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 |