E-Mail-7100-7594

# Sender Subject Date Body
EM-7100 Brook and Ann Howard <holbrook.howard@providence.org> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 11:31:04 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.

Brook and Ann Howard
4243 SW McDonnell Terrace
Portland, OR 97239

5032156096
EM-7101 Tina Giese <olhodemacaco@mac.com> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 11:31:40 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
Springfield, OR
97477
EM-7102 Claire <canderson493@comcast.net> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 11:31:48  
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,
 
C. Anderson
EM-7103 richard rafoth <rrafoth@everettclinic.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 11:32:04 Dear BLM,
I live in Washington but spend many days a year enjoying the wilderness 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 rafoth
10512 60th ave west
mukilteo, WA 98275
EM-7104 Stanley Seleen <srseleen@comcast.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 11:36:30 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.

Stanley Seleen
2725 Holiday Dr. S.
Salem, OR 97302
EM-7105 Gordon Feighner <gordonfeighner@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 11:36:40 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.

Gordon Feighner
4612 SE Main
Portland, OR 97215
EM-7106 Eva Marie Marcotrigiano <evamarie32@yahoo.com> 1/11/2008 11:39:00 Hello,

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,

Eva Marcotrigiano



Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
EM-7107 Charles Jencks <ben@epud.net> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 11:39:32 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,

Charles Jencks
PO Box 54
Vida, Oregon
97488
EM-7108 Daniel Gee <danandmaya@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 11:41:30 Dear BLM,
I live in Oregon for a variety of reasons, including the old-growth forests, excellent recreation, and opportunities to view wildlife on public lands. After learning about the BLM's Western Oregon Plan Revisions, I am very concerned this plan will degrade my ability to enjoy the public lands in western Oregon. The changes the Bureau of Land Management is proposing will unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan for old-growth forests and wildlife, and will lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy.

Some of my concerns include:
- I'm disappointed that all special areas (Research Natural Areas and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern) won't be protected from logging under WOPR. These areas contain unique values that many people seek out to enjoy. These areas should not be opened to logging.

- The increased, widespread clearcutting of forests under WOPR could reduce property values and the quality of life of thousands of Oregonians living near BLM lands. Over 1,000 miles of new logging road and 140,000 acres of clearcuts in the first decade alone would scar Oregon's spectacular landscape.

- Clearcutting of old growth forests and proposed "Off Highway Vehicle Emphasis Areas" threaten the peace and quiet for rural residents, visitors, and wildlife. Oregon needs rural residents and tourism to feed our economy - catering to the timber and motorized vehicle industry alone is not a solution.

Oregon's remaining old-growth forests are a treasure -- offering wonderful recreation opportunities, clean water, homes for wildlife, and offsetting global warming. But the WOPR is a step back to the unsustainable days of clear-cutting this amazing resource, endangering wildlife, muddying streams, and fueling public outcry. A better way is to protect our heritage forests and focus on thinning and restoration of the plentiful unhealthy plantations left over from the last logging boom. This approach would safeguard the many values of old-growth forests that make Oregon a place I want to live, while providing sustainable jobs and other economic benefits for rural communities.

Daniel Gee
18964 Little Lake Road
Blachly, OR 97412
EM-7109 Wylie <musicalfarming@yahoo.com> Please Revise wopr, No old gowth logging, protect the stream easements 1/11/2008 11:41:34 Hello, I wanted to speak my voice against the current
wopr which could be a disaster, this plan is
unexceptable. I am against any old growth logging, and
allso i am against your plan to lower the stream
easement to just 50 ft. These environments need
protection, the days of cheap old lumber are gone, k
can make comprimises in my life for thiis and you
shuld to .
does our planet have to die to build your house?

Thankyou!


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
EM-7110 Kathie Ross <kathieross@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 11:41:55 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.

Kathie Ross
93 Seymour St Apt 3
Middlebury, VT 05753
EM-7111 Gina Barteletti <gina@hoanw.org> Please don't cut down the old growth forests 1/11/2008 11:41:56 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 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,

Gina Barteletti
EM-7112 Emily Sturm <elsturm86@gmail.com> Save the Old Growth Forests 1/11/2008 11:43:23 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,

Emily Sturm

--
"Radical simply means grasping things at the root." -Angela Y. Davis
EM-7113 Jean Horn <cat145@teleport.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 11:43:46 Dear BLM,
I am a lifelong Oregonian and love the old-growth forests and having wildlife on public lands. After learning about the BLM's Western Oregon Plan Revisions, I am very concerned this plan will change the beauty of our state, what makes it special, and 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.

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.

Jean Horn
14550 SE Fairoaks Lane
Milwaukie, OR 97267
EM-7114 Chip Hall <chiphall@nehalemtel.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 11:44:01 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.

Chip Hall
PO Box 481
Manzanita, OR 97130-0481
EM-7115 Rachel Mullin <rachelmullin@mac.com> Do not cut down the Redwoods! 1/11/2008 11:44:07 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,

Rachel Mullin
EM-7116 Elizabeth Pollock <cosmic_girl_82@hotmail.com> We can't afford to lose anymore! Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 11:44:51 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.
Cutting down the forest is only hurting us. The money you make from cutting these old growth forest is not worth the damage it does to us and the planet as a whole. Haven't we cut down and killed more than enough?

Elizabeth Pollock
1550 Main
Springfield, OR 97477
EM-7117 Bruce Donelson <abetterbuilder@frontiernet.net> WOPR comments 1/11/2008 11:45:40 Bruce Donelson

P O Box 370

Selma, OR 97538

abetterbuilder@frontiernet.net

 

Jan 10, 2008

 

WOPR Comment

 

Thank you for providing me with my own copy of the WOPR. This plan is deeply flawed, and should be redeveloped from new assumptions. A sufficiently wide range of alternative forest management proceedures were not considered, all of the alternatives presented fail to conform with existing environmental laws and with sustainable forest practices, as is required.

 

The BLM has determined that 1.2 BBF of timber is regenerated on BLM-managed forest lands each year, and that they can therefore harvest .7BBF of timber from this land and still be sustainably managing the forests entrusted to them. They fail to consider the nature of these board feet: one board foot of growth on an old growth tree in a mature stand is not equivalent to one board foot of growth in a fire-prone second growth even-aged tree plantation. To harvest the first and replace it with the second is to entirely miss the point of sustainable forest management.

 

This fundamental flaw in this approach inevitably leads to higher risk of fire in the forest as a whole, and a much greater risk to the communities which are interlaced among the BLM lands. This increased risk of fire will result in more high-intensity fires in the forest, which will decrease the annual growth of timber, severely degrade forest health, especially the health of species dependant on old-growth characteristics. Increased fire will also result in greater property damage to surrounding communities, with corresponding loss of property and human life. The WOPR fails to consider the number of human lives expected to be lost to an increase in devasting wildfire, the cost of fighting these fires, or the cost to the community of increased fire insurance and losses of uninsured buildings or woodlands. Numbers for these impacts should be analyzed and included in a new analysis.

 

A more sustainable approach would be to actively thin the overstocked mess left by years of poor forest management in areas near communiites and to use natural-selection-based forestry practices on most of BLM land. Forest lands with old-growth characteristics, red tree vole nesting sites, or spotted owl habitat should not be entered at all. The inability of sites with these characteristics to regenerate in any time comparable to human lifetimes precludes any forestry management activities from being considered sustainable in these cases.  Proper thinning near population centers can significantly reduce fire danger to local communities; all of the alternatives offered in the WOPR would increase fire danger.

 

Fire is not the only loss to local communities, although it the the loss type which most directly offers the consequence of loss of human life. The WOPR offers many other ways which will devastate our local communities, including, but not necessarily limited to loss of property values incurred by the presence of nearby clearcuts, loss of tourism income (and its secondary effects) to communities, loss of growth as the quality of life degrades and the communities become less attractive places to move to or stay in, and loss of biodiversity as the WOPR's cut level degrades populations of fish, birds, plants, and invertebrates.

 

I live on Myrtlewood Dr., which is right at the end of McMullen Creek Rd. in Selma. This is immediately adjacent to BLM's Sections 25, 29, and 31, which have been designated as the site of the Illinois Valley OHV area. My wife and I walk outside at least four times every day. On page 778, volume II, paragraph 5 of the WOPR it states, "Since off-road vehicle emphasis areas are specifically managed to accommodate motorized recreational activities, visitors seeking non-motorized forms of recreation would be dissuaded from using these areas. If they did engage in non-motorized activities within these emphasis areas, the quality of their experiences would be diminished as a result of the limited compatibility of their activity with off-highway vehicle riders."  Thus our daily outdoor activities would be in conflict with the stated goals of the WOPR. The BLM has shown no ability to regulate, police, monitor, or supervise activities of OHV riders on the John's Peak OHV area, and it is unclear how much they intend to spend to implement their designation of the Illinois Valley OHV area, but it appears to be zero. I would therefore conclude that it would be best for us to limit walking outside for tranquil nature walks to times well after dark. As this is a normal expectation for people living in the countryside, it would appear that the value of our property would be significantly impacted. Perhaps the value would decrease from about $400,000 to about $300,000. Consider that about 500 homes are close to the OHV areas in Selma, and it is reasonable to conclude that property values in Selma might depreciate by 2 or 3 million dollars from the OHV emphasis areas alone. This will have an adverse impact on Josephine county's property tax revenues as well. The BLM has no plan in place to deal with illegal campfires, trash, drunkenness, shooting, or conflicts. Because an OHV can be heard for over a mile, no OHV emphasis areas shold be considered within two miles of any residences. In addition, these vehicles have a large negative impact on the terrain, cuasing widespread damage to soils, vegetation, streams and wetlands, and their noise can affect wildlife as well as neighbors, hikers, fishermen, birdwatchers etc.

The WOPR will have negative effects on global warming as a result of the disruption of the forest floor from OHV use and logging.

Page 107, rejecting the Natural Selection Alternative (NSA) is arbitrary and capricious.  NSA-type logging practices 1) retains natural forests for all of the species that create and sustain them, 2) retains optimal forest health for optimum productivity, 3) has no down time, the reason why it produces more timber than forestry tree stand plantations, 4) retains visual, spiritual, historical, educational, cultural, recreational, and other non timber values, 5) provides the best possible forest fire protection possible through stewards that retain late successional forests and fire fighting capabilities, an extremely valuable feature for protecting forests during global warming, 6) extraction occurs when trees have reached the dead and dying stage because this reflects what the forest can truly produce at any given point in time, not what someone thinks it will produce through management, which is never as much as what Nature's forests produce, 7) is appropriate, practical, universal and economical approach for the smallest to largest landscapes.  While the BLM road system is large and impacting, and degrades the landscape, the NSA small contour access system is appropriate in much steeper terrain with much greater sensitivity, and less impact on the hydrological, ecological and aesthetic values of these lands. The NSA contour access trail system is minimal impact while providing permanent access for all products and uses, 8) will shift from high impact and destructive logging methods to forest and community friendly permanent stewardships, providing a steady supply of forest products in perpetuity and easy access for and constant availability of fire fighting equipment.

 
The WOPR DEIS is a document with deep structural flaws that does not take into account the costs of converting the remaining fragments of healthy forests into fire-prone stands of tree plantations. It would lessen protection for streams and watersheds, degrade the liveability of the communities which are interlaced within its footprint, and have profound long-term adverse financial impacts on the region. It should be abondoned and restarted using best available science and data as required by the NEPA structure. Since the BLM obviously lacks the capability to incorporate this data by using its own staff of biologists and scientists (and many of their experts have expressed a range from disappointment to horror at the WOPR's design) the BLM should collaborate with other agencies to redesign a new document that is consistent with the long-term health of the ecosystem and the nearby communities.
EM-7118 jbart@mcn.org Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 11:46:06 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,
Joselyn Bartlett
44002 Fern Creek Rd. #49
Caspar, CA 95420

EM-7119 Harriet Behm <hjje@epud.net> How about cutting down your trees 1/11/2008 11:46:16 Dear BLM,
The forests belong to all of us, not a few people who will financially benefit from logging themm. Come on folks, I live in Oregon, maybe you live in Washington, D.C., and how would you like someone to come cut the trees down in your back yard.

Life isn't all about money. Look in another direction besides money and you'll find a world that made you glad you stopped being so greedy.

Harriet Behm
3189 Lincoln
Eugene, OR 97405
EM-7120 Jenny Gaunt <jcgaunt@gmail.com> Protect our old growth forests 1/11/2008 11:47:56 Hello,
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,
Jenny Gaunt
EM-7121 jme holub <jmeholub@gmail.com> Please develop a new option! 1/11/2008 11:48:35 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,
Jaime Holub
EM-7122 Rodel Broas <rodelb@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 11:49:36 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.

Rodel Broas
1632 7th Ave W
Seattle, WA 98119
EM-7123 Ed Bishop <ed@hypercog.com> Earth's life-support systems need immediate protection 1/11/2008 11:51:53 Bureau of Land Management, Western Oregon Plan Revisions Office

333 SW 1st. Avenue Portland, Oregon

Portland, OR 97208


Re: BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions


To Whom It May Concern at the BLM,


My children are of an age where they realize they are facing a bleak future on a planet whose critical life-support systems have been severely degraded by the few among us with no regard for the welfare of all. As they learn about the countless ways that the Laws of Nature have been broken in the pursuit of power & greed, they are totally astonished that WE ARE STILL DOING IT! They can hardly believe it's true; they say it's like a nightmare they can't wake up from. 

They are astonished to see that the world's oxygen-giving forests are STILL being stripped to the ground as fast as humanly possible, our priceless ground water is STILL being permanently polluted, and the oceans are STILL being killed - even though nearly everyone now knows that such activities will leave a horrible legacy for future generations. They ask "If everyone knows that we're ruining our future, why don't we just stop? What's wrong with us? Don't we care about the future?" 


I don't really have a good answer for them. I just can't come up with a good reason WHY some people are so blind to the effects of their actions on future generations or - if they do know what they're doing - WHY they simply don't care, other than the obvious: 

blind greed.


Please prove me wrong by removing ALL clear-cutting provisions from the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. 

Please manage the resources of our Common Wealth for the good of all future generations, not just for the wealthy & powerful of the present.


Sincerely,

Ed Bishop

P.O. Box 61

Walterville, Oregon 97489
EM-7124 Brian Humiston <humistob@onid.orst.edu> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 11:52:22 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.

Brian Humiston
602 NW Kings Blvd.
Corvallis, OR 97330
EM-7125 Dave Nofziger <dnofziger@penningtonseed.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 11:52:49 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. The BLM is moving forward with the Western Oregon Plan Revision, which will increase logging in Oregon's old-growth forests sevenfold by clearcutting in currently protected old growth forest reserves and sensitive salmon bearing rivers and creeks.

The Northwest Forest Plan's protections should remain in place for BLM lands, not sacrificed in an out-of-court deal between the timber industry and the White House. Oregon ancient forests deserve permanent protection and should be managed to maintain important public assets such as clean drinking water, habitat for fish and wildlife, diverse recreation opportunities, stunning scenery, and jobs in forest restoration, fire safety and tourism.

Ancient forests in Oregon also serve as an important carbon storage and sequestration resource to help mitigate global warming. The BLM's plans for increased logging in these ancient forests under the Western Oregon Plan Revision will take America backwards in efforts to prevent global climate change. Clearcutting and damage to soils from logging has been shown to release tremendous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, while old forests absorb and store carbon dioxide.

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, and increased conflict and controversy.

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. Additionally, these forests are owned by Americans across the nation, who would like to see them strongly protected for future generations to enjoy.

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,

David Nofziger

1611 NW Laurel Way

Albany, OR   97355

 
EM-7126 Corey Tentis <coreyleetentis@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 11:53:22 Dear BLM,

There is no need to cut a whole bunch of trees down now because the houseing market has crashed and is going to get worse- haven't you heard? Cutting trees down now would be supply side economics with little demand to meet the supply. Supply side ecomomics does not work; just because you make a bunch of a product does not mean people are going to buy it. We know for sure people are not going to buy most of this timber because of the houseing market. I hate to be rude but don't be dumb. THERE IS NO REASON TO CUT MORE TIMBER BECAUSE THE BAD HOUSING MARKET IS GOING TO REQUIRE LESS TIMBER THAN WE CUT NOW. YOU SHOULD BE DECREASING THE AMOUNT OF TIMBER CUT, NOT INCREASING IT. MOST OF THIS TIMBER IS GOING TO ROT IF YOU CUT IT BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A DEPRESSION SOON AND THE HOUSING MARKET IS ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE.

Corey Tentis
3848 SE Division St. #231
Portland , OR 97202
EM-7127 theFabulousmisterG <misterg@wizzards.net> WOPR = adding insult AND injury to injury 1/11/2008 11:56:10  

In Opposition to the Western OregonPlan Revisions

 

 

Bureau of Land Management,

Western OregonPlan Revisions Office
333 SW 1st. Avenue, Portland, OR97208 

 

Dear BLM WOPR Staff:

 


Let's tell the truth: you can see it from the air: Oregon's forests have been raped.  Thanks to your kowtowing to extraction-based greed our state's sustainable economy has been plundered. You have your jobs, your retirement and health programs, and your smug satisfaction of money in your pockets as you walk away from the devastation you have wrought on our forests, our water, and even the very air we breathe...

 

And now you come up with this WOPR.

 

Shame !!!

  

The Western Oregon Plan Revisions fails to meet compliance with the following standards. These criteria are followed by my public comments on some of the carrying capacity, ethics, and sustainability issues involved in the potential implementation of the WOPR.

 

PROCESS:

The BLM is violating the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by not implementing NEPA, Section 102(2)(A) B Interdisciplinary Process, which says all agencies of the Federal Government shall utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision making which may have an impact on the human environment. If BLM is to revise multiple resource management plans (RMPs) and areas in southern Oregon with one single overlay plan, the Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR), and one environmental impact statement (EIS), they must utilize a regionally experienced interdisciplinary team that is capable of interpreting and integrating the needs of locally forested zones. Even though many of the processes and standards to develop a single plan may be the same, the people, the issues, and the lands of southern Oregonare all unique. Allocating different prescriptions to hundreds of thousands of acres throughout southern Oregonshould be accomplished by the local managers and interdisciplinary team knowledgeable of on the ground resources and issues; and NEPA, by law, must be shown compliance with the standards of its authority over actions by the BLM. If requirements of NEPA, Section 102(2)(A) B is not met, the WOPR will not meet a showing of compliance with the applicable criteria. WOPR will be illegal.

 

COMPLIANCE AND PRECEDENT:

Further, the BLM cannot accept the Natural Selection Alternative (NSA) as showing compliance with their Purpose and Need criteria for a portion of the O&C lands (on the South Deer Landscape Management Project), and then turn around and flip-flop by rejecting that very same criteria for the WOPR. The NSA is based on exactly how nature operates in order to remain sustainable, has been proven, was accepted by BLM, and is a superior method of meeting the carrying capacity protections that ebb and flow within a natural forest to accomplish the continuous resource requirements of sustainability mandated by the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) and NEPA.  In fact, the NSA even increases the political and ecological stability rendered and written into the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). The BLM cannot accept and then reject their own prior decisions (approval of NSA) at whim and without process, which they did regarding the NSA in the WOPR.

 

FIRE HAZARD AND REGROWTH:

It has been well proven that areas of clear-cuts produce an extreme fire danger, not a lesser one. Clear-cuts have a predominant tendency to not grow back into a forest, or sometimes not even grow back one single tree, but clear-cuts/canopy removal certainly does allow plenty of the conditions required for fire hazard-type growth, putting people and forests at extreme risk of intense fire.

 

OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES:

As for OHVs, a personal and/or family experience of nature when on foot and surrounded by its biological beauty has an added component of wonder and imagination when our senses are "close up." We can also discuss then and there the experience and observation of the very workings of this "nature's bank," our very own environmental infrastructure. But with the separation brought about by helmets, ear plugs, no use of their legs, feet, hands, no sense of smell and touch, and the focus required to operate gears, levers, lights, brakes, steering, balance, etc., we miss out on these natural surroundings, otherwise made even more personal by their proximity. The classroom effect of how nature operates to retain water, clean up our air, provide oxygen and bank our carbon is lost to us by driving through these fragile systems on motor vehicles.

 

Add to that, I have never seen OHV use NOT escalate into some combinations of hopping off trail; trespassing; removing mufflers; challenging steep slopes; interfering with pedestrians; burning rubber for mud throwing, doing 360' circles and other erosion-causing antics; driving illegally on auto-designated roads/highways; intimidating other vehicles, riders, people, horses, law enforcement, campers, etc; to name just a few problems, all of which will only become worse by opening the flood gates of further legalizing and designating ATV use areas in the WOPR. Legitimizing this misuse fails to meet Oregon Statewide Goals 3,4, 5, 6, and requirements of NEPA.

 

SUMMARY:

The BLM/WOPR/BUSH clear-cutting plan is the most expensive, destructive, unsustainable way to proceed within our public lands. Not only should the WOPR be discarded, but BLM needs to be removed from all these processes. Tying road maintenance and children's education to clear-cuts, and the consistent mismanagement of these lands by the BLM can be remedied by transferring these lands to the National Forest System. With O&C funding going away, these complete forests are at risk of being logged for timber, and the 75% levels encouraged by some as a "remedy" would be the utter and chaotic end of these forests for everybody. The children that we now love, and their children, and their children would never forgive us for that kind of destruction to the physical, political, and social well being of our still beautiful State of Oregon.

 

The WOPR is unacceptable. The WOPR fails to show compliance with the applicable criteria and is in error. It, and it's failed DEIS must be set aside, and scoping should be started anew; or better, the NWFP should be left intact for the checks and balances, and timber harvesting goals it already provides in protecting our communities.

 

Quite Sincerely,

 

John Goeckermann

6393 Hugo Road

Grants Pass, Oregon  97526
EM-7128 evanswilbert@netzero.net <evanswilbert@netzero.net> NO 1/11/2008 11:56:15 the quality of life in Oregon, will be in jeopardy if WOPR is followed through. NO TO WOPR

burt evans
528 pinedale ave
springield, OR 97477
EM-7129 Candice Aguilar <canaguil@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 11:57:57 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.

Candice Aguilar
2267 West 28th Ave
Eugene, OR 97405
EM-7130 David Moen <davidharpy@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 11:59:13 Dear BLM,
I am very opposed to your new revisions of the Northwest Forest Plan to increase logging of public lands in my home state of Oregon with your WOPR idea and I join with thousands of other outdoors men in the state to oppose it.

Let me expalin why:

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 Moen
3933 NE Hassalo
Portland, OR 97232
EM-7131 m. o'brien <frijolita01@hotmail.com> Citizen concern! 1/11/2008 11:59:53 I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by
the Bureau of Land Management 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,

Maureen O'Brien
1905 N. Alberta
Portland, OR 97217



Watch "Cause Effect," a show about real people making a real difference. Learn more
EM-7132 Harleen Kour <harleen_kour@yahoo.com> WOPR 1/11/2008 12:00:05 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,
Harleen Kaur


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
EM-7133 Vanya Sloan <vanya@mind.net> BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions 1/11/2008 12:03:36 January 11, 2008


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


Re:  BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions



TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:


I am very concerned about the changes that the BLM is proposing to nearly 2.6 million acres of federal forests under the Western Oregon Plan Revisions.  These changes will eliminate the protections of the landmark Northwest Forest Plan - they will quite likely lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy.

The agency proposes to increase old-growth logging on public lands in western Oregon by 700%, build 1,000 miles of new logging road in the next decade and clearcut at a 9-1 ratio to thinning. This is a myopic and backwards proposal that depletes our natural resource base for future generations by weakening protections for forests, creeks and salmon.  Shockingly, the proposal ignores the role that these forests play in regulating the climate. 


The majority of 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.

Instead, 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.

The proposed changes are unacceptable.  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.

For our children and future generations, I ask that you 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.  


Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,





Vanya K. Sloan
816 Roca Street
Ashland, OR 97520



CC: 

Senator Ron Wyden 
Senator Gordon Smith 
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-4th)
Rep. Greg Walden (R-2nd)
Rep. Earl Blumenhauer (D-3rd) 
Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-5th)

EM-7134 Amy Houchen <ahouchen@comcast.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 12:03:48 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.

Amy Houchen
2419 SW Richardson St.
Portland, OR 97239

503 245-3494
EM-7135 chelsea@tenaya.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 12:07:14 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,
Chelsea Hodge
170 E. 6th St #1021
Claremont, CA 91711

EM-7136 Kimberlee Wienke <outwestaby@charter.net> BLM Western Oregon Plan Revision 1/11/2008 12:10:02 Kimberlee Wienke
3846 Old Military Road
Central Point, OR 97502-1142


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.

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,


Kimberlee Wienke
541-664-8113

EM-7137 Marilyn Stinnett <marilynst3@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 12:10:09 Dear BLM,
I am a native Oregonian who has lived in my beautiful home state for over 50 years. 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.

Please -- protect our old-growth forests!

Marilyn Stinnett
23672 SW Eucalyptus Ter
Sherwood, OR 97140

503-625-2127
EM-7138 Kent Fisher <kentl99@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 12:10:59 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.
I am also opposed to any increase in OHV trails in Southern Oregon.

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.

Kent Fisher
PO Box 788
871 Hays Cutoff Rd.
Cave Junction, OR 97523
EM-7139 ron@mwicom.net Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 12:11:15 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,
Ronald Main
1902Nordhoff St. 5 Kent Way
Northridge, CA 91324

EM-7140 jenniferemoore23@hotmail.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 12:11:15 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 Moore
3630 22nd Ave W Apt. 304
Seattle, WA 98199

EM-7141 Richard Helmick <helmickr@proaxis.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 12:16:56 Please don't destroy our natural legacy to our children by logging what little old growth forests that survive.  Please reject the BLM's Western Oregon Plan Revision.
 
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 Helmick
EM-7142 theFabulousmisterG <misterg@wizzards.net> WOPR - - You should be ASHAMED of yourselves!!!! 1/11/2008 12:18:54 In Opposition to the Western OregonPlan Revisions

 

 

Bureau of Land Management,

Western OregonPlan Revisions Office
333 SW 1st. Avenue, Portland, OR97208 

 

Dear BLM WOPR Staff:

 

Let's tell the truth: you can see it from the air: Oregon's forests have been raped.  Thanks to your kowtowing to extraction-based greed our state's sustainable economy has been plundered. You have your jobs, your retirement and health programs, and your smug satisfaction of money in your pockets as you walk away from the devastation you have wrought on our forests, our water, and even the very air we breathe...

 

And now you come up with this WOPR.

 

Shame !!!

 

The Western Oregon Plan Revisions fails to meet compliance with the following standards. These criteria are followed by my public comments on some of the carrying capacity, ethics, and sustainability issues involved in the potential implementation of the WARP.

 

PROCESS:

The BLM is violating the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by not implementing NEPA, Section 102(2)(A) B Interdisciplinary Process, which says all agencies of the Federal Government shall utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision making which may have an impact on the human environment. If BLM is to revise multiple resource management plans (RMPs) and areas in southern Oregon with one single overlay plan, the Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR), and one environmental impact statement (EIS), they must utilize a regionally experienced interdisciplinary team that is capable of interpreting and integrating the needs of locally forested zones. Even though many of the processes and standards to develop a single plan may be the same, the people, the issues, and the lands of southern Oregonare all unique. Allocating different prescriptions to hundreds of thousands of acres throughout southern Oregonshould be accomplished by the local managers and interdisciplinary team knowledgeable of on the ground resources and issues; and NEPA, by law, must be shown compliance with the standards of its authority over actions by the BLM. If requirements of NEPA, Section 102(2)(A) B is not met, the WOPR will not meet a showing of compliance with the applicable criteria. WOPR will be illegal.

 

COMPLIANCE AND PRECEDENT:

Further, the BLM cannot accept the Natural Selection Alternative (NSA) as showing compliance with their Purpose and Need criteria for a portion of the O&C lands (on the South Deer Landscape Management Project), and then turn around and flip-flop by rejecting that very same criteria for the WOPR. The NSA is based on exactly how nature operates in order to remain sustainable, has been proven, was accepted by BLM, and is a superior method of meeting the carrying capacity protections that ebb and flow within a natural forest to accomplish the continuous resource requirements of sustainability mandated by the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) and NEPA.  In fact, the NSA even increases the political and ecological stability rendered and written into the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). The BLM cannot accept and then reject their own prior decisions (approval of NSA) at whim and without process, which they did regarding the NSA in the WOPR.

 

FIRE HAZARD AND REGROWTH:

It has been well proven that areas of clear-cuts produce an extreme fire danger, not a lesser one. Clear-cuts have a predominant tendency to not grow back into a forest, or sometimes not even grow back one single tree, but clear-cuts/canopy removal certainly does allow plenty of the conditions required for fire hazard-type growth, putting people and forests at extreme risk of intense fire.

 

OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES:

As for OHVs, a personal and/or family experience of nature when on foot and surrounded by its biological beauty has an added component of wonder and imagination when our senses are "close up." We can also discuss then and there the experience and observation of the very workings of this "nature's bank," our very own environmental infrastructure. But with the separation brought about by helmets, ear plugs, no use of their legs, feet, hands, no sense of smell and touch, and the focus required to operate gears, levers, lights, brakes, steering, balance, etc., we miss out on these natural surroundings, otherwise made even more personal by their proximity. The classroom effect of how nature operates to retain water, clean up our air, provide oxygen and bank our carbon is lost to us by driving through these fragile systems on motor vehicles.

 

Add to that, I have never seen OHV use NOT escalate into some combinations of hopping off trail; trespassing; removing mufflers; challenging steep slopes; interfering with pedestrians; burning rubber for mud throwing, doing 360' circles and other erosion-causing antics; driving illegally on auto-designated roads/highways; intimidating other vehicles, riders, people, horses, law enforcement, campers, etc; to name just a few problems, all of which will only become worse by opening the flood gates of further legalizing and designating ATV use areas in the WOPR. Legitimizing this misuse fails to meet Oregon Statewide Goals 3,4, 5, 6, and requirements of NEPA.

 

SUMMARY:

The BLM/WOPR/BUSH clear-cutting plan is the most expensive, destructive, unsustainable way to proceed within our public lands. Not only should the WOPR be discarded, but BLM needs to be removed from all these processes. Tying road maintenance and children's education to clear-cuts, and the consistent mismanagement of these lands by the BLM can be remedied by transferring these lands to the National Forest System. With O&C funding going away, these complete forests are at risk of being logged for timber, and the 75% levels encouraged by some as a "remedy" would be the utter and chaotic end of these forests for everybody. The children that we now love, and their children, and their children would never forgive us for that kind of destruction to the physical, political, and social well being of our still beautiful State of Oregon.

 

The WOPR is unacceptable. The WOPR fails to show compliance with the applicable criteria and is in error. It, and it's failed DEIS must be set aside, and scoping should be started anew; or better, the NWFP should be left intact for the checks and balances, and timber harvesting goals it already provides in protecting our communities.

 

Sincerely,

 

John Goeckermann

6393 Hugo Road

Grants Pass  Oregon  97526
EM-7143 Heather Henderson <heatherriver@comcast.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 12:18:55 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.

Heather Henderson
4501 Shadow Wood Drive
Eugene, OR 97405
EM-7144 A R Bennett <gov_telz2005@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 12:20:45 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.

A R Bennett
200 South LongView Way #24
Oregon City,, OR 97045

971.344.1544
EM-7145 Tom Lea <te_oh_indigo@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 12:21:35 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.

Tom Lea
3373 SE 15th Ave
Portland, OR 97202
EM-7146 John McKelligott <jaybee@jeffnet.org> WOPR 1/11/2008 12:22:01 To Whom It May Concern:

I am extremely disappointed that the BLM is in the process of choosing to take giant steps backwards in our State's resource management programs. 

The WOPR will have negative effects upon:

 tourism,
watershed restoration,
protection of wild fish runs which will affect commercial fisheries,
and the consequences of unregulated ATV use.

I respectfully request that BLM's managers re-think this plan, and seek input from the people, rather than the timber industry.

I wish to be included in any further meetings, discussions and updates regarding this issue.

Respectfully,

John McKelligott
1617 Slagle Creek Road,
Grants Pass,
OR 97527
(541) 846-6627
EM-7147 Deb McGee and Patty Hine <zap_oregon@msn.com> Protect Public Forests and Rivers 1/11/2008 12:24:02 To Whom It May Concern:
 
Please stop the timber cuts in the Cascades. Is there scientific evidence as to why the Northwest Forest Plan with protections for endangered species has been discarded?
 
I oppose the BLM's plan to cut old growth forests in Oregon.
 
Sincerely,
 
Debra E. McGee
 
 
EM-7148 Deb McGee and Patty Hine <zap_oregon@msn.com> Protect Public Forests and Rivers 1/11/2008 12:25:33 Dear BLM:
 
Regarding the Western Oregon Plan Revisions, I strongly urge you to stop the timber cuts in the Cascades. Is there scientific evidence as to why the Northwest Forest Plan with protections for endangered species has been discarded?
 
I definitely oppose the BLM's plan to cut old growth forests in Oregon.
 
Sincerely,
 
Patricia S. Hine
EM-7149 Perry Bream <pbream@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 12:27:16 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.

Perry Bream
4739 Elkhead Road
Yoncalla, OR 97499
EM-7150 wildwolf2582@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 12:29:31 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,
Justin Forte
991 Amber Lane
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530

EM-7151 Katie Weidman <yikes_its_katie@yahoo.com> Protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 12:31:52 Dear BLM,
I am appalled by what you have been calling a public review process for management of public lands. For over two years, you have been asking for public comment at different points in the process, yet you intentionally marginalize and ignore what comments you receive. Comments that overwhelmingly say do not cut our public lands, and acknowledge other public interests on these lands such as recreation, ecosystem improvement, and water quality. You have held this planning review process because you are required by law to manage our public resources based on public interests and for the public benefit. I fail to see how the options that are presented benefit the public directly. Timber revenues only benefit the local communities at 50% or less of the public resources given away (your own management fee for timber sales is 50%)! If land management policies are truly intended to benefit to the public above all other interests, the resources sold should reflect their real value and counties should receive 75-85% of the revenues. To make these resources accurately reflect their true value, other uses mentioned above must be considered. The harvest of these resources is already beyond a level that can be considered a "sustainable harvest," as the water quality is degrading, endangered species that live in these forests are declining due to loss of habitat, and the number of acres of harvestable timber is lower than it has been since the land was given back to the government in 1937. If these alterative values of the land were restored, there would not be a positive cash value from timber harvesting revenues. Economically, it makes no sense to manage public resources in a manner that costs more than it nets, and you cannot externalize the cost of species protection, or water quality, or recreation to other public lands when you consider the 'profit' of projected timber harvests under any of the four options. Your current options rely on an increased logging output, and the largest beneficiaries in descending order are: the BLM, logging companies, followed by county revenues.
I fail to see how any of the three action alternatives are a benefit to anyone but private interests. Gone are the days of communities in Oregon whose sole economic driver was timber production. Certainly there are counties that derive a substantial amount of their money from BLM lands, but these counties need to adjust to an economy of scale that is stable. The proposed logging under any of the options will not solve the economic woes of these counties for more than a few years, because all proposals are well beyond anything that is sustainable under any standard!
I am aware that the lawsuit that prompted this plan revision required that you present one option in the review stages that increases the cut. However, the lawsuit settlement does not require you to make your decision based on logging interests, which it is clear at the present moment has a larger sway than the public interest. Every individual citizen has the same weight with their comments on how you must manage our resources. Corporations, counties, or companies are not your constituents, only the people that work for them and comment to you through this process can have their voice heard, and their voice can only be acknowledged in proportion to the comments they submit. On Wednesday, January 9th, you had received more than 20,000 comments. How many of those individual comments were submitted in favor of an increased cut, verses the number that were submitted demanding, asking, pleading, or begging for a decrease in the cut and increased protections for other interests? If the number of people who have formally submitted comments in favor of a decrease in the cut (or protection of the other values of the land) exceed the number of comments in favor of your three action alternatives, you are legally obligated to act upon those comments and cannot legally or in good conscious uphold action alternative 1, 2, or 3.
Several people are writing comments that argue about the environmental impact your new management policies will have, and they have many facts behind their arguments that you have already succeeded in ignoring or otherwise eliminating the need to listen to. My complaint, however, is how poorly you are managing a public resource and how you are doing everything in your ability to subvert the public comment period that is required by law as an integral part of the way you manage the resources that are public. You are an administrator of public lands, and you have no more power than an administrator of an estate in deciding how the lands are to be managed. By denying sufficient public or scientific input in this process, you are effectively altering the will of a deceased heir whose estate you were entrusted to administer!
My demand for you under your legal mandate to manage these forests lands for permanent sustained harvest is that you 1) manage the land in a way that is sustainable for all resources affected including: a)recreation, b)water quality, and c) species and ecosystem protection. 2) Listen to the public comment and give every comment submitted equal weight ? as you are required by law and common decency to do. 3) Listen to what unbiased and uncorrupted science (not paid for by pro-logging advocates) says about species protection, and ecosystem preservation. Until these expectations are met, you have not actually fulfilled your obligation to offer and listen to public comment on your proposed management revisions. Given the misdirection of the three proposed action alternatives, I strongly encourage you to pursue the no action alternative until alternatives for management that represent a step in the direction of sustainable harvest can be drafted.


Sincerely,

Paul Netter


Katie Weidman
35630 Little Walluski Lane
Astoria, OR 97103

541-683-0642
EM-7152 susan bauer <sjbauer7@yahoo.com> WOPR 1/11/2008 12:34:19 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.  Your current proposal is unacceptable.  WOPR proposes increasing old-growth clear-cutting for a short-term economic fix. This plan creates hazzards to water and air quality, increases fire danger, does not create more jobs - on and on.
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.
Thank you,
Susan Bauer
16 Geneva Street
Medford, Oregon  97504

 



Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
EM-7153 KJ <kittenchicken0398@yahoo.com> Western Oregon Plan Revision 1/11/2008 12:34:43 Hello! I read about the Western Oregon Plan Revision
and, as an Oregon resident, I wanted to voice my
concerns with it. It's my understanding that the plan
involves clear cutting old growth forests, which
cannot be replaced as easily as manage forests. I hope
you will reconsider squandering these hard-to-replace
resources and alter the plan accordingly. Thank you
for your time.
KJ Coop


____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
EM-7154 Art Young <artyoung@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 12:35:12 Dear BLM,
Come on. What is your problem? Look. We are people on this earth. We need to save the trees. Why are you trying to chop down all the trees? Don't you realize the old growth is very important? Don't you realize many species like the old growth, including humans? I can't figure you out. Are you receiving bribes or something? How could you be so stupid. Every old growth tree should be preserved at this point. We need to work on rebuilding our forests. Sustainable logging is great. I think that is totally great, we need lumber and pulp, but you don't need to chop down old growth!!!!!!! Get a grip. Think about your grandchildren.

Art Young
6221 SE Morrison
Portland, OR 97215
EM-7155 Aspasia Giese Bigelow <aspasiagb@earthlink.net> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 12:37:01 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,

Aspasia Giese-Bigelow
310 Oak st. #3
PMB 101
Ashland or
97520
EM-7156 Forwarded by alan_hoffmeister@blm.gov Fw: Products &amp Services InquiryComment or Question from the Public 1/11/2008 12:38:18 ----- Forwarded by Teddi Duling/ORSO/OR/BLM/DOI on 01/11/2008 12:29 PM -----

reedbug@peak.org

01/11/2008 10:28 AM

Please respond to
reedbug@peak.org



To
or912web@blm.gov
cc

Subject
Products &amp Services InquiryComment or Question from the Public








Submitter: vicki bugbee-reed

email: reedbug@peak.org

Comment: Dear BLM,

I, as an Oregonian, prefer clean air and pure water, the integrity of our unique and majestic ecosystem and a sustainable timber industry over the QUICK profit from logging some of our most pristine forests.  Please utilize young, second growth more fully, through commercial thinning, instead of harvesting and destroying the forest reserves that were set aside in the Northwest Forest Plan of 1994.
EM-7157 Heather Davis <snwcrow@yahoo.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 12:38:32  
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,
Heather Davis



Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
EM-7158 Brenda Whited <brendaw@cserc.org> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 12:39:04 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 outraged by the proposals in the EIS Alternatives 1 and 2 (BLMs
preferred alternative). This over-the-top attempt by the Bush
administration to reward the timber companies and OHV groups will
accomplish nothing but the revival of the timber wars, and waste
millions of tax payer dollars. As an affected landowner and taxpayer I
strongly resent this short sighted plan to exploit our resource base
and environment in order to score political points with a small but
influential special interest.

The BLM should rescind the WOPR EIS, heed the majority of scoping
comments, and consider the Community Conservation Alternative and the
Natural Selection Alternative, proposed by the affected citizens'
groups. Short of that, I must urge adoption of the No Change
Alternative to avoid long and costly legal challenges. The Northwest
Forest Plan at least tries to balance timber harvests with the more
compelling land uses, such as habitat value, clean water protection,
diverse recreation and sustainability. The BLM preferred alternative
aims to set back the clock on land management practices, against all
available science, public opinion, and legal statutes. That plan is
unacceptable.

The BLM, as a public trust agency, is not an artifact, accountable to a
revisionist interpretation of the 1937 Oregon and California Lands Act
alone. Your agency must be responsive (and should be proactive) toward
the myriad of subsequent statutes enacted to protect public resource
values. These obviously include the ESA, the Clean Water Act, the Clean
Air Act, and others mandating sustainability, conservation and
stewardship. By proposing the WOPR, the BLM is abdicating its public
trust responsibilities.

It is disgraceful and insulting that this public agency would be
wielded like a political weapon by an administration bent on political
divisiveness and the promotion of corporate greed. It is shameful for
the BLM to try to replace the science based Northwest Forest Plan with
this "sweetheart settlement" based on a corporate wish list. The
American public does not want corporate cronyism. We want clean water,
clean air, a healthy environment with abundant wildlife, wonderful
places to recreate, and we want the same for our children and their
children. We do not want to subsidize the former at the expense of the
latter.

The eleven new "OHV Emphasis Areas," comprising some 100,000 acres of
lands close to private homes, waterways and other sensitive habitats,
is another cynical ploy to find a vocal proponent for the WOPR. While
OHV groups are notoriously well funded, organized, and influential,
they represent a small if vocal minority of the American public. Their
goals (universal access to all public lands with motorized vehicles)
are at odds with those of the general public (resource conservation and
quiet recreation and neighborhoods). By adding these OHV Emphasis Areas
to the plan, the WOPR maximizes its divisive, controversial approach to
public lands management. While accommodating a moderate level of
dispersed OHV use away from sensitive environments and out of earshot
of private landowners is a legitimate goal of a land use plan, The WOPR
proposal is contrary to common sense and stewardship goals. To
concentrate OHV use in these areas would only aggravate communities and
adversely impact ecosystems. In my community of Selma there is no way
to promote OHV use without disturbing the well dispersed population of
homeowners.

The WOPR proposes to construct 1000 miles of new roads, primarily to
access the diminishing LSOG forests targeted for clear cutting. Many if
not most watersheds in this region already exceed acceptable road
densities, contributing to stream channel and water quality
degradation. Any comprehensive land management plan in this region
should aim to reduce overall road density by at least 33% to protect
aquatic resources and increase land productivity, as well as reduce
maintenance liabilities. By any measure, the BLM cannot adequately
maintain, nor patrol their existing road network. With our exploding
national debt and looming deficits, it is obvious that BLM
transportation budgets will not keep pace with maintenance backlogs,
even without increasing road miles to the system. The BLM should revue
the science and apply best management practices to road issues and
watershed protection.

The BLM,s preferred alternative would reduce old growth reserves by
47%, and riparian reserves by 57%. These reserves are the last hope for
the region's imperiled fish and wildlife, they were created to
protect. The BLM should be planning how to expand and enhance
connectivity to these reserves. The proposal to clear cut 110,000 acres
of mature (120 years or older) forest would insure against any future
old growth habitat development. The WOPR would mandate that Area's of
Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) be managed for timber
production, while allowing logging within 200,000 acres of currently
protected stream side forests (Riparian Reserves). Stream side buffers
would be reduced to 25 feet or less. This "loggers gone wild" scenario
can only be characterized as an attack on fish and wildlife, and the
strip mining of our ancient forest legacy. It is the "shock and awe" of
the forest. The WOPR sounds like a Defense Department plan for managing
our enemies' forests.

At the same time, the plan de-emphasizes forest thinning as a
management tool, treating just one half as much acreage in ten years as
are slated for mature forest clear cutting. Ironically, it is the many
decades of industrial clear cutting that has led to hundreds of
thousands of acres of over crowded, fire prone, neglected tree
plantations throughout our region.
At a time when the region's economy is adapting to the harvest of
smaller logs, and an increasing population, it is time for BLM to focus
on forest health, urban interface fuel reduction and community harmony.

Instead of strip mining our last irreplaceable mature and old growth
forests, the BLM should initiate a plan to restore the vast acreage of
abused lands that already have access roads, and that are far more at
risk from catastrophic fires. Lets focus on restoring watershed health,
reducing the road network to a manageable and appropriate system. Lets
provide recreational opportunities that are compatible with community
and stewardship values and goals. Let us create local and sustainable
jobs cleaning up the urban interface forests, while increasing land
productivity for wildlife and forest products. The future of this
economy will be enhancing our environment, sustaining ecosystems and
adding value to the huge volume of available smaller diameter trees and
other forest products. The remaining LSOG forests are not only
essential to numerous imperiled species, and restoring biological
diversity to the surrounding forests, but are also critical to the
region's growing, diverse economy. These magnificent forests provide an
incomparable resource for recreation and drawing tourist dollars into
the local economy. The BLM should work with local grassroots members to
develop a plan that will enhance the forest, the economy, and community
harmony, instead of generating controversy and divisiveness as this
WOPR does.


Sincerely,

Clay Knopf
P.O. Box 1088
Twain Harte, CA
95383

EM-7159 Susan Lander <sueland@ccountry.net> BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions 1/11/2008 12:40:23 Dear BLM,
I am very concerned about the impact about the BLM's Western Oregon Plan Revisions will have on old growth, on sustainable forests, on the wildlife, and on the streams and rivers. The changes the Bureau of Land Management is proposing will undo the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan for old-growth forests and wildlife, and will lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict.
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 special.

Susan Lander
1206 Linda Ave
Ashland, OR 97520
EM-7160 mister ehrling <ehrlingy@gmail.com> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 12:40:45 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,

Ehrling White
5629 SE Yamhill
Portland, OR

EM-7161 Susi Klare <susiklare@yahoo.com> WHOPR 1/11/2008 12:40:49 Please consider my comments part of the official
record.

I have lived in Walton adjacent to BLM O&C lands for
the past 33 years. Over that time I've witnessed the
degradation of native forests and salmon habitat in
Walker Creek where I live. A BLM originated mudslide
in the 80's destroyed fish spawning habitat and
fishing opportunities all the way down to Mapleton for
several years. Please review your own history of major
damages to our living earth before starting a new
cycle of forest destruction.

I strongly oppose BLM plans to log anywhere other than
previously clearcut plantations.

All existing old growth forests should be managed for
habitat and watershed protection. BLM's top priority
should be healthy ecosystems with timber production as
a secondary concern.

ORV's must be kept to existing logging routes with no
new intrusions into native ecosystems.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Susanna DeFazio
87805 Walker Creek Road
Walton, OR 97490



____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
EM-7162 HolgerTSo@aol.com In Opposition to the Western Oregon Plan Revisions 1/11/2008 12:41:20 In Opposition to the Western Oregon Plan Revisions
 
 


Bureau of Land Management,
Western Oregon Plan Revisions Office
333 SW 1st. Avenue, Portland, OR 97208 
 
Dear BLM WOPR Staff:
 
The Western Oregon Plan Revisions fails to meet compliance with the following standards. These criteria are followed by my public comments on some of the carrying capacity, ethics, and sustainability issues involved in the potential implementation of the WOPR.
 
PROCESS:
The BLM is violating the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by not implementing NEPA, Section 102(2)(A) B Interdisciplinary Process, which says all agencies of the Federal Government shall utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision making which may have an impact on the human environment. If BLM is to revise multiple resource management plans (RMPs) and areas in southern Oregon with one single overlay plan, the Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR), and one environmental impact statement (EIS), they must utilize a regionally experienced interdisciplinary team that is capable of interpreting and integrating the needs of locally forested zones. Even though many of the processes and standards to develop a single plan may be the same, the people, the issues, and the lands of southern Oregon are all unique. Allocating different prescriptions to hundreds of thousands of acres throughout southern Oregon should be accomplished by the local managers and interdisciplinary team knowledgeable of on the ground resources and issues; and NEPA, by law, must be shown compliance with the standards of its authority over actions by the BLM. If requirements of NEPA, Section 102(2)(A) B is not met, the WOPR will not meet a showing of compliance with the applicable criteria. WOPR will be illegal.
 
COMPLIANCE AND PRECEDENT:
Further, the BLM cannot accept the Natural Selection Alternative (NSA) as showing compliance with their Purpose and Need criteria for a portion of the O&C lands (on the South Deer Landscape Management Project), and then turn around and flip-flop by rejecting that very same criteria for the WOPR. The NSA is based on exactly how nature operates in order to remain sustainable, has been proven, was accepted by BLM, and is a superior method of meeting the carrying capacity protections that ebb and flow within a natural forest to accomplish the continuous resource requirements of sustainability mandated by the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) and NEPA.  In fact, the NSA even increases the political and ecological stability rendered and written into the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). The BLM cannot accept and then reject their own prior decisions (approval of NSA) at whim and without process, which they did regarding the NSA in the WOPR.
 
FIRE HAZARD AND REGROWTH:
It has been well proven that areas of clear-cuts produce an extreme fire danger, not a lesser one. Clear-cuts have a predominant tendency to not grow back into a forest, or sometimes not even grow back one single tree, but clear-cuts/canopy removal certainly does allow plenty of the conditions required for fire hazard-type growth, putting people and forests at extreme risk of intense fire.
 
OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES:
As for OHVs, a personal and/or family experience of nature when on foot and surrounded by its biological beauty has an added component of wonder and imagination when our senses are "close up." We can also discuss then and there the experience and observation of the very workings of this "nature's bank," our very own environmental infrastructure. But with the separation brought about by helmets, ear plugs, no use of their legs, feet, hands, no sense of smell and touch, and the focus required to operate gears, levers, lights, brakes, steering, balance, etc., we miss out on these natural surroundings, otherwise made even more personal by their proximity. The classroom effect of how nature operates to retain water, clean up our air, provide oxygen and bank our carbon is lost to us by driving through these fragile systems on motor vehicles.
 
Add to that, I have never seen OHV use NOT escalate into some combinations of hopping off trail; trespassing; removing mufflers; challenging steep slopes; interfering with pedestrians; burning rubber for mud throwing, doing 360' circles and other erosion-causing antics; driving illegally on auto-designated roads/highways; intimidating other vehicles, riders, people, horses, law enforcement, campers, etc; to name just a few problems, all of which will only become worse by opening the flood gates of further legalizing and designating ATV use areas in the WOPR. Legitimizing this misuse fails to meet Oregon Statewide Goals 3,4, 5, 6, and requirements of NEPA.
The over use of  OHV open areas and the impossible task for BLM and local law enfocement to identify and prevent abuse of the open areas for off road vehicles, should give the BLM the incentive to reduce the areas assigend to  OHVs.
For Josephine County I proposed during open house sessions and in my comments specifically for the Quartz Creek area to
rotate the use of OHV areas and limit their use to 2 years with a minimum recovery period of 8 years.




SUMMARY:
The BLM/WOPR/ clear-cutting plan is the most expensive, destructive, unsustainable way to proceed within our public lands. Not only should the WOPR be discarded, but BLM needs to be removed from all these processes. Tying road maintenance and children's education to clear-cuts, and the consistent mismanagement of these lands by the BLM can be remedied by transferring these lands to the National Forest System. With O&C funding going away, these complete forests are at risk of being logged for timber, and the 75% levels encouraged by some as a "remedy" would be the utter and chaotic end of these forests for everybody. The children that we now love, and their children, and their children would never forgive us for that kind of destruction to the physical, political, and social well being of our still beautiful State of Oregon.
 
The WOPR is unacceptable. The WOPR fails to show compliance with the applicable criteria and is in error. It, and it's failed DEIS must be set aside, and scoping should be started anew; or better, the NWFP should be left intact for the checks and balances, and timber harvesting goals it already provides in protecting our communities.
 
Dr.-Ing. Holger T. Sommer
Land Use Committee     
Hugo Neighborhood Assoc. & Historical Society
2000 Hugo Road
Merlin, Oregon 97532
holgertso@aol.com
541-476-5744

CC:

Senator Ron Wyden: 1220 SW 3rd Ave., Suite 585, Portland, OR 97204
Senator Gordon Smith: 121 SW Salmon St., Suite 1250, Portland, OR 97204
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-4th): 405 East 8th Ave. #2030, Eugene, OR 97401
Rep. Greg Walden (R-2nd): 843 East Main Street, Ste 400, Medford, OR 97504
Rep. Earl Blumenhauer (D-3rd): 729 N.E. Oregon St., Suite 115,  Portland, OR 97232
Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-5th): 315 Mission Street SE #101, Salem, Oregon 97302
Rep. David Wu (D-1st): 620 SW Main, Suite 606, Portland, OR 97205

Board of County Commissioners, Josephine County Courthouse, 500 NW Sixth Street, Dept. 6, Grants Pass, OR 97526

Governor Ted Kulongoski, State Capitol, Room 250, Salem, OR 97310
 




**************
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
EM-7163 Stan Schmokel <scschmokel@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 12:41:28 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.

Stan Schmokel
7525 SE 20th Ave
Portland, OR 97202

503-319-6854
EM-7164 Scott Macdonald <buttonjaw@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 12:42:03 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.

Scott Macdonald
2415 NE 32nd Place
Portland, OR 97212
EM-7165 Phillip Pommier <philp@pacificwr.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 12:43:58 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.

Phillip Pommier
6253 SW Erickson Ave.
Beaverton, OR 97008
EM-7166 Aspasia Giese Bigelow <aspasiagb@earthlink.net> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 12:44:21 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,

Kelsey Nara Giese
664 Ray Lane.
Ashland or
97520
EM-7167 Erin Cole <cole25bon@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 12:44:48 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.

Erin Cole
2018 NW Everett St
#301
Portland, OR 97209
EM-7168 Benjamin Rhiger <rhigerb@reed.edu> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 12:45:38 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.

Benjamin Rhiger
2829 SE Belmont, Apt. 308
Portland, OR 97214
EM-7169 Joel Thorson <thorson@easystreet.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 12:46:54 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.

Joel Thorson
726 SE Fairwinds Loop
Vancouver, WA 98661

360-993-0292
EM-7170 Kathryn Sonenshine <kdelrio@mind.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 12:47:04 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.

Kathryn Sonenshine
776 Forest St.
Ashland, OR 97520
EM-7171 Michael Cooper <coopermb@bendbroadband.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 12:48:34 Dear BLM,
I backpack and hike the old-growth forests of Oregon for weeks out of every year. 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 Cooper
14911 Pommel
Sisters, OR 97759
EM-7172 Patricia Moak <pattymo97206@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 12:48:59 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.

Patricia Moak
6601 SE 58th Ave
Portland, OR 97206
EM-7173 bob allen <voyager@jeffnet.org> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 12:48:59 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.

bob allen
7680SW92nd Place
Portland, OR 97223
EM-7174 Elaine Wood <elayne2@frontiernet.net> Comments on Western Oregon Plan Revision DEIS 1/11/2008 12:49:41  
January 11, 2008
 
To BLM WOPR Staff:
 
Please find my official comments to the WOPR DEIS attached. 
 
Elaine Wood
elayne2@frontiernet.net
541-597-2880 
 
cc:  Representative DeFazio
        Senator Wyden
        Senator Smith
        Josephine County Commissioners
        Governor Kulongowski - wopr della.doc
EM-7175 peggy retnani <pegnkam@verizon.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 12:49:59 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.

peggy retnani
695 SW 134th av
beaverton, OR 97005
EM-7176 susan morlang <smorlang@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 12:50:14 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.

susan morlang
7680 SW 92nd Place
Portland, OR 97223
EM-7177 Penny McAvoy <pmcavoy@cascadehealth.org> Western OregonPlan Revision. 1/11/2008 12:51:24 I am sending a strong request to say NO to any plan revision at this time.

 

Thank you !   

 

Penny McAvoy
EM-7178 johanna Tomesch <johanna@peoples.coop> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 12:53:35 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.

johanna Tomesch
4597 se brookside dr
milwaukie, OR 97222
EM-7179 Ben Martin Horst <ben.martinhorst@gmail.com> 1/11/2008 12:54:23 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 proposed Western Oregon Plan Revision is absolutely unacceptable
and represents a policy that is, by any reasonable definition of the
word, insane. In this opening decade of the 21st century, Oregon is
faced with an ecosystem on the verge of collapse.

Salmon runs -- once so extensive that they supported the highest
populations of non-agricultural people on the planet -- are fast
approaching extinction. Waters that normally filter slowly from its
mountain headwaters to sustain valleys through dry summers are
lessened every year. Once magnificent forests, supporting some of the
highest levels of biomass on Earth, are now replaced by overgrown,
intensely- but poorly-managed tree farms. Rural people are made ill by
herbicide sprays meant to kill all plant life except for seedling
trees for lumber.

These problems are acknowleged with a casual shrug by corporations,
politicians, and bureaucrats, when in any rational assessment they
should elicit horror and immediate restorative action. And all these
problems are directly tied to clear-cutting, especially of the ancient
forests.

We cannot allow the national treasures and indispensible resources
that these forests are to be ravaged merely to meet arbitrary harvest
estimates, determined by people without a commitment to Oregon around
negotiating tables two thousand miles away. 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 and
risks ecological holocaust. 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.

We must not cut any more of our old growth forests -- not one tree.
They should be set aside as irreplaceable treasures until such time as
the rest of Oregon's forestlands have matured once again into healthy,
robust ecosystems.

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,

Ben Martin Horst
1163 1/2 Chambers
Eugene, OR 97402
EM-7180 Elizabeth Tilbury <liz@tfn-ire.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 12:54:25 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.

Elizabeth Tilbury
1231 N.W. Hooyt, #201
Portland, OR 97209
EM-7181 Christie Kirchmiller <christie@pawsintheparkpdx.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 12:55:16 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.  Please protect our beautiful forests from clearcutting!

Sincerely,

Christine and Robert Kirchmiller

111 SW Harrison St. #2H

Portland, OR97201

503-265-8759
EM-7182 dickridenour@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 12:55:36 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,
Richard Ridenour
18543 Riverside Dr
Sonoma, CA 95476

EM-7183 Lyndia Hammer <lyndiahammer@gmail.com> BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions 1/11/2008 12:56:11 Bureau of Land Management, Western Oregon Plan Revisions Office
333 SW 1st. Avenue, Portland, OR 97208

Greetings BLM Managers,

I am strongly opposed to the preferred alternative, 2, in the DEIS for the revision of resource management plans in Western Oregon. If, as stated in the DEIS, the BLM truly intends to conserve threatened species, improve forest and community resilience to fire, provide clean water and recreational opportunities, and provide timber dollars to Oregon's economy, then emphasis should be placed on forest restoration and sustainable harvest, not on clearcut logging of mature forests.   

Old growth coniferous forests in the Pacific Northwest sequester more than 4 times the amount of carbon that second growth coniferous forests do.  The vital role that Oregon's mature and old growth forests play in regulating the global climate, of concern to all Americans and people of the world, was not even addressed in the DEIS.  This is a grave, shortsighted omission. 

Old growth forest species are imperiled due to fragmentation and loss of habitat from 100 years of irresponsible logging practices.  We the people want protection of our remaining mature forests.  I want abundant old growth forest habitat and associated species for my children and grandchildren to take care of.  I am sick and tired of private corporate interests ruining our heritage and natural resources for profit.  As a wildlife biologist and forester I believe in good stewardship of the land which includes responsible logging.  It is entirely possible to extract timber and protect mature forest, soils, aquatic systems and wildlife by thinning.  It is high time for the federal government to listen to the will of the people and make an investment in our national forests.  After decades of taking, it is time to give back.

Alternative 2 of the Western Oregon Plan Revision is entirely unacceptable and will lead only to conflict and money wasted on legal fees.  Please listen to the will of the American people and focus on thinning the used and abused second-growth forests covering millions of acres in the Pacific Northwest.  There is a real, growing consensus on the need to thin over-stocked forests to achieve the goals of improving forest health, decreasing risk of high-intensity fire to rural communities, and extracting timber for local economies. 

Thank you for your action.

Sincerely,

Lyndia D. Hammer

593 Iowa St
Ashland, OR 97520 
EM-7184 Bob Schneidmiller <rschnei01@yahoo.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 12:56:19 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,
Bob Schneidmiller
1255 NE Market Dr.
Fairview, OR 97024



____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
EM-7185 Wendy Kroger <krogerw@comcast.net> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 12:57:22 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,

Wendy and Bill Kroger
12030 SW Settler Way
Beaverton, OR 07008
EM-7186 susie <dousushi@aol.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 12:58:11 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,

Doug and Susie Hill
EM-7187 Paul Moss <paul@themailpath.com> Please protect Oregon's old-growth forests 1/11/2008 12:59:10 Dear BLM,
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 as a visitor. 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 its 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, while providing sustainable jobs and other economic benefits for rural communities.

Paul Moss
1849 Whitaker St.
White Bear Lake, MN 55110
EM-7188 Perry Bream <pbream@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 13:00:16 Dear BLM,
I am firmly opposed to the WOPR. Oregonians are at a crossroads and the direction proposed by the WOPR lead in a backwards direction. What is desperately needed is a new way of utilizing this invaluable resource for the important reasons that look beyond a few years of windfall profits for an industry that needs to change.

We need to be working with our legislative representatives to get our budget priorities realigned. Our Northwest forests are among the most effective natural air purifiers in the world for carbon sequestration and free oxygen production. Air purification has always been taken for granted the same way pure drinking water was a generation ago. It makes far better sense to provide the people of this state with block grants for schools in return for preserving these life-sustaining forests that to do the same in lieu of timber-cutting revenues.

Old-growth forests have been conclusively proven to sequester more carbo and relase more free oxygen than plantation forests by a major margin. Generous tracts of forest land were made available to tree farmers for the purpose of timber cultivation. There is a more than adequate supply of harvestable timber on plantation land.

A friend who has worked at a responsible position in a major mill for many years has told me that the issue is not that the smaller logs from plantations are more expensive to mill or cure or that the old-growth timber brings a higher price. The real issue is that more board feet can be pulled out of the old-growth forests faster than the plantations. This is certainly no justification for the destruction of a vital state and national resource that can never be replaced.

Yours truly,

Perry Bream

Perry Bream
4739 Elkhead Road
Yoncalla, OR 97499
EM-7189 Katherine McAnulty <grammymac@photosbyinnerfocus.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 13:01:16 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.

Katherine McAnulty
6347 NE 32nd Place
Portland, OR 97211
EM-7190 elliott_lew@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 13:02:36 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,
Lew Elliott
P.O. Box 262
Castaic, CA 91310

EM-7191 Katherine McAnulty <grammymac@photosbyinnerfocus.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 13:02:46 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.

Katherine McAnulty
6347 NE 32nd Place
Portland, OR 97211
EM-7192 Kathie Cotter <fishingforgold@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 13:03:36 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.

Kathie Cotter
94255 Third Street
Gold Beach, OR 97444
EM-7193 Catherine Brown <cmbrown@gorge.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 13:04:01 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 Brown
1265 NW Heidi Lane
PO Box 561
White Salmon, WA 98672
EM-7194 Candace Hunter <candace@huntercreation.com> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 13:04:34 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,


Candace Hunter

187 Springwood Dr. 

Eugene, OR 97404


Candace
candace@huntercreation.com
My blog: www.huntercreation.com/candace/
web site: www.huntercreation.com


EM-7195 James Massey ND <drmassey@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 13:05:16 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.

James Massey ND
3310 SW Vista Drive
Portland, OR 97225
EM-7196 Dawn Kropp <dmarineau@aol.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 13:07:47 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.

Dawn Kropp
3223 NE US Grant PL
Portland, OR 97212
EM-7197 DeLynn Anderson <eventsbydelynn@comcast.net> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife on BLM land 1/11/2008 13:09:14 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.


My family recreates regularly on BLM lands where old-growth exists enjoying
activities such as hiking, camping, and wildlife observation. We want to
preserve recreation options in these areas for Oregonians and their
visitors, as well as protecting wildlife habitats.

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,


DeLynn Anderson
1019 Scenic Dr NW
Albany, OR 97321

EM-7198 John Flanery <jflan@efn.org> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 13:11:11 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 Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The BLM is contemplating changes
that may lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy.
This is a myopic and backwards proposal that depletes our natural resource base for future
generations by weakening protections for forests, creeks and salmon. Furthermore, the proposal
ignores the role these forests play in regulating the climate.

Most Americans want federal land managers to thin second growth forests, safeguard communities
from wildfire and protect remaining ancient forests. Focusing on previously logged public
forestlands in need of thinning would provide wood to local mills, improve conditions for fish
and wildlife, and keep saws out of precious old-growth forests.

In contrast, the WOPR proposes to inflame controversy over 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, not clear-cut
these natural treasures.

At a time when public consensus for old-growth protection and second-growth thinning has never been
stronger, it is disappointing that 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 on already logged
areas, and concentrate job opportunities in restoration forestry that would benefit watersheds and
generate wood products without multiplying past mistakes.

Sincerely,

John Flanery
1641 W Broadway
Eugene, OR 97402
EM-7199 John Shafer <johnatfopc@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 13:14:37 Dear BLM,
I am very concerned with the direction the BLM is headed with the management of federal forests under the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The changes the agency is contemplating will lead to water pollution and degraded habitat.

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. The agency's "analysis" claims that reduced buffers will not be harmful. Salmon are in enough trouble already. With the effects of global warming threatening to increase stress on water supplies and quality and raises water temperatures, buffers should be increased, not reduced.

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.




John Shafer
385 N.W. Robert Street
Dallas, OR 97338
EM-7200 Michael Weisdorf <weisdorf@pdx.edu> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 13:18:48 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.

Michael Weisdorf
3909 SE Woodward ST
Portland, OR 97202
EM-7201 John Filar <jfilar3@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 13:19:53 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. The recent flooding and landslides in the NW Oregon area (e.g., Vernonia) are just a sample of the damage caused by widespread clearcutting.

- Clearcutting of old growth forests and proposed "Off Highway Vehicle Emphasis Areas" threaten the peace and quiet for rural residents, visitors, and wildlife. Oregon needs rural residents and tourism to feed our economy - catering to the timber and motorized vehicle industry alone is not a solution.

Oregon's remaining old-growth forests are a treasure -- offering wonderful recreation opportunities, clean water, homes for wildlife, and offsetting global warming. But the WOPR is a step back to the unsustainable days of clear-cutting this amazing resource, endangering wildlife, muddying streams, and fueling public outcry. A better way is to protect our heritage forests and focus on thinning and restoration of the plentiful unhealthy plantations left over from the last logging boom. This approach would safeguard the many values of old-growth forests that make Oregon a place I want to live, while providing sustainable jobs and other economic benefits for rural communities.

John Filar
3537 NE 71st
Portland, OR 97213
EM-7202 John Witte <jwitte@reed.edu> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 13:21:43 Dear BLM,
I am a resident of Oregon and as such want to weigh in on the latest travesty proposed by the current administration headed by one G. Bush and his greedy cohorts, including the execrable D. Cheney. The West has a forest plan promulgated under Bill Clinton's watch (Presidency) and agrred to by ALL parties involved. As such, it MUST NOT be changed one bit to satisfy the greed of timber barons! Oregon has little enough old growth remaining so that any reduction CANNOT be justified. So get with it, BLM and do your management of OUR natural resources as you have been charged namely for the benfit of ALL Americans--not for the profits of the few!

John Witte
4855 SE Tenino CT
Portland, OR 97206

503 774 7559
EM-7203 david sommerville <cimprov@efn.org> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 13:21:58 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.

david sommerville
10 ash st
eugene, OR 97402
EM-7204 Gloria Hodges <glowd@comcast.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 13:22:08 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.

Gloria Hodges
2745 Riverwalk Loop
Eugene , OR 97401
EM-7205 Forwarded by alan_hoffmeister@blm.gov Comment: Jan Aho 1/11/2008 13:22:10 January 10, 2008

Dear Folks.

I have looked at the proposed increased harvesting and want to urge the bureau to reconsider. I live in a rural area between Eugene and Oakridge. For the last two to three years I have watched logging truck after logging truck haul out timber from private land owned by Weyerhaeuser and Guistina Timber.  It has left a patchwork of trees and bareland on all the hills surrounding my home.

When I look at the map, I realize that much of the land that still has trees is BLM land.
If the proposal goes through there will be very few trees on the hills. Not only are we loosing the beauty of the trees, we are loosing habitat for so many plants and animals, a source of fresh air, and rain making trees, as well as vegetation to hold the soil in place.

Please, please do not increase logging. We will loose much more than the trees.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity.
Respectfully,
Jan Aho
P.O. Box 178
Dexter, Oregon
97431
EM-7206 karrla <karrlas@gmail.com> i am opposed to preferred alternative for the Western Oregon Plan Revision 1/11/2008 13:23:40 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,
Karrla Sandstrom

EM-7207 Cecile Valastro <cmvalastro@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 13:24:13 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.

Cecile Valastro
18970 SW Blamon Ct.
Beaverton, OR 97007
EM-7208 Judy Reynolds <jreynolds@uci.net> I oppose extensive logging 1/11/2008 13:30:22 This is my WOPR comment as a resident of Grants Pass:

I feel privileged to live in a place rich with forests.
Oregon's forests are a national heritage.
Therefore, any logging must be done with strictest guidelines.
This WOPR plan allows far too much logging.
I oppose it.
Judy Reynolds
EM-7209 Susan Moen <sueomoen@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 13:32:49 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 Moen
4715 N.E. Everett St.
PORTLAND, OR 97213
EM-7210 brook hubner <hubnerba@comcast.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 13:33:50 Dear BLM,
My family and I visit Oregon frequently, and I am very concerned with the BLM's stewardship of the over 2 million acres of federal forests in the Western Oregon Plan. The pending changes will negate the the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan, and will lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy.

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.

brook hubner
6059 Grey Cir
Tuscaloosa , AL 35406
EM-7211 Claudia Knudson <claudarius@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 13:35:20 Dear BLM,
I oppose 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.

Claudia Knudson
1801 Cleveland Ave
Santa Barbara, CA 93103
EM-7212 JOHN AUGUSTUS <augustus_197@msn.com> Emailing: To whom it may concern The Little Butte Creek watershed is 1/11/2008 13:35:57  
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
To whom it may concern The Little Butte Creek watershed is

Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments.  Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. - To whom it may concern The Little Butte Creek watershed is.wpd
EM-7213 Dennis Pennell <dennisnpennell@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 13:36:45 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.

Dennis Pennell
402 NE 136th Way
Vancouver, WA 98685
EM-7214 Roxy Hills <roxy.hills@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 13:38:40 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.

Roxy Hills
PO Box 5155
Eugene, OR 97405
EM-7215 Mary Addams <maryaddamsor@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 13:38:40 Dear BLM,
The protection of our old forests is crucial if we want to protect the health of our planet. The old forests are such a complex organism, which you know better than I. They are needed to provide humanity with clean air, water, and regulate the temperature through carbon sequestration. These forests must be protected at all costs!!!

I realize towns need funds to pay for social services but we can't sell the forests to do it. It would be like committing planetary suicide. We've got to figure out a different way for towns to pay for their services. How about making the rest of the world or at least the rest of this nation pay us for keeping the forests healthy? Everyone will benefit from the forests remaining old and complex, so everyone should pay "rent" to us for doing this job.

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.

Mary Addams
2137 W 16th Way
Eugene, OR 97402

541-343-2813
EM-7216 Ken Weeks <kjweeks@embarqmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 13:42:41 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.

Ken Weeks
4 Luftfeld Rd.
lyle, WA 98635
EM-7217 Constance Frenzen <constancefrenzen@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 13:43:42 Dear BLM,
I am a concerned citizen. The WOPR...a revision to increase the logging of old-growth trees in Western Oregon by 700%...is a drastic measure by any standards. Implementation of such an extreme plan will exhibit complete disregard for the protections established by the landmark Northwest Forest Plan. It provides a very short term economic advantage at the expense of the environment.

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.

Constance Frenzen
936 NE Failing Street
Portland, OR 97212
EM-7218 Adam DeHeer <adeheer@uoregon.edu> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 13:48:57 Dear BLM,
Clear-cutting forests has been a reality in this neck of the woods for about 2 centuries. It is a miracle there are any uncut forests left. Every time the landscape is stripped of trees a tremedous amount of biomass leaves the ecoregion and is not replenished. The layer of humus that helps feed these giants continues to dwindle becasue the preivious proces of tree decomposition and the reconstitution has been interuped. Clear-cutting in general must be reevluated becuase the long term affects of dramatic alteration of ecological systems is not being considered to the degree that is necessary. The forests in Oregon have changed, both aesthetically and ecologically. Please consider the situation from a lense larger than the human point of view. Please help. Please do not let the slaughter of elders, the loss of habitat and the fogetting of beauty continue in your home.

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.

Adam DeHeer
542 E12th Apt 2
Eugene, OR 97403
EM-7219 Jim Hall <seribon@peak.org> Comment on WOPR 1/11/2008 13:49:43 I urge you to abandon plans to harvest old-growth forests as part of
the Western Oregon Plan revision. As a retired professor of fisheries
at Oregon State University, I have had considerable experience with
issues of forest and fisheries interactions. I have reviewed the
testimony of K. Norman Johnson and Jerry Franklin at the Dec. 13, 2007
hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. Having
worked with both of these scientists, I can attest to their
credibility and expertise.

They stress that among the key elements needed to increase structural
complexity in forests of western Oregon are:
conserving all remnant old-growth trees,
using thinning that encourages development of spatial heterogeneity, and
ensuring conservation of aquatic systems.

In my 30 years at OSU I saw the wisdom of these recommendations in a
number of watershed studies, including the Alsea Watershed Study, for
which I was the coordinator for 10 years. In my opinion, the WOPR
represents an inadequate plan that would be counterproductive.
Considerable additional harvest could be attained by using elements of
the Johnson/Franklin strategy, while at the same time preserving the
ecological integrity of the western Oregon forests.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this plan.

James D. Hall
2010 NW Robin Hood Street
Corvallis, OR 97330
EM-7220 Jimmy Trasport <jimmy.trasport@gmail.com> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 13:51:09 That's a WOPR if I've ever seen one!
Honestly, there are much better uses for our public money. It's pathetic that citizens have to send comments on a plan that should have been scrapped at the initial brainstorming session! If the plan does go through, I think the logging should be done with axes, horses, and rope rather than chainsaws and cranes.
Jimmy Trasport
- WOPR comment.doc
EM-7221 namitadalal@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 13:53:06 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,
Namita dalal
27718 Altamont Cir
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022

EM-7222 Judith Castro <delallure@yahoo.com> Protect Forests 1/11/2008 13:53:56 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.

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,

Judith A Castro
267 E 30th Ave
Eugene, OR 97405


CC: Oregon Congressional delegation

Senator Ron Wyden
1220 SW 3rd Ave., Suite 585, Portland, OR 97204

Senator Gordon Smith
121 SW Salmon St., Suite 1250, Portland, OR 97204

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-4th)
405 East 8th Ave. #2030, Eugene, OR 97401

Rep. Greg Walden (R-2nd)
843 East Main Street, Ste 400, Medford, OR 97504

Rep. Earl Blumenhauer (D-3rd)
729 N.E. Oregon St., Suite 115,  Portland, OR 97232

Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-5th)
315 Mission Street SE #101, Salem, Oregon 97302



[IMAGE]Judith Ana Castro [IMAGE]
 
 



Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
EM-7223 gene snell <snellthis@yahoo.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 13:57:18 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,
YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS
G. Snell
1410 N. Webster #3
Portland, OR 97217



Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
EM-7224 Charlotte Sahnow <csahnow@uoregon.edu> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 13:59:58 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.

Charlotte R. Sahnow
2756 Chad Drive
Eugeme, OR 97408

541/686-5009
EM-7225 Gordon Rockett <rockett7815@comcast.net> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 14:01:43 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,

Helen M. Rockett
245 W. 35th Place
Eugene, OR 97405
EM-7226 Audrey Moore <ajmoore@cavenet.com> [SUSPECTED SPAM] A resident with grave Concerns 1/11/2008 18:23:56 Dear Bureau of Land Management,

 

I am taking the time to write to you out of grave concern for my home, my retirement as well as for our state.  I realize my letter is long but please take the time to let me share two  concerns of mine that are currently being considered within our state.

Briefly, I retired almost ten years ago to a beautiful home on 5 gorgeous acres in Selma, Oregon. Many wondered why I choose Selma of all places.  I can only say if you saw my home and property on Deer Creek itself, you would, without question, understand.

Sadly, I write you today because my home and property are about to become a nightmare that many of us have already experienced and there looms on the horizon the possibility of things getting much worse.

I am simply going to state for you what I know and how I feel about it.

 

First issue is the BLM's proposed Western Oregon Plan Revisions.

I find it hard to fathom in today's world, with access to so much knowledge, that we actually still think clear-cutting is a solution to anything. Cheapest way to log, yes, but certainly not the healthiest for anyone or anything left in it's path of destruction. How can we not have realized that maintaining a "sustainable forest" is the only way to keep us in jobs and help our economy?  That means we must log sustainably.  It has been proven that sustainable logging is not only healthy for a forest, but is beneficial towards fire protection as well as the huge value of being able to log forever.  If and only if, we log sustainably.  How can we not have learned that clear-cutting is rape and destruction of a forest and ecosystem that will never heal nor provide long term anything, let alone jobs.  The evidence is in our forests themselves.  Just look at the all the clear-cutting and tell me what it accomplished that was positive to our future? How about looking at the "re-planted" forests, the few that actually are re-planted, and tell me how they compare to a healthy diverse ecosystem? 

I also cannot fathom those who claim this proposal will help make us fire safe. I lived through the Biscuit fire first hand and KNOW the falsehood to that statement.  Again the evidence is in and the forests bear witness.  Old growth may burn but seldom if ever does it die.  It comes back.  Clear-cuts don't.  Truth is that old growth is not only a vital part of a healthy forest, but a healthy factor in fire prevention.  Anyone who has logged property can witness what happens to remaining trees when their "shelter" is removed. They dry up, die or get diseased when not protected.  What are we thinking?  Removing any of the remaining old growth cannot possibly be justified.  The science is in.  Yet it appears only to those who choose to see it. Reminds me of global warming.  For years big business and government that would have had to make changes, said it was a hoax.  It was just not true they said and people believed them, because the voices of power were speaking.  I don't have to tell you or anyone that we should have listened then because the cost and time and effort NOW far exceeds what it would have been 10 years ago and we don't even know if we can fix the damage that's continued in those 10 years. Having to now face an environment of obvious global warming, how can we possibly not see the correlation between deforestation and the planet warming up?  It has been happening all over the planet and the fact that we have already removed 75 % of our old growth, should be cause for concern, grave concern.  We cannot replace old growth, not for generations, upon generations to come. When it's gone, it's gone. For us to even consider another "quick fix" for profit and once again not factor in the long-term consequences is beyond my scope of comprehension and is core to this letter.

Old growth is a must in a healthy forest.  I live in a clear-cut city.  It's not only ugly and pathetic to look at all year but now the creeks and rivers are full of mud and slug from the hills/mountains that lay barren when it rains.  (I wonder how the salmon like it?)  This then, of course, is causing the hills/mountains to recede, as another consequence of clear-cutting.  The mud and slug is washing into our water supply.  Which brings up the question, what about our water supply?  Without the trees, especially old growth, to capture water, what is expected for the coming year's water supply?  Another fact is the direct connection between a healthy forest and a healthy water supply and who is held responsible if one is destroyed thereby destroying the other. The BLM?  I think not.   I venture to say that this too has not been factored into any long-term possible consequence of the actions being proposed.

If one does not live in the area's being damage or destroyed there seems to be no need to worry.  Well I am worried.  I am beyond worry for I am terrified that my dream is being destroyed and I don't even have a say in the matter.  The very fact they, the BLM, is systematically taking away my rights to even voice an opinion, let alone an objection, should be a red flag to someone, anyone, who is seeing what has been transpiring the last few years.

 

Secondly I would like to give voice to my absolute disbelief in the BLM's proposal for Off Road Vehicles (OHV).  Right from the start I am urging you NOT to let this happen.   I will share from first hand experience that the nightmare on this subject has already begun.  They (off road vehicles) are prevalent throughout the year in Deer Creek, which is at the back of my property. The only time of year they do not run rampant is during the winter when Deer Creek becomes a river. Is it possible the correlation between all the logging that's been taking place in the Valley and the creeks drying up is being ignored?  When in years past these creeks were full all year? Just a passing thought.

I have called and complained about the damage being done to the creek and the noise to any and all agencies I can think of and always hit the wall of "nothing can be done".  It is disheartening to witness the creek being destroyed and ravaged by folks who don't live here nor care what havoc they leave behind and there is no one to turn to or anyone who seems to care.  The noise they make going back and forth through the creek is not something I should have to listen to from the comfort of my home or property.  Beyond the horrendous noise they make is the damage they leave behind.  I have watched as they go back and forth, back and forth, destroying the creek bed in their wake. Then let us not overlook their dropping of trash along the way and yes in the creek.  I wish I could properly express my frustration at watching these careless people destroy a creek that should not have such activities taking place within it or near it aside from how disruptive it is to my personal experience.  I never factored this into my dream retirement nor thought things could take such a turn.   I used to enjoy a pair of eagles who liked to feed in the water holes as the creeks waters receded.

Not anymore.

Now add what happens to the surrounding forest with these destructive vehicles and one has to ask "why on earth are we letting this happen?"  What are we doing and why?  Are there not enough places for folks to make noise and destroy things without letting them come into residential area's, do their damage and then go home without so much as an after thought or care in the world? 

This proposal must be stopped in its tracks, pun intended, for the OHV situation is ALREADY out of control. That's what is so hard to deal with.  The probability is obvious that it will get worse, much worse.

I urge you to envision, this were your backyard, so that you might get a sense of losing everything you worked for and planned for in your retirement. What if your place of beauty and tranquility was being disrupted and destroyed?  Please do not let this happen.  It is wrong, and as a taxpaying citizen of Oregon I am urging you to protect my rights to privacy, peace and quiet, the beauty that abounds here, as well as protecting the creek and surrounding area from the damage these off road vehicles do each year.  If no one can stop it now what on earth happens later?  Per the sheriff "there is no law against what they are doing".  Isn't that Perfect ! 

I have not even mentioned the displaced wildlife due to both of these concerns.

That would be a letter unto itself.

 

Please know I am not someone who has nothing better to do with her time than complain.  I simply am an Oregonian who is expressing my deep concern for decisions being considered that are irreversible and destructive beyond scope. I am a wife, woman, grandmother, sister, daughter, neighbor, friend, shop owner, taxpayer, citizen who lives in a beautiful valley and wants to be able to continue to love and enjoy it's splendor throughout my retirement without being fearful over the long term consequences of these very serious proposals that effect our state and it's future. 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for taking the time to let me voice my concerns.  I am very interested in your view on these matters and would appreciate a reply at your convenience.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Audrey Moore

2021 Deer Creek Road

Selma, Oregon 97538

541-597-4384

ajmoore@cavenet.com

 

 

(My husband and son have asked me to add their names to this letter also, as they too feel exactly as I do.)

Joel Moore

Todd Johan

 

 
EM-7227 "Nancy Spencer" <nanspen@mind.net> forests 1/11/2008 12:51:00 This letter is to anyone who is involved with the plan to take more and more and more of our old-growth forests. Please, please, please let us preserve what is left of these wonderful old trees. I simply can't believe that anyone with any intelligence and respect for the natural world could consider taking down even one of these living monuments. Stop the plan of destruction now!!!!!    Thank you,      Nancy Spencer, concerned citizen and tree lover
EM-7228 "Hal Anthony" <threepines@jeffnet.org> BLM WOPR testimony 1/11/2008 13:08:52  
 

In Opposition to the Western OregonPlan Revisions

 

 

Bureau of Land Management,

Western OregonPlan Revisions Office
333 SW 1st. Avenue, Portland, OR97208 

 

Dear BLM WOPR Staff:

 

The Western Oregon Plan Revisions fails to meet compliance with the following standards. These criteria are followed by my public comments on some of the carrying capacity, ethics, and sustainability issues involved in the potential implementation of the WOPR.

 

PROCESS:

The BLM is violating the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by not implementing NEPA, Section 102(2)(A) B Interdisciplinary Process, which says all agencies of the Federal Government shall utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision making which may have an impact on the human environment. If BLM is to revise multiple resource management plans (RMPs) and areas in southern Oregon with one single overlay plan, the Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR), and one environmental impact statement (EIS), they must utilize a regionally experienced interdisciplinary team that is capable of interpreting and integrating the needs of locally forested zones. Even though many of the processes and standards to develop a single plan may be the same, the people, the issues, and the lands of southern Oregonare all unique. Allocating different prescriptions to hundreds of thousands of acres throughout southern Oregonshould be accomplished by the local managers and interdisciplinary team knowledgeable of on the ground resources and issues; and NEPA, by law, must be shown compliance with the standards of its authority over actions by the BLM. If requirements of NEPA, Section 102(2)(A) B are not met, the WOPR will fail to show compliance with the applicable criteria. WOPR will be illegal.

 

COMPLIANCE AND PRECEDENT:

Further, the BLM cannot accept the Natural Selection Alternative (NSA) as showing compliance with their Purpose and Need criteria for a portion of the O&C lands (on the South Deer Landscape Management Project), and then turn around and flip-flop by rejecting that very same criteria for the WOPR. The NSA is based on exactly how nature operates in order to remain sustainable, has been proven, was accepted by BLM, and is a superior method of meeting the carrying capacity protections that ebb and flow within a natural forest to accomplish the continuous resource requirements of sustainability mandated by the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) and NEPA.  In fact, the NSA even increases the political and ecological stability rendered and written into the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). The BLM cannot accept and then reject their own prior decisions (approval of NSA) at whim and without process, which they did regarding the NSA in the WOPR.

 

FIRE HAZARD AND REGROWTH:

It has been well proven that areas of clear-cuts produce an extreme fire danger, not a lesser one. Clear-cuts have a predominant tendency to not grow back into a forest, or sometimes not even grow back one single tree, but clear-cuts/canopy removal certainly does allow plenty of the conditions required for fire hazard-type growth, putting people and forests at extreme risk of intense fire.

 

OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES:

As for OHVs, a personal and/or family experience of nature when on foot and surrounded by its biological beauty has an added component of wonder and imagination when our senses are "close up." We can also discuss then and there the experience and observation of the very workings of this "nature's bank," our very own environmental infrastructure. But with the separation brought about by helmets, ear plugs, no use of their legs, feet, hands, no sense of smell and touch, and the focus required to operate gears, levers, lights, brakes, steering, balance, etc., we miss out on these natural surroundings, otherwise made even more personal by their proximity. The classroom effect of how nature operates to retain water, clean up our air, provide oxygen and bank our carbon is lost to us by driving through these fragile systems on motor vehicles.

 

Add to that, I have never seen OHV use NOT escalate into some combinations of hopping off trail; trespassing; removing mufflers; challenging steep slopes; interfering with pedestrians; burning rubber for mud throwing, doing 360' circles and other erosion-causing antics; driving illegally on auto-designated roads/highways; intimidating other vehicles, riders, people, horses, law enforcement, campers, etc; to name just a few problems, all of which will only become worse by opening the flood gates of further legalizing and designating ATV use areas in the WOPR. Legitimizing this misuse fails to meet Oregon Statewide Goals 3,4, 5, 6, and requirements of NEPA.

 

SUMMARY:

The BLM/WOPR/BUSH clear-cutting plan is the most expensive, destructive, unsustainable way to proceed within our public lands. Not only should the WOPR be discarded, but BLM needs to be removed from all these processes. Tying road maintenance and children's education to clear-cuts, and the consistent mismanagement of these lands by the BLM can be remedied by transferring these lands to the National Forest System. With O&C funding going away, these complete forests are at risk of being logged for timber, and the 75% levels encouraged by some as a "remedy" would be the utter and chaotic end of these forests for everybody. The children that we now love, and their children, and their children would never forgive us for that kind of destruction to the physical, political, and social well being of our still beautiful State of Oregon.

 

The WOPR is unacceptable. The WOPR fails to show compliance with the applicable criteria and is in error. It, and it's failed DEIS must be set aside, and scoping should be started anew; or better, the NWFP should be left intact for the checks and balances, and timber harvesting goals it already provides in protecting our communities.

 

Hal B. Anthony
Outreach Chair/Land Use Committee     
Hugo Neighborhood Assoc. & Historical Society
3995 Russell Road
Grants Pass, Oregon97526
threepines@jeffnet.org   -- email
www.jeffnet.org/~hugo  -- website
541-476-4156

 

 

CC hard copy via USPS:

Senator Ron Wyden: 1220 SW 3rd Ave., Suite 585, Portland, OR 97204
Senator Gordon Smith: 121 SW Salmon St., Suite 1250, Portland, OR 97204
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-4th): 405 East 8th Ave. #2030, Eugene, OR 97401
Rep. Greg Walden (R-2nd): 843 East Main Street, Ste 400, Medford, OR 97504
Rep. Earl Blumenhauer (D-3rd): 729 N.E. Oregon St., Suite 115,  Portland, OR 97232
Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-5th): 315 Mission Street SE #101, Salem, Oregon 97302
Rep. David Wu (D-1st): 620 SW Main, Suite 606, Portland, OR 97205

Board of County Commissioners, Josephine County Courthouse, 500 NW Sixth Street, Dept. 6, Grants Pass, OR 97526

Governor Ted Kulongoski, State Capitol, Room 250, Salem, OR97310

 

 

  

 

 
EM-7229 "Daniel" <dnewberry@jeffnet.org> Comment Letter on WOPR from Daniel Newberry 1/11/2008 13:59:32 Bureau of Land Management,

Western Oregon Plan Revisions Office
333 SW 1st. Avenue

Portland, OR 97208 

 

January 11, 2008

 

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

 

Dear Sir / Madam

 

I submit this letter as an official comment on the Western Oregon Plan Revisions Office Environmental Impact Statement.

 

I don't often send in comment letters to federal EISs and I have never appealed or litigated a federal action.  But this EIS is so fundamentally flawed that I feel compelled to voice my opinion.

 

From a legal perspective, I find this plan troubling and without merit for two rmajor reasons (and a host of smaller reasons).  

 

First, the impetus for this plan is a settlement agreement for a court case based on a lawsuit brought by the O&C Counties.  Rather than allow the lawsuit to decided by the courts, the Bush administration decided not to defend the U.S. Government's vested interest.  Because we do not thus know how the courts would have ruled, we can be reasonably sure that this plan will end up in courts for the same reasons that the original lawsuit landed in court.  The only thing that will have been accomplished is a waste of millions of taxpayer dollars on a mega-analysis effort that never should have been undertaken.

 

Second, this plan / EIS proposes to dismantle Northwest Forest protections carefully designed and implemented following the most exhaustive public involvement in history: the Northwest Forest Plan EIS of 1994.  Please explain how you think legally you can reduce riparian buffers and overturn currently the (currently accepted) silvicultural approach that emphasizes uneven-aged management more than it does the more obsolete even-aged management approach?

 

From an ecological perspective, I find this plan a disaster, and one that makes a mockery of the Endangered Species Act, and will make our forests even more fireprone than they are now.

 

As I read the preferred alternative, the BLM proposes to focus on the harvest of forest stands that are at least 200 years old.  Our ancient forests are irreplaceable resources, and clearcutting or even commercial thinning in such stands is the equivalent of mining a mountainside: once it's gone, it's gone foreveer.  It's not the age of the forest, per se, that's important, it's the ecosystem that it sustains.  Our ancient forests sustain species that cannot live anywhere else in the world.  Who knows what the next taxol is in these forests.  We won't know if we cut them down.  We've cut well over 90% of our first-growth native forests. When is enough enough?  Scientifically, the answer is clear: we are already past that point.  Please explain how you will be able to comply with the Endangered Species Act by opening up old growth forests to harvest, especially uneven-aged harvest.

 

And what will happen to all the new clearcuts?  They will grow into thick, overstocked stands, that will increase the fire danger of our already fireprone forests.  Please explain the impact of the proposed alternative on the fire hazard in BLM-managed and the adjacent forests.  I live adjacent to BLM land.  Tell me what you will do to prevent fire from spreading through a BLM post-clearcut brush field and burning my own forest and house?

 

From an economic perspecive, I find that plan to be without justification.  We are in a recession.  House foreclosures are on the rise.  So why the need for so much more wood?  By BLM's own estimates, there are over 1 million acres of small-diameter timber in the Rogue River watershed alone.  We should be focussing on incentivizing entreperneurs and forest workers to harvest and utilize small-diameter timber, not old-growth timber.  The small stuff is a renewable resource.  The big stuff is not.  Please explain how the plan incentivizes the removal and utilization of small-diameter timber from fireprone stands.

 

Finally, I'd like to comment on the change in management of Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) use.  Three years ago, BLM was proposing one OHV-emphasis area in the Rogue Valley: Johns Peak area.  Now there are 11 areas.  With all the opposition and controversy to one area, please explain why you are proposing 11?  The Johns Peak OHV proposed area is particularly troubling because a) there are so many acres of private inholding, and b) there are so many residences in the vicinity.  Regarding the inholdings, this will most likely result in a marked increase in tresspassing.   I have heard private timber company representative express concern that their young plantations will be damaged by OHV users.

 

Certainly OHV users should have an area locally where they can use their machines.  The public forest are meant to be used for multiple uses.  But OHV use is inconsistent with walking, hiking, and horseback riding.  It is very dangerous.  Please don't put so many other users at risk.  And please explain what right the BLM has to make the Rogue River watershed into an OHV destination area?  Also, please explain how your plans prevent resource damage?  There are many soil series in our watershed that will be damaged by these vehicles.  Please note that many OHV users do not belong to, or take orders from, the Motorcycle Riders Association.  How then, will you ensure that riders ride in designated areas, observe rules, and minimize resource damage?

 

I am interested in your ansers to my questions.

 

Sincerely

 

/s/ Daniel Newberry

P. O. Box 1029

Jacksonville, OR 97530

(541) 973-7996

dnewberry@jeffnet.org

 
EM-7230 Tori Moore <mebechoog@yahoo.com> The REDWOODS 1/11/2008 14:03:23 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,
Victoria Moore


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
EM-7231 Roger Sutherland <ROGER.SUTHERLAND@PACIFICWR.COM> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 14:03:58 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.

Roger Sutherland
5435 SW 188th Ave
Aloha, OR 97007
EM-7232 Marc Bouvier <mbouvier@efn.org> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 14:04:23 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.

Marc Bouvier
762 East 22nd
Eugene, OR 97405

541-342-8203
EM-7233 Jackson Vance <jackson.vance@wwcc.edu> Please be selective 1/11/2008 14:04:23 Bureau of Land Management
Oregon/Washington State Office
ATTN: Western Oregon Planning Revision (OR930.1)
PO Box 2965
Portland, Oregon 97208

Dear BLM,

I am sure that there can be logging operations without clearcutting. Even though it seems backward, using means other than v.v.large equipment could mean the difference between sustainability and death to an ecosystem. Please give this a bit more of a think.

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,

Jackson Vance
Dovecote
908 10th St
Clarkston, WA 99403
EM-7234 Kymberly Randolph <LClemenson@msn.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 14:04:24 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.

Kymberly Randolph
7934 SW Capitol Hill Rd
Portland, OR 97219

503-245-5039
EM-7235 bowlinclan@powerfulpen.com Comments on Western Oregon Plan Revisions 1/11/2008 14:04:38 Stop. Just stop. No more clearcuts. No more old-growth logging. No more
liquidating our natural heritage for a few quick bucks. We could not be
more opposed to the proposed Western Oregon Plan Revisions.

It is incredibly disheartening to see federal lands officials pursuing
such outdated, short-sighted and damaging policies in the face of
overwhelming public opposition and decades of forestry research.

Clean water. Clean air. Intact forests. Wildlife habitat. Ecosystem
restoration. Peace and quiet. Those are the things we want. The public has
stated this over and over and over again.

So why are we again being asked to approve more logging, more
deforestation, more watershed damage, more roads?

Stop already. No amount of money is worth what is proposed in the WOPR.
There is plenty of wood available in the tree plantations that have
replaced the public forests that were razed in the LAST century. Use
those, and stay away from what's left of our majestic forestlands.

Brad and Julia Bowlin,
Eugene, Oregon


EM-7236 Kymberly Randolph <LClemenson@msn.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 14:07:44 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.

Kymberly Randolph
7934 SW Capitol Hill Rd
Portland, OR 97219

503-245-5039
EM-7237 "Jeff Forsythe" <j1forsythe@comcast.net> maintain the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan 1/11/2008 14:09:43 [IMAGE]

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.

 

[IMAGE] 

j1forsythe@comcast.net

  - image001.gif - image002.gif
EM-7238 Vanya Sloan <vanya@mind.net> BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions 1/11/2008 14:12:28 SENT VIA EMAIL

January 11, 2008

Bureau of Land Management
Western Oregon Plan Revisions Office
333 S.W. First Avenue
Portland, OR 97208

Re: BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions

To Whom it May Concern:

On behalf of the League of Women Voters of Ashland, we are writing to
ask that you reconsider your Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR).
The League's position is that in order to ensure the future
availability of essential resources, government policies must promote
responsible stewardship of natural resources. The WOPR, however, does
not reflect such stewardship. Instead of promoting resource
conservation, by increasing dramatically the logging of old-growth
forests and access to off-road vehicles, the WOPR is working to
severely reduce our natural resources.

Adopting a plan for resource management requires wise decision-making
that considers environmental, public health, social and economic
impacts, and protects private property rights. From the outpouring of
criticism that has come from anglers, hunters, environmentalists and
people who live in proximity to the protected areas, it is clear that
these concerns were not addressed. Apparently BLM was listening
primarily to representatives from the timber industry, manufacturers
of recreational vehicles, and other special interest groups. While
these special interests may have stressed economic interests - an
increase in business and jobs - their arguments can be offset by a
decrease in tourism, when people formerly drawn to southwest Oregon by
its forests, rivers, mountains and wildlife are dissuaded from coming
here because clear-cut mountains are the scenic attraction and fish
and game are disappearing. People living near the forests are bothered
by the noise of off-road vehicles that often trespass on their
property and worried, too, like others who travel on nearby roads,
about landslides from eroding soil.

Additionally, as scientists are pointing out, loss of old-growth
forests will affect our water, the air we breathe and even our
climate. We will also become more vulnerable to forest fires, because
it's the newer growth - the shrubs and dead timber - that ignites the
blaze, not the trees that have stood for several hundred years.

For these reasons, we ask the Bureau of Land Management to rethink its
decision, listen to the majority of Oregonians and defer the Western
Oregon Plan Revision to a later time when additional views can be
heard and a plan adopted that promotes responsible stewardship of
natural resources.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,


Judith Benjamin & Vanya Sloan
Co-Presidents, League of Women Voters of Ashland
P.O. Box 1296Ashland, OR 97520
EM-7239 Brian Ecker <bce_blast@yahoo.com> Please stop old growth logging in Western Oregon 1/11/2008 14:13:53 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, Brian Ecker

EM-7240 Alexis Smoluk <harpies74@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 14:14:09 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.

Alexis Smoluk
2360 NW Rolling Green Dr
Corvallis, OR 97330
EM-7241 Kathleen Worley <kathleen.worley@reed.edu> forest plan 1/11/2008 14:15:49 Dear BLM,
As someone who has lived in Oregon since before the implementation of the Northwest Forest plan, I am very concerned that the BLM's WOPR plan will unravel that plan's protections for old-growth forests and wildlife, and will lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy. I am extrememly concerned that only the "no action" option maintains stream buffers that protect riparian areas and watersheds from the destructive effects of logging.

I understand the concern regarding funding of rural schools, but a much 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.

I am also concerned that 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 and most likely lead to more landslides such as those experienced during recent storms.

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 show complete lack of concern for the kind of environment we pass on to our children.


Kathleen Worley
9141 SW 23rd Dr.
Portland, OR 97219
EM-7242 "Gerald Wisdom" <gwiz@jeffnet.org> "WOPR" comment 1/11/2008 14:17:12 1/11/08

2:15 PM

 

RE: Comments on the Western OregonPlan Revision

 

Dear Bureau of Land Management, Western OregonRevisions Office,

 

With admitted expectations of legal challenges to the Western Oregon Plan Revision by BLM policy makers, just go ahead and compromise on the side of conservation and preserve all that's left of the old growth and mature forests. That means stop all cutting of old growth and virgin forests.

 

Terminate policy that allows clearcutting as a harvest method, and begin to thin the second growth plantations that pose fire hazard potential.

 

Earn a good legacy by creation of more wildlife and botanical protection. Management decisions aimed at creating good watersheds offer clean and stable water for our people and rivers.

 

Your WOPR proposal was geared too much in favor of industry. Please figure in the general population who need space for recreation, parks, serenity and good clean drinking water and pristine environment for the future.

 

Thank you for accepting and counting our comments on this subject.

 

Sincerely,

 

Gerald and Robin Wisdom

1260 Arcadia Drive

RoseburgOR97470

541-672-6982

gwiz@jeffnet.org

rwisdom@jeffnet.org

 
EM-7243 Jessy Claerhout <claerhoutjessy@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 14:18:04 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.

Jessy Claerhout
798 Evergreen Road APT 47
Woodburn, OR 97071
EM-7244 "Anita Ward" <warda2j@cvc.net> WOPR Comments 2008 1/11/2008 14:19:12 ARC-EN-CIEL

129 Southshore Lane

Klamath Falls, OR 97601

               and

1525 Baldy Creek Road

Ashland, OR 96520

January 10, 2008

 

Bureau of Land Management

Western Oregon Plan Revisions Office

333 SW 1st Avenue

Portland, OR 97208

 

Re:  Comments on Western Oregon Plan Revisions and Alternatives

 

Dear BLM Managers and Staff:

 

Thank you for another opportunity to comment on Proposed Western Oregon Plans/Alternatives.

I have also attached a copy of my comments on the original Scoping of the Western Oregon Planning Revision, dated October 21, 2005, for you to compare with today's comments on the refined alternatives.

 

I still have similar concerns as noted in the previous comments.  Over the past two years plus since 2005, the Bureau of Land Management has expended, at great cost and staff time, with reduced staff, tremendous amounts of money in preparation and for public hearings (several of which I have attended) for the six plan revisions and attendant alternatives.  I would like to know exactly how much has been spent.  The cost undoubtedly has contributed further to our national debt and precluded or distracted from more efficient and economic management of BLM lands.  I reason that no Alternative can adequately compensate in income for the loss of revenue in this planning revision process.  The "Settlement" cannot be cost effective nor sustainable in the long run.

 

Since 2005, new problems/concerns have surfaced that have not been addressed in any of the plans or alternatives: 

1)swaths through forests, deducting from a renewable, sustainable forest base, especially on BLM lands;

2)      A greater burden put on Forest Service lands to comply with the Northwest Forest Plan and to compensate for the BLM's Western Oregon Plan Revisions/Alternatives essentially ignoring or trumping the NWFP-which still needs to be followed.

 

In my study and considered opinion of the Socio-Economic Assessment section on which the Alternatives are based, the Assessment is fatally flawed.  In your Summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, page LII, the graph shows a drastic reduction in county payments starting in 2005 without Secure Rural Schools monies.  As a member of two Forest Resource Advisory Committees-the Fremont-Winema RAC and as Chair of the Rogue/Umpqua RAC and as an attendee at BLM RACs, I know that there have been Secure Rural Schools monies through this year, 2008.  You should have updated this assessment and your graph.  It is not accurate.  There still is an off chance that the Secure Rural Schools could or would be extended beyond 2008 though scaled or phased down.  You have had four more years of Secure Rural Schools payments without proper acknowledgment while making the case for their replacement with other funding.  It is like double dipping while crying wolf.

 

I have read other organizations comments as well.  I am impressed with Jackson Co.'s Natural Resource Advisory Committee's WOPR Core Group, particularly on fire risk and wildfires.  The Committee expressed care and thoughtfulness that no one Alternative is appropriate, especially generically.  There are special forest mixes that need their own specific attentions.  The Oregon Heritage Forests stressed the importance of reduced logging in the Illinois Valley so it can recover and perhaps be sustainable.  The Applegate area should have more Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) within its watershed.  Riparian buffers should not be shrunk and there should be more protection for non-fish bearing streams so they can be made fish friendly.  OHF also emphasized the trends in land use away from timber production to more tourism, recreational land use.  We should recognize the newer socio-economic trends. American Lands Alliance wants more protection of old growth, not cutting our legacy trees that cannot be replaced in our lifetimes.  Of course, Global Warming may be an increasing factor in our deliberations.

 

These are a few of the major concerns for your consideration.  Please tailor in and incorporate them into the final plan revisions.  Thank you for attention.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

Anita Ward, President

 

CC: Oregon Congressional delegates

 

Senator Ron Wyden

1220 SW 3rd Ave., Suite 585, Portland, OR 97204

 

Senator Gordon Smith

121 SW Salmon St., Suite 1250, Portland, OR 97204

 

Representative Greg Walden (R-2nd)

843 East Main Street, Ste 400, Medford, OR 97504

 

Representative Peter DeFazio (D-4th)

405 East 8th Ave. #2030, Eugene, OR 97401

  - ARCtoBLMcomments.doc
EM-7245 Lynn Krupa <lynnandlarry@msn.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 14:19:19 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.

Lynn Krupa
PO Box 3453
Portland, OR 97707

(503) 809-9274
EM-7246 Jenka Soderberg <creativeexchange@yahoo.com> Please! Oppose the WOPR! These are our last old growth forests! 1/11/2008 14:23:44 Dear BLM,
Please! Do not allow the Western Oregon Plan Revisions to go through! I am totally opposed to this plan, which would open up ALL Bureau of Land Management land to logging. Our last old growth forests would be destroyed! Please! This is so incredibly important. Do not let our last old growth forests be cut.

We need to look forward, not to short term profits, but to long-term sustainability. Do we want our children and grandchildren to live in a world without old growth? I certainly don't, and I hope that you will do everything in your power to stop the WOPR from going through.



Jenka Soderberg
6819 NE Sandy Blvd. #101
Portland, OR 97213
EM-7247 Kristen Maas <krismaas@msn.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 14:28:45 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.

Kristen Maas
13652 SW 63rd Ave
Portland, OR 97219
EM-7248 Mary Allardt <mallardtwong@mindspring.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 14:29:10 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.

Mary Allardt
25147 Coon Rd
Monroe, OR 97456
EM-7249 "Julie Arrington" <julie.seahorse@gmail.com> Stop WOPR_Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 14:30:43 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,

Julie Arrington
EM-7250 Randy Nowell <rsnbtme@efn.org> A TAXPAYER DIRECTIVE re: WOPR 1/11/2008 14:30:50 Dear BLM,
Let me remind you that your public service agency is supported by tax dollars. This means you are supposed to be using the best science and most common sense to PROTECT the rescources which belong to every citizen. Maybe you have forgotten that in a democracy, the thoughts and opinions of the majority IS the law of the land. This means that any 2 citizens constitute a majority over any 1 public service agency, logging company or even the "current resident of the White House".
There are enough people known to me personally, who are well informed on all of the issues below to constitute an overwhelming majority in opposition to the outright lunacy proposed in the WOPR. We, as your bosses INSIST that you implement a different plan, one conceived with common sense and real peer reviewed science!!
I vote and I vote with my Dollars
R.S. Nowell

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 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 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 Nowell
36483 Ster rd.
Pleasant Hill, OR 97455
EM-7251 Ronald Killen <RonKillen@Hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 14:32:31 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.

Ronald Killen
16161 Dusty Lane
Sandy, OR 97055
EM-7252 "Jan Nelson" <nellie.jan@gmail.com> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 14:33:04 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,

This WOPR is disturbing.  Examples from the DEIS include the graph on
p. 572 targeting the old trees, p. 578, proposing mostly clearcuts,
and figure 253 reducing riparian zones.

Over the past 20+ years we have experienced the sort of "forestry"
your plan proposes.
Our 40 acre forested plot lies between clearcut devastation and a
selective forest rape.  I work outdoors on our farm and forestland;
this is a everyday personal experience.  Before logging started some
18 years ago,  wildlife was pretty well balanced compared to now.  We
regularily saw herds of deer up to 12 individuals in our meadows.  We
now have 1 resident doe and fawn and occasionally see 2 bucks.  Our
woodland grouse have disappeared as have raccoons, porcupine, ermine,
skunks, fox.  I haven't  heard coyotes since the last cut.  After the
last cut our Western gray squirrel declined and probably only survived
because they can scavenge our chicken's food.
 When the first clearcutting began,  fleeing bear smashed our beehives
for food.  We have seen predation on our livestock that never occurred
until recently.  I attribute this to the continuing wildlife habitat
destruction over these past 18 years. Predators, probably cougar, have
no wild animals to eat.  Even the last cougar I saw looked emaciated.

As a grower, my fruit trees and vegetable crops depend upon
pollination.  Over the years, I have purposely cultivated not only
domestic bee health but native pollinators as well.  Last year was
scary.  Native pollinators practically disappeared. Most think many
environmental factors contribute to the decline.

I must also tell you, that  we have also experienced what I can only
call a microcosm of climate change.  The forests around our place
moderated temperature and moisture, provided protection from our
desiccating summer wind, kept our stream water clean and flowing
steadily, and provided a quiet oxygenated airshed over us.  These
characteristics have been disappearing; most apparent, the perimeter
of our forest has suffered stress and windfall.  Is there any question
that what you are proposing is unhealthy?  I know some of you
understand the damage being caused.  Let's scrap this plan that may
"benefit" a few financially, and do what you know is right.  OK?  
Jan Nelson, near Crow, Oregon    call me 541 485 1426 or better yet pay a
visit, see our  diverse forest  compared to surrounding devastation.

Jan Nelson
85354 Doane Rd
Eugene OR 97402
EM-7253 Aspasia Giese Bigelow <aspasiagb@earthlink.net> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 14:36:33 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,

Charlie Bigelow
664 Ray Lane
Ashland or
97520
EM-7254 "Jamie Hillery" <jamiehillery@busetimber.com> BLM Western Oregon Plan Revision 1/11/2008 14:37:33 Jamie Hillery
8424 Skinner Rd
Granite Falls, WA 98252-8748


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.

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,


Jamie Hillery
425-258-2549

EM-7255 hartkittie2004@gmail.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 14:38:23 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,
rita hart
1033 Gretna Green
Brentwood, CA 90049

EM-7256 Patrick Hunter <patrick@huntercreation.com> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 14:38:53 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


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.


Altthough these are not my exact words I could not have stated this any better. Oregon needs to protect Oregon.

__________________________________
Patrick Hunter


Hunter Creation
187 Springwood Dr
Eugene, OR 97404


Phone: 541-338-7181 | Skype: 541-255-3779


patrick@huntercreation.com
Web and Portfolio: http://www.huntercreation.com


Facebook: patrick@huntercreation.com


Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/huntercreation 


Member American Maketing Association
Member Eugene Chamber of Commerce

EM-7257 Jessica birnbaum <jessica.birnbaum@trincoll.edu> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 14:38:56 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.

Jessica birnbaum
2421 clay street #8
sacramento, CA 95815
EM-7258 Kiva Ryan <towheetoo@yahoo.com> Eugene Tourism Industry at Risk! Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 14:39:21 Tourism is a growing industry in Oregon.  Loss of old-growth forests would have a very negative economic impact on the future of Oregon tourism.

Many vacationers no longer travel to the southern part of the Olympic Peninsula because of the ugliness of the clear cuts there.  Our friends from the east coast and Europe were horrified to see the devastation and have vowed to never go there again.

Tourists want clear water, good fishing, forests for hiking and beautiful views.  All these things are maintained by the preservations of valuable forest land.

A related concern is the fact of global climate changes making it seem worse than foolish to devastate old growth forest reserves.  Future generations will thank us for preserving this valuable heritage.

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,
Kiva Ryan
Eugene, Oregon



Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
EM-7259 "Suzanne Ebert" <sageodog@fibersphere.net> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 14:42:06 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,

Suzanne Ebert/sageodog@hotmail.com
EM-7260 Stephen Benningfield <dothannahz@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 14:47:57 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.

Stephen Benningfield
3915 SE Woodward St.
Portland, OR 97202
EM-7261 "Sikich Family" <sikichj@peak.org> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 14:48:44  
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.
 
Destroying our old growth destroys Oregon's heritage of clean air and water, and rivers full of salmon and steelhead.  This plan will contribute to global warming by removing a huge CO2 sink.  It will threaten endangered species by muddying and overheating salmon runs.  It will not improve Oregon's economy as timber and road jobs will not be sustainable.  In return our forests will be more vulnerable to fires as new tree plantations and scrub quickly fill in where less flammable old growth once grew.
 
A more reasonable increase in wood harvest must come from second growth private and public forests.  The old growth has been destroyed by an alarming percentage, and is not going to be replaced ofr a few hundred years.  In this economic recession, as home building is at a low ebb, there is not even a decent market for the lumber! 
Sincerely,
 
Debora Sikich
8815 NW Takena Dr
Corvallis OR 97330
EM-7262 Michele Morgen <athenamorgen@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 14:51:03 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.

Michele Morgen
132 W. 112th St.
New York, NY 10026
EM-7263 "Mona Linstromberg" <lindym@peak.org> Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR) 1/11/2008 14:52:15 To whom it may concern:
 
September 13, 2007 I submitted comment on the WOPR to your organization as well as to my state senators, representative,  and governor of Oregon.  Ah, the sands they have shifted!  It has come to my attention that the maps and the direction of the BLM regarding this plan have changed since those comments were made.  The deadline is today!  This entire WOPR process will only further alienate the public from the public process.  I request you extend the comment period so that people have an opportunity to comment in an informed manner on your newest proposal.
 
My comments will have to be of a general nature except to the potential for devastation on BLM lands of old growth timber in the Veneta, Crow, and Lorane areas.  In my original letter, I made special reference to the protection of an old growth grove called the Grandmothers of Wolf Creek (T.19S.R.06W.Sec 17). I live in the Veneta area.  I am heartsick about the apparent disregard of our area in terms of existing old growth.
 
The general issues that are of concern to me are:
Impact to riperian areas
Potential use of herbicides detrimental to humans and wildlife
Loss of wildlife habitate
Loss of habitate connectivity of BLM lands so important in the continuation of certain species
Loss of recreational areas.  Veneta has an eye to BLM lands to promote its ecotourism industry.
 
There is an equation here and on a level playing field, the timber industry is only a part of that equation.  From my vantage point, protecting old growth and all the other benefits of protecting our forests far out-weighs the timber industries bottom line.  We, the public, have a bottom-line as well.
 
Regards,
 
Mona Linstromberg
8710 Territorial Rd.
Veneta, OR 97487
 
EM-7264 Joshua Prichard <joshuaprichard@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 14:54:23 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.

I have spent extended periods of time in the forests managed by BLM in Southern Oregon. There are some beautiful places with religious significance to myself and large numbers of folks in this state. This WOPR would enable the desecration of some of the few remaining pristine forests in this country. That would be the legacy of this plan. We the people of these forests would not forget such things.

Joshua Prichard
7821 ne everett
Portland, OR 97213
EM-7265 Wehbring@aol.com Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 14:56:51 As a resident of Portland, Oregon which has its water sources in the Cascades, I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon.
 
I oppose the BLM's preferred alternative for the Western Oregon Plan Revision.  This alternative will increase logging in Oregon's old-growth forests sevenfold by clearcutting in currently protected old growth forest reserves. sensitive salmon bearing rivers and creeks will be effected.

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

Sincerely,

Kurt Wehbring
3333 N.E. 18th Avenue
Portland, OR  97212
 
503 282 7404
 





Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.
EM-7266 John Ost <johnhelenost@msn.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 14:57:29 Dear BLM,
I live in Oregon for a variety of reasons, including the old-growth forests, excellent recreation, and opportunities to view wildlife on public lands. After learning about the BLM's Western Oregon Plan Revisions, I am very concerned this plan will degrade my ability to enjoy the public lands in western Oregon. The changes the Bureau of Land Management is proposing will unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan for old-growth forests and wildlife, and will lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy.

Some of my concerns include:
- I'm disappointed that all special areas (Research Natural Areas and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern) won't be protected from logging under WOPR. These areas contain unique values that many people seek out to enjoy. These areas should not be opened to logging.

- The increased, widespread clearcutting of forests under WOPR could reduce property values and the quality of life of thousands of Oregonians living near BLM lands. Over 1,000 miles of new logging road and 140,000 acres of clearcuts in the first decade alone would scar Oregon's spectacular landscape.

- Clearcutting of old growth forests and proposed "Off Highway Vehicle Emphasis Areas" threaten the peace and quiet for rural residents, visitors, and wildlife. Oregon needs rural residents and tourism to feed our economy - catering to the timber and motorized vehicle industry alone is not a solution.

Oregon's remaining old-growth forests are a treasure -- offering wonderful recreation opportunities, clean water, homes for wildlife, and offsetting global warming. But the WOPR is a step back to the unsustainable days of clear-cutting this amazing resource, endangering wildlife, muddying streams, and fueling public outcry. A better way is to protect our heritage forests and focus on thinning and restoration of the plentiful unhealthy plantations left over from the last logging boom. This approach would safeguard the many values of old-growth forests that make Oregon a place I want to live, while providing sustainable jobs and other economic benefits for rural communities.

John Ost
7410 N. Willamette Blvd.
Portland, OR 97203
EM-7267 Arthur Dingle <artd@brookings.k12.or.us> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 14:59:24 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.

Arthur Dingle
718 Pioneer
Brookings, OR 97415
EM-7268 "takate" <takate@frontiernet.net> Proposed BLM Off-Highway Vehicle Emphasis Areas Adjacent to Homes in the Western Oregon Plan Revisions 1/11/2008 15:05:30  
As part of the Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR), the BLM is proposing 13 Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) emphasis areas to be designated in the Medford District. In particular, the community of Selma in the Illinois Valley of Josephine County has been targeted with the Elliott Creek OHV emphasis area on the north and the Illinois Valley OHV emphasis area to the south. According to the maps in the WOPR, the proposed OHV emphasis areas will directly and adversely affect residences near BLM Sections 29 and 31 along Indian Creek Road and Draper Valley Road; near BLM sections 33 and 34 along Crooks Creek Road; near BLM sections 3, 29 and 33 along Thompson Creek Road; near BLM sections 25, 29 and 31 along McMullen Creek Road; and near BLM section 25 along Reeves Creek Road. In total, over 500 homes around Selma will be adversely impacted by the BLM's WOPR OHV plans due to noise, reduced property values, increased wildfire hazards and reduced quality of life.

These areas have been selected in violation of the law by the BLM without using any criteria to determine their suitability as OHV emphasis areas. The BLM states simply that the OHV community has ridden in these areas and would like to have them designated as their own. This is the identical method which was used for selecting OHV areas during the 1995 BLM planning revision process. Over the past 12 years the BLM, in spite of their claims, has done little to manage those areas or mitigate the effects on local residents, even though over 1,600 residents of the Johns Peak area near Medford have petitioned to have that area closed to OHV uses.

The BLM has failed to provide any criteria by which potential OHV areas should be selected, including adverse social, economic and environmental effects. On page 778, volume II, paragraph 5 of the WOPR it states, "Since off-road vehicle emphasis areas are specifically managed to accommodate motorized recreational activities, visitors seeking non-motorized forms of recreation would be dissuaded from using these areas. If they did engage in non-motorized activities within these emphasis areas, the quality of their experiences would be diminished as a result of the limited compatibility of their activity with off-highway vehicle riders."

Since the BLM is proposing OHV emphasis areas adjoining residential properties, one can only infer that the BLM feels these residents should move and live elsewhere. The WOPR further states that 5% of the public rides OHVs, and yet in paragraph 5 it states 12% of the district's total land base would be dedicated to this use. Therefore, 95% of the public would be forced to commute to other areas to go for so much as a quiet walk even on their own property, while 5% of the public will have their riding opportunity at their doorstep. The BLM states their intention is not to promote OHV use, yet there has never been an OHV designation that has not resulted in drastically increased use. The OHV areas are advertised either overtly or by word of mouth in every equipment dealership, OHV association publication, and even State and County recreation brochures.

In 2006 Josephine County denied an OHV permit on a private property southeast of Selma. We hope that the BLM will be consistent with county policy. In addition, the BLM should consult with the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department and read their Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan to determine the actual need for OHV areas.

I request that you do everything possible to have these OHV emphasis area designations adjacent to residences withdrawn from the WOPR, and to force the BLM to establish valid criteria for citing any future OHV areas. Those criteria should include consideration of proximity to adjoining residences, traditional recreational uses, economic considerations, wildfire potential, effects to watersheds, water quality, and other environmental factors. The checkerboard pattern of BLM lands in this area and lack of contiguous ownership fail to provide a self-contained, isolated and buffered OHV area. I, a Josephine County resident, by law (43CFR8342.1), have rights that supersede recreational OHV use.

Sincerely,

Kathryn Lenstet
9387 Takilma Road
Cave Junction, Oregon 97523
EM-7269 Elizabeth Ebright <elizabeth.ebright@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 15:06:30 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.

Elizabeth Ebright
2829 SE Belmont St. Apt. 308
Portland, OR 97214
EM-7270 Kristin Bell <kristinbell66@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 15:06:55 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.

Kristin Bell
4419 SW carl place
portland, OR 97239
EM-7271 "JOHN WADSWORTH" <johnsonwadsworth@msn.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 15:08:25  
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, John and Claudia Wadsworth

YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS
EM-7272 Barbara Gilmour <finnwest@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 15:11:40 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.

Barbara Gilmour
2506 Windsor Circle West
Eugene , OR 97405
EM-7273 "Mark Flynn" <mark.flynn@uci.net> Mark Flynn - WOPR comment 1/11/2008 15:13:10 Bureau of Land Management,
Western OregonPlan Revisions Office
333 SW 1st. Avenue
Portland, OR 97528
 
Hello BLM WOPR Staff:
 
Thank you for providing me to express my opinion regarding the Western Oregon Plan Revisions(WOPR).
 
I do not want the WOPR plan implemented.
 
The value of Oregon's natural beauty exceeds that of its extracted timber.  And I'm willing to pay for necessary government services out of my own pocket through higher taxes.   I am not willing to see our natural splendor diminished in order to pay our bills for the services we use.
 
Timber harvest advocates remind me of the man who would burn his furniture in order to heat his house.
 
Best regards, Mark Flynn
 
Grants Pass, OR 97527
 
www.MarkFlynn.biz
EM-7274 dan.mccoy@westonsolutions.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 15:14:43 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,
Dan McCoy
2433 Impala Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008

EM-7275 Chip Kiger <kiger@rio.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 15:15:41 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.

Chip Kiger
961 Taylor Street
Eugene, OR 97402

(541) 343-7177
EM-7276 Brenda Sullivan <brenda@sullivan.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 15:16:31 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.

Brenda Sullivan
21933 Vaughn Rd.
Veneta, OR 97487
EM-7277 ccontentment@ashlandhome.net comment on wopr 1/11/2008 15:20:45 Please stop the WOPR. This plan proposes clearcutting of up to 140,000
acres of Oregon public forest. By logging near streams this action will
treatend clean water and the Pacific salmon. Two tousand square miles of
forest (an area the size of Delaware) would be put in "Timber Management"
where clearcutting is emphasized.The BLM cannot eliminate protection for
old-growth forests, without undermining the Northwest Forest Plan and
violate the Endangered Species and Clean water Acts. Climate Change
shows us that cutting these trees will increast the amount of carbon in the
atmoshpere and place our communities at risk of fire. Thin small trees if
timber is needed and please perserve our last, best public lands for
generations to come. I am a 30 year Oregon resident. Thank you. Cathleen
and David Katz 968 Wilson Rd. Ashland, Oregon.97520
EM-7278 Amy Raven <asraven44@comcast.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 15:21:41 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 Raven
2786 Almaden
Eugene, OR 97405
EM-7279 Veva Stansell <vstansel@harborside.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 15:21:56 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.

Veva Stansell
95156 Ismert Lane
PO Box 6077
Pistol River, OR 97444-1575
EM-7280 Giancarlo Panagia <js2952@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 15:23:12 Dear BLM,
I visit Oregon at least once a year 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.

Giancarlo Panagia
2229 E 5th St #A
Superior, WI 54880
EM-7281 Lola Goldberg <earth.strive@gmail.com> Protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 15:23:21 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.

Lola Goldberg
863 N Russet St.
Portland, OR 97217
EM-7282 Steve Jones <steve.jones@rbcdain.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 15:26:57 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.

Steve Jones
975 Oak St.
#450
Eugene, OR 97401

541-685-2018
EM-7283 David Hipply <djhipply@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 15:27:32 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.

David J. Hipply
8870 SE Hite Ct
Boring, OR 97009-8447

503-225-5555
EM-7284 "Caroline Schier" <cbschier@gmail.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 15:28:49 To Whom It May Concern:

As a resident of Oregon, I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in this state. 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,
Caroline Schier
3515 SW Marquam Hill Rd
Portland, OR 97239
EM-7285 Nathan Woodard <nwoodard_wildlife@yahoo.com> WOPR public comment 1/11/2008 15:30:36 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,


Nathan Woodard
1443 SE Chapman Ave.
Troutdale, OR 97060
(541) 490-7094
Nwoodard_wildlife@yahoo.com
 



Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
EM-7286 Seth Goldstein <dragonheartfarm@hotmail.com> Protect our forests! 1/11/2008 15:31:57  
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. This is outright plundering for the benefit of a few at the cost of the population. It must stop now. Please lead by using sustainable practices.

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.
 
Yours in health
 
Seth Goldstein, DC, MT
Dragonheart Family Healthcare, LLC
406 NE 4th Street
Gresham, OR 97030


Make distant family not so distant with Windows Vista® + Windows LiveT. Start now!
EM-7287 David Wines School <wines@4j.lane.edu> Say NO! 1/11/2008 15:33:39 What more can we do or say...just say NO!

David Wines
4/5 Teacher
Crest Drive Elementary
1155 Crest Drive
Eugene, OR 97405
541-687-3371
wines@4j.lane.edu
EM-7288 Don & Kelley Brandeau <dkbrandeau@hotmail.com> WOPR Comments 1/11/2008 15:36:25 Hello BLM,

Here are my comments:

Adaptive Management Areas need to remain in the plan so you can adjust to the needs of specific areas.

Off Road Vehicles need to be eliminated in BLM forests since they result in erosion (including dust), noise. which affects wildlife, especially at nesting time, and forays off trail often into ecologically sensitive areas. If ORVs are allowed they need obtain permits and pay fees which cover all costs of maintenance and restoration of the site, including weed removal. (Permits should be limited in number, like Deer Tags.) Also, each ORV driver would have to rent a GPS device from BLM who installs it and removes it. This way BLM can monitor trail usage and take appropriate action. Would it be too much to ask for them to pay the full cost of their actions?

Riparian corridors need to remain the same or be increased, not reduced.

We need forest research to be local, not extrapolated from research many miles or counties away. We also need to research the effects of forestry practices on soil micro organisms which sequester huge amounts of carbon dioxide which can be easily released through changes in forest practices (as reported in a recent issue of Science News).

We need to protect our old growth forests since we will never have them again. We can easily destroy habitat for many forms of life. We don't know how to reproduce these habitats. It's like keeping animals in a zoo, thinking we are saving them.

BLM shouldn't be clear cutting (even though you changed the name to make it more palatable). It destroys an ecology rather than just disrupt it. You then replant just one type of tree in plantations like those in Germany's Black Forest. It"s not a good idea. Clear cutting is also ugly to both tourists and residents. Oregon is noted for its beautiful forests and vistas. Lets keep it that way. Don't clear cut.

BLM needs to assess the effects that global warming will have on our forests. We can then develop forest policy which will reduce the impact of global warming on our forests. This could be anything from eliminating logging on certain soil types, to only carefully harvesting on north slopes.

Sincerely,


Don Brandeau
Kelley Brandeau

_________________________________________________________________
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-7289 Robert & Paula Hamm <greentree32@msn.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 15:37:23 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.

Robert & Paula Hamm
31282 SW Riverwood Drive
West Linn, OR 97068
EM-7290 Bert Fox <bmfkrk@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 15:44:54 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.

Bert Fox
2337 ne 39 av
Portland, OR 97212

505-515-8206
EM-7291 vrhys122@hotmail.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 15:46:02 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,
Victoria Rhys
5245 Springcrest Drive, South
Salem, OR 97306

EM-7292 kunafloat@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 15:46:03 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,
James Roach
7827 Sterling Drive
Oakland, CA 94605

EM-7293 Libby Bottero <lbottero@efn.org> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 15:46:59 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.

Libby Bottero
2650 University
Eugene, OR 97403
EM-7294 cdelindsey@juno.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 15:50:05 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,
Carolyn Lindsey
3017 NE Mason St
Portland, OR 97211-7159

EM-7295 Susan Kay Preslar <susankaypreslar@yahoo.com> Change the WOPR to protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 15:51:35  

Dear Commission

Old wilderness forests are places of wisdom, contemplation, growth.......we need more of those, not less in this world.  Being in them centers us, and reminds us what it is to be connected to larger things, larger cycles of life, and the magic and mystery, and destruction found in nature.

Our source of logs must be changed to vast stretches of tree farms, not wilderness.

Timber industry must be directed to see the sustainable future, and as long as they can go into public lands, they will not invest in tree farming concepts.  Help them help us all, by denying them the right to take more from our wilderness.

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 Kay Preslar
730 Alaska Street
Ashland, OR   97520

YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS



Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
EM-7296 George Olsen <gwolsen@comcast.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 15:52:01 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.

George Olsen
1990 NW Cadbury Ave
#103
Beaverton, OR 97006

5038048250
EM-7297 "Eric Wolff" <ericwolff@gmail.com> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 15:52:49 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,

Eric Wolff
3533 Sixth Ave.
San Diego, CA 92103

EM-7298 laurie meyer <lbethm@msn.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 15:54:31 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.

laurie meyer
221 ne fremont st apt 107
portland, OR 97212
EM-7299 Julia Sommer <juliasommer@yahoo.com> WOPR is a huge mistake 1/11/2008 15:55:14 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 horrified at  the Bush administration's plans for mis-management of nearly 2.6 million acres of federal forests under the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The changes that the BLM is proposing will unravel the protections of the landmark Northwest Forest Plan, and will lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, ravaged forests, 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 and short-sighted economic/political 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 and national 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,

Julia Sommer
1158 Village Square Dr.
Ashland, OR  97520


Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
EM-7300 pmknox1@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 15:56:09 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,
Patricia Knox
2856 Priscilla St.
Riverside, CA 92506

EM-7301 Gail Westlin <gwestlin2000@comcast.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 15:57:01 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.

Gail Westlin
2538 NE 32nd Av
Portland, OR 97212
EM-7302 "dragonheart7@comcast.net" <dragonheart7@comcast.net> Protect our ancient forests and streams 1/11/2008 15:57:04 I am a citizen of Oregon, and I am writing to express my deep concern about
the BLM's preferred alternative for the Western Oregon Plan Revision and
the effects it will have on the 2.6 million acres of forest that the BLM
manages in Oregon. This plan will devastate two of our most important
resources: our ancient forests and our clear streams and rivers.

Prior to moving to Gresham, OR seven years ago, I used to live in the
Finger Lakes region of central New York. This is an ecologically unique
area, with a multitude of microclimates and species that live nowhere else.
It is also an area that has been subjected to intensive clearcutting and
other destructive land management practices. As avid hikers, my husband
and I would visit the area's state forests every weekend. In many of them,
no more old-growth trees stood; they had been replaced by single-species
tree plantations. Not only are these forests more prone to fire damage,
but they exhibit significantly less biodiversity than old-growth forests.
They also produced a disconcerting effect on us when one realized that all
the trees were planted in lines. These forests, which were clearcut every
few decades, did not even make economic sense--when we researched them, we
learned that the foresters were actually losing money, as well as natural
resources whose value cannot be calculated.

We currently live near the Columbia River Gorge and hike there just about
every weekend year round. This precious natural area contains some of the
last old-growth forest left in Oregon. Magnificent Douglas firs grow to
tremendous girths, and evidence that they have survived fires is clear in
the blackened bark of many of the oldest specimens. This area also
supports many unique plant, animal, and insect species and is a mainstay
for salmon. Ancient forests like the Columbia Gorge also have stored and
sequestered carbon for centuries, and permitting clearcutting in forest
reserves like the Gorge would therefore advance global warming--a crisis we
can no longer pretend does not exist.

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. It takes centuries for a Douglas
fir, coast redwood, or other old-growth tree to reach maturity. If we
intensify logging of these ancient trees, we will not be able to restore
what has been lost for many generations. I implore you to consider the
natural resources that our grandchildren will inherit from us when you
decide what to do with our BLM-managed forests now.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Sincerely,

Margaret Hammitt-McDonald, PhD, MSOM, ND
17030 East Burnside Street
Portland, OR 97233




--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com - What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint

EM-7303 lbruck@datazoid.net Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 15:59:11 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,
Leonard Bruckman
8595 Kingsgate Drive
Granite Bay, CA 95746

EM-7304 freeamerica04@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 15:59:11 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,
Jan Moore
30 Sunset Ave.
Bayonne, NJ 07002

EM-7305 Kiim Stavrum <kiimsent@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 16:02:07 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.

Kiim Stavrum
13550 SE Clatsop st
Happy Valley, OR 97086
EM-7306 Jane Garbisch <jegarbisch@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 16:02:52 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.

Jane Garbisch
4110 s.e. Hawthorne Blvd.
Portland, OR 97214
EM-7307 Lauren Miller <lmiller6@uoregon.edu> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 16:07:02 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.

Lauren Miller
1690 Mississippi Ave.
Eugene, OR 97403
EM-7308 "John Griffith" <jgriffith@co.coos.or.us> Comment on WOPR 1/11/2008 16:08:18 COMMENT OF COOS COUNTYBOARDOF COMMISSIONERS

Western OregonPlan Revision

Draft EIS

 

The Coos County Board of Commissioners includes as part of its comment the official comment of the Association of O&C Counties.

 

The Coos County BOC also comments on the WOPR riparian management area (RMA), stream protections as follows:


The WOPR stream protection measures parallel those in the Oregon Forest Practices Act.

The Oregon Forest Practices Act is the first state forest protection law in Americaand still has the highest voluntary compliance rate, according to the Oregon Department of Forestry.

Its RMA rules, although criticized by some, have withstood criticism of their science. 

 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

 

Coos County Board of Commissioners

 
EM-7309 Mary Szabo <marcatsz@verizon.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 16:08:43 Dear BLM,
I live in Oregon for many reasons, the most important of which are 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. If this plan is put into effect, it will violate a number of long-standing environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act.

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. The recent floods and landslides in the mostly clearcut Willapa Hills of Washington are an example of what can occur when there is too much clear-cutting. Yes, that was an unusually severe storm, but we need to be prepared for such weather--what the media call "The Storm of the Century" seems to be happening every few years.

- 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.

Yes, there should be carefully planned timber harvesting and some off-road vehicle recreation, but not at the expense of residents and of other recreational users, or of the few remnants of old-growth forest and the endangered wildlife that depend on it.

Mary Szabo
2401 SW 22nd St.
Troutdale, OR 97060
EM-7310 Porter Lombard <plombard@jeffnet.org> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 16:09:57 Dear BLM,
I am concerned about the loss of old growth logging but also clear cutting that would compact soils in the area causing erosion and increase the likelyhood of slides and distruction of habitat for spotted owls. The erosion can be a source of contamination of streams which are important habitats for fish. Since learning about the BLM's Western Oregon Plan Revisions, I am very concerned 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.


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.

Porter Lombard
2425 East Main St.
Medford, OR 97504
EM-7311 Leprec7128@aol.com Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 16:15:58 U.S. Bureau of Land Management
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. The BLM is moving forward with the Western Oregon Plan Revision, which will increase logging in Oregon's old-growth forests sevenfold by clearcutting in currently protected old growth forest reserves and sensitive salmon bearing rivers and creeks.
     We have only 7 % of our old growth forests left.  University of Washington research shows that old growth conifer forests of the northwest absorb more carbon than the tropical rainforests.  Where is the vision for the future generations?  We must look at the big picture. Logging old growth sets off a chain reaction on all living beings. We killed off most of the buffalo, but once the big trees go, they are gone forever.  Please reconsider this plan. Although I live in Washington State I am concerned for all our Pacific Northwest forests.
     Thank you for your consideration in this matter

Sincerely,
Patricia J. Drake
15506 98th Avenue East
Puyallup, WA 98375



**************
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
EM-7312 Charlie Ferranti <lampray.geo@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 16:16:13 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.

Charlie Ferranti
4245 SE Tibbetts St.
Portland, OR 97206

503-239-5081
EM-7313 "VERNA I HALL" <vrinhl@msn.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 16:16:35  
I am outraged by the stupidity of the BLM concerning the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau in Oregon. I oppose 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.
 
Forest fire protection and global warming should be at the top of BLM concerns, not increased lumbering.  Old growth forests are fire
resistant.  Oregon's forest are the most carbon-storing of any on earth.   The new plan is an outrage.

Sincerely,

Verna Hall
797 North Cascade Drive
Woodburn, OR 97071
EM-7314 Nathan Woodard <wildflower_nate@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 16:16:38 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.

Nathan Woodard
9480 N. Bristol Ave.
Portland, OR 97203
EM-7315 "Anne Girardot" <agirardo@standard.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 16:16:58 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,

Anne Girardot
3033 SE 19th Avenue
Portland, OR 97202
EM-7316 "Kelly Cowger" <kcowger@standard.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 16:16:59 To whom this may be concerned:

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.

I would love to see Oregon's beautiful old growth forests preserved so
that my 1-year old niece can grow up to see them!

Sincerely,

Kelly Cowger, MS

252 NE 61st Ave
Portland, OR 97213
EM-7317 sfbaybreezes@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 16:17:17 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,
Kris Wood
5125 C Panama Ave.
Richmond, CA 94804

EM-7318 Peter Saraceno <saraceno_p@4j.lane.edu> WOPR Comments 1/11/2008 16:20:08 December 31, 2007


Western Oregon Plan Revisions 1879 Moss Street
P.O. Box 2965 Eugene, OR 97403
Portland, OR 97208



Please accept these as written comments for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western Oregon Bureau of Land Management Districts (WOPR.) I reject the proposed Alternative 2, and urge the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to stay the helm and continue to thin plantations and not cut any later seral forests. It is a resource your agency and others have extricated. In none of our life times will this resource return.

While trying to remain civil I cannot believe that your Agency is proposing to destroy the Northwest Forest Plan and unravel all the bridge building and peace that this imperfect plan has brought to our region. The WOPR is the worst of politics, and is the Administration's contempt for environmental law. Your Agency looses it's credibility as a steward of public lands, and public trust will be lost. The WOPR will ignite the timber wars of the mid 1990's, and you will be unable to shoulder the riot of civil disquiet with the U.S. Forest Service. Yet, non of this is as shameful and the devastation that your proposal will do to threatened and Endangered species such as the Northern Spotted Owl, Marbled Murrelet, and salmonids.

1) Status Reviews Invalid- Alternative 2 will push old growth dependent species towards extinction and plans crafted to protect them are under investigation for corruption and politics. In October the Interior Departments was presented research by 113 respected scientists questioning the Spotted owl recovery plan. The Inspector General of the Interior Departments is investigating whether "improper political influence" was used to weaken protections for species in the planning area like Spotted Owls and Marbled Murrelets. The administration has weakened protections under the Endangered Species Act after legal agreements with the timber industry. In 2004 it overruled federal scientists claiming that Marbled Murrelets (in the planning area) did not need Endangered Species Act protection. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has recently had seven rulings overturned due to political pressure. The Marbled Murrelet five-year status review is under investigation and litigation.
Until these probes are investigated no critical habitat of Endangered Species should be harvested. How much of the WOPR DEIS is based on science thrown into question by this political fiasco?

2) Roads- Both on BLM and Forest Service Land there are too many roads in relation to funds to maintain them. There is a tremendous backlog on federal land to repair failing roads. In areas on Eugene BLM lands, road densities exceed 4 miles per acre. The proposed alternative would increase roads by 1,000 miles! It will damage Aquatic Conservation Strategies victories made under the Northwest Forest Plan. harm salmon, and continue to harm the fishing industry.

3) National Environment Policy Act (NEPA)- The WOPR offer no substantive alternatives, which is a violation of the NEPA. All alternatives are biased towards resource extraction. It is offensive to offer an alternative that would increase harvests by 700%, then come back with a proposal that only asks for a 200% increase. It is disingenuous to offer the public no options that do not destroy the natural resources on our public lands.

4) Off Road Vehicle Access Increases-
The proposed Off Highway Vehicle Emphasis Areas will detract from the quality of life of all property owners who reside next to the BLM. I have coworkers who own property adjacent to the BLM near Creswell.
Over 100,000 acres would be promoted as destinations for OHVs, and this is an activity hard to manage and destructive to the environment. Reduce the area proposed.

5) #09; Clean Water & Municipal Watersheds-
The proposed action will harm the municipal watersheds that provide water to the growing communities of Salem, Corvallis, Eugene, and 70 others. So many acres of clearcutting will harm this under valued resource. Do not destroy the gains to water resources made under the Northwest Forest Plan by reducing riparian reserves.


6) Global Warming-
Today, even the Bush administration is recognizing that climate change is real and affecting the planning area. With the WOPR converting fire resistant old growth forests into flammable plantations, the WOPR will increase fire severity in the region. This will contribute greatly to global warming. It is inappropriate to state that the WOPR is outside of the scope of this pressing issue. The BLM can no longer ignore the consequences of their actions on the global level. The WOPR needs to discuss how it's proposal will affect global warming.

7) Invasive Species-
The WOPR will drastically increase disruption to thousands of acres of mature forests with logging and roading. There is an admitted increase expected in noxious and invasive species. With many native plant species threatened and
no longer protected under Survey & Manage, the threat of these invaders is too great to proceed with the proposed action. The BLM is responsible for the spread of diseases killing Cedar in the south coast. Many new species are entering the project area and logging BMP's do not do the job.

8) Destroying Areas I love.-
I often recreate in the Whittaker Creek area and BLM lands near Veneta. I resent that you will destroy all uses besides fiber production.


Sincerely,
Peter Saraceno - Word WOPR comments
EM-7319 Forwarded by alan_hoffmeister@blm.gov Fw: WOPR Draft DEIS Information Request Form - Question Only 1/11/2008 16:23:56 ----- Forwarded by Alan Hoffmeister/ORSO/OR/BLM/DOI on 01/11/2008 04:23 PM -----

DeLiseMusic@sbcglobal.net

01/11/2008 02:31 PM

To
orsowopr@blm.gov
cc

Subject
WOPR Draft DEIS Information Request Form - Question Only









Requestor: Elisabeth Demongeot  Ted Shearer

Street: 2495 Tierra Dr.

Location: Los Osos, CA 93402

E-mail address: DeLiseMusic@sbcglobal.net

Comments/Question: My husband and I are dead against allowing more intensive use of the federal lands including building 1,000 more roads in roadless areas, creation of more all-terrain vehicles areas for \recreation\ and the liquidation of what BLM calls \Late Successional Reserves\ or old growth stands by more than 40%! Some have said the plan would increase all logging on public lands by 700%. A WOPR indeed...What on earth is happening to American...our forests being flushed down the toilet by a government that is not at all aware of the harm it is doing to our country and to the future of our children.
EM-7320 Forwarded by alan_hoffmeister@blm.gov Fw: WOPR Draft DEIS Information Request Form - Question Only 1/11/2008 16:24:19 ----- Forwarded by Alan Hoffmeister/ORSO/OR/BLM/DOI on 01/11/2008 04:24 PM -----

john@jp-graphics.net

01/11/2008 11:17 AM

To
orsowopr@blm.gov
cc

Subject
WOPR Draft DEIS Information Request Form - Question Only









Requestor: John Palombo

Street: 590 Allison St.

Location: Ashland, OR 97520

E-mail address: john@jp-graphics.net

Comments/Question: The earth does not belong to us - we belong to the earth.Re: BLM Western Oregon Plan RevisionsDear 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 tha
n 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,John Palombo
EM-7321 Forwarded by alan_hoffmeister@blm.gov Fw: WOPR Draft DEIS Information Request Form - Question Only 1/11/2008 16:24:39 ----- Forwarded by Alan Hoffmeister/ORSO/OR/BLM/DOI on 01/11/2008 04:24 PM -----

ingrid.edstrom@earthlink.net

01/11/2008 09:04 AM

To
orsowopr@blm.gov
cc

Subject
WOPR Draft DEIS Information Request Form - Question Only









Requestor: Ingrid Edstrom FNP

Street: 1102 Hodson Lane

Location: Eugene, OR 97404

E-mail address: ingrid.edstrom@earthlink.net

Comments/Question: Please do NOT repeal the land management legislation to start cutting old growth forests. This will be appauling for the environment, clean air, salmon, watersheds. We do not need and More Pres Bush pillage and ransack ideas here in Oregon. You will then use more herbacides 2,4,D Dioxin and that brings Breast Cancer to be 2nd in the country per capital from our standing of #3 last year. This is a health hazard for the citizens of Oregon. Ingrid Edstrom, FNP, M.Ed Infrared Breast Health, LLC
EM-7322 Lydia Garvey <wolfhowlmama@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 16:25:00 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.

Lydia Garvey
429 S 24th
Clinton, OK 73601
EM-7323 "Ron Krull" <rkrull@standard.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 16:25:28 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,

Ron Krull
1639 SE 58th Ave
Portland Oregon 97215
EM-7324 marilee jenkinson <mairleehelenj@hotmail.com> BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions 1/11/2008 16:27:27 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 Revision
 
Dear BLM:
 
It comes as no surprise that at this moment in time once again there are those who would destroy our home to put money in the hands of a few and that we as stewards of that home must protect our brothers and sisters here and afar from occupiers.
 
We vote for representaton by men and women to extend our integrity as citizens to the highest office of the land. The truth is not always their concern in the highest office we know so we raise our voices collectively in truth once again for ears and eyes of integrity that they may look and listen.
 
We need to protect the remaining old-growth forests here in Southern Oregon. At the behest of the federal government - BLM proposes to remove environmental protections from public lands on Oregon's last old-growth forests giving over a sweetheart deal of 2 million acres of Oregon's National Forests to the timber industry.
 
It remains a choice we have to destroy the quality of life for future generations and to wreak havoc on our home. We are here to teach our children how to live well that they may teach their children old ways that are seemingly forgotten in these times. We cannot forget.
 
If we continue betraying our children collectively here and afar, we are the ruthless killers. There are lies we must not live by. I do not condone in any way logging riparian habitats, nor building 1000 miles of new logging roads, nor clear-cutting old-growth forests.
 
We need to protect the salmon habitat and our drinking water. Rather than short-term greedy acquisition in the hands of the few, there will be abundance and wealth for the many were we to follow principles of earth wisdom taking care of one and other truly. We are not slaves onthe plantation. Our government and the corporations - whatever the product - if it does not serve our planet well - is not a choice.
 
It is time to decide who we are taking orders from and choose life not death to our brothers and sisters. The trees are elders. And we need to respect them. Or we have no self-respect.
 
Sincerely,
 
Marilee Helen Jenkinson
2200 Ashland Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
 
 


Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live. Get it now!
EM-7325 Michele Freeman <mmbartow@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 16:27:31 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.

Michele Freeman
2457 NE Ravenwood Dr
Bend, OR 97701
EM-7326 Gary Tepfer Tepfer <gtepfer@efn.org> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 16:28:41 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.

Gary Tepfer Tepfer
31700 owl road

Owl road
Eugene, OR 97405
EM-7327 Pauline Black <pbandej@opendoor.com> No WOPR! Oregon's Forests Belong to ALL Oregonians 1/11/2008 16:28:52 I am very 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.

Oregon's forests should benefit all Oregonians, not the corporations
and their employees. Protecting our forests protects our future.

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,

Pauline Black
974 Pinecrest Terrace
Ashland, OR 97520
541 552-1003
EM-7328 anneliese hummel <annelieseh99@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 16:29:07 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.

anneliese hummel
2802 SE Monroe
Milwaukie, OR 97222
EM-7329 Jan Wroncy <jwroncy@peak.org> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 16:29:27 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,

Jan Wroncy
Post Office Box 1101
Eugene, OR 97440

EM-7330 Edwin Johnson <gribbley800@yahoo.com> No WOPR! 1/11/2008 16:30:57 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,
Edwin S. Johnson
974 Pinecrest Terrace
Ashland, OR 97520
541 552-1003


____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
EM-7331 Estelle Voeller <evoeller@charter.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 16:33:42 Dear BLM,
I have lived in southern Oregon for over 35 years, choosing to come here to raise my children with a keen appreciation of the natural world.

I am very concerned the BLM's Western Oregon Plan Revisions will negatively affect our forests, water and wildlife. With increasing knowledge of global warming, we need a management plan using the best science-based research available, applied over a longterm perspective. We have priceless natural resources which can be managed in sustainable ways, allowing timber harvest AND providing protection for the overall ecology.

Some of my concerns include:
-The decrease in stream buffers is most disconcerting. We must protect our waterways and the life they support.

- I'm also 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 I and many other families seek out. 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. OHV's are not compatible with private residencies or foot or animal trekking. 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.

Estelle Voeller
1365 Tolman Creek Rd
Ashland, OR 97520
EM-7332 Lindsay Pour <lindsaybcp@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 16:34:58 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.

Lindsay Pour
2025 SE 22nd Ave
Portland, OR 97214
EM-7333 "Reanne O'Sullivan" <aurora36963@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 16:35:47 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.

Reanne O'Sullivan
2025 SE 22nd Ave
Portland, OR 97214
EM-7334 John Swanson <jnhf@aol.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 16:35:47 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. Friends have taken hikes in our area to view first hand the threatened old growth trees. Please reconsider and place a higher priority on conservation efforts.


- I'm disappointed that all special areas (Research Natural Areas and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern) won't be protected from logging under WOPR. These areas contain unique values that many people seek out to enjoy. These areas should not be opened to logging.

- The increased, widespread clearcutting of forests under WOPR could reduce property values and the quality of life of thousands of Oregonians living near BLM lands. Over 1,000 miles of new logging road and 140,000 acres of clearcuts in the first decade alone would scar Oregon's spectacular landscape.

- Clearcutting of old growth forests and proposed "Off Highway Vehicle Emphasis Areas" threaten the peace and quiet for rural residents, visitors, and wildlife. Oregon needs rural residents and tourism to feed our economy - catering to the timber and motorized vehicle industry alone is not a solution.

Oregon's remaining old-growth forests are a treasure -- offering wonderful recreation opportunities, clean water, homes for wildlife, and offsetting global warming. But the WOPR is a step back to the unsustainable days of clear-cutting this amazing resource, endangering wildlife, muddying streams, and fueling public outcry. A better way is to protect our heritage forests and focus on thinning and restoration of the plentiful unhealthy plantations left over from the last logging boom. This approach would safeguard the many values of old-growth forests that make Oregon a place I want to live, while providing sustainable jobs and other economic benefits for rural communities.

John Swanson
1112 SW Sunset Drive
Corvallis, OR 97333
EM-7335 nanci champlin <nc@oregonwild.org> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 16:35:47 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.

nanci champlin
5825 north greeley
portland, OR 97217

503-283-6343
EM-7336 hubriscube@gmail.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 16:37:21 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,
Daniel Adams
4708 N McCoy Ct.
Portland, OR 97203

EM-7337 Tracy Harding <reclamation@riseup.net> WOPR comments 1/11/2008 16:37:35 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,

I am submitting my comments regarding the WOPR in hope that someone is
actually reading them. I will try to be less emotional and more
respectful than I feel.

The WOPR is extremely short sighted, if this proposal were implemented
it would bring the areas included to serious environmental overdraft,
putting timber production above all other uses. The changes in the plan
would undo the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan; an exhaustive
forestry program outlined to be scientifically solid, to have ecological
integrity and to be legally answerable. WORP will lead to time and
money wasted in litigation, ecological degradation and enormous
controvarsy. As well as making a great negative contribution to climate
change, a reality not even address by WOPR.

The BLM's draft proposal is non compos mentis. The numbers are crazy;
this plan is abandoning the land. Increasing old growth clear-cutting
for a short-term economic fix makes no sense.

The majority of Oregonians desire to protect our remaining old growth
and respect the species that depend on intact ecosystems, including
ancient forests, clean water and still undisturbed places.

Please, hear the comments you receive and 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,
Tracy Harding
334 Bridge Street
Ashland OR 97520
541-488-7884

EM-7338 gordonfeighner@gmail.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 16:39:21 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,
Gordon Feighner
4612 SE Main
Portland, OR 97215

EM-7339 "Nabha g" <riseup@care2.com> WORP 1/11/2008 16:40:50 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 writing about the WORP. Here are my comments.
Global climate change is a huge international concern. The debate about the reality of the existence of climate change is over. The realities of loss of land, crops, species, and human lives have brought the focus in the present to look to the future, across the environmental, political, economic, military, and private sector. The world nations are taking steps to lower climate emissions, combat desertification, protect landmasses and generally prepare for great change. Satellites are launching into space to monitor the catastrophic change. We can no longer base our land use choices on the present data. We MUST accept the fact that we do not know what the climate will look like in 5, 10, and 15 years into the future. We do know that the changes could be extreme. By choosing to cut large amounts of mature trees out of our forested lands we damage our immediate chance to curb climate change in our area and around the world. Allowing the kind of cutting the BLM wants to do in Oregon, especially in S. Oregon should be an international crime, for if it were to take place, the global community would suffer for the loss. It is obvious that trees impact the climate, just go sit under a tree on a hot day or by a river. You don't have to be a scientist to understand the correlation between the forests and climate change, and our roll in protecting the forests, but just incase I have included a wide variety of cases from around the globe at the end of this letter. The BLM must protect the mature forests. Many species of wild life depend on the habitat, including the human race.
The preferred WORP wants to put more roads into the forest. We do not need any more roads in our forests. Roads segment habitat, create more pollution in the forest in the form of noise and emissions. Vehicles endanger animals and are unnecessary in our forests. I have see roads that have diverted streams on the BLM lands thus making the riparian buffer null and void, and destroying the path for wild life to make their way up or down the stream because the water was just running down the road. Roads create erosion. This is obvious to anyone entering a sloping area with a road built into a hillside. Roads allow uncontrollable access to OHV use and increase the potential for landslides. The areas with out roads are safe breeding areas and safe habitat areas. These are hike in areas where people can enjoy nature without vehicles. Hunters, people who fish, campers, and through hikers rely on these areas as well.
The preferred version of the WORP proposes lessening buffers on streams, rivers, and creeks. This presents clear danger to the health of our water for all creatures, and human need. 76 communities in Oregon depend on watersheds that are within BLM lands. It increases water temperature and adds sludge, debris, and muddy run off. The lack of or lessening of riparian areas will create more landslide potential and species degradation, by changing water temperatures, water clarity, spawning areas, and increased sedimentation from run off. Increase the riparian buffers. Do not decrease them.
There are plenty of areas that need small diameter trees thinned. The BLM should be focusing on creating healthier forests by thinning to promote large old trees. There are plenty of small diameter trees that can be cut to prevent fires. My area on Applegate Rd. is now being thinned for fire prevention. The existing plantations should be focused on for gaining wood. Many mills have made the investment to handle small diameter logs. It is imperative that we do not cut mature trees and forests, especially when we have the options of thinning the fire suppressed areas and the tree farms. There must not be any clear cutting and it is unacceptable to cut most of the trees in an area and call it a selective cut.
I am completely against increasing OHV use on BLM lands. I have been out hiking and seen how devastating OHV use is to riparian areas, creating erosion and destruction in fragile riparian areas. I have seen trails cut by OHV's in areas where none should be. The opening up of new areas will impact all the forest near by, endanger wild life, add pollution into our forests, and pollute our homes near by. It is time to protect our forests and remaining nature, we must impose restrictions on the use damaging machines.
I want the forests managed for the health of the forests as a first priority. We do not live in a tiny bubble here in Oregon. We live in a larger one called planet earth. It is time we start acting like we are responsible to the global community, because we are.

Sincerely, Michelle Goldfeder
1881 Humbug Cr Rd.
Applegate Oregon 97530

Here are some portions of articles on global climate change. It must be taken into consideration when we talk about our forests.
A new report called Climate of Disaster, published this month in Bali by Tearfund
Published On: 2008-01-11
Environment
Climate change: A threat for Bangladesh
Mirza GalibHuman induced changes in the global climate and associated sea level rise are widely accepted with policy makers and scientists. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate". Rising global temperatures due to climate change will bring changes in weather patterns, rising sea levels and increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather The main human influence on global climate is emission of the key greenhouse gases -- carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide. The accumulation of these gases in the atmosphere strengthens the greenhouse effect. At present, just over 7 billion tones of CO2 is emitted globally each year through fossil fuel use, and an additional 1.6 billion tones are emitted by land use change, largely by deforestation. Due to greenhouse impact global temperature is increasing with increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The Earth's average surface temperature has been risen by 0.76° C since 1850. Over the last 16,000 years, the rate of increase in global temperatures has been about 1°C for every 4,000 years -- and yet, some predictions now suggest that we may see another 1° increase over the next one hundred years. In its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), published on 2 February 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that, without further action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the global average surface temperature is likely to rise by a further 1.8-4.0°C this century.
By Stephanie Nebehay

GENEVA (Reuters) - The United Nations' weather agency will ask NASA and other space agencies next week to make their next generation of satellites available to monitor climate change, a senior official at the U.N. body said on Friday. Senior officials from NASA, the European Space Agency, and space agencies in Japan, China, Brazil and India are due to attend the WMO meeting in New Orleans from Jan 15-16.

Senior officials from NASA, the European Space Agency, and space agencies in Japan, China, Brazil and India are due to attend the WMO meeting in New Orleans from Jan 15-16.

events. Scientists blame climate change mainly on human emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels and warn it will bring extreme weather including more heatwaves, droughts, floods and rising seas
CNN
Banks Begin To Address Global Warming: Study
Dow Jones
January 10, 2008: 10:16 AM EST
Many of the changes on the banks' stance toward global warming have come in the last 12 to 18 months. Among other things, the banks have issued almost 100 research reports on climate change. Twenty-eight of the banks disclosed their greenhouse gas emissions from operations, and 24 have set internal reduction targets.

Additionally, 29 of the banks reported their financial support of alternative energy, eight of them have provided more than $12 billion in financing and investments in renewable energy and other clean energy projects.
Friday, 11th January 2008
Email Article E-mail article Print Article Print article
Climate change plan to be delayed KIGALI - The unveiling of a government programme which sets out a national policy to fight desertification has been put off until next month, an official in the Ministry of Lands and Environment, has said. The programme is required by the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD, to which Rwanda is a signatory since 1998.

He added that the experts are still relating it with the global desertification fight approach before making any possible changes on its final version. "We delayed to put NAP in place in time but they (UNCCD) should realise that our efforts to halt desertification have reached at commendable stage," Bazivamo said. Among the efforts he pointed out include tree-planting on degraded land and the fight against soil erosion through erection of terraces in hilly areas.




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



Senator Ron Wyden
1220 SW 3rd Ave., Suite 585, Portland, OR 97204

Senator Gordon Smith
121 SW Salmon St., Suite 1250, Portland, OR 97204

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-4th)
405 East 8th Ave. #2030, Eugene, OR 97401

Rep. Greg Walden (R-2nd)
843 East Main Street, Ste 400, Medford, OR 97504

Rep. Earl Blumenhauer (D-3rd)
729 N.E. Oregon St., Suite 115, Portland, OR 97232

Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-5th)
315 Mission Street SE #101, Salem, Oregon 97302
Rep. David Wu (D-1st)



Care2 make the world greener!


http://toolbar.Care2.com Make your computer carbon-neutral (free).

http://www.Care2.com Green Living, Human Rights and more - 7 million members!
EM-7340 Ted Toadvine <toadvine@uoregon.edu> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 16:41:38 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.

Ted Toadvine
1247 W. 14th Avenue
Eugene, OR 97402
EM-7341 Jon Newquist <jonnewquist@yahoo.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 16:41:41 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.

PLEASE DON'T MAKE THIS MISTAKE!

Sincerely,

Jon Newquist
6629 SE Rhone
Portland, OR 97206



Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
EM-7342 "Nabha g" <riseup@care2.com> WORP 1/11/2008 16:41:58 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 writing about the WORP. Here are my comments.
Global climate change is a huge international concern. The debate about the reality of the existence of climate change is over. The realities of loss of land, crops, species, and human lives have brought the focus in the present to look to the future, across the environmental, political, economic, military, and private sector. The world nations are taking steps to lower climate emissions, combat desertification, protect landmasses and generally prepare for great change. Satellites are launching into space to monitor the catastrophic change. We can no longer base our land use choices on the present data. We MUST accept the fact that we do not know what the climate will look like in 5, 10, and 15 years into the future. We do know that the changes could be extreme. By choosing to cut large amounts of mature trees out of our forested lands we damage our immediate chance to curb climate change in our area and around the world. Allowing the kind of cutting the BLM wants to do in Oregon, especially in S. Oregon should be an international crime, for if it were to take place, the global community would suffer for the loss. It is obvious that trees impact the climate, just go sit under a tree on a hot day or by a river. You don't have to be a scientist to understand the correlation between the forests and climate change, and our roll in protecting the forests, but just incase I have included a wide variety of cases from around the globe at the end of this letter. The BLM must protect the mature forests. Many species of wild life depend on the habitat, including the human race.
The preferred WORP wants to put more roads into the forest. We do not need any more roads in our forests. Roads segment habitat, create more pollution in the forest in the form of noise and emissions. Vehicles endanger animals and are unnecessary in our forests. I have see roads that have diverted streams on the BLM lands thus making the riparian buffer null and void, and destroying the path for wild life to make their way up or down the stream because the water was just running down the road. Roads create erosion. This is obvious to anyone entering a sloping area with a road built into a hillside. Roads allow uncontrollable access to OHV use and increase the potential for landslides. The areas with out roads are safe breeding areas and safe habitat areas. These are hike in areas where people can enjoy nature without vehicles. Hunters, people who fish, campers, and through hikers rely on these areas as well.
The preferred version of the WORP proposes lessening buffers on streams, rivers, and creeks. This presents clear danger to the health of our water for all creatures, and human need. 76 communities in Oregon depend on watersheds that are within BLM lands. It increases water temperature and adds sludge, debris, and muddy run off. The lack of or lessening of riparian areas will create more landslide potential and species degradation, by changing water temperatures, water clarity, spawning areas, and increased sedimentation from run off. Increase the riparian buffers. Do not decrease them.
There are plenty of areas that need small diameter trees thinned. The BLM should be focusing on creating healthier forests by thinning to promote large old trees. There are plenty of small diameter trees that can be cut to prevent fires. My area on Applegate Rd. is now being thinned for fire prevention. The existing plantations should be focused on for gaining wood. Many mills have made the investment to handle small diameter logs. It is imperative that we do not cut mature trees and forests, especially when we have the options of thinning the fire suppressed areas and the tree farms. There must not be any clear cutting and it is unacceptable to cut most of the trees in an area and call it a selective cut.
I am completely against increasing OHV use on BLM lands. I have been out hiking and seen how devastating OHV use is to riparian areas, creating erosion and destruction in fragile riparian areas. I have seen trails cut by OHV's in areas where none should be. The opening up of new areas will impact all the forest near by, endanger wild life, add pollution into our forests, and pollute our homes near by. It is time to protect our forests and remaining nature, we must impose restrictions on the use damaging machines.
I want the forests managed for the health of the forests as a first priority. We do not live in a tiny bubble here in Oregon. We live in a larger one called planet earth. It is time we start acting like we are responsible to the global community, because we are.

Sincerely, Michelle Goldfeder
1881 Humbug Cr Rd.
Applegate Oregon 97530

Here are some portions of articles on global climate change. It must be taken into consideration when we talk about our forests.
A new report called Climate of Disaster, published this month in Bali by Tearfund
Published On: 2008-01-11
Environment
Climate change: A threat for Bangladesh
Mirza GalibHuman induced changes in the global climate and associated sea level rise are widely accepted with policy makers and scientists. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate". Rising global temperatures due to climate change will bring changes in weather patterns, rising sea levels and increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather The main human influence on global climate is emission of the key greenhouse gases -- carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide. The accumulation of these gases in the atmosphere strengthens the greenhouse effect. At present, just over 7 billion tones of CO2 is emitted globally each year through fossil fuel use, and an additional 1.6 billion tones are emitted by land use change, largely by deforestation. Due to greenhouse impact global temperature is increasing with increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The Earth's average surface temperature has been risen by 0.76° C since 1850. Over the last 16,000 years, the rate of increase in global temperatures has been about 1°C for every 4,000 years -- and yet, some predictions now suggest that we may see another 1° increase over the next one hundred years. In its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), published on 2 February 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that, without further action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the global average surface temperature is likely to rise by a further 1.8-4.0°C this century.
By Stephanie Nebehay

GENEVA (Reuters) - The United Nations' weather agency will ask NASA and other space agencies next week to make their next generation of satellites available to monitor climate change, a senior official at the U.N. body said on Friday. Senior officials from NASA, the European Space Agency, and space agencies in Japan, China, Brazil and India are due to attend the WMO meeting in New Orleans from Jan 15-16.

Senior officials from NASA, the European Space Agency, and space agencies in Japan, China, Brazil and India are due to attend the WMO meeting in New Orleans from Jan 15-16.

events. Scientists blame climate change mainly on human emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels and warn it will bring extreme weather including more heatwaves, droughts, floods and rising seas
CNN
Banks Begin To Address Global Warming: Study
Dow Jones
January 10, 2008: 10:16 AM EST
Many of the changes on the banks' stance toward global warming have come in the last 12 to 18 months. Among other things, the banks have issued almost 100 research reports on climate change. Twenty-eight of the banks disclosed their greenhouse gas emissions from operations, and 24 have set internal reduction targets.

Additionally, 29 of the banks reported their financial support of alternative energy, eight of them have provided more than $12 billion in financing and investments in renewable energy and other clean energy projects.
Friday, 11th January 2008
Email Article E-mail article Print Article Print article
Climate change plan to be delayed KIGALI - The unveiling of a government programme which sets out a national policy to fight desertification has been put off until next month, an official in the Ministry of Lands and Environment, has said. The programme is required by the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD, to which Rwanda is a signatory since 1998.

He added that the experts are still relating it with the global desertification fight approach before making any possible changes on its final version. "We delayed to put NAP in place in time but they (UNCCD) should realise that our efforts to halt desertification have reached at commendable stage," Bazivamo said. Among the efforts he pointed out include tree-planting on degraded land and the fight against soil erosion through erection of terraces in hilly areas.




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



Senator Ron Wyden
1220 SW 3rd Ave., Suite 585, Portland, OR 97204

Senator Gordon Smith
121 SW Salmon St., Suite 1250, Portland, OR 97204

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-4th)
405 East 8th Ave. #2030, Eugene, OR 97401

Rep. Greg Walden (R-2nd)
843 East Main Street, Ste 400, Medford, OR 97504

Rep. Earl Blumenhauer (D-3rd)
729 N.E. Oregon St., Suite 115, Portland, OR 97232

Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-5th)
315 Mission Street SE #101, Salem, Oregon 97302
Rep. David Wu (D-1st)



Care2 make the world greener!


http://toolbar.Care2.com Make your computer carbon-neutral (free).

http://www.Care2.com Green Living, Human Rights and more - 7 million members!
EM-7343 "Chris Williams" <chwilliams@gmail.com> Save the Redwoods! 1/11/2008 16:42:20 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.

Just say 'no' to clearcutting!


Sincerely,

Chris Williams
Hood River, Oregon
EM-7344 bohananb1326@bellsouth.net Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 16:42:21 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 Bohanan
257 Rocky Ridge Drive
Helena, AL 35080

EM-7345 "Bonnie" <bonnie@harborside.com> comments 1/11/2008 16:42:30 My comment on the BLM Plan Revision is that it is not an honest forest plan, it is a settlement out-of court to give the timber industry trees, and in particular access to remaining old growth trees that have been protected under the Northwest Forest Plan.  To comment on particulars of the plan is to go along with the BLM pretence that this is a scientific document and an improvement over the Northwest Forest Plan.
 
The current, prevailing science shows global warming proceeding faster than has been predicted.  Sea-ice is melting at a rate that will produce ice-free summers in the Arctic Ocean within five years.  (UN Climate Change Report, 07; Harper's Findings, 2/08).  The overload of greenhouse gases causing the warming and the disruption of natural systems that make life possible on Earth is human made; it can only be reversed by human effort.  I cannot see anywhere that this global reality is mentioned in the plan.  Elimination of mature forest ecosystems is a significant contribution to global warming.  A credible plan needs to address the carbon release and carbon storage aspects of proposed logging.  
 
The majority of scoping comments on this plan advocated complete protection of all remaining old growth.  The increase in logging of old growth, such as that proposed in the preferred alternative 2, guarantees further dissension, protest, appeals and lawsuits.
 
We need forest management that does more than meet the minimum requirements of the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act.  We need planning with vision, commitment, and understanding of the need to protect and promote biodiversity.  For economic returns to local counties, we need to thin over-crowded tree plantations, we need to enact legislation with budgets for restoration forestry, we need to pursue value-added industries, and ecotourism.   Logging-as-usual, and in this case increased logging-as-usual, is not the answer to the economic and environmental conditions of today's world.
 
Bonnie Joyce
Coquille River Watershed
90421 Lampa Lane
Myrtle Point, OR 97458
EM-7346 Paul Mort <mort@felthat.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 16:42:33 Dear BLM,
I'm a native of Oregon and live here 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 extremely concerned this plan will degrade my ability to enjoy the public lands in western Oregon as well as the heritage of our forest health for future generations. 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.

Paul Mort
4928 NE 32nd Ave
Portland, OR 97211

503-282-3073
EM-7347 Steve Smack <smackdis@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 16:43:43 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.

Steve Smack
146 SE 72nd Ave.
Portland, OR 97215
EM-7348 Miriam Newquist <miriam_ola@hotmail.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 16:44:04 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,

Miriam Newquist
6629 SE Rhone
Portland, OR 97206


Make distant family not so distant with Windows Vista® + Windows LiveT. Start now!
EM-7349 Linda Swanson-Davies <linda@glimmertrain.com> Our old-growth forests are utterly unique, and valuable to all of us. 1/11/2008 16:45:23 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.

Linda Swanson-Davies
4763 SW Maplewood Rd.
Portland, OR 97219
EM-7350 "Ruth H." <rah@aceweb.com> Objections to OHV use in my area 1/11/2008 16:46:46
EM-7351 Gregg Shetterly Shetterly <gbshetterly@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 16:47:28 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.

Gregg Shetterly Shetterly
410 W. 8th Ave
Eugene, OR 97401
EM-7352 marilee jenkinson <mairleehelenj@hotmail.com> BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions 1/11/2008 16:48:38 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 Revision



Dear BLM:



It comes as no surprise that at this moment in time once again there are those who would destroy our home to put money in the hands of a few and that we as stewards of that home must protect our brothers and sisters here and afar from occupiers.



We vote for representaton by men and women to extend our integrity as citizens to the highest office of the land. The truth is not always their concern in the highest office we know so we raise our voices collectively in truth once again for ears and eyes of integrity that they may look and listen.



We need to protect the remaining old-growth forests here in Southern Oregon. At the behest of the federal government - BLM proposes to remove environmental protections from public lands on Oregon's last old-growth forests giving over a sweetheart deal of 2 million acres of Oregon's National Forests to the timber industry.



It remains a choice we have to destroy the quality of life for future generations and to wreak havoc on our home. We are here to teach our children how to live well that they may teach their children old ways that are seemingly forgotten in these times. We cannot forget.



If we continue betraying our children collectively here and afar, we are the ruthless killers. There are lies we must not live by. I do not condone in any way logging riparian habitats, nor building 1000 miles of new logging roads, nor clear-cutting old-growth forests.



We need to protect the salmon habitat and our drinking water. Rather than short-term greedy acquisition in the hands of the few, there will be abundance and wealth for the many were we to follow principles of earth wisdom taking care of one and other truly. We are not slaves on the plantation. Our government and the corporations - whatever the product - if it does not serve our planet well - is not a choice.



It is time to decide who we are taking orders from and choose life not death to our brothers and sisters. The trees are our elders. And we need to respect them. Or we have no self-respect.



Sincerely,



Marilee Helen Jenkinson

2200 Ashland Street

Ashland, Oregon 97520






_________________________________________________________________
Watch "Cause Effect," a show about real people making a real difference.http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?source=text_watchcause
EM-7353 Lillie Fitzpatrick <nunnation@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 16:48:44 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.

Lillie Fitzpatrick
6235 SW Boundary St
Portland, OR 97221
EM-7354 Tina Giese <olhodemacaco@mac.com> How ignorant are we? This is America's last International Rainforest Bioshere Preserve! Let's create a new enlightened approach economically? 1/11/2008 16:50:53 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

Dear BLM,

The WOPR legislation was fraudulantly moved ahead as a political
payback, by devious corporate machinations.
If enacted, we will be contaminating our water and rivers,
destructing our animal habitats, and eroding acres of irreplaceable
topsoil.

Can we not choose a more intelligent and sustainable solution?
Who is going to payback my children and Grandchildren? Yours? All
of our brothers and sisters, Mother and Fathers for this ecological
travesty?
Instead, let us preserve these last 2.6 million acres as a America's
finest Temperate Rainforest Biosphere Reserve for us all!





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,

Kelsey Nara Giese-Bigelow
2620 Alder
Eugene, OR
97402
EM-7355 charclick1@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 16:52:40 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,
Charlotte Campbell
3425 NW Pineview Pl.
Albany, OR 97321

EM-7356 "cathy" <cathy@earthsteps.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 16:53:21 Dear BLM:

DO NOT CUT OUR 'PROTECTED' OLD GROWTH FORESTS.

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,

Cathleen Coulson-Keegan

William Wright

 

PO Box 427, Veneta, OR97487
EM-7357 "Priscilla Weaver" <priscilla@saltmarshranch.com> Comment on the W.O.P.R. 1/11/2008 16:53:26 Bureau of Land Management
Western Oregon Plan Revisions Office

Re: BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions

Dear sir or madam,

I write to express concern and disagreement with two key areas of the
proposed plan revisions: sustainability and OHVs, in addition to the overall
negative impact the revised plan as proposed would have on existing forest
management and protection plans, including the Northwest Forest Plan.

With respect to sustainability, the proposed plan would make a mockery of
the concept. There is nothing in the proposed plan to assure that the age
and species diversity of the existing forests in Oregon would be sustained,
quite to the contrary. Sustainability does not mean having some old trees a
hundred years from now. It means planning the cutting such that the rough
percentages of trees in each age bracket -- older than 100 years, trees
between 80 and 100 years, trees between 60 and 80 years, and so on down to
saplings -- does not tilt appreciably towards much younger trees in any
given year. Sustainability requires that year after year the forest is
sustained at no less percentages of older trees or middle-aged trees than is
now the case. Your proposed increase in logging of older trees (whether
they qualify under your definition of "old growth" or not) assures that the
forests will not and cannot be "sustained" and instead will consist almost
exclusively in a very short time of fire-vulnerable tree farms that risk
property and lives and cause great economic disruption to the critical
recreational and tourist "industries" in Oregon.

The proposed plan also ignores the overwhelming desire of most people,
including most people in Oregon and certainly in Jackson County, to have the
focus of timber-cutting be on thinning the NON-old-growth forests in order
to protect both the forests and the nearby towns from fire. We need the old
trees for fire protection and we do not need the unthinned portions of the
replanted forests. There are so many hundreds and thousands of acres of
previously-cut public lands that are in desperate need of thinning for fire
protection and for the health of the forest. How can you possibly ignore
this critically important and widely supported need and instead take direct
aim at our threatened oldest trees?

Whether you call it what it is, clear-cutting, or your new word
"regeneration" cutting, the dramatic increase proposed in your plan for
cutting old trees is both contrary to the core definition of "sustainable"
required by statute and court order and settlement agreements and also
dangerously short-sighted viewed through an economic lens.

With respect to the OHV portion of the plan, the plan lists a seriously
disproportionate number of acres for OHV use in Jackson County. There is no
justification for concentrating all that noise, pollution, and destruction
of public lands in our county. At a minimum, the OHV acres must be more
evenly distributed. Does the BLM propose to compensate Jackson County for
the decrease in adjacent land values that is guaranteed to happen if we are
saddled with all this motorized traffic, noise, pollution, and litter in our
forests? Anderson Butte and Johns Peak are particularly bad choices for
OHV areas and at a minimum they should be removed from the list.

I sincerely hope the BLM will re-think its proposal and convert it into a
plan that will provide the revenue streams possible from genuinely
sustainable forest management to the benefit of all Oregonians and that all
Oregonians can embrace without further rancor, expensive and time-consuming
litigation, and unproductive divisiveness.

Thank you for your time.

Priscilla Weaver
P.O. Box 900
Jacksonville, OR 97530

EM-7358 Sandy Lonsdale <slonsdale@copper.net> No to WOPR! 1/11/2008 16:54:59 Dear BLM,
These are America's forests, Americans pay for their quality management, and we demand an end to cutting old growth native forests NOW!

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. I have hiked in and photographed these wild forests and they are the most healthy and diverse forests remaining. Your time and limited resources should be spent on repairing the dameged forests so they provide future forest products and not impair existing healthy areas.

- 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 abandon this terrible proposal!!!

Sandy Lonsdale
P.O. Box 5506
64925 McGrath Road
Bend, OR 97708
EM-7359 Asher Tubman <atubman@uoregon.edu> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 16:56:15 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.

Asher Tubman
2049 City View St.
Eugene, OR 97405
EM-7360 Mark Robinowitz <mark@oilempire.us> whopping wopr and peak forests 1/11/2008 16:56:58 Bureau of Land Management, Western Oregon Plan Revisions Office
333 SW 1st. Avenue Portland, Oregon
Portland, OR 97208

Re: Whopper / WOPR:

The BLM needs to write a Supplemental Draft EIS to analyze the impacts
of the proposed WOPR regarding climate impacts of the deforestation
and the impact of Peak Oil - the end of cheap oil - upon the logging
industry, the timber economy, and the logistics of logging and
transport of the wood and eventual conversion of the native forests
into tree farms.

NEPA states that "new circumstances" during a NEPA process need to be
factored into an ongoing EIS, and the increase in the climate crisis
and the arrival of Peak Oil (2006) qualify as such a circumstance.

See attached articles for details.

Mark Robinowitz
Box 51222
Eugene OR 97405




http://www.forestclimate.org/peak-forest.html

Peak Forests
by Mark Robinowitz


Peak Oil and Climate Change

Peak Oil and Climate Change are two facets of the same problem of
overshoot, and neither can be mitigated in isolation from the other.
Concern about melting glaciers and extinction of charismatic megafauna
is less likely to influence governmental energy policies than
desperate scrambles to replace depleting fossil energy supplies.

Most projections of future carbon levels ignore the fact that fossil
fuels are finite. Focusing solely on climate change ignores the most
important question facing humanity -- whether to "spend" the remaining
oil on solar panels or battleships (a simplified version of the choice).

Focusing solely on oil depletion leads to destructive policies aimed
at increasing liquid fuels production -- "alternative" fuels that can
have worse environmental impacts than conventional petroleum,
including accelerated climate change.


Desperate Cutting

Peak Oil is creating simultaneous separate incentives for slower and
faster forest liquidation.

Peak Oil's economic impacts have started reducing construction
projects, which will slow lumber demand, creating incentives for
timberland owners to hold onto their "resources" for a future uptick
in the housing market.

However, economic disruptions would also create an incentive for those
who own forests to speed up their obliteration to generate cash flow.
This would exacerbate the current trends for clearcutting versus
selective forestry -- the practices that create the most short term
return are those dominant in the industry, while those that create
more board-feet in the long run are rarely practiced by corporate
forestry.


Past Peak: New Incentives for Deforestation

Most timber corporations own huge tracts of third growth trees that
have little value for lumber. Grinding up tree farms into biofuels
will create a new market with seemingly limitless potential for forest
destruction. Many forest protection activists are aware of how "chip
mills" have resulted in massive clearcuts throughout the Southeastern
US. Turning tiny trees into liquid fuels that can fuel internal
combustion engines will speed up deforestation, which ironically will
increase global warming (since deforestation is a massive cause of
climate change through carbon emissions and disruption of the
hydrologic cycle).

Several generators have been built across the United States that burn
wood chips to create steam to generate electricity -- which create a
market for trees too small to process into high-quality boards.

This would exacerbate the current trends for clearcutting versus
selective forestry -- the practices that create the most short term
return are those dominant in the industry, while those that create
more board-feet in the long run are rarely practiced by timber barons
who must maximize profit for shareholders.

Transforming tree farms into liquid fuels for internal combustion
engines poses severe threats to forest integrity due to rapacious
demands.

Short-sighted pseudo-solutions will speed up deforestation by turning
trees into liquid biofuels, which cannot replace the vast amount of
oil used for cars, delivery trucks, freight trains, cargo ships and
airplanes.

Many power generators built in the United States in the past two
decades burn natural gas, which is past peak in North America. This
decline is fueling a demand to burn trees (and wood chips) to make
steam to generate electricity. Converting forests into megawatts will
create markets for trees too small to process into high-quality
boards, making recovery of damaged woodlands virtually impossible.

The ecologist David Pimental estimates that 500,000 acres of managed
forests would be required to supply electricity to a city of 100,000
people powered by burning trees. In Oregon, the roughly 3.7 million
people would require about 17.5 million acres, less than the amount of
actual forestland. Since Oregon is the least populated West Coast
state, converting forests into electricity is not the answer to the
decline of fossil electricity.




http://www.road-scholar.org/peak-traffic.html
[excerpt]

Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA

40 CFR 1502.9: Draft, final and supplemental statements.

(c) Agencies:

(1) Shall prepare supplements to either draft or final environmental
impact statements if:

(i) The agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that
are relevant to environmental concerns; or

(ii) There are significant new circumstances or information relevant
to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its
impacts.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.connect-dots.org
Connect the Dots:
9/11, Peak Oil Wars and
Global Permaculture Solutions

www.forestclimate.org
Clearcutting the Climate: Uniting the Climate and Forest Protection
Movements
a conference of science and action
University of Oregon, Eugene
January 26, 2008

www.greenwasheugene.com
Green Eugene or Greenwash?
steps toward sincere sustainability

www.oilempire.us - a political map to understand Peak Oil Wars
Connect the Dots: Peak Oil is the real link between Iraq & 9/11
timelines: 9/11 hoaxes, climate crisis, peak oil, fake elections
patterns: Incompetence Theories, Best Evidence, Disinformation
9/11, Peak Oil, climate, World War IV, media, Homeland Security, vote
fraud


www.permatopia.com - a graceful end to cheap oil
local, bioregional, global solutions
permaculture for nine billion people

www.road-scholar.org - Peak Traffic and freeway fights
Planning NAFTA Superhighways at the End of the Age of Oil
Troubled Bridges Over Water
EM-7361 "Ruth H." <rah@aceweb.com> Objections to encourageing OHV use and WOPR impact in Selma 1/11/2008 16:57:46 Hello. My name is Ruth Hoedemaker I live at 1905 Thompson Creek Road
in Selma. I strongly object to any change in the BLM land directly
behind my house (opening to OHV in particular. I am surrounded by (I
believe) sections 29 and 31. I have already had problems with OHV
coming onto my property (trespassing) and stealing. I have filed a
police report on one of these occassions. I further object for the
following reasons'

!) I have 50 acres that are heavily treed. Increased use would cause a
HUGE FIRE danger.
2) NOISE. I moved here 18 years ago for a quality of life. That would
change if the traffic was increased. We already have problems with
noise from OTV use.
3. My quality of life would be seriously impacted.
4. I support the wildlife alround me and try to make a safe haven for
them. I feel increased use would jepordize this as well.
5. I have a seasonal creek as well as a spring for house hold water, I
fear erosion and contamination to these sources of water if OHV use
around me is encouraged
6. I treasure my solitude and quiet. I believe I have a right to have
that maintained.

Thank you for your attention to my comments. You may reach me at the
above email Or at :

Ruth Hoedemaker
P.O. Box 448 Selma, Oregon 97538



EM-7362 Madroneweb@aol.com WOPR comments (parts one and two) 1/11/2008 16:59:55 January 9 - 11, 2008
 
Western Oregon Plan Revisions
P.O. Box
Portland, OR 
 
Bruce Campbell
1158  26th St. #883
Santa Monica, CA  90403
 
Re: Western Oregon Plan Revisions Draft Environmental Impact Statement
 
To whom it may concern at Western Oregon BLM:
 
   I shall now copy and paste Part One of my WOPR comments which I sent off via Express Mail on the morning of January 10th, 2008 -- due to arrive at the Portland P.O. Box about noon on January 11th, 2008.  I sent that Part One by that method because I enclosed/attached a paper document along with it.  The title on paper cover page and Table of Contents will be mentioned in my Part One comments.
 
   I will separate my Part One WOPR comments from the other part of this e-mailing of the comments by two typed lines of asterisks (both before it and after it).  I am essentially including Part One twice to not only get a hard copy of the enclosure/attachment to Western Oregon BLM in a timely fashion, but so BLM can have all of my comments in online form.
*****************************************************************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************************************************
January 9th, 2008
 
Western Oregon Plan Revisions
P.O. Box 2965
Portland, OR  97208
 
Bruce Campbell
1158  26th St. #883
Santa Monica, CA  90403
 
Re: WOPR comments (part one) and an attachment
 
To whom it may concern at Western Oregon BLM:
 
   Besides some comments below on this matter, I have enclosed the "West Fork Watershed Analysis Iteration 1.0 Results" document as an attachment to these comments.  The formal name on the Table of Contents (on the next page with printing on it following the paper cover of the document) is "West Fork Illinois River Watershed Analysis Results  Iteration 1.0  June 1997."  The "Principal Specialists" are mentioned on page 26 -- which is the page with this paragraph: "The West Fork Watershed Analysis (Iteration 1.0) was initiated February 1997.  The analysis process followed the six steps outlined in the Federal Guide to Watershed Analysis (USDA, USDI 1995).  Specialist reports, reference lists, and other analysis records are on file at the Illinois Valley Ranger District.  Technical appendicies are listed here for reference."
 
   While this enclosed/attached document deals specifically with the West Fork Illinois River watershed (which happens to be the most botanically diverse sub-watershed out of 1400 subwatersheds in Oregon), much of the enclosed/attached document is important and applicable to other areas and watersheds containing serpentine soils, as well as to areas and watersheds (whether serpentine, non-serpentine or a combination thereof) which contain Port Orford Cedar. 
 
   As many of you likely know, there is a serious root rot known as Phytophthora lateralis which infects and kills Port Orford Cedars, and often then infects those Port Orford Cedars further down the watercourse / watershed.  I just looked again through the WOPR documents, and still have yet to find any mention of Port Orford Cedar.  I have read or glanced at 2/3 of the pages of the documents, and though I have examined the botanical and timber sections (among many others), I still see no mention at all of this unique conifer species and/or its serious root disease problem. 
 
   Whatever the validity of non-validity of the temperature model for watercourses in general in the WOPR, THE TEMPERATURE MODEL FOR WATERCOURSES under the W.O.P.R. IS SERIOUSLY ASKEW IN THOSE WATERSHEDS WITH PORT ORFORD CEDAR (especially in those currently affected by Port Orford Cedar root rot).  This is due to:  1.   THE EASY SPREAD OF THIS ROOT DISEASE DOWN WATERCOURSES;  2.   THE PORT ORFORD CEDAR BEING THE ONE TREE THAT CAN GROW TO BE SIZABLE ON SERPENTINE SOILS (since the unusual mineral content of the soil stunts the growth of all or nearly all other tree species);  3.   THE PORT ORFORD CEDAR BEING THE MAIN STABILIZER OF STREAMBANKS IN SERPENTINE AREAS;  and  4.   THE PORT ORFORD CEDAR BEING THE TREE WHICH PROVIDES THE MOST SHADE FOR WATERCOURSES IN SERPENTINE SOIL RIPARIAN AREAS.   When a P.O.C. on a streambank either falls over due to root rot (perhaps during high water and/or wind conditions), or if the P.O.C. is removed, THERE WOULD BE AN INCREASE IN SEDIMENT ENTERING THE STREAM WHICH WOULD MAKE MORE SHALLOW THE POOLS IN THE STREAMS WHICH ARE PREFERRED BY NATIVE FISH SPECIES (which generally tend to not be very deep to begin with in serpentine soil areas).  SO, THIS SEDIMENTATION AS WELL AS AN INCREASE IN DIRECT SUNLIGHT ON THE WATERCOURSE WOULD BRING AN INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE WHICH COULD THREATEN THE HEALTH AND EVEN SURVIVAL OF A VARIETY OF NATIVE FISH SPECIES.  THE INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE, AS WELL AS THE ROOT DISEASE SPREADING DOWNSTREAM INTO OTHER WATERCOURSES, WOULD RESULT IN THIS SAD SCENARIO REPEATING ITSELF DOWNSTREAM.   THUS, ENDANGERED, THREATENED, IMPERILED, RARE, SENSITIVE, AND OTHER NATIVE FISH WOULD SEE A DETERIORATION IN THEIR HABITAT WHICH COULD BRING ABOUT NOT ONLY FURTHER PLUMMETTING NUMBERS OF THESE FISH, BUT COULD EVEN RESULT IN EXTIRPATION AND EXTINCTION OF SOME STOCKS -- CLEARLY VIOLATING THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT !!! 
 
   There are many parts of my enclosure / attachment that deserves to be quoted, and at least it should be in the record with its fine research and suggestions, but I wish to quote one key bullet (diamond-shaped) point on page 4: Use SHASOW model data to differentiate topographic from vegetative stream to determine effects on watershed temperature if POC within the Rough and Ready Creek watershed became infested with root disease."  They then call that "Moderate Priority," but I would contend for the RMPs and all the native fish in Josephine, Curry, and Jackson County streams, that this should be a top or the top priority -- and consider the management and vehicular recreational activities that should be avoided to seek to minimize the threat to remaining Port Orford Cedars and the impacts the demise of POC could have on native fish and other species. 
 
    There would be an even greater erosion/sedimentation threat if a road crossing was built across a watercourse in a serpentine soil area if a Port Orford Cedar was not in the vicinity for streambank stability.  Bur then again, such a crossing near POC could easily spread the root disease even further on the tires of vehicles.  (Another concern is possible impact of sedimentation on the rather unique hyporheic or intergravel zone where another flow of water can occur in alluvial fan serpentine areas.)  (The 2nd to the last paragraph in this phase one of my WOPR comments will address additional sediment to watercourses from other sources.)
 
   SO, BECAUSE THIS IS SUCH AN EXTREME OVERSIGHT IN THE WESTERN OREGON PLAN REVISIONS OF B.L.M., I HEREBY CALL FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AT LEAST FOR THE B.L.M. DISTRICTS IN WHICH PORT ORFORD CEDARS ARE FOUND -- THIS WOULD DEFINITELY INCLUDE THE COOS BAY AND MEDFORD DISTRICTS OF B.L.M., AND MAY POSSIBLY INCLUDE THE ROSEBURG DISTRICT.  (I am more familiar with the western and southern ends of the POC root rot problem (as well as the central area in the Illinois River watershed, but do not know the exact northern or eastern extent of the range of either the POC or the associated root disease.)
 
A.   Are there current regulations, suggestions, or best management practices which BLM uses to seek to avoid the spread of POC root disease?  If so, what are they?  Please either include this information, or else develop a program and put that information in the new Draft Supplemental EIS which I just formally called for, as well as in the Final EIS / RMPs thereafter. 
 
B.   Is there any mention of Port Orford Cedar and related root disease, as well as what measures to take to seek to avoid its spread) in some current RMPs for BLM in western Oregon?  If so, please not only send me this wording, but include this info in the Supplemental Draft EIS (as well as in the Response to Comments and elsewhere in the Final EIS / RMPs).
 
C.  If there was wording about, and suggested practices to minimize the spread of the POC root disease in current RMPs for certain BLM Districts, but there is zero mention in the DEIS / Proposed RMPs, is the BLM obligated to do anything in regards the POC (found only in the Klamath/Siskiyou region) or to take any measures to seek to reduce the spread of the POC root disease?  If there is such a suggestion, or even advice on the matter which BLM would or might follow if an action alternative of the WOPR is adopted, what would such suggestions / advice / measures be?  
 
D.   WHY MENTION SWISS NEEDLE CAST IN THE TILLAMOOK AREA, BUT NOT MENTION THE PORT ORFORD CEDAR ROOT ROT WHICH IS MUCH MORE WIDESPREAD GEOGRAPHICALLY??
 
   And if the current Port Orford Cedar infections (and likely infection of POCs further downstream at least in the future) are not bad enough, the great acceleration of road-building, logging, and the intensive emphasis on Off-Highway Vehicle Areas under the WOPR's action alternatives will certainly spread the root rot (as well as invasive plants) to uninfected areas. In fact, the concentration of invasive plants is so heavy in the Medford District that the Medford District BLM should likely be renamed the Invasive Plant Species District or perhaps the Invasive Plants and Root Rot District (though the root rot district should be shared with the Coos Bay District).  See the map on page 279 of the WOPR for the staggering concentration of  invasive plants within the Medford District, as well as other maps which show that a variety of species of invasive plants are concentrated in the Medford District as well.  After viewing that map on page 279, are there still any lingering doubts that the Medford District is clearly the center for invasive plants among BLM districts?  Realizing this obvious fact (if that map has any validity at all -- which it likely does), is it wise to greatly increase road-building, logging, and off-highway vehicle emphasis areas in this district -- which quite obviously will spread invasive plants as well as Port Orford Cedar root disease?
 
   All BLM parcels in the Coos Bay District and Medford Districts should be examined with an eye as to whether there is any Port Orford Cedar presence in that area / checkerboard square.  Besides some serpentine in the West Fork Illinois and elsewhere in the Illinois Valley, the Williams Creek area has Port Orford Cedars with some infected by the root rot.  If there was an increase in vehicular activity spreading POC root disease (as well as invasive plants) in the Williams Creek area, what would the impacts be to the Coho Salmon, Steelhead Trout, and the few surviving Chinook Salmon in this creek?  THE MAJOR OHV EMPHASIS AREA PROPOSED BETWEEN WILLIAMS AND SELMA MUST BE LOOKED AT ESPECIALLY CAREFULLY FOR ITS IMPACTS REGARDING SPREADING POC ROOT DISEASE AND INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES -- and then it should be rejected!  And since the Illinois River empties into the Rogue River, while Williams Creek enters the Applegate River and then the Rogue, measures including limiting vehicular, road-building, and logging activities in many areas must be considered and implemented -- the root disease washing downstream is a serious enough a situation without having a direct assault especially on the Wild Rogue River region (as well as the Lower Illinois River watershed) with an acceleration of intensive management which could easily spread the POC root disease by land as well as by watercourse which could result in tragic shifts in this delicate and diverse ecological region. 
 
   Road-building and logging must not go forward within Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, most notably those ACECs which are largely in serpentine areas and contain POCs and are usually administratively withdrawn for "botanical emphasis."
 
   Speaking of sediment, I find it amazing and even deceptive to have such a large and fairly exact numbers for board feet sought to be extracted per year (not even including logging in some other areas), but then act like you do not know where new roads will be built, and give no indication of yarding techniques -- some of which can cause considerable erosion and sedimentation of watercourses bearing native fish species.  Plus, many OHVs seem to prefer to ride their vehicles in riparian areas and in creekbeds depending on water level.  How will management and supervision within OHV emphasis areas seek to minimize this additional source of sediments to watercourses?
 
   Note: do not be concerned about the marks on the enclosure / attachment.  These marks were from when I was commenting on the NICORE mining proposal back around 1998.  Thus, the marks have more to do with Rough and Ready Creek and some mineral aspects of serpentine soils more than the Port Orford Cedar and its prolific root disease, though one of my concerns about that mining proposal were creek crossings and those impacts on Port Orford Cedar as well as its impact on the water clarity of the creek.  I will seek to erase all marks besides some asterisks and underlines, and I will refrain from more marking though some of the document is especially interesting in regards to serpentine soils, Port Orford Cedar and its root rot disease, as well as in regards to endemic plants.
  
Sincerely yours,
 
Bruce Campbell
 
Attachment: West Fork Illinois River Watershed Analysis   Iteration 1.0    June 1997 
***************************************************************************************************************************
***************************************************************************************************************************
   I want to point out that in the 11 AM hour of January 11th, 2008, I called the number for BLM on the "Plan Revisions News" dated August 2007 with the main title "Summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement" -- that phone number being (503)808-6629.  I got a tape recording and the fellow said he was Alan Hoffmeister and he said that the deadline for comments on the Western Oregon Plan Revisions was midnight on January 11th -- I'm assuming that meant it is fine to get comments in (via e-mail or postmarked) as long as it is one second before the midnight when January 12th begins.  I just wanted to point that out because I have had land management agencies shift what they vocally told me so they would not have to contend with additional comments. 
 
   After attending an open house, a technical briefing, another program, plus going over much of the WOPR documents and maps carefully, it was just today, January 10th, that I realized that the so-called "No Action Alternative" is an action alternative.  It is not that I am confused about the No Action Alternative (NAA) which is required under the National Environmental Policy Act.  I realize that the NAA involves management activities based on the Resource Management P
EM-7363 LiAnn Fields <liann1k@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 17:00:00 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.

LiAnn Fields
PO Box 572
Corvallis, OR 97339
EM-7364 Rochelle Koivunen <rochelle.koivunen@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 17:00:55 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.

Rochelle Koivunen
1924 SE Taylor
Portland, OR 97214
EM-7365 victorraindrop@hotmail.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 17:01:45 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,
Victor Lopez
1317 Lilac Terrace
L.A., CA 90026

EM-7366 Serena Becker <dubdadeck@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 17:02:30 Dear BLM,
As a native Oregonian I am very concerned about the proposed WOPR plan. In my short life time I have witnessed the destruction of immense amounts of Oregon's natural resources. I do not believe that the BLM's plan to "manage" 2.6 billion acres of federal forest land will bring about the perceived benefits.

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. This will hinder not only recreational areas which could bring in more sustainable. long term revenue for the state as opposed to the short term financial gains of the WOPR.

In addition old growth forests store large amounts of carbon and as we are increasingly seeing the effects of climate change it is imperative that we preserve the old growth forest still left.

I urge you to reconsider the WOPR proposal and look into the many other alternatives to this proposal.

Serena Becker
4680 W. Hillside Dr
Eugene, OR 97405
EM-7367 Star Child <estellefire@yahoo.com> wopr 1/11/2008 17:05:17 Dear Land Managers,

As an Oregonian, It is obvious to me that the WOPR
does not benefit my state. The land will be abused,
not managed. The state will be less appealing to
tourist. Animals will suffer. Watersheds will
suffer. People will suffer. I live in Cottage Grove,
Oregon, and when I walk our dogs through the heavily
logged woods behind our property, even the 150 pound
malamute stumbles and becomes stuck in the bracken and
blackberry brambles that are three feet thick in the
clear-cut, sprayed with poison, ugly mountaintops.
Who is allowing this? Little revenue and jobs will
result in comparison to the ravaging of an already
ravaged state. I urge you to look deep in your hearts
and reconsider this reckless proposal. I beg you.
Please. Please. Please.


With Love.

Estelle Davis
Elementary School Teacher
Eugene, Oregon
Resident
Cottage Grove, Oregon


____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
EM-7368 Paul Cordaine <willamettevalleynative@yahoo.com> WOPR 1/11/2008 17:05:31 The WOPR plan is a travesty. None of the options it
presents are reasonable.We are endangering our
watershed, destroying habitat and leaving no riparian
zones. There is almost no old growth left and I do not
feel we have the right to take away the chance for
future generations to experience it or the species
that live in it. Please come up with a reasonable
option rather than selling off something of such great
worth for a quick monetary fix.


____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
EM-7369 Scott Hillson <guyhillson@gmail.com> stop the WOPR 1/11/2008 17:08:46 Dear BLM,
This plan is horrible idea.

I have continued 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.

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 Hillson
21121 S Sweetbriar RD
West Linn, OR 97068

503-929-0055
EM-7370 Robin Wiedemer <robinwiedemer@yahoo.com> Wester OR Plan Revision Comment 1/11/2008 17:09:08 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. The BLM is moving forward with the Western Oregon Plan Revision, which will increase logging in Oregon's old-growth forests sevenfold by clearcutting in currently protected old growth forest reserves and sensitive salmon bearing rivers and creeks.  The plan illustrates short-term decision making, and does not serve the best interest of Oregon's citizens and ecosystems.

The Northwest Forest Plan's protections should remain in place for BLM lands, not sacrificed in an out-of-court deal between the timber industry and the White House. Oregon's diverse and species rich forests with dominant trees greater than 85 years in age deserve permanent protection and should be managed to maintain important public assets such as clean drinking water, habitat for fish and wildlife, diverse recreation opportunities, stunning scenery, and jobs in forest restoration, fire safety and tourism.

Ancient forests in Oregon also serve as an important carbon storage and sequestration resource to help mitigate global warming. The BLM's plans for increased logging in these ancient forests under the Western Oregon Plan Revision will take America backwards in efforts to prevent global climate change. Clearcutting and damage to soils from logging has been shown to release tremendous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, while old forests absorb and store carbon dioxide.

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, and increased conflict and controversy.

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. Additionally, these forests are owned by Americans across the nation, who would like to see them strongly protected for future generations to enjoy.

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  forest heritage.

 

Sincerely,

 

Robin Lindsey Wiedemer

 

Address:  1031 NW 26th Street, Corvallis, OR 97330

 

Phone: 541 908 2527

 


Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
EM-7371 corbin brashear <mythicimages@yahoo.com> comment on wopr plan 1/11/2008 17:09:21 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,
Corbin Brashear
EM-7372 Geraldine Stewart <geristew@jeffnet.org> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 17:10:26 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.

Geraldine Stewart
734 Powell Creek Rd.
Williams, OR 97544
EM-7373 James Goodwin <jegwin@aol.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 17:11:16 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.

James Goodwin
1575 Fairview Place
Cottage Grove , OR 97424
EM-7374 Jennifer DeHaan <jendehaan@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 17:13:21 Dear BLM,
Please STOP and THINK about these precious lands that will be forever changed and compromised. They hold much more value now and in the future than what the proposed ideas will hold in value. This proposal is a disgrace to our country. The people of this country want progression. Clear cutting is a huge regression into our old, selfish, consumer ways.

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.

Jennifer DeHaan
4921 SE 71st Ave
Portland, OR 97206
EM-7375 Zachary Mallon <zmallon@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 17:13:46 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.

Zachary Mallon
1969 SW Park Ave
Portland, OR 97201
EM-7376 Jonathan Jelen <jonathan@environmentoregon.org> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 17:13:46 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.

Jonathan Jelen
4017 SE 54th Ave
Portland, OR 97206
EM-7377 Nate Hogen <shamanature@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 17:15:01 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.

Nate Hogen
1707 SE 33rd AVE
Portland, OR 97214
EM-7378 Bill Price <groupb@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 17:17:12 Dear BLM,
I am a descendant of one of the founders of Portland. I want my family and my family's family to be able to walk in old growth forests wherever they live in western Oregon.

The federal forests in our neighboring state to the north no longer cut old growth - why are we? Two of the most thoughtful county commissioners have pointed out that cutting our last 2% of old forests is not sustainable.

What is sustainable is the value of recreating in these forests. Those counties involved need to look at long-range alternatives that will NOT deter visitor dollars.



Bill Price
1110 SW 197th AV
Beaverton, OR 97006

503.356.9394
EM-7379 steven mulvey <steventommulvey@yahoo.co.nz> opposition to WOPR 1/11/2008 17:18:06 To Whom It May Concern,

My name is Steven Thomas Mulvey and I am opposed to the Wester Oregon Plan Revision.

I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. The BLM is moving forward with the Western Oregon Plan Revision, which will increase logging in Oregon's old-growth forests sevenfold by clearcutting in currently protected old growth forest reserves and sensitive salmon bearing rivers and creeks.
The Northwest Forest Plan's protections should remain in place for BLM lands, not sacrificed in an out-of-court deal between the timber industry and the White House. Oregon ancient forests deserve permanent protection and should be managed to maintain important public assets such as clean drinking water, habitat for fish and wildlife, diverse recreation opportunities, stunning scenery, and jobs in forest restoration, fire safety and tourism.
Ancient forests in Oregon also serve as an important carbon storage and sequestration resource to help mitigate global warming. The BLM's plans for increased logging in these ancient forests under the Western Oregon Plan Revision will take America backwards in efforts to prevent global climate change. Clearcutting and damage to soils from logging has been shown to release tremendous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, while old forests absorb and store carbon dioxide.
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, and increased conflict and controversy.
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. Additionally, these forests are owned by Americans across the nation, who would like to see them strongly protected for future generations to enjoy.
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,

Steven Thomas Mulvey

Address: 1031 NW 26th Street, Corvallis, OR 97330

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
EM-7380 Cameron Zegers <cameronzegers@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 17:21:42 Dear BLM,
I live in Oregon for a variety of reasons, including the old-growth forests, excellent recreation, and opportunities to view wildlife on public lands. After learning about the BLM's Western Oregon Plan Revisions, I am very concerned this plan will degrade my ability to enjoy the public lands in western Oregon. The changes the Bureau of Land Management is proposing will unravel the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan for old-growth forests and wildlife, and will lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy.

Some of my concerns include:
- I'm disappointed that all special areas (Research Natural Areas and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern) won't be protected from logging under WOPR. These areas contain unique values that many people seek out to enjoy. These areas should not be opened to logging.

- The increased, widespread clearcutting of forests under WOPR could reduce property values and the quality of life of thousands of Oregonians living near BLM lands. Over 1,000 miles of new logging road and 140,000 acres of clearcuts in the first decade alone would scar Oregon's spectacular landscape.

- Clearcutting of old growth forests and proposed "Off Highway Vehicle Emphasis Areas" threaten the peace and quiet for rural residents, visitors, and wildlife. Oregon needs rural residents and tourism to feed our economy - catering to the timber and motorized vehicle industry alone is not a solution.

Oregon's remaining old-growth forests are a treasure -- offering wonderful recreation opportunities, clean water, homes for wildlife, and offsetting global warming. But the WOPR is a step back to the unsustainable days of clear-cutting this amazing resource, endangering wildlife, muddying streams, and fueling public outcry. A better way is to protect our heritage forests and focus on thinning and restoration of the plentiful unhealthy plantations left over from the last logging boom. This approach would safeguard the many values of old-growth forests that make Oregon a place I want to live, while providing sustainable jobs and other economic benefits for rural communities.

Cameron Zegers
1255 NW 9th Ave Apt 708
Portland, OR 97209
EM-7381 Morgan Heckman <mheckma1@uoregon.edu> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 17:25:04 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.

Morgan Heckman
2306 N. Kilpatrick
Portland, OR 971217
EM-7382 Barbara Manildi <bmanildi@earthlink.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 17:25:04 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.

Barbara Manildi
3525 Red Cedar Way
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
EM-7383 ron.wallace@Forbo.com WOPR 1/11/2008 17:25:42 I am against the current revisions in the proposed Western Oregon Plan
Revisions to the Northwest Forest Plan. I am in constant contact with the
Wood Products Industry in Oregon and Washington and there is no shortage
of logs or fiber. Old growth, large diameter logs are the only ones in
short supply and the market is mostly export. I don't believe that the
general forest ecology and the watersheds should be degraded further to
generate large diameter logs. Please do not hurt the environment by
implementing the WOPR.

Ron Wallace

Ron Wallace


| 90366 Shore Lane | Eugene, OR 97402 | USA
email: ron.wallace@forbo.com
EM-7384 Lyndi Burton <lyndinoburtono@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 17:26:43 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.

Lyndi Burton
2430 NE 9th Ave #12
Portland, OR 97212
EM-7385 tmcdaniel85@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 17:30:03 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,
tiffany mcdaniel
17195 little walnut
circleville, OH 43113

EM-7386 bettymcdaniel3@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 17:30:03 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,
betty mcdaniel
17195 little walnut
circleville, OH 43113

EM-7387 jmcdaniel24@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 17:32:03 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 mcdaniel
17195 little walnut
circleville, OH 43113

EM-7388 samhh87@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 17:32:03 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,
dina spencer
17195 little walnut
circleville, OH 43113

EM-7389 hhsam457@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 17:32:03 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,
glen mcdaniel
17195 little walnut
circleville, OH 43113

EM-7390 Jeni Harris <jenihh@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 17:34:14 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.

Jeni Harris
201 E. Sherman Ave
Hood River, OR 97931
EM-7391 Elizabeth Paul <closetrebel@mac.com> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 17:36:00 Bureau of Land Management, Western Oregon Plan Revisions Office

333 SW 1st. Avenue Portland, Oregon

Portland, OR 97208


CC: Oregon Congressional delegation


Re: BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions


Dear BLM,


I am very 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 Paul

3837 Potter St.

Eugene

OR 97405
EM-7392 scott rozell <gorgeofdespair@msn.com> Preserve America's trees 1/11/2008 17:36:19 Dear BLM,
Let's make this simple: If you clear trees for quick profit, you destroy the vitality of the places that keep Oregon beautiful and healthy. Please don't support WOPR!

scott rozell
4121 se raymond st
Portland, OR 97202
EM-7393 Pete Venable <pete.venable@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 17:36:44 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.

Pete Venable
155 35th Place
Eugene, OR 97405
EM-7394 John Otto <jotto36@gmail.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 17:40:01 I am extremely concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest
managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am very
much opposed to the BLM's preferred alternative for the Western
Oregon Plan Revision, which will increase logging 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,
John Otto
1195 NW Country Hills Drive
Corvallis, OR 97330
EM-7395 Marvin Johnson <marjohn@fastermac.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 17:40:04 Dear BLM,
I struggled through the wopr website. It?s as egregious as any I have found. An unecessary and vexing requirement for a user name and password for participation, pseudo-intellectual word games and ambiguity, and a sesquipedalian- cloaked mirage of objectivity all heap the platter high for a light brunch of non-participation.

The stance of the website is to limit responses to a mindless rubber stamping of corporate-acceptable alternatives. We can boil the bureaucratic pot down to it?s most obvious ingredient: that it is a thinly masked effort to eliminate the last old growth forests for the profit of corporate logging mogols.

We can profit by examining conflicting policies. The court-appointed bloodswiller in chief (CABIC), pontificated in his state of the union message for Congress to ?move expeditiously? on legislation to produce 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels by 2017. Technology provides a rendering of 109 gallons of ethanol from one ton of corn. Producing 35 billion gallons of ethanol would require 320 million tons of corn. The entire corn production in the US was only 280.2 million tons in 2005. Thus, the entire corn acreage necessary to produce CABIC?s goal of fuel sufficiency is inadequate if all of it is used for ethanol, let the world?s hungry and feedlot operators be damned. The source for ethanol production (if CABIC?S goal is to be taken seriously) has to come from non-agricultural production which leaves, by default, the forests.

One of the sub alternatives on the wopr site was a ?thinning first? proposal. Forest service and BLM tree plantations are rife with brush and overgrown clutter making them vulnerable for insect, disease and fire holocausts. Brush harvesting and plantation tree-thinning projects can be for timber production and cellulose fermentation. Replanting on thinned government plantation land should be implemented with a goal of species diversification, the only way to restore some semblance of old-growth characteristics and resistance to fire, wind, insect and disease vulnerability.

The best science and carbon retention is effected by a restoration of old growth forests. Accelerated global warming is the wopr alternative; your children and grandchildren are your victims.







Marvin Johnson
14410 SW 112th Ave. #6
Tigard, OR 97224
EM-7396 rebecca@delatour.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 17:41:05 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,
Rebecca McDonough
455 San Mateo Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025

EM-7397 Eve Heidtmann <evdenev@dslnorthwest.net> Please, no WOPR! 1/11/2008 17:43:25 Dear BLM,
After learning about the BLM's Western Oregon Plan Revisions, I am very concerned this plan 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 concerned 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.

I fear that increased logging will scar Oregon's spectacular landscape.

In the face of global warming we should be planting trees, not cutting them, and we should redouble our efforts to protect wildlife habitat. All species are going to have to adapt to new climate conditions at a rapid rate and many may go extinct. When the web of life is in tatters, where will be?

Please think beyond today's profits to the future we are creating for our children. Stop the WOPR.



Eve Heidtmann
7820 SW Walnut Lane
Portland, OR 97225
EM-7398 Gretchen Friedlander <gretchen.friedlander@azbar.org> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 17:44:39 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.

Gretchen Friedlander
1056 E. Pueblo Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85020
EM-7399 "Pat Smith & Jennie Watt" <patjen@ashlandhome.net> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 17:48:20  
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,
 
Patricia Smith
635 Fordyce St.
Ashland, OR 97520
EM-7400 Holly Emery-Walen <hemerywa@uoregon.edu> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 17:49:40 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.

Holly Emery-Walen
1135 w 19th pl
Eugene, OR 97402
EM-7401 Cindy Manning <cmanning1@comcast.net> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 17:49:57 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.


I was away from Oregon years between 2002-2005.  I was SHOCKED at the amount of deforestation that occurred during that time.  I realize that some of this is on private land.. but really... I'm concerned about the welfare of this state's ecosystem.  I want my grandchildren to be able to experience the remaining beauty of Oregon.


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,


YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS

Cindy Manning
1405 Hayes Street
 Eugene, Oregon
97402

Cindy Manning  M.A., ABS
The Vibrant Organization
Developing effective leaders, high-performing teams and supporting sustainable change.
Eugene, Oregon 97402
541-228-4839
EM-7402 Jane Van Dusen <janevand@epud.net> Comments with addendum 1/11/2008 17:50:01 January 11, 2008

To: The Western Oregon Bureau of Land Management

Re: proposed Western Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR)

I am herein resending the comments I sent yesterday AND please NOTE, I have today added an important addendum at the bottom. (I'm not sure what I sent yesterday made it across the wires.)


Dear Western Oregon Bureau of Land Management:

I write in response to your request for comments on your proposed Western Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR) for managing Western Oregon's forests.

I live in Dexter, southeast of Eugene at the foothills of the Cascades. Our neighbors and we have watched over the years as clearcuts checkerboarding the hills all around us have caused destruction to the beauty that nourishes our souls, erosion of topsoils, thick sediment browning the streams, mudslides, increased flooding in some areas and drought in others. We see the wildlife-from deer, elk, and bear to many birds-coming further down off the mountains in search of clean water, habitat, and food and observed some having diminishing populations. We are concerned for their survival and for the survival of healthy lifestyles for people as well-who need forests that are protected for walks, hikes, hunting, exploring for children and adults, and for restorative solitude.

I understand the horrible situation of lost funding for county programs, but logging Western Oregon's precious old-growth forests and streamside reserves is an untenable, short-sighted answer indeed. I have read that if restorative thinning were done sustainably in areas that have been logged and replanted in the past and are now overgrown, there would be money for rural counties and a reduction in the threat of wildfires. In other words, the goals of your preferred plan can be met without destroying more old-growth forests!

Please do not open public lands to any more logging, and do not open any older growth forests to logging. Our forests are a legacy to be preserved for our children and their children, for our health, the health of our water quality and our economy, the health of our climate, the health of our spirit.

Respectfully Yours,

Jane Van Dusen
P.O. Box 178
Dexter, OR 97431
janevand@epud.net

ADDENDUM:
I want to add a clarifying addendum to my comments (above) sent yesterday:

I want to be clear that the only alternative acceptable to me is the "NO ACTION" alternative. All of your other alternatives allow damage to streamside buffer zones and subsequent damage to salmon and other riparian species.

I want to be absolutely clear about this.

Thank you for your consideration of my concerns,

Jane Van Dusen
P.O. Box 178
Dexter, OR 97431
janevand@epud.net

cc: Governor Kulongoski (via surface mail) Congressman DeFazio
EM-7403 "Kathy Fieldstad" <kathy@ridgelinesolutions.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 17:51:06 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,

Kathy Fieldstad

1279 Hide A Way Lane

Lake Oswego, OR 97034
EM-7404 "John Adams" <john.adams@wildblue.net> Comments on the BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions 1/11/2008 17:51:14 Bureau of Land Management
Western Oregon Plan Revisions Office
333 SW 1st. Avenue, Portland, OR 97208
 
Re: BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions
Dear BLM,
 
My wife and I have been reading the papers, watching TV, going to meetings, and looking at various websites on the subject of the WOPR (for public lands).  From our perspective the majority of the people, not just from Oregon, are vastly opposed to the WOPR.  It appears that the timber industry alone is the primary proponent of the WOPR and is the party to benefit the most from the WOPR.  It is our hope that our voices will be heard and that the WOPR will be set aside or reworked to address the majority of the people.  As a former government worker I can't help but think that - here we go again - lawsuits will begin and vast resources will be wasted because policy was not formulated to address what the people want.
 
Some specifics - We are 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,

John and Michelle Adams
10252 Sterling Creek Rd
Jacksonville, OR 97530
EM-7405 Asher Loverdi <asherloverdi@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 17:58:51 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.

Asher Loverdi
5328 NE Cleveland Ave.
Portlnd, OR 97211
EM-7406 Andrew Ziegwied <ziegstar@yahoo.com> Protect our old-growth forests, it is all we have left! 1/11/2008 18:00:56 Dear BLM,
I live in Oregon for a variety of reasons, especially 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.

Andrew Ziegwied
21 SE 55th Ave
Portland, WA 97215
EM-7407 adoncross@earthlink.net Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 18:01:09 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,
Alfred Cross
350 Arballo Drive, Apt. 7K
San Francisco, CA 94132-2126

EM-7408 Ira Steinberg <iscpa@comcast.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 18:01:21 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.

Ira Steinberg
2251 Lois Lane
West Linn, OR 97068
EM-7409 Joy Brandt <joybrandt@comcast.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 18:03:27 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.

Signed,
Joy Brandt
2029 SE 88th Ave
Portland, OR 97216
503-408-4857
joybrandt@comcast.net

Joy Brandt
2029 SE 88th Avenue
Portland, OR 97216
EM-7410 Fred Niemeyer Niemeyer <fredniemeyer1@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 18:08:02 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. I am a frequent user of the old growth in our fine state from hiking and cross country skiing to using the water resources that flow through these forests, as my employees I demand that you do not follow through on these plans, they are not in the best interest of the people you represent or the lands you have been entrusted with! Thank You for listening Fred Niemeyer

Fred Niemeyer Niemeyer
3614 emerald
eugene, OR 97405
EM-7411 "Kathy Fieldstad" <kathy@ridgelinesolutions.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 18:08:15 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,

YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS
EM-7412 alyssa cherbas <acherbas15@hotmail.com> WOPR 1/11/2008 18:09:37 To whom it may concern,
 
I am extremely appalled at the thought of reducing protection for old-growth and streamside reserves across millions of acres in Western Oregon.  As a long time resident, I have fallen in love with the beauty of Oregon and what it has to offer in the great outdoors. This is truly what keeps me planted here. My earliest and most fond memories as a child were centered around camping, hiking, and exploring Oregon's vast wilderness regions.  It was at this early age that I gained great respect and understanding for nature.  My own personal biases obviously fuel my outrage towards the current mismanagement of Oregon's public forest land and future proposals to greatly reduce the old growth forests.
 
 Change is all around us; sometimes good, sometimes bad and most often inevitable.  However, change is always controllable.  One voice can make a difference, but several voices make a true impact on decision making in our state.  I want my voice to be heard. As a current educator and future parent, I selfishly (or is it?) don't want our youth to miss out on the opportunities to experience some of the oldest forests and creatures/species that reside within it.  Please consider the negative impact that this proposal and others like it have on many different levels (natural, social, personal, etc).
 
Thanks for your time and consideration.


Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live. Get it now!
EM-7413 "Miss Melanie" <melanie.jessee@gmail.com> WOPR 1/11/2008 18:10:44 Dear BLM,

My name is Melanie Jessee and I am a 20 year old student at Rogue
Community College here in southwestern Oregon. I am very concerned
with the direction that we are 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.

It seems counterproductive to consider logging in old growth forests.
At this point in time we are well aware of the damages this will
cause. I am dumbfounded to hear that we are even thinking about
committing such a careless act. Why would do something that will
undoubtedly cause many negative effects on the quality of life for
every living creature in the area when we have much more reasonable
alternatives? 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.

As a resident of southwestern Oregon, I see the damages first hand.
People do not flock to Oregon to marvel at our beautiful clear-cut
mountains and tree farms. They come here to see and experience the
natural beauty that we are so fortunate to have. It would be a very
careless and inconsiderate act to go through with the current proposal
and I would like it to go on record that I and many of my fellow
students and residents would like to protect our mature old growth
forests and focus on thinning the plantations we already have. Please
do not continue to make the mistakes we have already made and protect
the last of our great forests.

Thank you,



Melanie Jessee
Student and Resident of Western Oregon

12963 Williams Hwy.
Grants Pass, OR 97527
EM-7414 janalane@comcast.net Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 18:11:12 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 destructive
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. It is vital that
you 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.

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



Sincerely,
Jana Lane
11 Hillcrest Court
Oakland, CA Oakland

EM-7415 "(Savitra) Alan Sasha Lithman" <savitra@earthlink.net> Citizen Comment re. Western Oregon Plan Revisions 1/11/2008 18:13:22 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.

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,

Alan Sasha Lithman
232 Grant Street
Ashland, OR 97520


CC: Oregon Congressional delegation
Senator Ron Wyden 
1220 SW 3rd Ave., Suite 585, Portland, OR 97204
Senator Gordon Smith 
121 SW Salmon St., Suite 1250, Portland, OR 97204
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-4th)
405 East 8th Ave. #2030, Eugene, OR 97401
Rep. Greg Walden (R-2nd) 
843 East Main Street, Ste 400, Medford, OR 97504
Rep. Earl Blumenhauer (D-3rd) 
729 N.E. Oregon St., Suite 115,  Portland, OR 97232
Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-5th)
315 Mission Street SE #101, Salem, Oregon 97302
EM-7416 Jean Ella <windigo76@gmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 18:15:58 Dear BLM,
I live adjacent to a large parcel of BLM forest land and am a site monitor for a nearby Environmental Study Area. I fear the impact of even more logging on the winter stream flows near my house (read flooding). and the impact on the Mohawk Valley. Clearly, the government is taking its cues from the forest products industry and not worrying about the long term effect locally and globally on the environment. 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.

Jean Ella
91237 Donna Road
Springfield, OR 97478-9785

541-726-3814
EM-7417 "JEFF JANET PROPP 1663807" <jlpropp@msn.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 18:16:28  
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,

YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS
Robert Secrest.Jr
700 Parry St
Falls City. OR 97344
EM-7418 Jonathan Levy <cleotl@aol.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 18:17:38 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.

Jonathan Levy
29437 Gimpl Hill Rd
Eugene, OR 97402
EM-7419 carol Link <carolannlink@hotmail.com> Protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 18:18:03 Dear BLM,
I am very distressed the BLM's proposal for managing 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. And, they will not create long term employment in the affected areas.

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.

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. These include 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.

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, not destroy these natural treasures.

carol B Link
POB 698
Yachats, OR 97498

541-547-3392
EM-7420 William Penny <billpennymotors@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 18:18:03 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.

William Penny
5624 NE 24th Ave.
Portland, OR 97211
EM-7421 Stephen Upchurch <soupchurch@gmail.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 18:18:52 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,


Stephen Arlo Upchurch

3027 NE Ainsworth Street

Portland, Oregon 97211


~ Stephen Upchurch
soupchurch@gmail.com



EM-7422 "Jeff Propp" <jlpcrane@msn.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 18:19:35  
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,

YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS
Jeff L Propp
PO Box 340
Falls City, OR 97344
EM-7423 flamezendancer@aol.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 18:20:12 Western Oregon Plan Revisions Bureau of Land Management


To whom it may concern:

We are the caretakers of earth. Do Not allow Bush and cohorts to
slash up my sacred trees or land. Big business does not care
about the destruction they create. 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,
beverly poehlman
223 sycamore st.
orange, CA 92856

EM-7424 Stephen Upchurch <soupchurch@gmail.com> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 18:20:41 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,


Stephen Arlo Upchurch

3027 NE Ainsworth Street 

Portland, Oregon 97211


~ Stephen Upchurch
soupchurch@gmail.com



EM-7425 Melda DeSalvo <meldadesalvo@hotmail.com> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife - WOPR comments 1/11/2008 18:21:10 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 have lived in Oregon for 32 years and have resided in the Eugene-Springfield area as well as the Grants Pass area. I am a member of the Oregon State Bar Association. I frequently hike and camp in our federal forests and place a high value on the environmental and recreational benefits of these lands. My spouse enjoys catch-and-release fishing in creeks, streams and rivers.

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.

Please provide scientific evidence why the environmental protections of the NW Forest Plan were discarded. Please also address the WOPR's effect on forest fires, global warming and the survival of old growth ecosystems. In addition, the cumulative effects of WOPR policies on upper Willamette spring Chinook salmon must be considered.

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,

Melda DeSalvo
895 W 28th Ave
Eugene, OR 97405



_________________________________________________________________
Watch "Cause Effect," a show about real people making a real difference.http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?source=text_watchcause
EM-7426 Paul Harman <harmanpaul@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 18:21:24 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.

Paul Harman
2133 West 16th Way
Eugene, OR 97402
EM-7427 David Waltz <WALTZ.DAVID@DEQ.STATE.OR.US> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 18:23:54 Dear BLM,
I am opposed to the direction the BLM proposes to take 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 increased 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 greatly increase logging of these forests and threatens some of Oregon's best remaining ancient forests. I understand that 2000 square miles of forest would be put in "Timber Management Areas," where clearcutting is emphasized.

By logging near/in riparian areas closer to streams, the WOPR reduces important protections for water quality and anadromous fish. High quality drinking water originates on BLM lands for the citizens of Salem, Corvallis, Eugene, and 70 other Oregon communities. Salmon, steelhead and trout 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 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 Waltz
5190 Center Way
Eugene, OR 97401

541-687-7345
EM-7428 mail4mala@gmail.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 18:24:12 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,
Annette Abrams
1607 Furlong Rd
Sebastopol, CA 95472

EM-7429 Charles Dorsey <burylcharles@hotmail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 18:26:24 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.

Charles Dorsey
9837 N Leonard St
Portland, OR 97203
EM-7430 Carolezoom <carolezoom@mac.com> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 18:28:01 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 writing this email in opposition of the "Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR)" August 10, 2007 proposal to allow increased logging of oldgrowth trees over the next decade. These resources are precious and this management plan of nearly 2.6 million acres of federal forests under the Western Oregon Plan Revisions does not recognize or preserve these assets for future generations. 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 am not some hippy tree hugger. I am a business woman and even I can tell that this 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. At a time when we all need to be mindful of how our actions affect the globe and climate change, this 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,


Carole Zoom

1500 SW Park Ave #104

Portland, OR 97201
EM-7431 "Jessica Kelso" <jessica.kelso@gmail.com> WOPR 1/11/2008 18:29:31 I am writing to state that I strongly oppose the current Western Oregon Plan Revision plan revision for clear cutting of old growth public lands and suggest instead thinning already logged areas.

Jessica Kelso
EM-7432 Carolezoom <carolezoom@mac.com> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 18:30:31 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 writing this email in opposition of the "Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR)" August 10, 2007 proposal to allow increased logging of oldgrowth trees over the next decade. These resources are precious and this management plan of nearly 2.6 million acres of federal forests under the Western Oregon Plan Revisions does not recognize or preserve these assets for future generations. 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 am not some hippy tree hugger. I am a business woman and even I can tell that this 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. At a time when we all need to be mindful of how our actions affect the globe and climate change, this 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.


Steward the land,


Carole Zoom
1500 SW Park Ave #104
Portland, OR 97201
EM-7433 Orval Layton <Orval@centurytel.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 18:32:15 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.

Orval Layton
P.O. Box 748
570 Mt View
Lakeview, OR 97630-0029
EM-7434 Jen Anonia <jen_anonia@yahoo.com> no to WOPR proposal, conserve BLM forests 1/11/2008 18:34:45 I am writing to express my opposition to the Bureau of Lane Management's preferred alternative for the Western Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR), which will increase logging in Oregon's old-growth forests sevenfold  Oregon's protected old growth forests should not be clearcut!

I urge the BLM to protect all remaining mature and old growth forests on BLM lands, and to uphold protection on sensitive salmon bearing rivers and creeks.
Reducing the current protections and clearcutting any old growth forests on the 2.6 million acres of public land administered by the BLM will have severe consequences --  loss of endangered animal habitat, increased erosion and mud slides, reduction in the carbon sink capabilities of old growth forests and therefore an increase in global warming to name a few.

The plan is misguided and short-sighted.  It does not follow the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM lands,  It represents short -term thinking and quick profit for a minority at a huge long term expense for all.
Our public lands deserve careful management and long range planning.  I oppose any loss of current protections on BLM lands..
Sincerely,
Jen Anonia
1228 Jackson St.
Eugene, OR 97402



Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
EM-7435 dj@derekjonesdesign.com WOPR 1/11/2008 18:36:08 Dear BLM,

I am vehemently opposed to the direction the Bush Administration is
headed in with the MIS-management of nearly 2.6 million acres of federal
forests under the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The changes that the
BLM is contemplating will unravel the protections of the landmark
Northwest Forest Plan, and will 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, as
well as so many other aspects of symbiosis that exist between the
various life forms on the planet! We are far off balance already....is
that not apparent?

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.

Oregon is a national treasure, not a resource for the treasury.
Conserve, Protect, and Preserve!

Sincerely,

Derek Jones
Ashland, OR

EM-7436 Gisela Ray <GiselaRay_7@MSN.COM> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 18:38:05 Dear BLM,

Once old growth is gone it will take a VERY long time till there is some again.
The fish have made a little bit of progress and you want to reduce the buffers on streams so there will be more warming of water and more pollution!!?
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.

Two thousand square miles of forest would be put in "Timber Management Areas," where clearcutting is emphasized.

Please leave the existing protections for riparian areas in place.

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.
Please don't think short -term economic fix. We should protect our remaining mature and old-growth forests on public land, not clearcut these natural treasures.

Gisela Ray
85 SE 16th Ct
Gresham, OR 97080

503-465-1598
EM-7437 Greg Vaughn <Greg@GregVaughn.com> WOPR alternatives 1/11/2008 18:38:30 Dear BLM,
Primary among my concerns about WOPR is the proposed dramatic increase in clear cutting of old growth forests. I believe this is unnecessary, undesirable and unwise.

I am not opposed to all logging, but things like proposing to decrease stream buffers could cause irreparable damage to water resources and associated wildlife.

Please remember that your responsibilities are to provide for all of us and well into the future, not the timber industry in the short term.

Thank you.



Greg Vaughn
3850 Kincaid St
Eugene, OR 97405

541-484-7213
EM-7438 bdipert@pacbell.net Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 18:39:12 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 Dipert
5000 V Street
Sacramento, CA 95817

EM-7439 Rosemarie Penhallow <rosy@baymoon.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 18:39:20 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.

Rosemarie Penhallow
202 Amador
Watsonville, CA 95076
EM-7440 Craig Rasmussen <wolfh@earthlink.net> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 18:45:04 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,
Christina Strelova
735 Caves Camp Rd.
Williams, Oregon 97544

YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS
EM-7441 Clair Highfield <highfielc@yahoo.com> WYDEN- WOPR 1/11/2008 18:47:47 Dear Wyden,
 
PLease consider the sustainability of our national and state forests. I hope that you will make all of your advocacy and decisions to the best of your ability with a multigenerational persepective .
 
Currently, only 10% of Oregons old growth forests remian , they not only are beautiful, but they are also habitat to many species that are irreplacable. Oregon would not be Oregon with out our tresured wildlife and forest. Forest are are crucial component to river ecosystems also. I know that you probably know more about their important role in our area than I do, so please use your knowledge, intuition, and caution when negotiated around BLM policy.
 
 I believe our Forest will remain more valuable intact than logged.
 
Sincerly, Mary- Clair Highfield
938 SW Mary Ave Grants Pass Or 97526



Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
EM-7442 tzintzuntzan@rattlebrain.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 18:51:12 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,
stephanie villasenor
po box 1695
aptos, CA 95001

EM-7443 "Artem Danielov" <adanielov@gmail.com> Stop WOPR - Protect BLM forests 1/11/2008 18:52:41 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.
 
I have moved to Oregon 1.5 years ago and have fallen in love with its natural beauty. Oregon is among very few places in the world where hi-tech industry resides next to the ancient forests and wilderness areas. At the same time even today seeing numerous logging areas is very depressing - you realize that soon all forests may turn into tree farms - same species, same size, or just large patches of death.
 
Oregon and the U.S. have enough resources to prosper without destroying our own habitat.
Please help to protect my new home - green and wild Oregon.
 
Sincerely,
Art Danielov
 
320 NE Autumn Rose Way, #D
Hillsboro, OR 97124
EM-7444 Richard Fetrow <rlfetrow@yahoo.com> WOPR 1/11/2008 18:53:14 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.

Our environment does not need to be subjected to the negative consequences of clearcutting and logging of our precious old growth forests.  Economically, the logging industry is currently doing well harvesting the forest lands currently available.

Sincerely,
Richard Fetrow
1000 SW Seabrook Ln
Waldport, OR 97394


Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
EM-7445 Mike Hatfield <miguelhatfield@hotmail.com> no WOPR , Lets save the last of BLM Old growth forests 1/11/2008 18:55:51 I would like to express my opposition to the Bureau of Lane Management's preferred alternative for the Western Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR), which will increase logging in Oregon's old-growth forests sevenfold.  The last remaining stands of Oregon's protected old growth forests should not be clearcut!

I urge the BLM to protect all remaining mature and old growth forests on BLM lands, and to uphold protection on sensitive salmon bearing rivers and creeks.
I believe that reducing the protections and clearcutting any old growth forests on the public land administered by the BLM will have severe consequences --  loss of endangered animal habitat, increased erosion and mud slides, reduction in the carbon sink capabilities of old growth forests.  This is a State and National treasure that should be preserved for our children as well as ourselves.

I understand the desire for an economic fix, but I believe the cost of this is too high. 
It does not follow the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM lands,  It represents short -term thinking and quick profit for a minority at a huge long term expense for all.
Our public lands deserve careful management and long range planning.  I oppose any loss of current protections on BLM lands..
Sincerely,

Mike Hatfield

Mike Hatfield
Appropriate Technology Consultant
Aprovecho Research Center
Cottage Grove, OR 97424
Statistically, the probability of any one of us being here is so small that you'd think the mere fact of existing would keep us all in a contented dazzlement of surprise

-Lewis Thomas

 


Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live. Start sharing!
EM-7446 msbajatuc@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 19:01:12 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,
Marge Tucker
2727 De Anza Rd. C-28
San Diego, CA 92109

EM-7447 Nancy Padberg <zigzagmolly@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 19:01:53 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.

In this era of environmental uncertainty, you must protect the natural resources we have left. These are our forests and we want them to stay as they are, WILD.

Nancy Padberg
23920 E. Bailey Rd.
Zigzag, OR 97049
EM-7448 John Clague <jdclague@comcast.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 19:02:18 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.

John Clague
4178 Blanton Road
Eugene, OR 97405
EM-7449 "Toni Starr" <toni.starr@gmail.com> Opposition to the Western Oregon Plan Revisions 1/11/2008 19:06:35 In Opposition to the Western OregonPlan Revisions

 

 

Bureau of Land Management,

Western OregonPlan Revisions Office
333 SW 1st. Avenue, Portland, OR97208 

 

Dear BLM WOPR Staff:

 

The Western Oregon Plan Revisions fails to meet compliance with the following standards. These criteria are followed by public comments on some of the carrying capacity, ethics, and sustainability issues involved in the potential implementation of the WOPR.

 

PROCESS:

The BLM is violating the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by not implementing NEPA, Section 102(2)(A) B Interdisciplinary Process, which says all agencies of the Federal Government shall utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision making which may have an impact on the human environment. If BLM is to revise multiple resource management plans (RMPs) and areas in southern Oregon with one single overlay plan, the Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR), and one environmental impact statement (EIS), they must utilize a regionally experienced interdisciplinary team that is capable of interpreting and integrating the needs of locally forested zones. Even though many of the processes and standards to develop a single plan may be the same, the people, the issues, and the lands of southern Oregonare all unique. Allocating different prescriptions to hundreds of thousands of acres throughout southern Oregonshould be accomplished by the local managers and interdisciplinary team knowledgeable of on the ground resources and issues; and NEPA, by law, must be shown compliance with the standards of its authority over actions by the BLM. If requirements of NEPA, Section 102(2)(A) B is not met, the WOPR will not meet a showing of compliance with the applicable criteria. WOPR will be illegal.

 

COMPLIANCE AND PRECEDENT:

Further, the BLM cannot accept the Natural Selection Alternative (NSA) as showing compliance with their Purpose and Need criteria for a portion of the O&C lands (on the South Deer Landscape Management Project), and then turn around and flip-flop by rejecting that very same criteria for the WOPR. The NSA is based on exactly how nature operates in order to remain sustainable, has been proven, was accepted by BLM, and is a superior method of meeting the carrying capacity protections that ebb and flow within a natural forest to accomplish the continuous resource requirements of sustainability mandated by the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) and NEPA.  In fact, the NSA even increases the political and ecological stability rendered and written into the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). The BLM cannot accept and then reject their own prior decisions (approval of NSA) at whim and without process, which they did regarding the NSA in the WOPR.

 

FIRE HAZARD AND REGROWTH:

It has been well proven that areas of clear-cuts produce an extreme fire danger, not a lesser one. Clear-cuts have a predominant tendency to not grow back into a forest, or sometimes not even grow back one single tree, but clear-cuts/canopy removal certainly does allow plenty of the conditions required for fire hazard-type growth, putting people and forests at extreme risk of intense fire.

 

OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES:

As for OHVs, a personal and/or family experience of nature when on foot and surrounded by its biological beauty has an added component of wonder and imagination when our senses are "close up." We can also discuss then and there the experience and observation of the very workings of this "nature's bank," our very own environmental infrastructure. But with the separation brought about by helmets, ear plugs, no use of their legs, feet, hands, no sense of smell and touch, and the focus required to operate gears, levers, lights, brakes, steering, balance, etc., we miss out on these natural surroundings, otherwise made even more personal by their proximity. The classroom effect of how nature operates to retain water, clean up our air, provide oxygen and bank our carbon is lost to us by driving through these fragile systems on motor vehicles.

 

Additionally, OHV use tends to escalate into some combinations of hopping off trail; trespassing; removing mufflers; challenging steep slopes; interfering with pedestrians; burning rubber for mud throwing, doing 360' circles and other erosion-causing antics; driving illegally on auto-designated roads/highways; intimidating other vehicles, riders, people, horses, law enforcement, campers, etc; to name just a few problems, all of which will only become worse by opening the flood gates of further legalizing and designating ATV use areas in the WOPR. Legitimizing this misuse fails to meet Oregon Statewide Goals 3,4, 5, 6, and requirements of NEPA.

 

SUMMARY:

The BLM/WOPR/BUSH clear-cutting plan is the most expensive, destructive, unsustainable way to proceed within our public lands. Not only should the WOPR be discarded, but BLM needs to be removed from all these processes. Tying road maintenance and children's education to clear-cuts, and the consistent mismanagement of these lands by the BLM can be remedied by transferring these lands to the National Forest System. With O&C funding going away, these complete forests are at risk of being logged for timber, and the 75% levels encouraged by some as a "remedy" would be the utter and chaotic end of these forests for everybody. The children that we love, and their children, and their children would never forgive us for that kind of destruction to the physical, political, and social well being of our still beautiful State of Oregon.

 

The WOPR is unacceptable. The WOPR fails to show compliance with the applicable criteria and is in error. It, and it's failed DEIS must be set aside, and scoping should be started anew.  Better yet, the NWFP should be left intact for the checks and balances and timber harvesting goals it already provides in protecting our communities.

 

Toni B. Helmer Starr

Concerned Citizen

120 N Junction Avenue

Cave Junction OR 97523

541-592-5095






EM-7450 Karen Wickham <roselund@mindspring.com> Save our old growth forests 1/11/2008 19:07:17 Dear BLM:


DO NOT CUT OUR 'PROTECTED' OLD GROWTH FORESTS.


Please maintain the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest  Plan and not increase logging in Oregon's old-growth forests, clearcutting in currently protected old growth forest reserves.  I urge you to develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.   You have a choice.  I urge you to do the right thing!!!



Sincerely,


Karen Wickham
25363 E. Bolton Rd.
Veneta, Oregon 97487






EM-7451 "Pat O'Herron" <oherronp@ohsu.edu> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 19:10:39 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.

Pat O'Herron
6356 N Wilbur
Portland, OR 97217

503 367 5859
EM-7452 micheal sunanda <michealspun@yahoo.com> Save the Old Growth habitats for now & 7 generations. 1/11/2008 19:12:36 Bureau of Land Management, Western Oregon Plan
Revisions Office

orwopr@or.blm.gov lesley@kswild.org
333 SW 1st. Avenue Portland, Oregon Portland, OR
97208

CC: Oregon Congressional delegation
Re: BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions

Dear BLM, Save the Old Growth habitats for now & 7
generations.

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, micheal sunanda Gaia Cycles
Oness press

micheal sunanda
888 Almaden
Eugene, OR
97402

EM-7453 sara klobas <bugeaterz@yahoo.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 19:19:00 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.

sara d klobas
1031 n.e. 76th ave.
portland, OR 97213

503-252-8524
EM-7454 Shawn Carroll <srcarroll@mail.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 19:21:05 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.

Shawn Carroll
5529 N. Vancouver Ave.
Portland, OR 97217
EM-7455 Theodore Palmer <palmer@math.uoregon.edu> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 19:21:55 Dear BLM,
I love Oregon for many reasons and the abundant natural forests with dramatic old growth are one of the biggest. I have read about the BLM's Western Oregon Plan Revisions and I am very concerned this plan will destroy our last vestiges of old growth ecology. It would be like "killing the goose who laid the golden eggs". Once old growth is gone, it will never happen again. 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 opposed to the proposed plan for several reasons:

- 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 will likely reduce property values and the quality of life. 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's remaining old-growth forests are a treasure -- offering wonderful recreation opportunities, clean water, homes for wildlife, and offsetting global warming, amd 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.

Theodore Palmer
259 W 23rd Ave
Eugene, OR 97405-2855
EM-7456 Theodore Palmer <palmer@math.uoregon.edu> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 19:23:35 Dear BLM,
I love Oregon for many reasons and the abundant natural forests with dramatic old growth are one of the biggest. I have read about the BLM's Western Oregon Plan Revisions and I am very concerned this plan will destroy our last vestiges of old growth ecology. It would be like "killing the goose who laid the golden eggs". Once old growth is gone, it will never happen again. 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 opposed to the proposed plan for several reasons:

- 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 will likely reduce property values and the quality of life. 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's remaining old-growth forests are a treasure -- offering wonderful recreation opportunities, clean water, homes for wildlife, and offsetting global warming, amd 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.

Theodore Palmer
259 W 23rd Ave
Eugene, OR 97405-2855
EM-7457 mashafurman@yahoo.com Opposition to the WOPR: Protect Our Ancient Forests 1/11/2008 19:25:21 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,
Maria Furman
3816 Evangelho Circle
San Jose, CA 95148

EM-7458 morton smith <mort@ashlandcreek.net> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 19:29:01 Dear BLM,
A plan to thin dense overgrowth makes sense. This plan includes clear-cutting and cutting old growth. That's foolish, in the long term.
We need a plan that protects our forests for the future & keeps them healthy & functional, now.


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.

morton smith
129 5th st
ashland, OR 97520
EM-7459 Craig Rasmussen <wolfh@earthlink.net> Protect Public Forests, Rivers and Wildlife 1/11/2008 19:35:54 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,

Craig Rasmussen
735 Caves Camp Rd.
Williams, OR 97544
EM-7460 Ellynne Kutschera <ekutsche@pdx.edu> What's most important? That which cannot be replaced... 1/11/2008 19:38:12 Dear BLM,
Please do not allow increased clear-cutting in Oregon!!!
Yes, there are people who have relied on logging to support their communities. Yes, the previous plan in place was to allow for sustainable logging that has yet to be met.
And yet these are still not good enough reasons to destroy more of those things, those places, we can't get back. People can change, communities can look elsewhere for income. Though this may be difficult, if as much effort was put into fixing this problem as is put into the push by industries to log, log, log, there probably wouldn't be any community in Oregon in need.
Furthermore, clear cutting is not sustainable forestry management. No, it isn't. The damage done to the land, the use of herbicides and other chemicals to help regrow trees, the exposure to potential further damage by severe weather, are cummulative effects that permanently change the land, not create a cycle of health and sustainability.
The BLM is not going to please everyone - so please stop trying. Do what's right for the forests - that's what's right for Oregon.
Thank you.


Ellynne Kutschera
751 NE Wendy Lane
Gresham, OR 97030
EM-7461 John Scharbach <johnscharbach@willapabay.org> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 19:38:37 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.

John Scharbach
816 Oneida Rd.
Naselle, WA 98638
EM-7462 Glen Lindeman <gdalindy@msn.com> Save our old-growth forests!!! 1/11/2008 19:39:02 Dear BLM,
I am an Oregon resident, having moved here from the midwest 30 years ago. I came here in large part because I was enchanted with the wildlife and the country it lives in. It seemed that there was so much wild land that it would last forever.

The plan to open much of the old-growth forest area to logging is very disturbing to me. There is only one reason to do this, somebody will be making money. A lot of money. I suspect that it will not be me, even as an Oregon citizen who would receive the benefit of any funds received by the state in timber money.

My primary concern is that the old-growth forest is irreplaceable. Once it's cut down, it will be gone forever, along with much of the wildlife that depends on it. Then the timber companies will have to find somewhere else to make their money. And you can be sure they will, even after the last old-growth tree is cut down. From my point of view, they should start finding other sources right now. Just because they can make more money cutting old-growth forests doesn't make it the right thing to do.

So I urge you, as an Oregon citizen, to stop any more old-growth timber cutting. Don't be the ones who we blame when our grandchildren ask us someday about those wonderful pictures of forests and wildlife, and wonder why they are all gone...

Glen Lindeman
6420 Aumsville Hwy SE
Salem, OR 97317
EM-7463 "melina parrish" <melinap@wildmail.com> WOPR comment 1/11/2008 19:39:28 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,

Melina and Quinn Barker
101 Alida St
Ashland OR
97520


Care2 make the world greener!


http://toolbar.Care2.com Make your computer carbon-neutral (free).

http://www.Care2.com Green Living, Human Rights and more - 7 million members!
EM-7464 michael t williams <mtwilliams@nu-world.com> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 19:40:43 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.

michael t t williams
teacher-coach-artist-entertainer
pob 11392
eugene, OR 97440

541-513-7778
EM-7465 kim kittredge <kittredk@peak.org> Please protect our old-growth forests! 1/11/2008 19:44:28 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.

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