Web-comments-1301-1400

# SenderID Ref.# Comment Tool Date Comment
WC-1301 WID-1486 W-382bae4d-582a-4e61-81d1-d80fbd45898d Draft EIS 1/9/2008 9:11:00 AM The "No Action Alternative" is vastly superior to the other alternatives. This is the only alternative that sufficiently addresses the needs of the Endangered Species Act and will keep the BLM from wasting numerous hours in court defending the less substantial alternatives. As a taxpayer, I would prefer to see federal agencies spending money on truly sustainable alternatives that will be supported by a wide spectrum of citizens rather than writing producing endless documents that support polarized positions. I suggest that the BLM develop a new plan that will retain old growth reserves and manage remaining areas on a long scale (200-300 years) selective harvest rotation schedule that emulates natural cycles. Such a plan should not include loopholes to cut existing old growth stands. We should be able to have a world with both rare organisms and sustainable forest products.
WC-1302 WID-1596 5d6abad2-ac6c-455d-8af7-7b0ae07c47ea File Upload 1/9/2008 9:19:00 AM

Uploaded File:  BLMlttr.doc
WC-1303 WID-1600 a6fdaef0-9a78-4e5b-9149-f0100579c101 File Upload 1/9/2008 9:55:00 AM

Uploaded File:  LT BLM 1.9.08.doc
WC-1304 WID-1601 7e5b9a78-5cef-45a0-86e6-600643fa1186 File Upload 1/9/2008 10:03:00 AM Attached are comments from The Oregon Chapter of The Wildlife Society regarding the Western Oregon Plan Revisions

Uploaded File:  tws-or comments on WOPR final.pdf
WC-1305 WID-1604 W-331fbb62-e426-4252-b921-aef9c9a46a5c Draft EIS 1/9/2008 10:14:00 AM I have read a summary of the WOPR, and I have worked for many years in reforestation in Oregon, Washington, and Montana. Considering what we facing in terms of climate change, we need to protect our forests to maintain our bases for soil, water, and air, as well as carbon sequestration. I therefore OPPOSE any plan that would increase logging on our public lands. A DECREASE in logging is what is vitally needed. Thank you for considering my opinion. Peter Chabarek Eugene, OR
WC-1306 WID-1603 W-9f7c9272-3c06-4372-97e0-7dc065b53dd9 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 10:20:00 AM Dear BLM: As a life long resident of the Pacific Northwest I am contacting you to voice my STRONG OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED CHNAGES in the management of land and resources in Oregon's public landS. I DO NOT APPROVE of any changes that would do the following: 1 - alter the protected status of 'Late Successional Reserves' 2 - increase off-road vehicle areas 3 - increase new road building in road less areas I support the PRESERVATION of public lands, their quiet, roadlessness and ancient heritage. Thank you for consideration of my input. I watch your public land stewardship with great interest and expect you to preserve and not destroy these beautiful public resources. Sincerely Karin Bardarson
WC-1307 WID-1606 226eaaf2-b3f1-4f39-a253-f2e860466869 File Upload 1/9/2008 10:29:00 AM

Uploaded File:  2008 WOPR Comments.doc
WC-1308 WID-1609 None Web Forum Exit 1/9/2008 10:48:00 AM I use all kinds of websites. I find this one difficult to use - everything works different. Don't know why I have to register just to look at a map...
WC-1309 WID-1608 W-745f2d31-6768-423c-ab91-03623cb95ae3 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 10:50:00 AM Thank you for soliciting my input; I hope you take it to heart. I am strongly against any of the alternatives in the WOPR. I favor making no changes to current management. For many scientific, moral, and aesthetic reasons, I do not believe any increased logging of old growth forests is wise, and public opposition and lengthy court challenges are likely to ensue. In any case, the upcoming change in administration at the next presidential election will make it moot. Why waste time, effort, and money on management plans that won't be implemented? I urge you not to go forward with increased logging of BLM lands. Sincerely, Louise dandurand.
WC-1310 WID-1605 W-266eb41d-d87d-4810-ab58-6e4688ea3dba Draft EIS 1/9/2008 10:52:00 AM the wopr is an abomination to the health of the forests and to the beauty of our land. scrape it! we need all the old growth left and not one more clear cut. this is proposal is ludicrous. it is not written using the overwhelming forest research that is out there showing how to protect our forest and use them for the us and our future generations. this plan is from the political right and only assuaging our current presidents agenda. please, stop the wopr in its tracks. right now!
WC-1311 WID-1612 a4582050-bdcf-4901-8a24-a2c7cea32353 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 11:02:00 AM I have attended an informational meeting regarding the options proposed for the designated BLM lands. I honestly believe we would be doing great harm to our environment by increasing the harvest of any old growth forest anywhere in the state. I believe stongly we should maintain our current sustainable practice rather than increase the number of trees harvested. We must come up with alternative means to fund rural districts. Recommendations to increase the harvest would only provide short term gains at too great of a loss of a national heritage. The old growth forests are a precious ecosystem that must be protected now and into the future.
WC-1312 WID-1615 cf4015b2-08fe-4ae6-8db8-caa8a4710f8b File Upload 1/9/2008 11:07:00 AM

Uploaded File:  CPO comments on '07 WOPR.doc
WC-1313 WID-1617 cf4015b2-08fe-4ae6-8db8-caa8a4710f8b File Upload 1/9/2008 11:07:00 AM

Uploaded File:  blm.woprcomment.doc
WC-1314 WID-1620 1dfc0208-7412-4edc-a0f0-cac403e319a5 File Upload 1/9/2008 11:26:00 AM I urge: No more logging in old growth forest, Preservation of all tree buffers along rivers and streams.

Uploaded File:  WOPR-Essenberg_comment.doc
WC-1315 WID-1619 43fb42d6-2edd-44d9-a172-00303f1a2321 File Upload 1/9/2008 11:30:00 AM

Uploaded File:  BLM logging comment 1-9-08.doc
WC-1316 WID-1621 b0a0640d-8cbe-4b6f-8c53-ccd86fa6a050 File Upload 1/9/2008 11:38:00 AM

Uploaded File:  WOPR2.txt
WC-1317 WID-1622 W-cca0ae70-dcb0-468d-baaf-8b9adaf548cc Draft EIS 1/9/2008 11:43:00 AM Dear BLM, As a native Oregonian, I am very concerned with the direction the Bush Administration is headed with the management of nearly 2.6 million acres of federal forests under the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The changes the Bureau of Land Management is contemplating will unravel the protections of the landmark Northwest Forest Plan, and will lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy. The Bush Administration would place half of the public land that the BLM manages - and most of our best old-growth BLM forests - in "Timber Management Areas" to be clearcut every 80 years. The Bush Administration´s preferred alternative proposes to clearcut 110,000 acres of Oregon´s old-growth (120+ years) and build 1,000 mile of new logging roads every decade while creating over 100,000 miles of new Off Highway Vehicle Emphasis Areas - all at the expense of roadless areas, threatened species, water quality and non-motorized recreation. Shockingly, the proposal ignores the role that these forests play in regulating the climate. Most Americans want federal land managers to embrace thinning second growth forests, safeguard communities from wildfire and protect what remains of our nation´s ancient forests. Indeed, many Oregon forest managers are already moving beyond the conflicts of the past. By focusing on previously logged public forestlands - many of which are now overgrown and in need of thinning - they are providing wood to local mills while actually improving conditions for fish and wildlife and keeping saws out of precious old-growth forests. In contrast, the WOPR proposes to inflame the controversy by increasing old-growth clearcutting for a short-term economic fix. The WOPR puts water quality at risk and would destroy some of Oregon´s most special places. We should protect our remaining mature and old-growth forests on public land, not clearcut these natural treasures. It is disappointing that at a time when public consensus for old-growth protection and second-growth thinning has never been stronger, the BLM is proposing to clearcut forests older than our nation and turn complex ecosystems into tree plantations most susceptible to severe wildfire. Please protect remaining old-growth forests, focus active management of BLM lands in already logged-over areas, and create job opportunities in restoration thinning projects that benefit watersheds and generate wood products without multiplying past mistakes. Sincerely, Michelle D'Amico 910 Tiara St Eugene, OR 97405
WC-1318 WID-1611 b0a0640d-8cbe-4b6f-8c53-ccd86fa6a050 File Upload 1/9/2008 11:47:00 AM

Uploaded File:  Comments from private tax payers Peter and Candice Shoshin.doc
WC-1319 WID-1623 W-c026ada1-6575-4286-a1fc-e969ec584cdd Draft EIS 1/9/2008 11:50:00 AM I prefer option #2. I prefer increasing the federal timber harvest. We need timber jobs, not timber handouts.
WC-1320 WID-1624 0de2743a-bbe0-4640-9f95-e973b839f63a Draft EIS 1/9/2008 11:54:00 AM I'm very musch opposed to the wopr
WC-1321 WID-1625 W-767c3fe9-4855-44ef-92c8-ac2ad0032c11 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 12:13:00 PM Redesign the plan to eliminate the logging in and of old forests. Conserve what little is left of our forest heritage for our children and their children. Logging practices in the past have been harmful to ecosystems in Oregon. Logging practices world wide and contributing to global warming and species destruction. The short term economic gains are not worth the habitatand soil destruction, water and air pollution. At the very least wait until 2009 when the country, as a result of the upcoming elections, will have a different policy toward the environment and the economy. Sincerely, Larry Gunn
WC-1322 WID-1632 W-938d64ff-4df0-472b-ba11-064bb3c62353 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 12:54:00 PM Dear BLM, I am very concerned with the direction the Bush Administration is headed in with the management of nearly 2.6 million acres of federal forests under the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The changes that the BLM is contemplating will unravel the protections of the landmark Northwest Forest Plan, and may lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy. Your current proposal is unacceptable. The agency proposes to increase old-growth logging on public lands in western Oregon by 700%, build 1,000 miles of new logging road in the next decade and clearcut at a 9-1 ratio to thinning. This is a myopic and backwards proposal that depletes our natural resource base for future generations by weakening protections for forests, creeks and salmon. Shockingly, the proposal ignores the role that these forests play in regulating the climate. Most Americans want federal land managers to embrace thinning second growth forests, safeguard communities from wildfire and protect what remains of our nation's ancient forests. By focusing on previously logged public forestlands - many of which are now overgrown and in need of thinning - they are providing wood to local mills while actually improving conditions for fish and wildlife and keeping saws out of precious old-growth forests. In contrast, the WOPR proposes to inflame the controversy by increasing old-growth clear-cutting for a short-term economic fix. The WOPR puts water quality at-risk and would destroy some of Oregon's most special places. We should protect our remaining mature and old-growth forests on public land, not clear-cut these natural treasures as the WOPR proposes to do. It is disappointing that at a time when public consensus for old-growth protection and second-growth thinning has never been stronger, the BLM is proposing to clear-cut forests older than our nation and turn complex ecosystems into flammable tree farms. Please protect remaining old-growth forests, focus active management of BLM lands in already logged-over areas, and concentrate job opportunities in restoration forestry that would benefit watersheds and generate wood products without multiplying past mistakes. Sincerely, Robert Powell
WC-1323 WID-1633 a70d5044-51a6-462c-978c-571a39dfa999 File Upload 1/9/2008 12:55:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR_Comments_Mail_Before_Jan10.txt
WC-1324 WID-1636 b2a886ef-30eb-4372-b9b3-f4b239a967f8 File Upload 1/9/2008 1:02:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Bureau of Land Management.doc
WC-1325 WID-1635 W-9ac76306-3f01-4ffb-927d-34280da86ae5 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 1:03:00 PM Off Road Vehicles are loud, polluting machines that don't need to be in the woods that are our only remaining source of solitude and natural beauty. Basically they are just using the woods as a track, when they could be riding on a track and leaving the woods for hunting, fishing, hiking, and sustainable logging. Give them a few existing sacrifice areas they've already ruined and keep them out of everywhere else. Thank you.
WC-1326 WID-1637 W-d8f6b52c-e508-4a53-8531-3466b6fa9066 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 1:06:00 PM There is more ATV'S and not much areas to ride.
WC-1327 WID-1639 W-6076a9f8-15e9-4493-8005-27c73dc9070e Draft EIS 1/9/2008 1:06:00 PM U.S. Bureau of Land Management Western Oregon Plan Revision P.O.B. 2965 Portland, Oregon 97208 Dear Sirs: During the process of revising Alternative 2 of the Western Oregon Plan Revision, please keep T. 19S. R.06W. Sec. 17 as a Late Successional Management Area. In this section is a small, beautiful, old-growth grove, the Grandmothers of Wolf Creek, and nearby older forest, which together comprise approximately one quarter of the section. This is an area for environmental education and recreation that is greatly valued by students, teachers, and residents in Crow and Eugene. This old-growth forest near Crow is one of the the oldest stands of native forest close to Eugene. It has * 300 - 400-year-old Douglas firs, along with very old western red cedar and western hemlock * younger trees of diverse ages * diverse understory of shrubs, herbaceous plants, mosses, and fungi * habitat suitable for spotted owl and marbled murrelet * forest stretching from Wolf Creek up to Timber Ridge, a 600-foot elevation span that adds species and habitat diversity to the area. We are not adjacent landowners. But there are places on B.L.M. land that are important in our lives. And this particular forest has become important in the lives of many people, especially immigrant students at Lane Community College who who are learning to respect and protect the environment in their new home as they learn English. For the past three years, field trips to the old growth forest on Wolf Creek have been an important part of class study of western Oregon nature and environmental protection. Student docents have learned to explain such elements as snags, nurse logs, vegetation layers and food chains of an old-growth forest to others. They served as forest guides for another group of E.S.L. students from L.C.C., and also began to introduce the forest to students from Crow High School. The Wolf Creek forest is becoming an educational element in the lives of more and more students and other people as well. We believe it is important to have an old-growth area for learning about the forest in the Coast Range and west of Eugene, in addition to the B.L.M.'s two formal Environmental Education areas east of I-5, which are not in the Coast Range. It helps many educators and students to have an old-growth forest close to educational institutions in and near Crow/Lorane/Veneta and west Eugene, in a place on Wolf Creek Road that is easily accessible to everyone. I believe this forest is the closest publicly-owned old-growth forest in thearea that is accessible from a paved road. We hope this lovely old growth grove can remain as a Late Successional Management Area, for the continuing benefit of Lane County students now and for generations to come. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely yours, David Gordon Executive Director Pacific Environment
WC-1328 WID-1630 W-a5b5c1f2-6729-469d-8f14-de6387a43c39 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 1:43:00 PM LWD in streams is important and critical but so is temprature and other forms of water quality. Providing wider buffers will contintue to protect all streams whether they bear fish or not. In our region, all streams eventually feed a fish bearing stream. the water quality that supplies these streams is important to fish as well as society as a whole. Policy's made today should focus on our future, the lives of our youth and thier children as well. Economic betterment can be found in many forms in our society but environmental quality can only be achieved by protection and enhancment. Please refocus these plans to set multiple goals of enrichment for our society.
WC-1329 WID-1630 W-f719a5b9-ceed-449d-967c-65adb36510b4 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 1:53:00 PM It appears that a no action alternative would be my preference as well as others I have discussed this with. However, the alternative we would like to see would be one that is more proactive in environmental protection and enhancement. An environmental focused sustainable plan would provide the best management of our public lands for our future and still allow for economic benifits by providing a more diverse economy less dependant on one industry.
WC-1330 WID-1647 W-b99728f3-fef8-45bc-a6d5-6e05eeee8fea Draft EIS 1/9/2008 2:29:00 PM I am requesting that the BLM's "preferred alternative" on the WORP proposal be abandoned, and that a more ecologically/financialy balanced alternative be adopted. I join many organizations that urge the BLM not to reduce the logging buffer zone on fish bearing streams down to 25ft. This would be a step backwards after years of progress in relation to decresing water temperature on streams and rivers (critical for fish survival/propogation) by allowing for more intensive shading via tree cover. Also, the 700 miles of BLM jurisdictional watershed land that fail to meet Clean Water Act standards should be addressed first before proceeding with more general degradation of the watershed processess via intensive logging. Also, the BLM does not adequately manage the roads which they have already built on their land, so to increase road maintanence issues by building more roads for logging under the "preferred alternative" seems a waste of taxpayer money. Please make sure that wildlife habitat concerns, "traditional" recreational availability, and fisheries protection, are priorities that coincide with the financial benefit scheme which would follow from the increased logging alternatives. The WORP needs to include a balanced approach to the planning of the BLM land it encompasses, or in the alternative simply left alone under the "no change" alternative. Sincerely, Laurel M Johnson F/V Titan, Commercial Salmon Troller
WC-1331 WID-1649 W-e5db343c-a610-40b0-8cf7-b2660411c26e Draft EIS 1/9/2008 2:46:00 PM I am against this plan the whole way through. We need to DECREASE logging and destructive use of our public lands, not increase. THIS IS OUR HOME!!! THIS IS OUR LAND!!! We need to preserve it for ourselves and our children. This is about the land we love to live in. BLM's plan to increase logging dramatically in the Northwest is a horrible idea. Allowing more intensive use of the federal lands including building 1,000 more roads in roadless areas, creating more all-terrain vehicles areas for "recreation" and the liquidating what BLM calls "Late Successional Reserves" or old growth stands by more than 40% is the exact opposite of what we as a state, county, country, people need! Please do not pass this destructive and ridiculous draft. Thank you, Jessica Zay
WC-1332 WID-1651 1044a3e5-1d13-42a3-a993-bf66d5e87a3b File Upload 1/9/2008 3:08:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR Comments.doc
WC-1333 WID-1652 1044a3e5-1d13-42a3-a993-bf66d5e87a3b File Upload 1/9/2008 3:09:00 PM

Uploaded File:  wopr.wps.doc
WC-1334 WID-1655 8800d945-5124-4d4c-b97e-7c77c089ed8a File Upload 1/9/2008 3:34:00 PM

Uploaded File:  No WOPR January 9, 2008.doc
WC-1335 WID-1657 W-39d14d38-fb85-4884-ad13-1f15a56f6e1a Draft EIS 1/9/2008 3:35:00 PM As a lifelong Oregonian, I believe that our last remaining old-growth forests deserve maximum protection. My grandfathers were both Oregon loggers. They each made comments in the 1980's that we should not allow a single additional old growth tree to be logged in this state. We need to preserve these resources for other benefits that go beyond timber production. They provide habitat for wildlife, improve water quality and provide countless recreational opportunities. Please ensure that these resources are fully protected for future generations. Thank you.
WC-1336 WID-1659 W-b423dfed-e630-4ac3-b41e-1bf4b433875c Draft EIS 1/9/2008 3:44:00 PM After reading through this draft, all I see is another move to destroy Oregon's public lands. I just wanted to say I'm vehemently opposed to such action. This land is owned by everyone, not just a few timber companies and prospective developers. When are we going to learn that private companies end up costing tax payers more and more each year? The current Bush administration's shameless theft of public funds and land has caused tremendous damage that will effect generations to come. We have recently all been witness to the heavy rains which have caused serious landslides and destruction to roads, bridges, and dwellings, not to mention, what it has done to whole communities. PLEASE DO NOT GO FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT. Part of what makes Oregon such a special place is the natural beauty of the trees and the forests. Don't let special interests back in Washington destroy our landscape, or our future. Our land is our future, and our future is our children and their children. If you want to see a glimpse of what they plan on destroying, take a drive back east some time and see what they've done to that side of the country, and then ask yourselves, is that what you want here in Oregon? I don't. My family doesn't. Please, our lands are for everyone now and tomorrow.
WC-1337 WID-1660 W-75658816-93f4-48a5-823c-b496830b0a92 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 3:47:00 PM I am against any development or harvesting of any resources in our wild lands. I do not believe we need to provide jobs for the timber industry, and I do not believe we can spare more forest. We need the trees and all species. Yes I could have read more of this proposal, but I would still feel the same way. No more roads, no more clear cuts. No more legislation to benefit the timber industry. Thank you. Jeff Nye, Portland OR
WC-1338 WID-1658 W-a03a2357-d484-4077-9f91-b94e469f1bd5 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 3:53:00 PM I support the "No Action" option. Protecting Old Growth Reserves is critical for wildlife habitat, and recreational purposes. The 3 alternative options all threaten to weaken the remaining links and habitat corridors, furthering fragmentation, and causing long term ecological damage, just to boost up the weakened logging industry in rural counties. Instead, focus on developing resources to promote alternative economic attractions like recreation and hunting while protecting the last remaining areas that truly feel "wild" and support threatened plants and wildilfe.
WC-1339 WID-1627 433590fd-504f-43e6-8413-3ed9d6e3ebf5 File Upload 1/9/2008 3:55:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR od growth letter.pdf
WC-1340 WID-1650 W-931e22eb-7ba1-452b-9e6f-6727130a1647 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 3:58:00 PM The concept of establishing massive areas that are dedicated to the abusive practices of offroad vehicle operators is incomprehensible. A large percentage of these operators (not the majority, but none the less, a large percentage) have no respect for private or public lands. By the nature of these motorized vehicles, they are excessively noisy, they permanently damage the physical and esthetic environment in, and on, which they operate and the participants ignore, with impunity, any protocols intended to minimize their destructive behavior. They often consciously harrass wildlife, deliberately attempt to intimidate other forest users and find glee in destroying the environment which they corrupt. Compounding these problems is BLM's unwillingness and/or ability to provide meaningful oversite of these activities, particularly true in southwest Oregon. Sanctifying this activity because there are some who want to abuse this public treasure is as ludecrous as establishing pot farms to pander to those who would like to cultivate their own drugs. Next issue. The eighteenth century mentality of clear cutting our nations forests has resulted in the destruction of over 95% of those virgin forests. There is no need to destroy the miniscule amount that remains to pander to myopic interests of government bureaucrats and those who seek to profit from this destruction. It permanently damages the physical and esthetic environment, and it robs from future generations the opportunity to enjoy the magnificience of this priceless natural treasure. There is no need for the product of this destruction that is not more readily and easily available elsewhere, and once gone, it can never be recreated. Like the "buggy whip", the time for this practice has long since passed, and it should be abandoned to the trash heap of man's poor judgements. Keep chain saws out of the remaining virgin forests, and keep motorcycles and other ATV's in an environment where they can annoy and destroy only each other.
WC-1341 WID-1663 W-785e1e09-bedc-4975-901a-f0a3b00177f1 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 4:28:00 PM The wopr plan continues the legacy of PUBLIC lands management of the past 100+ years that has led to environmental and social problems, and has not adequately considered the impact upon our land that we will leave for future generations. The plan continues to allow for clear-cutting forests and taking away our last remaining old growth woods. We have less than 5% of our country's original forest that has not been cut and misued by industries which profit at the expense of taxpayers, the future health of our ecosystems and at species currently residing in them. It is our responsibility to halt this rape or our land and think of a new plan that will allow for LIMITED cutting that will be conducted in a responsible manner resulting in continued healthy and happy forests, clean air & water, habitat and unmortorized recreation. Please reconsider and put forth a plan that will make forests healthy for the future.
WC-1342 WID-1666 W-a9d6ba45-d11d-4d6f-94de-cb98e5bcbf22 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 4:52:00 PM In looking through some files last night, I found a letter my late husband wrote about the Spotted Owl Recovery Plan in 1992. So many of the comments are still valid now for the WOPR. It IS time to restore balance and move on to a final plan for the government timberland in Oregon. While conservationists and biologists may passionately believe that habitat is priceless, are they in a better position to determine what is in the total public interest than workers, consumers or elected officials? A partnership between the private sector and the great social forces demands communication and participation in development of policies which impact everyone. In Oregon, Washington and northern California more than 100 mills have been shut down and thousands of workers have lost their jobs. Yet, much has been learned about the owl, the salmon and the other critters since the 1970s. These animals are adaptable to several different habitats, including old growth and younger managed forests and we now know they also successfully reproduce in different habitats. That is the way they were created. These facts raise a very important public policy question: Why hasn't a balanced proposal been presented that considers people as well as wildlife? I agree wholeheartedly that we need to protect the animals, but people are important, too, and going overboard to save animals - or any single species or subspecies - will hurt people. The solution for Oregon taxpayers is to sign on for Alternative 2 in the new BLM forest management plan. This seems the most logical solution proposed.
WC-1343 WID-1670 W-5c4e02b6-db8b-4e55-b36a-d107265c99f4 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 5:11:00 PM I am very concerned with the direction the Bush Administration is headed in with the management of nearly 2.6 million acres of federal forests under the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The changes that the BLM is contemplating will unravel the protections of the landmark Northwest Forest Plan, and may lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy. Your current proposal is unacceptable. The agency proposes to increase old-growth logging on public lands in western Oregon by 700%, build 1,000 miles of new logging road in the next decade and clearcut at a 9-1 ratio to thinning. This is a myopic and backwards proposal that depletes our natural resource base for future generations by weakening protections for forests, creeks and salmon. Shockingly, the proposal ignores the role that these forests play in regulating the climate. Most Americans want federal land managers to embrace thinning second growth forests, safeguard communities from wildfire and protect what remains of our nation's ancient forests. By focusing on previously logged public forestlands - many of which are now overgrown and in need of thinning - they are providing wood to local mills while actually improving conditions for fish and wildlife and keeping saws out of precious old-growth forests. In contrast, the WOPR proposes to inflame the controversy by increasing old-growth clear-cutting for a short-term economic fix. The WOPR puts water quality at-risk and would destroy some of Oregon's most special places. We should protect our remaining mature and old-growth forests on public land, not clear-cut these natural treasures as the WOPR proposes to do. It is disappointing that at a time when public consensus for old-growth protection and second-growth thinning has never been stronger, the BLM is proposing to clear-cut forests older than our nation and turn complex ecosystems into flammable tree farms. Please protect remaining old-growth forests, focus active management of BLM lands in already logged-over areas, and concentrate job opportunities in restoration forestry that would benefit watersheds and generate wood products without multiplying past mistakes.
WC-1344 WID-1674 W-73e3e96e-51fc-4045-976e-7932dc127575 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 5:41:00 PM I am against the increase of logging in BLM lands. If anything we should reduce the number of acres that are being harvested. A short term "fix" will bring on long term problems that will harm fish and wildlife. Stream buffers should be increased to provide protection from sun, logging debris, and mud slides. You only have to look as far as the slides in Western Oregon of this winter to see the effect of logging in riparian areas. Be responsible and make changes that will improve the quality of the environmnet not degrade it.
WC-1345 WID-1675 W-46170705-d27c-47cb-be47-e16f570462ba Draft EIS 1/9/2008 5:42:00 PM I am opposed to the "Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR)." The agency proposes to increase old-growth logging on public lands in western Oregon by 700%, build 1,000 miles of new logging road in the next decade and clearcut at a 9-1 ratio to thinning. This is a myopic and backwards proposal that depletes our natural resource base for future generations by weakening protections for forests, creeks and salmon. Shockingly, the proposal ignores the role that these forests play in regulating the climate. Furthermore, this proposal is sure to result in lengthy and expensive litigation, not to mention further erosion of the public's confidence in the ability (or inclination) of the BLM to make science- and fact-based decisions about our shared natural heritage. Do the right thing. Protect the forests of Western Oregon for future generations. Thank you. Zak Griefen, Esq.
WC-1346 WID-1673 W-22544347-0947-4857-a4f8-45c305c6f05c Draft EIS 1/9/2008 5:44:00 PM I believe that sustained yields must be better balanced with a sustainable environment. Since part of the reason for sustaining the proposed level of logging is economical, other economic aspects of the plan should be more carefully considered. For instance, perhaps future market opportunities for carbon credits on public lands should be taken into account? If this land is logged, the potential for selling this credits may be lost. Further, the economic benefit from logging these public lands will not be experienced by the public . Instead profits will go to those major logging corporations, which made it through the previous bust. I am mostly opposed to this action because I believe that I represent at least a good portion of the public; I will not benefit from this increase in logging. Instead, I will experience the costs of poorer fishing, decreased aesthetics, and the intrinsic value/pride that I have in Oregon as the model of a green, sustainable environment will be hurt. I am opposed to the proposed level of logging on BLM lands.
WC-1347 WID-1671 b4fb6aa1-8cab-4ffe-9b7f-71d22e0a5d1e File Upload 1/9/2008 6:03:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Comments to BLM.doc
WC-1348 WID-1677 c54532e4-4851-4b4a-9c0e-9323d21c60ef Draft EIS 1/9/2008 6:23:00 PM I urge you to protect the old growth forests in Oregon. These forests are national treasures. Please do not destroy this heritage for short term gain. Prtiscilla McCool
WC-1349 WID-1677 W-89317bcf-d747-4ae7-b0ac-6fdca06b0392 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 6:27:00 PM I urge you to protect the old growth forests in Oregon. Logging these areas for short term gain is not acceptable. These forests are national treasures and should be protected. Priscilla McCool
WC-1350 WID-1679 W-14be01df-9b97-4b57-a1c0-1fb69501370b Draft EIS 1/9/2008 6:46:00 PM My wife and I prefer the no action alternative. We are opposed to any reduction of or logging in old growth areas (80+) in the Pacific Northwest. The forests belong to us all, not to Weyerhaeuser, Simpson, or whomever. We own these forests through our taxes, use permits, and conservation efforts. I worked in the timber Industry for 8 years in the 1950s. I know what it's like. They are not conservationists. They are not preservationists. They are plunderers with a green mask. When this old growth is gone there will be no more. Forests are needed for clean air, clean water, and to control erosion. "Fig leaf" corridors along Hwy 26 do not do this. Forests are complex ecosystems not mere stands of trees. Please save our old growth forests for the health of our region and the spiritual well-being of our people. No more clear cuts!
WC-1351 WID-1678 W-bde993a2-5fa9-4072-a182-849964803079 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 6:47:00 PM "Except for the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District, evaluations for the other districts documented that regeneration harvest was 30 to 60 percent of the levels anticipated. Even when thinning volume was added, except for the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District, plan evaluations showed that the timber offered from the harvest land base was still only 40 to 70 percent of the anticipated allowable sale quantity. (From Online Draft EIS, Western Oregon Management Plan). From our reading of the plan, the clear objective of this revision is to supply more timber sales, even if the current plan doesn´t support current harvest levels. This seems to us to be incorrect reasoning for increasing timber extraction. Clearly, unsustainable levels of timber extraction cannot be increased by increasing short-term timber extraction. This is the classic forest management error: attempting to please political special interests profit-taking without regard for the long-term impacts of unsustainable timber extraction. As rural residents of a timber county in Oregon, we say no to this revision of the plan. This is not a revision that improves the public investment, protects habitat or increases productive forest lands. It attempts to do the complete opposite.
WC-1352 WID-1676 W-40d39e14-48a1-4157-bdcc-8c8722142d82 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 6:49:00 PM At this point in history, it is time for the BLM to look forward and develop a 10-15 year plan that integrates new approaches to economic development and stewardship using the natural resources we rely on now and future generations will need. Clear-cutting old growth and forestland adjacent to private property is not the answer. Supplying rural communities with short-term timber industry jobs is not a viable solution. I encourage the BLM to integrate the following principles (offered as part of the Oregon's Heritage Forests "Community-conservation Alternative") 1. Protecting all the remaining mature and old-growth forests on federal land; 2. Shifting the agency´s efforts toward ecological restoration of forests and watersheds; and 3. Achieving social and economic objectives through forest restoration activities. There is a lot the BLM could achieve by partnering with other organizations across the state who are working with rural communities on stewardship, fire prevention and economic development. Why not take this planning opportunity that concerns PUBLIC LAND and safeguard that land for future generations by developing a sound plan that protects the inherent value of our forests. The proposed alternative, Alternative 2 appears very one-sided: based on job creation and revenue-generation. This is not the way to base a decision regarding OUR natural resources when alternative job creation and revenue-generation activities exist. To paraphrase current rhetoric, it is time for change in America.
WC-1353 WID-1683 W-deaac74f-249b-44d7-aa2b-a04998230deb Draft EIS 1/9/2008 6:53:00 PM Please do not allow the increase in logging in our forests. It will cause environmental damage that will increase the effects of global warming. It will also damage fish, wildlife, clean waterways and recreation. Oregonians pride themselves on our states glorious landscape and resources, and that will be taken from us tree by tree if the BLM allows the logging to proceed. The profits and employment opportunities gained will not out way the devastating environmental impact. Keep Oregon Green!
WC-1354 WID-1686 W-1ec844a3-9798-441f-9255-2ed4c58c963d Draft EIS 1/9/2008 7:08:00 PM I strongly urge you to reject the WOPR and your proposed alternative 2. Your apparent desire to clear cut all remain- ing forests in the northwest shows only for commercial logging interests. Your indicated desire to not obey environ- mental laws shows your disregard for the environmeent and forest echosystems. Your efforts should be directed toward thinning congested forests around com- munities. Logging should be done only in second growth forests. In clear cut-ting old growth forests you are destroy- ing the most fire resistant trees, elim- inating an echosystem that never will be replaced and destroying an environment that future generations will not have. You will only establish tree plantations and not diversified forests and natural echosystems.
WC-1355 WID-1690 W-2c6d025c-275d-4c2c-9457-cfe7ec082e94 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 7:44:00 PM The Draft EIS is not an adequate plan for management of our forests for the reasons below: 1. The logging levels called for in the WOPR are not sustainable. Old growth should be left alone until we create a balanced forest management system. Many areas that have been logged in the past are now overgrown and ready to be cut. By practicing restorative thinning in these areas, we can meet the demand for timber, provide an influx of money to rural counties and reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire. 2. The BLM plan does not adequately take into account protections provided by the Endangered Species Act. Streamside logging buffers are reduced in a way that would harm water quality in streams where salmon spawn. In addition, habitat for owls and the marbled murrelet would be negatively impacted by clear-cut logging. In the Northwest Forest Plan, scientists concluded that endangered wildlife cannot be protected without adequate safeguards for old growth forests on BLM lands. 3. BLM lands also protect water quality for communities´ drinking water. Diminished protection on these lands will affect the drinking water quality for the citizens of Salem, Albany, Corvallis, Eugene, and Roseburg, among others. Many rural residents rely on springs that originate on BLM lands. If these watersheds are not protected, their water supplies could be polluted or interrupted. 4. WOPR is a departure from the approach of the Northwest Forest Plan. Although the NWFP is not necessarily the best solution to the management difficulties we currently have, re-opening the wounds of the 1980s timber wars won't solve anything. It is time to make strides to create an innovative and forward-thinking plan. to be continued...
WC-1356 WID-1690 W-d3cf3b11-b0f3-4c65-86cc-b889970bcc0a Draft EIS 1/9/2008 7:44:00 PM continued... 5. Protecting forests is good economic sense. Many businesses rely on healthy rivers, fish populations, hiking opportunities and work in the woods. The commercial fishing industry depends on high quality salmon habitat. Cottage industries that harvest tree boughs for wreath making, collect commercial mushrooms, or take visitors rafting, fishing or hiking flourish on public forests in western Oregon. More logging on BLM lands also diminishes Oregon´s quality of life and will reduce property values for those living near these lands. Public lands are where people go to find solitude, to walk their dogs, to hike, to hunt, and for children to explore and learn about nature. Property values in western Oregon are diminished by logging the surrounding beautiful forests, or by subjecting a property´s water source to logging, herbicides, or ammonia-based fertilizers. 6. Old-growth forests have been identified as an invaluable source for storing carbon. Healthy large trees help to keep carbon pollution out of the air and in their trunks and soil. As climate change becomes an increasing concern, the role of old growth in mitigating global warming is essential. Oregon is in the process of determining whether it wants to belong to the Chicago exchange for global carbon credits. We should plan ahead and consider what the worth of our forests really is. 7. It is true that timber-dependent counties are struggling to provide services due to lagging budgets. However, forward-looking county commissioners like Dave Toler of Jospehine County and Pete Sorenson of Lane County realize that logging old-growth isn't a long term solution. Senator Wyden and Congressman DeFazio have also pledged to get funds to counties and have already proposed legislation to do so. Let's not be shortsighted and cut old-growth before alternative solutions are tried. Let's do this right and truly make strides to provide for our communities. Drop WOPR and work on a more cooperative plan with policy makers, community and environmental advocates, scientists and forest managers.
WC-1357 WID-1696 W-7436ac75-9cc8-463c-ac9b-4e7aed6f7863 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 7:58:00 PM I am very concerned about the logging you propose to do. So much of Oregon's forests have already been logged, destroying valuable habitat for animals and indigenous plants, creating erosion and creating an ugly eyesore. One of Oregon's great beauties is her forests; it is one of the aspects that draw people from all over the country and the world to experience the peace and beauty of Oregon's natural world. So much of it has already been destroyed. This logging has got to stop! It is not sustainable for us as humans or for the ecology around us.
WC-1358 WID-1678 W-2cb49c09-9fc8-492f-b55f-244e1a30478d Draft EIS 1/9/2008 7:59:00 PM From our reading of the plan, the clear objective of this revision is to supply more timber sales, even if the current plan doesn´t support current harvest levels. This seems to us to be incorrect reasoning for increasing timber extraction. Clearly, unsustainable levels of timber extraction cannot be increased by increasing short-term timber extraction. This is the classic forest management error: attempting to please political special interests profit-taking without regard for the long-term impacts of unsustainable timber extraction. As rural residents of a timber county in Oregon, we say no to this revision of the plan. This is not a revision that improves the public investment, protects habitat or increases productive forest lands. It attempts to do the complete opposite.
WC-1359 WID-1698 5178801a-1f84-4ba8-8715-fbbaea4b1034 File Upload 1/9/2008 8:01:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR_OregonAudubon.doc
WC-1360 WID-1700 a9d2ef9d-24dd-4b43-b461-e9f9a9688fd7 File Upload 1/9/2008 8:03:00 PM These are comments and input related to WOPR. Thanks.

Uploaded File:  WOPR RJA January 9 2008.doc
WC-1361 WID-1702 c753f399-f8f8-4906-90fd-8e0a7c3524d6 File Upload 1/9/2008 8:21:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR Comments.pdf
WC-1362 WID-1703 W-232a8f9a-e8f1-4552-b0b3-0301f9e467a6 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 8:34:00 PM The BLM plan for expanding logging in Western Oregon would result in great harm to our fish, streams, wild life and forests. Roads and all-terrain vehicle use would quickly ruin any chance of this fabulous ecosystem from ever recovering. These forests are what define Oregon and provide solace to many more people than would be helped by all the clear-cutting. I cannot imagine why the US would consider destroying some of the last gorgeous, healthly forests for short-term economic gains. These forests should be maintained for today's and the future's generations.
WC-1363 WID-1704 W-65e025ba-6707-4339-81a5-9cc64dbea777 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 8:40:00 PM I wish to comment about the revision of the Northwest Forest Plan through the Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). I am concerned about the risk of losing vital public jobs and services if a solution is not found. Under the current Forest Plan, a fraction of timber is actually harvested because a majority of timber sales are stopped in the courts. The preferred alternative you are proposing is sure to be litigated if adopted. It won´t matter how much you plan to log, if the courts stop the sale. We can´t control judges or limit the right to take cases to court. But there is one other option. Seek compromise. Many conservationists would support a plan that involves selective thinning in areas of second growth forest. This could produce a higher yield for a shorter time. It is not the final answer but it will provide secure revenue for essential government services until a permanent funding solution can be found. This is what the US Forest Service did in the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest. Not a single sale was litigated. The US Forest Service is following a plan that is legal, environmentally and socially acceptable. Please do the same. Work to find compromise and protect vital public jobs and services.
WC-1364 WID-1699 W-ae83b5d2-ab12-4795-9383-5e74e986a59f Draft EIS 1/9/2008 8:42:00 PM Dear BLM Officials: I have been a USFS and BLM forestry contractor during my 35 years of residency near your managed forests around Cave Junction. I have seen too many good intentioned forestry decisins go sour when it comes to reforestation. I strongly oppose your WOPR alternatives that drastically increase clearcutting on the hard to regenerate areas of southwest Oregon. Almost all Oregon forests have a much more increased value as carbon storehouses than a minimal immediate promised economic gain in harvest at your very high(about 7 times current) cutting that is many times that of the NW Forest Plan. Currently the BLM reserves to maitain Northern Owl habitat, among many other animals and plants, must not be sacrificed to promise a short term goal of county tax benefits. As we both know it takes many years from timber sale planning to the final harvest and sharing revenues with the counties. Even you could reforest the proposed clearcuts, which I doubt, establishing so many even aged stands would create a huge fire danger to the many Oregonians who live near your checkerboard holdings. Reducing the no-cut buffers along streams also creates problems in erosion, fire management, and our dwindling salmon and steelhead spawning areas. Finally your OHV emphasis areas will only destroy more forest land and make multi-use a joke. No one has been able to stop the people who steal firewood, burls, and timber from BLM so why do you think you can police these proposed areas? OHV use only destroys the valuable forest resource that our public lands deserve. A no action alternative should have been offered in the EIS as it would be best for Oregon's future. Sincerely, Tom Dunn
WC-1365 WID-1694 W-24c0d253-9362-436f-a03f-4828e09c6535 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 8:44:00 PM I am concerned about your proposals to log in late succesion (old growth) forest land. These areas are rare and play such a critical role in preservation of habitat for endangered species and clean water. When one reads that materials you are using to base your proposals on have failed scientific peer review, such as the "Draft Owl Recovery Plan", questions arise about the validity of your conclusions. As an avid angler and river runner for over 25 years I have seen first hand the effects of clearcut logging on the steep coastal river drainages of these lands. I cannot believe that reducing streamside buffer zones in these areas would not have significant negative impacts on endangered fish runs. The native trees in these areas have shallow root systems that leave them vulnerable to windfall when protected zones are reduced. Reducing the shade these trees provide in low summer flows is a clear threat to the survival of juvenile salmonids. You seem to assume that increased logging in these areas will yield a financial benefit to communities in our area. I question that assumption as well. With the decreased prices for timber on the market today, it appears that some of these sales will cost the public more to process than they will yield in return. A more successful approach would be to look at harvesting younger trees and thinning some of the diseased forests that have developed on lands such as the Fremont and Deschutes forests. We would be protecting emerging forest land from fire and insuring a more sustained harvest on lands that are currently being used for timber harvest. There would be a much higher probability of achieving a consensus among opposing positions. Why is there no such alternative in your proposals? In summary I would make several suggestions. The first being an independent peer review of the entire WOPR document. Secondly, the addition of a proposal for the management of these lands that explicitly excludes the harvest of any late succession forest, and reduction in streamside protections already in place. I would suggest Congressman Peter DeFazio's proposed legislation in this regard. Having owned and operated a printing business for over 25 years I am quite familiar with the financial concerns of the timber and paper industry. I have seen the industry evolve to accomodate the desires of its customers to be provided with sustainable forest products that do not come from old growth forests. I believe it is time for you, our public representatives in this area to get on board with this program. Sincerely, Tim Clancey
WC-1366 WID-865 W-423afd07-57c3-4ac4-bf5c-a2214b8740d6 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 9:12:00 PM The sustainable harvest of timber under Alternative 2 would the most beneficial choice to communities and people most severely impacted by the loss of those same dollars since the early 1990's. I support your choice of Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative. Thanks for all the extensive analysis and hard work!
WC-1367 WID-1707 cbdd3fac-ee86-4244-ae57-54bff3d55e8c File Upload 1/9/2008 9:21:00 PM

Uploaded File:  BLM management plan.doc
WC-1368 WID-1706 W-f3659936-3749-4a90-92bf-69f38dccd6f1 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 9:22:00 PM I strongly support the "no action" alternative. There is no valid justification, particularily with the current slowdown in housing, to increase timber harvests at the expense of irreplaceable ecosystems worthy of national and world heritage site status
WC-1369 WID-1705 W-d1740e9d-603a-4cf6-8438-b6628c99af9b Draft EIS 1/9/2008 9:22:00 PM Dear decision makers, I am terribly concerned about your plan of increased clear cutting of our old growth forests;and the increased plan to allow our wild places to be over run with snow mobiles and four wheelers. I love to visit these places to view the scenery and to hear the quiet of nature that is so precious and hard to find. I am very saddened whenever I see clear cuts, because of the animals that are killed, displaced, and left without habitat. Cutting down these trees and allowing the natural habitat of so many to be ruined, is not management, it is criminal, unjust and without morals. What kind of future can we of this fragile planet hope for if this kind of aggressive abuse continues to take place upon every resource available? None of course. This is a very short term plan that will at the very least ruin the outdoor experience for me and MANY others if we get to see no animals because they are not there, or dead. If all we can hear is the obnoxious whine of those awful, wasteful, smelly, and noisy machines. If all there is to see is landslides on muddy, bald mountains. PLEASE STOP THE MADNESS! Sincerely, Charlotte Wright
WC-1370 WID-1706 W-bff503d1-6083-4797-b7c8-50a51c1beebc Draft EIS 1/9/2008 9:26:00 PM Regarding riparian management areas I strongly support the No Action alternative. Given the severe existing threats to runs of anadromous fish in Western Oregon, it would be a serious mistake to allow ANY decrease in existing protections to riparian areas.
WC-1371 WID-1708 W-ee0c2c1c-010b-445c-9caf-be7a087a2864 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 9:39:00 PM I am opposed to any increase in logging on the BLM lands. I oppose all logging on Public Lands except thinning for fire fuels reduction and selective logging in areas that are not critical habitat. I am especially worried about logging that would occur in riparian zones that might impact fish populations. I am opposed to all logging activity in old growth areas. I am opposed to all clear cuts. Oregon's economic future depends on tourism. Our health depends on clean water and air. I am opposed to most off road vehicle use on public lands.
WC-1372 WID-1709 W-5efd2e18-9f07-48ce-b0db-85e1e839a8c4 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 10:03:00 PM After review of the EIS and analysis by respected groups, we want to voice our strong opposition to the WOPR proposal. It is a veiled attempt to open Oregon forests to clear cutting and extensive logging in sensitive areas. We are appauled that the alternatives reduce the width of streamside buffers to as little as ONE TREE and drastically relax restrictions designed to protect fish and endangered wildlife. These proposals are probably illegal as they will increase kill of threatened and endangered salmonids in spawning areas. Moreover, the last thing Oregon and the country needs is to markedly ramp up logging, thereby reducing the protective biomass that helps offset carbon emissions and slows global warming. We need to face the fact that extensive logging as a large contributor to Oregon's economy is not sustainable. The economic returns are low in the global market. The costs to Oregon in the destruction it causes to our environment, the continued decline of critical species such as salmon, and the unsightly clearcuts that marr our picturesque landscape are not worth the short term goal of making more money off BLM land. We would be better off keeping the No Action alternative and devoting our economic development of BLM lands to tourism, recreation, science, and truly SUSTAINABLE AND ECOLOGICALLY SOUND logging practices. the WOPR is just another smoke and mirrors plan by the Bush Administration to make a quick buck and roll back any environmental protections they can at the expense of our beautiful forests, vulnerable native fish and threatened or endangered wildlife! Please reject the alternatives 1, 2 and 3! Keep the No Action Plan. Lisa Hansen, RN and Keith Hansen, MD
WC-1373 WID-1525 W-194c7079-88ec-422f-9c28-dcb0c8f1441e Draft EIS 1/9/2008 10:07:00 PM Kevin D. Gill 215 Arbor Ridge Dr Grants Pass, OR 97527 Western Oregon Plan Revisions P.O. Box 2965 Portland OR 97208 1/9/2008 The purpose of this letter is to provide feedback regarding the BLM Western Oregon Plan Revisions specifically in Southern Oregon. Me and my family and friends are avid OHV enthusiast and have been for life. First of all we have to find the correct balance between environmental impact and recreational enjoyment. There are people with radical and irrational opinions that believe all OHV areas should be closed. The reality is that the time spent in the woods with family and friends are some of the best times. We respect the resources and the people who responsibly use them. We will keep them clean and maintained, buy our OHV permits, and keep spark arrested vehicles meeting db ratings acceptable to USFS and BLM and pick up after those who do not have the same regard for these areas. • The Illinois Valley- I grew up in the Illinois Valley and ride this area most often. The positive impact this area has on families in this area simply cannot be measured. Kids in this community can easily fall victim to drugs, alcohol and dropping out of school. Sports, school and quality time with family including OHV riding are activities to keep kids focused and out of mischief. This riding area is far from homes with groomed trails. There is a huge problem with non OHV riders throwing trailer loads of trash in the woods. We often pick up this trash. There are also large chunks of private land bordering the BLM (IE Indian Hill LLC). After storms we have cleaned up trails from trees, flash fuels and debris. We will do what we need to do and cooperate in regards to clean and maintain the area. • Elliot Creek & Johns Peak- These are areas we ride as well. Elliot Creek lacks any kind of staging area that is worthwhile. This creates some real issues with congestion and vehicles near roads. The influence on the community echoes the Illinois Valley in a positive way. There are some trails that should be routed away from residences (a buffer should be provided). Johns Peak is a classic riding area with some of the best organized rides anywhere in the west. Steps need to be taken in this area to manage erosion with trail repairs and in some cases temporary closure of a trail. There are people with extreme opinions regarding protecting the environment. Some of them wish to stop any OHV activity and they have plenty of time to work against OHV initiatives. I have heard some statements that are pure Hog Wash regarding traffic, noise and people coming from all over the world to ride by their house. It is the responsibility of BLM MGT. to look at this plan as objective as possible from all perspectives. Many OHV riders pay their fair share in taxes and should be respected and listened to. Regards Kevin D. Gill
WC-1374 WID-1713 W-1014cc73-8625-48e1-973e-700544652abd Draft EIS 1/9/2008 10:10:00 PM Chuck Gill 1470 Caves Hwy Cave Junction, OR 97523 Western Oregon Plan Revisions P.O. Box 2965 Portland, OR 97208 I would like to express my concern about the possible closure of riding areas in the Illinois Valley in Southern Oregon. I have been riding motor cycles and ATV´s in the Illinois Valley since the late 60´s. There is a real need for these areas. This is a family activity that brings out riders from the ages of 7 to 70. Men and Women go on most of the rides. It is very important to have places for these activities. Concerned Chuck Gill
WC-1375 WID-1714 W-e0deb288-eaf8-4fc7-a4c7-47151ec9a9af Draft EIS 1/9/2008 10:14:00 PM Darryl Gill 112 Sanger Ln Cave Junction, OR 97523 Western Oregon Plan Revisions P.O. Box 2965 Portland, OR 97208 I am responding to the Western Oregon BLM plan revisions and specifically to the Illinois Valley area. I have recently moved back to the Illinois Valley after living in Salem-Keizer for 20 years. When in Keizer I learned to love the OHV areas and what they offered to riders. I understand the importance of the OHV stickers and what proper management of an area can do. I have ridden the upper Nestucca. Browns Camp, Diamond Mill, Jordan Creek. I race yearly in the China Hut or (East fort rock) unit. The Illinois Valley riding is so important to this community it could be hard for someone outside to understand. On any given weekend you can find fathers and sons, families and large groups of friends riding. The kind of person who rides there doesn´t have time to fight for what they want, they are working people with families, from principals of local schools, medical professionals, Attorneys, Loggers , well drillers, you name it. If we need to drive 50 miles to get home, economically, that will not work. We are willing to organize and help in any way necessary. That includes cleaning the area, making play areas, negotiating for more land from Indian Hill. It´s so important for the youth of this community to have hobbies that can be supervised, to have quality family time and activities to keep busy and out of trouble. Please Help! Sincerely, - Darryl Gill
WC-1376 WID-1711 W-bc1473fb-4245-4f82-bf45-7683f28648f5 Draft EIS 1/9/2008 10:20:00 PM I am opposed to any increase in logging on public lands. I am concerned about fish habitat and the health of our rivers in general. It would be an environmental setback and at this critical point in our care for the planet, we cannot afford to have setbacks. We must come up with workable solutions and not undermine the efforts of those who have worked so hard to ensure the health and longevity of our forest resources. The 1994 Northwest Forest Plan was just that...a plan. It was not some fleeting thought . Please take into account the drastic effects that such an increase in logging would have on our wildlife, our endangered species, our wild fish habitat, our forest health, not to mention our legacy. We have no other alternative for the health of all species but to make wise choices. There is no more room for short sighted decisions.
WC-1377 WID-1717 W-8dc4cedd-40d9-4201-923d-43f1c02d3a1b Draft EIS 1/9/2008 10:33:00 PM I strongly oppose the cutting of 100,000 acres of old growth, a national treasure we cannot afford to waste!
WC-1378 WID-1719 W-016c07f7-d38e-48f6-9b05-cdde90eb331e Draft EIS 1/9/2008 10:46:00 PM We must preserve our old growtg forest. We are still understanding the relationship between the health and survival of the forest and the survival of humans. the forest is a living entity, existing here long before we arrived. We have destroyed too much of it already. Our effort should be to develop the techmnology to harvest land that has already been used for lumber and learn to make that truly renewable...and clean. Thanks for the consideration
WC-1379 WID-1721 W-9a313247-4ebe-4165-a975-db633406fa4d Draft EIS 1/9/2008 10:51:00 PM Tree GOOD. ChainSaw BAD.
WC-1380 WID-1718 W-f2982c53-ca0e-439d-bfbb-6b07ad949ecb Draft EIS 1/9/2008 11:14:00 PM To the BLM staff: In reading parts of the Draft EIS I understand that the BLM wants to move ahead within the allowing legislation and existing directives. However, times are changing. The new factor on everyone's horizon is global warming, and the best advice is that we need to make very major cuts in CO2 emissions, and take measures to extract CO2 from the atmosphere. Can the BLM do its share pursuant to that urgent need? My preference would be to have the BLM acknowledge an additional policy or objective that says it will be a responsible partner in combatting global warming. To do so would mean continuing to harvest less of the forest than is currently allowed. More trees standing help "blot up" CO2, and the mechanical equipment used in lesser quantities to harvest, transport and process trees will also keep the generation of CO2 to lesser levels. Sacrificing life and business as usual cannot come too soon. I am personally changing practices in my life to minimize the impact of global warming on my grandkids and future generations. BLM would be greatly admired for showing responsible leadership in this area. John Etter Eugene, Oregon
WC-1381 WID-1889 None Interactive Map 1/10/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_dirtbiking|tb_gen_ans: I support all of the OHV emphasis areas. I do not feel the 13 areas in the preferred alternative number 2 are enough to accommodate existing and future OHV recreation, especially accounting for its popularity and the growth of the area.I also support and understand the need to reduce eroision and fire danger. As a member of the Motorcycle Riders Assoc. we will continue to work with the BLM to assisit with projects to enhance the safety and environmental concerns of the public and government. Also, I support a reasonable buffer between OHV areas and property owners. Additionally, some type of federal law enforcement would be preferred to enforce desiginated trails as offered by Alt. 2. In addition, as a taxpayer BLM lands are for all citizens to enjoy, including all forms of recreatiuon and I have a right to access those particular areas. As a reminder, BLM and O&C lands are designated by congress to provide a sustainable timber supply as well as developed recreation facilities. In closing, decisions that devastate businesses, economies, and recreation opportunities for little or no valid reasoning are unacceptable.%0D
WC-1382 WID-1889 None Interactive Map 1/10/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_dirtbiking|tb_gen_ans: Anderson Butte emphasis area needs to continue thru to the U.S F.S. lands to the south for a future cooperative venue between BLM %2F USFS.%0D
WC-1383 WID-1889 None Interactive Map 1/10/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_dirtbiking|tb_gen_ans: Tallow Box Mountain area in Ruch%2FApplegate is a known use area proposed for OHV events by previous BLM District Manager, Richard Drehobl, yet is not included as an emphasis area. It is contiguous to the Anderson Butte, Johns Peak, and Ferris Gulch use areas and I require its inclusion as an OHV emphasis area.%0D
WC-1384 WID-1897 None Interactive Map 1/10/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_ohv|tb_gen_ans:
WC-1385 WID-1897 None Interactive Map 1/10/2008 12:00:00 AM tb_1_other: home|cb_fulltime|tb_gen_ans: this is where i live and i enjoy all the surounding areas. i have enjoyed 4wd ing all around the area and if you close down our recreation areas i dont know what we will have for my sons and myself to enjoy .
WC-1386 WID-1890 None Interactive Map 1/10/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Forests: SINCE I AM EXPERIENCING DIFFICULTY FOR FULL ACCESS DUE TO OUR CURRENT DIAL-UP SERVICE, I WILL BE BRIEF AND TO THE POINT. PUBLIC LANDS IS EVERY AMERICAN'S RESOURCE. IT IS VITAL TO BALANCE ALL VALUES. I SPEAK AS A RETIRED CONSULTING FIELD FORESTER AND LOG SCALER WITH MILLIONS OF BF OF TIMBER UNDER MY BELT. IN THE EARLY YEARS, MANY THOUGHT THE BEST SLIVICULTURE REQUIRED THE CONVERSION (LIQUIDATION) OF THE OLD GROWTH IN FAVOR OF HOMOGENEOUS YOUNG STANDS OF DOUGLAS-FIR THROUGHOUT WESTERN OREGON. HOWEVER, THIS STRATEGY NEGATES THE BENEFITS OF HETEROGENOUS MULTI-STORY STANDS WHICH SUPPORT THE VERY DIVERSITY OF THE FAUNA AND FLORA WHICH COMPETENT LAND MANAGERS ARE STRUGGLING TO MAINTAIN. OVER THE PAST 29 YEARS, I CAN ONLY REMEMBER ONE DECADENT DOUGLAS-FIR STAND. IT WAS DEVOID OF ALL ANIMAL AND REGENERATIVE PLANT LIFE. IT TRULY NEEDED TO BE CLEARCUT AND BURNED TO PREPARE THE WAY FOR A NEW HEALTHY STAND. ON THE OTHER HAND, TIMBER GROUPS LOBBY AGGRESSIVELY TO LOG EVERYTHING, INCLUDING, ZERO VALUE CULLS IN THE NAME OF JOBS. IN A NUT SHELL,WE NEED TO MINIMIZE HARVEST IN WATERSHEDS, VISUAL CORRIDORS, UNSTABLE SLOPES AND SEVERE ASPECT AREAS. WE SHOULD BE MAXIMIZING THE USE OF SHELTERWOODS AT AN INTENSITY THAT WILL MAINTAIN THE SITE TO BALANCE AGAINST WINDTHROW, SOIL EROSION AND HYDROLOGY ISSUES. AT THE SAME TIME, MAINTAIN VIABLE DIVERSE POPULATIONS OF BOTH THE FAUNA AND FLORA (WILDLIFE, FISHERIES AND NATIVE PLANTS) THE BLM MUST NOT BE A WHOLESALE LIQUIDATOR OF OLD GROWTH AND SECOND GROWTH TIMBER. TIMBER IS HABITAT NOT JUST A UTILITARIAN COMMONITY TO BE AUCTIONED OFF BY HUMANS FOR SHORT TERM PROFITS. I LOOK FORWARD TO A HEALTHY MANAGEMENT PLAN. THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. RON ROMMEL rfsronrommel%40earthlink.net%0D276 River Loop 2 Eugene, Oregon 97404-1238
WC-1387 WID-1912 None Interactive Map 1/10/2008 12:00:00 AM tb_1_other: retired|tb_gen_ans: VALLEY OF THE GIANTS%0DA special area. Reserve it and other areas like it for people to experience, enjoy. We have harvested old growth state wide to the point that a few percentage points of what we had remains. We do not need to log 100%25 of old growth and shouldn't do that. You can not harvest "old growth" on a sustainable basis so what it means to the economy and to local communities will be of limited, short duration and benefit. Don't squander something as special as the remaining old growth for band aid purposes. We must find other ways to take care of local support problems and save these trees for the general good and for the faunal and floral life they support.Thank you.%0D5
WC-1388 WID-1889 None Interactive Map 1/10/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Alternative 2: 1. The Department of Interior Resource Management Plans must be aligned for continuity with Department of Agriculture U.S.F.S. Resource Management Plans, especially concerning O.H.V. Recreation us in Riparian Areas and Late success ional reserves(L.S.R.), both which are sustainable, desirable OHV recreation use areas. Scientifically, the exclusion of OHV recreation from parts of these areas can be a situational decision, but OHV Recreation must not continue to be categorically excluded from these area by administrative doctrine. This is a major reason why higher quality OHV recreation facilities exist on U.S.F.S. managed lands, and not on B.L.M. managed lands in our area.%0D2. There are no proposed trails for OHV recreation, in spite of dozens of proposed trails for non-motorized uses.(page 134, volume 1) This is an embarrassing omission. Motorized use is increasing at a much faster rate than non-motorized, especially in this area. Motorized recreation also has a greater proven ability to pay for the mileage required for it. Proposed trails and trail mileage for motorized recreation should greatly exceed trail quantity for other uses.%0D3. Tallow Box Mountain area in Ruch%2FApplegate is a known use area proposed for OHV events by previous BLM District Manager, Richard Drehobl, yet is not included as an emphasis area. It is contiguous to the Anderson Butte, Johns Peak, and Ferris Gulch use areas and I require its inclusion as an OHV emphasis area.%0D4. BLM and O&C lands are designated by congress to provide a sustainable timber supply as well as developed recreation facilities. However, the public domain lands(PD) are not subject to this same timber standard yet are intended to be managed as such. As a OHV recreation enthusiast, I would like the PD lands within the OHV Recreation emphasis areas be removed from the O&C timber harvest quotas and managed to promote an old growth L.S.R. forest regime. L.S.R. forest conditions are more desirable for OHV recreation and better for the environment as a whole.%0D5. I support all of the OHV emphasis areas. I do not feel the 13 areas in the preferred alternative number 2 are enough to accommodate existing and future OHV recreation
WC-1389 WID-1906 None Interactive Map 1/10/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_dirtbiking|cb_ohv|cb_onceamonth|tb_gen_ans: timber mt johns peak areas are very good for riding with my kids and grandkids to give them a view and nature experience. also the varied terrain is a strenious training and riding skill development area.
WC-1390 WID-1906 None Interactive Map 1/10/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_hunting|cb_dirtbiking|cb_ohv|cb_onceamonth|tb_gen_ans: anderson butte area lends itself to be a good area for ohv emphasis due to its large contigous ownership block by blm. this would allow trail systemsto loop area with large buffer zones to neighboring private land owners.
WC-1391 WID-1906 None Interactive Map 1/10/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_photo|cb_hunting|cb_dirtbiking|cb_ohv|cb_onceamonth|tb_gen_ans: The Anderson Butte area already has a large amount of environmentally stable ridgeline trails that are challenging and have very good views of valleys and mountains. A great place for family outings.
WC-1392 WID-1883 None Interactive Map 1/10/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from No Action: There should be no increase in tree harvesting in old growth forest. Harvesting old growth only creates short term gain for a few, and neglects preserving our heritage for our descendants.
WC-1393 WID-1924 None Interactive Map 1/10/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Alternative 1: I think alternative 1 is a very viable plan. I would love to see my federal forests become actively managed once again. I think a 100' buffer on anything other than a Type F stream is completely ridiculous. I would like to see a compromise of reduced buffers on perrenial Type N streams in order to leave 2-5 wildlife trees scattered in regeneration harvest units. I would also like to see more "Timber Management Areas" west of I5. This is some of the best tree growing ground in the nation and only makes sense to manage at shorter rotation ages (80-100 years). I hope this plan proceeds in order for counties to quit taking federal handouts and once again earn what is rightfully theirs. Keep your heads up and press forward, the silent majority supports sound forest management. Thank you.
WC-1394 WID-1929 None Interactive Map 1/10/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Alternative 3: NO ON ALTERNATIVE 3%21 ABSOLUTELY NOT %0DThis is a horrendous proposal and should NOT BE ALLOWED%21%0DThere are enough tree farms on OUR PUBLIC LANDS, OLD GROWTH should NOT BE CUT%21%21%21
WC-1395 WID-1929 None Interactive Map 1/10/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Alternative 3: NO ON ALTERNATIVE 3%21 ABSOLUTELY NOT %0DThis is a horrendous proposal and should NOT BE ALLOWED%21%0DThere are enough tree farms on OUR PUBLIC LANDS, OLD GROWTH should NOT BE CUT%21%21%21
WC-1396 WID-1929 None Interactive Map 1/10/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Alternative 2: This proposal SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED%21%0DNO ON ALTERNATIVE 2%21
WC-1397 WID-1929 None Interactive Map 1/10/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Alternative 1: NO ON ALTERNATIVE 1%21 This is way to focused on clear-cutting our public lands%21%0D
WC-1398 WID-1929 None Interactive Map 1/10/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from No Action: YES YES YES YES%0DTHIS IS THE PROPOSAL THAT SHOULD BE INSTATED%21 NO ACTION%3DSAVING OUR PRECIOUS OLD GROWTH FOR OUR CHILDREN'S CHILDREN%21 THANK YOU%21%0DYES ON NO ACTION
WC-1399 WID-1939 None Interactive Map 1/10/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_hunting|cb_hiking|cb_fishing|tb_gen_ans: I just want to comment in general and haven't figured that one out so I will do it here. Please, no more clear-cutting. As a biologist it just makes no sence at all from a resource protection perspective. I suppose if you are going with an alternative you have put forward we could live with %233. Thin, some harvesting at sustainable levels, leave all the existing old growth alone and don't plant mono cultured plantations. This is all the time I have for now - thank you and I hope you really take our comments seriously and don't just go with the corporatists that are in control at the federal level currently. There is much more value in the forest than just timber revenue.
WC-1400 WID-1724 None Interactive Map 1/10/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from undefined: the publics enjoyment is a much higher priority than industry profits. please let these forests manage themselves, they do a better job.
USA.GOV  |  No Fear Act  |  DOI  |  Disclaimer  |  About BLM  |  Notices  |  Get Adobe Reader