Web-comments-1201-1300

# SenderID Ref.# Comment Tool Date Comment
WC-1201 WID-1526 W-ad41199e-8af2-4670-8161-6327e64960cf Draft EIS 1/8/2008 2:08:00 PM III. Do away with riparian buffers Riparian buffers, such as those proposed, are killing forests and poisoning streams. Massive build-up of fuels in regulatory riparian zones lead to catastrophic megafires that denude entire watersheds, cause excessive post-fire erosion and sediment smothering of salmon spawning gravels, increase stream turbidity, alter stream pH´s, reduce dissolved oxygen, coat the gills of fingerlings, and fertilize algae, all of which lead to even more fishery problems in the future. At recent Senate hearings top forests scientists agreed that aggressive active forest management is desperately needed now to remove excess fuels and restore forest ecological functions, in order to prevent further destruction of Oregon´s old-growth forests. See Testimonies to the US Senate Energy & Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests: To receive testimony regarding forest restoration and hazardous fuels reduction efforts in the forests of Oregon and Washington (Hearing Room SD-366), Thursday, December 13, 2007 here: http://westinstenv.org/resfor/2007/12/23/testimonies-to-the-us-senate-regarding-forest-restoration-13-dec-2007/ Note in particular the testimonies of K Norman Johnson - University Distinguished Professor, Oregon State University, and Jerry F. Franklin - Professor of Ecosystems Sciences, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, and of Michael E. Dubrasich, Executive Director of the Western Institute for the Study of the Environment. Forest restoration is not just for ridgetops. The forest fire crisis is a landscape-scale problem and requires landscape-scale solutions. That means forest restoration treatments should be carried out right up to the edge of streams. To protect riparian zones and their aquatic habitat we must tend them, not abandon them to catastrophic fires. Creating huge regulatory riparian buffers where forest restoration is excluded is not the environmentally beneficial option. Forests: Tend Them or Lose Them That goes for so-called riparian zones, too.
WC-1202 WID-1523 W-3ebf3928-e766-424a-a8ae-8ade6d7251b2 Draft EIS 1/8/2008 2:09:00 PM The analysis of the project's effects on climate change is deficient. The DEIS specifically fails to address the impact of removal of old growth forest on release of additional carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. According to the chart on p. 509, under the No Action Alternative 48,700 acres of existing Old Growth Forest will be harvested. Under the preferred Alternative 2, 152,400 acres of existing Old Growth will be cut down (more than 3 times the amount), and 220,000 acres under Alternative 3 (4.5 times as many). I quote an article: "Ancient Old-Growth Forests Best Carbon Sinks" http://forests.org/archive/general/plnewfor.htm Important new scientific studies, including a recent SCIENCE article, highlight the importance of old-growth forest ecosystems as a mechanism to address climate change, and provide a powerful new argument for protecting ancient forests. New studies indicate that old-growth continues to remove carbon even when fully mature, and that old and wild forests are better than plantations at dependably removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Huge amounts of carbon are sequestered for long periods in old-growth ecosystems—both in trees and perhaps more importantly in soils. Soils in undisturbed tropical rain forests and temperate woodlands contain enormous amounts of carbon derived from fallen leaves, twigs and buried roots that can bind to soil particles and remain in place for 1,000 years or more. When such forests are cut, the trees' roots decay and soil is disrupted, releasing the carbon dioxide. It would take centuries for newly planted trees to build up such an underground carbon reservoir." The extent of Old Growth forests to be cut down under the project is so large that it could have a measurable effect on climate change through the release of sequestered C02. This information should be quantified and presented in the EIS. In addition, the global benefit of carbon sequestration gained by NOT cutting down the old growth forest acreage should be included in the socioeconomic and cumulative effects analysis of Alternatives. The benefit of carbon sequestration alone could make the No Action Alternative preferable to Alternative 2.
WC-1203 WID-1527 4a25cb52-27c4-4cb3-b092-b4e345faf268 Draft EIS 1/8/2008 2:13:00 PM I do not agree with your plans to clear-cut the old growth forests. Are we not seeing the results of cutting down, paving over, and walking away from poor decisions that will impact us all for longer than you and I will be alive? Once cut, the old-growth can´t be replaced and "Gee, I´m sorry, it seemed like a good idea at the time" will leave us with nothing to show but short-sited stupidity. Let´s be smart and preserve what´s important.
WC-1204 WID-1523 W-e6c9d165-ed88-49af-a7a6-550856de67c3 Draft EIS 1/8/2008 2:22:00 PM On the Ch. 2 Comparison Chart of Alternatives (p. 111 of the DEIS), under "Zones for Riparian Management Areas" the riparian management zones for the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 are described in terms of "1/2 to 2 Site Potential Tree height", while for Alternatives 2 and 3 they are described in therms of No harvest, shade retention, and canopy retention zones for fish-bearing streams. The Glossary defines "Site Potential Tree Height" as "The average height of dominant and co-dominant trees on a given geographical area, expressed in terms of average tree height at a specified index or base age". How is the reader supposed to understand how "Site potential tree height" affords protection of riparian zones compared to No Harvest buffer zones around a stream? Given the no-comparability of the two measures that is not explained at all, how is the reader supposed to judge the difference in impact between all of the Alternatives? This is an example of where the DEIS fails to be informative to the public, and prevents them from making informed judgments about the impacts of the project BLM is proposing.
WC-1205 WID-1531 0fd3e303-36f0-4030-bcf7-c1efb716c9c7 File Upload 1/8/2008 2:27:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR Comment Jan 8.doc
WC-1206 WID-871 d1941c31-6ab0-4ebe-a7f9-e57020e5f4ce File Upload 1/8/2008 2:35:00 PM Comments from a Medford district BLM botanist subcontractor

Uploaded File:  final draft WOPR letter.doc
WC-1207 WID-1534 a36adf89-7780-46fd-b65e-6ee0ac0a581d File Upload 1/8/2008 2:46:00 PM I support the No Action alternative on the WOPR. Protect old growth habitat from logging.

Uploaded File:  BLM_WOPR.doc
WC-1208 WID-1532 a36adf89-7780-46fd-b65e-6ee0ac0a581d Draft EIS 1/8/2008 2:51:00 PM As an avid outdoorsman, there is a strong need to manage our forests which in turn helps the habit development, which has been lacking since the early 90's, and help restore the deer and elk numbers. I get fend up with certain groups blocking timber sales that have been already studied by experts. We all have a voice in the use of our forests not just the enviromental groups. Let's let our BLM do their jobs and manage the forests. The BLM, as well as the Forest Service, our the experts, who know more about what is needed for quality forests. If Alternative 2 is your choice, then I support your expert opinion. Keep up the good work, if certain groups will allow you too.
WC-1209 WID-1535 6c194a77-7032-4d02-abee-7ff2e07f5d69 File Upload 1/8/2008 2:54:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR Comments.doc
WC-1210 WID-1537 65d1b72c-2fab-4da6-8ea7-23c2c13a34e2 Draft EIS 1/8/2008 3:04:00 PM Western Oregon Revision Plan Comments January 8th 2008 At some point people need to wake up and realize it is not all about money and jobs. Human beings need to realize, before it is too late, that we must share this great earth and all that is provided by it. Someday, if things do not change humans will find themselves worrying about more important things than closed libraries and other "services." Some like to refer to trees as "a renewable resource" but in fact it takes a lot of years to grow a tree. If the lumber industry had been replanting from the beginning they may well in fact have had enough trees to last indefinitely. The fact is they did not. They made a mistake in not replanting, they have admitted to this but on the other hand they do not feel they should be hampered in any way from being able to log whatever they can get the chainsaws on. They do not feel they should have to pay for the mistake of not replanting. They sit around and tell their employees that "all they care about is their jobs". Then turn around and automate wherever they can. The fact is there are only a fraction of the trees and a fraction of the jobs but the lumber industry can process a lot more today than ever before with very little actual manpower involved. So it comes down to the bottom line of all about money. We cannot keep being held hostage by greedy timber industry moguls that want nothing more than to rape and ruin what beauty we have left here in Oregon. We should be looking for ways to provide jobs by promoting the beauty of our forests and what they have to offer rather than let the few prosper on what they can get. If they don´t have enough trees to cut at this point it is their own damn fault. They should have been replanting from the very beginning. You know "trees are a renewable resource". They just need to be patient for a "few" more years. Diana Larson 1301 Pioneer Way Myrtle Creek 541-863-4449 homestead@mcsi.net
WC-1211 WID-1538 W-1bce62f1-0232-4018-ba60-5871a5e89da1 Draft EIS 1/8/2008 3:12:00 PM I am very disapointed by the anti-conservation direction BLM is taking with this plan. Specifically -- 1. I am opposed to cutting what remains of the public's mature coastal forests. 2. Since much of the large trees are in riparian zones, it's transparent that the proposed shrinking of riparian zones is simply a way to log more big timber. 3. The proposed increase off-road vehicle use is one of the dumbest proposals BLM has ever made for Western Oregon. 4. Older, intact forests help to mitigate climate change. From wetter summer hydrology to carbon sequestering. 5. Reducing the stream side buffer is going to damage srewam habit for endangered fish and birds. If the effected counties need more revenue from timber sales, it might just be time to raise taxes. Stop killing fish and destroying habit for the short term solutions. Liquidating more of the remaining coastal old growth is simply contrary to the public interest. This draft plan needs to be withdrawn and reworked to reflect current American needs and values.
WC-1212 WID-1539 W-ed356166-f7fb-4c03-a25f-41f1731159e4 Draft EIS 1/8/2008 3:21:00 PM Oregon is our favorite vacation destination; it is one of very few places with pristine forests. INcreasing logging on public lands of old growth trees (by as much as 700% no less) is a huge mistake, and I do hope you will reconsider. Temporary gifts to the timber industry of something that does not belong to them, American forests. These forests belong to the taxpayers and contribute to our emotional and physical wellbeing (as well as econimic for tourism) and once pilaged are ruined for centuries. Your organization is entrusted with protecting this resource not serving it up to the timber industry.
WC-1213 WID-1540 W-4a2984c0-3725-4994-aadc-6d50236be4aa Draft EIS 1/8/2008 3:41:00 PM I am deeply distressed about the clear political bias in this process. The BLM senior management is violating the charter of the organization, and should be ashamed. The expression of greed and the destructiveness of the so-called "purpose and need" for the proposed action is clearly driven by the political calendar. What is worse is that it doesn't even make sense. Avoiding true, comprehensive economic and social cost analysis makes this entire process bogus. I request No Action.
WC-1214 WID-1542 W-09a9f527-cea2-46e4-af5c-45831df9b26b Draft EIS 1/8/2008 4:00:00 PM I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). I appreciate the opportunity for public comment. I am a resident of Oregon. I was born here and returned here as an adult because of the natural beauty of the region, which my family enjoys through hiking, snowshoeing, camping and wildlife-watching. Many Oregon families--not to mention visitors to our beautiful state--enjoy the same. Too much logging (truth be told, clear cutting) has already taken place in the name of "forest management"--as is obvious to anyone driving around the western half of our state. WOPR would significantly accelerate the destruction of this incredible, precious habitat. I urge the BLM to reject WOPR.
WC-1215 WID-1544 W-e2f8afea-44b3-446e-aecc-be21bba214f9 Draft EIS 1/8/2008 4:12:00 PM I'm very concerned that BLM is considering moving the river buffer zone down to 25'. That is totally the wrong thing to do (it should expand) considering the needs for clean water, watershed viability, fish, water temperatures, silt in rivers, etc. In this day of global warming and ever more people in Oregon, we must protect our watersheds. We have to stop this slow process of hacking away the standards that have been set to keep our environment viable... Also, concerning a reduction of "old growth" reserves - they should be left alone. Once we decimate these things we can't get them back; we're going to be sorry down the road that we've been irresponsible in taking a little here - a little there; until our environment reaches a tipping point. We're already at a carbon tipping point that won't be fixable anytime soon and we keep chipping away at what we still have and we need to stop....
WC-1216 WID-1547 W-d48578bc-2442-4054-b707-ddc6dd31864a Draft EIS 1/8/2008 4:35:00 PM Like many other Oregonians, I vehemently oppose the latest federal plan to increase timber cutting in Oregon. The reasons are obvious to any thinking person. Thank you.
WC-1217 WID-1551 W-8b6d4beb-b1d9-4233-853e-0ea102d8413c Draft EIS 1/8/2008 4:51:00 PM Don't Clearcut Any More Old Growth Forests! What a Waste of Our Incredible Oregon Resources!
WC-1218 WID-1553 8f065c8e-431a-4e5a-b1bc-609473ace098 File Upload 1/8/2008 5:00:00 PM

Uploaded File:  blm.doc
WC-1219 WID-1548 8f065c8e-431a-4e5a-b1bc-609473ace098 File Upload 1/8/2008 5:01:00 PM

Uploaded File:  BLM WOPR.doc
WC-1220 WID-1550 W-8589b2b7-77f4-4b67-9926-1c33e9881f4e Draft EIS 1/8/2008 5:07:00 PM Our local newspaper indicates today that some hunt,fish groups oppose WOPR. I am sorry, but this fisherman/hunter supports your program in full. I am a lifetime resident of the State of Oregon & have retired in Roseburg. I don't know what these supposed hunt,fish groups base their opposition on & I for one oppose their opposition. I have hunted these Douglas/Coos County BLM lands for Elk, Deer & Bear. I must tell you if you want to find animals you have to go to private lands that are managed, particularly Weyerhauser lands. Here you find the clear cuts, reforested lands that the animals prefer. These animals cannot live & survive in heavily timbered tracts. There does not exist plentiful food sources for them on the ground level. They must have the cleared areas to find the brouse & obtain the sunlight they need for survival. Additionally since l964 the harvest of timber has been immensely improved and the result does not impact watershed/animal habitat as these folks seem to indicate. In other words I for one think they are full of it. I have witnessed the decline of the timber industry & the resulting decline in the economies of the rural areas of this wonderful State of Oregon. I as a child planted trees in the Tillamook Burn for the future harvest for our timber industry. I and many other folks my age who also planted trees in that area should be insulted & up in arms in that we planted those trees for future harvest & lumber production and now there seems to be other interests. I am personally tired of these folks telling me what they think our forests are to be utalized for. I feel most of them are imports from other States that harvested their timber & now want to preserve what is here. Why??? As a retired citizen of this State I cannot enjoy those wilderness areas, roadless areas & I lived here most all of my life. I am a retired banker. Other than the financial end of all industries I have not been involved in the timber industry, fishing industries etc. Now it should be my turn to enjoy the fruits of our great State of Oregon. Don't place them off limits to my accessability or the benefits of the jobs, economy they are capable of producing. Please make those roads, log that timber, it is a renewable resource. We have an exesss of preserved areas we don't need more. Gene D. Parrish
WC-1221 WID-1550 W-55837eb2-2f7f-44f7-a247-bf9fb1654966 Draft EIS 1/8/2008 5:07:00 PM Our local newspaper indicates today that some hunt,fish groups oppose WOPR. I am sorry, but this fisherman/hunter supports your program in full. I am a lifetime resident of the State of Oregon & have retired in Roseburg. I don't know what these supposed hunt,fish groups base their opposition on & I for one oppose their opposition. I have hunted these Douglas/Coos County BLM lands for Elk, Deer & Bear. I must tell you if you want to find animals you have to go to private lands that are managed, particularly Weyerhauser lands. Here you find the clear cuts, reforested lands that the animals prefer. These animals cannot live & survive in heavily timbered tracts. There does not exist plentiful food sources for them on the ground level. They must have the cleared areas to find the brouse & obtain the sunlight they need for survival. Additionally since l964 the harvest of timber has been immensely improved and the result does not impact watershed/animal habitat as these folks seem to indicate. In other words I for one think they are full of it. I have witnessed the decline of the timber industry & the resulting decline in the economies of the rural areas of this wonderful State of Oregon. I as a child planted trees in the Tillamook Burn for the future harvest for our timber industry. I and many other folks my age who also planted trees in that area should be insulted & up in arms in that we planted those trees for future harvest & lumber production and now there seems to be other interests. I am personally tired of these folks telling me what they think our forests are to be utalized for. I feel most of them are imports from other States that harvested their timber & now want to preserve what is here. Why??? As a retired citizen of this State I cannot enjoy those wilderness areas, roadless areas & I lived here most all of my life. I am a retired banker. Other than the financial end of all industries I have not been involved in the timber industry, fishing industries etc. Now it should be my turn to enjoy the fruits of our great State of Oregon. Don't place them off limits to my accessability or the benefits of the jobs, economy they are capable of producing. Please make those roads, log that timber, it is a renewable resource. We have an exesss of preserved areas we don't need more. Gene D. Parrish
WC-1222 WID-1492 W-0ea3d0d9-e75d-44dd-b890-3284e428a490 Draft EIS 1/8/2008 5:10:00 PM To whom it may concern: While I do not live in the State of Oregon, I travel there several times a year with my wife to visit her family in Klamath Falls. While there, our chief form of recreation is riding our motorcycles in the BLM land this area. Your proposal is concerning to me because I believe motorised off-road use to be a legitimate use of our public lands and I believe that, if managed correctly, can be conducted with no environmental detriment. I look forward to riding these lands with my children when they are old enough; teaching them to respect the land they ride on and letting them experience the natural beauty of the area. Please consider the trail rights of dirt bikers when making this new policy and keep as may trails open as you can.
WC-1223 WID-1556 cb1690fe-e88d-4003-b7e0-ae31043f92bd File Upload 1/8/2008 5:11:00 PM

Uploaded File:  StellaCopeland_WOPRDEISComments_010807.doc
WC-1224 WID-1554 736853ff-8f8e-4825-81b8-843128299e87 File Upload 1/8/2008 5:42:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Jody's letter.doc
WC-1225 WID-1560 998d7eaa-a710-4e7c-9cdb-f70f30e8568b Draft EIS 1/8/2008 5:51:00 PM WOPR comments for Mitch Williams
WC-1226 WID-1559 W-90bea409-7506-455f-9b39-f0a23683d41b Draft EIS 1/8/2008 5:55:00 PM Clear cutting is not an option, ruining the water supple is not an option, putting roads that criss cross thru the forest is not an option, but carefully thinning and having a very light footprint is the only way of managing the forest.
WC-1227 WID-1561 b5ec833a-7f1b-441a-95fc-4115c92e4367 File Upload 1/8/2008 5:59:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Dan's letter.doc
WC-1228 WID-1562 W-8533615a-7689-4da9-a0d5-527a59a5efe2 Draft EIS 1/8/2008 6:18:00 PM As a tax payer and citizen I simply want to see our forests MANAGED not pillaged. Fine, cut trees. But leave more than you cut - in the same area - not adjacent. Clear cutting is simply destructive, unattractive and the only people who benefit are those seeking to further their wealth. But their wealth gain is at the cost of the millions and millions of other people who have nothing to gain and so much to lose when our lands are left looking like they were raped. Please, please, please - stop the games and do the right thing! Thin, harvest selectively, and leave something beautiful behind for all to enjoy.
WC-1229 WID-1563 c3525958-b339-451d-aea9-b25b90a9be30 Draft EIS 1/8/2008 6:44:00 PM As a native Oregonian I'm aware that our timber is a natural resource that needs to be utilized & protected. Salvage logging makes the most sence. Dead & dying timber & burns are wasted if not logged immediately. There are area's that should be clear cut & replanted such as parts of the coast & near Diamond Lake. Our State needs the revenue & jobs that are generated by logging. There are already an over abundance of lands set aside to protect wildlife some of which should be freed up for logging.
WC-1230 WID-993 W-3a06e5f5-cef8-429e-97ee-97be06f0ddb9 Draft EIS 1/8/2008 7:13:00 PM I object to all the designated OHV sites in the Medford district. All the sites will impact local property owners. BLM has a concern for the OHV riders that they have an enjoyable experience. However, there seems to be no addressing of the experience of the home owners that live near these designated OHV sites or other users of the area. The noise is horrendous as is destruction to the environment. The home owner cannot leave, but is subjected to this ongoing noise all the time. It is my belief that this kind of activity does not belong in any area where there are private land owners or where people go for quiet pursuits such as hunting, fishing, hiking, birding, or enjoyment of nature.
WC-1231 WID-1566 7a9a1a62-ab08-428f-a35d-f01d63bffac5 File Upload 1/8/2008 7:19:00 PM

Uploaded File:  BLM.doc
WC-1232 WID-1567 393453e6-23bc-4d10-85fd-6574b04d48f3 File Upload 1/8/2008 7:21:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Western Oregon Plan Revision comments-1.doc
WC-1233 WID-1448 c632612e-8679-4b84-b987-59dc9cc92b91 File Upload 1/8/2008 7:31:00 PM

Uploaded File:  BLMComments.doc
WC-1234 WID-1570 15309e86-405b-4b74-99a9-dffd7a2b4bf2 File Upload 1/8/2008 8:32:00 PM Please find attached my letter with comments on the plan. Thank you for the chance to comment-

Uploaded File:  Western Oregon Plan.doc
WC-1235 WID-1576 W-9d073af0-a96a-4ae1-8be4-af754a4c01de Draft EIS 1/8/2008 9:36:00 PM I strongly object to the proposed logging plan because it will disrupt and destroy important and precious old-growth forests. These areas are much more valuable to the public as they exist now. Once gone, they can never be recovered. Please do not implement the WOPR.
WC-1236 WID-1577 42ed813b-fda2-4eeb-a25d-5dc7c4ce8d60 File Upload 1/8/2008 10:02:00 PM Hello,The attached letter represents the comments of the Oregon Society of American Foresters(OSAF)as approved by its Executive Committee on December 7,2007. I have signed the letter on behalf of OSAF as the Chair for 2008. The letter references eight attachments as citations. Those will not be emailed at this time though could be if asked. They will be mailed along with a copy of this letter. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on behalf of over 1,000 professional foresters and others who are members of OSAF. Sincerely, Marc Vomocil, OSAF Chair 2008

Uploaded File:  1 - OSAF WOPR comment ltr.doc
WC-1237 WID-100 W-3443a9ee-a85c-4556-b077-7ff361cb95a7 Draft EIS 1/8/2008 10:30:00 PM I do not like any of the proposed Alternatives (1, 2, or 3) and would like for BLM to either choose the No Action Alternative or go back to the drawing board and return with additional choices. My opposition to the three alternatives is that they rely too much on logging, and clearcutting in particular, and don't consider the value of other ecosystem services such as clean water, fisheries including salmon, and wildlife protection. I would be willing to support a NEW alternative that allowed logging only in areas that have previously been logged within the last 50 years or so and had an emphasis on thinning projects.
WC-1238 WID-1572 W-04248120-164a-4fe7-b143-28be5d8b41ae Draft EIS 1/8/2008 10:32:00 PM I am opposed to the preferred plan, or any plan that proposes to log old growth forests. The long-term ecological integrity of the forest ecosystem is of paramount importance and should be the top priority of our public land managers. Old growth native forests (> 200 years) contain the full spectrum of species, which provide health and vitality in a web of interdependency. Many of these species do not survive the conversion-to-tree-farm scenario that is the status quo. Even islands of old growth within matrix lands are invaluable, in that they harbor species which can migrate and repopulate surrounding younger stands as they mature, helping to re-establish biodiversity in the younger forest. I believe that logging should be restricted to the thinning of 2nd and 3rd growth stands, especially those that are overstocked and fire prone. I would like to see the practice of clear-cut or regeneration logging eliminated, as the soil loss from associated erosion decreases future productivity, and therefore it is not a sustainable logging practice.
WC-1239 WID-1429 W-9c923e4c-4a9c-4136-8e15-1ae64a4cd168 Draft EIS 1/8/2008 10:54:00 PM I prefer an alternative that retains all late succession forests and gives ample protection to all streams including those not currently fish bearing. I prefer an alternative that retains spotted owl habitat in recognition that the presence of spotted owls is an indication of the healthy forest diversity that exists in that habitat. I prefer an alternative that does not expand or expands very little the area available for ORV recreation. Combustion engine vehicle recreation is intrusive and polluting with noise and vehicle exhaust. I prefer an alternative that allows minimal road building and requires that any new roads be temporary and removed after use. I prefer an alternative that has a sustainable allowable cut based on very conservative estimates of future timber available. It should include considerations of possible negative impacts of drought, fire and windstorms that could reduce the future timber base. I prefer an alternative that insures,as much as possible, that we in Coos County will have healthy forests and clean water in perpetuity. I don´t think that is asking too much.
WC-1240 WID-1580 7dc19c7e-9c99-4bac-a7cb-d3dc9f4b1260 File Upload 1/8/2008 11:08:00 PM

Uploaded File:  temp.txt
WC-1241 WID-1579 W-3156810c-4718-451f-96dd-d43007314245 Draft EIS 1/8/2008 11:40:00 PM I am in favor of the No Action Alternative for Land Use Allocation as shown on Maps 1 & 5 of the WOPR packet. This alternative keeps the current amount of land excluded from the harvest land base as established under the NorthWest Forest Plan for the Salem, Eugene and Medford districts the same. This alternative makes sense because: (1) intact forsests contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to Oregon's local economies through tourism and recreation, as well as quality of life that attracts business to Oregon; (2) the value of wildlife habitat and clean water must be measued against short term economic gain thru forest harvest; (3) the collapse of the housing market has lead to a current surplus of lumber and falling prices;(4)mechanization in the lumber and plywood industries are reducing local employment in the woodproducts industry even if the cut is expanded; (5) road building and logging practices to maximize cut and profit lead to water and soil degradation including situations like the recent land slides on State forest land that closed highway links and affected ajoining properties adversly. In short changing land use allocation does not make economic or environmental sense in managing our public lands. Lets not go backwards. I am also in opposition to the proposed increase in OVH emphasis areas in the WOPR proposal. OVH use is incompatable with most other forms of recreational use, disturbs wildlife and local residents quality of life, damages large areas of resource and does not appear to be able to successfully be policed. Areas open to OVH use should be restricted not expanded. Noise and land damage should result in citations.
WC-1242 WID-1594 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Forests: Please find a way to limit AL off road vehicles in the Johns Peak area of Jefferson County east of Medford. The destruction caused by dir bikes needs to be stopped.Thnk you,Eric Swenson,Medford
WC-1243 WID-1602 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_importantspecies|tb_gen_ans:
WC-1244 WID-1599 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Water Quality: Water temperature is directly related to shading which is directly related to the number of trees adjacent to the streams and rivers under BLM's management. Full shading of tributary streams is just as important or more important than shading of regional streams and rivers. Decreasing the width of streamside buffers and increasing the amount of logging on BLM lands will have a very direct affect on the temperature of tributary waters entering our rivers. all classes of streams, even those that are not fish bearing must be shaded to the maximum extent possible to prevent solar heating. Streamside buffers are the primary way that waterways remain shaded. The WOPR prefered alternative is flawed in that it decreases the requirements for streamside buffers.
WC-1245 WID-1599 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Water Quality: The water temperature value stated in the DEIS is misleading. Oregon DEQ has established 68 as the maximum temperature for waterways that support migrating salmon. tyhe mainstem Willamette has a standard of 68 degrees. In headwater streams where BLM manages public lands, the standards are generally much less than 68, with 52 to 54 degrees common for the support of bull trout and salmon spawning. The only way that BLM can realistically achieve the temperatures required by Oregon law is to provide maximum shading to primary and tributary streams under BLM management. The preferred option in the WOPR DEIS does not provide maximum shading to all streams and is flawed. BLM willl not be able to meet its obligations as a DMA under Oregon law and the Clean Water Act as the preferred alternative is currently written.
WC-1246 WID-1599 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Water Quality: Our forests are our primary source of clean and cold surface water. This water is vital to both flora and fauna. Clean cold surface water is likewise vital to humans for drinking water, industrial use, recreation, among other things. BLM has been made the steward of our forests and headland waters by our government. As the connection between forest mangement and environmental health becomes clearer, it seems to be amazingly short sighted for BLM to propose a preferred alternative in the DEIS that casts aside environmental protection for maximized timber harvest. As a professional engineer specializing in the water quality, I am both astonished and dismayed by BLM's preferred alternative. I strongly urge you to reconsider and develop a preferred alternative that favors the protection of our forests and headwater streams. Specifically, I urge BLM to maximize streamside buffer requirements and limit logging operations in key watersheds.
WC-1247 WID-1599 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Water Quality: Increased logging also results in increased sedimentation to receiving streams. Sedimentation of headwater spawing gravels is as much of an issue to our fisheries as water temerature is. Oregon DEQ has not listed many streams on the CWA 303d list for sedimentation simply because they do not have any data on sedimentation. BLM's plans under the preferred opting in the WOPR DEIS to increase logging and decrease streamside buffer requirements will lead to an increase in sedimentation of our headwater and primary receiving streams. This will impact spawning gravels, intergravel dissolved oxygen, water column dissolved oxygen, and many nutrient levels in these streams and rivers. This will impact our fisheries. these streams will wind up on DEQ's 303d list and in subsequent TMDL documents issued by DEQ and EPA. BLM's approach is short sighted in that BLM as the DMA will ultimately be responsible for developing a plan to address the sedimentation in the streams on the 303d list. A more appropriate alternative is to protect the streams now before the problem occurs. BLM can do this by decreasing the amount of logging proposed and increasing proposed streamside buffer widths in the preferred alternative.
WC-1248 WID-1599 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM tb_1_other: Public power|tb_gen_ans: EWEB operates two hydroelectric facilities on the lower McKenzie River. Logging of steep hillslopes increases the sediment load to streams. Sedimentation, in turn, affects the ability of hydroelectric facilties to generate electricity at peak capacity. Hydroelectric energy is carbon neutral, and BLM's plans to increase logging and decrease streamside buffer requirements may directly affect our ability to generate carbon neutral electricity at a time when global climate impacts from carbon-based energy sources are becoming ever-more clear. I urge BLM to consider the broader energy implications and potential long term impacts to the environment of the preferred option in the WOPR. From a hydroelectric generation perspective, less logging and increased streamside buffers are prefered.
WC-1249 WID-1599 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM tb_1_other: Public power|tb_gen_ans: EWEB operates two hydroelectric facilities on the lower McKenzie River. Logging of steep hillslopes increases the sediment load to streams. Sedimentation, in turn, affects the ability of hydroelectric facilties to generate electricity at peak capacity. Hydroelectric energy is carbon neutral, and BLM's plans to increase logging and decrease streamside buffer requirements may directly affect our ability to generate carbon neutral electricity at a time when global climate impacts from carbon-based energy sources are becoming ever-more clear. I urge BLM to consider the broader energy implications and potential long term impacts to the environment of the preferred option in the WOPR. From a hydroelectric generation perspective, less logging and increased streamside buffers are prefered.
WC-1250 WID-1599 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM tb_1_other: hydroelectric generation|tb_gen_ans:
WC-1251 WID-1018 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_tourism|cb_farming|cb_fulltime|cb_spiritual|cb_importantspecies|cb_scenicbeauty|cb_relax|tb_gen_ans: My family and I built and moved to Southern Oregon BECAUSE of her vast beauty and current ecology. Vital resorces must be managed with vision for the future, not stripped away in haste. Forest and riperian habitats cannot be gambled away. There are many opportunities for renewable resources such as tourism, hunting and fishing to maintain economy. Replanting of trees where harvesting to insure healty forests and rivers for generations to come. Act responsibly and manage, not strip away swaths of our heritage. Forested lands not only provide for wildlife, but provide erosion control and enriched soils, oxygen while reducing carbon dioxide, sound barrier buffering, and clean water through our aqiifer for drinking and fish habitats. Acting hastily now will COST us greatly in irreplacable environmental resources and much of what is Oregon.
WC-1252 WID-1018 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Land Use Table at pushpin 1082: Wanted Shady cove-Trail area
WC-1253 WID-1018 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_tourism|cb_farming|cb_fulltime|cb_spiritual|cb_importantspecies|cb_scenicbeauty|cb_relax|tb_gen_ans: see pushpin %231082. Wanted Shady Cove- Trail area.
WC-1254 WID-1018 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Land Use Table at pushpin 1083: Renewable and sustainable resources are vital to this regions future. This can be attained through Tourism, Hunting and Fishing Licenses, and responsible Forestry Management practices. No Clearcutting%21%21 Do not be blindsighted. Oregon's future draw economically depends on a long term management plan to insure that vital resources not be jeopardized needlessly. Oregon's growth is in its infancy-now is not the time to remove important components to her future. Act responsibly for our future generations.
WC-1255 WID-1630 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Water Quality: Not enough protection is afforded our stream by this plan. It is inadequate and does not provide enough enhancments. The balance of the plan should lean to environmental enhancements and less to singular economic gains. Protect and improve all 303 listed streams.
WC-1256 WID-1274 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_relax|tb_gen_ans: Ferris Gulch is an excellent nearby, low elevation hiking area, and has also been a focus area for Williams Creek Watershed Council. I think it is a highly inappropriate choice as an OHV sacrifice zone.
WC-1257 WID-1630 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Off-Highway Vehicles: OHV use is inconsitant with water quality objectives as well as wildlife and fishery habitat. OHV use should be provided but only in those areas of the state that impacts are minimimal to wildlife and stream influence. OHV use creates sediment and erosion in steams. This use is also disruptive to wildlife from noise and motion distrubance. OHV use also creates potential for wildfires in wooded or brush areas. Use of OHV on public lands should not preclude other uses such and hunting, fishing and passive recreation. OHV use is not a sustainable practice and should not be promoted by our government as positive recreation in a time when disregard for our natural resources is rampant and global issues dictate we minimize our use of petrolium and act as stewards of the public land not playgrounds for special interests.
WC-1258 WID-1630 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Off-Highway Vehicles: OHV use is inconsitant with water quality objectives as well as wildlife and fishery habitat. OHV use should be provided but only in those areas of the state that impacts are minimimal to wildlife and stream influence. OHV use creates sediment and erosion in steams. This use is also disruptive to wildlife from noise and motion distrubance. OHV use also creates potential for wildfires in wooded or brush areas. Use of OHV on public lands should not preclude other uses such and hunting, fishing and passive recreation. OHV use is not a sustainable practice and should not be promoted by our government as positive recreation in a time when disregard for our natural resources is rampant and global issues dictate we minimize our use of petrolium and act as stewards of the public land not playgrounds for special interests.
WC-1259 WID-1630 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_photo|cb_hunting|cb_hiking|cb_fishing|cb_camping|cb_birdwatching|tb_gen_ans: The North Umpqua is a high quality fish bearing stream. Unlike any other river system in the NorthWest. Protection within the entire watershed basin in extreamly important to me. Timber interest or other special interest should not dictate how this region is managed. Environmental focused management is essential here and else where. Good steward ship is critical for our forest, wildlife and fisheries. This plan is inadequate to protect what is ours and given to us to protect. Management for the economy is a narrow focus that provides only short term benifit to our region. Multiple goal management is the only way to protect our lands forever. Please refocus this tool for sustainable land management not economic management.
WC-1260 WID-1630 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Alternative 1: provide better management for Water Quality on all fish bearing streams with larger %2F wider protection buffers around streams, estuaries and water bodies.
WC-1261 WID-1630 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Alternative 2: Reduce Timber management and increase environmental protection across the board.
WC-1262 WID-1630 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Off-Highway Vehicles: reduce or exclude OHV use in all areas of steep terrrain, fish bearing watersheds and forested areas. Require fire protection during dry seasons, education for all users about the environmental effects of thier actions. require erosion protection and require noise restrictions.
WC-1263 WID-1630 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Water Quality: Not enough protection is afforded our stream by this plan. It is inadequate and does not provide enough enhancments. The balance of the plan should lean to environmental enhancements and less to singular economic gains. Protect and improve all 303 listed streams.
WC-1264 WID-1630 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_photo|cb_hunting|cb_hiking|cb_fishing|cb_camping|cb_birdwatching|tb_gen_ans: Manage this watershed for the betterment of the natural environment not for the timber industry.
WC-1265 WID-1018 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_tourism|cb_hunting|cb_hiking|cb_fishing|cb_boating|cb_birdwatching|cb_fulltime|cb_spiritual|cb_importantspecies|cb_scenicbeauty|tb_gen_ans: Oregon needs to find a plan to promote a healthy enonomy through renewable and sustainable resources. Tourism, hunting and fishing, camping and boating are but a few. Responsible management and forest practices begin with a clear vision to future generations to come, not in acting hastily, for our vital resources cannot be jeopardized needlessly. Clearcutting and riperian compromising are not the way to go. My family built a passive solar home here with the idea that Oregon was on board with placing her environmental bounties first. If you strip that away through rash planning today, you will lose in the long haul. Climate change is a factor not to be overlooked. Substantial downsizing of our forested lands could have irrepairable, catostrophic effects. Major erosion, sick forests and warming waters will deplete fish stocks. Water quality will be seriously compromised and costs to bring back to safe levels will take further from a state that is already fiscally handicapped. Costs will also be incurred for the need for further fire prevention measures. Having worked during the Cedar and Pines fires in So. California, I can only implore that decisions today will effect many, many tomorrows. Please rethink the plan and I vote for NO ACTION TODAY%21%21
WC-1266 WID-1656 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_timber|tb_gen_ans:
WC-1267 WID-1629 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from No Action: I favor the No Action alternative, and it seems the various reports I have reviewed here (on the website) also point to a greater overall benefit to Oregon and forest management with this choice. The treasure of our old, diverse forests needs to be expanded, and with changing climate this is critical for our geographic region. Water will be the next big resource battle, older forest watersheds will protect this resource, as will enhancing fish habitate and econimic diversity, with tourism and new people moving to this area. %0DThe other alternatives restrict the forest's complexity%3B please do not choose them.
WC-1268 WID-1640 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM tb_2_other: running|tb_gen_ans: motorcycle%2FATV tracks up every possible drainage bed and hillside, deep (12%2B inch) ruts in places, noise and exhause fumes
WC-1269 WID-1642 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from No Action: I feel the no action alternative is the best of the alternatives. It allows timber to be harvested, protects water quality and fish%0Dbearing streams , and offers reasonable protection for the %0Dwildlife . BLM needs to move away from always trying to%0Dharvest old growth and address the thinning and logging%0Dof the forests that are not old growth.In my area the second%0Dgrowth forests have not been thinned since they were planted.%0DIf their were a forest fire,they would lose the all of trees%0Dbecause the forest is so dense . I am aware that the BLM%0Dmust try to satisfy the Timber Industry and the Public, but %0DBLM does not have any obligation to offer old growth in their sales, most mills have changed there products to other products%0Dthen %0D
WC-1270 WID-1274 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_fulltime|tb_gen_ans: My wife and I have lived here for twenty years, and have effectively thinned our uneven-aged woodlot to reduce fire hazard. We have numerous trees exceeding 16" dbh, 75-100 years old. The BLM forest is less than 100 yards west of our property, with intervening private timber. We want the BLM forest thinned, and we want the trees exceeding 16" dbh left standing. This small area is very moist, re-seeds well, has multiple species, and grows rapidly. It was slated for cutting in the failed Scattered Apples project.
WC-1271 WID-1640 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM tb_2_other: running|cb_mtnbiking|cb_hiking|tb_gen_ans: motorcycle%2FATV high-marking, tracks up every possible drainage bed and hillside, noise and exhause fumes
WC-1272 WID-1640 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM tb_2_other: running|cb_mtnbiking|cb_hiking|tb_gen_ans: motorcycle%2FATV tracks up every possible drainage bed and hillside, deep (12%2B inch) ruts in places, noise and exhause fumes
WC-1273 WID-1274 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_scenicbeauty|cb_relax|tb_gen_ans: The inactive quarry, and the gated road leading to it, are situated in a very healthy forest with large trees and easy access on foot. A hillside at the base of the road was clearcut in 1989 as a BLM sale. The cut was in an area with numerous springs that should have been left in a shelter zone. This area provides significant surface flow into Munger Creek, and also helps regenerate ground water upon we and our neighbors depend. Thinning may be appropriate, but the extensive cutting described in Alternatives 1,2, and 3 would be very detrimental to the water resources. By virtue of relative solitude and cool shelter in hot months, this area is important wildlife habitat.t
WC-1274 WID-1640 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_hunting|cb_mtnbiking|tb_gen_ans: motorcycle%2FATV high-marking, tracks up every possible drainage bed and hillside, deep (12%2B inch) ruts in places, noise and exhause fumes
WC-1275 WID-1640 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_hiking|tb_gen_ans: trails are all torn up, some deep ruts. There has been some extensive attempts at restoration with mounds of dirt and some hay bales, which appears to have decreased trafic on the un-improved trails but there is further errosion around the sides of the restoration
WC-1276 WID-1640 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM tb_2_other: running|cb_mtnbiking|cb_hiking|tb_gen_ans: extensive high-marking and a whole series of tracks up and down the hillside
WC-1277 WID-1640 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Off-Highway Vehicles: there are lots of areas with deep ruts and tracks up every little drainage and track on open hillsides
WC-1278 WID-1685 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_photo|tb_2_other: learn to ID native plants and mushrooms, watch wildlife and changing seasons, inhale the sweet scent of vast beds of false solomon's seal (native wild flowers), meditate on the stream, study nature, listen to the quiet|cb_hiking|cb_birdwatching|cb_fulltime|cb_spiritual|cb_importantspecies|cb_scenicbeauty|cb_relax|tb_4_other: It has a unique diversity of native plants, so other people interested in native plants come here to learn and enjoy their blooms, as well as learn how to protect these plants and their environments. The Native Plant Society has held at least 3 supervised field trips here, to the raves of all who participated. It has a small population of tall bugbane, a designated threatened species, as well as populations of other rare valuable plants. |cb_1-4timesyear|tb_gen_ans: Yampo needs protection from any activities that would trample or otherwise threaten its populations of native plants. It is a preserve worth keeping. Off-road vehicles and horses could, without even knowing it, easily destroy the unique features and rare populations of native flora. Logging also would trample and destroy this little gem. It was created an ACEC because of two threatened species, which still warrant protection.
WC-1279 WID-1689 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Wildland Urban Interface: these lands should should kept free of dead and
WC-1280 WID-1685 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Forests: We believe some of the trees in this forest are well over 75 years old. There is a stand of fir trees on the upland portion that regularly has nesting owls and hawks. We have heard several species of owls in this area, including what may have been a pair of Northern spotted owls hunting. The forest also contains a great variety of tree species of different ages, showing that it is a healthy forest.
WC-1281 WID-1685 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Off-Highway Vehicles: BLM designated Yampo as an area of critical environmental concern. Opening up this area to off-road vehicles would be incompatible with this designation. Please make Yampo completely off-limits to all vehicles and horses, too.
WC-1282 WID-1706 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Forests: I very strongly object to proposed WOPR changes to open old growth forests to industrial logging and to reduce riparian zone buffers. This is contrary to any sensible goals for the nation's few remaining intact ecosystems.
WC-1283 WID-1706 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from VIDEO Siuslaw River Corridor: As one of the very few undammed Western Oregon rivers, I believe that the Siuslaw watershed should be excluded from any further old growth logging and previously logged areas should have much more extensive limitations of logging in riparian zones
WC-1284 WID-1706 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Forests: As the Forest Age Class map shows, only a very small proportion of 196%2B year old forest remains in Western Oregon. I strongly support the 'NO ACTION" alternative because the others all will extend logging in these areas.
WC-1285 WID-1710 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM tb_1_other: raft trips|cb_tourism|tb_2_other: rafting, kayaking|cb_boating|cb_scenicbeauty|cb_onceamonth|tb_gen_ans:
WC-1286 WID-1715 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM tb_gen_ans:
WC-1287 WID-535 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_photo|cb_hiking|cb_birdwatching|cb_spiritual|cb_importantspecies|cb_scenicbeauty|cb_relax|cb_onceaweek|tb_gen_ans: This mature old growth forest is invalueable and should never be logged.
WC-1288 WID-535 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_photo|cb_hiking|cb_birdwatching|cb_spiritual|cb_importantspecies|cb_scenicbeauty|cb_relax|cb_onceamonth|tb_gen_ans: Even though this isolated and surrounded by industrial forest land which is mostly clearcut, it needs to be preserved for it's diversity and habitat for animals and birds.
WC-1289 WID-535 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_photo|cb_hiking|cb_birdwatching|cb_spiritual|cb_importantspecies|cb_scenicbeauty|cb_relax|cb_onceamonth|tb_gen_ans:
WC-1290 WID-535 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_photo|cb_hiking|cb_camping|cb_birdwatching|cb_spiritual|cb_importantspecies|cb_scenicbeauty|cb_relax|cb_onceamonth|tb_gen_ans:
WC-1291 WID-1715 None Interactive Map 1/9/2008 12:00:00 AM tb_1_other: Self-employed other|cb_photo|cb_hiking|cb_birdwatching|cb_fulltime|cb_importantspecies|cb_scenicbeauty|cb_relax|tb_4_other: Home to northwestern pond turtles|cb_daily|tb_gen_ans: Please do not adopt any of the proposals but continue managing under the Northwest Forest Plan strategy. This area is my home of 5 years. We purchased our land here because of the surrounding views, the peace and quiet, the wildlife, the low traffic, etc. It would be devistating to have the views replaced with more clear cuts, the peaceful quiet shattered by chain saws and the sound of falling trees, and the rumbling of logging trucks, more so than we already do. Not to mention the possible drop in our property value AND the potential for mudslides if hills near our home were clear cut. And we've recently learned there is an old growth grove near us that could be slated for logging. The last of our old growth forests need to stay and be protected for all future generations. We understand the necessity for logging, but with the sinking housing market and the drop in construction, etc., it doesn't make sense to change the %2Aplan%2A now. Please do not adopt any of the proposals but continue managing under the Northwest Forest Plan strategy.
WC-1292 WID-1207 W-2396deb3-19f1-403d-898d-8a72c6552aaa Draft EIS 1/9/2008 12:12:00 AM I am a resident in a rural area of Oregon that has seen so much private logging here that the landscape is beginning to look like a nuclear blast zone. The only real forest left is BLM forest, so I am against any logging of BLM land, especially old growth or even secondary growth. Clear-cut logging here has left huge landslides, streams filled with dirt cutting naked gullies into raw, ugly, bare mountainsides, and has driven wildlife out of what were once protected forested areas, into residential areas, and across hazardous highways, through sterile monocultures of seedlings, searching for new homes in ecosystems that just don't exist. Oregon's true economic hope is the long-term revenue that can be generated by tourism in this potentially beautiful and wild land lying between the Pacific Ocean and the far side of the Cascades. Don't be short-sighted and rape it for a quick buck, leaving a moonscape that people cring at, a moonscape that no longer can sustain the healthy complex of life that needs intact mature forests to survive. We already have a problem with too much logging. Don't make a bad situation worse.
WC-1293 WID-1583 W-406ad5c1-44fa-439f-884d-f72f466e4db2 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 3:00:00 AM I would prefer other alternatives that focus more on the value of the forest ecosystems per-se and restoration of the ecosystems. Cutting late-successional reserves and riparian area buffers is short-sighted and damaging to the overall balance of our forest ecosystems, in my opinion. Endangered species recovery efforts have not gone that well so far, and decreasing the habitat for rare animals and plants (no matter how it's phrased, that's the effect) is not being responsible for our caretaking responsibilities for future generations. Alternative 1's sub-alternative that at least allows for replacement of older stands seems to be a better choice than alternative 2, but none of them are what I would expect the government stewards of our land to do to fulfill the role of responsible stewards. Finally, I would add that there is so much cut land that needs management, that we should not be cutting old stands at all until we take care of the mismanaged and neglected overgrown or under-reforested stands all over the state. Nor can we say that we can successfully re-grow old-growth forests. We all know this. The habitat is irreversibly changed when we cut. I have personally done rare plant surveys in cut areas where there previously were rare plants, and of course, the plants were gone in most cases! And of course the animal life changes, as do the soils... I have not studied this EIS in detail, but I have spent years covering thousands of acres of BLM lands in western Oregon as a botanical contractor. I know first hand, for instance, that there are many plants that are not even listed that are rare - for example, Mountain Ladies Slipper - Cypripedium montanum - is very rare in West Side forests, but is not listed because it is more common in other parts of the state. What part of the gene pool are we allowing to slip away? What effect will it have on future generations to have such a low priority put on the value of our intact forest ecosystems by this administration? Please revisit the EIS and choose the alternative that values handing off to our children as much as we can of the forests we inherited - for we are borrowing it from them, are we not? And when the pendulum swings back, and we realize what we have done, it will be too late.
WC-1294 WID-1584 W-9bf87f26-1740-4cfe-b5bb-b61916b9a8e1 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 6:04:00 AM The buiding of new roads into our national forests will be devastating for wildlife, watersheds, water quality and air quality. We must NOT do this.
WC-1295 WID-1586 W-92983dd1-2965-412a-90ca-5d18214ac831 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 7:13:00 AM Any logging of relatively undisturbed forest (of any age) is folly. Cutting in any of our pitiful, tiny, fragmented remaining patches of actual mature forest is nothing short of criminal....
WC-1296 WID-1590 W-f93df503-ff85-4f43-ae53-6ab51fa95918 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 8:23:00 AM I am concerned that this will greatly increase logging in Oregon. Our forests are very important to me. Please change the current plan so that fewer Oregon forests will be open to logging. Thank you, Reed Wallsmith
WC-1297 WID-988 W-1aa4aa39-79c3-401b-a2b4-d011b7557cad Draft EIS 1/9/2008 8:36:00 AM DO NOT INCREASE LOGGING. Do not cut our old growth forests. Do not damage our environment, wildlife habitat, recreation. Do not trade our resources for money.
WC-1298 WID-880 W-01306cc1-19b2-4d1e-a7b1-7f7eaefff67f Draft EIS 1/9/2008 8:39:00 AM Dear BLM, Two recent events have come together from distinctly different directions in my life which, I believe, drastically alter any of the alternatives offered by the BLM regarding the WOPR. The first of these was the discovery of a specimen of Fomitopsis officinalis near if not on one of the BLM managed areas affected by substantial change in any of the BLM WOPR alternatives. The existance of any of these fungi in this area could be of extreme value and concern. The second was the information published by Paul Stamets of Fungi Perfecti regarding the potential value of Fomitopsis officinalis in providing a substantial protection against Smallpox. Given the necessity of this in the context of our current national security, it is not unreasonable that the BLM should take the following action. All alternatives of the WOPR should be halted until it is possible to survey, catalogue, and at least clone potential specimens of this fungus in at minimum all old-growth potential logging areas, and possibly even in 1st or 2nd growth areas for possible value in this highly important medicinal context. Please take these comments into consideration and I look forward to your continued contact in this regard. Sincerely, David Bianco Flying B Bar Ranch Selma, OR
WC-1299 WID-1591 f0207120-60b8-44c7-82b2-c5b4a1b838ee File Upload 1/9/2008 8:40:00 AM

Uploaded File:  Forest Policy.odt
WC-1300 WID-1593 W-f41f7e22-8781-46e5-8abc-bdad9c33172b Draft EIS 1/9/2008 9:08:00 AM I don't believe the EIS is taking into account the wishes of all Oregonians. The proposal cuts too close to streams and will destroy too many hunting and fishing areas. The Bureau of Land Management proposal lacks the balance needed to support Oregon´s priceless outdoor heritage. The BLM should go back to the drawing board, and make wildlife habitat and fisheries a higher priority.
USA.GOV  |  No Fear Act  |  DOI  |  Disclaimer  |  About BLM  |  Notices  |  Get Adobe Reader