The WOPR is a step back to the unsustainable days of clear-cutting our amazing resources, endangering wildlife, muddying streams, and fueling public outcry. It is also extremely short-sighted - trading sustainability for short-term economic gain. Let's start trying to think beyond the next few years to what is really good for the future of our forests and economy and people. Please do not pass the WOPR alternative!!!!!!!!

Thanks,
Jim Carpenter


James D Carpenter Carpenter
P.O. Box 11079
Eugene, OR 97440
EM-6861 Bruce Andersn <brucewa@hevanet.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 7:50:32 Dear BLM,
We must save the remaining old growth forests! 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.

Please don't give in to political and business pressures to clear cut old growth forests!

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.

Bruce Andersn
1972 SE 30th Ave
Portland, OR 97214
EM-6862 Erin Madden <erin.madden@gmail.com> Protect BLM Forests 1/11/2008 7:50:47 I oppose the BLM's plan to remove the protections of the NW Forest Plan from BLM lands in Western Oregon! Some of my favorite hiking and recreational areas in Oregon are on low elevation BLM lands. In the fall and spring, I enjoy mushroom hunting. In the summer, I raft and hike through BLM forests. The mature and old growth forests on BLM lands are some of the only low elevation forests of these types left in Oregon. As such, they provide some of the best habitat for old growth dependent species. Offering these forests up to the highest bidder for logging makes no sense (except to the timber industry and the Bush administration). The O&C Act does not mandate logging on every inch of BLM lands. At the very least, the BLM should be maintaining the protections of the NW Forest Plan including LSRs and Riparian Reserves on BLM lands. The BLM should also consider an alternative that provides additional protections for old growth and mature forests. With so few of these forests left, particularly at low elevations, they are worth far more standing than laying on the back of a log truck. 


Sincerely,


Erin Madden
3756 SE Lafayette Ct.
Portland, OR 97202


EM-6863 harriet miller <harrietm247@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 7:53:18 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.

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.

harriet miller
pob 493953
redding, CA 96049
EM-6864 Mary Hayden <baytovin@comcast.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 7:53:43 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.

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.

Mary K. Hayden
18347 S. Redland Rd.
Oregon City, OR 97045

503-631-7040 or
EM-6865 Margaret Stephens <mlstep@msn.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 7:54:18 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.

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.

Margaret Stephens
1830 23rd St NE
Salem, OR 97301
EM-6866 Samantha Johnson <samlynn25@aol.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 7:54:33 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.

Samantha Johnson
5727 NE 27th Avenue
Portland, OR 97211
EM-6867 Tracie Brasch <tbrasch@centurytel.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 7:56:38 Dear BLM,
I travel to 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 visit and maybe move to one day, while providing sustainable jobs and other economic benefits for rural communities.

Tracie Brasch
w342-s4140 Moraine Hills Dr
Dousman, WI 53118
EM-6868 Kit Staples <kitstaples@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 7:56:48 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.

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.

Kit Staples
3105 Lincoln St
Eugene, OR 97405

541-521-9213
EM-6869 Alaina Smith <writersmith@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 7:58:28 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.

I strongly disagree with the increased levels of logging and the destruction of our old-growth forests. I don't want to see clean water, salmon, wildlife, and Oregon's beautiful, majestic places destroyed. Please do not implement these plans!

Alaina Smith
300 SW 192nd Place
Beaverton, OR 97006

503-533-5361
EM-6870 Spiruman@aol.com Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 7:58:39 Dear BLM:
 
I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the BLM's preferred alternative for 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 urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely,
William Drabkin





Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.
EM-6871 John Fiskio-Lasseter <jflasset@willamette.edu> Comment on WOPR 1/11/2008 7:58:43 Dear BLM,
I am flatly opposed to your agency's Western Oregon Plan Revisions.

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.

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. Leave the few remaining ancient watersheds alone.

John Fiskio-Lasseter
2986 Riverview St.
Eugene, OR 97403
EM-6872 Cheryl Thoen <cthoen@teleport.com> WOPR 1/11/2008 8:01:39 Dear BLM,
I am very concerned the Western Oregon Plan Revisions proposed by the BLM 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.

Cheryl Thoen
2933 NW 53rd Dr.
Portland, OR 97210

5039395767
EM-6873 Karl Poehleman <karl.poehleman@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:03:54 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.

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.



Karl Poehleman
PO Box 693
Eugene, OR 97440
EM-6874 Mark Scantlebury <scantle@earthlink.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:05:09 Dear BLM,
I'm president of the Lower Columbia Canoe Club, an organization of more than 200 Oregon families who canoe all over the state and participate in many other outdoor recreational activities. We all choose to 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.

I am expecially concerned and perplexed as to why the Preferred Alternative would seek to reduce protection for riparian areas by reducing the width of streamside "buffers". A 25' standard is much too small. On the one
hand the report talks about restoration of stream habitat for fish, which I assume means adding wood and wood structures to streams, and on the other hand, reducing streamside buffers reduces the potential for natural introduction of wood into streams. This is illogical and would seem to me to be strange economic logic. In addition, narrow buffers are
MUCH more susceptible to wind damage and landslide issues.

Some of my other 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.

Mark Scantlebury
1710 SW Westwood Ct
Portland, OR 97239
EM-6875 Stacy York <email4stacy@aol.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:05:59 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.

Stacy York
2054 Jupiter Terrace
Redding, CA 96002
EM-6876 greek1@ix.netcom.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 8:07:11 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Kevin Greek
1221 Manet Dr.
Sunnyvale, CA 94087

EM-6877 taylorjane@gmail.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 8:14:13 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.

I send this letter not only for myself, but on behalf of my
children. I know that they want beautiful forests to hike in and
a strong, healthy planet to grow up on. Consider this letter
signed not only by me, but by these future constituents as well.



Sincerely,
Taylor Rutledge
2942 Kincaid St.
Eugene, OR 97405

EM-6878 Tom Keys <tom.keys@landstarmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:14:21 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.

Tom Keys
1103 SE 21st Ct.
Gresham, OR 97080

503-665-9933
EM-6879 Stefan Aumack <stefan_aumack@hotmail.com> Please leave a legacy of forest management we can be proud of! 1/11/2008 8:14:47 Dear BLM,
I want to continue to be a proud Oregonian. I am proud to show visitors the old growth forests, to send boasting photos of salmon and steelhead in Oregon's streams, and to showcase MY (the public) forests and streams that should be managed primarily for the benefit of wildlife and recreation. I was proud to extol the benefits of the Northwest Forest Plan, and want to strongly encourage NO CHANGE to that plan.

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.

Stefan Aumack
38671 Place Rd.
Fall Creek, OR 97438

541-937-2251
EM-6880 Samantha Johnson <samlynn25@aol.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:16:17 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.

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.

Samantha Johnson
5727 NE 27th Avenue
Portland, OR 97211
EM-6881 Randye Jensen <randye@mind.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:16:26 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.

Randye Jensen
2305-C Ashland St PMB 407
Ashland, OR 97520
EM-6882 Kevin Bell <kevinbell1@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:16:51 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.

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.

Kevin Bell
1485 Poplar Drive #6
Medford, OR 97504
EM-6883 Randi Fitch <randi@gorge.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:17:57 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.

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.

Randi Fitch
PO Box 455
Trout Lake, WA 98650
EM-6884 sthunber@allstate.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 8:18:13 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Steve Thunberg
2208 cedar St
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008

EM-6885 Randi Fitch <randi@gorge.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:18:47 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.

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.

Randi Fitch
PO Box 455
Trout Lake, WA 98650
EM-6886 Jayne Cookson <jecoreu@gmail.com> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 8:18:54 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,
Jayne Cookson, 1623 Braeman Villaage, Eugene, OR 97405
EM-6887 Max / Leslie <maxleslie@comcast.net> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 8:19:26 I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the BLM's preferred alternative for 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 urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely,
Leslie D. Shirk
EM-6888 Samantha Johnson <samlynn25@aol.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:19:37 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.

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.

Samantha Johnson
5727 NE 27th Avenue
Portland, OR 97211
EM-6889 Jamie Chabot <jchabot@cm-spring.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:21:42 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.

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.

Jamie Chabot
2354 N Watts
portland, OR 97217

503-750-2148
EM-6890 Sandra Joos <joosgalefamily@comcast.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:22:57 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.

Sandra Joos
4259 SW Patrick Pl
Portland, OR 97239-7202

503-274-8803
EM-6891 Lois Eagleton <mleagle@mcsi.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:23:07 Dear BLM,
What would you think about a father that came home very hungry after working hard all day and ate all the food in the house, leaving his equally hungry wife and children with nothing to eat? Then he burns the house down because he is cold, forgetting that that house shelters his family and provides comfort for them all. Drinking milk and eating eggs every day doesn't satisfy him so he butchers the family cow and the chickens, so that he can gorge for a short time on meat. - - - - Then--nothing!

This is what you are proposing to do with our forests. To satisfy todays needs of a few you propose to destroy the right of our children and grandchildren to enjoy forests of trees that are hundreds of years old.

Those ancient forests are the lungs of our air, cleaning it for us to breath, the the protectors of our water, and God's creation that man cannot replace - ever! Future inhabitants will not remember us kindly if we destroy the air and water they need to live.

It doesn't say ANYWHERE that our nations public lands are the private property of lumber and mining companies.

We don't even harvest wisely. Our country is currently sliding into a depression because we harvested too many trees to build more houses than our population can afford. Lumber prices are at a low. Does it even make sense to continue cutting?

What is wrong with leaving something for a "rainy day", or duh, saving something that has a value just for being?

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.

We can find some other way for the loggers to make a living. Last week we had a new water heater installed by a plumber who was formerly a logger. There is so much work for him that he can't keep up with it.

Hey, take your blinders off so that you can see the light.

Sincerely,

Lois Eagleton
P.O. Box 82
Umpqua, OR 97486

541-459-9397
EM-6892 Steven Amick <stevenamick@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:24:48 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.

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.

Steven Amick
23360 South Viola Welch Road
Beavercreek, OR 97004
EM-6893 Karin Edwards <rolfer@earthlink.net> Protect our old-growth forests, Please! 1/11/2008 8:25:13 Dear BLM,
I am very concerned with the the management of over 2 million acres of federal forests under the WOPR - Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The changes the agency is contemplating will undo the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan, and will lead to water pollution and loss of habitat. Also it runs against the values of most Oregonians.

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.

Karin Edwards
3528 SE 26th Ave.
Portland, OR 97202
EM-6894 jane nicolai <janeblitzen@aol.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:25:53 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.

jane nicolai
2516 SE 113th Ct.
Vancouver, WA 98664
EM-6895 Carolyn Tonahill <Tonahillc@bellsouth.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:25:53 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.

Carolyn Tonahill
Villa St. Francis
7575 Bishop Ott Drive, Apt. 209
Baton Rouge, LA 70806
EM-6896 Judith Barrington <judith@judithbarrington.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:29:13 Dear BLM,
The BLM's Western Oregon Plan Revisions, will seriously impinge on my ability to enjoy and be safe in the public lands in western Oregon. The changes will lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy.

I am part owner of 25 acres of forest on the west side of the Coast Range with a half mile of salmon spawning creek running through it. I see the results of clear cutting every time I am there. It is dangerous and ugly. In addition, the creeks are suffering badly. We are suffering worse and worse floods each winter.

It is utterly irresponsible to roll back the limits that exist on logging. I am truly appalled at the suggestion.



Judith Barrington
622 SE 29th Ave
Portland, OR 97214
EM-6897 Jerry Black <blackeagletree@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:33:24 Dear BLM,
Get trees from plantations, not forests.

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.

Jerry Black
28784 SW Meadows Loop
Wilsonville, OR 97070
EM-6898 kenny jones <kennykaren1@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:34:14 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.

kenny jones
446 ne fargo street
portland, OR 97212
EM-6899 Gail Battaglia <gailbee@ccountry.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:34:49 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.

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.

Gail Battaglia
1999 Little Applegate Rd
Jacksonville, OR 97530
EM-6900 Mark and Ann Hollyfield <hollyhast@aol.com> It doen't have to be either/or 1/11/2008 8:35:39 Dear BLM,
The way to sustainability has been demonstrated by the Siuslaw National Forest thinning project. Please reconsider returning to the wasteful, destructive, economic dead end of clear cutting.

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.

Mark and Ann Hollyfield
PO Box 70

Seal Rock, OR 97376-0070

543-563-3376
EM-6901 Chris Melton <cmelton25@comcast.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:36:29 Dear BLM,

This plan is an example of why people don't trust governement and it is good to have watchdog groups. Why can't the BLM submit a plan that takes into consideration more than economic and "board feet" sustainability? Please come up with a plan that allows for economic AND biological sustainability. The animals, fish and recreationists should not have to suffer just so the state can make economic gain. These plans are an embarrassment and shocking in their short-sightedness.

Chris Melton
2520 Manor Dr
Springfield, OR 97477
EM-6902 Shannon Bartow <zcanoe@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:42:08 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.

Shannon Bartow
1375 W 13th Ave
Eugene, OR 97402

541-337-4415
EM-6903 Harriett Rex Smith <hrexsmith@earthlink.net> <no subject> 1/11/2008 8:43:27 To BLM on the forest issue,

I cannot help but think this is a last expression of contempt for all the "tree -hugging   states with their pesky enviros.
Next January will see a change in administration, and it would be wise to delay implementation of this extreme plan for increasing the cut.
We stand to lose, not only our beloved old growth stands, but even money, since the market is depressed already. Every one loses on this one.  
Harriett Rex Smith, Ashland, Or.
EM-6904 David M. Helm <onehorse@comcast.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:43:58 Dear BLM,
I have lived in Oregon since 1942, more than 65 years. I stayed here for a variety of reasons, including the old-growth forests, clean water, clean air, excellent recreation, and opportunities to view wildlife on public lands. Until I read about the WOPR, I had hope that our forests were about to benefit from fuels reduction projects in the many extensive fire prone tree plantations now existing in clearcuts. After reading about WOPR, I can only wonder what the hell you guys are thinking.
Increase clearcutting of old growth timber? Shrink buffers along streams? This thing reads like a Christmas wish list for Seneca Jones Timber, all benefit to the timber industry and none to the public who actually own our BLM lands.
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.
Specifically, 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, and the Oregon I want to leave to my children and grandchildren, while providing sustainable jobs and other economic benefits for rural communities.
Please reconsider this terrible plan.
Sincerely
Mike Helm
1147 E. 26th
Eugene, OR 97403
541 484 4626
onehorse@comcast.net

David M. Helm
1147 E. 26th
Eugene, OR 97403

541 484 4626
EM-6905 Barry Buchanan <bbuchan@easystreet.net> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 8:45:03 I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the BLM's preferred alternative for 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. 

The existing Northwest Forest Plan, crafted carefully with public and industry input, protects old growth and stops road expansion (there are already too many roads), and has broad public support.   The WOPR plan rolls back these protections and opens the door to more clear-cutting, a practice that has been clearly and scientifically identified with riparian area damage. However, I am an avid hiker and have frequently passed through areas of Oregon that have been clear-cut and the erosive damage is quite apparent, it does not take a scientific analysis to convince me that this practice is very damaging.

A recent scientific report commissioned by the British government states that 18% of all global warming emissions are the result of deforestation.  Forests are an effective carbon sink and I am convinced it is critical to the economic future of the US to reduce emissions. It is very short-sighted to whittle away this important publicly owned carbon sink for short term gain of special interests. With the Northwest Forest Plan we have already drawn the line that everyone agreed on.  The BLM frequently exceeds current targets for timber production on annual basis under this plan.

I urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely,

Barry Buchanan

Tualatin, OR 
EM-6906 Keely Killpack <drkeelykillpack@yahoo.com> Please save our old-growth! 1/11/2008 8:45:34 Dear BLM,
Oregon has a short list of unique and amazing things that differentiate us from every place else in this country. Our old growth forest and LONG TERM investment approach in our natural resources is one of those amazing things. If we lose these treasures, we'll be like every other state - a place that used to have something great that they exhausted.

Please protect NOT harvest our old growth forests. I don't want us to be like:
Las Vegas - out of water,
Detroit - all factories & no work,
California - all the agriculture & none of their own water or fertile soil,
Seattle - great coffee & a totally caffeinated Pudget Sound
Iowa - so much corn & every farmer on subsidies


Please look long-term, at the place we want Oregon to be when the timber isn't the only building product (in fact, aren't lumber prices falling already)., Oregon needs to be the place that still feels left alone, the place were you can pretend you are Lewis & Clark and adventure in our wilderness. This will sustain our state long after the timber is harvested.

Aside from my passion about this topic, here is some factual information to consider:

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. It will also degrade the cooperation enjoyed across many organizations involved in Forest protection & use.

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.

Please don't take steps in this direction.
Thank you for reading this and considering my opinion,
Keely Killpack, PhD

Keely Killpack
1116 SE Rhine St
Portland, OR 97202
EM-6907 Cortina Robinson <velvetalove@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:45:52 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.

Cortina Robinson
760 SE Linn St.
Portland, OR 97202
EM-6908 Lance Wyss <wyssgem@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:47:15 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.

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.

Lance Wyss
PO Box 300
Blue River, OR 97413
EM-6909 Steve Holmer <sholmer@abcbirds.org> WOPR Comment from American Bird Conservancy 1/11/2008 8:47:19 January 11, 2007

Bureau of Land Management
Western Oregon Plan Revisions Office
333 SW 1st. Avenue
Portland, OR 97204

Please accept these comments on behalf of American Bird Conservancy regarding the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. We are deeply concerned that the proposed actions do not reflect the best available science or provide adequate habitat protection to ensure the survival of the threatened Northern Spotted Owl and Marbled Murrelet. We urge the Bureau of Land Management to withdraw this planning proposal and to develop a new plan using the best available science and the Northwest Forest Plan as a starting point.

Populations of both the Northern Spotted Owl and Marbled Murrelet continue to decline at a rapid pace. The Northwest Forest Plan has been somewhat effective in slowing the owl's decline. The rate of decline for owl populations covered by the plan is about 2.4% per year compared to a rate of 5.8% per year for study areas not covered by the plan. The 2004 status review found the Marbled Murrelet populations in Washington, Oregon and California are declining, and that there is a 100% risk of extinction for the speciesoutside of the Puget Sound Area within the next 100 years.

 

There is consensus among wildlife scientists that greater habitat protection is needed to reverse these declines however the Western Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR) proposes to weaken or eliminate habitat protection for Spotted Owls and Marbled Murrelets. Unless stronger measures are taken to protect their dwindling old growth forest habitat, these species will remain on the road to extinction.

 

In addition, WOPR is based on the scientifically-flawed draft Spotted Owl Recovery Plan. It is inappropriate to base decisions upon a draft planning document particularly one that does not reflect the best available science. Following are detailed comments concerning the impact of the WOPR on the threatened Northern Spotted Owl and Marbled Murrelet prepared by EarthJustice and endorsed by American Bird Conservancy.

 

the wopr will jeopardize the survival and recovery of the northern spotted owl

All of the action alternatives analyzed in the DEIS will decrease protections for northern spotted owl habitat by eliminating reserves or allowing logging within reserves.  Given that the loss of old-growth habitat has been the major cause of decline for the owl, adoption of any of the action alternatives - and in particular preferred Alternative 2 - will increase the risk of extinction of the northern spotted owl in violation of the Endangered Species Act.

 

A.        The Threatened Northern Spotted Owl, Its Suitable Habitat, and the Northwest Forest Plan

The northern spotted owl occupies late-successional and old-growth forests from southern British Columbia through Washington, Oregon, and into northern California.  To survive, owls need a multi-layered and multi-species tree canopy with moderate to high canopy closure and large overstory trees, trees with large cavities, large snags, standing dead wood, lots of large, dead wood on the ground, and open space within and below the upper canopy.  This habitat provides cover from predators, nesting cavities, protection from temperature extremes, and the ecological complexity to support the owl's prey.  Put another way, this habitat contains the necessary structures to support the owl's essential biological functions of nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersing.  These terms refer to the owl's biological needs to rest, eat, reproduce, and for both juvenile and adult owls, disperse to new nesting sites.

 

In response to its declining population, FWS listed the northern spotted owl as a threatened species under the ESA in 1990.  55 Fed. Reg. 26,114 (June 26, 1990).  FWS listed the spotted owl "primarily due to concern over widespread habitat loss and modification."  57 Fed. Reg. 1796 (Jan. 15, 1992).

 

In 1992, FWS designated the owl's critical habitat, recognizing that "critical habitat would be a valuable tool in the conservation of the owl."  Id.  FWS designated the spotted owl's critical habitat to help protect it from further degradation and to ensure that it would be given the "highest priority" in management.  Id. at 1803.  FWS determined that the physical and biological features essential to the conservation and recovery of the northern spotted owl are those that support the owl's nesting, roosting, and foraging - "suitable habitat" - linked by connective dispersal habitat.  Id. at 1797, 1805, 1828.  FWS has determined that each of these habitat components is essential to the owl's conservation.  Id. at 1797.

 

In 1993, in recognition of the plight of northern spotted owls and the rapid loss of old-growth forests, President Clinton called together a task force to address the conservation and recovery of the owl on federal lands within its range.  The effort resulted in the Northwest Forest Plan, which jointly amended the land management planning documents of 19 National Forests and 7 BLM Districts in the Northwest.

 

The Northwest Forest Plan outlined an ecosystem management approach for the more than 24 million acres of federal land within the range of the spotted owl and established seven categories of land allocation.  Id. at 115-16.  "Late successional reserves" were designed to serve as habitat for late-successional and old-growth related species, including the spotted owl.  Id.  The late successional reserves are an overlay of habitat that supports and supplements, but does not replace, designated critical habitat. 

 

B.         Draft Owl Recovery Plan

At the same time as BLM is proposing these dramatic changes in old-growth forest protection, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is taking comments on a draft northern spotted owl recovery plan and draft owl critical habitat revisions based on that draft recovery plan.  BLM's proposed changes in the WOPR are also based on the land management prescriptions in Option 2 of the draft owl recovery plan.  In this way, BLM hopes to "harmonize" its plans with the designated critical habitat and underlying recovery plan.

 

The draft recovery plan claims to be based on two previous owl management analyses: the 1990 ISC Strategy and the 1992 draft owl recovery plan.  The reserve network of the Northwest Forest Plan is more protective than either of these analyses specifically because the previous efforts were found to provide inadequate protection for the owl's viability.  The ISC itself acknowledged that in "a worst-case scenario, we estimate that the strategy could result in a 50 to 60% reduction in current owl numbers"  ISC Strategy at 34 (1990).  Correcting the inadequacy of the 1990 ISC strategy was one of the purposes of the Northwest Forest Plan.  And while the 1992 draft recovery plan was more protective of spotted owl habitat than the 1990 ISC strategy, in the FEMAT analysis of the alternatives prepared for the NWFP, Option 7 - which was based on the 1992 Recovery Plan - was found to provide less than an 80% likelihood of maintaining a well-distributed, viable owl population. 

 

The 1994 ROD for the NWFP noted that Option 7 was based on prior management directives (including the 1992 draft recovery plan) which are "now deemed inadequate." Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Lyons, 871 F. Supp. at 1305, 1319-20.  Compared to Option 7, Option 9 included about 4 million more acres in reserves.  Id. at 1305.  The analysis of the proposed alternatives in FEMAT (at III-19) noted with respect to Option 7: "Cutting of trees and salvage of dead trees in Late-Successional Reserves would be restricted to that provided by the Final Draft Recovery Plan (USDI Fish & Wildlife Service 1992:68) as interpreted by the federal agencies. This could allow significant cutting in the future in Reserves on the Bureau of Land Management lands."  To now base owl habitat protections on the ISC strategy and/or 1992 draft owl recovery plan is to take a step backwards, away from the best available science.

 

The Northwest Forest Plan also includes protections for the spotted owl beyond the network of late successional reserves, and these protections are necessary to ensure owl conservation.  Measures beyond the late-successional reserve (LSR) network were added to the Northwest Forest Plan to increase the likelihood that the plan would provide adequate protection for owl viability.  The Northwest Forest Plan is premised on the science of maintaining large blocks of suitable habitat while providing opportunities for owls to safely travel between reserves (i.e., matrix retentions and riparian corridors) as a way of ensuring genetic exchange among metapopulations.  Among these additional measures are Standards and Guidelines that restrict the amount of logging in the matrix and riparian reserves, the requirements to retain at least 15% of late successional forests at both the stand and watershed levels, no cut buffers around owl clusters, adhering to restrictions in the underlying forest plans, the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, and the Survey and Manage requirements.  All of these measures provide additional benefits to spotted owls beyond the network of LSRs.

 

The 2007 draft recovery plan, in addition to having inadequate reserves, does not include these types of appropriate matrix management guidelines to reduce the impact of logging outside reserves.  This is especially true for Option 2 - the option that BLM is using in the action alternatives here.  By delinking from the Northwest Forest Plan, BLM is violating the ESA's best science mandate and is risking jeopardy to the threatened northern spotted owl. 

 

Because of its failure to comply with the best available science, the draft northern spotted owl recovery plan has already been the subject of scathing scientific review.  The scientific criticism aimed at the draft recovery plan prompted a Congressional hearing on political interference in the plan.  See Testimony to the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources for the Hearing on "Endangered Species Implementation: Science or Politics?" Dominick A. DellaSala, Ph. D., Chief Scientist and Executive Director, National Center for Conservation Science & Policy (May 9, 2007), available at http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/Media/File/Hearings/20070509/Testimony_DellaSalla.pdf.

 

The draft recovery plan describes at a conceptual level two options for managing spotted owl habitat as defined in various ways.  Remarkably, however, it provides no scientific analysis, let alone an analysis based on the best scientific and commercial data available, to show that these generally described options will lead to owl recovery.  There is no discussion of the numbers or distribution of owls that FWS believes would constitute a recovered population, no life-cycle or other population viability modeling to show where the population is today and where it would need to be to achieve recovery, no effort to connect the generically described habitat management approaches of the draft owl recovery plan to prior population performance analyses, or any other rational account to connect the actions generally proposed to the conclusion required by the ESA of a recovery plan - that it will lead to conservation of the species.  The scientific basis of the draft plan is especially important because both options depart from the best available science, as explained by the peer reviewers.  In the absence of this analysis, the draft owl recovery plan simply presents a series of hypothetical actions that are not based on the best available science and that bear little relationship to actual species recovery.

 

As stated in the comments of peer reviewer #2 on the draft plan prepared by the American Ornithological Union and the Society for Conservation Biology (posted on the FWS website), the Draft Plan relies on rule sets developed originally for the ISC strategy in 1990 and described in Lamberson et al. 1994.  As the reviewer points out, this model is outdated and does not include demographic data or new modeling concepts developed since the early 1990s.  The draft plan also fails to use or cite the spatially explicit model that was used to help evaluate the NWFP and spotted owl populations on the Olympic peninsula (USDA and USDI 1994, McKelvey et al. 1993, Raphael et al. 1994, Holthausen et al. 1995).  Nor was there any evaluation or discussion in the draft plan of recent developments in population viability models or scientific advancements since the time the owl was listed.  In fact, no population modeling or population viability assessment was conducted in the draft plan for either option, making it difficult to evaluate the options with any scientific validity as well as difficult to compare the options with each other. 

 

Although more comprehensive data on spotted owl population dynamics would help determine the details of a valid recovery plan, enough is known about the past and current distribution of spotted owls, population trends, and vital demographic statistics to assess with reasonable confidence the likely consequences of establishing a system of shifting mosaic habitat blocks as generally described in the draft plan.  The draft plan itself, however, provides no analyses or modeling results that indicate that the habitat protection provided by either alternative would halt the decline of the spotted owl and lead to its recovery.

 

To avoid repetition, these comments incorporate by reference the comments critical of the draft northern spotted owl recovery plan submitted by NCCSP, EJ, and the peer reviewers.  [attached].  Indeed, in December 2007, FWS announced the appointment of a private contractor to respond to the scientific criticisms, admitting that its draft recovery plan is scientifically flawed.  No part of BLM's decision should be based on this thoroughly discounted document.

 

C.        Draft Revised Owl Critical Habitat

Similarly, the revised critical habitat proposal is based neither on the Northwest Forest Plan nor the 2004 Status Review for the owl.  In 1996, FWS asserted that the old-growth reserves of the Northwest Forest Plan "are plan-level designations with less assurance of long-term persistence than areas designated by Congress.  Designation of LSRs [late-successional reserves] as critical habitat compliments and supports the Northwest Forest Plan and helps to ensure persistence of this management directive over time."  61 Fed. Reg. at 26265.  Moving designated critical habitat away from the Northwest Forest Plan, and eliminating 1.5 million acres of protected habitat, undermines the effectiveness of the Northwest Forest Plan, which in turn will harm the owl.

 

Providing suitable nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal habitat is critical to the survival of the northern spotted owl.  The independent status review (SEI, Scientific Evaluation of the Status of the Northern Spotted Owl (2004)) found that the owl population is still declining and faces an uncertain future.  The status review described northern spotted owl populations as being in steep decline in Washington and British Columbia, with a less rapid decline in southwest Oregon a. at 680 (in zone 2, 22% decrease under Alt
EM-6910 Ian Silvernail <iansilvernail@hotmail.com> Your children need healthy forests! Please pay attention to your heart! Don't continue with the WORP! 1/11/2008 8:47:30 Dear BLM,
Increasing ancient forest logging and removing environmental protections as per the WOPR is a very poor direction to take. Come on folks, you know this in your heart, yet actions show otherwise. I don't know what all the forces are that are telling you to push through with this plan. But think about it. It doesn't make any sense to increase the logging in old forest areas when we have so much young, even aged plantation land. Selective thinning of such areas would provide for our resource needs, aid in reducing fire risk, and support maturation of these young forests. Please, act with your conscience and stand up to the forces that tell you that this plan is necessary. It isn't. Your children and grandchildren will thank you.

For the health of your family, community, and this planet that supports our every action, please do not continue to endorse the WOPR.

Thanks for your time,
Ian Silvernail
Corvallis, Oregon

Ian Silvernail
6520 NW Mountain View Drive
Corvallis, OR 97330
EM-6911 Lonny King <lking@mckenziecommercial.com> Oregon Forest Plan 1/11/2008 8:47:45 Please do not allow even more cutting in the already decimated forests of Oregon.  Our future lies in maintaining our natural resources, touristry, and beauty, not in destroying the very thing that makes Oregonunique.  Don't let the short term greed of a few outweigh the needs of the majority and the future.

 

Lonny King

 

McKenzie Commercial Contractors, Inc.

865 West Second Avenue

Eugene, Oregon97402

T541.343.7143F 541.343.3306

C 541.729.2710 

 

 

 

 
EM-6912 paul hudak <farmerpaul1@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:48:05 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.

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.

paul hudak
4545 ne ainsworth st
portland, OR 97218
EM-6913 Ruth A and Cliff BreMiller <bremorama@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:48:05 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.

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.

Ruth A and Cliff BreMiller
590 W 29th Avenue
Eugene, OR 97405

541-687-9675
EM-6914 Clarence Sanders <sandora99@msn.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:48:55 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.

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.

Clarence Sanders
1548 NW Vicksburg Ave
Bend, OR 97701

541-382-7179
EM-6915 Daniel Rhiger <danielrah@msn.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:48:55 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.

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.

Daniel Rhiger
6628 S.E. 48th Ave.

Portland, OR 97206
EM-6916 Eibar Stoltz <eibargk23@aol.com> PROTECT "OLD GROWTH" FORESTS!! 1/11/2008 8:49:36 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.

Eibar Stoltz
3535 Upper Drive
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
EM-6917 Susan Menanno <RedButtesWilderness@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:50:50 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.

Susan Menanno
129 Granite St.
Ashland, OR 97520
EM-6918 Arthur Toor <atoor@peak.org> WOPR 1/11/2008 8:50:54 I am writing in opposition to the proposed Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable plan would eliminate the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) and threaten our remaining old-growth forests,  the wildlife they support, and clean salmon-rich waters of the region. 

The NWFP is vital to prevent the return to logging of ancient forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and streams up and down the Pacific coast. In my view, the WOPR would quickly return us to old growth clear-cutting, destructive road building, and would fail to provide sustainable and enduring stewardship of these resources. I urge you to reject this and any other attempt to undermine science-based protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting 10,000 acres of old-growth forest each year will destroy our remaining ancient forests. I am also concerned that the WOPF fails to appreciate how important these intact forests are in helping to slow global warming.

It is absolutely unacceptable to destroy our remaining old-growth forest. 


Arthur Toor
3383 N, Bayview Rd.
Waldport, OR 97394
EM-6919 Laura Lockwood-McCall <Laura.Lockwood@ost.state.or.us> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:51:16 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.

Laura Lockwood-McCall
3575 Eagle Crest Rd NW
Salem, OR 97304

503-428-4332
EM-6920 Judy Heumann <jheumann@teleport.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 8:52:34 I am writing due to my concern about the 2.6 million acres of forest
managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am
opposed to the BLM's preferred alternative for 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 urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the
Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on
BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature
and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely,
EM-6921 Laurie Dizney <dizneyl@pdx.edu> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:54:21 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.

Laurie Dizney
Department of Biology, Portland State University
PO Box 751
Portland, OR 97207-0751
EM-6922 Jessica Martin <jmart9@msn.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:54:46 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.

Jessica Martin
1218 SE 34th Ave
Portland, OR 97214
EM-6923 Judy Heumann <jheumann@teleport.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 8:54:49 I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the
BLM's preferred alternative for 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 urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the
Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on
BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature
and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely,

Judy Heumann
503-249-1499
EM-6924 Catherine Lehmann <hippie_freak_69_02@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:55:01 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.

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.

Catherine Lehmann
99 widow gavits rd
SAG HARBOR, NY 11963
EM-6925 Cynthia Clague <cclgague@comcast.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:55:26 Dear BLM,
I am very concerned with the change of 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.

Cynthia Clague
4178 Blanton road
eugene, OR 97405
EM-6926 Dave Whipple <davewhipple@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 8:55:51 Dear BLM,
I am strongly opposed to WOPR. It's a bad idea. I urge you to help set policy that protects our few remaining old-growth forests and ecosystems. Thank you.

Dave Whipple
216 ne buffalo st
portland, OR 97211
EM-6927 Luke Ackerman <ackermal@hotmail.com> WOPR comments 1/11/2008 8:56:52 Dear BLM,
Please carefully consider my comments on the proposed revisions to the western Oregon management plan.

Under the proposed revisions it appears that current Research Natural Areas and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern might be open logging. Whatever you may want to call the management strategies, logging and ground disturbance in these areas is not appropriate for the exact reason they were designated in the first place, research and critical environmental concern. There are plenty of other BLM and non-BLM lands to conduct research on management strategies. What is needed is more research areas free from significant management strategies over a range vegetative and landscape types, not less.

Please restrict intensive management (especially logging and ground disturbance) of Research Natural Areas and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern.

The fact that your revisions would substantialy increase and spread large scale timber cuts can not be ignored and is a bad idea. More logging is not needed on western Oregon BLM lands. Just because federal harvest levels have dropped in the last 15 years does not mean more cutting is needed. There are lots of reasons harvest levels dropped, a vast majority of the reasons are legitimate. True thinning is needed in places, not widespread clearcuts.

Please reduce the amount of area proposed for timber cuts, and the size/intensity of individual cuts.

In addition to the proposals sections that effectively allow increased cut sizes (clearcuting, not thinning), the proposal would substantially increase road construction on BLM lands. You allready have too many roads to properly manage, and many were so poorly planned that they sap resources and create a blight on the landscape while serving no real purpose. More roads are not needed.

Please remove or dramatically reduce the number and mileage of new roads and focus on repair and removal of existing ones.

Your proposal to create of Off Highway Vehicle Emphasis Areas will not truly address illegal off-roading and its noise-pollution, and landscape scaring problems, rather it will sanction them and give those who are more than willing to break the law, an excuse and a door to public lands not currently being driven over.

Please do not create Off Highway Vehicle Emphasis Areas.

Also, please bear in mind that our past attempts to manage our lands have largely not been as successful as we intended, and that by moving slowly, limitedly, and sensitively, we can minimize the unintended consequences of management strategies and maximize the intended effects.

I have to say though that this current proposal is untennable. It absolutely undermines the balance that has been struck between enough and not too much management.

Please let me also remind you it is not your job to unsustainably prop up certain communities economies with the entire publics' land. BLM lands belong to ALL americans and are not a piggy bank to be raided for the benefit of the hands that live closest to them, no matter what has happened in the past.

I understand that you have a job to do in helping manage our public lands, but please remember these lands belong to all of us. Your job, as critical as it is, does not mean the public does not get a significant say in what we do with our public lands.

Luke Ackerman
1534 NW 29th
Corvallis, OR 97330
EM-6928 Cory Samia <csamia@earthlink.net> Your shortsightedness is appalling 1/11/2008 8:57:26 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 going to be biting my tongue while writing this entire letter in
an attempt to maintain civility. There are few words that can be put in
this letter that don't question the intelligence and motives of your
agency. Once again, the Bush administration has settled on a way to
punish one of those nasty blue states not just for this generation but
for future generations. At a time when our pathetic remnants of old
Growth forests are battered now by climate change and a host of other
environmental and anthropogenic factors, your agency and the political
puppets behind it propose yet another assault by increasing logging by
700%. I mean, really, what would that leave standing? I truly don't
think this decision is about economics...I do think it is about
vindictiveness.

I want to say, "please protect old growth forests" because as is common
knowledge, the economic "rewards" are short term." I want to say,
"please look at how other second growth forests have been managed for
both economic and ecosystem health." I want to say, "please refer back
to the scientifically based Northwest Forest Plan for guidelines on how
to protect forests, fish and water." But, it pains me to be polite when
confronted with such mind-boggling stupidity.

Surely, even if you are all at the end of your careers because of
retirement or incompetence, you have children and grandchildren who, if
your plan is executed, won't walk through an old-growth forest or
personally have an opportunity to experience the long term interactions
of animals, plants, soil and climate. But, hey, you did what you were
told, ignoring both the science and the public will. I hope you can
chew on that for a very long time after you move on from your jobs.
Unfortunately, I suspect that one would have to have a conscience and
stewardship ethic to reflect on your latest assault as a civil servant.

Really, what is the point mentioning alternatives to economic growth
besides chopping down more old growth and putting in roads to undermine
watersheds? Supposedly, that is what you are paid to do...consider
restoration forestry and other options as well. If you aren't schooled
enough to see other options, I don't think this letter will point you
in the right direction.

Well, I guess I am done here...I need to save my strength for
supporting the NGOs that will take you to court if this plan as is goes
into effect.

Take care and remember 2008 is an election year.

Cory Samia
7255 SW Alden St.
Portland, OR 97223
EM-6929 wolfpoop@comcast.net Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 8:59:24 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I stand in unequivocal opposition to the proposed Western Oregon
Plan Revisions (WOPR). As a native Oregonian of 52 years, I
believe I have some say in this matter. I agree with all the
points made in the following statement, and I wish to emphasize
my strong concern for the environment. Once a habitat has been
destroyed, it cannot be restored. We have so little left -
please let us preserve what remains!

For the sake of our future and for the world in which our
descendants will live, let us learn from our mistakes.

Sincerely, Ole Peterson

?I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.?




Sincerely,
Ole Peterson
1219 NW Mayfield Rd.
Portland, OR 97229

EM-6930 Jami Walker <jwalker@pdx.edu> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:00:02 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.

Jami Walker
3630 SE 33rd Ave
Portland, OR 97202
EM-6931 Pamela Howard <phoward@harryanddavid.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:01:02 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.

Pamela Howard
2677 Humbug Creek Rd
Applegate, OR 97530
EM-6932 Robert VanderKloot <bovander@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:03:22 Dear BLM,
Stop WOPR. The revisions that it makes to the Northwest Forest plan are detrimental and regressive. We in the pacific northwest have reached a workable compromise that has served as a model for land use management. WOPR will undo the balance between reasonable use and preservation. the consequences of enviromental degradation are felt by all, econmically and pratically. Bad management practices such as WOPR allows leads to loss of fish and game, landslides, water degradation and many other consequences far flung and exponential. This is a brief list of the reason we oppose this plan and will fight in the courts and on the ground to protect the forests.

Robert VanderKloot
211 E.Franklin
Bingen, WA 98605
EM-6933 Amy Lodholz <amsby17@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:03:23 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.

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.

Amy Lodholz
208 Mill St.
Silverton, OR 97381

503-873-6838
EM-6934 Carol Bosworth <cbosworth@cmug.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:04:12 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.

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.

Carol Bosworth
1224 NW Alta Vista Dr.
Corvallis, OR 97330
EM-6935 Daniel Zamir <Dizzydz85@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:05:03 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.

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.

Daniel Zamir
4200 NW North Rd.
Portland, CA 97229
EM-6936 Rob Harp <earwigz@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:05:13 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.

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.

Rob Harp
962 rainbow drive
springfield, OR 97477
EM-6937 Sue Sierralupe <sues-pd102@wisewomanherbals.com> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 9:07:36 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,

That's enough people. This is my backyard. Your actions would have serious consequences that my family and friends will suffer from. Call it a day. Leave well enough alone. Our country spends enough money with toxic clean up, invasive species management, and green house gases. You know there is money to be made in being smart. Old growth logging is a complex issue but it is not on the smart list. The BLM can lead our country into a healthy direction.

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,
Sue Sierralupé
Certified Herbalist
Head of Purchasing
Wise Woman Herbals
185 North Mill
P. O. Box 279
Creswell, OR 97426

Ph: (541) 895-5152, x102
Fax: (541) 895-5173
Email: sues-pd102@wisewomanherbals.comwww.wisewomanherbals.com
EM-6938 stan shadle <stanshadle@opendoor.com> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 9:08:15 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,

Stan Shadle
1126 Tolman Cr. Rd.
Ashland, OR 97520
EM-6939 Carol Wayne <cannewayne@yahoo.com> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 9:09:12 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. I am a mother
of four adults and grandmother of three. I do not want a hand full of
greedy timber barons to squander the heritage of our PUBLIC lands for
this and future generations. If tax money loss is used to scare
citizens then by all means tax the BLM for the public lands it gives
away to those would take our old growth forests and leave a mess our
lands for lord knows how long. Just look at the carnage on the coast
highway from Reedsport to Florance. The skimpy little curtain of spared
trees does little to hide the shock of the vast clear cuts behind them.
SHAME! I noticed than during the last big storms there were numerous
mudslides closing 126, 34, and 20 for periods of time. What causes
these slides, certainly the timber companies wash their hands of any
responsibilities after they strip the Forrest lands and pack they money
to the bank. It is of course we the tax payers. Who tries to repair
the silted streams and loss of wildlife habitat, not the Big Boys or the
politicians. The BLM need to responsibly manage our public lands for
all of us, for all life forms not just the ones with deep pockets. I
strongly protest the BLM's current
"plan" to mismanage our public trust. This particular issue has driven
me to join an environmental group and educate myself to see what I can
do to help stop this great give a way of what remains of our forest lands.
With Deep Concern, Carol Wayne

Sincerely,

YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS
EM-6940 Vicki Levine Levine <viclev256@msn.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:09:16 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.

Vicki Levine Levine
2780 onyx
eugene, OR 97403
EM-6941 chris helm <chrishelm2003@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:09:38 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.

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.

chris helm
1147 E.26th

eugene, OR 97403
EM-6942 Flowstone <editor@flowstonenews.com> [Flowstone] Says No to WOPR 1/11/2008 9:10:01 On behalf of myself and my children, I beg you to consider the true crime that would be committed if you log old growth. Will you be the Bureau of Land Management or Bureau of Land Massacre?

Insure our future by preserving our past.

Thank you.

Kristen Lindquester & William McClellan
435 River Loop 2
Eugene, OR 97404




EM-6943 Paul DiMarco <journeyhome@cox.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:11:29 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.

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.

Paul DiMarco
5425 Club Head Road
Virginia Beach, , VA 23455
EM-6944 Stacey Gilligan <staceygilligan@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:11:44 Dear BLM,
I am truly 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. Your plans will destroy beautiful, intrinsically valuable places much loved by many people.

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.

Stacey Gilligan
43259 McKenzie Hwy
leaburg, OR 97489
EM-6945 Erik Westerholm <westerholme@lanecc.edu> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:12:59 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.

Erik Westerholm
3560 Hayden Br. Rd.
Springfield, OR 97477

541-343-0308
EM-6946 Jennifer Saez <jamsy@blacksheep.tv> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 9:13:05 I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the
BLM's preferred alternative for 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 urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the
Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on
BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature
and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Saez
EM-6947 John Buckley <johnb@cserc.org> input for Western Oregon Plan Revision process 1/11/2008 9:13:19 January 11, 2008

Bureau of Land Management
Western Oregon Plan Revisions Office
333 SW 1st. Avenue Portland, Oregon
Portland, OR 97208

cc: Oregon Congressional delegation


Western Oregon Plan Revisions


Dear BLM decision-makers:

For 13 years I worked as a U.S. Forest Service firefighter, fuels technician, and fire prevention technician -- dealing with a broad range of forest issues and jobs. Based on that background and an additional 18 years working for a non-profit that has a primary focus tied to forest issues, I respectfully share that I have a great deal of experience with forest management. I have visited every national forest in Oregon and many BLM lands as well. I have traveled across America, especially during 7 years on Hot Shot fire crews, and I am the author of a book on firefighting across the West.

Accordingly, although I am not a resident of Oregon, I recognize that the manner in which BLM lands in Oregon are managed does affect me, because public lands belong to me and all of the rest of America.

With the Western Oregon Plan Revisions, BLM is swinging towards unreasonable, irresponsible, and money-losing forest management that flies in the face of all the best available scientific literature that has come forward in recent decades. Clearcutting or similar even-age forest management can in some situations be an excellent method of growing a crop of trees and producing a crop of wood. But even-age logging practices are completely at odds with a goal of sustaining the forest ecosystem, of protecting at-risk wildlife species, of reducing watershed impacts, and of providing scenic forests for recreation.

In the Sierra Nevada region, during all of the years I worked for the Forest Service, the agency practiced clearcutting. For the past 15 years, the Forest Service has eliminated all clearcutting in the Sierra Nevada region and instead relies entirely upon thinning logging or a minimal amount of small group selection cut treatments.

BLM should select a final management plan that eliminates clearcutting or other even-age logging treatments, and which eliminates monoculture tree plantations. The forest environment will be sustained for far longer, even with high levels of logging treatments, if the agency utilizes thinning and group selection treatments.

One of my main concerns is the level of new roads planned for construction in your plan. Our staff scientists and I have just completed an analysis of each road segment within the local national forest in our region, and over a year of assessment we found that literally hundreds of miles of roads are dead-end spurs to nowhere, yet they create high amounts of watershed impacts. Literally thousands of miles of roads just within the local forest region are unnecessary, are slicing through key wildlife areas, and are causing a broad range of environmental impacts. The local forest has finally accepted the need to MINIMIZE THE ROAD SYSTEM TO THE LEVEL ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR FOREST MANAGEMENT. That is what I urge for this BLM plan -- to cancel the proposal to build ANY new roads, and to instead, to incorporate targets to reduce existing roads by at least 33% of the next decade.

On the issue of Late Successional Old Growth, late seral forest habitat, it is truly unthinkable for BLM to target any old growth stands due to the incredible loss of old growth habitat that has already taken place in Oregon. BLM will be taken to court, and will likely lose, if the agency targets old growth when numerous LSOG-dependent wildlife species depend so markedly upon that critical habitat for survival.

On behalf of our staff and our members, I urge BLM to move beyond the pro-industry management approach that is currently being considered for approval, and to instead recognize that the country has shifted, the times have shifted, and the need for protection of roadless values, old growth, and at-risk wildlife has escalated greatly. Get with the times. Follow the good science. Create a balanced, fair, and prudent plan that errors on the side of protecting the forest ecosystem, rather than leaning toward appeasement of frustrated timber industry politicians or supporters.

Respectfully,

John Buckley, executive director
Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center
Box 396Twain Harte, CA 95383
EM-6948 Randy McCall <rmccall@nexant.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:18:10 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.

Randy McCall
3575 Eagle Crest Road NW
Salem, OR 97304
EM-6949 lawrence siskind <el127@hotmail.com> BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions 1/11/2008 9:18:28 Dear BLM,
I am very concerned with the direction the Bush Administration isheaded in with the management of nearly 2.6 million acres of federalforests under the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The changes that theBLM is contemplating will unravel the protections of the landmarkNorthwest Forest Plan, and may lead to water pollution, degradedhabitat, and increased conflict and controversy.

Your current proposal is unacceptable. The agency proposes to increaseold-growth logging on public lands in western Oregon by 700%, build1,000 miles of new logging road in the next decade and clearcut at a9-1 ratio to thinning. This is a myopic and backwards proposal thatdepletes our natural resource base for future generations by weakeningprotections for forests, creeks and salmon. Shockingly, the proposalignores the role that these forests play in regulating the climate.

Most Americans want federal land managers to embrace thinning secondgrowth forests, safeguard communities from wildfire and protect whatremains of our nation's ancient forests. By focusing on previouslylogged public forestlands - many of which are now overgrown and in needof thinning - they are providing wood to local mills while actuallyimproving conditions for fish and wildlife and keeping saws out ofprecious old-growth forests.

In contrast, the WOPR proposes to inflame the controversy by increasingold-growth clear-cutting for a short-term economic fix. The WOPR putswater quality at-risk and would destroy some of Oregon's most specialplaces. We should protect our remaining mature and old-growth forestson public land, not clear-cut these natural treasures as the WOPRproposes to do.

It is disappointing that at a time when public consensus for old-growthprotection and second-growth thinning has never been stronger, the BLMis proposing to clear-cut forests older than our nation and turncomplex ecosystems into flammable tree farms.

Please protect remaining old-growth forests, focus active management ofBLM lands in already logged-over areas, and concentrate jobopportunities in restoration forestry that would benefit watersheds andgenerate wood products without multiplying past mistakes.

Sincerely,

Lwrence Siskind
2244 Alder Street
Eugene, OR 97405
_________________________________________________________________
Put your friends on the big screen with Windows Vista® + Windows LiveT.http://www.microsoft.com/windows/shop/specialoffers.mspx?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_CPC_MediaCtr_bigscreen_012008
EM-6950 Gene Hoilman <gene_hoilman@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:20:15 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.

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.

Gene Hoilman
804 NE 68th Ave.
Portland, OR 97213
EM-6951 Tia Triplett <tia@anlf.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:21:06 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.

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.

Tia Triplett
4073 Bledsoe Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90066
EM-6952 Guy Glaeser <gwglaeser@msn.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:22:20 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.

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.

Guy Glaeser
8110 N. Hurst Ave
Portland, OR 97203

503-289-0856
EM-6953 Richard Ferreira <richardf@pacifier.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:25:56 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.

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.

Richard Ferreira
2161 Crest Drive
Lake Oswego, OR 97034-2719
EM-6954 Joanne McLennan <joanne@edgedesign.us> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 9:26:13 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,

Joanne McLennan
32227 Tangent Drive
Tangent, Oregon 97389
EM-6955 Robin Laughlin <robin.laughlin@email.toast.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:26:46 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.

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.

Robin Laughlin
2401 NW Marken Street
Bend, OR 97701
EM-6956 Darcie Hildreth <darcie_h_koala@yahoo.com> Protect old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:26:46 Dear BLM,
I am a native Oregonian and continue to live in Oregon for many 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 heart sick and disgusted because this plan will ruin my ability to enjoy the public lands in western Oregon. The changes planned by the Bureau of Land Management 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:
- 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 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 visitors, and wildlife. Oregon needs tourism to feed our economy - catering to the timber and motorized vehicle industry 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.

Darcie Hildreth
4150 SE 72nd AVe.
Portland , OR 97206
EM-6957 Susan Lander <sueland@ccountry.net> BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions 1/11/2008 9:28:11 Dear BLM,
I am writing to urge you to develop a logging plan that would protect old growth reserves, wildlife, and stream ecology. The currently proposed plan is not sustainable. The current proposal would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan and would increase water pollution, degrade habitat and increase conflict.
I urge you plan for protection of Research Natural Areas and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, reduce clearcutting, and think in terms of sustainable thinning of forest farms, which, not incidentally, would lead to increased diversity and health of forest farms.
It is also worth noting that tourism is a major source of income for the Oregon economy and clearcutting forests and putting in more roads is very likely to make Oregon less appealing to many tourists.

Oregon's remaining old-growth forests are a treasure -- offering wonderful recreation opportunities, clean water, homes for wildlife, and offsetting global warming. The WOPR is a step back to the unsustainable days of clear-cutting this amazing resource, endangering wildlife, muddying streams, and fueling public outcry.Far preferable 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 special, while providing sustainable jobs and other economic benefits for rural communities.

Susan Lander
1206 Linda Ave
Ashland, OR 97520
EM-6958 jeremy olsen <jeolsen@uoregon.edu> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:29:01 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.

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.

jeremy olsen
330 Crest Drive
Eugene, OR 97405

541-590-4815
EM-6959 Janet Kruse <janet.kruse@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:29:26 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.

Janet Kruse
PO Box 15294
Portland, OR 97293

503-752-4650
EM-6960 Christine Steele <cms66@humboldt.edu> Protect Our Forests 1/11/2008 9:29:41 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.

Christine Steele
1526 SE Knight St
Portland, OR 97202
EM-6961 Meredith Meskin <mmeskin@gorge.net> Don't cut down old growth 1/11/2008 9:30:31 Dear BLM,
I've been in Guyana for the last two weeks and have seen here first hand what happens when logging goes out of control. The people of Guyana are very poor and see logging their beautiful old forests and jungle as a means of survival. We in the US have enough resources that we should know better than to cut down national treasures, like our forests.

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.

Meredith Meskin
1401 Cross Creek Ln
Hood River, OR 97031

541-386-9517
EM-6962 Cathy Verret <cathy@prodaware.com> old-growth forests should be protected! 1/11/2008 9:31:07 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.

Cathy Verret
2450 Potter
Eugene, OR 97405
EM-6963 denny kasunic <dennykaz@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:31:07 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.

denny kasunic
206 se 74th ave
apt B
portland, OR 97215
EM-6964 Jo Yeager <eager_jay@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:31:23 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.

Jo Yeager
18 Maple Court
Independence, OR 97351
EM-6965 John Mallalieu <openmindedman@hotmail.com> Protect our Streams & Old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:31:47 Dear BLM,
I dislike 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 proposing 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 our 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.

John Mallalieu
1085 Louis Street
Eugene, OR 97402
EM-6966 Adventure Kayak <adventure_kayak@yahoo.com> BLM plan to clearcut old growth trees - WOPR 1/11/2008 9:32:12 We all know it's corporate special interests pushing
the BLM to clearcut the old growth trees. Please allow
Oregon to stay a beautiful place by leaving the old
growth trees alone!

Thank you,

Lee Schondorf
678 Charles
Yoncalla 97499
541-849-2442


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
EM-6967 John Mallalieu <openmindedman@hotmail.com> Protect our Streams & Old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:33:02 Dear BLM,
I dislike 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 proposing 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 our 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.

John Mallalieu
1085 Louis Street
Eugene, OR 97402
EM-6968 Sean Agnew <sean_agnew@pharmcomp.com> WOPR 1/11/2008 9:33:47 Dear Oregon BLM, as a farmer it's well known you cannot harvest indefinitely
without adding fertilizer. I would like to know what kind of fertilizer you
plan to use for your WOPR program? Logging groups have always claimed that
trees will regrow in areas which have been harvested. All that has ever
happened is that smaller trees grow in and die long before reaching the
heights of the old growth forest. If you want to help the forest cut the
smallest trees and the undergrowth which was allowed to surge after the old
growth was cut.

Secondly, plan on being ridiculed by the world. Forest destruction is big
news and affects the whole world. The excuse of helping us poor rural folk
does not justify the negative impact on the world's environment. Rural
dwellers depend on clean ground water which will be impacted by a reduction
in the largest trees. I don't see in your EIS where it talks about the water
table level. Am I going to need to drill a deeper well someday?

Why don't you consider asking the federal government for funds to protect
the forests? As in for carbon trading credits?
It is obvious we're still 'gold digging' in the west.

Sean Agnew
819 Shan Creek Road
Grants Pass, Oregon
(541)479-1760
EM-6969 robert litak <rlitak@mail.com> BLM WOPR 1/11/2008 9:34:11 Please consider these comments on the BLM's WOPR proposal.

As a resident of rural western Oregon near BLM's O&C lands, I am extremely concerned about all of the alternatives proposed -- especially the preferred alternative -- on a number of counts.  First and foremost -- according to your own analysis -- the preferred alternative increases the fire risk to my property.  How dare the BLM propose to put me and my family at increased risk in a thinly-veiled attempt to extract the maximum profit for logging companies!  It is bad enough that the plan doesn't seek to reducefire risk, but to increase it is really outrageous!!

Secondly, the plan proposes massive clear-cutting of some of our few remaining mature forests. In addition to being extremely poor forest management, this doesn't even make economic sense: the loss in tourism and recreation will far outweigh any temporary benefits to the timber industry, not to mention the impact of all these clearcuts on our hillsides, streams,  and viewsheds.  It is precisely because many of these mature forest tracts are near the valley floor and accessible to much of the population that makes them so valuable: they are the last vestiges of what once dominated the low-elevation landscape, and to permanently destroy them by turning them into plantations is highly irresponsible.

Finally, I object to the idea that much of the forest should be open to off-road vehicle use.  For those of us who live nearby, this is by far the most destructive (not to mention annoying) use of forest lands.  ORV use should be strictly limited to areas of very minor ecological importance, and isolated from neighboring homes.

The only alternative that makes any sense is the no-action alternative.  A better plan would be to extract timber and reduce fire risk by thinning existing plantations while leaving mature forests intact, along the lines of proposals by Rep. DeFazio and Sen. Wyden.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Robert K. Litak
4403 Dick George Rd
Cave Junction, OR 97523

--
Are we headed for a recession? Read more on the Money Portal.
mail.com Money
EM-6970 Brian O'Connor <broconnor@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:36:08 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.

Brian O'Connor
1188 jonmart ave
salem, OR 97306
EM-6971 Kim Brewlager <kim@pacificscreening.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 9:36:35 I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the BLM's
preferred alternative for 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 urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the
Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM
lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old
growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely,

Kim Brewlager
EM-6972 Rick Till <ricktill@gmail.com> Protect the last of the old growth 1/11/2008 9:38:13 Dear BLM,
I'm astonished that we have to constantly struggle to protect the last of our old growth heritage from the actions of my own government. WOPR appears to be another attempt to sell our heritage, our history, and our future generations well-being for short-term profit. I oppose plans to log old growth and support the following statement.

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.

Rick Till
1436 SE Stark # 205
Pordland, OR 97214
EM-6973 Lauriel Schuman <somunch2sea@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:38:13 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.

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.

Lauriel Schuman
760 SE Linn St
Portland, OR 97202
EM-6974 Jo Thompson <jo_thmpsn@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:38:53 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.

Jo Thompson
2549 SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Hy
Portland, OR 97239
EM-7077 <jpropp@samhealth.org> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 11:12:23 I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the BLM's preferred alternative for 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 urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely,
Angela M Bailey
angbabi@gmail.com

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
message.
EM-7078 Katherine Anne Stansbury <kathycallaway@whiz.to> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 11:12:52 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.

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.

Katherine Anne Stansbury
7661 SW 74th Avenue
Portland, OR 97223
EM-7079 dmdesmoines@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 11:13:01 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Dean Monroe
5301 Cleon Ave #4
No. Hollywood, CA 91601

EM-7080 andreaoneal@gmail.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 11:13:01 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Andrea ONeal
POB 6089
Bellingham, WA 98225

EM-7081 Paolo Tomka <paolo@tomka.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 11:13:07 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.

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.

Paolo Tomka
1015 NW 10th St.
Corvallis, OR 97330
EM-7082 Doug_Young@fws.gov Oregon Chapter AFS Comments on WOPR DEIS 1/11/2008 11:13:27 Attached are the Oregon Chapter American Fisheries Society's signed
comments on the WOPR DEIS, saved as a .pdf file. I will mail a hard copy,
too. Thanks you for the opportunity to comment, and please contact me if
ORAFS can assist in any way.
(See attached file: afs_worp0000.pdf)

I am also trying to submit ORAFS comments to your website, but have not
been able to gain access today.

Doug Young
Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2600 SE 98th Ave. Suite 100
Portland, OR 97266503-231-6179, Fax -6195 - afs_worp0000.pdf
EM-7083 John DeVoe <steve@waterwatch.org> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 11:15:12 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.

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.

John DeVoe
1725 NW 29th Ave
Portland, OR 97210
EM-7084 Felicia Kenney <felicia@panix.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 11:16:28 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.

Felicia Kenney
1185 W. 7th Alley #1
Eugene, OR 97402

541-343-0722
EM-7085 Tina Giese <olhodemacaco@mac.com> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 11:17:27 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,

Wilbert Evans
582 Pinedale
Eugene, Or
97477
EM-7086 rawitt1@adelphia.net Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 11:18:02 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Rose Ann Witt
1282 Oak Grove Place
Westlake Village, CA 91362-4249

EM-7087 Pat Rasmussen <patr@crcwnet.com> Comments on WOPR 1/11/2008 11:18:07 Dear Mr. Hoffmeister,
 
The World Temperate Rainforest Network is submitting these comments on the WOPR. Temperate rainforests are rare -  only 0.2% of the Earth's land mass - and are found only in Alaska, British Columbia, Washiington, Oregon, northern California, Chile, New Zealand and Australia. They are important for many reasons but now are critical to turning around the global emergency of climate change. Temperate rainforests hold more carbon per hectare than any other forest type - tropical, boreal or temperate. I am attaching a paper by Dr. Marc Harmon of OSU in which he writes that to manage for carbon, we must protect all remaining old growth forests, allow maturing forests to return to old growth and in any managed forests use a longer rotation of 100 to 150 years. When old growth forests are logged, the area gives off carbon into the atmosphere for 10-30 years and it takes 250 years before the area holds as much carbon as it did prior to logging. Clearly, the old growth forests of western Oregon must be protected for the carbon they hold. The urgent need is clear in the most recent IPCC Report:
 
"If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment." Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC and 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, issued this call to action upon the release of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fourth and final report on November 17, 2007.4 The IPCC is the scientific body charged by the U.N. with providing objective information about climate change. The fourth IPCC report combines scientific data from three previous IPCC reports, and their comprehensive synthesis creates a striking sense of urgency.5
 
Given that we have only two to three years to make changes and a logged forest puts carbon into the atmosphere for the first 10-30 years and it takes 250 years before the new forest holds as much carbon as the old growth forest did, your current plan goes in the wrong direction and needs to be dropped. The future of life on Earth depends on it.
 
Instead, you need to protect all old growth forests and allow maturing forest to move toward old growth.
 
Pat Rasmussen
World Temperate Rainforest Network
PO Box 154
Peshastin, WA 98847
509-669-1549
patr@crcwnet.com
www.temperaterainforests.org - WTRN Potential upper bounds of carbon etc.pdf
EM-7088 Wendy McGowan <ramblin@rosenet.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 11:19:23 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.

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.

Wendy McGowan
467 SE Ramp St.
Roseburg, OR 97470
EM-7089 Karen Minihan <kminihan59@comcast.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 11:19:48 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.

Karen Minihan
40 W. 36th Ave.

Eugene, OR 97405
EM-7090 Sara Butcher <saralouisebutcher@hotmail.com> Do not adopt WOPR! 1/11/2008 11:20:38 Dear BLM,
I want to strongly voice my opinion that the WOPR plan must NOT BE ADOPTED. Our state and communities have suffered enough from the disasterous consequences of clear cut logging, the most recent floods being a prime example.

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. Oregonians know this is just another example of the greed displayed by the Bush administration and will not benefit the citizens of our state.

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.

WOPR must not be adopted.

Sara Butcher
4905 SE 28th Avenue
Portland, OR 97202
EM-7091 Katherine Anne Stansbury <kathycallaway@whiz.to> Top 10 Reasons WOPR is a Bad Idea 1/11/2008 11:21:38 The current draft of the Western Oregon Plan Revision is unacceptable
as responsible forest management. Consider the following ten points:

10. Quality of life.
The WOPR proposes widespread clearcutting of public forest, which 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.

9. Peace and quiet.
Clearcutting of old growth forest and proposed "Off Highway Vehicle
Emphasis Areas" threaten peace and quite for rural residents and
visitors. Over 100,000 acres would be promoted as destinations for
OHVs, most adjacent to Oregonian's private residences.

8. Clean water and salmon.
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.

7. Ancient forests.
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 (an area the size
of Delaware) would be put in "Timber Management Areas," where
clearcutting is emphasized.

6. Wildlife and plant habitat.
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.

5. Sustainable economies.
Healthy, protected forests are one of Oregon's most important natural
assets. While rampant old growth clearcutting promises short-term
economic boom to a few well-connected mill owners, an economic bust is
easily foreseeable under the Bush plan as fish, wildlife and the old
growth forests that they rely on dwindle.

4. Northwest Forest Plan.
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.

3. It is illegal.
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.

2. Global warming and fire.
While the Bush administration ignores climate change in the WOPR, by
converting moist old growth forests into dry flammable tree
plantations, the WOPR will increase the amount of carbon in the
atmosphere and places communities at enhanced risk of uncharacteristic
fire.

1. 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.

Katherine Anne Stansbury
7661 SW 74th Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97223
EM-7092 carolinebyerly@earthlink.net Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 11:22:02 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Caroline Byerly
1031 Princeton Avenue
Modesto, CA 95350

EM-7093 rjett@ConnectMedia.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 11:22:02 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Richard Jett
20A Sunnyside Ave. Suite 150
Mill Valley, CA 94941

EM-7094 Daniel Gee <danandmaya@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 11:22:18 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.

Daniel Gee
18964 Little Lake Road
Blachly, OR 97412
EM-7095 Brent Jensen <brentj30@comcast.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 11:23:43 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.

Brent Jensen
4197 SE Hemlock St
Hillsboro, OR 97123
EM-7096 MC Manning <mcmanning@tmo.blackberry.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 11:27:19 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.

MC Manning
111 SW Harrison st
PDX, OR 97201
EM-7097 Rachel Foster <rfoster@efn.org> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 11:28:10 While I fully understand that timber is a valuable and potentially renewable resource, I am deeply concerned about the Western Oregon Plan Revision being considered for management of the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. The WOPR could increase road-buliding, clearcutting of old growth forest and reduction of stream buffers at a time when we have abundant science clearly indicating the value of both to clean water and healthy salmon runs.

 

This short-sighted,  irresponsible proposal fits a pattern of environmental abuse from a corrupt administration bent on appeasing a handful of well-connected political donors without regard to science or public opinion. The changes the BLM has proposed will lead to more conflict and controversy and potentially to the loss of more Oregon's irreplaceable old forests and all the amenities they offer.

 

Please protect western BLM forests and maintain the Northwest Forest Plan reserve system. We should protect what is left of Oregon's old growth heritage forests, and restore forests that have been degraded. Thinning and active management of already logged-over areas could generate billions of board feet of commercially valuable timber while actually benefitting our watersheds and wildlife habitat.

 

Sincerely,

 

Rachel Foster

 
EM-7098 Kate Knowles <katherineknowles@gmail.com> No more logging the old growth! 1/11/2008 11:28:35 I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the
BLM's preferred alternative for 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 urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the
Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM
lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and
old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely,

Katherine Knowles
EM-7099 Rick Rasmor <rkrasmor@earthlink.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 11:29:34 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.

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.

Rick Rasmor
21275 E Lolo Pass Rd
Rhododendron, OR 97049
EM-6975 Lisa M. Leslie <ll@bhlaw.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 9:40:50 I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the BLM's preferred alternative for 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 urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely,

Lisa-Marie Leslie
EM-6976 Kyle Haines <kfaeastside@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:42:39 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.

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.

Kyle Haines
1415 Johnson Ave
Klamath Falls, OR 97601
EM-6977 Jim Funk <spartankayaker@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:43:05 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.

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.

Jim Funk
1828 NE 113th Ave.
Portland, OR 97220

503-222-9115
EM-6978 Peter & Mary Alice Belov <beltek@gorge.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:43:54 Dear BLM,
I am very concerned with the direction the BLM is headed with the total lack of positive 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.

Totally ignored in this plan is the real value of Oregon's tourist industry, fishing, hunting and other uses of these forests. Destruction of our forests will eliminate these values and the incomes of those relying mostly fishing and tourism for their income - and that because of the big bucks provided the Bush/Cheney administration by the timber industry.

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.

Peter & Mary Alice Belov
325 W. Darland St.
Goldendale, WA 98620
EM-6979 Pat Rasmussen <patr@crcwnet.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:44:19 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.

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.

Pat Rasmussen
PO Box 154
Peshastin, WA 98847
EM-6980 Bev Hedin <bevhedin@comcast.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:44:19 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.

Bev Hedin
829 NW 4th Ave
Camas, WA 98607

?360-210-7415
EM-6981 Tom Dimitre <dimitre@mind.net> Comments on WOPR 1/11/2008 9:44:51 - rgsc wopr comments 1 08.doc
EM-6982 George Sexton <gs@kswild.org> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 9:44:53 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

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,

George Sexton
396 Bridge Street #1
Ashland, OR. 97520
(541) 488-5789
EM-6983 Valerie Schafer <valerieschafer@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:46:49 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.

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.

Valerie Schafer
4133 SE Tibbetts
Portland, OR 97202
EM-6984 Jeannine Mazo <jjmtm@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:47:24 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.

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.

Jeannine Mazo
2307 Azle Avenue
Apt A
Fort Worth, TX 76164

817-625-5023
EM-6985 Margaret Robertson <robertsonm@lanecc.edu> Comment: WOPR is bad science 1/11/2008 9:47:46 Dear BLM:

Your new "forest plan," or, rather, your forest-elimination plan, is bad science. It counters everything we know--from years of empirical data--about forest ecology, habitat requirements of terrestrial and aquatic species, fire dynamics, and carbon sequestration. It is unbelievable that an agency which is supposed to be a steward of the land--which is jointly owned by us all and by our descendants yet unborn--would go down this ill-informed, wrong-headed path.

In my professional opinion, your new "forest plan" is absolutely WRONG. I am completely opposed, and strenuously urge you to retract it.

Sincerely,


Margaret Robertson, ASLA
Lane Community College
4000 E. 30th Ave.
Eugene, OR 97405
541-463-3143
robertsonm@lanecc.edu
EM-6986 Rory Nichols <rorynichols@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:48:14 Dear BLM,
I?m writing with deep concern over the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. I am a hiker, backpacker, camper, bushwhacker, and seasonal USFS employee. There is nothing I enjoy more than western Oregon forest.
I do not see any benefits associated with doing any cutting within old growth forest or roadless areas both economically or environmentally. I believe increasing harvest will only hurt timber dependent communities even more since it would create a boom-and-bust cycle further preventing communities from getting out of this dead end cycle and not moving into economically sustainable businesses. WOPR will likely cause these communities to continue asking for welfare from the federal government for decades to come costing taxpayers. In addition to this, I don?t feel the WOPR is taking into consideration the dip in stumpage prices since the housing bubble has burst after 2005 (the year much of the BLM estimates are based). Current stumpage prices according to the USFS are not high enough to cover its administrative and post-harvest restoration costs.

I would suggest only thinning the plantation forest that has been planted over the past 100 years. Logging anything older makes little sense. The Siuslaw NF is a good example of a forest that has a solid management plan and never has its well-planned timber sales taken to court. I believe WOPR will only lead to environmentalists taking the BLM to court. This is a waste.

In conclusion, I strongly encourage the poorly-written WOPR to be rejected.

Sincerely,

Rory


Rory Nichols
PO BOX 1153
Silverton, OR 97381
EM-6987 Ray Jernberg <GMGYPSIEWOMAN@webtv.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:48:30 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.

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.

Ray Jernberg
p.o. box 141
O`Brien, OR 97534
EM-6988 serge vrabec <vrabec1@aol.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:49:20 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.

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.

serge vrabec
5902 SE Milwaukie ave.
portland, OR 97202

503-239-6009
EM-6989 redfish4@myway.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 9:49:36 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Matthew Pintar
618 Louise Court
Canonsburg, PA 15317

EM-6990 Ken Paul <kpaul38@mac.com> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 9:50:10 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,

Kenneth Paul
3837 Potter St
Eugene, OR 97405
EM-6991 Tania Parks <bigt@ecologyfund.net> Protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:50:10 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.

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.

By logging closer to streams the WOPR reduces important protections for clean water and Pacific salmon. Salmon need cool, clean water, but the WOPR would remove stream buffers that shade streams and keep sediment from the water.

High quality drinking water originates on BLM lands for the citizens of Salem, Corvallis, Eugene, and 70 other Oregon communities. Please leave the existing protections for riparian areas in place.

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 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 - 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 puts water quality at risk and would destroy some of Oregon's most special places. We need to protect our remaining mature and old-growth forests on public land, not clearcut these natural treasures.

Tania Parks
526 NE Alberta Street
Portland, OR 97211

503-957-0780
EM-6992 Paul Kollas <pkkollas@gorge.net> WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 9:50:14 I try to keep up with what's going on locally and in the nation. WOPR
has completely evaded my notice, until catching sight of it in a
Sierra Club mailing.

I am very concerned about what WOPR is, what official information is
available about it, the scope of its proposals, and why the WOPR is
lying so low on the horizon.

Please provide me with information, or websites with information about
the WOPR.

Paul

EM-6993 Paul Reineke <paulreineke@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:50:35 Dear BLM,
We don't need to log old growth forests. We need to protect what little we have left. The WOPR is a plan for increased old growth destruction, loss of habitat and potentially extinction of plant and animal species.

Let's protect our natural wonders for ourselves and our descendants to enjoy.

Please do not go on with the WOPR.

Paul Reineke
2923 NE Schuyler St
Portland, Or. 97232

Paul Reineke
2923 NE Schuyler St.
Portland, OR 97212
EM-6994 Ellie Sager <esager_1@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:50:35 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.

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.

Ellie Sager
2800 Applewood Ln., #42
Eugene, OR 97408
EM-6995 Michelle Hoff <hofmich22@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:50:45 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.

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.

Michelle Hoff
2413 Stony Garden Rd
Kintnersville, PA 18930
EM-6996 Curt Sommer <csommer@opusnet.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:51:10 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.

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.

Curt Sommer
18490 Lower Midhill Dr.
West Linn, OR 97068
EM-6997 Dominic Lovato <dominiclovato5@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:51:25 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.

Dominic Lovato
2930 SW Charity Ct
Troutdale, OR 97060
EM-6998 Erik Scholtes <erik.scholtes@vizwerks.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 9:52:26 I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the BLM's preferred alternative for 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 urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.


Sincerely,


Erik Scholtes




__________________________________________________

Erik Scholtes  |  creative director   |   erik.scholtes@vizwerks.com

VIZWERKS   |   a retail design company
2240 N. INTERSTATE AVE., STE. 100
PORTLAND, OREGON 97227

[503] 288.7471 x112 v   |   [503] 288.7497 f   |   [503] 593.0651 m


NOTICE: The information and/or attachments contained herein are confidential and represent protected and privileged intellectual property. If you have received this e-mail in error, please let the sender know by reply and delete from your systems. © 2007 Vizwerks, Inc. All rights reserved. V071109

EM-6999 Bielman, Mark T (GE Indust, Security) <Mark.Bielman@ge.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 9:52:34 We are very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. We are opposed to the BLM's preferred alternative for 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.

We urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely,

Mark & Jan Bielman

Pedee, Oregon

mbielman@hotmail.com

 

PS - SAVE THE FOREST... WE LIVE THERE!
EM-7000 Bob Schlesinger <bob@arcticwildlife.org> WOPR Plan is WRONG ! 1/11/2008 9:53:15 Dear BLM,
I am very upset with the BLM's proposed Western Oregon Plan Revisions. This will lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict, controversy, and lawsuits.
It is a very bad idea.

There is no reason to log 200 year old forests in Oregon. There are plenty of younger forests that can provide sustained yields. 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 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 would allow such things as logging close 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 and do not permit logging in the old growth forests.




Bob A Schlesinger
3125 SW Bennington Drive
Portland, OR 97205

503-227-2367
EM-7001 Nancyl Lewin <nlewin@sbcglobal.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:53:31 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.

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.

Nancyl Lewin
1433 Hopkins St
Berkeley, CA 94702
EM-7002 nick-julie@hotmail.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 9:53:39 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
julie hawley
341 2nd ave se
albany, OR 97321

EM-7003 Cynthia Nielsen <cynthia@bluevoiceonline.com> Comment: BLM WOPR 1/11/2008 9:53:43 After a review of BLM's proposed Western Oregon forest management plan revisions, I strongly recommend the No Action Alternative.  The other alternatives presented are not in the best interest of the citizens of Oregon and management of these public lands.
 
Thank you for listening to a variety of comments and perspectives. 
 
Cynthia Nielsen
BlueVoice Communication
bluevoiceonline.com
503-622-6388
EM-7004 Greg & Becky Zahradnik <greg2nd@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:57:26 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.

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.

Greg & Becky Zahradnik
1239 Royal Ave
Louisville, KY 40204
EM-7005 richardtgarrett@hotmail.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 9:57:40 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Rick Garrett
Summit Avenu
Seatle, WA 98122

EM-7006 Deb Wechselblatt <deb@bark-out.org> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 9:58:16 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.

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.

Deb Wechselblatt
4027 N. Michigan Ave
Portland, OR
Portland, OR 97227
EM-7007 wolfdancer@cascadeaccess.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 9:59:40 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Kat Mills
35712 SE Suface Rd
Estacada, OR 97023

EM-7008 Joseph Yuska <yuska@lclark.edu> old-growth forests are important to protect 1/11/2008 10:01:12 Dear BLM,
Over two million acres of federal forests are being chopped up under the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. Your proposed direction will destroy the underpinnings of Northwest Forest Plan, and will end up with years of lawsuits.

A 7 fold increase in the cutting of forests over 200 years old is just ridiculous. I understand that two thousand square miles of forest would be put in "Timber Management Areas," where clearcutting is emphasized.

Protected watersheds for Salem, Corvallis, Eugene, and other Oregon communities are important, your proposal seems to ignore this. Removing or cutting back stream buffers that shade streams and keep sediment from the water is also a bad idea.

WOPR will ignite a lot of controversy at a time where most citizens of the USA believe our few remaining intact forests should be protected rather than cut down. The plan sounds like it was written by the lobbyists for the timber industry, the people the Bush Administration has put in control of our natural resources.

My hope is that forest managers with any moral character, or those that think there is an obligation to protect at least a shred of old growth forest ecosystems for our children, I urge you to reject this plan.



Joseph Yuska
9245 SW Brier Place
Portland, OR 97219
EM-7009 Emil Graziani <graziani1@comcast.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 10:01:52 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.

Emil Graziani
1189 Rees Hill Road SE
Salem, OR 97306

503-399-9920
EM-7010 bob@waterwatch.org Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 10:04:41 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am opposed to the BLM's proposed Western Oregon Plan Revisions
(WOPR) and am appalled by the BLM's attempt to subject our
public lands to unwarranted and harmful clearcutting.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. The proposal fails to appreciate
how important these intact forests are to salmon, clean water,
diversity of wildlife, and in helping to slow global warming.
Recent flood events and ensuing landslides in the Northwest show
the results of failed forest mangement that this plan would
perpetuate.

This misguided and unacceptable plan would unravel the
protections of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) and threaten the
magnificent forests, diversity of life, and clean salmon-rich
waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage. The plan should be rewritten to protect our ancient
forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these areas
home.



Sincerely,
Robert Hunter
142 W. Dutton Rd.
Eagle Point, OR 97524

EM-7011 Rachel Foster <rfoster@efn.org> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 10:08:34 I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the BLM's preferred alternative for 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 think the plan is based upon bad science, and it sacrifices the long term interests of communities and the forests to the short term gains of special interests.  It is part of a radical political agenda that seeks to silence public opposition and distort the scientific record.  The BLM stewardship of our forests demands that they take a wider view of what constitutes the health of our forests.  Logging of old growth can in no sense be justified since it destroys the diversity that is central to the well being of these fragile eco-systems.

I urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely,

Randall McGowen

3431 View Lane

Eugene, Oregon97405
EM-7012 Andrea Hamberg <andreahamberg@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 10:08:43 Dear BLM,
Below you'll find a carefully written letter from Oregon Wild. I'm sure you know what it says; if not, please read it. But mostly I just want to add my own voice to this conversation and plead on behalf of the walks I love to take in our beautiful woods here in Oregon.

I am the daughter of a cabinet maker; I truly understand the need for wood to keep our country great. But I do believe we can have our cake and eat it too, so to speak. I honestly believe that there are better ways to harvest our forests for our needs and keep old growth areas untouched and healthy for the sake of the water, the air, the plants, animals, and us. Please reconsider this tremendously damaging forest plan.

And, if you have never walked in an old growth, I strongly encourage you to do so. In fact, a walk in an old growth and a walk in an area "farmed" for our use is an incredible experience. I would be happy to take you our into our beautiful woods so you can see for yourself that we can never recreated the wonder that god created on our planet.
Thank you.

Andrea Hamberg




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.

Andrea Hamberg
1902 SE 26th Ave
Portland, OR 97214
EM-7013 Philip Simon <philsimtpr@aol.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 10:10:13 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.

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.

Philip Simon
Box 9473
San Rafael, CA 94912
EM-7014 Paul Schlegelmann <sequoia55@proaxis.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 10:11:55 Good Morning,
 
I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. 
 
I and my family live very near these forests.  We hike, play, and revel in the beauty and serenity of the old growth areas and other sections of these forests.  I want my young children to continue to enjoy these forests, particularly the few remaining old growth areas, for as long as my children live and grow up in these areas and for their children and grandchildren also.
 
I am highly opposed to the BLM's preferred alternative for 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 urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.

Sincerely,
EM-7015 Marceline Gearry <marcelineg@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 10:12:03 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.

Marceline Gearry
2884 NW Savier St.
Poirtland, OR 97210

503-223-4366
EM-7016 Fritzi Grevstad <grevstad@u.washington.edu> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 10:12:49 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.

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.

Fritzi Grevstad
25180 Blackberry Ln
Philomath, OR 97370

503-470-0169
EM-7017 Sarah Hafer <charityh@comcast.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 10:14:29 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.

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.

Sarah Hafer
4913 Cowell Blvd #A
Davis, CA 95618
EM-7018 rhonda bergemann <rhondabifani@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 10:15:45 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.

rhonda bergemann
6307 ne 22nd ave
PORTLAND, OR 97211
EM-7019 harrisonhilbert@hotmail.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 10:17:43 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Harrison HILBERT
P.O. Box 714
Pocatello, ID 83204

EM-7020 Melissa DeCook <melissadecook@msn.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 10:18:15 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.

Melissa DeCook
3425 Concord St.
Eugene, OR 97402
EM-7021 Stan Clift <stan.clift@verizon.net> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 10:20:22  
I am opposed to the BLM's preferred alternative for 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 urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.
 
I also recommend elimination of clear cutting forests.  They should be selectively cut.  All present clear cut areas should be replanted. Flying from Portland to Sacramento makes it apparent the checker board nature of our forests cutting practice and the lack of regrowth!

Sincerely,
 
V. Stanley Clift
463 NE 17th Ave
Hillsboro, OR 97124
e-mail:  vsclift@juno.com
EM-7022 Victoria Koch <koch@efn.org> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 10:21:26 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.

Victoria Koch
1525 W. 12th Avenue
Eugene, OR 97402
EM-7023 corinemarie73@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 10:23:43 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Corine Johnson
520 2ND AVE W APT 103
Seattle, WA 98119-3977

EM-7024 Corina Topping Aleman <corinaaleman@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 10:23:51 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.

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.

Corina Topping Aleman
2645 Shasta Road
Berkeley, CA 94708
EM-7025 Clifford Fountain <cwfountain@stanfordalumni.org> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 10:24:56 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.

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.

Clifford Fountain
1997 Shiloh St
Eugene, OR 97401-1972
EM-7026 Mark Lundgren <raphe29@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 10:25:31 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.

Mark Lundgren
7638 sw 36th ave.
portland, OR 97219
EM-7027 Lisa Jean Hoefner <lisajean@gocamping.org> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 10:25:47 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.

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.

Lisa Jean Hoefner
1505 SW 18th Ave
Portland, OR 97201
EM-7028 Valerie White <valeriejwhite@comcast.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 10:26:37 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. Iam most concerned that old-growth forests are the best method of sequestering carbon dioxid ON EARTH, so it doesn't make ANY SENSE AT ALL To damage them, as it will effect our own survival.

Valerie White
2709 NW Glenwood Pl.
Corvallis, OR 97330
EM-7029 Patrick Kapsa <pkapsa@timberproducts.com> BLM Western Oregon Plan Revision 1/11/2008 10:27:15 Patrick Kapsa
3962 Monroe St.
Eugene, OR 97405-2369


January 11, 2008

Edward Shepard
OR/WA State Director
Bureau of Land Management
PO Box 2965
Portland, OR 97208


Dear Edward Shepard:

Please accept the following comments on the BLM's Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans for
Western Oregon.

Access should be maintained through BLM administered lands for private
land access, fire suppression, as well as recreational uses, such as
hunting, fishing, boating and sightseeing.

The BLM must develop and analyzes at least one alternative that maximizes
the amount of land in timber production and receipts to local county
governments, and meets its no jeopardy obligation.

In summary, the economic viability of our rural communities and the
overall health of our federal forests are of vital importance to me. I
ask that you give these comments full consideration as you prepare the
final Environmental Impact Statement and select the final management plans
for the Western Oregon BLM Districts.

Sincerely,


Patrick Kapsa
5417444254

EM-7030 Jenny Root <jroot@ocdla.org> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 10:28:52 Dear BLM,
I am opposed to the current plan to increase logging with the Western Oregon Plan Revisions.

The WOPR 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.

This plan would destroy protections for Pacific salmon--something that would bring this keystone species ever closer to threatened extinction. Do you really want to be a direct part of that?

Old growth forests are essential to the habitat for many species that we herald as part of "nature." Elk, black bear, even the spotted owl
are animals we value--until they're gone, and damaging their habitat through clearcutting is a surefire way to hasten their demise. We need to look to alternatives for our resources, such as responsible thinning.

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, reducing the risk of catastrophic wildland fire, 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.

Jenny Root
2220 Orr Ln
Eugene, OR 97405
EM-7031 Loris Joline Shroyer <shroyers@att.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 10:30:32 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.

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.

Loris Joline Shroyer
11500 S Township Road
Canby, OR 97013
EM-7032 yara.tethys@gmail.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 10:30:45 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Yara Tethys
3234 22nd Ave W
Seattle, WA 98199

EM-7033 monroemolly@hotmail.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 10:30:45 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Molly Monroe
2849 SE Goodpark
Corvallis, OR 97333

EM-7034 mischi_carter@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 10:30:45 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Mischi Carter
3931 Ashworth Ave N
Seattle, WA 98103

EM-7035 John Ost <johnaost@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 10:32:37 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.

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.

John Ost
7831 SE HARRISON ST
Portland, OR 97215
EM-7036 Rob Williams <rwilliam99@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 10:33:02 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.

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.

Rob Williams
18370 S. Henrici Road
Oregon City, OR 97045
EM-7037 Carol Newman <caroltov@pacifier.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 10:34:17 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.

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.

Carol Newman
44331 Peterson Ln
Astoria, OR 97103
EM-7038 Glenn Burkhart <gt_burkhart@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 10:35:08 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.

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.

Glenn Burkhart
140 Eschaton Rd
Onalaska, WA 98570
EM-7039 Pamela Ooten <dirtyenu@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 10:35:08 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.

Pamela Ooten
14960 S Henrici Rd
Oregon City, OR 97045
EM-7040 estdickey@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 10:35:46 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Esther Dickey
1766 Buse Street
West Linn, OR 97068

EM-7041 lesliegersicoff@sbcglobal.net Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 10:35:46 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

I am writing in opposition to the BLM's attempt to put our
nation's beloved forests at-risk through the proposed Western
Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). This misguided and unacceptable
plan would unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP) and threaten the magnificent forests, diversity of life,
and clean salmon-rich waters of the region.

Without the NWFP, we could see a return to logging of ancient
forests and the degradation of hundreds of miles of rivers and
streams up and down the Pacific coast. This proposal would take
us backwards to the days of rampant old growth clear-cutting,
destructive road building, and local controversy, and would fail
to provide real stewardship of these resources. I urge you to
reject this and every attempt to undermine science-based
protections for our nation's natural resources.

Clear-cutting over 100,000 acres of old-growth forest every
decade is simply an unsustainable rate of logging that would
destroy these ancient forests. I am also concerned that the
proposal fails to appreciate how important these intact forests
are in helping to slow global warming.

Please do not allow the destruction of our old-growth forest
heritage to be our legacy, and rewrite the plan to protect our
ancient forests, clean water, and the wildlife that call these
areas home.



Sincerely,
Leslie Gersicoff
8029 W. Norton Ave. #4
West Hollywood, CA 90046

EM-7042 Josh Laughlin <jlaughlin@cascwild.org> WOPR comment 1/11/2008 10:35:59 Dear Western Oregon BLM,

I am writing to express my concern over the possible elimination of
old-growth and streamside reserves on western Oregon BLM lands.
These forests provide habitat for many wildlife species, clean
drinking water to rural communities, recreation for outdoor
enthusiasts, and a legacy for future generations.

With so few old-growth forests remaining, it is critical that we
protect them for future generations to enjoy. Young, even-age tree
plantations are a sustainable place for generating wood products.

Please do not open older forests on our public lands to logging.

Sincerely,


Name: Denny Quirk
Street: 2401 24th St.
City,_State,_Zip: Anacortes, WA 98221
Email_Address: quirk16@comcast.net
--
Josh Laughlin, Conservation Director
Cascadia Wildlands Project
P.O. Box 10455
Eugene, OR 97440
541.434.1463 (voice)
541.434.6494 (fax)

The Cascadia Wildlands Project is dedicated to defending the forests,
waters, and wildlife of the Pacific Northwest. Visit www.cascwild.org
to learn more about wildlands issues and our leadership in the
conservation movement. Become a member today at
http://www.cascwild.org/donate.html. Your support makes a difference!
EM-7043 Damon Law <damon.law@vizwerks.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 10:36:20 I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the BLM's preferred alternative for 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 urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.


Sincerely,



Damon Law  .  designer II   .   damon.law@vizwerks.com



VIZWERKS   .   a retail design company
2240 N. INTERSTATE AVE., STE. 100
PORTLAND, OREGON 97227

[503] 288.7471 x111 v   .   [503] 288.7497 f


NOTICE: The information and/or attachments contained herein should be considered confidential and represents protected and privileged intellectual property. If you have received this e-mail in error, please let the sender know by reply and delete from your systems. © 2007 Vizwerks, Inc. All rights reserved.

- smime.p7s
EM-7044 Josh Laughlin <jlaughlin@cascwild.org> WOPR comment 1/11/2008 10:36:22 Dear Western Oregon BLM,

I am writing to express my concern over the possible elimination of
old-growth and streamside reserves on western Oregon BLM lands.
These forests provide habitat for many wildlife species, clean
drinking water to rural communities, recreation for outdoor
enthusiasts, and a legacy for future generations.

With so few old-growth forests remaining, it is critical that we
protect them for future generations to enjoy. I spend a lot of time
in the forests of Oregon and Washington with my family, with friends,
and visitors from other parts of the country. This is such a
special, unique place, with fewer and fewer existing in the
northwest, and we can't affored to lose anymore. Young, even-age
tree plantations are a more sustainable place for growing wood
products.

Please do not open older forests on our public lands to logging.

Sincerely,


Name: Cynthia Smith
Street: 915 30th Ave S
City,_State,_Zip: Seattle, WA 98144
Email_Address: cynthiasm@hotmail.com
--
Josh Laughlin, Conservation Director
Cascadia Wildlands Project
P.O. Box 10455
Eugene, OR 97440
541.434.1463 (voice)
541.434.6494 (fax)

The Cascadia Wildlands Project is dedicated to defending the forests,
waters, and wildlife of the Pacific Northwest. Visit www.cascwild.org
to learn more about wildlands issues and our leadership in the
conservation movement. Become a member today at
http://www.cascwild.org/donate.html. Your support makes a difference!
EM-7045 Josh Laughlin <jlaughlin@cascwild.org> WOPR comment 1/11/2008 10:36:48 Dear Western Oregon BLM,

I am writing to express my concern over the possible elimination of
old-growth and streamside reserves on western Oregon BLM lands.
These forests provide habitat for many wildlife species, clean
drinking water to rural communities, recreation for outdoor
enthusiasts, and a legacy for future generations.

With so few old-growth forests remaining, it is critical that we
protect them for future generations to enjoy. Young, even-age tree
plantations are a sustainable place for generating wood products.

Please do not open older forests on our public lands to logging.

Sincerely,


Name: George Heidorn
Street: 27750 94th Ave SW
City,_State,_Zip: Vashon, WA 98070
Email_Address: GeorgeHeidorn@msn.com
--
Josh Laughlin, Conservation Director
Cascadia Wildlands Project
P.O. Box 10455
Eugene, OR 97440
541.434.1463 (voice)
541.434.6494 (fax)

The Cascadia Wildlands Project is dedicated to defending the forests,
waters, and wildlife of the Pacific Northwest. Visit www