Web-comments-1601-1700

# SenderID Ref.# Comment Tool Date Comment
WC-1601 WID-1871 W-7b7f7b58-2980-458d-b0ad-6aac37ab7d9d Draft EIS 1/10/2008 6:25:00 PM There is a rumor that the timber companies plan to close down all of their operations in Oregon within the next 5 years or so. Since they will likely not ever again havest timber in areas already harvested in the last 5 years is iit true that they will not have to replant these areas? Especially areas adjacent to BLM land? This should be addressed in the Draft EIS.
WC-1602 WID-1881 e44ebf9b-204c-48c0-bd90-84545d503710 File Upload 1/10/2008 6:33:00 PM

Uploaded File:  to BLM on WOPR.doc
WC-1603 WID-1882 W-6b4ab138-1ccd-433a-81c9-94e810fc56b5 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 6:40:00 PM How long will it take for you people to come to the simple understanding about the overwhelming majority opinion of the people of Oregon that what is left of our ancient trees must be left in perpetuity? Keep your greedy mitts off the old growth!!
WC-1604 WID-1884 W-9c025a9a-ae60-437c-8b64-ab9528dcb725 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 6:49:00 PM I am very against you logging old growth timber! I hope you will honestly listen to the public and do away with this plan. It is not good science and it is not a viable way to get money to the counties. I am sure I don't need to list all the ways it is bad for the ground AND the animals and the environment for you to clear cut.
WC-1605 WID-1884 W-c45b15df-2b8b-4869-bcd6-fbb8af6a3751 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 6:50:00 PM My wife Mimi commented that she is very against you logging old growth and I want to add that I am also very against this. Clear cutting young trees is bad enough..but our old growth? No way!! Fred Miles
WC-1606 WID-1879 W-6f7a8cc2-2a0a-4584-a910-411cbe452cb7 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 6:54:00 PM While healthy forests are becoming increasingly scarce, our need for their life support functions is steadily increasing. I would like to see the forest lands be totally closed to all machinery including logging, OHVs and bikes. This will help prevent the serious degradation of the remaining forests, watersheds and ecosystems that inevitably follow when these destructive activities are allowed. Human intervention has proven to be a poor forest management tool.
WC-1607 WID-1886 W-7dd366ff-eddb-4397-80a6-67478c6bcf25 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 6:57:00 PM I see no scientific evidence for why the environmental protections of the NW Forest Plan should be discarded. Please address the impact of WOPR on the survival of oldgrowth ecosystems, forest fires and global warming, as well as the impact to our waterways. Endangered salmon should also be considered. Even from an economic standpoint, the trees are more valuable to Oregon if left standing. WOPR is a terrible plan.
WC-1608 WID-1887 W-e6ccc266-9a34-4836-8321-69e17f860f29 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 6:57:00 PM Dear Senator/Representative, I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. The BLM is moving forward with the Western Oregon Plan Revision, which will increase logging in Oregon´s old-growth forests sevenfold by clearcutting in currently protected old growth forest reserves and sensitive salmon bearing rivers and creeks. The Northwest Forest Plan's protections should remain in place for BLM lands, not sacrificed in an out-of-court deal between the timber industry and the White House. Oregon ancient forests deserve permanent protection and should be managed to maintain important public assets such as clean drinking water, habitat for fish and wildlife, diverse recreation opportunities, stunning scenery, and jobs in forest restoration, fire safety and tourism. Ancient forests in Oregon also serve as an important carbon storage and sequestration resource to help mitigate global warming. The BLM's plans for increased logging in these ancient forests under the Western Oregon Plan Revision will take America backwards in efforts to prevent global climate change. Clearcutting and damage to soils from logging has been shown to release tremendous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, while old forests absorb and store carbon dioxide. I am concerned that the changes the BLM has proposed in its Western Oregon Plan Revision will lead to the loss of Oregon's irreplaceable ancient forests, water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy. Much of the BLM forests in western Oregon are adjacent to private landowners who would like to see nearby forest managed to protect their home from wildfire and to preserve their water supply, scenery, and recreation opportunities. Additionally, these forests are owned by Americans across the nation, who would like to see them strongly protected for future generations to enjoy. Please protect western BLM forests and maintain the Northwest Forest Plan reserve system. Please use your power in Congress to rein in the Bush administration and prevent them from spending money to log old growth forests, and stop the BLM from selling off Oregon's ancient forest heritage. Sincerely,
WC-1609 WID-1874 W-9f24c608-958d-448b-8df4-e6527b9adfd9 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 7:09:00 PM I could write a book about this subject but I will make my comments short in order to spare you the redundancy. Once again the corporate science applied to the change in our forest plan is only considering the value to specific corporations. There are many ways to create value from our environment and lord knows there is and can be a sustainable logging and wood products industry in Oregon for a very long time if we don't sell out cheap to organizations who value profit over the general welfare. Manicuring and thinning our forests creates the opportunity for far more tourism and allows for valuable wild crafting of food and forest materials. There are plenty of tree farms in Oregon to provide lumber in a sustainable way. To cut down the few old growth groves remaining in our beautiful state is a terrible waste of an irreplaceable resource. If the lumber from these trees is of better quality than tree farm lumber then why didn't we save more of it? Why haven't we priced it at what it is worth rather than give it all away to corporations for next to nothing? As far as our wildlife is concerned all I'm seeing is a reduction of protection for the Spotted Owl and our Salmon. The forest plan continues the use of herbicides including the aerial application of these poisons destroying valuable food sources for wildlife and humans. All this plus landslides and the destruction of Salmon runs by silting creeks from clear-cutting doesn't make a lick of sense to anyone who has any. I understand that there are reductions in the distance of logging from certain creeks and tributaries. I suggest we start the process again with people who care about our environment, our people, our forests and our wildlife. I would be happy to be on a citizens committee to rearrange these policies. Thank You, David C. Woods
WC-1610 WID-1891 97bb08fc-e7d8-4484-bcbf-35cc1e4d9afb File Upload 1/10/2008 7:22:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Comments on the DEIS of the WOPR.doc
WC-1611 WID-1891 None Web Forum Exit 1/10/2008 7:27:00 PM Would be helpful if interactive maps had roads clearly marked - I required a hard copy road map to establish if I was in the desired section of a map. Once there, clicking to view various alternatives was easy.
WC-1612 WID-1892 ec6e08ce-4ef4-4e60-8037-c50195f86a2c File Upload 1/10/2008 7:38:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR_comments.doc
WC-1613 WID-1893 W-74890c67-f5e9-4914-afa0-f0323b86aa17 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 7:39:00 PM On Nov. 13, 2007 the RG printed an op-ed by Ron Sadler, retired chief of forestry planning for BLM, entitled "BLM timberlands draft a failure". Sadler noted that "BLM refuses to recognize that the scarce resource is not the spotted owl...or any of the other 300-plus plants and animals associated with old growth timber. The scarce resource is the old growth ecosystem itself. The real need is for BLM to recognize the scarce nature of functioning old growth stands across all ownerships within Western Oregon". I agree with this comment. And I always thought that using the spotted owl as a flagship species was a mistake. The real issue is preserving old growth. In the last 30 years that I have been kayaking the McKenzie and collecting mushrooms for my table,the damage to our forests has been obvious and heartbreaking. I want to continue to adhere to the Northwest Forest Plan, protect salmon, old growth, stream buffers. I have been into privately held thinned lands in the Coast Range and see that thinning is not an answer. It is just another version of tree farm, with edge species such as Digitalis growing in the midst of the "forest." No mushrooms beneath and I think that says something. We have so little old growth left that there is scant justification for cutting anymore. Of course the big logging companies would love it, but they are out for their own, not responsible to the future, and are not voting citizens. They do not LIVE in the environment they destroy. I do. You do too. I moved to Oregon from Wisconsin in 1972, Wisconsin having been logged to the ground by Weyerhaeuser, and I am not prepared to see that happen to my new quarters. This new plan is irresponsible behavior. This year has seen global warming accepted even by the resistant. How does this new plan further anything but MONEY for the few? Sue Schaeffer 118 E. Hilliard Lane Eugene, Oregon 97404 541 461 4413
WC-1614 WID-1895 e7112b54-a9db-4166-a930-4dc98684012e File Upload 1/10/2008 7:47:00 PM

Uploaded File:  BLM COMMENT.doc
WC-1615 WID-1899 3637b398-84b6-4152-bd0d-5e6b6ba6c386 File Upload 1/10/2008 7:54:00 PM

Uploaded File:  to BLM onWOPR 10 Jan 2008.doc
WC-1616 WID-1896 eb62a70b-8fa9-4dae-a3ce-da9406fc7936 File Upload 1/10/2008 7:58:00 PM

Uploaded File:  BLMS WESTERN OREGON PLAN REVISION (WOPR).doc
WC-1617 WID-1901 988ba11e-2afc-44c0-87df-2b780ef0952f File Upload 1/10/2008 8:18:00 PM

Uploaded File:  blm_wopr.txt
WC-1618 WID-1900 88391429-c179-4a6e-b1f0-3e179730c202 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 8:21:00 PM BLM, As an avid angler and outdoorsman, the proposals by the BLM to revise current rules in Western Oregon are unacceptable. The EIS asserts, correctly, that there are better alternatives to preserve, grow, and protect our public lands in Oregon than the rules that are currently in place. Unfortunately the BLM has failed to propose any acceptable alternatives to the current plan. The current proposal should be revisited, and a panel consisting of industry representatives, user stakeholders including anglers and hunters, environmental interests, and city and local interests should be put together in Oregon to explore further options. Temperature and turbidity are the two most common pollutants in Oregon. Both the Rogue River, which has large sections of BLM land bordering it, as well as numerous valley and coastal rivers are listed under the Temperature TMDL, regularly exceeding safe temperatures for threatened and endangered salmon, steelhead, and resident trout. The BLM´s proposal to reduce the streamside limits on cutting from 300 ft. to, in some cases, as little as 25 ft. is a threat to streams, water quality, and fish habitat. As was seen recently in Washington and Oregon, harsh winter storms lead to landslides on clear cut hillsides, even if not determined to be originally slide prone. These slides lead to blockages in river, increased sediment deposits, and the destruction of spawning grounds. In the Willamette Valley, on the Oregon coast, and in southern Oregon, many of the BLM´s lands border valuable fish habitat. It is poor public policy and inconsistent with Oregon values to place other values above our rivers, our water, and our environment. I, like many other anglers, take value in our rivers. No matter the use, Oregonians agree that our rivers should be healthy. The proposed BLM policy does not make healthy rivers or a healthy ecosystem. Sincerely, Ryan Goldsmith
WC-1619 WID-1903 88391429-c179-4a6e-b1f0-3e179730c202 File Upload 1/10/2008 8:22:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR comments.doc
WC-1620 WID-1911 05e6f55f-a027-479d-9b3e-8005c28e5295 File Upload 1/10/2008 8:49:00 PM

Uploaded File:  BLM-complete comments.doc
WC-1621 WID-1908 05e6f55f-a027-479d-9b3e-8005c28e5295 File Upload 1/10/2008 8:49:00 PM Thank you for reviewing my letter.

Uploaded File:  WOPR.doc
WC-1622 WID-1902 W-7d453981-1bbe-4154-b4fe-108ce7158fcd Draft EIS 1/10/2008 8:49:00 PM As someone who has grown up in Oregon, I have been very proud to be a part of a state that tries so very hard to protect it's natural beauty and resources. I hope we continue that tradition. We need to focus on the long term and the importance of our natural surroundings instead of falling into the trap of thinking money and making more of it is the answer to everything. I strongly support the preservation of our old growth timber and efforts to protect all wildlife. I want my children to be able to enjoy the forests, lakes, streams, etc. in our beautiful state as I have been able to.
WC-1623 WID-1910 W-32c23fcd-2b36-4d3f-affd-aaa5a35511c4 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 8:58:00 PM The wopr is a terrible plan and it should not be implemented.
WC-1624 WID-1917 e374fb50-0fcf-4797-aef1-9c061c7ff492 File Upload 1/10/2008 9:07:00 PM I have a Bachelor of Science in Environmental Studies. I love Oregon. I have worked hard all my life and believe in my convictions about our natural environment. Our forest resources belong to all Oregonians, not just a few logging companies or communities caught in a cash flow crisis. We need to take the long view, not just a short term solution.

Uploaded File:  WOPR response.doc
WC-1625 WID-642 W-f37dfd4b-aa84-4709-b156-139aaa0c5439 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 9:10:00 PM The health of Marbled Murrelet and Northern Spotted Owl populations, aside from being worthy conservation goals in of themselves, are important indicators of overall ecological health and habitat quality. Assuring the viability of these flagship species is important for preserving the multitudes of organisms and ecological functions inherent to mature forest structure. Increased fragmentation and edge density, and reduced core habitat and patch size, would put at risk the tiny scrap of old growth that we have left. All of the Alternatives are entirely inappropriate for the conservation of the Marbled Murrelet and Northern Spotted Owl, and all other old-growth associates. The No Action Alternative must be chosen to protect the integrity of the mature forest that remains after decades of mismanagement, and the formerly logged forest that still has a chance to regain ecological function.
WC-1626 WID-1918 W-62fb36eb-c1f5-4a0b-a78f-3ceeb60c10d0 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 9:14:00 PM I believe the Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR) are inappropriate and potentially dangerous to wildlife and eco systems. Please reconsider these plans. Logging of old-growth trees should not be allowed in any manner, in any location. Please preserve the small amount of old growth we have left in Oregon.
WC-1627 WID-1922 c8d47928-f541-4bce-8c0b-01c60b872e6d File Upload 1/10/2008 9:21:00 PM RE:Western Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR)

Uploaded File:  080110_WORP_anti_clearcut_of_oldgrowth.doc
WC-1628 WID-1923 W-dff9a8fa-59ca-4aec-934a-3f590fe0e223 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 9:29:00 PM I strongly favor the no-action alternative. As an academic scientist (now retired) with a specialization in landscape-scale Pacific Northwest ecosystem history, I am appalled that we are even considering cutting any late-succession reserves. Our best legacy to our descendants is functioning, healthy ecosystems. Now that some 90 percent of America's native forests have been lost to other uses, we are honor bound to do our best to leave the remaining native forests for the enjoyment and use of future generations. Once converted to a tree farm, a native forest loses most of its environmental and social value for many human generations. Dennis Todd, Ph.D.
WC-1629 WID-1913 69a3762f-97b4-4c6e-8f8e-b2e037be8371 File Upload 1/10/2008 9:39:00 PM

Uploaded File:  blm.doc
WC-1630 WID-1931 W-1cb2d477-dcbc-431d-ac1e-d4cd79885062 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 9:43:00 PM I heard a presentation of the BLM options presented by BLM personnel. My major concern is with old growth and clear cutting -- but perhaps most with old growth. I do not think we should be destroying old growth forests without producing new ones. That is, I think the plan is not one of sustainability with decreasing old growth over a period of time such as, say 70 years. I am not talking necessarily about an legal definition but an ecological definition. So if old growth really was forests that were 200 to 250 years old, we should not harvest more of this until we begin replacing such forests. These forests will protect the spotted owl and other species that need old growth forests. They will be available for recreations to the same degree they are now. We have already reduced such forest greatly. We need real sustainability. I also do not like clearcutting, we should be doing some selective logging if necessary. The forests are for more than just harvesting. We have already havested a large percentage of old growth. Why do we now need to share the small percentage that now exists? We need to protect it until we produce more of it. Sincerely, Bob O'Brien
WC-1631 WID-1933 e469b590-6a53-423d-bf31-8e3b9397b067 File Upload 1/10/2008 9:48:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WPOR response.txt
WC-1632 WID-1905 W-ac422cc6-2420-42d2-9454-06cb498ccefd Draft EIS 1/10/2008 9:49:00 PM I prefer the No Action Alternative. I believe that we are in this dilemma due to a "cut and run"policy perpetrated by the timber industry for the last century. To Edward Shepard, State Director when he asks "how to speed the redevelopment of forests after timber harvesting", I must reply "impossible". We must reconcile ourselves to nature. It takes a long time to grow big trees and they grew out of the rich fertile soil which was created out of the decaying mass of plant material and nurse logs which takes hundreds and thousands of years to create. No human has ever grown an old growth forest. No one knows if they will ever regenerate to the size and vigor that they once were. If we increase the cut now what will our children have in 50 years? Ironic that we want to increase the cut to pay for our children's education. Those trees modulate our atmosphere and create clean water and cool the planet. They are far more valuable doing this than being turned in to manufactured homes and junk mail. Will the children be able to eat money when the planet is a wasteland?
WC-1633 WID-1930 9bb514bc-bfe7-4567-9a97-c57217d081dd Draft EIS 1/10/2008 9:54:00 PM Logging is not always inherently wrong in Oregon and for Oregonians. Harvesting from tree farms or younger trees away from our watersheds and from our sensitive ecosystems and irreplaceable old growth forests is acceptable to many. However, when it comes to short term economic gain as a capitulation to short sighted political pressure over the consideration of what is moral and practical we need to stop and reconsider our course of action. Once these forests are gone, they are gone and the ecosystem they supported will be irreparably damaged as well! Simply because outdated and antiquated statutes (much like the General Mining Act of 1872) allow us to entirely clear cut an old growth forest and cut to within 25 feet of a watershed does not mean we should do it for obvious moral and practical reasons. Practically speaking, if this plan goes forward as currently drafted, it will only polarize the various local communities where the logging is supposed to increasingly occur - it will also likely end up in a long and bitter legal battle. I will support the legal efforts of the Cascadia, Earthjustice, or any other legal defense fund if this plan goes forward as is. Please do the appropriate practical and moral thing: genuinely include all the relevant interests at your decision table and find a compromise that gets and gives concessions and ultimately agreement from both sides. Please do not touch our old growth forests, find a way to salvage log, tree farm log, or cut other young trees in non-sensitive ecosystems to better meet the economic burden rural communities are facing in light of the unfortunate and questionable federal cuts. Sincerely, Ryan Smith
WC-1634 WID-1932 W-d2df1997-a3c4-4a18-aa5b-fe1bcfaa9612 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 9:57:00 PM Thank you for the opportunity to comment on line. Under NEPA, this DEIS needs to analyze proposed federal actions that would have a significant impact on the human environment. It is both innappropriate, arbitrary, and incorrect for the WOPR to summarily state that the recommended action would have speculative impact on global climate change, and therefore it is unnecessary to analyze this impact. I request that a reasonable effort be made to analyze the impacts of WOPR alternatives on global climate, and particularly on the climate of the Pacific Northwest and North America over the total planning horizon, and that this information be presented in draft form for public comment. Far from speculative, there is a large and rapidly growing body of scientific evidence that indicates lessening forest cover, photosynthetic capacity, and soil carbon and biomass have a direct and deleterious effect on atmospheric carbon uptake by forests. Since all but the no option alternative significantly take these directions, it is necessary for you to analyze the scale and significance of your proposed alternatives, and allow the public to review and collectively select what alternative is most acceptable, prior to the development of a final EIS. Beyond this problem, I believe the lack of green tree retention in final harvests is counterproductive and not supportable, that clearcutting is a bad forest management practice and unnecessary, and that any reduction of riparian reserve sizes and extent are not supportable by the best available scientific evidence. Without such changes and a thorough review, I can only support the no-action alternative. Him Fairchild
WC-1635 WID-1932 W-4c1247c8-56f4-46a0-be1d-2c2afa6fdc4b Draft EIS 1/10/2008 9:58:00 PM Thank you for the opportunity to comment on line. Under NEPA, this DEIS needs to analyze proposed federal actions that would have a significant impact on the human environment. It is both innappropriate, arbitrary, and incorrect for the WOPR to summarily state that the recommended action would have speculative impact on global climate change, and therefore it is unnecessary to analyze this impact. I request that a reasonable effort be made to analyze the impacts of WOPR alternatives on global climate, and particularly on the climate of the Pacific Northwest and North America over the total planning horizon, and that this information be presented in draft form for public comment. Far from speculative, there is a large and rapidly growing body of scientific evidence that indicates lessening forest cover, photosynthetic capacity, and soil carbon and biomass have a direct and deleterious effect on atmospheric carbon uptake by forests. Since all but the no option alternative significantly take these directions, it is necessary for you to analyze the scale and significance of your proposed alternatives, and allow the public to review and collectively select what alternative is most acceptable, prior to the development of a final EIS. Beyond this problem, I believe the lack of green tree retention in final harvests is counterproductive and not supportable, that clearcutting is a bad forest management practice and unnecessary, and that any reduction of riparian reserve sizes and extent are not supportable by the best available scientific evidence. Without such changes and a thorough review, I can only support the no-action alternative. Jim Fairchild
WC-1636 WID-1937 6878cd50-9bae-4409-842b-0e73e0a1dc13 File Upload 1/10/2008 10:02:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR-Jan07.txt
WC-1637 WID-1942 c7c1c694-fcc5-4b6e-9426-40b198e23fbc File Upload 1/10/2008 10:08:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR-010908.doc
WC-1638 WID-1940 e0aaf942-cc6c-4cdd-80f1-d09be94e1e68 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 10:08:00 PM Provisions of the Northwest Forest Plan that apply to BLM lands should be retained. I find very little to like about WOPR. The net effects of WOPR would be very negative for water quality, for fish and for other wildlife. You people should be ashamed. Our national lands deserve much better than this plan represents.
WC-1639 WID-1934 W-d7b86e8c-85f7-4c40-a178-965e870502c9 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 10:09:00 PM The No Action alternative seems to be the most balanced of all options. It provides a piece of the pie to all rather than to specific special interests. Sustainable forestry practices are truly the most beneficial for the long term health and economic viability of our public lands. When it is done correctly, a forest can provide long term profit without anyone knowing that it has been harvested. Since Oregon depends upon tourism, which depends upon beautiful wilderness, we must do all we can to protect the beauty of our land.
WC-1640 WID-1936 W-d5178f0b-db26-42f0-aaf1-cd5d26d05dde Draft EIS 1/10/2008 10:11:00 PM I am a Oregon citizen for the past 30 years. I feel strongly that the forests need protection, and especially the old growth stands. We cannot only look to short range funding sources for our small communities through logging payments. These are of short term duration and the long term effects are devastating and not ever to be replaced. I encourage mindfulness when choosing the route to adopting a plan for the Northwest forests. There are many species that depend upon the health of a forest for their survival and I would include the human race in this equation as well. As for fire safety issues- it is a known fact that clear cutting stands of forest create a much more volatile situation in the long run than would be if the forest were selectively cut and by leaving old growth forests intact there is less likelihood for a dense under story which is where the real forest fires are.Please do not be swayed by the current Administrations pressure to appease small communities funding sources to the detriment of forest health. I believe that forest health is for every species people included ! Do the homework and don't push relevant information under the rug so to speak there are grandchildren who will inherit the earth and we should take care to keep it healthy for them as well as for us !
WC-1641 WID-1941 W-d43fb8ea-db92-4ceb-b188-79b4d9741283 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 10:15:00 PM WOPR My comments are in regard to the WOPR which I strongly disagree with. This plan deviates from scientific studies showing that old growth destruction should be completely banned. Further, popular consensus has shown that the continued cutting of old growth should no longer occur. If the BLM neglects both scientific information and public opinion and continues to go forward with the WOPR, the public, both urban and rural, will redouble our efforts to change those in power. Please leave a legacy that you are proud of for future generations and your children. Thank you, Sincerely, Evan Shenkin Public Policy, Planning and Management Program, University of Oregon evanshenkin@hotmail.com 541-513-6221 University of Oregon
WC-1642 WID-1945 W-1c9735c3-8fd4-4a07-a591-a59016821d01 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 10:23:00 PM Please protect our remaining OLD GROWTH FORESTS! Do not GIVE AWAY these National Treasures.
WC-1643 WID-1927 W-58c67b72-3fde-45c2-8983-f81ace5190e1 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 10:28:00 PM Of all the alternatives, I choose the NO ACTION Alternative. I prefer the safeguards contained in the Northwest Forest Plan as it already exists with no "Revisions". The revisions reverse or otherwise deleteriously affect true ecological considerations. I am a long term Oregon resident wrestling with the complexites of forest management in the face of diverse competing "special interests". I've conducted research in Medford / Lakeview districts through government and private contracts. The evidence is clear to see, and I choose the NO ACTION Alternative as the only choice with a ghost of a chance at maintaining some minimal, ever shrinking cultural, aesthetic,and biological viability where we can all experience, enjoy, use, recreate in, and study true wonder, and possibly understand its purpose in our lives.
WC-1644 WID-1943 W-b5422e1d-c1c0-42c8-a4d4-7158883db84c Draft EIS 1/10/2008 10:30:00 PM I moved to Oregon from New Jersey in 1981. The primary attraction was all of the public land in this State....and believing that since the government owned it, it was protected. Little did I know at the time, how political and how easily influence by corporations Federal agencies can be. I beseech the Bureau of Land Mangement to maintain the public trust and protect and restore our aquatic ecosystems, including our native fish and amphibians. I do a lot of boating (and periodically, I go for an unexpected swim); I also fish. It's important to me be able to swim safely in the water and to eat the fish from our rivers and streams. And fish and other amphibians need healthy rivers and streams. I'm encouraged by biologist friends who are Fish and Wildlife or BLM employees who do some stream restorations, both on the coast and in the valley. Small steps, but very worthwhile. This proposal would essentially offset their work. It is bad for clean water and it's bad for our fish and wildlife. Please keep the aquatic protections of the Northwest Forest Plan on BLM lands in place and don't allow major logging.
WC-1645 WID-1935 49a464ad-4cec-496d-aaba-9d7b3a4a1f2e File Upload 1/10/2008 10:36:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR comments.doc
WC-1646 WID-1949 a455038b-f22e-46df-9d65-af9d6b087d59 File Upload 1/10/2008 10:41:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR Testimony to BLM 1 10 08.doc
WC-1647 WID-452 W-2fc3ba64-300f-4f00-9bd1-96f943266f3d Draft EIS 1/10/2008 10:49:00 PM It has been well documented in the fisheries research that it is important to have structure in a stream to provide good fish habitat. Structure provides cover for fish, sediment storage, nutrient retention, pool formation, and formation of off channel habitat. Your analysis of this structure errors in assuming that it takes large wood to provide this structure. Even though large wood is one element that provides structure for fish habitat, it is also provided by large boulders and bedrock outcroppings in streams. The contribution of these and other channel features should be analyzed before a final EIS is released.
WC-1648 WID-1523 W-0309c170-60d0-49f7-9e54-6621b9c07d64 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 10:49:00 PM The Northwest Forest Plan of 1994 was intended to be a balance between protecting late-successional and old-growth forests and their associated special status species and delicately balanced ecosystems, and the goals of timber production. While the Northwest Forest Plan was not cast in stone, the current "purpose and need" for the proposed action, is based on narrow objectives and does not reflect the many changes in the timber industry that have accelerated since 1994. In particular, the purpose of tripling the cut of old-growth forests on BLM lands is to deliver a limited amount of additional timber payments to counties while selling off raw logs of Old Growth timber to countries like Japan. This is a huge waste of an irreplaceable natural resource for a scant benefit. The need to cut old growth to supply the wood products needs of the United States has virtually disappeared since 1994 as almost all of the last reserves of Old Growth have already been cut, and most of the Old Growth sawmills have been closed or retooled to cut immature forest. Most homes now are built with early harvest lumber or engineered wood products. There is simply no valid rationalization for speeding up the cut of Old Growth timber on BLM lands in Oregon, and the Purpose and Need for the project is contrived and false.
WC-1649 WID-1951 1ae063b3-a946-4fe9-9079-94f49b5251b4 File Upload 1/10/2008 10:50:00 PM

Uploaded File:  BLM.doc
WC-1650 WID-1919 1ae063b3-a946-4fe9-9079-94f49b5251b4 File Upload 1/10/2008 10:51:00 PM The attached are our official comments regarding the draft EIS of the WOPR.

Uploaded File:  WOPR.pdf
WC-1651 WID-1952 2c78c5d2-c890-483c-b36b-466c2e8d7a0e File Upload 1/10/2008 10:54:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR letter.doc
WC-1652 WID-1953 84e0c14a-bf9b-4bfb-990b-60d70ccc11a5 File Upload 1/10/2008 10:58:00 PM

Uploaded File:  MaxWOPRcomments.doc
WC-1653 WID-1954 0cb4032b-09da-4846-b37f-b850c41fac7f File Upload 1/10/2008 11:01:00 PM Thanks for hearing mu comments. I am very passionate about our forests and want their protection for generations and generations to come. Please listen!

Uploaded File:  woprletter1.doc
WC-1654 WID-1948 0cb4032b-09da-4846-b37f-b850c41fac7f File Upload 1/10/2008 11:09:00 PM I am against the WORP proposal.

Uploaded File:  NO WORP.txt
WC-1655 WID-1957 W-46318c98-0d08-4080-af13-4ffab44a5e0d Draft EIS 1/10/2008 11:11:00 PM Dear Evaluators, The Corvallis Benton Chamber Coalition has reviewed and deliberated on the BLM forest management alternatives listed for the revision of the Western Oregon Plan. We are equally concerned about the economic and environmental impacts of the alternatives being considered. The Chamber Coalition supports Alternative Two within the Bureau of Land Management´s Western Oregon Plan Revisions, contingent upon and sensitive to addressing compliance with the ESA. This position was informed by and built upon the following points: 1. We are concerned about assertions from environmental groups that the WOPR violates the ESA. We expect BLM to produce a final WOPR with the adequate scientific basis to withstand legal challenges regarding the ESA. We are concerned about the serious continuing impacts on the western Oregon forest industry and rural economies if the WOPR is successfully challenged in court. 2. THE BLM should not eliminate an existing ACEC´s without clear justification and consultation with other cooperating agencies. We are particularly concerned about the apparent deletion of existing ACEC´s on Mary´s Peak. 3. We expect BLM to continue to abide by their agreement to meet or exceed the Oregon Forest Practices Act and its rules. For example: We are concerned by the proposal under alternative two that no green trees be left standing in rotational harvest units. 4. We are concerned about the possibility that this plan will be a regional cook book and not allow the site specific application of forestry knowledge and principals in harvest prescriptions. 5. it is important that the BLM manage its lands to control insects, diseases and fire so that these do not spread to adjacent checker boarded private lands. 6. There is a need to maintain viable local milling capacity, as near to the resource as possible, for longer rotation logs in order to sustain an incentive for landholders to grow longer rotation, big trees. 7. we would like to see more flexibility in scheduling the rate of production off of Federal (BLM) lands to more closely match market demand fluctuations. Increased BLM production in a down market could depress local markets even in a good national market. The WOPR currently doesn´t address this issue. We urge the Bureau of Land Management to address the cautions and expectations in our seven points, in order to fashion the final preferred alternative, using Alternative Two as the core. Sincerely, Mysty Rusk President
WC-1656 WID-1960 2712881b-ca79-41ca-9fbe-ec83dbffe0be File Upload 1/10/2008 11:27:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR.doc
WC-1657 WID-1958 2712881b-ca79-41ca-9fbe-ec83dbffe0be Draft EIS 1/10/2008 11:34:00 PM We have spent how much money and effort on restoring river habitat for salmon and now we want to start cutting trees possibly creating sediment flows into the streams and rivers that we have improved to save the salmon? Is someone lacking intelligence here? I cannot believe the total ignorance that is occurring with this subject! From what I am seeing we are Doomed to repeat the past!
WC-1658 WID-1811 c18e7a19-6c90-4fbf-aa6c-20ae470a10a7 File Upload 1/10/2008 11:37:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR- problematic.doc
WC-1659 WID-1959 W-35d70477-bc2e-4942-a172-d70f5eb845b1 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 11:38:00 PM Review the alternative one and two, neither are acceptable. Over the years BLM has shown disregard for the job it has been tasked to perform. As an example, during this summer near Father Time mountain BLM did some basic revitalizing work, which included removing Adler trees, also known as nursery trees in for a one species of fir. This is contradictory to the broad plan. Further, narrowing the the riparian margin shows a lack of intelligence. We've seen your mature structurally forest management. To be clear, fire has erupted in your management area and required fires to push up against, old growth forest to be extinquished. Therefore the existing plan as poorly written as it is, is better than alternative one and two and the new draft proposal. Please note two studies One from OSU and WSU have shown current practices are deadly to our forests.
WC-1660 WID-1947 W-ed86ecae-6795-495d-af5d-b23833b9596a Draft EIS 1/10/2008 11:44:00 PM This plan and process seems like a sham to me. The alternatives do not seem to present clear or realistic choices. I do not see how the science or the economics presented in this report would allow anyone to make a reasoned decision, even given the time to sift through the mounds of chaff in these slow loading pages. Water is going to be the most precious resource you manage in this century, west of the cascades or not. First protect the soil and water whatever else you may do.
WC-1661 WID-1959 W-f1ed5562-ff28-4897-9860-c9fffcb50401 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 11:48:00 PM Alternative three is also unacceptable. This means the current old growth forest would be slated for deforestation. It seems the BLM is attempting to slip one past the people again. This will result in additional lawsuits. The BLM need to scrap the entire EIS and start again. This time think what it will be like with an environmentally friendly president, with no direct ties to timber companies.
WC-1662 WID-1962 94a8d55e-34aa-460a-a853-864bded9c159 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 11:51:00 PM Please do not adopt any of the WOPR alternatives. We must change the thrust of "civilized" life on this planet. Please become realistic and thin existing tree plantations sustainably and leave our remaining old growth treasures as protected heirlooms. Thank you. Alice Doyle
WC-1663 WID-1956 W-d376716b-1021-45b2-b382-b251ccd3b7a3 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 11:56:00 PM Oregon has a responsibility to protect the life sustaining nature we have been endowed with. The monstrously destructive WOPR would harm every element the BLM is assigned to protect. Streamside logging buffers would be reduced, harming water quality in streams where salmon spawn. (It would harm water quality for Albany, Corvallis, Eugene, Roseburg, and Salem, & the rural residents who drink spring water, by not adequately protecting the watersheds. We also have a responsibility to the entire planet, as **FORESTS ARE SEQUESTERS OF CARBON, and the science of human-caused global warming and impending dangers is indesputable. As far as economics, the WOPR is also terrible. It would lessen property values by lessening the aesthetic value of rural living, and, even more important, by subjecting a property´s water source to logging, herbicides, or ammonia-based fertilizers. RESTORATIVE THINNING in formerly logged areas is a way to meet demand for timber (as well as encouraging common sense sources of timber such as http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/woodwise/ !!!) restoration / thinning will also reduce chances of wildfires and create jobs. DESTRUCTION IS NOT THE ONLY WAY TO CREATE JOBS. Also, businesses rely on healthy rivers, fish, hiking, and work in the woods. The commercial fishing industry depends on high quality salmon habitat. Cutting old growth is not a long - term solution! And, global warming - Old-growth forests are critically important sources for storing carbon. **Healthy large trees help to keep carbon pollution out of the air and in their trunks and soil.** You mention concern about the owls and the marbled murrelet, yet their habitat would be harmed 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. It is not acceptable to the citizens of Oregon, or to many others throughout the US who are informed about this and deeply against it, to increase old growth logging by 700%. It is not acceptable to increase by a smaller percentage and call it a "compromise". There are enough young trees to be thinned, as well as enough sources of sustainable wood products, to meet needs without resorting to this disgusting, obviously corrupt, appropriately acronymed "WOPR". *There is no way to replace old growth trees. We have lost too many already. I, and many others, are strongly against this plan. Please, uphold your responsibility to the LAND, water, & citizens of Oregon & beyond, instead of bowing to the interests of greed and selfishness. The WOPR is so obviously corrupt and destructive, there is no way to pretend that it isn't. Please do the right thing. Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you on this important matter. Very Sincerely, Ellen Osuna
WC-1664 WID-1950 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Forests: The WOPR must be thrown out.%0DOld growth forests must be protected. Concentrate on second growth thinning and improving job opportunities with sustainable yields. Leave the old growth forests in their natural state.
WC-1665 WID-1950 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from No Action: Current proposal is not acceptable. There must NOT be a 700%25 increase in old growth logging. There must NOT be an additional 1000 miles of new roads built in old growth areas. Forest protection measures now in place must NOT be weakened.
WC-1666 WID-1950 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Water Quality: Increasing old growth forest logging will drastically reduce water quality and purity, will affect fish and salmon health, and will result in unacceptable increases in erosion, landslides and decline in wildlife populations.
WC-1667 WID-1969 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM tb_1_other: Fishing|tb_gen_ans:
WC-1668 WID-1973 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_hunting|cb_1-4timesyear|tb_gen_ans: I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. The BLM is moving forward with the Western Oregon Plan Revision, which will increase logging in Oregon%E2%80%99s old-growth forests sevenfold by clearcutting in currently protected old growth forest reserves and sensitive salmon bearing rivers and creeks.I believe that the Northwest Forest Plan's protections should remain in place for BLM lands, not sacrificed in an out-of-court deal between the timber industry and the White House. Oregon ancient forests deserve permanent protection and should be managed to maintain important public assets such as clean drinking water, habitat for fish and wildlife, diverse recreation opportunities, stunning scenery, and jobs in forest restoration, fire safety and tourism.Ancient forests in Oregon also serve as an important carbon storage and sequestration resource to help mitigate global warming. The BLM's plans for increased logging in these ancient forests under the Western Oregon Plan Revision will take America backwards in efforts to prevent global climate change. Clearcutting and damage to soils from logging has been shown to release tremendous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, while old forests absorb and store carbon dioxide.%0DI am concerned that the changes the BLM has proposed in its Western Oregon Plan Revision will lead to the loss of Oregon's irreplaceable ancient forests, water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy.Much of the BLM forests in western Oregon are adjacent to private landowners who would like to see nearby forest managed to protect their home from wildfire and to preserve their water supply, scenery, and recreation opportunities. Additionally, these forests are owned by Americans across the nation, who would like to see them strongly protected for future generations to enjoy.Please protect western BLM forests and maintain the Northwest Forest Plan reserve system. Please use your power in Congress to rein in the Bush administration and prevent them from spending money to log old growth forests, and stop the BLM from selling off Oregon's ancient forest heritage.Sincerely,
WC-1669 WID-1984 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Forests: I strongly oppose changes to the current protections for ancient forests, the reduction of size of stream buffers, and increase in number of clear cuts. I strongly agree with sustainable forest practices including the thinning of unhealthy second growth or plantation forests.
WC-1670 WID-1984 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Fish: Stream side buffers and a moritorium on road building are good policy and represent sound science.
WC-1671 WID-1987 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Forests: I want to know why the environmental protections of the NW Forest Plan have been discarded%3F
WC-1672 WID-1987 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Forests: The WOPR should address the effect of forest fires, global warming and the survival of old growth. I don't see that it does.
WC-1673 WID-1987 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Forests: I strongly believe that old growth groves are much more valuable to the citizens of the community, state and country in which they have existed for 100's of years, than they are to us cut, milled and turned into lumber%21
WC-1674 WID-1980 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Forests: I have reviewed the proposed WOPR and have the following comments%3A I do not think that clearcutting any tree over 100 years old is acceptable. The WOPR is questionable in its use of science to justify short term gain for long term loss of the little old growth forests that we have left. We need to stop all timber harvest on federal lands until we understand if's contribution to help control the effects of global warming, the effect on forest fires, and the survival of old growth ecosystems. It is wrong to think that we can continue to manage our forests in a non substainable, unscientific, and short term economic gain. Increasing timber cuts is wrong.%0DWhy is the current NW forest Plan being discarded%3F We need more protection for our national forest lands, not less%21%0D
WC-1675 WID-1995 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from undefined: Please do not pass the WOPR proposal.%0D I think it is an extremely poor idea, crazy in fact...%0DPLEASE RECONSIDER%21%0D
WC-1676 WID-1997 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_photo|cb_mtnbiking|cb_hiking|cb_birdwatching|cb_parttime|cb_spiritual|cb_importantspecies|cb_scenicbeauty|cb_relax|cb_onceaweek|tb_gen_ans: I see the value of old growth forest here. That value is not as timber.I do not believe that your plan to continue cutting oldgrowth has any feasibility given the small checkerboard areas that are all that remain of our forests. Replanted fields of trees are not forests.
WC-1677 WID-1998 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Forests: Logging is an important activity, but given the small amount of old growth remaining in the Pacific Northwest we should be preserving remaining old growth forest. Simply focusing on the timber value of old growth forest ignores the other values to be found in these forest. There are values to be found in the recreation, alternative forest products, asthetic values and ecosystem services they provide. %0D
WC-1678 WID-1997 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_photo|cb_mtnbiking|cb_hiking|cb_boating|cb_birdwatching|cb_onceamonth|tb_gen_ans:
WC-1679 WID-1997 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_parttime|tb_gen_ans:
WC-1680 WID-2056 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from No Action: No on all the options. Keep it as we all decided with lots of input back when the Clinton plan was adopted.
WC-1681 WID-2067 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Alternative 1: The taking of mature and old growth trees from riparian habitat has been over done to the detriment of fish and other wildlife as well as causing serious to severe ersion. the real sccience says "don't do it". Retool for the harvest of smaller trees.
WC-1682 WID-2011 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_spiritual|cb_importantspecies|cb_scenicbeauty|cb_relax|tb_4_other: Photography, birdwatching, relaxing, cleaning up garbage left by others.|cb_onceamonth|tb_gen_ans: This is where I hike, relax, enjoy the fabulous scenery near the Molalla River.However, being an avid photographer, I use all of our national forests within 300 miles of Portland, including N. Washington and S. Oregon.I am adamantly against taking trees 80years and older if the point is fire suppression. A thinly veilled ploy to get timber for local mills and %24%24 to support current political endeavors. We have 6 acres in Cowlitz County WA, surrounded by State and private (Longview fiber, weyerhauser) forest lands. We have observed no tree over 50 years old on these lands, unless it is protected by stream buffers, which were rare even just a few years ago. THere is constant complaining about leaving 25' buffers along streams. I have noticed in the steep Columbia River gorge that ALL streams run clear, even after huge rainstorms. It doesn't take a very bright person to figure out why. DON"T clearcut- 50%25 PARTIAL cut only, don't rape the land and forest, tear up the soil, take wildlife habitat, pollute with herbicides to keep down any new growth except a douglas fir, and why can't businesses use that slash for pressboard or some other product instead of burning it. It may be expensive but we need to PAY the real cost for lumber, not keep it low for developers.
WC-1683 WID-2027 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_mtnbiking|cb_fishing|cb_camping|cb_boating|cb_birdwatching|cb_spiritual|cb_importantspecies|cb_scenicbeauty|cb_relax|tb_4_other: Native plant education|cb_1-4timesyear|tb_gen_ans:
WC-1684 WID-2027 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Wildland Urban Interface: Keep the city city and the forest forest. Years of coorperation will be destroyed by this new direction - as will soil stability, wild populations, recreational opportunites and beyond. Forests are NOT just for logging%21%21%21 Yes - we need to log. and YES small communities need to be supported. Have you fully looked into supporting these communities in other ways%3F I spend money in many small towns while vacationing on the weekends. More income than a 150 year old tree%3F Yes if you take the long, sustainable view and not the short term log now, have money for a month then spend it wiping up landslides.
WC-1685 WID-2037 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_timber|cb_mtnbiking|cb_hiking|cb_fulltime|cb_relax|cb_onceaweek|cb_daily|tb_gen_ans: I am a longtime resident of the lower Mohawk Valley. I reside river's side and am accutely concerned about issues of flooding. On a micro scale, I can attest to the direct impact that clear-cut logging has had on erosion and rate of run-off. A large stand of private timber was cut in the last few years in the hills above my house. The seasonal stream that funnels the drainage from this land used to rarely over run it's banks. Now it is a regular affair. The issue is discussed in your EIS but is essentially dismissed as insignificant. It's very significant to me. When the hills are denuded, the water will run, and fast. Please, consider this issue to a greater extent. I am advocating that manage your existing planations to minimize runoff and maximize water retention.and to leave the rest of the mature forests alone.
WC-1686 WID-2056 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_hiking|cb_camping|cb_birdwatching|cb_parttime|cb_spiritual|cb_importantspecies|cb_scenicbeauty|tb_4_other: Important as the "lungs" of the earth, to counter global warming and other pollution|cb_onceamonth|tb_gen_ans: I find it abhorrent that the BLM is trying to increase logging in our country in a time where awareness of global warming is in the forefront for any thinking person. We need to preserve all the old growth we have, and none of the new "options" is acceptable to me. If you try and implement them I hope you are sued up the wazoo and I will strongly support all such efforts.
WC-1687 WID-2068 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_boating|tb_gen_ans:
WC-1688 WID-2066 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_parttime|tb_gen_ans:
WC-1689 WID-2067 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Alternative 2: The harvest of remaining mature and old growth should be halted untill such time as a sustainable system has been allowed to reastablish. For now smaller trees should be harvested for wood products and the good of the ecosystem.
WC-1690 WID-2067 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Alternative 3: Harvest of the remaining mature and old growth trees should be suspended until as such time that it can be done based on science rather than politics. To proceed with this plan of increased logging is a failure of good stewardship by the people of the BLM.
WC-1691 WID-2070 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_fulltime|cb_spiritual|cb_importantspecies|cb_scenicbeauty|cb_relax|cb_daily|tb_gen_ans: A regeneration harvest (clear-cut) here will result in greater water turbidity and chance of flooding, increased erosion, loss of adjacent land value, loss of wildlife (cougar, coyote, bobcat, blue heron), in particular the spotted owl, whose population has diminished from breeding pair in the 1990's to a single owl, which I believe is the result of a clear-cut on private land adjacent to the owls' nesting site on BLM land.
WC-1692 WID-2078 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_fulltime|cb_spiritual|cb_importantspecies|cb_scenicbeauty|cb_onceamonth|tb_gen_ans:
WC-1693 WID-2078 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_hiking|cb_fishing|cb_boating|cb_birdwatching|cb_fulltime|cb_spiritual|cb_importantspecies|cb_scenicbeauty|cb_relax|tb_gen_ans:
WC-1694 WID-2078 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_hiking|cb_fishing|cb_boating|cb_birdwatching|cb_fulltime|cb_spiritual|cb_importantspecies|cb_scenicbeauty|cb_relax|tb_gen_ans:
WC-1695 WID-2215 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_photo|cb_hunting|cb_hiking|cb_camping|cb_fulltime|cb_spiritual|cb_importantspecies|cb_scenicbeauty|cb_relax|tb_4_other: Spotted owls & an historic nesting site. beautiful grove of old-growth.|cb_onceaweek|tb_gen_ans: i own property nearby to this parcel. i do not want to see this land logged. i am concerned that it could affect my water quality. i do not want to see old-growth cut. i want to see spotted owl habitat protected.
WC-1696 WID-2212 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_photo|cb_hiking|cb_birdwatching|cb_spiritual|cb_importantspecies|cb_scenicbeauty|cb_relax|cb_1-4timesyear|tb_gen_ans: Please don't cut the old trees
WC-1697 WID-2241 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_farming|cb_hunting|cb_hiking|cb_camping|cb_fulltime|cb_spiritual|cb_importantspecies|cb_scenicbeauty|cb_relax|tb_4_other: I hike to old-growth patch where i've seen spotted owls, want to see this land protected.|cb_onceaweek|tb_gen_ans: I value my quality of life here. i farm & a nearby clearcut could help to dry up the creek that i draw my irrigation water from in the summer. old-growth needs to be protected. thinning even aged younger stands is a viable economic alternative.
WC-1698 WID-338 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_hunting|cb_hiking|cb_birdwatching|cb_spiritual|cb_importantspecies|cb_scenicbeauty|cb_relax|tb_4_other: Wildlife Habitat and Two Perennial Streams|tb_gen_ans: The area I designated contains a signficant stand of mature timber managed by the BLM. I have hunted this area for a decade and its some of the best upland bird habitat I've found. Game birds, especially quail, need constant sources of fresh water and this spot sustains at least two perennial streams that flow even in late September and early October without fail. If this unit was cut or thinned, I have no doubt these critical water supplies would dry up in the summer. In addition, the surrounding areas are owned by private commercial timber companies who have aggressively harvested, leaving this stand as the only real mature habitat in a rather large area of the coast range. I hope you already recognize the importance of leaving this stand as is, as I have seen evidence of stewardship in the form of water catchments and other habitat improvements. I feel very strongly about this place and will fight tooth and nail to save it. Hence, please identify this stand for long term protection if you have not already.Thanks.Liam Sherlock%0D1862 Lincoln St.%0DEugene, OR 97401
WC-1699 WID-2249 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_photo|cb_hiking|cb_camping|cb_fulltime|cb_spiritual|cb_importantspecies|cb_scenicbeauty|cb_relax|tb_4_other: I hike in an old-growth grove here that i want to see protected. Have seen spotted owls & hear them regularly.|cb_onceamonth|tb_gen_ans: I live next to this parcel, slated to be cut under WOPR. I want this parcel protected. This is where I go to practice my spirituality. There is a beautiful old-growth stand where i bring others for hikes regularly. we have seen a spotted owl there on occasionl.
WC-1700 WID-2247 None Interactive Map 1/11/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from No Action: the blm is a shameless whore'no make that pimp.burough 0f lazey men beaurogh of land massacree.the less you do the better. seriously,both the blm and usfs overcut like mad from the late 1970's to the mid 80's.
USA.GOV  |  No Fear Act  |  DOI  |  Disclaimer  |  About BLM  |  Notices  |  Get Adobe Reader