Web-comments-1501-1600

# SenderID Ref.# Comment Tool Date Comment
WC-1501 WID-1752 W-b598ce9a-3a32-4694-ace2-ca7062277aa9 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 10:15:00 AM In talks with some BLM personnel ....their take on 'checkerboarded' or 'matrix' lands is something to the effect of "They're can't be a trail system due to the checkerboard pattern of private timber company lands, non contiguous with public lands. (My paraphrase of collected conversations, Not a Quote) This of course hasn't stopped citizens for the past 40 years enjoying a trail ride with friends and family. 'dual sport' motorcycles make connectivity a NON-ISSUE. We could have a trail loop (they are already there) designated on One Section of Matrix Lands, and with the use of Public Right of Ways, connect to another trail system one or two miles away. This is already done in Idaho.
WC-1502 WID-1757 W-323f6a44-a410-48bb-a765-e5ddc6d312fe Draft EIS 1/10/2008 10:15:00 AM The WOPR is a bad idea on so many fronts it would take more than 3,000 characters to describe even one. These are public lands to be managed for the good of the public - that is all of us. These lands are not held in trust for the timber industry to use as they see fit. The best use of the remaining old growth forests is to be left alone. I am a forester and a small woodlands owner who actively manages the land. Flooding the market with below cost old growth would absolutely destroy any harvesting from private landowners who pay property, timber and income taxes from their land and timber harvests. Take care of the forests that have already been put into "management" and leave what little old growth we have left, alone! No one comes to this state to view stumps, clearcuts,landslides and muddy rivers. I live and work in and around these forests and I want to leave them for future generations and not short term profits. Manage these lands for all americans and for all the plants and animals they contain. Sincerely, James Lee
WC-1503 WID-1760 f6b2bc75-7f9a-435c-9f7d-1a59f4638a32 File Upload 1/10/2008 10:16:00 AM

Uploaded File:  WOPR_Comments.pdf
WC-1504 WID-1763 01a88fde-251a-40d5-9a74-3190a9299718 File Upload 1/10/2008 10:30:00 AM

Uploaded File:  WOPR.doc
WC-1505 WID-1766 W-69e04d02-408c-42ba-9fbf-d302bf5e2587 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 10:33:00 AM I want to see timber cut and jobs provided. Lets stop the enviromentalists from running this country. There is lots of timber that is protected already.
WC-1506 WID-1767 52fdf792-9881-41bf-9168-3e862a9d52d1 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 10:35:00 AM I would like to comment on the Draft EIS plan. I do not support the proposed logging and cear cut increase in the BLM lands. I do support commercial thinning and selective logging that would save old growth but help the timber industry adapt to smaller diameter tree processing mills . Stsn Washburn 2315 Mission Eugene, OR 97403
WC-1507 WID-1761 c50562fa-aeeb-4046-9493-ea14add20dba File Upload 1/10/2008 10:38:00 AM

Uploaded File:  Comments on WOPR.doc
WC-1508 WID-1762 None Web Forum Exit 1/10/2008 10:39:00 AM labyrinth !kept reaching deadends
WC-1509 WID-1768 W-da72a3e1-780b-4b9c-8a44-f4e49fd69535 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 10:43:00 AM Environmental consequences of the increased logging include stream damage, death of endangered species, carbon release,decreased water quality, and loss of diversity, and possible medicinal cures undiscovered as yet in primeval forest.
WC-1510 WID-1768 W-e24bd8f8-90ed-4b21-829b-1af2ec57ad69 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 10:47:00 AM Using computer models to justify the logging of spotted owl habitat in one area to eventually create habitat in another area is completely outside of current scientific knowledge. By your own admission you are decreasing the habitat of an endangered species crucial to the Northwest Forest bioregion. In addition you are completely ignoring the effects global warming may have on existing forests. You have also not taken into account the cumaltive damage caused by the checkerboard private lands clearcutting that caused the endangerment in the first place.
WC-1511 WID-1768 W-e1defcb8-2a96-4441-8809-f506358e528f Draft EIS 1/10/2008 10:48:00 AM Clearcutting will reduce tourist traffic, affect water quality and destroy the possiblity of educational resources for children in the forest.
WC-1512 WID-1771 W-a6305b4e-d49a-4205-a414-5459dc93bec9 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 10:49:00 AM I strongly recommend that the cutting of all old growth forests must come to a stop for the protection of sensitive and critical plant and animal species, watersheds, and soils. With this type of logging, soil erosion quickly becomes a problem and not only does this negatively impact water quality, but soil contains twice the amount of carbon than the atmosphere. Protecting soils is one of the many steps we can do to slow down global warming and if clear cutting old growth continues or accelerates, then this will definitely have dire consequences for all plant and animal life, including humans. Thank you!
WC-1513 WID-1767 W-01fd903b-fb89-4fc6-ba1a-ee37a9a06144 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 10:50:00 AM Dear BLM, I was a survyor for fifteen years. I know the forest a bit. I do not support the proposed logging increase on BLM lands. The percentage is too much for sustainable forestry. It would endanger soil stability and watersheds. I do support a moderate approach of commercial thinning and efforts to save remaining old growth. Selective logging is a possibility and the change should be to modernization of mills to handle smaller diameter logs like the south east. Forest restoration would actually increase timber industry employment which is a great Oregon legacy. Thank you, Stan Washburn 2315 Mission Eugen OR 97403
WC-1514 WID-1767 W-997eeb64-91e4-4d08-8478-b786803a0c7b Draft EIS 1/10/2008 10:50:00 AM Dear BLM, I was a survyor for fifteen years. I know the forest a bit. I do not support the proposed logging increase on BLM lands. The percentage is too much for sustainable forestry. It would endanger soil stability and watersheds. I do support a moderate approach of commercial thinning and efforts to save remaining old growth. Selective logging is a possibility and the change should be to modernization of mills to handle smaller diameter logs like the south east. Forest restoration would actually increase timber industry employment which is a great Oregon legacy. Thank you, Stan Washburn 2315 Mission Eugen OR 97403
WC-1515 WID-1773 e6c7eebb-9855-4298-9637-be5e812fe98b File Upload 1/10/2008 10:53:00 AM

Uploaded File:  Comments on BLM WOPR Alternative 2.doc
WC-1516 WID-1768 W-f2176744-0b79-44c6-b9a1-a08a99208df4 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 10:56:00 AM Proposing to clear cut existing old growth forest while planning to grow old growth forest int the future denies the reality of 95% of prior forest clearing and the science of interrelation of all forest species. A forest is not a factory and destruction thereof has myriad unforeseen affect such as global warming, land slides, drought and invasive species. All remaining old growth stands private or public, islands or large blocks must be preserved and connected to restore the previous destruction. Endangered species cannot pack their bags and move to a new area, when their habitat is destroyed, they die.
WC-1517 WID-1768 W-edf314d7-c998-4ce6-809a-10c1076760f0 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 10:57:00 AM All lands in the public domain should be managed with the good of the public in mind. Not logging corporations and lobbyists and lawyers suing the government for monetary gain.
WC-1518 WID-1770 W-4c140085-fc71-498c-9d1e-6d015638bed9 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 11:04:00 AM As a home owner in rural Jackson County,Applegate Valley, I strongly opposed any off-highway vechicle usage on BLM or National/State forest land. We chose to reside in this area for the quietness and the natural landscape. OHV activity is detrimental to the landscape, wildlife and peacefullness to the area. I do not want more OHV use in our surrounding area. This kind of activity is not appropriate or in the best interest for the homeowners who llive within the boundarie jor said area.
WC-1519 WID-1775 8710c3f8-56a5-449a-a307-5a5b7748783a File Upload 1/10/2008 11:08:00 AM

Uploaded File:  Bureau of Land Management.doc
WC-1520 WID-1765 8710c3f8-56a5-449a-a307-5a5b7748783a Draft EIS 1/10/2008 11:17:00 AM in my 49 years i have personaly seen the the high tide mark at the south jetty of tillimook bay rise. back in the early 70's you had to walk quite a ways to hit the surf. now you dont. the quality of water comming down the brightenbush, kilches, salmonberry, wilson, clackamas and especially the imnaha rivers has declined. i know the imnaha had a lot to do with insect infestaions. trees died. water quality went down. a living tree holds a lot of water. a dead one doesnt. our focus should not be on how money we can get from a forest, but how much water. clear cutting may be a economical way to get trees out of a forest, it is also the easyest way to disrupt water flows. and quality. i am all for utilizing the forest. in the old days they would pick the tallest tree and use it for a system of pullies and "donkeys"(steam engines). didnt have to build a tower. they also raped everything in site, but that was then. this is now. the solution to a problem is only one question away. once a large tree is topped for a old school pully system, how long will it maintain it's integrity? in the old days there was no chain saws. all manual labor. the trees were much bigger then. i would guess it took one hell of a long time to cut one of those monsters. now we have smaller trees. and bigger chain saws. should be able to do a selective harvest during the integrity of "natures towers"(the word "spar" comes to mind). it was dangerous work. but now a blimp or chopper could deliver the pullies to the "tower". i would think the most dangerous work now to be the toppers and riggers. just like it was then. anyway, with global warming, we MUST put the quality and retension of water first. without water you cant process the trees. at least not for long. clear cutting is not the way. selective cuts with a eye to the future is. im a industrial electrican. born and raised in oregon. have worked both sawmills and pulp and paper. both domestic and international. and steel, plastics and aluminum. domesticaly if you cant sustain the harvest you go out of buisness. if you cant sustain the water, you go out of buisness. if you cant sustain the water, we all go out of buisness. sorry for the mis-spelling. clinton james hieter c_hieter@hotmail.com
WC-1521 WID-1774 W-5324bf48-5aa9-48b6-8e47-6e7a55f93b9f Draft EIS 1/10/2008 11:22:00 AM Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the WOPR. I have been an active motorcyclist for 35 years, both on and off road. It was about 10 years ago that I realized that just because something is fun, doesn't make it right. As a result, I now ride mostly on the road, and I've turned to mountain biking and hiking in the back country. The impact of motorized vehicle use off road extends beyond the trails. My family lives on an access road to one of the John's Peak trail areas, and the traffic from the riders is a big concern, and there is nothing in the proposed MRA self-management plan that includes this aspect. The speed limit on our road is 25mph, and I'm sorry to report that the pumped up and excited riders often speed when entering or leaving the area. As a result, our area is frequently mobbed with large, loud, speeding trucks. I have a 2 year old daughter and a dog, and there are often times many people walking on the roads. I'm concerned for the safety of all in our area, and the noise is a major problem. These are supposed to be peaceful and quiet neighborhoods to raise our families, and I would like to regain that status. I am not proposing that we close all OHV areas, but if we do not limit them to reasonable areas it will have a dramatic impact on our safety and our quality of life. It makes no sense to have John's Peak an OHV area when the access runs directly through a quiet neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration.
WC-1522 WID-1716 5ab00925-9de4-42ae-8422-2489a63a3eae File Upload 1/10/2008 11:22:00 AM

Uploaded File:  Comment on BLM Western Oregon plan revision by Duane Higley .doc
WC-1523 WID-1710 W-2bf79f2d-1155-4191-bf49-647ccb957584 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 11:27:00 AM I am very concerned and perplexed as to why the Preferred Alternative would seek to reduce protection for riparian areas by reducing the width of streamside "buffers". A 25' standard is much too small. On the one hand the report talks about restoration of stream habitat for fish and on the other hand, reducing streamside buffers reduces the potential for natural introduction of wood into streams. This is illogical and would seem to me to be strange economic logic. In addition, narrow buffers are MUCH more susceptible to wind damage and landslide issues. I don't feel that with the current emphasis on salmon recovery and fish habitat concerns for other species, that there should be any reduction in the amount of streamside land protected from logging and other disturbance. The Preferred Alternative's drastic reduction of Riparian Reserve acreage is unacceptable and will only result in more degradation of streams and creeks on BLM-managed lands. I am also concerned with the drastic reduction of lands managed for scenic qualities. I'm a local rafting outfitter on the Clackamas and Molalla Rivers. I have many clients from around the country that come to raft the Clackamas River that are astounded by the scenery along the river all the way to the canyon rim. On the other hand, the scenic qualities of the Molalla River corridor have been heavily influenced by previous logging in the corridor. While the scenery is outstanding immediately along the river, the clear views of logging just outside the immediate corridor greatly detracts from the experience of rafting or kayaking the Molalla River. I would like to see scenic qualities emphasized in the management of the Molalla River and other rivers on BLM lands. I'm also greatly concerned with the Preferred Alternative's lack of continued protection for older forests and emphasis on regeneration harvests. Forests that are older than 100 years should be off-limits to logging of any kind. Timber production should only focus on previously logged lands that have a similar rotation to private lands (45-70 years). The percentage of old-growth forests in Oregon is so small that the BLM should do whatever it can to preserve older forests. The Preferred Alternative's statement that 240 years is a legitimate "rotation" for logging is offensive. There is simply no legitimate reason to log forests that have been lucky enough to escape logging for more than a hundred years. Again, focus timber production on second-growth forests that are less than 70 years old. This seems to work just fine on private lands. I don't see why the BLM should manage their lands differently. I strongly hope that the BLM re-considers their policy in regards to the points above. The BLM should be taking a leadership role in progressive management of forests rather than relying on management concepts that have failed in the past.
WC-1524 WID-1778 5c19797a-c146-4875-a926-ee8491ac49be File Upload 1/10/2008 11:32:00 AM We are sending a signed hard copy of this letter by US mail. Please acknowledge receipt of this emailed letter. Thanks, Bill Taylor

Uploaded File:  MRW WOPR comments.doc
WC-1525 WID-1716 daedebf7-5e21-4057-a563-f92c62b43354 File Upload 1/10/2008 11:52:00 AM Oops, forgot to provide my address and name in the first copy of this document I submitted. For clarity: Although this document retains some standard text, I have changed most of it to represent my exact personal views. Thank you. Duane Higley

Uploaded File:  Comment on BLM Western Oregon plan revision by Duane Higley v2 .doc
WC-1526 WID-1781 W-6f39b612-f5a7-4053-8912-b7e922d54e41 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 12:11:00 PM Here are the top 10 reasons why the WOPR is a bad idea: 10. Quality of life. The WOPR proposes widespread clearcuting of public forest, which could reduce property values and the quality of life of thousands of Oregonians living near BLM lands. Over 1,000 miles of new logging road and 140,000 acres of clearcuts in the first decade alone would scar Oregon´s spectacular landscape. 9. Peace and quiet. Clearcutting of old growth forest and proposed "Off Highway Vehicle Emphasis Areas" threaten peace and quite for rural residents and visitors. Over 100,000 acres would be promoted as destinations for OHVs, most adjacent to Oregonian´s private residences. 8. Clean water and salmon. By logging near streams the WOPR reduces important protections for clean water and Pacific salmon. High quality drinking water originates on BLM lands for the citizens of Salem, Corvallis, Eugene, and 70 other Oregon communities. Salmon need cool, clean water, but the WOPR would remove stream buffers that shade streams and keep sediment from the water. 7. Ancient forests. BLM lands in western Oregon contain about 1-million acres of our remaining older forests. The WOPR would increase logging of forests over 200 years sevenfold, and threatens some of Oregon´s best remaining ancient forests. Two thousand square miles of forest (an area the size of Delaware) would be put in "Timber Management Areas," where clearcutting is emphasized. 6. Wildlife and plant habitat. Wildlife rely on BLM forests such as elk and black bear and threatened species like the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet. The WOPR would reduce protections for wildlife populations and diminish habitat for countless plant and wildlife species. An increase in noxious, invasive weeds and wildlife species is predicted under the WOPR. 5. Sustainable economies. Healthy, protected forests are one of Oregon´s most important natural assets. While rampant old growth clearcutting promises short-term economic boom to a few well-connected mill owners, an economic bust is easily foreseeable under the Bush plan as fish, wildlife and the old growth forests that they rely on dwindle. 4. Northwest Forest Plan. The Northwest Forest Plan is a landmark agreement that private, state and federal landowners rely on to protect threatened old growth species while producing timber in compliance with environmental law. Removing BLM forests would unravel the whole fabric of the Plan and produce uncertainty for other landowners. Sincerely, Matt Tietjen 2175 Humbug Creek Rd
WC-1527 WID-1783 W-511827c7-09f8-4e5b-bb3d-abd50b13c3f7 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 12:11:00 PM This plan is a terrible idea. Dont be political hacks for big business. Lorax. Timing of this is way to political. Lorax. My children want a world worth inheriting. Lorax. My children can even understand the Lorax, Can you?
WC-1528 WID-1781 W-23056459-cfb9-48ce-b415-78dd6e88690c Draft EIS 1/10/2008 12:13:00 PM Top 10 reasons why WOPR is a bad idea (continued) 3. It is ILLEGAL The BLM cannot eliminate protection for old-growth forests, without undermining the Northwest Forest Plan and protections for threatened and endangered species and clean water. To do so, the BLM needs to violate the Endangered Species and Clean Water Acts and other laws. 2. Global warming and fire. While the Bush administration ignores climate change in the WOPR, by converting moist old growth forests into dry flammable tree plantations, the WOPR will increase the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and places communities at enhanced risk of uncharacteristic fire. 1. There is a better way. We should protect what is left of Oregon´s old growth heritage forests, and restore those forests that have been degraded. Half of BLM forests were clearcut in the past century and converted to overstocked tree plantations. Thinning small trees could offer more than 2 billion board feet of commercially valuable timber if actively thinned while preserving our last, best public lands for generations to come. Sincerely, Matt Tietjen 2175 Humbug Creek Rd. Applegate OR 97530
WC-1529 WID-1784 W-5411b0a4-37f6-43ed-ba02-d57a81e5b493 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 12:14:00 PM It is time for the stewards of this planet to think creatively, with passion and compassion. Future generations have the right, as well as the need, to live with what has come before. We do not yet fully understand the holistic impact old growth forests have on the rest of the planet. I recently read that old growth trees store a surprisingly high level of carbon dioxide. What does this mean? And what will it mean if we continue to harvest these giants? Forestry replanting efforts in recent years are hugely impressive to me, but they are not at all the same as allowing what is here to remain. Please revise the plan so that old growth forests can continue to survive. All living things will benefit. Thank you. Karen Gordon Eugene, Oregon
WC-1530 WID-1787 W-62a0e961-d05d-4b60-9418-b12c6725868f Draft EIS 1/10/2008 12:16:00 PM I am against this plan. Oregon already looks ugly with all of the trees you guys are cutting down. Stop cutting down all of the trees.
WC-1531 WID-4 W-16ec0b9a-9a93-4326-8652-60aa5cf5a1d8 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 12:18:00 PM This is a test comment form Dick Prather.
WC-1532 WID-1788 W-10c51c47-b6c1-4350-928c-73cf6cb181ee Draft EIS 1/10/2008 12:33:00 PM I live at 3774 Quartz Creek Road, Merlin, OR. I strongly object, as does my husband, to any opening of any areas above our land. WE understand that BLM wants to open this area (6,000 AC) to more ATV, ATC, motorcycles, logging trucks, etc. There is already too much traffic on the road, we cannot walk the road due to traffic, trucks, etc. We cannot walk our dogs either. The riders who use the road, i.e. bike riders, speed, leave trash, leave cars, destroy streams and vegetation. They are on our property w/o our permission. There is no center line available to added traffic, road not designed for 2 way traffic. WE have no privacy anymore. Homeless people move in up above our house, leave trash, have fires, etc. WE pay to have our road maintained, what about the users of the road that really should be paying. PLEASE DO NOT OPEN THIS AREA TO ANYMORE RIDERS, LOGGERS, ETC. YOU ARE DESTROYING ARE PRIVACY AND LEGACY TO OUR CHILDREN. WE NEED SPEED BUMPS. WE OBJECT STRONGLY. THANK YOU, SUSAN & CRAIG WILTERMOOD.
WC-1533 WID-1786 W-7e45fe95-8d9b-4db0-ae25-3bb1c8e06c61 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 12:44:00 PM JOHNS PEAK I have owned my home in Jacksonville for 30 years. I just returned after a 14 year lapse to my home here after retiring as Fire Chief of the Philomath Rural Fire Protection District in Benton County Oregon. On numerous occasions prior to moving to Philomath I was in the Jacksonville watershed property and on John's Peak. Fourteen years ago the damage that was being done by the use of ORV was unbelieveable. After reading about the plans to stop ORV use in this area I felt before commenting on this issue I should visit the area to see if the damage to the environment was the same as I remembered it, worse, or less. It is considerably worse and unless something is done to prevent it there is no doubt in my mind in another fourteen years it will be worse still. At this point I do not think nature can heal the damage already done without some kind human intervention. Public Lands are just that public. That does not mean for one individual, any special interest group, or any association. It means all of us. ORV create damage even if used in a responsible manner. Racing (which is the norm) , creating new trails, or going off existing trails contributes to erosion and its accompaning damage to water quality, fish and wildlife, not to mention the visual impact. This area is not a private motocross site or a site for racing events, it is Public Lands for the enjoyment of current and future citizens. In fact I think it is dangerous for someone on foot to go into some areas on Public Lands due to the use of ORV. Please continue with the plans to exclude this area from the use of ORV. If that does not happen the damage that has already occured will worsen and new damage will occur.
WC-1534 WID-1782 W-43882077-6d02-4483-9eec-1349af6915c1 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 12:44:00 PM Thank you for the chance to comment: Please make your decisions based on the needs of the individual districts so as to better serve each area, both with respect to managing timber as well as the desires, needs and requests of the people living in the respective districts. One major concern we have is methods of timber harvesting-please do not use outdated clear cutting! This is NOT a sustainable way to harvest! Use of selective cutting, thinning to use larger trees and help prevent forest fires, and leaving diverse forests and riparian areas is much more preferable and scientifically sound than removing all trees (as well as wildlife), and planting unhealthy, dangerous single species, same age forests.DO NOT cut ancient forests! There are other, more sustainable ways to acquire timber than cutting trees that are our heritage and will be gone forever. Please do not be short-sighted!! Clear cutting and cutting of old growth forests are both completely incompatible with, and contradictory to "sustainability" and "multi-use"! Also, with regard to OHV area designations, please consider rather than opening or even limiting use in areas such as Elliott Creek, the Illinois Valley and other less used areas, these areas be closed and instead the areas that have been used for many years, (ie Quartz Ck. and Johns Peak) be intensely managed for that single purpose.It would be difficult and more controversial to close or limit areas that are known as long-stand OHV riding sites. On the other hand, Elliott Ck and other Josephine Cty areas are deeply residential areas and it would be an infringement on the rights of long-time property owners to open these sites. I know first hand that a large number of OHVers DO NOT stay in designated areas, disregard signs and explore off the designated trails, which will cause conflict in an area surrounded by private property. Also, it is an allusion to think that OHV areas are multi-use! These sites become desolate, barren areas with little vegetation and no wildlife..Not an environment anyone but a motorized vehicle rider would love. We already struggle with intrusion and noise with trespassing OHVers..please so not exacerbate our problems! Thank you again. Your thoughtful decisions and consideration of the concerns of long-time residents of Oregon, as well as your efforts on behalf of our beloved forests, are appreciated.
WC-1535 WID-1794 W-c9b4d9eb-0850-48e4-b573-19408ab20b11 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 12:56:00 PM I am opposed to the WOPR plan. I oppose increased Timber harvest on Public lands. What is the scientific evidence used to discard the enviromental protections contained in the NW forest plan? Please address the WOPR's effect on the survival of old growth ecosystems, global warming, and forest fires, and that the cumulative effcts of the WOPR's policies on Upper Willamette spring Chinnok salmon be considered.
WC-1536 WID-1792 W-dd17cf91-61fa-45d5-a94c-6ce1069b8435 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 12:59:00 PM Thank you for this website full of information on WOPR. I live on the Rogue River. Bald Eagles fish for salmon atop old growth pines on my property. I am concerned with the direction the Bush Administration is headed in with the management of nearly 2.6 million acres of federal forests under the Western Oregon Plan Revision. I moved from California to live beside Oregon's famous rivers and old growth trees. I support federal land managers to embrace thinning second growth forests, safeguard communities, from wildfire and protect what remains of our nation's ancient forests. By focusing on previously logged public forest lands - many of which are now over grown and in need of thinning - they are providing wood to local mills while actually improving conditions for fish and wildlife and keeping saws out of precious old-growth forests. Public consensus for old-growth protection and second-growth thinning has never been stronger, the BLM is proposing to clear-cut forests older than our nation and turn complex ecosystems into flammable tree farms. Please protect our old growth forests, focus active management of BLM lands in already logged-over areas, and concentrate job opportunities in restoration forestry that would benefit watersheds and generate products without multiplying past mistakes. I speak for my family and my community. Sincerely Rory Noice Finney
WC-1537 WID-1795 6f6a9372-0775-4281-b08c-a128bd2335cf File Upload 1/10/2008 1:10:00 PM

Uploaded File:  BLM.1.10.08.doc
WC-1538 WID-1793 W-bdfbe924-f5e7-4007-8361-e3a5a899c214 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 1:11:00 PM I am appalled that the BLM has plans for "regeneration harvest with no green tree retention" Clear cutting is an irresponsible way to harvest timber causing landslides and stream/river pollution. 'Regeneration' does not happen easily in the arid climate of Southern Oregon. I am also dissapointed to see that the BLM is is interested in loging areas of old growth (some areas over 200 yrs old). These intact ecosystems are critical for maintaining the health of our watersheds. Another concern I have is the dramatic increase in OHV activity in the Applegate. These vehicles are loud, spew exhaust, and erode the trails. The riders often disrespect private property and cut their own trails. I realize that the goal of the BLM is to harvest timber, but we need to have a management plan that values clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, cold streams for salmon, climate regualtion, and recreation instead of a plan that only manages board feet. Regards, Jennifer Tietjen
WC-1539 WID-1798 5ef2d644-111b-414b-a10d-d61280e4f1be File Upload 1/10/2008 1:21:00 PM

Uploaded File:  BLM WOPR comments 011008.doc
WC-1540 WID-1797 82682203-be0f-471a-b35e-2432b1603877 File Upload 1/10/2008 1:24:00 PM Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the WOPR. These are my personal comments. As an aside, I work as a Program Assistant in OSU's College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences on a program studying the effects of ocean warming on marine life. I n my free time, I coordinate the 470+ member OSU Sustainability Group, which consists of students, faculty, staff, and community members. Linda Hunn January 10, 1008

Uploaded File:  BLM WOPR.doc
WC-1541 WID-1796 W-bbfab522-2663-4331-b27a-dee788bed30f Draft EIS 1/10/2008 1:38:00 PM I am in agreement with Alternative 2. I am an Oregon native. I am a non-commercial hunter,fisher,gatherer in western Oregon (for the past 63 years.) I am an educated biologist. I belong to several outdoor recreational/conservation organizations that cover pursuits from hunting through hiking/sightseeing. I believe Alternative 2 will actually improve my recreational uses of the forest--by adding diversity to the forest habitat and thus benefiting the use by various wildlife species, while at the same time protecting the watershed. Thank You, Bill Harris
WC-1542 WID-1802 W-e8cc2441-d13d-4c61-8784-98212957fa4e Draft EIS 1/10/2008 1:49:00 PM I would like to urge you NOT to increase clearcutting on BLM land. I do not support reducing wildlife habitat, allowing more all terrain vehicle use and road construction, and decreasing stream protection. Kim Smith Portland, OR.
WC-1543 WID-1801 W-9db7886f-b616-40e9-a4f9-f12bd728f03e Draft EIS 1/10/2008 1:53:00 PM My name is Carla Hervert, and I am strongly asking you, as many other outdoor recreationalists are, to revise the WOPR plans. These public lands (and public means to me, that we all share the land) that will be affected, logged, etc. have long been crucial to hunters and fishermen, since the land has been open to public access. These lands are crucial for salmon and other wildlife habitat. Streams need more than a buffer of 25 ft., and need clean,cold water to survive...which doesn't exist in over 500 miles currently. Animals need old-growth forest for security and winter forage. Please do not move forward with this plan- we need to support Oregon's priceless outdoor heritage. Thank you, Carla & Fred Hervert
WC-1544 WID-1804 57b4ce83-9daf-452d-bea3-647dca55599b Draft EIS 1/10/2008 1:54:00 PM To Whom it May Concern, I am a lane county voter and a western oregon resident. I am extreemly concerned about the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. I do not belive this plan is beneficial to any oregon residents except those who will pofit from the logging of public lands. I am deeply alarmed by the fact that we will not be given the oppertunity to vote on this issue. I am deeply alarmed that we are not going to be focusing on the maintainance of previously logged areas and developing them for future timber harvest. Instead this plan is allowing our old growth forests that have taken hundreds of years to grow will be destroyed much to the loss of future generations. I am concerned that my children will never see an old growth forest because it takes more than one human generation to re-grow an old growth tree that can be hundreds of years old. I am hopeing that my concerns will not fall upon deaf ears and urge the BLM to revise this plan to eliminate logging of our endangered old growth forests. Thank you for reading this. ~Jessy Shrive
WC-1545 WID-1808 b8a0ce29-e9d6-459a-9e4d-d648560d109e Draft EIS 1/10/2008 1:58:00 PM I support Alternative 2
WC-1546 WID-1806 W-5636a3a4-6163-4f89-b8a2-0a1290f17087 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 2:12:00 PM The WOPR is another terrible approach to what should be our sacred duty to care for this world. The reports economic analysis was done by timber industry consultants. Because of present economic factors, which should be evident even to the unenlightened, this will not produce the revenues expected as stated in this report. Why were environmental protections discarded? Stop this pandering to business, and get down to caring for our land, trees, wildlife, and the entire eco system. This report is totally flawed! Eleanor Sue Craig, Eugene
WC-1547 WID-1809 325f82c9-bfa3-44a4-9515-d5922c4d0cef Draft EIS 1/10/2008 2:16:00 PM The BLM under the command of the Bush Administration is revising their Northwest forest plans for the benefit of the logging industry. We are opposed to the huge increase of logging porposed, especially in old-growth forests. Intensive clear cut logging on steep hills, waterways and roads in the Northwest need to be reconsidered. This winter has seen a number of landslides which appear to be a result of clear cutting. The proposals for BLM land only increases the clear cutting in our states. Thinning of the forests should be promoted, not clear clutting-not in our national forests. The proposal to reduce water protection by sharply reducing buffer zones is unconscionable. The Federal Government (taxpayers) sent Washington and Oregon 24.7 million dollars in April to promote logging. What kind of welfare system is this--to whose benefit? Not the majority of Americans. BLM land is owned by US citizens and more and more of us want our land for timber and oil revenue which benefit only a few. Luckily, the Bushites have one year left. This plan can be overturned next year. Rachel and David Bernstein
WC-1548 WID-1814 a1aaf839-d3e5-45fa-9cee-9f31ae1091c1 File Upload 1/10/2008 2:23:00 PM

Uploaded File:  blm comments.doc
WC-1549 WID-1817 dea3e86e-5e38-4994-a8dc-fd42f4040339 File Upload 1/10/2008 2:29:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Dear Public servants.doc
WC-1550 WID-1818 8af46403-c9bb-425b-a15b-8d702b888429 File Upload 1/10/2008 2:36:00 PM Comments submitted by Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics

Uploaded File:  FSEEE_WOPR_Comments1.doc
WC-1551 WID-1813 W-21f81eb9-23db-4443-a5f2-5ce7415881be Draft EIS 1/10/2008 2:44:00 PM Having familiarized myself with WOPR and it's impact on both Old Growth forests and after reviewing current logging practices I am entering my clear and ongoing PROTEST to the current logging and "timber harvesting" practices as well as to all those practices and changes being considered under the WOPR plan. I realize that this stance could conceivably have impact on our state's socioeconomic status such as Oregon's dependency on timber funds to the counties, but I believe that the current threat to our environment, i.e. air quality, water quality, etc., and the impact deforestation has on the issue of global warming can no longer be ignored. To do anything less than preserve our forests as whole, integrated ecosystems to be "managed" only for the purpose of promoting the health of all natural and bio-regional forest growth and wildlife habitat, is to dare to rob future generations of their inalienable right to a clean, inhabitable planet. There are clearly better alternatives to our global appetite for wood products and all one has to do is drive through Oregon to see piles of wood products rotting in Oregon lumber yards thanks to NAFTA, another profit-motivated initiative that robbed the average Oregonian without significant revenues from past timber harvests in the first place. Again, I say "no" to WOPR and yes to developing a plan to repair and protect our forest eco-systems that does not include supporting timber company profits. Please vote NO, Gabrielle Legault Eugene, Oregon
WC-1552 WID-1807 W-df817268-7b2e-4fd7-a6ae-4b744b87c246 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 2:50:00 PM All 'old growth' stands should be off limits for cutting or salvaging. There is too little of it left and it should be saved. 'Newer' stands should be managed in an ecologically, long term sustainable manner. Clear cutting should be kept to smaller areas rather than entire mountainsides. Alternative forest product ideas could be looked into. NO selling out to 'big business' !
WC-1553 WID-1821 W-96e4641f-af4c-41a7-b83a-d2c2ad961d9c Draft EIS 1/10/2008 2:51:00 PM CASCADIA'S ECOSYSTEM ADVOCATES: PART I OF III Over the past 25 years, those of us involved with Cascadia´s Ecosystem Advocates have both worked for the BLM (as an employee) and against the BLM (opposing timber sales). And 25 years later, the BLM is continuing along the same path of ecosystem destruction, as if no new science has come to light demonstrating the need to protect our remaining un-logged forests. We would gladly work with the BLM again if it became an agency focused on preventing ecosystem collapse by protecting all remaining native forests to help curb the looming global warming crisis and by enacting genuine ecologically based restoration on ravaged forestlands. One proposal for legitimate restoration would be to remove thousands of miles of forest roads on Oregon BLM lands that have not been maintained, and other roads that will soon become too expensive to maintain (because of peak oil and other economic factors). Thousands of jobs could be created by removing culverts, restoring hydrologic function to waterways, and through non-commercial ecological remediation. If funds could not be attained via federal money, then ecologically based, one time thinning of tree plantations (future forests) could be used to pay for the road remediation.
WC-1554 WID-1821 W-29c0108a-7adf-4d58-900c-49f9aeb729cb Draft EIS 1/10/2008 2:52:00 PM CASCADIA'S ECOSYSTEM ADVOCATES: PART II OF III However, the BLM´s WOPR is a direct threat to the ecosystems of the Northwest and to Oregon's collapsing salmon runs, and will actually exacerbate the climate crisis. The BLM exposed itself early in the WOPR game--not only by caving to a settlement with timber industry front groups (instead of fighting for our public lands in court, as most citizens would´ve preferred)--but in creating not the legally required ONE but THREE alternatives that would increase the cut on public forests. These actions are disingenuous, do nothing but invoke mistrust, and make the entire comment process seem like a sham. It is likely that the WOPR violates many laws, including the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and National Environmental Policy Act, aside from just ignoring the Northwest Forest Plan. An additional reason to mistrust WOPR is due to connections with the flawed Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Draft, which is a largely fraudulent document based on corruption (ie: Julie MacDonald) and deliberate misinformation to increase the cut on public lands. Ultimately, WOPR (if it gets that far) will be disposed of in the courts. Unfortunately, most elected officials that would have any power over withdrawing WOPR funding receive too much financial support from the timber industry to act in any meaningful way. We have also recently learned that designated Late Successional Reserves have been withdrawn, their location moved, and in some instance total acres lost three months after the release of the Draft EIS and a few weeks before the end of the public comment period. What sort of policy or law allows you to change key component of the WOPR EIS midstream in the process? This strikes us as a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act and a betrayal of the public´s trust at the very least. Aside from providing clean air, pure drinking water, fertile topsoil, flooding and drought regulation, wildlife and endangered species habitat, and economy boosting recreation, science is demonstrating that our standing forests play a massive role in limiting the effects of climate change (assuming the BLM acknowledges such a phenomenon) by acting as carbon banks, both storing and sequestering atmospheric carbon, the leading cause of global warming-not to mention regulating regional climate and rainfall.
WC-1555 WID-1821 W-b1d1c01a-5336-460e-8443-fa1f780d30aa Draft EIS 1/10/2008 2:53:00 PM CASCADIA'S ECOSYSTEM ADVOCATES: PART III OF III There need be no other reason to protect every acre of our remaining forests on BLM lands than to alleviate the climate crisis which is already upon us. According to NASA, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the British Government´s Stern Review, logging the world´s forests is the second greatest source of human caused carbon emissions released into the atmosphere, amounting to 25% of emissions. All alternatives that increase logging levels also will undermine Oregon´s legislative mandate to lessen green house gas emission (Oregon House Bill 3543) and the state´s plans to protect threatened salmon species. While federal agencies are not bound to state laws, your belligerent dismissal of this mandate will weaken already shaky relationships and credibility with the Governor and state agencies. The WOPR would fly in the face of the most significant crisis to face humanity since the dawn of time. Whether or not WOPR complies with the O&C Act (it probably doesn´t) is a trivial detail in light of the impending extinction of planetary life. If WOPR goes through in any form other than the "no action" alternative, the BLM (including those making key decisions) will be forever branded as the agency that spit in the face of unanimous scientific opinion, considerable political concern worldwide and, most importantly, mounting citizen awareness of a need for strong action to protect life as we know it on planet Earth. If the BLM chooses any option other than the "no action" alternative, it will be seen as either an act of complete ignorance of reality or else a deliberate violent act towards future generations. The BLM already betrayed itself by taking a dive on the lawsuit, then choosing more than one alternative that would ramp up the cut. We urge you to do everything possible within the letter of the law to protect every acre of forest managed by the BLM for the mitigation of climate change and the other irreplaceable values provided to the public, free of charge. The BLM has a choice to be an agency of heroes or an agency of villains. The outcome of the WOPR will carve this decision in stone. Choose wisely. A public trying to survive the rigors of worsening climate change may not be as polite and constructive in their criticism of the BLM as we are. Cascadia´s Ecosystem Advocates Co-Creators of "Boom, Bust and BLM" DVD. Josh Schlossberg Shannon Wilson Samantha Chirillo Co-Directors
WC-1556 WID-1225 816675ee-23dd-4fe7-b1ba-8dfff766b10f File Upload 1/10/2008 2:53:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Letter to BLM.doc
WC-1557 WID-1815 W-625b2e39-f6c0-4076-a659-462be317e5ad Draft EIS 1/10/2008 3:07:00 PM My name is Andrew Fischer I live and work in Southern Oregon as a Forest Ecologist. I have worked in Southern Oregon for the past 8 years and throughout Oregon for 17 years now after graduating from University of Oregon. I have been doing forest contract work for much of my adult career and have worked as a contractor for the BLM for several of these years in the Medford District. I have been to a lot of these forests that will be slated for timber harvest. My experience has been over the years studying forest ecosystems that currently the model that we are using treating these complex ecosystems as tree farms is not working. So much of the practices don't even consider the long term consequences of the forest and the connected ecosystems like the salmon and carbon sequestering for global warming. Its easy to see from a scientific standpoint that our management techniques are not working. And there is another solution however the WOPR alternative 2 will not help with the species of critical concern like the Spotted Owl and the salmon but will actually harm there long term survival. We have forestry models that work. Right here in southern Oregon Orville Camp has been demonstrating the keeping a healthy forest requires keeping the canopy in place, not stand replacement cuts. His work has been documented well so I won't go into it. What needs to happen now from an ecological standpoint is to preserve our older forests, stands of larger trees greater than 18" in DBH need to be helped by thinning out the understory selectively. Already managed stands need to be selectively managed for preserving the healthiest trees. The lessons from the Biscuit Fire were clear to me as I was working in the forest near Kerby Oregon in 2004 doing current vegetation survey plots I could see what forests survived and which burned more severely. The even aged stands, mostly old clearcuts burnt completely the mixed aged stands had cooler fires and burnt in more of a mosaic pattern. Proper thinning of the understory choked forest could provide a huge supply of trees to the mills while helping the forest. These projects like several pilot projects already done by the Lomakatsi Restoration Project have proven that this is a largely under utilized resource. After reading the draft EIS and attending several meetings with BLM officials I am convinced that Alternative 2 is probably not legal first of all because it doesn't consider NFPA and NEPA or the clean water or endangered species act. It also would have dire consequences for old growth related species as well as a disaster for our childrens ability to see and feel what old growth forest used to cover the Northwest. As I mentioned I have been in many of these old growth forests and riparian reserves and I believe they should remain protected.
WC-1558 WID-1824 W-041c8da7-c1a1-4758-ac28-4da3ef568bd1 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 3:07:00 PM For Oregon counties, the inability to use our public forests now has brought us an imminent budget train wreck that environmental groups should take responsibility for, but probably won't. By locking up much of our tax base for non-use, now Oregon counties are going begging to the Federal government for a tax bailout--again. And this isn't free money. We, as Federal taxpayers, are directly paying for this mismanagement of our public lands. Ånd the forests are also paying for it in a decrease in forest health. The buck for not allowing the professional management of our public lands should stop at the door of the environmental groups that have locked up those lands for non-economic use. It's not fair to only allow hiking in public lands, if these lands really are for you and me. It's also not fair to tear out existing roads into public lands, at taxpayer expense, as environmental groups have been successful in doing, to make those lands even less accessible for Americans to enjoy, work and play in. As folks in the wood products industry have been saying for decades, timber is a renewable resource. This is why Oregon has an Oregon Forest Practices Act that mandates replanting after harvesting. Oregonians recognize that they can restore public timberlands and continue to be a source of wood products for the nation. Instead, the folks in environmental groups like Cascadia Wildlands and Oregon Wild would have us let our burned forests be left to decay and rot and become tinderboxes for the next big summer wildfire that threatens both wildlife and human habitats. As a taxpayer in Oregon, I urge you to adopt plan 2. This plan would bring back much of the lost revenue and save the county from complete bancruptcy. Thank you, Jennifer Assink Lane County Resident 541-606-2338 gienie.assink@gmail.com
WC-1559 WID-1822 W-46f2dec5-7802-41ae-9d99-9a3570498b64 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 3:12:00 PM Jim Barnes 530 Schmaker St. Cave Junction, OR 97531 Western Oregon Plan Revisions PO Box 2965 Portland, OR 97208 To BLM advisors: I have lived in the Illinois Valley all of my life. I am 43 years old and there is nothing for adults or children to do in this valley, it is very important, and that we have a recreational area to keep our children out of trouble. There is no reason we should not have an OHV area in this town. This town has been logged everywhere. In one way our trails make a good fire break. There are plenty of good areas up the Kerby Mainline Rd, the Limestone area and Reeves Creek as well as upper McMullen Creek Rd to ride, most of which are already gated. I would be more than happy to show people from the BLM around these areas to explain why this excellent area. I have three children of my own. Each of them rides Quads, Motorcycles and 4 Wheel drive vehicles. Thank You Jim Barnes
WC-1560 WID-1820 4b7d1659-a73f-4f1f-b45b-6498d1ce8e8c File Upload 1/10/2008 3:15:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR 1.doc
WC-1561 WID-1826 ea9db301-9963-4da5-a7e6-3347f03a2e4e Draft EIS 1/10/2008 3:20:00 PM To: Mr. Edward W. Shepard, State Director United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Western Oregon Plan Revisions P.O. Box 2965 Portland, Oregon 97208 Re: Western Oregon Plan Revisions I am a member of the Mid Willamette Fly Fishers and I am concerned about BLM´s proposal to revise the Western Oregon Plan. BLM´s Preferred Alternative under this plan would drastically reduce stream buffers (from 300 feet to 25 feet) and would allow logging of old growth forest land even around stream and river headwaters. Both of these actions would have serious negative effects on the rivers, streams, and lakes that I fish and would result in harm to anadromous and resident fish populations. I urge the BLM to reject the Preferred Alternative and to adopt the No Action Alternative. I believe that the No Action Alternative would preserve the waters and fish important to me. Regards, Dale Lyster Cc: Senator Ron Wyden Senator Gordon Smith Representative Peter de Fazio Representative Darlene Hooley Representative Greg Walden
WC-1562 WID-1829 c5cdf854-b899-4815-bee7-a2e6f2491521 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 3:28:00 PM I have a concern about the listed set backs for timber harvest. I do not want to see these set backs from stream, and water courses decreased. Thank YOu. dw
WC-1563 WID-1830 W-33e31706-24ef-4547-91b8-446f4c9740fa Draft EIS 1/10/2008 3:34:00 PM I urge BLM to choose the "No action alternative" over the other proposed plans to manage our NW forests. The other plans do not meet my expectations for forest use, planning and management.
WC-1564 WID-1831 W-93cd8528-cc62-4a65-92ff-77f5c7bcba10 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 3:39:00 PM I am commenting to support the BLM Alternative 2, or the WOPR, for the management of BLM/O&C Lands. We are in the trucking industry and we are just one economic group that is impacted by not using these areas for timber harvesting. There are many support industries like ours that have been negatively impacted by not allowing timber harvesting on these lands. Alternative 2 would also benefit Oregon county funding and specifically funding for public safety. Please support Alternative 2.
WC-1565 WID-1568 fe68ead4-f9da-483c-9a6a-f4065e02969d File Upload 1/10/2008 3:42:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR comments.doc
WC-1566 WID-1833 0f00d3b2-e56e-4b87-8a7a-5e91fc1b153e File Upload 1/10/2008 3:53:00 PM

Uploaded File:  O & C Lands comments 0108.doc
WC-1567 WID-1837 7bc68196-5732-454a-a879-8b50dfee0b42 File Upload 1/10/2008 4:03:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Carolyn Kingsnorth Comments.doc
WC-1568 WID-1834 7bc68196-5732-454a-a879-8b50dfee0b42 File Upload 1/10/2008 4:06:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Birch Creek WOPR.doc
WC-1569 WID-1836 W-3f729a5b-ee56-41ed-9948-54dd5f1b95ce Draft EIS 1/10/2008 4:07:00 PM I am dismayed with the options and proposed plans described in the draft EIS. The plan calls for an excessive increase in timber harvests while ignoring several important elements, including: 1) The value of streamside set backs to fish and wildlife. Large setbacks have demonstrated their effectiveness in protecting important fish and wildlife habitat. These setbacks should be retained. 2)Increased access for off-highway vehicles. The BLM does not have enough resources to manage these vehicles and prevent habitat destruction. Do not open even more lands to their use. 3) The limited range of the options presented ignores any economic values except timber. Timber harvest represents short-term economic gain while the economic value of non-motorized recreation, clean water and other less tangible benefits represent a long term investment. Thank you
WC-1570 WID-1835 000e793a-11af-4e08-908a-e37d9930598c File Upload 1/10/2008 4:12:00 PM We are opposed to any logging plan that permits logging in riparian areas, particularly along streamside habitats.

Uploaded File:  WOPR Comments.doc
WC-1571 WID-1842 c1e9eeef-778e-4369-9ab4-79908b852e11 File Upload 1/10/2008 4:14:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR.doc
WC-1572 WID-1839 4487cd13-21ae-43ea-a7e8-c9d11fc89b36 File Upload 1/10/2008 4:27:00 PM I am opposing setting aside lands for OHV use, which I believe to be inherently damaging to public lands.

Uploaded File:  blm.comments.doc
WC-1573 WID-1847 18aaa19e-ae4b-4328-bacc-bb058c4ff514 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 4:55:00 PM To the BLM, I urge you to withdraw your plans for the WOPR. We do not need to cut and cut thru the forest. These lands and the life that depends on them (including human) are much better off protected. Please think long term and preserve these beautiful lands for the generations to come. Europe regrets having cut down so many of its forests. The health of the planet and the health of nature are critical to our survival. Please withdraw these disastrous plans in favor of protecting ourselves and the other species because we are all part of the same web of life! Thank you for the opportunity to write and express my concerns. I know that I speak for many! D. Arnon
WC-1574 WID-1840 W-9957f9a3-c694-4663-900b-673a675097c4 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 4:57:00 PM I will admit that I have not made an extensive study of the Draft EIS but my chief concern pertains to water quality. I am not quite sure of the distinction between Riparian Reserve and Riparian Management areas. However the three Alternatives seem to offer a reduction in these riparian set-backs. I believe that this is the wrong approach, even if these stream-side areas are more intensively managed for aquatic habitat. At a minimum I would favor a plan that maintains the current amount of land that is devoted to riparian buffers. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Mark Stephens
WC-1575 WID-1850 W-0defe7c1-7f81-483d-b4b1-08a0977e0cec Draft EIS 1/10/2008 4:59:00 PM I wish to reccomend that BLM implament Plan 2. That is the best plan for every one. Chloe Propp
WC-1576 WID-1851 d83bf8ae-709b-4034-af2b-7d0c92b1657b File Upload 1/10/2008 4:59:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR DEIS Comments.doc
WC-1577 WID-1852 a10beb00-3708-414f-ba49-236805f4ce30 File Upload 1/10/2008 5:00:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Bureau of Land Management Comment.doc
WC-1578 WID-1827 W-50af6277-4d9d-47c5-bc1c-6eba63a82206 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 5:02:00 PM RE: Western Oregon Plan Revision Advise: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE on WOPR. Reduction of Forest Fires argument: Certainly there will be fewer forest fires if forests are clear cut. And if there are no forests to burn it would save the costs of hundreds of fire fighters jobs and equipment and the expense to State and Counties of thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals dumped over community watersheds and salmon streams. Deer Prefer Open Grasslands argument: Remaining wildlife must adapt to what habitat remains not to what they may prefer. Multiple species that cannot adapt without native habitat are lost. And as someone wryly remarked "Fire devastated young tree plantations put a whole different take on the Carbon Sink scenario." Old forests contribute to Clean Air and Clean Water requirements and act as water retention areas to meter storm water run off. Old forests survive burns and continue to provide habitat and spur regrowth unless salvage logging destroys the habitat. The documented gains of improved water quality in the last decade shows more Oregon rivers reaching optimal water quality standards especially in late successional reserve watersheds. Recreational Rights of Taxpayers on Public Lands. To disregard the rights of Oregonians to hunt, fish and have access to public forests is being resisted by sportsmen and scientific researchers alike. Clear cutting taxpayers forests and destroying wildlife habitat for the benefit of a few profiteers is not taken lightly. Dumping of Logs on a Glutted Market. It makes no economic sense to workers dependent on jobs related to sustainable timber harvesting on private lands for the federal government to dump more logs into a depressed and over-stocked lumber market. Framing lumber is now down to 50% of 2004 prices at $260 per thousand. Claims of Benefits to 18 OR and CA Counties. The proceeds from clear cutting the taxpayers Federal forests is supposed to be in lieu of the original agreement to fund the 18 O & C counties annually for federal forests in their counties to support security services and schools. The proceeds of the Federal old growth clear cutting will first pay the logging contractors a profit, then pay for the new logging roads and heavy equipment costs and 50% of the balance will go to the Federal Government. The remaining funds will go to security services in the 18 O & C counties but any funds that trickle down to the schools must be divided among the 36 Oregon county school districts. To tell the school districts in the affected 18 O & C counties that they will receive a lot of money even though they have lost their old growth is unsubstantiated. The schools will still be short of funds to repair buildings and employ educators. The WOPR plan is big whopper- a falsehood, designed to clear cut Oregon's old growth forests for the benefit of a few. The Federal government needs to pay taxes to the counties supporting Federal /BLM forests.
WC-1579 WID-1850 W-5630a92b-60c3-499a-8a5a-3dee5749768e Draft EIS 1/10/2008 5:04:00 PM I do not think that you should extend the comment period for this plan again. I know that the enviromentalist for taken by surprise that are actually people who are interested in what goes on in the forests other than them and thought that no one else would comment and needed time to rally their troops. We have all had our chance to comment so enough already. I know I lagged and I am not sure if I got through before the 5 pm 1/10 dead line but if not I we can add comments until the 11th I would like to say once again I think that plan 2 is the best for the plan put forward for the forests and the counties. Thank you Ruby Chloe Propp
WC-1580 WID-1853 3d23280d-27b4-409c-8a63-21b15e3e4af6 File Upload 1/10/2008 5:04:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Forest Plan 2.doc
WC-1581 WID-1350 3d23280d-27b4-409c-8a63-21b15e3e4af6 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 5:07:00 PM I wish to add additional information that I could not find in the WOPR. Greenhouse effect differences from atmospheric carbon from old growth trees and from young growing trees are significant to us and whe world. AFA article promotes cutting old growth and growing new trees quickly to reduce atmospheric carbon. Patrick Moore article states that clear cut lands are not ugly but a beautiful solution to the greenhouse problem. Sandra Brown, Role of Forestlands as Carbon Sinks, World Forestry Congress XI, states "Agressive adoption of forest management options that conserve and sequester C are not only necessary for sustainable developmentbut but also for preventing forests from becoming a significant net source of CO2 to the atmosphere in the future and contributing to climate change." Therefore, we must harvest more old growth and not allow it to increase, and promptly replant stock to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere. If we don't use our forests to reduce the greenhouse effect we won't have any northern spotted owls around to worry about. They won't be here.
WC-1582 WID-1350 4b2b4989-13da-4567-ac73-e7db31b3292d File Upload 1/10/2008 5:16:00 PM

Uploaded File:  FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE ROLE OF FOREST LANDS AS CARBON SINKS.txt
WC-1583 WID-1350 4159a85b-37ad-468a-9475-bcf716b4de5e File Upload 1/10/2008 5:18:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Greenhouse fact and fiction_ (global warming impact on.txt
WC-1584 WID-1799 158466ea-f15e-44e4-960b-5a1ea836cc64 File Upload 1/10/2008 5:25:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR COMMENTS.doc
WC-1585 WID-1856 f31125f0-1f00-4a08-be74-7f06ba02b820 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 5:28:00 PM The counties should fine alternative means of raising money besides clearcutting forest land. This is a shortsighted and stupid approach to financing public services.
WC-1586 WID-1812 W-8f854aec-f486-424d-ba9a-47e786e8f709 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 5:31:00 PM I have several areas of concern regarding the proposed changes to management of BLM lands in Oregon. My concerns focus on reduced riparian protection from logging, reduced management for scenic value, and reduced emphasis for the protection of older forests (100+ years). It is clear these reductions benefit a minority of (often multi-national) interests to the detriment of the majority of Oregonians (future residents included). The Preferred Alternative's drastic reduction of Riparian Reserve acreage only benefits logging companies. This reduction is unacceptable and will certainly result in more degradation of streams and creeks on BLM-managed lands. The Preferred Alternative seeks to reduce protection for riparian areas by reducing the width of streamside "buffers" (presumably for logging). A 25' standard is simply too small. It reduces the potential for the NATURAL introduction of wood into streams. Narrow buffers are far more susceptible to landslide and erosion issues. A 25' standard reduces the resources available for a viable and diverse streamside ecology. Frankly, with the current emphasis on salmon recovery and habitat concerns for other species, any change to the current streamside buffer standard should be an INCREASE. I am also concerned with the drastic reduction of lands managed for scenic qualities. A reduction of these lands benefits very few Oregonian (as well as a few investors from outside our state). At the same time, this reduction is a detriment to many Oregonians, again both present and future. I travel all over the state kayaking dozens of mountain rivers and creeks. While the scenery is always outstanding, the all too common clear views of logged land greatly detracts from the experience. For the benefit of myself and the majority, I recommend an increase not a reduction of BML lands managed for scenic qualities. I'm also concerned with the Preferred Alternative's lack of continued protection for older forests and emphasis on regeneration harvests. The Preferred Alternative's statement that 240 years is a legitimate "rotation" for logging is irresponsible at best. The percentage of old-growth forests in Oregon is so small and their intrinsic value so high, that the BLM should do whatever it can to preserve them for future generations. Short term revenue for a small minority aside, there is simply no legitimate reason to log these trees. BLM timber production should only focus on previously logged lands that have a similar rotation to private lands (45-70 year). This seems to work just fine on private lands. There is no reason BLM should manage their lands differently while destroying a state treasure. I strongly hope that the BLM re-considers their policy in regards to the points above. BLM policy must include management that benefits fish, river ecology, older forests and most importantly the vast majority of our citizens.
WC-1587 WID-1475 f31125f0-1f00-4a08-be74-7f06ba02b820 File Upload 1/10/2008 5:34:00 PM I am an 85 year old man who has for most of his life enjoyed a nonexploitive use of the beautiful Southern Oregon and Northern California area. I am also a retired United Methodist Minister.. I have been active in variousenvironmental organization

Uploaded File:  WOPR comment 1-10-08.doc
WC-1588 WID-1350 93b8f974-9851-4a2e-89d6-80cdb6fad33e File Upload 1/10/2008 5:36:00 PM

Uploaded File:  FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE ROLE OF FOREST LANDS AS CARBON SINKS.txt
WC-1589 WID-1861 W-9ad22fa5-9c40-4cf7-baff-a6b0941278e4 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 5:42:00 PM Dear BLM, I am very concerned about the 2.5 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in western 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. Here a few of the main reasons the BLM's proposed Western Oregon Plan Revision should be abandoned: • Clean water - Oregon´s wild rivers provide critical habitat for salmon, steelhead and trout, as well as recreational opportunities and drinking water. This is a legacy we should pass on to future generations. Under the BLM´s proposal, water quality in many Oregon rivers and streams would be degraded as current riparian protections are abandoned in order to increase logging. This is simply unacceptable. • Global warming - Ancient forests on BLM land in western Oregon sequester tremendous amounts of carbon dioxide annually, helping to mitigate global warming. The loss of these forests from increased clearcutting and roadbuilding would release massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The BLM fails to assess these important impacts from their proposal for more logging. • Fire risk - The BLM´s plan would increase fire risk and severity as healthy stands of fire-resistant old growth trees are converted into dense, flammable tree plantations full of logging slash. Protecting communities from fire while maintaining existing old growth forests should be among the top priorities of the BLM. Please protect western BLM forests and maintain the Northwest Forest Plan reserve system. Sincerely, Charlotte Stahl 1167 NW Wallula Ave Gresham, OR 97030
WC-1590 WID-1315 W-6ac529ac-fca9-4464-b2fb-def2367d2cd2 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 5:43:00 PM I am in favor of the BLM adopting the No Action Alternative, with regards to Western Oregon BLM forest land. I spent an entire summer doing biological surveys in O&C parcels in the Oregon Coast Range. I was struck by how fragmented the habitat is in the lands surrounding those parcels. Essentially, the BLM lands were the only remaining intact native forests for miles. Some of the arguments for implementing rather radical, new forest practices are quite compelling, but upon close scrutiny do not make much sense. First, the need to clear potential fire fuels is simply not true. Nearly all of the parcels I visited had surprisingly little in the way of down woody debris. What little was present was generally too waterlogged to ever pose a wildfire hazard. Healthy native forests in the Oregon Coast Range retain a considerable amount of moisture throughout the short fire season; in fact, that is one of their unique characteristics. While some areas may be perceived as being overgrown with brushy growth, this is present in all Coast Range forests, and is in fact more prevalent in clear-cut and other intensively-managed parcels. Next is the argument that logging activity should be increased in order to restore funds to counties where BLM lands are located. This argument is fallacious at its core: Many of these communities have become too reliant on these funds, and have not created an adequate tax base to sustain services when timber supply fluctuates. The county's arguments that they need federal funds to operate are ridiculous; by law in Oregon, people are not allowed to live on lands zoned for forestry, so there cannot be county expenses associated with them. But most of the push for changing BLM rules on logging come directly from timber interests. This industry, which grossly mismanaged and over-harvested its own privately-held lands, now seeks yet again to corrupt our public lands with its staggering incompetence. Again, where I worked on BLM lands, the neighboring parcels were nearly all owned by private interests. In nearly every instance, every tree in the entire section had been mowed to the ground, with a handful of scraggly Douglas firs left along so-called "riparian buffers" that supposedly protect our water quality. While I am sure timber interests don't like the jaw-dropping contrast of pristine native forest standing alongside their bulldozed tree-farms, I do not feel the quality of our public lands need be sacrificed to suit current timber-industry whims. It is unfortunate that coastal Oregon forests cannot produce top-quality trees at the rate that would satisfy modern industry, but that is not the fault of prior management of public lands. I am not opposed to revisiting forest management practices on a regular basis, but I do not, in the case of western Oregon coast range forests, see any need at the moment to change how BLM manages or, more importantly, leaves alone native forest lands under its control.
WC-1591 WID-1865 fa6175fa-0586-46f9-ad25-06c0dedbcc17 File Upload 1/10/2008 5:46:00 PM

Uploaded File:  BLM Letter.doc
WC-1592 WID-1863 1356c62d-9414-4c2e-a1b6-838128e3a9e3 File Upload 1/10/2008 5:53:00 PM This was an awkward process for the casual home computer user wanting to provide comments!

Uploaded File:  BLM WOPR Jan 08.doc
WC-1593 WID-1858 W-bcc5244f-6702-44bb-88e0-12bf071c7ffd Draft EIS 1/10/2008 5:57:00 PM I support your intention to go with Alternative #2, because it appears to accomplish many objectives -- 1) harvesting our renewable resource (trees) to meet real needs of people; 2) harvesting our renewable resource(trees) will also provide financial means to our communities; 3) Alt. 2 appears to also recognize our responsibility to diversity in nature and sensitivity to endangered species; 4) Alt. 2 also respects our need for clean, safe drinking water; and 5) Alt. 2 also should reduce the risk of wildfires which would negatively impact our climate in the long run, and immediately negatively impact wildlife and the diversity of plants which would suffer from a wildfire, beside all of the suffering of mankind if homes and lives are lost. Our "forests" have been shut down for far too long by people who have a very negative attitude about the use of wood and have a very negative and paranoid attitude about both government and industry. Sincerely, Joan Chipman
WC-1594 WID-1867 W-9ecc60ac-566b-419f-9f1b-c8abc136dc95 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 5:57:00 PM I believe we need to protect our forest and not over harvest. We also need to protect the habitat for wildlife. I believe managed forestry vs, the clear cutting that has been happening around my residence. Whole forest are being eliminated to me this is not managed. Old growth forest nee to be protected and left alone. I do not bleieve this plan provides protection for these comments.
WC-1595 WID-1854 W-0b0ed390-0597-404a-9ae3-94db1420625b Draft EIS 1/10/2008 6:00:00 PM I strongly object to the WOPr proposals for the following reasons: 1. old growth forests should be protected since there are so few left. 2. logging emphasis should be on thinning and logging on previously logged lands. 3. a number of endangered species (plant and animal)live only in old growth forests. 4. old growth forests are better recreation than forest plantations or clear cuts. 5. Oregon's ecomony has diverisfied and does not need to expand timber harvests to sustain economic growth. 6. I moved to Oregon for its beauty and wildlife. 7. My property values and way of life depend on the forests. 8. Logging old growth makes the new forests susceptible to drying out - which results in more forest fires. According the US Forest Service's head fire fighter (60 Minutes) half off all western forests will be gone this century due to wildfire. I want BLM land to remain under the NW Forest Plan. Also, I do not approve of offroad vechicle use on public lands because of its impact on the environment and animals. It erodes the land, drives out wildlife and any other kind of human recreation.
WC-1596 WID-1870 W-40d48397-eda4-47b0-b87f-7f4108bb75a7 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 6:03:00 PM No more clearcutting of old growth! It is important habitat for numerous species. Clearcutting destroys watersheds, causes erosion, and damages stream quality and fish habitat. What will happen the next time an economic boost is needed --increase clearcutting until there are no old growth forests remaining? STOP IT NOW!
WC-1597 WID-1845 W-a098f2d7-2c14-4edd-814e-b27eec4f1da8 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 6:05:00 PM Native biodiversity is a primary concern. It's loss is not retrievable in our time scale. It's important on the microscopic as well as macroscopic level. Our use of indicator species, e.g. spotted owl, is practical but falls far short of representing the full range of diversity of native species across Western Oregon. Safeguarding this resource for the understanding and benefits made possible by future technologies will provide value far outweighing the short-term wealth of extraction and ecosystem conversion. The land base for maintaining native ecosystems must be significant and should probably approach 50%. Population, technological, and economic pressures have made this seem out of reach; but federal land, held in trust for all Americans, must pick up the slack for society's management of private lands, primarily aimed at economic conversion and continued population growth. What little quality native habitats we have should be maintained as such. Economically converted lands may continue to produce for us but should use the best science to maintain what native elements are possible. Our understanding of species diversity is in it's infancy. A large scale conversion of land to major extractive management will be theft from our future generations of the wealth of native diversity we now take for granted and mistakenly think is of little value.
WC-1598 WID-1873 W-66401dc1-4d2e-4dd9-9c5a-5c0940f24d39 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 6:11:00 PM i agree with Trout Unlimited....stop the cutting of these trees please...limited thinning only-i believe a temporary moratorium is neccesary to let species and habitat recover
WC-1599 WID-1816 W-1172d72f-3681-49b5-8979-82520f52bb22 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 6:11:00 PM This letter is in opposition to the WOPR Plan. As a lifetime resident of the Pacific NW I know the value of old growth forests is in living ecosystems, not a few years of high income from logging trees that have stood for hundreds of years. Stop the logging! Start thinking outside the box. Figure out how to use the advantage of a living system - figure out how to use our public forests for carbon trading. If planting trees in various areas of the world can be traded for carbon credits; certainly our standing forests can be used as an asset for carbon trading. Just as Oregon counties have received tax receipts from logging, let us receive compensation for allowing the NW forests to continue to function as a living ecosystem of great and bountiful diversity. Sincerely, Sandra Bishop 591 W. 10th Avenue Eugene, OR 97401 SAVE THE GRANDMOTHER GROVE NEAR Please keep T. 19S. R.06W. Sec. 17 as a Late Successional Management Area. This forest section is a small, beautiful, old-growth grove, the Grandmothers of Wolf Creek, and nearby older forest, which together comprise approximately one quarter of the section. This is an area for environmental education and recreation that is greatly valued. Do not log this area! Thank you. Sandra Bishop
WC-1600 WID-1872 W-44b16ae3-05d4-4f1b-b86f-03fee4633bf0 Draft EIS 1/10/2008 6:22:00 PM As a homeowner for 17 years in rural Jackson County, I am very concerned about the plans outlined in the WOPR and the facts enumerated in the draft EIS. It is so counter-intuitive at this point in our history to be contemplating clear-cutting and replacing old-growth forest with tree farms. Just doesn't make sense to me. This is the people's land, not the private playground of the Timber companies. My family wildcrafts table mushrooms in the forest and we can tell you that there is a difference between tree-farm and old-growth. Further, resource extraction must be balanced against the needs of the public and the ecosystem. Cutting, as the plan outlines, next to streams and in watersheds is short-sited to say the least. Enough already. Our home is next to an area that has been designated for ORV recreation. With thousands of acres already devoted to the few ORV users in the state, it is a bad idea to create more motorized vehicle recreation sites when there is no budget to maintain them. And on our block outside of historic Jacksonville, there's not a single family who supports the WOPR planning in that regard. In fact, over 85 percent of the voting public in Jacksonville recently affirmed the city and residents opposition to additional ORV recreation sites nearby. Please ask yourselves in your heart-of-hearts just who it is you work for. Please make this comment period meaningful and be responsive. Thanks for your time. Charles McHenry, 2514 Old Military Road, Central Point, OR
USA.GOV  |  No Fear Act  |  DOI  |  Disclaimer  |  About BLM  |  Notices  |  Get Adobe Reader