Web-comments-2101-2175

# SenderID Ref.# Comment Tool Date Comment
WC-2101 WID-2324 ae133c2f-1324-4b3d-a0f4-3b628333f2ce File Upload 1/11/2008 9:59:00 PM I was born and raised in Oregon. My family were pioneers here. I have camped and hiked here all my life, on trips back when I lived elsewhere. I don't generally think politics are worth the bother, but this issue is too important to not speak up about. Thanks for taking my comment.

Uploaded File:  WOPR comment.doc
WC-2102 WID-2323 W-e248ef65-62c9-4fd4-b06c-ccc16672562f Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:00:00 PM I think we need to choose the Alternative that preserves the most old growth and the largest riparian areas. I have been living and hiking in Western Oregon for over 30 years. We have very little old growth left and it needs to be preserved for the benefit of all Oregonians. It provides tourism, animal habitats, clean air and water. We need to look at the long term gains for all Oregonians, not a short term gain for a few people.
WC-2103 WID-2327 82bc850e-5e39-44a3-8351-ceaccf7ae319 File Upload 1/11/2008 10:02:00 PM

Uploaded File:  wopr comments.doc
WC-2104 WID-2329 5b05b37f-6d82-4545-bbfb-1f04f216ee77 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:05:00 PM I am against the BLM plan WOPR.
WC-2105 WID-2041 W-e242b8ad-600c-47dc-921d-0ba4a3e29c2b Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:08:00 PM Dear BLM, I want to share my opinion on the WOPR Plan.I strongly disagree with the plan. First, it is one thing to cut down a few trees to get wood, but there is completely no excuse to clearcut massive areas of old growth forest, especially on steep hillsides that leads to landslides and clouds streams, making it so that endangered salmon cannot breed .It could not even be worth it to replant the trees because of the common practice of spraying toxic chemicals on the deforested site.This will cause a massive loss of biodiversity. This doesn't only effect the area that is being logged. The pesticides will spread into the air and likely pollute the groudwater.It will also destroy the natural decomposers that break down the fallen logs into dirt. The plan will also destroy habitat for Spotted Owls and Marbled Murrelets. Both of these species rely on old growth forest to survive. We too rely on forests to survive. If we cut down to many trees we will not have enough oxygen to survive. Clearcutting does nothing to preserve the long term health of our planet. We have a pretty amazing ecosystem here in Oregon and I think it is very important that we protect it and not have it open to logging. Clearcutting is a short term and extremely environmentally unfriendly way to make money and make resources rare in the future. If we destroy old growth forests, it will be almost imposible to get them back as they were. I oppose the WOPR. I think that the WOPR is one of the worst proposals yet. sincerely, River Birzer Bulgatz age 9 Michele Bulgatz
WC-2106 WID-2320 W-512cef80-95f9-42af-9615-88f487cd21fe Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:10:00 PM The only acceptable alternative on the WORP is the No-action alternative. All of the other alternatives essentially ignore the important scientific considerations of the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan which provide for preservation of healthy watersheds, endangered species and standing old growth to the economic benefit of all in the Northwest. The significant harvest of old growth is unlikely to succeed in supporting Oregon counties because of the decrease in lumber prices and the difficulties in processing old growth in todays modern mills. To the extent it does succeed, there is a permanent loss of streamside buffer, anadromous fish and endangered species habitat, clean water, carbon sink and recreational opportunity which provide more significant benefits essentially in perpetuity. These facts have been recognized by no less than two former chiefs of the US Forest Service. The BLM WOPR is a bankrupt strategy which will truly benefit only timber industry interests at great public cost. Thank you.
WC-2107 WID-2330 819e5ae9-195a-466e-9842-4076f52050ef File Upload 1/11/2008 10:10:00 PM

Uploaded File:  BLM comment.pdf
WC-2108 WID-2041 W-9162dfc5-8164-4b03-ae66-f677dcc62f20 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:11:00 PM BLM, I am opposed to the WOPR. Please find a better solution. Randy Birzer Eugene Oregon
WC-2109 WID-2199 W-d592a9f1-2609-47ac-bb4a-61e3169cff1e Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:11:00 PM I prefer the No Action Alternative.
WC-2110 WID-2199 None Web Forum Exit 1/11/2008 10:12:00 PM it helps
WC-2111 WID-2328 W-b2300760-de8d-4f3d-8fd0-bb7ad233dd75 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:13:00 PM I urge you not to make the same mistake so many nations have made by destroying all their original forests. We are NOT a developing nation; we are already developed, so there's no need to fall for this panic rush to "harvest" all our resources. Though I'm intimately involved in the wood products industry as the operator of a small paper recycling company, I've never bought this notion that our national forests are only another kind of crop to be cycled in and out of existence. The mark of a true nationalist and lover of his country is the person who can look at an expanse of old growth and feel prowd--without rubbing his hands together and calculating profit.
WC-2112 WID-2028 4390d8a3-5225-40d2-baca-af9e459f0926 File Upload 1/11/2008 10:17:00 PM

Uploaded File:  After maneuvering the jargon in the DEI statement of the BLM WOPR.doc
WC-2113 WID-2326 W-00ee5ddb-94bc-4175-906f-c3edd4aa2e4c Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:22:00 PM Of all alternatives offered, my husband and I support the "no action' alternative, even though it in itself is not sufficient to protect our forests and watersheds. The BLM already falls far short of meeting the requirements of the Clean Water Act. Any program that increases the loss of stream side buffers threatens our watersheds and our struggling salmon populations by raising water temperatures, and leaving streams open to washouts. We are completely opposed to that, as well as any program that logs our remaining tiny percentage of old growth forest, especially in the Mary's Peak area and other areas listed. Big game counts on mature forests for cover, security and winter forage. And Old Growth forests are nature's "banks" for all those species which make a healthy forest. When they're gone, what 's left are sterile tree farms, whose rotations are limited. The BLM should forget about building new roads. The forest is crisscrossed with unbelievable numbers of roads that cananot be properly maintained. The BLM should just continue its thinning operations and create programs which do not promote clearcutting. Work to maintain the real health of forests and stop making the bottom line of timber companies the priority.
WC-2114 WID-2335 ac9fa5fd-1f0a-40e4-92da-8788f97b0f3f File Upload 1/11/2008 10:26:00 PM

Uploaded File:  No action alternative is best.doc
WC-2115 WID-2337 W-3d494f33-40a5-4f34-b258-bc307eb51272 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:27:00 PM I'm writing because I care about the the Oregon's economy, people and our forests. Please provide scientific evidence as to why the environmental protections of the NorthWest Forest plan were discarded. I would like for the BLM to protect and restore our aquatic ecosystems, including our native fish and amphibians. This proposal is bad for clean water and it's bad for our fish and wildlife. Please keep the aquatic protections of the Northwest Forest Plan on BLM lands kept in place. Thank you, Sarah Mazze
WC-2116 WID-2332 W-4adc51d8-cd4e-4f48-8d2f-c5923931c02d Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:30:00 PM i am deeply opposed to the WOPR plan being submitted by BLM. cutting old growth forest has been proven to be bad for everyone and everything except the few logging company owners. in the long run, old growth forest benefit the environment, the communities and the states involved as well as the economies of those communities and states. please do NOT implement this WOPR! study after study has shown that old growth forests are a deeply positive way to use PUBLIC land which are for EVERYONE, not the few logging companies. thank you. arthur hering eugene, oregon
WC-2117 WID-2339 W-c37dd942-371a-4c46-91de-03a205a2dc0d Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:32:00 PM The NWFP has proven over ten years to be an effective strategy to continue allowing some timber cutting, while still conserving rivers, fish, and wildlife. I'm very concerned that now, the BLM is proposing to eliminate much of the protection provided by the NWFP on BLM lands in western Oregon. The forests are what make Oregon the special place that it is - and research by EcoNorthwest shows that there is greater economic value in leaving the older trees standing than using them as timber. Please avoid the drastic reductions in environmental protections being proposed. Thank you, Steven Korin
WC-2118 WID-2332 W-f625fb83-cb12-4a09-bc8d-2f0aa7ce294f Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:35:00 PM I am opposed to the WOPR plan for cutting old growth forests on PUBLIC blm land. Evidence based studies show over and over that these forests and their ecosystems are vital to the health of our environment, communities, wildlife habitats and the economy! Please don't cut!!!
WC-2119 WID-2342 2f95917a-d1d7-426f-85cf-0bd8b7e87726 File Upload 1/11/2008 10:43:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Comments on WOPR.doc
WC-2120 WID-2334 W-7ac931c8-0192-4ec2-bc00-bbc40375e641 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:46:00 PM As a Forest farmer, I think it`s really bad land management to Increase logging while the price of logs is depressed, and construction is off. My forest-and most of my neighbors property-- needs thinning badly! This would help the forest health, AND lessen the severe fire danger. but we can`t afford to have it done- even with the small stipend from forestry dept. Save the old growth forests!!! Ken Goodwin
WC-2121 WID-2345 35b90036-d24f-4c93-a0ab-e9d2427cb4f0 File Upload 1/11/2008 10:49:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Forest Plan.doc
WC-2122 WID-1393 W-071554a1-e8b1-4821-a9ea-68115194cccd Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:52:00 PM Firstly I would like to explain my own background as a context for my comments. I am a Oregon resident of 20 years, a 3 season employee of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife where I worked I on salmon restoration efforts. I am also an avid salmon and steelhead angler. I am concerned with the following areas of all three alternatives under the WORP proposals. Firstly, the reduction of stream buffer zones, as outlined in all three alternatives, is an unacceptable managment decision that would pave the way for the timber harvest with sensitive riparian areas. Reducing stream buffer zones is likley to further degrade in-stream salmon habitat, pushing already depressed species like coho, chinook, and steelhead towards extinction. Secondly, in my investigations of the DEIS, I was extremley unhappy at the level of timber harvest at the 200 year plus age class. Consider these statistics taken from the DEIS Timber Harvest Levels: "* Under the No Action Alternative, the allowable sale quantity harvest volume from forests older than 200 years during the first decade would be 19 mmbf per year, which would be 7% of the allowable sale quantity harvest volume." "* Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, the allowable sale quantity from forests older than 200 years during the first decade would be 98 mmbf per year (21 %), 175 mmbf per year (24%), and 99 mmbf per year (21%), respectively." The harvest of this large number of 200 yr.+ "old growth" timber is unacceptable , both environmentally in terms of the destruction of endangered species habitat, economically in terms of the long term economic revenues lost due to further declines in salmon populations, and also historically as a loss of Oregon's legacy. Thinning of these forests is also unaccceptable. From my own personal observations and my familiarity with thinning and salvage logging operations,it is clear that such operations are oftern very destructive. What is acceptable is the continuation of silvacultural timber production, of lands that have already been "regenerativly harvested". I am a believer in a preserve type system, where those few areas in a forest that are comprised of 200 + year old trees, are left alone, and those areas which are already second growth stands are continually cut and replanted. thanks you
WC-2123 WID-2336 ffded0ec-8c61-4047-9db6-f4e01db2127c File Upload 1/11/2008 10:55:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Otting WOPR.doc
WC-2124 WID-2341 W-cfe907e5-a21d-4dd5-8a30-11ee0cb85b17 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:57:00 PM I'm very concerned about increased logging in this region, especially in regards to old growth. A drive just about anywhere around Eugene reveals that there has already been an excess of logging here. One of the primary reasons I moved to Eugene was because of the natural beauty, and it seems a crime to destroy the small amount of wild resources that remain here. It is especially disappointing to learn that corruption is a contributing factor in this proposal (ie. Julie Macdonald). I hope to hear that this plan is discarded soon. JB Humphreys
WC-2125 WID-2331 W-af43f328-86b0-49a9-8ed3-0e5ca6f1f27e Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:04:00 PM I support the "no action" alternative. It is the only legal alternative provide in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA is the "organic act" for BLM. FLPMA established BLM as a multiple-use agency — meaning that management would be accomplished on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified by law — and provided that: ". . . the public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use . . ." Some of the BLM lands subject to proposals in the DEIS are also subject to the O&C Lands Act (O&CLA). O&LA requires that these land "shall be managed ... for permanent forest production" and "in conformity with the pincipal of sustained yield for the purpose of providing a permanent source of timber supply, protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow, and contributing to the economic stability of local communities, and providing recreation facilities. " 43 USC section 1181a. Seattle Audubon Society v. James Lyons, US District Court, Western District of Washington, No. C92-479WD, Dec. 21, 1994. FLPMA and O&CLA must be read in concert with each other and with the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act and other laws. The court in Seattle Audubon Society v. James Lyons quoted from the Northwest Forest Plan's Record of Decision (ROD) which essentially stated that the additional listing of species under the ESA would contribute to the economic instability of local communities. The court stated that if it's ruling were to be reversed on appeal, the ROD would have to be reconsidered because of the loss of important LSOG and riparian reserves. Only the no action alternative of the DEIS would not result in the loss of LSOG and riparian reserves. Moreover, the action alternatives in the DEIS do not comply with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan. Therefore at this time the no action alternative is the only legal alternative. In addition, the DEIS does not address the economic instability to local communities that would be created a significant or catastrophic fire. Recent research in the Biscuit Fire Area and the Klamath National Forest found there is an increased risk of high intensity fire after clearcut logging and resulting even aged plantations. These studies appear in peer reviewed scientific journals readily available to the BLM. Please send me a copy of the FEIS and ROD.
WC-2126 WID-2350 fa2ae05f-f687-4823-8a7c-47202a57c6d9 File Upload 1/11/2008 11:04:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Dear BLM.doc
WC-2127 WID-2351 fa2ae05f-f687-4823-8a7c-47202a57c6d9 File Upload 1/11/2008 11:04:00 PM

Uploaded File:  wopr.doc
WC-2128 WID-2348 d46570e7-86a6-43ae-8997-7b1be1cb7e02 File Upload 1/11/2008 11:04:00 PM IN OPPOSITION to the proposed Western Oregon Plan Revisions......

Uploaded File:  To whom it may concern at the BLM.doc
WC-2129 WID-2349 c64a3d7f-a96b-44fd-9517-5c6714b911b8 File Upload 1/11/2008 11:08:00 PM I oppose the WOPR, and hope that you create another plan that would better support healthy Oregonians and a healthy Oregon economy.

Uploaded File:  Another Oregonian against WOPR.odt
WC-2130 WID-1457 W-92048a6d-e4b0-4cc2-9fa0-060227f58629 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:11:00 PM heads up: the sky is falling: because there's a hole in it: holes in the sky?????????? the 2nd sign of man's destruction: and do you think that's not a sign ?that we need to change??? in a Positive direction?????? to exchange ; to SWOPR the WOPR; Stop Widespread Obliteration Permanent Repercussions: and begin; Saving (the ) World's Organic Priceless Resources: or have you already sold out?????sold your soul????? Sold Western Oregon's Public Resources?????? to the lowest common De$ire??????????at the greatest cost?????????????? can you repent before its too late???? is there time before the deadline? is there time to pay for the sins of our grandfathers before the 3rd sign???????????? before our grandchildren cross the DEAD LINE ??????????????????????????????????????
WC-2131 WID-2355 e90f22e4-806f-4082-a343-2219910b4287 File Upload 1/11/2008 11:12:00 PM We believe that the Revision will harm Oregon's ecosystems and is a ruse by corporations to usurp unnecessary timber.

Uploaded File:  Comments on 2008 BLM Western Oregon Plan Revision.doc
WC-2132 WID-2352 W-5054d32e-3a9b-4873-9186-2edf1e3c6851 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:19:00 PM This plan, if implimented, will shrink the buffer zones around riparian areas, affecting the health of our rivers and streams and animals that depend on it. We would see an increase in clearcutting rather that thinning which is a detriment to wildlife servivability. Thirdly, this plan promotes old growth logging at a time when we should leave the fire resistant large trees and harvest small diameter trees. You don't have to go far in this area to find the disasterous results of clearcutting, narrowed riparian buffers , and shrinking old growth forest. Reconsider the plans for this forested area that belongs to the public, to the present and future generations. Support the present Northwest Forest Plan. It works and it's based more on science than corporate influence.
WC-2133 WID-2106 297b59cf-9c9a-4cdf-90d0-5607d390eb6f File Upload 1/11/2008 11:21:00 PM

Uploaded File:  FUSEE_Comments_on_WOPR.doc
WC-2134 WID-2338 W-44a36c95-bf40-42e5-86d0-a2be46077de0 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:23:00 PM Managing a 5-acre private woodland for 20+ years has introduced me (on a very small scale) to the fine balance that's required to protect the forests that people live in. Even minor changes in a native landscape can have long-lasting damaging effects. After reviewing various components of the EIS, I advocate the "no action" alternative for the following reasons: 1. Regenerative harvesting, thinning, and nonharvest land base thinning will be done at a moderate level. 2. Minimal permanent roads and a moderate amount of temporary roads will be added. 3. The widest riparian area will be preserved. 4. Overall, there will be less risk of invasive species.
WC-2135 WID-2357 c2377912-df02-4e3f-82d0-0ab849ba8bc5 File Upload 1/11/2008 11:30:00 PM This comment letter was mailed today and included the enclosures listed at the end of the letter. Thank you, Mary Camp

Uploaded File:  DCV WOPR DEIS Comment 1-10-08.doc
WC-2136 WID-1428 W-53ed04c1-0720-4194-874b-4e061789b688 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:31:00 PM As a seasonal wildlife researcher, my interest in commenting on the WOPR is specifically related to the impact that it will have on the Northern Spotted Owl. I am currently in my second year of employment for Oregon State University working on the Spotted Owl/Barred Owl competition study in the Siuslaw Resource Area southwest of Veneta, OR. My comments are based on my personal observation of data collected from tracking spotted and barred owls 5 days a week for the past 10 months in this area as well as other spotted owl projects. This current and future data from David Weins and Eric Forsman is available to the BLM. I believe that only the "No Action" alternative will provide the amount of habitat suitable for spotted owls to not only expand both population size and range, but also offset the impact of competition from barred owls. Anything less than this will not meet the ESA requirement of the federal government for NSO recovery. In its most basic form, my argument is this: Spotted owls depend on old-growth forests, of which only a fraction currently remains. This alone is reason enough to protect these last remaining pieces of habitat. In addition, given that the BLM land exists in a checkerboard pattern with private timber companies across its ownership, the BLM should be providing habitat reserves in this already fragmented landscape. In the Siuslaw Resource Area, I have seen these habitat patches become so isolated from clear-cuts that spotted owls movements often involve traveling long distances in these open and dangerous areas on a regular basis. So far, we have seen barred owls not only widespread, but occupying former and non-suitable spotted owl habitat areas. We have also had many observations of barred owls directly and indirectly influencing spotted owl distribution and behavior by physically chasing spotted owls away, or occupying their territory. Barred owls by nature are a generalist species and are able to occupy and breed in areas unsuitable to spotted owls, as well as hunt a wider variety of prey items without having to travel large distances. Both of which are advantages over spotted owls, especially in a heterogeneous landscape. The opening of any old-growth areas to logging, regardless of spotted owl occupation, is an irresponsible act for two main reasons. First, if there is increased interspecific competition for territory and resources from other species, such as current research on barred owl interaction studies suggest, the most important thing to protect and increase is habitat. Second, by harvesting current or historic spotted owl habitat, populations may not be able to recover and expand in size or range. Therefore, any action that increases the amount of logging in old-growth would not contribute to the recovery of the spotted owl, especially alternatives 2 and 3. Patrick Kolar
WC-2137 WID-2358 W-f633b881-1447-4ffb-962e-6a0c3714eb7c Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:32:00 PM Based on what I've heard, this doesn't sound like wise public policy. Cutting old growth, allowing widespread clear-cutting, and shrinking stream buffers should be the way of the past. I hope you can reject this short-sighted thinking. If not, may our grandkids forgive us for allowing rich timber companies get richer while we gave away the things that made this area so great.
WC-2138 WID-2356 W-61eed3f9-a8fa-4ccf-80dd-477ab73c4d0c Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:32:00 PM Please reconsider plans. Our watershed and ancient forests are too precious to be destroyed by poorly considered plans. Old growth forests are irreplaceable. The fact that we have any remaining in the state is a miracle—one that should be protected. Any plan to reduce this last remaining resource for short term gains is ridiculous and economically ignorant. The value both economic and environmental is paramount. The value to the tourism industry alone far exceeds the short term money return of selling this timber, particularly when the price of timber is so low. Old growth timber is of a size and shape that is not easily milled and processed in today's saw mills. Why give away our children's heritage to the short term gain of private interests.
WC-2139 WID-2363 bebdfab9-713b-42b9-8162-7635b863eceb File Upload 1/11/2008 11:33:00 PM Old growth forests need to be seen as more than standing board feet of timber to be liquidated. They provide essential services in-and-of-themselves that dwarf the economics of the revenue the timber represents. Climate change and intact habitats are the issues of the present day, not an antiquated and myopic view of the forests as yet-to-be converted wood. A healthy forest is of more economic value to the nation and state than the lumber within it. I oppose the WOPR. Christopher E Byrne 2345 Ranch Road Ashland OR 97520

Uploaded File:  Byrne- Opposed to WOPR.pdf
WC-2140 WID-2354 W-fa97e3e3-d8aa-45cd-aeeb-e43dabe7ee88 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:34:00 PM I am strongly opposed to the BLM's Western Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR)and its proposed increase in clear cut logging in Oregon. I am appalled that, given all of the recent science regarding the damage to ecosystems resulting from clear cutting, that the BLM is proposing to increase clear cut logging. Numerous studies show that old-growth forests are more valuable to the community when left standing than when cut. Healthy, intact old-growth forests provide habitat for wildlife, clean water and air, and recreation opportunities for people that have far greater economic advantages in the long term than the short term cash provided by timber harvesting. The WOPR would also short-circuit the Northwest Forest Plan which was devised to maintain a balance of timber extraction with the long term health of the forests and their related communities. The WOPR would also violate The Clean Water Act and other environmental laws while carelessly ignoring the building evidence that increased logging contributes to global climate change. I strongly urge the BLM to drop any provisions in the WOPR that harvest timber on pristine lands and focus on thinning the overgrown tree plantations that already exist. A policy that focuses on the environmentally destructive extraction of one resource (timber) and neglects the wide variety of other benefits that uncut wildlands offer (non-wood products, habitat, recreation, clean air and water, increased property values of adjoining land) is foolish and wasteful. Sincerely, Brendan Lynch Lane County Resident
WC-2141 WID-2353 W-6d501db7-ca04-488f-9e9b-f578dfe365e0 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:37:00 PM The issue least important to me is obtaining timber. The issue most important to me is species viability.
WC-2142 WID-1701 W-c4dd8169-ce51-46fa-a7d3-04b409cfd80e Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:37:00 PM I am a 6th generation oregonian and am concerned with the drastic logging proposed with this plan. I understand the heritage of logging because both my grandfather and his father did so. However, they also lived off of the bounty that our forests provide, from wild game to berries. The trees are the vital habitat that support and sustain the life that depend on them. The amount of rain that we get in the pacific northwest is the reason why we have large conifers and in turn the trees store the water that we and many other species depend on. The forest make Oregon unique and Oregonians are defined by them. Many people are moving to Oregon because of the beauty and respite that our forests provide. That alone brings revenue to Oregon and our economy. Surely more revenue that will come from logging which is largely subsidized in the first place. The growing population will also consume more water, of which will not be so readily available if we increase logging by the proposed amount. We and so many other species depend on our unique forest ecosystems. They have adapted to the high rainfall and directly help to absorb and store the water. Cutting them increases runoff drastically, destroying vital habitat for fish and many other organisms. They are such a large part of the ecosystem that destroying them destroys the sensitive ecosystem as a whole. On a global scale, the forests are a carbon sink for the rising carbon in the atmosphere which increases the temperature of the earth. Anything that can counteract the carbon is something that needs to be protected. The old growth should stay pristine. There is no reason good enough to log it. I want my children and the next 6 generations and beyond to experience the Oregon I have been so fortunate to know, like my ancestors before me. Make Oregon a role model for other states. Keep Oregon green, and realize the value it has to offer by just leaving the forest be. Thank you, Haley Poole
WC-2143 WID-2343 W-f7f80222-382e-4e35-995c-b5cb58342315 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:38:00 PM I have lived in Grants Pass for 59 years and have hiked and ridden horses on public land for most of those years. When riding horses in areas frequented by OHVs I have constant fear of serious injury caused by a horse being hit or spooked. Quite often the noise is such that it's impossible to tell which direction they are coming from or there is simply nowhere to safely get out of the way. OHV use makes the roads and trails muddy, eroded and eventually unusable or unpleasant to use by other recreationists. Whether hiking or riding, no one goes out in the "woods" to listen to loud engine noise and see rutted, bare ground. It's getting hard to find areas where this isn't the norm. The large-scale logging called for in the WOPR, especially in old-growth forests, is illegal as well as incredibly short-sighted. With water at a premium and global warming a fact, it is morally reprehensible as well as short-sighted and illegal. Our public lands should be managed for abundant wildlife, clean water and air, and natural quiet for future generations, not for short-term profits and immediate pleasure for a few. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Karin Leson
WC-2144 WID-2357 869c0468-2206-48c2-9f84-6852bdcddc6a File Upload 1/11/2008 11:38:00 PM This comment letter is written by Orville Camp in behalf of himself and Deer Creek Valley Natural Resources Conservation Association (Deer Creek Association), as their forest advisor. It was also sumbitted by mail. Thank you, Mary Camp, President Deer Creek Association

Uploaded File:  WOPR-OC Response 80111.pdf
WC-2145 WID-2364 eb4376e4-1876-42d4-bb07-337aa046dc72 File Upload 1/11/2008 11:38:00 PM Attached please find Pacific Rivers Council's comments on the WOPR DEIS. Due to the size limitation for file uploads, we will be submitting multiple uploads. This upload consists of our cover and comments. We will submit our enclosures in a separate upload. Bronwen Wright Pacific Rivers

Uploaded File:  PRC comments sans enclosures.pdf
WC-2146 WID-2365 4d8670b1-8945-45ca-bc38-9e6c1e8dd24b File Upload 1/11/2008 11:41:00 PM Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I have spent weeks going over the DEIS to WOPR. Jimmy

Uploaded File:  wopr.txt
WC-2147 WID-2367 4d8670b1-8945-45ca-bc38-9e6c1e8dd24b File Upload 1/11/2008 11:41:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR comments.doc
WC-2148 WID-2322 4110f89c-333a-48f5-948c-a2d4d02ee69a File Upload 1/11/2008 11:43:00 PM

Uploaded File:  January 11 WOPR Comment.doc
WC-2149 WID-2359 W-7636cc9b-daa2-4462-b634-4bf37cf72207 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:44:00 PM Dear BLM: After reviewing the draft EIS I have serious concerns regarding timber harvest and streamside buffers. Timber harvest should not include old growth trees. Old growth stands are scarce and are key to maintaining good water quality and important wildlife habitat. Streamside buffers sould not be reduced. The current buffers are a minimum of what is needed to keep stream tempuratues cool, keep errosion in check, and provide functioning wildlife corridors. I strongly recomend the BLM choose the "No Action" option.
WC-2150 WID-2346 a4f638d2-5d79-496a-82ba-e6165681307e File Upload 1/11/2008 11:46:00 PM

Uploaded File:  RIN WOPR comment.doc
WC-2151 WID-2360 W-cb82702c-84e2-4056-bcdb-5c8115793d53 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:47:00 PM As an investor in private timberland, it seems to me that this is a government subsidy for my competitors. Whatever happened to free trade? There is more than enough private timberland to provide all the forest products the economy requires without the BLM subsidizing the exploitation of public lands. Leave the public lands alone for future generations!
WC-2152 WID-2368 9504abe2-d117-445c-ba3f-9e1865839938 File Upload 1/11/2008 11:51:00 PM My extended comments followed by a letter-to-the-editor on this issue published in the Corvallis Gazette-Times and a column submitted to the same paper but not published by this time. Thanks for your work and consideration. Chris

Uploaded File:  COMMENTS TO THE BLM ON THE WOPR Jan 08.doc
WC-2153 WID-2364 9504abe2-d117-445c-ba3f-9e1865839938 File Upload 1/11/2008 11:52:00 PM Attached please find a PDF of 4 of the enclosures for Pacific Rivers Council's WOPR comments. Bronwen Wright Pacific Rivers Council

Uploaded File:  PRC WOPR comment enclosures one.pdf
WC-2154 WID-2357 31b13372-c370-4876-9b06-cb933cd46a20 File Upload 1/11/2008 11:53:00 PM This document is directed to WOPR Comments. Please attach it as an additional enclosure to Deer Creek Association (Selma, OR) comments submitted by mail and email 1-11-08. Three other "NEST" Survey Team documents were included as enclosures in the Deer Creek Association comments. Thank you, Mary Camp, President Deer Creek Association

Uploaded File:  southdeerround3 (2).doc
WC-2155 WID-2371 71488889-7b2f-49e2-adfd-9ace4e952765 File Upload 1/11/2008 11:55:00 PM

Uploaded File:  DL BLM WOPR comments.txt
WC-2156 WID-2375 71488889-7b2f-49e2-adfd-9ace4e952765 File Upload 1/11/2008 11:55:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Comments-01-11-08.pdf
WC-2157 WID-2362 W-83fde77f-a940-45f9-ae0c-36f0f8ca8ed1 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:55:00 PM Some of my major concerns about the plan revision: Not enough analysis of long term hazards to pure water supply endangered by grand increases in the harvest of forest products. Likelihood of damage to already fragile fish populations. Long, slow decline of the economic vitality of forest resources created by over harvesting in the near term. Insufficient attention given to the care and maintenance of Ancient, Ancient Forests and their ecosystems Inadequate provision for long term analysis and monitoring of even the most minute incursion into the forests. Not a satisfactory set of procedures established in the WOPR to prevent negligent vigilance by BLM staff to allow unauthorized practices, such as the illegal harvests that occurred not long ago in area around Baby Foot Lake in the Biscuit Burn Area. Needs more emphasis on rehabilitation of already degraded ecosystems. Any revisions must be proceeded by carefully researched development of surer scientific forest practices that guarantee sustainability of every aspect of the WOPR These comments submitted by Michael Gannon earthtrooper@comcast 432 Gilbert Street Eugene, Oregon 97402-2332
WC-2158 WID-2369 21ee6d2c-01ce-412c-9519-8ec83d642a22 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:55:00 PM WOPR is indeed a "Whopper." Politics once again, instead of science. The ONLY ecological reason for clear cutting is to take care of contagious disease. We all know that streams need wider buffers to avoid excessive runoff and flooding, that critters need undisturbed habitat and that fires thrive on brushy stands of timber - not old growth trees. Please use science instead of politics in making the decision. The Northwest Forest Plan should be allowed to work. Thanks for taking care of the forest, Richard
WC-2159 WID-2372 21ee6d2c-01ce-412c-9519-8ec83d642a22 File Upload 1/11/2008 11:56:00 PM Thanks. Donnie

Uploaded File:  wopr.txt
WC-2160 WID-2364 21ee6d2c-01ce-412c-9519-8ec83d642a22 File Upload 1/11/2008 11:57:00 PM Attached please find a PDF of 2 enclosures for Pacific Rivers Council WOPR DEIS comments. Our prior upload actually contained only 3 enclosures due to file size. Thanks, Bronwen Wright Pacific Rivers Council

Uploaded File:  PRC WOPR comments enclosures two.pdf
WC-2161 WID-2366 W-90714005-3b3f-4012-b75d-674176e9e8d3 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:57:00 PM I want no change to the Northwest Forest Plan at this time. I believe that The BLM now has adequate mature timber available for commercial harvest under the present rules. I want no thinning, clearcutting, or salvage logging of any remaining old growth forest on BLM lands at this time. I would agree to sustainable thinning of old growth if the trees were sold for a premium price, if the forest diversity was unharmed, if the resulting area of the original stand was not reduced, if there was no new permanent roadbuilding, and if the harvested trees were processed by mills or other value-added industry within 200 miles of their harvest site. Sale of logs to foreign buyers would be acceptable so long as any value added processing was performed in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. Clearcutting and replanting to single-species stands should not be done where it would create isolated islands of diversified forest. In short, I support only the No Action Option.
WC-2162 WID-2377 W-455e1aad-42d5-4580-ba46-61157345fe36 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:58:00 PM In response to the Elliot Creek OHV emphasis area, I deeply oppose this idea. Though my family and I have only been residents in the Illinois Valley for 4 years, we feel fortunate to live in such a beautiful and seren place. It's an area that still seems untouched by man. The thought of this peaceful area being used by ORV is revolting. Surely there are other areas away from this pristine valley that could be designated for off roaders. I have two boys 16 and 20 that live here with my husband and I on Draper Valley Rd. who both ride dirtbikes. Sure it would be nice for them to jump on their bikes and ride right here so close to home, but this is not the place for such activity. I ask you to PLEASE consider what this beautiful place stands to loose by opening this up to ORV. The pollution, the noise, lose of wildlife and habitat will be devastating. Concerned citizen of Illinois Valley Cheryl Nash
WC-2163 WID-2377 W-826bf84e-8266-4bfb-a07d-bf6ee5a2fd6a Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:59:00 PM In response to the Elliot Creek OHV emphasis area, I deeply oppose this idea. I'm a retired building contractor and moved here 5 years ago to finish raising my family and enjoy the wildlife, rivers, creeks, and streams. There fore I deeply oppose the BLM design of an off-road of our streets. We deeply despise of the unpleasant noise presented by the OHV, we also feel that the property value will greatly decrease because of this.One of the reasons we bought in this area is because the BLM owned the surrounding land not privately owned commercial developers. As I'm sure you already know we residents here on Draper Valley in Selma came close to loosing our homes to the Deer Creek fire. As I've been told the fire was started by only one ATV or, one chain saw.And we aren't willing to gamble that it won't happen again with a hundred or more ATV's and chain saws. We now have no lawenforcement in the Illinois Valley to respond to our small community emergencies, this is just a few of the many reasons that I oppose this plan and feel that there are far better locations than our existing quite community. More a more populated area such as Medford or any commercial related property not in our forest with protected wildlife and rivers. Thank you, James R. Nash
WC-2164 WID-1435 W-a8dd30fe-1c6b-417a-907d-68822b6aecc0 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:59:00 PM I believe Alternative 2 is the best option. It is a balanced option that increases the economic use of our forests for timber production and recreation, while retaining strong protections for fish and wildlife.
WC-2165 WID-2364 d637d185-8332-4fd4-835b-2f09a3b045f5 File Upload 1/11/2008 11:59:00 PM Attached please find the last uploaded enclosure for Pacific Rivers Council's WOPR DEIS comments. We also emailed one to orwopr@or.blm.gov because it was too large to upload here. Thanks, Bronwen Wright Pacific Rivers Council

Uploaded File:  FRISSELL.pdf
WC-2166 WID-2361 None Interactive Map 1/12/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_1-4timesyear|tb_gen_ans:
WC-2167 WID-2361 None Interactive Map 1/12/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_1-4timesyear|tb_gen_ans:
WC-2168 WID-2373 W-a55d317e-1fde-4449-947a-e8cd6bee4075 Draft EIS 1/12/2008 12:02:00 AM Biomass is featured in this section. I think biomass utilization needs to be more thoroughly considered as a tool for mitigating wildfire risk and restoring forest resiliency. Pg 817 notes that only boles would be available for removal. While practical this may not reflect the full magnitude of this opportunity. The MOU dated 6/17/03 between the USFS, BLM, and US Dept. of Energy gives greater weight to biomass utilization than the draft EIS. This should be considered for the final EIS.
WC-2169 WID-2303 b49e2473-5f1a-4afc-9c91-dd45865e301c File Upload 1/12/2008 12:03:00 AM

Uploaded File:  1-11-08my WOPR ltr.doc
WC-2170 WID-2374 3de275d4-0f19-4a6e-a825-0f62a7e2e64d File Upload 1/12/2008 12:03:00 AM

Uploaded File:  Friends of Mary's Peak Commentaryt on WOPR.txt
WC-2171 WID-2370 3de275d4-0f19-4a6e-a825-0f62a7e2e64d File Upload 1/12/2008 12:03:00 AM

Uploaded File:  WOPR comments JB.pdf
WC-2172 WID-2357 1acabdb7-e054-481c-a5ac-613d5c87824f File Upload 1/12/2008 12:04:00 AM These comments from Camp Forest; Orville and Mary Camp, were also sent by mail. Thank you, Mary Camp

Uploaded File:  CF-WOPR Issues 80110.pdf
WC-2173 WID-2168 eaeb42f6-298b-4b77-91fb-aae85bf69bbd File Upload 1/12/2008 12:06:00 AM

Uploaded File:  WOPER.TXT
WC-2174 WID-2364 b5b8699f-61b6-41a1-98cd-f2608315c8aa Draft EIS 1/12/2008 12:10:00 AM We apologize for any confusion. We uploaded 4 different documents. The first contained our cover letter and comments. The second contained two enclosures. The third also contained two enclosures. The fourth contained one enclosure. A final enclosure was sent via email to orwopr@or.blm.gov
WC-2175 WID-2364 89cf4e80-4e42-411f-a2d5-3e9508c2e858 Draft EIS 1/12/2008 12:11:00 AM We apologize for any confusion. We uploaded 4 different documents. The first contained our cover letter and comments. The second contained two enclosures. The third also contained two enclosures. The fourth contained one enclosure. A final enclosure was sent via email to orwopr@or.blm.gov Bronwen Wright Pacific Rivers Council
USA.GOV  |  No Fear Act  |  DOI  |  Disclaimer  |  About BLM  |  Notices  |  Get Adobe Reader