Web-comments-1801-1900

# SenderID Ref.# Comment Tool Date Comment
WC-1801 WID-2000 04ec45ec-ea08-4dca-b357-f4924fd94b36 File Upload 1/11/2008 9:05:00 AM

Uploaded File:  Bureau of Land Management.doc
WC-1802 WID-345 b6bbfacf-f226-4e5e-aaa3-a398a02d17e0 File Upload 1/11/2008 9:10:00 AM

Uploaded File:  WOPRCOMMENTS.doc
WC-1803 WID-2007 W-a0b3c18e-840f-45ec-ad27-3eb23f6ca8f4 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:10:00 AM Extensive OHV use on BLM lands without adequate control measures to prevent land damage from off road vehicles should be stopped. Ferris Gulch land is located so that firefighting equipment must be provided by the Applegate fire district but no monies are provided to Applegate to control wildfires which are more likely due to OHV use. The Ferris Gulch topography has many steep inclines as defined by the state and existing OHV riders go off the exixting roads cut in by the BLM and into the steepest ground which has already caused extensive errosion on the hillsides. Without adequate controls limiting OHV use in weather conditions which will accelerate errosion and fire danger the BLM is not being a viable steward to the lands they are required to protect. All OHV use should be subject to clear and defined limits of operating hours, limits of use during dangerous fire times and limits on where OHV riding will cause silting of the Applegate river due to errosion and runoff.
WC-1804 WID-2014 4c06ea39-f01f-403a-949c-16c70a327487 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:12:00 AM PLEASE save our forests! Kim Cox
WC-1805 WID-2012 W-c7883572-bd23-4479-9a5c-1bf84fc81352 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:15:00 AM our economic needs are dependent on a healthy timber industry and county government
WC-1806 WID-2017 W-063aae21-0f0e-4d0d-bba0-1e8cd077f523 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:16:00 AM Hello- I´m a scientist opposed to the WOPR. As a botanist that has surveyed thousands of acres for the BLM and has witnessed inappropriate areas, quantities and trees to be cut I believe that public Western Oregon forests should not and can not afford to be further cut. It can be argued that stands of early to late seral stage need to be thinned which I support if something "has to be cut". However not one more old-growth tree should be felled. The property stewarded by the BLM is as much mine as it is my neighbors' as it is those that have found themselves responsible for this eminent decision. Please listen to the land owners, the public, and drop WOPR. Thank you for your time and not mistaking the brevity of this letter for lack of conviction. Sincerely, David Kofranek, non-vascular botanist, Eugene, OR.
WC-1807 WID-2016 W-f7575f1d-586e-4985-8f35-ee2fc2001fa0 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:17:00 AM Hi. Straight to the point, any plan that advocates the taking of irreplaceable old growth is short-sighted, which seems typical. Please stop being typically common, and step-up for other creatures. I hope the WOPR fails miserably. Thanks. Have a nice day, Christopher Adelson.
WC-1808 WID-2012 W-8c82f422-9aa8-4596-aa5e-ad6d1dc6f283 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:19:00 AM our personal economic situation is dependent on a healthy timber industry and county government. we prefer alternative 2
WC-1809 WID-2018 W-a7932e1b-a5d2-40b1-9043-2da6759ccdb9 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:21:00 AM I think we should let the experts on forestry decide what is best for our forests. Quit tying their hands. It would not bother me to cut any tree that they recommended be cut--- old growth or not.
WC-1810 WID-2006 W-c723d01e-d74a-48d6-85fb-a084c4d62eb9 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:33:00 AM STOP DAMAGING THE PITIFULLY FEW REMAINING OLD GROWTH TREES. STOP BUILDING MORE ROADS. STOP THE SEDIMENTATION OF OUR STREAMS. STOP THE FRAGMENTATION OF ECOLOGICAL AREAS. THE PLUNDER OF OUR LANDS HAS PRODUCED A DEVASTATED LANDSCAPE - - SEEN FROM THE AIR YOU REALIZE WHAT A SAVAGE DENUDATION HAS TAKEN PLACE, AND NOW YOU WANT TO OPEN THE DOOR TO MORE RAPACIOUS LOGGING PRACTICES? YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES FOR NOT PROTECTING OUR RESOURCES AND HONORING OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS. I AM NOT OPPOSED TO ALL LOGGING BUT THE VERY FIRST PRIORITIES SHOULD BE WATER QUALITY AND OLD GROWTH PRESERVATION, AND ANY PROPOSAL THREATENING THESE SHOULD BE SEEN FOR WHAT IT IS: GREED RUN RAMPANT!
WC-1811 WID-2004 W-3cf81591-b28e-4b23-a50e-66f80c760519 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:33:00 AM With the current concerns about climate change, we should not increase logging in Oregon. Logging adversely affects carbon sequestration, rivers, fish & wildlife. Enough logging has occurred that Oregon is denuded already. Better to increase use tax on tourism related industries. European countries and others are working to preserve forests and rivers for future generations. Oregon should do the same. The short-term gains from increased logging cannot be justified when considering the future value of forests growing and beautifying the state. Please, BLM, manage the land, conserve the natural resources. Do not bow to the greed of timber extraction interests.
WC-1812 WID-2022 W-8a7c3a15-67f2-478f-96d9-5a5211a276ac Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:43:00 AM Unless you believe that global warming will wipe the human race out before we notice this destruction of our old growth, it is obvious that this plan is another antiquated attempt at instant gratification, instead of a sustainable practice which will leave both forests and sources of revenue for my generation. Currently, I am 17 years old, and all that I see the BLM trying to do is destroy, log, and destroy some more. This plan makes it even more obvious to me that the BLM should be termed the BLDSWCHMNSOC, the Bureau of Land Destruction So We Can Have Money Now Screw Our Children. I love our environment; unfortunately, I do not have money to buy our environment. Logging companies do, which is why the BLM and other land management orgs. were created: to protect my forests from instant gratification capitalism. Unfortunately, the BLM has become just another enabler of the corporations that are supposed to be serving (not controlling) the US. Where will this revenue be 20 years down the road? Where will these forests be 20 years down the road? They will both be gone, and all that these practices will leave us is more rapid global warming, fewer lands for our fellow creatures, mudslides to destroy our homes and waterways, thus destroying our fish and our water tourism industries, both of which can be sustainable practices from which we could draw a sustained yield, instead of lots of money to be force fed into failing programs and institutions and then nowhere at all to get our money, because we´ve destroyed all we had. Please, for the sake of the future, stop this madness.
WC-1813 WID-2036 W-a3959612-0474-451d-bef4-a7f3b38e7c06 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:44:00 AM This plan will devastate Oregon's forests. Think beyond today.
WC-1814 WID-2040 W-77ff5c97-c274-4960-b269-000ef04b9f31 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:46:00 AM I am opposed to the WOPR. I have seen too little old growth and mature forests available for our children´s children to survive. Indeed, we are on the brink of not having sufficient forest to sustainably manage and provide for our needs. It is crucial that public forests owned by us, the people, should be governed by the people. Therefore, please listen to the requests to not pass the WOPR. T. Stark
WC-1815 WID-2033 703f68ed-2f8c-4997-8e09-e2cc78b29827 File Upload 1/11/2008 9:47:00 AM

Uploaded File:  BLM Plan Comment.doc
WC-1816 WID-2023 29d0d4f4-09f8-43fd-b1f7-812b680e1edc File Upload 1/11/2008 9:48:00 AM

Uploaded File:  Blm comment wopr.doc
WC-1817 WID-2029 W-ec482df0-74d9-4aaa-a9fb-ca8b373318cf Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:48:00 AM As a native Oregonian, I respect our lands for the natural beauty they supply along with the ability to sustain resources. In this case i am not against selective logging in these areas. I am definitely against clear cutting as a absolute. I have had an opportunity to review documents and maps of proposed areas for cutting. My main comment/ point I would like to express, is I am for cutting the following: Trees between 30-89 years old, with minimal ground and surrounding vegetation damage. An no clear cutting. Especially in these areas of high exposure to highways and houses. These are the parts of Oregon people see from there cars and while sight seeing. I believe the value and revenue from attracting people to these areas to enjoy and support out local economy, far surpasses any fanatical or products that may come from tree cutting. Let us sustain out beauty. Thank you for you review Andrew Weber
WC-1818 WID-2024 29d0d4f4-09f8-43fd-b1f7-812b680e1edc File Upload 1/11/2008 9:50:00 AM [Optional] WOPR - No! why I oppose this plan...

Uploaded File:  WOPR - No! ver2.doc
WC-1819 WID-2019 29d0d4f4-09f8-43fd-b1f7-812b680e1edc File Upload 1/11/2008 9:51:00 AM

Uploaded File:  WOPRCommentsBarnhart.pdf
WC-1820 WID-2045 1a2ab653-1d49-4317-92db-60b2dee43057 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:52:00 AM 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,Jenny Hehnke
WC-1821 WID-2002 W-ef45f3fb-4b86-4308-8f94-863f5971b857 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:52:00 AM RE: WOPR of the NW Forest Plan, possible OHV site in Anderson Butte area: I OPPOSE I live in this area and would be affected. The soil in the native grassland under consideration is shallow and fragile AND CANNOT HANDLE OHV TRAFFIC. This is an important watershed containing native plants and is a vital deer winter range. Besides the noise in the grassland, Wagner Creek Rd., where I live, would carry more traffic (OHV trailers going to the grassland) with the potential for more accidents, already a problem here. I just found out about this potential OHV trail today from a neighbor. I assure you there are many other neighbors who would oppose this revision also, and who are now being informed about it. Irene Saikevych 8835 Wagner Creek Rd. Talent, OR 97540
WC-1822 WID-2031 W-ffca97cb-9669-4580-9d5e-5a45b663cda5 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:52:00 AM Flying from Portland to Medford on a clear day, and looking out the window of the airplane to see one scalped mountaintop after another, is enough to make any thinking person weep. Why is the BLM even considering tripling the forest cut in Oregon when tourism is the state's biggest business? Why does the federal government want to harm Oregon's tourism to make money for an industry that in the past did so much damage to the state's most valuable feature, its landscape? Money for schools is no excuse; it can be raised in other ways.
WC-1823 WID-2002 6f99384a-19ea-4f44-a072-2d670533b56b File Upload 1/11/2008 9:55:00 AM

Uploaded File:  BLM and Anderson Butte 1-11-08.doc
WC-1824 WID-2030 W-c7050bfd-df33-47d8-80d5-3905386072c1 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:59:00 AM My wife and I use the BLM-managed US forests for recreation and general public uses. Of the "alternatives" shown, we support the so-called "no action" alternative, which just, in fact, falls short of the management needed to truly protect our public land forests and waters. We oppose all other listed alternatives. We feel the "no action" alternative does not go far enough to insure we have sustainable forest and public lands and water resources. We oppose any program that allows cutting of old growth for any reason. We oppose reducing any stream-side buffers or headwater protections for rivers and streams that our fish depend upon. We oppose any alternative, policy or plan that increases the timber cut, or increases the amount of logging for any reason. We oppose cutting on or in the Mary's peak area, including the three old-growth areas listed. rand dawson rand and kathryn dawson Siltcoos Lake, Lane Co. Oregon
WC-1825 WID-2039 514d30ee-4e98-4df6-9a93-50a2f7b808f9 File Upload 1/11/2008 10:02:00 AM

Uploaded File:  WOPR comments Jim Goes.doc
WC-1826 WID-2048 514d30ee-4e98-4df6-9a93-50a2f7b808f9 File Upload 1/11/2008 10:03:00 AM

Uploaded File:  WOPR.doc
WC-1827 WID-2047 5feae8eb-6ab4-409e-9352-c9ac296f8311 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:03:00 AM NO NO NO!!!!! The devastation caused by WOPR would be irreparable. On the local level, the forest habitat will be impacted terribly, and the damage to streams from road building will harm spawning fish populations. On the global level, forests all over the world are being demolished. These forests create oxygen and provide a carbon sink, and they are probably slowing down global warming more than any other thing. NO! We have had enough clearcuts in the Nortwest! Please no more!
WC-1828 WID-2049 5feae8eb-6ab4-409e-9352-c9ac296f8311 File Upload 1/11/2008 10:04:00 AM

Uploaded File:  WOPR ltr 1 08.doc
WC-1829 WID-2053 37650d9c-1452-4751-bd17-7ddf3ffcbf3e File Upload 1/11/2008 10:09:00 AM

Uploaded File:  BLM comment.doc
WC-1830 WID-2050 W-4f11f25f-1017-4f3b-93c5-ebc31d8a2170 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:10:00 AM Please stop all cutting of old growth forests! We have so little left. We cannot and should not lose anymore! There needs to be old growth forests left to visit to restore our spirits and our bond with the natural world. We have been raping the earth for many years and it just has to stop now. Again, please stop all cutting of old growth forest for us and for those that will follow. Very Sincerely, Kimberly Wylde
WC-1831 WID-2052 W-3ed24fc1-068c-4c32-a8cf-2e3bb8c62269 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:11:00 AM I believe that the WOPR relies too much on logging. The Plan should be completely revised to a more sustainable one--please drop the WOPR.
WC-1832 WID-2054 b30ff61f-2d93-4895-80ee-34bc8a1574f7 File Upload 1/11/2008 10:11:00 AM Attached please find comment letter from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. If there is any problem with this transmission please notify me immediately. Sharon Duggan 510-271-0825 foxsduggan@aol.com

Uploaded File:  PEER COMMENT LETTER ON WOPR.pdf
WC-1833 WID-2041 W-879cdaf8-7738-4259-b259-9bb50cc2752d Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:16:00 AM Dear BlM, I feel very strongly that our old growth forests are a necessary part of our planets ecology, livability and beauty. We must preserve these forests to protect the species that live there as they are all interconnected to our own survival. Please use the best science available to make decisions about public lands. It is in everyones best interests to plan for the future and not be looking for the quick $. There are ways to harvest sustainably from areas that already function as "tree farms." There is absolutely no reason to violate the roadless old growth areas to harvest trees. The decimation caused, inflamed by the applications of pesticides and the replanted monoculture of Douglas Firs in no way resemble a thriving forest.My 9 year old son is extremely worried about the wopr plan and what that will do to the plants and animals of the forests. In his young mind, it is obvious that we must treat our resources with care and respect because he understands that we are all part of the same web of life. It is impossible to find any plausible explanation for why we would treat our resources(our own backyard)in this callous manner. We must act in a way that enhances the whole web of life. The BLM is in a position of power and must act in good faith to care for our public lands. Please look forward and make plans accordingly. Five hundred years is a better benchmark then the next fiscal year. Our lives depend on it. I believe that we have a treasure here in our own backyard. Market this as a treasure to the rest of the world. Enlist everybodies help and support to preserve this amazing ecosystem. Take care of our lands and figure out a different way to make $. American ingenuity is abundant and will not fail if we put our minds to it. Sincerely, Michele Bulgatz,Eugene Oregon
WC-1834 WID-2051 W-1dbb7bd3-3b5b-4e75-b82e-297f6634b7ee Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:17:00 AM The summary says that the selected alternative for the NW Forest Plan was selected because it would maintain older ecosystems and provide a sustainable supply of timber. That is not true. The NW Forest Plan was a compromise - everybody knew they weren't going to get everything they wanted. Now, with more than a decade's worth of new information, we should be able to make better decisions. Our forests - old, new, and in between - are threatened in ways not recognized (i.e., global warming) before. We must save all of it - there is no such thing as a "sustainable yield" if we're spending the principal, which we are with global warming.
WC-1835 WID-2059 99c4d035-c384-464f-8f86-3b28dcc2f14a Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:18:00 AM To: Bureau of Land Mangagement From: Tom Bowerman, 33707 McKenzie View, Eugene, Oregon 97408 Date: January 8, 2008 RE: DRAFT FOREST MANAGEMENT REVISIONS In summary, I oppose changes in forest practice plans which: • Liquidates ancient forests • Converts public lands into intensive managed timber plantations • Encroaches on riparian corridors and anadromous fish-bearing streams • Diminishes biodiversity and ecosystem health • Creates additional roads into roadless forests • Practices industrial style forestry on steep or unstable terrain • Politicizes the application of forest ecosystem science. Considering the vastly diminished health of the Northwest´s fisheries as an indicator of watershed health, I most strongly urge the BLM not to amend forest practices in the direction currently underway.
WC-1836 WID-1758 094452c0-6183-49d3-bdf6-a14491ae7903 File Upload 1/11/2008 10:18:00 AM

Uploaded File:  BLM letter 1-9-08.txt
WC-1837 WID-2015 094452c0-6183-49d3-bdf6-a14491ae7903 File Upload 1/11/2008 10:18:00 AM

Uploaded File:  Dear BLM.doc
WC-1838 WID-1907 43640e74-5f0f-41bc-a1c2-dee0b9d9f13c File Upload 1/11/2008 10:20:00 AM I hope my comments are substantive enough. Thanks for the opportunity...

Uploaded File:  Logging comments.doc
WC-1839 WID-2056 None Web Forum Exit 1/11/2008 10:24:00 AM I tried to put my "pushpin" in the area around Deadwood and it appeared to move it over to the coast.
WC-1840 WID-2051 W-f6a75c6f-6522-4bb7-b94e-8e4026972739 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:26:00 AM With timber prices at an all-time low, there is no way we can log ourselves into sustainability. The counties need to wean themselves from public lands logging, and, under the NW Forest Plan, they've gone a long way towards doing that. We do NOT want to go backwards! All of these alternatives are horrible, because they would log at much higher rates than are sustainable, and because we need to preserve all of our old-growth forests to help us adapt to and ameliorate the effects of global warming greenhouse gas emissions. This proposal is unconscionable, and has no basis in sound science or common sense. It's completely short-sighted political pandering, and it won't achieve its intended purpose anyway. Look to the Siuslaw NF to see how some small thinning projects can provide a reasonable amount of volume without raping the few remaining ancient forest. Look to the Medford BLM to see the exact opposite. Is Grants Pass any better off economically than Florence because of all that extra old-growth logging??? Of course not - old-growth logging does not make any long-term contributions to the economy - it provides short-term gain for a few wealthy timber barons.
WC-1841 WID-2062 W-3296ef9b-80c0-40bf-a3ad-a0e80b6f37dd Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:27:00 AM Our children and grandchildren are not going to know what it is like to hike through the forests, spot wildlife in their natural environment because there won't be any natural environments at the rate of this rediculous proposal. I VOTE NO ON THE DRAFT EIS. Please let's use what we have AND LEAVE THE REST OF THE LAND FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS! Who will be accountable if we don't stop this greed? ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
WC-1842 WID-2064 W-ce202aec-10b0-46fb-b676-564030706306 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:30:00 AM I oppose all other listed alternatives. We feel the "no action" alternative does not go far enough to insure we have sustainable forest and public lands and water resources. We oppose any program that allows cutting of old growth for any reason. We oppose reducing any stream-side buffers or headwater protections for rivers and streams that our fish depend upon. We oppose any alternative, policy or plan that increases the timber cut, or increases the amount of logging for any reason. We oppose cutting on or in the Mary's peak area, including the three old-growth areas listed.
WC-1843 WID-2051 W-213ab324-4fe5-4a38-aae1-9601718107ba Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:32:00 AM How can you say that the effects of more old-growth logging will not fall disproportionately on the poor? Of course it will! It did last time, and it will if we allow it again. Logging jobs are not family-wage jobs, they do not provide any skills that are transferable to anything that can provide family-wage jobs, and, with the timber prices so low, they aren't even going to provide the short-term monetary gains of the "old days." All they will do is suck people out of useful service industry jobs into a short-term high-risk industry that's on its last breath. We need to continue the transition to a more diverse economy that the NW Forest Plan has already started.
WC-1844 WID-1758 a0207e0e-7898-4c91-a445-2ff2fdf460ee File Upload 1/11/2008 10:35:00 AM

Uploaded File:  BLM Lori Sloan ltr Jan 10 2008.doc
WC-1845 WID-2061 34dc5073-fa9f-4f63-a8d2-1e243e5958d4 File Upload 1/11/2008 10:36:00 AM

Uploaded File:  Dear BLM.doc
WC-1846 WID-2065 W-effe8c4f-ef3b-4e78-a670-2a2b705e2231 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:36:00 AM I oppose the preferred BLM option because: it is politically not scientifically based; global warming effects have not been scientifically addressed; endangered species effects have not been scientifically addressed with best practices; wildlife effects in clear cuts before trees reach minimum heights have been ignored; environmental effects of chemically suppressing vegetation have not been addressed; and the non-economic values of old growth trees have been ignored. A few million dollars a year to counties (which could easily be replaced by general federal revenues or appropriate thinning) is not worth losing what little old growth is left in our national forests.
WC-1847 WID-2060 34dc5073-fa9f-4f63-a8d2-1e243e5958d4 File Upload 1/11/2008 10:37:00 AM We are submitting this response as two individuals: Antonia Blum and Hal Palmer, forest owners and as an organization: Big Bear Camp. Thank you for your honest and thorough consideration of our response. p.s. Sorry for the first submission of wrong format

Uploaded File:  wopr.pdf
WC-1848 WID-2051 W-970c7b90-2e41-4d0b-954a-5842d54b35cc Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:41:00 AM The NW Forest Plan was a compromise intended to save a few birds and fish, and, at the same time, provide a little bit of timber. At the time, we absolutely knew that it would not save all the birds and fish, and we knew that is would not provide historic levels of timber (which were unsustainable anyway). The targets were targets, not realistic projections. As it turns out, the birds and fish have continued to decline, and the timber levels have also. That only indicates that our "have our cake and eat it too" targets were unrealistic in the first place. That does NOT mean that we now have to just sacrifice the rest of the birds and fish to meet the timber targets. We will NEVER meet the timber targets because they were unrealistic and unsustainable in the first place. We should try to at least save as many birds and fish as we can, by preserving every single bit of old-growth still left, plus any mature forest capable of eventually becoming old-growth. We should put people to work on habitat restoration projects, not habitat destruction.
WC-1849 WID-2051 W-cd595239-0680-4c9c-af17-1d5c5df6a1d6 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:43:00 AM The NW Forest Plan is being suitably implemented in the Siuslaw NF. The BLM should follow that example.
WC-1850 WID-2057 34dc5073-fa9f-4f63-a8d2-1e243e5958d4 File Upload 1/11/2008 10:44:00 AM I oppose WOPR.

Uploaded File:  Dear ladies and gentlemen.doc
WC-1851 WID-2051 W-a157a228-1291-4bf2-90e0-6d7ae214bf1d Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:46:00 AM So, basically, you're glomming onto the "providing a permanent source of timber supply" part of the O&C Act, and you're completely disregarding the "protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow, and contributing to the economic stability of local communities and industries, and providing recreational facilities" part. The NW Forest Plan already achieves the balance, and the proposal would throw that balance right out the window.
WC-1852 WID-2069 7779ee72-e8d1-430b-aa5f-70518d9a54e3 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:47:00 AM NO on cutting old growth. When will the avarice that is moronically destroying our environment be controlled? It needs to be now.
WC-1853 WID-2051 W-efcc0f01-4556-43ba-acd2-649cca03df98 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:50:00 AM I know, from having spoken with scientist within a number of federal and state wildlife agencies, that there was not one single legitimate biologist who would sign off on this ridiculous proposal. There was no real agency cooperation - only political strong-arming.
WC-1854 WID-2051 W-bd855070-3de3-47dc-8939-11778bc7fa2b Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:52:00 AM The projected effects and environmental consequences are unacceptable. There is no way to green-wash this travesty.
WC-1855 WID-2068 bcbce52a-726e-4b8a-a978-66c272ae739c Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:55:00 AM I am concerned about logging too close to streams. I understand that 25 feet is the new proposed limit. I am concerned about erosion, slides, and run-off.
WC-1856 WID-2051 W-9535ba78-b938-4b07-8447-8e781f1c30e6 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:56:00 AM The timber harvest levels analysis has no place in the section on environmental consequences. It's the timber harvest levels (along with timber harvest practices and timber harvest locations) that CAUSE the environmental consequences. The harvest levels themselves are not part of the environment and they're not a "consequence."
WC-1857 WID-2058 W-dfd20fe0-7edd-41f2-ac5a-dd4cb62aebce Draft EIS 1/11/2008 10:56:00 AM As a resident of this state since 1957 I am sickened by the utter distruction that the timber industry and "my" government has and is continuing to perpetrate on our once beauitiful state. From the shore of the Pacific to the Blue Mnts and beyond the greed and total disreguard for our God given Eden has gone beyond the pale. This draft proposal is not a settlement but a total capitulation to the political donation machine at the expense of our environment,water,CO2 emissions and our children's future. As a business owner I have to deal with the yearly disruptions to tranportation delays caused by poor timber management practices which cause flooding, landslides and road closures. No more old growth logging. Period. Peter Defazio (Rep OR) has a bill before congress drafted by environmental AND timber groups that is sustainable,creates long term jobs, provides county tax revenues and does not touch one more old growth tree. His bill will help reduce forest fires turning that yearly expense into more useful avenues. In closing I could not be more opposed to the BLM's arcahic and antiquated solution to forest management. It is time to use today's knowledge and science to preserve and protect the fraction of the Eden we have not selfishly turned into corporate profits and political contributions. Couldn't be more sincere. Charles F Holland III
WC-1858 WID-2073 97aea531-182f-4175-8461-dae4733e78c4 File Upload 1/11/2008 10:59:00 AM

Uploaded File:  blm plan.doc
WC-1859 WID-2072 W-360953d4-0e32-4449-9e69-c72132c64778 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:01:00 AM After reading the numerous articles on the proposal I would hate to see the old growth areas clear-cut. There are alternatives that would increase the cost but preserve the largest trees and protect the habitats of many of the animals living in those areas. Narrowing the buffer zone between the cut areas and the waterways would be a tragic loss for the fish and animals relying on clear water.
WC-1860 WID-2051 W-d17ffe94-2d1d-40f3-bc2b-cd26cd7f61e5 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:03:00 AM If the BLM was really interested in adaptive management, they would be DECREASING harvests, in light of declining populations of critical plant and animal species and increasing effects (and uncertainty) of global warming.
WC-1861 WID-2071 W-4c5ce058-237b-46a9-8236-4c5756ae174e Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:05:00 AM We are adamantly opposed to the proposed BLM logging plan. Having moved to the Willamette Valley nearly six years ago from Klamath Falls, we have been outraged at the amount of clearcut logging that has occurred on so many sections of the Coast Range and near Eugene, Springfield and other areas of the Willamette Valley. Please do not allow this rape of the environment occur in the future. Flying over Oregon it is disheartening to see the destruction of our beautiful state by those who want to line their pockets at the expense of our environment. Once these beautiful forests are gone, they are gone forever. The so-called "new forests" can never (at least for several hundred years) duplicate what we have now and wish to keep. As a lifelong resident of Oregon (Nancy), I support selective logging as a means of thinning trees and keeping the forests healthy, but clearcutting is devastation. My father was a logger in the Klamath Falls area for many, many years, and since they did selective cutting, the forests weren't completely wiped out. Please, please, please don't let this abomination occur again. We're willing to pay higher taxes to provide funds to county services and the US Government should be responsible for property taxes to the counties also. Thank you for your consideration.
WC-1862 WID-2076 9ca1b0eb-4b17-4558-b12f-44ce8bfa1f19 File Upload 1/11/2008 11:27:00 AM Oregon's comments re: Western Oregon Plan Revision are respectfully submitted on behalf of Governor Theodore R. Kulongoski, January 11, 2008 (11:25 AM Pacific).

Uploaded File:  OregonComments-WesternOregonPlanRevision-08Jan11.pdf
WC-1863 WID-2081 b2a4d830-afe6-4ede-bcd7-d8ff8a8785a4 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:29:00 AM Prior to becoming a physician I received a degree in Forestry and did work in the field. It is my strong opinion that the raparian protections afforded in the current NW Forest Plan should not be altered by the proposed Western OR Plan Revisions, a covert attempt to increase logging on BLM land.
WC-1864 WID-2026 W-29876736-ca71-40f4-b158-611388e826a4 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:35:00 AM I am writing representing the Boone and Crockett Cub founded in 1887, America's oldest national organization of huner/conservationists. Our main concern is that most elk and deer populations on federal forest lands in western Oregon have either dropped sharply or are about to. Drops in deer and elk numbers reflect declining habitat caused by the virtual end of federal forest management following implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan in 1994. It goes without saying that declining elk and deer habitat are bad for hunters and for hunting. That's also bad for wildlife management where ODF&W already suffers from a continuing loss of hunters and the management dollars they contribute. We believe the WOPR, Alternative 2 is a good first BLM effort to restore federal forest management, and create new and much needed deer and elk habitat and support hunters and hunting. We believe this will be done with adequate environmental protection applied especially to roads and streams. I also want you to be aware that the Sporting Conservation Council (SCC),(established by USDI Secretary Norton in 2006 to advise her on matters of wildlife and hunting)of which I am a member, in December 2007 sent a letter and supporting documents to Secretary Kempthorne expressing concerns about the use of outdated elk management models in BLM and USFS management plans primarily in Oregon.These models, biased toward cover retention, are barriers to creating much needed early succession habitat for elk and deer. The letter urges the development and application of new models that will further ecological restoration and will benefit a wide array of wildlife species in addition to elk and deer that are advantaged by early succession habitat. The recent and substantial declines in elk and deer numbers across large areas of the pacific northwest including western oregon, largely because of a decline in federal timber harvest, underscore the need for new elk management models and habitat plans to increase elk and deer population productivity and trends. As you complete the WOPR, please consider the need for these new elk management models and their application, and the supporting assumption that more early succession habitat is needed in western oregon BLM land to reverse the trends of declining elk and deer numbers and the declining numbers of hunters. Finally, I want to add that the President's 2007 Executive Order (EO): Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Copnservation, calls for actions on the part of federal agencies that will benefit wildlife and hunting. The recommendations in my comments are consistent with the intent of Section 2 of the EO. Sincerely, Steve Mealey
WC-1865 WID-2077 W-ff8f0121-2079-4107-87e4-85f1d97a0ae8 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:35:00 AM I am not an environmental activist...just a retired teacher, long-time Oregonian, who loves the natural gifts Oregon has to offer ALL of us. The WOPR plan will have a devastating impact on the very things that make Oregon special. We do not need more eyesore clearcuts along highways which now are experiencing more unstable soil conditions leading to more problems with landslides or more muddied streams that destroy fish & wildlife habitat. This list of problems go on & on. Regarding this plan...since I'm not a scientist, I rely on info from reliable, unbiased reports...and everything I'm reading leads me to the conclusion that this is a badly flawed program that needs to be reworked.
WC-1866 WID-2084 cee80cc3-193e-4de8-b1b1-2e91fc41df28 File Upload 1/11/2008 11:38:00 AM These comments are submitted on behalf of the Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society.

Uploaded File:  ORAFS_WOPR_comments.pdf
WC-1867 WID-2091 31280d11-ace5-41c8-9319-9009cc3175c1 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:48:00 AM Hello, I am against all oold growth logging in the wopr. I am also against the lowering of the stream easement. This plan must be revised with much more environmental consideration. Please listen to the people, they dont want this!
WC-1868 WID-2090 31280d11-ace5-41c8-9319-9009cc3175c1 File Upload 1/11/2008 11:49:00 AM

Uploaded File:  NPSO WOPR.doc
WC-1869 WID-2080 31280d11-ace5-41c8-9319-9009cc3175c1 File Upload 1/11/2008 11:50:00 AM Thank you for taking the time to consider my opinion. - BB

Uploaded File:  Brownfield WOPR.doc
WC-1870 WID-2089 W-9d9a8d38-1605-49fb-8d74-247bb06187c1 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:51:00 AM 1. Current BLM plan is not cost effective given stumpage prices and restoration costs. 2. Harvest of old-growth is inconsistent with habitat preservation and salmon restoration and cost benefit of said logging plan will increase cost and time for salmon restoration efforts and adversely impact fisheries. 3. There is a limited market for old growth due to changes in industry having re-tooled for smaller sustained yield logs. 5. The impact of narrowing stream buffers as part of the proposed plan has adverse effects on water quality, forest health and helping build and sustain economic contributions from forest recreation industry. 6. Carbon sequestration that is provided by old growth trees will be lost and the economic and environmental impact and costs of this are poorly addressed in the plan and inconsistent with responsible environmental policy.
WC-1871 WID-2094 142c3c7d-526f-4ee5-9abd-939732db6fd4 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:52:00 AM January 11, 2008 Bureau of Land Management Western Oregon Plan Revisions Office 333 SW 1st. Avenue Portland, OR 97204 Greetings: I offer these comments on the BLM´s proposed WOPR regarding off-highway vehicle (OHV) areas: First, the use of BLM lands is necessarily multi-use since the citizens of this country have many interests. And, BLM needs to provide for as many of these interests as possible. Second, BLM should provide for these sometimes competing interests in a way that minimizes the impact of each interest on other users of BLM lands. Not an easy job. As a result, I suggest that there must be a place for OHVs in Oregon´s BLM lands. However, there should be a sufficient distance buffer around these OHV areas to minimize the noise, traffic, environmental pollution and fire hazards that the OHV area neighbors will necessarily live with. A related issue is the apparent concentration of OHV areas in Southern Oregon. If this is what is being proposed then I have to ask: "What did we do to you to deserve this?" Shouldn´t these areas be spread out across the state rather than grouping them in one area? A better distribution of OHV areas would benefit OHV users by making some areas closer to OHV users through out the state and it would avoid making Southern Oregon an OHV capital that will surely test the patience of local non-OHV users and residents. I don´t think an OHV area is compatible with many other uses so they need to be spread out in fairness to everyone else. Finally, both BLM and OHV organizations should work together to promote a guide and training program for OHV users to educate them on the courtesies of using OHVs. While many, or even most, OHV enthusiasts are considerate to their neighbors. There are always a few knotheads in any group that don´t know or care what impact they have on others and it only takes a few to brand an entire group. I would call this proposal responsible stewardship that should be funded by OHV user and association fees. There is no reason that everyone should not benefit from BLM land use. It just needs to be done in a way that minimizes conflicts. Thank you for the chance to comment and I wish you the best of luck in reaching an equitable solution. Regards, Allen Clark P.O. Box 3307 Applegate, Oregon 97530
WC-1872 WID-2097 ed4202fa-8ce0-461c-9a52-735f91106d0a File Upload 1/11/2008 11:53:00 AM Comment on BLM plan for Oregon resources

Uploaded File:  BLM Plan 2008.doc
WC-1873 WID-2074 W-83e9ff3c-d6fe-4112-9b7f-fa258aaade4a Draft EIS 1/11/2008 11:59:00 AM In 1965,when I was nine, my family moved to the Willamette Valley so my father could take a position as professor at OSU and so our family could enjoy living in this amazing state. Near our rural home in Benton County were astonishing groves of Ancient Forests. We walked in wonder through these stands with douglas firs so big it took the armspan of several people to encircle each one, diverse plant and animal species and a rich, vibrant community of life. These forests were cathedrals of reverence where I felt filled with the grace of Creation, and living classrooms where my father, a biologist, taught us about the precious web of life of which we humans are one part. This web of life, he taught us, is complex and miraculous and worthy of our stewardship and protection. Daily we watched as log trucks, each holding only one section of one enormous tree, rolled down our dirt road. At the time, my father called for the protection of what was left of these grand old forests. Today, these ancient forests are nearly gone. Although tree farms are often planted in their place, these will never become such rich diverse forests. The few remaining stands of ancient forests in Oregon deserve to be protected. I urge you to set aside and completely protect from any logging these few remaining stands of ancient forests. I beseech you to protect them as public treasures, part of our national heritage where future generations of people may learn from, and experience, these precious and unique ecosystems. Please protect them for habitat for animals and plants and for the intrinsic, irreplacable value that wilderness has in itself. My father wes in the forestry department at OSU and sustainably logged our land. I am today myself a small woodland owner. I am not against some logging on the BLM lands in Oregon. However it makes no sense economically, socially or ecologically to log the last ancient forests. In addition, I am very opposed to reducing the width of the protected riparian border. I have seen first hand the devastation that occurs when streams have narrow borders of vegetation and have spoken with many wildife biologists about their concern for salmon habitat and water quality if this occurs. I strongly oppose allowing ATVs into more areas of the forest, as this further denigrates the forests for wildlife habitat and for use by those who wish to enjoy the forests in their natural state. For many years the BLM has served the people of Oregon well by protecting the forests and using responsible forest practices. Please continue your role of stewardship, uphold the forest practices act, and save this most valuable, irreplaceable resource and treasure. Sincerely, Lea Houston
WC-1874 WID-2087 W-0f10b3de-b15e-4eeb-865a-7f6b51b8590a Draft EIS 1/11/2008 12:00:00 PM Clear cutting is not the solution to funding the counties in this day and age of passion for our forests. That was an economic necessity in the past, but nowadays, we need strategies that the public as a whole can get behind without bickering and battling in the courts. The public treasures old growth, the beauty of the forests as a whole, and its clean water. Therefore, the first part of the answer is to thin as heavily as is healthy for the forests. I would like to see the governor and the leaders of each county get together and fund incentives that will do the rest of what is needed to provide the counties money and jobs for the modern era. Forward thinking governments could advertise this as a place where green business people succeed and also enjoy the lifestyle of those who revere their mountain scenery and clean water. The values of the public can be respected as we find economic solutions in the Northwest. The BLM needs to garner support, not acrimony in its strategies.
WC-1875 WID-2079 086ecf7f-357a-437c-8a96-ab4d6b22c71d File Upload 1/11/2008 12:00:00 PM

Uploaded File:  wopr.doc
WC-1876 WID-2043 de9b2167-9be3-421c-bd5d-f42232ab7e04 File Upload 1/11/2008 12:04:00 PM

Uploaded File:  councilorbettmanblm.pdf
WC-1877 WID-2102 W-8f08f154-59e2-4708-9801-160985bba93b Draft EIS 1/11/2008 12:04:00 PM My wife and I oppose all other listed alternatives. We feel the "no action" alternative does not go far enough to insure we have sustainable forest and public lands and water resources. We oppose any program that allows cutting of old growth for any reason. We oppose reducing any stream-side buffers or headwater protections for rivers and streams that our fish depend upon. We oppose any alternative, policy or plan that increases the timber cut, or increases the amount of logging for any reason. We oppose cutting on or in the Mary's peak area, including the three old-growth areas listed.
WC-1878 WID-2100 W-5b486ade-7d52-47f7-88e5-dc280eb4bdb9 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 12:04:00 PM BLM Representatives, Please protect our old growth forests. Restore the land which has been indecently logged. The WOPR threatens the health and safety of the earth and all her inhabitants by increasing greenhouse gasses,damaging our water supply and violating endangered species acts. Preserve our ancient forests for our future generations. Don't waste them on short term monetary gain! Sincerely, Stacey Williams
WC-1879 WID-2088 e02f0d85-8fbb-4b6b-a578-888b4a51726a File Upload 1/11/2008 12:09:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Dear BLM.doc
WC-1880 WID-2086 51dd8e11-e978-4a5b-9140-ee05c319a8dc File Upload 1/11/2008 12:09:00 PM My property is the very last private residence on Mosby Creek Rd. I live adjacent to BLM land am directly effected by BLM policy.

Uploaded File:  BLM Comment.doc
WC-1881 WID-2109 d21e7773-1b7e-4cca-b7d5-7201d03f9a82 File Upload 1/11/2008 12:14:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPRmemo.doc
WC-1882 WID-2092 W-37fb0a60-1d70-4ac0-b8ae-c055e63b5cbe Draft EIS 1/11/2008 12:16:00 PM I moved to Portland 2 1/2 years ago from MN. I am disheartened by the overforestation and clear-cutting and destruction of the forests in this state. Every drive or hike that my family takes, we are continuously confronted with patches of pristine forest that are glaringly missing. To increase this clear-cutting is unjustifiable. Truly, every old-growth tree cut down cannot be replaced. These are NOT renewable resources. In my opinion, no tree older than 70 years should be removed. Otherwise, future generations of Oregonians will never experience the awesome beauty of old-growth trees adn forests. Replanting, although worthwhile, does not take the place of these old-growth forests. President Bush and the BLM are making a huge mistake by increasing deforestation in Oregon. Matthew C. Solhjem, MD
WC-1883 WID-2110 b71bfabc-5da8-4812-984a-94687fb5cd81 File Upload 1/11/2008 12:18:00 PM

Uploaded File:  BLM.doc
WC-1884 WID-1214 0f9a3eff-305c-4e9d-88d3-6125f0e554d3 File Upload 1/11/2008 12:18:00 PM Comment letter from the Scappoose Bay Watershed Council

Uploaded File:  SBWC BLM WOPR.doc
WC-1885 WID-2113 de53df40-a928-453a-9ca6-a3312bd7864e File Upload 1/11/2008 12:29:00 PM

Uploaded File:  BLM.doc
WC-1886 WID-2095 W-eb33d349-27a9-4bb6-a945-4ff63cd1a8c4 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 12:31:00 PM As a third generation Oregonian, I am disappointed by the recommendations in the WOPR proposal. Alternative 2 throws out protections for fish and wildlife and would fail to meet clean water standards that affect all Oregonians. Also I feel that logging of younger trees instead of old-growth is much more effective for reducing fire danger. From reading through this report it seems the environmental protections of the NW Forest Plan have been discarded purely on economic analyses. I think that this whole plan should be peer reviewed because it affects all Oregonians including future generations.
WC-1887 WID-2099 W-feb526cd-981f-4654-9dba-f0127807dfb8 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 12:36:00 PM I strongly feel that timber harvest needs to continue. Timber is a renewable resource - that is a matter of fact, not just a slogan. I live on my family's original 160-acre homestead. It is zoned Forest Commercial. In the 1950s, my grandfather logged it quite heavily. In the mid 1990s, it was logged again. The three restrictions we set were: no hardwoods were to be harvested, nothing under a 12" dbh was to be harvested, and the riparian zone was protected. Shortly after that, an "environmentally aware and concerned citizen" visited and commented on how beautiful our property was and how wonderful it was that we preserved it rather than logging it! Proof that if done properly and on the proper soils and slopes, not only does the area recover fully, but those who purport to be concerned experts and want to stop all timber harvest - they can't even tell when a harvest has been done!! So harvesting can't be as bad as they claim. Again, within proper conditions and limits. Also, I have studied the spotted owl and believe that some harvest is actually beneficial to them. Their populations are higher in re-prod than in old growth. For those concerned about preserving our forests, harvest is necessary. Just like when planting a garden, thinning and selective harvest are necessary for a healthy and bountiful "crop." And, occasionally, certain stands will benefit from a more aggressive approach to harvest. So will the wildlife. Timber harvest has always caused an increase in the biodiversity on our property. (By the way, a selective cut was done again just a couple of years ago and once again, plant and animal life flourished.)
WC-1888 WID-2112 W-e040bb38-9cc3-40f3-86ab-e079dde2c24c Draft EIS 1/11/2008 12:40:00 PM Please address why the environmental protections of the NW Forest Plan were discarded by presenting scientific evidence. Also, address the WORP's effect on forest fires, global warming and the survival of old-growth ecosystems. Furthermore, it is absolutely necessary to consider the cumulative effects of WORP policies on upper Willamette spring Chinook salmon. Protecting riparian habitat and the navigability of waterways by maintaining buffer zones up to 360' instead of allowing "regeneration" within 25'of waterways is crucial. The plan for a two-thirds reduction in riparian buffers will lead to immense environmental degradation of the most sensitive areas. The navigability of waterways will be greatly reduced by the 'preferred plan'and revenue derived from recreational activities will decline accordingly.
WC-1889 WID-2043 b65321d4-5b7a-4d04-8333-a4935061f59f File Upload 1/11/2008 12:44:00 PM

Uploaded File:  councilorortizblm.pdf
WC-1890 WID-2082 W-0533ee39-4495-4919-937a-45456b22ae3e Draft EIS 1/11/2008 12:45:00 PM My first comment went over the 3,000 word limit. Posting last half of my opossition to the BLM's out landish perposal. Thankful wild places remain today and was able to visit these ancient forest. I pray that those ancient forest will be protect our watersheds,cleaning our air and providing a home for many species of animals, plant life and incests. I pray that when I become a Grandparent that I can share the wonders of the Western Oregon forest with my Grandchild. I think that protection is in order for the remaining Old Growth Forest. I feel so lucky to be living in Eugene, Oregon, now. I look out my window every day and see the magnificant old growth. It would be irrresponsible to open up more area to logging, in western Oregon - my home. I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the BLM's preferred alternative for 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. I urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon.
WC-1891 WID-2119 W-7bd79960-2162-4885-b5d4-6c2b705025ef Draft EIS 1/11/2008 12:46:00 PM I am strongly against increased logging in this area!!
WC-1892 WID-2117 W-c57b986d-9207-47b3-ad73-c4e38ea6f702 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 12:48:00 PM I want to go on record as being opposed to opening such a large amount of land to logging. We finally got some protection out of the last administration, and now Bush wants to throw it all away. The man has lost his mind! Thank God he is on his way out! This plan does not protect the fragile environment and compromises the habitat for all fish and wildlife. Millions of dollars have been spent to study and preserve our valuable salmon resources. This plan does the opposite by destroying habitat. Please be more conservative in your approach and ALWAYS keep the environment, for which we are supposed to be the stewards of, foremost in all your plans for future logging. The cost is too great for future generations to be recless by exploiting our natural resources. I would hope that BLM should know that and have it a top priority. "Managing" our lands means to take care of them, not use them up and throw it all away.
WC-1893 WID-2082 W-594fc335-3955-4d29-8df4-fd3f8c99e634 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 12:54:00 PM I don't beleive my first comment went through, as I didn't get the printout the first time. I submitted the second half of my long comment in post tow so now I will resubmitt as I beleive my first part was never posted since it got cut off. Save the wild woods for the benifit of our future! Mine, yours, your grandchildren. Save our legacy! I grew up and currently live in Oregon. I lived in Portland as a child. I was a CampFire Girl. I feel so lucky to have been a part of that organization. While a participant of CampFire Girl (I know this is dating me!) I had the wonderful opportunity to go on many hikes, camping trips and to attend summer camps in the great outdoors of the Oregon Old Growth Forests. Many tourists come to Oregon to see Oregon's beauty, what a shame it would be if they come and find there are no more Beautiful Old Growth Forest left to marvel at. I feel so thankful that the wild places remain today and that we were able to take our child -now a college student in state - to visit these ancient forest. I pray that those ancient forest will be protect our watersheds, cleaning our air and providing a home for many species of animals, plant life and incests. I pray that when I become a Grandparent that I can share the wonders of the Western Oregon forest with my Grandchild. I think that protection is in order for the remaining Old Growth Forest. I look out my window every day and see the magnificant old growth. It would be irrresponsible to open up more area to logging, in western Oregon - my home.
WC-1894 WID-1214 None Web Forum Exit 1/11/2008 12:54:00 PM The interactive map was more helpful than the written plan for viewing specific areas. The tool was a little hard to use and tended to freeze up.
WC-1895 WID-2118 W-483ed164-d524-46ef-801c-f54162d081e1 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 12:56:00 PM I just wanted to make my opinion known regarding the WOPR. I have read and heard much discussion regarding this plan. I am sure by now most options have been presented. I have lived in Western Oregon most of my life. I am a property owner and a business owner in Lane County. I have seen enough bad forest management practices performed by the US Forest Service, BLM, and Oregon Department of Forestry. The level of management purposed in the draft environmental impact statement needs to be radically cut back. I will continue to follow this issue closely. I do pledge to spend my money and time working with any organization that moves forward with any and all lawsuits to stop this obscene amount of forest destruction. I hope you will revise the WOPR or better yet scrap the plan altogether. Thanks Gerry Shapiro Lane County
WC-1896 WID-336 90474937-8b44-4b76-beba-72163a71cc70 File Upload 1/11/2008 1:00:00 PM This is my comment letter. Attachments to follow.

Uploaded File:  deis-011108.A.pdf
WC-1897 WID-336 daedd1c2-0754-4948-ae6b-2840ac5edf84 File Upload 1/11/2008 1:02:00 PM This is attachment B to the previous sent file.

Uploaded File:  deis-011108.B.pdf
WC-1898 WID-336 5df47f66-af83-49b8-906b-fe7e7929cbec File Upload 1/11/2008 1:03:00 PM This is attachment C to the two previous sent files. There were a total of three documents comprising my comments. Thanks!

Uploaded File:  deis-011108.C.pdf
WC-1899 WID-2108 W-b032c850-ff12-4b43-bd8c-ccac460ecbbc Draft EIS 1/11/2008 1:03:00 PM To: Edward W. Shepard, State Director, Bureau of Land Management As a natural resource manager working and living in Oregon, I am very concerned about the potential negative effects the proposed action (Western Oregon Plan Revisions) will have on water quality and fish and wildlife in the state. The protections of the NW Forest Plan have proven to be an effective part of the work to conserve the state's forest, water and wildlife resources. The proposed action will only serve to dimish these protections and harm water quality and fish and wildlife. It is essential that 1) BLM maintain the protections of the NW Forest Plan in place on BLM land, and 2) continue to work to protect and restore the state's aquatic ecosystems that provide significant habitat for salmon and other species. Both personally and professional, I do not support the porposed action. Sincerely, Ed Emrick
WC-1900 WID-2082 W-431265db-1ebc-42f2-9e1b-58ac05829bd4 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 1:04:00 PM I have tried to make comments regard this issue and I don't know if they were recorded or not. My computer is old and my ability to print a copy doesn't exist. So I'm going on record to state my disagreement with BLM's proposed logging in Western ORegon. I think that protection is in order for the remaining Old Growth Forest. I feel so lucky to be living in Eugene, Oregon. I look out my window every day and see the magnificant old growth. It would be irrresponsible to open up more area to logging, in western Oregon - my home. I am very concerned about the 2.6 million acres of forest managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon. I am opposed to the BLM's preferred alternative for 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. I urge the BLM to maintain the existing scientific framework of the Northwest Forest Plan's late successional and riparian reserves on BLM lands, and develop an option that protects all remaining mature and old growth forests on BLM lands in Oregon
USA.GOV  |  No Fear Act  |  DOI  |  Disclaimer  |  About BLM  |  Notices  |  Get Adobe Reader