Of the proposed and selectable options, Option 3 is the one that shows new ideas and could possibly go beyond the polarization that has stopped logging and stopped forest management in the BLM lands.

I have a few further comments.

First, I would like to see the parallel themes of forest fuel reduction and biomass energy development addressed and planned. The traditional logging industry cannot be depended on to fund thinning and forest fuel reduction- with the current overbuilt housing situation and higher interest costs, housing will be stagnant for some significant number of years. At the same time, forest biofuel is one energy source that is carbon neutral, readily available and technologically usable- this will be very attractive as "peak oil" arrives with its high yet unstable prices for fossil fuels.

How can this combination of fuel reduction and energy harvest work? This will require some planning and teamwork. Agressive thinning? Whole log chipping/hogging? Woodcutting permits?  Wood-powered steam excursion trains?

Second, I notice rail transportation is not mentioned. Any biomass harvest operation will have high transportation costs. Rail can be part of the solution. The recently shut down CORP rail line from Eugene to Coos Bay appears to cross BLM land. We must keep rail lines intact and make plans to use them (or lose them).

The O&C Lands were originally deeded to provide biomass fuel. We need to revive this precedent, even if the lands are held by the public.