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 & 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 & 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 |