Web-comments-701-800

# SenderID Ref.# Comment Tool Date Comment
WC-701 WID-1007 None Interactive Map 12/26/2007 12:00:00 AM cb_dirtbiking|cb_1-4timesyear|tb_gen_ans: I just wanted to say thank you for allowing class III OHV's at Shotgun Creek. It's really nice having a trail area close to Eugene. I do wish there were an OHV play area similar to the Rosland play area somewhere within an hour of Eugene. It would be a great place for beginners to practice and get familiar with their machines, and for more experienced riders to get the "high impact" riding out of their system so they will be less likely to take that behavior out on the trails.
WC-702 WID-1011 W-b6773642-efd7-488c-94e1-02cca4767562 Draft EIS 12/26/2007 10:25:00 AM Please reject or reconsider the proposals to engage in stepped-up harvests and clear- cutting on BLM lands. This is a bad precedent, that will only sacrifice the long term integrity and health of our forests, for the sake of maximized temporary profit.
WC-703 WID-1012 W-257a9c46-d066-4de3-a271-f97c2d699bfe Draft EIS 12/26/2007 11:23:00 AM Please drop plans for clearcutting Oregon old growth and respect the terms of the original Northwest Forest Plan. I would prefer to protect all mature and old-growth forests from clearcutting;. continue to protect threatened and endangered species such as the marbled murrelet and the Northern spotted owl;. promote forest restoration rather than intensive industrial logging; develop sustainable forestry rather than clearcutting;. protect trout, salmon and clean water by shielding watersheds, rivers and streams from sedimentation and temperature changes. thank you
WC-704 WID-1013 W-96f77ae5-4b9d-4c22-ae9c-4510ffe7fcc6 Draft EIS 12/26/2007 11:37:00 AM I strongly oppose the plan to cut old-growth trees. All old-growth trees should be preserved. Tim Baxter
WC-705 WID-1014 W-69da2b0f-96fe-4d64-81b3-6bc24d93951d Draft EIS 12/26/2007 1:10:00 PM i oppose clearcut logging and the cutting of any old growth. i support sustainable selective harvesting and the replanting of native species.
WC-706 WID-1016 62051d0d-838e-4864-9d0a-7c400a887b22 Draft EIS 12/26/2007 2:14:00 PM Our old growth forests are the most valuable national treasure we have. It is absolutely unacceptable to me that our government would even consider allowing these national treasures to be destroyed by the logging industry. You must do everything in your power to stop this immediately. The nation depends on you and more importantly, the health of this planet depends on you. Do not fail in this greater obligation to all of existence -- certain corporate entities do not understand that profits are of no value in a world destroyed by global warming and resource elimination. A brutally short-sighted decision to destroy our longest term national contributors is a failure of incalculable proportions. Embrace these forests as a part of your legacy of preservation and restoration rather than allow your legacy to be one of degradation and destruction. I pray that you have the strength to stand up to those who do not understand. I pray that you accept this challenge.
WC-707 WID-1020 5e32d3d3-371c-4f29-8f09-ba2931768f3f File Upload 12/26/2007 9:11:00 PM

Uploaded File:  I have recently become aw.doc
WC-708 WID-1022 bf10a2d3-fade-4e03-9f32-2775095693b4 File Upload 12/26/2007 10:17:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Fergus' WOPR comment.doc
WC-709 WID-1032 1f588c6b-debd-4828-ac27-b928b1593d0c File Upload 12/28/2007 10:45:00 AM Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I had wanted to attend the public meetings on this subject but it was not posted in the Mail Tribune until the night before.

Uploaded File:  OHV use.doc
WC-710 WID-1033 W-c0d0bb25-e05a-4e36-b42c-e1001ed88f11 Draft EIS 12/28/2007 10:46:00 AM I am concerned that ancient and native forests will be decimated. There will be a negative impact on clean waters, fish, wildlife habitat, sensitive species and streamside protections. Logging will be excessive and injurious, and will cause long-term damage to ancient and mature forests. Considering the challenges faced by global warming, causing further intentional injury to our ecosystems on this magnitude is not a good idea.
WC-711 WID-1035 923c1bfe-aaf1-42e1-ad07-0201a523b831 Draft EIS 12/28/2007 1:09:00 PM I have traveled trhough Oregon several times in the last 20 years. I was dismayed this last August of 2007 at the amount of forest (old growth) that we have already lost. As a people we can not afford to cut any further old growth forest within the United states. The world is at a critical and possiblya no turning back time in our history. Do not change the protective status at all for any of our old growth forests. As a citizen, I request that the protection of these lands remain the same for the survival of our animals, and the beauty of nature that can never be replaced. Sincerely, Charlotte Foster Roman.
WC-712 WID-1036 W-bd2e4aae-abf4-4126-9d2d-6afcc601cb78 Draft EIS 12/28/2007 1:54:00 PM Native Forest Council Comments and Protest: 1 of 9 Cover Letter for the Native Forest Council's Comment and Protest of the DEIS of the BLM "WOPR" The Bureau of Land Management has been relentlessly stripping publicly-owned assets from the O&C lands ever since the O&C Act was put in place in 1937. They have exponentially exceeded any definition of reasonable or responsible levels of "sustainable harvest" and have rarely, if ever, fulfilled the letter or intention of the Act. The public's vital and irreplaceable forests and watersheds have been plundered with the collusion and criminal misconduct of BLM managers, by logging industry operatives and local politicians, who were thrown a bone to keep them in line. The trail of squandered publicly-owned assets winds from the bureaucratic morass of the BLM through the dishonest timber barons, and into the pockets of our local bought and paid for politicians. None of these politicians believe they can survive the ire of a disappointed, let alone angered, timber industry. The logging companies' special interest money always seems to carry the day. The "WOPR" is yet another criminal, immoral, unethical plan to defraud the people of their assets. Assembled by a collection of industry shills and forwarded by "foresters" ("economic and environmental terrorists" anyone?), this document is not worth the paper it is written on. It deserves to be thoroughly damned and repudiated with prejudice. Why has the BLM allowed the lungs of the planet, our public forests and watersheds, to be slaughtered and squandered so that a few robber barons and their shareholders can profit? Why has the BLM aided and abetted the fraudulent logging industry in this crime against nature, which, by extension has become a crime against humanity? Why would they do that? What would have them sell their children's future and possibly the very survival of our race to pad the pockets of a few greedy corporate parasites? Tree growing companies indeed! They never have and never will be able to replace a native cathedral forest. They don't know how. That being said, here are the Comments and Protests that we have prepared in response to your egregious plan, a mockery of public process.
WC-713 WID-1036 W-e113ba7a-52e1-491b-b9e0-903773aa7e9b Draft EIS 12/28/2007 1:55:00 PM Native Forest Council Comments and Protest: 2 of 9 Native Forest Council This Comment and Protest has been prepared in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Management Plans of the Western Oregon Bureau of Land Management Districts. After a rigorous review of the DEIS submitted for public comment of proposed revisions to the management plans for the public lands managed by the BLM in western Oregon, we find the plan lacking in many critical areas, illegal, and not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States of America who own these forests. In addition to the omission of science and a lack of discussion of a number of critically important issues, this document makes some claims that are not supported by the best available science. It appears this document was compiled by selective use of data and scientific references to support a pre-determined preferred outcome—that outcome being the maximum cut rate possible while maintaining an appearance of compliance with existing laws and regulations. It is the position of The Native Forest Council that alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are all fatally flawed and that the no action alternative, while less destructive than the others still does not provide the protection and regard that our public forests, irreplaceable assets in the ongoing livability of our planet, deserve. I. Legal Context 1937 O & C Act: . . . timberlands . . . shall be managed . . . for permanent forest production, and the timber thereon shall be sold, cut, and removed in conformity with the principal of sustained yield for the purpose of providing a permanent source of timber supply, protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow, and contributing to the economic stability of local communities and industries . . . . The annual productive capacity for such lands shall be determined and declared as promptly as possible after the passage of this act . . . . [Emphasis added.] For 70 years the BLM has successfully avoided establishing a permanent, scientifically sound determination of the "annual productive capacity" of the affected lands that complies with "permanent forest production . . . protecting watersheds," etc., required by the O&C Act of 1937. This has allowed a condition of delay, resignation and chaos to exist inside the agency. Chaos has the agency scrambling to satisfy the timber industry, the O&C counties, the environmental groups, and other local stakeholders. To this point, the process has met with very limited success. The "WOPR" was triggered by litigation which was brought by industry and the O&C counties to address a perceived lack of logging. That "perception" is an opportunistic spin that takes advantage of the vacuum created from the lack of a permanent, peer reviewed, scientifically valid determination of what constitutes a sustainable forest.
WC-714 WID-1036 W-f6d291bf-8c2f-4a4f-a68b-281946641c51 Draft EIS 12/28/2007 1:57:00 PM Native Forest Council Comments and Protest: 3 of 9 In this vacuum, other laws, NFMA, NEPA, The Northwest Forest Plan, et al., have been forwarded to try and create long-term workability on our federal lands. These laws attempt to protect the value of our public lands and the complex forest ecosystems that exist there. They are the best protections we have at this time. To abandon them and implement unproven and deceptively selective "science" in our priceless public forests violates statutory law and constitutional principles of the general welfare. A number of statutes apply. For example, federal land managers must maintain habitat for migratory birds, use an ecosystem approach to assess effects of their activities, comply with air quality standards in the Clean Air Act designed to "protect the public welfare," and reduce harm to EPA's "303(d)" listed waters, to name just a few. The Precautionary Principle (impeccable common sense) tells us that until we have a proven plan to shift things for the better, we must err on the side of protection. The BLM must establish rigid standards that define and describe sustainable management on our public lands before cutting another road or tree. The "WOPR" does not do that. II. Critical Gaps in Analysis A. Valuation, accounting, econometrics The entire analysis of impacts is done without a baseline of economic and ecological values and without valid cost accounting of the alternative proposals for action on the ground. There is no comprehensive discussion of what these forests provide to the public as standing, living, breathing complex ecological systems, including the "ecological services" performed by these irreplaceable ancient forests. There is no definition of "normal market conditions" and no discussion under what conditions logging or sales would be suspended because of "abnormal" market conditions as required by the O&C Act. There is no discussion of poor market conditions (including the current glut of wood products) and the effect of these conditions on the counties that depend on BLM logging to provide basic services. These conditions would further deteriorate with the proposed large increase in the volume of trees being cut. Market conditions have deteriorated even since this DEIS was written. There is no discussion as to the value of these forests and activities in the forests. What would it cost to buy them? What would it cost to replace them? What does it cost to log them? Why are these costs not transparent? Who pays to have these trees removed? Replaced? Who profits? Where is the public accounting on which to base responsible comments?
WC-715 WID-1036 W-2fe61635-52ec-45d3-8d9e-3423eee9d83e Draft EIS 12/28/2007 1:58:00 PM Native Forest Council Comments and Protest: 4 of 9 There is no discussion of how the new stewardship authorities would apply to the O&C lands managed by the BLM. Do the new authorities trump the O&C Act? Could the harvest levels mandated by the "WOPR" be shunted into stewardship contracts, effectively leaving any funding for the O&C counties out of the equation? What is the BLM´s responsibility for interpreting parallel authorities on behalf of O&C counties and for keeping the affected public informed in a realistic and timely manner? The lack of clear accounting data in the WOPR makes it impossible to discern whether any of the logging being proposed under this plan can be done ethically, morally, or profitably. The General Accountability Office has been unable to determine the true costs of administering USFS and BLM timber sales because of obscure accounting practices and untracked administrative costs being paid for out of other divisions within the agencies. On top of covert accounting, no value is assigned to the forest as a complex, life giving ecosystem. Our position is that the BLM should cease all sales until the true costs of all sales are covered, with honest and fully costed accounting, all externalities included. This means damage to infrastructure, fisheries, water treatment expenses, dam capacity reduction, tourism/recreation, carbon emissions, air quality/health and wellbeing issues associated with smoke, endangered species mitigation, flooding, landslides, property damage and any other issues that will occur as a direct result of the implementation of these practices. Watershed and infrastructure destruction, increased flooding, landslides, and loss of jobs in the farming, recreation, and fishing industry are all probable outcomes of these alternatives and do not meet the requirement of the O&C Act of "contributing to the economic stability of local communities . . . ." It would be crystal clear if these social and physical costs were all factored into the equation that there is no value to the public in removing any more of these forests in our lifetime. There are in fact, great costs and hazards. And, it would show that the American taxpayer is actually subsidizing the liquidation of our ancient forests and, in the process, subsidizing the logging industry to our detriment.
WC-716 WID-1036 W-c8742c4b-3565-4bc4-aaca-729a05458001 Draft EIS 12/28/2007 1:59:00 PM Native Forest Council Comments and Protest: 5 of 9 B. Missing, deceptive, and ridiculous "science" Carbon Sequestration: There is no discussion of what the impact of the forest´s possible removal would be on the worsening global climate situation. There is no valuation given for the trees standing as carbon sinks, nor the difference between small trees and large for surface carbon absorption. Living, growing forests are one of the most efficient systems known to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it for extended periods of time. Of all the proposed alternatives, WOPR Alternative 2 removes the most volume and therefore will contribute the largest amount of greenhouse gas to our atmosphere. How much carbon dioxide will the various alternatives contribute? Why was this not included? How much carbon is currently stored and how much will be sequestered each year in these living public forests? Why was net loss and gain not provided? How will the loss of these services increase our national and regional carbon debt in the coming carbon economy? Water/Fisheries: The proposed revisions do not assign any value to the water generation, purification, and absorption processes present in a living forest. Tall, thick canopies in an ancient forest catch snow, block wind exposure, and freeze and thaw slowly. This delays and protracts the runoff from these stands during heavy rains and snowmelt events, reducing slides and floods. These conditions preserve coolness and moisture in the forest, reducing summer flammability long after clear-cuts, thins, and young replacement stands are hot and dry, and also releasing cooler water into fish-bearing streams further into the summers. Complex forest conditions are a profoundly effective absorption and filtration system that cleans water and minimizes peak flow, river level spiking, sedimentation, and damage to fisheries. The O&C act is very clear that these forests shall be managed in a way that results in "protecting watersheds [and] regulating stream flow." All three action alternatives of the WOPR reduce watershed protections and radicalize water flow levels and therefore would appear to be in violation of the O&C Act.
WC-717 WID-1036 W-395a0bf3-c9b9-4edf-bfda-0af8bce719c3 Draft EIS 12/28/2007 2:00:00 PM Native Forest Council Comments 6 of 9 This set of revisions does not discuss large flood and rain/snow melt events and the impact they would have on the 13,679 miles of intermittent streams from which the WOPR would remove riparian protection. One has to look no farther than the Dec., 2007 flooding in the Chehalis, Washington area to see the horrific impact of clear-cutting on intermittent streams and as a result, on year-round streams. In the DEIS, BLM states that there is no model to predict or quantify exact mechanisms of delivery of sediment, so they cannot predict effect of that delivery on fish. It is very clear that logging and forest roads in combination with large rain, rain/snowmelt events are the most powerful mechanisms for mass soil movement and debris flow generation that occur on these lands. These mechanisms were well known even when the O&C Act was authored, which is why watershed protection was included in the Act. Clear-cutting over seasonal streams has been shown to increase the number and severity of these slides. The DEIS, however, ignores this science and does not predict what floods and slides in logged over areas will do to drinking water, spawning beds, roads, or infrastructure downstream from these lands. The discussion in the DEIS about fish is all done with no modeling of large flood events. No model of siltation from active logging operations is put forward. Floods and active logging both produce spiking of silt and sediment that are significant. Since large flood events and the erosion off of roads are the primary delivery systems of sediment which chokes spawning beds, the information in the DEIS is at least to some extent immaterial. It seems a lot of effort has been spent putting together a rosy outlook for the affected streams based on dishonest science and omission. It is clear that logged over seasonal streams will contribute huge amounts of sediment and rubble to the year-round streams whenever one of these flood events takes place. This will have a detrimental effect on listed fish species and our drinking water supplies. The DEIS omits these impacts. Why? Air Quality: All of the alternatives put forth by the "WOPR" worsen the fire risk in these public forests. Alternative 2, preferred by the BLM, leaves our public forests the most vulnerable to fire. This is clearly not in the best interest of the public. Wildfires exceed air quality standards over large areas and over time putting human health at risk. At this time of increasing global temperatures it makes no sense to knowingly create conditions more conducive to wildfire. Private industrial "salvage" profit is not enough.
WC-718 WID-1036 W-25daef24-239d-4cab-bfdd-07983e33e316 Draft EIS 12/28/2007 2:01:00 PM Native Forest Council Comments and Protest: 7 of 9 C. Intentional outcome Without a clear, supported, intended result of management, decisions such as the current DEIS are haphazard, reactive, and conflict over time resulting in a tremendous waste of time, loss of habitat and forest, and a failure to learn from mistakes. For example, why does this plan call for clear-cutting (regeneration harvesting)—the most damaging type of logging—to "maximize potential growth and yield," when the O&C Act of 1937 never says a word about maximizing growth or yield? The O&C Act of 1937 calls for sustained yield not maximum yield. It also calls for a determination of what that is. Sustained yield and maximum yield are distinct from each other. Maximum yield is not sustainable. Even in 1937, the people and their representatives in Congress were aware of the wasting of soils and water from reckless and excessive tree cutting and road building, and the resulting degradation (unsustainability) to the forests. Yet the BLM continues to lobby for these egregious practices. The definition in Webster´s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language for the word sustain is "to keep up or to keep going, as in an action or process." This is a far cry from the BLM´s definition in the DEIS, as follows: "Sustainability can be defined as using, developing and protecting resources in a manner that enables people to meet current needs and provides that future generations can also meet future needs, from the joint perspective of environmental, economic and community objectives." This is a very creative abstraction, but sustainability has nothing to do with people´s needs, or generational entitlements. Sustainability speaks to conditions on the ground. In order to sustain a permanent, steady product from a forest, one cannot clear-cut it. Extraction processes that obliterate large patches of microbial and symbiotic fungal communities, that lay waste to soil stability and water-retaining humus, that expose undergrowth to hot, drying winds and solar exposure, cannot be considered to "sustain" the forest. They are just reckless, quick-gratification consumption.
WC-719 WID-1036 W-366975d5-5ec3-4358-a648-a04ad9e9edd9 Draft EIS 12/28/2007 2:01:00 PM Native Forest Council Comments and Protest: 8 of 9 What is abundantly clear is that these proposed revisions maintain a maximum outflow of trees from our public forests, with priority on the larger trees first, with shrinking iterations of stump size over time, as the largest are liquidated until finally we are down to industrial fiber and biomass consumption from increasingly unproductive soils—"cessation yield." That´s not a forest. What is also clear is that this plan does not provide any clear assurance of community financial stability or environmental sustainability. Removal of permanent forests specifically violates responsible watershed and streamflow management and economic stability under the O&C Act. More generally, the DEIS violates General Welfare and NEPA responsibilities for the management and protection of the public assets that are a foundation of our climate, water, wildlife, soil stability, health, forest fire moderation, recreation opportunities and ultimately, the quality and survival of human life in this region. III. Conclusion: Operating on top of an illegal, immoral, and irresponsible lack of standards The science used to justify the removal of ancient stands on public lands seems to get more convoluted, abstract and disconnected from ground truth over time. The only consistent demand is that more of the primeval forests be opened up for logging. The science always morphs to match the industries' desired outcome. What is needed is a comprehensive definition of what outcome we are committed to creating. Much of the "science" that the WOPR alternatives are based on is "new." The "modeling" is based on theory and has never been tried in practice. There is no strict framework that fulfills the O&C Act's demand for sustainability. This lack of distinct, on the ground, acceptable conditions clearly violates the demand of the O&C Act to promptly define sustainability and set it up as the baseline for all further action. If there is any doubt as to the impact of a specific management choice, then the precautionary principle must be used so as to do no damage and minimize, if not eliminate risk of harm. This, in combination with a full accounting of all variables, provides the best chance of creating a truly sustainable plan for our public land. There are plenty of ground examples and valid studies to answer most relevant impact questions. BLM managers and logging company executives have just not liked the answers, so they´re avoided in sophistry and misdirection.
WC-720 WID-1036 W-9451966e-8570-4800-bc10-f1ffb67eec47 Draft EIS 12/28/2007 2:02:00 PM Native Forest Council Comments and Protest: 9 of 9 Constantly changing the definitions of science to fit the political mood or demand of the timber industry does not cut it. We must set up inflexible, outcome-based standards and stick with them until proven improvements are available. Then and only then should we allow those standards to evolve. The science in the WOPR does not fulfill this demand. It is clear that it does not meet the requirements of the O&C Act, the needs of wildlife, and most importantly the basic values, laws and needs of our nation and civilization. It's a loser and should be thrown out. We can and must do better.
WC-721 WID-1036 f92bc393-36a6-415f-9a90-6da9b8f92650 File Upload 12/28/2007 2:04:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Native Forest Council WOPR Protest - email.doc
WC-722 WID-1038 None Web Forum Exit 12/28/2007 3:00:00 PM It is too difficult to advance to the information you want to see. Also, too many required questions. A neat idea but functionally a failure until the kinks get worked out.
WC-723 WID-1039 b4bd3bf0-7d2b-426a-8d4d-8565da965492 File Upload 12/28/2007 4:03:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Economic Analysis of WOPR.doc
WC-724 WID-1043 014117ae-eb49-4bbe-a81b-99a0e236a4f4 File Upload 12/29/2007 10:40:00 AM

Uploaded File:  BLM_WOPR_Letter.doc
WC-725 WID-1044 014117ae-eb49-4bbe-a81b-99a0e236a4f4 File Upload 12/29/2007 10:41:00 AM

Uploaded File:  Russ timber letterThe American Dream.doc
WC-726 WID-1059 None Interactive Map 12/30/2007 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Alternative 2: Based on visual inspection along ridgetop road north of Little Lobster Creek old-growth is inadequately surveyed and recorded.
WC-727 WID-1059 None Interactive Map 12/30/2007 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Forests: See comment re Alt 2
WC-728 WID-1048 W-967b2974-1c21-4ad4-ace9-ce403dfbec5b Draft EIS 12/30/2007 9:43:00 AM • protect all mature and old-growth forests from clearcutting; • continue to protect threatened and endangered species such as the marbled murrelet and the Northern spotted owl; • promote forest restoration rather than intensive industrial logging. Develop sustainable forestry rather than clearcutting; • protect trout, salmon and clean water by shielding watersheds, rivers and streams from sedimentation and temperature changes.
WC-729 WID-1049 Draft EIS 12/30/2007 10:22:00 AM We would like to voice our opposition to the OHV use in the Johns Peak area. Noise is the big problem. We live in Jaacksonville and can easily hear the motorcycles from our backyard. Also, one only needs to walk in the MRA owned area see the devastation that exists there. If the city extends its Urban reserve line beyond Mary Ann drive the OHV area will become a disaster.
WC-730 WID-1050 8a65bebc-34f8-4c51-9c63-877cea326e08 File Upload 12/30/2007 11:28:00 AM

Uploaded File:  oldgrowthblm.doc
WC-731 WID-831 W-5e595502-d42f-4bc3-b7e5-1bbe66794290 Draft EIS 12/30/2007 2:59:00 PM The "No Action Alternative" is the only viable plan that will enable a sustainable population of native species to survive over the longer period. This is to include the "homosapien" specie. I am particularly incensed about the "Action Alternatives" allowing for so much OHV (Off Highway Vehicle)use Approximately 100,000 additional acres. Ten new OHV emphasis areas would be added to the three existing on the Medford District, totaling 105,800 acres. (pp. 143, 777-78) I am against Alternative 1 policy of "no green tree retention after regeneration harvesting." The amount of the clearcut of 90,600 acres is completely excessive. Deminishing the width of the current riparian reserves by half is ludicrous. (p. 580) I want to emphasize that I strongly believe that the WOPR's "Action Alternatives" have been proposed with an extreme bias toward extraction of the resources at any environmental cost. The only responsible course of action is the "No Action Alternative."
WC-732 WID-870 W-d2bf0e55-6f31-4932-a2dc-b98883b27422 Draft EIS 12/30/2007 7:38:00 PM Alternative 3 provides the right balance of timber harvest and retention of some old growth and protection of habitat and riparian areas. As a person looking ahead to the next 20 to 100 yrs that will give all sides of this issue a positive reward. Choose Alternative 3 Thank You Ray Jensen
WC-733 WID-1056 W-52a9e564-94f3-4c74-95f7-1b716a337f53 Draft EIS 12/30/2007 8:15:00 PM I feel the current proposed plan far exceeds any allowable flexibility in forest management. It is a prescription for considerable - and likely long-term - damage. I believe it is not desirable to convert large swaths of American forest to tree farms, with all the degradation of species variety and land quality this use produces. It is regrettable that an irresponsible administration in its last year would seek to thwart the intentions of the American people and their Congress in the service of selfish and powerful interests. It would be even more regrettable if the Bureau of Land Management ignored its real mandate in order to put itself solely at the service of these interests. Only a massive scaling down of the current proposal can meet the real needs of the Pacific Northwest and its people. Barring enormous revisions, the plan should be rejected in its entirety.
WC-734 WID-1062 W-cd5f0c50-3051-45ab-abe8-558a253f2155 Draft EIS 12/31/2007 6:08:00 AM Hi Please add my vote to the "no change alternative". I do not want any more public old growth to be cut. Especially in clear -cut chunks!!!!!!!!!! The unique habitat that our old growth stands support are few and all are needed. The cool shady coastal old growth and the big pine forests are all essential to our ecosystem, and in short supply compared to the monoculture tree farms.The large down trees as well as the soil temperatures are important for the global warming fight- resevoirs of water and temperature. They are mini wilderness and the unsprayed nature of them should be preserved. Hunters seek them out for good hunting and privacy from the ratrace as well as birdwatchers and hikers.... we all need them. Do not clear cut our remaining BLM old growth! Thanks -Liza Cpizzi-
WC-735 WID-1063 a882da29-b03f-4448-ba2f-f47057284e4c File Upload 12/31/2007 9:08:00 AM

Uploaded File:  WOPR ~ BLM.doc
WC-736 WID-1063 W-b68b2489-e14b-49a6-8698-53b8876d9c6a Draft EIS 12/31/2007 9:11:00 AM December 31, 2007 Option 2 of the W.O.P.R. is not a viable option for western Oregon forests. We prefer the "No Action" option. The BLM Option 2 plan is flawed because it opens 442,000 acres of old growth and 200,000 acres of streamside reserves to clear cutting. Timber harvest levels can be accommodated by harvesting second growth plantation trees. Remaining old growth must be protected and preserved at all costs. If the counties in Western Oregon believe Option 2 will solve their financial woes they are mistaken. What will happen to the "harvest revenue" once all the trees are cut. I urge you to follow the overwhelming body of science that says Option 2 is not viable. John Costello Barbara Lee
WC-737 WID-1052 031a291f-615e-4c5e-9555-e6e8e4cd8145 File Upload 12/31/2007 10:54:00 AM Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the WOPR, submitted by Bark, a nonprofit watch group focused on protecting the forests, waterways and wildlife of Mt. Hood.

Uploaded File:  WOPR EIS comments.pdf
WC-738 WID-1065 W-b473ddb4-2b8f-4431-b297-7b4a86668743 Draft EIS 12/31/2007 11:09:00 AM To BLM Management: I am writing to you to voice my opinion regarding upcoming decisions that affect off-highway motorcycle trails in BLM lands. I would like to see trail systems expanded in the Western states. Building trails after logging operations would be an opportunity to cut costs. Requiring logging operations to restore trails to their previous routes and improving their condition, should be a requirement of the logging companies. My family and friends have enjoyed off-road motorcycling and camping in BLM areas for 2 generations. While most of us work in urban areas, BLM lands have traditionally offered us the best outdoor experiences we have ever had and these lands are what make our country the best place to live on the planet. Please continue to support the off-highway motorcycle programs. Sincerely, Ethan Lodwig
WC-739 WID-1067 W-dd069ff5-4101-40a2-8621-d1c81becd47f Draft EIS 12/31/2007 11:23:00 AM My preference would to take the no action alternative as the proposed alternative would degrade habitat and threaten drinking water as well as damage the few remaining late succession and old growth environments. Additional revenues could be made by thinning overstocked plantations, managing reprod more effectively,and more effectively utilizing alternative forest products.
WC-740 WID-1068 W-0bc95eb7-9591-495e-91f8-d8999d67310f Draft EIS 12/31/2007 11:28:00 AM I am opposed to the proposed large increase in logging that would damage protection of habitat for endangered species. In our political and scientific world the plan does not insure our future but only provides a revenue band-aid while further damaging our environment.
WC-741 WID-1069 W-227c6295-779a-49af-bc09-3ac4faa23e8a Draft EIS 12/31/2007 11:59:00 AM My name is Don Becklin and I am the President of MotorcycleUSA.com, located in Medford. I would like to offer my support for Alternative 2 and specifically focus my comments on off-highway vehicle use in Jackson county. My hope is that the new plan will increase the amount of acreage available to OHV users while encouraging responsible use of BLM land. Only by working together can the BLM, OHV enthusiasts and local groups find common ground on how to use public land in ways that results in recreation and conservation. Our company reviews motorcycles and ATV's for publication on our website and we have great relationships with all the motorcycle manufacturers. Much of the testing we do is in the Rogue Valley and portrays the area in a very positive light for our 500,000+ monthly visitors. We encourage responsible riding, noise reduction and staying on the trails. Getting this message out and ingrained in the riding public is key to keeping riding areas open and in good condition for future generations of motorcycle and ATV enthusiasts. Please keep the OHV enthusiast in mind as you make decisions on how best to use our public lands. Many spots would never be seen or used except by off-highway vehicle riders. Encouraging responsible use of the vehicles and limiting environmental impact should be the focus of our efforts moving forward. Please feel free to contact me to further discuss. Sincerely, Don Becklin President MotorcycleUSA.com Motorcycle-Superstore.com
WC-742 WID-1070 W-8622ee74-00e5-4f65-8106-02179369dadf Draft EIS 12/31/2007 12:31:00 PM Our property is at 16930 Hwy 238(TWP 38 Range 4W Section 30 Tax Lot 200)--164.06 acres. The Ferris Gulch OHV proposed emphasis area map shows our property surrounded. We have put five years of effort, time and money into a well, septic, road and house pad on our property. After many years of dreaming of a secluded quiet retirement home, we are amazed that the BLM could propose something that would completely cancel it all. In the five years we have spent considerable time at our property. We have seen numerous incidents degrading our property and surrounding lands by motorcycle, atvs and four wheel drive vehicles; Errosion--We have had to hire out to have bar ditches replaced. See 4-5 feet deep errosion ditches from off road use at the layton mine area. Trash/Contaminents--Gas, Oil etc Chain Saws--Cutting of our and public trees to create new trails (I have chased numerous motorcyclist off of our property with chain saws strapped to their bikes) Our property is clearly marked with No Trespassing signs that have been removed numerous times. --We have seen many bonfires and drinking by these off roaders. And have learned to stay away from this group as they have been combative. This proposed emphasis area has influenced our decision to now sell our property and look for other property that will not be negatively affected by any of the propsed OHV emphasis areas. The proposed emphasis area has not only devalued our land but will make it impossibe to sell. We realize that there needs to be areas for all recreational users but this area up Ferris Gulch is not that area. These areas need to not affect peoples life or finances as this proposal has done to us.
WC-743 WID-1073 W-6f93268a-f3cc-4b45-94e0-35dd4550a21f Draft EIS 12/31/2007 12:41:00 PM The Northwest Forest Plan supersedes the 70 year old O&C Act. Give the Northwest Forest Plan a chance to work. I select the Take No Action Alternative to be the best choice among the proposed actions.
WC-744 WID-1074 W-f9da48c2-b6d9-445a-bc93-da6ec7915e69 Draft EIS 12/31/2007 2:16:00 PM This plan would eliminate the already small protection afforded by the Northwest Forest plan and increase destruction (clearcutting and roadbuilding) eightfold. I strongly urge you to live up to your motto, and reject the W.O.P.R. Thank you Steven Lowen
WC-745 WID-1076 W-28dda927-0018-4831-92c3-62d56a3f3934 Draft EIS 12/31/2007 3:12:00 PM I vote for the NO ACTION option. With global warming I believe we need every tree we can keep upright and growing. Therefore: no more logging, please!
WC-746 WID-1077 a4143d7b-2efe-4a32-9cc0-8206dc0b051f File Upload 12/31/2007 4:07:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR comment, MReed.pdf
WC-747 WID-1079 c67d399e-eb80-4e9b-ad14-fdc7d7b08c2a File Upload 12/31/2007 4:54:00 PM

Uploaded File:  BLM WOPR COMMENTS.doc
WC-748 WID-1080 79b6147d-b592-432f-8669-4d1f7cd70fe8 File Upload 12/31/2007 6:20:00 PM Please accept my letter as a comment on the WOPR. Thank you.

Uploaded File:  Letter in Opposition to WOPR.doc
WC-749 WID-1081 1432a287-cdb7-4a9d-842c-128640bd29ae Draft EIS 12/31/2007 6:51:00 PM I learned about the WOPR thru the BLM who is laying out a late successional reserve thinning project adjoining my land. They warned me to take a look at this. After all the discussions, lawsuits, angry meetings, I find it unbelievable that the BLM is proposing such a radical plan. It's as if we're back in the 80's or earlier. All the studies about stream siltation, landslides, effects on fish, stream quality, wildlife, spotted owl, marbled murrelet didn't take place. Let's throw all that 'science junk' out the window and go back to ideology. What's good for industry is good for America. Yes, there are enough greedy people who would like to take advantage of the potential for increased profits, regardless of the consequences. And there are enough ignorant people who will follow this 'non-science' ideas and those that are not creative enough to find a way to raise money to take care of our community. Funny how other communities in America are capable of raising money and having libraries and police protection and roads too. What kind of fools do you take us for. STOP being henchmen for this idiot we call president and erasing all the progress that has been made in this country. I find it curious that the final decision is due out December of 2008, just before we hopefully have a return to sanity in our presidency. Obviously this will be fought in the courts. Obviously, you will not get away with this plan. By proposing something so outlandish, do you think we'll compromise and settle for half? What an incredible waste of our tax dollars, to pay you to draw up such trash, to waste the time of our courts and citizenry to defend the little old growth forest, the little healthy streams, the little wilderness we have. What kind of world do you want to leave our children. Museum exhibits talking about dinosaurs and tall trees that once existed. WAKE UP!
WC-750 WID-676 None Interactive Map 1/1/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_fulltime|tb_gen_ans: I have lived here for 18 years, on Crooked Creek. We have chinook, coho and steelhead in our creek. The land on the slope above us is BLM, forested with Doug fir. The slope is very steep, near vertical in places. I am afraid logging this slope will result in landslides which will harm the fish and%2For the residents here, including myself. There are at least 4 or 5 other homes which could be affected.
WC-751 WID-676 None Interactive Map 1/1/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from No Action: I am in favor of the No Action Alternative. I believe that public forest lands should be managed for a variety of uses, with wild life and fish superceding timber interests. I want all old growth forests managed as little as possible to preserve the health and longevity of the trees. No clearcutting of old growth, please.
WC-752 WID-676 None Interactive Map 1/1/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Alternative 2: To put it bluntly--it is a terrible idea. The only benefit is to the timber companies.
WC-753 WID-676 None Interactive Map 1/1/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Alternative 1: Sorry--no good.
WC-754 WID-676 None Interactive Map 1/1/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Alternative 3: Still no good. The oly good alternative is No Action.
WC-755 WID-676 None Interactive Map 1/1/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Fish: I want my public forests managed for wildlife and fish, not for timber. We have coho, chinook, and steelhead in Crooked Creek, where I live. But I care about all the creeks and all the fish and wildlife in Western Oregon. The No Action Alternative is the only one that provides the minimum of stewardship of our natural resources.
WC-756 WID-1118 None Interactive Map 1/1/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_farming|cb_fulltime|cb_importantspecies|cb_scenicbeauty|tb_4_other: Honey Grove Creek and Green Creek running through our property are salmon spawning creeks (Coho, Chinook, Steelhead)|cb_daily|tb_gen_ans:
WC-757 WID-1118 None Interactive Map 1/1/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Forests: I believe the No Action Alternative should be chosen for the BLM land in this area. There is already active clear cutting by large private concerns along Hwy 34 and up feeder roads like ours, Honey Grove Rd, resulting in land slides, increased water run-off down steep slopes into our creeks causing flooding of our pasture land, and spraying of defoliant that is showing up in our water. It is important for BLM to not add to this dangerous situation.
WC-758 WID-1084 26d612c1-f8d7-4116-bd48-221e1003e1c5 Draft EIS 1/1/2008 10:15:00 AM My considered opinion on the Big WOPR.
WC-759 WID-1084 f3b914a2-ec0d-4f08-b3bb-7fa11aad5f5e Draft EIS 1/1/2008 10:19:00 AM I believe that the WOPR is unneeded and that such shortsighted initiatives, to support public functions on the back of a badly-damaged and equalkly mismanaged disappearing ecosystem, are both wrong-heaeded and inappropriate for the US public to support.
WC-760 WID-1083 W-aa983c5e-942d-4462-ab22-a58019c32191 Draft EIS 1/1/2008 10:24:00 AM My wife and I have looked at all the alternatives and are horrified at the amount of land that is designated as OHV emphasis areas. We live on the right fork of Foots Creek Road in section 15 and can't believe the shaded areas in sections 14 and 23! There are homes in that area, and the OHV people would be driving through private property, or right next to it, to get to those areas. Plus they would be driving on a narrow dirt road. The whole John's Peak OHV Emphasis Area is interlaced with private property. We have lived in So. Oreton since 1978. Our homestead has been here since 1873, with our home built in 1896, so we are not talking from the standpoint of people who recently moved to the country and want to keep outher out. We want to perserve the environment and the historic life style.
WC-761 WID-1085 3365979f-d698-439f-9fd9-e93d14a882db File Upload 1/1/2008 11:13:00 AM Dear BLM - This file upload consists of comments from the Institute for Culture and Ecology (IFCAE) on the WOPR DEIS. Please keep us informed of the revision process and acknowledge receipt of these comments. I hardcopy will be mailed separately. Sincerely, Eric T. Jones.

Uploaded File:  WOPR_DEIS_Comments--IFCAE_010208.pdf
WC-762 WID-1085 None Web Forum Exit 1/1/2008 11:16:00 AM Please send an acknowledgment that you received and were able to open the uploaded document.
WC-763 WID-1087 f1d7d1e4-99e4-44e3-b5ed-c7f88600416e Draft EIS 1/1/2008 11:59:00 AM I need to have as much old growth available to my childrens children. There are many alternatives to fiber than cellulose from trees. It is imperative that BLM understand this and stop the harvesting of trees-this will make the alternatives competitive and viable as a much better renewable resource. Our water, air, climate as well as flora and fauna depend on the complexity and scale of Old Growth Forests. Please stop now. Sincerely, Gil Schieber, horticulturist
WC-764 WID-1092 W-0e51e920-66df-4bb4-b84d-3de13b1a003b Draft EIS 1/1/2008 12:03:00 PM I deeply hope that increased logging to make up for budget shortfalls does not occur. We need taxes to cover deficits that have left our school budgets in shambles. Don't wreck the environment and leave ourselves open to serious fire hazards. Defend both children and mother nature!
WC-765 WID-1090 f1d7d1e4-99e4-44e3-b5ed-c7f88600416e File Upload 1/1/2008 12:17:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Forest Comments.doc
WC-766 WID-1094 7d073250-948f-48c3-9e73-7e809f255cbf File Upload 1/1/2008 12:31:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Western Oregon Plan Revisions comments.pdf
WC-767 WID-1094 None Web Forum Exit 1/1/2008 12:33:00 PM I love the idea of making comments directly into the Draft. I didn't know this was available so had already written a letter, but in the future will look forward to this feature and being able to comment directly on specific sections.
WC-768 WID-1096 W-5f2be782-e712-4db0-9171-53a1c739ce8a Draft EIS 1/1/2008 1:09:00 PM My comment is simple. Let the timber companies cut down all the forests. When there are no more trees left, the people will be forced to find alternative ways to fund their services. They might even vote for individuals that actually have their interests at heart instead of idealogues that distract them with false issues. I moved to Oregon from Massachusetts where the people refused to place meaningful restrictions on commercial fishing until the stocks were almost gone - that got their attention. I now live in the poorest county in Oregon (Malheur). Our schools are crumbling and our voters haven't passed a bond in 35 years. We need to change the land use laws so that one can sell a parcel of land less than 80 acres. Our tax base does not improve because most incoming doctors, teachers, and other professionals do not settle in Ontario. Rather, they go across the river to Idaho where they have new schools, and can find a couple of acres of land to build a house on.
WC-769 WID-1097 W-97362cd3-28c6-4e41-b05b-3436c7a7d8fe Draft EIS 1/1/2008 1:11:00 PM Please re-think this plan while you still have a chance. If this is implemented, there is no turning back...you will find that the long term problems will far outweigh the short term gain!
WC-770 WID-866 W-cb979a48-d1bb-4ddc-951b-213f29c58a70 Draft EIS 1/1/2008 1:29:00 PM The pictures of landslides on recent Weyerhaeuser harvests in the Chahalis River drainage in Washington are appalling. The havoc down stream was equally so. This has also happened in our local streams but hopefully to a lesser degree. I recently read most of "Rowell Creek/Mill Creek/Rickreal Creek/ Lukiamute River Basin Analysis" a document prepared by several personel of the Salem Bureau of Land Management and first iterated in September of 1998. Primarily it corroborated my opinions about the negative effects of past logging on landslides, water quality, native biota, and the stability of stream channels especially on their lower reaches. It is time to let the forests regrow and the streams heal. Trees do not a forest make!
WC-771 WID-866 W-cea38557-73e2-49bb-8734-46c327ead871 Draft EIS 1/1/2008 1:29:00 PM The pictures of landslides on recent Weyerhaeuser harvests in the Chahalis River drainage in Washington are appalling. The havoc down stream was equally so. This has also happened in our local streams but hopefully to a lesser degree. I recently read most of "Rowell Creek/Mill Creek/Rickreal Creek/ Lukiamute River Basin Analysis" a document prepared by several personel of the Salem Bureau of Land Management and first iterated in September of 1998. Primarily it corroborated my opinions about the negative effects of past logging on landslides, water quality, native biota, and the stability of stream channels especially on their lower reaches. It is time to let the forests regrow and the streams heal. Trees do not a forest make!
WC-772 WID-1098 W-a8d5c85f-4ab5-45b7-b5eb-cd123e6b2c7e Draft EIS 1/1/2008 1:38:00 PM "For the sake of our common future, let's hope that the radical, anti-tax ideologues wake up and realize that liquidating precious natural resources to fund recurring annual expenditures is nothing but a dead end." These are not my words but express my sentiments exactly. These old growth forests MUST be protected for all generations to come. Clear cutting is not an option. Everything will suffer from this choice. We need to form laws that will provide the money needed for these communities to fund their much needed social programs. Local, state and federal lawmakers need to start providing for domestic issues first. Please, there has got to be a better way than cutting these unique, rare old growth forests and imperling all the wildlife within such as repealing the tax cuts. This is nothing but a short term solution which will leave a long term scar. Thank you.
WC-773 WID-866 W-ddf904be-39c1-46b5-948e-a3ff511dc2cb Draft EIS 1/1/2008 1:41:00 PM I live at the confluence of Mill and Gooseneck Creeks in Polk County and have recently had a flood event larger than any we have experienced in the past 20 years; several feet higher than the one in 1996. The view out the living room is of Mill Creek Ridge; it is good to see it covered with young trees and no evidence of recent clearcuts. I hope it continues so under future BLM management. Perhaps someday there will again be some very old trees. I don´t think it is a coincidence that Mill Creek, Salt Creek, Rickreal Creek, and the Little Lukiamute had very high water on December 3, 2007 in spite of the fact that the amount of rain was less than in several past events. These watersheds have been greatly impacted by increased logging due to the shortened rotation periods on Weyerhaeuser and other private lands. As a matter of fact Polk County had a higher harvest volume in 2004 than at any time in the past (Oregon´s Timber Harvest 1849-2004; Oregon Department of Forestry) and it doesn´t look to me that this pace has slowed in the past 3 years. I went to Fanno Meadows, in the Coast Range, in June of this year for a weed pull and was shocked to see how the Little Lukiamute drainage had changed since I first visited it 25 years ago! Where was the forest? Range 7 W; Township 7 S has the following approximate ownerships in sections: BLM 20; Weyerhaeuser 12; Boise Cascade 3, and GDS 1. So far as I can determine the only public recreation on these lands is during hunting season; other than that the gates are locked and controlled by private industry. Since 55% of this township is in public ownership I would like to be able to visit it during any season. There are birds (I saw a goshawk about 5 years ago on Mill Creek Ridge), flowers, waterfalls, mushrooms, and numerous other features that make it a great place for people other than hunters to visit. Why do they get special treatment? As a group do they have more influence? This also applies to other O&C lands in the area as well as to a small amount of Siuslaw National Forest west of Dallas. As for the alternatives, I prefer in order: 1. No Action No change in current plan - give it a chance, it is only 12 years old; no current shortage of lumber 2. Alternative 3 I like 360 year old trees but what is the chance of any plan lasting that long? See #1 3. Alternative 1 the lesser of two bad choices; it has more late successional reserve, riparian buffer, and less timber management area 4. Alternative 2 harvest level too high; rotations too short; salvage after disturbance allowed in successional management areas
WC-774 WID-1108 W-d79006d2-cbe6-4ccf-ab7b-04bdaf0f1d7c Draft EIS 1/1/2008 2:31:00 PM It is clear that very few natural ecosystems, or even parts of ecosystems, are intact in Oregon. Yet these intact ecosystems are crucial for providing ecosystem services that humans and other species depend upon for our very survival. There should be a zero tolerance for clearcutting of old growth forests anywhere in the U.S. including Oregon. The monocultural tree plantations that replace natural forests are more than simply an eyesore, they don't provide the ecosystem services with regard to clean air and water, habitat for wildlife, and so on. Choose the option that disallows logging in old-growth.
WC-775 WID-1109 W-e9c65dbd-26bd-4872-9fad-7819ef717d9c Draft EIS 1/1/2008 2:34:00 PM I strongly object to the OOPR plan which, if pursued, will lead to an increase of up to a three fold increase in logging on BLM land. This will negatively impact endangered species, add to fire danger by having young trees filling the vacancy left by mature trees, and degrade water sources. Also, if history is any indicator, the timber companies will not pay a fair market rate for the trees. As such, the local communities will be short changed. Once again, I am strongly opposed to this EIS.
WC-776 WID-1110 W-dc324218-87f7-4172-ba81-8462dbf17467 Draft EIS 1/1/2008 2:50:00 PM Continuing to destroy old growth forests when no one yet knows how to create a self-sustaining forest is ecological madness.
WC-777 WID-866 W-78d45e55-3467-43d4-acda-232836915931 Draft EIS 1/1/2008 3:09:00 PM We live at the confluence of Mill and Gooseneck Creeks in Polk County and have recently had a flood event larger than any we have experienced in the past 20 years; several feet higher than the one in 1996. The view out our living room is of Mill Creek Ridge; it is good to see it covered with young trees and no evidence of recent clearcuts. I hope it continues so under future BLM stewardship. Perhaps it will again have some very old trees. I don´t think it is a coincidence that Mill Creek, Salt Creek, Rickreal Creek, and the Little Lukiamute had very high water on December 3, 2007 in spite of the fact that the amount of rain was less than in several past events. These watersheds have been greatly impacted by increased logging due to the shortened rotation periods on Weyerhaeuser and other private lands. As a matter of fact Polk County had a higher harvest volume in 2004 than at any time in the past (Oregon´s Timber Harvest 1849-2004; Oregon Department of Forestry) and it doesn´t look to me that this pace has slowed in the past 3 years. I went to Fanno Meadows, in the Coast Range, in June of this year for a weed pull and was shocked to see how the Little Lukiamute drainage had changed since I first visited it 25 years ago! Where was the forest? Range 7 W; Township 7 S has the following approximate ownerships in sections: BLM 20; Weyerhaeuser 12; Boise Cascade 3, and GDS 1. So far as I can determine the only public recreation on these lands is during hunting season; other than that the gates are locked and controlled by private industry. Since 55% of this township is in public ownership I would like to be able to visit it during any season. There are birds (I saw a goshawk about 5 years ago on Mill Creek Ridge), flowers, waterfalls, mushrooms, and numerous other features that make it a great place for people other than hunters to visit. Why do they get special treatment? As a group do they have more influence? This also applies to other O&C lands in the area as well as to a small amount of Siuslaw National Forest west of Dallas. As for the alternatives, I prefer in order: 1. No Action No change in current plan - give it a chance, it is only 12 years old; no current shortage of lumber 2. Alternative 3 I like 360 year old trees but what is the chance of any plan lasting that long? See #1 3. Alternative 1 the lesser of two bad choices; it has more late successional reserve, riparian buffer, and less timber management area 4. Alternative 2 harvest level too high; rotations too short; salvage after disturbance allowed in successional management areas
WC-778 WID-866 W-c4a9044a-2c5d-4ebe-9c2c-027c6cd51a22 Draft EIS 1/1/2008 3:14:00 PM We live at the confluence of Mill and Gooseneck Creeks in Polk County and have recently had a flood event larger than any we have experienced in the past 20 years; several feet higher than the one in 1996. The view out our living room is of Mill Creek Ridge; it is good to see it covered with young trees and no evidence of recent clearcuts. I hope it continues so under future BLM management. Perhaps there will again be some very old trees. I don´t think it is a coincidence that Mill Creek, Salt Creek, Rickreal Creek, and the Little Lukiamute had very high water on December 3, 2007 in spite of the fact that the amount of rain was less than in several past events. These watersheds have been greatly impacted by increased logging due to the shortened rotation periods on Weyerhaeuser and other private lands. As a matter of fact Polk County had a higher harvest volume in 2004 than at any time in the past (Oregon´s Timber Harvest 1849-2004; Oregon Department of Forestry) and it doesn´t look to me that this pace has slowed in the past 3 years. I went to Fanno Meadows, in the Coast Range, in June of this year for a weed pull and was shocked to see how the Little Lukiamute drainage had changed since I first visited it 25 years ago! Where was the forest? Range 7 W; Township 7 S has the following approximate ownerships in sections: BLM 20; Weyerhaeuser 12; Boise Cascade 3, and GDS 1. So far as I can determine the only public recreation on these lands is during hunting season; other than that the gates are locked and controlled by private industry. Since 55% of this township is in public ownership I would like to be able to visit it during any season. There are birds (I saw a goshawk about 5 years ago on Mill Creek Ridge), flowers, waterfalls, mushrooms, and numerous other features that make it a great place for people other than hunters to visit. Why do they get special treatment? As a group do they have more influence? This also applies to other O&C lands in the area as well as to a small amount of Siuslaw National Forest west of Dallas. As for the alternatives, I prefer in order: 1. No Action No change in current plan - give it a chance, it is only 12 years old; no current shortage of lumber 2. Alternative 3 I like 360 year old trees but what is the chance of any plan lasting that long? See #1 3. Alternative 1 the lesser of two bad choices; it has more late successional reserve, riparian buffer, and less timber management area 4. Alternative 2 harvest level too high; rotations too short; salvage after disturbance allowed in successional management areas
WC-779 WID-866 W-9b174c43-874a-4163-bd39-a73873b62e7b Draft EIS 1/1/2008 3:17:00 PM We live at the confluence of Mill and Gooseneck Creeks in Polk County and have recently had a flood event larger than any we have experienced in the past 20 years; several feet higher than the one in 1996. The view out our living room is of Mill Creek Ridge; it is good to see it covered with young trees and no evidence of recent clearcuts. I hope it continues so under future BLM stewardshiip. Perhaps there will again be some very old trees. I don´t think it is a coincidence that Mill Creek, Salt Creek, Rickreal Creek, and the Little Lukiamute had very high water on December 3, 2007 in spite of the fact that the amount of rain was less than in several past events. These watersheds have been greatly impacted by increased logging due to the shortened rotation periods on Weyerhaeuser and other private lands. As a matter of fact Polk County had a higher harvest volume in 2004 than at any time in the past (Oregon´s Timber Harvest 1849-2004; Oregon Department of Forestry) and it doesn´t look to me that this pace has slowed in the past 3 years. I went to Fanno Meadows, in the Coast Range, in June of this year for a weed pull and was shocked to see how the Little Lukiamute drainage had changed since I first visited it 25 years ago! Where was the forest? Range 7 W; Township 7 S has the following approximate ownerships in sections: BLM 20; Weyerhaeuser 12; Boise Cascade 3, and GDS 1. So far as I can determine the only public recreation on these lands is during hunting season; other than that the gates are locked and controlled by private industry. Since 55% of this township is in public ownership I would like to be able to visit it during any season. There are birds (I saw a goshawk about 5 years ago on Mill Creek Ridge), flowers, waterfalls, mushrooms, and numerous other features that make it a great place for people other than hunters to visit. Why do they get special treatment? As a group do they have more influence? This also applies to other O&C lands in the area as well as to a small amount of Siuslaw National Forest west of Dallas. As for the alternatives, I prefer in order: 1. No Action No change in current plan - give it a chance, it is only 12 years old; no current shortage of lumber 2. Alternative 3 I like 360 year old trees but what is the chance of any plan lasting that long? See #1 3. Alternative 1 the lesser of two bad choices; it has more late successional reserve, riparian buffer, and less timber management area 4. Alternative 2 harvest level too high; rotations too short; salvage after disturbance allowed in successional management areas
WC-780 WID-1113 W-5a71d8fc-8b15-425f-9bbc-6fe751733d06 Draft EIS 1/1/2008 3:39:00 PM I want the BLM to prohibit any clear cutting or cutting of old growth timber in Oregon. We need to honor these forests that are left.
WC-781 WID-1112 6adac054-cccf-4775-9aaf-c644bc0ce0a7 File Upload 1/1/2008 3:42:00 PM I am a long time Oregonian, and I respectfully submit my comments.

Uploaded File:  BLM.cwk (WP).pdf
WC-782 WID-1117 W-e56e7d52-c1b2-4654-9c89-63a49d6348d6 Draft EIS 1/1/2008 4:02:00 PM Clear-cutting is unsustainable, dead-end behavior. This is not a problem of not enough logging -- it's a problem of wealthy interests making the poor suffer in order to further their short-sighted and self-serving agendas. Enough already! WOPR is a mistake. Instead, means of sustaining local communities without endless logging must be developed.
WC-783 WID-1033 W-10df85d7-1f47-46d6-8d9a-ba2f74a060d7 Draft EIS 1/1/2008 4:14:00 PM Please do not approve the "preferred alternative," which increases clear-cutting and regrowth in even-aged plantations. This would result in converstion of thousands of acres into a "low fire resiliency" category. Unlike old, wet forests with thick-barked trees, young plantations have zero resistance to fire. Because much of the BLM land in Oregon is interspersed with private land, many homes will be directly threatened. To put private landowners in fire jeopardy due to greed and money interests is unconscionable.
WC-784 WID-1119 177fed19-aebf-442e-85a5-dbdae2ebafe0 File Upload 1/1/2008 5:00:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR letter.doc
WC-785 WID-1124 494703b7-2e6e-408b-9b6c-bbde6977212d Draft EIS 1/1/2008 5:44:00 PM I am strongly opposed to the BLM WOPR plan. I have lived in Oregon since the early 70's and have seen clear cuts destroy the beauty and functionality of this environment. I understand that this plan will greatly increase clear cutting as well as the cutting of the few remaining old growth trees. This is a short-sighted policy which will ruin multiple ecosystems. It is stupid.
WC-786 WID-1126 024fa250-b37d-4e2d-8e9c-6f9d78c9a630 Draft EIS 1/1/2008 6:11:00 PM if the Secure Rural Schools program is not renewed...and if the WOPR is initiated,what a sad fate for these areas. Desperation, apparently is causing these folks to seek desperate measures. But the measures are short-sighted. Can desertification be far behind?
WC-787 WID-1122 024fa250-b37d-4e2d-8e9c-6f9d78c9a630 Draft EIS 1/1/2008 6:16:00 PM to whom it may concern: old growth forests belong to all the american people. they clean our air , remove excess carbon dioxide and provide us with oxygen. i understand that financial reasons are behind the move to continue logging these trees. please consider the alternatives. other state legislators have passed laws that will allow them to re-cultivate industrial hemp. please join them. hemp is an annual plant that can grow anywhere. it can grow 15 feet in one season. our forefathers depended on it and our founding fathers beleived it was tied to our nation's wealth. four times as much paper can be made from hemp as from trees. (see the department of agriculture's bulletin no.404 from october 14, 1916.) paper is not the only profitable product industrial hemp can provide. consider the opportunities if oregon were to provide the country with all the hemp products we now import from cananda; food and clothing, building and industrial products like plywood, animal bedding, solvents, paint and thousands of other products. (see the popular mechanics article from february, 1938 entitled, "new billion dollar crop," and from the mechanical engineering magazine from february 26, 1937, "The most profitable and desirable crop that can be grown."
WC-788 WID-1129 4345b881-6009-45b0-b44c-1895b3015331 File Upload 1/1/2008 6:49:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Please do not allow WOPR to go into effect.doc
WC-789 WID-1133 W-a37cbbce-c4ab-4ff0-9ab4-a7a303f9603d Draft EIS 1/1/2008 7:49:00 PM This DEIS is for a plan which would result in disastrous habitat destruction and unsustainable arvesting of public forests. The environmental impacts are not adequately documented by this DEIS nor are adequate mitigations proposed for the significant adverse impacts of the plan's unsustainable levels of timber harvesting and habitat destruction.
WC-790 WID-1134 1f5fe6b3-b4d9-4075-9dfc-0eb5de5ab1b1 Draft EIS 1/1/2008 7:52:00 PM Please extend the Secure Rural Schools legislation. Do not implement the WOPR plan. Save our old growth forests. I grew up in the Portland-Vancouver area. It is an outrage that the government(s) cannot find another way to pay for education and other services than by cutting 17,000 acres of old growth timberland each year. Shame on you. Paul Hancock
WC-791 WID-1135 W-2ff9c090-5af6-445c-b898-de31998b6dd3 Draft EIS 1/1/2008 8:13:00 PM I strongly oppose any logging in old growth forests. I stronlgy recommend not damaging any old growth forests and restoring areas with good potential back to a natural condition. They got rid of all the old growth where I live and I can tell you it didn't help us any. It won't help you either.
WC-792 WID-1136 db296ebc-2669-4dc0-b7ce-1a664ea26514 File Upload 1/1/2008 8:18:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Letter to BLM December 2007.wps.doc
WC-793 WID-1138 W-ad5fbb4b-bb68-41e4-8f5a-246d6ece06af Draft EIS 1/1/2008 8:50:00 PM I simply do not want to see any more clear cutting. We have just been through flooding here in Tillamook County;clear cutting contributes to the flooding problems. This is not a rich county, but there are ways to fund our schools without expanding logging. We should extend the support of rural schools program and say a very big NO to the "Whopper". Sincerely, Joyce Stewart Nehalem, Oregon
WC-794 WID-1139 W-54f1b337-b022-4cbf-bb74-b2e84815d97e Draft EIS 1/1/2008 8:54:00 PM Times have changed - the steady source of forest products and revenue cannot be at the expense of the well-being of future generations. We must preserve the small fraction of the original old growth we still have on BLM lands - for the sake of coming generations, for the sake of not only endangered species like spotted owls and marbled murrelets, but for all the species who are involved with them in the intricate web of life, and that includes you and me! Let's get ahead of the curve by thinning what we can in existing second and third growth forests, and using this for carbon sequestration. Selling carbon offsets will soon bring in the money our counties need - global warming and climate change is happening faster than predicted. Don't be shortsighted in your planning.
WC-795 WID-1137 7b25bee5-bb64-4857-8f68-33c64879afb8 File Upload 1/1/2008 8:54:00 PM I have paraphrased the conclusion of an excellent article by Kelpie Wilson...

Uploaded File:  ANTI-WHOPPER.doc
WC-796 WID-1139 W-23a2730e-34ac-472e-b5f1-474fa5c949c3 Draft EIS 1/1/2008 8:58:00 PM No green tree retention after regeneration harvesting sounds like clear-cutting to me - and it is bad for the soil, causing much erosion, mudslides etc.; bad for the water in the streams and rivers, and bad for the wildlife dependent on that soil and water. When will we ever learn?
WC-797 WID-1139 W-fa0c19fa-862b-4c0c-a105-8598179a96f3 Draft EIS 1/1/2008 9:04:00 PM As an artist, I'm glad you're thinking of visual resources. But please, don't be two-dimensional about this. A healthy forest (not a tree plantation) has visual, auditory, olfactory, and other sensory delights as well. The healing for the human spirit is incomparable - this can neither be measured or replaced. Please do not cut any more old growth. Please.
WC-798 WID-1141 eeca156f-fe55-428e-91d6-1161f9643d8d Draft EIS 1/1/2008 9:07:00 PM Dear BLM, i would like to urge you to drop all plans for Oregon clearcutting and respect the terms of the NW FOREST PLAN. Thank you, Ben Farnum
WC-799 WID-1139 W-0bd81dd6-4c34-426f-ba99-83a9f5605a13 Draft EIS 1/1/2008 9:08:00 PM Let's save our old growth forests and let others pay us to compensate for damage they are doing to the climate in other places. Sounds far-fetched? So did global warming when we first heard about it, but it's pretty clear that it's happening, and faster than we thought it would.
WC-800 WID-1139 W-96420d75-3caf-453f-82b4-d1cf533dfe1d Draft EIS 1/1/2008 9:12:00 PM The whole earth is an area of critical environmental concern!!!!!
USA.GOV  |  No Fear Act  |  DOI  |  Disclaimer  |  About BLM  |  Notices  |  Get Adobe Reader